Reader comments
My view: Developing oil shale is best choice

Timj | 5:36 a.m. July 28, 2008

That's right. We should keep feeding our addiction. We should also ignore the fact that the technology for electric cars is already here.
I realize that certain people in Utah could make big money processing shale. I realize that's why Hatch wants it to happen. But if we want to decrease pollution, decrease health insurance costs, and increase quality of living and over-all health, we need to forget shale, convert to electric cars, and use cleaner energy (solar, wind, nuclear).

Cats | 5:50 a.m. July 28, 2008

Go Orrin!!!!

Releasing oil shale | 6:05 a.m. July 28, 2008

The Wall Street Journal had an article about a week ago on tapping oil shale. The perimeter of a field will be frozen to prevent water contamination leakage, but the interior will be heated up for months/years to help melt the oil for pumping. Now, the energy necessary to freeze and cook the land will be substantial. Utah's utilities are at their limit in terms of serving existing customers without the ability to build coal-fired power plants due to limited coal stock in Utah (and imports from Wyoming will cost dearly due to high diesel fuel prices by railroad) and California's refusal to buy any more coal-fired power from Utah (nixing IPP3). Consequently, Rocky Mountain Power is concentrating on natural gas and renewables to develop more electricity for Utah. Gas-fired electricity is very water intensive (and expensive) so analyses need to examine how much more water is needed for the actual extraction of oil shale AND the power generation to freeze/melt the landscape. While water is a renewable resource, there's a fixed amount available each season. Utah must first solve its electricity/water situation to help support oil shale extraction. Wind power uses no water and is cheap!

Comments continue below

Plug in cars | 6:32 a.m. July 28, 2008

He says cars don't use wind, solar, and geothermal electricity, but that will change in 2010 when most of the automakers say they'll release their plug-in hybrid and electric cars. GM is putting its future into the Volt that has a small gas engine to recharge its batteries for long trips. Perhaps all that oil shale won't be necessary given the expected demand for plug-ins. USA Today had an article recently that said one charge for a plug-in to go 40 miles will take about 8 kilowatt hours of electricity. In Utah, one kilowatt hour of power is 8 cents. Imagine driving 40 miles for only 64 cents! And here, Hatch hopes oil prices stay high to allow the economic feasibility of oil shale development! We really should be focusing on expanding electricity resources and power grid issues for our future, not more oil! Geothermal, which Hatch does support, can act like baseload power to eventually replace coal, and it is PRICE STABLE! Can't rely on fossil fuel prices being price stable ever!

Election year politics | 6:49 a.m. July 28, 2008

Orrin Hatch says that an acre of oil shale yields hundreds of thousands of barrels. Alright. Given that premise, oil companies already have millions of acres of shale land, so why haven't they produced anything?

A moratorium is good policy - let's see the oil companies prove themselves on the land they already have before we sell out our future.

Need More Efficienty | 6:52 a.m. July 28, 2008

As vast as Oil Shale is, it is still a finite resource.

We need to institute CAFE standards. We need laws if necessary to "encourage" us to be more efficient in the use of resources.

OilMan | 7:13 a.m. July 28, 2008

It's ironic you refer to foreign governments who sell us oil as 'traffickers', Orrin. We're going to continue our addiction but instead use homegrown? Anyway, I'm all for developing the Kerogen shale deposits. But don't kid yourself. It will be expensive, long term and have significant impact.

RedShirt | 7:13 a.m. July 28, 2008

It doesn't matter what is best, and what has the smallest actual carbon footprint because the militant environmentalists will do everything they can to stop it.

The environmentalists have caused the brownouts in California by closing down gas and coal fired plants. They oppose neuclear, gas, coal, hydroelectric, and geothermal. Also, depending on the group they also oppose solar and wind because of either the whiring blades of death that kill birds or the location of the solar cells.

They don't want any new power sources, but have yet to come to a consensus for what to do.

The Blame Game | 7:37 a.m. July 28, 2008

This is a wholly superficial opinion based on wholly superficial "scientific" analysis by a wholly superficial politician who immediately loses credibility by trying to blame the current oil crisis solely on the Democrats. Where were the Republicans when THEY controlled not only the Congress but also the White House?? I didn't see a lick of progress toward tapping Oil Shale, ANWR or off-shore drilling.

Hatch should look hard in the mirror as there is pretty of blame for both Democrats and Republicans for the mess we are in now. The answer is painfully obvious to anyone who is not tied at the hip to special interests: Reduce/Eliminate our need for petroleum based motor vehicles. The technology also exists to accomplish this solution, Orrin, and it is a much longer term answer than oil shale.

