energy
Controversy Looms Over Oil Shale
Oil shale is costly and controversial, and a recent move by the Bush administration has stoked the coals.By David Frey, 7-30-08
| Shell’s oil shale facility in western Colorado is experimenting with “freeze wall” technology, intended to allow workers to heat the shale underground and pump out the fuel without harming groundwater. | |
New regulations intended to steer the removal of vast resources of oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming have drawn praise from supporters and fierce criticism from opponents, underscoring the controversy that hangs over an energy source that gets more and more attention as fuel prices climb.
Environmentalists blasted the proposed regulations as an attempt by the Bush administration to ramp up energy development in its waning days. In Colorado, where the oil shale is in less supply but is considered easier to reach, Sen. Ken Salazar has accused the administration of trying to “set the stage for a last minute fire sale” of oil shale leases. He has joined his brother Rep. John Salazar and Rep. Mark Udall, a fellow Democrat, in calling for a year-long moratorium before allowing any oil shale development. Gov. Bill Ritter, also a Democrat, has also opposed the new regulations.
Supporters say the new rules are necessary if development of oil shale, believed to be years away from being commercially viable, is ever going to happen.
“I think it’s going to be a while for all of these (alternative fuel sources) to be significant players,” said Jerry Boak, director of the Colorado Energy Research Institute at the Colorado School of Mines. “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be pursuing them.”
The Bureau of Land Management published proposed regulations on commercial oil shale development last Tuesday. They would let energy companies pay lower royalties than they pay for drilling on other federal lands as an incentive.
The Interior Department believes the fuel, trapped within sandstone under the three states could result in up to 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Technology for reaching the oil shale is still being developed, though. Critics question whether it will ever be feasible.
The issue is laden with painful memories, too. Western Colorado’s last oil shale boom left the region crippled after Exxon unexpectedly stopped its operations in 1982 on what became known as Black Sunday.
“Really, until there is an identified, commercially-viable technology to extract the oil from the shale, we don’t see a reason to lease,” said Mike Braaten, governmental affairs and energy coordinator for the city of Rifle, Colo., which was devastated after Black Sunday. Rifle’s city council has urged the federal government to hold off on oil shale leasing until after a thorough analysis of the environmental and economic impacts.
A spokesman for Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., criticized Democratic legislators for their opposition to oil shale. Allard has called for a moratorium on development until at least 2011, said spokesman Steve Wymer, but he supports pursuing oil shale as a possible fuel alternative.
“It is irresponsible – and Sen. Salazar and Congressman Udall have done it for political gain – to try to stand on the Western Slope like white knights and try to keep off the oil companies,” he said.
Wymer said Allard supported a short-term royalty discount as an incentive to oil shale development.
Rising oil prices has prompted more interest in oil shale, but even boosters think it will be many years before it could be extracted. Shell oil company, which is believed to be farthest along in its development and operates a research facility on private and public land north of Rifle, said it doesn’t anticipate making a decision on the viability of oil shale until early in the next decade.
“There is something perversely absurd about reading in excruciating detail a comprehensive set of regulations that have been drafted for an industry that the administration admits does not exist,” said Carbondale energy expert Randy Udall, brother of Mark Udall, a staunch oil shale critic.
Environmentalists worry about impacts, including water use, energy use and impacts on the land, that could come in pursuing what they say is an uncertain fuel source.
“Bush is posturing, basically, and his administration is basically misleading the American public, citing high gas prices today and the solution of oil shale tomorrow. In fact, oil shale development will take years,” said Frank Smith, of Western Colorado Congress.
“We don’t know how much stuff we’re going to get out of the rock,” he added. “They shout from the rooftops that this is the answer, but then they’re whispering from behind the house that they don’t know how much they’re going to get out of the resource.”
Boak, of the Colorado School of Mines, said the issue is so controversial that Bush may be unable to get the proposed regulations in place before leaving office.
“There is a fondness for demonization in this business,” he said. “But everything is a mixed bag. On one hand, Republicans do seem a little heavily focused on the drilling side. On the other hand, Democrats seem entirely focused on the renewables side.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

Comments
Americans are not yet ready to directly confront the challenges that will be required to become self-sufficient on energy--but I think the tide is turning.
Al Gore's courageous new vision to have the United States be 100% independent of fossil fuels within ten years is the kind of leadership and challenge we Americans need to rally behind--not bogus plans like synfuels from coal or oil shale development.
As Gore stated recently, "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change."
It's time for us to embrace this new vision, jump off the fossil fuel roller coaster to nowhere, and get on with developing a truly carbon-free society. And we can do it within ten years--all while creating countless new high-paying jobs, saving billions of dollars wasted on fossil fuel research and subsidies, and reducing the devastating effects of global warming.
Sorry, oil shale!
JonCheever
One, it takes a lot of heat energy to extract the hydrocarbon liquid portion in the shale. That means burning fuels to make steam in a boiler. The energy balance is not always quite right when you have to burn one hydrocarbon to make another--
The second concern is that the quality of the hydrocarbon coming out can be the consistency of molasses--even when warm--so it has to be diluted with something for transport to a refining facility. What is used for dilution? Probably another previously produced fuel or oil. (Took energy to make that other fuel! And it probably came from some other crude oil source.). Then, the heavy portion (the extracted shale) mixed with the lighter fuel (the dilution) makes refining more problematic.
Three, as indicated, the amount of water that comes up with the shale hydrocarbon (from both the method of heating--steam, and entrained water being released in the shale formation), makes separation problematic and produces waste water that needs to be cleaned and discharged--an environmental concern--especially in outlying areas where the infrastructure might not exist to properly clean up this waste water.
For shale to be most energy efficient and economical--the refinery needs to be "right there". So that means there needs to be enough shale "right there" to produce enough usable oil to refine.
Energy balance is probably the biggest obstacle in the industry--the self limiting factor of energy in vs. energy out.
IN= Extraction energy, dilution product energy, transport, refining energy. OUT=burning it for fuel later.