|
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Are you serious? I never took geology in college man. I don't assume you took too many geology classes or had any oil extraction training in law school either. What I do know is that a 7 year study by those with no political agenda who do know and understand oil, shale, geology, etc. have concluded that there are approximately 1.2 trillion barrels worth of oil in that shale, and 800 billion of that they say can be extracted as crude with current technology. |
reading comprehension my republican friend. I understand the amount of potential synthetic oil can be produced from the shale in colorado, wyoming, and utah. I am not disputing the 800 billion barrel of oil (equivalent) number. What you are clearly missing is that it is NOT crude oil that they would be extracting. There would be no oil derricks. They would be extracting rock, and converting a material in the rock through some chemical processes to create a synthetic oil substance similar to crude. If you re-read those impressive 800 billion numbers, you will notice it actually says, "800 billion barrels of oil equivalents." Equivelants. Equivalents. GET IT?
What i'm saying is the process to extract the minerals needed to SYNTHETICALLY produce the oil is not something I would want to occur because of the devastating effect on the natural environment.
Oh, and i took a year long course in geology in college. I was required to take two natural sciences in college (physics and geology).
Extracting the materials wouldn't look like this:

It would look like this:

GET IT??
Since i don't think you do get it, read this:
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm
Last edited by jerZ07002 on Apr-28-2009 at 22:50
|