Deseret News | Utah trio push for oil shale

Reader comments
Utah trio push for oil shale

Anonymous | 5:30 a.m. May 16, 2008

Thank you leaders of our community for standing for this, unfortunately this is nothing more than pandering. People have been pushing for ANWAR for years now and nothing has happened. I am sure they will find some Gecko or a random rock formation as to their reason why they continue our dependence on foreign oil. Call me crazy. but it is almost as if they are meaning to thwart our efforts to be nation reliant.

St. George | 6:48 a.m. May 16, 2008

Looks as if Hatch and the others have dreamed of great oil based economic boom, and over looked the fact that it is time to end the OIL based economy.

He is correct, if we start today it will be 10 to 30 years, so it is time for him to get off his kester and do something right.

Conservation Too | 6:57 a.m. May 16, 2008

Its not all about production of oil. Oil is a finite resource. If we drill at ANWAR it will in time be depleted, then what will we do?

When I go to work in my vanpool, I see people in huge cars and pickup trucks carrying only a single worker.

Since importing oil is such a huge burden on the country, to include having to send our young men and women off to war, we need as a society to consider not allowing such waste.

Comments continue below

diligentdave | 7:04 a.m. May 16, 2008

If we continue on our current course in regards to oil production, we will be owned by OPEC nations, including Iran, Venezuela, and also Russia.

Preserve the environment? For whom? The populace reduced to collecting acorns to mash into food between two rocks like the Paiutes did? There will be no oil for gas for tractors, planters and harvesters and fertilizer.

Future generations (if there are any) will look back on our generation as the most stupid one in history. We all live in Fantasy Land!

Why Dont You Post Comments | 7:34 a.m. May 16, 2008

ST. George

Bill | 7:36 a.m. May 16, 2008

There is no compromise in the language of environmental groups. They would rather see the country become a second class country dependent on foreign oil from countries that support the terrist movement rather than inconvenience one deer.

Where are the great environmental disasters that they are worrying about from utilizing our natural resources. Have there been disasters from drilling from oil or transporting it to market other than the wells themselves. Yet, we wouldn't drill in the Arctic even though we successfully tapped resources in the Bering Sea and transported it across the length of Alaska without despoiling the land except on ship.

We need to wake up as a country. There is no way to replace our needs except to utilize the resources available. Wind power and the other exotic technologies are not going to replace oil.

Timj | 7:40 a.m. May 16, 2008

Great...another excuse to keep on using oil to fuel our vehicles.
How long have we been using that stuff? There's got to be a better way, right? And yet we keep on chugging it down.
Let's move away from oil in our cars and trucks. After all, it is the 21st century.

Dave | 7:53 a.m. May 16, 2008

At the rate we are exporting our money to buy oil it will soon be all gone, but lets all hold hands and sing kumbya.

Jeff | 7:56 a.m. May 16, 2008

These same politicians regularly proclaim their opposition to nuclear power. I thought politicians were supposed to lead instead of stupidly following the other sheep over the cliff. That's what I've seen from our local leaders in recent years. I don't see how oil shale can be developed without massive environmental impact. We need to start build nuclear power plants now, or acres of windmills.

Anonymous | 8:22 a.m. May 16, 2008

Since the feds have allocated Colorado River water for shale development, we should at least respect the state of Colorado's wish to slow this down for study of impact on water supply so they don't end up having to strip cities of their water. If they have to cut residential use to a trickle, they will surely insist that Utah share the pain.

liberal larry | 8:35 a.m. May 16, 2008

"60 Minutes had" a piece on the Canadian oil shale projects, and it looks to me like an environmental disaster. It uses lots of water and basically strip mines the earth. Hopefully, after the coming election, and democratic victories, the congress will be less inclined to back such short sighted projects.

Mahershalalhashbaz | 9:00 a.m. May 16, 2008

I'm shocked Huntsman is giving even lip service to this. It must be an election year for the nations most liberal governor to go along with this. Now lets just hope he's not just pandering to voters. We demand energy produced from either nuclear or drilling our own oil. NOW!! Beware any politician who trys to stop this from happening. We will vote you out so fast....

