PDA

View Full Version : 2.5 Trillion barrels of Oil Shale Oil



eighballsidepocket
04-06-2010, 01:08 PM
Ok........Drudge this morning said, "$87.00/barrel"

I still recall reading that the rough and dirty extraction price with oil shale was between $80-$90.00/barrel.

Now we have here in the USA an estimated 2.5 trillion barrels of oil locked up in oil shale. So we open-up a few "token" off-shore areas by the President, and everyone is suppose to be wetting their collective pants that we are on the way to energy independence from OPEC. Oh........give me a break! Are the "sheep" really buying into this?

This 2.5 trillion barrels far-exceeds the total oil reserves of the Middle East, if not Saudi Arabia alone.

Now if we have extraction prices from shale at the above prices, you and I know that technology/research will not stop there, but there should be coming down the pipe, even cheaper methods of extraction.

Why, oh why, isn't this administration "green lighting" this area of energy potential with gusto.

Ethanol is a joke! If we were to do as Brazil and start agri-farming, grow-able land to produce Ethanol, we would have to use every inch/acre of present land that is producing edible crops for our nation. We don't have sugar cane climate here in the U.S.. Brazil is close to the equator, and is very humid/tropical, which is ideal for high-yield ethanol crops.

Sure, theres nothing wrong with bio-fuels......but they can't make but a golf ball sized dent in our energy consumption/needs. There's only so much fast food/restaurant oil to be had, and the way the government is going after fatting foods to save our collective lives the amount of useable cooking oils will not expand with this economy IMO.
*****
Why Not Nuke Plants?: They're one heck of a lot cleaner than the cleanest coal burning plants. Interestingly, I listened to a notable scientist, Dr. Bill Wattenberg, who has worked and Livermore Labs in weapons research, and also has been an independent inventer, and has been contracted by both state and Federal Gov, agencies to help "invent" ASAP methods/devices during emergency situations such as, temporary bridge replacements, mine sweeping equipment......etc, etc...

Wattenberg had emphatically said, over the years, that the amount of radioactive isotopes emitted into the atmosphere by even clean coal burning power plants is so immense, and health/dangerous.

Wattenberg has been an nuke power plant advocate for years, and has tried and tried to fight the panic, and b.s. poured out by the "left" and "green" wingnuts about the horrors of nuclear power.

France: They are on their merry way to independence from OPEC. Roughly 70% of Frances' electric power comes from nuke power plants. France actually produces an excess of electicity, and is able to sell it off to other countrys' grids. I also understand that France is stockpiling hydrogen, as their excess electricity allows them to "crack" H2O, into hyrogen gas.
******
Us or the U.S.. Our President, gave in to Harry Reid, and closed Yucca Mountain. This was a major multi$$$$$$ project that was designed to store our nations' spent nuclear fuels with a margin of safety that far exceeded the risks. Yucca Mountain was geologically studied for dangerous seismic faults that could rupture storage and cause dangerous ground water leakage of nuclear or hot wastes.

Containerization of spent fuels is so-beyond adequate, as the containers will far exceed the spent half-lives of these materials. Never the less, the wingnut, greenie crowd still holds sway over a certain major political party in our country, and I mean major lobbying pressure probably second to none. As a result, U.S. energy independence is held hostage to archaic, 19th century mentality/dreams........that "utopia" for all Americans is the destruction of industrialization, and the adoption of an agrarian mentality, and culture.

I'm an idealist........but I"m also a realist. We have a party/administration in power that has a skewed, and illogical mentality and outlook on the future of this country. Nothing they propose encourages entrepreneurialism, but in fact hinders or destroys it.

Entrepreneurialism is the unspoken swear word of this administration..........................Unless it fits into their illogical paradigm of American life according to their bible.

I live in Silicon Valley, the birth place of R&D on the nano-scale like no other place in our country. What is it now? It is empty parking lots..........building for lease banners everywhere.

