Obama shuts down 1.6m acres to oil shale development

[logical4u]

Government tried to subsidize existing technologies with a high cost manufacturing process.

I'm saying have NASA develop an efficient solar cell (multiple solar cells = solar panel) thats very cheap to make, and then have private companies line up to subsidize it free of licensing as long as it's made in the US.

Nasa has developed thousands of technologies that account for most manufactured goods today, and it's all benefited the private market.


Exploit NASA and legal licensing to help the private sector of the economy.

If NASA can build technologies that can get man on the moon, help man live in space on the ISS, and send rc vehicles to MARS and other planets, then we can sure as damn well develop a cheap and efficient solar panel.

This administration has turned NASA into a muslim outreach center, and science is not important in islam.

Yep, you are legitimately stupid.

Did you miss that news story?

 

[Stephanie]

This administration has turned NASA into a muslim outreach center, and science is not important in islam.

Yep, you are legitimately stupid.

Did you miss that news story?

just had head in sand is more like it...some people don't like to see the truth

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'we' are the people who believe in things like...science ...'shithead'

if the geeks were right about the polls and math..imagine if they are right about science too

You believe in science? Prove it by showing me the scientific grounds for denying developing oil shale.

Environmental considerations
Main article: Environmental impact of the oil shale industry

Objections to its potential environmental impact have stalled governmental support for extraction of shale oil in some countries, such as Australia.[72] Shale oil extraction may involve a number of different environmental impacts that vary with process technologies. Depending on the geological conditions and mining techniques, mining impacts may 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.[54][73] Surface mining for ex situ processing, as with in situ processing, requires extensive land use and ex situ thermal processing generates wastes that require disposal. Mining, processing, spent oil shale disposal, and waste treatment require land to be withdrawn from traditional uses.[8][74] Depending on the processing technology, the waste material may contain pollutants including sulfates, heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, some of which are toxic and carcinogenic.[75][76] Experimental in situ conversion processes may reduce some of these impacts, but may instead cause other problems, such as groundwater pollution.
A photograph of dark gray/silver piles of spent shale lumps.
Spent shale often presents a disposal problem

The production and usage of oil shale usually generates more greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, than conventional fossil fuels.[74] Depending on the technology and the oil shale composition, shale oil extraction processes may also emit sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and nitrogen oxides.[77] Developing carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce the processes' carbon footprint.[78]

Concerns have been raised over the oil shale industry's use of water, particularly in arid regions where water consumption is a sensitive issue.[79] Above-ground retorting typically consumes between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale oil, depending on technology.[28][80] Water is usually used for spent oil shale cooling and oil shale ash disposal. In situ processing, according to one estimate, uses about one-tenth as much water.[81] In other areas, water must be pumped out of oil shale mines. The resulting fall in the water table may have negative effects on nearby arable land and forests.[8]

A 2008 programmatic environmental impact statement issued by the United States Bureau of Land Management stated that surface mining and retort operations produce 2 to 10 US gallons (7.6 to 38 l; 1.7 to 8.3 imp gal) of waste water per 1 short ton (0.91 t) of processed oil shale.[80]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction

Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not a source when we are talking science. Do you have actually scientific evidence, or is it all talking points and fake science?

 

[longknife]

You believe in science? Prove it by showing me the scientific grounds for denying developing oil shale.

Environmental considerations
Main article: Environmental impact of the oil shale industry

Objections to its potential environmental impact have stalled governmental support for extraction of shale oil in some countries, such as Australia.[72] Shale oil extraction may involve a number of different environmental impacts that vary with process technologies. Depending on the geological conditions and mining techniques, mining impacts may 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.[54][73] Surface mining for ex situ processing, as with in situ processing, requires extensive land use and ex situ thermal processing generates wastes that require disposal. Mining, processing, spent oil shale disposal, and waste treatment require land to be withdrawn from traditional uses.[8][74] Depending on the processing technology, the waste material may contain pollutants including sulfates, heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, some of which are toxic and carcinogenic.[75][76] Experimental in situ conversion processes may reduce some of these impacts, but may instead cause other problems, such as groundwater pollution.
A photograph of dark gray/silver piles of spent shale lumps.
Spent shale often presents a disposal problem

