Ritter, Salazar slam plan to set aside land for drilling
By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published September 4, 2008 at 4:18 p.m.
Matt McClain / The Rocky
The energy-rich Roan Plateau in western Colorado, seen behind a fence rail, has been targeted by the oil and gas industry.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story should have said that Sen. Ken Salazar is a Democrat who was born in the San Luis Valley but is now from Denver.
Gov. Bill Ritter and U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar denounced an Interior Department decision Thursday to set aside 1.9 million acres of public lands in the West, including 360,000 acres in Colorado, for commercial oil shale development.
Salazar, a Democrat who was born in the San Luis Valley but is now from Denver, called it a "continuing effort to set the stage for a last-minute fire sale of commercial oil shale leases in Colorado."
The Interior Department, which released its final environmental assessment Thursday, says commercial leasing of oil shale wouldn't occur before 2012, given that companies have yet to develop mature technologies.
Salazar, Ritter and others worry that the federal agency could hastily auction leases on the public lands in the final months of the Bush administration with inadequate review of the impact on the local communities or water.
"As the national debate over America's energy future continues, we must be clear that Colorado is committed to helping meet America's energy needs," Ritter said in a statement. "We are issuing about 35 new oil and gas drilling permits a day. But with the Department of Interior's action today, the federal government has once again failed to act as a responsible partner for Colorado."
He added, "The Bush administration is engaging in last-minute maneuvering in its waning days rather than developing a comprehensive, meaningful and responsible long-term energy policy for America's future."
Salazar had engineered a moratorium - to expire Sept. 30 - to keep Interior from issuing final rules for a lease auction. He cited concerns about the impact on the West's scant water and environment.
President Bush and congressional Republicans say lawmakers should lift the moratorium.
Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock containing organic matter from which oil may be produced, either through heat or a chemical process. The deposits under Colorado, Utah and Wyoming have about three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, according to the Interior Department.
Companies, including Royal Dutch Shell Plc, are exploring ways of getting oil products from the rock formations. The oil shale acreage in question lies in Garfield, Rio Blanco and Mesa counties.
"The goal of the BLM's oil shale program is to promote economically viable and environmentally sound production of oil shale on Western lands," said BLM Director Jim Caswell on Thursday. "We estimate deposits hold the equivalent of 800 billion barrels of oil - enough to meet U.S. demand for imported oil at current levels for 110 years."
The BLM is an arm of the Interior Department, which manages public lands for multiple uses, including energy development.
The department's final statement summarizes information on oil shale technologies and their environmental and socio- economic impacts. The next step before an auction could be held is for the BLM to issue a Record of Decision on Thursday's assessment before the end of 2008.
Earlier in July, the department issued proposed rules that included maximum lease size and acreage limitations, as well as royalty rate options. If Congress lifts the moratorium and the BLM is able to issue a Record of Decision on those proposed rules, then companies could potentially nominate lands for commercial oil shale leases, said BLM spokesman Matt Spangler.
But the agency would thoroughly vet any commercial proposal, which could take two to three years before leasing a parcel of public land, he said. "Nothing could stop companies (from nominating lands). But I don't think a company will nominate land without a viable technology."
chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976
Oil shale facts
* The United States holds the world's largest known concentration of oil shale. About three times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia underlie a surface area of 16,000 square miles. Proponents say the enormous potential of this domestic resource is a key to the nation's energy security and economic strength, and to the quality of life Americans enjoy today and hope to ensure for future generations.
* More than 70 percent of American oil shale - including the thickest and richest deposits - lies on federal land, primarily in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. These federal lands contain an estimated 1.23 trillion barrels of oil - more than 50 times the nation's proven conventional oil reserves.
* The BLM is conducting assessments on extracting federal oil shale reserves.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
September 5, 2008
12:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
This is getting old. Two Democrats who ran as "centrists" in Colorado trying to obstruct the responsible development of our energy resources. The Democratic party is beholden to environmental extremists. Make no mistake, neither Salazar nor Ritter will ever allow expanded development of our natural resources - NEVER! They'll claim they're all for it but just a few responsible extraction details need to be ironed out.
