Deseret News | Reader comments: Oil-shale potential growing in Utah?

Reader comments
Oil-shale potential growing in Utah?

Jimmy's Sneakers | 7:08 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Like clockwork. Oil prices go up = news article on Utah's oil shale reserves.

Confused | 7:14 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Utah has enough energy in the form of oil shale to keep the US powered for the next 150 years. Yet no one makes a single comment.

A one word change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon generates 200+ comments.

Very strange indeed.

Anonymous | 7:18 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Why not. First turn Utah into American's dumping ground, then tear of the earth and leave a polluted landscape behind. Utah, the state devoid of pride?

Comments continue below

John Campbell | 7:25 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Instead of nuclear power plants.Why not get paid for storge of spent nuclear material deep in oil shale heating it to the temperature necessary to extract the oil.

5-years Old Utahan | 7:35 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

It's exciting for Utahans: "30 gallons of oil per ton of shale"... and Utah has the a lot of the oil-shale... good for Utah...

Stupid is as stupid does | 9:01 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

We have a HUGE pollution problem here. Will oil-shale development help that? We have an OILMAN as President. Look where that's gotten us!

Robert Sailing | 9:38 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Tar Sand,Oil Shale and Geothermal. DO IT and DO IT NOW! Help!

David M. | 9:52 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Oil shale proponents don't tell the whole story; it takes a lot of energy to produce the oil from the rock, and the environmental damage is often extreme. Rather than putting money into a project like this, to produce more fuel that pollutes our already polluted air, it would be much more efficient to put our research and development efforts into renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. The last thing we need is more pollution in our air.

Blake | 9:56 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

I whole-heartedly believe this is the way to go. I'd pay $4.00/gallon for gas if I knew the money was staying in the US and not funding the troubled Middle East!!!

Modest Consumer | 11:12 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

What a shame that so many in this country are unaware of the positively enormous impact that the minerals and energy industries have had on their quality of life, past and present. Call me greedy, but I don't want to starve and freeze because (underground) mining rubs privileged or uninformed individuals and those who worship the planet the wrong way. If you drove on a road this year, you consumed tens of thousands of pounds of mineral and oil products. If no land was ever disturbed by these industries again, our way of life, including even the simplest of necessities, would be gone in a matter of days as panicked consumers hoard all the resources they can.

Get the Oil | 11:49 a.m. Nov. 15, 2007

If the shale oil can be produced, let's do it. Somebody always objects to something - wind power = unsightly mess on the beaches - water power = dams hurt the fish migration - you gotta do what you gotta do - let's just be as amart about it as we can.

THE SOLUTION | 12:03 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

A company recently released a special van in India and France for about 10,000 USD. It runs off of compressed air, goes about 70 MPH and goes for about 200-300 per fill up. It has an internal air compressor so all you need to do is plug it in when you get home and it does the rest.

So...FORGET FOSSIL FUELS. Lets go AIR POWERED CARS!

veedub | 12:20 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Yes "THE SOLUTION" it sounds good (if it's true). But don't forget some energy has to compress that air, and it's usually an electric- or gas-powered air compressor. And where does the electricity or gas come from? Usually coal or gas, for the most part. (or nuclear, if you're outside the US) So we're back where we started.

Now if we can develop an air compressor that doesn't require fossil fuel---but that's what we're looking for anyway, isn't it?

Jerry | 12:37 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

We wouldn't have been put on this earth if we wouldn't be supplied with all the neccesary resources for survival. The Lord provides this earth for us with everything we and future generation need until the second coming. It is pointless to conserve, when we consider the limitless energy available in the form of shale and fossil fuels. I just laugh when I see people drive those tin can "economy" cars.

Stewart | 12:37 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Geothermal is far from free. Recovery is expensive, but the real problem is that since it is often so far from point of use the real cost comes in building power lines and transmitting the electricity. A hundred miles of transmission could lose as much as 15-20% to resistance.

Water consumer | 12:57 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

So which state gets depopulated to free up enough water for oil shale production? Unless you depopulate Denver,the entire state of Utah, southern California or Vegas to free up the Colorado water, or end ag in the southwest permanently you're gonna have to go after the Great Lakes water or something to make this feasible on a large scale.

jerry | 1:17 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

"....he believes the cost of home electricity generated by the NUCLEAR plant would be more expensive than many realize".

