MCW / Petroteq

The production of tar sands in Utah is a story of false claims and impossible promises with a long history of failed companies, bankruptcies and name changes. Foreign owned company heads and insiders walk away with invested money. Utah politicians provide legitimacy to magical mine plans and accept corporate money while the local communities suffer from economic swings created by the scams.

Petroteq Energy Inc, a Canadian-registered holding company is the current name of a regular participant in tar scams at Asphalt Ridge near Vernal Utah.

Recently Petroteq energy has been actively pursuing investors, by generating press releases and soliciting press coverage to boost the stock price of Petroteq.

Petroteq has used GlobeNewswire, a paid service to make a press releases on August 3rd, July 24, July 18, July 12, July 11, July 10, July 9, July 3, May 22, May 23. They use PR Newswire a paid press service in London to re-churn their press releases in Europe.

From GlobeNewsire site: “GlobeNewswire is one of the world’s largest newswire distribution networks, specializing in the delivery of corporate press releases financial disclosures and multimedia content to the media, investment community, individual investors and the general public.”

This paid for saturation has generated dozens of actual articles in newspapers and mainstream media reports. There is also noticeable increase in the share price of Petroteq stock. PQEFF on the Canadian stock exchange.

These news reports contain impossible claims made by Petroteq about their Utah project.

In June we went to visit Petroteq in person to see for our selves. W spoke to Donovon and Paul at the Asphalt Ridge site. They repeated the same claims made in the press. We discussed their recent public statements and questioned them about this claim:

“the extraction process, produces no greenhouse gases “

Their answers:

“ Everything is electric.” “Once we get electricity down here it won’t be run on a diesel generator”

“Right now it is running on a generator while we are waiting for Rocky Mountain power to get down here.“

They think electric means no greenhouse gases. Since our visit in June they have installed a giant propane tank. 

I contacted UDOGM on July 25:

Dear April

I have been following the progress of Petroteq and their compliance with state law.

I see that in this letter dated June 4 Petroteq is asked to respond to the division of oil gas and mining by June 29 2018.

https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/FILES/MINERALS/PERMITS/047/M0470089/2018/Outgoing/06042018.pdf

Can you tell me if Petroteq has responded or if any other agency actions have occurred.

Also Petroteq is claiming that they produced and sold 10,000 barrels of oil in 2015-2016. Is there a record of oil sales in Utah where this might be documented?

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:58 AM, April Abate <aprilabate@utah.gov> wrote:

Hi Raphael,

We are expecting a revised Notice from Petroteq any day now.  They have been in to talk to us about their process and we have asked for an update to their mine plan.  The revision will be subject to the public comment process. I am also aware that the Division of Water Quality has asked for an update to their groundwater discharge permit.  

I put in a call to SITLA to ask them about whether or not they reported the oil production to them when they operated their plant in Maeser.  I’ll let you know what I find out.

Regards, April

Currently Petroteq is not in compliance with the Utah Division of oil gas and mining (UDOGM) who issued a “division directive to post additional reclamation surety” demand letter on June 4 2018 noting several concerns and requesting a response by June 29. Petroteq has not posted sufficient surety for the mine and factory they claim to be producing oil from. 

UDOGM minerals inspection report dated 5/24/2108 also states the the Utah division of water quality has requested that Petroteq file for a Utah pollution prevention permit and that the groundwater discharge permit the company currently holds be updated for their records.

Before these same operators changed the name to Petroteq they ran a similar scam as MCW Energy

The UDOGM mineral permit file M0470089 shows the company currently known as Petroteq has been previously known as MCW energy LLC, Amerisands, TMC Capital lle, TME asphalt ridge.

MCW had to pay a settlement agreement to SITLA in 2016.

MCW also had it’s lease with SITLA terminated.

This article gives a really good breakdown of MCW’s actual production, spending and earnings. The author points out many red flags and inconsistencies in claims made by Petroteq.

Tar Sands investors, Vernal residents and others deserve to know who Petroteq really is. SITLA’s board of trustees, Governor Herbert, and Uintah county representatives should be held accountable for supporting this unproven project.  

Recent Posts

Proposal for Transfer of Federal Land Parcels in Uintah County to State of Utah

 

SITLA is seeking a land transfer of 440 acres of BLM land. Consider making a public comment. UTSR is against this transfer because The Ute Tribe responded in a letter dated 8/2/2016 that they did not support the land exchange because the land is within the exterior boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and assert ownership of those lands. The exchange was also brought up to the Ute Business Committee on 4/24/2017 and they opposed the idea.

