Reader comments
Will oil shale turn into a boon or environmental mess?
35 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 6:03 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Mess.
Bob G | 6:03 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Aside from the visual and enviornmental concerns what about the fire hazards of
mining shale oil? Mining equipment, oil, and a spark could be disastrous
combinations. Would this cause a fire that would burn forever? Just as there are
coal mines still burning underground shale oil could be more easily a burning
toxic mess. Using scarce desert water in massive amounts as a deterent to fire
will contaminate this water unusable for who knows how long. Recycle it, I doubt
that as cost effective, so where will it be stored? Last but not least, where
will this oil go and what would it be used for? Shipping it out of the country
and expected profiteering from it must be the objective to mine it. Until our
government establishes that oil produced from american sources, including off
shore, is not exportable or subject to world market oil prices, not costs to
produce, we cannot allow indescriminate oil mining or drilling. The american
people are being mislead, exporting all of the american oil supplies does not
benefit the american people. Americas present oil production is put on the world
market for export, not in our refineries and supplied to the american people.
Feel good actions | 6:16 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Making Utah look like Alberta may be a dream of a lot of locals because it will
look like Utah is doing something to address our oil mess, but in reality, it
could be a major distraction from preparing for the "game changing"
technologies right at our door -- namely, plug-in cars and batteries. With GM,
Toyota, Nissan, and other major car companies (and new ones, such as Tesla) all
planning to launch electric plug-ins or hybrid plug ins within the next two
years (Teslas are already available!), energy investors and policy makers need
to think if that expensive-to-produce and polluting oil shale in 2016 is going
to be worth much. Impending restrictions on carbon emissions are likely to
impose another high cost on the use of oil, and electricity is the future over
other alternative (such as hydrogen) simply because it is already convenient,
accessible to most drivers, and inexpensive (Utah electricity rate is about 8
cents per kilowatt hour, and a 40-mile recharge will take about 8 kilowatt hours
of electricity -- yes do the math!). Hydrogen has no infrastructure yet and
will likely be very expensive, and electric cars will likely delay
hydrogen's feasibility.
Comments continue below
Paul | 7:26 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I would like to hear a comparison of converting coal into oil vs oil shale
production. We already have the coal mines going and, theoretically, there is
ample supplies of that in Utah. Is one better than the other? Or are both
equally difficult? It's hard to know what the best approach might be.
samhill | 7:42 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
"'There's not even a dirty way of extracting oil from shale
that's economically viable.” said Sierra Club's Mark Clemens.
In that case, there is nothing for Clemens to worry about.
If the oil companies are truly the rapaciously greedy, environmentally insensitive villains, so often portrayed by Mr. Clemens and many others, then wasting money on something that is not “economically viable”, is the last thing they would ever do. Surely, according to the perpetually projected stereotype, their only aim in life is to make as much money as possible.
Which begs the question, why then is Mr. Clemens so concerned, given his own argument?
In that case, there is nothing for Clemens to worry about.
If the oil companies are truly the rapaciously greedy, environmentally insensitive villains, so often portrayed by Mr. Clemens and many others, then wasting money on something that is not “economically viable”, is the last thing they would ever do. Surely, according to the perpetually projected stereotype, their only aim in life is to make as much money as possible.
Which begs the question, why then is Mr. Clemens so concerned, given his own argument?
Bob G is wrong | 7:53 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Exporting oil does benefit Americans, if indeed that were to happen with this.
Exporting brings money and wealth into our country.
Production -- even if it is exported -- increases supply which lowers prices.
To those who say this won't work because increased demand will offset increased production, just remember that if demand goes up anyway and production doesn't, we'll be even worse off in terms of prices than we are now.
And to those who say this won't be available for another ten years, just remember this oil problem isn't going to be solved by electric cars and conservation in the next couple of years either.
This is a long term problem that is going to require a lot of conservation, alternatives, and production.
Production -- even if it is exported -- increases supply which lowers prices.
To those who say this won't work because increased demand will offset increased production, just remember that if demand goes up anyway and production doesn't, we'll be even worse off in terms of prices than we are now.
And to those who say this won't be available for another ten years, just remember this oil problem isn't going to be solved by electric cars and conservation in the next couple of years either.
This is a long term problem that is going to require a lot of conservation, alternatives, and production.
dave | 8:05 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
If we listen to the enviros, then no development of any energy source should
ever be allowed anywhere ever. That the world you want to live in?
