Obama shuts down 1.6m acres to oil shale development

[bripat9643]

exploit being the operative word..

there it is..

we do not want our natural resources exploited..we want them protected and viable for our next generations to be able to use responsibly. sustainably and environmentally safe.

shale oil is none of those things.

That's like starving to death while you've got a pantry full of food.

And the left claims the right is short-sighted.

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

So when are we going to start using these resources, eh fuck stick? If your children and grand children use them all up, then what about their children and grand children? How many generations have a claim on them prior to ours, a hundred? a thousand?

Please explain the moral calculus for us, because I've never seen it explained.

find a way to do it so it doesnt kill everything around it and you will have the left on board with it.

Horse shit. Obama took those resources off the market permanently. The safety of the process had nothing to do with his decision.

 

[bripat9643]

The so called article tells us absolutely nothing. Shale oil is extremely difficult to extract. While Bush allowed for a few permits so that a number of companies could try to develop workable methods to extract the oil from the shale, I believe those permits had time limits. I have not heard of any good developments over the last five years as to them finding an effective way to extract the oil. While there are over 1 trillion potential barrels of oil in the Green River Basin, if they can't get it out without completely destroying the environment and at a cost effective price, then it's all a pipe dream.

Anyway, get back to us when you have some real information as to the reasoning behind this.

Obama isn't going to allow anyone to even try, so your argument is horseshit.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You're the one that used "fuck" 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’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.

 

[daveman]

exploit being the operative word..

there it is..

we do not want our natural resources exploited..we want them protected and viable for our next generations to be able to use responsibly. sustainably and environmentally safe.

shale oil is none of those things.

That's like starving to death while you've got a pantry full of food.

And the left claims the right is short-sighted.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 fuck off and leave me alone.

You're the one that used "fuck" 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’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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Democrats want us to be energy independent, but refuse to allow us to exploit our own resources.

exploit being the operative word..

there it is..

we do not want our natural resources exploited..we want them protected and viable for our next generations to be able to use responsibly. sustainably and environmentally safe.

shale oil is none of those things.

How do you "use them responsibly, sustainably and environmentally safe" without exploiting them? the term "exploit" is just a synonym for "use," you fucking moron.

Which generation gets to use them, and why shouldn't the generations that come after have an equal claim to them?

It is pretty simple if you think like an idiot.

• Government doing it is using them responsibly.
• Oil companies doing it is exploiting them.

 

[tyroneweaver]

there is more than enough not on federal lands.

but it creates an attitude, sends a message to speculators and obama would shut down private lands if he could.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If the cost negated the profits, operators wouldnt be investing billions.

 

[daveman]

Democrats want us to be energy independent, but refuse to allow us to exploit our own resources.

Wind mills from China, oil from Petrobra. Any thing else and Obama's guide dog, Soros would lose money.

Obama to America:

Under my plan..rates would skyrocket.....coal plants, natural gas, you name it.

Obama to Petrobra: (Petrol Brazil) (The foreign oil he says he wants us off of, remember?)

“We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and, when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

Don't you wish those two quotes were turned around? We've got oil too! Work with us, not them!

Say hello to the real one percent:

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-I’m Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.
Obama’s $2 billion to Brazil ends up helping send oil to China « Hot Air

Redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with soaking OUR wealthy to give to OUR poor, it's using the wealth of this country to benefit the wealthier in other countries.
Again, Obama:

Amid public distrust, “the trick" is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution? — because I actually believe in redistribution

From health to heat there is nothing Obama does that benefits the United States.
And he's flexible now.

There will be people who voted for him who will realize what they've done and regret it once they see the impacts of his agenda.

Then there are the drooling idiot bootlickers (many of whom post here) who will insist everything he's doing is perfect.

 

[daveman]

Obama Shuts Down 1.6M Acres to Oil Shale Development

Just two days after President Obama’s re-election, the Obama Interior Department announced a plan to shut down 1.6 million acres of federal land to oil shale development. The land had originally been slated for drilling under President George W. Bush.

So the higher gas prices are cometh .. And this WILL Be Obama's fault just like higher electricity and he has no fear about being re elected so he will do everything he can to destroy this country..

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

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

Who will you blame when energy prices skyrocket as Obama wants?

Because you damn sure won't blame Obama, you bootlicker.

 

[GoneBezerk]

When energy costs in your car and home continue to go up because Obamination is blocking fossil fuel exploitation in this country, liberals will either say:

- That costs didn't go up.
- Bush made them go up.
- Economic boom in a recession made them go up....yes they have said this recently.
- Suck it up, you're saving the planet.

 

[nitroz]

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?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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?

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.

 

[nitroz]

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?

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.

 

[McDowell's]

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.

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 fucking moron.

 

[nitroz]

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.

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 fucking moron.

Federal property = Protected property.

 

[Moonglow]

there is more than enough not on federal lands.

Pure Horse shit. It makes no sense to restrict Development anywhere, On Federal of Private lands. We need every drop we can get from here, to lower the amount we have to get from "there"

the problem is not pumpming more oil but being able to distill more..

 

[Moonglow]

That's like starving to death while you've got a pantry full of food.

And the left claims the right is short-sighted.

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.

 

[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.

 

[ScienceRocks]

there is more than enough not on federal lands.

Pure Horse shit. It makes no sense to restrict Development anywhere, On Federal of Private lands. We need every drop we can get from here, to lower the amount we have to get from "there"

the problem is not pumpming more oil but being able to distill more..

Why not build more distilleries?