Shale Oil Rush Could Pan Out To Be Mirage

Judged:

7

6

2

Shoreliner wrote:

More defeatism from a Democrat.
There are no guarantees in life - particularly from oil exploration.
However, it seems like mining for oil shale in the Rockies is a slam dunk particularly with the success that the Canadians have had in Alberta.
BTW, Canada is the U.S.'s largest energy trading partner.
Also, the positive economic impact for Colorado and the surrounding states would be enormous if oil shale could be extracted efficiently. I guess treehuggers, like Senator Salazar, rather see Americans freeze during the winter and be unemployed.
As for the next election, ignore party labels and vote for conservative candidates.
Drill here, Drill now, Save money.

Judged:

6

5

2

Steve wrote:

To Mike,
Typical response from your ilk. When not in agreement, when no intelligent argument can be made, insult. I sincerely hope you do not use heating oil for your abode, but if you do I advise you to take advantage of $5 oil now. With our friends the Dems stonewalling in Congress on the drilling question $5 will look awful cheap in November. Sure, it will be fun to blame the big, bad, greedy, corrupt oil companies & the 2 oil men in the White House, but it won't put oil in your tank.
On the bright side all the New England kids are going to be thankful this Christmas when their presents consist of sweaters, blankets & long underwear. To wear in the house. Just like the good old days.

Judged:

2

1

1

Shoreliner wrote:

More defeatism from a Democrat.
There are no guarantees in life - particularly from oil exploration.
However, it seems like mining for oil shale in the Rockies is a slam dunk particularly with the success that the Canadians have had in Alberta.
BTW, Canada is the U.S.'s largest energy trading partner.
Also, the positive economic impact for Colorado and the surrounding states would be enormous if oil shale could be extracted efficiently. I guess treehuggers, like Senator Salazar, rather see Americans freeze during the winter and be unemployed.
As for the next election, ignore party labels and vote for conservative candidates.
Drill here, Drill now, Save money.

Judged:

3

3

3

Zonker wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, I will correct your bad information.
The oil shale in America's West has nothing in common geologically with the oilsands of Alberta.
Shale contains kerogen, a precurser to oil, with far less BTU content than the bitumen in oilsands.
As the article points out, many attempts have been made to extract the kerogen from the rock, none successful to date.
Alberta also has shale, but it is not currently economic to develop. What they are developing, and exporting to us, is oil from oilsands, a bitumen, with far more energy value than kerogen.
Go look into EROEI. It is at the core of the problem. It might help you understand this better, and not speak glibly of 'slam dunks'. Don't we have enough sports analogies already??
The only real solutions offered so far come from Al Gore and T Boone Pickens.
And it's the Republicans who express defeatism about their solutions.
You are grasping at straws, straws you have very little understanding of.
"A nod is as good as a wink, to a blind horse."

Judged:

3

1

1

Matt wrote:

Republicans, generally: Drill our way out of our current energy problem ...
Democrats, generally: Don't drill anywhere other than in the small percentage of "approved" areas...

Jeff H wrote:

<quoted text>
Aside from destroying the economy so nobody needs oil, what are algores solutions? None of his suggestions (not solutions) are economically viable, even with oil at it's current state, nor are most of his ideas technically feasible.
If he's so great, why is he only able to produce about 4% of his electric needs at his home with his roof covered in solar panels? Very few people have the kind of money to make that capital investment, either.

Doug wrote:

Al Gore said this weekend that solar and wind were now price competitive with current energy sources. Well, doesn't that mean that they are JUST AS EXPENSIVE as $4.40 gas and $5.00 heating oil???

Zonker wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh goody, let's make Al Gore's personal energy footprint the 'straw man' and throw our hands up and say we can't possibly develop and deploy new technologies to reduce our dependence on oil. All because Al Gore's an energy hog.
Instad of attacking the messenger, consider the message: If we don't start moving in the direction of clean energy, things are going to get very bleak on the energy front.
After all, even Bush realized the benefits of clean power. He practices it, but doesn't preach it. Odd.
You and I agree on the need for nuclear power plants. Hundreds of them.
You and I will be dead before the transition to non-fossil fuel based energy is complete, but we need a major committment, as a nation, to move in that direction.
That's Gore's message. Stop the foot dragging. Follow Pickens ideas for wind power through the 'wind tunnel' that is the American West.
Bush feeds the illusion that all we need to do is drill for more oil. I think you know better than to believe that.
I don't see why you are against a major committment towards clean energy. You are generally savvy about this area.
It's true it's an expensive technology for the average household, but it's like everything else, if it becomes mass marketed, with tax breaks, the costs would drop rapidly.
Only took a short vacation, hiking in VT. Thanks for asking.

Mike wrote:

Here is a reallity check for all you proponets of drilling. We all know it would not help us for at least 10 yrs. What you fools do not seem to know is that the oil companies are already under contract to sell it to China and India for much higher prices than we would pay. Good business?? Absolutely.. Is it going to help us 10 years down the road? Absolutely not!!
It also seems all you drill now types always neglect to mention the millions of acres that are approved for drilling already, and not being used.