Count this article a win for the enviros. Front page picture of an office in
SALT LAKE with a lawyer-like person sitting in it. The political
tension discussed is in the large cities. Rural legislators and officials know
who to make decisions and manage affairs in their areas. If the big city folks
would stay out of it, things would happen just fine. Basin officials spend too
much of their time trying to get $$ that are needed back into their communities.
The dollars they are chasing seem to get stuck in SLC. The irony is that the
$$ they are trying to get are energy revenues actually generated from their own
counties. This is not to say that Gov Herbert has not been
supportive. Local officials have appreciated the attention he has given to
rural issues.Still, we wish the SLC enviros would stick with trying
to get the air cleaner along the Wasatch Front(a audible objective) and let
rural communities alone.
Isn't it interesting that the Sierra Club person interviewed did not say
anything about the possibility of local environmental dislocation caused by oil
extraction. Instead he bssically said that oil and gas IN ITSELF is bad. This is
reckless nonsense that ignores the reality of a world economy fueled by fossil
fuels.Does the Sierra Club person drive a car? Does he heat his
home? What are we supposed to do until alternative energy sources become viable,
walk around and freeze to death?Don't let such people steer
Utah resource extraction. They have already succeeded in California, where vast
oil reserves exist offshore, but cannot be accessed because of the Sierra Club
and such people.
Most Utahn's believe in God and Country, in that order. God gave us this
country and the endowed state of Utah. He also gave us the rich resources such
as oil, gas, coal. Not to use them is throwing his gifts in His face. Of course
land reclamation and cleaning up after ourselves is imperitive and there are
laws governing those. Eastern Utah, yes, but also Southeastern Utah, would give
upward mobility to to smaller communities as well. And while I am at it: I
laugh when I see documentaries with a lone man on a horse (with a camera crew
behind him) exclaiming how imperative it is that he ride his horse into pristene
lands where he doesn't see another living soul. Utmost selfishness! The
ultra wealthy who have hundreds of acres to himself can also rail against coal
production in Carbon County.
What is interesting, is that the State of California environmentalists have the
Delta power production site, utilizing coal, which they consider the worst of
pollution. They want their cake and eat it too. They appear to be arbitrary
and capricious on their own agenda. They want to be the last person to move in
and don't let anyone else want the benefit of this land that was given for
man to benefit from. The creation process brought various forms of energy and
not the exclusion of one of those sources. There is a balance due to public
interest but one of those sides wants all or nothing. It is sad that it appears
to be political with Washington, D.C. in control and not the balance for the
good of the people. There is a balance and the government is not serving the
people. People complain about lobbyists but there is so much political in that
hip pocket type of process that the society is on a binge from PACs, lobbyists,
and special interests instead of for the people the Government is supposed to be
supporting. Money = power along with politics of individuals, not the people as
I assume that Tim Wagner walked to work and for other trips? Does he think his
car will run on magic?
"It is a huge mistake for Utah and the country in terms of where it should
be going," he said. "At some point it is going to run out."Nice try. The Sierra Club is referring to Peak Oil, a concept which has
already been proved to be false. The truth is, there is no oil "peak"
but instead an oil "plateau" which began in the mid 90's and
continues today and for the foreseeable future.
There are places in Utah that we should leave alone, despite the resources that
may lie beneath them. If we were talking about drilling in Arches, or
Canyonlands, or the High Uintas, I'd be right beside the Sierra Club folks.
But we are not. We are talking about Vernal. Nothing against these fine folks in
the Uinta Basin, but have you ever even been to Vernal? Not exactly the garden
spot of Utah. In fact, it reminds me a lot of North Dakota. A great place to go
get the oil that our country, and even the Sierra Club types need. (They park a
Chevy Volt in the driveway, but trust me, there is a Jeep in the garage).
Most of the comments so far are as one can expect from DNews readers. Looking at
the world through the vacuum lens of Utah and only Utah. Energy policy and
activity no matter where it is occurring affects everyone. If you don't
think air quality along the Wasatch Front is affected by what is coming out of
the Uinta Basin, you must have blinders on. Massive amounts of refinery
emissions and planned expansions, massive amounts of big tanker trucks coming in
and out every day, etc. We've had three major pipeline spills along the
Wasatch in the last five years. More are sure to happen, along with truck
accidents on the freeways, and more spills. And yes, it will run out. And the
states who have diversified their energy portfolio will be okay, while states
like Utah will suffer. One day the Uinta Basin will be a spoiled wasteland with
no economy and the county commissioners and the conservative legislature will be
asking Uncle Sam for financial help. The make a mistake is human. To repeat
those mistakes is the mark of fool. And we have plenty of fools in state and
certain county leadership positions.
