Tomco Energy Share Discussion Threads

[brabazon3] 10/3/2012 14:57

Climate.
Independent analyses have concluded that, depending on the technology
utilized, development would produce 25% to 75% more greenhouse gases per
barrel of oil from oil shale than from conventional fuel.5 More analysis of oil
shale's contribution to climate change is needed, and regulatory agencies
must specify how impacts would be mitigated.

[brabazon3] 10/3/2012 14:55

What industry and government
agencies don't know, and what
the public deserves to know


For all of the research done on oil shale, it is remarkable just
how much the industry and government agencies still do
not know. Commercially viable technologies remain in their
infancy, and without workable technologies, commercial
development of liquid fuels from oil shale remains speculative
at best.
In preparing this report, Western Resource Advocates grappled with how to
present data, knowing that at any point in time the oil and gas industry may only
be presenting part of the picture. New data and claims can emerge rapidly, but any
new information must be considered in a much broader context. Data on a PowerPoint
presentation often represents information frozen in time, without any context or any
independent vetting of its usefulness, completeness, or accuracy.
For example, consider this claim from 30 years ago: In 1980 Exxon made a presentation
in western Colorado in which it claimed that by 2010 it would be producing 10 million
barrels of oil per day from oil shale. Less than two years later, its Colony Shale Project
was shut down and more than 2,000 people lost their jobs overnight. Those 1980 claims
were clearly suspect - and may have been deployed as a tool to influence public policy
and public opinion rather than a legitimate estimate of success. Even if those claims
were technically justifiable in 1980, the context of that information shows that Exxon's
ability to predict market trends, costs, and other potential problems proved woefully
inadequate.
A more recent example shows the same problems with trying to incorporate new
industry "data." Enefit American Oil posits that by 2025 in Utah alone it will be
producing 50,000 barrels of oil per day.3 But energy expert Jim Bartis of the RAND
Corporation undermined this claim in Congressional testimony in June 2011:
In Estonia, oil shale is primarily used as a solid fuel for the generation of electric
power. A small amount is converted to a liquid fuel, all of which is used in power
generation or cogeneration plants. To our knowledge, oil shale in Estonia is not
used to produce transportation fuels. A recent environmental assessment of oil
shale produced and consumed in Estonia indicates severe impacts have occurred.
These include subsidence over underground mining areas, overexploitation
of underground waters, pollution of surface and underground waters, and the
emission of hazardous air pollutants.4
Perhaps Enefit will really be able to produce 50,000 barrels of oil per day by 2025.
But before it can even consider that kind of production, Enefit will need to overcome
the technical, economic, and environmental obstacles to producing a commercial
transportation fuel from oil shale.

[brabazon3] 10/3/2012 14:43

Lukeisbackontrack - 10 Mar'12 - 12:05 - 7104 of 7104


yari thanks for clarifying this

.....................


LOL! yaris/mixy couldn't clarify margarine!

The objection to the Red Leaf permits is not just a water issue - it is about air pollution and damage to rare plants and wild animal habitat as well!
Ramping liar yarisverso only mentions water because Red Leaf claim Ecoshale use less water (not 'no water' as liar yaris claims) than other methods. Ecoshale is unproven at commercial production level and could quite easily go the way of all the other 'miracle extraction' gadgets that have fell by the wayside since 1917 as stated in the 7Th March 2012 research document produced by Western Advocates.

[lukeisbackontrack] 10/3/2012 12:05

yari thanks for clarifying this

[yarisverso] 10/3/2012 12:02

bush tucker - as usual that report comes from Western resource Advocates and is, as usual, like brabazon's posts, full of misinformation. Ecoshale uses no water. The other techniques may well use water, but not ecoshale. It does not cause anywhere near as much harm to the environment as shale oil. I also note that they are presuming an increase in oil production in Utah. They must be presuming that RLR and TOM will be part of that production increase, as no one else is as near production as RLR, starting this year, as reported by another environmental paper.

Don't forget, Western resource Advocates are paid to scare-monger, and they have no realistic research to back up their figures, as they are paid to have an agenda. Who knows, with global warming it may increase the rain-fall in Colorado/Utah! It takes 6 barrels of water to produce 1 barrel of biodiesel.

[janyboy9] 10/3/2012 11:19

Lukeisbackontrack - 9 Mar'12 - 16:21 - 3421 of 3423

Janyboy9 could you put up one of your charts over the weekend

thanks ... i owe you one buddy







.

[janyboy9] 10/3/2012 11:11

Lukeisbackontrack - 9 Mar'12 - 18:44 - 7083 of 7100

janyboy9 - 9 Mar'12 - 11:56 - 7079 of 7082

I will buy 5 million of you at 1.25 but thats only if you will ever be able to afford that many!


....................................

SILLY LITTLE BOY I THINK THIS WAS MY POST

....................................


janyboy9 - 9 Mar'12 - 11:56 - 7079 of 7100 edit


......... DUE A DROP I THINK ................





.

[maryhopkins] 10/3/2012 10:44

The best news I have had all week is that Liquid Millionaire & Skiboy have lost their source of insider info from this company! LOL AYE!?!?!?! You may as well close down your BB Ski as it is now been confirmed that it is a source of WORTHLESS info! YOU & YOUR CON-ARTIST BOSS NOW HAVE NO FRIENDS AT TOM! LOL AYE!?!?!?!

[riverdiver] 10/3/2012 09:09

brabazon3 - 10 Mar'12 - 08:15 - 7094 of 7096 (Filtered)

Unbelievable - he was plotting to disrupt a thread with a new avatar on Xmas Day!

[brabazon3] 10/3/2012 08:15

Oil Shale

oil Shale is neither oil nor gas;

in fact, it doesn't contain oil at all.
It is kerogen, or fossilized algae, locked in shale rock. The
technologies necessary to develop oil shale are unproven
and fundamentally different from shale oil and shale gas
technologies.

[brabazon3] 10/3/2012 00:18

Oil Shale

oil Shale is neither oil nor gas;

in fact, it doesn't contain oil at all.
It is kerogen, or fossilized algae, locked in shale rock. The
technologies necessary to develop oil shale are unproven
and fundamentally different from shale oil and shale gas
technologies.

[brabazon3] 10/3/2012 00:08

skiboy10 has come to help his thick as pig sh@t pal emart - but all too late I fear!.

Their lies and ramping have been fully exposed and not before time!

[brabazon3] 10/3/2012 00:01

rmart - 9 Mar'12 - 19:04 - 7086 of 7086


still going on about BLM land brabazon3/harrissen.

Its old new you numpty. TOM and Red Leaf are not on BLM land... Yawn...... !

dimwit
dunce
numpty
harrissen
brabazon 3

all the same really.

........................................

Old news my foot!

It was published 7th March numbskull!

We have listened to your lies and false rumours for the past six months and where has it got you and the investors who swallowed you nonsense?

You are still too stupid to figure out air and water pollution is indiscriminate and does not just affect BLM lands it affects all licences in the Uinath basin - no matter who owns the land!
Federal laws on pollution are in force here dimbo the town hall laws don't count!.

[rmart] 09/3/2012 19:04

still going on about BLM land brabazon3/harrissen.

Its old new you numpty. TOM and Red Leaf are not on BLM land... Yawn...... !

dimwit
dunce
numpty
harrissen
brabazon 3

all the same really.