Deseret News | Oil shale is nothing new, and not the answer

Reader comments
Oil shale is nothing new, and not the answer

michaelh | 6:21 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

If you commie liberal Democrats would just get out of the way we engineers will figure out a way. We got America to the moon we can get oil out of shale. The biggest obstacle is and has always been progressives standing in the way of progress. It is time to move it or loose it. Our patient is at an end. You have killed the economy and if you continue on your destructive path their will be a civil war between those who want America to live and those who donï¿½t.

Why Shale? | 6:21 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

God had so much oil to give us, why did he lock it up in shale?

liberal Larry | 7:17 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

We've known about shale "oil" for many decades, and billions of dollars have been spent on it's development, but it has never been shown to be commercially viable. One thing that is known about shale oil is that it's production produces tons of toxic waste, uses lots of valuable water, and generates plenty of air pollution. Oh, and did I mention it devastates the land it is mined from. If oil companies want to exploit shale oil they should set up small scale test production sites that conclusively demonstrate that they can produce oil from shale in an economical, and environmentally acceptable fashion.

Comments continue below

Geezer | 7:52 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

Let's not open commercial leasing until we've done a small-scale pilot project. The oil-shale boomers are only pushing this because they've figured out a way to make money off publicly owned resources even if it proves not to be commercially feasible.

re michaelh | 6:21 a.m. | 8:08 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

While I agree that we need to look into shale and give engineers a chance to see if we can make use if it,

It is not the liberals who have "killed the economy". The current mess we are in is due to lack of adequate government regulation, it turns out that Government is not the problem, government is the solution, when it acts as a government ought to act.

Dave | 8:34 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

We are already running our cars in Utah on gas from oilshale (tar sands). 20% of our oil comes from Canada where they have been mining oil for years. We don't have to develope technology we only have to copy success.

nobody | 8:45 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

fact is that oil shale extraction is still being investigated by oil comanies and the current technology does not make it viable to extract until gas is as much as $150 a barrel (an admitted estimate)....how exactly does this help the economy? Do the math michaelh. On a tour of oil shale extraction experiments a few months back I learned that the cost of enegery to exract the oil from the shale is so expensive, that it would actually be cheaper to install small nuclear power plants near the extraction sites than to transport the energy on powerlines...this I was told by oil company personnel...oh and in Utah it would take two barrels of water to extract one of oil...where does all this water come from super smart engineer guy.

Master of the obvious | 9:22 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

Very few people are saying ANY one thing is "The Answer". I've NEVER heard anyone say, "oil shale is new" or "harvesting oil shale is easy" or "oil shell is the answer". So writing an article debunking a position I've never heard anyone take is sort of lame strawman technique if you ask me.

Nobody's saying using oil shale is "easy" or "new". Nobody's saying oil shale alone is "the answer". They're not saying Solar alone is "the answer", or harvesting domestic oil supplies is "the answer" or wind is "the answer"...

They're all PART of "THE ANSWER"!

We need to do all of the above plus anything we can do to conserve energy individually and as groups, companies, neighborhoods, cities, states and a nation.

There is no one button "ANSWER" to something as complex and broad as providing the energy needed to support a population the size we have today, the worldwide economy and at the same time not run out of energy options or polute ourselvs out of existence.

It's a complex issue. There's no singular solution. We need to get over the attitude that, "Well this alone isn't The-Answer so we shouldn't even try it".

info desk | 10:41 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

To: Dave | 8:34 a.m.: oil shale and tar sands are two totally different things and use totally different technologies. No one is producing gasoline from oil shale commercially.

Robert | 10:49 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

"We need to develop energy sources that don't pollute our air, damage our lands, demand huge amounts of our precious water and require significant electrical production to extract the resource."

What a great opinion, I have designed a perpetual motion machine in my garage!(Sarcasm) The fact is there is no energy source that does not pollute. As soon as you find one that does you can discount all the others, until then don't put roadblocks in efforts to fix the problem.

Anonymous | 11:02 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

A few things. Oil shale and the tar sands are not the same extraction process, nor the same product results. They are probably similar in that, to be commercially viable like the tar sands, it will take 40 or so years, billions of dollars, and a sustained high world price to make it work. And generation of lots of power, use of lots of water, construction of roads, pipelines, extraction plants, infrastructure, and utterly massive extraction mines. All in somebodys' back yard.

homers_84606 | 11:25 a.m. Sept. 23, 2008

Interesting that people like Marjorie Cortez can continue to tell us what isn't the answer while failing to add, in any substantial way, what IS the answer. Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal liquification, coal gasification, geothermal, oil shale, oil sands, ethanol from non-food source material, and a little crude oil thrown in are all part of the answer - they are all part of a bridge to things like hydrogen from sea water and electricity generated by the tide. If the regulatory mess could be solved we could generate all our electricity from nuclear power and move all our goods with natural gas or coal liquified into diesel and move all our people with electric autos, natural gas vehicles or diesel made from canola. We need the Marjorie Cortezs of the world to quit telling us why we can't do anything! Let's be about doing it!

