Comments on: Public must demand continuation of oil-shale moratorium

By: Rexall

Rexall — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:41:56 +0000

Beleive BLM? You must be nuts!

Even if your right about waste—so what! So we sacrafice a few areas for the good of the clan.
In another 100 years the technology will exist to turn the waste into something else more useful.

He who hesitates is lost!

C’mon think outside the box!

Lets drill!!!!

By: Willis_Leon_Johnson

Willis_Leon_Johnson — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:18:54 +0000

Two schools of thought.

The oil shale will still be there in 500 years if we do nothing.

The oil shale will still be there in 500 years if we do something.

But, in 500 years, the technology may exist that cars can wag their wings as they fly by the feeble, antiquated attempts to extract the stuff….

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:00:59 +0000

I’m with bullish on this one; as much as we desperately need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, I think it’s reasonable to drill in places where we can, until we can develop alternatives. I realize it’s an uphill battle, and that there are entities who would rather we stuck with oil, until the oil is gone. Bullish is right; we have to do something, and soon.

By: bullishfrog

bullishfrog — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:48:09 +0000

dc, I’m pretty familiar with oil shale. I was involved in refining Union Oil’s shale oil into finished products. I agree that there is no fully acceptable method to produce it at this time and it will be years before it happens. It’s production may very well change the landscape but, if we don’t find an acceptable substitute for oil, some compromises will have to be made. I am assuming that you would not oppose developement of Anwar given that it is in an isolated location and getting oil out of there is infinitely cheaper than from oil shale. That was the whole point of my first posting on this thread. If we can’t be allowed to drill for oil in Anwar or off shore, why even think of oil shale.

By: dc

dc — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:46:44 +0000

Rexall,

Try reading the BLMs’ Oil Shale PEIS. Or don’t you believe those people either?

By: Rexall

Rexall — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:30:09 +0000

I don’t beleive in the scare tactics about waste lands and water scarcity.
no proof of either one.

One side says its true, the other side says its not true.

Full speed ahead for me!!!

By: dc

dc — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:03:48 +0000

No, Rexall. Domestic oil from oil shale is zero. That is the point. To my knowledge, no one is trying to prevent research into figuring out a way to get oil from shale. But the fact is, no one has. As I said earlier, when someone comes along with a viable technology that doesn’t involve laying waste to NW Colorado, I am in. But that day has not arrived and delaying commercial oil shale leasing until it has will not slow down anything.

By: Rexall

Rexall — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:48:58 +0000

All domestic oil available is in excess of 100 billion barrels.

Domestic oil from oil shale is in excess of 1 trillion barrels.

Those two combined mean not using ANY foriegn oil for 50 years.

Continue using some foriegn oil so Arabs like us means a lifetime supply.

By: dc

dc — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:21:52 +0000

Bullishfrog,

I think your comparison of the rental market to explain oil and gas policy is a stretch. Oil and gas are consumable commodities, while apartments, once built, are there for many years. I get your point, but your analogy doesn’t work.

Trying to simplify the complex world of oil and gas economies is an admirable effort, but doomed to failure. It is too complicated to boil down to one or two things that are responsible. However, the original point is that the continuation of the moratorium on oil shale leasing is entirely appropriate. I have been studying this issue for over 5 years and I can tell you that NO ONE has figured out a way to “git’er dun”. Royal Dutch/Shells’ freeze wall technology is cost prohibitive on a commercial scale. Chevrons’ interest in Raytheons’ microwave technology makes me break out into giggles. So, we are left with mining/retort as the only real method available. That is the process that Exxon/Mobil left behind in the 1982 oil shale bust.

If any company can demonstrate a real, environmentally sound, technology that will not transform our western Colorado home into a moonscape, I will sign on. Until then, let’s just leave it alone. The kerogen isn’t going anywhere.

By: bullishfrog

bullishfrog — Thu, 08 May 2008 00:59:55 +0000

“Myth 1: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.”——————-It’s not just a matter of getting permits that keep new refineries from buing built. It is cost. Refining margins go all over the map. A high price of gasoline does not necessarily mean that refining margins are high. Refineries have to buy crude oil and the price of oil and gasoline do not move in lock step. They will trend in the same direction, but margins will widen and narrow. Environmental regulations have raised the cost of building.

“Myth 2: The U.S. oil refinery market is competitive. Fact: Actually, industry consolidation is limiting competition in oil refining sector.”———-This is not correct. As stated earlier, margins go up and down and so do refining earnings. If there was no competition, margins would not contract.

“Myth 3: The United States has maxed out its oil refining capability. Fact: Oil companies have exploited their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business.”——————-Refining costs come down dramatically as refinery size increases. Small refineries are not competitive. That is why they went out of business. But, not only did they go out of business, they were shut down because they were inefficient. If it was just a matter of being driven out of business by the majors, they would have been purchased by the majors and kept on running.

In Grand Junction we have a very high apartment occupancy rate. And yet, we are not seeing much new apartment building. Why? Because rents, even though they are up a lot, are still not high enough to justify the cost of new construction. It is not because the apartment MAJORS are trying to keep supply tight.