Eastern Utah near Enefit proposed oil shale strip mine.

 

Here is the Vernal office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) news release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Heather O’Hanlon July 9, 2018 (801) 539-4129 Proposal for Transfer of Federal Land Parcels in Uintah County to State of Utah Vernal, Utah – School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) has requested title to 440 acres of federal parcels in T11S-R25E, Sections 5, 6, and 8 of Uintah County under the authorities of the Utah Enabling Act of July 16, 1894. Transfer of the parcel would fulfill the intent of the Utah enabling act to support the state’s schools through the land grant managed by the state. The Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office (VFO) has completed an Environment Analysis to analyze the transfer of these lands from BLM to State administration. A 30-day public comment period will open on July 9. “The parcel requested, both surface and subsurface, are isolated from other BLM lands”, said Travis Kern, VFO Manager, “so they are administratively difficult to manage by themselves, and are entirely surrounded by private lands.” The Environmental Assessments are available for review at the following ePlanning links: http://go.usa.gov/xNwRJ. Comments can be added by clicking the “Documents” tab, then click the “Comment on Document” button. Alternately, comments may be submitted by email to BLM_UT_Vernal_Comments@blm.gov or by mail to the following address: BLM-Vernal Field Office, Attn: Stephanie Howard, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078. Comments should be postmarked on or before August 9, 2018. For additional information, please contact Stephanie Howard at 435-781-4469. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800- 877-8339 to leave a message or question for the above individual. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Replies are provided during normal business hours.

Public comment document links  

Some pieces are here that I saw from reviewing the Environmental assessment.

This exchange would directly benefit three Enefit related projects involving oil shale development. The parcel is the piece isolated with in this green map showing Enefits current holdings which are private property.

map from Enefit web page land requested for trade is within the green area that Enefit all ready has leases on.

Excerpts from the EA: from page 3

“It has been previously suggested that for several reasons this project is connected to three other projects ongoing near the project area: the Enefit Utility Project, the Enefit Research, Demonstration, and Development (RD&D), and the Enefit South Project. The BLM has reviewed the rationale and made the following determinations: • Common proponent: The proponent for the Indemnity Selection is SITLA. The proponent for the other three projects is Enefit American Oil. There is no common proponent. • Common timing: The Indemnity Selection permit has been submitted to the BLM and is being reviewed under a draft EA. The Utility Project application has already proceeded to a final EIS. The RD&D project has already been already approved. The South Project mining plan has not yet been submitted to the State. There is no common timing. • Common geography: The Utility Project is located northeast of the Indemnity Selection. The RD&D project is north of the Indemnity Selection. The South Project abuts the southeastern corner of the Indemnity Selection. Geography is similar, but not the same. • Common impacts: The impacts of the Indemnity Selection are limited to the administrative action of transferring land and mineral ownership to SITLA, as disclosed in this EA. The impacts of the Utility Project result from surface disturbance associated with the installation of five rights of way of up to 19 miles in length. The impacts of the RD&D project result from testing stockpiled oil shale for development potential. The impacts of the South Project result from strip mining and processing of oil shale. The impacts are not the same. • Common purpose (meaning proponent purpose): SITLA’s purpose for the Indemnity Selection is to have the lands described in the Indemnity Selection classified or otherwise made available for entry or disposition pursuant to their application. Although Enefit has been in communication with SITLA regarding the 440 acres, this disposal does not guarantee development by Enefit. SITLA would be at liberty to lease the land for oil and gas development, sell it, permit livestock grazing on it, or retain it for future development. Enefit’s purposes for the Utility Project is to provide utilities to their private land. Enefit’s purposes for the RD&D is to obtain a preferential right lease to oil shale on federal lands. Enefit’s purposes for the South Project is to develop minerals on their private land. The purposes for the projects are not the same. • Cumulative Actions: 40 CFR 1508.25(a)(2) defines cumulative actions as proposed actions which potentially have a cumulatively significant impact together with other proposed actions and should be discussed in the same NEPA document. Impacts that accumulate with the Indemnity Selection are disclosed in this EA.

The BLM has determined that the Utility Project, RD&D, and South Project are not connected actions to the Indemnity Selection. All four projects are proceeding independently because they do not require the approval of any of the other projects to proceed as proposed. Also, all four projects are subject to different authorities: the Indemnity Selection is subject to 43 CFR 250, the Utility”

 

Page 7 and 8:

“3.2.1 GEOLOGY/MINERALS/ENERGY PRODUCTION The federal government currently owns all mineral rights associated the 440 acres. …. Oil shale is found in the Green River Formation in the Uinta Basin, this formation lies in this parcel. The In Lieu selection project area has areas where the overburden above the oil shale resource is less than or equal to 500 feet, which makes it a geologically prospective oil shale area. The shale under this parcel contains 30 – 40 feet thick of 35 gallons per ton of shale oil (Vanden Berg 2008) (Perkes 2018). The lands were classified as mineral lands by the USGS in 1916, but there is no finding of “Mineral in Character” 1  and there is no Known Oil Shale Leasing Area” established, therefore the BLM does not accept the 1916 mineral land classification. In addition, the In Lieu selection area was not identified in the Programmatic Oil Shale ROD (BLM 2013) as being available for oil shale development. The In Lieu selection area is completely surrounded by land and minerals that are privately owned (see the map in Appendix B). The owner of those lands and minerals has expressed interest in permitting an oil shale strip mine and processing plant through the State of Utah. 

foot note 1 It is my professional opinion that oil cannot be commercially produced from this parcel’s oil shale for the following reasons. 1) There is no commercial production of oil from oil shale currently in the United States including Utah, Colorado and Wyoming. 2) The Rand Corporation, under contact with the U.S. Department of Energy, estimated surface retorting plants (including mining and processing) would unlikely be profitable unless crude oil prices were $70 to $95 per barrel (Bartis, 2005). The BLM used the inflator calculator from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics to inflate these 2005 dollars to $91 to $123 (BLS, 2018). In March 2018 the price of oil in 2018 has been between $58 and $72 per barrel per the NASDAQ, 2018). 3) The size of the parcel would not allow independent development because of the lack of reserves to offset necessary financial investment. At a moderate size facility (25,000 barrels per day) there is only about four years’ worth of shale oil resource in the ground of this parcel. The four years estimate does not account for mining and processing losses or for the ramp and box cut that would be necessary to remove the 300 foot overburden but would also substantially reduce the amount of oil shale that could be extracted. Further the four years estimate assumes that processing would happen offsite to avoid a large capital investment because it would not by itself justify expenditures for construction of a primary and secondary treatment facility to remove nitrogen from the shale oil to reach the specifications for conventional oil. Based on these factors the 440 acres is not “Mineral in Character” for oil shale. Perkes, 2018″

From Interdisciplinary Team Checklist Page 2

“There are no known Prehistoric or Native American historic sites within the project area. The following Native American tribes were notified of the proposed undertaking via certified letter: Northwest Band of Shoshone Nation, Goshute Tribe, White Mesa Ute Tribe, Laguna Pueblo Tribe, Santa Clara Pueblo Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Tribe, Zia Pueblo Tribe, and the Eastern Shoshone Tribe. They were asked to identify traditional cultural places or any other areas of traditional cultural importance that need to be considered within the parcel. None of the tribes provided information about known sites or specific religious concerns. However, the Hopi Tribe responded to our inquiry and considers a “exchange of federal lands containing National Register eligible historic properties constitutes an adverse effect” and requests continuing consultation. They would also like to see a cultural survey and report for the proposed area. The Santa Clara Pueblo also responded and would like to be notified if cultural resources will be impacted due to the land exchange. The Ute Tribe responded in a letter dated 8/2/2016 that they did not support the land exchange because the land is within the exterior boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation and assert ownership of those lands. The exchange was also brought up to the Ute Business Committee on 4/24/2017 and they opposed the idea. Per conversation with SITLA and Utah SHPO, cultural inventories and additional consultation related to any proposed development after the exchange are required, pursuant to Utah Code (9-8-404). The State must afford historic properties the same level of protection as would the BLM under Federal law. However, The State of Utah is not required to conduct Tribal Consultation for State managed lands. A literature review of cultural resources within a one mile buffer of the project undertaking will be sent to the Hopi Tribe, Santa Clara Pueblo, and Ute Tribe.”

  1. Petroteq is a scam. 3 Replies
  2. Non Profits support Non Profits Leave a reply
  3. Investor Warning Leave a reply
  4. SITLA’s Dirty Energy Hurts Schoolkids Leave a reply
  5. Resisters and High School students attend SITLA board meeting Leave a reply
  6. Bicycles Not Tar Sands! Leave a reply
  7. US Oil Sands PR Springs project sits idle. 1 Reply
  8. US Oil Sands announces they are near bankruptcy! Leave a reply
  9. The Scam continues US Oil Sands gets more money. Leave a reply