digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

New Royal Dutch Shell Patent Could Mean Oil For $30 A Barrel, US #1 Source

weeklystandard.com — Royal Dutch Shell is patenting a technique to convert shale to petroleum at a cost of only about $30/barrel. If it works, the world's single largest source of oil would be... the United States. What would the world be like if all the oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, Nigeria, and elsewhere was suddenly nearly worthless?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -118/+21Um....No.

    Alaska crude is already cheaper and they jack the price up to maintain the status quo.

    • InfidelAl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+94I'm not exactly in the oil business, but isn't that called "supply and demand"? Oil is a WORLD commodity...
    • Talphin, on 10/12/2007, -18/+146Well, it would probably mean that our troops would be pulled out the the middle east. :P I'm just sayin!!
    • LetsGoHawks, on 10/12/2007, -7/+46The price of oil is set by the commodities markets. Not by any government or company. There are things that those entities can do that might influence the price, but that is a lot different than actually setting the price.

      If this tech pans out and starts producing significant amounts, the price of oil will probably drop because the supply will go up and the "new stuff" will be from a politically stable area. A big reason the price is high now is because of the political situation in Venzuela, Africa and, of course, the middle east.
    • stevejobbs, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22this is bad news for us alaskans who work in the Oil Industry :(

      oh wait it's still cheaper the way we do it. way cheaper. nice to know we have something to fall back on.

      once you consider all the overhead involved in the extraction it comes out to costing less than $1 per barrel to extract.
    • Mudb0y, on 10/12/2007, -19/+58@Letsgohawks
      "The price of oil is set by the commodities markets. Not by any government or company. There are things that those entities can do that might influence the price, but that is a lot different than actually setting the price."

      If this were a free market, then companies would be hard pressed to make a profit...Price being equal to the marginal cost. Since Exxon is raking in money by the imperial ***** tons, lets assume that there is something that is pushing the price of gasoline up, other than the costs of producing/refining oil...

      Its called collusion, or an oligopoly if you will... Oil prices are demonstrably not no set by "the market".

    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -7/+86Oil is most definitely not free market. One acronym: OPEC.
    • JimV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27mudb0y

      Actually, in a free market the correct price to charge for any product is that which the market will bear. That means you charge as much as you can to maximize your profits. However, you can't charge too much or else you risk less people buying whatever it is your selling.

      So it makes perfect sense that the oil industry makes "***** tons" of money, because as much as people bitch about gas prices, they're still buying gas.

      Plus the demand for oil causes the prices to go up. If you have multitudes of people competitively "bidding" for your oil because they all want it, you naturally can charge more than if less people wanted your oil.
    • FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7"If this tech pans out and starts producing significant amounts, the price of oil will probably drop because the supply will go up and the "new stuff" will be from a politically stable area. A big reason the price is high now is because of the political situation in Venzuela, Africa and, of course, the middle east"

      You mean we're going to start caring about Canadian politics?

      Or on the other hand, I wonder how much of the world would consider the US as 'politicallly stable' :)
    • asancho, on 10/12/2007, -14/+57Lets not forget what the C stands for in OPEC.

      Cartel.
    • qwickone, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@mudb0y
      well since OPEC controls something like 70% of the world supply of oil, youre right, we're not in a fee market society. But how can you possibly think that if this pans out you won't see a drop in gas prices by at least half? Exxon is making a crapton of money because something strangling supply. That would all change if this new tech works out.
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13asancho: I'm not sure if you're just being sarcastic, but it's actually Countries. Apologies if my sarcasm meter is broke though...
    • asancho, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22*sigh*

      remember the days when you could post on digg without using /sarcasm to indicate you were kidding...
    • tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Sorry, I've sent my sarcasm meter off for repair already. It won't happen again!
    • humperdeath, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Several thoughts: #1, if this were such a breaking story, wouldn't it also be plastered all over CNN, NBC, USA Today.....
      #2 , The article states this can be produced at under $40/barell, but if the market can get $60, this shale-oil will still go for $60. Uor pump prices will not go down, at least not very much. And #3- Even if prices are the same, I'd be willing to keep paying $2.75-$3/gal so as not to be held hostage by OPEC.
    • reav3r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Just FYI, extracting @ $30 a barrel is hugely expensive. Its around $10 a barrel for the tar sands in Alberta (which is still huge), less the $1 for the middle east, and around $5 to $7 for the rest of north america
    • JimV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"Several thoughts: #1, if this were such a breaking story, wouldn't it also be plastered all over CNN, NBC, USA Today....."

      No, because it's not FUD. Or Imus.

      "#2 , The article states this can be produced at under $40/barell, but if the market can get $60, this shale-oil will still go for $60. Uor pump prices will not go down, at least not very much.

      If the supply increases more quickly than the demand for oil, then the prices will drop. There will be more oil on the market leading to less competition amongst buyers.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"Oil is most definitely not free market. One acronym: OPEC."

      Not every country is a member of OPEC, and even the countries that are don't necessarily follow their guidelines.
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2OPEC may be a Cartel, but they have been breaking their own quotas for 30 years. Not exactly "united" in their quest to keep oil prices high.

      As far as Exxon-Mobil raking in the "huge" profits, just take a look at their actual profit margins, which aren't that high. Exxon-Mobil isn't exactly a good investment, since its highly unlikely they'll be making 50% more money at this time next year. In fact they'll be lucky to make 5% more money next year - not good growth.
    • fivestarsoul, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or NAMBLA
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@jimv

      Your only partially correct. However, in the free market, each supplier will cut prices to sell their product. Why buy a Sony TV for $1500 at Best Buy if I can get it for $1300 at Circuit City. The oil suppliers keep supply artificially low so they can maximize their profit over time. Now, this is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that all of the biggest exporting oil producers COLLUDE to keep supplies low. In a free market, Saudi Arabia would raise production and lower prices so they could sell more of the market than Venezuela.
    • kurtwinter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@letsgohawks

      Actually, the United States' Strategic Oil Reserve represents a market mover, while not setting the price, definitely influencing it.
    • robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I want to believe this, but I'll wait to hear this from a source other than the weeklystandard
    • jeremy66158, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Why it can't work:
      http://a-steep-hill.livejournal.com/62853.html
    • dcmjzero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18@mudb0y: "...imperial ***** tons..."

      I dugg you up just for this. That is my new favorite unit of mass.
    • eatmyshorts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32@qwickone,

      I am in the oil business, btw. You're a little off on your estimates. Some 70% of the world's known oil reserves (i.e. what is in the ground) is in OPEC countries. Actually, OPEC states that the figure is 79%, but that doesn't count tar sands and oil shale. Canada and the US have the biggest supplies of tar sands and oil shale, and, if considered, that figure would probably flip such that 79% of the known oil reserves would be in non-OPEC countries.

      Also, if you take a look at this page:

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/nonopec.html

      You will see that, as of 2004, roughly 40% of the world's oil production comes from OPEC countries. You've got to remember that the biggest producer of oil today is Russia (not Saudi Arabia), and that significant production occurs in the US and in the North Sea (The Netherlands, Norway, and the UK). Heck, Russia even *exports* more oil that Saudi Arabia.

      OPEC does not control the world oil price. OPEC can barely produce any more oil than they are now. Now, if OPEC decided to cut back on production, things could change (and we would likely see a temporary spike in oil prices above $100/barrel). But, for now, the world oil prices are pretty much dictated by supply and demand, with about a $15-$20 premium per barrel for "risk" (like the risks of pipelines exploding in Nigeria, strikes in Venezuela, hurricanes hitting the Gulf of Mexico, and war breaking out in Iran). Basically, the oil business is pretty much like any other commodity business. Cartels don't work in commodity businesses, except in the short term, since when cartels decide to cut off supply, investment occurs in places outside of the cartel. The lead time on investment in the oil business is somewhere between 5-15 years, depending on the source, location, and infrastructure, so OPEC typically has trouble encouraging its member states to sustain any cuts in supply. That is why the embargoes of '73 and '79 lasted...about 5 years each.
    • eitheehstsergei, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2The price of oil is not set by supply and demand. The price of oil is set by an organization in which all oil companies are under that forces them to keep their prices in the same range so there is no competition between them. Basically, it is anti-capitlist.
    • warriorscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Here in Scotland shale was the primary source of petroleum for a long time back before they had developed drilling back then shale was THE WAY to get oil, its very destructive to the environment and leaves massive shale bings(hills) that nothing will grow on and are a very distinctive orange very unsightly. They are only now starting to recover some of them.

      Engineering wise it seems like it would be difficult to do not every patent results in a feasible technology also no mention of yields, shale was abandoned for many reasons not just the cost of extracting it from the ground and recovery it will never yield the same amount of fuel as an oil field and conventional drilling and of course the oil itself isn't the same and plants would need reworked to process it.

      Its also quite sensationalist not giving much in the way of details other than the mysterious patent for extraction without retortion.
    • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Oh great, so instead of raping other countries for their oil resources, we can rape our own environment. I guess this is better than a state of "perpetual war" for petrol. Unless domestic uprisings occur...
      I think we need to get away from oil altogether.
    • Gigs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7U.S. Patent No. 7156176 appears to be what the article is refereing to. It's 694 pages long, which seems to be the longest ever that the article refers to. It was filed in 2002...so not much progress 5 years later?
    • nullcodes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The world will never have enough oil.

      Since oil is energy, and everyone wants energy .. not just to light up their homes, power ACs, or for cars ..it's also to extract, desalinate, and purify water for irrigation/agriculture, or for transportation and communication and healthcare services. As the price of energy drops the cost of construction and automation will reduce .. which means more people will want to have a decent quality of life .. and therefore even more energy will be demanded. For better or worse, an individual's quality of life is tied to energy consumption.
    • digghasnoethics, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I notice this is short on the details. If its the same old "heat tonnes of rock to 700F, while freezing the rock around it, wait 3 years, then get some oil out" as has been mentioned before, its not $30 a barrel and is almost certainly not workable.

      'Slightly grey coloured rock' would be a more accurate description than 'oil shale' - and you can have as many tonnes as you like, if you can't get it out for low energy input at rates of over 1 million barrels a day, then its not a solution.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"It was filed in 2002...so not much progress 5 years later?"

      In 2002, the price for a barrel of oil was about $20, up from $10 in 1999. Noting that this technology costs about $30-$40 a barrel, it has only been feasible to even consider this technology since about 2004.
    • Photokon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Has anyone even mentioned the cost of all the WATER that is required to pull out oil from shale. The Utah, wyoming, etc would have the worst water supply in the country.
    • mikehrp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Price will stay the same. Profits will just go up.
    • kylesellers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You forget that this will never get past all the environmental lobbyists/lawyers...
    • x987, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Shell.27s_In-Situ_Conversion_Process

      nicer explanation. apparently it's more environmentally destructive than drilling. still sounds really neat pumping refrigerant into the ground in a circle followed by sticking a 700*F heater into the well! - clearly this IS the future
    • opiniastrous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Jimv

      Actually, Mudb0y is correct about free markets (i.e. perfect competition). You've only got half the supply and demand explanation right. You're right that more and more buyers push up demand, and therefore put upwards pressure on prices. On the other hand though, when those prices go up then there are more profits to be made in the market, and more people will want a slice of that pie, so they'll start selling. This will mean that there is higher competition, and prices will drop. Anyway, when you have perfect competition, this will mean that sellers will basically keep entering until every firm is called a 'price taker' (as opposed to a 'price maker'), which means that they don't have enough market power to influence prices, and so prices will remain low.

      The fact that it's so difficult to enter the oil market, that there are so few oil sellers, and that oil companies all control supply to maximise profits means that the oil industry is definitely not a free market.
  • srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -7/+91BTW.......as if this needs to be pointed out.......

    There is a BIG difference between the cost of oil and the price you pay for it.
    • TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22But the price you pay for it is related to the price per barrel on the commodity exchanges.
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24@srodolff (#6109360)
      Especially taking into account that "you" don't buy crude oil. You buy refined petroleum products.
    • geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Absolutly, the cost of extracting oil in the Mid-East is around US$4 per barrel. The rest of the price is the cost of refining it and then the actions of the commodities market.

      Extracting shale oil at $30 per barrel is still considerably more expensive than Saudi Oil at cost prices - but is considerably cheaper than current shale oil extraction costs.

      If oil reaches $100 a barrel, then shale oil profit margins make it viable as a source - but not until then.Why not at $32 per barrel as that is still a $2 profit? That ignores the vast capital costs involved - which also has to be paid for. That is why the profit margin needs to be quite high to fund these huge upfront costs.

      The world has an awful lot of oil available - the question is: are we willing to pay the cost that some it would cost to extract.
    • FuzzyBunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That depends on what area the oil is produced from. Oil from the middle east is extremely cheap, while most new wells drilled in the United States are only economic if oil prices stay above $40-$50. Oil is about as much of a commodity as a product can get. The price is nearly directly proportional to the current ration of supply and demand. If an oil company has two wells, one that produces oil at $40 a barrel and one at $10 a barrel and people are currently buying oil for $45 a barrel, they're going to sell the oil from both wells at $45 a barrel. Why do people always attribute oil prices to some grand evil conspiracy when simple common sense and basic economics do a much better, and more rational job of explaining the situation?
    • qwickone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@geekchic
      FTA Royal Dutch Shell is patenting a technique to convert shale to petroleum at a cost of only about $30/barrel.
      It's already petrol, doesnt that make it more refined than crude oil already, thereby WAY cheaper? Or am I missing something?
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@geekchick

      The thing that you might be missing.... is the strategic value of being able to extract oil "relatively" easily and the major source being the USA. If nothing else, I'd expect the US Government to buy the rights to the patent and truly create a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that can ACTUALLY sustain the US for years on end.

      It would be a huge boon for the economy, a huge boon for our stability, and a huge blow to middle east despots that want to use Oil as a weapon.

      @gwickone
      yes, you are missing some. Petrol = Gas/Diesel, Petroleum = Crude oil. The technique actually creates "light-sweet crude" oil.
    • Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7From the article:

      "Amazingly, this method... becomes profitable with oil just north of $30 a barrel (which we've already blown past)"

      $30 a barrel is not the extraction and refinement cost, it's the price at which this oil could be profitably sold.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"There is a BIG difference between the cost of oil and the price you pay for it."

      Exactly, that's why a new source of oil, if it can be produced for less than market value, will drive down the cost of oil.
    • MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The cost of oil and the price of oil have nothing to do with each other. The price is determined by what refiners are willing to pay in order to turn it into gasoline or other petroleum products.
    • FuzzyBunny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The cost of oil and the price of oil have nothing to do with each other. The price is determined by what refiners are willing to pay in order to turn it into gasoline or other petroleum products"

      Ha! Sorry, I'm trying to stifle a laugh. As any economist will tell you price and the cost of production are intimately related. Price may be initially determined by the ratio of current reserves to the current demand. However, that price influences oil companies' decisions of which new wells to drill and other ways to increase production based on what those new wells cost to drill. That in turn influences the resulting reserves and that in turn influences the set price.

      Of course I'm completely leaving out incentives to invest in technology and economies of scale which tie the sell price and the cost of production together even more closely.
  • DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -8/+49There isn't an oil shortage--it's a refining capacity shortage.
    • MaynardsTool, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16You're right, and wrong. There IS a refining shortage. The solution to this is simple: build more refineries. They are not an exhaustible resource. You're wrong in saying that there isn't an oil shortage. There are two oil shortages, one that's here now, and one that will be here in the future. The one that is here now is the one that is engineered (or could be) by OPEC. Remember in the 1970s when OPEC was formed and decided to cut oil production by 20%? Remember what it did the economy? That's an oil shortage. The second oil shortage is the one that is coming. Peak oil is a reality, the only question is when we will see it. This method (if proven viable) would not end peak oil, merely stave it off for a long time. Bottom line, there WILL be an oil shortage, and this can help stave it off.
    • Mudb0y, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3If that were true, then companies would be sinking money into increasing refinery capacity... Yet somehow, there are making record breaking profits and the capacity problems you referred to continue...
    • geekchic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"There isn't an oil shortage--it's a refining capacity shortage."

      Oil rich Iran has to import 40% of its refined petrol needs, as they cant refine enough themselves.
    • noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1No they wouldn't. An oil shortage means oil is worth more. Why the hell would you produce more knowing it will drive the price down.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@mudb0y

      Actually, many companies HAVE tried to build new refineries in the USA.

      The problem is environmental activists and governmental regulations. There is at least one company I know about that tried for a DECADE to build one, but never cleared the red tape and gave up.
    • MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@MaynardsTool Actually its looking more and more like "peek" oil won't happen. Simply because as the price goes up it pays for new inventive ways of getting oil. Oil will certainly plateau eventually and the price will eventually reduce demand as people find other means of energy. As for an economy crunching blow? Unless a major war or disaster that stops us from importing oil happens, I doubt it.
    • c5kirk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@mudb0y...
      Companies are sinking money into increasing current refinery capacity and efficiency (look at the fact that in 1981, the US had 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million bpd and today there are just 132 oil refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million bpd)... unfortunately there is only so much you can do to increase the capacity of existing refineries. Adding to the problem is the fact that the newest refinery in this country was built over 30 years ago, in 1976, which means that the refineries we do have are very old and spend a lot of time shut down for cleaning, upgrades, and routine maintenance. What we really need are new refineries but every time someone tries to build a new one (and plenty of people have) it gets mired in a morass of politics, environmental activism, and the "not in my backyard" mentality so prevalent in this country.

