Quantcast

Comments about ‘Oil shale proposal draws ire at tri-state meeting in Vernal’

Return to article »

Drop in requests forecasts fewer near-term projects

Published: Tuesday, April 24 2012 7:29 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

the Green River formation said to contain as much as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil — with as many as 800 million barrels that are recoverable.

Can you drill for this elusive oil product? NO
Can you sell this product right out of the strip mine? NO
Can you recover this oil with out large amounts of energy and water? NO
Can they return the land after strip mining it to any resemblance of it's former beauty? NO
Why mention 1.8 trillion when only 800 million barrels are recoverable? Political motivation, since that would last a couple days in America and cause years of damage to our Utah lands.
Vernal/the Basin needs to stop digging for it's money.

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

But, perhaps if Obama's pal Warren Buffet owned the railroad which would haul the unrefined crude, then they would have allowed the full area to be developed.

Obama's energy policies are total failures, and must be overturned as soon as possible!

MyChildrensKeeper
Taylorsville, UT

The BLM is right in its decision and I will stand by them in full dress to stop the carnage of method they use in recovering oil from shale and tar-sands. This is not about jobs or economic growth, its about state government expansion with windfall taxes. You may also notice that civilian population and news media was excluded from this collaborative tri-state meeting with the BLM.

The method they use to get the oil is called "Fracturing" which means the oil company will drill holes in the shale thousands or hundreds of feet then inject tons of high explosives and detonate it like and underground atomic blast to break up the sale and sand to release the oil. Then pressurize the blast hole with water from our aquifers to force the oil out of the hole, oil being lighter than water it floats to the top of the water pumped in. The results are an oil saturated water supply which many areas of the country are now realizing the contamination and hazards.

Oil leaches through the fractured rocks into the Colorado river and drinking water supply hundreds of miles away from the fracture mine.

KDave
Moab, UT

Fortunatly we can still depend on OPEC to fulfill our energy needs.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "MyChildrensKeeper" I hate to be the one to bring facts into the discussion, but if you read the DN article "Good news for fracking" they reference studies that are showing that the process of fracking does not contaminate the ground water. See the WSJ article "EPA Backpedals on Fracking Contamination" to see the EPA recind its own study.

You can also read the Vancouver Sun's article "Fracking does not contaminate groundwater: study released in Vancouver" there we "found that the groundwater contamination often can be traced to above-ground spills or mishandling of wastewater associated with the gas extraction process."

So, who are you going to believe, whatever liberal media outlet sold you the pack of lies, or are you going to believe the studies that have been done.

lket
Bluffdale, UT

redshirt is talking about a newspaper maybe in canada, who also wants a pipline for tarsands built to the gulf of mexico, so they can sell it to other countries that have higher fuel costs then the u.s. which they will have the tax payers pay for to increase oil profit for the oil companies. ask anyone near fracking process what their water is like then you can tell the truth. its done in many places and not just for oil shell, and you can never control the flow of toxins from it going into ground water, if you really know what you are talking about. its just like atomic waiste. no matter how good the containers are they will break down in 100 years or a thousand and then people will die from it. nothing humans have made stay intact forever. but atomic waiste will last the longest of them all. its just like anthing there is a limit to how much a container can hold. the earth can only hold so much. our oceans are sick from pollution and if they die we do to. liberal or consevative, death dont care.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "lket" since when was the Wall Street Journal and the EPA just a newspaper in Canada?

Go back and read the first part of my post. After you do that, go back and read the articles. The newspapers were reporting on actual scientific studies that even the EPA (not a newspaper in Canada) recognized as proving that fracking does nothing to the groundwater, and it is improper handling and other activities that have polluted the water.

Please read before you speak, or in this case type.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

RedShirt said:

You can also read the Vancouver Sun's article "Fracking does not contaminate groundwater: study released in Vancouver" there we "found that the groundwater contamination often can be traced to above-ground spills or mishandling of wastewater associated with the gas extraction process."

"contamination often can be traced to above-ground spills or mishandling of wastewater associated with the gas extraction process." (also know as fracking?) So your trying to disconnect "surface mishandling" during fracking from fracking underground?

So as long as the company poisons the water table from the surface your good with that?
Talk about not understanding oil company spin.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Happy Valley Heretic" as you pointed out, the problem lies in handling the waste from the process. The same can be said about processing Cows. If we just dumped the cow blood on the ground, we would poison the ground and the water tables in the area. However, if we properly dispose of the waste, there isn't a problem.

Are you ready to stop eating hamburgers because if cow blood is spilled on the ground in sufficient quantity the ground will be poisoned?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Apples to Oranges, we were discussing "Fracking" Not slaughter houses.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

You cannot trust or believe the government studies or oil company studies that fracking does not contaminate as they are all proven lies.

Once fracking and cracking all the subterranean structural integrity, oil like water will seek the least path of resistance and the path can run in a global direction of the fracture.

That report of contamination underground water is a hoax and created information of could have or may have or must have from small spill of a few barrels hundreds of miles from the oil fracture site. There is real evidence of water quality before and after many of the fracturing sites the dispute the claims of the oil companies. Remember, we have trillion dollar empires with a lot of clouts and media belonging to these empires to print and say whatever the empires want them to say.

And what is this about decontaminating the water? How do they decontaminate the billions of gallons of water they pump in the ground during the fracturing process? The only decontaminate is the oil they pump out to remove the water and pump contaminated water back in the ground, out of sight and out of mind out of access.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Happy Valley Heretic" you are wrong. As you pointed out earlier. The problem isn't the fracking process itself. The problem is how the waste is handled. What is the difference between poisoning the groundwater with fracking waste or slaughter house waste?

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

Fracking is done 5,000 feet deep or more. It does not ruin the surface land. I have driven by wind mill areas such as in Spanish Fork canyon and "camels" pumping oil and they do not take up much room compared to the land around either. Contamination is possible and should be monitored. Often the area is far from urban areas. 5 million gallons of water may be need in a fracking and re frac jobs on a well, but this water is not lost. Fracking cannot only make us energy independent, but we could take in $50 trillion or so over a few years to pay off our debt. In time we may hope that alternatives will be successful. Natural gas is the fuel we should use now.

to comment

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