Petroteq NOI revoked for Asphalt Ridge

Petroteq has been successfully using our system to scam investors and residents of Vernal Utah for years. The Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining has finally ended the NOI permit at TMM Asphalt Ridge and ordered Petrorteq to begin reclamation in April 2022 that was to be completed by July 30 2022. It is unclear if they have done any reclamation. 

asphalt ridge

A February 4, 2022 letter from Asphalt Ridge Inc of Reno Nevada indicates that Pertoteq has been evicted from their mine site at Temple Mountain for non-payment of rent. Asphalt ridge Inc. is the owner of the land where Petroteq was operating their project.  The termination of Petoteq’s right of Entry onto the property effectively terminates their mine permit at Asphalt Ridge outside of Vernal Utah.    

I have been warning folks that this project is a scam for several years. The company run by Aleksandr Blyumkin has had name changes and multiple partners throughout the life of the project which was permitted in 2013. During the time they were operating as MCW they were evicted from land held by SITLA. 

In June 2022 the SEC filed  cease and desist proceedings against Petroteq.

SEC filing against Petroteq  

They are ordered to correct the fraudulent statements in their SEC filings and pay these fines:

Petroteq shall pay civil penalties of $1,000,000 to the SEC in 4 installments within, 10 days, 180, days, 270 days, and 364 days of the court order on June 13 2022. 

Aleksandr Blyumkin shall pay civil penalties of $450,000 to the SEC on a similar schedule.  

Protest at PR Springs Utah

The connection should be made that David Sealock was the CEO of Petroteq from March of 2018 until 2020 when he left Petroteq and bought the bankrupt “US Oil Sands” tar sands strip mine at PR Springs which was called “2020 Resources”. Now it is called “Sky Quarry” owned by David Sealock who moved from Canada to Salt Lake City to run the Sky Quarry scam

Utah Tar Sands Resistance 2023 camp out: Return to the land.

Featured

for your consideration:

Join Utah Tar Sands Resistance

for a Campout at PR Springs

August 11-13 2023

Please join Utah Tar Sands Resistance for a camp out on the eastern Tavaputs plateau to check in on the stripmine at PR Springs and the new mine owners and to be on the land again.

Directions to PR Springs:

http://www.tarsandsresist.org/camp/

Google map

PR Springs campground is adjacent to trust land that SITLA (School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration of Utah) has leased for tar sand stripmining and processing.

We will provide tours of the area and information about the history of the US Oil Sands project and tar sands and oil shale developments on the Colorado Plateau. For folks who are coming for the first time. The Tavaputs plateau is around 8000 feet elevation with spectacular views in every direction. There are deer and elk, black bears and wild turkeys. Dark skies and stargazing is also fantastic from the plateau. We camp here to observe the pristine area that Utah would have us grind up and turn into oil using massive amounts of energy and water.

There is potable spring water at the site.

PR Springs is on the Tavaputs Plateau and within the Uncompahgre boundaries.

UTSR supports the position that all lands within the Uncompahgre reservation be restored to the ownership and control of the Ute people as their sovereign land.

Please RSVP to UtahTarSandsResistance@gmail.com

Petroteq is a tar sands scam.

Utah leadership welcomes another tar sands scam

Another tar sands scam? In Utah the false “hope” of billions of barrels of oil in tar sands and oil shale rocks is the real gold mine for a sleezy few. Consqently many companies have come and gone in the continuous pursuit of tar sands and oil shale “billions” in the remote Tavaputs Plateau of Eastern Utah. Much of this land is part of the Uncompahgre Reservation. SITLA is controlling and leasing this land on behalf of the beneficiaries who are Utah School Children.

Dead bird in tar sands seep

Bird trapped in tar seep from abadoned tar sands site near PR Springs Utah.

Who benefits?

The people who really benefit are SITLA board members and the companies they run.  The Governor Dirty Herbert (who appoints the board and the director of SITLA) and his friends also benefit. Many of the Utah State legislators and their friends benefit.  Local politicians benefit in Vernal and Uintah county. The list is long.

So much money has been invested in foolish and wasteful efforts to turn rocks into oil. Although certain people have made a lot of money from this fraud certainly most folks have lost and local communities have suffered bust and boom cycles in addition to corrupt politics, pollution and failed strip mines.

Utah leadership meets with petroteq scammer

Tar Sands scam operator from Petroteq meet with Utah Senator Van Tassel and the office of Energy Development.

Meet MCW now Petroteq chairman in the middle of this photo. Val Hale with the Utah department of energy development is shown with Utah senator Kevin Van Tassell. Legitimacy for this tar sands scam is created as a result of the visit from state officials. MCW was shown to be tresspassing on SITLA land after failing to make the lease payments to the trust shortly after this ribbon cutting .

Utah senator Kevin Van Tassell is currently proposing legislation to funnel CIB money over to his really good friend Misscarriage Mckee.

MCW energy recently changed names to Petroteq  They have a lot to hide. See the complaint I made in 2016.

MCW trespass settlement

Lease termination

page 23 of 33

MCW Oil Sands Recovery, LLC
18653 Ventura Blvd., Suite 158
Tarzana, CA 91356
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Township 4 South, Range 20 East, SLB&M
Section 24: SW¼NE¼ (within)
Beginning at a point on the West line of the SW¼NE¼ of Section 24, T4S, R20E, S.L.B.&M. which bears
S00°03’30″W 2188.08′ from the North ¼ Corner of said section, thence N80°35’23″E 106.99′; thence N88°14’24″E
76.21′; thence N56°09’04″E 111.45′; thence N86°57’01″E 170.56′; thence S29°35’37″E 178.54′; thence
N70°59’42″E 112.54′; thence S70°12’47″E 51.67′; thence S34°34’27″E 50.92′; thence S17°52’02″W 43.46′; thence
S65°08’33″W 148.83′; thence S21°42’48″E 29.29′; thence S63°06’47″W 303.14′; thence N75°54’48″W 196.38′;
thence N62°12’16″W 134.03′ to the said west line of the SW¼NE¼; thence N00°03’30″E 244.96′ to the point of
beginning. Basis of bearings is the North-South ¼ section line of the said section which is assumed to bear
S00°03’30″W. Contains 4.79 acres.
The lease administrator has had this legal description reviewed by the GIS Group.
COUNTY: Uintah ACRES: 4.79 FUND: School

SPECIAL USE LEASE NO. 1838 (TERMINATION) (COTNINUED)
The Director has issued a Final Agency Action terminating Special Use Lease No. 1838 effective October 3, 2016. The
lessee is MCW Oil Sands Recovery, LLC (“MCW”). The SULA 1838 was issued effective July 1, 2016, for the purpose
of constructing, operating, and maintaining an oil sands processing facility.
Paragraph 10.4(a) of the lease required that MCW provide the Agency with a good and sufficient bond or other
acceptable financial guarantee to guarantee MCW’s performance of all covenants and obligations under SULA 1838, in the
amount of $200,000, to be filed with the Agency within 30 days of the commencement date of the lease. The deadline for
submission of the required bond was July 30, 2016. The required bond was not received by SITLA by the July 30, 2016
deadline.
Pursuant to Paragraph 11.1(a) of the lease, on August 18, 2016, the Agency sent a certified notice of default to MCW,
notifying MCW that they were in default of the terms and conditions of the lease regarding the bonding requirement set
forth in Paragraph 10.4(a) of the lease. The notice of default further notified MCW that they had 30 days from the date of
the notice to cure the default, and that if the default was not cured timely, the Agency would terminate the lease and exercise
its rights and remedies pursuant to SULA 1838. The deadline for MCW to cure the default was September 17, 2016.
MCW has failed to cure the aforementioned default prior to the September 17, 2016 deadline. Therefore, pursuant to
Paragraph 10.4(b) and Paragraph 11.2 of the lease, the Agency has terminated SULA 1838, effective October 3, 2016.
A certified notice of the final Agency action has been sent to MCW. If MCW wishes to appeal the action, they must
file a written petition within 14 days of the mailing date of the action, requesting that the Board of Trustees conduct an
adjudicative proceeding to review the Agency’s action. The written petition must be filed with the office of the Director
and contain the information set forth in Utah Admin. Code R850-8-1000. In the event that an appeal is not filed in the
applicable time period, the decision will become final and unappealable.
This item was submitted by Mr. Chris Fausett for record-keeping purposes.

 

Investor Warning tar sands scam

Recently Petroteq has been creating press releases and has put out PAID SPONSORED articles on energy websites stating they can produce oil at $20 a barrel. With the price of oil above $45 for the second half of 2016 and averaging about $50 in 2017, why couldn’t they ramp up production of their low-cost $20 a barrel oil?  The reason is simple… they can’t produce oil anywhere near $20 a barrel.