Tech support goes to India now. For years here in Silicon Valley we had an incredible influx of Indian Nationals who were highly educated computer engineers for the most-part. Many gained legal citizenship, and have continued to contribute to our economy with hard working ethics...........But............now even our R&D is being jobbed-out to faraway India and other parts of the world. Manufacturing of hardware has gone to the far reaches of the world. That's ok...........but...........R&D??? That's the bread and butter of "entrepreneurialism"!

We were a country of innovation! So what's our claim to fame now? Oh we make "negative sum gain" windmills, and residential solar panels. Big whoopee! We are the home of Tesla motors that only the "Sean Penns" of the world can afford.

Oh..............I could go on and on and on.............
********
:salute:

revelarts
04-06-2010, 02:21 PM
Not to mention that most of our "foreign" oil comes from Canada.

geotermal,
ocean wave power,
nano solar,
Hydrogen power, from ammonia,
or salt water. And cure cancer on the side

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JiKa4nOkHLw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JiKa4nOkHLw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

and more but

anyone ever see "Who killed the electric car"?

eighballsidepocket
04-06-2010, 02:25 PM
Not to mention that most of our "foreign" oil comes from Canada.

geotermal,
ocean wave power,
nano solar,
Hydrogen power, from ammonia,
or salt water. And cure cancer on the side

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JiKa4nOkHLw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JiKa4nOkHLw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

and more but

anyone ever see "Who killed the electric car"?

Really like that avatar of yours........Norman Rockwell masterpiece.

HogTrash
04-06-2010, 03:53 PM
Not to mention that most of our "foreign" oil comes from Canada.

geotermal,
ocean wave power,
nano solar,
Hydrogen power, from ammonia,
or salt water. And cure cancer on the side

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JiKa4nOkHLw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JiKa4nOkHLw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

and more but

anyone ever see "Who killed the electric car"?Are you suggesting we replace fossil fuels with these alternative energy sources?

This is a great idea, but can they presently produce energy at a cost that all Americans can afford?

After all, we wouldn't want to deprive the less fortunate among us of access to affordable energy now would we?

The last time I ask this very same question of someone who suggested these alternative energy sources, I never got an answer?

eighballsidepocket
04-06-2010, 04:16 PM
Are you suggesting we replace fossil fuels with these alternative energy sources?

This is a great idea, but can they presently produce energy at a cost that all Americans can afford?

After all, we wouldn't want to deprive the less fortunate among us of access to affordable energy now would we?

The last time I ask this very same question of someone who suggested these alternative energy sources, I never got an answer?

You and I, I'm sure both are on the same wave length here, and realize that the one's that get hurt first and worst are the lower wage/income earners.

Funny how this administration is suppose to be looking out for the poorer or less endowed with income, but when it comes to energy policy, they don't seem to see how they are pricing us into a two-class system...........minus the middle class.:salute:

revelarts
04-06-2010, 04:23 PM
Sure, the fuel itself wouldn't be the big cost. Transitioning the engines, turbines and furnaces to use the fuel would be the costly part. But some of them would only need a transition of a few hundred dollars. But for more extreme transitions over time it would be like the cost of computers, expensive at 1st but eventually going down.

the ocean wave device was actually created with poor countries with ocean coastlines in mind.

But what i see as the 2 biggest problem are the loss of energy jobs and the powers that be loosing their lock on energy dollars.

the oil, coal and natural gas cartels stand to loose billions. Here' the sad thing, people get killed over $50 bucks and he these people stand to loose BILLIONS. They have to be forced to abided by local safety laws now. They poison and rob small countries around the world. I'm not so sure they'll sit idlely by as alternative pop up. the sunday morning news show now show the big oil folks positioning themselves to control the alternative market.

but yeah alternative energy can be cheap and somewhat local to boot.

PostmodernProphet
04-06-2010, 04:23 PM
isn't the "salt water" car basically a hydrogen engine?....

PostmodernProphet
04-06-2010, 04:25 PM
Are you suggesting we replace fossil fuels with these alternative energy sources?

This is a great idea, but can they presently produce energy at a cost that all Americans can afford?

After all, we wouldn't want to deprive the less fortunate among us of access to affordable energy now would we?