Anonymous | 7:39 a.m. July 28, 2008

Won't Global warming melt the oil in shale?

Lew Jeppson | 10:10 a.m. July 28, 2008

...planes, trains, and automobiles don't run on electricity..." Well, actually trains can and do run on electricity, very effectively and economically, and in a way sparing of the environment. Currently, most electric trains are of the light rail variety, but in past times electricity has powered even heavy freight trains, e.g. through Washington state and Montana - such stalled out for lack of capital. The rail options are very attractive and should in my view be favored over the environmental destruction of oil shale development.

Anonymous | 10:29 a.m. July 28, 2008

"Won't Global warming melt the oil in shale?"
Perhaps, if we trigger some positive feedback loop that leaves us with a climate similar to Venus or Mercury. But we won't be too worried about oil or anything else by then.

Grover | 10:52 a.m. July 28, 2008

What about a parachute? Parachute, Colorado that is. Exxon funneled over $1 Billion into the oil shale project 25 - 30 years ago and then mothballed the entire town when the price of oil dropped and Reagan killed the incentives as too expensive due to cheap crude being available. Open it up and and get it producing for 12 months and then we can stop guessing what all the impacts and cost would be. For once perhaps, reality and not ideology would decide.

dcc | 11:03 a.m. July 28, 2008

Start mining on Hatch's yard FIRST.

cbs | 11:14 a.m. July 28, 2008

Senator Hatch is spot on here. What many of the commentators don't seem to understand is that there is an inevitable transition period before we get to new technologies and new energy sources. It won't happen over night. This is a simple matter of physics and a lack of infrastructure that cannot be bypassed, no matter how hard "green energy" supporters wish it were different.

The responsible development of America's domestic energy sources such as oil shale, ANWR, and the resources off the Outer Continental Shelf, is a reasonable, balanced, and fiscally responsible approach to transitioning to the next generation of energy and transportation.

Sending 700 billion dollars overseas each year for energy that could be developed in our back is not good policy. And yes, it is the Democrat party that has stood in the way of developing these resources. Developing ANWR was vetoed by President Clinton ten years ago. We'd have another 1 million barrels of oil a day if he had not stood in the way. Similarly, it is Democrats in Congress today who are impeding the development of oil shale and other energy resources.

Senator Hatch should be applauded for his leadership on this issue.

Steve Glaser | 11:21 a.m. July 28, 2008

Senator Hatch's letter is quite inane. If oil shale is his plan to lower gas prices, it's going to be a long time before anything happens. The price of gas is related to supply and demand. We can act on demand a lot faster than we can supply.

The fastest way to drop gas prices would be for half the nation to start carpooling. Prices would drop like a rock But Senator Hatch (and just about every other politician) is afraid to ask anything of the American people.

Oh, and Red Shirt - the brownouts in California were due to Enron manipulating the market.

Anonymous | 11:19 a.m. July 28, 2008

Cant help but wonder what Hatch was doing for the 6 years that republicans controlled the house, senate and the white house. I guess he was busy coming up with things to blame on democrats. We could run the entire counrty on a resource that we seem to have an ample supply of, republican hot air.

America Matters | 11:29 a.m. July 28, 2008

All you folks talking about electric cars and wondering what Hatch has been doing the last six years should google "Hatch" and "CLEAR Act" and "Hatch" and "FREEDOM Act" You may be surprised

Oh Please | 11:29 a.m. July 28, 2008

One out and out lie after another. His own party shut down shale incentives in the 80s to protect Big Oil. The "oil" in "shale" (neither is correct terminology) is unrecoverable anyway--not at all the same stuff as in Estonia or Brazil. It would take vast amounts of electricity and water to produce (Sandia Nat'l Lab estimates 100bbls of water to produce 1bbl of oil). When will we be rid of this Boring Senator Shill?

cbs | 11:44 a.m. July 28, 2008

Anonymous - you obviously don't understand how the U.S. federal government actually works. Republicans may have had a majority in Congress and held the White House, but the didn't have 60 votes in the Senate. Do a little research and you'll realize that Democrats have filibustered or otherwise held-up virtually every pro-domestic energy bill Republicans tried to pass.

Steve Glaser - You are correct, the price of gas is related to supply and demand. If you increase supply, cost goes down - that's Economics 101. The price of a barrel of oil is also based partly on the future expectation of supply. If the U.S. were to radically adopt a plan to increase domestic supplies, even if that oil wasn't actually produced for a few years, the price of today's oil would still go down based on the markets recognition of future supply. That's Economics 201.

