SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (230383)12/5/2007 3:08:25 AM
From: John Carragher  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793955
 
all the major oil companies were big into oil shale in 70/80's still no one found it commercially profitable to develop it.

I do not remember all the reasons why, shell report didn't go into details other than $20 bbl is break even... maybe its because of the other resources required to get the oil. lots of water, or more fuel, then contamination. what is left behind as they rip open these lands, flush them out, heat them up and dump the residue?

I bet this hasn't been touched because we cannot even get a refinery built , can you imagine the epa, local , federal , challenges to any operation of this type esp. by environmental groups?

its easier to get off shore drilling going than strip mining a state. g



To: LindyBill who wrote (230383)12/5/2007 3:22:12 AM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793955
 
I like the way he thinks....Can't you just see the Ace of Spades in Congress....LOLOL! He'd give the Reids, Durbins, and all the other gasbags a run for their money, for sure!



To: LindyBill who wrote (230383)12/5/2007 6:17:38 AM
From: JDN  Respond to of 793955
 
Be careful, I lost money on investing in shale oil years ago. The problem is WATER. Precisely where those deposits are water is in shortage, and it takes WATER to be used in the refining process. jdn