Comments about ‘In our opinion: Oil sands controversy’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
embarrassed Utahn!
Salt Lake City, UT

Here's an idea that's full to the brim with merit: Let's preserve what's left of this sorry toxic world for the next generation's limited quality of life and end this selfish obsession with ruining every last patch of ground while delaying the inevitable.

America is better than this, but a segment of society (you know the ones) won't be roused from their dreams of big cars, big houses, and "affordable" fossil fuels.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

The world is rapidly burning up all that nice cheap, clean, sweet light crude. The stuff that is left is expensive, dirty, and hard to refine. If you have any doubts about this, just ask yourself why we would be going after "bottom of the barrel" energy sources like tar sands if we had any better alternatives?

All it takes is a few minutes of googling the phrase "Canadian tar sands" and you can see what a mess they have created up in Canada. Do we really want that for our beautiful state of Utah?

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

QUOTE FROM ATRICLE "U.S. Oil Sands, a Canadian firm"

They are even trying to deceive people with their name. U.S. Oil Sands, a Canadian firm

That's just ridiculous.

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

Choices have consequences. If we choose wind and solar as our primary energy sources, we'll have to accept a significantly lower standard of living. Standard of living derives from the cost of energy, or energy ROI if you want to look at it that way, and how efficiently energy is used. When the cost of energy goes up and the standard of living goes down, people are displaced from desk jobs and end up with nowhere to go unless they're willing to become migrant farm laborers. Since most are unwilling to go that route, the employed end up supporting them, but that creates a cascading effect forcing the economy down faster.

The obvious choice is nuclear energy. It's safe, clean, and reliable. But until we come to our senses, we'll have to scramble for whatever we can get.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

We need to consume all of our resources as rapidly as possible, never mind pollution.
We don't need to save anything for future generations.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

When we were howling for 'drill, baby', and we will again when the prices go back up, we were after any kind of domestic production we could get. Well, here it is, and this one's pretty modest. So we can't go all nimby on it now. Besides, don't let the internet scare you. You can find all kinds of stuff about how terrible things are up home at McMurray but it's kind of like politics. Some of the stuff is put there by people with an agenda. Yeah, those mines are massive but that's the deal we make to get the energy; the oil companies and government are doing many things to protect the environment and methodology improves with time.

Invisible Hand
Provo, UT

The real environmental question is about the water it takes to produce oil from those sands. If farmers, cities and industrial users all had to pay an unsubsidized, market rate for their water, and the project was still profitable, then I'm not opposed to it. But if this project is going to use massive amounts of cheap subsidized water then it is getting a public subsidy that enriches the developers at the public's expense.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

QUOTE FROM ATRICLE "U.S. Oil Sands, a Canadian firm"

They are even trying to deceive people with their name. U.S. Oil Sands, a Canadian firm

That's just ridiculous.

=============

Here, Here -- Agreed.

No wonder people in Utah hated the movie "Avatar".

Nothing like looking in the mirror, and seeing you really are.

one old man
Ogden, UT

One very significant detail is missing from this article. How much water will be required to process those 6000 barrels of oil each day? What will happen to that water when it the process finishes with it?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

My family and I went to Kennecott open pit mine last summer.

I was amazed to learn they use over 2 MILLION gallons of water per DAY.
That's more water than all the people of the entire Salt Lake Valley use combined.

Not a good thing for people living in a desert.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" and they recycle 60% of that water so that they do not have to draw more.

I hate to burst your bubble too when it comes to water use, but according to the EPA, Salt Lake City (not Valley) provides up to 182 million gallons per day during the hot summer months. That means that in 4 days during the summer Salt Lake City uses more water than Kennecott does in a year. During the rest of the year they average around 90 million gallons per day. See "Utah: Salt Lake City - Salt Lake City Works with Stakeholders to Protect its Water Supply" at the EPA website.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

DNews, take a close look at the horrific photo you yourselves put up to illustrate this article. Now tell us honestly that tar sands exploitation can be done with no impact.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Solar and wind are great, bout in the mean time we need oil until those technologies get sufficiently advanced. For now let's do both.

Diligent Dave
Logan, UT

"Green Energy" is fictitious. You put up a massive windmill. How much energy is used to make the steel? Far more than you see or know when you see the windmill planted. That too must be taken into account when you begin to talk about "green energy". You people are deceiving yourselves on that. Solar panels too. How much energy does it take to make the glass or plastic or whatever is used in the first place?

Nuclear would be safer, if one avoids major problems like those that happened at Chernobyl, and now Fukishima and elsewhere in Japan. I think nuke power should be pursued, too. As long as designs, construction, site selection, etc are well designed & thought out.

(On the name of the Canadian company, haven't you long realized most company names with "USA" in them are foreign companies)?

I say that as long as they can meet "reasonable" regulatory standards (and, sure, "reasonable" is a matter of opinion), I think they should be given the go ahead.

The same anti-whatever you want to build mentality, that cost Utahns tens of millions of dollars more to build the Legacy Parkway come from anti-people obstructionists.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"You put up a massive windmill. How much energy is used to make the steel? Far more than you see or know when you see the windmill planted. That too must be taken into account when you begin to talk about "green energy". You people are deceiving yourselves on that. Solar panels too. How much energy does it take to make the glass or plastic or whatever is used in the first place?"

Well, Diligent Dave, the studies are out there that will answer these questions for you. You do not have to remain ignorant.

Corn Dog
New York, NY

Wind and solar provide electricity. Modern battery technology won't allow you to go very far in electric cars or airplanes or haul much freight on electric trains, boats, or trucks. Transportation requires petroleum-like fuels that would be provided by this oil sands project. The alternative, biofuels, would require far more water to grow and process the biofuel crops.

Bill
Vernal, UT

There really should be no place on earth for this "bottom of the barrel" approach to fossil fuel extraction.

Nothing you could imagine is more dirty, more energy intensive or environmentally destructive that the mining and refining of this gunk.

Drill gas and oil wells to your hearts content. Nothing I have seen is more shameful than the tar sands operations.

Papaman6
Los Angeles, CA

This oil stuff is dirty, contaminating and ugly. Nuclear energy is the cleanest way to get power. So, let’s get back to mining uranium. No environmental contamination there, right?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments