Reader comments
Oil shale development gets boost from Bush
130 comments | Read story
GWC | 9:42 a.m. June 18, 2008
I absolutely agree. Our dependence on foreign oil is distroying this country. We
are forced into wars in order to protect foreign oil reserves, our economy, the
world economy, is held hostage by and we empower despotic, sadistic killers who
offer us conversion or the sword. I look forword to the day when we can tell
OPEC that we don't need them any longer and they can go back to roaming the
desert. But until that day, we need oil. Until we find a usable, renewable
energy resource, we need oil. We can't stop using oil immediately, it takes
time to make the switch and until then, we need oil. The Democratic party is
constantly telling us that they are the only hope for the poor (I think
they're liars), if they are truely concerned about the plight of the poor
they should insist on exploiting our national oil resources, but of course they
won't. They need the poor to stay poor so they can mine votes.
Willow | 10:08 a.m. June 18, 2008
Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting the ban on
off-shore drilling, and drilling in the Green Basin are not a fix for anything
other than feeding the insatiable appetites of Americans for oil, oil, oil.
Let's feed our greedy, lazy, want-everything-now attitudes instead of
making large long-term shifts in priorities.
Instead of drastically cutting back our oil usage and making small sacrifices toward a greener and healthier planet, we just dig more, drill more, ruin more. That is what Bush wants. That is what McCain wants, and that is what every American wants that won't make a change in their own lives to get us off of this neverending spiral of self gratification and self-ruin.
I hope Congress is smarter than our president. I will definitely be taking action to write to Congress and show my distaste for any of these 'quick-fix' ideas that really aren't a quick fix for anything.
Instead of drastically cutting back our oil usage and making small sacrifices toward a greener and healthier planet, we just dig more, drill more, ruin more. That is what Bush wants. That is what McCain wants, and that is what every American wants that won't make a change in their own lives to get us off of this neverending spiral of self gratification and self-ruin.
I hope Congress is smarter than our president. I will definitely be taking action to write to Congress and show my distaste for any of these 'quick-fix' ideas that really aren't a quick fix for anything.
Anonymous | 10:09 a.m. June 18, 2008
Doesn't the shale sit on School Trust Lands?
If so wouldn't the money from the oil produced go to the school children of Utah?
We could pretty much do away with property taxes and have one of the best funded education systems in the country instead of the worst funded.
Of course the feds would probably come in and snatch up the land...
If so wouldn't the money from the oil produced go to the school children of Utah?
We could pretty much do away with property taxes and have one of the best funded education systems in the country instead of the worst funded.
Of course the feds would probably come in and snatch up the land...
Comments continue below
Bush being safe | 10:14 a.m. June 18, 2008
This is a safe position for President Bush to take--he can urge Congress to take
action, which is totally out of his control (but which they darned well should!)
while he refuses to lift the executive order, something about which he does have
control. If he'd lift the order, maybe Congress would get serious.
I feel like this is grand-standing and will simply allow Congress to continue to listen to the combination of foreign oil interests and environmentalists, who got us into this oil situation in the first place.
It is ridiculous to say that oil drilling destroys the environment and then buy oil from other countries, none of whom are our friends. It puts us economically at their mercy and, if oil drilling is bad for our environment, it can't be good for theirs--and we should be concerned about the environment of the whole world, not just our little corner of it. While we STRONGLY need to find all sorts of alternatives to our mad dependence on oil, we should be developing our own oil resources and building new refineries.
I feel like this is grand-standing and will simply allow Congress to continue to listen to the combination of foreign oil interests and environmentalists, who got us into this oil situation in the first place.
It is ridiculous to say that oil drilling destroys the environment and then buy oil from other countries, none of whom are our friends. It puts us economically at their mercy and, if oil drilling is bad for our environment, it can't be good for theirs--and we should be concerned about the environment of the whole world, not just our little corner of it. While we STRONGLY need to find all sorts of alternatives to our mad dependence on oil, we should be developing our own oil resources and building new refineries.
xscribe | 10:30 a.m. June 18, 2008
Read the facts, folks. Drilling oil here, building refineries, and getting that
oil into production for public use is estimated to take 7-10 years to be
effective in getting us off our dependence from other countries. We have the
technolgy in that amount of time to wean ourselves off oil and have strictly
alternative fuels. Who doesn't want that to happen? Gas and oil
companies. It doesn't take a genius to understand why.
Thinking man | 10:33 a.m. June 18, 2008
Willow, I think everybody down to the staunchest conservative understands that
we need to make a fundamental shift in how & where we get our energy. And I
think almost everyone supports that. Everyone knows there's no more cheap
oil, everyone knows we buy oil from countries that hate us. In time, I have no
doubt that we WILL be basically oil-free.
But it won't happen overnight. If we don't drill, we jeopardize our immediate future. I know you want us to stop using oil 100% today, but what would it do to the world economy? Would you be willing to sacrifice your job to stop using oil?
You're right in the long term, but you have to realize that oil is part of our future for at least the next few decades......we need to consider that and drill our own.
But it won't happen overnight. If we don't drill, we jeopardize our immediate future. I know you want us to stop using oil 100% today, but what would it do to the world economy? Would you be willing to sacrifice your job to stop using oil?
You're right in the long term, but you have to realize that oil is part of our future for at least the next few decades......we need to consider that and drill our own.
Go Chris! | 10:34 a.m. June 18, 2008
I know Chris Cannon has been pushing Shale for years now. I saw him on Glenn
Beck last night talking about getting government out of the way so we can have
some common sense domestic energy policy and access our own reserves.
I don't think oil is the end-all solution but we have the resources here - let's use them for crying out loud.
I don't think oil is the end-all solution but we have the resources here - let's use them for crying out loud.
John | 10:39 a.m. June 18, 2008
poor poor Willow, or maybe its rich rich Willow. This doesn't sound like a
quick fix at all. It sounds like there is enough oil to supply America for a
long long time. Even after gas prices go down I don't know anyone that
would not invest in making their car more fuel efficient even if gas was at 1.50
a gallon.
Victor Evans | 10:44 a.m. June 18, 2008
Willow said it nicely. Bush is pushing a comfortable, enabling choice for
Americans to continue doing nothing about the national dependence on fossil
fuels. He's urging us to remain asleep on one of the most pressing problems
of our times. Status quo may be comforting to the republicans but it's a
lethal choice. I hope congress has the nerve to send him packing.
Richard | 10:46 a.m. June 18, 2008
Drilling for oil in America is not a solution. The shale oil they talk about
requires as much oil and energy to extract and nullifies the process.
We need to not find more oil to consume but rather find a renewable energy source.
Why cant people see that? Oil will always be non-renewable and therefore will cause stress on our economic base.
But telling that the hordes of Rush Limbaugh freaks is impossible. It is like trying to teach an infant to file taxes.
My friend who lives in North Dakota has a farm that produces corn, this corn is then turned to ethanol and fuels his cars. He then charges his friends 35 cents a gallon. I know that ethanol from corn has it's problems such as food shortages etc, but i am just trying to get the ball rolling on different ideas for energy.
The last thing we need right now is Bush and his Big Oil buddies finding ways to make even more money on oil while the rest of suffer.
We need to not find more oil to consume but rather find a renewable energy source.
Why cant people see that? Oil will always be non-renewable and therefore will cause stress on our economic base.
But telling that the hordes of Rush Limbaugh freaks is impossible. It is like trying to teach an infant to file taxes.
My friend who lives in North Dakota has a farm that produces corn, this corn is then turned to ethanol and fuels his cars. He then charges his friends 35 cents a gallon. I know that ethanol from corn has it's problems such as food shortages etc, but i am just trying to get the ball rolling on different ideas for energy.
The last thing we need right now is Bush and his Big Oil buddies finding ways to make even more money on oil while the rest of suffer.
Clare | 10:52 a.m. June 18, 2008
I don't want to destroy our environment, but I do think we need to think
about the future. It will take time and brains to figure out ways to get off
oil completely, if ever. We can definitely reduce our dependence a little more
every year if we try, but if we go totally 'Green, immediately'
we'll be jeopardizing our economy and the world's. If we are blessed
as a country, we will eventually be able to use new forms of energy. Some
people may make a case for public transportation, but that will never work for
some people, like myself, who can't even take a walk down the street in
temperatures much above 72 degrees. Don't ever get Multiple Sclerosis!
Also, I've been though a lot of the Escalante/Staircase National Monument.
Some of it is beautiful. Parts of it are so ugly, an oil pump would improve the
view!
Andrew | 11:00 a.m. June 18, 2008
The lack of understanding of economics toward the pricing of oil is totally
being misrepresented in many news articles. This one includes the same error I
heard Obama say on the news the other day. The big error is that the price of
gasoline will not be reduced quickly once changes like those proposed by Bush or
McCain are enacted. That is totally and unequivocally false.
Prices will drop at the pump within days of a congressional passage. Two things are are affecting the current price 1. current supply and demand and 2.future supply and demand. The increase in prices of late are from the projectd future supply and demand of gas. Increase the projected supply of gas and current prices will decrease immediately.
Simple as that.
I approve of Bush's plans here for private industry to increase oil supply and pray that we will increase usage of alternatives fuels so we can minimize our dependency on foreign nations for our energy supply.
Prices will drop at the pump within days of a congressional passage. Two things are are affecting the current price 1. current supply and demand and 2.future supply and demand. The increase in prices of late are from the projectd future supply and demand of gas. Increase the projected supply of gas and current prices will decrease immediately.
Simple as that.
I approve of Bush's plans here for private industry to increase oil supply and pray that we will increase usage of alternatives fuels so we can minimize our dependency on foreign nations for our energy supply.
Willow | 10:59 a.m. June 18, 2008
Thinking man, if we DO drill, we risk our immediate future. It will take several
years for that oil that we drill here to be put into use here. By that time we
could have and should have implemented alternative fuels and newer technologies.
Drilling here won't do us any good because of the timeframe involved, as
xscribe has rightfully pointed out in his/her comment. It won't fix a thing
right now.
But making fundamental changes in our lifestyles will. No one can stop using oil 100%. Oil is used for more than just cars. But the good news is, if millions of people make SMALL changes, the cumulative effect is HUGE and we won't need to depend on foreign oil period, and the oil we have access to here already will do just fine without even having to tap into the ANWR or drilling off-shore.
(Some) Americans are intelligent enough to insist upon alternative fuels and energy. We have the technology, the brains and the dollars to do it. We just have to do it. There are no excuses.
But making fundamental changes in our lifestyles will. No one can stop using oil 100%. Oil is used for more than just cars. But the good news is, if millions of people make SMALL changes, the cumulative effect is HUGE and we won't need to depend on foreign oil period, and the oil we have access to here already will do just fine without even having to tap into the ANWR or drilling off-shore.
(Some) Americans are intelligent enough to insist upon alternative fuels and energy. We have the technology, the brains and the dollars to do it. We just have to do it. There are no excuses.
