Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Home › Business › Energy

Ritter wants no oil-shale rush

Guv asks BLM to go slow on leasing, citing risk of harm

By Todd Hartman, Rocky Mountain News

Published March 21, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More Energy

More stories »

Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday asked the federal government to put the brakes on oil shale leasing, warning that moving too quickly could spoil vast swaths of northwest Colorado.

Ritter, in formal comments submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, said oil shale would "likely constitute the largest industrial development in the state's history," and, if done hastily, runs the risk of creating "tremendous adverse impacts on Colorado."

The BLM in December issued a draft environmental impact statement that called for opening 360,000 acres of northwest Colorado to commercial leasing for oil shale, even though no one has yet developed the technology to extract the petroleum locked inside rock in an economically viable way.

BLM officials, however, say they're operating under the mandates of the Energy Policy Act, approved by Congress in 2005. It instructs the agency to issue a plan for commercial leasing by February 2007, a deadline the BLM has missed by more than a year.

"Colorado is committed to working with the federal government and industry on oil shale efforts going forward," Ritter wrote. "But this requires a thoughtful approach - economically, environmentally and socially - rather than a rush to premature leasing and regulatory decisions."

Comments from Ritter and various state agencies covered 60 pages and echoed some of the concerns expressed over the past year by environmental groups, water utilities and Western Slope local governments. They fear oil shale production will require vast amounts of water - equal to what the Denver region uses in a year - and the electricity of as many as 10 large coal-burning power plants.

Three companies have leased plots for oil-shale research, and Royal Dutch Shell is generally considered to be furthest along. Shell's process calls for using heating rods buried underground to heat the organic matter for several years until it turns into oil and flows to the surface through wells.

But industry officials say it will likely be into the next decade, if not later, before the technology to begin producing oil shale is ready to be employed on a commercial scale.

Glenn Vawter, manager of oil shale for EGL Resources, one of the firms researching the fuel, said he doesn't foresee any rush by companies to buy commercial leases by next year, when the BLM could begin soliciting bids.

"I don't think we see a lot of people who are stepping up to say we're going to come in and bid bonus payments of millions of dollars to lease at this point in time," Vawter said.

Also Thursday, following complaints from various groups, the BLM announced it would extend the comment period on the draft environmental statement on oil shale for 30 days, until April 21.

hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5048

Urging caution

Gov. Bill Ritter cited several concerns about leases:

* Threats to "irreplaceable habitats" for wildlife species such as mating sites, movement corridors, winter range for mule deer and streams home to native cutthroat trout.

* Water demands that could leave less for agriculture, wildlife, recreation and other energy needs.

* Impact of air pollution on wilderness areas and towns from oil-shale production as well as from electricity plants that likely would be needed.

Comments

  • March 21, 2008

    7:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    An_Engineer writes:

    Is there any form of energy development that Ritter "approves"???
    And, I am not talking about his dream about converting Colorado to an "alternative energy" mecca.

    To benefit from the energy that can be produced from the oil shale reserves, work has to be restarted now. What Ritter refuses to realize is that every barrel of oil produced here is one less barrel of oil that is required to be purchased from an unstable foreign government.

    Apparently, oil shale development is another industry Ritter wants to see leaving the state {exactly like his efforts to move the oil & gas industry out of Colorado}. I'm reasonably certain that the surrounding states with oil shale reserves will welcome the investment, the jobs, and the tax revenues.

  • March 21, 2008

    8:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rellimpank writes:

    ---Ritter is -as usual- playing politics.

    There isn't going to be any great rush to build oil shale plants because the amount of kerogen per ton of marlstone remains small--shale is generally a low-grade ore deposit, compared to most other sources of energy--

  • March 21, 2008

    8:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    masondav2004 writes:

    Sasquatch, you KNOW Colorado oil shale is not going to have ONE IOTA of an impact on oil or gas prices, at least not for several more decades, if ever. By then, we could all be driving electric cars, for all you know.

    THERE IS NO OIL SHALE DEVELOPMENT "INDUSTRY"- the technology isn't even commercially viable yet!!!

    So what's the problem with being cautious? The work will still get done regardless of what Ritter says, and maybe we can do it without sucking up water and electricity, tracking all of western Colorado with roads and polluting ecosystems.

    Seriously, why the (false) alarm? Still angry cause Bob Beauprez lost?

  • March 21, 2008

    11:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    justright writes:

    People,
    The oil shale reserves are 3 times larger the Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. Saudi Arabia has been producing 6-11 million barrels of oil a day for 50years. These oil shale deposits are at a minimum 3 times larger!!! They are the largest know reserves in the world.

    I bet they became economical at $75.00/barrel.

  • March 24, 2008

    6:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    As I posted in the forum on this subject the other day: To produce 11 million barrels of oil per day, more water than Denver uses in a year and the electricity of 10 large power plants would be required. It would turn a natural area 8 times the size of Rocky Mountain National Park into an industrial zone! Vast quantities of coal would have to be strip-mined to feed the power plants and they in turn would produce huge quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

    To Paraphrase SASQUATCH : if 30 years and $100 oil haven't made this turkey fly, it ain't learn to do it now ( actually, I like that better than the way you usually say it!)!

  • March 25, 2008

    12:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    justright writes:

    Greenleaf you are get bad info. goto

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shal...

    and check out all the test and pilot projects going on in the world and see where most of them are. You are confussing 1970 technology with what has been going on in the last 5 to 7 years. There was a 20 year period of no real technolgy advance or even effrot. Economics have changed that.

    I still don't think the technology is there but I do believe companies are getting very very close. That is why this issue is quietly growing. Further more oil shale exist in many friendly countries. Every countries economic and energy security is rising very fast do to the middle east.

    Further more did you read about the shortages of gasoline and diesel in China today? This is a reacurring problem do to lack of supply and China price controls. China's energy comsuption rose 12.1% last year to a net import of 3 million barrels a day. They are now the 2nd largest consumers of oil in the world behind us.

    It is the macro issues that drives all of our economies.

  • March 25, 2008

    6:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    greenleaf writes:

    justright,

    You might remember that the figures I quoted came from the article the other day.

    It cited experts hired by Denver Water and the energy experts hired by Ritter to report on the process. I can only assume that such people would be up to date on the 2008 technology. This technology involves putting electric heaters in the ground to heat the strata and release the oil. That's definitely better than strip mining the shale and cooking it on the surface to release the oil as they proposed in the 70's.

    As I also indicated the other day justright, There is more to the cost of a barrel of this oil than the price per barrel. This process would industrialise a huge area of relatively pristine land. Water is an issue, infrastructure is an issue , impacts on surrounding towns is also an issue. Then there is the air pollution and disruption of wildlife. I still say Justright, as one native Coloradoan to another, our state is already reeling under the impacts of thousands of new oil and gas wells, roads and pipelines. We need to consider other options before we consider this one. The shale will still be there later if we need it that desperately.

    Later buddy!