The production and usage of oil shale usually generates more greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, than conventional fossil fuels.[74] Depending on the technology and the oil shale composition, shale oil extraction processes may also emit sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and nitrogen oxides.[77] Developing carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce the processes' carbon footprint.[78]

Concerns have been raised over the oil shale industry's use of water, particularly in arid regions where water consumption is a sensitive issue.[79] Above-ground retorting typically consumes between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale oil, depending on technology.[28][80] Water is usually used for spent oil shale cooling and oil shale ash disposal. In situ processing, according to one estimate, uses about one-tenth as much water.[81] In other areas, water must be pumped out of oil shale mines. The resulting fall in the water table may have negative effects on nearby arable land and forests.[8]

A 2008 programmatic environmental impact statement issued by the United States Bureau of Land Management stated that surface mining and retort operations produce 2 to 10 US gallons (7.6 to 38 l; 1.7 to 8.3 imp gal) of waste water per 1 short ton (0.91 t) of processed oil shale.[80]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction

Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not a source when we are talking science. Do you have actually scientific evidence, or is it all talking points and fake science?

No, but if you bother to read Wikipedia articles and check the footnotes, you will see link to references written by those considered to be expert on the subject.

 

[bripat9643]

Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not a source when we are talking science. Do you have actually scientific evidence, or is it all talking points and fake science?

To be more precise, Wiki is not a credible source on any politically charged subject - like the environment.

 

[bripat9643]

No, but if you bother to read Wikipedia articles and check the footnotes, you will see link to references written by those considered to be expert on the subject.

They are considered to be experts by the person who wrote the article - usually an environmental crank with an agenda.

 

[bripat9643]

Democrats want us to be energy independent, but refuse to allow us to exploit our own resources.

Actually I am all in favor of Americans having National Oil amd paying $2.00 a gallon for gas and being indpendent, but cons want to pay $6. a gallon to corporate big oil.

If we had "National Oil" we would be paying $20.00/gal.

 

[boedicca]

Democrats want us to be energy independent, but refuse to allow us to exploit our own resources.

Actually I am all in favor of Americans having National Oil amd paying $2.00 a gallon for gas and being indpendent, but cons want to pay $6. a gallon to corporate big oil.

If we had "National Oil" we would be paying $20.00/gal.

Oh, Just CHU wait...we'll get there before Obama is done.

 

[bripat9643]

'we' are the people who believe in things like...science ...'shithead'

if the geeks were right about the polls and math..imagine if they are right about science too

You don't even believe in logic, let alone science, douche nozzle.

you are all about the 5 year old playground taunts..when you can speak as an adult i will have a discussion with you..until then..maybe go find your manners..

I don't waste my time thinking you are capable of an adult discussion. Ridicule and insults are all you're good for.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Environmental considerations
Main article: Environmental impact of the oil shale industry

Objections to its potential environmental impact have stalled governmental support for extraction of shale oil in some countries, such as Australia.[72] Shale oil extraction may involve a number of different environmental impacts that vary with process technologies. Depending on the geological conditions and mining techniques, mining impacts may 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.[54][73] Surface mining for ex situ processing, as with in situ processing, requires extensive land use and ex situ thermal processing generates wastes that require disposal. Mining, processing, spent oil shale disposal, and waste treatment require land to be withdrawn from traditional uses.[8][74] Depending on the processing technology, the waste material may contain pollutants including sulfates, heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, some of which are toxic and carcinogenic.[75][76] Experimental in situ conversion processes may reduce some of these impacts, but may instead cause other problems, such as groundwater pollution.
A photograph of dark gray/silver piles of spent shale lumps.
Spent shale often presents a disposal problem