Oh Please - I'd love to see you point out how the oil shale in Estonia and Brazil is different than that found in the U.S.?

Think policy | 11:42 a.m. July 28, 2008

Oh Please is confusing oil shale with oil sands. oil sands needs water for its development. the last thing oil shale developers want is water in their process. Dept of Energy just came out with data saying shale needs about 3 barrels for every barrel of oil.

Imagine | 11:45 a.m. July 28, 2008

a 3 trillion ton hole in the Uinta Basin. And since shale expands like popcorn when you heat it, imagine a 3 trillion ton mountain of carcinogenic waste. Imagine Orrin Hatch's friends in the shale industry getting very rich!

Re: Oh Please | 11:50 a.m. July 28, 2008

"Big Oil" got the shaft in the 80s because foreign oil was so much cheaper than domestic. It makes no sense to say that shutting down the incentives given to "Big Oil" was somehow protecting them. Without those incentives, the economics of oil at the time caused the domestic industry great harm.

Cameron | 11:56 a.m. July 28, 2008

There are 3 trillion barrels of oil shale reserves in the world, 60% of which is in the United States.

For a comparison, there are 1.3 trillion barrels of worldwide petroleum reserves.

Oil shale was scrapped in the early 80's because petroleum prices dropped so far and so fast - in large part because we had begun a strong "energy independence" movement. However, technology has advanced so much since then that shale oil is profitable at prices as low as $20-30 a barrel. It currently sits at around $130.

Not as stupid as imagine | 12:09 p.m. July 28, 2008

Imagine, you obviously don't know anything about oil shale development.

Most of it would come from an in situ process that leaves only drill holes that can be quickly capped.

Some would come from underground mines, and any surface mining is covered up and restored to nature.

Laura | 12:12 p.m. July 28, 2008

Imagine thinks doesn't know that most oil shale development would be done underground, just like oil drilling.

Any surface mining would be restored to nature and reseeded, which the law requires.

a 3 trillion barrel hole. seriously.

Re "Timj | 5:36 a.m." | 4:32 p.m. July 28, 2008

TimJ, you keep insisting people switch to electric cars... Where do you think electricity comes from today?

When we have OTHER sources of electricity your simplistic solution will make sense. Until then... you are not kicking your adiction to oil and other fossil fuels by switching to an electric car today.

If you could quit getting on everyone who isn't pledging to go oil-free right now as "Not doing anything to kick their addiction to oil" and start using your energy to advance alternate sources of electricity that your radical-environmentalist friends are blocking... We could all make some progress on kicking our addiction to oil, and then yes, even switching to an electric car would make sense.

Telling Utahns to switch to electric cars doesn't help the environment when all of our electricity comes from coal or gas burning plants and the few hydro-electric plants we constructed before environmentalists took control of American and made cleaner energy (solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, etc)impossible.

Getting dogmatic and insisting everyone switch to electric cars NOW is conterproductive. We need to try some things to buy time until we can improve our energy-infrastructure so we can generate electricity without burning coal or oil.

RE:timj | 5:45 p.m. July 28, 2008

Electric nice. but no infrastructure.

Where do you plug in your car?

You live in an apartment, you have no place to plug in your car.

You live new york and park on the street, where do you plug in the car?

Every parking lot I have seen has no place to plug in your car.

Every driveway I have has no electric outlet.

ON top of that most electric cars do not have power necessary for heavey duty work of trucks, semi's, construction equipment, tractors, cranes, etc etc etc.

And of course, where is alll this electricity going to come from?

Who is creating it?

Auntie Em | 6:10 p.m. July 28, 2008

Even if we succeed in all buying electric cars or solar powered cars - they will still need lubricants for their moving parts, and we will still need plastics which come from petroleum products. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can dodge the fuel problem by resorting to electric or solar power without addressing these other issues as well. There's not an easy answer to this one.

Timj | 6:34 p.m. July 28, 2008

I have never said that we should immediately switch to electric cars.
I also state, quite clearly, that we need to develop solar, wind, and, yes, nuclear power.
Keep in mind...it was Bush himself that said we're addicted to oil. There is no easy solution to the problem. But using huge amounts of money to develop the technology and the machines to turn shale into oil...that's sillier than growing corn for biofuel. Utahns like it like Iowans like corn...because of the money.
The easiest thing for us to do is to decrease the amount of energy we use (as easy as exchanging an SUV for a compact car, or insulating our home).
Then, expand our sources of energy so we're not dependent on dirty, limited resources such as coal and oil.
As we're doing this, we can phase in electric cars. They've already been used. They work. The technology is there.
I'm not saying that we'll ever get 100% off oil. We'll probably need it for flying and other uses. But we can reduce our oil consumption drastically. Right now we're being forced to because of cost. But more changes are possible--without resorting to old, dirty ideas such as shale.

