Oil-shale delay sought

Impact on water is under scrutiny

Gargi Chakrabarty

Originally published 05:30 p.m., March 18, 2008
Updated 09:51 a.m., March 19, 2008

Denver Water is among the two dozen water suppliers, local governments and conservation groups asking the federal government to extend its March 20 deadline for public comments on an oil-shale plan.

In letters to the Bureau of Land Management, the groups said they need an additional 45 days to 60 days to look at the impacts that commercial development of oil shale would have on water resources.

The BLM has received 2,000 comments since the 1,400-page plan was released Dec. 20.

Denver Water said in a March 11 letter that the plan "has raised our level of concern that development of oil shale in the state could significantly affect the (Front Range's) ability to serve its existing customers and future customers."

BLM spokesman Steve Hall said the federal agency would consider those concerns in its oil-shale plan but no decision has been made to extend the deadline for comments.

"We can certainly look at water in our analysis, but the actual regulation of water is a state issue," Hall said. "But the larger point is, we don't know for certain what the water usage will look like in oil shale."

The federal agency has been working for nearly two years to open up 1.9 million acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming for commercial development of oil shale ever since Congress passed the Energy Act of 2005.

Last year, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., sought a one-year moratorium to slow the leasing process, given that industry has yet to develop a viable oil shale technology. The moratorium expires next year, at which time the BLM expects to begin leasing the acreage.

The developing oil-shale extraction technologies use enormous amounts of electricity and water.

For instance, 1 million barrels of oil shale per day would use up to 300,000 acre-feet of water per year, according to an Argonne National Laboratory report. It also would require 10 new power plants, estimated Randy Udall, an energy analyst.

chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976

• March 18, 2008

  9:50 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  This is the largest single oil reserve in the world. Much bigger then Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. Bigger then the tar sands of Venezuela. The only politics from stopping this resource is ourselves. Water, war, terrorist, there, here, bad guys, and energy independence are all on the table. Don't be fooled by the water subject.

• March 19, 2008

  8:42 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  justright,

  it's not just a matter of the massive water consumption, look at how much energy it takes to extract it! 10 coal-fired plants just to service the projected million barrel/day production! This would be very expensive oil on every level. Respectfully, I have to say it sounds at least as inefficient as corn-based ethanol as a solution to our problems.

  Maybe it would make a little more sense if the power source was solar, or maybe nuclear, but from what I have heard, it will almost certainly be coal.

  I think our nation's money would be better spent on a fleet of higher gas mileage cars and trucks and research into viable alternatives to a concept this wasteful.

• March 19, 2008

  11:43 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  rellimpank writes:

  --yep--greenleaf has it right about "oil shale"--excess energy expenditure per unit of energy recovered

  In mining terms, the amount of kerogen per ton of marlstone is small--it's a low-grade deposit..

  We should be building nukes and taking advantage of our relatively limitless coal reserves---

• March 19, 2008

  12:17 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  sunshinestate writes:

  Right now the US looks to a Colorado that is facing both population and "energy" development pressures.(The front range is Colorado's "Miami" LOL).Why not consider diverting water resources towards one future use or the other??

• March 19, 2008

  12:57 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  greenleaf, greenleaf, greenleaf & rellimpank,

  1st what kind of handle is rellimpank?

  But on a more serious note, greenleaf you want me to join you in the "techology will save the world", thus sun and wind will do the trick, but some how carbon companies haven't improved their technolgy? If that were true then there wouldn't be any tar sand development in Canada and the refiniers right here in Denver would not be refining the hydrocarbons from that resource.

  As the tar sand development goes from 500,000 barrels a day to more then 1million barrels a day things like energy independence start to cross my mind. Now I know you speak of energy independence so I would think you would support technology which would get us there?

  Here is an idea; I will support covering eastern Colorado with wind mills if you support Oil shale development. I will support covering the the state of Nevada with solar panels if you support drilling for natural gas in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah, (basically the Roan plataeu type project known as tight gas plays). I will support covering the state of Wyoming in windmills just to improve its appearance, if you support drilling in ANWR and finally I will support mining and producing nuclear power right here in the state of Colorado out on the eastern plains if you support if you support letting our kids eat peanut butter in school again.

  Basically there is a theme here, we have all the energy we need right here in the good old USA. We have a portfolio of great energy sources. Therefore this is your diversity you speak of on this topic. The only thing stopping us from developing these resources is price and liberal nut cases. We have the ability to responsible develop everyone of these resources and many more.

  Price is very quickly disappearing as a factor which leaves us the one last stumbling block. Are you ready to join me in the energy solution or join the problem?

• March 19, 2008

  2:36 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  justright,

  We do agree upon the concept that technology will save us from our chronic energy challenges. I also agree that coal, natural gas and petroleum are going to be part of the mix far into the future.

  The problems with them are numerous as we have discussed before: Air and water pollution, health issues and disruption of wildlife, scenic vistas, hunting and tourism are all part of the carbon economy which I contend make it far more expensive than we are led to believe it is.

  I am first and foremost a believer in conservation. This is becoming simpler all the time due to improvements in technology. Better lighting options, more efficient appliances, computers and cars are now available. We also know better how to build and insulate our homes and businesses. I believe that these technologies should have priority over changes in our energy technologies. This is technology sitting on the shelf waiting to be used to save both energy and money in the short term. This is like finding energy without having to mine it or drill it! The beauty is once installed it keeps saving over it's entire lifetime.

  As for coal. I think we should retire our least efficient plants and build new plants with the latest technology to reduce pollution and energy wastage. NREL is working on a promising new technology using CO2 from coal plants to grow algae for biodiedsel and that would be a win, win.

  Reluctantly,, I believe that some new nuclear is probably in order too.

  As for oil, I will always resist trashing the last best places we have for short term profit, in a process that only partially alleviates our need for middle eastern oil. I have to wonder how many millions of barrels of oil have been leaked into our oceans, fresh waterways and groundwater in the last hundred years? How much of it have we cast into landfills as single use plastics? How much oil have we wasted by burning as if there is no tomorrow in cars that get less than 12 mpg!

  As for oil alternatives, we on on the verge of break throughs in cellulose and algal based ethanol and biodiesel. Concentrated solar plants with energy reserves of superheated water are out of R+D and demonstration plants can go head to head with coal fired plants for cost and efficiency. Wind will also play a part as will wave energy and expanded geothermal. Hydroelectric is there too, although pretty much tapped out.

  Where we disagree is upon using the more wasteful technologies such as oil shale and tar sands, which I lump with corn ethanol as inefficiencies we are better off not tapping. We also shouldn't continue in a mad dash to drill and use(waste) our last good reserves of petroleum before we commit to using it more efficiently along with the other alternatives. Whew!!! :>)

• March 19, 2008

  3:33 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  SQUATCH,

  You would be more credible with these issues if you would pry your mind open a crack and at least consider one or two new ways of obtaining or conserving energy. If you believe so much in market forces, surely at the minimum you can except conserving resources and moving toward more efficient use of energy?

  As it is, your message is always the same: "That won't work, neither will this, no, no, no, no, none of that will either. The only thing that will work are the ideas that were good enough for me, for my father, and for my grandfather! There is no such thing as a good new idea!"

  So SASQUATCH, rather than being one of the finest minds of the 19th century, why don't you join with us as we try to make a difference in this one?

• March 19, 2008

  6:01 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  prk166 writes:

  Water is a HUGE issue when it comes to finding a commercially viable means for extracting oil from this shale. If Texas, Illinois, California, Florida and others want to ship some of their water our way for this, fine, let's go for it. That is, the rest of the nation should be willing to follow up their yapping about energy independence with concrete actions that demonstrate they value it as much as they claim. Colorado should not have to blindly sacrifice it's scarce water just so some DINKs in Connecticut or Orange County can continue to have cheap gas.

• March 19, 2008

  9:10 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  prk166 and the rest of the universe,

  You can't see the forest because of the trees. Yes water is a huge issue especially in the west. But oil and gaseline run the world. The price of oil is not set by Texans, Californinas or Wyomingens, it is set by supply and demand. The traders push it up and down a good 20 percent in a given year but ultimately it is rising and falling inventors and increases in consumption world wide that drive the price.

  During the early 70's the King of Saudia Arabia woke up one day and decided to double the price of oil. He did! The price is set more by what happens in a 1000 mile radius of Saudia Arabia then just about anything else.

  Greenleaf and fellow posters, readers and thinkers,

  In those same 70's we continued conserving by buying those cheap junk Japanesse cars. You know Toyota's, Mazda's etc. Also in the late 70's the USA went into a deep recession and high inflation with massive unemployment. In other words demand went down and supply went flat.

  Conservation was part of the mix then and is now. It is always important and yes I support light bulbs, more insulation, mileage improventments etc. Of course I don't want the goverment to force these things on us but the market will change peoples habits all by itself.

  The big point is we use more oil today then we did back then. We can't conserve our way to energy independence or even energy reductions.

• March 19, 2008

  9:34 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  something else,

  During the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's, the world had excess capacity of oil. On any given day some Arab country could turn on the faucet of oil and flood the market. That is over!!!!!!!!!! Only Saudia Arabia has any significant excess oil to dump on the market. Even they don't have much. Our faucet has been turned on full blast since 1973. Our production has declined since then.

  Gaseline, diesel, jet fuel and heating oil are at the mercy of those who bring us oil. Coming full circle, the traders have it right, it is supply and demand that set price and we sit on the largest known oil reserve right in the good old USA!!!!!!!

• March 19, 2008

  9:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  justright,

  More for the sake of argument than anything else, I would have to say it is theoretically possible to conserve sufficient gasoline to get by with our current domestic production. To achieve that, we would have to scrap any car that got less than 50 mpg. Then one day per week we would all take public transportation! There you have it but don't hold your breath!

  If we were determined to perform a crash conservation program, I think we could temporarily reduce our consumption until population gains overwhelmed it or public willingness flagged. I do think it could be done, but I know it won't be. Not enough of us would be willing to sacrifice big cars and flexible personal transportation to make conservation be enough by itself.

  I do have to say though, that conservation would be a far more cost effective alternative to developing oil shale. Currently the U.S. uses nearly 21 million barrels of oil/day. The most optimistic plans for oil shale as reported in the article would produce 1 million barrels of very expensive oil/day or about 5% of current need. I bet that we could save more gas than oil shale would produce through greater efficiencies in the cars we drive. That's with existing technology. Even more efficient cars are on the drawing boards ( up to 70mpg for production models). I think we should put the money we save by NOT developing oil shale into the technologies of efficiency instead.

• March 19, 2008

  11:05 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  Your friend for conservation is price. At $4.00 plus a gallon people will conserve. Car companies will produce higher mileage cars that people want.

  Price will make wind affordable. I can't believe I said that. I still don't see wind any more then a reduction in baseline energy from sources like coal but something is better then nothing when there is price parity.

  Solar I haven't seen any economics that make it payoff. All though the power out by solar is better today then during Jimmy Carter days.

  Geothermal is probably the hidden giant of potential energy that we really haven't tapped. It would be more like a baseline load of energy. It may never be enough to be all the baseline load of energy but it could add a stable supply energy 24/7/365.

  Price is also your enemy. At 4 plus dollars gallon people will eventually figure out there is a shortage refined product. That will put presure on exploiting oil shale. Tar sands used to be profitable at prices above $25.00/barrel. They are very profitable now and as a result we now get 5% of our oil from the Canadain oil sands. That went from less then 1% to 5% in 5 short years. If enviromental friendly Canada gets their way, it will go to 10% in less then 3 years.

  Oil shale will start slowly at less then 1% like tar sands and grow even more slowly. The 1 million barrel of oil a day is a wild guess. The development of tar sands had similar guesses. I can easily see tar sands providing 25% of our thirst in less then 15 years.

  In my estimation it is not if we develop oil shale but when.

• March 20, 2008

  7:33 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  Hi justright,

  Again, just for the sake of argument, let's say oil shale is developed. This will probably take at least 10 years to fully come on line, so there will be no immediate benefit. 10 power plants must be built to achieve the 1 million barrel/day figure. Oil shale would come on line gradually over that time as infrastructure is built. To supply the vast quantities of water needed for this project would, at the very minimum take water from farmers and ranchers all over the state( they would sell their lucrative water rights as they have done in Nevada to supply Las Vegas). During times of extreme drought, production might slow dramatically as the pipeline literally dries up. Planners are probably considering expensive water diversion projects to bring water from where, maybe as far as Canada? This is the sort of planning they must be doing to insure that they have dependable water supplies.

  So, now we might have the water. Now we have the power plants. Now we need to supply coal to feed these hungry beasts for as long as we intend to process oil shale. We are talking about mining 100s of thousands of tons of coal (mostly strip mined). That coal will have to be hauled varying distances by rail, which will doubtlessly need to be upgraded to support the increased traffic. I wonder how many of those daily barrels of oil shale will go into the mining and transportation process?

