Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stansberry Online)   If you live in Colorado, there could be more than 2 TRILLION barrels of oil under your feet - more than what middle east countries have...combined   (stansberryonline.com) divider line 169
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

18246 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Sep 2006 at 8:53 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2006-09-01 05:31:44 PM  
First off, that's a horrible shill link and you should be banned for posting it, smitter. Second, in general some of the information is somewhat true. Shell is testing a new shale oil process there right now and could be in production in a matter of a few years. There are more natural gas wells popping up in Garfield county than one could imagine.

If one was looking to invest in this area the best bet is still real estate, though. A self storage business is not a bad idea either.
 
2006-09-01 05:38:28 PM  
Ive heard of this too, a bit. apparently its very hard to extract. but once there is a process developed, then yes there should be a farkton of oil from colorado to canada. I wish they who go after it much luck!
 
2006-09-01 05:41:17 PM  
Let the strip mining commence!
 
2006-09-01 05:42:02 PM  
I'm a diggin'
 
2006-09-01 05:44:07 PM  
In other news, WMD suspected to be in Colorado.
 
2006-09-01 05:45:19 PM  
According to the RAND Corporation (a public-policy think tank for the government), this small region can produce:

RAND Corporation, eh...?

www.snopes.com
 
2006-09-01 05:45:35 PM  
Sounds like someone's trying to reach the ultra right wing elements in Colorado, of which there are many.

But a real "conservative" would see raping the land just to fuel America's wasteful consumption needs for the moral outrage that it is.

Colorado's still a beautiful state last time I checked...doesn't need this kind of desecration just for profit...
 
2006-09-01 05:50:22 PM  
There's one problem with the Rocky Mountains...They're made out of rock, and that makes it pretty damn expensive to drill.
 
2006-09-01 05:51:47 PM  
Hot diggity!

*runs out back and starts a-diggin"
 
2006-09-01 06:07:08 PM  
The oil shale has been known about for years. My grandfather worked in Rifle on the oil shale projects years ago. He was back there about 20-25 years ago when a renewed interest came about but again the cost to extract it was much more than buying oil from tha arabs. After the oil companies lost interest again, he stayed around and designed and patented a retort that would significantly lower the cost of extracting the oil from the shale. He explained to me how the retort had self sustaining furnaces etc... It was a workable idea but again the oil companies at that time had no interest in it. He died about 7-8 years ago, but someone in the family still holds the rights to that patent. Sure wish they would start working those hills again.
 
2006-09-01 06:21:29 PM  
whidbey: But a real "conservative" would see raping the land just to fuel America's wasteful consumption needs for the moral outrage that it is.

This makes me want to grab a pick ax
 
2006-09-01 06:22:36 PM  
Mosey: This makes me want to grab a pick ax

yeah, but you've proven yourself some way out there crazy neo-con type, so it doesn't apply to you...;-p
 
2006-09-01 08:55:57 PM  
Invade Colorado!!!

...no, wait a moment...
 
2006-09-01 08:57:23 PM  
Cool.

And with the money I make off that investment I'll buy some of that great Florida swampland from the other thread.
 
2006-09-01 08:58:13 PM  
the bones of jon benet have provided something useful
 
2006-09-01 08:58:21 PM  
I did some oil shale research years ago. It took us 1.5 barrels of oil to recover 1 barrel of oil. This seems like a good idea.

Was the RAND corporation also written into a novel? It makes me think of Atlas Shrugged.
 
2006-09-01 08:58:21 PM  
www.siglandia.net
 
2006-09-01 08:58:45 PM  
I'm driving my Canyonero there as we speak so I can start drilling.

img257.imageshack.us
 
2006-09-01 08:59:10 PM  
That's all well and good, Colorado, but Alberta has quite enough oil and it's easier to get at. It's not far away either!
 
2006-09-01 08:59:19 PM  
I _really_ don't like spam links... ><

/paid for by the Association For Keeping Advertising On Mass Media
 
2006-09-01 08:59:20 PM  
Oil shale exists in vast quantities within the United States. The problem is that harvesting and processing the shale requires more power than it yields.
 
2006-09-01 08:59:40 PM  
Nothing says "holiday weekend" like old recycled links
 
2006-09-01 09:00:35 PM  
 
2006-09-01 09:01:55 PM  
If you live in Colorado, there could be more than 2 TRILLION barrels of oil under your feet - more than what middle east countries have...combined


Must we keep seeing this crap greenlit over and over?

Repeat after me- oil SHALE is NOT the same as liquid crude oil. Harder and more expensive to extract, and pretty much useless anyway being that it's buried under a mountain.
 
2006-09-01 09:02:29 PM  
wow...... this has secrtainly never been poste before...

/sarcasmm
//drunk ass shiat...
 
2006-09-01 09:04:05 PM  
With all the reposts of bogus articles Fark is starting to look like Digg.
 
2006-09-01 09:04:10 PM  
Dude, that is so awesome. Just think about how much global warming that would cause.
 
2006-09-01 09:04:13 PM  
Admins, I'm just curious for future reference: How much did it cost for this exact topic to be posted twice in the last couple weeks? Cuz I've got some timeshares in Arkansas that I need to unload. 'K thanks...
 
