Printed letters, September 29, 2013

Shell’s decision to shut down its oil shale operations in Colorado and move it to friendlier places like Canada and Jordan was based on artificial economic factors created by the government’s punitive regulatory approach, not normal free-market determinants.

Most people knew this was bound to happen as soon as former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed the oil shale leasing plan that reduced the availability of land for the industry to a paltry few acres scattered here and there. No business could be expected to operate under the conditions imposed on the oil shale industry by the BLM, which was reacting favorably to an irresponsible lawsuit brought by a coalition of anti-economic development organizations.

Shell’s decision was forced by regulatory pressure, nothing more. The company is not quitting Colorado oil shale because of technological difficulties. It is not reallocating assets to another product or technology. It is simply moving them to a place that will allow it to employ its technology and expertise. Shell’s technology works; it is government in this state and country that does not.

We should be ashamed as a nation that we would force an industry with the strong potential to create long-term economic health and job growth to go elsewhere. We should be ashamed that we sit on top of the richest energy source in the world, but are willing to let the Middle East and OPEC continue its stranglehold on the world’s energy supply for the sake of politics. We should be ashamed that we have a federal and state government that would not just callously allow, but actively encourage, such a thing to happen.

Guess we better keep that aircraft carrier in the eastern Mediterranean to protect the energy supply that the BLM just exported there.


Grand Junction

Web site critical of chamber 
is informative, thoughtful

The Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce website is obscure in itself, not to mention the extension.Moreover, on a search engine, comes in seventh after the chamber’s.

On an unlikely chance to be found to begin with, once the website loads, a series of signs and people’s midriffs appear on the banner. This is a strong clue that it’s not the intended website.

This would be a good point for the attorneys to come in, especially if the site intended false charges, innuendos and allegations, but it doesn’t. It seems to be informative and thoughtful and documented.

If the website was personal or myopic, it could be written off and/or ignored, but in light of other points made by individual citizens, the council and the chamber have some explaining to do, to us, the people.


Grand Junction





Krauthammer displayed 
politically partisan attitude

In Charles Krauthammer’s column of Sept. 22, he made reference to the liberal remake of the movie “Casablanca.” I don’t believe there has been such a remake except in Krauthammer’s mind.

However the mention of it did give him the opportunity to change one of the most famous lines from the movie, “round up the usual suspects” to “round up the usual weapons.”

That’s how he managed to jump right into complaining about Sen. Diane Feinstein’s call for another debate on gun violence. If he had used the famous line correctly, using the word “suspects” instead of “weapons,” it would have fit better with what seemed to be the main issue of his letter.

He went on to talk about those with mental and psychological problems who, when discovered, should be given treatment and receive follow-up attention. I agree with him on this, but it would seem that these same people, unless considered cured of their mental problems, should not be allowed to own firearms.

What I don’t understand is why Krauthammer and his fellow conservatives are against even the part of gun control which would mandate background checks for all gun sales.

A policy such as that would not eliminate all potential problems, but it would certainly help.

Sorry, but Krauthammer’s sympathetic feelings for the mentally ill did not manage to cover up his politically partisan attitude.


Grand Junction


People want to take back 
our schools from leftists

I want to thank columnist Bill Grant for his latest pontification of the liberal agenda on schools and their governing boards. The idea that the Republican Party is trying to “take over” the local school district is a fairy tale.

The reality is, the people of our community who are committed to the principles of our Founding Fathers are tired of seeing our children being indoctrinated by the leftist philosophy on a daily basis.

Our kids are being bombarded with concepts that are not only anti-American, but laced with leftist ideals about the environment, gun-control and family values.

The problems in our schools today are based on a slanted social education program that has infiltrated all the curricula. Our schools are turning out graduates who are politically correct zombies committed to big government policies and control. It is no wonder the communities are trying to take back their schools.

I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I do not know who Skousen or Rakove are, but I do know that when the Constitution is being interpreted by someone from Stanford University, I am a little skeptical.

The progressive leftists of this country have spent over 100 years getting control of our social programs and schools. They have turned out several generations of little leftists to support their principles. That is why leftists like Grant are so concerned about candidates being supported by conservative groups.


Grand Junction


Money trail shows the real 
artisan backing of candidates

The reporting by The Daily Sentinel on the current school board election devotes an inordinate amount of time trying to determine why this non-partisan race has suddenly become partisan. The Democrats are shocked that the Republicans would have chosen certain individuals to support.

What hypocrisy! In 2009, when Greg Mikolai — now president of the District 51 school board and the incumbent running for re-election in District E — was running for the school board, his official contribution report listed only three donors: $1,000 from the Democrat Party; $3,000 from the Mesa Valley Education Association (local teacher’s union); and $1,000 from the Public Education Association in Denver. This is public information found on the secretary of state website.

If someone wants the truth about an issue, follow the money!


Grand Junction


Vanderhoof-style leadership 
is needed for state, nation

I read the editorial proaising the life of former Colorado Gov. Joh Vanderhoof and I couldn’t agree more.

However, I would not limit the need for leaders of his caliber to the Western Slope. If anything, we need leaders like John Vanderhoof for the state of Colorado and the government of the United States.


Grand Junction


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

As a former sub contractor who helped on the Shell FWT site, I agree completely with Tracy Miller’s comments.

However, just increasing production is not the answer. With all the new oil coming out of N.D., Texas etc. from modern fracking technologies, a gallon of gas at the pump should have gone back down to the $ 1.75 - $ 2.00 range. (Saudi Arabian citizens still pay less than $1 a gallon)

Why hasn’t it? We need more refineries and less switching of blends of gas throughout the year. We haven’t built a new refinery in over 30 years. The liberal driven EPA won’t allow another refinery to be built due to excessive regulation. (I read somewhere it would be cheaper to build a new nuclear power plant rather than a refinery due to all the regs.)

Former President Bush had a great idea of building refineries on federally owned land like closed down military bases etc. where there were exemptions to EPA rules. Too bad that didn’t happen.

Jim Spehar and the Sentinel Staff editorial each said the magic words, Chevron and Shell couldn’t make it economical. Two decriers (one here and the other in Spehar’s column) blame people, regulations and whatever target they can blame, but will not recognize the companies can see their experiments DO NOT PAY A PROFIT. Technology for extraction can be super,A-1, letter perfect, but if it costs more than they can sale the product, the companies are gone quits and kaput. These two complainers evidently never bought into the Tosco or Exxon bubbles that made the experimental plans manifest and set people to lose everything in the downturn of failure to get an economic process. These two start pointing fingers at every thing except in the right direction - it can’t make a profit when so much has to go in to get something out. As far as regulations, they are stiffer in Canada, but the product is easier to and CHEAPER to get out. There is no saving point of more land to plunder or pouring of more resource in trade for another; it is simply too costly for what they get in return. For the complainers, get a life and learn how the big companies operate. By the way, for the house pubs that forced sequester that also dried up the government funds that were helping support these programs, give a tip of the hat to Tipton.

I have a simple question…If it is so unprofitable…why did they spend the millions on it in the first place…for a tax write off loss? I think not.

If it were so unprofitable…they never would have invested what they did in the first place. I don’t believe they’re as stupid as you would lead us to believe.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy