Energy policy — nuclear: Representative Markey and Senator Bennet ask the EPA to shine a bright light on the approval process for Powertech’s injection well

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

Powertech must obtain, and has applied for, a permit from the EPA allowing it to drill an injection well for solution mining, also known as a “Class III” well. The company has also applied to the EPA for a per-mit for a water injection well – a “Class V” well – at the Centennial Project site. The agency is allowing the public to comment on a draft permit for the well through Dec. 24. “We would respectfully urge you to take every precaution to safeguard the quality of our water,” Bennet and Markey wrote in their letter.

Meanwhile, the mine’s potential impact on water quality in the region will be discussed at a hearing Thursday at the Colorado Department of Natural Resources headquarters in Denver. The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety is writing rules governing in situ leach min-ing under a law passed in 2008 requiring companies operating such mines to minimize their impact on water quality.

More coverage from The Greeley Tribune.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

David A. Sampson: ‘Water and energy are inextricably linked…Energy is required to transport and purify water, and water is used in energy production’

Here’s the release from Arizona State University:

Climate projections for the next 50 to 100 years forecast increasingly frequent severe droughts and heat waves across the American Southwest, sinking available water levels even as rising mercury drives up demand for it.

Declining water supply will affect more than just water flowing from taps and spraying from hoses and sprinklers. It will also strongly impinge on power generation, testing the capacity of sources like Hoover Dam, with its roughly 1.3 million customers in Nevada, Arizona and California, to generate adequate power with less water.

Now, Patricia Gober and David A. Sampson of the Decision Center for a Desert City at Arizona State University are teaming with David J. Sailor of Portland State University on a $65,000 grant to wade into this deep problem.

Their research will focus initially on water and electricity supply and demand in the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, and the effects of extreme heat and drought on them.

“Water and energy are inextricably linked,” says Sampson, a DCDC research scientist specializing in simulation and modeling. “Energy is required to transport and purify water, and water is used in energy production.

“Further reductions within the Colorado River Basin threaten not only water supplies but also energy production and tourism, with a potential economic impact amounting to billions of dollars in lost revenues.”

According to Sampson, Lake Powell currently stands at 62 percent capacity and Lake Mead, which provides the water that drives the Hoover Dam’s hydroelectric plants, is currently at 43 percent capacity and could drop as low as 40 percent.

Such levels raise questions about how providers will supply safe, affordable water to the 27 million residents relying on the Colorado River supply, especially in light of continued development and population growth.

The researchers will attack the complex problem from a number of angles.

The energy research will assess the current sensitivity of electricity supply and demand to weather fluctuations, while also projecting future scenarios of population demographics and climate. Researchers will also develop models that predict and gauge the vulnerability of the electricity generation infrastructure to changes in climate and population.

With respect to water, the researchers will use WaterSim (http://watersim.asu.edu/), DCDC’ s systems dynamics model and decision tool, to investigate how changing climate conditions will affect runoff, which provides the lion’s share of surface water used to supply Phoenix. Adapting WaterSim to a more localized scale, they will also perform a sensitivity analysis of climate change versus future population growth, to determine their relative impacts on water shortages, while also analyzing vulnerability at the water-provider level.

The researchers will feed their results into two different scenarios, a business-as-usual policy and one reflecting a groundwater-sustainability approach. These results, in turn, will provide a foundation for future study of implications of climate change and policy scenarios.

“This research is very much in line with the DCDC’s purpose and goals,” says Gober, co-director of DCDC and a professor in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and the School of Sustainability. “Figuring out how all the pieces fit together, identifying sensitivities, and making useful predictions and recommendations in the face of climatic uncertainty.”

The National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP), a commission established by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation that takes a bipartisan approach to energy policy, balancing science and politics, funds the project. Energy infrastructure adequacy and siting is one of its three current focus areas, along with oil security and climate change.

Arizona State University’s Decision Center for a Desert City is one of five National Science Foundation-funded centers nationwide fostering better decision-making under climatic uncertainty. It was founded to apply this principle to water-management decisions in the urbanizing desert of Central Arizona.

Source:
David A. Sampson, dasamps1@mainex1.asu.edu
Decision Center for a Desert City

Contact:
Nick Gerbis, ngerbis@asu.edu
Decision Center for a Desert City

$1 million for restoration from Shattuck Chemical site settlement

From The Denver Post (Mark Jaffe):

Because the site is in the South Platte River watershed, the restoration efforts are broad. About 280 acres of wetlands on the Eastern Plains will be restored at a cost of $818,000, based on an initial $75,000 from the Shattuck settlement. Adding funds and services to the project are government agencies, private businesses and landowners, said Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Matt Filsinger. Among those participating are Ducks Unlimited, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Lower South Platte Water Conservancy District, the Harmony Ditch Co. and Drakeland Farms.