Until there is some sort of public trust set up to tax the resources extruded
from the soil to ensure current and future generations of Utahn's benefit
from the environmental exploitation, and not just the private companies, no
action should be taken.
I used to be an entrenched member of the drill baby drill team, then I haveseen
what oil companies do in their epic pursuit of oil. Currently a
drill rig is 18 feet from one houses yard. Drilling time is 60 days. That is
60 days of 24 hours a day with trucks coming and going, machines revving, pipes
clanking, exhaust fumes from equipment. Additionally there are semi trucks,
water trucks, equipment trucks, pickup trucks. People all hours of day and
night, hollering, hammering, making a ruckus.At the end of the 60
days this equipment gets moved off with increased truck traffic again and the
next crews move in to take the well to production stage.The Basin
provides the recreation area for many sportsmen from Wasatch Front but in this
instance the deer herd that winters where the drill rig is sitting is wintering
elsewhere this year as is the elk herd that used to pass through on a weekly
basis is passing elsewhere.The oil company is drilling their hole
next to that home because the people who live there did not own the adjacent
land. For the next 30 years they will have a noisy, smelly and obnoxious
God also gave us the sun - an energy source which literally falls out of the sky
on top of us. God gave us all of creation and not caring for it properly is
really what throwing gifts in His face looks like. People believe in God and
country, AND the old pioneer values of thrift, waste not want not, cleanliness
is next to Godliness. Utah is faced with a choice - renew its pioneering spirit
by forging ahead of the pack and becoming a leader in renewable, clean energy
(where the future lies), or it can attempt to wring a few last dollars out of an
outdated, last century business model of digging and burning and polluting.
I'm sure lots of folks thought walking over the Rockies and making the
desert bloom was impossible, but our forebears did it. Will we continue in that
spirit as we decide our future? Or will we choose to burn every last drop of
fossil fuel until no one can breathe and every beautiful place has been dug up
and destroyed? Which legacy will we leave our descendents?
seems the good governor could ask the legislature to raise the severance tax
comparable to surrounding states. but ooooh that would be bad for business. so let us take it all back from the evil federal gubmint and make $$
from it. just remember boys and girls you may ony sell it once, and
no one will want to look at it when it has four gas wells per square mile. jmho better to invest the $$ we currently give away as handouts to the
fossil fuel industries, in clean solar and wind energy developments in the west
D&C 104:17 so get out of the way and drill baby, drill!
Do we really want to go back to being an "extractive industry" state? Do
we want our kids pushed into thousands of dirty, unskilled jobs? Do we want the
boom-n-bust economic climate? Do we want to destroy the fragile landscape of
Utah that feeds a highly sustainable tourist industry. Or do we want to build a
clean, high-tech future based on renewable resources? I vote for the latter.
Drill Baby Drill is still sounds good to me. If the USA can develop enough
energy the middle east can starve to death. We won't have to send any more
of our fine young people to fight their stupid tribal wars. I worked in an oil
refinery in southern California, and yes its dirty smelly work but the pay is
good and they are doing everything they can to improve the environment. Send
the Sierra Club back west of the high Sierras and let them try to develop Obama
fuel, but not with my money.
To "ingslc" how well do those solar panels work at night? How about
during a snow storm, rain, or foggy day?What viable alternative do
we have to oil? Right now the only viable alternative is nuclear power, and
that is blocked by environmentalists too.Tell us, how to live if you
cut off the prime source of fuel?
This contention has an economic and cultural sub currant. Most so-called
environmentalists have employment which is not directly dependent on the private
sector economy. Therefore, they really couldn't care less if the other
fellows ox gets gored. Residents in small towns and rural counties need the
jobs; many of them have been living on "lean rations" for a long time.
A little reason and empathy would go a long way here, but I doubt it will come
to pass as long as there is a large "overhead" economy that fosters
unrealistic expectations about the environment and its relationship to energy
development and use.
What is missing in this article are the facts. Are they considering Nuclear
Energy, when 75% of the Nuclear Plants in the US are leaking, that destroys the
land forever? Are they considering Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) that poisons
the ground water? I am not against coal, until they can find environmental
friendly energy, but in order to save us, we must stay away from Nuclear and
Fracking. Read what Shell has done to other parts of our country. They still do
not address the real causes of air quality problems, which I believe a lot of it
is caused from the experimental weather modification programs, with one being
the North American Weather Modification out of Sandy, Utah. What do we really
have, if we do not have our health? What happened to the cleanup for uranium in
our state? Did that destroy that land forever? These politicians need to look at
possible health effects down the line, and also look at Shell's history in
@Redshirt:Even just 10 or 15 years ago, did any of us ever imagine that
most of us would be carrying the internet around with us in our back pockets?
