Shale Oil as an Energy Solution - 20080807 - Fox News

[sonfowler1127]

I want this video on my Optimus Slider unit.

[ughkane614h]

This video went viral on Ghana

[ballistic031983]

FRACKING IS ILLEGAL AND ALL OIL EXTRACTION SHOULD HAULT!!!!

[iflyboats]

Fuck politics and fuck the environment. Let's get that oil.

[MsZeitgeist85]

Shale is not a solution. It's a problem.

Net Energy. Look it up.

[Vulcan750L]

You're right. Politics is the big one. But politics has to do with people's understanding and perception of what is going on. There is a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance about this subject.

I'm trying to do my part to educate people. Have you checked out my channel?

[Vulcan750L]

In the past, they couldn't make shale profitable because the price of oil was still too low. That is no longer the case.

Shale could replace all imported oil. We also have enough of it to export if we triple our domestic oil production. We could sell to the Chinese and India and get all our money back from them and turn the tables on them.

I hate to see 600-700 Billion of our dollars going to foreigners, especially to the Arabs, and a good chunk of that does.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L we have at least 2 trillion barrels of oil shale in this country alone. it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there was a lot more than that.

don't expect us to tap into geothermal energy at Yellowstone anytime soon. it's a protected area, and thus, you can't do anything to it. Cutting down some of the unhealthy trees so that the healthy ones can grow would help the park, but again, won't happen.

[sullgass]

Is that clear enough for you???

[Vulcan750L]

You don't learn by arguing UNLESS you think you know more than someone else. If you're going to turn around and CLAIM IGNORANCE, then why were you arguing?

Sound familiar?

You did think you knew something they did. That is why you argued, right? Did you claim ignorance afterwords? Do you see the contradiction there?

On the one hand you are saying you know better than your teacher but at the same time you would not say that you were a teen and didn't know anything.

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L If by CLAIM IGNORANCE, you mean thinking there were no ways to purify exhaust fumes and when told there were that were not aware of that fact, then yes, I did. Otherwise, no I still think that investing time and money into clean renewable sources of energy as opposed to oil shale is a good idea. Not all teachers are the same, some make mistakes and when they do they need to be corrected, because not everything they say is solid fact, they are no more perfect than you or I!

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

No, claiming ignorance means you claimed that you didn't know. Ignorance is when you don't know something. In which case, you would not be arguing.

Telling your teacher that she is wrong or lying, is to imply that you know something she does not. Ignorance is just the opposite. Ignorance means you do not know. Arguing implies that you know something.

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L Actually my teacher is a guy. I know the idea of a MAN being wrong is probably hard for you to comprehend but it's true. You are right that ignorance means that you don't know something, but: If I do not know that there are ways to purify exhaust fumes then I argue that we should not support Shale Oil because of then toxic exhaust fumes that come from using it. When you tell me that there are methods to purifying it, I tell you I did not know that and that you now have a point.

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

What kind of school do you go to that you only have 1 teacher? Is it a school for retards? lol

I can't believe I spent 3 or 4 days trying to explain ignorance to a smart ass kid. If you're too stupid to understand what ignorance means after 3 explanations. I think it's time to give it up.

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L I don't have only one teacher, moron. I meant that the teacher I'm always having to correct happens to be a man. I have other teachers, but none are as dumb as him. If you feel the need to go on youtube and call kids that just want a cleaner earth retards, then you obviously have some issues to work out.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L Say we do discover fusion power in 2 decades. It's been promised for over a generation, but hasn't come around. I'm sure we'll find a way to do so one day, but I don't know when that will be. If we develop a sustained fusion reaction that we can harness energy from, I fully expect many political protests warning about the dangers to due their best to keep fusion reactors from being put into use. even without fusion, we have enough uranium to last thousands of years.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

Fusion power does not have the same problems as Fission power, so don't lump them together.

Fusion power is already on it's way to becoming commercially available. They've already solved the problems associated with Fusion power. Right now, they are just tweaking it to make it more efficient and doing more testing. They should have a full scale pilot plant in about 20 years. Soon after that, Fusion power plants will be popping up all over the place.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L Perhaps, but I doubt it's going to fully stop people's protests. Some don't want anything to do with nuclear power, period, no matter how safe and efficient they're told it is.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

Once they become educated on the subject, they will see the light. Fission and Fusion power are two different things.

You can't satisfy everybody. Some people don't like dams because it kills fish. Some don't like wind generators cause it kills birds, or they think it is an eye sore, some don't like the constant droning noise that drives them mad. Some don't like solar or wind cause of the new power lines needed all over the place.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L I've heard that said about our current nuclear reactors, that we can educate them, that we can show them that the danger is minimal. It hasn't worked; the anti-nuclear crowd has been very effective at getting their message out. we haven't built a new nuclear plant in close to 40 years. You so much as say nuclear, they start screaming their heads off. I won't be in the least surprised if they react the same way to fusion.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

Again you keep making the comparison with Fission power.

There is no possibility of a runaway reactor and a meltdown with this technology. There is no radiation to be accidentally released. That's like arguing that a tiger and a house cat are similar. Sure, they are. But one has the potential to kill me, and might one day. The other is harmless.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

I don't understand why they don't just make a super massive geothermal power plant at Yellowstone that could power half the country, or even the whole country.

From what I understand, geothermal power can be built anywhere in the world. Dig down deep enough and it gets hot. 5 or 6 miles at the deepest. This is how deep we are currently drilling for oil.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L well, it has to be worth the money and effort you put into digging that deep. In many areas, it's not, and it has to be consistent energy as well, like near a volcano, for example. The reason we don't do it in Yellowstone is that it's considered a "protected" area and thus we can't do anything.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

You don't think free energy and saving the planet is worth the money and effort?

The fact that it is protected federal land doesn't mean that they can't make an exception if they chose to.

Yellowstone is the largest dormant volcano known to man. It has a massive magma chamber near the surface. And by the way, that's not even necessary. They could dig pretty much anywhere on the west coast going down only 2 or 3 miles to get the amount of heat they would need.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L you're missing my point. I'm saying there are people who will protest ANY nuclear power plant, just because the very concept frightens them.

We can't save the planet, because we can't destroy the planet. It's been here for 4.5 billion years and will be here long after we're gone. Our planet is far more resistant than people give it credit for.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

"Saving the planet" wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was meant in the way that most people use it, meaning keeping the planet habitable for human beings. Mother nature could care less what the atmosphere consisted of or if the whole planet froze over or became submerged under water. She cares not. The planet will still be here.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

And you are missing MY point.

You will never satisfy everyone.

There are people in California protesting the power lines that will be running through their properties from a new proposed wind or solar farm. Even some environmental groups are joining the fight. They don't like power lines ruining the landscape and think high power transmission lines emit harmful electromagnetic waves.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L For some of them, it seems like we should just lower our standard of living to where it was 200 years ago. For them, not us, of course. They're enlightened, so they're exempt from the rules.

I've heard some say that saving money through using less electricity isn't as great as it seems because people use the money to but environmentally unfriendly products. Clearly, the only solution is for our lives to be controlled 24 hours a day.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

Yellowstone is the largest dormant volcano known to man. It has a massive magma chamber near the surface. 

AND BY THE WAY, that's not even necessary. They could dig pretty much anywhere on the west coast going down only 2 or 3 miles to get the amount of heat they would need.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L We've currently got about 30 percent of the world's thermal energy generation. There are numerous alternatives for the future. Which one we'll choose... it'll depend on several things, politics probably being a big one.

and what I meant in the last message is that we have to live by those rules, but they don't. sorry, typo.

[sullgass]

And btw I did not make that oil consumption rate up. Search Civil Protection Oil's Well. A good amount of my info originally came from there but I later checked them from on sources I found online. You're right, I can't prove it's true but I'd say the same goes for alot of the stuff you're writing. You won't be laughing out loud when you see things aren't going as well as one would expect.

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

So now you're accusing me of making stuff up even though you have no proof of it or any reason to believe it? Be more specific about your accusations. I can defend everything I've said. Why don't you do some research into the things that I've claimed instead of just calling me a liar without any proof of it.