The Shattuck settlement also will help pay for a $235,000 restoration of Overland Pond Park. “It was felt that since Shattuck was an urban Superfund site, some of those funds should stay in Denver,” Archuleta said. The Fish and Wildlife Service will put $120,000 toward the project, and the remainder of the $235,000 will come from funds and services from community groups, such as the Greenway Foundation, and city agencies, such as Denver Parks and Recreation. “Overland Pond Park has been loved to death,” said Casey Davenhill, administrative coordinator for the nonprofit Greenway Foundation. “Those 8 acres are really heavily used.” The park, created in the early 1970s, has small habitat zones representing Colorado from the prairie to alpine forest, Davenport said. “This has made the park an important educational resource, and that’s something Fish and Wildlife wants to support,” Archuleta said. The project will include grading trails, new signs, upgrading the pond area and new plantings, according to a Wildlife Service draft restoration plan…

The draft restoration plan is open until early December for public comment and can be viewed at: www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/nrda/Shattuck/index.html

More restoration coverage here.

Cañon City: Source of contamination under golf course different from main plume at Lincoln Park/Cotter superfund site

From the Cañon City Daily Record (Rachel Alexander):

[Steve Tarlton, of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment] said the company and department have determined that the source of contamination for the golf course plume is different from the source of the main plume, but the specific source has not been determined. Tarlton said the department has asked Cotter to continue to characterize the plume, install a ground water interception system that will most likely be series of wells and to determine possible sources. “We now have enough information to know where the plume is moving,” Tarlton said. Possible sources of the contamination include the CCD tanks, which Cotter currently is decommissioning and existing and historic ore pads, which the company is excavating.

Cotter also continues with the closure of the secondary impoundment and the deep dewatering of the primary impoundment.

Here’s the link to the Lincoln Park/Cotter Mill Superfund Site website.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Paradox Valley: Energy Fuels Corp. formally applies for uranium mill state permit

From the Cortez Journal (Joe Hanel):

The mill, proposed for the Paradox Valley west of Naturita, would be the first new uranium mill in the country in 25 years. It has caused heated debate in the Paradox Valley, in part because it could restart the uranium mining industry in Southwest Colorado. Montrose County commissioners approved zoning for the mill, known as the Piñon Ridge mill, in September…

This week’s application to the state triggers a 10- to 15-month process that will include two public hearings. State regulators will zero in on health effects of the mill in both the short- and long-term, said Steve Tarlton, radiation program manager for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. “Colorado has the most stakeholder-focused review process for uranium licensing in the United States,” Tarlton said. Tarlton’s office has 30 days to determine if the application is complete. Once it does, Energy Fuels has 75 days to hold two public hearings. Those hearings probably will happen in Montrose and the Nucla-Naturita area, said Energy Fuels spokesman Gary Steele. After the hearings, state law gives regulators nine to 12 months to approve or deny the permit. Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier said he is confident his application will pass muster with the state.

Travis Stills, a Durango lawyer who represents mill opponents, said Energy Fuels can expect plenty of opposition. “There will be considerable technical, grassroots and legal scrutiny of whatever it is they have proposed there,” Stills said. Stills filed the lawsuit in state court in Montrose against the county commissioners on behalf of Sheep Mountain Alliance. In the suit, mill opponents claim the county commissioners should not have approved the permit, because in the middle of the process, the company cut the amount of ore it intended to process in half and doubled the projected life of the mill to 40 years. The suit also claims that the mill should not have been approved in the Paradox Valley because it would carry much higher environmental risks than uranium mines, which are common the in the valley.

More coverage from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

Once the radiation program determines the application is complete, Energy Fuels must conduct the first of two required public meetings within 45 days. It must conduct a second public meeting within 30 days of the first. Montrose County, meanwhile, has 90 days from the first public meeting to submit to the state its review of the environmental report included in the company’s application. The state Health Department can act on the application within 270 days of the county’s response or within 360 days of the second public meeting, if the county has no response. Energy Fuels’ application is available on the Web at www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/ rad/rml/energyfuels/index.htm and at the Nucla Public Library, 544 Main St., and Montrose County Planning and Development, 317 S. Second St. Public comments will be accepted throughout the review process. People may comment about the application at public meetings, by e-mail to cdphe.hm energyfuels@state.co.us or by writing to Steve Tarlton or Warren Smith at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Radiation Program, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver 80246-1530.

