Reader comments
Oil-shale estimates for Utah dip
20 comments | Read story
Doesn't matter | 1:58 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
It really doesn't matter how much oil is in Utah, Alaska or anywhere else
because Obama and the Democratic congress isn't going to allow anyone to
access it! They don't want a sensible energy policy, they don't want
any oil coming from American soil. This is part of the "change" you
voted for!
liberal Larry | 6:58 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Hey, every time someone mentions "shale oil" just remember that the
wooden desk this computer sits on contains more energy than a comparable volume
of the much touted "shale oil". It's about as energy dense as a
baked potato.
confused | 7:19 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Last time I checked 77 billion was far greater than 321 million. So was it
supposed to read 321 billion, or 77 million?
Comments continue below
Ernest T. Bass | 7:51 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
The oil shale in Utah is decades from becoming viable, if at all.
It requires so much energy and water to produce actual oil, the yield is only about 2% to 3%.
Eastern Utah doesn't have enough water to make it work.
The best plan is to cut back on driving and produce electric cars.
It requires so much energy and water to produce actual oil, the yield is only about 2% to 3%.
Eastern Utah doesn't have enough water to make it work.
The best plan is to cut back on driving and produce electric cars.
A Quart Low | 8:09 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
To confused - nice catch about the billion versus million. However the way
number units are being so recklessly thrown about these days I can see where a
journalist might overlook something like that.
Regardless of amount this shale and the potential for oil extraction still throws a huge shadow of intimidation over OPEC and other world net oil exporters. They do not "have the U.S. over the barrel" nearly as much as they'd like.
Also, as pointed out, the incoming administration, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. will make sure no significant future energy sources are used. Unfortunately they subscribe to the Al Gore man-caused global warming hoax, perpetrated so the politicians can find another tax revenue stream and another method to peddle influence, buy votes, and make themselves and others plenty of loot.
Meanwhile, the auto companies, at least the one(s) that survive, will be forced to manufacture "green" putz-mobiles costing $50,000 each that will sit on car lots because nobody can afford them.
Regardless of amount this shale and the potential for oil extraction still throws a huge shadow of intimidation over OPEC and other world net oil exporters. They do not "have the U.S. over the barrel" nearly as much as they'd like.
Also, as pointed out, the incoming administration, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. will make sure no significant future energy sources are used. Unfortunately they subscribe to the Al Gore man-caused global warming hoax, perpetrated so the politicians can find another tax revenue stream and another method to peddle influence, buy votes, and make themselves and others plenty of loot.
Meanwhile, the auto companies, at least the one(s) that survive, will be forced to manufacture "green" putz-mobiles costing $50,000 each that will sit on car lots because nobody can afford them.
Mark | 8:12 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Don't get excited folks. We still have not figured out how to actually get
the oil out of the rock in a cost effective manner. This could be another
mirage in our search for energy, like hydrogen fuel cells.
I think we should do what we know actually will work. Thw West and the Plains states have an enormous amount of potential wind power. If the Feds insist on deficit spending, let's spend it building infrastructure for wind power.
I think we should do what we know actually will work. Thw West and the Plains states have an enormous amount of potential wind power. If the Feds insist on deficit spending, let's spend it building infrastructure for wind power.
Sign of Apocalypse | 8:28 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
I rarely agree with Ernest, but he's right in this case: For oil shale to
be economically viable, oil prices need to remain above $100/barrel for several
years.
Merely letting the market work would be enough to keep oil shale from being developed for the forseeable future. Without federal subsidies it's a dead issue.
Merely letting the market work would be enough to keep oil shale from being developed for the forseeable future. Without federal subsidies it's a dead issue.
Thinkin' Man | 8:59 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Considering that total existing U.S. oil reserves are somewhere around 24
billion barrels, 77 billion is a LOT and merits serious work.
Re A Quart Low | 9:18 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Really? OK, so you think global warming is a hoax, fine. I can't prove
it's not. But can you really disagree that we are not good caretakers of
the environment? I suppose that the inversion we get every winter here in UT is
nature made and existed before the pioneers settled the valley? Please. We do
need to be careful on how we treat the environment.
Shale production is not efficient, as pointed out by various others. We already have the blight of the Kennecott Copper Mine--or did you think it looked that way in 1847?
Just because you are an obvious Republican does not mean you can't accept the bipartisan fact that we have a stewardship to care for Mother Earth for our children's sakes.
With oil prices now back in the 2003 realm, why are we even discussing shale? My guess is that we will all revert to old habits, alternative fuel production will now wane, and we'll guzzle gas until this happens again. In the meantime, be fair to those that care about the planet. Someone has to.