Local Control | 9:12 a.m. May 16, 2008

It's a travesty that Congress is in the middle of this. Utahns should be free to determine for themselves how to use their lands. We don't need Federal involvement

Uh huh | 9:40 a.m. May 16, 2008

Yes, diligentdave, oil shale is the miracle that will save us all, who cares about the water supply, and if we sacrifice Denver and Las Vegas to the altar of pursuing a phantom source no one has been able to figure out how to tap, who cares, they're a bunch of heathens anyway!

Too late | 10:13 a.m. May 16, 2008

If we started an oil shale project today, May 16th 2008, oil products wouldn't start reaching consumers until 2018. By 2018 nobody will be able to afford gasoline and will either be walking, biking, using public transportation, or driving a car that runs on alternate fuels. The price of oil will plummet and there will be no demand because nobody will have a use for oil any more. And the shale project will rot.

If they had started this 10 years ago it might have done some good. Not now.

Keis | 10:18 a.m. May 16, 2008

Yes, let's sing kumbayah, while we continue down a course that will produce little but profits for energy companies. The energy used to process oil shale will not be available to burn for electricity generation. Money will change hands as we trade one (proven) energy source for another (unproven) one. And in the process, a vast sweep of Utah will be trashed.

You know... | 10:38 a.m. May 16, 2008

if getting one barrel of oil out of Utah's shale didn't require the energy in one and a half barrels of oil, plus three barrels of water, this might be a good idea.

Maybe someday the technology will exist to extract oil from shale efficiently. But it doesn't now.

One question | 10:46 a.m. May 16, 2008

If Huntsman, Hatch and Hansen support oil shale, does that mean the oppose the Lake Powell Pipeline? Oil shale would use up the part of Utah's water allocation that the pipeline is depending on getting.

Ernest T. Bass | 11:18 a.m. May 16, 2008

The fact is, the oil shale in eastern utah is very low-grade (as opposed to oil shale being processed in Canada) and requires an enormous amount of water to produce.
Question: Where do we get the water to process it?
If it was cost effective/higher grade, it would have been produced by now.
You guys bashing the environmentalists have no clue. Take a look at the current energy boom around Vernal, there is an enormous amount of gas and oil wells out there, with no restrictions. If the shale was cost effective, the companies would already be exploiting it.
Name one instance, just one, where an environmental group has legally attempted to stop the production of oil shale.
It hasn't happenend.

Utahan and loving it | 11:35 a.m. May 16, 2008

The Lord gave us this wonderful state to do with as we wish. If inspired leaders like Huntsman and Hatch want this done then it must be a good thing. I don't need some democrat in Washington telling me how to use the land that God gave me.

RCS | 11:37 a.m. May 16, 2008

I think the "protect the environment" stop to developing the oil shale in Utah is simpl fanaticism in the extreme. Proof of operation of oil shale production is scheduled for this September -- not 10 years in the future! Contact the office of Congressman Chris Cannon for details.

Uh huh | 11:59 a.m. May 16, 2008

RCS. Got any more legitimate sources of info we can look at...like from scientists or industry sources, not from a crazy politician?

Yeah, making sure the worthless heathens in other states don't get their water taps turned off so we can grind out low grade kerogen is true environmental extremism....

protected | 12:31 p.m. May 16, 2008

Somehow I see a kinship between Prarie Dogs and Oil Shale!!

Dave | 12:31 p.m. May 16, 2008

If the feds are involved, nothing will ever happen with this. Personally, I'm 'fed' up with the feds. The federal government has way too much power and that is not in line with what our founding fathers designed.

Malthus | 12:53 p.m. May 16, 2008

Oil shale has a great future in the Uintah Basin; and it always will have!
(activate irony chip here)

curious | 1:21 p.m. May 16, 2008

How so, "protected?"

Economically viable technology to extract gasoline grade oil from low grade kerogen shale on a large scale thus far is a mythical animal a la the "Questing Beast" of Arthurian Legend, just ask the last round of investors who bought into it.

On the other hand, I've actually seen the prairie dogs so I'm pretty certain that they exist.

St. George | 2:41 p.m. May 16, 2008

Affordable sustainable OIL is gone, so should the OIL BASED ECONOMY.

BIG OIL has had 30 years since the 70s oil embargo to do something and all they have done is profit.

Time to cut the losses and move on to something better

G | 2:43 p.m. May 16, 2008

What's the production cost / barrel?

