Since it is a dead end, surely no oil company will be dumb enough to waste money pursuing a dead end.
Therefore, there should be no fear to lift the current government prohibition on extracting oil from the enormous shale oil deposits of Utah and Colorado, which hold as much oil as 10 Saudi Arabias put together.
If you are an oil company, and your business is selling oil, you don't really care if it takes more electricity, water and gas to produce oil from shale than just using the resources directly for other uses. If you can get tax breaks, and subsidies to build power plants, and environmental concessions, all is cool. You can still sell oil.
Sweetheart deals on leases in the waning days of a lame duck administration full of old business partners is a perfect way to start. Even if the leases are never used for production, they can be used as leverage for concessions in more productive areas.
I'll say it until you actually have the gonads to do some research. THERE IS NO OIL IN OIL SHALE. All the wishing in the world won't make it so.
Did you bother reading the Rand report? I'll have to warn you, it is not written at an 8th grade level. Sorry. Look at the wiki for 'Oil Shale' at least. Even fourth graders know how to do that.
Even the most optimistic projections, completely unsupportable by any natural resources in Western Colorado, say the maximum production would be 3 million barrels a day. That would completely destroy the Colorado River, and require the building of THIRTY nuclear power plants. The return would be 15% of our oil needs sitting in a place where the closest refinery is 200 miles away over the Continental Divide. It isn't going to happen. We need to quit dreaming of some magic fountain of energy and start conserving.
I would not worry about a 20-year old accident which today could not happen because tankers are now double-hulled. But if you don't like super oil tankers:
All imported oil comes to the U.S. by boat. These boats arrive to our shores whether you like it or not. On the other hand, much of our own U.S. oil is transported by pipeline, including much of the oil extracted from the bottom of the sea.
Want to avoid big scary oil supertankers? Drill for U.S. oil under U.S. seas.
Technology for 2x hulled oil tankers was around back then. Maybe if such a tanker were 2x hulled, this disaster would of been prevented. 2x hulled tankers is no new technology. Still as of 10 years ago one can scoop out oil from the shores of that sound. Did exxon paind thier due?..... naw
Legislation is never the correct answer to any problem, since it involves the use of force, which is immoral. Automobile design should be based upon consumer demands, not government regulations. Individuals have a right to choose cars that others deem unsafe. Likewise, individuals and groups have the right to produce and trade energy-storing substances (such as petroleum fuels) freely. The simple law of supply and demand will set pricing, and individuals will adjust their behaviour accordingly.
No person on this Earth has a “right” to any particular outcome in life. If petroleum supplies dwindle and prices become prohibitive, and people have not attempted to make a transition to other energy sources, or otherwise adapt to the situation through their volitional behaviour, the consequences could be dire for many. But there is no “wrong” in this; it is simply reality. A preventive or corrective through legislation is not morally available, just as brute force through individual thuggery is not morally available. Sometimes there is no way to solve a problem or to prevent catastrophe from befalling an individual or a group of people. If you are walking down the street, and a safe falls upon your head, you will perish.
Whatever blather politicians utter as the reason for speed limits and other traffic laws, the truth is that they exist almost solely as a means to rob still more revenue for government. Laws have little effect on human behaviour. Most people choose their driving styles entirely independently of traffic laws. Politicians have been consumed by a surreal frenzy of spending, to the extent that they will resort to any means to increase revenue: theft of property by “eminent domain”, asset forfeiture, endless and constantly rising fees and fines, and the creation of ever more taxes—all moral abominations. Things have come to a pretty pass when a governor (as mentioned on post #13) publicly expresses a hope that increasing traffic law enforcement will enhance government revenue (and for what?—to fund police, amongst the worst and most thuggish criminals in the country).
Since taxation is robbery, a “tax break”, as mentioned in post #21, does not “give” any-one anything. It is merely a reduction in the amount of robbery, which is a moral outcome. It is often argued that, if one person is taxed less, then others will be taxed more. But that person is not the cause of the taxation, nor of the unbridled, unjust spending and parasitism that motivates it. If a thug is robbing people on the street, and one person happens to be able to escape the robbery, he has no moral culpability for the fact that the others were robbed.