  Then there is the matter of what Wyoming and Colorado will look like as this endeavour progresses. Obviously, new towns would spring up full of people who need and expect what? why, water of course! Highways in the region would require expansion, as would all supporting infrastructure. I suspect that dust and air pollution levels would sky-rocket with all the industrial activity and increased traffic. Then there is the matter of thousands of additional well pads, roads, pipelines and power lines stretching all over the 1.9 million acres. This is an area nearly 8X the size of Rocky Mountain National park that would go from essentially wild to mostly industrial. I have no idea how they would begin to address lost wildlife, hunting, and tourism issues. The impacts would be amazing.

  Your suggestion that extraction on this level is only the beginning makes me want to run screaming from the room as I contemplate exponentially greater and greater impacts which, in my opinion would far overwhelm the benefits.

  I have to say, justright that I think in many ways this could be the most expensive oil we can produce and it would certainly drive up the cost of gas overall!

  I think this might be one of the biggest strategic mistakes we could make in determining our energy future!

  Still, we have had another fun discussion haven't we justright?

• March 20, 2008

  9:20 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  Always fun sparing with you!

  I don't know where you get we need 10 coal fired power plants to extract oil from oil Shale? Also everything you said might happen OR the new technolgy that is being tested right now might completely be different then strip mining. I am betting on technology.

  Sure there will be water, road and other infrastructure issues but there will be 5,6,7 or 10 dollar a gallon gaseline also. There will be more people for sure. As a native Colorado person I am not excited about much of this. As a Hiker, camper, hunter, fisherman, and 4x4 fun loving person, I also realize this to is nothing new.

  It will be expensive too. But I am guessing at $100.00/barrel or greater it is profitable. There lies your ultimate problem, profit! Along with profit lies the next major problem TAX revenue. When those two align politicans quickly do what is "good for the people". Right?

  I can see some future Demo-Rep stand-up and say, "people are straving and they have to choose between food or heat, we must develop this resource for the poor and the children". I am not sure but I think I just heard that Ad on the radio a minute ago.

• March 20, 2008

  10:55 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  justright,

  So you are a native too? I guess there are still a few of us left!

  As for the 10 power plants and, for that matter, the 300,00 acre feet of water, those were from the experts quoted in the article.

  I too, am a lifelong outdoorsman and I would hate to see this happen to Colorado. I believe that this should be the absolute last concept we consider.

• March 20, 2008

  11:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  Congressman John Dingel, Democrat, proposed today to add 50cent a gallon tax to every gallon of gasoline. Some enviromental group working with him wanted 30cents a gallon/per year added for a whole decade. I just read the artical Online at the drudgereport.

  See the goverment is the pain factor for the middle class and poor! But this would reduce consumption. Recession & depression always cut into consumption.

  He won't pass the idea today or tomorrow but it tells you where the country is heading. What will happen is a carbon tax. See then they can blame it on carbon companies, except it will just be tacked on to a gallon of gasoline. At least Dingel is honest about who will pay it!

• March 20, 2008

  1:18 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  justright,

  Same as you, I prefer to let market forces work on the energy debate as opposed to trusting to politicians on either side. The problem is that the market has taken forever moving from denial to acceptance, R+D to actual products and from educating itself to actual investment. Many of us saw this coming more than 20 years ago and began to take incremental personal steps, and, in my case, steps to make my business more energy efficient. Unfortunately, the major players from utilities to auto companies and manufacturers have to consider major retooling and have a built in inertia. The public is now demanding a different course and politicians see a an opportunity to score political points ( at least the Dems). I can only hope that any incentives are accountable and short-lived. A few incentives might be OK if they get us off dead center and moving forward.

• March 20, 2008

  3:31 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  justright writes:

  Greenleaf and the world,

  I applaud you for taking responsibilty for conservation for you and your family. I due what I can but I probably haven't done has good of job. Unfortunately you and I not using energy has no impact on the demand. It just means somebody else used the energy we didn't use.

  This could have been a good thing. Say a new business started up. Let's say that a new starbucks opened up on the corner selling $4.50 cups of coffee while employing a bunch of twenty somethings. We could go around and feel good that we freed up the energy they needed to run that caffene center without building a new power plant. Tax revenue is up for that city and state, happy custmers enjoy the jolt and Columbians are employed to grow and pick the beans. Of course there are also jobs assoiciated with transporting, roasting, packaging of the beans. Finally don't forget the stock traders, tax personal and lawyers associated with this new Starbucks.

  I feel great and now I think I will go and get a cup of coffee! Of course the moral of the story is we still need more energy not less.