Alarm raised: Reid quietly trying to extend ban on oil shale
posted at 3:46 pm on September 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Two days after leaving through the front door he’s trying to sneak back in through the side. Jim DeMint is up in arms, as is Heritage:
This comes as both a stunning and ridiculous development; Americans are still coping with high energy prices and coming to grips with a plan to bailout Wall Street, and Senator Reid is denying access to potentially one of America’s most abundant energy reserves. Just how much energy you ask?
Dr. Daniel Fine of MIT reported that 750 billion barrels worth of oil shale have been discovered in Colorado alone. That amount is enough to potentially power the U.S. economy for many decades. Furthermore, if full-scale production begins within five years, the U.S. could completely end its dependence on OPEC by 2020…
In essence, Senator Reid is stripping the decision rights away from his colleagues in other states.
Here’s a fact sheet from Gingrich’s American Solutions group noting that America’s oil shale deposits are fully three times the size of Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves, and here’s the contact information for all 100 senators. Go rattle some cages. Exit question: How about a hastily arranged presser for the Barracuda to stress her outrageous outrage at this development?
Update: A reader e-mailed Reid’s spokesman for comment and got this reply. I’m not kidding about rattling cages.
There is a possibility the Senate will be asked to vote on reestablishing the moratorium on oil shale extraction. Although Senate Democrats support measures to increase this nation’s energy supply, oil shale extraction has not been proven to be economically viable, will produce more greenhouse gases, and will significantly decrease the West’s water supply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
You think Rimlick is a card carrying member?
HornetSting on September 25, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Yes, I noticed that.:)
a capella on September 25, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Thomas Gold former Astronomer Royal of the UK before becoming a professor first at Harvard and then at Cornell had a different theory. He believed that petroleum is made internally in the earth from precursor hydrocarbons which have rained down from outer space. These precursor hydrocarbons have been detected in space. Gold wrote a book about his theory.
It is conventional wisdom that the pores through which oil flows to get to the drill hole fill up with particulate solids over time and cause the well to become unproductive. There may well continue to be petroleum in the well but it isn’t flowing rapidly enough. Wells are repaired by fracturing the nearby rock with explosives and leaching out the pores with solvents. Without these procedures, the petroleum may leach some of the pores over time.
burt on September 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM
burt on September 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Sorry, but Gold was plain wrong, at least as far as to the origin of most of the vast majority of oil in the earth.
Thank our little algal buddies for most of our world’s oil.
TexasJew on September 25, 2008 at 6:14 PM
The water issue is a farce. This company is ALREADY working in the shale, filtering and REUSING the water during extraction.
Check it out…
http://www.ecospheretech.com/
HarryBalzac on September 25, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Does everyone know that Alcee Hastings is a guy?
burt on September 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Does everyone know that Alcee Hastings is a guy?
burt on September 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM
burt, this thread is about Oil Shale, not Shit Head.
TexasJew on September 25, 2008 at 6:31 PM
The first of several about Hastings
Now that we are discussing each other’s comments, I am perfectly willing to believe Gold was wrong about this; he frequently was wrong. I thing a little more justification than, “Gold was plain wrong,” is in order.
burt on September 25, 2008 at 9:20 PM
burt on September 25, 2008 at 9:20 PM
OK, the chlorophyll breakdown products in oil, such as pristane and phytane, several examples of C13 isotopes and a host of other markers point to biogenic origins. Then there’s the almost-negligable amount of Precambrian oil, even in relatively undisturbed basins, at a time when the earth should have been “degassing” like crazy.
btw, I am a petroleum geologist and have worked extensively with petroleum geochemistry. I wish that Gold had been correct, but it appears that he was quite off the mark.
TexasJew on September 25, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Did you know that jews and blacks are not allowed to use oil shale according to Alcee.
