90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas

jreeves · #16 (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 11:02 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Gunny

Shale is not cost effective. We have 10s of thousands of oil wells in this country that are capped with still a 3rd of their resourses untapped because the deeper into the well you go, the more sludge you get. It costs more to get and to refine. The oil companies closed them rather than take less profit.

I don't know how much that amounts to, but it, like the shale is there.

Actually Shell is clammering at the possibility of using oil shale but it is being blocked by one senator. There is over 800 billion barrels of oil by conservative estimates.

Charles_Main · #17 (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Gunny

The shareholders might not agree with your assessment. That's what the REAL problem is here. A natural resource required to sustain our society owned by profiteering corporations.

True dat!

Charles_Main · #18 (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by jreeves

Actually Shell is clammering at the possibility of using oil shale but it is being blocked by one senator. There is over 800 billion barrels of oil by conservative estimates.

Or in other words enough to provide for all our needs for up to 100 years. Or we could provide for all our needs for 25 years and make some bucks selling it

Bern80 · #19 (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Red Dawn

But tapping that gas isn't currently feasible economically or technologically.

My god you disgusting perver..........oh.......tap that GAS. Sorry.

And sorry I just could not help myself on that one.

Charles_Main · #20 (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 11:38 PM

Not sure about the Stuff in he arctic, but the shale out west is technically doable. The question is of how much it will cost. The technology to do it is there. With the high costs of oil today I imagine it is becoming much more economically doable as well.

Of course seeing how the best way to get at it, is to mine it, then heat it up to change it to oil, I imagine the environmentalist will fight it tooth an nail.

jreeves · #21 (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 11:46 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Charles_Main

Not sure about the Stuff in he arctic, but the shale out west is technically doable. The question is of how much it will cost. The technology to do it is there. With the high costs of oil today I imagine it is becoming much more economically doable as well.

Of course seeing how the best way to get at it, is to mine it, then heat it up to change it to oil, I imagine the environmentalist will fight it tooth an nail.

For the most part it is a single senator holding up oil shale....

While consumers battle $4-a-gallon Gas prices , a single U.S. Senator is trying to block America from developing Oil shale , an American resource that could single - handedly END America's dependence on expensive foreign oil .

Colorado's Ken Salazar (Democrat) is reportedly trying to use the U. S. Defense Authorization Bill to put Oil shale Development in Colorado , Utah and Wyoming on permanent Hold by blocking Commercial oil shale Leasing on Public lands .

Salazar also plans to use the Defense Authorization Bill to block the efficient development of an estimated, NINE Trillion cubic feet of clean-burning Natural Gas in the U. S. Naval Oil Shale Reserve , located in Western Colorado . That gas is enough to heat Four Million homes for 20 Years .

" I fear that Ken Salazar has been misled by Environmental Extremists who don't seem to care about seeing America come more Energy Independent ", said Wyoming State Senator Bill Vasey (D), Board Chairman of Americans for American Energy (A.A.E.). " The leaders of some of these Groups actually 'want' Consumers to get hit with higher prices , because They believe that this is the only Way to force People to conserve . That's not right .
We should be looking to Increase the supply of American energy for America , which will help reduce the upward pressure on Prices ."

" The U. S. Defense Authorization Bill is Not the Place to be adding amendments that restrict the Domestic Energy production that our Armed Forces need ," Vasey added . " This flies directly in the face of the reason for the creation of The U. S. Naval Oil Shale Reserves in the first place ."

" If Ken Salazar succeeds , consumers from Coast-to-Coast will end up getting Two black eyes ," said Colorado State Senator Bill Cadman , a Member of the Board of AAE . " I can't understand how anyone would ham-string America from becoming More energy independent at a Time when prices are soaring . This is simply inexcusable ."

