A Return To Colorado Oil Shale?
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 12.26.07
Some of our readers may recall the Rifle Colorado-area oil shale extraction projects of the 1970's (map of area pictured). Reduced oil prices following the OPEC boycott, impacts of saline water discharges, and high operating costs resulted in a virtual shut down by 1982.
Rule #1 with US oil businesses and the Defense Department: The US Can Never Have Enough.
Even with Alberta's tar sand-extracted oil gushing southward via pipeline, making Texification of the US' Upper Midwest a predetermined outcome, it looks as if that notion of cooking the greasy rocks will once again audition Colorado as "The Saudi Arabia Of North America" - although we thought that billing was taken by Alberta?
“The potential of America’s oil shale resources to meet future U.S. demand for fuel is significant,” said BLM Director Jim Caswell. “Oil shale deposits on public lands hold the equivalent of 1.23 trillion barrels of oil. The lands we are proposing to make available are estimated to hold, at a minimum, the equivalent of 61 billion barrels. At the low end of the range, that would yield enough gasoline to keep American tanks filled for 18 years.” Most U.S. oil shale resources are found in the Green River Formation of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The federally owned portion of this resource is more than 50 times the country’s proven conventional oil reserves and nearly five times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Five things have changed since the 1970's which make Oil Shale extraction prospects far different:
1.) Natural gas has become expensive. The US has passed its peak for natural gas, having used up the easily extracted reserves by the end of the 1990's. LNG or Alberta Natural Gas will have competing uses, for home heating and Tar Sands extraction, respectively. For these and other reasons described below, electricity has increased appeal as the oil shale extraction tool of choice in the US;
2.) Extended drought in the US West has made the water needed to make tar sands extraction work a very much more dear and expensive resource. Western Colorado, in particular, is still experiencing severe drought. The Colorado River which passes near the area is a vital and often fought over water resource;
3.) Development has spread toward the largest oil shale reserves. Neighbors may not appreciate the "smell of a paycheck" this time around. Plus, the need for more coal-fired or nuclear generation (see below for details) will have impacts far outside the immediate areas where oil shale projects are underway; and,
4.) Climate Change. Of course the Environmental Impact Statement just issued by the BLM offers a ridiculous factual manipulation, as cited below.
5.) Shell Oil, which has apparently stuck it out in Colorado for over 20 years, has developed and last year began testing an in-situ process that bypasses the need for open pit mining and above ground retorts, arguably protecting the groundwater with this method. This sounds similar to what's being worked on in Alberta, except Shells' Shale plan is to generate scads of electricity, use that energy to pump a chilled refrigerant around and over buried tar shale deposits - this is to freeze the groundwater enough to encapsulate a 2000-foot deep segment of shale - followed by pumping out the groundwater inside the frozen periphery and inserting giant electrodes into the isolated shale body to heat the now-dried interior to 700 degrees Fahrenheit for a period of three years, before extracting the oil liberated by the interior heat. We don't claim to fully understand this Shell game, but you can read more about it in the Colorado Springs Business Journal, Oil shale exploration: bonanza or bust?.
The study, the Bureau of Land Management’s Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, says “so-called” greenhouse gas emissions contribute to global warming, but oil shale development’s emissions are likely to comprise only a small portion of the planet’s pollution causing climate change.The impact statement, released Dec. 20, is an overview of possible impacts to full-scale oil shale development on nearly 2 million acres in the three states. BLM spokeswoman Heather Feeney called the extent of the impacts discussed in the study “worst-case scenarios.”
Via::Bureau of Land Management Press Release, and, the GJ SEntinel, "Feds: Oil shale's role 'minimal' in climate change"
Image credit:: US BLM Environental Impact Statement, Location of the Green River Formation Oil Shale and Its Main Basins
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Bush Administration to Open Public Lands Near Utah's National Parks for Natural Gas and Oil Drilling
- Run Cars on Green Electricity, Not Natural Gas
- Greenlanders See Independence and Natural Riches as the Upside of Climate Change
- GHG Photos: Climate Change Photography Shapes Debate
On the surface, it sounds like a good thing, but has anyone considered the environmental impact this would have in the area? Normally, this usually results in a negative impact on the surrounding environments, if the risks associated with it are not managed correctly.
I worked at the Piceance Creek In-Situ Oil Shale facility during the 70s and 80s. I learned one truism: oil shale takes more energy to produce that the energy that is extracted.
Oil Shale contains no oil. It contains kerogen, a barely flammable substance that can be hydrolized to make something resembling oil. Hydrogen, as in H2O... water.
Driving across the Piceance Basin, one is struck with the singular absence of water in these parts, other than the Colorado River, the same Colorado River that carries water to Arizona, Mexico and, once upon a time, to the Gulf of Mexico.
It would take two additional Colorado Rivers to supply enough water to process kerogen from oil shale into usable petroleum products.
There's only one Colorado River and it's already spoken for.
This sounds like a lot of things, but good is not among them. This sounds like yet another carbon intense fuel to burn in existing systems that big companies don't want to improve. That means retooling and that is a big expense for them with almost no margin for IMMEDIATE return. This oil shale or brown coal is just a shade different than good ole C14 (Carbon to the 14th power or coal). This is the best sequestered carbon on the planet; stable, safe and it takes a good deal of energy to release whatever energy is trapped. THis is the stuff we really need to be leaving alone. If we went carbon neutral today, it would take a century to turn the environment around. We need carbon negative fuels to begin to make real impact (like algal based biofuel), yet the big oil machine wants to keep on chugging at any price. No big suprises; 390 days until Big Oil leaves the White House...
"The Saudi Arabia Of North America" ...
"At the low end of the range, that would yield enough gasoline to keep American tanks filled for 18 years.”
Only 18 years of energy!
Not worth the cost & environmental damage.
If this is the best that the US can do, it is apparent that the US is going to be out of oil in our lifetime.
Then what?
Imagine how our lives and economy would be without gasoline.
Unless we come up with an alternative energy source.
There is no denying that we are a nation of energy junkies and not going to stop anytime soon. We need a positive transitional push into alternative sources, but nothing will work without compromise and careful planning and implementation along the way.The environmental impact of oil exploration and drillinghas been lessened from what it was and proper enforcement of the laws is more important than ever ; at the same time, it's necessary to concede some trade off - if we want energy, we can't save every acre from development - we can't have it both ways. How about a responsible attitude and approach from both sides?
What about the oil shale facility just outside Rifle Co?
At Anvil Point. It was first built by the department of energy and was for the US Navy. It has operated since the early 1950's and is still in operation.
I think it is named Paraho.
What about the oil shale facility just outside Rifle Co?
At Anvil Point. It was first built by the department of energy and was for the US Navy. It has operated since the early 1950's and is still in operation.
I think it is named Paraho.