This is the same old tired excuse for not developing our nation's energy supply for the last thirty years. Nothing new here. What is new is because of Democrats like Ritter and Salazar hand-wringing over "just a few details" today we have $4 gas and record inflation all areas of the economy that depend on moving consumer goods from point A to point B - which means everything but real estate. Energy that we have in abundance in Colorado, Alaska and Florida sits in the ground while the Russians, Chinese and Cubans drill less than eighty miles from our coasts. But we can't drill seventy miles from our coasts! As if those ten miles make a difference to the environment. And do you really think the Chinese and Russians are as concerned with environmental hazards in drilling as we are?
Democrats would have you believe they can invent an as-yet non-existent technology, mass produce it and get it into the hands of consumers sooner than it takes to drill and extract oil and gas, something we've been doing for a century, and got pretty darn good at it.
And Democrats would have you believe that it's "greedy big oil" who's responsible for the high prices that energy shortages their obstructions have actually caused. They forget to say that the record profits "big oil" have generated are 1/5 of the record taxes on energy the federal government have generated.
This is the plain truth: Democrats, including "centrists" like Salazar and Ritter believe you prefer protecting snail darters, lining the pockets of countless hippies with compost piles and reading eternal environmental studies to being able to afford to go on vacations, dine out and buy inexpensive healthy food. It is a trade-off they want us to make, but since they know what we'd say if asked they pretend it's all "big oil's fault" for our quality of life going down because they won't drill!
September 5, 2008
7:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
jjfjules writes:
Salazar responded to a email from me that he believes wind is the answer. I wonder if he drives his cars and limos on wind power??
Hypocritical and not overly reality oriented. Wonder what he is on that keeps him so out of thouch with reality!!!
September 5, 2008
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
youme writes:
Please visit Govtrack.us to see Salazar's Congressional Record.
By the By please research at least a little to understand why the extraction of this oil from the shale is not even economically feasible at this time, even with $4 gas.
Ps I don't like Salazar either, he sold us out when he voted for the FISA bill.
September 5, 2008
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaggy writes:
This is why Ritter and Salazar will be one termers.
This is why Obama will not win.
Drill baby drill.
September 5, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
The Democratic Oil Blockade continues. The Democratic Oil Blockade is an immoral policy designed to create an artificial shortage of a vital resource. The results of the Democratic Oil Blockade are chaos in the travel, transportation, and manufacturing industries along with rising consumer prices. The Democratic Oil Blockade has devasted school budgets with high diesel prices for school buses.
Ritter should realize that oil shale is a vital part of the new energy economy. If the techniques are not economically viable, they will not be developed. Leases will not be purchased if private enterprises do not have confidence in the technology. Environmental rules will ensure that development meets reasonable environmental standards. The Democrats will not even consider environmental rules because they are obstructionists. They have delusions about a world without oil. Oil shale development is just like Sarah Palin: the worst nightmares for the left. Oil shale development has the potential to vitalize communities and bring lots of needed tax revenue as well as providing this country a domestic source of a vital resource. The world will need oil for a long time. Oil shale is a potential source of large amounts of oil. No other country would even consider stopping development of such a potential large oil reserve. The Democrats are alone in their delusions about a world without oil.
September 5, 2008
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
All this coming from a U.S. Senator who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and didn't even know who Gov. Palin was?
What a joke these two are!
September 5, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
This is news? Of course they "slam" it. These are two 1-term politicians with a combined IQ of 38. What would you expect from these morons?
September 5, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
Read the actual article. They know whats going on, Bush is going to push thru a bunch of sweetheart deals for his buddies before he gets pushed out of office at a much lower price that will screw Colorado. Its ridiculous that you need to lease land now for technology that is no where near ready. Prove they can do it responsibly first and then lease the land, it will benefit Colorado more than the low figures they are going to pay now when they dont know what it will take to use the property. Or here's an idea for you drill now crowd, why don't they drill on all the land they have leases for now? Crazy idea huh.
September 5, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
familyortiz writes:
All of you, excepting actualthinker, are displaying the ignorance that got us here in the first place... we need to also cut down our energy use, along with drilling. None of you drill freaks have mentioned that at all. In short, if you think you can drive alone in your huge gas guzzler, just because you want to, forget it. If Ritter and Salazar don't embrace drilling along with other measures like conservation, then I don't agree with them, but drilling blindly is like following bush blindly, into the iraq war. Ask someone who has lost a loved one over there. Same thing different issue. Wake up and think for yourself.