More on nuclear energy and Colorado’s role in the industry, from Hope Nealson writing for the Cortez Journal. From the article:

In 2006, 6.5 billion people used 14 trillion watts, or terawatts, of energy, [nuclear expert and former senior manager for the U.S. Department of Energy Dave Nulton] said. It will take all types of energy, including solar, wind, hydro and coal power, to satisfy the projected increase of demand for normal growth to 45 terawatts by the year 2050. Nulton said to achieve that kind of power, 66 wind turbines would have to be built every day until 2050, or two nuclear reactors every three days. “These numbers are extreme and really unachievable,” he said. “If you could build 66 windmills per day or two nuclear reactors every three days, you still wouldn’t get there without the help of other energies like coal, solar, etc.” Furthermore, Nulton said with atmospheric levels of carbon jumping from 228 ppm (parts per million) before the industrial revolution to 386 ppm today, using cleaner sources of energy like nuclear will help the world avoid approaching “catastrophic climate change by 2050.”

Nulton said the Four Corners – and Cortez’ role in general – would be to provide the uranium needed for nuclear power. “This area served the uranium supply (for nuclear power in the U.S.) for a number of years – now we’re second,” he said. “If you look at the available uranium in this country, Wyoming has more and the Four Corners is second.” Nulton said worldwide, there is a lot more uranium in Canada and Australia. “If we want to be energy independent, we don’t have to rely on another country like we do for oil – we can produce it in our own country,” he said. With no harmful releases, essentially no carbon footprint, low operating costs and minimal land requirements, Nulton said nuclear power is also an option that helps dispose of nuclear weapons. Other countries already reprocess the old fuel in nuclear war heads.

China has the most reactors at 16. There are 440 operating reactors in 31 countries, satisfying approximately 15 percent of electrical needs. Thirteen countries have plans to build reactors and 50 are currently under construction, he said.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Energy policy — geothermal: New website for geothermal exploration and production in Chaffee County

Say hello to Chaffee County Geothermal. The group behind the website wants to protect the natural environment and recreations opportunities in the county. From the website:

We are fighting to protect the unique beauty of this area, its water and its quality of life, not to mention its recreational value to so many visitors.

Thanks to The Mountain Mail for the link.

More geothermal coverage here and here.

Telluride Energy scores $20,000 for hydroelectric plant at Mayflower Mill

From the Silverton Standard & The Miner (Mark Esper):

Telluride Energy has been awarded a $20,000 grant from the USDA Rural Development Renewable Energy for America Program to install an 8-kilowatt micro-hydro turbine at the Mayflower Mill near Silverton. The San Juan County Historical Society is in the process of developing the small power plant. “I am excited that USDA Rural Development can play a part in this project,” said Jim Isgar, USDA Colorado State director. “Through the REAP program, loan guarantees and grants can be used for renewable energy systems, energy efficiency improvements, feasibility studies and energy audits.” The project will utilize the currently unused energy available in the existing water supply pipeline which flows down Arrastra Gulch to supply water to the Mayflower Mill. “Once completed, the project will generate local clean energy, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 80,000 pounds annually and enhancing fire protection for a National Historic Landmark,” said Kurt Johnson of Telluride Energy.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Aspen: City and area residents debating the benefits and possible streamflow loss of proposed hydroelectric facility

From the Associated Press via The Aspen Times via the Grand Junction Free Press:

City officials are taking public comments on the proposal and say a more comprehensive review is possible if there is enough concern or there are issues they haven’t considered. Aspen wants to build a 1,880-square-foot hydropower plant that would draw water from Castle and Maroon creeks to generate electricity. The 1.05 megawatt plant is expected to increase production of electricity by 5.5 million kilowatt hours annually. That would provide energy for several hundred households. City officials say getting that much electricity from a renewable source would eliminate an estimated 5,167 tons of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power for a 0.6 percent communitywide decrease.

Some area residents, however, are concerned about the potential effects on wildlife and water rights if too much water is diverted from the creeks. Paul Noto, an Aspen-based water attorney, who represents several residents who live along Castle Creek, said if Aspen touts itself as an environmental leader, it ought to submit the project to a full environmental review.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

West Divide Creek: Garfield County is asking the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission to step up enforcement

From the Glenwood Springs Post Indpendent (John Colson):

In 2004, chemicals began bubbling to the surface of the creek in a display of contamination generally attributed to nearby gas drilling activities, and which ultimately led to a moratorium on gas drilling in the area. The moratorium was canceled after approximately a year, however, after industry and state officials concluded that the seep had been “mitigated” by the application of additional cement to the bore drilled for the gas well. In 2008, however, [West Divide Creek basin resident Lisa Bracken] reported that the creek had begun showing signs of contamination again, and the county hired geologist Geoffrey Thyne to investigate her claims. Thyne’s findings indicated that there are signs that the re-cementing of the well bore reduced the release of gases into the surrounding ground water. But, he wrote, “It has not fully corrected the problem, and natural gas along with other harmful constituents continue to leak into the aquifer of West Divide Creek.”

The COGCC, at a hearing in Garfield County last July, promised to have the EnCana gas company, which was drilling near the Bracken property in 2004, work with Bracken to fix the problem. Bracken said that cooperation was supposed to include “thorough water monitoring” of the area near her home and the creek. But Bracken told the commissioners on Monday that EnCana had come out to inspect the scene once and that she has had “very little correspondence” with the company since.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Aspen: Recap of public meeting for planned hydroelectric installation on Castle Creek

From The Aspen Times (Carolyn Sackariason):

Nearly two dozen people attended a public meeting held Friday concerning the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project. City officials, paid consultants, hydrologists and aquatic biologists were on hand to explain the project and answer questions about the project. The purpose of the meeting was to determine whether the city should circumvent a full environmental review through a permit process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). As it stands now, the city plans to apply for what’s known as a “conduit exemption,” which wouldn’t require a full-blown environmental review. But the city’s public works director Phil Overeyender said if public comment, which will be taken for the next 60 days, raises enough concern or potential effects that the city hasn’t considered, a full environmental review could be possible.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Thompson Divide: Coalition funding water quality study to get in front of oil and gas exploration and production effects

From The Sopris Sun (Jereby Heiman):

The Thompson Divide Coalition (TDC) has organized a study that is intended to establish baseline data on the purity of streams and underground water in the threatened area to the west and southwest of Carbondale. The group has partnered with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to design and execute the study. The Roaring Fork Conservancy is a Basalt-based watershed conservation organization that employs scientists and other experts and works to protect rivers, streams, underground water and stream bank habitat. “This baseline will allow us to hold the gas drilling companies accountable,” said Jock Jacober, chairman of the TDC Steering Committee.

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

EPA Study Reveals Widespread Contamination of Fish in U.S. Lakes and Reservoirs

As a nation we’re rapidly polluting our sources of fresh water. Here’s a release from the EPA:

A new EPA study shows concentrations of toxic chemicals in fish tissue from lakes and reservoirs in nearly all 50 U.S. states. For the first time, EPA is able to estimate the percentage of lakes and reservoirs nationwide that have fish containing potentially harmful levels of chemicals such as mercury and PCBs.

“These results reinforce Administrator Jackson’s strong call for revitalized protection of our nation’s waterways and long-overdue action to protect the American people,” said Peter S. Silva, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water. “EPA is aggressively tackling the issues the report highlights. Before the results were even finalized, the agency initiated efforts to further reduce toxic mercury pollution and strengthen enforcement of the Clean Water Act – all part of a renewed effort to protect the nation’s health and environment.”

The data showed mercury concentrations in game fish exceeding EPA’s recommended levels at 49 percent of lakes and reservoirs nationwide, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in game fish at levels of potential concern at 17 percent of lakes and reservoirs. These findings are based on a comprehensive national study using more data on levels of contamination in fish tissue than any previous study.

Burning fossil fuels, primarily coal, accounts for nearly half of mercury air emissions caused by human activity in the U.S., and those emissions are a significant contributor to mercury in water bodies. From 1990 through 2005, emissions of mercury into the air decreased by 58 percent. EPA is committed to developing a new rule to substantially reduce mercury emissions from power plants, and the Obama Administration is actively supporting a new international agreement that will reduce mercury emissions worldwide.

The study also confirms the widespread occurrence of PCBs and dioxins in fish, illustrating the need for federal, state and local government to continue efforts to reduce the presence of these harmful chemicals in our lakes and reservoirs and ensure that fish advisory information is readily available.

It is important that women of child-bearing age and children continue to follow the advice of EPA and the Food and Drug Administration on fish consumption as it relates to mercury. This study is also a strong message to state and local governments to redouble their efforts in looking for opportunities to reduce mercury discharges, as well as developing fish advisories, especially to reach those in sensitive and vulnerable populations.

