OIL SHALE, What is America waiting for?

Price.  The cost of converting it to useable energy is just coming about.  The Arabs know it, so they are trying to get the price of oil down.  If it stays over $70 (i think that is the cut off), the good old USA is going to be the new OPEC.

Quite simply, the oil companies and the government are waiting for the oil supplies in other nations to dry up before drilling our own supplies. Think about the power and profits associated with being the sole oil supplier in the world.

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Price. The cost of converting it to useable energy is just coming about. The Arabs know it, so they are trying to get the price of oil down. If it stays over $70 (i think that is the cut off), the good old USA is going to be the new OPEC.

we can do it now, 2 to 3 trillion barrels of oil man. Trillion with a T

Reply By: MasonMPosted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Quite simply, the oil companies and the government are waiting for the oil supplies in other nations to dry up before drilling our own supplies. Think about the power and profits associated with being the sole oil supplier in the world.

 

See the above answer to docG

True, but it doesn't result in the same ultimate power. I truly believe that is their long term goal and the real reason for the curtailing of American oil pumping.

we can do it now, 2 to 3 trillion barrels of oil man. Trillion with a T

We can do it now.  But like Mason says, and Econ101 says, why should not do it until it is worth it money wise.

Would you pay $5 a gallon for US oil vs OPEC oil?

Quite simply, the oil companies and the government are waiting for the oil supplies in other nations to dry up before drilling our own supplies.

I am glad that the word is getting out about that. People said i was crazy when i said that long time ago.

The question is why didnt we continue the effort that was started by the Carter Admin with the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation? why was it dissolved and its research on developing reactors for extrracting the oil from Shale oil stopped? and By whom?

Anyone would care to guess?

There has been a lot of advances in the technology in the last couple of years. In northern Alberta the oil sands project was/is a major undertaking that apparently the US is watching with great interest.

My opinion? Probably the US was waiting for oil supply to dwindle (it's logical way to use resources to me-- use other people's stuff until it get too expensive not to. I had a roomie who was like that) and watching to see how the technology and the processing went in Canada.

My brother and sister are involved in the construction of the refineries up there and my uncle was a geophysisist who searched for oil in Alberta. The price of oil finally makes the capital outlay viable plus the technology is improving. I heard from my uncle that Dick Cheney and some other high level government guys came out to look at the project.

The wikipedia article on itWWW Link about the athabasca tar sands is pretty interesting.

eply By: MasonMPosted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Reply By: MasonMPosted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Quite simply, the oil companies and the government are waiting for the oil supplies in other nations to dry up before drilling our own supplies. Think about the power and profits associated with being the sole oil supplier in the world. See the above answer to docG True, but it doesn't result in the same ultimate power. I truly believe that is their long term goal and the real reason for the curtailing of American oil pumping.

Sure it does docG, with two to three trillion barrels of oil we can afford to undercut OPEC by 5 dollars a barrel and still reap huge profits let the towel head pump oil for a few years with no customers to buy and watch how quickly the governments get the terrorists under control, which is all we want in the first place.

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 we can do it now, 2 to 3 trillion barrels of oil man. Trillion with a T We can do it now. But like Mason says, and Econ101 says, why should not do it until it is worth it money wise. Would you pay $5 a gallon for US oil vs OPEC oil?

If I am going to pay anything at the pump I would rather see the money going into American funds, rather than funding states that sponsor terrorism.

Reply By: ThinkAloudPosted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 Quite simply, the oil companies and the government are waiting for the oil supplies in other nations to dry up before drilling our own supplies. I am glad that the word is getting out about that. People said i was crazy when i said that long time ago. The question is why didnt we continue the effort that was started by the Carter Admin with the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation? why was it dissolved and its research on developing reactors for extrracting the oil from Shale oil stopped? and By whom? Anyone would care to guess?

Please, do tell and remember to link proof.

Sure MM. Here is what Wikipedia say (i am sure anyone can go there and read it:

"Between 1945 and 1948, new laboratories were constructed near Pittsburgh. A synthetic ammonia plant Louisiana, Missouri (Missouri Ordnance Works) was transferred from the Army to the program in 1945. The plant was converted into a coal hydrogenation test facility. By 1949 the plant could produce 200 barrels of oil a day using the Bergius process.

Part of the personnel were German scientists, who had been extracted from Germany by Operation Paperclip.

In 1948, the program was extended to eight years and funding increased to $60 million. A second facility was constructed at the Louisiana plant, this time using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Completed in 1951, the plant only produced 40,000 gallons of fuel.

In 1953 the new Republican-led House Appropriations Committee ended funding for the research and the Missouri plant was returned to the Department of the Army.

In 1979, after the second oil crisis, the U.S. Congress approves the Energy Security Act forming the Synthetic Fuels Corporation and authorizes up to $88 million for synthetic fuels projects.

In 1985 Congress abolished the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program after 40 years and total spending of $8 billion."

So in short the Dem started it loooong time ago, the Rep ended it. Another Dem started it AGAIN and another Rep ended it.