No Longer Gullible | 8:10 p.m. July 28, 2008

If we had had leaders in Congress (including corporate mouth-piece Hatch) we could have had an energy program that could have better prepared us for the increased world demand for petroleum with better conservation, higher CAFE standards and increased reliance on alternative energy source.

Senator Hatch you days of credibility are over. It's just an embarrassment watching you wriggle in the corporate noose that now traps our government.

thanks Orin | 8:27 p.m. July 28, 2008

.. now what's up with that Fannie/Freddie/Pork Fiasco of a bailout??? We can have oil from shale until we're blue in the face but if our currency is worthless it's not going to do us much good

arc | 8:43 p.m. July 28, 2008

Brazil uses mostly sugar cane to produce fuel. That is by far better than using corn, which is a really dumb idea. Utah could grow sugar beets, we have in the past.

I am not saying oil shale shouldn't be looked at, but if we use ground source heat pump systems to heat and cool new commercial buildings, we can use electricity to provide the fuel to heat and cool these buildings, freeing up natural gas for cars.

We should use several sources of energy.
Comparing oil shale to corn isn't saying much. Even the National Geographic said using corn for bio-fuels is not a good use of energy.

Re: No Longer Gullible | 9:14 p.m. July 28, 2008

We did have those leaders. President Bush introduced a comprehensive energy plan to Congress in 2001. And again in 2002 and 2003. Democrats in Congress refused to allow it to pass. It called for alternative fuels, conservation, and increased drilling.

Had we passed the bill 7 years ago, things might be different today.

Re: TimJ | 9:16 p.m. July 28, 2008

How much electricity can be produced from those alternative sources? Not counting nuclear, which has no chance of ever getting off the ground.

arc | 9:22 p.m. July 28, 2008

At least Hatch is right that Corn is a dumb source of energy. He is also correct that Shale Oil is a better source. The US should produce 100% of it's energy. We are going to need to drill in ANWR and other areas of the country, we are going to need wind and water, and nuclear, and coal and every other source we have. We should use Natural Gas for cars, and put in a coal power plant in Delta, instead of using natural gas for electricity. I am not worried about CO2. That is what trees are really good at fixing.

We can't afford to not to be 100% energy independent, the sooner the better. We need people like Jason Chaffetz that realizes that.

Rich | 12:38 a.m. July 29, 2008

Until the technology for electric cars matures, we're stuck with needing more oil. The environmental activists are not interested in facts; they're interested in promoting their agenda, which is to stop using fossil fuels regardless of how much that harms our economy, our food supply, the financial health of our citizens, particularly our hard-working middle and lower income families, and the environment. As an environmental scientist myself, I often see activists ignore facts in favor of scaremongering over worst case scenarios. They've been doing this for more than 30 years. We CAN solve our energy problems, and oil shale is a relatively short term solution to increasing the supply. If we want companies to extract oil from the land, we give them leases that become void if they're not employed within specific time periods, similar to the way a developer has a limited time to finish the development of lots after subdivision plans are approved. Global warming ended in 1998 if temperature sensing stations that have been compromised by urbanization are discounted. Study of data shows that increased carbon levels in the atmosphere follow hot spells, not the reverse, as Gore alleged. This is another inconvenient fact.

Gruffy | 1:55 a.m. July 30, 2008

Electric cars lack battery technology. If your trips are less than 60 miles, you'll do fine. Limited use here in the large uninhabited (relatively) intermountain west.
Where to get the power. May I suggest we look at nuclear power. It is safe, believe it or not. Look at the worlds record for nuclear plants. 1 catistrophic failure at Chernobil, but they don't build them like that anymore.
There are two goals here, one is to supply more energy for ourselves and hopefully someday be able to export it to the world. The second is environmental. We can pursue them together. Build solar, build biofuel, build wind, but build nuclear, build coal, dig oil wells, and build refineries. We'll need all these things to weather the storm!

NorthboundZax | 10:39 a.m. July 30, 2008

Electric cars have far more range than you give them credit for. In any case, in staying beholden to the internal combustion engine our pain associated with oil is only going to increase with time, while pain associate with battery life span will only decrease with time. I know which direction I'd like to see pursued, and it's not stalling until electric car technology 'matures' (they are viable now).

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.