Investor warning tar Sands scam! Petroteq is seeking investors to prop up their sketchy project.

In 2017 MCW energy changed names to Petroteq.  They have a lot to hide. See the complaint I made in 2016.

MCW trespass settlement

Petroteq Investor scam site

Investor Warning tar sands SCAM, Petroteq near Vernal Utah.

investor warning tar sands scam Petroteq energy

Petroteq tar sands facility is using a diesel generator while claiming to be green house gas free.

excerpts from this article explain the concerns well. I have seen first hand the fraud occurring on land leased from SITLA for tar sands and oil sands strip mining. 

https://srsroccoreport.com/biggest-breakthrough-energy-investor-warning/

“the more research I did on Petroteq and its competitors, the more I was convinced that the company’s claims were too good to be true due to old fashion EROI economics as well as several RED FLAGS.

How so?  Well, let’s first start off with first Red Flag that takes place in many small-cap companies.  And by that, I am referring to the oldest trick in the book… changing the name of the company.  Petroteq Energy was previously called MCW Energy Group.  On May 4th, 2017 the company announced the name change:”

SITLA’s Dirty Energy Hurts Schoolkids

UTSR gains first free expression permit of 2018.

We are concerned SITLA hurts schoolkids with the dirty energy projects they promote and pursue. 

SITLA hutrs school kids protest in SLC.

Protest in front of SITLA office in Salt Lake City

As our first action of the new year we will attend SITLA’s monthly meeting at 9 am Thursday January 4.

After the monthly meeting UTSR will have our free expression event with banners and protest tents at the SITLA retreat located at the Falls event center at 600 east and 600 south from 12-3:30. We will be setting up at 11 am.

Salt lake City provides this document with interesting information about free speech.

Free Expression Definitions

– SLC Free Expression Activity Permit Application
QUICK REFERENCE: First Amendment
Public Safety
Expressive Conduct
Fighting Words
Interference
Risk of Violence
1. The First Amendment’s guarantee of the right of free expression is a fundamental element of our democratic system of government. However, that right of free expression is not absolute. Some kinds of speech, such as obscenity, defamation, and fighting words, are not protected by the First Amendment. In addition, to further significant governmental interests, the government may regulate the time, place, and manner of the exercise of protected speech rights. An example of a “time” regulation is an ordinance banning loud noises in residential areas
during the night. An example of a “place” regulation is a requirement that parades not be held on certain busy streets. An example of a “manner” regulation is a restriction on the size of signs carried by picketers. The government cannot impose speech restrictions simply because it disagrees with the message of the speaker. In other words, government regulation of speech must be “content neutral.”
Furthermore, a time, place, or manner regulation must advance a significant
governmental interest, not restrict more speech than necessary to further that interest, and leave speakers with an ample alternative means to express them.

2. The City has a significant and compelling interest in maintaining the safety of people on streets and sidewalks. That interest sometimes justifies restrictions on speech rights. For example, the City can pass laws making it illegal to stand in the middle of the street, or to block pedestrians on sidewalks. Those laws are valid, even when enforced against a person who wants to speak in that street or on that sidewalk. The City may also establish temporary regulations for a specific event to address the particular public safety concerns related to that event. For example, a particular event may generate much heavier pedestrian traffic than normal. Furthermore, the police have a duty to protect people exercising their free speech rights from violence aimed at them by a hostile audience.

3. Protected expression is not limited to the spoken or written word. People may communicate a message through expressive conduct, such as wearing an armband, or burning the United States flag, a draft card, or an effigy. A person’s conduct is expressive if he or she intends to convey a particularized message, and
if it is very likely that people viewing the conduct will understand the message. Any
government attempt to restrict such expressive conduct must be unrelated to the suppression of free speech. For example, the government could validly pass a law making it illegal to burn anything (including the American flag) in a particular place due to the fire hazard. Such a law is not aimed at speech, but rather at public safety. On the other hand, the government cannot validly ban the burning of the flag simply because it believes that burning the flag is unpatriotic. Based on those principles, courts have held that many instances of expressive conduct were
protected, even though the conduct ridiculed government or religious leaders, religious beliefs, or otherwise seriously offended many people.