Fuquay Steve on September 26, 2008 at 7:29 AM
Yes, except (and I don’t know what I’m talking about here, so bear that in mind :-) that, absent the C-13 question, I thought those chlorophyll by-products are explained in the ‘non-biological origins’ theory, by predicting their formation in exact ratios / isotopes / trans-forms etc., from physical processes (i.e., temperature and pressure?). They argue that the notion that pristane and phytane came from chlorophyll is just a hypothesis to begin with…
Then, they argue (no idea if it’s true or not, or if my re-telling is 100% accurate – I’m paraphrasing :-) that the high temps/pressures of the mantle are the only place where lower-order HC’s (like methane / ethene etc.) spontaneously transform into the portfolio of higher-order HC’s, and – lo and behold – there, they transform into the exact ratios found in crude oil (*anes). They also claim that the ‘biological’ theory has never been able to demonstrate (much less prove) how those HC’s came into being in the first place, especially in those exact ratios. Then they reach even further by stating flatly, those HC’s could not be created at the shallow depths/temps proposed by ‘biological oil proponents’, because it would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (Whereas, at higher temps/pressures, they claim to be able to prove, crude oil appears spontaneously.)
They claim they can even account for variations (such as between trans-configurations of certain oil molecules), claiming it is a direct function of certain fundamental variables, and implying that, when the conditions of those variables are reproduced / manipulated in the laboratory, they can consistently generate whatever variations they choose, etc.
They then go on to prove it on paper, ostensibly, using the very same sort of advanced physics that they insinuate most geologists don’t engage in (among other subtle digs), thus demonstrating their innate superiority ;-).
The C-13 question is brushed aside by flipping it around: presumably, whatever life came about was based on carbon, so it was inevitable that it took on the C-isotope ratios found wherever planet-surface carbon came from – presumably, from the mantle… Impossible?
That’s why I scratch my head and wonder, what’s the deal here? (And why are the Russians finding oil at depths where we say it doesn’t exist? Has it simply trickled down toward the mantle from vast oil lakes closer to the surface?)
RD on September 26, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Er, to be more precise,
If that’s true, one wonders, then where did all of that chlorophyll-ane from the planetary surface go? Don’t know if they account for that or not. (Is it possible that it can decay or break down when exposed to sunlight or other physical processes?)
RD on September 26, 2008 at 9:29 AM
You are kidding right?
Since it is a THEORY, why don’t you get yourself a well… starting drilling.. and take your ass to the bottom of that hole and then tell me what you see.
Then while down there we can have you evaluate the carbon molocules, the isotopes, the gamma ray (since there will be quite a bit of radiation down there) and anything else. While down there, why don’t you tell us the temp (since it is required by law in the U.S. to give BHT’s and send us some chip samples as we would love to see what lurks at 40,000 feet.
Or you can go to Russia and try to speak to the people who did the deep drilling and see if THEY have core samples, resistivity data, oil and gas samples and anything else that they may let you look at.
Theories… think about it.
upinak on September 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Sorry, this is the 1st time I’ve had a chance to check back since the other day; upinak, I’m not sure if you’re questioning me, the theory / body of claims allegedly made by the Russians, or both!
I’m not intentionally kidding above, so if I’ve misspoken w/o realizing it or anything I’ve written there is funny, a laugh at my expense is more than appropriate. :-)
TexasJew and all in the hydrocarbon sciences, my standing curiosity is: How thoroughly are the claims on either side of the oil origins ‘debate’ (to the extent that it is a debate) considered to have been vetted and/or debunked? And how many in the oil business (stateside) even see it as a debate? Or is the non-biological origin of crude oil considered so ‘looney’ as to be not worth acknowledging/refuting (and if so, why)?
The way it’s been characterized by the Russian ‘non-biological’ camp, the debate has more or less three sides: the bio’s, the Russian non-bio’s, and Gold, who is in a world by himself, arguing a different theory from the Russians.
Thus, allegedly – according to the Russian camp – debunking Gold neither validates nor invalidates their theory. Will that dog hunt (or not)?
RD on September 30, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3