Shell's Ingenious Approach To Oil Shale Is Pretty Slick

Rocky Mountain News ^ | Saturday, September 3, 2005 | Linda Seebach

[Lurkus Maximus]

I sure hope you are right, but don't expect them to go down with out an awful lot of crying, screaming, and in general having one hissy-fit after another. I've never seen people with such an intense hatred of America and capitalism in all my days. These environmentalists make me want to puke!

[BadAndy]

"We would be totally free of dependence on other countries for oil! That would be incredible."

That would mean quite a legacy for W if the Repubs were smart enough to push it.

[Marine_Uncle]

"I have worked in enviromental matters for thirty years. We passed the point of diminishing returns on environmental protection a long time ago."

Understand. Problem is getting congress and those running for POTUS to understand that.

[stboz]

They don't give a sh*t. All they want is politcal power. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

[bert]

Sounds too complex to be viable to me. Also, it did not give the ratio of energy used to heat vs the energy extracted.

[JasonC]

In case nobody noticed, the enviro-weenies are out of office, and pro-capitalist, pro-technology Republicans hold all branches of government. They can cry all they want to, but they no longer make laws.

[Marine_Uncle]

"They don't give a sh*t. All they want is politcal power. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire."

And there lies the underlining problem. As for pissing on them if they where on fire. Smart move, they might emit truely noxious gases. Hang in there.

[JasonC]

The real question is not the time, which is just starting up, but the capital investment required. But that goes into the price calculation, and the claim is the answer is $30. Which is a perfectly believeable figure. German synthetic gas from coal in WW II cost about $60. Naturally, when you can get oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia for $3, it does not make sense to pay $30 for extraction, if the Saudis meet demand. But then, if they meet demand, the price shouldn't be $70 when the cost is $3. If they don't meet demand, you can cap prices by just putting enough of this online, and paying for supplimental shale oil whenever prices go above the cost.

[stboz]

Atlas needs to Shrug.

[JasonC]

Sorry, the corn is spoken for. World food output will feed rising world population through 2060 readily enough, but without much "over" to spare. World energy consumption is half the scale of all photosynthesis at this point, only a tiny fraction of the latter being human controlled agriculture. Farmland adds the most value feeding people not cars, and there are going to be plenty of people to feed.

[JasonC]

All energy processing consumes vast amounts of energy. Doesn't matter in the least, as long as the balance is positive.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Atlas needs to Shrug."
Might help losen up those sedimentary layers to drip more oil out. Ya. Men/Women of ability are hard to find in this fast talk world.

[ElTianti]

The problem is that it cost the Saudis $4 a barrel to get oil out of their deserts. The have a HUGE built in price advantage that shale will never overcome.

[JasonC]

Not a problem. They can have political power if we get cheap energy, and if we don't they can run checkout at WalMart. They will get the message.

[Matchett-PI]

"I'm predicting that Katrina will deal a crippling blow to enviroweenies as well as 99% of anyti-military sentiment."

BINGO!

The easily forseen (and thus avoidable) hard knock that always results every time the half-baked ideas of Marxist DemocRATS are allowed to be put into practice, is sadly what it always takes to wake up the wishy-washy "moderates".

[SAJ]

Perhaps that's it. If SOME layer of shale will or can be forced to act as the ''bottom'' of the ''cauldron'', then the deal is sealed.

I think you're probably spot on or very close. I should have thought it through a bit more, evidently.

[stboz]

The problem is that it cost the Saudis $4 a barrel to get oil out of their deserts. The have a HUGE built in price advantage that shale will never overcome.

Therein lies the problem. If it costs them $4/barrel to get out product that zero value to non-raghead, human, non-muslim primates because we won't do business with them.....I can dream can't I? We have no honor. ($1.99/gal? WHERE? TELL ME! PLEEEEASE!!!))

[Doe Eyes]

Isn't this Royal Dutch Shell?

They have got to be on our boycott list.

[11B40]

Right you are. Another element in cost analysis is the savings in military costs. Without being dependent on foreign oil our entire foreign policy could change. We would not really need a military establishment at the level it now is. I'm pro-military but I would like to see them all home and defending only the U.S. and its' territories. The need to project power would be drastically reduced. The savings would probaably be on the order of 75%. Lots of bucks. Energy independence is, IMHO, a national security matter of the utmost urgency.

[SAJ]

Yes it did. 3.5/1