2006-09-01 09:04:29 PM  
Your ski resort wants an oil rig.



/natch
 
2006-09-01 09:04:52 PM  
A repeat for this conspiracy nonsense?
 
2006-09-01 09:05:35 PM  
I have all my money invested in Nigeria, dammmmmm.
 
2006-09-01 09:06:35 PM  
didnt we just have this conspiracy theory shiat a week or 2 ago?!?!

/is a little tired from the Godsmack/Rob Zombie/Shinedown show last night but could be wrong
 
2006-09-01 09:06:58 PM  
not this shale again....I think Drew invested. Where is the Ha! Ha! Guy when you need him?
 
2006-09-01 09:07:19 PM  
It is called coal, and there are 2.5 trillion tons of it in the USA.

That is about a 500 year supply.
 
2006-09-01 09:07:22 PM  
So my theory is finally complete: Jon Benet Ramsey was killed over secret knowledge of oil shale that her father posssesed, and was about to go public with, until John Kerr killed Jon Benet as a warning.
 
2006-09-01 09:08:17 PM  
img142.imageshack.us
 
2006-09-01 09:09:03 PM  
I call shenanigans! Major shenanigans.
 
2006-09-01 09:09:13 PM  
We'll just get the district attourney right on that...
 
2006-09-01 09:09:49 PM  
Time to spread democracy to Colorado!
 
2006-09-01 09:10:03 PM  
"Sounds like a shale scam."
/ctrl-f "shale"
"Yup. Figured."

Colorado still needs its own tag.
 
2006-09-01 09:10:10 PM  
NewHere: With all the reposts of bogus articles Fark is starting to look like Digg.

The reposts of actual legitimate articles isn't helping much either...
 
2006-09-01 09:11:36 PM  
queezyweezel
There's one problem with the Rocky Mountains...They're made out of rock, and that makes it pretty damn expensive to drill.


Does Ric Romero know about this?
 
2006-09-01 09:13:05 PM  
Here is some more information from NPR.

According to the article, it costs $33 a barrel to extract, which was not economical until very recently.
 
2006-09-01 09:13:41 PM  
this guy/girl will be happy
www.motordesktop.com
 
2006-09-01 09:14:47 PM  
AMERICA.....FARK YA
 
2006-09-01 09:15:01 PM  
From what i was told back in high school, the US probably has a hell of a lot of oil under its soil. I beleive that alaska is the area with the most, of course some of it is being drilled but a lot more isn't.

The reason my teacher gave actually makes sense.
From his understanding, if the US waits to dig this oil up until it's absolutely needed (read: other oil is GONE) we set our own price per barrell and reap in the profits, also be the only country with enough oil for the rest of the world and be able to kick everyone elses ass in a war because we run the oil.


I really don't care about this oil shiat until i see a valid reason to be happy for gas at 1$ a gallon again.
 
2006-09-01 09:15:16 PM  
queezyweezel: There's one problem with the Rocky Mountains...They're made out of rock, and that makes it pretty damn expensive to drill.


So let's just dig under the White Mountains then. I mean, how tough could it be to get through white?

We'll save the Green Mountains for summer
 
2006-09-01 09:15:47 PM  
Could be oil . . . could be soy sauce -- who knows? Didn't read the propaganda -- who owns it? Charles Foster Kane?

/rosebud
 
2006-09-01 09:16:14 PM  
Wouldn't be great to let the Middle East drown in their own oil.
 
2006-09-01 09:17:45 PM  
Poop_Master_Flex: I did some oil shale research years ago. It took us 1.5 barrels of oil to recover 1 barrel of oil. This seems like a good idea.

Ah, but see, that's where George W. Bush, PhD's master plan comes in.

We won't have to spend 1.5 barrels of oil after we have a nuclear power plant every 50 feet.
 
2006-09-01 09:17:48 PM  
I submitted this months ago! Stupid elitist TFers wont grenlight lighters' submissions.
 
2006-09-01 09:18:51 PM  
Will we need a group of gargantuan 20-somethings playing ultimate frisbee and touch-football to guard this and keep other nations from "tapping the Rockies?"

/Old-school Onion
 
2006-09-01 09:21:22 PM  
A Special Offer for
New Members - 50% OFF


thank god i'm a new member! can i trade you everything i own for shares?
 
2006-09-01 09:21:43 PM  
What dumb-ass admin approved this thread? Sorry to be crude, but there's been a rash of really lame-ass threads this week.

Ban me if ya want, but sheesh, that's just lame.

/from a TF'r who's submitted a hundred non-approved-threads that aren't totally full of shiat.
 
2006-09-01 09:22:09 PM  
helo, i am frm nigeria and i thnk yur hot, please call me,
blah blah blah

this may be the guy respinsible for all those damn emails about needing my SSN to get some inheiratance (sp?)

/too broke to invest anyway
//to broke to be toatal fark
///slash alert
 
2006-09-01 09:22:37 PM  
Again? Somebody's trying to pump up the stock.

One can get gold from the ocean, however at this time, it costs less to get it by digging. There is also gold in hair, sewer systems, and other dirty things. What does this have to do with oil?

