Posted 6 days, 6 hours ago in 
Loading ...
On May 1, Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard and New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, introduced a bill that would repeal a one-year moratorium on approval of final regulations for commercial oil-shale leases on federal land. The senators see the bill as an immediate answer to our high fuel prices, yet the BLM doesn’t expect commercial oil-shale development to begin for at least 10 years.
There is no need to repeal the moratorium placed upon the federal oil shale leasing program. The moratorium went into effect due to a lack of proven technology, and it remains the case today. Energy companies just want to tie-up thousands of publicly owned acres as oil prices continue to escalate.
Little does the public know, but energy companies already own over 2 million acres of oil-shale lands across the West. This raises a very serious question concerning appropriation of public assets for private gain.
We the public, must demand that our government maintain the funding moratorium until all costs and benefits associated with oil shale production are known. Only after diligent analysis and discussion, should we begin to think about leasing public oil shale lands. Until then, let us keep our public assets in the lock box.
DALE REED
Montrose
29 Responses to “Public must demand continuation of oil-shale moratorium”
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So Dale, I guess your saying it does not matter how high gas prices go or does not matter whether we want to rid ourselves of mideast oil.
I say full speed ahead and while we are at it lets get a fire burning under BLM and have full scale production in 5 years.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree with Dale. There are two–at least–big issues that aren’t even close to being settled: 1)the probability of huge electricity needs and many new generating plants to be fueled by, what, coal, natural gas? At the moment coal, particularly, and it’s emmissions are questionable. 2) the probability that huge quanities of water will be needed. Water is already a precious resource in the west because of demand versus supply issues, and it’s not going to get any better in the future. With 2 million acres already set aside for development the pressure to do something with them will be enormous. Leasing even more land will increase that pressure. Look what happened before. And that determination to quit was based on non-economic production considering the cost and availability of oil, but more importantly, crude technology that would have made our western lands look like the strip mining areas of the Appalachians.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 12:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is silly to even talk about shale oil when we have oil resources in Alaska and off shore that are much easier and cheaper to develop. I see where our Democratic senators are threatening Saudi Arabia that we will not sell them weapons unless they increase their oil production. I guess these senators figure it is better ot get oil from the Arabs than produce it in the US. What a bunch of clowns!
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 1:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t think it is clownish to pressure Saudi Arabia, who supposely is an ally, to produce more oil. We’ll never be able to drill enough anywhere for self sufficency, or even close to it. We’ll always be buying some quantity of oil from somebody. If we can get aditional Saudi oil it will be a whole lot cheaper than anything we can produce–ever–and certainly anytime soon. The key is to not have to rely them, not to discontinue buying from them , period. It would be nice if we could break up OPEC somehow, then we’d really have leverage over Saudis. They need us to protect them from Iran and we need their oil, and alway will. Then maybe we’d have a genuine partnership.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 2:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We could alway invade Mexico and take their oil reserves.
It’s closer and the pipelines North could follow the current illegal alien trails because they are safe from discovery.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, it is hard to take seriously a Senator who talks about energy independence, denies the US the right to use its own resources, and urges an Arab country to provide us with theirs. Had we drilled in Anwar years ago, we would already be producing enough to do away with Saudi imports. Nothing happens in this country until we have an emergency. Maybe when someone over there blocks the Persian Gulf, and oil goes to $300 or $1000 a barrel, we’ll get motivated to drill for our own oil while we develop alternatives.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 2:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We can drill our way to independence!
If only the obstructionist party would let us drill off both coasts, the Great Lakes, ANWR, build a few refineries, throw in oil shale throught the west and the saudis would be begging us to buy their oil.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Problem is, Saudi Arabia is no longer a “swing producer” so they’re unable to twist the valve any further and dump more crude on the market for the USA to waste. All of their giant fields are in serious production decline mode, and they are one of the least transparent nations in terms of accurate reserve & production reporting. Sure, it’s in the Saudi’s interest to keep us addicted as long as possible, but China is right there also, cutting supply deals right and left in the Middle East.
