Obama shuts down 1.6m acres to oil shale development

[bripat9643]

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

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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

Exactly. The oil or natural gas is extracted from the shale. The strata occur in the lithology and the composition varies as you drill through the formation to reach TD.

We may have two different topics going on here. We are referring to oil and gas that is released from shale, not extracted from it. There's a difference.

Damnit!

(just thought I'd throw that in... Saturday night and all )

Didn't read the full exchange. I've got about three different subjects going on within the same topic!

 

[bripat9643]

Federal property = Protected property.

ROFL! No one who's ever seen the millions of acres where the federal government subsidized clear cutting during the Roosevelt Administration would ever believe that. It needs to be "protected" from the federal government.

 

[bripat9643]

no, that is called rationing the food in my pantry and using it wisely so my kids and grand kids have something to eat later on <3

find a way to do it so it doesnt kill everything around it and you will have the left on board with it.

But the left isn't using our resources wisely. They're keeping us dependent on foreign oil while they push failed, inefficient, and unworkable alternatives that won't replace what they seek to ban.

Short-sighted.

well then, put an oil well in your back yard and lets see you put up or shut up.

I'll be happy to put an oil well in my back yard, so long as I get the royalties from it.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- good, as promised. Intelligent policy. Tinfoiler dupe haters wouldn't understand...

 

[ScienceRocks]

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

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.

I guess you're stupid. As nasa is one of the most innovative part of our entire country...Within the modern era when all powerful nations(ESA, China, Japan, India, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Russia, etc) have something similar to it it's a necessary part of being a power.

You want to talk about worthless? Look at the war in Afighastan or Iraq. Now that is a pit from hell.

 

[bripat9643]

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

It takes a special kind of stupid to believe that.

I guess you're stupid. As nasa is one of the most innovative part of our entire country...Within the modern era when all powerful nations(ESA, China, Japan, India, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Russia, etc) have something similar to it it's a necessary part of being a power.

NASA might have been "innovative" in the 60s, but ever since then it's been a cesspool of stifling bureaucracy and incompetence. Two space shuttle disasters aren't the mark of excellence.

Can you name 5 inventions that NASA deserves the credit for?

You want to talk about worthless? Look at the war in Afighastan or Iraq. Now that is a pit from hell.

I'm not about to defend either of those.

 

[rdean]

These fucking ignorant right wingers and their stupid Breitbart. Don't you guys know when you're being "duped"? Guess not.

 

[The Irish Ram]

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.

So very true.
And when Obama drives coal prices into the basement, his friends in China will by our resource, dirt cheap, and burn it all, with no regard to global warming or pollution or air quality concerns.
But it's ok, because the jet stream will come along and we'll spend billions to clean up China's air before sending it along to Europe.

 

[daveman]

These fucking ignorant right wingers and their stupid Breitbart. Don't you guys know when you're being "duped"? Guess not.

An Obama voter has no room to call anyone else "duped".

 

[Mr. H.]

Exactly. The oil or natural gas is extracted from the shale. The strata occur in the lithology and the composition varies as you drill through the formation to reach TD.

We may have two different topics going on here. We are referring to oil and gas that is released from shale, not extracted from it. There's a difference.

Damnit!

(just thought I'd throw that in... Saturday night and all )

Didn't read the full exchange. I've got about three different subjects going on within the same topic!

? my bad. Geez I thought I was addressing someone else. Yeah this thread is messed up LOL.

 

[shintao]

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.

 

[nitroz]

there is more than enough not on federal lands.

This x100

Lets evaluate the size of an acre.

the area of an acre is exactly 43,560 square feet, or almost as big as a football field. (Key word: Almost)




This does not reasonably constitute justified anger.

What about drilling offshore?
Private property?
Alaska?
Building PRIVATE pipelines?


Also, what about pushing for green technology breakthroughs that is given free licensing for any private manufacturing companies to invest in and take advantage of as long as it's manufactured in the US and they follow a maximum profit precentage?
That helps the private sector alot, keeps costs down, and helps give the green energy initiative a kick in the ass.


How many birds would you kill with one stone, again?

Wonder why we are not hearing reports about "wind" energy being used in NYC and New Jersey? How do you think solar panels and wind turbines fared during Sandy?

Do you think any of those people that are worried about freezing to death, care, where their energy is coming from, today?

We should spend millions upon millions in wind energy just for a storm that MIGHT happen once a year?

What about upkeep and flooding?

I have the idea that you aren't the brightest bulb in the box.