September 5, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
ActualThinker,
The reason for leasing the land is to provide assurances that leases will be available if the technology is successful. Without assurances about leases, technology development will be impeded. Ritter and Salazar want to stop development. Thus, they are against leases. I suspect that you want to stop development also.
Oil shale development will bring a boom to Colorado and the country. Your assertion that oil shale development will screw Colorado is ridiculous. Increased job creation and tax revenues will flow to Colorado with development performed with reasonable environmental standards. The oil will lower energy prices and provide a secure source of a vital resource for the entire country.
September 5, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
Ritter and Salazar would rather spend years doing nothing under the disguise of being, "comprehensive, meaningful and responsible." It's always interesting that those who call themselves "progressive" like the democrats work so hard to stop progress rather than solve problems with action.
September 5, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
Mikeyg - just read your excellent post and agree with you. It's always those "few details" they use to delay real progress, unless or until they can manuever themselves to take the credit!
September 5, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
mmammino- We do need to get off drilling, even if we drill all the oil we have, magically solve oil shale development, etc. we are still going to run out. Why not deal with it now, we have the technology a lot more developed for renewable energy than we do for oil shale.
That said I am not completely against drilling, if we could do it and get off of Saudi oil while we set up a renewable infrastructure I'd be all for it. But shale is a pie in the sky right now its no where near what you claim. So let me ask you this you have two pieces of land, one has guaranteed oil on it and the other might have oil on it, which one gets more money?? You know the answer, its the same thing with Shale, these companies aren't going to pay top dollar for something they MIGHT be able to develop in 10-15 years. So while they research the technology let it sit and if/when they figure it out, guess what? That land just got a whole lot more valuable and Colorado benefited a whole lot more. If oil companies were that committed to America they wouldnt be exporting American oil now and they would be drilling in all the places they have permission too, I cant believe how many people are falling for this stuff.
September 5, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
glassguy writes:
Hey Mikey, do you not believe in responsible drilling, or at least the facts. Or, from the tone in your post, you are the same opinion as your buddy Georgie, who cares what harm it cause to the environment and the Colorado landscape. Next time raise your hand before you speak junior, you may go out to recess now so that the adults can talk.
September 5, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
patchsl writes:
News flash to all nay-sayers: Canada is extracting oil from shale north of Calgary - and selling it to us.... when are we going to wake up and smell the oil.... errrr... coffee?
September 5, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, drill, drill, drill. It won't hurt the environment, why, just look at Louisiana with its eroding wetlands that make what used to be bad hurricanes into immensely destructive hurricanes. Places were I used to be fishing in bay waters are now Gulf waters, and way out in the Gulf. There is no way I'd trust oil and gas developers to take care of the Colorado environment, any more than we should have trusted oil and gas developers to care about our coastline.
September 5, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
ActualThinker,
If I could get the land that "might" have oil on it at a lower cost, I might take that risk now, as it would encourage me to speed the development of technology to explore and develop that resource. The costs of the land are part of the business costs just like developing the technology. You have to add the two together. If the costs of the land are too high once they have the technology to develop the resource, then development is still delayed at that point until the price paid for the product increases further. These resource companies, including mining and oil, must be able to stomach a lot of risk in their business. Besides the gamble involved in finding the resources at the right cost, these companies know they will have to overcome high taxes on businesses and extremely onerous regulations in the US. It's easy to see why they take their chances in other countries where, if they can make all the pieces work together on the resource side, they get to keep more of their profits. It's all a delicate balance. I am all for protecting our environment, water quality & air quality, and we have the technology to do so. Let's allow these companies to invest in the US.
September 5, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
Now there's an ironic statement from ToeNee. I grew up in the oil patch, and one thing I noticed is that many of the "drill drill drill" people are the same ones whose knee-jerk reaction to anything is to attack. And let's look to Iraq to see how well that worked. If you really want energy independence, why would you not invest in alternatives? It's still a ground-floor investment with loads of growth potential, whereas oil exploration is well past its peak. Why further our addiction? It's like a heroin addict saying he can kick the habit and become independent by processing opium. Gimme a break.