4. As noted above, “fighting words” are not protected by the First Amendment, so the government can treat them as disorderly conduct or a breach of the peace. Fighting words are defined as personal insults: (1) directed at a particular person or small group of people, (2) inherently likely to create a violent reaction, and (3) that play no role in the expression of ideas. It is not enough that the words are very insulting or highly offensive or arouse some people to anger. Also, words are not fighting words if they are spoken to a crowd. Listeners are expected to turn their heads and ignore such speech. Whether particular speech constitutes fighting words depends on the circumstances of the situation. However, even when speech is extremely annoying or offensive to listeners, courts have been very tolerant and protective of such speech. In one case, a door-to-door missionary played for two men a recording that attacked the men’s religion. The men became incensed
and were tempted to strike the missionary. The United States Supreme Court held that the missionary’s speech (the recording) was not fighting words. Expressive conduct is also subject to the fighting words analysis. As with traditional speech,
however, courts are very protective of such symbolic speech. For example, the United States Supreme Court held that a law was unconstitutional that made it illegal to “desecrate a venerated object” such as a flag, if the desecrator knew it would seriously offend observers. The court overturned the conviction of a man who burned an American flag in protest. Similarly, courts have held that the display, ridicule, and even burning of effigies of public figures do not amount to fighting words. However, there are limits. In a recent case a group of protesters formed a semicircle around a woman and for six minutes shouted at her that she was “a whore, harlot, and Jezebel.” A court held that those were fighting words under the circumstances. Notably, the words were directed specifically at the woman.

5. Speakers in a speech event have a constitutional right not to have their message interfered with by other speakers. A physical intrusion is such an unconstitutional interference. For example, the sponsor of a private parade cannot be forced to allow in the parade a float that communicates a message with which the sponsors disagree. Also, if a group reserved public space for a silent candlelight vigil, it would be improper for the government to grant a rock band a permit to hold a concert right next to the vigil. Such interference could also include stalking a speaker in an intimidating way or trying to block his sign with an even larger sign. Depending on the location and the circumstances, heckling or shouting down of a speaker may constitute an infringement on that speaker’s free speech rights. The government is justified in restricting speech aimed at unwilling listeners if the listeners are a “captive audience,” meaning they cannot conveniently avoid the speech by turning their heads or walking away. Under this principle, courts have upheld laws requiring protesters to keep their volume down near hospitals, courthouses, and private residences, in order not to disturb people in those private places. Courts have also upheld bans on demonstrators entering into churches without consent, but courts generally have not upheld efforts to prohibit protesters from demonstrating on the sidewalk in front of places of worship (except to the extent protesters block access to the church or their noise penetrates into the church).

6. The United States Supreme Court has said of the risk of violence: “A function of free speech . . . is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with the conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging.”
It is true that listeners sometimes dislike the message of a speaker, lose their temper, and become violent. However, in such situations the speakers retain their constitutional right to speak (short of “fighting words”), and it is the duty of the police to protect the speakers and deal with the violent listeners. Courts reject a “heckler’s veto” that would silence a speaker because of a hostile audience reaction. On rare occasions, the government may have such an expectation of violence that it will impose additional restrictions on how or where speech can occur. For example, if two groups with strongly opposing viewpoints that have a history of violence intend to hold rallies next to each other, the police may require them to remain a safe distance apart to reduce the risk of violence. Similarly, if members of a group have a history of blocking access and/or engaging in physical violence while exercising their free speech rights, restrictions such as “buffer zones” may be appropriate.

 

Students addressed SITLA board today

High School students addressed SITLA about climate change.

A group of concerned persons attended the monthly SITLA board meeting to speak during the public comment period. SITLA often uses Utah’s school children as a tool to distract and confuse the public about the trust lands of Utah. Students from Utah YES   let the SITLA board know that as trust beneficiaries they want SITLA to consider climate change and SITLA’s role in preventing or creating harm for future generations of Utah’s school children.

Here are some videos of folks speaking at the  meeting in November.

Students address SITLA board of trustees

Here is a clip of some High School students in Salt Lake city who took the time to attend this public meeting and ask some questions of the SITLA board of trustees. These students are beneficiaries of the trust. Listen to the board responses.

Posted by Utah Tar Sands Resistance on Wednesday, November 22, 2017


The students asked the board about climate change and the effects for future generations.

Another student asked about SITLA”s role in causing air pollution.

The board was aloof and somewhat condescending to the well informed students who are the beneficiaries of the school lands trust.

The students were from West High School, Salt Lake School for the Performing Arts, Highland High School and The Academy for Math Engineering and Science.

Utah Tar Sands Resistance had 2 speakers and other people of all ages spoke.