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

I just looked up Civil Protection Oil's as you suggested. LOL

Are you kidding me? You get your info from a fictitious storyline in a computer game? LOL

Man! You crack me up! LOL

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L Yeah the GAME is fictitious. But the facts he said were true (to a degree) and even if they weren't the message is clear: We should not be researching new ways to extract a resource that will pollute our atmosphere and run out any way! I know you said the exhaust can be purified and that the Shale Oil will last a while, but it seems ALOT easier to just improve energies like solar, wind, and hydroelectric. I'm not making stuff up. Maybe some of my sources are but I'm not.

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L And btw I'm in my teens right now so cut me some slack for not having a ton information and research. I just want a clean earth with renewable energy sources used instead of MORE oil.

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

There is no truth to the storyline in Half Life. That was the game wasn't it? I'm not sure . . .

Everything was exaggerated and blown out of proportion to make for an interesting story. The storyline is based on some myths and popular misconceptions.

If you're going to claim that you're a teen and you're ignorant, then don't go around arguing with people who know more than you and don't accuse somebody of being a liar if you don't even know what the facts are.

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L None of that information about the past is part of the game. The creator of the CP videos, Ross Scott, was just using that game to talk about the current problems in the world. I looked up some of what he said and you're right that a lot of it is exaggerated but as I said the point of it is pretty clear.

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L The point of ignorance is that I didn't know there were ways to purify exhaust and other things so I argued my point of view. Besides if I hadn't I never would have learned anything. Are you saying I shouldn't argue my view when I learn something out of it???

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

If you don't know something and you want to learn then you ask questions. When you argue, you're insisting that you are right and the other person is wrong. If you don't know what you are talking about then don't argue. Do you go to school and argue with the teachers? Or do you sit there and listen and learn and ask questions?

You don't learn by arguing unless you think you know more than someone else. If you're going to turn around and claim ignorance, then why were you arguing?

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L I was arguing because I did not know there were methods to purifying exhaust fumes and other info. Without those in mind I actually have a valid argument. BTW, I DO sometimes argue with a teacher because some aren't very smart and they occasionally make mistakes which, had I not pointed them out, the rest of the class would have believed them. Even when I admit you have a point you STILL condescend me by questioning why I dared question your point of view, and stated my opinion.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L I admit, I'm not as optimistic about the future of nuclear power as you are. We were hugely optimistic about it in the 50's and 60's, but we stopped building nuclear plants. Not because we lacked the technology or the resources, but because people became afraid of nuclear power. (I've debated these people and found that they often know little about it) Until that disappears, I don't see us making any great strides.

[geir44]

What a douche

[sullgass]

They're making the idea of Shale Deposits look promising and there is allot of oil of in Shale Deposits, but the rocks take a TON of heat and energy to produce the oil and burning shale rocks creates a toxic vapor that is harmful to breathe and deteriorates the ozone layer twice as effectively as regular smoke from burning oil. Oil Shale isn't worth researching or use America!!!

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

The whole idea behind research is to solve those problems you just mentioned. So it is worth researching since Shale Oil represents 2 or 3 Trillion barrels of oil, enough to last the US for over 300 years on it's own, not counting other sources, and assuming we do not move forward with any green technologies.

Oil Shale is too valuable a resource to ignore or forget about.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L I'm willing to bet there's more than that. We tend to underestimate reserves and there are plenty of Shale Oil formations that are not well explored.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

As long as we have enough oil for the next 100 years, I'm not worried about the energy problems. It looks like we have enough oil to last us way beyond that, especially when you consider everything else we have. And especially when you consider all the green technologies coming online. And then there is Fusion power which will be available in 30 years.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L they said that 30 years. Politics has kept nuclear power from becoming the main source of electricity in this country. People are afraid of it when there's little reason to be. I don't see us developing fusion, but I can see us building widespread breeder reactors, and start using nuclear reprocessing, if we ever get over our fear. Course, I don't see that happening in this country anytime soon.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

I'm not predicting the future. I'm talking about existing technologies. They've been working on Fusion power for decades. They pretty much have a working model now, but they want to do more testing before they build a full scale model. There is not much funding for it so progress is slow. In 20 years, there will be a full scale pilot plant. Soon after that, there will be Fusion plants sprouting up all over the place.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L we'll see. Few prototypes actually get to mass production and many are still afraid of nuclear power. Hopefully, one day we can move past that.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

I think we should do a super large scale "green" shale and tar processing plant that doubles as a electric power plant and algae bio-fuel plant. All the CO2 exhaust could be used to aerate the algae.