That you could make calls from anywhere with the same device we use for
listening to music, taking photos, researching term papers? When I was in
college, you actually had to walk to the library and turn paper pages in real
books to research, and if you wanted a picture, you took your roll of film to
the drug store to get developed (and I"m not even 40 years old!) Don't
dismiss alternative energy just because you or I haven't invented a battery
capable of storing surpluses to be used at night. Did our early settlers here
understand all the problems they would encounter in search of a better life?? of
course not. The pioneering spirit is about forging ahead to a better future and
inventing things as needed. But currently our state and our industries stamp out
that spirit at every turn because they fear becoming obsolete. So we pamper and
coddle old technologies and slowly smother in the smog.
The biggest problem is not resource exploitation, it is compromise with
conservation efforts. After a 2,000 year-old tree is chopped down, when will it
ever be replaced? No technology however advanced can put back the things that
are being taken away. Developing resources is undoubtedly a good thing, but
consideration must be made for the down-side issues before acting. Such
decisions have long-lasting consequences and probably can never be undone. We
must discover a reasonable balance. Before it is too late.
Gail, no research has ever said Fracking taints groundwater. There is on-going
research, but nothing conclusive as of yet. I did see one last week that says
it doesn't however.Nice use of the envirofreak talking points.
Nuclear, BAD! Fracking, BAD!Now get in your car and drive to
Wendover and gamble a little to bleed off the stress. Remember, you are using
fossil fuels in the process.
It is my opinion that every environmentalist and person on this post who is
against drilling should have all power and other energy sources turned off from
their homes then they can feel all good and cuddly. Solar,wind, etc are a major
waste of time and money. I choose oil, I choose coal.
To "ingslc" so then you admit that we don't have the technology
currently to change the power source that provides us with heat, electricity,
fuel for our vehicles, etc.. We may be 10 to 15 years away from a new power
source, so why limit what we have now? Even if a new source was put on the
market tomorrow, it would still take a long time before it is fully adopted.
Just like cell phones and mobile internet.My question wasn't
about the future. My question was what is there right now to replace fossil
fuels? Why keep pushing a power source that is not only highly inefficient, but
is very unpredictable in its output? We can also discuss the fact that solar
panels require highly toxic materials that are mined in 3rd world nations.
Fracking has not been proven to affect groundwater.The majority of these
fracked wells are 2 miles below the surface, and the shale is a confining layer,
so even if it is fractured does not mean it will break out of the confining
layer.Fracking is also a new practice, hydrologically speaking fluids move
up to a feet per day (that is an incredibly fast ground fluid rate) so it will
take decades before contamination appears. Unless the well is improperly
constructed without the proper seal.Hydrocarbons do come to the surface in
a few places. I heard from a group of PhD geologists that hydrocarbons come to
the surface in the Uintah Basin and therefore have affected any groudnwater.Ground Water contamination is a lot more likely to occur from pharmaceutical
companies than the practice of fracking.I support alternative forms of
energy, but don't blame everything on fracking.
Re: the headline, the answer is probably "Both." The
question becomes how much protection is cost-effective. And that's a
question that most people will never bother asking.
Why is everything all or nothing with conservatives. No alternatives until
we burn up all known fossil fuels first.If you drive a car, you should
worship the oil companies?How about trying to conserve something
conservatives, beside the wealthy folks, wealth.
Actually, fracking IS NOT a new process. It has been employed for over 40 years.
The technology has improved significantly, but the test of time shows that
claims of "potential" damage is a tactic by the
anti-humanity/Gaea-worshiping crowd with NO basis in facts. Heck, even
Obama's EPA, as much as they want to discredit the practice, in study after
study can find no threats to water, air, or ground stability.
Natural resources won't go to waste if they sit there for a few decades or
even centuries.So what's the urgency in exploiting all those
natural resources now?It seems to me that Utah's self-described
Conservatives are not really very conservative. What's so conservative
about mindlessly, ruthlessly, and hurriedly exploiting every last natural
resource in Utah as fast as possible.Whatever happened to securing
"the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?"It
sounds to me like short-sighted Utah Conservatives are more interested in
profiting immediately and then letting their children and grandchildren deal
with the clean up.