SITLA is entrusted with leasing and developing state trust lands

For the benefit of primarily the K-12 public education system in Utah, SITLA is constitutionally mandated to generate revenue from trust lands to build and grow permanent endowments for the beneficiaries.

The seven member un-elected board has no direct public accountability. All of the board members have ties to either fossil fuel interests or real estate development. They are responsible for the management of leases on these trust lands.

The public has many concerns about SITLA. 

These include individual trustees conflict of interest which can (or has) led to decisions which may benefit board members or their colleagues. Furthermore, SITLA’s policy promoting oil shale and tar sand strip-mining has failed. Millions of dollars have been spent and not one barrel of oil has been produced commercially. Pristine lands, most of which are within the Uncompahgre reservation boundaries, have been devastated.  Recent failed or failing projects include: US Oil Sands, Red Leaf Resources , Enefit Energy, and MCW Energy (now called Petroteq). Everyone of these projects is unprofitable, un-reclaimed, harmed land, bankruptcies, busted communities have been the legacy so far.

Lonnie Bullard insults his critics and the beneficiaries. Gee …

Later in the meeting after the public comment period ends and the students leave, to return to class I presume, Board member Lonnie Bullard the SITLA board vice chair takes the floor to insult the students and the rest of us who remained.

Posted by Utah Tar Sands Resistance on Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Board member Mr. Lonnie Bullard takes time during the monthly meeting to insult the students, who are the beneficiaries of the trust, and the other folks who spoke. Some of the students who spoke were not even offered chairs in the mostly full room. They were attending the meeting at 9 am likely missing some school classes, to speak during the 10 min public comment period which occurs at the beginning of the 2-3 hour meeting. Mr Bullard insulted the students for leaving before the meeting ended. I pointed out that the students likely had to return to high school. He also criticizes “people who choose to spend the time in tents and on lines” for wanting a magic wand. UTSR did in fact participate in the governors clean energy alliance by suggesting that Utah take tar sands and oil shale development OFF the governors energy plan. Needless to say this proposal was not accepted.

US Oil Sands PR Springs project sits idle.

Daily observation shows US Oil Sands mine idle, and a lot of nothing happening at the PR Springs tar processing factory and the million dollar machines that are yet to actually work. The 99 acres including the beloved Children’s Legacy camp site are cleared of visible life. The tar layers are exposed even some “ore” has been collected and piled at the bottom of a giant conveyor belt that never moves. A few workers are on site. No longer needed is the 25 person bus from vernal that arrived every weekday last summer. 2 or 3 vehicles arrive on some days and work in the factory compound. No activity is happening at the mine pit.

US Oil Sands is a scam and may never produce a product

USOS has disclosed the lack of funds and inability to actually operate its process for 30 days as most recently promised and expects to operate for 5 days to show it can. But can it? USOS has been just about to produce oil since 2008. They have paid the corporate heads a lot of money over the years and spent a lot on the “factory” and mine but no oil has been produced. This is a victory for Earth!

My research reveals a lucrative scam that has been enriching some and harming most for many years. There are key players and paid politicians who have been perpetuating the get rich pipe dream.

The truth is tar sands or oil shale strip mining, upgrading into a use-able fuel and delivering to a viable market at a profit is a far off pipe dream in Eastern Utah.

Take a look at Canada and the reality of tar sands mining in Alberta to understand the amount of infrastructure and energy involved in the commercial production of oil. Billions of dollars were spent on the mines, factories and infrastructure to deliver the tar to market before ANY profit was returned on the investment.
Even though policy makers in Utah have repeatedly claimed there is more oil here than in Saudi Arabia the reality is that the tar sands and oil shale are rocks and sand mixed with bitumen or kerogen, lacking the water molecules present in Athabasca tar sands and cannot be extracted the same way it has been done in Canada.

Several attempts have been made and many false claims have been repeated by various start ups and a few big oil names over the years. None of these hopefuls have made any commercial product.
History shows a poor regulatory effort including out right instructions in the record of how to avoid certain regulatory triggers and admitted failure to enforce clean up or “reclamation” policies. Rural communities in have experienced boom and bust cycles with real folks loosing their jobs and homes. All the while US Oil sands CEO’S are paying them selves big salaries for running these great scams.

We continue to resist tar sands and oil shale development by exposing the scams.

