Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (392242)	6/18/2008 8:30:08 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578290

So Dodd is investigating the mortgage problem and he got a sweet heart deal from Countrywide. lolol fukking democrats

To: combjelly who wrote (392242)	6/18/2008 8:40:58 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578290

Why am I not surprised?! Bush Says Dems to Blame for High Gas Prices Reverses Policy, Along With McCain, on Off-Shore Drilling By Jennifer Duck WASHINGTON, June 18, 2008 As the presidential election revs into high gear, President Bush drilled the "Democratic-controlled Congress" for opposing White House energy policies, which he said has resulted in the rise of "gas prices to record levels." Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, left, joins President Bush as he makes a statement on energy, Wednesday, June 18, 2008, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)"If Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high oil -- how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it," Bush said in the Rose Garden. Bush also inserted himself in the middle of the heated presidential race by reversing a long-held executive position on offshore oil drilling. The president proposed lifting a ban that he has signed annually and was strengthened by his father, former President George H.W. Bush, and extended by former President Clinton until 2012. read more............. abcnews.go.com

To: combjelly who wrote (392242)	6/19/2008 12:08:56 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578290

which is expensive to mine, but may well be economically feasible at this point." It has only recently become viable. That requires about $100 a barrel. Before anyone is going to make the kind of investment required, they have to be pretty certain that oil remains about about $100 a barrel. Whenever I read about oil shale, the $100 per barrel price is a big caveat on feasibility. Now, Shell claims that they can produce at around $30 a barrel in Colorado using in situ methods. However, all in situ methods are experimental and it will take some time to bring them into production. in situ is desirable for a number of reasons. Primarily, it reduces the waste disposal problem. Mining and retorting on the surface has two problems. One, the waste created had greater volume than what was mined. Two, it consumes a lot of water. In Estonia, which has been exploiting their oil shales for a while, 91% of the water consumed in the country is for the oil shale industry. The best bet seems to be to get in situ methods off the ground. My understanding is that this method is years away from production.