Today in Grand Junction, three key U.S. senators will get an earful about the prospects of developing the West’s vast oil shale reserves.
Two of the three senators at the field hearing are oil shale boosters: Pete Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican whose Senate seniority gives him political clout. They’re here at the request of Sen. Ken Salazar, the moderate Colorado Democrat who is at the hearing and wants to balance energy and environmental needs.
The United States must pursue new energy sources, especially ones that could replace crude oil as a transportation fuel. Oil shale might do so. But we hope Domenici and Hatch come away with a clear appreciation of oil shale’s risks as well as its rewards.
Future fuel sources must clear some difficult hurdles:
Will the energy obtained be more than that used to retrieve and process it? The question is particularly relevant to oil shale but also should be asked about ethanol and hydrogen.
Will it be a going proposition? New energy sources may need coddling early on but should show long-term financial viability.
What are the environmental impacts? Using the complex technology Shell Oil is researching in northwestern Colorado, oil shale processing will require large volumes of the West’s limited water. And Shell’s process will demand expansions of coal-fired power plants and high-capacity electrical lines in the remote area.
What are the impacts on communities? Coloradans are skeptical about oil shale because of the 1970s’ boom and bust.
Most of America’s estimated 1.8 trillion barrels of oil shale are found in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah – and most of the resource is on federal land or leases.
Yet oil shale’s economics are murky. Backers say U.S. production could reach 200,000 barrels a day by 2011, but critics note that global oil shale output never has topped 25,000 barrels a day. Shell forecasts that it can make money off shale if conventional crude oil prices stayabove $30 a barrel – recently, crude prices spiked to $70 a barrel.
Last summer, Congress told the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to lease 2.5 million acres of public lands (4,000 square miles) for oil shale in just one year, although the production technology is many years away. Given its puny budget, the BLM may be stressed to act as a responsible landlord. It has chosen five research and development projects proposed by three companies as candidates for federal research leases.
Oil shale could be one of many answers to America’s energy needs, but it should be developed with great care. We’re glad Domenici and Hatch have come to Colorado to hear first-hand about local and state concerns.