US Oil Sands goes bankrupt

 

News of the impending implosion of US Oil Sands. Creditors get stiffed as US Oil Sands declares bankruptcy.

http://in.reuters.com/article/brief-us-oil-sands-inc-announces-financi-idINASA09TPS

The 100 million dollar project is a big flop. This fact was actually quite clear for a very long time. Big money players have exploited the land and colluded with the politicians to create a cash cow for some, roller-coaster for others and big loss for the public. Not to mention nothing but a waste site of 99 acres that isn’t even as clean as beach sand as was promised, for the SITLA Trust fund beneficiaries.

When US Oil Sands goes bankrupt it harms the local communities and regular people who do business with them. Bankruptcy allows US oil Sands to be excused from paying most of it’s debts. SITLA has renewed US Oil Sands leases at PR Springs.

US Oil Sands Scam continues investors loose more money

Strip mine at PR Springs Utah is a US Oil Sands scam.

US Oil Sands scam includes exposing the “tar” layer at the mine site.

This is the 6th year of Utah Tar Sands Resistance opposition to the destructive mine plans of the Canadian Corporation, “US Oil Sands” or USOS. US Oil Sands scam is occurring on SITLA  controlled land. USOS has been leasing 50 square miles in the Book Cliffs from the State of Utah for tar sands strip mining since 2005. USOS claims they will produce oil this year, USOS has been claiming this every year, since 2008.

Actually US Oil Sands has yet to produce oil commercially from their project in Utah. US Oil Sands is a scam.

USOS has spent over 100 million dollars building the strip mine and tar processing facility at PR Springs. They have destroyed 100 acres of pristine forest and hold leases to 32,000 acres for tar sands strip mining. In the 4th quarter of 2016 they announced they were out of money and they laid off  most of their employees.

Pr Springs book cliffs utah tar mine

US Oil Sands scam project has cleared 100 acres at PR Springs.

In January US Oil Sands obtained an additional 12 million dollars and is again claiming they will produce oil early in 2017. Our research shows that the Utah department of oil gas and mining (UDOGM) re-assessed the amount of the reclamation surety bond (Likely from our complaints) from approx $376,000.000 to $728,000.00 and they received and extension to pay this bond by February 15th. Which they did pay on Feb 14th according to UDOGM.

CLICK HERE for Utah Depart Oil Gas & Mining Files on the USOS PR SPRING Stripmine

US Oil Sands Lays off most empolyees, closes facility

We support Standing Rock and all resistance to DAPL!

As US Oil Sands lays off workers at PR Springs and “shutters” facility.  Utah Tar Sands Resistance shares the joy with the Earth and inhabitants of Main and PR Canyons of a halt to the incomplete tar sands processing plant and strip mine at PR Springs.

img_0242

Tar Sands mining is destructive and wasteful:

US Oil sands has stripped up 95 acres and destroyed Children’s Legacy Camp unnecessarily. US Oil Sands, a Canadian Company has laid off most of its Canadian and American Employees and shuttered the speculative tar sands strip mine. According to a statement USOS released on December 2nd:

“In order to preserve working capital, the Company has temporarily laid off most Canadian and U.S. employees, retaining only those essential to close a financing. Certain U.S. employees may also be retained on a part-time or short-term basis to assist in equipment preservation and lay-up of the facility and to maintain basic U.S. operations.”  

The Calgary Herald reports:

“The Calgary company developing an oil sands mine in Utah says it has delayed the project’s startup and temporarily laid off most of its Canadian and American employees while it secures new financing. US Oil Sands said: “the PR Spring project is mechanically complete but requires additional capital to cover the remaining commissioning and startup costs.”

The history of this project shows that they have been promising to begin producing oil nearly every year since 2008.  The reality shows that they are exploiting the land, the people and the future. US Oil Sands lays off workers over and over again as part of their operation plan.  

The public records at U-DOGM web page shows that US Oil Sands also has numerous items to address in the NOI to commence large mining operations, found here:

The cost of this project is so far from profitable. The public needs to know that the decision makers in Utah are selling them and the school trust lands out. The so called “Green River formation” must be left in the ground, our air, light and water sheds preserved.

US Oil Sands continues to raise money and promises (again) to begin producing oil in 2017. UTSR is building awareness and resistance to stripmines and pipelines everywhere.  

UTSR will be resuming our public protest vigil in Spring 2017.

We will host the 5th annual Intergenerational campout in June.

Please consider giving a year end tax deductible donation to UTSR to support our campaign.

buck-donate-smalll