What is Digg?272 Comments
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+173The problem with shale is very simple: in order to be economically feasible to separate the carbon from the slag, oil prices have to be high, very high, to compensate for the cost of the new machinery and technology and processes needed.
...but if you're going to spend all of that money, why not spend it on something sustainable? Something that uses the already hundreds of millions of tons of carbon we've released into the atmosphere? - Octantis, on 10/10/2007, -9/+81Besides the whole it is expensive reason. Here is another reason why we aren't actively getting that oil. National security. I think the American military / government knows that oil is a limited supply and thus will use all other sources oil before using their own. When the world is fighting over the last few scraps of oil we won't be at the table fighting for the last bit of food.
- zeitgueist, on 10/10/2007, -3/+45One would expect that by the time we're at the "last scraps" of oil, it would have been already financially prudent to use an alternative fuel source. Oil isn't the only option for powering us, its just the easy one.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -9/+51Inaccurate: it's oil -shale-, not oil. And it can't be used to make gasoline. It CAN be turned into natural gas, but it isn't economically or ecologically feasible.
- hotspot102, on 10/10/2007, -4/+46This sounds similar to the "oil sands" operations that our happening here in northern Alberta.
- aliengoods, on 10/10/2007, -5/+42While the former CAN help the latter, the two goals are still independent of one another. If everyone got 2MPG better gas mileage, more oil would be saved than could be produced by ANWR. And frankly, Detroit can do MUCH better than a 2MPG fuel efficiency increase, they just don't seem to want to.
- blitzkriegpunk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+39Who says he's a republican? I think both parties are ***** retarded. How's about that *****?
- sixlaneve, on 10/10/2007, -16/+48This is not a secret. I've heard it 10 years ago at school. Basically US are trying to keep their own national reserves probably for hard times, instead of buying it from other countries at extorsion prices.
- TheHydrogens, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32Whatever, don't be such a moderatard!
- meldroc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27Oil sands are a cinch to process compared to oil shale - it's very deep underground, and it requires a lot of heat to convert it into something resembling oil (a ***** low grade crude oil) to make it useful at all.
Really, it's far more worth it to spend those resources to develop wind, solar and algae-biodiesel instead. - sancho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25Good point. Here's another one.
If our nation's leaders really have a plan to deal with the oil shortage (such a plan including using Alaskan reserves, along with other US-controlled reserves such as these), it makes sense to intentionally devalue the dollar. Why?
We have a lot of debt. Even before Bush took office, we had debt (though we had a yearly economic surplus, that doesn't mean that we didn't owe money.) If the government can tank the dollar enough, our debt will be virtually worthless. We'll be able to pay it more easily, countries will forgive the debt just to be done with it, etc. Then we hit our next economic boom by collecting this oil and selling some of it. Suddenly, we're an economic superpower again, and beholden to no one for fuel.
Hey. It could happen. - thescimitar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Do we really need to go straight to name-calling here? Honestly, whatever happened to common courtesy? Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you have to demean yourself and the whole of political discourse.
- lansuggs, on 10/10/2007, -10/+33Hypocritical much?
- Squeetard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24It is even simpler than this. Oil is actually fairly evenly distributed throughout the world. The difference being how easy and cheap it is to get at. Got it?
Texas and Alberta are easy to get to locations and easy to drill for oil. The mid East is even easier. The oil lies very shallow and under very soft ground. The big challenge is to keep the hole open long enough to get casing pipe in before it crumbles.
Comparitively, just getting the drill rig and equipment to a mountainous location costs more than drilling a hole in the Mid East. The Mid East are averaging a week a well from set up to capping. Drilling through a couple miles of rock in colorado takes months.
Do the math. - zensequential, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27i don't think this is either "little known" or "a secret," it's more like common sense to me....
Why eat the cookies that are in your pockets when there's cookies on the table? and when the cookie jar is empty, then you digg into your "pocket reserve" - mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21Except the oil sands investment has been going on for over 30 years. It takes a while to build up the technology and make it economically feasible. Shale has a long way to go.
