Oil shale hits roadblock in Senate

Guv extracts win on moratorium for state, for now

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, left, and Assistant Interior Secretary C. Stephen Allred testify Thursday before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

A U.S. Senate panel upheld a more cautious approach toward oil shale development in Colorado on Thursday when it narrowly rejected Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to lift a moratorium on enacting new rules for commercial leases.

A heated battle over Colorado energy and environmental issues took center stage on Capitol Hill all afternoon. And now the fight could be destined for the floor of the U.S. Senate.

At a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing chaired by Sen. Ken Salazar, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter testified about the need for a cautious approach toward oil shale. He cited unresolved questions about how much water, energy and habitat destruction it could take to extract the estimated 500 billion barrels of oil that are believed to be underground in Colorado.

"Certainly, Colorado is ready and able to help this country meet its future energy needs," Ritter said. "At the same time, we need to be thoughtful and responsible about our approach, especially in light of the magnitude of such development and the potential for significant impacts."

Ritter expressed concerns about the pace of energy development in the state and spoke in support of a moratorium Congress approved last year to prevent the Department of Interior from enacting new rules for commercial oil shale leases until at least Oct. 1.

But other witnesses, including Allard, R-Loveland, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, called for lifting the moratorium, saying the lack of clear regulations was stifling exploration.

While the energy committee hearing continued in a third-floor Senate committee room, Allard took his case two floors downstairs, and he asked the Senate Appropriations Committee to consider an amendment lifting the moratorium as part of an emergency supplemental appropriations bill being considered.

The amendment failed on a 14-15 vote, but not before an emotion-packed debate that included Republican accusations that environmentalist concerns were preventing the country from reaching energy independence.

Tapping oil shale reserves has proven to be a tough proposition, both technologically and politically, for several decades now. Although Colorado's reserves are estimated to be roughly twice the size of Saudi Arabia's, it could take much of the next decade before significant supplies could be extracted out of the rock.

Still, "If we're really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard told the committee.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he was outraged that a House of Representatives panel imposed the moratorium on new oil shale rules late last year, scuttling a process established by other, hard-fought legislation.

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, who was one of the leading backers of the moratorium, issued a statement Thursday saying he believes it "was and remains well-founded."

Thursday's vote was split on party lines, with Democrats citing calls from Ritter and Salazar to keep the moratorium in place.

One of the key swing votes, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., said she also opposes the moratorium on the new oil shale rules.

However, she voted against Allard's amendment lifting the moratorium on urging from her friend, Sen. Salazar. Even so, she signaled that's not the end of the issue and that she would push to reverse the moratorium when the appropriations bill reaches the Senate floor.

"Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request," Landrieu said. "But I also told him because it's contrary to my normal philosophy that I'm going to reserve the right to work with him, Sen. (Diane) Feinstein and Sen. Allard on the floor and try to come up with a compromise that moves us forward."

sprengelmeyerm@shns.com

• May 16, 2008

  7:43 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  R8R_H8R writes:

  To say there is "double the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia, is a bold face lie, pure propaganda to get thoughtless heads in an uproar to claim it. No doubt there is some oil to be squeezed out of the rock, but not near enough to merit destroying Colorado, or the planet earth. This sounds much like the story, "oil in Iraq will pay for the cost of the war". Destroying the earth to squeeze oil out of rock makes so much more sense than silly things like Solar panel energy, wind power, ethanol,............

• May 16, 2008

  11:21 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Pastmaster writes:

  Perhaps "feeling pain at the pump" is much overdue. How else will folks realize the depth of the energy crisis and begin to support sensible energy alternatives?
  Oh yea, it's "bald-faced lie," not "bold faced lie." Then again, there is a certain amount of chuzpah making such statements.

• May 16, 2008

  11:52 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  SASQUATCH writes:

  GOLDMAN SACHS LIFTS CRUDE TARGET PRICE AGAIN THIS A.M.!

  http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story...

  MEANWHILE RITTER AND SALAZAR CAN'T GET PASSED THEIR EXPENSIVE, UNRELIABLE AND INEFFICIENT WINDMILLS AND SOLAR AND THEIR HIGHLY NOXIOUS, TOXIC AND ENERGY INEFFICIENT BIOFUELS.

  Eco-hysterical, enviro-phobes won't be happy until they shut-down America. Its time we gave them an overdue kick in the ass.

• May 16, 2008

  1:13 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Jimminy writes:

  So some of US want Americans to feel pain and they rejoice when we do...Who needs Hamas,Hezbollah,and Ahmedinejad? We have their whitebread proxies right here at home.

• May 16, 2008

  1:20 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  sunshinestate writes:

  Fascinating and predictable: The 'extremist' 'environmentalists' interests derided by some include hunters and related interests, a long standing core republican constituency.

• May 16, 2008

  2:08 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  sunshinestate writes:

  Poor 'ol Colorado....a double whammy.....poulation/'development' impacts and then 'energy' to boot!!

• May 16, 2008

  3:18 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  MrPeabody writes:

  This is all so predictable. The same Dem leadership that proclaims at the top of their lungs that we must develop an energy policy that weans us off dependence on oil from foreign sources that don't like us (and our funding of them) will stop at nothing to prevent that very independence by pursuing the development of our own resources at home.

  Their policies do exactly the opposite of what they say they want (energy independence). Instead they push the idea that their alternative solutions in renewable energy can supplant the huge need for oil and other fossil fuels. Never mind that these technologies, while nice, are not able to stand on their own in the marketplace and must be propped up with subsidies and only can or will contribute a drop in the bucket of our energy needs. Don't let me get started on the stupid ethanol mandate either.

