# Chattahooga Shale? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [February 24, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927 "2006-02-24T15:30:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/1 "2006-02-24T15:30:04Z")
In his “peak oil” column, Unca **Cecil** speaks of “Chattanooga Shale”. Que? [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060224.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060224.html) What is this “Chattanooga Shale”? As a Tennessean, am I missing out on a whopper of an investment opportunity? ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/2 "2006-02-24T15:44:52Z")
[First Google hit for “Chattahooga Shale”.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ashfall.html) :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/3 "2006-02-24T15:48:34Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > [First Google hit for “Chattahooga Shale”.](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ashfall.html) :smack: This makes the issue darker, not clearer. Also– > [@](#): > > Is the Chattanooga Shale really an ore? > > Though there are several others, the last erroneous statement of Mr. Froede I will address is the following: > Levels of uranium found within the shale are sufficiently high to qualify the shale as a uranium ore (Upham, 1992, p. 47). > The Glossary of Geology defines ore as “the naturally occurring material from which a mineral, or minerals, of economic value can be extracted.” The profit qualifier in the definition is very important. Unless one can expect monetary gain from an operation, which costs millions of dollars to finance, there is no point in developing it unless losing money is one’s aim. > > The pertinent part of Upham’s remarks about economic feasibility follows. One will readily see that Upham said something quite different from what Mr. Froede alleges, and present economic conditions do not support the contention that the Chattanooga Shale is an ore for uranium. > Uranium occurs in several different mineralogical settings in Tennessee even though discrete, identifiable uranium minerals are very rare here. Concentrations ranging from 0.001 to 0.03 percent have been reported. None of these has proved economically significant, most being below ore grade by a factor of 10 or more … The most promising source of uranium in Tennessee is the black, carbonaceous Chattanooga Shale, which contains from 0.001 to 0.03 percent disseminated uranium. (Emphasis added.) Suggests that Chattanooga shale is worthless as a Uranium source. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/4 "2006-02-24T15:49:11Z")
[The Chattanooga Shale](http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/J-detail.html') and its uranium concentration. (bottom half of linked page) [Concentrations of uranium in Arkansas Chattanooga shale](http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/rak.html). There’s even a U.S.G.S bulletin on the subject: _Stratigraphy and uranium content of the Chattanooga shale in northeastern Alabama, northwestern Georgia and eastern Tennessee_, by Lynn Glover (U.S.G.S. bulletin) U.S.G.P.O., 1959 ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/5 "2006-02-24T15:57:40Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > [The Chattanooga Shale](http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/J-detail.html') and its uranium concentration. (bottom half of linked page) > > [Concentrations of uranium in Arkansas Chattanooga shale](http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/rak.html). > > There’s even a U.S.G.S bulletin on the subject: _Stratigraphy and uranium content of the Chattanooga shale in northeastern Alabama, northwestern Georgia and eastern Tennessee_, by Lynn Glover (U.S.G.S. bulletin) U.S.G.P.O., 1959 Linky does not work. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/6 "2006-02-24T16:31:28Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > In his “peak oil” column, Unca **Cecil** speaks of “Chattanooga Shale”. > > Que? > > [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060224.html](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060224.html) > > What is this “Chattanooga Shale”? > > As a Tennessean, am I missing out on a whopper of an investment opportunity? Well, you wanted to know what the Shale _was_. I think the links provided give you enough information to satisfy the OP. The quote from the Cecil bit; > [@](#): > > We all know what happened to the nuclear-power industry. Yet Hubbert’s argument has lost none of its force: The uranium in little more than three square miles of Chattanooga shale contains as much energy as all the U.S. oil reserves known in his day. Doesn’t say that the shale would ever be a useful energy source, it merely compares the potential energy in the collective shale to how much oil energy was known at the time. Are you looking for something else? Polys link should be this one; [corrected link](http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/rak.html) ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/7 "2006-02-24T16:52:54Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > [The Chattanooga Shale](http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/vageol/vahist/J-detail.html) and its uranium concentration. (bottom half of linked page) > > [Concentrations of uranium in Arkansas Chattanooga shale](http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/rak.html). > > There’s even a U.S.G.S bulletin on the subject: _Stratigraphy and uranium content of the Chattanooga shale in northeastern Alabama, northwestern Georgia and eastern Tennessee_, by Lynn Glover (U.S.G.S. bulletin) U.S.G.P.O., 1959 I’m not sure what happened, but it appears that two links decided to conjoin themselves into one. Try the above. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2006, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/8 "2006-02-24T23:25:27Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > Suggests that Chattanooga shale is worthless as a Uranium source. Not at all. It remains perfectly _energetically_ viable, it just isn’t _economically_ viable. The article simply suggests that with the present prices of coal and the current number of nuclear power stations and the current number of electric cars and numerous other economic factors it is currently not economically viable to invest in the infractructure needed to extract and refine. Cecil OTOH was talking about energetic viability, and he is quite correct. The energy contained in that shale can be extracted and it is significant. This is one of those areas where people always go wrong when discussing fuel resources. They always confuse economic viability with economic viability. It is perfectly energetically viable to extract Uranium from these shales. You would get far more energy from the material than the energy used in mining and refining. It’s just that at current electricity prices and current Uranium prices you would lose money trying to compete with the coal fired power stations. However if coal electricity were more expensive or if the world had more nuclear power stations increasing the market price for Uranium then it would become economically viable to extract this Uranium and sell the electricty it produces at a profit. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/9 "2006-02-25T01:02:48Z")
> [@](#): > > They always confuse economic viability with economic viability. And no wonder! \Do not “economic” and “energetic” begin with a letter?\ ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2006, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chattahooga-shale/345927/10 "2006-02-25T01:33:11Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > \Do not “economic” and “energetic” begin with a letter?\ D’OH! :smack: