Deseret News | Reader comments: Oil-shale plans take step forward

Reader comments
Oil-shale plans take step forward

Conejo | 2:04 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

What is irresponsible is the illusion that every energy concern can wait another 30 years before real progress is made. All forms of energy production should be explored. However, oil is a known comodity, is sitting right under our noses, and can take care of the near future. I wonder if the environmentalists will be as equally vocal when gas costs $10 a gallon, the country has 20% unemployment, and people are living in their beloved "wilderness areas" because they can't afford anywhere else.

Anonymous | 4:47 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

I'm not sure how the calculation was made that 800 billion barrels is enough to meet our import demands for 110 years. The data I found online indicates we import 10 million barrels/day, or 3.65 billion barrels per year, which makes the oil shale enough to replace our imports for 20 years. Either way, it's a lot of oil-plenty to dry up the west (this type of production uses a lot of water) and will help warm things up around the world (if you believe in global warming like I do!) Why not spend the money that would be spent on developing this resource, instead on developing solar, wind and geothermal. If global warming isn't for real, another few decades of caution will help answer the question-better safe than sorry in my mind!

Oil shale and nukes | 5:12 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

Come McCain as president, watch Utah get sacraficed as the place for smelly oil shale development and nuclear waste disposal. With McCain's mantra for drilling and more nukes, we're in for real change! It will be okay, though. It's for our children's future!

Comments continue below

Head Locked | 6:33 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

We are in a headlock. The far left has us over a barrel because we can't do anything without something and something can't be done about anything.

In essence the environmentalists want protection for the environment yet we can't do anything with oil shale so we can prove we know what we are doing to protect the environment.

I have been involved in research and development long enough to know that it would always be better to build the 10th unit first. Learning is a part of progression. Henry Ford never saw a Lincoln Town Car.

I certainly enjoy my environment and desire to protect it, however there must be a balance between being able to do something verses nothing.

I find it very amusing that the very people who want to drain Lake Powell are the same people that complain that they don't have any water to drink, electricity to power their air conditioners, hybrid cars, or their electronic gadgets. The same people are standing on our jugular concerning nuclear power, the most environmentally and humanly safe from of energy, while complaining over the price of oil.

I suppose Obama can change all of this too, right?

Anonymous | 7:21 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

You can't get rid of water. You can use it. Recycle it. Break it apart. Recombine it.

But matter is matter. You can't get rid of it.

Nuclear the Answer? | 7:29 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

Everybody agrees that US energy policy is in need of a massive overhaul. We now realize that oil, while necessary, siphons off America's future.

Alternatives to oil are imperitive. Wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear all play a role. Some feel that nuclear is the way to go.

What I never hear about is the best response to nuclear power in the form of a molten salt reactor. It answers so many questions as to the safety of nuclear power.

A little research into this technology will knock your socks off! These reactors burn nuclear waste that normally is put in the ground at Yucca mountain. In fact some nuclear waste that was just earmarked for Yucca mountain to sit for 10,000 years for it to become inhert would be enough fuel for a molten salt reactor to provide energy needs for the entire country (including transportation) for 2-3 years!

Why we don't have these molten salt reactors? They don't have any depleted uranium as a by-product which the military didn't like. BTW these reactors are not water-cooled so use less water, have zero chance of a meltdown, and the unburned fuel's halflife is about 100 years!

Don't tell EnergySolutions!

Lets do this. | 7:36 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

Companies like Enshale are developing new innovative ways to produce oil from shale in a cost effective and more environmentally friendly way. Oil shale is a viable and important solution. This needs to be done in conjuction with nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal.

800/3.65 = 220 Year | 7:45 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

This is for "Anonymous | 4:47 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008 ".

It looks like you are incapable person for calculating even when you said you believed "Globe is warming".

800/3.65=219.17...

Grant | 8:03 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

hey 800/3.65 = 220 Year, nice work. haha

Yes, please! | 8:07 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

Yes, please, let's get going on this! And drill in that tiny desolate place in Alaska while we are at it. It's time to curb our dependancy on foreign oil while other sources of power are researched and refined to become affordable.

