Public input sought on massive oil shale proposal

Some call the massive oil shale deposit in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah the Saudi Arabia of American petroleum, while others believe the under-cooked shale has as much energy value as a giant potato. Either way, a number of major oil corporations say they’re serious about tapping the resource, and those plans could have significant ramifications to water, air quality and surface habitat. Here’s your chance to learn more about the proposal and tell federal officials what you think.

The Bureau of Land Management will host two public scoping meetings in Cheyenne on Thursday May 5 to discuss and accept comments on a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) and possible land use plan amendments for the allocation of oil shale and tar sands resources.

The meetings are scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. at the Holiday Inn, 204 W. Fox Farm Road, Cheyenne, Wyo.

If you can’t make it to the meeting and still would like to comment, BLM will accept written comments by May 9. Mail written comments to Sherri Thompson, BLM Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, CO 80215. BLM officials say that written and oral comments will be given equal weight for consideration in development of the programmatic EIS.

— Dustin Bleizeffer, WyoFile editor-in-chief

Dustin Bleizeffer

Dustin Bleizeffer

Dustin Bleizeffer is a Report for America Corps member covering energy and climate at WyoFile. He has worked as a coal miner, an oilfield mechanic, and for 22 years as a statewide reporter and editor primarily...

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Years ago I studied shale geology and had some samples of shalier parts of your fomation with hard-to-remove oil. Well in 30 years no much oil has been produced there! (Glad that wasn’t my career goal.) But I still think it has much needed raw matdrial. Really think it was be given a chance to develop, since

    THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SCAM (film on http://www.youtube.com – search it!)

    shows that manmade CO2 output has NOT controlled Earth’s climate, which in fact changes warmer before CO2 levels rise cnturies later (when oceans heat up at depth and drive out CO2), and many othr things, including how the error got started (fund$) by Mrs. Thatcher’s drive for nuclear power (to crush the coal unions she disliked, and also reliance on Arab oil she called unstable – yes!)

    So let folks see this information well presented by scientists (including a key climate researcher, Prof Richard Lindsen, from MIT my alma mater)

    OR you will be crushed by absolutely lethal carbon taxes! (To profit schemers into carbon trading, to fund folks in thrid world to DO NOTHING under their well-paid supervision! – which will make them less able to live better than by actualy increasing world hydrocarbon supplies!)

    By the way, I’m now a big fan of liquifying coal to usable fuel “gasoline” etc, as I saw practiced years ago in S Africa (so they’d withstand evil “sanctions”)

    When it comes to these two, I really don;t know which can make more fuel at what price…. but in the longer tem we can use both.

    Good luck!

    (I’m in Alberta, oil-sands country, which your Obamanation hates!
    I guess it’s a “competition” but we need many fuel answers, not just one or two.)

    SEND INFO/UPDATES TO MY EMAIL…. thanks

    I had gotten “Shale Shaker” magazine years ago. Is it still driving ahead?

    Reply