Energy can be had from the ocean, but it's cheaper to burn oil.

Or is it?
 
2006-09-01 09:22:46 PM  
sbf2009

I submitted this months ago! Stupid elitist TFers wont grenlight lighters' submissions.



Yeah, you tell 'em, man! They need to grenlight more lighters' submissions!
 
2006-09-01 09:23:42 PM  
Global warming and peak oil are both myths.

kthnxbye
 
M-G
2006-09-01 09:24:45 PM  
Does this guy hawk ways to make it big in real estate and how to attract women? If I want to see this kind of crap, I'll look in my spam folder. Worst greenlight evar.
 
2006-09-01 09:26:01 PM  
let me just say, with all cap and bold emphasis....
HOW MANY MOTHERFARKING TIMES AM I GONNA HAVE TO SEE THIS MOTHERFARKING LINK ON THIS MOTHERFARKING SITE!?!?!

/did I just paraphrase S.O.A.P?
//damnit!
///but, really, how many more motherfarkin times!?!?!?
 
2006-09-01 09:26:57 PM  
sbf2009: I submitted this months ago! Stupid elitist TFers wont grenlight lighters' submissions.


Here ya go, free ride...

img181.imageshack.us
 
2006-09-01 09:28:30 PM  
Drew, stop taking money from the shale people. Its getting pathetic and obvious. thanks.
 
2006-09-01 09:28:37 PM  
aycu38.webshots.com
 
2006-09-01 09:28:53 PM  
whidbey, you are confusing conservatives with republicans. Conservatives are well, conservative, AKA err on the side of caution. Republicans are a bunch of puritan fascist plutocrats that would rape their own mother and happily slit their childrens' throats if there was a profit for them in it.

I used to respect some people in the Goldwater-type factions, but they are long gone.

Disclaimer: I hate almost all democrats too.
 
2006-09-01 09:29:32 PM  
i69.photobucket.com
 
2006-09-01 09:30:30 PM  
After the "Great Deflation," Denver will be known as the Half-Mile-High City.
 
2006-09-01 09:32:20 PM  
with all due respect, what the hell is stansberryonline.com?
 
2006-09-01 09:32:23 PM  
From wikipedia:

If the price of a barrel of oil is under forty US dollars, oil-shale oil is not competitive with conventional crude oil. If the price of oil were to remain over forty dollars a barrel (with no chance of declining, which could be the case if oil shale were to be exploited on a large enough scale), then companies would exploit oil shale. Generally, the oil shale has to be mined, transported, retorted, and then disposed of, so at least 40% of the energy value is consumed in production. Water is also needed to add hydrogen to the oil-shale oil before it can be shipped to a conventional oil refinery. The largest deposit of oil shale in the United States is in western Colorado (the Green River Shale deposits), a dry region with no surplus water. The oil shale can be ground into a slurry and transported via pipeline to a more suitable pre-refining location.
 
2006-09-01 09:32:58 PM  
Is the submitter trying to star in the sequel to these movies if they ever make them?

www.metalasylum.com

dvds.hitflip.de
 
2006-09-01 09:34:03 PM  
Nothing new. They have been able to get the oil out of the shell since it was discovered. The only issue was it cost to much.

Now that the cost of a barrel of oil is way up the cost of extracting the oil from the shale is profitable.

It will not mean $1.00 a gallon gas. If gas prices started dropping it would no longer be cost effective to extract the oil from the shale.
 
2006-09-01 09:34:39 PM  
What's that I hear? The sound of 2 trillion bulls shi.ting?
 
2006-09-01 09:37:06 PM  
Why did I feel like that page was trying to sell me something?

Oh...wait a second.....

/bannination for the subby
 
2006-09-01 09:38:03 PM  
keep on shillin'
 
2006-09-01 09:38:06 PM  
 
2006-09-01 09:39:05 PM  
Smitty should be cock-punched. I don't normally expect scam infommercials from fark.
 
2006-09-01 09:39:30 PM  
Willie_The_Pimp

Exactly. The water required to do the deed can only come from the Colorado River, which is (generally speaking) within a mile of these drilling sites.

There is one slight problem, though. Denver wants the water. So does Cali. So does Arizona.

Welcome to the desert. The real game here is not about oil, it's about water.
 
2006-09-01 09:41:10 PM  
Great! Tons of oil, right under our very noses!

Now who wants to spend the $3 trillion it'll probably take to get to the shiat?
 
2006-09-01 09:42:52 PM  
Coal to Oil http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/jbluctl.pdf
 
2006-09-01 09:43:49 PM  
lexslamman: Great! Tons of oil, right under our very noses!


Speak for yourself. I don't use that crap on my mustache...
 
2006-09-01 09:45:39 PM  
my question is, would beautiful, natural, environmentally loving colorado dare to destroy the ecology to get the oil out?
and oil isn't enough, it still needs to be refined into gasoline which is also very toxic to the ecology, will they build refineries too?

somehow i see colorado shrugging their shoulders and saying "we love our environment too much, sorry oil companies."

/sarcastic?
//bwahaha slashy goodness
 
2006-09-01 09:47:50 PM  
Colorado needs liberating. The Coors family reminds me of a bunch of Branch Davidians.
 
