Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Proposes Rules on Oil Shale Development
The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 07/23/2008 | Patty Henetz

Posted on 07/23/2008 7:46:48 AM PDT by kellynla

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: SAJ
Which is why we should START in WY and UT. Then, when King Ritter of Spendthrift sees all the revenue accruing to those states, he’ll get on board

king Ritter has closed drilling for 3 months so the animals will not be disturbed. He is aboard the wrong buss just like when he was denver DA and released 98% of criminal illegals. This “spendthrift” wants to raise taxes $330 million and wants $100 per vehicle for tax.

21 posted on 07/23/2008 8:23:21 AM PDT by mountainlion (Concerned Conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SAJ; thackney

okay, thanks, I’ll wait to see what thackney has to say about this...


22 posted on 07/23/2008 8:23:25 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SAJ

When the process is done do you have rubble or sand?


23 posted on 07/23/2008 8:24:50 AM PDT by heckler (wiskey for my men, beer for my horses, rifles for sister sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: patton

Stick a straw into Lake Superior, defeat OPEC.


24 posted on 07/23/2008 8:26:19 AM PDT by Starrgaizr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
bumper-sticker
 
 

Contact your Congress critters to let them know that you are tired of high gas prices.

U. S. Senate

U. S. House of Representatives

25 posted on 07/23/2008 8:30:29 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton

Probably, but why would you?


26 posted on 07/23/2008 8:39:50 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The rules would govern lease management and royalty payments should extracting kerogen from rock for further refining into fuel ever prove economically feasible - an open question given the likelihood of carbon taxes, lack of available Colorado River water and a host of environmental protection restrictions.

I know this is the line being repeated endlessly by the environmentalists, but I attended Shell's conference on their new in-situ technique of extraction, and it uses water that is available in the rock, and doesn't require any extra water. Anyone who looked at a map could see that the Colorado river abuts only a tiny portion of the oil shale reserves anyway, so whether there is extra water available in the Colorado River is really not even relevant.

There is a lot of water in the shale oil formation that becomes available upon the fracturing that is part of the new extraction process.

It's not an aquifer, it's water held in the tight pore spaces of the shale, so it won't affect any existing water rights.

That in-situ water is frozen into a curtain of ice that surrounds the extraction area. Then the oil is pumped out - it's light sweet crude , of the highest quality and isn't going to require much, if any, refining.When the site is finished, the ice curtain will be melted in place. There is no tailings pile, no waste water , no clean-up except to re-vegetate a small well pad.

It is viable, as Shell's willingness to commit real money toward it, and it could solve our oil problems cleanly and efferently.

That's why our Democratic friends in Congress are doing everything they can to stop it.

27 posted on 07/23/2008 8:41:00 AM PDT by Red Boots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Hadn’t seen the excess water stuff before, nevermind.

I brought it up because NM is floating on an ocean of saltwater.

Then, after I posted, it occured to me that once converted to steam, it will be a lot less salty, anyway.

DOH!


28 posted on 07/23/2008 8:46:20 AM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
I found this interesting:

1.2.6 WATER AVAILABILITY
The development of western oil shale resources will require water for plant operations, supporting infrastructure, and the associated economic growth in the region. While some new oil shale technologies significantly reduce process water requirements, stable and secure sources of significant volumes of water may still be required for large-scale oil shale development. The largest demands for water are expected to be for land reclamation and to support the population and economic growth associated with oil shale activity.

Strategic Significance of America’s Oil Shale Resource
Volume II, Oil Shale Resources, Technology and Economics
http://www.unconventionalfuels.org/publications/reports/npr_strategic_significancev2.pdf
Page 6

29 posted on 07/23/2008 8:46:24 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Fund ITER.


30 posted on 07/23/2008 8:49:04 AM PDT by RightWhale (I will veto each and every beer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Boots

“but I attended Shell’s conference on their new in-situ technique of extraction, and it uses water that is available in the rock, and doesn’t require any extra water.”

Excellent!

Now we’re getting down to cases. Thanks for info!

Kelly


31 posted on 07/23/2008 8:49:40 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: thackney
So, it appears that the “water issue” is a non-issue.
32 posted on 07/23/2008 8:50:48 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Maybe that should be your tagline instead of a vendetta against beer?
33 posted on 07/23/2008 8:53:06 AM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: heckler
Actually, it appears that you end up with neither. The shale 'rock size' is probably reduced a bit. There a huge slabs of it, house-sized and bigger, and these, I should think, would end up broken up to some extent.

My bet? You end up with the formation(s) largely intact, say 70% or so, and somewhat gooey or slimy. Then, the kerogen that can not be extracted will harden up again after a time, and you're back to rock.

Please note that I am not a petroengineer. Frankly, I'd suggest calling Shell or Raytheon. Pretty clearly, it's to their advantage to put out as much information as possible on their respective processes, bar (naturally) any proprietary stuff.

34 posted on 07/23/2008 9:07:47 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Red Boots
I've always wanted to solve a problem efferently!

(sorry, couldn't resist...)

;^)

35 posted on 07/23/2008 9:09:46 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

C’mon, mate. You know perfectly well that the enviromarxists will say absolutely anything to halt production. If ‘truth’ isn’t available, any lie that sounds even marginally plausible will suit them right down to the ground.


36 posted on 07/23/2008 9:11:24 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
I've always wanted to solve a problem efferently!

Me, too !

Efficiently, it should have said.

37 posted on 07/23/2008 9:14:40 AM PDT by Red Boots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
The 'animals' faux-argument doesn't work so well in shale country. It's halfway (or more) a moonscape to start, and most animals I saw in the shales, to my observation in 1978, were quite smart enough to be just passing through. It is NOT a nice area in which to live. For one thing, unless the animal in question has the digestive tract of a billygoat, food is a major problem.

Those inconvenient little facts, of course, won't stop the enviromarxists from repeating their 'animals' argument every hour on the hour.

38 posted on 07/23/2008 9:17:20 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Red Boots
Yah, sure. Just having a bit of fun...

;^)

39 posted on 07/23/2008 9:18:15 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Don't talk about it, do it.
40 posted on 07/23/2008 9:18:24 AM PDT by ANGGAPO (LayteGulf BeachClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson