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.

(CNSNews)   In other news, a recent study shows that Colorado, Utah and Wyoming have more recoverable oil than the rest of the entire world. So we have that going for us, then   (cnsnews.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, shale oil, Government Accountability Office, proven oil reserves, Rand Corporation, proven reserves  
•       •       •

5427 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 May 2012 at 5:29 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



170 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-12 04:43:34 PM  
This is unpossible. I was told that we were out of oil.

/YES. I KNOW that it is shale and will require tons of water to process and will destroy the planet.
/Wait, we already do the same thing, sort of, mining coal? LOL
 
2012-05-12 05:07:30 PM  
not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?
 
2012-05-12 05:14:51 PM  

Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?


Yep. But trying to get anyone that supports this to understand the commodities market and the fact that clean water ISN'T infinite is impossible, so expect this to be turned against Obama
 
2012-05-12 05:15:53 PM  

Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?


Just about. And you forgot the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources, and the poisoning of same when released.
 
2012-05-12 05:17:55 PM  
Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.
 
2012-05-12 05:35:00 PM  

namatad: /YES. I KNOW that it is shale and will require tons of water to process and will destroy the planet.


Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers


Indeed - that why we need to keep the nuclear option on the table, lefties.
 
2012-05-12 05:36:32 PM  
We're back baby! USA USA USA, drill baby drill and fark the consequences. I ain't gonna live forever and I need my SUV filled up for my drive to the corner market for 7 corn chips in a plastic bag that I will throw in the trash.

I'd rather have oil locally than kill someone for theirs.
 
2012-05-12 05:37:31 PM  

adamgreeney: Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?

Yep. But trying to get anyone that supports this to understand the commodities market and the fact that clean water ISN'T infinite is impossible, so expect this to be turned against Obama


Case in point:

EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.


It helps the spin-makers for the oil industry when they have idiots this gullible.
 
2012-05-12 05:39:54 PM  

cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources


nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

, and the poisoning of same when released.

Now that is a worry. I have no problem with mining and using water, so long as when you are done you leave the place at least as clean as you found it. As the saying goes, take what you need and leave the rest. And leave it in as good shape as you found it.

Fracking is a concern for many reasons, but using 'scarce' water is not one of them. Polluting that water is.
 
2012-05-12 05:41:32 PM  
this should bring gas prices down 0.01
 
2012-05-12 05:43:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: adamgreeney: Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

am i right?

Yep. But trying to get anyone that supports this to understand the commodities market and the fact that clean water ISN'T infinite is impossible, so expect this to be turned against Obama

Case in point:

EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.

It helps the spin-makers for the oil industry when they have idiots this gullible.


At least that troll picked an ironic moniker to go with the company line.
 
2012-05-12 05:45:49 PM  

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.


Good thing Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are coastal states. Maybe we can move those shale deposits to WHERE THE DAMN WATER IS!

And leave it in as good shape as you found it.

[notsureifserious.jpg]
 
2012-05-12 05:47:44 PM  

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources


incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

, and the poisoning of same when released.

Now that is a worry. I have no problem with mining and using water, so long as when you are done you leave the place at least as clean as you found it. As the saying goes, take what you need and leave the rest. And leave it in as good shape as you found it.

Fracking is a concern for many reasons, but using 'scarce' water is not one of them. Polluting that water is.


You go ahead and try to live off of water from the Pacific. Me, I'll keep trying to protect the very limited drinking water we have.
 
2012-05-12 05:57:32 PM  

EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.


The article is as stupid as your comment. Like Rangely, Rock Springs and Vernal weren't already being drilled. They're farking oil/mining towns, its the only thing out there. Along with that, there is NO economic opportunity in bringing in temp workers to stay in campers in the middle of the desert. And the water there is important, it supplies the western US and I hope you live downstream.

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Yup, all you gotta do is move the water to the high desert where they are drilling. I'm sure that's energy efficient.
 
2012-05-12 06:08:18 PM  
You stay the hell away from my state!
 
2012-05-12 06:12:33 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Good thing Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are coastal states. Maybe we can move those shale deposits to WHERE THE DAMN WATER IS!

And leave it in as good shape as you found it.

[notsureifserious.jpg]


Totally.

And fracking/water/steam injection is not the only way to extract it.

So long as it is oil companies are paying for it and not the taxpayer, they can take the risk. But they need to be very carefully regulated and monitored to make sure they do it cleanly. Mining can be a very ugly process, and certainly dangerous and polluting.

Heck if the Audubon Society can find a way to let oil be pumped in on of their sanctuaries, (last I heard) , there can be a clean way to get the oil out of the shale. We should set the goal and let the engineers figure out a way to meet those goals.

/Was it the Whooping Crane breeding grounds? I forget...
 
2012-05-12 06:13:03 PM  
Iran declares war on Colorado in 3...2...1...
 
2012-05-12 06:16:04 PM  

Retractable Weeners: EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.

The article is as stupid as your comment. Like Rangely, Rock Springs and Vernal weren't already being drilled. They're farking oil/mining towns, its the only thing out there. Along with that, there is NO economic opportunity in bringing in temp workers to stay in campers in the middle of the desert. And the water there is important, it supplies the western US and I hope you live downstream.

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Yup, all you gotta do is move the water to the high desert where they are drilling. I'm sure that's energy efficient.


Never said it was efficient, just not scarce. If gas and oil can be sent via pipeline, so can water. Or the shale can be mined and shipped to where the needed water is, if the method used even needs that much water.

As I said just above this. set the goals as to how clean the extraction needs to be, and let the engineers figure it out. The method they think they need to use today is not necessarily the method they end up with.

And then monitor, monitor, monitor. I trust Shell as much as I trust Congress.
 
2012-05-12 06:19:45 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Good thing Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are coastal states. Maybe we can move those shale deposits to WHERE THE DAMN WATER IS!

And leave it in as good shape as you found it.

[notsureifserious.jpg]


Considering one trillion barrels of oil is roughly $100 TRILLION dollars worth, I'd think we could possibly build canals from reliable water sources for somewhat under that amount.
 
2012-05-12 06:29:36 PM  

tomWright: Retractable Weeners: EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.

The article is as stupid as your comment. Like Rangely, Rock Springs and Vernal weren't already being drilled. They're farking oil/mining towns, its the only thing out there. Along with that, there is NO economic opportunity in bringing in temp workers to stay in campers in the middle of the desert. And the water there is important, it supplies the western US and I hope you live downstream.

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Yup, all you gotta do is move the water to the high desert where they are drilling. I'm sure that's energy efficient.

Never said it was efficient, just not scarce. If gas and oil can be sent via pipeline, so can water. Or the shale can be mined and shipped to where the needed water is, if the method used even needs that much water.

As I said just above this. set the goals as to how clean the extraction needs to be, and let the engineers figure it out. The method they think they need to use today is not necessarily the method they end up with.

And then monitor, monitor, monitor. I trust Shell as much as I trust Congress.


you do realize you cannot drink most of the water on the planet.. it's salty.. and making it not salty is very energy intensive
 
2012-05-12 06:29:43 PM  
Economics definitely trumps politics on this.
 
2012-05-12 06:31:36 PM  
Oil? Oh goody! Let's have Exxon dig that shiat up and ship it off to China and India right away!
 
2012-05-12 06:33:01 PM  

butt-nuggets: Economics definitely trumps politics on this.


I'm betting someone is hankering for a tax subsidy.
 
2012-05-12 06:33:48 PM  
Oil shale. Clean Coal II: Environmental Boogaloo.
 
2012-05-12 06:34:40 PM  

majestykelf: AliceBToklasLives: tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources

[nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov image 533x533]
incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.

Good thing Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are coastal states. Maybe we can move those shale deposits to WHERE THE DAMN WATER IS!

And leave it in as good shape as you found it.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

Considering one trillion barrels of oil is roughly $100 TRILLION dollars worth, I'd think we could possibly build canals from reliable water sources for somewhat under that amount.



very much this.

/100 trillion dollars
//say it. it rolls off the tongue very nicely
 
2012-05-12 06:35:43 PM  

tomWright: Never said it was efficient, just not scarce. If gas and oil can be sent via pipeline, so can water. Or the shale can be mined and shipped to where the needed water is, if the method used even needs that much water.


So we're gonna build one giant pipeline system to pump in millions (billions?) gallons of ocean water a thousand miles inland to enable efficient shale oil recovery. We'll then need to pipe all that water back out to the ocean as well, unless you want to just turn western Colorado into an inland ocean. And oh yea, we'll need to pipe the oil out of course to refineries.

But investing in solar or wind power infrastructure? Crazy talk.
 
2012-05-12 06:36:21 PM  

Kazan:
you do realize you cannot drink most of the water on the planet.. it's salty.. and making it not salty is very energy intensive


Maybe. But there certainly is enough here, and in most places. Lack of access in the few places where there is not enough is a political problem, not a quantity problem.

www.coastwatch.msu.edu

Just remember:

www.findadeath.com
 
2012-05-12 06:36:38 PM  

tomWright: cptjeff: the massive diversion of incredibly limited water resources


incredibly limited? On Mars maybe, not here.


Water, water, every-where,
Nor any drop to drink!


/farking salt water, how does it work?
 