2006-09-01 09:48:52 PM  
now all we need are some heechee and Frederik Pohl, Robert Silverberg and J. B. Brehl got it right
 
2006-09-01 09:50:00 PM  
I propose we go to war with Colorado. They deserve freedom from their opressive regime.
 
2006-09-01 09:50:07 PM  
O.K., this company will probably start licensing their process over the next year or so. Pooh-Pooh it if you like, but they really do seem to have their marlstone in a pile (so to speak): http://www.oiltechinc.com/qa.html

/would prefer pebble bed reactors and thermal depolymerization myself - but what's a little more landscaping out west gonna harm...
 
2006-09-01 09:51:14 PM  
This crap again?

Shale is only profitable to turn into useable oil when crude is at about $100 a barrel.
 
2006-09-01 09:52:55 PM  
Up yours AL GORE!!!!!
 
2006-09-01 09:53:28 PM  
Check your spam, bulk, or junk email folder for further information.
 
2006-09-01 09:54:12 PM  
good ole flopp

my question is, would beautiful, natural, environmentally loving colorado dare to destroy the ecology to get the oil out? and oil isn't enough, it still needs to be refined into gasoline which is also very toxic to the ecology, will they build refineries too?


They are doing it in a heartbeat. The legislators are letting them do virtually anything they want as we speak. The laws that the locals pass get trumped by Gov. Owens on a routine basis.

Nevermind the fact that homeowners in that area have natural gas blowing into their water wells. Nevermind the fracking spills of chemicals that are going on over there. I could go on about this but probably shouldn't here.

It's not being dealt with very smartly, let's say.
 
2006-09-01 09:54:19 PM  
lexslamman: Now who wants to spend the $3 trillion it'll probably take to get to the shiat?

Or, we could continue giving it to the ayrabs.
 
2006-09-01 09:54:43 PM  
From TFA:

"The United States Could become 'The New Middle East'"


NO THANK YOU!

I do not need crazy Christians trying to cut my balls off for having a gay friend or stoning my wife for using birth control. Nor do I wish to be invaded by Texas.
 
2006-09-01 09:55:06 PM  
Revek: now all we need are some heechee and Frederik Pohl, Robert Silverberg and J. B. Brehl got it right

Did you read his sequel to gateway? Man what a dog turd of a novel.
 
2006-09-01 09:58:59 PM  
Chocolate microscopes?
 
2006-09-01 09:59:25 PM  
Great Caesar's Toast: Did you read his sequel to gateway? Man what a dog turd of a novel.

Which one? Weren't there like 3 of them, and a collection of short stories?
 
2006-09-01 10:00:16 PM  
How funny would it be if in 50 years America is the world's leading oil producer? It'd be like going to your high school reunion and seeing that the big bad bully is now a sniveling single father of 8 on welfare. You just feel bad for the guy but on the inside you're laughing your ass off.

\knows it'll never happen
 
2006-09-01 10:03:05 PM  
This has been posted many times. Bullshiat then, bullshiat now.
 
2006-09-01 10:04:52 PM  
I haven't RTFA...but is this about oil shale? And did the article answer the most important questions:

1) At what price per barrel of oil will it become economically feasible to extract from shale?

I've seen claims as low at $50 or $75...but I don't credit those. Oil companies would already be extracting if those estimates were correct...and if price were the only consideration.

2) Once you get past the cost of extraction, there's an even more elementary block to be overcome: the fact that it takes more energy to get the oil from the rock than the shale has in it to begin with. Has this problem been solved?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
 
2006-09-01 10:07:03 PM  
the fact that it takes more energy to get the oil from the rock than the shale has in it to begin with.

This deserves some elaboration. I'm including the full oil production cycle here -- not just the mining and on-site activities.
 
2006-09-01 10:11:48 PM  
so if everything works out nicely, then we can say bye bye to the Middle East? right?

/wrong!
//always wrong
 
2006-09-01 10:14:36 PM  
WNow I... know who... is ghostwriting... all those... Nigerian ...scam mails...


WHY WASN'T THAT "ARTICLE" IN ALL-CAPS?!?
 
2006-09-01 10:16:40 PM  
I submitted this weeks ago and it went green
 
2006-09-01 10:18:20 PM  
Recent polls show that only 26% of Americans think the Democrats/liberals are friendly to religion. In 2004, half of Catholics and moderate Protestants, 15% of Jews, and 70% of Evangelicals voted for President Bush and the GOP. This gave that party the margin of victory it needed in several key districts.

Gee, given how often Farkers here of the leftward persuasion slam people in the most derogatory and simplistic ways for daring to believe in God and for attempting to put their social and political actions where their faithful mouths are, I wonder why this is?

By the way, religion-haters, just in case you needed another reason to rethink your bigotry, the people you are alienating and damning just happen to be a voting bloc 30 million strong. And what is even sadder is that this is a constituency that is currently unhappy with the GOP like so many others, yet they will be voting GOP simply because the hate-the-religious-left leaves them very little choice otherwise.
 
2006-09-01 10:19:17 PM  
BULLshiat LINK GETS GREENLIT AGAIN & AGAIN- more at 11.
 
2006-09-01 10:22:28 PM  
anyone who posted in this thread is retarded.

yes I realize that makes me retarded too. duh!
 
2006-09-01 10:26:13 PM  
Great Caesar's Toast Did you read his sequel to gateway? Man what a dog turd of a novel.

Can't argue with that
 
2006-09-01 10:26:56 PM  
As the duly elected King Of Wyoming, I knew I should have invaded Colorado for their oil. I knew it! They had weapons of mass suckage in all the major sports that I could have used as a flimsy excuse!

/So what if I was the only voter? There was no one else around. I won fair and square.
 
2006-09-01 10:27:13 PM  
Anduril:

Recent polls show that only 26% of Americans think the Democrats/liberals are friendly to religion. In 2004, half of Catholics and moderate Protestants, 15% of Jews, and 70% of Evangelicals voted for President Bush and the GOP. This gave that party the margin of victory it needed in several key districts.

Gee, given how often Farkers here of the leftward persuasion slam people in the most derogatory and simplistic ways for daring to believe in God and for attempting to put their social and political actions where their faithful mouths are, I wonder why this is?

By the way, religion-haters, just in case you needed another reason to rethink your bigotry, the people you are alienating and damning just happen to be a voting bloc 30 million strong. And what is even sadder is that this is a constituency that is currently unhappy with the GOP like so many others, yet they will be voting GOP simply because the hate-the-religious-left leaves them very little choice otherwise.


Slamming Christianity, Jew hating, anti-war, blame Bush for everything, and help the terrorists - the all new Democratic campaign slogan (and goals).

I'd vote Pat Robertson in just to piss off liberals if he had a good shot at making it.

(eagerly awaiting the flood of hysterically laughable liberal flame posts)
 
2006-09-01 10:27:58 PM  
Dude, that was not my intent.
 
2006-09-01 10:28:13 PM  
re-tar-da-tion
 
2006-09-01 10:31:49 PM  
Abstract of a 1978 study:

Abstract: Given the current state of technology, the existing resource supplies, and environmental constraints, we examine how much shale oil could be profitably produced in the Western United States, what processes would be used, and which constraints would be binding in long-run equilibrium. Using an activity analysis model, we show that production of over 15 million barrels of shale oil per day (five-sixths of present U.S. oil consumption) is a profitable activity when the price of oil is $18 per barrel (1975 dollars). In testing the sensitivity of our results, we find that, even under quite conservative assumptions, production of two million barrels per day is economically feasible in the long run when the selling price of oil exceeds $12 per barrel.

Note that shale becomes profitable when prices are at $18 a barrel in 1975 dollars. Here is the translation to 2005 dollars:

In 2005, $18.00 from 1975 is worth:
$65.39using the Consumer Price Index
$53.40using the GDP deflator
$64.99using the unskilled wage
$99.62using the nominal GDP per capita
$136.85using the relative share of GDP

So, using the CPI method, we are already at a price point where shale becomes profitable.
 
2006-09-01 10:32:41 PM  
Anduril and that1guy77

uh, off topic? what does that have to do with shale oil in Colorado??
 
2006-09-01 10:35:49 PM  
Anduril
... ... ...
What the hell does that have to do with this thread?
 
2006-09-01 10:36:26 PM  
AdamK

Some asshat had to take a cheap slam at Christians, comparing them to the fundies of Middle East. That's why. Now please read the whole thread next time or you'll just end up asking questions you could have answered for yourself by reading the whole thread to begin with.
 
2006-09-01 10:38:36 PM  
Why ruin Colorado, when Canada has more than enough shale oil. Strip mine Canada..the world really isn't losing much.
 
2006-09-01 10:38:59 PM  
FTFA: U.S. Oil Shale Could Make You $551,900 in the Next Few Years


damn, I only put my money in investments that will make me $552,000 in the next few years
 
2006-09-01 10:39:57 PM  
Anduril
Aaah, I see. And since it was unfare of him to compare all Christians to fundamentalists like, say, Robertson or that bastard that claims all soldiers are going to hell (Because the US doesn't outright kill gays, and, thus, is protecting them), you go and paint all 'leftists' (What the hell is a 'leftist' this day?) as religion hating.

I seeeeee. Yes, that makes perfect sense. Paint a whole group with the same brush in a hostile reaction to... someone painting a whole group of people with the same brush.
 
2006-09-01 10:40:03 PM  
And I could be Jesus... but I'm not. Seriously, we need better geologic research methodology so we can gauge the difference between reality, and what self-interests are telling us.
 
2006-09-01 10:40:21 PM  
2006-09-01 06:21:29 PM Mosey [TotalFark]

whidbey: But a real "conservative" would see raping the land just to fuel America's wasteful consumption needs for the moral outrage that it is.

This makes me want to grab a pick ax


FTW
 
2006-09-01 10:41:12 PM  
Even if energy to extract exceeds the energy extracted, there's still a use for this. Solar and hydroelectric power will never be feasible for a car, but they may be feasible to power the conversion of oil shale into gasoline in processing facility. So the net energy cost would indeed be higher assuming oil shale extraction never gets more efficient. But the economic cost may be lower overall if the combination of energy technologies delivers less expensive oil to end users.

