Reader comments
BLM airs oil-shale 'rules'

Aldo | 7:21 a.m. July 23, 2008

The Bush Administration has a chasing rabbits down rabbit holes rather than practical ideas. Oil shale will always have a great future, and people like Kempthorne are always going to be saying "Just a few years more..." while we pour money and energy down this particular hole.
The 6 test projects mentioned are interesting experiments, but do not demonstrate economic feasibility. Oil shale is a poor, poor source of energy, no matter how large the area it is spread over. It's like saying, "There's enough gold in the Wasatch Front to make every Utahn rich!" without adding that it would make everyone broke trying to extract it.

James | 8:12 a.m. July 23, 2008

Not an accurate comment at all. It is a few years away from developing it because of the environmentalists who have created such obstacles and barriers to energy independence. Bottom line is that some environmentalists won't be happy until man is exterminated. Sadly, no talking logic with some of them.

And I know Marxism is a fun little thought to have in life but "we" are not pouring money down a hole. Private investors are putting their own money into these projects. It is called the free market. If developers want to do it then they get to. Their money is not your money just because you don't like what they are doing with it.

Oil shale can and will be developed if the environmentalist issues and hurdles can be overcome.

Anonymous | 8:28 a.m. July 23, 2008

I lived in Denver on Black Sunday 1982 when Exxon abandoned its oil shale projects. It just about killed Colorado's economy in one fell swoop. Jobs gone, towns abandoned, new homes foreclosed and bulldozed, huge scars in the mountainsides. Nothing to show for it. Bush is doing for energy what Iraq did for Vietnam. We get to relive it all over again. Yet another Mission Accomplished.

Comments continue below

Boblog | 8:31 a.m. July 23, 2008

It is time for the opponents of oil shale and off shore drilling to come up with a better reason than "it won't provide any additional oil for several years."

In our current world, where there is a shortage of energy and everyone still wants to have their homes cooled to 70 degrees as well as drive around freely, we need to develop all energy sources. There are such vast reserves of oil shale, it should naturally be on the list of energy sources. The feds can provide a framework for development, and then let the oil shale companies have a shot at it. Canada has had good fortune with their oil sands developments, where oil is extracted from oil sands.

Aldo may think it is a poor source of energy. So what. The same was said for natural gas 100 years ago. It was burned off, in massive amounts, as a waste gas from producing oil wells.

We can keep buying $140/bbl oil from foreign companies until they run out of it. Or we can keep buying $140/bbl oil from foreign companies (which we will do in any scenario) and try to develop some of our own oil resources.

Shane | 8:50 a.m. July 23, 2008

Aldo needs to read the news. Shell's in situ process is extracting oil at a price that can make money at $30 per barrel.

Old folks need clues | 9:05 a.m. July 23, 2008

As long as this country remains tied to oil AND does little to develop alternatives, our national security is at risk.

We have PLENTY of oil reserves, but you don't hear about it, old people, because you're tied to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. What about the huge oilfield next to Anwar? Oh! But it's further from the pipeline (we want "convenience").

The oil companies have permits all over this country, but do not want to expend energy developing those sources. How come it's cheaper to pay the Arabs, then to drill on the present permits? Think!

To: Anonymous in Denver | 9:29 a.m. July 23, 2008

Denver hardly experienced the brunt of Exxon's decision to pull the plug on its oil shale development. Colorado's western slope did. Denver DID bear some of the brunt when oil dropped to $10/barrel, as many companies ended up closing their regional offices in Denver. For the record, the $10/barrel price for oil was the BIG reason why Exxon and other companies got out of the oil shale business.

IS not the case this time around, with oil being above $130/barrel for as far as the eye can see and worldwide demand being strong for the stuff.

Michael | 9:30 a.m. July 23, 2008

Oil companies do have leases on land all over the country. The problem is most of them allow only for exploration...not drilling and producing! Quit taking what you're fed by the mainstream (read "liberal") media and marxist legislators--do your homework.

Oil shale is profitable at $30-$35 a barrel. The reason Colorado's original oil shale projects went belly up is due to the fact that OPEC collapsed the market at a time when oil rose to something like $50 a barrel in the early 80's. They dropped the price to the teens to keep our business. I doubt they can drop it that far this time...and if they do, I have no problem with under $1 a gallon gas.

mbryson | 9:36 a.m. July 23, 2008

My wife used to be part of the process for securing drilling permits. It's an inexact science at best to locate recoverable oil. A permit is required to even do some of the basic exploratory process to check for recoverable oil. There are MANY factors that lead to a productive well.

I'm not saying oil companies are angels and darlings, but it's not quite as simple as people think it is. The oil companies geologists find areas that "likely" have deposits. They then secure a permit, and go through the process of determining if the plot is worth further investment. It costs a fair amount of cash to start the exploratory process and the success rate is not that satisfactory.

