What is Digg?248 Comments
- sustainablogger, on 07/24/2008, -22/+92This is nuts... mining oil shale is the most expensive, and energy-intensive, means of extracting oil... this is nothing but a political stunt for the "let us drill now" crowd...
- granolajoe, on 07/24/2008, -14/+61Can't we just ***** move on from oil already? I don't want my state to become an oiler's wet dream. We struggle enough already to keep our mountains and parks safe from destruction. We don't need oil chasers coming here and making it worse.
- tellahoohooo, on 07/24/2008, -10/+55Apparently oil will solve all of our problems...go on get some
- crombenevolant, on 07/25/2008, -11/+41Oil shale breaks even at $80 a barrel, as we sit in the $140 a barrel range it is significantly cheaper than the oil we currently get (even though it is a more expensive process). Since there are no real alternative energy solutions in the short term, finding a reasonable alternative to middle eastern oil is desperately needed. It would allow us to change foreign policy in the middle east, and get closer to becoming energy independent. At some point you have to accept that not every solution is perfect. We can't just hope that someone will perfect batteries for electric cars and dream of solar/wind solutions that can actually be depended upon to charge them. We have to make what we have work for now, while striving for those higher ideals.
- geobay, on 07/25/2008, -2/+26If only we had some kind of petroleum based lubricant ...
- phogasmic, on 07/25/2008, -15/+32I think drilling is a good idea, it can tide us over while we develop alternatives. It will make the transition less rough.
- greentimes, on 07/24/2008, -20/+37If i was an oil industry executive AND the president in my last days in office I would try and free up as much public land as possible for all my friends and benefactors to get even more excessively wealthy. It makes since. But Bush has always been the most openly corrupt president so this comes as no surprise. Bush is worse than Harding ever dreamed of, because he got away w/ it all.
- angusm, on 07/24/2008, -7/+24In terms of actually lowering gas prices, there's no logic at all. Assuming that the point isn't simply for Bush to be seen to be doing something, there must be a reason why he and the oil companies apparently want it.
One possibility is that the oil companies believe that oil shale extraction might be economically viable at some point in the future - perhaps when it becomes clear that we've passed peak oil - and they want to lock down the leases now under a friendly administration. Another is that while they can't actually exploit the land, 'opening up new areas' looks good in the shareholder report and will help the company's stock price in the short term.
A final possibility is that it's simply a convenient way to transfer public lands to corporations at a bargain price. I don't know what other possible value the land in question might have, but I'll bet you somebody has an idea. - daskro, on 07/25/2008, -0/+16Diggers don't realize that the Federal government owns more than 40% of Colorado.
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -2/+18 True...hey what is that? Oh, it's the American public bent over the railing with their pants down.
- AbsurdParadox, on 07/25/2008, -5/+19Maybe next time you should hike.
- zacharytelschow, on 07/25/2008, -3/+17Us being who?
- JoshDaFink, on 07/25/2008, -5/+19"OH MY GOD! WE'RE HAVING A FIRE...sale!"
- Surferess, on 07/24/2008, -19/+31He is really taking a mile instead of the proposed inch the rest of us might have been offering!
- RichStradler, on 07/25/2008, -8/+20Too logical for Diggers. Don't even bother, I guess their cars don't use gas like ours do.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -8/+19What is the logic behind this?
- BluKnight, on 07/25/2008, -2/+13Mining out the Rockies stirs up all sorts of nasty stuff, such as mercury, which then gets deposited into the local habitat. Definitely not my idea of a good solution.
- jokerhl, on 07/25/2008, -1/+11Canada already has shale oil mining and the cost is quite high compared to conventional oil drilling. Shale oil comes out as a gritty sand and is very hard on equipment, working like a lapping compound to grind the equipment down.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/25/2008, -7/+17Yeah, let's do the same old polluting crap that will take 5 to 10 years to show a benefit (with of course, whole mountains of sludge), vs. setting up a solar farm in the desert in 2 to 3 years and accomplish the same thing.
There are all sorts of alternative energy developments, that could really help us now, if the government simply got out of their way or maybe even subsidized taxpayers for buying them. The idea that we cannot do alternative fuels, or that solar energy cannot start producing electricity competitively is pure propaganda. The people spouting this don't know the issues are are bald faced lying. Iceland, Germany, Israel, and the Dutch -- to name a few, have ambitious programs that have succeeded or will succeed in importing ZERO energy. It saves them money and improves their economy.
And MUCH of the price we are paying at the pump is because the Oil Cartels have taken the ENRON scam national -- so let's not forget good old larceny. - crombenevolant, on 07/25/2008, -0/+9It is 62% in Idaho. It is pretty much the same for all of the rest of the western states in question.