2012-05-12 06:39:58 PM  

jayhawk88: tomWright: Never said it was efficient, just not scarce. If gas and oil can be sent via pipeline, so can water. Or the shale can be mined and shipped to where the needed water is, if the method used even needs that much water.

So we're gonna build one giant pipeline system to pump in millions (billions?) gallons of ocean water a thousand miles inland to enable efficient shale oil recovery. We'll then need to pipe all that water back out to the ocean as well, unless you want to just turn western Colorado into an inland ocean. And oh yea, we'll need to pipe the oil out of course to refineries.

But investing in solar or wind power infrastructure? Crazy talk.


So long as it is not the taxpayer footing the bill, sure, and only if needed.

And I never said anything about NOT investing in solar and wind. I do think is should not be at taxpayer expense. Let those that think they can profit from it take the risk and shoulder the cost. This includes not subsidizing the oil and gas industries too, we should not be socializing their costs and loses either.
 
2012-05-12 06:52:13 PM  

namatad: This is unpossible. I was told that we were out of oil.

/YES. I KNOW that it is shale and will require tons of water to process and will destroy the planet.
/Wait, we already do the same thing, sort of, mining coal? LOL


Don't forget the PRICE. That's the reason it hasn't been drilled yet. Couldn't compete against price with the Beverly Hillbillies gushers. Now it's getting closer to being competitive but prices will never be back where they were in the 90s and probably quite a bit higher than now especially if China and Africa keep ramping up their demand.
 
2012-05-12 06:56:33 PM  
Even the romans could efficiently move water long distances, including up hill....UNpowered. We could do the same with sea water. No need to waste fresh water on this.
 
2012-05-12 06:57:07 PM  
Tell me how much it's going to reduce my price at the gas pump. Is it going to do that?

/Because I don't think it's going to do that
//and where you going to get the refining capacity?
 
2012-05-12 07:11:04 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: namatad: /YES. I KNOW that it is shale and will require tons of water to process and will destroy the planet.

Kazan: not clinking that link.. but i'm assuming since it came from CNS "news" it only requires destroying a bunch of national lands won't be profitable at 3x the current price of oil and will line the pockets of the Koch brothers

Indeed - that why we need to keep the nuclear option on the table, lefties.


Are you kidding me? We need a massive investment in uranium and thorium reactors today.
Put the reactors in the middle of the country, far from big cities, with transmission lines going from coast to coast, Canada to the gulf. Tada. Energy independence.

Or we can do what we are currently doing instead.
/lol
 
2012-05-12 07:16:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: ...
EnviroDude: Too bad democrats will oppose any and all efforts to produce these fields.

It helps the spin-makers for the oil industry when they have idiots this gullible.


A sociopath is not necessarily an idiot.
 
2012-05-12 07:22:35 PM  

RobertBruce: including up hill....UNpowered


Huh? Romans had antigravity?
 
2012-05-12 07:23:41 PM  

RobertBruce: Even the romans could efficiently move water long distances, including up hill....UNpowered. We could do the same with sea water. No need to waste fresh water on this.


Agreed, BUT: I have a problem with injecting seawater into the ground. How will the salt affect the aquifer? Moving the water is not an issue, but the salt may be. That would need to be looked at. Desalinized may be preferable. But that could be done with a solar installation! :)
 
2012-05-12 07:24:24 PM  

Farker Soze: RobertBruce: including up hill....UNpowered

Huh? Romans had antigravity?


siphon
 
2012-05-12 07:24:33 PM  
Let me get this straight; you absolutely have to use fresh water for fraking. Salt water just can not be used?

Well, just FARK me
 
2012-05-12 07:26:47 PM  

tomWright: Farker Soze: RobertBruce: including up hill....UNpowered

Huh? Romans had antigravity?

siphon


Only if the original height was still higher than the destination would their inverted siphons work without power. Sea level to the rocky mountains is right out.
 
2012-05-12 07:32:46 PM  

Farker Soze: tomWright: Farker Soze: RobertBruce: including up hill....UNpowered

Huh? Romans had antigravity?

siphon

Only if the original height was still higher than the destination would their inverted siphons work without power. Sea level to the rocky mountains is right out.


Not sure how air tight their aqueducts and tunnels were, but all you need is for the destination to have the same or lower water surface level. Trust me, I used to work in the aquarium and ornamental pond trade. We used a LOT of siphons.

then there are water wheels and screws.... you could move a lesser quantity of water from a river, using the rest of the river flow for power. I do not know if the Romans did this, but I would not be surprised.

So yeah, you could move a fair amount of water without outside power, just using gravity, siphon and the source water flow as inputs.
 
2012-05-12 07:39:06 PM  
What about Thorium reactors? Will somebody please start building Thorium reactors? What's that? You can't make bombs out of Thorium? That's why we use Uranium? That's it, then. I guess we're totally f*#ked.
 
