Obama shuts down 1.6m acres to oil shale development

[Mr. H.]

A cartoon for the kiddies...

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I don't see the benefit of shale oil extraction. It's costly and it fucks up the Earth's surface. I don't really see an upside. It's certainly not going to help us at the pump. If they can develop in-situ extraction that is cost-effective, then I'm all for it.

You just don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but there's not need to be insulting.

From my understanding, shale oil extraction is not a simple task, and can be, at least somewhat, cost prohibitive. I was referring specifically to the antiquated ex-situ methods that involve things like strip-mining. I'm sorry, but I am opposed to that unless the benefit is clearly worth it. If the methods used are responsible, and cost effective, and I understand in-situ methods are getting there, then it makes sense, and I support it. I think it was a fairly measured response, even if I don't have a complete understanding of the process.

I think you will find that, if you want to be civil and point out where I am mistaken or ill-informed, you will find me a willing participant. But if you just want to insult me without providing anything resembling a measured response, then feel free to fuck off and leave me alone.

 

[Mr. H.]

I don't see the benefit of shale oil extraction. It's costly and it fucks up the Earth's surface. I don't really see an upside. It's certainly not going to help us at the pump. If they can develop in-situ extraction that is cost-effective, then I'm all for it.

You just don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but there's not need to be insulting.

From my understanding, shale oil extraction is not a simple task, and can be, at least somewhat, cost prohibitive. I was referring specifically to the antiquated ex-situ methods that involve things like strip-mining. I'm sorry, but I am opposed to that unless the benefit is clearly worth it. If the methods used are responsible, and cost effective, and I understand in-situ methods are getting there, then it makes sense, and I support it. I think it was a fairly measured response, even if I don't have a complete understanding of the process.

I think you will find that, if you want to be civil and point out where I am mistaken or ill-informed, you will find me a willing participant. But if you just want to insult me without providing anything resembling a measured response, then feel free to fuck off and leave me alone.

You're the one that used "fuck" in your post, not me.


You are confusing two different source horizons. Read that geology link I posted above.

Now git eddicated!

 

[Neurotika]

'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

Like the science developed by private industry that allows them to reach the most remote and difficult-to-produce hydrocarbon deposits?

and i would point out, 'exploiting' scientific findings/data is not the same thing as 'using' is for the good of man kind.

still waiting for that link when you have the time.

thanks

 

[Mr. H.]

'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

Like the science developed by private industry that allows them to reach the most remote and difficult-to-produce hydrocarbon deposits?

and i would point out, 'exploiting' scientific findings/data is not the same thing as 'using' is for the good of man kind.

still waiting for that link when you have the time.

thanks

Link to what? My science? Me the geek? Read your own post.

 

[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

Like the science developed by private industry that allows them to reach the most remote and difficult-to-produce hydrocarbon deposits?

and i would point out, 'exploiting' scientific findings/data is not the same thing as 'using' is for the good of man kind.

still waiting for that link when you have the time.

thanks

I am still waiting for whatever science you use to base your opposition to shale oil on,

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You just don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but there's not need to be insulting.

From my understanding, shale oil extraction is not a simple task, and can be, at least somewhat, cost prohibitive. I was referring specifically to the antiquated ex-situ methods that involve things like strip-mining. I'm sorry, but I am opposed to that unless the benefit is clearly worth it. If the methods used are responsible, and cost effective, and I understand in-situ methods are getting there, then it makes sense, and I support it. I think it was a fairly measured response, even if I don't have a complete understanding of the process.

I think you will find that, if you want to be civil and point out where I am mistaken or ill-informed, you will find me a willing participant. But if you just want to insult me without providing anything resembling a measured response, then feel free to fuck off and leave me alone.

You're the one that used "fuck" in your post, not me.


You are confusing two different source horizons. Read that geology link I posted above.

Now git eddicated!

What does my use of profanity have to do with anything?

The illustration you posted doesn't really tell me anything.

The cost of shale oil extraction is a genuine concern, not just something I made up. It's not something to avoid talking about just because it upsets political party lines. I happen to be a Republican and a supporter of laissez faire capitalism, and if it makes sense to do something, then do it.

The following articles provides a sensible economic analysis of shale oil extraction that demonstrates both it's promise and it's potential downfalls:

Oil Shale Reserves

In particular, the following section:

"There is dispute within the industry over how long, if ever, demonstration extraction technologies can become commercially viable. I’ve spoken with some of the smaller companies that have applied for leases from the BLM. Some of them will have to raise money to conduct the project. And some of them have been less than forthcoming about how exactly their extraction technology is different or better than previous methods.

How will it all unfold? Well, for starters, it could all utterly fail. To me, Shell’s in-situ process looks the most
promising. It also makes the most sense economically. There may be a better, less energy-intensive way to heat up the ground than what Shell has come up with. But Shell, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil clearly have the resources to scoop up any private or small firm that makes a breakthrough."

These are industry disputes and concerns, not party propaganda.

Now, as I've said before, I am very open to civil discussion and gaining an understanding of where I may be mistaken. You have provided nothing in that regard thus far, and I am still attempting to extract it from you, if you'll forgive the pun.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Dumbfuck....you claim it is too costly to do but then say it's ok if Obamination tells them not to do it.

If someone is willing to do it, your little theory that it is too expensive to do is full of shit...like you.

Got that dumbfuck? Don't claim something isn't profitable when someone says it is profitable.

I don't see the benefit of shale oil extraction. It's costly and it fucks up the Earth's surface. I don't really see an upside. It's certainly not going to help us at the pump. If they can develop in-situ extraction that is cost-effective, then I'm all for it.

You just don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but there's not need to be insulting.

From my understanding, shale oil extraction is not a simple task, and can be, at least somewhat, cost prohibitive. I was referring specifically to the antiquated ex-situ methods that involve things like strip-mining. I'm sorry, but I am opposed to that unless the benefit is clearly worth it. If the methods used are responsible, and cost effective, and I understand in-situ methods are getting there, then it makes sense, and I support it. I think it was a fairly measured response, even if I don't have a complete understanding of the process.

I think you will find that, if you want to be civil and point out where I am mistaken or ill-informed, you will find me a willing participant. But if you just want to insult me without providing anything resembling a measured response, then feel free to fuck off and leave me alone.

 

[chikenwing]

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

exploit being the operative word..

there it is..

we do not want our natural resources exploited..we want them protected and viable for our next generations to be able to use responsibly. sustainably and environmentally safe.

shale oil is none of those things.

Sell your car turn of your lights and get the hell off the internet if your that concerned,leave the business of thinking to the rational ones.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Obama Shuts Down 1.6M Acres to Oil Shale Development

Just two days after President Obama’s re-election, the Obama Interior Department announced a plan to shut down 1.6 million acres of federal land to oil shale development. The land had originally been slated for drilling under President George W. Bush.

So the higher gas prices are cometh .. And this WILL Be Obama's fault just like higher electricity and he has no fear about being re elected so he will do everything he can to destroy this country..

The so called article tells us absolutely nothing. Shale oil is extremely difficult to extract. While Bush allowed for a few permits so that a number of companies could try to develop workable methods to extract the oil from the shale, I believe those permits had time limits. I have not heard of any good developments over the last five years as to them finding an effective way to extract the oil. While there are over 1 trillion potential barrels of oil in the Green River Basin, if they can't get it out without completely destroying the environment and at a cost effective price, then it's all a pipe dream.

Anyway, get back to us when you have some real information as to the reasoning behind this.

The oil being extracted in ND has an entirely different viscosity than the sweet crude most are familiar with.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Dumbfuck....you claim it is too costly to do but then say it's ok if Obamination tells them not to do it.

If someone is willing to do it, your little theory that it is too expensive to do is full of shit...like you.

Got that dumbfuck? Don't claim something isn't profitable when someone says it is profitable.

You just don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but there's not need to be insulting.

From my understanding, shale oil extraction is not a simple task, and can be, at least somewhat, cost prohibitive. I was referring specifically to the antiquated ex-situ methods that involve things like strip-mining. I'm sorry, but I am opposed to that unless the benefit is clearly worth it. If the methods used are responsible, and cost effective, and I understand in-situ methods are getting there, then it makes sense, and I support it. I think it was a fairly measured response, even if I don't have a complete understanding of the process.

I think you will find that, if you want to be civil and point out where I am mistaken or ill-informed, you will find me a willing participant. But if you just want to insult me without providing anything resembling a measured response, then feel free to fuck off and leave me alone.

