Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › Business › Energy

Bush's oil-shale call draws critics

Environmentalists, Dems: Extraction process not known

By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News

Published June 18, 2008 at 8:05 p.m.

Text size  

Related Links

Related Stories

More Energy

More stories »

Democrats and environmentalists criticized President Bush's call to develop Colorado lands for oil shale Wednesday as "misleading," complaining that the president implied energy development was ripe when industry doesn't yet fully know how to extract oil from the rock.

"I support oil shale development, but it has to be done in a thoughtful and deliberate way, so . . . if it can be developed, it's done in a way that won't destroy western Colorado," U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar said in a conference call with reporters.

Salazar noted that in recent testimony before the Senate, one of Bush's top Interior Department officials, C. Stephen Allred, said it could be 2015 before technology to develop oil shale has arrived.

In a speech devoted to energy, Bush called for lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin, covering Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The basin is home to vast stores of oil shale that, if developed, might rival the supplies of Saudi Arabia.

He blamed Democrats in Congress for blocking development and seemed to suggest that oil shale was ready for prime time, saying the resource "can be fully recovered."

"Companies have invested in technology to make oil shale production more affordable and efficient," Bush said. "And while the cost of extracting oil from shale is still more than the cost of traditional production, it is also less than the current market price of oil. This makes oil shale a highly promising resource."

Bush's talk of delays tied to Democrats was a reference to a one-year moratorium on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's efforts to write regulations related to commercial leasing of public lands for oil shale. Congress passed the law last year, and a Senate committee in May defeated an attempt to quash the moratorium. The moratorium runs through September.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado and Gov. Bill Ritter also criticized talk of hastening oil shale development. Udall accused Bush of "playing politics" with oil shale by blaming Democrats for the fact that it remains in the ground.

"The obstacles are the same ones that have been there for a century - the lack of technology for developing oil shale in an economically realistic way and the challenge of addressing the way commercial-scale development would affect the scarce water on which all of our communities and industries depend" as well as its effects on air, agriculture lands, wildlife and local communities, Udall said in a statement.

The Wilderness Society issued a statement noting that industry has access to oil shale under extensive private acreage it controls but isn't developing it because companies don't have the capability.

Shell Oil has long been working on a process to develop oil shale, in part, by heating underground rock hot enough to liquefy and liberate the fuel. A spokeswoman said the company is moving deliberately.

"Shell continues a cautious, steady approach to our research, and while we are interested in reaching commercial development as soon as feasible, it must be done in a way that is economically viable, environmentally responsible and socially sustainable," said Darci Sinclair of Shell Oil Co. in an e-mailed statement.

At the same time, the company is eager for the federal government to set regulations for oil shale development.

"The lack of an existing regulatory structure creates additional uncertainty for companies trying to prove viability of new technologies without knowing how they will be specifically regulated," Sinclair said.

U.S. Sens. Wayne Allard of Colorado and Orrin Hatch of Utah, both Republicans, have recently criticized Democrats for what they see as efforts to slow oil shale development.

Allard recently told Fortune magazine that waiting to write regulations until the technology for oil shale is complete is backward.

"We need the rules and regulations in place first," Allard said. "When the oil companies go to bid on their leases, they need to have some idea what their royalties might be and what their (land restoration) requirements might be."

Allard said Shell "has indicated a great deal of frustration" with regulatory delays. "They've put it this way: Look, we can't continue to invest millions and millions of dollars in this kind of research without seeing some light at the end of the tunnel."

hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5048

Oil shale at a glance

* Where found: The largest deposits in the world are found in the Green River Formation.

* Potential: Estimates range from 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil to as much as 1.1 trillion barrels from the area covering portions of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

* Comparison: According to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is four times the size of Saudi Arabia's proven reserves of conventional oil.

* Financial drawbacks: With radically cheaper oil shale production methods, it appears to be more feasible.

Governors in some coastal states promised to block attempts to tap offshore petroleum reserves, citing concerns about the environment and tourism. Others agreed with President Bush's call to lift a 27-year-old federal ban on offshore drilling but said states should decide whether to allow it.

Bush on Wednesday joined Republican presidential candidate John McCain in calling for the lifting of a prohibition on drilling along the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Califorina Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Wednesday he opposes lifting the ban on new oil drilling in coastal waters. "We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

A McCain ally, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, reversed his opposition to oil exploration off the state's beaches after the presidential candidate said he supported lifting the moratorium.

The moratorium applies to all federal waters, which extend three miles from the states' coastlines. If Congress lifts the moratorium without special provisions, states would have little control over the exploration.

Comments

  • June 18, 2008

    11:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    justright writes:

    So let's see......
    We have 4 times the oil of Saudi Arabia right here in Colorado. We have nicely saved it for a raining day. And now the knuckle heads in the Democrap party won't let us produce it because the pain factor inflicted on the average American isn't great enough. Is the pain factor $5.00 per gallon? Or is it $10.00 per gallon?

    Since it takes several years to bring oil or natural gas or nuclear energy to the market, I am guessing they want $20.00 per gallon and 20% unemployment! The Libs are actually excited about us freezing in the dark. That will teach us a less!!!!

    Just think if Bill Clinton HAD NOT veto ANWR in 1995.... We would have an additional 1 to 2 million barrels of American oil brought to you by hard working Americans right NOW!!!!

    And what happen to Senator Salzar? Did he stick his finger in the air and discover that the voters are mad about $4.00 per gallon and are looking at the current pain enflicktors stopping the production of oil? Unfortnately he will never put his vote in congress where is mouth is when talking to a reporter. He is gut less.