" Blocking oil shale development from proceeding and bottling up Natural gas in The Naval Oil Shale Reserve helps America's Enemies and will put more money Directly into the pockets of Terrorist groups that are trying to kill Americans right now ," said Utah State Representative Aaron Tilton . " It's just that simple . This man is aiding and abetting the sworn Enemies of our Nation . Whose side is he on ? "

" We have American troops in harm's way right now , in part to defend America's access to foreign Oil , and to stabilize a Situation in The Middle East that is, in effect creating higher and higher Fuel prices here at Home ," said Utah State Representative Mike Noel (R). " Using a Defense Bill to block Responsible Development of over a TRILLION BARRELS of Oil from oil shale is not only wrong but it is exactly the kind of crack-pot ideas the folks have come to 'expect' from the out-of-touch Washington , D. C. , crowd .

"The Defense bill is about defending America , not making us more dependent on foreign oil and in effect, Weaker . Senator Salazar and every Member of Congress should be rolling up their sleeves and looking at ways to Tap Into the 200 Years of oil Resources located Within The Boundaries of The United States, which makes us stronger, as a nation ."

The Department of Defense Authorization Bill is expected to be called up Senate action as early as This week , according to Congressional sources .

Salazar championed action in Congress last year to place a Commercial leasing moratorium for oil shale development , effectively stopping all meaningful research and development activity by private industry due to lack of commercial development potential.
BI - PARTISAN LEGISLATORS CONDEMN SALAZAR ....OIL SHALE

Charles_Main · #22 (**permalink**) 07-24-2008, 11:48 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by jreeves

For the most part it is a single senator holding up oil shale....

While consumers battle $4-a-gallon Gas prices , a single U.S. Senator is trying to block America from developing Oil shale , an American resource that could single - handedly END America's dependence on expensive foreign oil .

Colorado's Ken Salazar (Democrat) is reportedly trying to use the U. S. Defense Authorization Bill to put Oil shale Development in Colorado , Utah and Wyoming on permanent Hold by blocking Commercial oil shale Leasing on Public lands .

Salazar also plans to use the Defense Authorization Bill to block the efficient development of an estimated, NINE Trillion cubic feet of clean-burning Natural Gas in the U. S. Naval Oil Shale Reserve , located in Western Colorado . That gas is enough to heat Four Million homes for 20 Years .

" I fear that Ken Salazar has been misled by Environmental Extremists who don't seem to care about seeing America come more Energy Independent ", said Wyoming State Senator Bill Vasey (D), Board Chairman of Americans for American Energy (A.A.E.). " The leaders of some of these Groups actually 'want' Consumers to get hit with higher prices , because They believe that this is the only Way to force People to conserve . That's not right .
We should be looking to Increase the supply of American energy for America , which will help reduce the upward pressure on Prices ."

" The U. S. Defense Authorization Bill is Not the Place to be adding amendments that restrict the Domestic Energy production that our Armed Forces need ," Vasey added . " This flies directly in the face of the reason for the creation of The U. S. Naval Oil Shale Reserves in the first place ."

" If Ken Salazar succeeds , consumers from Coast-to-Coast will end up getting Two black eyes ," said Colorado State Senator Bill Cadman , a Member of the Board of AAE . " I can't understand how anyone would ham-string America from becoming More energy independent at a Time when prices are soaring . This is simply inexcusable ."

" Blocking oil shale development from proceeding and bottling up Natural gas in The Naval Oil Shale Reserve helps America's Enemies and will put more money Directly into the pockets of Terrorist groups that are trying to kill Americans right now ," said Utah State Representative Aaron Tilton . " It's just that simple . This man is aiding and abetting the sworn Enemies of our Nation . Whose side is he on ? "

" We have American troops in harm's way right now , in part to defend America's access to foreign Oil , and to stabilize a Situation in The Middle East that is, in effect creating higher and higher Fuel prices here at Home ," said Utah State Representative Mike Noel (R). " Using a Defense Bill to block Responsible Development of over a TRILLION BARRELS of Oil from oil shale is not only wrong but it is exactly the kind of crack-pot ideas the folks have come to 'expect' from the out-of-touch Washington , D. C. , crowd .