  The oil industry and infrastructure didn't develop overnight and neither will a solution or combination of solutions to wean us off of an oil economy. It will take years, if not decades for those technologies and the needed infrastructure to develop. Yet, in the meantime, the enviro extremists will go to any length to deny us to a chance to move towards lowering our dependence on those in an unstable part of the world.

  The Dem/enviro policies are to use strong armed government subsidized solutions and are anti-capitalistic, anti-free market and do a great disservice to regular Americans. It's the same playbook they have used for 40 years. This should not be a surprise. If these strategies of not allowing for development of our own oil resources in places where it is known that there are substantial reserves had not been pursued for the past 40, or 30, or 20 years, perhaps we wouldn't be in such a squeeze right now. Yet their response is to propose to penalize the oil companies by confiscating some of their profits and a 'windfall profits tax.' That worked so well for Jimmy Carter, didn't it?. Yeah, us consumers won't feel that one much even though we are already feeling the pain at the pump. For the enviros, it is all about power and control and making us feel the pain for our 'sins' and damn the consequences. It didn't need to be this way.

  When extreme environmental zealotry replaces sane policy, what else should we expect? BTW, I'm not against protecting the environment but the endless roadblocks to any development are getting to be ridiculous.

• May 16, 2008

  3:57 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  Tommy writes:

  I should have voted for Bob. We're paying through the nose and Ritter is taking his time while bsiness goes under. How many families have to suffer through this while Ritter 'thinks' about what to do.

  Ritter is a joke.

• May 16, 2008

  4:16 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  bookwerm writes:

  God, even if there IS a crap load of oil IN the shale, and global warming IS a bunch of hooey (meaning you can burn 10 gallons of oil to get 11 gallons), destroying a WORKING sustainable economy for TEMPORARY oil is stupid.

  If too much water leaves, if the areas gets too nasty to attract tourists, we LOSE! And this isn't about being a repub or dem, it is just what makes sense! If you have a farm and you can grow crops that make you 10,000/yr, and you have a change to make 50,000 in ONE year, but then won't make diddly after.. well, what do you do after you use up the 50,000? That is 5 yrs worth of crops, and after it is gone, you are hosed.

  We can't suck up ALL the water, land, etc. for a TEMPORARY gain! They have NOT been able to return land back to the original state, shown over and over..

  Make money off the milk, or kill the cow and sell the meat. I would rather use the milk money, for a long time, than dead cow once.

  If they could show a SLOW rate of extraction, instead of come in, rape the land, and leave, that would be different.. sustainable, slow, not destructive.

  And fyi, it is not POSSIBLE for the USA to pump enough more oil to lower pricing.. most of the high prices are due to the POOR DOLLAR. The US D is worht half what it was.. that $3.60 gas is only $1.80 in pre stupidity pre bush $$. we could drill in every ocean, refuge, what have you and NOT dent world production enough to lower prices. really. ASk any economist. We need US smarts and knowhow making AMERICAN energy, with wind, water, geo thermal, solar. etc.

• May 27, 2008

  9:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SteveT writes:

  We all like the idea of preserving some untouched wilderness, but, do we really not need that much of it. I get all the wilderness I need by walking in the local park occasionally. The environmentalists are fighting a losing battle if they think they can replace fossil fuels in our lifetime. Does anyone really think a few Senators and Congressmen will be able to continue to stall the development of oil shale and our other fossil reserves while our economy starves waiting on windmills,wave machines solar batteries. When gasoline was $2 a gallon, we all adjusted, but now it has gone too high and is starting to substantially affect the price of everything else we consume. The environmentalist have had their day. Now, a reality check is upon us and they need to sit down and shut up for a while or we will all be in worse economic trouble than anyone can imagine. The Democratic base in this country is the working poor not the enviromnmental movement.The working poor like to eat a steak occasionally but lately we can only afford weiners. The price of gasoline is taking good food out of our mouths. The Democrats better reorder their priorities and pass a moratorium on environmental concerns or "off with their heads".

• May 28, 2008

  11:52 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ddaryll writes:

  There are many simplistic quotes and answers to a very complex problem posted here. It seems however, if your not in favor of someones idea, then your a whacko or a nutjob, or whatever deroggatory term fits your criteria. Truth is, oil is a finite resource, and its running out. Maybe in 50 years, maybe in 100 years, maybe in 1000 years, but it will run out. Therefore we need to develop alternatives. Trashing the ANWR or Colorado or elswhere and turning them into their own version of Northern NJ, doesn't seem to be an answer, just a bandaid. No bandaid looks good after a few days, so what else can we do? Alternative energy sources are growing and are becoming viable, but in the meantime, how about driving 55. Research shows an average 30% reduction in fuel usage by reducing speed from 75 to 55, yet most people are unwilling to give up that extra 5 minutes they gain on a trip by reducing speed. Perhaps gasoline and oil aren't expensive enough yet. But, given the way prices are rising, when winter comes and heating oil is beyond the cost of many "average" folks, maybe then people will begin to face the facts and actively try to conserve energy. I am dissappointed that shale oil recovery in Colorado is blocked for the time being, but even if there is 12 billion barrels of oil locked in the shale, oil is still going to run out. In the meantime, Drive 55, its a small thing, but everyone can do it. An overall 30% reduction in demand should have some effect.