September 5, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
glassguy writes:
Hey toenee,
Take that "Toe" and stick it in your mouth. When big oil is done ravaging our environment because they don't want to be responsible, let's run you down, with your homicidal right. And by the way, it is INDEPENDENCE, if you can't spell it then you don't need it. Bonehead.
September 5, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
The very same conservative hunter/conservationist base that has provided key political support for the Republicans are now cast as the 'enviro extremist" by that party. The "Drill Here/Drill Now" campaign quickly diverts attention to OFFSHORE efforts in an attempt to steer clear of the very real harmful impacts to land management.
Back on land- it is a position of Democrats (see "Sportsmen for Obama" site) to acommodate responsible energy development on the public land estates.
(Glad I live in Florida with millions of acres of public/hunt lands not under such pressure!)
September 5, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Homer_J writes:
Oil shale is the next economic boom for Colorado
Vote Ritter and Salazar out!
September 5, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
chickenlittle1234 writes:
If so, Homer, then it will be followed by a bust along the lines experienced back in the 70s, AND it will leave scars on our environment that will take centuries to heal. D'oh!
September 5, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
I think what the Democrats are trying to say is, let's take the money from "Big Oil", aka George's buddies, and give it to our own buddies who have yet to figure out alternatives that are viable and cost effective. I would think the Democrats would be in favor of drill, drill, drill so we can more quickly deplete the world supply of oil. Then their buddies can get rich off the alternatives that, when compared to petroleum at this point, just are not yet economically viable.
In all seriousness, though, both drilling now and supporting other energy alternatives must co-exist, and McCain outlined clearly his plans to do both. But the Democrats should stop pretending that their ideas are righteous, as their ideas are still all about the almighty dollar.
September 5, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
familyortiz writes:
Toenee,
It is the many like you that are getting in the way of energy independence, due to your lack of any comprehensive solution for this. Your extremism and of those rightwingers you support, is the reason why Ritter/Salazar were voted in, in the first place. Fortunately most Americans are not that stupid... we wil find a good solution that involves all options, including conservation and yes, drilling. The proof of this will be the result of the election this Fall, when Obama gets voted in.
September 5, 2008
12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
familyortiz writes:
ArvadaMiner,
You say "almighty dollar" but infer that mccain's ideas not about that. That's quite a paradox and I would rather believe everything in this country is about the almighty dollar. History proves that.
September 5, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
ArvadaMiner writes:
familyortiz,
It is safe and fair to say that both party's ideas are about the almighty dollar, and I will not pretend otherwise. When they talk about prosperity, they are talking about money.
September 5, 2008
12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
glassguy writes:
MinerMiner 49er,
Whoever said the dems. ideas were righteous. Do you feel that being responsible and getting ALL the facts about the environment, landscape,etc.. is righteous, then so be it. The GOP didn't even have an idea since that joke of a pres. has run this country into the crapper. The worst president in history, and the almighty dollar has gone down with him.
September 5, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
"We estimate deposits hold the equivalent of 800 billion barrels of oil - enough to meet U.S. demand for imported oil at current levels for 110 years."
What do Ritter and Salazar care? These guys are millionaires! If gas goes to $10/gallon they won't feel it one bit. You can bet their limos won't go dry.
September 5, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fred1 writes:
Okay, give everyone in College a "B" and graduate them all. There, you are now a democrat!
September 5, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
not2serious writes:
It seems to me that this story reflects how both Ritter and Salazar are doing their jobs by looking out for Colorado's state rights and best interests. It seems like the Republicans view the solution to the high cost of gas as just finding more, no matter who, what, or where getting it from might get screwed. The Democrats, it seems to me, seem to take the view that the solution is to find ways to stop making oil so important an energy source in the first place. Regardless of your politics, if you have a problem with Gov. Ritter and Sen. Salazar trying to protect the best interests of the State of Colorado, move to Alaska, and drill all you want.
September 5, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
To my Democrat friends: I can make you open your eyes, but I can't make you see.