The other thing about oil sands is that it requires a lot of energy and labor to extract. So much so that some are proposing using nuclear energy to extract the oil from the sand. This strikes me as a little nuts. Why not just use nuclear power and skip the oil extraction phase. - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21The party system is for people who can't think for themselves. It's pretty sad.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20With our powers combined, I am CAPTIAN PLANET!!!
- mre5765, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20People don't want to drive fuel efficient cars. In 1976 Honda Accords had nearly 50 MPG ( http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~wstef/hist.html ). Today they barely get over 30 MPG. People want their cars big, and fast ==> inefficient. Detroit was kicking Japan's ass in the full sized pickup category till they capitulated, and delivered monsters like the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra. The Honda Ridgeline ain't exactly small either.
The answer to more fuel efficiency is to tax the crap out of gasoline (as well as allow fuel European efficient diesel cars that currently don't pass stupid USA emissions laws; as if the air in Europe isn't as clean as the USA). But taxing gas isn't popular either. The GOP lost Congress mostly because of gas prices. - Ebulating, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19How about, I don't know, ...NUCLEAR ***** POWER. You know, the thing thats been safely and cleanly generating about a fifth off all American electricity for the past 30 years or so.
- thescimitar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Again, what's with the name-calling? How is that possibly productive? Just because "he started it" doesn't mean you have to perpetuate it.
This is why we can't get anything done. - ingoldsby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16A USGS study indicated at least 5.7 billion (95% probability) and possibly as much as 16.0 billion (5% probability) barrels (0.9 to 2.5 km³) of technically recoverable oil exists in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.. This compares to 264 billion barrels currently estimated to be in the Saudi reserves, I'm trying to figure out where your numbers are coming from. Even if you were to use the reserve estimate for Saudi before a suspicious increase in proven reserves in 1989, they would still have many billions more barrels of proven reserves than Alaska.
Using the figures provided by the bush administration, Alaska would provide 5% of our petroleum needs for only 12 years in all likelihood... That is not exactly a long term fix. - shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Both sides are retarded, the Republicans just happen to be in office.
- knowitman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17The reason that CO2 is such a large product of reaction is that it's very stable. It's the law of nature that everything wants to be in the lowest energy state possible, and CO2 is at a much lower energy state then hydrocarbons. It would take just as much energy to get rid of CO2 is released to create it. Basic laws of chemistry.
- Ryetronics, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14This is Digg. No one reads the articles!
- reed311, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14"I could write a book about all the finger pointing and name calling..."
-"***** jackass."
-"narrow minded"
-"*****" - Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13You know, I like the US. I really do -- for all the bad press you get, you put out brilliant minds and ideas, you are prosperous, and I think most Americans are generally good people. But please don't be offended that some people like other countries better. There are plenty of great countries all over this world, and no one of them will ever be right for everyone on the planet. The blatant "We're the best!" chest thumping just perpetuates the idea that you view the world in black and white, right and wrong, winners and losers. We expect more from you -- the world is not a simple place, so stop treating it like it is.
- miketrin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16This isn't about lowering gas, who in the ***** wants cheaper gas other than consumers. Investors and oil companies want to keep the oil in the ground and keep the prices high. Even if we control of every oil field in the world, the goal is to keep the oil in the ground and keep prices high.
- Flunkysama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Is it just me or do these type stories pop up more frequently when the pressure increases to stop using so much oil.
"Worried about Record high oil prices, Global warming, Peak oil? Well don't worry, according to this headline you can keep driving that monster SUV till you retire." - Genady, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13No... it's more like: "These cookies from WalMart are pretty good, they only cost $2 and I don't have to make them. Yeah, I've got the makings for cookies in my Freezer, but then I'd have to thaw it, put it in the oven, let them cool, it's too much work. What? Those WalMart Cookies are $3 now? 'eh, still cheaper than getting out the cookie dough. $4? Still, too much work. $5? Hrm... maybe I could get out my cookie dough and start selling them...."