"The Defense bill is about defending America , not making us more dependent on foreign oil and in effect, Weaker . Senator Salazar and every Member of Congress should be rolling up their sleeves and looking at ways to Tap Into the 200 Years of oil Resources located Within The Boundaries of The United States, which makes us stronger, as a nation ."

The Department of Defense Authorization Bill is expected to be called up Senate action as early as This week , according to Congressional sources .

Salazar championed action in Congress last year to place a Commercial leasing moratorium for oil shale development , effectively stopping all meaningful research and development activity by private industry due to lack of commercial development potential.
BI - PARTISAN LEGISLATORS CONDEMN SALAZAR ....OIL SHALE

Well lets hope the SOB loses his fight then.

Chris · #23 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 12:08 AM

It's not about one Senator from Colorado.....

From Wiki....

Some commentators have compared shale-oil production unfavorably with other unconventional oil technologies, arguing that liquefaction of coal costs less money than oil-shale extraction, as well as producing more oil with fewer environmental impacts.[66] In 1972, the journal Pétrole Informations (ISSN 0755-561X) noted that one ton of coal yielded 650 litres (170 U.S. gal/140 imp gal) of oil while one ton of oil shale yielded only 150 litres (40 U.S. gal/33 imp gal) of shale oil.[29]

A critical measure of the viability of oil shale as an energy source lies in the ratio of the energy produced by the shale to the energy used in its mining and processing, a ratio known as "Energy Returned on Energy Invested" (EROEI). A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the various known oil shale deposits as varying between 0.7–13.3.[67] Royal Dutch Shell has reported an EROEI of three to four on its in situ development, Mahogany Research Project.[58][44][68] An additional economic consideration is the water needed in the oil shale retorting process, which may pose a problem in areas with water scarcity.

[edit] Environmental considerations
Main article: Environmental impact of oil shale industry
Oil shale mining, necessary for ex situ retorting, involves a number of environmental impacts, more pronounced in surface mining than in underground mining. They include acid drainage induced by the sudden rapid exposure and subsequent oxidation of formerly buried materials, the introduction of metals into surface water and groundwater, increased erosion, sulfur-gas emissions, and air pollution caused by the production of particulates during processing, transport, and support activities.[8][69]

Oil shale extraction can damage the biological and recreational value of land and the ecosystem in the mining area. Combustion and thermal processing generate waste material. In addition, the atmospheric emissions from oil shale processing and combustion include carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Environmentalists oppose production and usage of oil shale, as it creates even more greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels.[70] Section 526 of the Energy Independence And Security Act prohibits United States government agencies from buying oil produced by processes that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than would traditional petroleum.[71][72] Experimental in situ conversion processes and carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce some of these concerns in the future, but at the same time they may cause other problems, including groundwater pollution.[73]

Some commentators have expressed concerns over the oil-shale industry's use of water. Depending on technology, above-ground retorting uses between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale oil.[54][74][75][76] A 2007 programmatic environmental impact statement issued by the US Bureau of Land Management stated that surface mining and retort operations produce two to ten US gallons (1.5–8 imperial gallons or 8–38 L) of wastewater per tonne of processed oil shale.[74] In situ processing, according to one estimate, uses about one-tenth as much water.[77] Water concerns are particularly sensitive issue in arid regions, such as the western US and Israel's Negev Desert, where there are plans to expand the oil shale industry despite a water shortage.[78][79]

Environmental activists, including Greenpeace, have organized strong protests against the industry. As a result, Queensland Energy Resources put the proposed Stuart Oil Shale Project in Australia on hold in 2004.[8][80][81]

jreeves · #24 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 12:14 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Kirk

It's not about one Senator from Colorado.....

From Wiki....

