High oil prices encourage Canadian firms to invest in Utah's oil sands.

But, as usual, the namby, pamby environmentalists are crying about the caribu and such and want to block the effort to make the US less dependent on foreign oil.

Debate stirred over 1st major US tar sands mine

Beneath the lush, green hills of eastern Utah's Uinta Basin, where elk, bear and bison outnumber people, the soil is saturated with a sticky tar that may soon provide a new domestic source of petroleum for the United States. It would be a first-of-its kind project in the country that some fear could be a slippery slope toward widespread wilderness destruction.

With crude prices surging beyond $100 a barrel, and politicians preaching the need to reduce America's reliance on foreign supplies, companies are now looking for more local sources. One Canadian firm says it's found it in the tar sands of Utah's Book Cliffs.

Alberta-based Earth Energy Resources Inc. aims to start with a roughly 62-acre mine here to produce bitumen, a tar-like form of petroleum, from oil-soaked sands. For decades, other Utah operators have used oil sands as a poor-man's asphalt, and Canada has been wringing oil from the ground for years, but nobody has yet tried to produce petroleum from U.S. soil on such a scale.

And it could be just the beginning. The company has over 7,800 acres of Utah state land under lease, with plans to acquire more, and estimates its current holdings contain more than 250 million barrels of recoverable oil.

"This is not just a 62-acre project that will last seven years. We are looking at a 30,000-acre project that will destroy the environment in this area over many years," said John Weisheit, a Colorado River guide and founder of the Moab, Utah-based environmental group Living Rivers.

AP story


The story comes from the AP so its no wonder that its heavily slanted against the oil mining in the reigon. Last I checked, Utah didn't have any shortage of wilderness in their state and allowing even a few thousand acres of that wilderness to be developed in this way probably wouldn't make much of a dent in the natural habitat.

If you ask me, the reason we have an energy crisis in this counrty is because of all of the environmentalists blocking every viable source of energy to be found within the US. They did the same thing by making areas with clean burning coal off limits under the Clinton adminisrtation, now they'll probably do the same thing with this abundant source of oil.

Something tells me that Canadian firm wasted its money investing in that land. There's no way the enviro-wackos will allow energy production to take place anywhere inside the US.

Totally disagree with your reasoning. The whole planet is being destroyed with a 'little bit here' and a 'little bit there' mentality. Everyone needs to step back and take a look at the whole picture. At this point any destruction of any further habitat is most certainly a step in the wrong direction. Period.

If i was a canadian, well i would not invest in the US.
My aussie dollar is doing heaps better than the american dollar , so invest in OZ.

Ps. Sorry america if you haven't been told that the Oz dollar buys more than your dollar does.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Easy for you to say... you don't live HERE!

We already have "fracking" here. We already have gas refineries here, which by the way have caused TWO oil spills in Salt Lake City in the past 24 months!

We also have Kennecott Copper Mine, which happens to be the 2nd largest copper mine in the United States and can be seen from space! It has destroyed an entire mountain range. And if you recall, we had a horrific mining tragedy that happened in 2007 with the Crandall Caynon Mine. It collapsed. The initial collapse killed 6 miners. Ten days later, 3 rescue workers were killed in a subsequent collapse.

We also happen to have the 3rd largest fault line in the United States running right underneath us. You can see how well that worked out for Japan!

Yeah umm... NO!

a reply to: FortAnthem

Caribou in Utah? I thought it was the reticulated moth. Or the green backed cicada (that only comes out every 19 years). Or some Zoysia Grass that can't be trampled on.

I know this post was made in 2011, but does anyone what happened?? any updates?

originally posted by: fenceSitter
Totally disagree with your reasoning. The whole planet is being destroyed with a 'little bit here' and a 'little bit there' mentality. Everyone needs to step back and take a look at the whole picture. At this point any destruction of any further habitat is most certainly a step in the wrong direction. Period.

You are correct. However, we cannot stop the use of oil altogether. It's too valuable. We as people need to care more. If more people started switching to electric cars, maybe we'd get somewhere. If half of the US went solar and electric, we'd be somewhere. But the fact that the government doesn't build electric stations for electric cars doesn't help. They have quite a few in California. But not near enough to make the whole damn state want to switch. Only country that has electric stations everywhere is Estonia. It's baffling to me, we talk of saving the atmosphere, yet we've done nothing to help work towards going green. Other than raging on the internet about how the GOP is so bad. Things of the sort are why we're in this mess of a world and political spectrum.

a reply to: FortAnthem

Do you know how many gallons of fresh water it takes to extract one barrel of tar sand oil? No you don't, because if you did, you wouldn't be spouting off such tripe!

originally posted by: Umberto
Do you know how many gallons of fresh water it takes to extract one barrel of tar sand oil? No you don't, because if you did, you wouldn't be spouting off such tripe!

3.1 barrels of water for 1 barrel of oil sands extraction, if we average all operations.

The newer, in-situ operations are at 0.4 barrels or less of water per barrel of oil sands.

Recovery and recycle rate for used water is 80% for mining operations, and 94% for in-situ operations.

originally posted by: fenceSitter
Totally disagree with your reasoning. The whole planet is being destroyed with a 'little bit here' and a 'little bit there' mentality. Everyone needs to step back and take a look at the whole picture. At this point any destruction of any further habitat is most certainly a step in the wrong direction. Period.

Agreed. We need to look at the whole picture. If we look at individual sites and say, well, it ain't that bad, its just a little bit of pollution, a little bit of toxic chemicals, a little fracturing earthquake....we forget this is happening all over the world and these small individual sites turn into a giant problem for everyone.....eventually.

Those against petroleum and hate it.

Stop using the products that come from it.


hope you don't use plastic.

Hypocrite.