The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investment Analysis Clubs / Energy Discussions and Investing

URL:  https://boards.fool.com/pituophis-you-posted-a-note-implying-that-shell-23041295.aspx

Subject:  Re: Shell begins near-commercial shale productio Date:  9/16/2005  3:10 PM
Author:  CSOakes Number:  369 of 492

Pituophis,

you posted a note implying that Shell was 'obliterating' land and you seemed to indicate that your understanding of the extraction process involved digging a shaft since you mentioned shaft several times. You also posed a highly conjectural statement upon which you've apparently based your entire 'obliteration' premise.

quote 1:
"20 feet by 35 feet..." Is that the size of the shaft? Certainly they obliterated 10 times that much land just getting the trucks in to install the equipment and haul it out."

quote 2
"... Shell pays one guy to sit and twiddle his thumbs more than $105K in 18 months"

I posted a note pointing out that no shafts were involved and that other of your assumptions were probably bad or exaggerated. A 2000 ft well (not shaft) requires very little land, very little extracted rock, and the equipment needed is temporary. The wells they drilled on that plot were probably accomplished with one portable rig and a second crew to do casing in less than 1 week. All very quick and easy and doesnt permanently scar large areas (even if we were talking about production vs experiment). I'll stand by my assertion regarding people on-site. Thousands of oil wells in the US go for weeks if not months without a person visiting the well. I doubt that the same is not true for the shale-oil wells. Since the case you cited is an experiment it undoubtedly has received more on-site human attention but I'm certain that attention is not constant (which you clearly implied). Most of the humans affiliated with the experiment could easily live and work in the thriving metropolis of Grand Junction and probably have never seen the site.

quote 3
"OR is this test shaft a miniature of a 20 X 30 km "shaft" ie. "PIT""

the latter quote is clearly hyperbolic. You even bolded the PIT.

quote 4
"The future in [sic] not to let some multinational conglomerate keep us sucking on their hind tit, the future is for each of us to become energy independent. We've had the basic technology to do so for over 50 years - people like Shell have prevented it from happening<b/b> and they will continue to try to do so. "

ooooh. now the conspiracy theories come out.

If you were even slightly agnostic, less beligerant, less antagonistic, less defensive, and didnt sound like you attended the Joseph Goebbels school of journalism (I like to taunt you with your own medicine) more reasoning people might actually listen to you . I'm all for solar, wind, geothermal, etc but in order to replace petroleum as a fuel somebodies will have to find a way to use those energy sources to power vehicles since ~90% of the petroleum produced in this world DOES go to powering vehicles. Batteries just dont make the cut.

BTW when your response to a polite and objective argument and article is that it is BS etc then you invite attack. I'm extremely confident that my arsenal of knowledge far outweighs yours. I can easily see why you are on MF probation.
CSO
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us