A real discussion about oil shale

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • ShaleDoctor Littleton, CO
    Dec. 7, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    No one's opinions are entirely objective. That is why I presented factual material in my essay. It is also why I argued that oil shale development should not be shut down without giving companies the opportunity to begin development and show that they can proceed responsibly, and remediate any impacts. Evidently, some people have no more logical argument to respond with than that I do geologic research sponsored by oil companies, and therefore I must not be capable of independent thought - a well-known logical fallacy. My analysis of the water issue was intended to challenge companies to be more forthcoming with data so that an educated lay person could better understand the impact. It was not funded by them in any way. The water issues have been answered. I have been engaged in reviewing this business for seven years, and there is no land rush out there, but the BLM is doing its best to ensure that there is no action out there at all by selecting one of the most extreme options available. Reducing the land available to investigate is a prime example of the government picking winners.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:24 p.m.

    LDS Liberal says, "Hmmm, I wonder who holds HIS purse strings?"

    Don't be so cynical. Perhaps Jeremy Boak's opinions are purely objective. On the other hand, perhaps I'm the king of England.


  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2012 11:51 a.m.

    It's about the water.

    Leave it in the ground. Let the future have it available if they really needed it for a true "defensive" reserve.

    You hear these oil executives where they basically say it's ok to do what they do because the public keeps buying oil but is too stupid to understand where it comes from. (documentary, "Houston, we have a problem" netflix)

    But when we start buying electric cars and investing in wind turbines they freak out and go crying to their congressman to stop it, or buying up battery patents.

    These oil executives aren't smart enough to make an honest living in historically the business that is the easiest to get rich in. Now that's stupid.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 9:40 a.m.

    If it can be done RESPONSIBLY, without destroying the land from which it is taken and without using tremendous amounts of water or producing a hazardous sludge in the process, the go for it.

    But until then . . . . More research please.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    Kind of like an employee of Marlboro or Winston writing a letter about the safety and benefits of smoking tobacco.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 9:10 a.m.

    This article was written by;
    Jeremy Boak is the director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the Colorado School of Mines.


    Hmmm, I wonder who holds HIS purse strings?

  • stevo123 slc, ut
    Dec. 5, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    How much water does it take to get a gallon of oil? May I remind the writer we live in a desert.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 5, 2012 6:32 a.m.

    Pray tell, how is the shale extracted for processing to liquid fuel? Is it strip mined? What about the water requirements to convert it?

    Leave it in the ground and lets start working on some real technological advances: renewables.