Oil shale is absolutely the wrong direction, and the brakes needed to be applied hard and fast on that idea. Take a look at the damage Alberta is sustaining by excavation of oil sands, and then consider that we’ve not even cleaned up the mess that resulted from the last small oil shale “boom” (think Anvil Points [our tax dollars still at work], thousands of tons of Unocal’s arsenic-laced spent shale sitting up Parachute Creek way, etc. etc.). As Randy Udall astutely notes: ton for ton, the energy (Btu) content is greater in baked potatoes, Captain Crunch or old phone books as compared to oil shale.
Energy supply is of huge concern, and the most urgent issue we face right now: just wait until the supply shortages (or rationing) begins. Remember the saying used in New Orleans after Katrina hit, “Anarchy is two missed meals away from Civilization.” Talk about the potential for complete chaos and social disorder in the USA.
Our only salvation is increasing energy efficiencies (in power generation, building construction, and all forms of transportation), rapid development of sustainable alternative energy sources, leaving oil in the ground, and most importantly, quickly ridding ourselves of the notion that our car culture and suburban lifestyles (all created & centered around cheap energy supplies) can be sustained for a minute longer.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. I say I am right you say you are right.
Glad we got that settled!
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey Nigel, there was a utopia of the type you describe. It was in Afghanistan before 911. Just kidding (a little) Nigel.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well , good point – I’m willing to bet that Afghanistan was a fascinating place pre-1978, before the Soviets waltzed in with tanks & troops & big attitude. The place was considered by many to be the cultural center of Asia at the time.
Then, those nasty Taliban took control (funded & trained & armed by Uncle Sam, of course). Things sort of fell apart after that. Funny how all things are connected. Never know who your future enemies might be, especially when you’re gladly lining their pockets by purchasing cheap plastic crap or crude oil (read: China & Saudi Arabia).
Maybe I’ll just start a potato farm in Bhutan, and try to live peacefully.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Everyone - Really heartened to see everyone seems to be trying hard to elevate the civility of comments to a reasonably acceptable level. However, Bullishfrog, your comment about all Democratic Senators being clowns is about as insightful as calling all Republican Senators right-wing fascist pigs (which most of them are, but that’s beside the point). Also, Bullishfrog, latest INDUSTRY calculations indicate that the entire Anwar field, if drilled to the maximum, would provide only enough oil to supply our current national need (at current consumption levels) for a maximum of 10 weeks, that’s right, 10 weeks!
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Proteus, to look at Anwar and say it would only provide 10 weeks worth of oil is foolish. By your standards, there would not be a single oil field in the world worth drilling. The field would pump 1.6 million barrels a day for 10 years which is more than we get from Saudi Arabia.
As to the clowns, this is from today’s Wll Street Journal (I”m sure you consider that periodical a fascist publication:
Speaking of energy (see here), we can’t help but give more attention to a recent press release from some of the Senate’s leading liberals. Charles Schumer, Byron Dorgan, Bernie Sanders, Bob Casey and Mary Landrieu are demanding that President Bush tell OPEC nations to increase their oil supplies or risk losing arms deals with the United States. The Senators say U.S. consumers need the price relief that only increased oil production can bring.
Yes, that Senator Schumer and that Senator Dorgan, both of whom voted against increasing U.S. oil production because they couldn’t abide drilling across 1% of Alaska’s wilderness. Yes, that Senator Casey, who has called for mandatory reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. At least Senator Landrieu of Louisiana has fought to allow more offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
All of these Senate Democrats are willing to accept greater carbon emissions, as long as we can also outsource jobs in the petroleum industry to Middle Eastern dictatorships. The Senators do aver that “some of us have concerns in general about arming this region to the teeth,” but apparently cheap fossil fuel buys a lot of peace of mind.
A special word of concern about Mr. Sanders: He is the only avowed socialist in Congress, but the Vermonter appears to be losing his religion over $122-a-barrel oil. By signing this letter, not only is he officially recognizing the law of supply and demand; he’s also proposing a more crassly commercial trade of guns for oil than anything we’ve ever heard from the most candid realpolitician.
To top it off, the Senator whose Web site proudly proclaims that the first bill he introduced was to combat global warming now wants more fossil fuels ready for burning. We hope his friends are closely watching Mr. Sanders, in case he blows a gasket over all of this cognitive ideological dissonance.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I can’t dispute factually, and I won’t try, anything bullishfrog is saying other than to point out that we cannot wean ourselves from oil immediately. We have to have it from wherever we can get it as we come up with alternatives. The estimates I have heard for the amount of oil we may get from the ANWR area is all over the map. We may need it some day but if it was up and running today would the cost of getting it exceed the cost of buying it from todays sources? i don’t know. There is already a mad rush to get oil from current sources that is bidding up the price but, of course, there is a lot of un-drilled possibilities in Iraq. hmmm!
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That list sounds like a who’s, who list of the people that blocked and regulated oil refineries out of business, regulated manufacturing nearly out of business and sent a coupe million jobs overseas because the foreign companies could operate without all the bureaucratic red tape and regulations that American companies had to comply with.
Toss in ted kennedy for blocking wind generators out in the Cape Cod area, and it’s pretty much complete.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, I am all in favor of weaning ourselves away from oil; it is inevitable. But, in the meantime, for the sake of national security, we need to wean ourselves from Arab oil. It will take a while to develop Anwar or offshore fields. We need to get started ASAP.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
See children, we can have a reasonably civilized, stimulating discussion of issues without resorting to the kind of vicious personal invectives that were the norm just yesterday. Maybe the “grown-ups” won’t have to take control of community.com after all.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Regarding US oil refineries and the supposed lack of “new construction” and “overregulation,” these are myths perpetrated by the media and industry and bought by the grossly misinformed public.
The facts:
- Primarily, it is not economic – it’s much less expensive to expand an existing refinery than to build a new one.
-Second, in the past 10 years, refining capacity in the USA has increased by about 2 million barrels per day, which is equivalent to 10 large refineries. Additionally, capacity expansions have been announced for the next 4 years (equivalent to 8 more new refineries). Suddenly, we’ve just built 18 new refineries.
- And third, realistically, no one wants a new oil refinery built in their State or backyard. Any volunteers?
So, yes, it is true that new refineries aren’t being built; however, it is wrong to think that refining capacity is stagnant.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 6:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
just a little bit of pertinent information for all…i’m not stating any case or position at this time, just providing, if you’ll pardon the pun, “fuel for the fire”:
found at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/refineries.htm
as of january 1, 2007 there are a total of 143 refineries in us territory producing approximately 17,443,492 barrels a day.
found at:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Oil_and_Gas/articles.cfm?ID=11829
Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the United States
The Bush administration and some members of Congress blame environmental rules for causing strains on refining capacity, prompting shortages and driving up prices. But in reality, it is uncompetitive actions by a handful of companies with large control over our nation’s gas markets that is directly causing these high prices.
Myth 1: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.
Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved Arizona Clean Fuels’ application for an air permit for a proposed refinery in Arizona. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for – and receiving – permits to modify and expand their existing refineries.[1]
Myth 2: The U.S. oil refinery market is competitive.
Fact: Actually, industry consolidation is limiting competition in oil refining sector. The largest five oil refiners in the United States (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Valero and Royal Dutch Shell) now control over half (56.3%) of domestic oil refinery capacity; the top ten refiners control 83%. Only ten years ago, these top five oil companies only controlled about one-third (34.5%) of domestic refinery capacity; the top ten controlled 55.6%. This dramatic increase in the control of just the top five companies makes it easier for oil companies to manipulate gasoline supplies by intentionally withholding supplies in order to drive up prices. Indeed, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices—all as a “profit-maximizing strategy.” A May 2004 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report also found that mergers in the oil industry directly led to higher prices—and this report did not even include the large mergers after the year 2000, such as ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips. Yet, just one week after Hurricane Katrina, the FTC approved yet another merger of refinery giants—Valero Energy and Premcor—giving Valero 13% of the national market share. These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been challenged by the U.S. government.
Myth 3: The United States has maxed out its oil refining capability.
Fact: Oil companies have exploited their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business. A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity to be in operation today, refiners could use it to better meet today’s reformulated gasoline blend needs.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Myth 1: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.”——————-It’s not just a matter of getting permits that keep new refineries from buing built. It is cost. Refining margins go all over the map. A high price of gasoline does not necessarily mean that refining margins are high. Refineries have to buy crude oil and the price of oil and gasoline do not move in lock step. They will trend in the same direction, but margins will widen and narrow. Environmental regulations have raised the cost of building.
