Groups vow to press on to protect Utah lands
Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to sneak in an extension of the oil shale
ban. SEC 1602 continues ban on oil shale: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division
A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance,
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in
section 433 of division F of Public Law 110161 shall remain in effect for the 19
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009."That sneeky little #^&%$#.
Utah is sitting on billions and Harry doesn't want Utah to have any of it.
Thank you Democrat Harry. What do you have to say to this, Democrat Jim
Matheson? Do you agree with your Democrat Leader? Or side with Utah? Where is
you allegiance, Rep. Matheson? To Nancy-no domestic energy production-Pelosi or
to Utah? Shame on the Democrats.
If a company is drilling for oil in Eastern Utah, they are leasing the land, is
it really going to take ten years to get oil? We have a small share in some
land in that area that is being leased to drill on. I would love to see gushes
of oil this year, but I kind of think that I will see Ed McMahn on my doorstep
with a million dollar prize first, and I don't enter those things.
The technology currently exists. Estonia, Russia, Brazil, China, Germany and
Israel are all currently using it. Scotland has been using it for 120+ years!The term "reserves" is related to recoverable resources using current
technology. At one time the estimate of the reserves of copper available in Salt
Lake County indicated that the Kennecott mine would be played out in 1940. Five
years ago the mine was set to shut down in ten years. Today it is set to
continue for another 24 years partly because of increased prices making lower
grade ore economically viable and partly because of improved technology making
it not only cleaner but more economical to produce.In Utah we are
currently importing 20% of our oil from Canada where mine it and cook it
technology has made them the largest exporter of oil in the world. Some of our
reserves are in sand too.My question is, if economic times are
tight, why are we eating out 70% of the time instead of home cookin? Because
Congress needs to get out of the kitchen!
The reality is we need to as a county become more energy independent. Right now oil is our main source for energy. Until we find other ways to power
our vehicles and homes we need oil any way we can get here in America. All of
the oil and energy research and development needs to be done responsibly and
safely for both people and environment. We need to commit to finding
new ways to produce energy and be able to use other sources for transportation
purposes. All of this will take time and we need oil until we get to that point.
As companies make obscene amounts of oil profits make it law that at
least 10% of the profit has to go into research and development of new energy
sources and delivery systems. For mineral royalties on federal lands add 5
percent royalty to go only for new energy development. As we extract oil from
our own natural resources we will help to pay for new energy research and
development as we use oil.
My point is simply that the extraction of oil from shale does not necessarily
require process water, depending upon what processes are developed. Therefore,
the point is that the projected huge demand for water depends largely on how
many people are involved in the extraction process. For example, if the shale
is heated in-situ, there is no need for extensive mining operations. And once
the liquid oil is extracted, it can be transported wherever for further
processing.I'm sorry my point was lost on you.
"Ethanol is a Democrat issue": You may consider the difference between their
backing of celuosic ethanol (made from materials no one eats) and corn ethanol,
production of which has had a profound impact on food prices this year, and will
continue to do so in the near future. Obama did back corn ethanol, but now
prefers the celuosic variety, according to a news report from LA Times dated
this month."To SteveS": I'm not sure if you're being snarky or
serious. A short term solution is exactly what the oil companies and elected
officials interested in winning their elections this fall are hoping you'll get
behind. At what cost to our children and our planet's future, though? Fact is,
we need to wean ourselves from our dependence on oil. period. Increasing
production will simply delay the inevitable, and result in a more polluted world
in which to live.There will be no easy solutions to our energy,
transportation, and food problems. All will involve sacrifice of some of the
comforts and conveniences we have grown to enjoy over the past few decades. Its
a question of priorities: short-term economic benefit or long-term solution?
It takes on average 10 years for oil to be produced from newly discovered oil
fields. Those oil fields use existing traditional extraction techniques. So if it takes 10 years when we know exactly how to get the oil, 2-3
times that amount of time seems reasonable before oil shale produces a drop of
oil. I'm a young man with young children. Oil shale might be good news for my
grandkids. Wait, make that bad news for my grandkids if they are still
depending on oil for energy.It makes me laugh when people think they
are going to play Jed Clampett in Eastern Utah...."and a up through the ground
came a bubblin' crude".
Ah, yeah it is. Short term certainly.
While there are some Republicans who are eager to turn food in fuel using your
tax dollars, it is interesting to note that the American Corn Growers
Association -- "Big Corn", if you will -- has publicly endorsed Barack Obama for
president.From their August 25, 2008 press release:"[Senator]Obama clearly supports the expansion of renewable energy
such as advanced ethanol, biodiesel and wind generated electricity, whereas
[Senator] McCain has perhaps the single most negative record of any
Senator when voting on issues of agriculture and ethanol. "Senator
Obama supported the recently passed Farm Bill, whereas McCain has opposed every
farm bill that has come before Congress for more than a decade."Steve, there is this newfangled thingy called Google. You can find out all
sorts of interesting facts when you use it.
Oil Shale is not a Problem: how many Democrats and environmental are behind
ethanol development and production? And how is wind power a "money-losing
venture"? You're ignorance on the subject is glaring. Profits to oil
companies and increasing the oil supply to the nation are not the answers to our
energy problems, people!
Nothing to worry about is correct: Even with higher prices oil shale is not a
very profitable venture. That's primarily the reason it has not been developed
as a resource yet.If you environmentalists can convince your
Democrat allies in Congress to stop using tax dollars to subsidize oil shale
development, then nothing will happen.However, having seen how
environmentalists and Democrats eagerly support subsidies for money-losing
ventures such as biofuels and wind power, I'm not very optimistic.
Joe, you make me laugh. Fewer showers and not watering one's lawn? How have
people reduced their water consumption in the past in Utah? Answer: they
haven't. Oil shale production is not an incentive for them to conserve water. To
think that people will change their living habits so an oil company can make
billions of dollars is ridiculous.Nothing To Worry About: adhering
to environmental laws is not the concern of the oil companies. Changing the
environmental laws so they can do what they want without worrying about
environmental impact is their goal. There is no "peachy" scenario to oil shale:
its by-products include acid drainage, introduction of metals into surface-water
and groundwater, increased erosion, sulfur-gas emissions, and increased CO2
"...the low royalty is needed to help prod development of oil shale." That tells the whole story. The oil companies get to take all the money and
leave an environmental disaster behind them for a product that needs to be
subsidized pay tax payers just like the ethenol debacle.
"but chances appear a bit stronger that Congress will lift a moratorium on
oil-shale development in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming although environmental
groups say that would be a financial and ecological disaster"If
indeed oil shale is to be a financial disaster, then there will be no incentive
to develop it. That is simple economics.During development, we
merely need to ensure that environmental laws are adhered to, and everything
should be peachy.
Get 'er done! It's worked in other countries...let's give it a try
here...what's a few billion?
Oil shale will continue to be an unproven resource if we keep locking it up with
moratorium after moratorium. It's about time we made some positive steps
forward. 1.8 billion barrels is a lot of potential resource.But of
course, there are always those who pronounce gloom and doom. And the intensive
water use is to support the people living in the area where oil is being
extracted. We could reduce their water use if they would just take fewer
showers and not water their lawns so much.