Our Tanks Are On Full

Oil shale is not something one can drill. Shale rock needs to be baked and the oil is extracted via super heated coils over months of time. There is a demonstration project by Shell Oil here in Colorado that may show us how to do this in 5 to 10 years in a manner that could be profitable. The oil will likely cost more than $50/barrel but that's right in line with the current market. This shale baking process requires approx. 2.5 gallons of water to be used in cooling and providing for the population of people who will work in the extraction facilities for every gallon of oil. That's 2.5+ gallon of water to be used to produced for every gallon of shale oil. The Oil Shale located on Colorado and Utah where the average rainfall is about 16-18 inches per year. That is barley enough water to support the current population today, and the population is growing. In Colorado we would need to double our current electrical output using either coal or nuclear plants. So the simple minded folk like Newt saying "Drill, Baby, Drill!" in regards to the oil shale resources in Colorado will find that their notions of reality need a major reshaping. This has nothing to do with policy, it has everything to do with extraction technologies not yet mature, as well as power and water needs that the region will find extremely challenging, but not impossible, to acquire. At best, it will be 2015 or 2020 before we see meaningful production.

I am so goddamned sick of Newt and the rest of the GOP making NO mention of pollution and other negative externalities in discussions about fossil fuel energy. We just had an oil spill off Santa Barbara recently here, and I'd much rather see us make a switch to renewables to get rid of that kind of thing even IF we don't add the climate change discussion into the mix - and given that a consensus of scientists now think we could face mass extinction events if we don't stop with the greenhouse gases, you'd think that any GOP member with children would want to take a look at that.

I swear to God, for all the GOP's rhetoric about how the Democrats are selling us down the river, I really think it's them who have a massive blind spot on what the world is going to look like if we don't stop thinking that the world is here for us, as opposed to the idea that we are dependent on the world's resources and have to practice environmental stewardship. In Canada they are now moving literally THREE TONS of oil sands to try to extract each barrel of oil, and that's not going to change no matter how hard we drill offshore, because the demand for oil is still so voracious. In the process the oil sands get changed from habitable landscape to more or less the aftermath of a refinery and smelter, with gouges everywhere, toxic pools of treatment residue, and the like.

Newt can literally go *** himself if he doesn't want to get on board with renewable energy at this point, and so can the rest of the GOP. If they spent half the energy on mobilizing to subsidize solar panels, hybrid cars, wind power, and the like that they do bitching and insisting that environmentalists are wrecking America, we'd have solved the debate already. I'm not going to see my friends' children have to wake up to an overheated world full of overturned earth because Newt and the others don't want to see anything screw up their oil lobbying money.

Newt, true to his name sake the lizard, does not yet get it that extractive, nuclear and carbon-based cause the poisoning of the planet with toxic and cancer causing contaminants and residue. Can the Republicans and the neo-cons stop thinking of the welfare of their greedy oil-barons and energy company (remember Enron) sponsors and start looking at what's good for the country, the world and their countrymen.

Newt is right on target about flex fuel vehicles. It only costs $100 per car for automakers to add this feature but we're stuck in a no pumps-no cars chicken-and-egg dilemma. Given the urgency of de-funding terror, mandate it in all new cars to break through the logjam - the pumps will appear once there's a market. For more info read "Energy Victory" by former NASA rocket scientist Robert Zubrin - or on the web visit EnergyVictory dot net or Zubrin's page on The New Atlantis website.

"What America needs is a rational energy policy that utilizes all our homegrown energy resources while protecting the environment."

Newt, what part of "burning fossil fuels does NOT protect the environment" don't you understand?

Newt Gingrich, the "moron" in oxymoron.

I really don't think a politician should be writing articules for a paper. Maybe it'll be ok if their is a big pink sigh saying "WARNING I'M TRING TO GET ELECTED"

The modern conservative movement just doesn't get it. Newt Gingrich has reminded me of that disturbing fact once again

Newt shows once again that the modern conservative movement is bankrupt

I think we should all wear loin cloths and run around gathering nuts and berries. Save those poor caribou and gay whales and fuzzy polar bears now so we can eat them later when we dont have any more fertilizer for crops cause we shut off the natural gas pipes. Energy?! Who needs it ? Heck I love running around in the dark being chased by saber toothed cockroaches. Mining to supply metals for wind turbines, synthetic polymers from gas and oil to supply the components for solar panels, hydrogen fuel cells and god forbid light weight cars???! Never, I say, lock it all up...I'm going au naturelle and living in the woods like Obama wants us too.

Wow--hey Newt. Where the hell hve you been the last 8 years? Oh t=yeah--touting the old conservative, arrogant, love it or leave it America! Many of us have been very concerned about our environment, our children and world poverty while you and your friends were draining us middle class folks of our American way of life--raising good, decent children and trying to contribute something to society (I'm such a Socialist!) You should be ASHAMED!!!!!!!!!!!

Bad politics? Newt-brain should look in the mirror.
Right now the carbon dioxide count is around 386-388 parts per million - depending on whether you accept science editor Sharon Begely's stat or the one in the October 2007 issue of National Geographic. We need to be 350 ppm or below. The closer we get to 450 the more catastrophic the consequences. And bear in mind that I am only discussing carbon dioxide. Methane is a far more dangerous greenhouse gas. We're getting that from livestock, and millions of tons of methane are trapped in Siberian perma-frost, which is in danger of melting.

Newt's solutions totally ignore reality. He is also unaware that a lot of his "solutions" result in toxic chemicals getting into groundwater and contaminating the water supply. We need to de-carbonize our economy and decarbonize it fast.

Newt's comments are beyond ignorant and beyond irresponsible. They definitely epitomize the stupidity of the GOP

P.S. Economically, "green technology" is an emerging industry worth trillions of dollars. Since I am investing in green technology stock, Newt is messing with wallet.

Newt Still doesn't get it!!!! Fossil fuels are the problem and not the answer. Their are no laws preventing more drilling in already approved and existing leases. The price of oil in today's market has reduced the number of wells being drilled so now they are sitting and waiting to be drilled. Such is the case with the GOP's "Drill Baby Drill".

What we need is more focus on a solution to fossil fuels. There are endless resources for renewable energy today, right now. We should be using every resource we have to fuel that industry. If we are drilling for more oil every year then we are losing ground on many fronts. Environmental and security concerns will remain hostage to foreign powers that can control our lives and our freedom.

Newt comments from far distance without any real knowledge of the the "oil shale" that he and many other Republicans tout as the answer to our energy crisis. The facts are any and all real calculations of energy out put from "oil shale" would have to include the current market cost of all the concurrent natural gas that is obtained in the process of extracting the oil from the "oil shale". All current processes plan to build very large electric generation facilities, and power these by extracting the natural gas. These power plants would be large enough to power up Atlanta, Newt.

None of this NG is calculated in the energy offset of "oil shale" which by all reasonable standards needs another few million years to really become oil. Nor is it included in any offset of carbon. Nor do any of these folks have any idea of the environmental devastation through redirecting billion of gallons of precious Colorado water to this process. "Oil shale" should be left in the ground right where it is at, the natural gas extracted and the capital expended on Renewables. This is a far better way of resolving our REAL Energy crisis, Newt.

Newt
Before proclaiming bad energy policy, perhaps you ought to do some real home work. The devastation to my native landscape from your "good energy policy" would be insurmountable. Oils shale has and for a very long time in the future will be a pipe dream due to the overwhelming costs to the environment and in energy produced.

All these Oil shale boom guys do not tell you that they are planning to use massive amounts of natural gas that is concurrent with the shale to create massive amounts of electricity to process the shale. Enough to power cities like Dallas or Atlanta, Newt. There is utter fraud in how the shale oil energy analysis is quantified, because they do not calculate the value of that natural gas independently. It would be far better for the economy and the the ecology of the US and Western Colorado if we left the "oil shale" right where it is, extracted the natural gas and used the capital investment on renewables.

Fred Pittenger
Simplicity Solar
Grand Junction, Colorado

I agree with Newt. The American energy problem is in large part self-inflicted by our own policies. And it is not an accident that the wealth-redistribution crowd is aligned with the environmentalist crowd and those who feel that less energy is better. They want us less wealthy, too. I don't mind if wealth is more evenly distributed, as long as poor people are getting wealthier and not rich people getting poorer. As an aside, one reason for the credit debacle and recession is that the government ruined mortgage credit standards to bring expensive housing to poorer people instead enabling those people to increase their incomes and thereby afford their houses. For my other writings on these subjects feel free to look at polewolf dot blogspot dot com.

What about carbon emissions, if we drill everywhere so we can increase supplies of oil, thus decreasing the chance of lowering demand for carbon emitting energy sources, we will not meet the new emission standards required to stop global warming.

congrats newt you miss the point again. its not merely the shortage of energy that we WILL face, not currently king doosch bag, but also the impact or dependance on fossil fuels has on our enviroment. these can both be combated by pursuing alternative energy sources and decreasing our use of fossil fuels. Cap and trade will create a market wherein those that can most easily make reductions can offset those which cannot. if you would like to make a serious argument you'll need to use 1. fact on the exponential growth in consumption and population 2. alternative rather than drill baby drill ( a clear declaration of idiocy) which does not address these problems rather it merely ignores them

If Mr. Gingrich were a conservative, he would denounce America's subliminal suburban socialism driving our carring culture.

The National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission recently reported that American vehicle miles travelled have doubled since 1980. User charges (motor fuel taxes, tolls, etc.) pay only 60% of the cost of road costs, down from 75% in the 1980s.

The Soviet Union priced food below the cost of production and distribution. This result was lineups in food stores.
We underprice roads and get lineups at traffic lights.

Given that we devote some 4000 square feet of pavement to each vehicle, more carring disperses everything, which means more streets to light, to drain, to maintain, etc. All of this translates into more fuelishness and more burden on the taxpayers.

Also, given the melting of the Actic and glaciers, prudence dictates that we reduce CO2. Loss of snow and ice in the Actic and glaciers means less sunlight gets reflected back out into space. Thus, the melting is expected to accelerate, releasing methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). This will further acclerate the melting.

The property insurance industry believes that CO2 probably means more losses due to storms.

Mr. Gingrich and all Ameriicans ought to educate themselves and think this through. They will find that the tire gauge is the symbol of conservatism and points the way.