Not an "if" but a "when | 8:07 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
With the ongoing lack of a coherent energy and budget policies, the reality of
oil shale is "when" it will happen, not "if" it will happen.
If oil shale escapes not being used for domestic oil needs because we have
somehow created an energy policy that weans us off of oil in the next 20 years
(unlikely), the government will eventually be forced to tap into oil shale in
order to sell it to countries such as China so we can pay for our ongoing
national account deficit. Our oil shale is literally a "Cibola" or
city of (black) gold that Nicholas Cage was looking for on National Treasure 2.
cb | 8:16 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
The same people who say oils shale technology is years off say solar and wind
are right around the coener. In reality they have been pushing solar and wind
for thirty years. They will have a part of the answer but only a small part. To
be energy independant we will need nuclear and fossil fuel for decades.
The economic side | 8:19 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
You all don't understand the economics an oil operation. Imagine a 2000
barrel per day operation -- a very small operation. It would generate $200,000
per day (at $100 per barrel), and $73 million per year. If Utah could get five
of these operations going with each trying out different technologies, it would
provide hundreds of jobs, gross revenues over $300 million, millions of dollars
in mineral lease revenue and tax income to the state, and help address our
energy appetite.
Let's stop talking and get to work!
Let's stop talking and get to work!
Oil cleanup | 8:21 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I think the oil companies are going about this the wrong way. They should not be
telling everyone they want to "extract oil" but that they want to
"cleanup the oil mess".
Imagine if all that "dirty stinking oil" sitting in the ground was there because some company dumped it there as a way to get rid of some industrial byproduct. All the environmentalist would be screaming for the oil companies to come in and "clean it up". The superfund would be used to subsidize "cleanup operations" where the dirt would be carefully processed to remove any traces of that "industrial waste oil".
Instead of being painted the villains by all the environmentalists, the oil companies would be the "saviors of the environment" by offering to come in and take care of this "mess".
Oh, wait! That would only work if oil could only be broken down into harmless elements at a loss instead of being sold for a profit as a source of energy.
Imagine if all that "dirty stinking oil" sitting in the ground was there because some company dumped it there as a way to get rid of some industrial byproduct. All the environmentalist would be screaming for the oil companies to come in and "clean it up". The superfund would be used to subsidize "cleanup operations" where the dirt would be carefully processed to remove any traces of that "industrial waste oil".
Instead of being painted the villains by all the environmentalists, the oil companies would be the "saviors of the environment" by offering to come in and take care of this "mess".
Oh, wait! That would only work if oil could only be broken down into harmless elements at a loss instead of being sold for a profit as a source of energy.
Ted | 8:26 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Mr. Clemens and his ilk typify the head-in-the-sand bumper sticker crowd that
opposes anything and everything having to do with development of any kind. His
comments and those of a couple of the posters here show the worst kind of fuzzy
headed thinking: Condemn an idea, file suit, whether or not they know anything
about the technology. (Of course, if they didn't ramp up the rhetoric they
couldn't increase the fund raining.) Let's give the oil shale folks a
chance to show what they can do before jumping on the condemnation bandwagon.
Uninformed | 8:27 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Bob G, The US produces about 7 million barrels of oil a day and uses about 18
million. It's true that a portion of US production may be exported where
it makes economic sense, but the vast majority of oil produced in the US is
consumed in the US.
Let the free enterprise system work (reduce government regulations) and watch prices drop and problems be solved.
Let the free enterprise system work (reduce government regulations) and watch prices drop and problems be solved.
Brad Peterson | 8:36 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
What a lazy article.
Talk about oil shale. Get Utah Senators' reactions. Then contact the Sierra Club, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and the Nine Mile Canyon Coalition and let them whine in their usual manner.
Finish with a concluding paragraph.
Talk about oil shale. Get Utah Senators' reactions. Then contact the Sierra Club, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and the Nine Mile Canyon Coalition and let them whine in their usual manner.
Finish with a concluding paragraph.
This issue explains all ... | 8:49 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
This issues is typical of the gut reaction difference between Democrats and
Republicans (or more specifically between liberals and conservatives).
The gut reaction of Democrats is to be against everything, whether it's a good thing or not. The gut reaction of Republicans is to be for stuff, whether it's a good thing or not.
The gut reaction of Democrats is to be against everything, whether it's a good thing or not. The gut reaction of Republicans is to be for stuff, whether it's a good thing or not.
OilMan | 9:01 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I don't think that the oil sands mines are a 'mess'. They're
massive operations, energy and water hungry, with huge footprints. But
that's the reality of extracting oil from the sand, and it's probably
the reality of extracting it from rock. Check out the Syncrude or Suncor or
Shell Albian Sands sites. They do work to conserve the environment. If we want
energy from the shales, we need to be prepared for the reality of the operation.
NIMBY won't work here.
unimpressed | 9:02 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I agree, Brad...a very lazy article.
So someone has actually figured out a way to make light sweet crude that can be converted to gasoline from kerogen shale? That's news... to even the oil companies!
Many Utahns would happily fill in the Grand Canyon and breathe thick black fog if it brought enough $10 an hour grunt jobs, so no environmental price would be too high for them and that's hardly a surprise.
So someone has actually figured out a way to make light sweet crude that can be converted to gasoline from kerogen shale? That's news... to even the oil companies!
Many Utahns would happily fill in the Grand Canyon and breathe thick black fog if it brought enough $10 an hour grunt jobs, so no environmental price would be too high for them and that's hardly a surprise.
Roland Kayser | 9:08 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Processing shale will require a gazillion gallons of water. We live in a desert.
This is the first problem we need to solve.
Ernest T. Bass | 9:07 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Who cares about the environment?
We're all republicans in Utah so lets go ahead and make a mess, the complain in 20 years when the govenment hast to clean it up because the last thing we would do is require the oil companies to clean it.
We're all republicans in Utah so lets go ahead and make a mess, the complain in 20 years when the govenment hast to clean it up because the last thing we would do is require the oil companies to clean it.
The water argument -not | 9:22 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Can't we get past the water issue? So some processes use a few gallons of
water. Other oil shale technologies use none - nada.
No one seems to care that ethanol production requires five gallons or more of water per gallon of ethanol produced.
Let's give the oil shale companies a chance to try their technologies. It's time to let them show what they can do.
No one seems to care that ethanol production requires five gallons or more of water per gallon of ethanol produced.
Let's give the oil shale companies a chance to try their technologies. It's time to let them show what they can do.
Ed Meyer | 9:28 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I expect there is a middle ground in the debate over the environmental impacts
of oil shale extraction. Why not allow the most environmentally sensitive
technology to be used on a trial basis. The state lands section that was
mentioned seems to make sense, especially since tailings could be used to fill
trenches left from Gilsonite mining. After the trial, there would be real
information to determine whether to allow additional mining. I expect that what
is behind this is a fear from the environmental community that you actually may
be able to mine oil shale in an appropriate manner which would make more
hydrocarbons available to damage the environment. To me, this is about seeing
what does and does not work rather than continuing to conduct a battle of words
based on assumptions, not fact. Let's do something now and see if it can
be done right.
I'm with Ed | 9:42 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I'm with Ed. Let's try it. There is vast amount of acreage and
reserves. Production areas scattered around, or centralized for that matter,
can be handled in a way that looks nice (is that term allowed with the enviros)
and still gets the job done. The Uintah Basin is already trucking thousands of
barrels of oil each day to SLC. Don't imagine another thousand or two
would even be noticed.
And should you readers, and the D News writers be interested, there is a plan to build a new highway south that would connect with I-70, giving another alternative route to move oil from the Uintah Basin to other markets.
And should you readers, and the D News writers be interested, there is a plan to build a new highway south that would connect with I-70, giving another alternative route to move oil from the Uintah Basin to other markets.
Kevin In Taylorsville | 10:51 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
The bottom line is that there still is only 667 million barrels under there
which would only last the united states a couple of years. Then it will run out
and like it happened in Texas, all the mess will be left over polluting
groundwater, surface water and soils. What these oil companies do in Texas is go
out of business after the oil runs out and then they have no legal
responsibility to reclaim the land. Then it is left to the state government to
clean up with limited funds. In the end, fossil fuels are an unrenuewable,
unsustainable source of energy that will run out. In my opinion, the cost is too
great. The sooner we find alternatives that are sustainable the better.
Out in the Oil Patch | 11:07 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Only a few question needs asking to determine if this is going to be a mess.
