County Commissioners Protecting America's Natural Resources 

  HOME    ABOUT US    NEWS & EVENTS   ADVICE TO ADVOCATES    CONTACTS    NEWSLETTER    JOIN  

Oil Shale

You probably know that underlying Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, the oil shale deposits of the Green River formation are currently generating substantial attention.  And you probably know that, today, some people are heralding oil shale as the cure-all for our energy woes.  Do you also know that commercial production of oil shale will consume much of the water in the Colorado River, increase the impact of climate change, damage community stability and a rural way of life, and affect wildlife across public lands in multiple states?

Oil shale sample

Over the last century, the West has seen oil shale booms and busts come and go.  The most recent bust occurred in 1982 when Exxon closed its Colony Oils Shale Project overnight in Garfield County, Colorado, putting thousands out of work and wreaking havoc on local economies. 

The oil shale refining process requires a tremendous volume of energy to heat the earth to more than 700 degrees Fahrenheit  to produce the oil. At production levels forecast by the BLM, the region would likely need to find space for ten new coal-fired power generating stations totaling nearly 12 gigawatts —more power than is currently being generated by utilities in all of Colorado —all of which would be dedicated strictly to oil shale production and all of which increase climate change.

Local community leaders have underscored the importance of addressing the availability of sufficient quantities of water before an oil shale industry would ever be able to take hold in the arid region. “The department [of Energy] estimates that every barrel of oil shale produced could take up to three barrels of water for processing,” said Pima County AZ Supervisor Sharon Bronson in the Arizona Daily Star.

The Governors of Colorado and Wyoming joined by the Public Lands and Parks Director of Utah and the largest agricultural and municipal water provider in Colorado have all raised serious concerns about whether there is sufficient water available—let alone available water rights—to support this industry.  Even if there is, the economic hardship caused by displacing other water users—including agricultural, residential and industrial—also needs to be addressed.  As Colorado Governor Bill Ritter wrote to the BLM, “Colorado is very mindful of the potential impacts of oil shale development on Colorado’s water resources...If oil shale were to consume vast quantities of water, there would be corresponding impacts to the State’s agricultural, recreational, and other energy sectors.”

Additionally, fuels derived from oil shale are often called “dirty fuels” because of the pollution it creates. Researchers at the University of California have found that oil shale would result in between 21 to 47 percent and 50 to 60 percent more global warming pollution than conventional oil and gasoline, depending on how it is produced.  With our country poised to cap the emission of carbon, this is a challenge that must be addressed before commercial production can commence. As California’s Attorney General concluded, “In sum, the GHG emissions from oil shale and tar sands leasing on almost 2.5 million acres of federal land constitutes a significant cumulative impact on the environment.”

Moreover, there are serious concerns about the impacts on communities and local economies. The 1980s bust devastated the region’s economy and local elected leaders are concerned that proceeding too quickly toward commercial production could end in the same catastrophic results. As the Mountain Mayors recently observed, “A recent report commissioned by the Associated Governments of Western Colorado (www.agwc.org) found that current energy development (natural gas) already strains local governments’ ability to provide important infrastructure needs, including emergency response, schools, and health facilities and that additional oil shale development would increase these demands.”

BLM is overseeing a research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program on federal lands aimed at addressing these known technological barriers. At present, despite considerable investments in RD&D, companies remain years away from establishing the economic viability, technical efficiency, and environmental performance of the technologies that would make oil shale development economically viable and environmentally sustainable. As Exxon Mobil spokesman Patrick McGinnis told The Denver Post on March 19, 2009, “It will be decades before oil-shale development is viable.” The Department of the Interior concurred, noting in Federal Register that, “Currently, there is no oil shale industry and the oil shale extractive technology is still in its rudimentary stages; as such, commercial oil shale production does not exist anywhere in the world.”

In the midnight hours of the Bush Administration, the Department of the Interior initiated a second round of research and development leases. This action was taken even though RD&D on the six federal leases already in effect has yet to commence, and companies have at their disposal hundreds of thousands of acres of privately-held oil shale lands .

The Obama administration put a temporary stop to this second round by opening a public comment period seeking input on how additional oil shale research activities should be structured. Substantial public resources are already in the hands of companies with nothing to show for this commitment of resources. Oil shale has proven to be a speculative industry time and again – with significant technological and environmental obstacles to overcome. Now is not the time to turn over additional federal resources to oil companies.  

For more information, visit The Wilderness Society's website.

HOME

Masthead photo credits: Rolf Sklar, Curtis J. Carley FWS, NOAA