- DooM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Did the oil fields move since last year..? It's still relevant information.
- shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Like what: like every other type of energy that has been mentioned in the past several years? Solar, wind, hydroelectric solutions?
Or we could just make idiots turn turbines by hand, but then whom would I respond to on Digg? - Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I have definatly heard about this before. This is good though. Why not get as much foreign oil as possible right now, And when worst comes to worst we just start extracting our own. And then we can be the aopec. American Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Country.
- civperc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Better to have reserves than none at all.
- kedzieg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14The problem with US oil is that it's too crude; we have to put in a lot of energy to refine it into gas and diesel. You can almost put that sweet Saudi gold into your car straight from the ground...
- elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12And thus, we conclude that both Republicans AND Democrats are stupid.
Honestly, once you say "jackass," "neocon," "libtard," "Idiot," "*****," etc, etc, etc, you have already lost the discussion. It does not solve anything to call each other names, nor does it help to solve things. You don't convince anyone of anything by calling someone a '*****.' the only thing it does is prove that you are dumb. This message goes to EVERYONE here. - ausfahrt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Ya the XXX billions that went to the war could have been used to figure out a sustainable way to do process this.
- jcounterman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10yes, by burning natural gas and oil. So your efficiency drops like mad, and you are using almost as much energy to produce it as you gain from it once you're done. That is called "being stupid."
- fweepa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9If its known it wouldn't be a secret X(
- JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Dugg down for pissing all over my intelligence with that headline.
- dementia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9This is no secret because one of the headings in the article is 'NO SECRET'
- tdelet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9It was never feasable when oil was $30 a barrel, but as mid east reserves fall and prices rise and the "easy oil" goes away we'll become a lot more motivated to get to the oil in the ground in Canada and the US. It becomes "feasable" when mid east oil is north of $200 a barrel.
It sucks, but there should be enough oil in the world to get us to another type of energy. - digghasnoethics, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Its not oil and its certainly not the oil price.
This stuff is typical marketing bull. Its not oil, its dirty rock and there is no viable route to extracting oil from it that doesn't take more energy than you get out. No oil man's wet dream is likely to change that.
Get real. They will go out into the middle of a hurricane tossed sea and drill down further than Everest is up from a massive structure they have to build and fund; all before they will think of producing one barrel from these 'reserves'?
The are not reserves, they are a marketing lie for the gullible to help the share price when it needs a boost.
You will see Mr Fusion reactors across the US before you will see anything from this in the tank of your SUV. - withincontext, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I hadn't considered this, but it's actually quite interesting. Good point!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Not all oil winds up a gasoline or diesel. If you can apply this lower grade crude to things such as power generation, plastics or something else, that frees the higher quality stock for refining into gasoline.
Same concepts holds for the entire energy picture. We don't have to necessarily replace gasoline if we can eliminate a lot of the other uses for oil. ANd as a previous poster pointed out, increasing mileage by 2 mpg would have a dramatic impact. It's all a matter of degrees. - XenonofArcticus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Oil shale has so far been a boondoggle. It's not the same as the "oil sands", and it's not viably recoverable as yet. Colorado already had one big oil shale bust, and lots of folks would love to see another subsidized try at recovering it. Technology isn't there yet. Maybe in the future, but not today.
- GeekyLotus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Hmm... you are fortunate to have been dugg up since you have not read the article. This is not about our emergency oil reserves. This is about shale oil.
- bigdoof, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Are you suggesting that we put a reactor on our cars, airplanes, etc.? Until battery tech really picks up, a lot of things can't be easily replaced by electricity delivered from a central source.
- Hannibalisfun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8the idea was this would be sustainable, not that it would getting ride of the CO2
- Modestexcuse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8We're getting closer with the technology required to make this work. Here is a dig article on a patent on just this:
http://www.digg.com/general_sciences/New_Royal_Dut ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 268 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is