How much water is required for the process?
Where will that water come from?
How will that water be reclaimed (cleaned, refreshened, etc.)?
How much of the originally used and now reclaimed water be returned to the water shed?
How will this effect the water shed AND underlying water table?
How will the waste by-product of the extraction process be dealt with?
Can it be used for other productive purposes?
If not able to be productively where will the waste by-product be deposited?
And finally, who will bare all the cost of thIs? The oil extraction companies (which is the way it should be, including being bonded)? Or the taxpayer (which would be just another corporate welfare scheme that primarily benefits the company stockholders and leaves the taxpayer double hit... in paying through their paid taxes, and at the pump...)?
These are the questions that seem to be glossed over or not addressed, yet are the ones that should determined whether to do or not to do...
How much water is required for the process?
Where will that water come from?
How will that water be reclaimed (cleaned, refreshened, etc.)?
How much of the originally used and now reclaimed water be returned to the water shed?
How will this effect the water shed AND underlying water table?
How will the waste by-product of the extraction process be dealt with?
Can it be used for other productive purposes?
If not able to be productively where will the waste by-product be deposited?
And finally, who will bare all the cost of thIs? The oil extraction companies (which is the way it should be, including being bonded)? Or the taxpayer (which would be just another corporate welfare scheme that primarily benefits the company stockholders and leaves the taxpayer double hit... in paying through their paid taxes, and at the pump...)?
These are the questions that seem to be glossed over or not addressed, yet are the ones that should determined whether to do or not to do...
Anonymous | 12:57 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
See the thing with environmentalists is they whine and complain "you
can't do this...you can't do this" but they don't provide
any solutions. I will start listening to environmentalists when they start
providing real options and not road blocks. As bad of an option as oil shale is
at least it is an option. Current so called "green" technologies are
not really viable. All of those green technologies also have environmental
problems as well. So environmentalists, want to really change the world?
Provide real solutions rather than point out problems.
Oh Please | 1:34 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
The oil companies are excited about shale for only one reason. No, it is not
economically viable and they know it; but think of the subsidies! Exxon is
already getting $17 billion a year from our pockets to do "alternative
energy" research. Shale will be just another HatchBennett taxpayer-funded
perk for the oil companies. These Masters of the Universe really know how to
scratch each other's backs.
Out in the Oil Patch | 2:06 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Dear: The water argument -not | 9:22 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008
As I understand it, and it has been addressed in the news, the oil shale extractive process that's been considered IS the one that uses water, which is supposed to be drawn from the Green River...
Dear: Oh Please | 1:34 pm Aug. 10, 2008
SPOT ON! Great observation. That's exactly what is referred to as the perverted form of welfare called 'Corporate Welfare' which is rooted in the neo-con's propensity to axe any and all public socialism (including the responsible and accountable programs that have proven to drive responsible citizenship, private sector productivity and economic well-being) and promote their weird 'Corporate Socialism' ... the same stuff that led to the Great Depression of the 30's!
And you're correct. Even the CEO of Exxon was recently reported to have said that there is NO oil shale or tar sands extraction that is commercially feasible as far as standard accounting practices based profit & loss bottom lines are concerned. (Unless you factor in the corporate welfare schemes that is...)
As I understand it, and it has been addressed in the news, the oil shale extractive process that's been considered IS the one that uses water, which is supposed to be drawn from the Green River...
Dear: Oh Please | 1:34 pm Aug. 10, 2008
SPOT ON! Great observation. That's exactly what is referred to as the perverted form of welfare called 'Corporate Welfare' which is rooted in the neo-con's propensity to axe any and all public socialism (including the responsible and accountable programs that have proven to drive responsible citizenship, private sector productivity and economic well-being) and promote their weird 'Corporate Socialism' ... the same stuff that led to the Great Depression of the 30's!
And you're correct. Even the CEO of Exxon was recently reported to have said that there is NO oil shale or tar sands extraction that is commercially feasible as far as standard accounting practices based profit & loss bottom lines are concerned. (Unless you factor in the corporate welfare schemes that is...)
Out in the Oil Patch | 2:20 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Uninformed | 8:27 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008 said:
"Let the free enterprise system work (reduce government regulations) and watch prices drop and problems be solved."
