Really? Oil companies believe that over populated, dry Utah has enough water to develop oil shale.

well, golly gee, Ferris, looks like we should do it.

They wouldn't lie to us, would they?????????????

Actually, "really". Red Leaf's EcoShale process doesn't use any water. The founders are environmentalists -- not big oil company people. They've been working on solving the environmental problems and have a strong approach to no water and no tailings. The end product they produce is substantially Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) which meets California's strict laws for better diesel fuels. The company is also working with USTAR on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS). This EcoShale Process is by far the most environmental approach anyone has developed for oil shale. Its a great pathway forward and example in light of more dirty producers (such as Canada oil sands and China) to move toward. EcoShale's process not only doesn't use water and reclaim the tailings, they reduce the emissions by well over 2/3rds over other older retort technologies. In fact, the company's process has a 7 to 1 energy return on investment which means its better than Ethanol by 7 times. Not to mention footprint. This company is a steward of the environment. They are affecting environmental protection through technology. Its great for Utah who will receive a royalty off from their State Land leases. I wish them good luck.

could be good to get green diesel in utah. hybrids just don't have the appeal and torch that diesel has. New green diesel is very appealing for the environment.

I support technologies that put energy and environment in balance. It's nice to see that there are companies out there who are committed to responsible and pro-active solutions to this growing energy problem.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Mr. London, but didn't both companies admit in the article that they need 1 to 3 barrels of water to produce one barrel of fuel? And at 30,000 barrels of product per day, we're talking 30,000 to 90,000 barrels of water PER DAY to extract it. And they're a little light on what energy source will be used to process the rock into fuel. I smell snake oil.

Laura Nelson's description of the their holdings in Uintah Basin as "a lot of sagebrush" is hardly an encouraging sign. I guess the subtext is, "nobody will miss it, after we're through with it."

I think the sagebrush comment was meant to convey the message that their work would not disrupt existing homes, farms, ranches, or businesses. All of the oilfield companies I see in the Uintah Basin, where I live, do an excellent job of leaving their locations as undisturbed as possible.

And to Really, what makes you say Utah is overpopulated? Much of the state is Federally owned. Perhaps the Feds should share a little of that land with the people so there is more room to grow. There are a lot of open, rural areas in the state. People who live in the more crowded cities usually choose to be there. I choose NOT to be in a big city, and the one I'm in is growing due to the energy boom in the Uintah Basin, but it's still a nice place to live.

Oil shale and tar sands are worth processing. It takes time, but will add to our energy independence, which we greatly need.

I, too, live in the Uintah Basin, and while it's still a nice place to live, it's going downhill in terms of quality of life, though paychecks abound. But the oilfield companies DO NOT always leave their locations as undisturbed as possible. They often leave all sorts of trash out in boonies by their holes - it's only sagebrush, after all - and it is widely rumored that there is illegal dumping of fluids into the White and Green Rivers.
Oil shale and tar sands are only "worth processing", if their product value exceeds the value of what it costs to extract them. And those costs include power, water, and destroyed land.
I suspect tar sands will continue to be mined because with some modifications they make acceptable asphalt for roads. On the other hand oil shale, as we say in the Basin, has a great future and always will have!

The Ecoshale process on their website uses clean natural gas they produce themselves. Unlike Canadian bitumen production, they are energy self sustaining. Its amazing to me that posts from pseudo enviros try to block oil shale because of water use but don't use the same standard of obstruction against 1,000's of barrels of water use per barrel of ethanol. The footprint of the 2007 Energy Bill mandating 36 billion gallons of weak, inflation-causing ethanol will require 80 million acres of year overyear "strip farming" spewing 30 lbs of nitrogen run off per acre. The nitrogen causes "oceanic eutriphication" which kills the natural cycle of co2 sequestration of the planet. With our oceans destroyed based substantially on the ramping of biofuels promoted by �environmentalists� global warming increases. Also, by blocking shale we will see increases of heavy oil from Chavez and Canada -- in other words the emissions hit the sky anyway. Oil shale is a better route:
Oil shale is and will be:
1. Less Water than "Renewable Fuels"
2. Smaller Ecosystem Destruction by 78 million acres less.
3. Less wildlife destruction than renewable fuel.
4. Far superior green diesel fuel for better mileage than heavy imported oil.

My concern is about the economy. If EcoShale or others can help open up oil shale in this responsible way � it could help solve our major oil deficit killing our economy. I heard Donald Trump on the TV talking about the bail out and that it means nothing without solving the oil crisis in America. Any renewable industry is years away and I�ve seen that Utah alone has 300 billion barrels. This would be great for our economy.

lynn;
You are ranting at the wrong people; no high-profile environmentalist organization I know of thinks ethanol is anything but a bad idea. If you can demonstrate how the Sierra Club, Audubon, or the Nature Conservancy supports the ethanol boondoggle, please do so. It is a product of midwestern agribusiness interests.
In the meantime, the water is more desperately needed in a parched Uintah Basin than it is in a soggy Iowa, so the comparison isn't apt. So, how about that 30-90,000 barrels of water PER DAY that is no longer available to agriculture or municipalities?

Mather -- nice try. I've been a member for Sierra and NRDC for years. It wasn't until this year that they started against Ethanol. For the 7 years prior it was all Ethanol all the time - renewable, renewable, renewable. Any due diligence into their newsletters for the last decade would reveal that they caused this enviro debacle in terms of ethanol's poor environment and economics. So --- nice try.

In terms of water -- I believe processes that heat the shale drive off the moisture in the shale first. I am waiting and wanting to find out if the shale has its own water. If so, I suspect the number given by OSEC and others is high. Irregardless, if they own water rights, they own the water. In Utah, water rights are like property. This is too bad for those of you who disagree with water use. If you don't like it, go buy up all the water rights in Utah. Oh, too late, the oil companies own them.

Mather, you actually think water 30,000 bbls of water is a bigger deal than 78 million acres of year over year pesticide toxic strip farming? Some environmentalist you are!

EcoShale sounds like a potential over the old technologies that burn the rock for their heat. Their website says they burn clean natural gas. This should be a huge reduction in emissions

Its funny about all of the enviros fear mongering to raise funds for Sierra Club, Wildlife, and others
through dire warnings about oil shale. I guess they didnt plan on a technology solving the nvironmental problems and exposing their obstruction of this huge resource. This is a lesson to us all to allow
technology to advance on this hydrocarbon resource. In the case of EcoShale, their technology might actually clean up the environment inChina and Canada.