JD | 5:31 p.m. May 16, 2008

People confuse Oil Shale and Oil Sands (Tar Sands) they are not the same.
It is Oil Sands that Canada is developing, and the way they are doing it is very harmful to the environment. There is enough oil in Canada and Utah from Oil Sands to supply the U.S. for the next 60 years. I would much rather see U.S. Dollars going into the Utah and Canadian economies rather than to the Middle East so that they can be spent on tourist attaches on the U.S. and our allies. There is new-patented technology that was developed here in Utah that is environmentally safe. This process recycles all the water and uses no heat. This process is a closed system that gives off no greenhouse gases and the water-based solvent used to wash the oil from the sand is safe enough to drink. This process can be in operation in less than a year.

JD | 5:37 p.m. May 16, 2008

If the State of Utah would help support the Utah Oil Sands Technology rather than building Soccer Stadiums they could fund schools and maintain highways with out increasing your taxes. But the Governor and his administration are only giving lip service to the Idea. The inventor of this New Oil Sands technology has tried to get the White house to help with its develop but the White House said the Oil Sands in not on there agenda. But on July 8, 2007 Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said that the best hope for the U.S. to break its dependence on Middle East oil was to help Canada develop new technology to expand its oil sands industry.
Oil Shale technology is not even close to being ready for large-scale development. More testing is need for oil shale but we should not stop the testing.

To St George | 11:59 p.m. May 16, 2008

You must be unemployed or likely unemployable. What would you like us people who work every day do? I drive around 1000 miles per month FOR MY JOB! What do you want to base the enconomy on? Hemp? You're like all the other liberal morons (Obama, Clinton, etc) all mouth with no REAL solutions. How do you propose to feed everyone while we (not you) "move on to something better"? What ever that something is, do you have any ideas...? I thought not, none of you liberal, moronic, pinheads have a clue.

byubryguy | 1:37 a.m. May 17, 2008

People on this board think that oil is only used for fuel and gasoline, and that we should not develop the oil shale because we will be moving to other alternative forms of energy. What they fail to recognize is that crude oil is a raw material source used in almost every consumer good. Plastics are made from the hydrocarbons found in crude oil. That means your cell phone, carpet, polyester suit, vinyl fence, etc. all requires oil. We can't use wind power and solar energy for cell phone casing or vinyl fencing. We simply need to develop more sources of oil, not just for fuel, but for all products and consumer goods. Otherwise we'll be back in the stone age.

Mike N | 11:14 p.m. May 17, 2008

If Oil hits $200 a barrel the US will be sending a Trillion dollars a year out of the country to cover what they need to import. People think the economy is bad now! We haven't seen nothing yet. There is enough oil in North America to last hundreds of years. Canada has oil sand and now oil shale and the US has massive amounts of oil shale. A Canadian company (GNZ) just found over 2 Billion barrels of oil in a recently discovered oil shale property.

Fact is like it or not the US will become dependant on oil shale or continue to be held hostage by foreign oil.

Blah Blah | 10:20 a.m. May 19, 2008

What a great idea, lets turn Utah in a superfund site so we can line someones pockets. The current energy "crunch" is all about getting your money in the pockets of big oil, nothing more. What a great "economic stimulus package" for the oil and gas industry. As far as tar sands and oil shale go, it was a government "give-away" program in the 70's and 80's. Looks like history does indeed repeat itself. Funny how everyone thinks oil shale is the answer when in reality, it takes more energy to produce than is recovered. Thats smart!!!!

Andrew | 1:03 p.m. May 22, 2008

We need to start extracting Oil Shale ASAP. It is enviormentally safe and we have 3 times the oil then Saudi Arabia!!!!

"Instead of mining the shale, since 1996 Shell has experimented with in situ, or in-place, extraction of oil from the ground."

Essentially, the shale formation is heated to about 700 degrees Fahrenheit for 2-3 years, the equivalent of millions of years, "chemically transforming it into a high-grade oil that is easily pumped to the surface. In an experiment that ended in May, 1,500 barrels of light, sweet crude were produced from one site."

A frozen barrier contains the oil from polluting the ground water."

The technology is out there, now if these left wing luberal nuts would stop blocking any bill to implement this we would be in good shape. It's obvious these liberals are waiting for a Demo President to proceed to make themselves look good. At least they are looking out for ou rbest intrest.

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.