On the other hand, any expenditure of tax-robbed revenue is immoral, so cash subsidies to oil companies would be wrong.
The exploitation of oil shale does seem impractical, for a variety of technical reasons. But if an oil company care to attempt it, without cash subsidies, and without polluting the property of others, they should be free to do so.
Last edited by Winnetou; 08-15-2008 at 12:51 AM.
Reason: Correct typographical error.
The exploitation of oil shale does seem impractical, for a variety of technical reasons. But if an oil company care to attempt it, without cash subsidies, and without polluting the property of others, they should be free to do so.
No one is stopping the participants from developing the current ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND acres of land they already bought and leased from the US Government.
Let me turn the question around. Why would anyone be pushing for leases NOW when they have already said their research won't have answers for 3-5 more years and production couldn't possibly start for at least 15?
They are only pushing for more leases NOW because they know they will get a lower than market rate from the current administration. A subsidy in effect.
If the research doesn't pan out, they have an asset to use in later negotiations.
they have already said their research won't have answers for 3-5 more years
Would you pay an architect to design you a house on a plot of land where the government prohibits construction?
Why would the oil industry spend large scale research & development money unless the industry knows that the government will lift the current prohibition on access to that U.S. oil?
Would you pay an architect to design you a house on a plot of land where the government prohibits construction?
Why would the oil industry spend large scale research & development money unless the industry knows that the government will lift the current prohibition on access to that U.S. oil?
Why would you worry about buying all the land around you when you already have a 130,000 acre lot for your 5 acre house that you are not even sure will stand up?
Shell is the most aggressive developer of oil shale technology. If it was such a great idea, they would be pumping every dollar they could into the effort, right? Instead, they spent $9 Billion buying back their own stock. Companies that need resources for research SELL their stock, not buy it back. You only buy back your own stock when you have no promising projects on which to spend it. They could have spent some of that $9 Billion buying private mineral rights, couldn't they? But why would they when they can get their buddies in the administration to give it to them cheaper?
Oil shale is a red herring, a dead end. Coal gasification is actually cheaper. But since oil companies are not coal companies, they keep the shale dream alive in the small minds of people unable to think. If they can get enough subsidies, and get enough environmental concessions ,they can compete with other, better forms of energy.
If it was such a great idea, they would be pumping every dollar they could into the effort, right? Instead, they spent $9 Billion buying back their own stock. Companies that need resources for research SELL their stock, not buy it back
Spot on!
If they knew that the government would no longer prohibit access to this large U.S. oil source, they would invest it into the effort.
Since the government prohibits it, they know it is not "such a great idea" (your words), and therefore do the rational thing and pay the money back to sharehoders and pension funds.
- * -
You keep repeating the point that some oil company already has some leases on some shales. But as has been pointed out before, the R&D investment to get this thing rolling is so large, that why would anyone make such a large research program if all they would have is their own relatively modest plot? Large scale R&D and the jobs that come with it can only happen if the government lifts its current prohibition on explotaition of this U.S. resource.
If they knew that the government would no longer prohibit access to this large U.S. oil source, they would invest it into the effort.
Since the government prohibits it, they know it is not "such a great idea" (your words), and therefore do the rational thing and pay the money back to sharehoders and pension funds.
- * -
You keep repeating the point that some oil company already has some leases on some shales. But as has been pointed out before, the R&D investment to get this thing rolling is so large, that why would anyone make such a large research program if all they would have is their own relatively modest plot? Large scale R&D and the jobs that come with it can only happen if the government lifts its current prohibition on explotaition of this U.S. resource.
Look, all of the oil companies are on record as saying they have what they need to do the research. Do you understand that? The last lease they went after for research was for 160 acres, and they were given it.
You conveniently dodged the question of why they don't invest their Billions in PRIVATE MINERAL RIGHTS, of which millions of acres are available in the area?
Oh, it might not make economic sense. Then why does it make any sense to try to pry the mineral rights out of the US government BEFORE JANUARY 2009 by conjuring up bogus emergency images in people like yourself?
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Today
Linear Mode
