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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

"...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.

...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?

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.

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.    

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!