Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just keep finding more and more oil all over the place. Too bad most of it's on federal land so we won't be able to get a drop of it unless these bozo's we currently have running this country get their walking papers. Sorry peak oil folks looks like the squealing can stop.
“USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified.
“The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered,” Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves.”
You're just now finding this out? It's been known for more than 20 years, but so far, the best economic recovery model is to simply dig it up and that would essentially destroy that portion of the Rocky Mountains.
Are you still having problems reading links about testimony in congress? Apparently so. Now your a genius shale oil producer too. LOL. I bet you've never even read a link about that either. Now back to playing your know it all nothing games on some other thread because I don't have the patience to deal with your nonsense.
Are you still having problems reading links about testimony in congress? Apparently so. Now your a genius shale oil producer too. LOL. I bet you've never even read a link about that either. Now back to playing your know it all nothing games on some other thread because I don't have the patience to deal with your nonsense.
Ok, show me where I'm wrong. YOU do a little reading on oil shale.
You read a link in an OP post first. Is there something in the rulebook that dem trolls can't read links or they don't get their .05 a post or whatever it is?? I guess so.
Environmental impacts on water, air, and wildlife. Developing oil shale
resources poses significant environmental challenges, particularly for
water quantity and quality but also for air and wildlife.
• Water quantity. Oil shale development could have significant
impacts on the quantity of surface and groundwater resources, but
the magnitude of these impacts is unknown because of the
technological uncertainties, and also because the size of a future
oil shale industry is unknown, and knowledge of current water
conditions and groundwater flow is limited. Developing oil shale
and providing power for oil shale operations and other associated
activities will require significant amounts of water, which could
pose problems, particularly in the arid West where an expanding
population is already placing additional demands on available
water resources. For example, some analysts project that large
scale oil shale development within Colorado could require more
water than is currently supplied to over 1 million residents of the
Denver metro area and that water diverted for oil shale operations
would restrict agricultural and urban development. The potential
demand for water is further complicated by the past decade of drought
in the West and projections of a warming climate in the future.
That is on Page 6 of the GAO report (or Page 10 if you are using Acrobat).
Restrict agricultural development? Sure, I vote for paying more money for food stuffs so I can have expensive gasoline.
Are you and Roysoldboy the same person? You always accuse others of not reading your links without any evidence to support such a thought except that there isn't slavic acceptance of whatever the hell your point is.
Just what IS the point of debate here?
Maybe if you would read the link you could provide a point. You jump up and down when you didn't even realize this was testimony by the GAO YESTERDAY. Probably so Obama could promise to get er fired up right after he's re elected though. LOL
Maybe if you would read the link you could provide a point. You jump up and down when you didn't even realize this was testimony by the GAO YESTERDAY. Probably so Obama could promise to get er fired up right after he's re elected though. LOL
Now back to your whining.
What the heck are we trying to discuss? Oil shale? The amount of oil there? The GAO? Obama? Testimony before Congress? Extraction techniques?
What IS your point here and what are you trying to say?
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,727,347 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
Just keep finding more and more oil all over the place. Too bad most of it's on federal land so we won't be able to get a drop of it unless these bozo's we currently have running this country get their walking papers. Sorry peak oil folks looks like the squealing can stop.
“USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified.
“The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered,” Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves.”
Environmental impacts on water, air, and wildlife. Developing oil shale
resources poses significant environmental challenges, particularly for
water quantity and quality but also for air and wildlife.
• Water quantity. Oil shale development could have significant
impacts on the quantity of surface and groundwater resources, but
the magnitude of these impacts is unknown because of the
technological uncertainties, and also because the size of a future
oil shale industry is unknown, and knowledge of current water
conditions and groundwater flow is limited. Developing oil shale
and providing power for oil shale operations and other associated
activities will require significant amounts of water, which could
pose problems, particularly in the arid West where an expanding
population is already placing additional demands on available
water resources. For example, some analysts project that large
scale oil shale development within Colorado could require more
water than is currently supplied to over 1 million residents of the
Denver metro area and that water diverted for oil shale operations
would restrict agricultural and urban development. The potential
demand for water is further complicated by the past decade of drought
in the West and projections of a warming climate in the future.
That is on Page 6 of the GAO report (or Page 10 if you are using Acrobat).
Restrict agricultural development? Sure, I vote for paying more money for food stuffs so I can have expensive gasoline.
Reading...
Mircea
I guess you skipped the "opportunities" part.
Of course if it were easy it would have already been done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