If I were to accept your premise that drilling just feeds our "energy addiction" (as if the fuel that makes us an economic powerhouse is evil) and we should only allow "investment" in as-yet undiscovered or cost-prohibitive new energy sources NOT derived from fossil fuels or splitting the atom...will you encourage Democratic candidates to get in front of voters and tell them that the economic pain we're feeling today from $4 gas and hyperinflation in our grocery bills is just necessary short-term pain for long-term gain? You know, under your argument, the economic pain they're feeling is just bad tasting medicine that will heal a sick patient before she recovers.
Just be honest with voters about the kind of trade-offs in their family budgets you're asking them to make, and quit demagoging "Big Oil" as the culprit when it's your centralized government command economy policies to blame. In case you've forgotten the Soviet Union and China tried to force society-changing preferred industries on their people for a half-century, to economic ruin. Maybe you honestly think that in this case you CAN force a proverbial square peg in a round hole, but is the resulting collapse of our economy as a result news?
September 5, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
oil shale technology- No where near being developed
Wind energy- Developed and working
Solar energy- Developed and working
Geothermal energy is even more developed than oil shale.
We can have a boom in Colorado using renewable energy a long way before we can have an oil shale boom. How are we suppossed to have an oil shale boom when the technology isn't ready yet? And for the record Obama has said he will compromise on allowing drilling for the bill that also invests heavily in renewable energy. Its not that big oil is bad, the margins they make are low, its that we need to get off of something that's going away. At this point I'd love to see us drill everything so you can see it wont do anything to what you pay in gas.
September 5, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
Wind, solar and geothermal energy - how do you get it from remote rural land to the consumer? Democrats block building new transmission lines because of environmental protection, animal protection and safety from overhead lines-causing cancer fears. Streamline environmental impact study clearance and get right-of-way concessions and give utility companies immunity from lawsuits for building the lines and THEN you can get these energy sources on the grid (unlikely to do under Democrats who are beholden to radical enviros and trial lawyers). Next problem is getting 200 million cars, 100 million trucks, thousands of trains and planes to run on electricity. Easy to do for wealthy "haves" who buy new cars every three years, but what about the "have nots" who regularly drive ten to twenty year old vehicles?
Democrats would probably opt to give everyone vouchers or tax credits for new electric cars, but do they realize how expensive that would be? For passenger cars that'd cost $6 TRILLION for a modest $30,000 electric car. Then add the cost of new trucks, trains and planes on top of that! Oh yeah, almost forgot about adding the cost of changing over gas stations to electricity stations. I can't say with certainty what the grand total would be, but it'd probably exceed $15 TRILLION. Our total federal budget this year was only $2.7 trillion, that's for the military, medicare, medicaid, social security, education, federal salaries, bridges to nowhere, everything! Nice solution to imagine in university classrooms, where everything is possible with no cost attached. Impractical in the real world.
Oil shale - it's being extracted in the Canadian Rockies today.
Ritter, Salazar, Obama, Pelois, Reed and the Democrats are tragically wrong on our energy supply. They just need to be honest with the American public that they prefer high energy costs for existing fossil fuels as a means of reducing consumption and carbon emissions. And these "do as I say, not as I do" Democrats like Al Gore and John Edwards think the pain we're all feeling around our dinning room tables from the economic crisis is a small price to pay for a future carbon-less environment. But they'd rather demagogue "big oil" as a scapegoat for their failed policies.
This is an artificial and intentionally created economic crisis, manufactured by Democrats trying to shove a major centralized government command economy decision down our throats while they pick-pocket our wallets to pay for it.
September 5, 2008
3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
glassguy writes:
To Mr.Mike,
I can talk all I want, but I can't make you listen. That square peg has already been shoved into that round hole by the current administration, along with that 4$ a gallon gas, higher prices, etc.. You are off task here. Responsible drilling MIGHT be the answer, but without viable technology, who is to say? I don't know about the pain THEY are feeling, I just know my own and it really stinks. Obama did touch on drilling but also on renewable energy, whether I can believe that or not remains to be seen. Something needs to happen, not for the sake of the short-term but for the survival of this country.
September 5, 2008
3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
glassguy - touche!