- neoneddy, on 07/25/2008, -3/+12You mean methadone.
what is better, drill a bit now, get gas down to $3/gal and stabilized and continue to build cleaner / better transportation alternatives with the goal of getting off oil ... or continue to reduce supply or the future possibility of less supply (futures market), and let gas his $5- $8/g and let the economy continue to free fall? - swrostmore, on 07/25/2008, -5/+14This is political theatre, and it would do nothing to oil prices. Why is the GOP stonewalling on closing the speculation loophole that experts testify would reduce prices by 70%?
- byronm, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8I feel like a broken record. Some people seem to assume that increased supply means decreased demand. The fact of the matter any increase in US supply is merely an increase in profits by selling the oil to the global markets. The problem iwth pricing isn't local to the US, its based upon demand across the globe. Exxon isn't going to take a lower profit by selling locally, they will trade on the free markets as they do now. Unless Bush tells them to stop exporting opening up US property to private industry will only help the private industry and NOT lower prices at the pump. Demand isn't going anywhere until we stop our appetite for oil. This only adds to the dependency and upwards pricing of such.
- thebaron2, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8Which countries are those?
Anything that has plastic in it - think packaging at a grocery store - is derived from oil. There's no magic lever we can pull that will move the world directly from oil -> sustainable energy. It's going to have to be a gradual process.
Unless you're talking about tribes of people in the rainforest, I'm sure that most "larger" countries where the standard of living is even remotely close to that of Europe and the US use plenty of petroleum based products. - chumprock, on 07/25/2008, -9/+16Ten years ago, driving across the rockies was pristine, beautiful, and a wonder of nature...
A year ago I took that trip and every 3 to 4 miles there's a rig being set-up or in operation.
It was kind of sad, and we only have ourselves to blame for our incessant dependence on a limited resource. - nblsavage, on 07/25/2008, -2/+9and if 10 years ago we had actually starting pushing alternative energy in a big way we wouldn't be in this situation.
Thank you short-sighted idiots. - vexingmodstwo, on 07/25/2008, -1/+8We can do both. Is it that difficult of a concept? It isn't like all of a sudden the entire planet is going to convert to alternate forms of energy. While domestically we work towards getting off oil, we can still tap our natural reserves to meet the demand that will still be around in 10 years whether you like it or not.
It doesn't have to be all or none. - withears, on 07/25/2008, -2/+8Teddy Roosevelt would drink Bush's milkshake.
- inactive, on 07/25/2008, -1/+7This will work:
http://www.pickensplan.com/ - inactive, on 07/25/2008, -3/+9that will run out then what. Why not invest more in The big H, wind and solar things that will never run out and if they do we have bigger issues to deal with then driving to work.
- byronm, on 07/25/2008, -1/+7Increased supply will not lower prices. Prices are set by open markets. Our increased oil production will be sold to the global markets - not specific US demand and the global price of oil is set no matter how much we milk ours.
In other words, the oil we suck out of our land will be sold on the world markets and probably feed to china since they're willing to pay a premium.
Its profit driven, not cost driven. What kind of idiot do you think people are to think increased supply will fix the problem of an ever increasing demand?
Until you find alternatives to the demand the price will never fall. - VitriolAndAngst, on 07/25/2008, -3/+9Yeah, when they can import for cheaper than drilling in the states.... what are you going to pay them to drill all that land they already have access to and don't drill?
What motive do they have to get more refineries when they make more profit when one of them burns to the ground? - Wargalas, on 07/25/2008, -2/+8Actuallly, it wasn't going to be profitable to do oil shale until oil hit $50-$60 a barrel by most estimates. We're WAY past that now.
- ManOfVirtues, on 07/25/2008, -1/+7@pyrotix
yea if you live in a city that offers decent public transportation. I don't know about you but I live 16 miles from my office which puts it a bit out of daily cycle range.
I would have to drive 10 minutes just to get on a bus to take me downtown, to get on another bus to get to work.
Thanks but no thanks. - Andrwmorph, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6Yes, I am willing to take the hit in my wallet.
- t4m5t3r, on 07/25/2008, -2/+8lol,
theyv already raped your constitution, you economy now they'r taking the only thing left, the land!!
its realy hard to beleive you people still havent woke up yet! - zacharytelschow, on 07/25/2008, -8/+13Why is it that the Democrats say increased supply through drilling won't lower oil prices yet they want us to release a portion of the strategic petroleum reserve? Is it that only domesticly drilled oil that increases supply won't drop prices? If increased supply won't drop prices, why release any of the reserve?
- TherealObadiah, on 07/25/2008, -7/+12Liberal Diggers live in a bubble. They simply do not grasp reason, logic, and facts. Present these to liberals, as you have done, and it will force them to stick their fingers in their ear and scream "la,la, la" as they race to click on Huffington Post, rawstory, Keith Olberman, or Jon Stewart.
