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: Road Walker who wrote (392356)	6/19/2008 9:11:05 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578281

That's the only significant 'reserve' you mentioned... and it's technically not feasible at this point. Where did you get THAT idea? The problem with oil shale is that there are insufficient privately owned tracts. Nobody doubts that a simple extraction method that yields a bbl per ton of rock is commercially feasible with $60 oil, and certainly not with $100 oil.

To: Road Walker who wrote (392356)	6/19/2008 6:35:30 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1578281

"How is the government "in the way" of producing oil from shale? Outside of giving the oil companies subsidies." Well, they seem to object to strip mining public lands. And the residue from processing the oil shale has a greater volume than the original oil shale(note: most oil shale isn't really shale) and often have toxic compounds that would pollute any runoff. So yeah, the government objects to turning those lands into a moonscape. Which is another reason to investigate in situ production. Now, there is a risk of groundwater pollution, so it isn't totally perfect.