I absolutely agree with reducing government regulation so long as government (actually the White House and their congressional Republican party cronies) doesn't fund the perverted Republican party's definition of the 'Free Enterprise System' to also mean Corporate Socialism driven Corporate Welfare schemes.
If it's going to be the Adam Smith type Free Enterprise that Republicans are so quick to refer to, then let it be a Free Enterprise system ALL THE WAY!
No public funds, no tax breaks for the corporation or its stock holders, no special income tax incentives for investors, no government specials, incentives, breaks or deferments AT ALL... just a purely Free Enterprise driven system, as you've so aptly referred to.
Now that I'm all for, knowing that the hidden hand of the market will correct and balance the whole thing, including the environmental issues...
so long as the government stays out of the whole mess ALL THE WAY! Front door, back door, front windows, back windows, chimneys and all. No way in or out... just Free Enterprise take-the-risk industry... period!!!!
"Let the free enterprise system work (reduce government regulations) and watch prices drop and problems be solved."
I absolutely agree with reducing government regulation so long as government (actually the White House and their congressional Republican party cronies) doesn't fund the perverted Republican party's definition of the 'Free Enterprise System' to also mean Corporate Socialism driven Corporate Welfare schemes.
If it's going to be the Adam Smith type Free Enterprise that Republicans are so quick to refer to, then let it be a Free Enterprise system ALL THE WAY!
No public funds, no tax breaks for the corporation or its stock holders, no special income tax incentives for investors, no government specials, incentives, breaks or deferments AT ALL... just a purely Free Enterprise driven system, as you've so aptly referred to.
Now that I'm all for, knowing that the hidden hand of the market will correct and balance the whole thing, including the environmental issues...
so long as the government stays out of the whole mess ALL THE WAY! Front door, back door, front windows, back windows, chimneys and all. No way in or out... just Free Enterprise take-the-risk industry... period!!!!
TO: Out in the Oil Patch | 3:00 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Those questions about oil shale development have been explored and answered
extensively - way back in the 70's. If you want to readh one million
pages of reports prepared by very qualified research consultants and staff, go
to the library now housed in Vernal.
The newer oil shale companies are referring to them as they build their development plans.
The newer oil shale companies are referring to them as they build their development plans.
Matt | 4:59 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Both Shell and Chevron have developed processes to extract oil from shale
"In situ" with a minimum use of water and limited mining. The article
mentions these methods in passing, but in fact these methods are being tested
now in CO. A conservative estimate of oil that's contained in shale in the
United States is 6 TRILLION barrels, according to information presented at the
US DOE's 2007 Energy Information Association conference . 2 trillion of
that is in CO, WY, and UT. Go to the EIA's website and download the report.
Interesting info. There's also great articles on the process from the
Denver Post and Wall Street Journal, if you wanna google them.
Exxon CEO - ?? | 5:18 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
We don't need to know what the CEO of Exxon REPORTEDLY said. Cite the
exact words and the context. While Exxon Mobil does have a storied and
somewhat legendary experience with oil shale, even that company cannot - and
does not - ignore the vast shale resource that is in Utah and Colorado.
No company is going to sink a billion bucks into an unproven or untried process, but show success with a 2,000 bpd technology, then scale up to a 5,000 or 10,000 bpd plant. If that works, then you watch how soon Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips, Chevron, etc. spring into action. (Actually, most major oil companies, both nation and international, have research and development projects now going on with shale.)
The technology and successful small scale operations are the key. We need to strongly support them to get started.
No company is going to sink a billion bucks into an unproven or untried process, but show success with a 2,000 bpd technology, then scale up to a 5,000 or 10,000 bpd plant. If that works, then you watch how soon Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips, Chevron, etc. spring into action. (Actually, most major oil companies, both nation and international, have research and development projects now going on with shale.)
The technology and successful small scale operations are the key. We need to strongly support them to get started.
EIEO | 8:12 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I feel all of the banter has missed the real point. In a world of conservation
and and CO2 reductions along with reduction other poisonous and noxious
emissions, Oil shale and tar sands can not win the battle. EI vs EO, or Energy
in vs Energy out. Currently in Canada the ratio is grossly upside down. About 4
barrels of energy are used to extract one barrel of tar sand oil. Then
unmeasured amounts of energy are used for the transport of this oil to
refineries. If we are indeed trying to save energy, this is in gross error of
that design.