      "If that were true, then companies would be sinking money into increasing refinery capacity... Yet somehow, there are making record breaking profits and the capacity problems you referred to continue..."
    • mousky, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4There is no refining capacity shortage. If there was, we would be paying much more gasoline and shortages at the pump would be commonplace. Even after Katrina, the shortages were localized and short-term in nature - I had no problem buying gasoline in Michigan.
    • hode, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I don't want your stinkin' refinery. Make cars more efficient and power them with something other than gasoline. No red tape there. Get on it.
    • kernelhappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1While I understand the more refineries could be beneficial, if there weren't enough wouldn't crude prices drop since the current refineries would be backlogged unable to process more refined product?

      On a side note; maybe peak oil would be a good thing for the USA. Sure it would create a short term economic fiasco, but it would make stuff like shale oil economically viable and it would cut the legs out from under the pesky middle east and give the USA a competitive advantage coming out of it (maybe the value of the USD wouldn't keep going down like a $2 whore). We survived one great depression already, I'd bet after we adjusted to a different lifestyle that didn't include Gucci, Versaci and Mercedes our priorities in life might be a little more responsible. (And I'm just as guilty as the rest of the group in terms of materialism)
  • Caruthers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I would be interested to know what the recovery percentages are estimated to be. Current oil extraction techniques only allow for an at-most recovery of 50% (of an oil well). On top of that, the amount of energy required to heat and cool is only going to add to the cost. I think $30 per barrel is an extremely optimistic estimate. With the infrastructure and energy requirements, I would be amazed if this technology would be economically feasible for $30 a barrel.
  • dmmoreland, on 10/12/2007, -56/+18Nothing new in this story. Shale oil and oil sands have always become viable "just north of $30/bbl". That explains why various companies (my former employer included) begin investing when the prices exceed $35-40/bbl, whether it be 1974 or 2007, and whether they are using in situ or surface methods, both of which have been around for decades. Interest drops off when prices are below this level, which includes most of the time in the last 30 years.

    It is a classic case of economics 101, supply and demand. All this supports my theory that the price of oil will stay in the $50-75/bbl range, which you can read about in my blog at www.energy-guru.blogspot.com

    Incidently, if the scenario plays out in accordance with this story, the oil in the middle east will not be nearly worthless, it will be worth "north of $30/bbl". Since their cost is considerably lower than that, they will be the source of choice as long as they have oil and they will laugh all the way to the bank.

    Energy Guru
    www.energy-guru.blogspot.com
    • Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+32Your post seemed valid until you started spamming your blog.
  • lesty, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9The US gets a lot of it's oil from Canada. So nothing would change.
  • JamesBrown, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6The Weekly Standard? The official Right Wing Wacko news source?
    Wake me up when a credible source reports this.
    • MaynardsTool, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5While I would normally agree with you on face, this case is much different. Shell would not be investing in the process if there were no promise in it. If Shell's turns out to work, then all of the analysis given is perfectly valid. Not to mention, overnight Shell could be well on its way to being the biggest oil company in the world.
    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Source only means something some of the time. I can't stand the Weekly Standard any more than I can stand the Nation (the liberal equivalent), but both have valid stories every now and then.

      Don't dismiss something as ***** JUST because of where it's published.
    • FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Don't dismiss something as ***** JUST because of where it's published."

      Genetic Fallacy?

      Nah.....seems to be taken as a given that you can reject anything you want if it's published by someone you don't like....
    • LouisC, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3A credible source... you mean like CBS, right? Oh, right, they're pretty left... NBC? oops. ABC? oh. How about the New York Times? Wait a minute...

      Every source out there has a bias, most of the popular ones are left-wing. The only exception is Fox News, which is slightly right-wing, but everyone percieves it as right-wing (which it is, it's just not as right as other news sources are left, if that makes any sense).
  • noripcord7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23I was under the impression that the Athabasca region in Canada had the world's largest shale oil supply. Still, it's better than any of the countries listed above.
    • Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5@noripcord7 (#6127938)
      Yeah, we could take Canada. "It's a matter of national security; we'll need to station troops around your oil fields."
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This could be huge for my home town. It's already in an oil-rich environment and there's a whole lot of shale in the area. If things work out right, it could mean another oil boom in the area. They're already having one right now, but I don't think it will last more than a handful of years.
    • asancho, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15News at 11: "Saddam tried to purchase Uranium Yellow Cake from the Athabasca region of Canada", claims Vice-President Cheney..
    • dalaeth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2It's about time the US put invading Canada on the radar. They need some democracy up there!


    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe that particular region does... but what if the US has regions that are 2,3,4,5th in size and the add up to more than the region in canada....

      Of course, don't be surprised when shell comes knocking.
    • Hubris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I believe there's a difference between tarsands/oilsands and oil-bearing shale. Same basic principle....it's petroleum suspended in another material...but it is a different material.

      You assertion that there are already huge oil reserves outside the middle east is absolutely correct. The more methods to process them, the better for the overall oil supply.
  • mrfreeziexp, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9the consumer wouldn't see any relief on gas prices. The oil companies like it like this, and they have all the money, so they have all the power.
    • daborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nonsense. If the gas companies can produce or acquire oil cheaper they can sell gas slightly cheaper than now and still make MORE of a profit than they are with the current gas prices. Especially considering the increased demand that would follow from the lower gas price. Their interest is in maximizing their profit and this would help them do just that.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We may not see "relief" in the lowering of prices....

      but we might see some in the stabilization of prices.
    • mryar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If they're making the cash you're hyping, then invest in them. XOM is the ticker of ExxonMobil.

