Obama shuts down 1.6m acres to oil shale development

[ScienceRocks]

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.

Would it make me money? If yes then ok.

 

[nitroz]

Interior Department Blocks Access to 1.6 Million Acres of Oil in the West

by directorblue
Could one of you Democrats please tell me how the middle class benefits from higher gas prices and fewer jobs?

The disconnect between the administration’s “All-of-the-Above” energy rhetoric and actual policy looks like it’ll continue now that President Obama was reelected. The Hill reports that the Interior Department plans to block 1.6 million acres of federal land from oil development...

Read more @ Doug Ross @ Journal: CONGRATULATIONS, DEMOCRATS: Interior Department Blocks Access to 1.6 Million Acres of Oil in the West

I heard some where the "all of the above" meant all the energy above ground (not what was below ground). I hope PETA is paying attention, cause you cut off petroleum, and people are going to go after the whales.

The highlighted green is all federal land that is protected.

Google Maps

 

[McDowell's]

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.

Or you could lease the acreage to oil companies; use the bonuses, royalties, and taxes to fund your NASA research; and get the best of both worlds. Thus not being a ******* moron.

Federal property = Protected property.

Just because. That's nice. You must be one of the politicians debating the budget/fiscal crisis. You just responded to a win win compromise with an ideological red line that means nothing.

 

[daveman]

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 would if I could, but I rent, and there's no oil here.

 

[Mr. H.]

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.

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 )

 

[logical4u]

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?

 

[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?

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.

 

[logical4u]

Interior Department Blocks Access to 1.6 Million Acres of Oil in the West

by directorblue
Could one of you Democrats please tell me how the middle class benefits from higher gas prices and fewer jobs?

The disconnect between the administration’s “All-of-the-Above” energy rhetoric and actual policy looks like it’ll continue now that President Obama was reelected. The Hill reports that the Interior Department plans to block 1.6 million acres of federal land from oil development...

Read more @ Doug Ross @ Journal: CONGRATULATIONS, DEMOCRATS: Interior Department Blocks Access to 1.6 Million Acres of Oil in the West

I heard some where the "all of the above" meant all the energy above ground (not what was below ground). I hope PETA is paying attention, cause you cut off petroleum, and people are going to go after the whales.

The highlighted green is all federal land that is protected.

Google Maps

Let me get this straight: we should tax the people that have worked really hard and have better than average salaries, because "they have the money", but we should leave the gov't (owned by the taxpayers) land alone, because "they have the resources"?

How does this make sense?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

You're the one that used "****" 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&#8217;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&#8217;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.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Does this mean you won't be voting for him last Tuesday?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...............We won!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get over it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It proves anyone who did vote for him is a sucker and a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see the benefit of shale oil extraction. It's costly and it ***** 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.

Obama ruled 1.2 million acres off limits, so it doesn't matter what they develop.

What part of "off limits" don't you understand?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

How much of that other land actually has oil under it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

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.

Do you think NASA has a magic wand that overrules the laws of physics?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Or you could lease the acreage to oil companies; use the bonuses, royalties, and taxes to fund your NASA research; and get the best of both worlds. Thus not being a ******* moron.

Federal property = Protected property.

Why do the feds get to take property away from the states in the first place?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't see the benefit of shale oil extraction. It's costly and it ***** 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 **** off and leave me alone.

What part of "off limits" didn't you understand, moron?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

 

[Mr. H.]

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.

Or you could lease the acreage to oil companies; use the bonuses, royalties, and taxes to fund your NASA research; and get the best of both worlds. Thus not being a ******* moron.

Federal property = Protected property.

Simply "protected", or managed? Managed to the benefit of the nation, not the enviroleftists.

 

[bripat9643]

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

that's an absolutely absurd claim.


What did NASA invent, Tang?

 

[Mr. H.]

Without hydrocarbons, NASA wouldn't exist.

 

[bripat9643]

This does not reasonably constitute justified anger.

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

Obama is shutting all that down as well, dipshit.