Balderdash...everyone knows I invented the Internet...
Posted on 03/29/2006 8:33:12 PM PST by Number57
One trillion barrels.
Well, its a new game, isn't it?
(Excerpt) Read more at westgov.org ...
Any mention of the shale reserves in Utah that Crinton gave/sold to China?
Combined with Nuclear a winning combination!
TT
Who is Crinton? Sorry... it was Gore who sold our reserves.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Gore_tap_U_S_oil_reserve_to_stabilize_prices.shtml
Nuff said? No.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20474
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24840
PDF sucks. I'll have to try to get some other version.
Another version of PDF? You're kidding.
So, when will it finally happen?
When prices stabilize at a price that can sustain this technology. I don't know what that price is, but the good news is that we won't run out of energy, regardless what the whacko's say.
When we stop trying to be PC, and use what the earth offers us.
Right.
it was Gore who sold our reserves.
And forced the USS Cole into its demise...with impunity.
But hey, he did invent the internet.../s
This is a case where I am glad the government is taking the lead. Energy, obviously, has a huge impact on our security. If DOD can give a little seed money to get this technology working that is to the benefit of all of us.
There would be no FR if the military had not started the internet, this could be "the next big thing".
The USS Cole is a serious example of how our leaders make mistakes.
How many died, and why? Because they weren't allowed to fire. In fact, their guns weren't loaded, per orders.
Who gave that order?
You're running Linux, eh?
My sympathies.
No reply?
Huh.
Balderdash...everyone knows I invented the Internet...
Coal Gasification has been tried.. it works, just low grade.. but the oil shale problem is the amount of energy it takes to get it..
that pdf file mentions Shell's idea for converting the shale to oil in the ground.. then just pumping it out..
Thought I'd share this from another site..
http://www.energybulletin.net/11779.html
Although Shell's method avoids the need to mine shale, it requires a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year, producing 10 million tons of greenhouse gases. (The company's annual electric bill would be about $500 million.) To double production, you'd need two power plants. One million barrels a day would require 10 new power plants, five new coal mines. And 10 million barrels a day, as proposed by some, would necessitate 100 power plants.
How soon will we know whether Shell's technology is economic? The company plans to do more experiments, before making a final decision by 2010. If it pulls the trigger, it would be at least three or four years before the first oil would flow, perhaps at a rate of 10,000 barrels a day. That's less than one-tenth of 1 percent of current U.S. consumption. But if it turns out that Shell needs more energy to produce a barrel of oil than a barrel contains, bets are off. That's the equivalent of burning the furniture to keep the house warm.
"the oil shale problem is the amount of energy it takes to get it.."
What about the amount of energy needed to extract hydrogen from air and water?
Bite me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.