2012-05-12 07:40:35 PM  

tomWright: up hill




tomWright: same or lower water surface level


Colorado average height above sea level = something like 2 miles.
 
2012-05-12 07:41:01 PM  

biglot: What about Thorium reactors? Will somebody please start building Thorium reactors? What's that? You can't make bombs out of Thorium? That's why we use Uranium? That's it, then. I guess we're totally f*#ked.


This. (The points you made)
 
2012-05-12 07:45:01 PM  
So then I got a call from him, saying we don't have to worry about money no more.
And I said, that's good!
One less thing.
i258.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-12 07:45:49 PM  

biglot: What about Thorium reactors? Will somebody please start building Thorium reactors? What's that? You can't make bombs out of Thorium? That's why we use Uranium? That's it, then. I guess we're totally f*#ked.


India is the place to be.

It just costs too much for people to really spend money on it today.
10-20 years from now? Either we will invest massively in oil shale and coal or we will be building fission reactors.
I predict oil shale and coal, because they require the least change in our existing infrastructure.
(pipelines, cars, trains, buses, blah blah blah)
 
2012-05-12 07:46:45 PM  

Farker Soze: tomWright: up hill



tomWright: same or lower water surface level

Colorado average height above sea level = something like 2 miles.


True, you are not going to get a siphon from sea level to there. but there are other options. As I said above, why not move the shale to the refineries? Works for crude, and if you extend the analogy a bit, for coal. Probably impractical, but that is for the engineers to work out.

Like I said. set the goals: No taxpayer funding. No taxpayer bailouts. leave the site at least as clean as they were found. Do not pur crap into the air, water, etc.

Then monitor, monitor, monitor.

Reagan said: Trust, but verify. I leave out the trust part when it comes to politics OR profit.
 
2012-05-12 08:14:05 PM  
I'm from Colorado, I don't buy it. Shale comes in about every twenty years or so when the gas prices get to the point where its "profitable" to try to extract it from the shale. When oil prices plummet, the oil companies ditch the area and leave the towns that supported their operations in severe economic downturn. There's plenty of reason for Western Coloradans not to trust oil companies after the oil left in the mid 80's.
 
2012-05-12 08:16:01 PM  

jayhawk88: So we're gonna build one giant pipeline system to pump in millions (billions?) gallons of ocean water a thousand miles inland to enable efficient shale oil recovery. We'll then need to pipe all that water back out to the ocean as well...


Why pipe it out? It's going to be underground, replacing the oil. If the recovery process requires pumping it back out, the water will be separated from the oil and reused.

And maybe there are some water rights available from Flaming Gorge Reservoir or one of the rivers in the region. Or do you think the Wyoming farms, pastures, and forests don't need water, so there are no rivers?

Do you really think it's better to leave the oil down there? Eventually it will leak and the countryside there might be changed somewhat by a trillion gallons of oil. What we found is what is left after the rest leaked away around the edges.
 
2012-05-12 08:18:13 PM  
This study published by "Get Rid of that Eyesore Yellowstone Park Committee for Keeping Americans Fat and Lazy"

/i keed, of course we need oil
 
2012-05-12 08:20:54 PM  
Oil can be forced out of the ground with salt water but bitumen, which is solid, can not. To extract bitumen ("oil" sands, tar or "oil" shale, you have to boil water, which means fresh water because the salts would destroy the boilers and clog the pipes and other equipment.

Even with strip-mining, oil sands such as those in Alberta (which are behind claims that Canada has the second largest reserves in the world) aren't cheap: they take as much water as Calgary, use 0.7 barrels of oil equivalent (mostly 'clean' natural gas) to produce one barrel--a net gain of 0.3 barrels; and result in destruction of large areas of land and massive pollution--cancer rates are astronomical in some places downstream, hundreds of waterfowl have died on the ponds of waste after mistaking the toxic ponds for wetlands or lakes. Furthermor, the restoration of these sites is a joke--it usually consists of the landscaping around the "front" office, and I have put "front" in ironic quotation marks for a reason.

The price of oil needed to make tar shale profitable is even higher than the high prices that are needed to support tar sands. In short this oil isn't coming out of the rock without a lot of government money, a lot of protectionism (against Canadian and other competitors) and without a really high price for oil.

Until now it has been mostly conspiracy theorists and wacky-tune right wing websites that have been touting non-conventional shale oils. The economics and the environmental consequences aren't a real trade-off even as the oil of the Middle East declines and Central Asia becomes the play ground of the Great Game between China, India, Russia and the West.
 
Displayed 50 of 170 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media

Stories from our partner sites:


  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