Some commentators have compared shale-oil production unfavorably with other unconventional oil technologies, arguing that liquefaction of coal costs less money than oil-shale extraction, as well as producing more oil with fewer environmental impacts.[66] In 1972, the journal Pétrole Informations (ISSN 0755-561X) noted that one ton of coal yielded 650 litres (170 U.S. gal/140 imp gal) of oil while one ton of oil shale yielded only 150 litres (40 U.S. gal/33 imp gal) of shale oil.[29]

A critical measure of the viability of oil shale as an energy source lies in the ratio of the energy produced by the shale to the energy used in its mining and processing, a ratio known as "Energy Returned on Energy Invested" (EROEI). A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the various known oil shale deposits as varying between 0.7–13.3.[67] Royal Dutch Shell has reported an EROEI of three to four on its in situ development, Mahogany Research Project.[58][44][68] An additional economic consideration is the water needed in the oil shale retorting process, which may pose a problem in areas with water scarcity.

[edit] Environmental considerations
Main article: Environmental impact of oil shale industry
Oil shale mining, necessary for ex situ retorting, involves a number of environmental impacts, more pronounced in surface mining than in underground mining. They include acid drainage induced by the sudden rapid exposure and subsequent oxidation of formerly buried materials, the introduction of metals into surface water and groundwater, increased erosion, sulfur-gas emissions, and air pollution caused by the production of particulates during processing, transport, and support activities.[8][69]

Oil shale extraction can damage the biological and recreational value of land and the ecosystem in the mining area. Combustion and thermal processing generate waste material. In addition, the atmospheric emissions from oil shale processing and combustion include carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Environmentalists oppose production and usage of oil shale, as it creates even more greenhouse gases than conventional fossil fuels.[70] Section 526 of the Energy Independence And Security Act prohibits United States government agencies from buying oil produced by processes that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than would traditional petroleum.[71][72] Experimental in situ conversion processes and carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce some of these concerns in the future, but at the same time they may cause other problems, including groundwater pollution.[73]

Some commentators have expressed concerns over the oil-shale industry's use of water. Depending on technology, above-ground retorting uses between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale oil.[54][74][75][76] A 2007 programmatic environmental impact statement issued by the US Bureau of Land Management stated that surface mining and retort operations produce two to ten US gallons (1.5–8 imperial gallons or 8–38 L) of wastewater per tonne of processed oil shale.[74] In situ processing, according to one estimate, uses about one-tenth as much water.[77] Water concerns are particularly sensitive issue in arid regions, such as the western US and Israel's Negev Desert, where there are plans to expand the oil shale industry despite a water shortage.[78][79]

Environmental activists, including Greenpeace, have organized strong protests against the industry. As a result, Queensland Energy Resources put the proposed Stuart Oil Shale Project in Australia on hold in 2004.[8][80][81]

Umm..I didn't say he wasn't pandering to evironmental extremist.

Chris · #25 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 12:19 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by jreeves

Umm..I didn't say he wasn't pandering to evironmental extremist.

Every new home in America should have solar panels and a windturbine.

Clean energy is all around us. We just need to use it.

jreeves · #26 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 12:27 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Kirk

Every new home in America should have solar panels and a windturbine.

Clean energy is all around us. We just need to use it.

Technology Review: Alternative-Energy Spending Fizzles Out
Despite the hype and numerous promises that began 2006, including President Bush's declared plans to curb the United States' addiction to oil, the 109th Congress ended the year without allocating funding for proposed increases in research spending for alternative energy.
Although Bush proposed a fiscal-year 2007 budget that would have increased funding for some renewable-energy resources, including solar and biomass, as well as for research into hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, the budget was not passed. Instead, Congress passed a stop-gap continuing resolution that will keep the budget at 2006 levels, which, because of inflation, amounts to a cut in funding, and it specifically decreases funding in some cases. For now, the Department of Energy is suspending funding for new projects, a spokesperson says. According to Kei Koizumi, director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, other research agencies are cutting funding for ongoing projects by 20 percent because of budget uncertainty. This makes it difficult for labs to hire the researchers or buy the equipment necessary to continue work.

Hmm....makes you think huh?

jreeves · #27 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 12:32 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Kirk

Every new home in America should have solar panels and a windturbine.

Clean energy is all around us. We just need to use it.

Sure....those sources are now cheaper than oil. I am not against developing alternative energy sources, I am all for it. But we need oil, at this point in time because a solar panel and a windturbine requires a ton of money.