The last time I ask this very same question of someone who suggested these alternative energy sources, I never got an answer?

think of all the jobs created by building alternative energy plants, alternative energy "gas" stations on every corner....if we had spent the stimulus money on that instead of do nothing government jobs we'd we WAY ahead......

revelarts
04-06-2010, 04:32 PM
For the record i don't see Obama or any president doing anything for real alternative options as you described earlier by entrepreneurs.
the Energy lobby is to powerful at this point.

glockmail
04-06-2010, 04:37 PM
But, but, it will take ten years before we see this stuff come to market.

revelarts
04-06-2010, 04:42 PM
isn't the "salt water" car basically a hydrogen engine?....

Yes, but it's radio wave based not fuel cell based.

HogTrash
04-06-2010, 05:16 PM
think of all the jobs created by building alternative energy plants, alternative energy "gas" stations on every corner....if we had spent the stimulus money on that instead of do nothing government jobs we'd we WAY ahead......


For the record i don't see Obama or any president doing anything for real alternative options as you described earlier by entrepreneurs.
the Energy lobby is to powerful at this point.The key word here is "entrepreneur"...Allow capitalism and American ingenuity to solve this problem...The people have always come through when called upon.

When a viable, cost efficient energy source is developed that can compete with fossil fuel, it will hit the market and eventually eliminate the need for dirty energy.

Unless you are suggesting we force the industry to create clean alternative fuel sources by taxing fossil fuel energy out of reach of the average American family?

namvet
04-06-2010, 08:14 PM
the good ole days....can't beat em then sue their ass

House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices
(Tue May 20, 2008 2:27pm EDT)


(Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWAT00953020080520

HogTrash
04-06-2010, 11:58 PM
the good ole days....can't beat em then sue their ass

House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices
(Tue May 20, 2008 2:27pm EDT)


(Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWAT00953020080520Hmmm?...It sounds as if the muslims, including the one in the white house, don't want price controls on oil?

PostmodernProphet
04-07-2010, 06:08 AM
Hmmm?...It sounds as if the muslims, including the one in the white house, don't want price controls on oil?

major fail, Hog...look at the date on the article....

glockmail
04-07-2010, 07:35 AM
Yes, but it's radio wave based not fuel cell based. Alchemy?

revelarts
04-07-2010, 08:26 AM
...

Unless you are suggesting we force the industry to create clean alternative fuel sources by taxing fossil fuel energy out of reach of the average American family?

Of course not,
HOWEVER I do think a certain amount of protections and help should be given to alternatives in the sense that the Gov't Feds -state -local- Should not BLOCK the experimentation and use of alternatives in vehicles, in homes or business by "safety" regulations or Building codes which only allow established fuels sources to be deemed as "safe". New Fuels Shouldn't be burdened with rules that have been applied and crafted over 75 years for older established fuels.

AND if we are serious about changing from foreign oil, I think the Alternative Energy TAX breaks should be Huge. To the point of writing off, maybe, 100% a year for all cost for the 1st 5-7 years of a purchase. INCLUDING SALES TAX among others.

But don't make the cost of established fuels higher with taxes. just give the alternatives a chance to get a foot in the door since the established fuels have, long ... well... established infrastructures that create the low cost.

I'm not a real fan of Gov't School but instead of the carbon foot print crap they could be teaching kids all about the ALL of the various alternatives and having them experimenting with them so after 10 or 15 years we've got young people that don't see alternatives as strange and also young engineers and scientist that are familiar with the various concepts from youth.

the Go'vt can create set asides to buy experimental fuel projects for it's buildings and vehicles with a 5 to 7 years contract, if they work better than older fuels then the contract is renewed. If not to bad, next option.

Also very important , protect the rights of the entrepreneur so that the fat cats don't/can't buy out to suppress various ideas. maybe something where the penalty is that if a company buys and suppresses that the tech becomes public domain. there's no patent on internal combustion why on new tech if it's not being used. only to prop up and tech or fuel.


I can keep going but i hope you see my drift.