Why? | 11:08 a.m. June 18, 2008
I have to applaude Utah for having the forsight and will in building the mass
transit system they have. I understand that there will be an addition to the
airport. Think of how much the dependence on gas and oil this move has
lessened, and the diminished carbon emission. Here in DesMoines, the city and
surrounding burbs are tearing up the old commuter track. Due to developement,
it will never be reclaimed. At the same time theyre developeing on fertile
farmland, megamalls in suburbian sprawl.
NOW i HAVE A QUESTION. Why aren't any of the presidential candidates talking about spending our diminishing resources to making life and transportation in the future more viable? We need more mass transport in large, small cities, and good size towns. We need to revive rail transport in the US. We need to reduce the carbon footprint of residences and business. These are easily acomplished and can even have a pleasent outcome in stress, comfort, and money savings.
Drilling for more oil in preserves and using every last drop of oil to maintain this lifestyle is not the answer.
NOW i HAVE A QUESTION. Why aren't any of the presidential candidates talking about spending our diminishing resources to making life and transportation in the future more viable? We need more mass transport in large, small cities, and good size towns. We need to revive rail transport in the US. We need to reduce the carbon footprint of residences and business. These are easily acomplished and can even have a pleasent outcome in stress, comfort, and money savings.
Drilling for more oil in preserves and using every last drop of oil to maintain this lifestyle is not the answer.
John | 11:09 a.m. June 18, 2008
I agree with Willow. We should use our time and resources to get off oil as
much as is possible. In the meantime, I think we can all learn to conserve. My
wife and I now combine trips, we carpool with family to our cabin in American
Fork cabin (even if it involves small inconveniences like staying up there a few
hours than we like), we take the Sedan more than the Pathfinder these days (even
though we hate dealing with rear-facing carseats in the Sedan), and I now work
from home once a week.
These changes weren't easy, but are necessary. I'd rather learn to deal with the inconveniences than have oil pumps everywhere. My wife is from Bakersfield, CA. Anyone ever been there? Oil pumps in supermarket parking lots, church parking lots, on the side of the freeway, and sometimes in residential areas. No thanks! I'd rather learn to get by on less that disturb Mother Nature (and myself) that way.
Some people are literally addicted to oil. With rising prices, they want a "quick fix" to the problem. Time to break the addiction.
These changes weren't easy, but are necessary. I'd rather learn to deal with the inconveniences than have oil pumps everywhere. My wife is from Bakersfield, CA. Anyone ever been there? Oil pumps in supermarket parking lots, church parking lots, on the side of the freeway, and sometimes in residential areas. No thanks! I'd rather learn to get by on less that disturb Mother Nature (and myself) that way.
Some people are literally addicted to oil. With rising prices, they want a "quick fix" to the problem. Time to break the addiction.
And another thing | 11:23 a.m. June 18, 2008
How is it that we, well that is Bush, who campaign was helped mightly by
Halliburton, an energy company with whom dubya had ties, invaded a very oil rich
country for a reason no one can quite explain, and after the invaison,
Halliburton was awarded a massive contract to help "rebuild the
country" that our country is now suffering from an oil shortage and needs
to drill in places we haven't been able to before, something GW(oilman)Bush
has been pushing for since his first day in office.
How is it thet we need to deplete every last drop in the US. I would think it would be better to use theirs first and save ours in any case.
And why do the Oil companies keep posting obscene profits, are called in front of congress to give some crap excuse, then let go after the furor dies down to start the cycle over the next quarter when they again post record profits.
Follow the money kids.
How is it thet we need to deplete every last drop in the US. I would think it would be better to use theirs first and save ours in any case.
And why do the Oil companies keep posting obscene profits, are called in front of congress to give some crap excuse, then let go after the furor dies down to start the cycle over the next quarter when they again post record profits.
Follow the money kids.
BBKing | 11:30 a.m. June 18, 2008
Some great comments though I have to nominate Andrew for the winner thus far.
His quick explanation of future price IS oil speculation.
A speculator signs a contract and agrees to buy a certain number of barrels of oil at a set price at a set date. Speculators look at our energy policies now, throw in the debt/dollar, and war and see the policies getting worse not better. So they are in a rush to by tomorrow's oil at the best price they can. So they buy tomorrow's oil for $155/barrel because they think it will climb to $170/barrel.
And who are these evil "speculators"? Of course the actual transaction is handled by brokerage firms on Wall street. These speculators happen to be retirement funds, insurance companies, Union/labor funds. Translation, so much of this speculation money is our money being reinvested into the economy.
So before we thrash the "speculators" we may need to look in the mirror. I would bet that retirement, employee, etc funds right here in Utah are doing this. That means YOUR money is being used to speculate.
Not pretty but how the market works.
Opening ANWR/Off-shore/shale-oil would drop futures almost immediately.
A speculator signs a contract and agrees to buy a certain number of barrels of oil at a set price at a set date. Speculators look at our energy policies now, throw in the debt/dollar, and war and see the policies getting worse not better. So they are in a rush to by tomorrow's oil at the best price they can. So they buy tomorrow's oil for $155/barrel because they think it will climb to $170/barrel.
And who are these evil "speculators"? Of course the actual transaction is handled by brokerage firms on Wall street. These speculators happen to be retirement funds, insurance companies, Union/labor funds. Translation, so much of this speculation money is our money being reinvested into the economy.
So before we thrash the "speculators" we may need to look in the mirror. I would bet that retirement, employee, etc funds right here in Utah are doing this. That means YOUR money is being used to speculate.
Not pretty but how the market works.
Opening ANWR/Off-shore/shale-oil would drop futures almost immediately.
BBKing | 11:34 a.m. June 18, 2008
And Chris Cannon may be awkward and geeky, but he got this one right as well.
And of course we need to improve technology so we can get the economy off oil. Until then...
