Life, the Universe, and Everything

Friday, September 02, 2005

US rich in oil


US' shale deposits rich in oil, but mining carry risks
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worldbiz/archives/2005/09/02/2003270104

"The US has an oil reserve at least three times that of Saudi Arabia”

"For years, the industry and the government considered oil shale -- a rock that produces petroleum when heated -- too expensive to be a feasible source of oil. "

"However, oil prices, which spiked above US$70 a barrel this week, combined with advances in technology could soon make it possible to tap the estimated 500 billion to 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels, the report found."

"That could meet a quarter of the nation's current oil needs for the next 400 years."

--

The article is kind of funny, I guess this is a liberal headline "but mining carry risks." If you read that alone, would you not think "Oh, if we mine his oil human lives will be lost." But no, if you read the article the "risks" are "environmental damage"

Quite frankly if a few areas get environmental damaged and it can take care of 100% of America's Oil Needs for 100 years, it is worth it. I just hope our government isn't swayed by pansy environmentalists who's true agenda is to destroy America.

posted by Daryl at 7:42 AM

7 Comments:

  • I don't think enviromentalists want to destroy america. Some of the things they have accomplished are good. Look at industrialized China where there is a constant 'fog' of smoke permeating their biggest cities. Me don't want to live in a city that polluted.

    The problem is some enviromentalists won't compromise on anything. These are the ones who need to be shown the door.

    By Blogger Measure, at 9/02/2005 9:11 AM  

  • The Kyoto Protocol was biased very much towards the US. I am certain it was designed to bring America down and Europe up. The enviro guys here in the US are still crying about it.

    By Blogger Daryl, at 9/02/2005 9:22 AM  

  • Oh, yes, the Kyoto thing was a farce from the beginning, and ultimately foreign countries wanted to use it to bring the US down to their economic level.

    It's an interesting situation, where most countries in the world are in a economic depression right now, while the US surges forward without the shackles of Socialism or Communism. This was a backhanded way to try to economically hurt the US.

    What, they thought that we would blindly sign the treaty without considering the economic impact? ha!

    I still say that most enviromentalists are not out to destroy our country. That doesn't mean there aren't some out there who are.

    By Blogger Measure, at 9/02/2005 9:34 AM  

  • Most, no. Many Yes. And many of them do not think about the consequences.

    I am an environmentalist. I want there to be pretty trees, no smog, clean water, and cuddly animals roaming free. But they can do that outside the city. I don't want to have to build fake swamps like at our aunt Debbi's. That is ridiculous.

    By Blogger Daryl, at 9/02/2005 9:41 AM  

  • Yeah, I'd have to agree that building mosquito nesting grounds is pretty over the line. What we need is for west nile virus to really take off to get people to hate wetlands again.

    By Blogger Measure, at 9/02/2005 9:44 AM  

  • It is funny that OPEC has priced oil so high that competing technologies are becoming cost-effective.

    The enviros won't like us finding vast new sources of oil, but what are they gonna do, cry about it?

    By Blogger Measure, at 9/02/2005 10:07 AM  

  • The enviros are going to get laws passed to make it so expesive to extract the oil that it will no longer be cost effective.

    Interesting point about OPEC. I think they are just thinking right now about maximizing profits.

    By Blogger Daryl, at 9/02/2005 10:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home