Allentown Classifieds

GasBuddy News Article

votes

Report: Abandon Utah's oil shale, tar sands

Salt Lake Tribune -- As Gov. Gary Herbert prepares today to stage the first of four statewide forums on Utah’s energy future, a Rocky Mountain environmental group has some advice: Forget oil shale and tar sands.

Western Resource Advocates issued a 38-page report Tuesday on the energy and water inefficiency of either potential fuel source. The title: Fossil Foolishness: Utah’s Pursuit of Tar Sands and Oil Shale.

The Boulder, Colo.-based legal and policy group commissioned a Boston University geographer to analyze the energy return on investment for oil shale. He determined that most research indicates that, at best, making fuel from the rock would generate twice the energy content of what it takes to produce. That compares to a 20-to-1 ratio or better for petroleum.

Read the Full Article

Submitted Sep 09, 2010 By: leemun

Back To News

Category: Daily News Article Discussions > Topics	Add to favorite topics

Author	Topic: Report: Abandon Utah's oil shale, tar sands	Post a Reply Back to Topics

REPLIES (newest first)

rfaramir Veteran Author Texas Posts:466 Points:405,555 Joined:Dec 2009	Message Posted: Sep 10, 2010 9:34:47 AM Ignore rfaramir Report Abuse I'm saying I normally wouldn't trust them an inch, but they made some reasonable arguments here. Part of the issue is water rights. If the water were private property, its use would be up to the owner, and the oil shale extractors would have to pay for it, making it higher cost than currently and therefore less desirable now (until oil is at an even higher price). Government control makes this less than optimal, and their artificially low price causes shortages. Always does; look up rent control. Notice that the free market is coming up with new ways to extract this resource that uses less water? That's cool. Still not ready for prime time, but getting better.
urban_dweller Champion Author Orlando Posts:1,659 Points:65,420 Joined:May 2006	Message Posted: Sep 10, 2010 2:01:44 AM Ignore urban_dweller Report Abuse gasokie posts: "They try everything to block production of any kind of conventional energy. What a bunch of idiots!" Oil shale and tar sands [the subject of the OP] are not conventional energy sources. You should exercise more care in slinging around the "idiot" word when you obviously have little understanding of the subject matter at hand.
northeast2 Champion Author New York Posts:2,666 Points:750,305 Joined:Mar 2008	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 11:29:12 PM Ignore northeast2 Report Abuse Not in the West where water is already a scarce resource. Don't need the oil that badly.
gasokie Champion Author Oklahoma Posts:2,298 Points:959,625 Joined:May 2007	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 10:26:41 PM Ignore gasokie Report Abuse They try everything to block production of any kind of conventional energy. What a bunch of idiots!
MidNJ Champion Author New Jersey Posts:4,623 Points:738,520 Joined:Sep 2009	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 10:22:02 PM Ignore MidNJ Report Abuse Rfaramir, you stated, "Not that I'd trust what an "environmental group" has to say, usually, since that's where all the communists went when soviet central planning was proved a bust..." You went on to make some quotes. However you forgot this one: "Utah’s potential for developing 634,000 barrels of oil a day by mining and then cooking oil shale would require somewhere between 90,000 and 150,000 acre-feet of water, Sheldon said. An acre-foot, roughly 326,000 gallons, is about enough to supply two households for a year." ???????????????????? . . . Are you trying to say, "environmental groups" say, usually, since that's where all are communists are???. Or, are you trying to say something more???
rfaramir Veteran Author Texas Posts:466 Points:405,555 Joined:Dec 2009	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 8:25:47 PM Ignore rfaramir Report Abuse Not that I'd trust what an "environmental group" has to say, usually, since that's where all the communists went when soviet central planning was proved a bust... "He determined that most research indicates that, at best, making fuel from the rock would generate twice the energy content of what it takes to produce. That compares to a 20-to-1 ratio or better for petroleum." This shows why subsidies should be absolutely forbidden in developing new energy sources. They are very inefficient at this time. They are great to have for when we some day run out of easy-to-access oil, but not now. If it needs a subsidy, then it is by definition a money-loser. Don't waste our tax monies on it! As oil gets more scarce, it gets more expensive. As it gets more expensive, these alternatives will become cost-effective. At least, at 2-to-1 it is better than ethanol, which is somewhere between just over and just less than 1-to-1 (break even). Like hydrogen, ethanol isn't much of a source, but rather a medium of energy storage and transportation. We have to use energy to create it, then when we use it, it burns rather cleanly (though with less power than octane).
bar1035 Champion Author Charlotte Posts:5,812 Points:831,675 Joined:Aug 2006	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 5:01:54 PM Ignore bar1035 Report Abuse of course every policy group has their own political stance on display.
graceman Champion Author Baltimore Posts:3,225 Points:818,165 Joined:Jun 2008	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 3:39:49 PM Ignore graceman Report Abuse We shouldn't rule out anything.
tarheelcoastie Champion Author Greensboro Posts:3,003 Points:661,670 Joined:Jan 2009	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 2:32:00 PM Ignore tarheelcoastie Report Abuse Sounds like good advice.
URKiddinMee Champion Author South Carolina Posts:1,068 Points:216,665 Joined:May 2008	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 2:03:43 PM Ignore URKiddinMee Report Abuse Has al gore approved this article?
vandamme Champion Author New York Posts:1,018 Points:117,800 Joined:Nov 2008	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 1:45:34 PM Ignore vandamme Report Abuse It's a long way from economic viability. So leave it where it is for now. Someday when future generations are desperate, they won't mind using all the water and digging ugly holes in the ground. For now, I like Utah the way it is and I'll conserve energy to help keep it that way.
mynt Champion Author Ottawa Posts:2,940 Points:606,205 Joined:May 2010	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 1:26:50 PM Ignore mynt Report Abuse I don't think it can be overlooked forever, eventually all energy resources will need to be developed...
MikeMotorhead Veteran Author Detroit Posts:334 Points:239,265 Joined:Oct 2009	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 1:01:02 PM Ignore MikeMotorhead Report Abuse We have to start actually doing some of this, before we get good at it. If we get scared off by every negative report, another 10 years slips by and we have done nothing! Except let oil prices creep up and stragle the economy.
NekoSJG Champion Author San Jose Posts:3,225 Points:568,980 Joined:Jun 2010	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 12:43:38 PM Ignore NekoSJG Report Abuse environmental is as environmental does.
leemun Champion Author Utah Posts:3,019 Points:579,765 Joined:May 2010	Message Posted: Sep 9, 2010 11:47:03 AM Ignore leemun Report Abuse Boulder based hippie Eeek!-O-Freeks on the warpath! Agenda--no fossil fuel development whatsoever. Credibility rating: zero. It's a religion, not science.