IMHO since oil is over-valued right now thanks to a speculation bubble, if/when the bubble pops and the moonlight speculators back out with their investments, oil will drop back down to ~$40 USD / barrel, and oil shale as a technology will get mothballed across the board.

/Buying oil is like buying a hooker. Either way, you're getting screwed.
 
2006-09-01 10:42:11 PM  
Anduril

ah, well i rarely have time to read the whole thread, usually i skim, and if i join a thread late i usually post something relating to the article, nothing to do with the thread
 
2006-09-01 10:42:36 PM  
i64.photobucket.com

/obligatory
//how the fark was this greenlit?
 
2006-09-01 10:44:52 PM  
I didn't read the thread. Nor did I read the article. After reading the headline, however, I can only assume that we are launching a major military operation deep into Colorado territory.
 
2006-09-01 10:45:13 PM  
Agreed... whoever submitted this spam link should be banned. Whoever approved it for a green light should be bbaanneedd (double banned.)
 
2006-09-01 10:46:04 PM  
benzodiazepine dude:

- Willy: crystal bucket and new dirty blanket
- Lunch Lady Doris: new kitchen staff
- Lisa: Tito Puente jazz class
- Ralph: chocolate microscopes
- Otto: double guitars
- Skinner: more rubber stamps
 
2006-09-01 10:46:47 PM  
Felgraf

Well, it's not my fault that 70-ish-percent of Americans just happen to believe that leftists hate the religious. Perhaps if the left in this country didn't give the American people good reason to believe that they were hostile to religion, our fellow citizens wouldn't believe as such? Makes perfect sense to me. After all, Americans, for good reasons such as tax cuts which favor the rich and opposition to raising the minimum wage, find the GOP hostile to the poor. Political parties and those who make up their bases earn reputations for a reason.
 
2006-09-01 10:48:29 PM  
But what will become of Dick Cheney's underground liar? Isn't it some protected historical site? Plus, isn't that where Haliburton keeps all its money?
 
2006-09-01 10:51:41 PM  
Anduril
No, but it is your fault if you belief such a thing, and act upon it. That's your own damn choice. You can't control other people's actions, but you sure as hell can control you're own.

Unless you're one of the religious people who believe in Predestination. That has never made sense to me, in the context of religion. (I.E., all your actions are pre-determined, so... if you do awful things that would make you go to hell, that's pre-determined. Never could figure out why people believed that.)

Then again, you also need to define what the hell you consider 'the left'. 'Liberal', 'Left', 'Righty', 'Neo-con'... these words don't even seem to freaking MEAN anything anymore, since they just get thrown about willy-nilly. What parts of these groups are simillar? What are different? Are all leftists religion hating? If so, I'm not a leftist, since I don't hate religion.

It's just semantics, but words are important.
 
2006-09-01 11:00:21 PM  
much more fact-based article:

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm

Shame on you submitter.
 
2006-09-01 11:10:48 PM  
I really wish that somehow the dinosaurs could comeback and devoure all of humanity.
 
2006-09-01 11:11:39 PM  
Who approved this link?! This is worst farking thing I have seen on Fark for a long time.

As a 4+ year member, I hope and pray that you guys were not paid to link to this crap. Hopefully it is was just an oversight by some retarded admin.

Uhg. I am disgusted.
 
2006-09-01 11:13:55 PM  
Meanwhile, quintillions of BTU of wind power go unmined above colorado.
 
2006-09-01 11:18:22 PM  
If it was profitable it'd be done already.
 
2006-09-01 11:24:12 PM  
Just because it is possible to obtain an energy rich material does not mean it is a good idea to do so.

Deciding if it is a good idea is done by businessmen and engineers.

So far the answer from everyone that does not have something to gain from obfuscation(i.e. those recieving government research grants) has been unanimous.

Oil shale is not with current technology, and most likely never will be a useful energy source.
 
2006-09-01 11:26:44 PM  
What SomeGuyFromColorado said at the top of the thread! How many times does this make that this same BS SHILL has been posted on Fark! 5? 6? Where's that guy with the "Oh No! Not THIS shiat again!" jpeg when you really need him?

/Oh yeah, Asima and Macdaddy357, what you said, too.
 
2006-09-01 11:32:37 PM  
Obey the Rand Corporation.
Consume oil products.
Eat your soylent.
Shut up and work.
 
2006-09-01 11:33:25 PM  
I now realize my wrath is aimed at the submitter! LOL

Double the fun
 
2006-09-01 11:34:50 PM  
amusing-- this same link, slipped over and over past the gullible holders of keys to the greenlight kingdom, has now become its own Fark cliche.
 
2006-09-01 11:39:58 PM  
Thank you, Dread Pirate Slasher, for coming through! All I could find fast was:

static.flickr.com
 
2006-09-01 11:46:04 PM  
This was news 30 years ago
 
2006-09-01 11:51:55 PM  
Does any of this matter now that Steorn has discovered perpetual free energy?