Murray Dad | 12:33 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008

Re: Dave @8:34
Commercial oil production / refining from Athabasca tar sands in Canada and Oil Shale in the intermountain west are two different situations entirely.Oil shale is a long way from adding its share to a multi-faceted solution to our energy crisis.
Re:Michaelh
Rhetoric chairman Mao would be proud of - liberaldemoprogressofascists have killed the economy!! Are you related to Brother Chuck Schroeder?

Thinkin' Man | 1:36 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008

If we were running out of watermelons, wouldn't one inevitable solution be to grow more watermelons?

I suppose we could say "just stop wanting watermelons," and eventually we could completely abstain from them, but why, when we could grow more?

Pollution concerns are already being addressed as technologies improve at a frantic pace. We simply need more American oil to hold us over until replacement technologies are real and affordable. THEN we quit using oil.

Anonymous | 1:54 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008

Marjorie Cortez is right on the money. Americans are not smart enough to solve the puzzle of getting oil out of shale, sand or coal.

I'm a case in point. I'm too dumb to read or understand anything more than what is written on the DesNews opinion page.

falcon's beak | 3:08 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008

I like the comments of many of the writers especially Homer. I say let the oil shale folks go to work if they think they can make money. 800 billion barrels in Utah alone is interesting. We are just starting commercial solar farms in the US. In India the world's largest solar unit, 5 GW, 5,000 megawatts, is under construction. Solar is coming fast as is wind. I agree with Pickens let's go to that it is plentiful and cheap. Sea algae produced oil is claimed to produce half our oil in 10 years (Biopetroleum). Bacteria can also produce bacteria

Thin | 3:53 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008

Marjorie,

Your article is VERY thin. Wyoming Gov. against oil shale? Could that be because they still have alot of oil oil?

Republicans against the drilling bill because they are republicans? Could it be because the bill doesn't address offshore drilling where the oil is?

I know journalist are busy studying writing in school, but how about a class or two in critical thought!

Truth-Sayer | 5:08 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008

"God had so much oil to give us, why did he lock it up in shale?"

Answer: Let's just call oil shale our "Heavenly Reserves."

At some point in time, Oil Shale could provide one more rung in the ladder, which will help the U.S. to become a self-reliant energy producer.

Drilling for new oil will also help overcome our dependency on foreign oil. So what if it takes seven years for new wells to come online; if we don't drill now it will take twice as long!

The only way the U.S. can become energy independent is to develop a comprehensive plan enabling the utilization of all of our available resources.

Wind power and solar power, even if it was a completely developed option currently, would only satisfy about 30 percent of our energy needs. As it is, we are still years away from integrating solar and wind power into the electrical grid.

Almost all energy sources are finite. Not developing all our resources available makes them finite before their time. We have a great pool of engineers and scientists who can find ways to make coal, oil shale, oil and gas clean and affordable.

Git er' done!

MetricWrench | 5:27 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008

One of the above comments reads "government is the solution". That is the most backwards thing I have ever heard. Name one thing that government has ever done in an effective and efficient manner? Just one! You can't because there is nothing.

KM | 7:25 p.m. Sept. 23, 2008

Geez the libs don't want us to drill for oil, that would be a silly misadventure. Now they are telling us that oil shell is not do-able and would destroy the environment.
lets see, who are the negativists; the left or the right? and don't even tell me about being realists.

Shotei | 7:30 a.m. Sept. 24, 2008

Global Resource Corporation.
NO wasted water
No toxic waste
Canada, the second largest supply of oil in the world is buying the machines from Global to extract oil from shale because it's cheaper and cleaner than drilling.
If your going to write articials about a subject, use the latest research not something from the 1980's.

OK... | 2:49 p.m. Oct. 22, 2008

Let's turn more of our precious public land over to Big Oil, for pennies on the dollar, so they can suck it dry and leave us with the leftovers. Wake up people, now is the time to move beyond oil, not 10, 20, or 50 years from now. The best single thing we can do right now is REDUCE OUR CONSUMPTION. But of course that would require change, something most Utahns are too shortsighted to accept. All you idiots who gripe about "liberal commies" are just making excuses for your unwillingness to do your part.

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.