The fourth title would require the Administration to set rules to begin the
development of oil shale in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming.
However, the
use of oil shale is carbon - dioxide intensive by nature and thus raises questions of long - term sustainability.
According to Exxon's calculations, the extraction and
burning of oil shale would release 1.4 to 3 times more CO2 than conventional regular oil.
That EROEI similar to infinity that renewables possess makes cooking oil
out of oil shale formations a completely reasonable thing to undertake.
A net energy analysis including environmental
cost of oil shale development in Kentucky.
A story in this week's Department of Energy office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) weekly electronic newsletter, the EERE Network News, that touted the
benefits of oil shale.
National Asssociation of Manufacturers calls for legislation to support
development of oil shale and other «liquification» technologies:
While the US does undoubtedly have a
lot of oil shale, too bad its carbon emissions are eight times worse than gasoline.
While not wanting to pour cold water on the move, I'm not yet convinced that either Salazar or the Obama Administration has really gotten the message that allowing any development
of oil shale, or not condemning its cousin, tar sands is simply environmentally crazy.
Withdrawing plans to allow development
of oil shale and tar sands on 800,000 acres of federal public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.