Shale We Dance?

Bush admin proposes low royalty rates in push for U.S. oil-shale development

Posted at 7:43 AM on 23 Jul 2008

The Bush administration proposed rules [PDF] for U.S. oil shale development Tuesday that include charging lower royalty rates for oil-shale production on public lands than it does for other oil and gas drilling. The lower royalties are meant to encourage oil-shale production since, as it turns out, the energy- and pollution-intensive process of cooking rocks before pumping out the resulting oil is still up to three times more expensive than extracting already-liquid oil. "It is basically recognition that in the beginning there has to be a lower royalty to recognize the pioneering nature of this business," said the executive director of the National Oil Shale Association. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne had a different take on the economics of oil-shale development, saying the high costs of production are finally beginning to make sense. "For years, the cost of extracting oil from shale exceeded the benefit, but today that calculus is changing." (Thanks, high oil prices!)

source: Associated Press
new in Muckraker: Bush admin's effort to spur oil shale production won't do much for consumers in short run
see also, in Gristmill: It's a 1980 flashback, as energy price spikes make oil shale economical once again

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (12 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Wow, What A Great Deal!

The oil companies get to destroy the Earth even more than by normal oil drilling, and the public gets virtually nothing.

by Wolverine at 9:29 AM on 23 Jul 2008

Aww come on Wolvi

We the people get to keep guzzling gas at 5, 6, 7, 8 ..bucks per gallon and feed trillions in debt to terrorist supporting regimes (this will only provide a few percent of our oil use), enrich hedge fund crooks, help destroy the climate, and fight and fund oil wars forever.

That's a great deal for all of US. Vote McBush!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 10:28 AM on 23 Jul 2008

Sorry John

You''re right, I was being an ingrate. I didn't realize the wonderful benefits we'll receive from this deal.

by Wolverine at 10:35 AM on 23 Jul 2008

Hmmm

Well this is just great isn't it. Honestly, I think we need to work on economy in which business produce environmentally friendly goods/services that provide a suitably utility for the individual. For example, I came across a website http://www.simplestop.net that stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.

Visit Simplestop.net - We stop your postal junk mail, Protect the environment, Protect your identity.

by Gustavion at 3:29 PM on 23 Jul 2008

Shale doesn't support terrorism

Shale and coal conversion provide homegrown oil.

I believe that if oil stays above $70 a barrel, at least coal conversion is profitable.

I wonder what we could do to mitigate environmental costs at $120 a barrel?

Again...as a stepping stone to a better ultimate solution.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

by Paleocon at 4:29 PM on 23 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

oil shale awayyyyyyyyyyyy

way to go wolverine that is exactly what there up to more destruction of mother earth. since all cant unite to stop driving. and i cant turn a corner without almost getting run over by a black SUV with a blond behind the wheel on her cellphone arghhhhhhhhhhh

flying under the radar

by treestump at 4:45 PM on 23 Jul 2008

How much money will Obama have to work with now!

Jeez Louise! Bushy has already screwed the budget for any incoming president, even if it was McCain by not demanding the money that the citizens of the country have coming to them!

I'm sorry Mr. Bush, but your American turnip's are just about out of blood for you to squeeze, sir.

"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide, to dispel the misery of the world." - Shantideva

by mtvyfan at 7:23 AM on 24 Jul 2008

Skip to the best solutions

"...as a stepping stone to a better ultimate solution"

Why not skip these foul GHG multiplying air-fouling, aquifer destroying "stepping stone(s)" instead? Because the gas guzzling must continue?

No one is buying that anymore. except bribed legislators and lobbyists. And a very small minority of deluded supporters of supply side fuelishness.

Only demand reduction will stabilize fossil fuel prices, supply increase is a dead end. For the economy and the climate.

Over the next two decades diminish demand for liquid fuel, to a small fraction of present use. With renewable electric energy for transportation.

The technology exists right now, only a free and fair market, let loose from the monopoly control of status quo gas guzzling dependent industries, is necessary to get this effort going.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:43 AM on 24 Jul 2008

Well said, Dr. X.

...Even though you're apparently no longer an "X."

Grats on finally gaining a real name; I understand that's useful for acquiring a driver's license or getting into clubs.

Every dime spent on oil shale extraction would be much better spent on efficiency, or developing electric cars, or at the very least, non-destructive alternative fuels. (These do exist; there's a very cool NYT article in the current--now yesterday's--"In Brief.")

And coal-to-liquid is the worst idea since... Well, solid coal. Is Obama still supporting coal-to-liquid, or has he had the good sense to back-peddle and pretend he never really liked it? Anyone know?

by Pathos at 4:07 AM on 25 Jul 2008

Energy will be required to get there

I applaud the activism you represent. It may not be realistic in the short term, but it pushes us in the right direction.

As long as it includes a commitment to improving the standard of living of humans at the same time.

"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective

by Paleocon at 10:52 AM on 28 Jul 2008
[ Parent ]

oil shale development

As with most of the governments plans for energy the oil shale is one of the worst. The pollution is extensive and the cheapest way to get to the shale is open pit mining. Water useage is high to make the slurry and chemicals added to the mix are also highly toxic to the environment.
As with the ethanol production, it takes five gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. Corn is one of the most nutrient soil robbing plants in the farm world. The land used to produce this product is also taken out of food production. I am all for renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind. That Texas oilman (can't think of his name) has the right idea and it can be done a lot more quickly than any drilling on or offshore.

by Birdy100 at 5:34 AM on 29 Jul 2008

January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough!

Get that fool out of office now while we still have a United States left! The man one of the biggest morons on the face of the earth!

"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide, to dispel the misery of the world." - Shantideva

by mtvyfan at 9:41 AM on 31 Jul 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?