Shale production is not efficient, as pointed out by various others. We already have the blight of the Kennecott Copper Mine--or did you think it looked that way in 1847?
Just because you are an obvious Republican does not mean you can't accept the bipartisan fact that we have a stewardship to care for Mother Earth for our children's sakes.
With oil prices now back in the 2003 realm, why are we even discussing shale? My guess is that we will all revert to old habits, alternative fuel production will now wane, and we'll guzzle gas until this happens again. In the meantime, be fair to those that care about the planet. Someone has to.
Michael | 9:19 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Interesting article, but not all that significant. Oil shale will never be
economical enough to produce. It requires so much energy and money to milk out
the meager amounts of crude that we will always have better alternative (and
besides that the area lacks the water needed to develop the oil and
environmental disaster produced by massive oil shale development would not be
acceptable). Electric vehicles will become technically feasible and economically
viable before oil shale does.
falcon's beak | 9:31 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
For me the purpose of getting out shale oil would be simply as a bridge to
giving us more time to develop the electric car and reduce imports of oil from
unfriendly countries. Even better it would seem to me would be to use natural
gas in our cars for a few years there seems to be plenty of it and do like
Pickens suggests develop wind. After all Pelosi owns 22,000 shares of Pickens
stock so maybe she will let us do it. Wind is not pie in the sky. The electric
car needs a decent battery that will allow it to go 200 miles or so between
charges and these batteries are in the works, one from Exxon.
Vernal Roid | 9:43 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
I had heard in the past that oil shale would be profitable if oil prices were
above $18.00 per barrel. Just wish we knew the real facts.
Brett briggs | 10:29 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
There are good points on both sides of the argument. The way I see it. Develop
alternate energy but until that happens we can not rely on foreign oil. Let
supply and demand replace the use of fossil fuels. I read a study that
consumption of natural gas is currently exceeding production. Would all the tree
hugging democrats out there prefer to burn a tree or drill a hole to heat there
house?
Erin | 10:47 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Has anyone noticed that at the beginning they say that 77 billion barrels of
shale oil is far less than 321 million barrels. Since when have billion been far
less than million?
basinboy | 11:43 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Don't discount oil shale development. Go to the Uintah Basin Standard
website and look at their special report called "Profiles in Energy."
Read the story about the company called EcoShale. In spite of the liberal,
enviro propaganda that many posters regurgitate, there is some potential there
that needs to be explored. Hopefully, Salazar and SUWA will recognize that; but
I doubt it.
Options | 11:55 a.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Although I am all for energy independence or cutting out dependence on foreign
oil, I think our efforts can be better spent in other areas that have actual
viable options. Invest in solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Invest in
nuclear energy. Invest in alternative fuel sources being ethanol from
cellualosic sources (like switch grass) that won't raise our food costs
like ethanol from corn does. Invest in hydro-cell technology for cars where we
fill our cars with water instead of fossil fuels. There are so many better
options to consider that produce better results than oil shale can ever do, not
to mention saving our enviornment from pollution caused by oil shale production
and new gas and oil drilling will cause.
Re Re Quart Low | 3:29 p.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Whooah!!! Hold your horses. Go back and re-read my first post. I clearly
stated MAN-MADE global warming is a hoax.
I have no issue with the possibility the earth is warming or cooling. In fact throughout geologic time the earth has been in a constant state of either warming or cooling. The phrase is "dynamic". Periods of warming/cooling cycles from the creation of the planet are well documented scientific facts.
To a true scientist, be them republican or democrat, whenever someone, particularly a politician, with a decidedly non-scientific background, states that the argument is over about a hypotheses, the scientific method has just been ignored. Gore has stated the global warming argument is over numerous times. Just where is the 100% agreement with him among learned climatologists and other scientists? You will never see it.
Other factors, such as the Sun and its interactions with the Earth, its atmosphere, oceans and magnetic field, cannot be discounted as contributing factors to global climate dynamics.
You might want to expand your scientific background - YOU may be a quart low.
I have no issue with the possibility the earth is warming or cooling. In fact throughout geologic time the earth has been in a constant state of either warming or cooling. The phrase is "dynamic". Periods of warming/cooling cycles from the creation of the planet are well documented scientific facts.
To a true scientist, be them republican or democrat, whenever someone, particularly a politician, with a decidedly non-scientific background, states that the argument is over about a hypotheses, the scientific method has just been ignored. Gore has stated the global warming argument is over numerous times. Just where is the 100% agreement with him among learned climatologists and other scientists? You will never see it.
Other factors, such as the Sun and its interactions with the Earth, its atmosphere, oceans and magnetic field, cannot be discounted as contributing factors to global climate dynamics.
You might want to expand your scientific background - YOU may be a quart low.
DCA | 5:35 p.m. Dec. 18, 2008
Please, Liberal Larry! Get off the silly baked potato misapplied analogy. A
baked potato is nearly pure energy. Would that we were so fortunate to have an
energy source as abundant as oil shale and rich as a potato.
No one knows exactly what the cost of shale oil recovery will be because it was never commercialized and optimum efficiencies were never achieved. Two detailed cost estimates indicate shale oil would be economic today: The White River Shale Project, 1981, estimated $15/bbl (probably about $40 inflated to current dollars). The Condor Oil Shale Project, Australia, 1984, estimated the cost at $10.70 ($29/bbl, US, today). These are among the best engineering estimates but they assumed the operation of an efficient recovery process.
The Canadian Taciuk is one such efficient process which was developed in Canada for processing oil sands. It has been successfully tested in Australia on oil shale. An even more efficient process is currently being developed at BYU which may improve the economics significantly above that of the Taciuk.
Efficient shale oil recovery is on the horizon. That is scary to the pseudo-environmentalists. And that is the reason for the plethora of misinformation being pushed by them.
No one knows exactly what the cost of shale oil recovery will be because it was never commercialized and optimum efficiencies were never achieved. Two detailed cost estimates indicate shale oil would be economic today: The White River Shale Project, 1981, estimated $15/bbl (probably about $40 inflated to current dollars). The Condor Oil Shale Project, Australia, 1984, estimated the cost at $10.70 ($29/bbl, US, today). These are among the best engineering estimates but they assumed the operation of an efficient recovery process.
The Canadian Taciuk is one such efficient process which was developed in Canada for processing oil sands. It has been successfully tested in Australia on oil shale. An even more efficient process is currently being developed at BYU which may improve the economics significantly above that of the Taciuk.
Efficient shale oil recovery is on the horizon. That is scary to the pseudo-environmentalists. And that is the reason for the plethora of misinformation being pushed by them.
Mr. Potato Head | 9:55 a.m. Dec. 19, 2008
DCA, you are speaking very scientifically. A baked potato is not "nearly
pure energy". It is a certain amount of grams of matter, which have some
covalent bond energy in the carbon-hydrogen bonds of the carbohydrates within.
It is also largely water. As a food source, it is pretty rich in
potential/chemical energy (to speak in vague generalities). But as a fuel, it
ain't that swift. Not very different from wood, I would suppose.
OK | 6:41 a.m. Dec. 20, 2008
lets just keep a burning because it's all a hoax, just like the tailings
dumpings all over here in SE Utah...then now we have uranium mining , hauling ,
and the White Mesa Mill....just watch what happens to the workers and children
in the way of cancer. But no it is so typical of a state that says it believes
in stewardship then displays such a losing proposition of caring for the health
of others. Good luck! For the Buck! By the way Bush didn't get us all!!
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
- Obama, Soviet's Afghan endgame 1:04 a.m.
- Victims of Bhopal demand cleanup 12:55 a.m.
- Pakistanis kill 15 militants 12:47 a.m.
- SLCC campus briefs 12:24 a.m.
- Westminster campus briefs 12:22 a.m.
- SUU campus briefs 12:20 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:12 a.m.
- Editorial: Buy local this Christmas 12:11 a.m.
- Conflicting advice for wise shopping 12:11 a.m.
- Half-baked nonstrategy will not work 12:11 a.m.
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan
- Mitchell said to share LeBaron traits
- BCS just keeps dirty laundry on spin
- Teen girl killed in Kaysville crash
- Utahns growing tired of Bennett
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Orem pair getting a rep for crime
- MWC awaits bowl destinations
- Simple candies for the holidays
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
914 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime483
- Hall reprimanded by MWC405
- Max Hall issues apology392
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal358
- Utes won't respond to Hall278
- BYU says Hall incident resolved244
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?237
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game184
- Religion in politics is tiresome154
LDS Church publisher Deseret Book has some specials for the holidays.
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
What a fun game to watch!! I love seeing the Aggs step up huge on defense. I...
Take of your Rose-colored glasses and watch the game again. Y'all got beat...
Hey guys... what does BYU and Swag have in common??......... They both get...
Way to go AGGIES!! Can't wait till UNLV comes into Provo and punks them again.
From an example of a law abiding citizen, Rodney King ..."U of U and BYU...
First, you must bleed that parched, ugly, awful royal blue, because that's...
I did not know anyone in the accident, I am not from this area; but the...
Yum...I want some now.
don't get me wrong, i have tons of respect for coach sloan and what he's done...
If we could only figure out a use ( like the presto-logs from sawdust ) for...
Advertisements