Himself | 8:13 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

Many of the arguments for more extraction reflect the
same economic thinking in other areas.

Borrow against our assets, then spend it all as fast as possible. Forget about saving, the future is somebody else's problem. The theme used to be the
"Me generation". Still accurate.

The planning so far is to use up our resources before our enemies use up theirs. But it's O.K. Think about all the big screen TVs we'll have.

400ex | 9:52 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

Think about it. There is no enviromentally kind way to meet the global energy needs. Solar energy already heats the ground as does thermal energy while winds moves seeds and palon and is used by birds. Any large scale use as gas and coal are used will have an effect on the enviroment. Everyone must quit fighting and work out some compromises. Most of us are so tight with gas and food prices we can't afford to do our part buying enviromently friendly. Some of each might be the answer but that costs money which means the economy is actually part of taking care of the enviroment.

Extremely Profitable | 10:06 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

We'll be just like Alaska, a very rich state from oil production. Maybe some of that money can be used to open up other natural areas so those in the western part of Utah won't be missed. The refineries are going to make a mess of things - that's the real problem. I hope not, but have you taken a look at the Flying J refinery in N. Salt Lake? It's ugly, an eyesore, smelly, dangerous - hopefully there will be some legislation about where to put those smelly refineries.

I have to admit that I feel better paying $700B a year to our own country rather than to Russia, Dubai, Venezula and Saudi Arabia. We'll probably be shipping oil to them, Haha.

Protect The Environment!! | 10:12 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

This is a travesty!! We've got to stop drilling for oil and stop driving internal combustion engines, they are killing the environment!!

I've got to go now. I need to fill up my SUV at the gas station and drive on freeways to southern Utah to do some hiking and camping.

Sincerely,
Environmentalists

Robin | 10:15 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

And the Green River is a plentiful source of water, who cares about downstream.

Anonymous | 10:41 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

Oops, when trying to understand where the figure that the oil shale could replace 110 years worth of imported oil, I for some reason divided 80 by 3.65 (wrong equation), instead of 800/3.65 (right equation!) Thanks for the correction (everyone's got excuses, mine is that I woke up early from being sick and wasn't thinking too clearly yet).

I liked the comment about water-that you can't get rid of water. But it is certainly possible to exhaust and contaminate the limited amount of clean water that is provided to the arid West via the water cycle. And oil shale development, while potentially deemed necessary (by us, the citizens of this great Land), will still use a huge amount of water-we just have to be aware of the impact that the development will have before we jump in.

Go Green | 10:53 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

That's what I'm talkin' aboot. Go Canada!!

Get started | 11:01 a.m. Sept. 5, 2008

Lets get started on this right away. We might as well work with what we have in our own country. Oil independence is a very long ways away. Until then start drilling.

wayne | 12:06 p.m. Sept. 5, 2008

If we realy do not want to be in iraq for a 100 years as McCain has pragmatically predicted. then we must tap into or natral resources now and in the future. 20 year ago when I was in high school the montra was use their oil before we ues ours. that needs to change. we need to drill here and offshore as well as get serious about solar, wind, smart Nuclear power, clean coal, natural gas, the liquificatoin of both natural gas and coal and hydrogen fuel cells as-well-as others potential energy sources.

we can regain control of our energy future. but it will take leadership not only in the oval office but congress. what I have seen the past 14 years is that when we as a country do not take things seriously then even republicans act like greedy little democrates. but when they are engaged in issues even democrates make me proud. we need to hold our representitive accountable for taking on the nations problems. make sure that they are engaged in the issues not just talking about them. this is the only way that we can get out of energy geopolitical mess that we are in.

From Utah... | 12:42 p.m. Sept. 5, 2008

But I won't be moving back, so I guess I'm on the outside of this one.

The thing about wind power and nuclear power, etc. is that you cannot power most of our modern industry (to say nothing of cars) with anything but petroleum. So while we develop alternative energies, we need oil to bridge the gap. I do like the concept of domestic sources.

Wind power is a VERY polluting source of electricity up-front. As with "clean" hybrid cars, there is a huge environmental and even carbon footprint to manufacture, assemble, and maintain a wind turbine. And that says nothing about putting them all over the countryside. They are clean thereafter, but nobody is really sure yet whether they make up for the early pollution over the lifetime of the turbine.

About time! | 2:52 p.m. Sept. 5, 2008

I remember the talk about oil shale during the last energy cricis. All the experts said that oil shale wouldn't be profitable until oil reached $80 a barrel (unthinkable then). When oil went over $100/barrel, I wondered why nobody was doing anything with the big store of shale in Utah. Of course, we have had 30 years to study the environmental impact. However, the idiots in the environmental lobby tell us we haven't had enough time to study the impact and we need more. Naturally, this is a smoke screen that is only repeated by liberal democrats. But, I'm willing to make a prediction based on what we've seen from successive Clinton and Bush administration who each betray their base supports. I think Obama's more likely to open up oil shale than is McCain (who has accepted the environmentalist mantra about global warming). To those of you who believe in the Arizona maverick (a code word for nothing more than just plain weirdness), he has already shown that he won't lift a hand for Utah....

Scott | 3:01 p.m. Sept. 5, 2008

I would like to see McCain win because if Obama wins, I suspect he and the democratic congress will somehow nix this oil shale plan from progressing. Anyone agree or disagree?

Cats | 7:04 p.m. Sept. 5, 2008

Obama's energy plan amounts to inflating our tires and getting our cars tuned up.

Seriously, Obama and the other Democrats are way too beholden to the environmental lobbists who are their big contributors. They will be much less likely to open up exploration and development for, oil shale, tar sands, nuclear, etc.,etc.

Sarah Palin is an EXPERT on energy issues and the geopolitical ramifications. She is who we need as an advisor to our next president.

Let's develop ALL sources of energy that are available to us, including solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, oil shale, natural gas and all the drilling we can do.

How soon we can get these new oil facilities on line is a matter of debate. Regardless of how long it takes, WE NEED TO START NOW! Let's not waste any more time debating it.

Reality Check | 12:07 a.m. Sept. 6, 2008

As quoted from a 2005 report commissioned by the U.S. DOE called Oil Shale Development in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues(freely available online): "Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future". They go on to say that that extra production "would likely cause oil prices to fall by 3 to 5 percent". Yea! we can drop oil prices 5 percent 30 years from now. And that level of change in prices "would not change the political dynamic of oil exporting countries a great deal". As a direct result of the actual production of oil shale, they say quite clearly that air quality will suffer, green house gas production is significantly higher than traditional oil production, and water quality in the Colorado River basin will suffer from "leaching of salts and toxics" which may or may not be controllable in the long term. It will take $5-7 billion dollar investment to get a plant running that will produce 50,000 barrels/day. None of that is insurmountable, but it should be requested/implemented by the petroleum industry, who can make it work, not by politicians!

Solar power comparison | 12:56 a.m. Sept. 6, 2008

Utah could produce electricity, using concentrated solar power (CSP, cheaper mass production of energy than current photovoltaics) on 30,000 acres of land in the west and southwest parts of the state, that equals the amount of electricity we currently are producing in our mostly coal and natural gas fired power plants. I know it's a stretch, but there are internal combustion engines that burn hydrogen, which can be produced from the electricity. There you go, no more worry about sending money to the middle east, or sending C02 into the atmosphere; and as opposed to fuel cell vehicles running on hydrogen, mass production of internal combustion hydrogen cars could be done within 5 years, here in the U.S.! The solar electricity costs twice as much as coal, but coal is super cheap, so solar is pretty cheap too, much cheaper than $100/barrel oil.

Curly | 8:09 p.m. Sept. 6, 2008

We agree with drilling off shore for oil ,and extracting oil from the vast deposits in Utah , Colorado and Wyoming! WE also agree with tapping the enormous reserves of natural gas in the Rockies~ We back the on going research for clean coal! We have the resourses so lets use them!!!!!

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.