And of course we need to improve technology so we can get the economy off oil. Until then...
Andrew | 11:35 a.m. June 18, 2008
Follow up to And another thing,
Here here. I agree totally. The US is really an odd place. Years ago if you invaded an oil nation you would have taken all of their oil for yourself as spoils. See the Romans/Greeks. If that were the case we would have most of the oil in Iraq and Afganistan flowing to the US. Of course then the locals would not have liked us very much. So we play nice guy let them have their oil and we have shortages and many there still do not like us.
The corruption from Bush/Cheney is apalling and while I like his idea of doing more drilling in the US while we also seek alternatives, Cheney and Bush's oil friends have got to be pretty happy. I wonder if they send their children off to war for their own benefit? Time to get the costs down for alternative sources of energy. Any national impetus in this area would be appreciated as of twenty years ago.
Here here. I agree totally. The US is really an odd place. Years ago if you invaded an oil nation you would have taken all of their oil for yourself as spoils. See the Romans/Greeks. If that were the case we would have most of the oil in Iraq and Afganistan flowing to the US. Of course then the locals would not have liked us very much. So we play nice guy let them have their oil and we have shortages and many there still do not like us.
The corruption from Bush/Cheney is apalling and while I like his idea of doing more drilling in the US while we also seek alternatives, Cheney and Bush's oil friends have got to be pretty happy. I wonder if they send their children off to war for their own benefit? Time to get the costs down for alternative sources of energy. Any national impetus in this area would be appreciated as of twenty years ago.
Karl | 11:46 a.m. June 18, 2008
I agree that speculation is causing the spike in oil prices.
As far as alternative energy. I'm all for it. But people, it will be YEARS before alternative energy will replace oil as the fuel of the modern economy.
I don't think we sit on our hands and wait. Drill.
As far as alternative energy. I'm all for it. But people, it will be YEARS before alternative energy will replace oil as the fuel of the modern economy.
I don't think we sit on our hands and wait. Drill.
And yet another thing | 11:49 a.m. June 18, 2008
We can replace hot water tanks with ones that heat water as it's used. And
use the forced air air through the groung system to heat and cool our houses and
quit building houses that need a blast furnace to heat them. These things are
on the market rignt now. We don't have to wait for them to be developed.
Why is the govt throwing money away on stimoulous packages when it could be
making the same contributions for incentives in better building techniques and
incentives to develope better mass transportation.
John | 11:51 a.m. June 18, 2008
Nancy and Harry promised to lower gas prices if we voted in the democrats.
2006 gas == $2.00 a gallon
2008 gas == $4.00+ a gallon
Amazing how the obvious seems to elude so many.
Saudi Arabia thinks that adding 500,000 barrels a day will stabilize and lower prices, yet when we have the capability of adding a million barrels a day from our own resources, liberal wet their pants.
Please name a drilling site in the US that is an abomination, that has leaked and made an eco disaster? Please realize who first the rigs go up, they open the well, and the rigs come down and nothing more than a bout twenty feet of pipe a few feet off the ground is all that is left as visible to destroy the "pristine" land that liberals worship.
I say that refusal to try to make the US as independent of our enemies as possible, is darn near treason.
And one more thing for all the wackos who are demanding alternatives. What are they? Please give details on them, and now long it will take to bring them on line to the masses. Probably about ten years.
2006 gas == $2.00 a gallon
2008 gas == $4.00+ a gallon
Amazing how the obvious seems to elude so many.
Saudi Arabia thinks that adding 500,000 barrels a day will stabilize and lower prices, yet when we have the capability of adding a million barrels a day from our own resources, liberal wet their pants.
Please name a drilling site in the US that is an abomination, that has leaked and made an eco disaster? Please realize who first the rigs go up, they open the well, and the rigs come down and nothing more than a bout twenty feet of pipe a few feet off the ground is all that is left as visible to destroy the "pristine" land that liberals worship.
I say that refusal to try to make the US as independent of our enemies as possible, is darn near treason.
And one more thing for all the wackos who are demanding alternatives. What are they? Please give details on them, and now long it will take to bring them on line to the masses. Probably about ten years.
Stephen | 11:51 a.m. June 18, 2008
You should be grateful to the oil companies for producing and refining when oil
was cheap. Now you are all tearing into them for making money. Would you like
your business to make money or just help people or both? The free market helps
both by finding a balance. Sure we are dependent but humans are innovators and
will figure out this problem. We need oil not just for our cars and for energy.
You use petrochemical products to type your comments and wrap your foods and
store your biofuels. Oil companies paid over $100 billion in taxes last year.
How would you like to pay 70% taxes? Oil could be produce cheaper if there
weren't so many taxes. This problem (if seen as such Europeans pay over $12
a gallon)is very complicated and there is not quick fix, but drilling for more
oil will help.
Re: xscribe | 11:50 a.m. June 18, 2008
I am so happy you have your magical ctystal ball out and see the future so
clearly. Facts are that oil is here to stay. We don't use telporters to
get our produce to markets, tractors don't plow ground using solar panels,
and condos don't have backyard orchards and stockyards.
Some oil could and should be replaced by nuclear - oh those warm fuzzy eviromentalist don't like that option either.
Some oil could and should be replaced by nuclear - oh those warm fuzzy eviromentalist don't like that option either.
Thinking man | 11:52 a.m. June 18, 2008
Willow, you're a bit too focused in one area. The solution to our energy
problem is threefold: First, people need to conserve in order to get us through
today & tomorrow. Second, we need to develop our own oil resources to get
us through the next 5-10 years. Third, we need new technologies to carry us
beyond that.
You want to skip the first two because you think the third is imminent. It's not.