Jim | 10:49 a.m. July 23, 2008

It is perhaps noteworthy that tow nations, Brazil and Estonia, already produce gasoline from oil shale. And, the largest, richest shale deposits in the world are right here in the U.S. Earlier shale efforts included heating the shale in the ground to liquify, then pump. Current technologies are being developed to mine it, then heat it with a coal fired oven to liquify - like coal gasification. A prototype test facility will open this year in Utah to prove the concept. Commercial production could actually begin far sooner than five years if there were a national policy commitment to do so.

RE: ALDO | 12:19 p.m. July 23, 2008

Please enlighten the rest of us with your practical ideas. Oil Shale production is absolutley feasable at the price of oil. There is a huge difference between $10 a barrel and $130 a barrel. They were producing oil shale back in the 80's. I know I watched them haul it off my families property. So please enlighten us with your practical ideas. We have been waiting for years and years, but still the we haven't heard your practical ideas. I assume you are voting for Obama. You should share your practical ideas with him.

Stewart | 1:25 p.m. July 23, 2008

There are new technologies for extracting hydrocarbons from oil shale in a cost effective and environmentally safe way. Believe it or not, in spite of the fact that the entire governmental system seems to be set against them, some scientists are still working to resolve the problems and challenges which we face. However, the process for acquiring leases, obtaining permits, and getting the necessary funding to demonstrate and finish the development of these technologies is extremely difficult in today's world. Because of the environmental extemist movement and the anti-development movement, the very things that made the United States great-- innovation and ingenuity-- are being held down. If we truly want to find answers to our challenges, we should return to American innovation and capitalistic development. Turning to the government for tighter controls and more intrusive federal programs is not the answer. In fact, at this point, excessive government control and bureaucratic red tape are preventing us from finding the solutions-- solutions which are closer than most people realize.

Aldo | 1:47 p.m. July 23, 2008

Those of you saying that the technologies currently exist, give us enough data to google and search to test your claims. We can't post URLs here, but you should be able to give enough info that we can check it out, company names, etc. I would say the burden of demonstrating your position is on you. So give us enough to work on. Industry shills can make claims; let us examine them!

Stewart | 2:58 p.m. July 23, 2008

For an overview of companies with new oil shale technologies, go to the website for the Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force. Under the quick links tab, look for Companies Engaged in Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development. This will give you some good information to examine.

Sheesh.... | 4:39 p.m. July 23, 2008

To: Aldo/Old folks Need Clues: Are you two for real?...you actually took the time to blog on a site that discusses oil shell technology and potential situ extraction, challenging everyone to "think"...when you literally don't have a clue what you are talking about?!!! Not that I care, but it would be interesting to find out how you two became so lazy in your thought processes.

I will say if an article is written on whether curly fries taste better than regular fries, I will watch intently for your responses, as you will probably offer some good insight on the subject...but come on stay away from trying to 'enlighten' us all when you don't know what you are talking about.

By the way 'MR. Thinker' that likes to insult older people are you serious in trying to pin not drilling in Anwar on people that listen to Fox News?...You have got to be kidding me?

For the record, the oil is in Anwar...not "next to Anwar"...and it's the people that you support politically that are keeping us from drilling there...not fox news.

Bart | 5:58 p.m. July 23, 2008

I'm sure Utah will donate to Colorado the billions of gallons of water it will take to extract the oil--whenever it becomes feasible. Even the BLM itself states that it will be years before this is ready. How about developing cleaner fuels quicker than that? Oh, and how many coal fired power plants will it require to provide the necessary energy to run the extraction process? Three or four by the best estimates. Who wants that pollution in their back yard?

Be Like Europe? No Thanks | 9:08 p.m. July 23, 2008

Someone noted earlier that we need to figure out more fuel efficient modes of transportation and put more money into alternative energy, and then our 'oil/gas' price problem will practically solve itself.
It is sad how many Americans do not pay attention to global economic issues, despite all of their eco-friendly savvy.
Do any of you know how much alt-energy is being used in countries like Germany? Google it, or take my word for it. In short: a lot. How good is the fuel economy of the everyday runaround car (if one is owned at all)? Great (side note most: euro-cars come standard running on diesel).
Last question, geniuses. How much is the cost of a LITER of Gasoline, or even diesel for that matter in most european countries? Remember that it it 3.75 Liters per gallon. I will let you find the answer to that one on your own, depending on your country of choice, and remember that the Euro and British Pound are worth MORE than the American dollar, by a lot. Good luck!

Alan | 12:40 p.m. July 28, 2008

For Aldo, Jim is spot on. The US Dept of Energy published "Secure Fuels from Domestic Resources, The Continuing Evolution of America's Oil Shale and Tar Sands Industries" in June 2007. It discusses over fifty companies with technologies that are developed using their own money. No taxpayers are picking up the tab, while investors are taking all the risk to attain energy security.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.