Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Home › Business › Energy

Senate panel retains oil-shale moratorium

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

Published May 15, 2008 at 3:20 p.m.
Updated May 15, 2008 at 3:21 p.m.

Text size  
Gov. Bill Ritter, left, and Assistant Interior Secretary C. Stephen Allred testify today on oil-shale resources before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in Washington.

Photo by Pablo Martinez Monsivais, Associated Press

Gov. Bill Ritter, left, and Assistant Interior Secretary C. Stephen Allred testify today on oil-shale resources before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in Washington.

More Energy

More stories »

The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado.

It was a big day for Colorado energy issues on Capitol Hill as Gov. Bill Ritter testified before a senate committee asking lawmakers to move cautiously on oil-shale development until more is known about the environmental impact and other issues.

Meanwhile downstairs, the appropriations committee was considering a massive Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill. Allard, a member of the committee, attempted to insert an amendment that would reverse the moratorium that lawmakers approved late last year.

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.

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

But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.

One of the key votes was from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said Sen. Ken Salazar had urged her to reject the amendment even though she personally thinks the moratorium on oil-shale development is unjust.

Landrieu vowed to try to lift the moratorium when the large appropriations bill reaches the floor of the U.S. Senate in coming weeks.

Comments

  • May 15, 2008

    3:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DeimosJB writes:

    Ok, so the Senate voted to stop putting oil into the strategic reserve (20,000 barrels a day), but they won't turn on 1 million barrels of oil a day by opening a 2,000 acre portion of the 19 Million acre ANWR (which represents 0.00001 of the total ANWR area for math-averse people). They won't allow oil shale recovery in Colo (800 billion barrels - 3 times the supply of Saudi Arabia, according to CNN), and will not allow drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (100 -200 miles offshore; 3 Billion - 15 Billion barrels of oil, according to wide-ranging Associated Press estimates. Also note that China, among other countries, are already drilling there, so the whole "pristine environment" argument goes out the window).
    An illogical sequence of events? Absolutely. Noting that this vote was strictly along party lines with a 14-15 split, I’ll give you one guess as to why the majority party of congress would want to choke off oil, the life-blood of our economy, and it has everything to do with generating certain economic results to facilitate the desired results on a certain Tuesday in November.

  • May 15, 2008

    4:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    bxwatso writes:

    There is shale oil in other states and Canada, which can be extracted. All the Dems did was to force new jobs out of CO. Thanks for that, Ken, you moderate.

  • May 15, 2008

    4:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    infidel91 writes:

    Well, Big_D, if practical recovery of oil from oil shale in Colorado is doomed before it begins, then there won't be any harm in lifting the moratorium, will there? Just some "big corporations" losing money, right?

  • May 15, 2008

    5:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jackson_foi writes:

    The good news here is that our politicians have joined the very exclusive group of NIMYers and will probably get an extra helping of fudge after dinner.

  • May 15, 2008

    7:20 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ender writes:

    slazar isn't concerned about Colorado, slazar is just concerned with his Political future, (hey he's teddie's boy). Sometimes you get what you buy, and Colorado bought a lemon.

  • May 15, 2008

    9:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dillard writes:

    "If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued. Oil shale, like ethanol from corn, is a net energy loss. The technology may be almost ready but we need to build a couple of large power plants and move a couple of rivers to supply the necessary water. If I remember correctly, you have to heat shale to around 700 degrees to extract the kerogen, the you have to refine that to get the crude. Hydrogen fuel cells should be available before shale becomes cost effective.

    outrider: "gets your ammo ready...." Should we also breaks out the bullet proof vest or is this just some more macho wind blowing across the plains.Actually, I would love to be right in the middle of a good old fashioned reveloution.

  • May 16, 2008

    9:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rwmorrisonjr writes:

    I'm with outrider on this one, might be a little tense at the pumps and stores by next summer.

  • May 16, 2008

    9:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    infidel91 writes:

    Dillard --

    Perhaps the energy companies will read your post and decide to abandon the obvious money pit that is oil shale, in which case there's no harm in lifting the moratorium.

    Or they know something you don't, and they *can* economically extract petroleum from this stuff, in which case, we should lift the moratorium.

    P.S. Refineries already heat crude oil to 500-600 degrees to separate its components, so what's the big deal about heating shale to 700?

  • May 27, 2008

    2:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rielly01 writes:

    It's to bad Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La, didn't have the gumption to believe in her own principals and vote the way she intended on this important issue. This seems to be the same story for most the Dems in Congress sheeply following what they are told to do regardless of their constiuants choices that elected them in the first place.
    The enviornmentalist have us exactly where they want us now and in the future. Better start learning to ride your bicycle 30 to 50 miles a day to work like the people in China. Only the super rich will be able to run around in their cars, unless some of these ridicules laws are changed.

  • May 27, 2008

    3:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    vspeck writes:

    I agree with rielly01. It is a sad day in America when we cannot stand on our own two feet and be free. Sen. Mary Landrieu did not get to where she is today by following sheepishly what others say or encourage, so why start now?

  • May 31, 2008

    2:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    thomas43615 writes:

    You sound so shocked or disappointed that Mary Landrieu voted against American energy independence and new American jobs in the energy sector.

    SHE's A DEMOCRAT!!! WHAT DID YOU EXPECT!!!

  • June 18, 2008

    9:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    GRTHUMPER writes:

    Their is no profit for the dems in backing energy independence. Like carnival ministers, one hand on the head while reaching for the your wallet. This constant Darwin style approch to policy and leadership leaves little doubt about their real feelings. Being a bad steward of your own back yard is just wrong.