      I suggest some perspective. Look at your ink cartridges. That's something like $5000 a gallon.
  • NICU, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28If the US was the largest supplier and refiner of oil, the rest of the world will make the switch to electric cars a lot faster.
    • grobinson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1By the rest of the world you mean, Western Europe and Japan.
      Because China, India will continue to use gas-powered cars just like the Americas and you might as well include Africa too.
  • VicousT, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13as I point my finger to the east: "Ha Ha."
  • beercosoftware, on 10/12/2007, -19/+13Even if oil cost 1 penny a barrel to produce and 1 cent per barrel to distribute and the overhead at the pump stations was 1 cent per barrel, you would still be paying close to 3 bucks a gallon. It's called greed.
    • mightyjlr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7No... it's called supply and demand. Just because people are willing to pay that much for gas doesn't make the oil company greedy.
  • youngandwise, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51"What would the world be like if all the oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, Nigeria, and elsewhere was suddenly nearly worthless?"

    Peaceful?
    • fuckingusername, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2lol
    • MaynardsTool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I think it would be more like Africa. Still at war, only now without the infusion of petrodollars it would be at war in much more hellish conditions. Oh, and just like Africa, no one would care.
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2@young, yes, giving America more power could only result in greater peace right?
      (rolling my eyes)
    • youngandwise, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@nestafett

      I dont know, thats why my comment was in question(?) form... Please dont reply to questions with more questions, kthx
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0
      usually when people post comments like that its rhetorical,
      ok, then instead of asking a new question I will answer yours.

      I dont think it would be any more peacefull, I think that it would instead consolidate even more power in the hands of the U.S. govt., which has not been known as being the most peacefull country in the world
    • youngandwise, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1This country?!? Not peaceful? I dont understand, we have one of the brightest, most well-spoken presidents in the history of the world, and most americans are open minded just like him

      /do i even need to say it?
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1this country has been in over 20 armed conflicts in its first 200 years of existence. So yes it is not peaceful. here is a interesting timeline in U.S. happenings overseas, very interesting. http://adbusters.org/media/flash/hope_and_memory/timeline.swf

      "we have one of the brightest, most well-spoken presidents in the history of the world,"
      Brightest is debatable, i think if he was so bright we would not be in Iraq and he would have higheer that a 33% approval rating.
      but just about everyone agrees the guy is not very well spoken

      "and most americans are open minded just like him"
      -I disagree there as well, americans are not very open minded, if you mention anything contrary to what they beleive (capitalism, christianity, etc...) you are often not greeted with curiosity and questions from people who want to learn, you get ridicule.
      If we are so open then why can my gay friends not get married?

      I see your name is young and wise, but i think as you get older and learn a little more about our history you will see more of the truth about what we are.
      we are not bad, most americans are well intentioned, we are just misinformed
    • zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I don't know but my guess is Bush and his "buddy" wouldn't be holding hands anymore. Pix:
      http://images.google.com/images?q=saudi%20bush%20hold%20hands&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi
  • jonathansoeder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8What about the concept of Energy Returned on Energy Invested? EROI? How many barrels of oil worth of energy does it take to run this process and get a barrel's worth of energy out? If it is as inefficient as these sources of energy have been in the past, then my guess is they're blowing smoke.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Something tells me the Actuaries that Shell employs probably took that into account in their calculations.

      ----------------------

      If an oil company doesn't take a BASIC concept like EROI into account, they go broke fast. People talk about all the money oil companies make, but the average profit margin is in the 10% range. It's just that their 10% is in the billions.
    • grobinson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thats the point, 30 years ago oil didn't cost as much as it does now. The demand is high enough now, that this is a profitable solution.
      Geologist, Oil barons, and other scientists have known about Oil sands/shale in North America for decades.
  • pizpot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2WAR FREE?
  • jsmith39, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7What about the concept of a renewable energy source?
    Who gives a ***** if we can find a way to destroy our planet at a cheaper price?
    • bmurph83, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'm all for the renewables, but 'till then, how about some cheaper oil.
    • brettruffenach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I disagree, using natural resources is not destroying the planet.
  • Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6*In Best Homer Simpson voice* U S A, U S A
  • mistatwista, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Title is wrong, the price of oil is pretty much controlled by OPEC, at $30 a barrel to refine into gasoline the price is only slightly lowered.
    • mryar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The price of oil is controlled by what speculators are willing to pay. Commodities don't care where they're from. What impacts the price is supply and demand. If you have more supply with the high demand we're seeing, prices will come down.
  • r55741, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5too bad by 2010 we will be running cars on bananas and oranges.

    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Dude... are you dissin' the Mr. Fusion?
    • hode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Marty! I need fuel!
    • licoricewhip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2...course the cost of beer cans and banana peels will skyrocket.
  • quickshot56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4So basically, the Royal Dutch Shell company patents a method of extraction, and "if" it's successful and other companies want to use it, they will be forced to license the technique. Essentially killing the savings the process is meant to resolve....

    I think that, if this is used, it will only generate more revenue for the NRDS company, and will not lower prices at all, as it will cost the drilling companies more money in royalties and licensing, on top of the normal cost of drilling and refining. Then add overhead costs, and adjustments due to taxes, and we're at the same place....

    If they were smart, there would be more development of new, more efficient methods of refinement. Since many of the refineries are from the late 60's....
  • speel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Won't ever happen.
  • lesty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The top 3 suppliers of crude oil to the US are: Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico (In that order)
    • szorg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I'd really like to see something beyond your word, not that I'm distrustful of you personally, but of nameless internet people as a whole.
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3why is szorg being dugg down? he/she is right to ask, besides lesty was wrong, so its good to ask!

      Real top 5
      Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela...