Monkeybone
04-07-2010, 09:36 AM
Alchemy?
think of the HHO generators. you use the radio waves to excite all the little particles and it just makes a better effeciency when seperating the molecules/gasses.

and for the confidence builder : i think....

eighballsidepocket
04-07-2010, 10:54 AM
I don't know how many of you have some chemistry background, but........................to break a water molecule into hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms separately, it takes one heck of a lot of energy.

That is why it is a "negative sum gain" trying to break H2O apart using electricity. This type of molecular bond makes in impossible to get hydrogen without using more energy to get that state than the energy output of the hydrogen when used as a combustible gas for engines.....etc...

Radio waves.......have to be produced by a man-made mechanism which cost $$. The radio waves may break up the molecular bond, but it's still energy-in, to get energy-out.

The only way to get some near-efficiency is either through some type of sun-solar mechanism that utilizes free energy from the sun, or next in-line would be nuclear energy.

Hydrogen's BTU rating is much lower than gasoline/diesel/kerosene. It also needs a type of containerization that requires even higher pressure than natural gas/propane to get into a storable liquid state.

Fuel cells are very very expensive.........So one must take account of the energy and raw materials conversion into making a fuel cell in order to create combustible hydrogen.

It's not unlike the negative sum gain of windmill power. Those generators and propeller mechanisms will need maintenance and replacement far before they have made enough electricity to pay for their creation. Only Uncle Sam can make it a justified power source, but SUBSIDIZING the cost of a windmill via YOUR MONEY.

During the Carter presidency years, windmill generators were springing up everywhere...............Why? Government subsidizing.

:salute:

HogTrash
04-07-2010, 11:43 AM
No replacement alternative energy source should be considered unless it is as efficient and reliable as fossil fuels and at a competitive cost.

A multi-billion dollar reward should be awarded to whoever discovers an energy source that can be produced at a cost equal to or cheaper than the fossil fuels.

Untill this alternative energy source is developed, America should use all of it's many resources that lie buried under it's soil and along it's coasts, and they are abundant.

The American people must do their part by demanding political accountability and electing honest leaders to government who will not be corrupted by wealthy corporations.

There is no hurry...Man caused global warming is a proven fraud...The #1 problem with fossil fuel is the people we must depend on to get it...America needs energy independence.

KarlMarx
04-07-2010, 02:36 PM
In addition to oil shale, there is also coal (about 200 years' worth), natural gas (the Marcellus Shale formation under New York State and Pennsylvannia alone has enough to satisfy 100% of America's energy needs for 10 years if all we did was run on natural gas alone), there are also tar sands (which I think Canada is exploiting quite heavily)

HogTrash
04-07-2010, 02:51 PM
In addition to oil shale, there is also coal (about 200 years' worth), natural gas (the Marcellus Shale formation under New York State and Pennsylvannia alone has enough to satisfy 100% of America's energy needs for 10 years if all we did was run on natural gas alone), there are also tar sands (which I think Canada is exploiting quite heavily)The problem is liberals...We must end the practice of allowing the least intelligent among us to make our decisions.

-Cp
04-07-2010, 02:54 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GDHT0hBgVOw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GDHT0hBgVOw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

HogTrash
04-07-2010, 03:40 PM
http://www.sharethetruth.tv/v/1910,hydrogen-from-saltwater-john-kanzius.-run-a-car-on-water?.html

PostmodernProphet
04-07-2010, 05:44 PM
http://www.sharethetruth.tv/v/1910,hydrogen-from-saltwater-john-kanzius.-run-a-car-on-water?.html

how much energy does it take to generate the radio waves?.....

HogTrash
04-07-2010, 09:54 PM
how much energy does it take to generate the radio waves?.....Someone always shows up to rain on my parade. :pee::p

eighballsidepocket
04-08-2010, 10:44 AM
Someone always shows up to rain on my parade. :pee::p

I'll bet it's just another "negative sum gain" approach.

Nothing is free...........and most things take more energy-in than what you get as energy-out in respect to hydrogen as an energy source.:salute: