</sarcasm>

Start drilling

how ’bout:

STOP THE DE-VALUATION OF THE DOLLAR!

So while theres alot of it, its just not an economically viable situation with current technology.
RoPa4life on June 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM

WRONG-O!:

I’ll agree that it costs lots more to refine oil shale than it does from wells and even tar sands, but at todays oil prices of around $135 a barrel; once the plants are established… Not even accounting for technology advances that will happen when we get serious about it… We can produce it for $88 to $100 per barrel less than we are paying now:

What Sustained Oil Prices are Required for
Oil Shale Projects to be Economic?
:First of a kind mining and surface retorting plants
may eventually be economic, providing a minimum
15% rate of return, at sustained average world oil
prices above $54.00 per barrel.
:In-situ processes may be economic at sustained
average world oil prices above $35 per barrel.

Source: US Department of Energy
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/Oil_Shale_Economics_Fact_Sheet1.pdf

And there have been some significant advances in technology in the last couple of years, since that report was written.

So, we’ve got GOP folks (Hatch and Allard) fighting for oil shale against democrats. We’ve got strong conservatives running for US Senate in CO and NM against total wankers. But we’re going to have to stop bitching about the POTUS nominee and join together to fight for this issue.

I’m not sure the “conservative” commentariat is ready to do that.

funky chicken on June 11, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Why can’t we do both?
McCain is a SIGNIFICANT, SERIOUS part of the problem. Why should we give him a pass?

Well, at least the guy in NM of whom you write, (Steve Pearce, for those who don’t know) actually benefits from McCain’s presence in the race…. Because all the money that I’d normally send to the Presidential campaign is doubled up and goes all to Steve instead.

And I do greatly appreciate Funky’s PR effort for him, even though I greatly disagree with the McCain shilling.

The point that alot of people are missing about the oil shale deposits in Colorado/Utah is that its EXTREMELY expensive to refine. So while theres alot of it, its just not an economically viable situation with current technology.

Now if she could just take over for Katie Couric so that the whole country could benefit from her wisdom…. and mere presence, rather than just us privileged few.

The whole article is stupid, couched in CNN’s usual bias, but also on display is McCain’s environmental douchebaggery. What a shame that we lose the potential of this issue to highlight Obambi’s nothingness, because of McCain’s nothingness.

With the increase in fuel for our transportation, just wait until the next hard winter. I’m guessing we’ll see one of the most dramatic economic adjustments in history, possibly worldwide.

Jaibones – speculation is playing a big part in current gas prices, but it’s speculation about supply, so it all comes back to supply.

Short answer: Drill.

Merovign on June 11, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Agreed – “a big part” or all speculation? I am unaware of any change in supply in the run-up from $50 a barrel (late 2006) to $136 today. But again, it’s speculation about the supply, based on the increase in demand, mostly by India and China, right?

The reality of supply is that we continue to find massive reserves of oil all around the world; we just refuse to drill for it, instead inviting our military and economic competitors to suck it up.

Oil supply and production has nothing to do with the high gas prices. Drilling more oil in the US will not bring prices down.

lexhamfox on June 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM

Apparently you are a victim of our failed public school system. You need a remedial Econ 101 course ASAP!!!

Another false premise which infects your post is the presumption that oil is a non-renewable resource. There is mounting evidence that this is not true. Also, recent technological advances show that coal can be converted to oil or gas, which not only means that we have even vaster domestic energy supplies than we thought, but this also lends credence to the “oil is renewable” concept.

Naturally, Congressional Democrats are busy blocking all possible uses of coal, too.

whyme on June 11, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Where did you read that at?

Take the profit (prophet) out of jihad juice (fuel) –

DRILL HERE . . DRILL NOW!!

We had congress from 1994 until 2006, and the Oval Office since 2000, and did not one effing thing about drilling in ANWR or off-shore. We have a bunch of effing RINO douches in the Senate, including our effing RINO candidate for President – OMG MY HEAD IS GOING TO EXPLODE – and I am hearing GOP commercials blaming the DemoQueers for our energy policy?!

Are they kidding? The Dems are going to laugh this to the moon! Republicans voted with them!

Jaibones on June 11, 2008 at 11:43 AM

.
Bush and several repubs did try to open ANWR a few years ago; the bill was filibustered, then killed and rewritten without ANWR, so you can’t say at least some of them didn’t try.

And we have Wade who wants to sit back, surrender, and suck his thumb in the corner.

I know which side I prefer.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkMGIxZmJhMjNkNjRiMjJkN2M0MjVkODFmMTEyODg=

You go, girl! Now, how about a good long heart-to-heart chat with John McCain about supply and demand in the oil industry, and you can move into Dick Cheney’s mansion!

(only 60 miles off the coast of Florida)

Go to CNS news for the story. The HotAir server will NEVER accept a link to the CNS site for some reason.

Russia lowers taxes on Oil Companies to encourage increased production and exploration.

Iran to build 7 new refineries.

USA, tax the oil companies to drive the price higher and build no new refineries.

Who has the better plan?

stenwin77 on June 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM

There is a petition for Sarah as VP? Do you have a link?