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
    • SMITHN4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lesty is right, If you google Us crude imports, you can get the total imports from every country and canada does supply more than anyone else,
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Im gonna beleive the energy information administration which is where i got my info (which there is a link to above)
      the e.i.a. is..
      "The Energy Information Administration (EIA), created by Congress in 1977, is a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy. Our mission is to provide policy-independent data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment."

      i trust it more than googles answers
  • BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Is shale oil on a weekly automatic repeat cycle? Along with the automated conspiracy theory posts?
  • tuzziel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Could someone insightfull explain this method please? Has it real legs? Is it pumper-news and an investor ensnare or a real thing?
  • awrhodes84, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I think its pretty ironic that much is made about the US becoming the world's largest oil supplier... yet a BRITISH company is applying for the patents. So we go from Americans taking oil out of the Mideast to the British taking oil out of America... so much for energy independence! ...as long as they're paying taxes.
    • eatmyshorts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8They aren't British (or, at least, they haven't been for many, many decades). They are Dutch. Hence the name, "Royal Dutch Shell". Their headquarters are in Den Hague.
    • yenshee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@eatmyshorts: I guess you're both right.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell:

      "Royal Dutch Shell PLC is a multinational oil company ("oil major") of ^^^Anglo^^^ Dutch origin."

      Wow, this is pretty interesting too:

      "Shell's revenues of $318.8 billion in 2006 made it the second-largest corporation in the world by revenues behind only ExxonMobil. Its 2006 gross profits of $26 billion made it the world's second most profitable company, after ExxonMobil and before BP."

      The three most profitable companies in the world in 2006 were all oil companies! I guess it varies from year to year though.
  • gtluke, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0according to you digg posters, we should have gone to war with canada, because after all we import the most amount of oil from them.
    we need to tap our own deposits, in the gulf and in alaska. we are also finding that major oil deposits which have been pumped dry, are full again after only a few years. renewable?
    i'll gladly pay the price for gas because i enjoy driving an exciting car. i'm miserable when i have to drive my commuter car.
    • quickshot56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Drilling in Alaska will not solve any problems...it's been well documented that the portion of Alaska that has not been drilled yet, is one of the harshest environments in the world. It would cost nearly $10,000,000,000 in infrastructure to even begin drilling for oil, and nearly a decade to do so. Not only that, but the transport of oil from Alaska is extremely dangerous, whether by tanker or by the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline (which is approaching it's designed lifespan).

      Drilling in Alaska is just a way to divert attention from the real issue, and that is the over dependence on oil, and the unwillingness to commit real funding to alternative fuel sources.....
    • glmory, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Writing all the zeros on ten billion really does make it look like a much bigger number.However when the big oil companies are making twenty billion dollar profits each, a billion dollar a year investment in Alaska isn't unreasonable.
  • robbiedo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Behold the power of the market. Adam Smith gives an invisible hand clap.
  • slickwilly007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The theory is that we're running out of oil, the big powers are keeping it quiet"
    How is that a "theory"? Oil is a non-renewable resource. It's not like the earth is gonna be making new oil any time soon. It only takes a few million years. And the world doesn't seem to be going lightly on the stuff.
    • steevo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1even though its non renewable doesn't mean were running out of it there still lots in the ground although it is a finite supply
    • AngryRob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The amount left isn't relevant. The issue we need to deal with is figuring out where the peak in that amount is.
  • FuzzyBunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I'm a petroleum engineer and I can tell you shale oil is kind of a running joke. The report is correct in that there is a massive amount of shale oil in the US Rocky Mountains, approximately equal to 60% of current world oil reserves. However, this oil is extremely hard to extract from the ground. Most general estimates put the cost of extraction at around $100 a barrel. Back in the 70's there were several companies that attempted to make shale oil viable and they pretty much all failed. I know that some companies were looking at getting back into it when prices were around $80 a barrel. I even worked on a project for Shell related to shale oil when I was in college. However, I am extremely skeptical of this reports promise of $30 a barrel.
    • SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5most of that shale is in Colorado where I live, and most people here are not keen on the idea of strip mining our state for oil companies.

    • FuzzyBunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4That's because most people are morons and don't realize:

      a) Colorado is already one of the more active places for drilling in the United States, most of it for natural gas

      b) State and local governments receive about 20% of the revenues. That's before the oil is taxed again at the pump and before the oil companies profits are taxed. Not to mention that the oil industry is also one of the largest employing industries in Colorado.

      c) Drilling for petroleum is subject to numerous environmental regulations in the US that limit its impact on the environment. The end use of the oil and gas has a much worse environmental impact than the process of extracting it.

      d) Drilling for oil is nothing like strip mining and is usual concentrated on small pads measuring about 180' x 90' that are later reclaimed for the environment.
    • FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2yeah but how can you take a petroleum engineer named 'fuzzybunny' seriously?
  • patientXero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I won't hold my breath.
    • musicaltech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I will.....

      *holds breath*
      .
      .
      .
      .
      *dead*
  • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11) The $30/barrel claim has been around since at least 2005. It is likely more now.
    2) This is not new.
    3) The real question is what is the environmental impact. It sounds rather invasive and questionable. Will Shell pay to import water if they foul the water table in these areas? Getting the fluid out of the ground is only part of the cost.
    4) I don't trust a patent lawyer to evaluate the feasibility unless the bachelor's degree was in engineering. And, I still might not trust him - have known a few registered engineers that were clueless about engineering.

    http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/09/oil_shale_retor.html
  • dagger969, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Seems like there is too much money for the oil companies to lose. People have been killed for less.
    • FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Other than the OPEC and other countries, the 'oil companies' don't own or pump the oil, they refine it and distribute it. With a huge distribution infrastructure in place, they'd be thrilled with a cheaper (and for the US, closer) source of oil. They still get their cut, they just have more stability and less dependence (at least for themself)
  • aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"What would the world be like if all the oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, Nigeria, and elsewhere was suddenly nearly worthless?"
    We would leave Iraq so fast people would think there was a sand storm.
  • Crosshare, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The only aspect of extracting oil from shale the article doesn't go into is how much water it takes to do so. This is a major concern for the western slope of Colorado. There's also questions (mainly from alarmists) about ground water contamination. All that being said, I'm from Colorado and still for this form oil independence.
  • gthiruva, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think this would make middle east oil worthless. The $30 a barrel cost is probably the production cost - not the market price that it will sell for. At $30, that's more than double the production cost of traditional liquid oil. When oil was cheaper this is something that didn't look interesting or profitable. But now that oil routinely sells in the $60's or even $70's per barrel, shale oil is much more appealing.
  • iupetre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I still have this gut feeling that this is empty hope. We will read about this article, think how wonderful it would be, but continue to spend an increasing amount of money for oil.
  • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2oops
  • bigspruce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's not unusual for a company to patent something so that it DOESN'T get used.