Anyhoo. Link is bogus. It takes forever to mention Canada, which has more oil than any of the countries listed, more than the whole middle east combined. Why would a legit site miss that?

I have to go get magnets now.
 
2006-09-01 11:51:58 PM  
Great! Now somebody's going to invade us.
 
2006-09-01 11:52:15 PM  
Lame greenlights lately, this cements farks place in joining bush conspiracy theorists. Drew should be ashamed of what fark has become, greenlighting crap like this? Whoever did it should be banned from the sight and sterilized so his spawn may never darken this earth.
 
2006-09-02 12:07:41 AM  
the only thing under my Colorado home is an attorney specializing in mining rights.

/live in a second-floor condo
 
2006-09-02 12:17:18 AM  
A Special Offer for
New Members - 50% OFF
The Oil Report costs $199 for a full year.

I already get the Oil Report....it's expensive.

Thanks, CNN!
 
2006-09-02 12:17:50 AM  
craigdamage: I really wish that somehow the dinosaurs could comeback and devoure all of humanity.

Let's see... rotting dinosaur carcasses create huge oil deposits... we burn all the oil and suffocate on the CO2...

Wish... granted.

Hush, it's an amusing fantasy.

And in other news, if, despite the overwhelming contempt of the thread, you're still curious about this link, please note FTA: One ton of oil shale produces one barrel of oil. When oil is selling for $50 per barrel, that's $50 per ton of rock. Profitable gold ore has about $12 worth of gold per ton. So, when oil is selling at $66 per barrel, like it is right now, oil shale is 5 1/2 times more profitable than gold.

Yeah. Did you see them say that Gold is profitable to extract at $12 of gold per ton of rock, then turn around and claim that gold has a profit of $12 per ton of rock? Then they completely fail to mention the break even point of shale at all, and just claim that the $66 per barrel of oil extracted from shale is all profit. That's when I stopped reading.

I'm sorry, maybe I shouldn't waste my time debunking hyperbolic spam, but it's a hobby of mine to occasionally give an outrageous claim the benefit of the doubt and see where it explodes. This one went pretty damn early.
 
2006-09-02 12:22:20 AM  
Shale: The fuel of the future of the future!
 
2006-09-02 12:47:46 AM  
It's also possible to use blood as a source of water. That doesn't mean it's practical or a good idea. Unless you're a Republican, of course.
 
2006-09-02 12:49:26 AM  
"If you live in Colorado, there could be more than 2 TRILLION barrels of oil under your feet - more than what middle east countries have...combined"

So does everyone in Colorado has to convert to Islam now???
 
2006-09-02 12:52:16 AM  
South Park?

/got nuthin'
 
2006-09-02 01:05:42 AM  
Not only has this link been posted before (several times). By now, all the outrage and debunking comments have been commented several times before as well.

Slow news day? Slow fark day.
 
2006-09-02 01:15:00 AM  
Does this mean that we (Colorado) get to join OPEC?
 
2006-09-02 01:35:41 AM  
I know it's been said, many times, many ways, but...

smitty,

1978 just called. It wants its news back...
 
2006-09-02 01:36:01 AM  
So this means that gas prices will just get higher, right?
 
2006-09-02 01:55:05 AM  
Smitty should be banned for the BS link and whoever greenlighted it should be cockpunched

/that is all
 
2006-09-02 02:26:28 AM  
This is at least the second time that a BS advertisement has gotten the greenlight. I'm not sure but it may be the same article.

/Drew, I know you are busy with your new baby, (congrats, good work) but come on. Get some rest and come out punching on Tuesday.
 
2006-09-02 04:23:19 AM  
SomeGuyFromColorado

word up, gwood reprasentin
 
2006-09-02 04:26:20 AM  
Yay, someone posted this crackhead page again, and it got greenlit, again.

Hey everyone, lets go smoke this big fat bag of crack, WOOHOO.

/unreality
 
2006-09-02 06:07:17 AM  
With such a professional looking website like that, who wouldnt cash out their retirement to invest......
 
2006-09-02 07:56:28 AM  
My grandfather wildcatted for oil in Wyoming and Colorado back in the forties and fifties. He mentioned something about this a long time ago. Basically, there was a huge oil find, but it would not be economically feasible to extract it at the time, so the US government just sat on it all these years.

However, please dont take my words as an endorsement for this crappy ad -- invest in Comic Books instead!
 
2006-09-02 10:57:21 AM  
Anduril


Well, it's not my fault that 70-ish-percent of Americans just happen to believe that leftists hate the religious.


That is not what the polling report that you're referencing found. You can read it here if you'd like to inform yourself.

Only 20% said they perceive the Dems to be unfriendly to religion. You might be surprised to learn that 13% said the same of the Republican Party. A full 42% said the Dems were neutral toward religion, not that they "hate" it. There is quite a bit of room between the extremes, you know. Or perhaps you don't.

It's still off-topic in this thread, but I couldn't let that error go uncorrected.
 
2006-09-02 11:31:50 AM  
Interesting way out of the current mideast situation.

Let them run out of oil, and we end up having most of the rest right here, so we ration (read : dont give any) it to them.

Hard to be a tourr-ist people when you have to spend 99% of your time growing food / walking everywhere.
 
