Oil shale drive has risks for the West
DenverPost.com - OPINION
Washington hopes to accelerate the development of oil shale deposits in the West, but there are concerns about water use, pollution and vegetation.
Congress and the Bush administration want to jump-start the oil shale industry, but it's the Mountain West that could get jolted. Unless great care is taken, our waters could be depleted, our air polluted and public lands traded off and scraped down to dirt.
Coloradans are skeptical of claims that oil shale can any day soon be made into synthetic liquid fuel to replace gasoline and diesel. We've seen the hype and crash many times before.
But since 1996, Shell Oil has pursued a new technology at a project in northwest Colorado. The company won high marks from local leaders and mainstream environmentalists for its willingness to work with communities. Shell says it wants to ramp up commercial production by 2011.
That's not fast enough for Washington. The recently passed energy bill gives federal agencies just 2 1/2 years to produce sweeping environmental studies. The tight deadline may not provide enough time to truly understand how shale development will affect wildlife, air quality and groundwater.
The energy bill also increases the amount of land energy companies can lease for oil shale from 8 square miles to 80. It orders federal agencies to smooth the way for oil shale projects through land swaps. The bill says federal agencies should consult with state and local governments, but the Bush administration has a poor track record of doing so.
Oil shale is actually a compound called kerogen trapped in sandstone. Kerogen hasn't gone through the same natural pressure cooker as conventional crude oil, so it requires lots of industrial processing to be made into liquid fuel.
Colorado, Wyoming and Utah hold 600 million to 1.8 trillion barrels of the country's estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil shale. The energy industry says America should use such vast domestic resources rather than continue to rely on imported Middle East oil. Backers say oil shale could produce 2 million to 3 million barrels of oil per day. Currently, the United States uses more than 15 million barrels per day, more than half of it imported.
Still, the prospect of an oil shale boom in our region stirs serious worries:
Water: It takes 3 1/2 barrels of water to produce just one barrel of liquid fuel from oil shale, industry experts say. Ironically, the West's oil shale deposits exist in deserts whose streams feed the Colorado River. Already, eight Western states, including Colorado and California, are feuding over how the Colorado River's limited supplies should be managed.
Oil shale projects could trigger new disputes.
Energy: Oil shale is terribly inefficient as a fuel, critics say. For every 100 units of energy produced by oil shale, 40 are needed to just make the material into liquid fuel. Oil shale production will require massive new electrical generation, likely from coal-fired power plants that emit pollutants and contribute to haze that mars vistas in parks and wilderness areas.
Climate change: Making more electricity from coal also will worsen global warming. In fact, making synthetic fuel from oil shale creates four times the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted during production of conventional crude oil, says Greenpeace. In any case, oil shale is a fossil fuel, not clean, renewable energy.
Landscapes: Historically, oil shale production methods involved large-scale strip mining and industrial processing on the surface to "cook" it. By contrast, Shell Oil's technology processes the oil shale while it's still in the ground. At any given time, Shell's production zones will take up a smaller area than a strip mine. But the production zones will involve drilling at least a dozen wells per acre over many acres, with work shifting from place to place over several years. The production zones will, meanwhile, be stripped of vegetation, leaving the areas as near-wastelands while the oil shale brews for years underground.
Oil shale advocates say the world desperately needs new sources of liquid fuel for cars, trucks and other vehicles. Conventional crude oil production worldwide will peak in coming years and then decline, triggering economic and social disruptions.
Both statements are likely true. But they shouldn't be used as excuses to turn the West into a sacrifice zone for a nation that is reluctant to take even basic conservation steps: During debate on the energy bill, Republican leaders repeatedly rejected efforts to require better fuel economy in the cars and trucks sold in this country.
Washington hopes to accelerate the development of oil shale deposits in the West, but there are concerns about water use, pollution and vegetation.
Congress and the Bush administration want to jump-start the oil shale industry, but it's the Mountain West that could get jolted. Unless great care is taken, our waters could be depleted, our air polluted and public lands traded off and scraped down to dirt.
Coloradans are skeptical of claims that oil shale can any day soon be made into synthetic liquid fuel to replace gasoline and diesel. We've seen the hype and crash many times before.
But since 1996, Shell Oil has pursued a new technology at a project in northwest Colorado. The company won high marks from local leaders and mainstream environmentalists for its willingness to work with communities. Shell says it wants to ramp up commercial production by 2011.
That's not fast enough for Washington. The recently passed energy bill gives federal agencies just 2 1/2 years to produce sweeping environmental studies. The tight deadline may not provide enough time to truly understand how shale development will affect wildlife, air quality and groundwater.
The energy bill also increases the amount of land energy companies can lease for oil shale from 8 square miles to 80. It orders federal agencies to smooth the way for oil shale projects through land swaps. The bill says federal agencies should consult with state and local governments, but the Bush administration has a poor track record of doing so.
Oil shale is actually a compound called kerogen trapped in sandstone. Kerogen hasn't gone through the same natural pressure cooker as conventional crude oil, so it requires lots of industrial processing to be made into liquid fuel.
Colorado, Wyoming and Utah hold 600 million to 1.8 trillion barrels of the country's estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil shale. The energy industry says America should use such vast domestic resources rather than continue to rely on imported Middle East oil. Backers say oil shale could produce 2 million to 3 million barrels of oil per day. Currently, the United States uses more than 15 million barrels per day, more than half of it imported.
Still, the prospect of an oil shale boom in our region stirs serious worries:
Water: It takes 3 1/2 barrels of water to produce just one barrel of liquid fuel from oil shale, industry experts say. Ironically, the West's oil shale deposits exist in deserts whose streams feed the Colorado River. Already, eight Western states, including Colorado and California, are feuding over how the Colorado River's limited supplies should be managed.
Oil shale projects could trigger new disputes.
Energy: Oil shale is terribly inefficient as a fuel, critics say. For every 100 units of energy produced by oil shale, 40 are needed to just make the material into liquid fuel. Oil shale production will require massive new electrical generation, likely from coal-fired power plants that emit pollutants and contribute to haze that mars vistas in parks and wilderness areas.
Climate change: Making more electricity from coal also will worsen global warming. In fact, making synthetic fuel from oil shale creates four times the amount of greenhouse gases that are emitted during production of conventional crude oil, says Greenpeace. In any case, oil shale is a fossil fuel, not clean, renewable energy.
Landscapes: Historically, oil shale production methods involved large-scale strip mining and industrial processing on the surface to "cook" it. By contrast, Shell Oil's technology processes the oil shale while it's still in the ground. At any given time, Shell's production zones will take up a smaller area than a strip mine. But the production zones will involve drilling at least a dozen wells per acre over many acres, with work shifting from place to place over several years. The production zones will, meanwhile, be stripped of vegetation, leaving the areas as near-wastelands while the oil shale brews for years underground.
Oil shale advocates say the world desperately needs new sources of liquid fuel for cars, trucks and other vehicles. Conventional crude oil production worldwide will peak in coming years and then decline, triggering economic and social disruptions.
Both statements are likely true. But they shouldn't be used as excuses to turn the West into a sacrifice zone for a nation that is reluctant to take even basic conservation steps: During debate on the energy bill, Republican leaders repeatedly rejected efforts to require better fuel economy in the cars and trucks sold in this country.
posted by Marcel at 2:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home