    Why would RD Shell want to lower the price of oil (i.e. their profits)?
    It would make alot more sense to sit on the technology until demand is so high that they can get $60 or more for the shale oil.
    • aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If they were able to undercut the market price they could monopolize the market and then boost prices slowly. They would have a larger customer base and could potentially recoup any lost profits with higher sales.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I don't know why you got dugg down, bigsprice. What you say makes perfect sense. If Shell can truly create oil at a cost of $30/barrel, that doesn't mean they'll flood the market with it and drive the price down to $31. It just means their internal decision will be made to balance maximizing revenues vs. going cheaper and getting a bigger slice of the pie. A bigger slice doesn't mean more profit if their profit margin is significantly lower. Yes, there might be some price pressure, but I don't think that much.

      And the thing I don't see anyone mentioning is the answer to the question, "What would the world be like if all the oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, Nigeria, and elsewhere was suddenly nearly worthless?" If oil were back at $30/barrel, I think there would be as lot less pressure to switch to less polluting energy sources, which is bad for everyone in the long run. So the answer is, the world would be using more oil and we'd be in deeper *****, regardless of mid-east policy changes.
  • DaveF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Anyone read how they plan on doing it? Sounds pretty crazy. They want to heat the stuff up in the ground to 700deg and hold it there for three years.

    From some blog linked in that article:

    "To produce 100,000 barrels a day would require raising the temperature of 700,000,000,000 pounds of shale by 700 degrees F. How much power would be needed? A gigabunch—in rough numbers, about $500,000,000 per year. The least expensive source for electricity is a coal-fired power plant. How much coal, how many power plants? To produce 100,000 barrels per day, the RAND Corporation recently estimated that Shell will need to construct the largest power plant in Colorado history, large enough to serve a city of 500,000. This power plant, costing about $3 billion, would consume five million tons of coal each year, producing ten million tons of greenhouse gases, some of which would still be in the atmosphere a century from now."
  • insanechemist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 "In situ thermal processing of an oil shale formation using a pattern of heat sources" is the patent title I think. The link to the actual patent is:

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=20060213657&OS=20060213657&RS=20060213657


    Abstract:
    A oil shale formation may be treated using an in situ thermal process. A mixture of hydrocarbons, H.sub.2, and/or other formation fluids may be produced from the formation. Heat may be applied to the formation to raise a temperature of a portion of the formation to a pyrolysis temperature. Heat sources may be used to heat the formation. The heat sources may be positioned within the formation in a selected pattern.
  • cjl1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It is not clear from the article, which is somewhat poorly written and edited, but I think what they are trying to say is not that it costs $30/barrel to extract crude from shale, but that they have applied for a patent on a process which makes it profitable to extract crude from shale when the price on the market for sweet crude is at least $30 per barrel and thus, at today's cost, it would be a viable enterprise.
  • roadracersweet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1What a silly submission and its wrong. $30 is the cost to extract the oil from the shale. As one poster said, $4 is the cost from traditional oil in the middle east(light oil). The oil sands of Canada have a extraction cost of about $8, and the oil sands in Canada have the second largest proven reserves in the world (second to Saudi Arabia). Lets say the infrastructure requires the same capital expenditure. Why would you lose $22 a barrel compared to the same plant in Canada? This is not news. I cannot blame the submitter since the author should have done his research. He should have tried calling a geologist to see if his story was really newsworthy, which it is not. Dugg down for getting peoples hopes up and perpetuating oil company conspiracy theories.
  • SpaceDreamer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Great, more petrol to burn.
    So everybody suddenly forgot about global warming ?
  • brettruffenach, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What/who is the weekly standard? How credible can it be?
  • Nocturnal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I could have sworn while reading up on Peak Oil that converting shale to actual petro that we need is quite hard and costly. If they are able to bypass that quirk or issue then by all means, that is great news. Also though how credible is this website?

    Forgive me for not RTFA.

    FTA:

    The thing is, this theory is utterly false, and can be laid to rest with a single well-established fact: there is more oil in the Colorado shale fields than the entire Middle East had at its peak. The only reason we're still importing oil is that, at present, it is cheaper to do so than to extract it from shale. Until recently, getting oil out of shale has been a nasty and expensive business.
    That's about to change, though, as engineers at Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A) have applied for a patent on a new method of extracting shale oil cheaply and cleanly. (As an interesting side note, it is the largest patent application in U.S. history.)
  • Leomarth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Two words: Ellis Wyatt.
  • AdebisiTheGamer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3First of all the price of gasoline, or crude, is NOT set by the commodities market. It is set by OPEC who are very open and honest and upfront about the fact they gather their members together to not only set a standard price, but to determine how much they should produce. If the price begins to drop, OPEC tells its members to slow production.

    The fact you can produce it cheaper at home then buying it from an OPEC member does not promise lower gas prices. In Canada, for years we were told that the oil sands in Alberta would never be worth developing into oil because of how difficult and costly it would be. Now, we can and do extract oil at home, from the oil sands, for a good deal less then OPEC prices. However, since OPEC sells oil for whatever amount, so do the oil sands members. The oilsands production has not reduced our gas prices. Much of what the oil sands produce is sold to the US at OPEC prices, and Canada continues to import oil to make up the difference.

    Shell may be able to get oil out of the shale for less then they could buy it from OPEC, but they are hardly going to pass those savings along when they can simply sell that oil at market prices without any trouble. China is paying top dollar for oil. Countries are constantly in a bidding war to get access to more oil. Everytime a new oil source is discovered it barely registers a blip on the gas prices. That will simply not change.