2006-09-02 11:47:41 AM  
IMHO since oil is over-valued right now thanks to a speculation bubble,

This isn't true (IMO)... oil is "overpriced" because countries like China and India are rapidly increasing their energy consumption. As more countries join the modern internet-enabled economy, energy demand goes sky high. I don't see this as a bubble likely to pop at all. And if this is the case, then its not "overpriced" at all, but actually set by the growing demand.
 
2006-09-02 11:57:57 AM  
Not important.

Does Dick Cheney own it?
Important.
 
2006-09-02 12:16:04 PM  
it's not "oil shale," it's organic marlstone

But hyping oil shale is nothing new. As geologist Walter Youngquist once wrote, "Bankers won't invest a dime in 'organic marlstone,' the shale's proper name, but 'oil shale' is another matter."

[snip]

The plan is audacious. Shell proposes to heat a 1,000-foot-thick section of shale to 700 degrees, then keep it that hot for three years. Beam me up, Scotty, but first share some details. Imagine a 100-acre production plot. Inside that area, the company would drill as many as 1,000 wells. Next, long electric heaters would be inserted in preparation for a multi-year bake. It's a high-stakes gamble, but if it works, a 6-mile-by- 6-mile area could, over the coming century, produce 20 billion barrels, roughly equal to remaining reserves in the lower 48 states.

Although Shell's method avoids the need to mine shale, it requires a mind-boggling amount of electricity. To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year, producing 10 million tons of greenhouse gases. (The company's annual electric bill would be about $500 million.) To double production, you'd need two power plants. One million barrels a day would require 10 new power plants, five new coal mines. And 10 million barrels a day, as proposed by some, would necessitate 100 power plants.


Ah, "oil shale." It's the "energy of the future," and always will be.
 
2006-09-02 12:30:03 PM  


INVADE CANADA NOW!
STOP THE TERRORISM!
 
2006-09-02 03:44:34 PM  
canyoneer: To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the company would need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history. Costing about $3 billion, it would consume 5 million tons of coal each year

Assuming you use coal; nuclear would be a sensible alternative if you can overcome the NIMBY problem. Given coal is roughly 2460 kWh-e/ton, that means about a 1.4 Gigawatt electric power plant. Typical US nuclear plants run about 0.8-1.2 GWe range, so "one or two nuclear plants" subsitutes for "one coal-fired plant". (Designs using the nuclear plant purely for heat might give higher efficiency, but I don't think it would work too well transmitting the heat over a distance of three miles, and I'd want an extensive safety analysis of such a design before field testing.)

Since oil is roughtly 20 MBTU/barrel (thermal), the quoted production numbers work out to an energy yield of about 7.1 Gigawatts (thermal oil) return. That gives an EROEI of about 5.0 (thermal oil/nuclear electric). This is pitiful compared to historic 100:1 production levels, and mediocre compared to current 10:1 Saudi levels, but still comparable to the 3:1 levels for current domestic production, and qualitatively better than the 0.5-1.5 levels oft cited for bioethanol production.

While crude oil grades vary ("Texas light sweet" being one of the best, "Dubai" being one of the lowest), the product of the Shell method (based on their small scale test) is expected to be comparatively very high quality; possibly better than TLS. It's also better than using nuclear-generated hydrogen as an electrical energy storage method for transportation use (by about an order of magnitude). However, I'd think when we reach the point on the peak oil curve where oil shale use becomes desirable, we'll be better off to save it for things more essential to modern society than automobile gasoline... like plastics production. Gene-mod algal farmed solar-biodiesel conversion production looks a more sound mid-range solution for vehicle fuel.

The real question is... why the fark did I waste my time working this out for Fark?

/Wasting my time
//Background downloading pr0n via batch job
///Reading more FARK...
 
2006-09-02 04:17:31 PM  
"2 TRILLION barrels of oil", would this be a certain Mr. Bush's mathematical calculations or a pipe dream?
 
2006-09-02 06:07:20 PM  
abb3w

You forgot the water. Oops.
 
2006-09-03 04:26:34 AM  
abb3w: Assuming you use coal; nuclear would be a sensible alternative if you can overcome the NIMBY problem. Given coal is roughly 2460 kWh-e/ton, that means about a 1.4 Gigawatt electric power plant.

If that plant gets built, i say we are using the power for the wrong purpose. That's more then enough for time travel. After all, only 1.21 gigawatts is required.
 
2006-09-04 11:56:48 AM  
Actually, no, I didn't forget the water.

From what I've heard, the Shell process apparently uses far less water than earlier shale oil extraction methods. It doesn't need to use water to hydrate before transport of the extracted crude, because a higher grade of crude is produced. It mainly uses water (steam) as a heat transfer mechanism, and can be set up as (nearly) closed-cycle. While there would be some draw from the local rivers, it wouldn't be anywhere near as much as conventional mining and processing methods.

A nuclear plant also uses water, but also for cooling and heat transfer. A bigger worry is that the design might need an alternative heat sink to the usual large body of water near most reactors. It's not an insurmountable problem, however.

The effects on the water table, I'm less familiar with. I'd have to admit those may constitute a more difficult problem.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report