 

[nitroz]

Its just not profitable. If it were, companies would line up. The govt even tried to subsidize wind and solar and it still failed. The energy isnt concentrated. Wind and solar is supplemental at best right now.

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.

 

[daveman]

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, bit cons want to pay $6. a gallon to corporate big oil.

You're bitching about the wrong people.

Drew Johnson: Who Really Gets Rich Off High Gas Prices? - WSJ.com

You may blame high gas prices on rich oil company executives or greedy gas station owners. The truth is that governments rake in a larger profit at the pump than anyone—and with gas taxes on the rise in many parts of the country, there's no relief in sight.

--

The remaining 12%—or almost 50 cents per gallon today—goes directly to federal, state and local governments in an array of sales and excise taxes. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents on every gallon of gasoline sold in America. State gas-tax rates vary from a low of eight cents per gallon in Alaska to a jarring 49 cents per gallon in New York. Other states where it's steep to fill up include California and Connecticut—each with 48.6-cent-per-gallon gas taxes—and Hawaii, at 47.1 cents per gallon.

Some local governments have gotten in on the act, too. In California, local sales and excise taxes on gasoline average 3.1%, according to the Los Angeles Times. That works out to about 12 cents in local taxes for each gallon of gas, based on the state's current average of $3.80 per gallon.

Skokie, Ill., a suburb north of Chicago, levies a gas tax of three cents per gallon. You'll pay an extra nickel per gallon at gas stations in Eugene, Ore. And the next time you're gambling in Las Vegas, you'll need plenty of cash left over to cover Clark County's 10 cent local tax on a gallon of gas. In Florida, Brevard County (home to the Kennedy Space Center) expects to siphon more than $15 million from motorists this year, according to the newspaper Florida Today.

Put this all together, and government makes far more from gas sales than all of the oil companies put together. Exxon, for example, made only seven cents per gallon of gasoline in 2011. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly 50 cents per gallon that federal, state and local governments rake in on an average gallon of gas pumped in the U.S.​

 

[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

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

 

[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

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..

 

[Stephanie]

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.

good then, lead by example and stop using them..a cave sounds like a nice place to live

 

[Neurotika]

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..

here is the article that breitbart cited for its 'the sky is falling' inflammatory bullshit.

Interior proposal would limit commercial oil shale development on federal lands - The Hill's E2-Wire

apparently this is finish up from the bush administration

The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.

The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration.

additionally...

Under the plan, 677,000 acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming would be open for oil shale exploration. Another 130,000 acres in Utah would be set aside for tar sands production.

and

The administration and Democrats said that while the plan would curtail what was originally sought for oil shale development, it still opens up a significant amount of land that was previously unavailable for the energy production method.

The administration noted the plan pushed forward Friday also included two research, development and demonstration (RD&D) leases for oil shale development.

i do not understand the 'SKY IS FALLING' reaction to this..a bit over the top if you ask me.

 

[logical4u]

This x100

Lets evaluate the size of an acre.

the area of an acre is exactly 43,560 square feet, or almost as big as a football field. (Key word: Almost)




This does not reasonably constitute justified anger.

What about drilling offshore?
Private property?
Alaska?
Building PRIVATE pipelines?


Also, what about pushing for green technology breakthroughs that is given free licensing for any private manufacturing companies to invest in and take advantage of as long as it's manufactured in the US and they follow a maximum profit precentage?
That helps the private sector alot, keeps costs down, and helps give the green energy initiative a kick in the ass.


How many birds would you kill with one stone, again?

Wonder why we are not hearing reports about "wind" energy being used in NYC and New Jersey? How do you think solar panels and wind turbines fared during Sandy?

Do you think any of those people that are worried about freezing to death, care, where their energy is coming from, today?

We should spend millions upon millions in wind energy just for a storm that MIGHT happen once a year?

What about upkeep and flooding?

I have the idea that you aren't the brightest bulb in the box.

Great questions, and that has been asked: if Bloomberg really believed in "global warming" and rising sea levels, why didn't he take precautions for the city? Why didn't he add levees during his tenure?

As far as "wind" energy goes. I did not say, don't do it. I said, I wondered how it fared under Sandy. Again, be prepared. It is better to have a huge "capacity" (generation plants) in electricity, than to reduce capacity, because "coal" is seen as a bad thing by this administration.

Now let me ask you a question since you want to "tout" the millions, and millions in wind energy. What will it cost to repair the damage done by Sandy? Is it worth building wind turbines, based on a life expectancy of say 10 years, when it is being demonstrated that storms will destroy them (or double maintenance costs) every two years?

I never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the box, but I do understand practical versus theoretical.