Charles_Main · #28 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 12:47 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by jreeves

Sure....those sources are now cheaper than oil. I am not against developing alternative energy sources, I am all for it. But we need oil, at this point in time because a solar panel and a windturbine requires a ton of money.

I keep trying to tell him this, but I feel like I am

Solar and wind are good and all, but it is going to take some time for people to afford to put them on every home as he says. In the mean time we need oil, and if we are going to be using oil for some time to come, it might as well be our oil, and not Someone else's.

Besides Solar and Wind will not replace the the oil or oil by products used in literally hundreds of products we use.

here is just a small list of some of those products. This is by far not all of them.

Quote:

Ammonia, Anesthetics, Antihistamines, Artificial limbs, Artificial Turf, Antiseptics, Aspirin, Asphalt, Auto Parts, Awnings, Balloons, Ballpoint pens, Bandages, Beach Umbrellas, Boats, Cameras, Candles, Car Battery Cases, Carpets, Caulking, Combs, Cortisones, Cosmetics, Crayons, Credit Cards, Curtains, Deodorants, Detergents, Dice, Disposable Diapers, Dolls, Dyes, Eye Glasses, Electrical Wiring Insulation, Faucet Washers, Fishing Rods, Fertilizer, Fishing Line, Fishing Lures, Food Preservatives, Food Packaging, Garden Hose, Glue, Hair Coloring, Hair Curlers, Hand Lotion, Hearing Aids, Heart Valves, Ink, Insect Spray, Insecticides, Linoleum, Lip Stick, Milk Jugs, Nail Polish, Oil Filters, Pantyhose, Perfume, Petroleum Jelly, Rubber Cement, Rubbing Alcohol, Shampoo, Shoes, Toothpaste, Trash Bags, Upholstery, Vitamin Capsules, Water Pipes, Clothing Ink, Parachutes, Plastics, Telephones, Enamel, Epoxy paint, Car sound insulation, Cassettes, Motorcycle helmets, Pillows, Shower doors, Refrigerator linings, Electrical tape, Safety glass, Nylon rope, Ice buckets, Toilet seats, Denture adhesive, Loudspeakers, Movie film, Candles, Water pipes, Golf balls, Sunglasses, Soft contact lenses, Footballs, Paint brushes, Fan belts, Luggage, Toothbrushes, Ice cube trays, Plywood adhesive…

Quote:

As you can see, there are hundreds if not thousands of products directly made from petroleum. While we are trying to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels in our cars, we have to think about how this will affect us in other ways. Sure, there are some natural products you can use instead of the ones made out of oil, but for a lot products, there are no alternatives available right now. Be sure to think about the products you buy and what they are made of. If you can get the same product in a “natural” or alternative version, be sure to pick that one up instead. Every little bit will help as we head towards peak oil and an uncertain future without fossil fuels.

Source
http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2007/05/...de-out-of-oil/

Wind and Solar is not going to replace the Oil, and Oil by products used in these products now is it.

Bern80 · #29 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Charles_Main

I keep trying to tell him this, but I feel like I am

Solar and wind are good and all, but it is going to take some time for people to afford to put them on every home as he says. In the mean time we need oil, and if we are going to be using oil for some time to come, it might as well be our oil, and not Someone else's.

Besides Solar and Wind will not replace the the oil or oil by products used in literally hundreds of products we use.

here is just a small list of some of those products. This is by far not all of them.

From your thrid

Source
Do You Know Which Products Are Made Out Of Oil? | The Good Human

Wind and Solar is not going to replace the Oil, and Oil by products used in these products now is it.

From you third quoted paragraph I have to ask, why is oil not considered natural? (I am not attributing this thought to you btw)

Charles_Main · #30 (**permalink**) 07-25-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Bern80

From you third quoted paragraph I have to ask, why is oil not considered natural? (I am not attributing this thought to you btw)

I often ask myself this same question. For that matter why do some people talk about Nature and what is natural as if Humans are not part of Nature