  • June 19, 2008

    1:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    paratyper writes:

    Oil shale is only attractive to companies now BECAUSE barrels are going for record prices -- so I think you throw out the argument that it will bring prices down. Drilling in ANWR wouldn't change a thing -- oil goes on the global market, and the U.S. doesn't call the shots there anymore.

    If widgets go for $130 and you increase your widget output, do you sell them for $120 out of the goodness of your heart? You increased your output to capitalize on the the going market, no? Not to mention you'll need the money to pay for your expansion. I think that's the scenario for Colorado's oil shale deposits.

    Drilling more will only increase these company's profit. You can argue good and bad for that, but it will not lower prices.

    Consider what we're willing to give up vs. the small (IMO) group that will actually benefit. Will they reinvest the billions and become 'energy' companies, shift their focus and develop non-oil, long-term solutions to the problem? Great -- if they do. If.

  • June 19, 2008

    7:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jjfjules writes:

    basic economics should tell us all that increasing the supply of any available product to any point beyond current demand for that product results in a lower price, just as decreasing demand would do.
    Do you think the price of oil is high becaause nobody wants to buy it?? Come on, get out your old text books and this time pay attention!!

  • June 19, 2008

    7:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rellimpank writes:

    --the always present problem with "oil shale"-(marlstone containing kerogen) is that in mining terms it is a very low-grade deposit--nothing can change that--

  • June 19, 2008

    9:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    GodzillaSr writes:

    mo money. mo money, mo money, follow the drunken prez. with more civilians in iraq than troops to secure oil rights, boost the price of gas here as a cover to get rights here. nicely played

  • June 19, 2008

    10:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    shoeless writes:

    Why does every important discussion devolve into a rant against Democrats or Republicans? The issue with this and every other problem is that when facts regarding a situation are presented, they are either discounted as propaganda, or used as propaganda. These are complex issues. We should want to value the true cost of oil to our wallets, our environment, our worldwide strategic objectives, etc. and weigh those costs against the current economic hardship, oil company profits, incentive for alternative fuels. We can't weigh that cost, because one side picks the two or three that are important to their ideology and relection hopes and discard the rest as unimportant.

    Oil will be a necessity for the next 30 years or more. Oil will, by all measures, be either an expensive commodity over those 30 years, a potentially declining commodity, and certainly a finite one. McCain or Obama needs to take the time and effort necessary to determine an energy policy that seeks to limit the decline of oil to something manageable, while we advance alternative fuels to offset that decline. Picking the next silver bullet without understanding the consequences simply makes one group rich and another dependent.

  • June 19, 2008

    1:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    oli writes:

    For all those who say we need to perpetuate our dependence on Oil I would say you are not patriotic. And buy Bushes definition someone that undermines the stability of our country is a radical. By supporting a path of continued BIG government, BIG business and BIG profits, republicans are loosing grip on what it means to be patriotic. You can put a label on by “get off our dependency of Foreign Oil” but that will not change the price of gas at he pump. We can drill all we want in the US and it will not drop the price of gas at the pump on penny. So the label is just another way that republicans want to manipulate the subject and support BIG government, BIG business and BIG profits. Oil Shale will just increase the price. Patriotism by my definition is getting off our dependency of foreign oil and re-invest dollars into a Apollo like program that will in fact get us off oil all together whether that be domestic or foreign produced. When you hear the republican labels like “get off our dependency of Foreign Oil” ask you self what are we solving for…price at the pump, fighting terrorist by not using “their” oil. If we are trying to solve for both and take care of environment, what is the best course of action for this country to take? What will promote sustainable local jobs that wont dry up in a year or two? What will keep our tourism industry profitable? What will drive a next boom in our economy that we saw in the 90’s? What will decrease BIG Government, BIG Business, and spread BIG Profits to all Americans? For all those who say we need to perpetuate our dependence on Oil (whether it be domestic or foreign produced) are in fact supporting all those things that the Bush administration is trying to scare us about for the past 8 years. If you think drilling in Colorado with brand new and unproven technology will drive down the price of gas at the pump, think again. It will only make the Bush administration and it energy lobbyist richer!

  • June 19, 2008

    3:42 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    cpd writes:

    Look. We're not going to see any relief in gas prices in the near time by more drilling or with oil shale production. The causes right now are a weak dollar, investor speculation, and tight supplies or rumors of tight supplies. But there is a "far time" we need to worry about. Competition for oil is a world reality as long as the economies in China, India, etc., grow. We need quickly either more supplies or a new and readily available technology (and don't tell me it is ethanol). We also need conservation but that is simply not easy (sorry Boulder, we all can't bike to work). Get use to these prices and reorder your priorities (how much is Starbucks per gallon?) Getting more oil into the supply chain will help long term. But don't think that new technology will quickly develop - the hydrogen economy will be a great technology but it requires development of nuclear fission power - not right around the corner. BTW the pols can posture and blow smoke - what they cannot solve is today's dilemma - not Obama, not Bush, not Nader, not Barr. Denigrate them if you will but your're wasting cyberspace.

  • June 19, 2008

    4:19 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jaymoveonorg writes:

    We need to increase drilling in the United States just to keep the price of oil and natural gas manageable. If we don't then you can count on the price to continue to increase.

    Additional drilling in America will create jobs for Americans. Right now the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela are the ones creating more jobs for themselves. More jobs in America means more tax revenue for the government.

    Dramatically increasing domestic drilling and oil shale production will allow the government to tax oil companies, receive royalities and lease payments. The government can not tax foregin nations who are drilling. With this increase of revenue our government can designate it to alternative energy projects and research. That is why we should increase drilling and stop relying upon other foreign countries to supply the majority of oil to the world. Why can't we receive the same benefits that the Middle East is experiencing?