Any more proof you need MM?

dont tell me the Dem were in control of congress at 1985. they were Reagan Democrat, i am sure you remeber them. Reagan, the Master of Voodoo economics and the teflon president fooled a lot of people. this is the second example i gave about him.

and what was the smart-people answer? "Inane"

But as you can see, it is not only one Rep president it repeats itself consistently.

You still say both are equally bad?

But they only ended it because they weren't bribing the Reps enough, they were spending on the Dems.

Reply By: ThinkAloudPosted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 Please, do tell and remember to link proof. Sure MM. Here is what Wikipedia say (i am sure anyone can go there and read it:

First off wikipedia is a site that anyone can say anything  for a definition for any word, not a good source, Period, for anyone.

Two: extracting the oil from shale was to expensive when they could buy it at 10 to 15 per barrel.

three: George W Bush is the one pushing this one through, The land it is on is government owned so no problem except for the democrats that are screaming about how this will impact the earth on and around the Rockies. Just like they scream about the  huge oil field in a desolate part of Alaska.

The Democrats have made sure that since 1979 NOT ONE NEW NUCLEAR power plant has been built, not one NEW refinery has been built on American soil. You seem to want politics well here are some for you to chew on. The democrats have been obstructing any move to drill in the waters off of Texas and Louisiana, even though the Chinese are getting ready to drill there, because Cuba has given them permission. And you say the Democrats are any better than Republicans? How about YOU UNDERSTAND we are getting screwed and there is blame enough to go around, for anything you can say negative about the GOP I can bring up siomething just as negative about the Dems, stop shifting blame, we need to pull together as one people./ Americans, not Republicans or democrats or independents or green party, or anything else.

Any more proof you need MM?

Proof of what?  That democrats are lousy economists and do not understand the science?  You just proved that.  Prove that Big oil is ine bed with republicans?  No, you have not proved any such thing. Just taht tin foil hats are a dime a dozen in your neighborhood.

you see what i mean? now Wikipedia is no good? and that information there are fake? they just list fake laws passed by congress? what a spin ....!!!!!!

That corp was not to start the production ..... it was for research for God's sake.

If you want, as your article indicate, to start getting fuel from Coal or Shale you need the process and the equipment all established in design and proven in pilot plants. You know how long that takes?

You guys are really in a virtual-reality world.

That corp was working on projects to figure out the process and the equipment. Do you understand that?

If you did you wouldnt have answered the way you did.

Of course. These things are privileges reserved only for you and the GOP.



If the shoe fits ... wear it Doc. I didnt even say that ..... you said it.

Ummm....did you read what you quoted? Apparently not.



No, they are reserved for sentient beings. Any sentient being may apply. Demogogues need not apply. Now if you can understand that, you are already smarter than your party leaders,.

me thinks think aloud needs to think more and remain silent, better to be thought a fool than to confirm it.

That's hilarious! Wikipedia has never, ever been a reliable source of factual information. It can be edited by anyone who feels like it.

Wikipedia should ONLY be used as a starting point. Everything on there should be independently verified. There's a lot of good information there, but an awful lot of junk as well.

Reply By: MasonMPosted: Thursday, August 23, 2007 now Wikipedia is no good? That's hilarious! Wikipedia has never, ever been a reliable source of factual information. It can be edited by anyone who feels like it.

I keep trying to gently educate people but somehow what I say turns into me being an asshole or I am attacking Mr thinks aloud.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Thursday, August 23, 2007 That's hilarious! Wikipedia has never, ever been a reliable source of factual information. It can be edited by anyone who feels like it. Wikipedia should ONLY be used as a starting point. Everything on there should be independently verified. There's a lot of good information there, but an awful lot of junk as well

Maybe if he reads it from you gid he will understand what I was trying to say. I can go to wikipedia right now and edit America to appear as a country in Africa.

I live in WY and I think that you are right in asking the question, why arent we digging up that shale now?

However, America isn't waiting for shale....as the oil companies don't want to invest in it. Some are; as I know a rubber manufacturor in my hometown has developed a lining for pipes that carry the shale, helping to extend their life...which is another thing...shale eats pipes rather quickly. I also think that getting oil from Shale is rather expensive and only when regular petroleum is on the higher end of the spectrum does it become worth it. But I figure that as long as the oil comps are making oodles of money from regular oil...they don't see a need yet to tap into the shale reserves. True, there is a bunch, but its too costly at the moment

None of you have challenged the information there. These were actions approved by congress and signed by US presidents. And none of you challenged the accuracy of that. They are historical records. And what you have left to say? Just insults and spin about the accuracy of the wikipedia? !!!!!

You asked for details and i provided it. prove it wrong if you can. Insults and name calling shows who is the fool here.

Twice the Dem started a program to develop methods to do what YOU ASKED FOR IN YOUR ARTICLE and twice the GOP ended that program. and instead of admitting the problem, what do you do? you just start name calling ....

You all are a great intellectual group and i am the fool who should remain silent so you can spread false information and spin the facts? keep dreaming ....

However, the truth usually comes out regardless. and it is now started to show whether i remain silent or not and you guys are all nervous and have nothing to say except name calling.