Oil extraction from shale and tar sands will most definitely become more efficient soon. that is fine. However, the other issue, transport, will become the nightmare. Oil production now in the Uinta Basin is being slowed because there is not enough trucks and drivers to get it out. No railroad or massive pipeline is available. In combination with refinery restrictions in the Salt Lake area, how will one transport and process this new find? To get to the point of transport and refining will take enormous amounts of energy. The equation of EI vs EO is flawed again.
Oil extraction from shale and tar sands will most definitely become more efficient soon. that is fine. However, the other issue, transport, will become the nightmare. Oil production now in the Uinta Basin is being slowed because there is not enough trucks and drivers to get it out. No railroad or massive pipeline is available. In combination with refinery restrictions in the Salt Lake area, how will one transport and process this new find? To get to the point of transport and refining will take enormous amounts of energy. The equation of EI vs EO is flawed again.
Ridgerunner | 8:22 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
I am not in favor or trashing the environment but I have learned that much of
radical environmentalism is nothing more than a money making scam! "Save
the planet" schemes are nothing but a very lucrative lie that does nothing
to help the environment and only markets fear! Most of us remember being assured
that the Alaska pipeline was going to destroy the environment. It didn't at
all. Neither will harvesting oil from shale harm the environment. I say go for
it!
Oil from shale | 8:54 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
Do you folks want to keep paying $4.00/g for gasoline or more? Do you enjoy
being dependant on other countries for our energy? Just keep voting for
Democrats and we will on both counts.
Which do we want | 10:45 p.m. Aug. 10, 2008
The reality is, based on who you believe is that oil production will reach its
peak between 2014 to 2020 or around 2050 or so (on the conservatives side).
Shale oil will only very slightly impact the decline of production that is
coming. The NCP states that oil shale is not a long term answer. Having said
that what we need to be doing in finding alternative forms of energy that work,
free us from oil and empower our country to be in control of its own energy.
Little Old Denmark has done this, and yes they are smaller, but they are doing
it, and their competitors are not from the US, but from China. If we want to
keep our position as a global economic power, we must take the lead on
alternative energy sources that are not oil based, but are based on new
technology that work. The question is do we wait until it is too late, or are we
proactive? In Utah we'll be reactive I fear. Luckily the rest of the
country might eventually decide to be proactive.
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.
- GOP to stage health care read-a-thon 1:54 p.m.
- Stocks mixed as contracts expire 1:52 p.m.
- 700K packages of Vicks recalled 1:51 p.m.
- Groups still seek holiday donations 1:41 p.m.
- Driver drank before Davies crash 1:30 p.m.
- Sanchez to start for Jets vs. Falcons 1:29 p.m.
- Phelps, Hardy help US set record 1:28 p.m.
- Tag Heuer to drop Tiger Woods in US 1:16 p.m.
- Oil jumps after Iraqi oil field seized 1:15 p.m.
- 'Friendly Fire' author Bryan dies at 73 1:15 p.m.
- Susan Powell's family saddened
- 4 people found slain in W. Jordan
- Police: Murder/suicide premeditated
- 'Avatar' a visual feast, but plot fails
- Oregon State helped refine Bronco
- Frances Monson recovering well
- Football forecast as predicted
- Cleopatra relic lifted from sea
- Here are Max Hall's Top 10 wins
- It's official; Heaps signs with BYU
- Here are Max Hall's Top 10 wins
173 - It's official; Heaps signs with BYU167
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons155
- Susan Powell's family saddened147
- Letters: 'Liberal conceit'139
- Jazz stunned by Timberwolves114
- Susan Powell notebook seized114
- Josh Powell meets with WVC police109
- Letters: Explaining Palin104
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney100
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
I wasn't a big Hall fan but I am now. The utes can stop their "holier than...
@3:28 p.m. The claim was made that government is always less efficient than...
I've given thousands of dollars away in tips while drunk in casinos and bars....
Can't wait until the inter-family and polygamous marriages are given their...
I say give it to them on the condition that the Town of Alta denies the Alta...
I saw it last night at midnight in 3D. It was very well done.I have seen a...
Will never reach the top, like watching little puppies argue over who the Big...
My amazement at the hatred spewed by the liberals in this letter and comment...
"At Texas Tech University an economics professor taught a great lesson to his...
This is right along the lines of many other big budget films where special...
Advertisements