What I actually said is that I don't see an upside economically, until I see information that says differently. If it makes economic sense to do it, then I support it. Feel free to point out anywhere in this thread where I said otherwise, or said that I agreed with Obama.

 

[GoneBezerk]

If there are companies that want to go after the shale....there must be some benefit and profit from it.

You and Obamination are not allowed to play GOD and tell companies, "We don't think that is a good investment of your time and resources."

Reality is Obamination is blocking the exploration since he HATES fossil fuels and wants to make it too expensive to use them instead of fairy dust energy in solar and wind.

Obamination wants higher energy costs so Americans will quit using so much of the world's resources....because we are so-called greedy bastards that are polluting the planet. That is why he is blocking oil, shale, etc exploration despite lying about it on the campaign trail.

Dumbfuck....you claim it is too costly to do but then say it's ok if Obamination tells them not to do it.

If someone is willing to do it, your little theory that it is too expensive to do is full of shit...like you.

Got that dumbfuck? Don't claim something isn't profitable when someone says it is profitable.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but there's not need to be insulting.

From my understanding, shale oil extraction is not a simple task, and can be, at least somewhat, cost prohibitive. I was referring specifically to the antiquated ex-situ methods that involve things like strip-mining. I'm sorry, but I am opposed to that unless the benefit is clearly worth it. If the methods used are responsible, and cost effective, and I understand in-situ methods are getting there, then it makes sense, and I support it. I think it was a fairly measured response, even if I don't have a complete understanding of the process.

I think you will find that, if you want to be civil and point out where I am mistaken or ill-informed, you will find me a willing participant. But if you just want to insult me without providing anything resembling a measured response, then feel free to fuck off and leave me alone.

What I actually said is that I don't see an upside economically, until I see information that says differently. If it makes economic sense to do it, then I support it. Feel free to point out anywhere in this thread where I said otherwise, or said that I agreed with Obama.

 

[GWV5903]

Obama Shuts Down 1.6M Acres to Oil Shale Development

Just two days after President Obama’s re-election, the Obama Interior Department announced a plan to shut down 1.6 million acres of federal land to oil shale development. The land had originally been slated for drilling under President George W. Bush.

So the higher gas prices are cometh .. And this WILL Be Obama's fault just like higher electricity and he has no fear about being re elected so he will do everything he can to destroy this country..

The so called article tells us absolutely nothing. Shale oil is extremely difficult to extract. While Bush allowed for a few permits so that a number of companies could try to develop workable methods to extract the oil from the shale, I believe those permits had time limits. I have not heard of any good developments over the last five years as to them finding an effective way to extract the oil. While there are over 1 trillion potential barrels of oil in the Green River Basin, if they can't get it out without completely destroying the environment and at a cost effective price, then it's all a pipe dream.

Anyway, get back to us when you have some real information as to the reasoning behind this.

Eagle Ford Shale largest play since Prudhoe Bay, Bakken Shale, Barnett Shale Combo...

Yeah these shale plays aren't very successful...

Get back to us when you have a clue dumb ass...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Obama Shuts Down 1.6M Acres to Oil Shale Development






So the higher gas prices are cometh .. And this WILL Be Obama's fault just like higher electricity and he has no fear about being re elected so he will do everything he can to destroy this country..

The so called article tells us absolutely nothing. Shale oil is extremely difficult to extract. While Bush allowed for a few permits so that a number of companies could try to develop workable methods to extract the oil from the shale, I believe those permits had time limits. I have not heard of any good developments over the last five years as to them finding an effective way to extract the oil. While there are over 1 trillion potential barrels of oil in the Green River Basin, if they can't get it out without completely destroying the environment and at a cost effective price, then it's all a pipe dream.

Anyway, get back to us when you have some real information as to the reasoning behind this.

Eagle Ford Shale largest play since Prudhoe Bay, Bakken Shale, Barnett Shale Combo...

Yeah these shale plays aren't very successful...

Get back to us when you have a clue dumb ass...

We're extracting it in the Eagle Ford. Drilling about 20 wells a month and extremely profitable.

 

[Mr. H.]

Obama Shuts Down 1.6M Acres to Oil Shale Development






So the higher gas prices are cometh .. And this WILL Be Obama's fault just like higher electricity and he has no fear about being re elected so he will do everything he can to destroy this country..