Just try to understand that Republicans are campaigning on putting EVERYTHING on the table. Democrats have been the obstructionists for decades, and used the filibuster to prevent the development of the proven energy our nation has been blessed with when they were in the minority, so you can't blame the R's for not doing it when they ran things.
Obama talks about being open to drilling, but he's not exactly prevailing upon his Senate leader Reid or House leader Peloisi to even allow a vote that clearly opens up drilling. You'd think as their standard-bearer both would do whatever he wanted to help get him elected president if he asked.
Republicans are committed to developing new energy technologies like fuel cells that run on air and emit water. And we are open to new technologies being invented that we can't even imagine. The problem is in the ramp-up time from invention to mass production to revamping our national energy infrastructure to mass consumption of new technologies. It's a fantastically and enormously expensive proposition that will and must take time to cross over to. Extracting oil and natural gas provides a bridge during the cross over. The transition from whale oil to crude took three decades in a much less energy dependent 19th century economy. We have the bridge here in America under our feet and under our seas. But Democrats won't let us use it, preferring to wave a magic wand and then burying their heads in the sand while Americans lose their jobs and homes as a result.
September 5, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
Oil shale is being done in canada, its possible there, not here, read up or try and keep with me and i'll summarize it the best I can.
The only places Oil shale can be produced now is in place surrounded by ice. This is because you have to extract the oil from the shale by heating it up and turning it liquid. To do this causes the oil to run everywhere which is the environmental disaster people keep alluding too. However in places like the Canadian Rockies they can heat up the middle and allow the natural ice on each side to keep it from spreading everywhere before they can pump it out. The most promising way to do this in the Colorado Rockies which are not covered in ice is actually injecting water in to each side of the development and then freezing it to keep the heated oil from spreading. This technology is no where near ready and you can see the risks involved environmentally when ice holding something heated is your main protection from a disaster.
You should also note while talking up Canadian shale development that this current method of extraction actually COSTS MORE to produce a barrel of oil than they even sell for currently.
So to recap: Shale technology currently not available. The technology that could work costs more to produce oil than any other method. Oil companies didnt get rich by being dumb, they have a president who works for them now. They aren't going to pay anything big while the technology isn't there and they are developing technology anyway (even in colorado they do have leases they are researching and experimenting with). So wait until this is affordable and oil companies have a better need and lower risk for this land and they will pay for it. It would be a shame if Colorado gave all that land away and received little back for it.
September 5, 2008
3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
While I categorically disagree with your analysis, for the sake of this debate if I concede the point exactly what new energy technology exists that can deliver energy to Americans today, cheaper?
Please refer back to my post on the costs of changing over our entire economy's infrastructure to accommodate your suggestion - they are real world consequences of moving away from fossil fuels that can't possibly occur faster than extracting fossil fuels..
September 5, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
Sure Mikey. The costs are an issue under your post but I don't think it has to be that severe.
1)You can NOW make almost any type of car a hybrid. Or companies like VW have tdi diesel technology that is both extremely clean and extremely efficient. Cars could be more fuel efficient yesterday with much much smaller rebates needed to offset the cost than the ones you proposed.
2)Electric cars are expensive because they aren't mass produced. Mass produce them and their price goes down considerably. There are less moving parts than a typical engine, a less complicated one could be made for well under the $30K mark. Now next time you are driving on the road look at how many cars around you are less than a few years old? Not everyone can afford them but a lot of people can. So say you start producing these as the only type of car in three years with models to fit every category. This would take some work but is no where near not possible. What's our gas intake like then in five years? Ten years? You dont have to force EVERYONE to buy new cars to make an enormous dent in our oil consumption.
September 5, 2008
5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
infidel91 writes:
Don't look now, but we can't develop solar power, either. Not good for desert ecosystems . . .
http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=1071
I think we're all going to have to switch to bicycles and candlelight.
September 5, 2008
5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
Thinker, this is a good dialogue, absent the usual insults and personal attacks.
First off, diesel is a buck a gallon more expensive than gasoline today. This is due to the latest refining requirements to make diesel less polluting. Before the new blends were mandated diesel was much cheaper than gas.
