Reader comments
BLM aims to show oil-shale feasibility

Why would environmental groups oppose such a test, as the article states? It affects only 640 acres of land. Won't such a test provide valuable information for future decisions regarding whether to allow development?

The fact that recovering oil from shale is still being discussed as cost feasible means that the powers that be believe oil prices will go up. The oil shale talk ramped up once gas hit $3/gallon. We should probably suspect it's going back there soon.

Why would you wait until oil is back up at $3/gallon to start checking oil shale feasibility? Of course now is the time to start (or, at least, continue - it has been tested several times since the 70s around Vernal).

As for why it would be opposed, one reason would be that it is a hydrocarbon and thus produces CO2. Thus, oil shale would not reduce the carbon footprint of the US. Anyway, that is a reason.

Because Obammy voters love it when America suffers.

We should be exploring all options to decrease our dependance on foreign oil. This includes drilling for oil offshore, inland and in shale. This also includes alternative energy advancement such as wind, water, hydrogen, sun, nuclear, coal and natural gas. We should not avoid making use of our national resources due to the junk science known as man-made global warming and the alarmist propaganda that has followed it.

It looks like the Obama admistration will be wary of shale oil development. Shale oil is being expoited in Canada, and Estonia, and it is a vile, and nasty process. Billions have been spent on research and development in this country and it has yet to prove economically viable. Shale oi is a very low density energy source that destroys lots of land, uses lots of water, creates extra C02, and generates tons of caustic waste. Please article, in todays DNews, on "Dixie solar farm" for information on where we should be putting our money.

I like the idea of oil shale and tar sands... all that oil in the dirt just makes the dirt greasy and yucky, and environmentally icky. This could be a way to clean up the earth, like the celebrities did when there was that oil spill. WHo can forget the compelling pictures of hollywood's most plastic with the sea life, rubbing the crude oil off of cute little baby seals? Now where's the love for the earth itself? We need more hollywood stars to care about this... then we'd all be moved to save the earth from oil.

It is fitting to think of Utah squandering its water at the alter of black gold.

Liberal Larry, it's tar sands that are being exploited in Canada. They haven't figured out how to get light sweet crude out of kerogen shale yet.

I see in your post lots of negative statements however I do not see any sources for your references. Words like "vile" and "nasty" are non-scientific descriptions that do nothing to prove your claims. How much is "lots of water", "lots of land", and "extra CO2"?

So called "experts" with non-scientific backgrounds are a dime a dozen. Just look at Al Gore. Global warming, per Gore "the global warming debate is over". All this while the country is in the deep freeze and gullible governments are even contemplating anti global warming legislation while the country is undergoing record cold is just plain silly.

Let's not be afraid to use science in combination with some common sense.