IS THIS TRUE?ANY PROOF TO VERIFY THiS?

Question

http://www.stansberryonline.com/PRO/20060515-OIL-COL.asp?pcode=EOILG922&alias=200604OIL-49

Answer 1

it's true.

it's called oil shale and it is very difficult and expensive to get out. with current technology it takes more energy to remove this oil from the rock than you get from the oil itself.

Answer 2

Here is a link to one article about oil shale. It is real, but what you received and provided a link to is add trying to get you to make a quick investment. Don't be fooled in waisting your money. Study it out before investing.
I have seen the oil shale, and the oil produced by the process described in this article. I know the people who run the Oil Tech company. Also the BLM has granted about 4 - 160 acre leases to company's like Shell and Chevron to try out processes to produce this oil. It is a few years away from any real big production. The oil is here, for the right money with good environmental protections so no more ground water is contaminated.
The second link is to a BLM press release on the 160 acre leases to produce oil shale on.
This has been well known for many years. at least since the 1960's. Oil Shale contains no oil, it is "biomass" that is old plant matter not fully fossilized. It creates oil and other products when heated. It can be produced for anywhere from $10.00 per barrel to $40.00 per barrel (42 us gallons).

Answer 3

I didn't read the entire article you site, but I am aware that there does exist tremendous amounts of oil-shale in the Colorado-Utah region. The article is misleading in many ways, however. If you have a million barrels of crude in a reservoir, the net energy you get out of it might be 980 thousand barrels. What I mean is that it takes a certain amount of effort, cost and infrastructure to pump, transport and refine the oil into usable products. An equivalent amount of oil-shale, on the other hand might yield only 200-300 thousand barrels of usable energy, meaning it's much more energy (and cost) intensive to recover usable quantities of oil from these types of deposits. Huge areas of land have to be strip mined to expose the deposits and the refining process is much more difficult. When this is compared to the extraction of oil as we've known it for the past 100 years, it's a very slow, difficult and costly process. The numbers I've mentioned are not researched, just shoot from the hip examples. The point I'm trying to make is that the efficiency of converting oil-shale into usable petroleum products is many times worse than what we've had in the past.

Answer 4

It's hard to believe that a story like this would not have made it to the MSM before now. Shale oil is found all over northern Canada, and they are our main supplier of oil. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that Bush is hiding this from the public. He'll do anything to help his oil baron friends continue to make huge profits. But likeI said, the environmentalist would be all over this if it were true, so I have doubts.

Answer 5

There doesn't seem to be any source listed on the page, so I guess the only way to verify it is to get the government, the companies, and the people allegedly involved to tell us themselves. I don't understand why they'd hide this knowledge from the public, though.

Answer 6

I don't know but it sure would be nice to end our dependence on foreign oil. Then they can stick their oil where the sun doesn't shine.

Answer 7

oh I doubt it.. but if it is true you should go buy land in Colorado right now!! :P (and make sure to buy the mineral rights in the purchase as well)

Answer 8

Just noticed the link and HECK YEAH I BELEIVE IT'S TRUE!!!!!!!!!!