The so called article tells us absolutely nothing. Shale oil is extremely difficult to extract. While Bush allowed for a few permits so that a number of companies could try to develop workable methods to extract the oil from the shale, I believe those permits had time limits. I have not heard of any good developments over the last five years as to them finding an effective way to extract the oil. While there are over 1 trillion potential barrels of oil in the Green River Basin, if they can't get it out without completely destroying the environment and at a cost effective price, then it's all a pipe dream.

Anyway, get back to us when you have some real information as to the reasoning behind this.

The oil being extracted in ND has an entirely different viscosity than the sweet crude most are familiar with.

Yet, it is not the tar sand goop that some here are obviously referring to.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals like telling people what they can and can't do with their lives, now they're doing it with companies telling them they can't drill here or there because it is "too expensive" or "too damaging to the planet."

Typical liberal scum.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The so called article tells us absolutely nothing. Shale oil is extremely difficult to extract. While Bush allowed for a few permits so that a number of companies could try to develop workable methods to extract the oil from the shale, I believe those permits had time limits. I have not heard of any good developments over the last five years as to them finding an effective way to extract the oil. While there are over 1 trillion potential barrels of oil in the Green River Basin, if they can't get it out without completely destroying the environment and at a cost effective price, then it's all a pipe dream.

Anyway, get back to us when you have some real information as to the reasoning behind this.

The oil being extracted in ND has an entirely different viscosity than the sweet crude most are familiar with.

Yet, it is not the tar sand goop that some here are obviously referring to.

Not at all or we wouldnt be increasing our productions and completions.

 

[bripat9643]

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

exploit being the operative word..

there it is..

we do not want our natural resources exploited..we want them protected and viable for our next generations to be able to use responsibly. sustainably and environmentally safe.

shale oil is none of those things.

How do you "use them responsibly, sustainably and environmentally safe" without exploiting them? the term "exploit" is just a synonym for "use," you fucking moron.

Which generation gets to use them, and why shouldn't the generations that come after have an equal claim to them?

 

[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.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but there's not need to be insulting.

From my understanding, shale oil extraction is not a simple task, and can be, at least somewhat, cost prohibitive. I was referring specifically to the antiquated ex-situ methods that involve things like strip-mining. I'm sorry, but I am opposed to that unless the benefit is clearly worth it. If the methods used are responsible, and cost effective, and I understand in-situ methods are getting there, then it makes sense, and I support it. I think it was a fairly measured response, even if I don't have a complete understanding of the process.

I think you will find that, if you want to be civil and point out where I am mistaken or ill-informed, you will find me a willing participant. But if you just want to insult me without providing anything resembling a measured response, then feel free to fuck off and leave me alone.

You're the one that used "fuck" in your post, not me.


You are confusing two different source horizons. Read that geology link I posted above.

Now git eddicated!

What does my use of profanity have to do with anything?

The illustration you posted doesn't really tell me anything.

The cost of shale oil extraction is a genuine concern, not just something I made up. It's not something to avoid talking about just because it upsets political party lines. I happen to be a Republican and a supporter of laissez faire capitalism, and if it makes sense to do something, then do it.

The following articles provides a sensible economic analysis of shale oil extraction that demonstrates both it's promise and it's potential downfalls:

Oil Shale Reserves

In particular, the following section:

"There is dispute within the industry over how long, if ever, demonstration extraction technologies can become commercially viable. I’ve spoken with some of the smaller companies that have applied for leases from the BLM. Some of them will have to raise money to conduct the project. And some of them have been less than forthcoming about how exactly their extraction technology is different or better than previous methods.

How will it all unfold? Well, for starters, it could all utterly fail. To me, Shell’s in-situ process looks the most
promising. It also makes the most sense economically. There may be a better, less energy-intensive way to heat up the ground than what Shell has come up with. But Shell, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil clearly have the resources to scoop up any private or small firm that makes a breakthrough."

These are industry disputes and concerns, not party propaganda.

Now, as I've said before, I am very open to civil discussion and gaining an understanding of where I may be mistaken. You have provided nothing in that regard thus far, and I am still attempting to extract it from you, if you'll forgive the pun.

Your quoted article references "turning shale into oil". The shale liquids and gasses that this thread addresses are entirely different, as are their strata.