And all existing coal burning plants should be mandated to go green. Have their exhaust run through algae growing tubes or ponds to make algae bio-fuels.

And then build a super massive geothermal plant at Yellowstone. That could be built big enough to power half the country.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L coal is gradually disappearing as an energy source. consumption has been roughly steady in this country despite a 10 percent increase in population.

Honestly, I don't see wind and solar ever really being able to replace fossil fuels. Might work on a small scale, but not sure it would work on a large one. Still think nuclear power would work better, and we have trillions of barrels of shale.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

I don't see why you can't have solar panels on the roof tops of every business and every house. Solar panels can be done on a large scale like that. That alone could supply half the energy we need for power generation.

Nuclear can be a part of the power mix. Could raise it's contribution from 20% to 30%, just by replacing the aging power plants with newer more efficient ones. Wind could be 10%. Green fossil fuels, 30%. Geothermal could be 10%. Solar panels, 20%.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L I can see solar having as big a contribution as hydroelectric power, but probably not something that generates all or even most of the power we use.

We have enough uranium to last centuries just through reprocessing without breeders, thorium, or fusion. Honestly, I think focusing on nuclear power would be the cheapest, most efficient option. Unfortunately, politics has gotten in the way of it. i can easily see the same happening with oil shale.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

Nuclear is good for now but in the near future, Fusion is the way to go. It will be cheaper than conventional nuclear and no radiation waste.

Cheap affordable solar panels on every roof top also makes the most sense. Why do you not like solar panels? I can see that as part of every new housing construction. What do you see as the problem with that?

It won't be long before they come up with an efficient long lasting battery for cars.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

Transportation could be a mix of cars running on algae bio-fuels and electric cars.

But 60 years from now. It will all be fusion power plants, solar panels, and electric cars. This makes the most sense, especially once we develop better battery and more efficient solar panel technology.

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L we'll see. We were supposed to walk on Mars and be able to clone people by now; that didn't happen. Only problem with electric cars is the battery; you have to replaces it every so often, which is expensive, and they weigh over 1,000 pounds. The prototypes I've read about have had repeated cost overruns and technical difficulties. I figure it's going to take time to work those out, but we're not going to replace fossil fuels anytime in the near future.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

I think fossil fuels will be getting phased out soon within the next 60 years. Everybody wants to go green. The Green movement is on and getting stronger with each passing year.

Within 30 years, efficient batteries will be available. Fusion will be available.  Cheap efficient solar panels will be available.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

There is an Israeli firm based in the US, they want to do electric cars with battery replacement stations located throughout the cities and along highways.

You own the car but not the batteries. Batteries have a range of over 100 miles and you can recharge at home. If you get caught running out of charge while you are out or if you are doing a road trip, you can pull into one of their stations and change out your batteries the same way you stop for gas. Takes 5 minutes.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

You never have to buy batteries because you don't own the batteries. It's factored into the cost of the car and the charge at the swap stations. It will still be cheaper than paying for gas though. And the cars will cost the same as any regular car.

[Vulcan750L]

@DanPhantom89

We already have the technologies right now to fix everything. The problem is not the technology. The problem is the willingness to do it and use it. We have nanosolar that is 1/10 the cost of conventional solar panels to produce. But due to supply and demand, the cost is still high, but within 5 or 10 years, that will all change. We also have electric cars. so what is the panic about? Just do it!

[DanPhantom89]

@Vulcan750L Thorium is also something we could use, especially when it's 3-4 times as common as uranium. Who knows? one thing we've always been bad at is predicting the future.

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

The Oil Shale problems is not too different from the problems with Tar Sands. The Canadians have learned to deal with it. Their solutions aren't perfect, but there are no perfect energy solutions as of yet. And the cost of extraction is about the same as crude oil from deep sea wells, about $20/barrel. As long as the market price for oil is over $40, it's worth it.