“Myth 2: The U.S. oil refinery market is competitive. Fact: Actually, industry consolidation is limiting competition in oil refining sector.”———-This is not correct. As stated earlier, margins go up and down and so do refining earnings. If there was no competition, margins would not contract.
“Myth 3: The United States has maxed out its oil refining capability. Fact: Oil companies have exploited their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business.”——————-Refining costs come down dramatically as refinery size increases. Small refineries are not competitive. That is why they went out of business. But, not only did they go out of business, they were shut down because they were inefficient. If it was just a matter of being driven out of business by the majors, they would have been purchased by the majors and kept on running.
In Grand Junction we have a very high apartment occupancy rate. And yet, we are not seeing much new apartment building. Why? Because rents, even though they are up a lot, are still not high enough to justify the cost of new construction. It is not because the apartment MAJORS are trying to keep supply tight.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 9:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullishfrog,
I think your comparison of the rental market to explain oil and gas policy is a stretch. Oil and gas are consumable commodities, while apartments, once built, are there for many years. I get your point, but your analogy doesn’t work.
Trying to simplify the complex world of oil and gas economies is an admirable effort, but doomed to failure. It is too complicated to boil down to one or two things that are responsible. However, the original point is that the continuation of the moratorium on oil shale leasing is entirely appropriate. I have been studying this issue for over 5 years and I can tell you that NO ONE has figured out a way to “git’er dun”. Royal Dutch/Shells’ freeze wall technology is cost prohibitive on a commercial scale. Chevrons’ interest in Raytheons’ microwave technology makes me break out into giggles. So, we are left with mining/retort as the only real method available. That is the process that Exxon/Mobil left behind in the 1982 oil shale bust.
If any company can demonstrate a real, environmentally sound, technology that will not transform our western Colorado home into a moonscape, I will sign on. Until then, let’s just leave it alone. The kerogen isn’t going anywhere.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
All domestic oil available is in excess of 100 billion barrels.
Domestic oil from oil shale is in excess of 1 trillion barrels.
Those two combined mean not using ANY foriegn oil for 50 years.
Continue using some foriegn oil so Arabs like us means a lifetime supply.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, Rexall. Domestic oil from oil shale is zero. That is the point. To my knowledge, no one is trying to prevent research into figuring out a way to get oil from shale. But the fact is, no one has. As I said earlier, when someone comes along with a viable technology that doesn’t involve laying waste to NW Colorado, I am in. But that day has not arrived and delaying commercial oil shale leasing until it has will not slow down anything.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 12:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t beleive in the scare tactics about waste lands and water scarcity.
no proof of either one.
One side says its true, the other side says its not true.
Full speed ahead for me!!!
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 12:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall,
Try reading the BLMs’ Oil Shale PEIS. Or don’t you believe those people either?
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 12:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, I’m pretty familiar with oil shale. I was involved in refining Union Oil’s shale oil into finished products. I agree that there is no fully acceptable method to produce it at this time and it will be years before it happens. It’s production may very well change the landscape but, if we don’t find an acceptable substitute for oil, some compromises will have to be made. I am assuming that you would not oppose developement of Anwar given that it is in an isolated location and getting oil out of there is infinitely cheaper than from oil shale. That was the whole point of my first posting on this thread. If we can’t be allowed to drill for oil in Anwar or off shore, why even think of oil shale.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m with bullish on this one; as much as we desperately need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil, I think it’s reasonable to drill in places where we can, until we can develop alternatives. I realize it’s an uphill battle, and that there are entities who would rather we stuck with oil, until the oil is gone. Bullish is right; we have to do something, and soon.
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Two schools of thought.
The oil shale will still be there in 500 years if we do nothing.
The oil shale will still be there in 500 years if we do something.
But, in 500 years, the technology may exist that cars can wag their wings as they fly by the feeble, antiquated attempts to extract the stuff….
Posted May 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Beleive BLM? You must be nuts!
Even if your right about waste—so what! So we sacrafice a few areas for the good of the clan.
In another 100 years the technology will exist to turn the waste into something else more useful.
He who hesitates is lost!
C’mon think outside the box!
Lets drill!!!!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.