- arjie, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5The BBC says that 23 billion USD is unaccounted for, at least. It also says the President George W. Bush is responsible for a gagging order on discussing these allegations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm
The administration has some corrupt people very high up, and Bush is either protecting them or involved in the racket. Inaction in the face of such allegations is corruption, and Bush is guilty of that, at best, and protection at worst. - neoneddy, on 07/25/2008, -10/+15Basic economics for you tree huggers, the futures market is driving oil sky high, these investors see long term (as we all should). The quickest way to reverse the futures market is to change the future price of oil. How might we do that students? By just passing legislation that would allow for more exploration would send oil prices falling, help stabilize the economy and let us all breathe a bit. And yes, I'm all for electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, solar, the whole bit. I just want to avoid "Road Warrior" if possible.
- neoneddy, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5Question: What does change the price of the oil futures market?
- NJank, on 07/25/2008, -0/+5didn't you know? Surferess is a U.S. Congressperson...
- zacharytelschow, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4"The SPR has been tapped twice before when it was an emergency situation."
The SPR has enough barrels of oil to be the sole source of oil for the US for approximately one month. Releasing 10% or a 3 day supply, as the Democrats are proposing, would barely dent (if move prices at all) for a very abbreviated time period. - macdady843, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5So... you just proved my point even further. If there was a viable alternative we would have it by now so obviously there's not. But yea lets use ethanol that gets half the gas mileage as gasoline, or lets use hydrogen which isn't efficient enough to use yet!!
- ToRoE, on 07/25/2008, -2/+6agreed, sustain. Also the yield is crap (estimaites of # ofBarrels inthis article are way overstated with current technology and the water usage is rediculous. Even big Oil is not in a hurry for this (if anyone RTFA) ->
Shell Exploration & Production Co. is working an oil-shale project on three 160-acre parcels in Colorado but the company seems to recognize that the technology to squeeze billions of gallons of oil from the rocks of the Rockies is not high on the company’s list of priorities. According to the Denver Post:
“The company is two years into its 10-year research-and-development leases. Shell will make a decision on commercial leasing closer to the end of that decade, [Shell spokesperson Tracy] Boyd said…The company won’t be ready for commercial leasing until probably 2015, Boyd said.
So, what’s the rush to hand out these oil leases now? Even the BLM report states that “currently, there is no oil-shale industry and the oil-shale extractive technology is still in its rudimentary stages.”
The lack of a domestic oil-shale industry makes it purely a speculative endeavor to project the development of the technology necessary to extract oil-shale, the future demand for oil-shale leases, and the costs of developing those resources.
___________________
One study done at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Wilson et al.: 2006) projected that it would take 105 to 315 million gallons per day to produce 2.5 million barrels of oil per day from shale. The authors also projected that an industry that size also would result in a regional population growth of 433,000 people, requiring another 58 million gallons per day. - LordPhilMil, on 07/25/2008, -7/+11Of course, your car, house, office and everything else isn't powered by this supstance. It hasn't spiked super high in recent months. We haven't been working on becoming energy independent so we have been forced to take Middle Eastern Oil.
Of course. This is sooo stupid, why try and increase supply when we can complain that gas is too high and at the same time complain about how much it pollutes.
Ohh, excessively rich? profit margins, that jazz. - simonbp, on 07/25/2008, -0/+4Here are some alternatives: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-ener ...
Just shop at a different country. Despite what the media would have you believe, only 19% of our imported oil comes from the middle east, 49% comes from the western hemisphere. We actually get a large percentage of our oil domestically.
http://watthead.blogspot.com/2006/03/where-does-yo ... - nirvanix, on 07/25/2008, -1/+5Not to mention that it creates an environmental nightmare that the oil companies don't get forced to clean up.
- macdady843, on 07/25/2008, -7/+11Yea we can move on from oil... in about 20-30 years when a widespread viable solution is ready. Renewable/clean energy is nice but it's not quite ready. Are you willing to take the hit in your wallet just because some whack job environmentalists won't let us use our own country's resources?? Do you see any other country's government inhibiting their country's access to cheap, proven, readily available resources?? I didn't think so.
- gandhi2, on 07/25/2008, -4/+8Shale oil extraction IS already much more economically viable than current foreign oil. There are companies that would already be using it to supply oil to the US, but can't get through the regulation to do it. I agree we should preserve our public lands, I agree we need to get off reliance on foreign oil and oil in general, but we cannot solve any of our energy policy woes while we are concerned about the stability of the economy.
Shale oil extraction can and will make gas prices drop. Cheaper oil is not the final solution, but it is a step that gets us out of foreign affairs in the Middle East and thus frees up valuable tax dollars from the war. -
Show 51 - 100 of 248 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is