They make it out like building a nuclear plant will increase our costs of electricity. That is ridiculous. Power companies buy the cheapest power they can get. Private enterprise isn't going to build a nuclear plant if they can't sell the power at competetive prices.

David M. | 1:31 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Jerry, you scare me. Just because it's there to use doesn't mean you should use it. You must not have any children or grandchildren to care about; what about them? Utah is polluted; the air quality is awful; yet you just think it's OK? We are stewards of the earth - there's no place else to go if we don't take care of it. Let's hope humans aren't so stupid as to kill ourselves off by continuing down the polluting path we are now on.

Guess who owns the land? | 1:40 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

The state trust fund.

Yep. Much of this land is owned by the PUBLIC school kids of Utah in the form of state trust lands.

They could be leased out to oil companies and the $$$ made could go directly into the schools.

Several problems solved at once.

Maybe I should run for office...

Better Alternatives | 2:58 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Not too long ago Discover ran an article (Anything into Oil) about something called thermal depolymerization. The process is designed to handle almost any waste product imaginable, including slaughter house leavings, tires, plastic bottles, sewage, old computers, municipal garbage, agricultural detritus, paper-pulp effluent, infectious medical waste, oil-refinery residues, even biological weapons such as anthrax spores. According to the article, waste goes in one end and comes out the other as three products: high-quality oil, clean-burning gas, and purified minerals that can be used as fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for manufacturing. And the byproduct? Sterilized water. Sounds too good, but they've already built a trial facility in Philadelphia that converts 7 tons of waste/day, and they are building a larger one in Missouri. Forget oil shale and nuclear; if this can deliver on even a part of its promise, it is worth investing serious money in to make it a widespread technology for fueling our society while eliminating its waste, weaning us from foreign oil, and reducing our exploitation of the environment. If our leaders are serious about any of these things, then lets investigate new options instead of investing more in trying to maximize the efficiency of yesterday's approach.

laughing? | 3:06 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Yes, Jerry, there is enough and to spare, but God still told us to take care of it and use it wisely. He never gave us permission to waste and exploit his creation, and I expect he will want an accounting for what we have done with it when he returns. Perhaps you do laugh at my small economy car; I am saddened by your large guzzling one.

For veedub | 4:40 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

veedub, you're correct but you're not following this all the way to the end. You're right when you say it takes energy to charge the compressor. But where you're shortsighted is that a compressor is charged with ELECTRICITY.

Electricity can be produced cheaply, from a number of different means, including many which are very efficient and environmentally friendly.

Internal combustion engines can only run on one thing: Gasoline.

Operating vehicles will always require energy (duh), but the TYPE of energy is what really matters. Electric is better because there are many more OPTIONS for getting it than gas.

Blake: Don't worry, you'll have your chance to pay $4 for gas sometime in May. And most of that will STILL go to terrorist nations. If all oil products were produced domestically, gas would be around $12 per gallon.

CHARLES LONDON | 6:44 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Conservation through mileage is the fastest pollution reduction action we can take. Mileage is best from DIESEL. New Low Emission Diesels are better than hybrids! And my friends, Low Emission Diesel comes best from Kerogen oil from OIL SHALE.

Say HELLO TO THE NEW GREEN INTERVENTION: Oil Shale to Low Emission Diesel. I love the irony that its even Greener than BIO FUELS! Leo DiCaprio, Robert Redford and Al Gore tout Bio Fuels as a low impact on environment. Funny thing is, Oil Shale is a far better solution, with far less impact. SEE "IS THE CURE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE" a new report from the OECD showing how fossil fuels are less impact than Renewable Bio Fuels. Truth hurts. Ladies and Gentlemen, your new green solution: Oil Shale.

Malthus | 8:56 p.m. Nov. 15, 2007

Oil shale development is so energy intensive, it amounts to spending a barrel of oil to gain a barrel and 1/5th in return. This might sound good, but it doesn't count the externalized costs;
-turning eastern Utah into the ecological equivalent of a giant kitty-litter box
-dewatering various streams, and exterminating the various agricultural and industrial businesses that currently use them
-increased greenhouse gases and pollution from the various coal-fired plants that will be required to power the oil shale extraction and refining.

As we have said for twenty years in the Uintah Basin (ever since Black Sunday), "Oil shale has a great future - and it always will have!"

Sweeny | 8:55 p.m. Nov. 18, 2007

Oil-Shale, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, expanded oil drilling, hyrdo: The more we have and the faster we have it, the better.

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.