Batteries are several years away from being feasible for powering cars. Yes, the Chevy Volt is coming out in 2010, but it will cost $40k, it will only go 40 miles at a time, and you have to lease the battery pack for $100 a month. Most people can't afford that.
Hydrogen infrastructure is 50 years away.
A gallon of ethanol requires 1.6 gallons of gas to produce. That's not a solution.
Are there any other technologies on the horizon?
It's pie in the sky to think we can go straight to alternative fuels. You need to accept the reality that we need to do something in the interim.
You want to skip the first two because you think the third is imminent. It's not.
Batteries are several years away from being feasible for powering cars. Yes, the Chevy Volt is coming out in 2010, but it will cost $40k, it will only go 40 miles at a time, and you have to lease the battery pack for $100 a month. Most people can't afford that.
Hydrogen infrastructure is 50 years away.
A gallon of ethanol requires 1.6 gallons of gas to produce. That's not a solution.
Are there any other technologies on the horizon?
It's pie in the sky to think we can go straight to alternative fuels. You need to accept the reality that we need to do something in the interim.
Dependence | 11:59 a.m. June 18, 2008
This is great, it will start making the USA dependent on OUR oil & not some
country/government that believes the USA is the "Great Satan".
This will not bring prices down immediatly, but will start the process.
Build refineries, build nuclear power plants, develope the hydrogen cars, stop turning food into fuel.
This will not bring prices down immediatly, but will start the process.
Build refineries, build nuclear power plants, develope the hydrogen cars, stop turning food into fuel.
CR | 12:06 p.m. June 18, 2008
Anyone complaining about the price of gas can blame it on to Clinton, who vetoed
drilling in ANWAR in 1995. We would have had an extra million barrels a day on
the market now.
It's time the Democrats and the whacko libs quit blocking drilling for oil.
Corn ethanol takes as much energy to produce as it makes, and causes hunger all over the world.
I'am for alternate fuel, but it will take many years to become energy independent, and it will take time to bring more oil to market.
It's time for the Democrats and Libs who have caused the high price for gas to get out of the way.
It's time the Democrats and the whacko libs quit blocking drilling for oil.
Corn ethanol takes as much energy to produce as it makes, and causes hunger all over the world.
I'am for alternate fuel, but it will take many years to become energy independent, and it will take time to bring more oil to market.
It's time for the Democrats and Libs who have caused the high price for gas to get out of the way.
JWW | 12:06 p.m. June 18, 2008
It's not a mutually exclusive choice of drilling for more oil or looking
for alternative energy sources. We can do both and should!
Drilling for US oil will reduce our dependence on foreign oil NOW and lower the costs of oil NOW. It has been very foolish of the US not to have used more of our own natural resources years ago.
Developing alternative fuels will reduce our dependance on oil in the future. We need a good economy now in order to properly research and put in place the alternative fuels of tomorrow.
Drilling for US oil will reduce our dependence on foreign oil NOW and lower the costs of oil NOW. It has been very foolish of the US not to have used more of our own natural resources years ago.
Developing alternative fuels will reduce our dependance on oil in the future. We need a good economy now in order to properly research and put in place the alternative fuels of tomorrow.
Water | 12:07 p.m. June 18, 2008
Compare the costs and benefits of producing ethanol from corn and it with
producing oil from oil shale.
On the surface, getting ethanol from corn seemed like a great idea. It would provide a clean form of enegy at a fraction of the cost of oil. Plus, it would create a boom for the midwest farmers. However, we have come to realize that creating energy from a food source is a bad idea. Mostly because the price of that food skyrockets.
Now consider oil shale removal. Does Bush know how much water is involved in this process? It takes over two barrels of water for every barrel of oil that is extracted. This does not seem like a good idea in our already thirsty state. Water is our most valuable resource. Will water costs increase just like food cost have?
Plus, it costs over $60 a barrel to produce. Gas prices could only drop so far before it would be an unprofitable venture.
On the surface, getting ethanol from corn seemed like a great idea. It would provide a clean form of enegy at a fraction of the cost of oil. Plus, it would create a boom for the midwest farmers. However, we have come to realize that creating energy from a food source is a bad idea. Mostly because the price of that food skyrockets.
Now consider oil shale removal. Does Bush know how much water is involved in this process? It takes over two barrels of water for every barrel of oil that is extracted. This does not seem like a good idea in our already thirsty state. Water is our most valuable resource. Will water costs increase just like food cost have?
Plus, it costs over $60 a barrel to produce. Gas prices could only drop so far before it would be an unprofitable venture.
Pessimist | 12:09 p.m. June 18, 2008
There is no short term solution to the energy crisis we are seeing today. To
put together the infrastructure required to drill and refine more oil would
require at least 5 years. and demand would only increase in the meantime.
Developing a 'Green' energy technology would, by the most optimistic projections, take at least 15 years to be competitive with oil. Ethanol made from corn will never be competitive because it takes so much energy to grow corn. Silicon based solar panels cannot currently compete with oil, mainly due to physical constraints of the technology and few 'good' areas to set up solar farms. Wind tech has the same problems.
Nuclear power is too heavily regulated and feard. There are so many people terrified of ghost stories about nuclear power that it would take about 20 years just to change attitudes and import the necessary braintrust from France and Japan to make it viable.
There is no short term solution. Get ready for an economic ride folks.
Developing a 'Green' energy technology would, by the most optimistic projections, take at least 15 years to be competitive with oil. Ethanol made from corn will never be competitive because it takes so much energy to grow corn. Silicon based solar panels cannot currently compete with oil, mainly due to physical constraints of the technology and few 'good' areas to set up solar farms. Wind tech has the same problems.
Nuclear power is too heavily regulated and feard. There are so many people terrified of ghost stories about nuclear power that it would take about 20 years just to change attitudes and import the necessary braintrust from France and Japan to make it viable.
There is no short term solution. Get ready for an economic ride folks.
*cough, sputter* | 12:15 p.m. June 18, 2008
Oil shale is cheap and very easy to turn into gasoline. The technology is
perfected, and with free access to the water from the Colorado River as promised
by the government, and existing power on the grid we are ready to pursue this
magic cure all at little to no cost to ourselves today, if only the enviros
would get out of the way! Think of the jobs, and Mike Noel's nuclear plant
can power the cookers! Invest heavily in oil shale technology today, the
perfect, easy and economical miracle super source of the future!
*cough, sputter*
*cough, sputter*
Steve | 12:23 p.m. June 18, 2008
I don't think people really understand about oil. Gas usage is a portion of
Oil Consumption but by no means all. We could totally remove every car from the
freeways and still need oil.
I visited an oil company last year because my friends son was dating the presidents daughter. My friend arranged for a local scout group to visit and discuss oil and I went along.
The president sat us down in a romm and challenged anyone in the room to find something that was not made of oil. For each item in the room he carefully explained how much oil was used.
People, We will never ride ourselves of oil. Those of you who wish we could are being rediculous. Lets start drilling and become self sufficient. We have been scared into thinking that oil usage is bad. It is not a bad thing.
I believe the earth continues to reproduce oil at a faster level than we consume! Stupid? No stupider than oil comes from dinosours. Second, I refuse to believe that when the earth was created or started, there was a fixed amount and when it is gone it is gone.
I visited an oil company last year because my friends son was dating the presidents daughter. My friend arranged for a local scout group to visit and discuss oil and I went along.
The president sat us down in a romm and challenged anyone in the room to find something that was not made of oil. For each item in the room he carefully explained how much oil was used.
People, We will never ride ourselves of oil. Those of you who wish we could are being rediculous. Lets start drilling and become self sufficient. We have been scared into thinking that oil usage is bad. It is not a bad thing.
I believe the earth continues to reproduce oil at a faster level than we consume! Stupid? No stupider than oil comes from dinosours. Second, I refuse to believe that when the earth was created or started, there was a fixed amount and when it is gone it is gone.
Re.: Water @ 12:07pm | 12:26 p.m. June 18, 2008
You make it sound as though the 2 barrels of water disappear -- BOGUS -- the
water is reused through collection & cooling, the only water loss is in
evaporation, then it rains elsewhere.
By the way, carbon dioxide is being banned, but dihydrogen monoxide is a deadlier & more destructive chemical compound, just ask those people in the midwest right now -- BAN & TAX DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!
By the way, carbon dioxide is being banned, but dihydrogen monoxide is a deadlier & more destructive chemical compound, just ask those people in the midwest right now -- BAN & TAX DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE!
Hey CR | 12:26 p.m. June 18, 2008
The democrats and libs have been out of the way for nearly 8 years. An
conservative oilman is in the white house, albeit not a sharp one.
You can trash talk liberals all you want, but in the end it all comes down to decreasing supply and increasing demand. Besides, didn't any read in the article that companies aren't developing a whole bunch of the resource that they actually have leases to? These are all run by staunch, republican lovin' conservatives. I hope they do get to develop it, or are forced to. It will bring jobs. And power lines, and pipe lines, refineries, compressor stations, pump stations, the odd H2S flare even. To where your are, or places you go. I don't mind these things, but a lot of your conservative brethern sure do. And in the end, it's not going to cause much price reduction; it will only delay it at best.
You can trash talk liberals all you want, but in the end it all comes down to decreasing supply and increasing demand. Besides, didn't any read in the article that companies aren't developing a whole bunch of the resource that they actually have leases to? These are all run by staunch, republican lovin' conservatives. I hope they do get to develop it, or are forced to. It will bring jobs. And power lines, and pipe lines, refineries, compressor stations, pump stations, the odd H2S flare even. To where your are, or places you go. I don't mind these things, but a lot of your conservative brethern sure do. And in the end, it's not going to cause much price reduction; it will only delay it at best.
Actually... | 12:29 p.m. June 18, 2008
Actually long wall mining from the Green River formation has already been tried
and a process for heating the extracted shale to 800 C to get
"feedstock" for refineries has already shown to be viable. It would
not take 7-10 years. Probably 2-3 years or less if a big operation came in to
do it. Let's do it. The feedstock extracted is low in sulfur and is
excellant grade.
I notice a funny thing about the "energy debates". It seems as if democrats think that we should only look at something other than oil to help remedy the situation (renewables, wind, solar). Republicans seem to think we should just drill more and that is all we need to do. I humbly submit that to replace 60% of our oil (the amount we import), it is going to take a concerted effort at: (1) more drilling; (2) creative oil finds (oil shale); (3) development of all possible renewables; (4) ultimately the development of an increased national electrical grid to support hydrogen extraction for use in hydrogen fuel cells (long term solution). An increased national electric grid should come from nuclear (no greenhouse gases) AND very smart, clean coal plants.
I notice a funny thing about the "energy debates". It seems as if democrats think that we should only look at something other than oil to help remedy the situation (renewables, wind, solar). Republicans seem to think we should just drill more and that is all we need to do. I humbly submit that to replace 60% of our oil (the amount we import), it is going to take a concerted effort at: (1) more drilling; (2) creative oil finds (oil shale); (3) development of all possible renewables; (4) ultimately the development of an increased national electrical grid to support hydrogen extraction for use in hydrogen fuel cells (long term solution). An increased national electric grid should come from nuclear (no greenhouse gases) AND very smart, clean coal plants.
re: water | 12:30 p.m. June 18, 2008
Where do you get your information on the amount of water used in processing oil
shale? If you read the reports from Shell Oil they claim that $40 oil would be
profitable. And the water can and would be recycled, it doesn't just go
away.
*cough, sputter* | 12:32 p.m. June 18, 2008
That's right, RE: water@ 12:26- we have plenty of water! More than enough!
This state is awash in extra water! And if we're not, just turn off the
faucet to that evil Las Vegas and those useless libs in California! Party on!
Steve - Re: Thinking Man 10:33am | 12:42 p.m. June 18, 2008
Our "immediate future" is the next several years, and as has been
pointed out it would take all that time to transition from foreign oil control
to our own oil drilling. So plopping oil drills off-shore and in Alaska
today/this year wouldn't solve our immediate problem.
A better immediate fix would be to require ALL automakers to make EVERY car have about 60 miles per gallon as the standard gas mileage (stretching out the usefuleness of the gas, making it so you have to buy gas less often).
We and the environment can't afford to have people like you who say & accept we "must" face the "fact" that oil is part of our future for "at least" the next FEW decades (implying reliance on oil for 40 years minimum or maybe close to 100)... sounds alot like McCain's 100 more years in Iraq comment. If we could send a man the moon almost 40 years ago, surely by now we have the smarts and technology to come up with an alternate fuel source solution in MUCH less than 40 years. I see no reason why not within the next 20 if not sooner if it's a top priority.
A better immediate fix would be to require ALL automakers to make EVERY car have about 60 miles per gallon as the standard gas mileage (stretching out the usefuleness of the gas, making it so you have to buy gas less often).
We and the environment can't afford to have people like you who say & accept we "must" face the "fact" that oil is part of our future for "at least" the next FEW decades (implying reliance on oil for 40 years minimum or maybe close to 100)... sounds alot like McCain's 100 more years in Iraq comment. If we could send a man the moon almost 40 years ago, surely by now we have the smarts and technology to come up with an alternate fuel source solution in MUCH less than 40 years. I see no reason why not within the next 20 if not sooner if it's a top priority.
Need to Know | 12:41 p.m. June 18, 2008
I want to know at what point an enviro gets on board with drilling. Gas prices
are tied directly to food prices and everything else.
Please, Any of you Enviro's. What is the price where you will say, OK lets drill?
There has got to be a limit?
If you can no longer drive a car and have to walk everywhere or ride your bike and you go hungry from lack of food because it costs $50.00 for a loaf of bread and your kids are crying because they are startving. Is that the point at which you will say OK.
Where is the line drawn in the sand?
Please, Any of you Enviro's. What is the price where you will say, OK lets drill?
There has got to be a limit?
If you can no longer drive a car and have to walk everywhere or ride your bike and you go hungry from lack of food because it costs $50.00 for a loaf of bread and your kids are crying because they are startving. Is that the point at which you will say OK.
Where is the line drawn in the sand?
Unbelievable | 12:43 p.m. June 18, 2008
There is plenty of oil to be found in the USA and oil shell is just one
possibility. It gets old to hear the environmental nutter naysayers that
"we need a new direction" when it is their lobbying influence on
members of congress the has prevented any meaningful energy policy the past 40
years. Yet, again the Democrats are screaming about no more offshore drilling
today after Pres. Bush brought it up. No wonder gas in $4 a gallon.
RE: And another thing
Your short term memory forgets that the USA invaded Iraq because of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Which passed higher than the Persia Gulf War resolution by 15-0.
RE: And another thing
Your short term memory forgets that the USA invaded Iraq because of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Which passed higher than the Persia Gulf War resolution by 15-0.
re: re: water @12:30 | 12:48 p.m. June 18, 2008
I remember Orrin Hatch made the claim of $40 a barrel petroleum shale oil. If
Shell is making that claim please cite your source. According to a piece
published by John Orr today: "I spoke to a Shell representative, Tracy
Boyd, this morning. He told me that commercial production is years away. Still
to be solved are technical, scientific, environmental and political issues.
That's pretty much everything except the market. No one knows what it will
cost per gallon delivered to the refinery and how the current oil market will
respond."
Steve -Re: Oil & Andrew 11:00 am | 12:53 p.m. June 18, 2008
The price of gas for our cars isn't the only issue here. Everyone should
be worried about more than just their pocket book, the should also be worried
about the effects of oil dependancy on other things such as the environment.
The goal here isn't or shouldn't be about just lowering the prices at the pump, it should be about freeing ourselves from depending on oil period. The goal should be cars which DON'T run on gas.
If the oil companies are so worried about how this will put them out of business, perhaps it is THEY who should lead the way on alternative fuel research and if they can provide the new greener fuel/power source and market it their company can still exist. For example: have EXXON convert to the/a major provider of wind, solar and non-gas auto fuel/power and leave gas/oil behind them.
The goal here isn't or shouldn't be about just lowering the prices at the pump, it should be about freeing ourselves from depending on oil period. The goal should be cars which DON'T run on gas.
If the oil companies are so worried about how this will put them out of business, perhaps it is THEY who should lead the way on alternative fuel research and if they can provide the new greener fuel/power source and market it their company can still exist. For example: have EXXON convert to the/a major provider of wind, solar and non-gas auto fuel/power and leave gas/oil behind them.