The production and usage of oil shale usually generates more greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, than conventional fossil fuels.[74] Depending on the technology and the oil shale composition, shale oil extraction processes may also emit sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and nitrogen oxides.[77] Developing carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce the processes' carbon footprint.[78]

Concerns have been raised over the oil shale industry's use of water, particularly in arid regions where water consumption is a sensitive issue.[79] Above-ground retorting typically consumes between one and five barrels of water per barrel of produced shale oil, depending on technology.[28][80] Water is usually used for spent oil shale cooling and oil shale ash disposal. In situ processing, according to one estimate, uses about one-tenth as much water.[81] In other areas, water must be pumped out of oil shale mines. The resulting fall in the water table may have negative effects on nearby arable land and forests.[8]

A 2008 programmatic environmental impact statement issued by the United States Bureau of Land Management stated that surface mining and retort operations produce 2 to 10 US gallons (7.6 to 38 l; 1.7 to 8.3 imp gal) of waste water per 1 short ton (0.91 t) of processed oil shale.[80]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction

Believe it or not, Wikipedia is not a source when we are talking science. Do you have actually scientific evidence, or is it all talking points and fake science?

No, but if you bother to read Wikipedia articles and check the footnotes, you will see link to references written by those considered to be expert on the subject.

If that neurotic kiwi actually likes science he should be able to go directly to articles that support his position.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama and his radical environmentalist in his administration seems determined to hurt us any way they can..

oh well, it's the WILL OF PEOPLE...He has a MANDATE to stick it to us

 

[boedicca]

It's much easier to control a population when they are poor and dependent on the government.

That's what Obama's vision of equality is all about.

 

[Stephanie]

It's much easier to control a population when they are poor and dependent on the government.

That's what Obama's vision of equality is all about.

well it seems what the people want...they put this radical back in office now we will pay for it

 

[boedicca]

It's much easier to control a population when they are poor and dependent on the government.

That's what Obama's vision of equality is all about.

well it seems what the people want...they put this radical back in office now we will pay for it

It's what the 51% who bothered to vote wanted. That's hardly a mandate, no matter how the moonbats try to spin it.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

If all you have to defend the ban on drilling for shale oil is that it costs to much you got nothing.

I don't defend the ban on it. This isn't the first time you have suggested I said something I didn't. I am simply examining the pros and cons of it, and have made it clear I am open to learning more.

If anybody has an issue with there being protected Federal land, then get in a time machine and take it up with Teddy Roosevelt. In the meantime, it is Federal land, therefore it is, at least it is supposed to be, OUR land. If it is to be released to corporate interests, that's fine, but the benefit has to serve more than simply for a company to turn a profit. It is right that it should not be done lightly.

Again, I will ask you, with all due respect, to stop misrepresenting what I say.

You claim you are examining the pros and cons of the ban, but you are talking about the economics of drilling in shale. They tow subjects aren't even related, feel free to pretend you were only joking when you implied they were.

Not so much. Federal protected land could have been opened up for the last 100+ years for any number of corporate interests, most of which probably would have earned a profit. Does that justify it? It depends.

What I see in this thread is not a discussion over the benefits or lack thereof of allowing shale oil production on Federal land, but the same old hardline political posturing that is the norm on USMB. It goes like this:

a) Obama did something
b) Righy response: evil socialist move meant to destroy us.
c) Lefty response: he cares about our environment.

Whatever, I would much rather look at it critically.

a) it is protected land, for whatever reason (again, take it up with Teddy Roosevelt)
b) if it is no longer to be protected, it must be justified.
c) if there is sufficient justification, then do it. I don't know that there is and I don't just jump on board my nearest party platform for the sake of having an easy position that I can take. Sue me.

If I see a post that is thoughtful, researched, and isn't plagued by agenda, I'll listen to it. So far I have yet to see it.