    If the American public expect Shell to suddenly start selling America oil at 30 bucks a barrel they are dreaming, China will buy it sight unseen for the same price they would pay the Saudi's, and in any quantity that can be produced. The only way that America will keep that oil is if Americans pay market prices for the oil.

    Supply and demand is a good concept, but in the real world there is a silent agreement (not so silent in OPEC) to keep oil prices artificially high.

    Not only are the oil produces price fixing, the gas stations do it to. Where I live, every single gas station raises or lowers their price within 20 minutes of eachother, no matter who owns them. The exact same thing happens nation wide.
    • roadracersweet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0HAHA!! PLEASE!!! go look up WHO OPEC is!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opec I did not see Canada, Mexico, Russia, south America etc etc on that list. Nice conspiracy, but I think the tin foil hat is on too tight!
    • AdebisiTheGamer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Did you even read what I wrote? Tell me where I said they were members.

      I said Canada sells oil at OPEC prices, not that we were a member.

      Reading comprehension, followed by accusation, would make you less of a dick.

      Oil sands oil is indeed sold at rates comparable to OPEC rates, because OPEC rates ARE the industry standard rates. So even nonmembers sell at those rates, because there is no reason to sell for less. Gloabl demand is pretty much unlimited.

      OPEC openly admits to price fixing, they are blunt and clear about it. How is that a conspiracy theory?

      Before you call me out, get a clue of your own.
    • steevo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OPEC sets supply not price the market determines the price based on the supply. Oil Sands oil is sold at the market price. OPEC controls most of the world oil supply so by controlling supply they can control the price
    • anodari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some economists believe oil is the real reason the dollars are the international currency for trades. If America stops buying oil, the dollar and the American economy will fall. Look here: http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html
    • roadracersweet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OPEC control their production. Granted if they cut, it reduces global supply to some degree but does not always = the gains they want. The same can be said for other markets. Cut North Sea production, or Gulf production and prices go up. The middle east is more tapped than you think and they are near maximum production and the easy stuff has already been pumped out. The reason for the price increase is because you have been sucking down cheap oil since the early 80's. Well below the price needed for aggressive exploration programs, because the middle east could just open the flood gates with little exploration costs needed. Now they have to spend $2000 a day on some geologists' salary plus expenses to try and keep production up because its not so easy and cheap anymore and demand is growing. The reason your gas goes up at the same time is simple: You have the opportunity to sell your product you purchased for yesterdays price at todays price giving you more profit. They do this everyday from ebay to world grain futures. It doesn't matter if its labour (china) or oil, at some point your glut of cheap _____ gets more expensive and your advantage runs out. If you don't like the price, don't ***** drive, and stop acting like everyone is out to screw you and that you are so deserving of your wallet being babied and pampered at the expense of others in the world. You had your under priced gas in the 80's, now you get to pay for it, and my overpaid ass, to suck it out of the ground for you.
  • opticsnake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I say keep the price of gas where it is.

    Because gas is so expensive is the only reason that the big motor companies are even attempting to develop more fuel-efficient cars. If gas were still $1 a gallon like it was in 2000 and 2001 (pre-9/11) there would be no pressure by consumers for hybrid technology except for by those who are actually environmentally conscious.

    Most Americans don't care about an issue until it starts affecting their wallets. And please, I would love for someone to point out where I'm wrong on this one.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Nope, you are exactly correct. I live in California, which is probably the most environmentally conscious state in the union. I drive around my city and you can tell no one gives a rip. Hybrid/electric cars are rare at best. Most people are still driving whatever the hell they want. This includes a nation of soccer moms driving Excursions and H2's back and forth to work and school to pick up the kids. They have no clue what goes on outside their little life bubble. I don't only blame SUVs though, because that is moronic. There are plenty of cars, minivans, etc, including 6 cylinders, that pollute just as bad or worse as a modern V8 motor. I drive a Jeep Wrangler and it's got a straight six (4.0) which pollutes worse than a 2007 Ford Expedition 4x4. Luckily I don't drive like an *****, and I bought carbon credits from Terrapass to help offset my CO2. As soon as jeep offers the Wrangler in a diesel, I will be the first in line to buy it.

      People drive like ignorant bastards, which may be a worse problem than the vehicle. They race from light to light as if every block is a drag race. I'm no slow driver by any stretch of the imagination, and I get passed by people all the time doing 30+ miles an hour over the speed limit. They race up to the lights hard on the throttle right up until they have to hammer on the brakes to stop. It's insane. I'm not making this into a bigger deal than it is. This type of driving is simply commonplace. Cars capable of getting 25+ miles per gallon are probably only getting 10-15 anyway. People racing around in big trucks, cars and vans with low gas mileage probably spend most of their tank in the single digits.
    • roadracersweet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Although I am not sure of the validity of carbon credits in the long term, I do agree with your post. People drive like idiots and waste fuel. As you said, if there were better engine options avail in North America, we may be better off.
    • MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My thought on the carbon credits is that I'm doing something rather than nothing. I think they are on to something there, and I like the idea that they hired an independent auditing company to watch where the money is going. I will gladly put money where I can to help us all live cleaner, because we should anyway. Global Warming or not, doesn't matter to me.

  • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"The only reason we're still importing oil is that, at present, it is cheaper to do so than to extract it from shale. "

    Huh? Are you ***** serious? Foreign oil costs us TRILLIONS of dollars.
    You don't just factor in production costs. You have to add the price of every bullet, tank, armor, etc used in the wars we fight in the middle east to secure OUR oil.
  • dvddesign, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4From the Friday edition of the news...

    "All of Royal Dutch Shell were found dead today from mysterious circumstances. The bodies of the entire company were found in the woods outside their main campus. Police state there are no named witnesses at this time, but Halliburton and the Middle East have officially stated, "No Comment." "
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.