"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g0ksqf$9f7$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:n7kXj.35070$dq6.10508@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Geo" <taxpayer779@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
news:86e7effb-6338-4478-af90-432766c05b9d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On May 15, 5:52 pm, "Larry Hewitt" <larryh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "Geo" <taxpayer...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
news:41144beb-773f-4aee-8c53-471e4833f011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>http://www.examiner.com/a-1389682~Salazar_sponsors_bill_to_slow_down_...
>>>
>>> > Once again, democrats decide to be a part of the problem instead of
>>> > the solution. For the life of me I can't understand why they want
>>> > America to be weak.
>>>
>>> > =====
>>> > Salazar sponsors bill to slow down oil shale development
>>>
>>> > DENVER (Map, News) - Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said Tuesday that he
>>> > will introduce a bill to slow down moves toward commercial oil shale
>>> > development in the region.
>>>
>>> > His announcement came the same day that an amendment intended to
speed
>>> > up oil shale development died in the Senate. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-
>>> > Colo., co-sponsored the amendment.
>>>
>>> Oil shale is a wild goose chase. The true net energy output from
mining
>>> oil
>>> shale is very near zero, and may even be negative.
>>>
>>> Oil shale does not have bitumen (petroleum) locked in its ****es, but
>>> kerogen. Kerogen is a precursor to bitumen, having a large percentage
of
>>> the original plant life locked up in it. It is also full of low
quality,
>>> heavy oil that is unsuitable for most uses without significant
>>> processing.
>>
>> So it's a technology challenge.
>>>
>>> And despite the large estimates for the recoverable volume of oil, the
>>> RAND
>>> corp estimates that by 2020 production would be an insignificant
100,000
>>> barrels a day.
>>
>> One can always justify inactivity by focusing on the time and/or cost
of
>> activity. People who don't want to work use such arguments to avoid
>> looking for work all the time.
>>
>> The majors never invest in anything they aren't firmly convinced they
can
>> make a buck from. If you've got the majors investing, you can bank on
its
>> viability.
>>
>
> But to make a buck on Colorado shale taxpayers would have to make a
major
> contribution.
>
> Did you know, for ex., that the costs of palnt and equipment for the
> Canadian oil sands operation are being pid by the taxpaye?
>
> Yep.
>
> Taxes due from the production are being forgiven until they ofset the
> investment costs.
>
> in Colorado, according tot he RAND Corp, that would be a taxpayer gift
of
> $10 BILLION.
I'm not a sup****ter of cor****ate welfare. Distorts markets (like we're
seeing played out with ethanol ag subsidies.) If you pull the subsidies,
and
it turns out the majors don't want to invest in extraction without them,
then the market will have come down on your side and made your point.
JG
>
> Larry
>>
>> JG
>>
>>>
>>> Current technology requires the expenditure of huge amounts of energy
to
>>> mine, then heat the kerogen to remove the valuable ****tions.
>>>
>>> Less than 2/3 of the volume of Colorado kerogen is valuable. This
>>> fraction
>>> must then be distilled, not cracked as for gasoline. This is another
>>> energy
>>> intensive process yielding diesel fuel and heating oil.
>>>
>>> The source for this heat is either recovered shale oil/natural gas or
>>> coal
>>> trucked to the site, burning more diesel oil.
>>>
>>> The process also requires huge amounts of electricity. How much
>>> electricity?
>>> The RAND Corp estimates a dedicated power plant larger than any other
in
>>> Colorado, one capable of powering a city of half a million people,
would
>>> be
>>> needed. Shell is proposing using na natural gas fired plant,, because
it
>>> is
>>> more efficient than coal, but virtually the whole output of ng would
be
>>> needed to fire the generating plant to produce the oil and ng.
>>>
>>> Complicating the equation are the environmental issues, the reason
>>> Salazar
>>> is concerned. Huge amounts of water are needed to cool the processing
>>> equipment. And the heating/extraction process actually expands the
slag
>>> to
>>> a larger volume than it started with. This slag is also highly toxic.
>>>
>>> Using Shell Oil's published figures for their test project an initial
>>> investment of $7B to $10 B, including the construction of a new
electric
>>> generation plant and coal mine to feed it, is predicted just to
produce
>>> 100,000 barrels a day.
>>>
>>> http://www.aspencore.org/images/pdf/OilShale.pdf
>>>
>>> http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=kerogen
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>> Wild goose chase? Right, that's why Chevron Shale Oil Company, Eesti
>> Energia, EGL Resources, ExxonMobil, Fushun Mining Group, Hom Tov,
>> Independent Energy Partners, Kiviõli Keemiatööstus, Millennium
>> Synfuels, Mountain West Energy, Oil Shale Exploration Company,
>> Petrobras, Queensland Energy Resources, Red Leaf, Shale Technologies
>> LLC, Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, VKG Oil and others are either in
>> production or testing the technology. Thanks for your links, but the
>> author is hardly objective. And, somehow, I think the folks at all of
>> the aforementioned companies have just a bit more brain power than you
>> on this subject. Or, perhaps they should just pick up a phone and
>> call Larry Hewitt and shut down all production because you say so.
>>
>
>
|