There are problems with "green" technologies as well. Albeit, different kinds of problems.

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L The point of advancing technology isn't to find new ways to extract oil! Even if it does become efficient. The cost of extracting the oil is more energy than we get back from the oil itself and even if that changes the toxic vapors produced from extraction will still tear apart the ozone layer and damage the atomoshere. We should be putting our time and money into researching green tech not more types of oil. You're right that green tech isn't perfect but it'll be easier to improve.

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

It takes one barrel of oil to extract 3 barrels of oil, same for Tar Sands.

Vapors and exhaust can be cleansed and recirculated into the system through algae ponds and other means.

Right, we should be putting time and money into green energies, and we are. But, the oil companies aren't going to do that, so they can put time and money into cleaning up their own act.

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L I'm not familiar with recycling methods for exhaust fumes but I assume that takes energy to cleanse and recirculate as well, and what you said earlier about there being 2 trillion barrels of shale oil, that won't last as long as you'd think. Right now the world is consuming ALOT of oil and it will only increase as population and industry do. Even now the United States alone is sucking down 30 billion barrels annually, and with China and India coming online that oil won't last long.

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

I don't know where you get your info, but you are way off. I think you just make stuff up. LOL

The US consumes 7.66 Billion annually. We have enough to last for well over 200 years at current levels. Consumption levels will probably go up gradually in the near future, probably no more than 10 Billion barrels annually, but then it will start to DECLINE as fuel becomes expensive, and as we increase use of electric and hybrid cars and as more bio-fuels become available.

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

Yes it takes more energy to cleanse the emissions but not much. However, it also makes a lot more energy by feeding the Algae.  Algae is then turned into bio-fuels and other even more valuable products in Pharmaceuticals and health supplements.

In 60 years, carbon fuels will be history. We will have very cheap and very clean Fusion power, affordable efficient electric cars, and cheap affordable solar panels on every roof top.

[sullgass]

@Vulcan750L That's easier said than done. Eventually I hope something like that does happen, but I think 60 years is being a little optimistic. Back in the 80s people thought that by now we'd have colonies on the moon and hover cars and we're not even near that. However, if that is true then I fail to see the need for Oil Shale or Tar Sands. Sure, regular amounts of oil are running out but if we start setting up more energy plants based on RENEWABLE energy then it should last us 60 years.

[Vulcan750L]

@sullgass

I was in my teens in the 80's and I don't remember anybody claiming we would be living on the moon and driving around in hover cars, except for maybe science fiction writers and Hollywood movie makers. So again, you just resort to making stuff up to support your arguments.

Everything I've talked about and "predicted" already exist and is already happening. So I'm not making any "wild" claims. The "within 60 years" is just how long before all of this will COMPLETELY take place.

[SovietWarrior]

Yanks trying to push this as a "miracle" solution for Europe's dependence on Russian gas. Too bad they have to drill about 8000 holes over an area of the size of Belgium and pump in groundwater destroying chemicals to keep their "independence", hah.

So I guess the question is, should EU disband Poland, resettle all poles and turn the country into one big drilling operation? I'm FOR it with both hands!

[EricIndiana]

I thought that dude was gonna burn his arm off in the end.

Way to promote fire safety FOX.

Shell is stalling.

They dont want to rush their commercial development because when they own the worlds monopoly on oil, once the Middle Easts oil is used up, and Peak Oil is at its peak.... then they stand to make a massive mint from the supply and demand.

[pohjalo]

I think 2:14-2:20 sums this up pretty well

[theoneagain]

bollocks

They should invest in hydrogen whats wrong with these stupid politicians they think profit all the time

[nonantianarchist]

Hydrogen is not a source of energy,and is thus useless unless there's a different source with which to extract it from water. Now I'm personally not arguing for or against new fossil fuels and naturally oppose government subsidies. I actually think the way out lies in nuclear power-specifically from breeder reactors using either U 238 and PU 239 or Thorium 234 and U 233. The final volume of waste is very small and not overly difficult to store.