It will take an economic disaste | 1:08 p.m. June 18, 2008
to bring poor Willow to realize that it is oil for the next 10 years at least,
to give us economic stability. If not Arab oil, or Canadian Oil, or Venezuelan
Oil, Our own. I just can not see us running our country's economy on wind
power and sunshine and nuclear power. Yes, economise and improve our vehicles
and driving habits for now to save, but let's not destroy our country and
what it stands for for the want of a reasonable energy solution. Politicians and
enviornmentalists get out of our way. We need to solve this standoff. China,
India, and our enemies will move into the economic vacancy we create by our own
studpidity.
Thinking Man Re: Steve 12:42 | 1:06 p.m. June 18, 2008
Steve, I'm an engineer and I work in the energy business (I won't say
exactly how). I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about.
You'll notice I said our immediate solution is conservation. Drilling only helps us 10 years down the road. So you've misrepresented me.
Here's where you're wrong: Requiring automakers to have all cars be 60 mpg is NOT an immediate solution by any means. It's doubtful automakers will even be able to meet the upcoming CAFE standards (35 mpg by 2020). I don't see a 60 mpg average auto fleet happening before around 2050.
It's more likely that we'll have hydrogen cars, cheap hydrogen, and the fueling infrastructure in place before we'll have a nation of internal combustion cars that get 60 mpg.
You'll notice I said our immediate solution is conservation. Drilling only helps us 10 years down the road. So you've misrepresented me.
Here's where you're wrong: Requiring automakers to have all cars be 60 mpg is NOT an immediate solution by any means. It's doubtful automakers will even be able to meet the upcoming CAFE standards (35 mpg by 2020). I don't see a 60 mpg average auto fleet happening before around 2050.
It's more likely that we'll have hydrogen cars, cheap hydrogen, and the fueling infrastructure in place before we'll have a nation of internal combustion cars that get 60 mpg.
M. Allred | 1:10 p.m. June 18, 2008
To: Thinking Man. Your two posts. Agreed. Don't forget nuclear power. It is
clean, safe and highly efficient.
Way to go Cannon! | 1:15 p.m. June 18, 2008
We need more members of Congress who support this. Cannon has been talking
about this for years, hopefully his leadership on this issue will bring more
jobs to Utah if we're able to actually start drilling.
GLORIA TREVINO FLORES | 1:16 p.m. June 18, 2008
I THANK GOD FOR USA.GOD GAVE US A TREASSURE IN OUR LAND, WE ARE BLESS,BLESSING
IN SO MANY WAY.AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT,WE CAN START TO DRILL,THE MORE WE WAIT
THE WORSED WILL GET.I TRUST MCCAIN,I KNQW HE HAVE THE CORAGE AND LOVE FOR
AMERICA,HE IS A HEROE,HE CARE.I WAS A DEMOCRAT YRS AGO,I'AM AMERICAN
FIRST.GOD BLESS USA..LOVE MY NATION USA.G.T.F
re: Steve | 1:25 p.m. June 18, 2008
maybe we should ask McDonalds to invest in the Pizza Industry...
3/4 of Oil Lease Land Not Used | 1:28 p.m. June 18, 2008
That's right -- almost 30 million acres that are under lease have not been
explored or drilled. Tell the lease holders to "use it or lose it"
and, if they choose to let the leased land lie fallow, termnate the leases and
give them to someone who WILL explore and drill. That's where to start
extracting more oil (not in ecologically sensitive spots).
Andrew | 1:32 p.m. June 18, 2008
For a twist. Name the chief sponsor of the largest solar project being built in
the United States today?
Chevron.
Along with Goldman and a solar company.
So some people are starting to get it.
Did you see that Honda's electric car only cost them 250,000 a piece to make? Wow
Certainly we need a balanced approach to our energy future. Non gas combustion engines will be awesome once we get the price down.
Chevron.
Along with Goldman and a solar company.
So some people are starting to get it.
Did you see that Honda's electric car only cost them 250,000 a piece to make? Wow
Certainly we need a balanced approach to our energy future. Non gas combustion engines will be awesome once we get the price down.
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.
Related content
- China executes 2 in milk scandal 11:32 a.m.
- ABC morning show cancels Lambert 11:29 a.m.
- Sanford impeachment hearings begin 11:29 a.m.
- Stocks retreat on reports 11:28 a.m.
- Murray police catch alleged burglar 11:28 a.m.
- Obama welcomes Indian PM Singh 11:26 a.m.
- Oil, gas lease plans include Alaska 11:24 a.m.
- CPSC: Crib recall response too slow 11:15 a.m.
- Handmade items in big demand 11:14 a.m.
- Diabetic boy's parents fight school 11:11 a.m.
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple
- BYU's Lamb, Jorgensen reprimanded
- Utah, BYU are top choices for bowls
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match
- Best prep football games of 2009
- KSL: Prostitution in Utah County
- Inmate dead following prison fight
- Fans greet returning Real Salt Lake
- Man trapped in own body for 23 yrs
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?
217 - RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks199
- Palin plans tour stop in Utah178
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple144
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match136
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified133
- BYU records with win132
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry121
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case103
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.103
Latest comments
The Lone Peak vs Hunter Game was the the best game all year by far! One of...
Any time you get more than 10 people together you will find the kind of fan...
Let's try to throw some common sense into these statistics. 2008 was a year...
Reality: any human, outside of Springville at least, can learn basic algebra...
You must be an English major at the U. What is the literacy rate for U fans?
they were spot on for who to protect. russell has been extremely inconsistent...
Ultra Bob says "small minority" at the Tea Parties....another dolt who fails...
REal can lose at most one of them according to the rules of the draft....
Is that a new nickname for G.W. Bush? Didn't he know that spending trillions...
Who's on the fringe of society? ========== Ah, that would be you -- Charles.
Advertisements