Mass production isn't going to bring down the costs of electric vehicles substantially. Especially to get them to the point where they can viably compete with gas. With gas you can pour in 16 gallons in 3 minutes and go 400 miles, then stop, repeat, go another 400. There's not a single electric vehicle design yet that allows drivers to move around like that. It just takes a long time to charge batteries, and as we've found out with cell phone batteries when you power charge batteries you reduce their capacity to hold charges. This is not an insignificant challenge to overcome. Electric car advocates tell us that MOST people don't travel long distances and it won't be a problem. Truth is everyone travels long distances, but only once in awhile. But for that once in awhile drivers will not want limits to their journeys.
Lastly, yes, many folks, especially the "haves" are able to buy new cars every three or five years. But the greatest hardship of the transition to new technologies will be borne by the "have nots". Again, the Democrats solution would be to give tax credits or vouchers to these lower income folks. But that, still will be terribly expensive. As will rebuilding our infrastructure cost the fortune of 95% of another nation's total worth. And that cost will not be absorbed by "business". They'll pass it through to consumers - or if the government does it, will tax us handsomely for.
Point is fossil fuels are a necessary energy source for this time of transition - just as a whale oil economy took 3 decades to transition into crude-based. My problem with Democrats is they think the laws of an economy can be wished into existence with the blink of an eye and the twitch of a nose. Their energy plan is not based in reality.
September 5, 2008
7:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Ritter says we issue 35 permits a day but Salazar has "poineered" a moritorium? Which is it? Could it be that the "permits" being issued are for land with no viable resources?
September 5, 2008
7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Old technology for getting the oil shale is BAD, IF we extract the oil shale we better have a better method.
September 5, 2008
8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
glass guy; What facts have you offered? You have offered nothing but rhetoric and name calling while the people you want to attack have offered some substance; you have no credibility!
Are you concerned that the Middle East doesn’t give sh1t about the environment? Nor does China or Russia! That doesn't mean that since we need to drill for more oil supply that we shouldn't do it responsibly, we can drill AND create better alternative fuels, not sure it will provide your keyboard though; now can YOU respond like an adult?
September 6, 2008
8:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
paulfinger writes:
Our country is so wealthy and capable. Is it not time for a "Silicon Valley" scale initiative to develop pollution-free renewable energy sources (e.g. wind,solar, geothermal, tidal) before we destroy the most beautiful, open unspoiled areas in our country? The United States should take the lead in development of alternative sources and sell this technology to the rest of the world (as they run out of oil). Such an initiative would create excellent high-tech US jobs and preserve our environment.
September 8, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
SayWhat32 writes:
Bunch of republicans commenting on this! It is the old policies we have to get from behind. We need to look to new cleaner technologies. Bush and McCain are out of touch! They are the generation that got the USA in this mess! We could have had wind, solar and other clean energy if we did not have money hungry repulicans catering to there buddies. It started with Regan in the early 80's...we had policies set up back to make cars more feul efficient. Look people wize up!!!!! We are being bullied by big money interest groups that are only worried about there profit margin.
September 9, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jessie writes:
Mikeyg, how lovely it would be if we could just find a solution to this high-priced-gasoline-thing… if we could just find a large source of less-expensive oil, then we could get back to our lives: going “on vacations, din(ing) out and buy(ing) inexpensive healthy food.” We wouldn’t have to worry about adjusting our production processes to ensure healthy affordable food, reassessing our taxing structures to provide homeland security, restructuring our modes of transportation and the communities dependent upon them … we could just continue swallowing pills to supplement our reduced quality food, cut public funding for needed public services, and throw away the products that are damaged or outdated as they travel from point A to point B.
As if the Chinese and the Russians have such a clean air and water and high quality of life that we should emulate their lack of concern for their environment! That’s a great argument for not learning from the mistakes of the past ! Our past.
Just what is “responsible development” in your mind, anyway? Clear the land and then worry about the resulting erosion? Fertilize and spread pesticides and then worry about finding clean drinking water? Mine the gold and silver from them thar hills, and worry about the leaching arsenic and other chemicals later? Exterminate the bees and then worry about the balance of nature? Drill within spitting distance of our coasts, and then pay for the cleanup of the inevitable Exxon Valdiz event?
What planet are you living on? No one said life was easy. But the intelligent person doesn’t live with his head buried in the sand (or oil as the case may be).