Results from the four-year National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue show that mercury and PCBs are widely distributed in U.S. lakes and reservoirs. Mercury and PCBs were detected in all of the fish samples collected from the nationally representative sample of 500 lakes and reservoirs in the study. Because these findings apply to fish caught in lakes and reservoirs, it is particularly important for recreational and subsistence fishers to follow their state and local fish advisories.

EPA is conducting other statistically based national aquatic surveys that include assessment of fish contamination, such as the National Rivers and Streams Assessment and the National Coastal Assessment. Sampling for the National Rivers and Streams Assessment is underway, and results from this two-year study are expected to be available in 2011. Collection of fish samples for the National Coastal Assessment will begin in 2010.

More information: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy

More information on local fish advisories: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/states.htm

More water pollution coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Garfield County Commissioners vote to oppose S. 1215, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act

From the Grand Junction Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Garfield County commissioners voted 2–1 Monday in opposition to legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver. The bill would subject fracturing to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and require disclosure of chemicals used in the process. The vote disappointed several county residents who attended Monday’s commissioner meeting and fear fracturing could contaminate drinking water. But Commissioners Mike Samson and John Martin said the oil and gas industry is better off being regulated at the state level…

But fellow Commissioner Tresi Houpt, who also sits on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, questioned the contention that the bill would drive up costs. She added, “Why are we talking about costs? Why aren’t we talking about safety and health and welfare?”[...]

The Colorado Oil & Gas Association said in a news release that Garfield County joins Delta, Mesa, Moffat, Morgan, Rio Blanco, Washington, Weld and Yuma counties in opposing DeGette’s bill. The nine counties represent nearly 44 percent of the state’s gas production. By contrast, the two counties that have supported the legislation, Pitkin and San Miguel, are responsible for less than 1 percent of statewide production, the association says. Industry officials worry that the federal regulation could result in fees of up to $100,000 per well and in lengthy permitting delays that would harm domestic production…

The industry says there’s never been a documented case of fracturing contaminating groundwater. Rifle-area resident Jim Golden said he’s tired of hearing the argument that contamination is just anecdotal, and said Garfield commissioners have heard from plenty of people who are suffering as a result of drilling. “It’s absolutely horrible to have to stand up to our own local government to fight for your health and safety,” he told the commissioners…

[Commissioners Mike Samson and John Martin], both Republicans, won elections last November after benefiting from independent campaign expenditures from energy-related interests. For Samson, a newcomer to office, Monday was perhaps his most significant energy-related vote to date. All three commissioners said they heard from numerous constituents regarding the fracturing legislation, and county staff members told commissioners they received thousands of comments.

More coverage from the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson) via The Aspen Times. From the article:

Despite evidence of significant sentiment to the contrary among the electorate, two Garfield County commissioners voted this week to oppose federal legislation which would put the oil and gas industry partly under the control of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Commissioner Trési Houpt, the lone Democrat on the county board, said she supported what is known as the FRAC (for Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals) Act, introduced in both houses of Congress last summer. But Republican Commissioners John Martin and Mike Samson cast the deciding votes for a resolution that endorses a continued exemption for the gas drilling industry from the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act, which is administered by the EPA…

Residents in Colorado and other states, living near the drilling operations, have reported getting sick themselves, watching livestock die and experiencing everything from exploding domestic water wells to finding foul-smelling slicks covering nearby waterways — all of which they believe are related to the drilling activities and the chemicals used in the frac’ing process. The energy companies, however, argue that there have never been “documented” cases of groundwater contaminated by drilling rigs, and that the FRAC Act would cause regulatory delays and increased costs for their activities.

In a wide-ranging discussion before the vote, Martin and Samson framed their decision in terms of upholding states rights against unwanted federal interference, arguing that the state could regulate the industry better. At one point Martin said that the state’s right to regulate the state’s waters goes all the way back to an 18th century “navigable waters” law passed by an early Congress. “Do you want to have the federal government come in and tell you what’s going to happen?” he asked the crowd of 25 or so at the meeting, or should it be left to what he called “the local voice”? Samson, who represents voters on the western end of the county, submitted a resolution that essentially mimicked a resolution adopted on Sept. 11, 2009, by Club 20, a Western Slope business organization. The organization lists a number of well-known energy companies as its sponsors, and nine of its 22 member counties have come out against the FRAC Act…

Paul Light of the [Grand Valley Citizens Alliance], pointing to a recent poll indicating that a majority of the region’s voters favor increased regulation of the industry, added that “the real battle is [not between federal and state regulators, but] between the industry and the people trying to drink the water.”

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Energy policy — geothermal: U.S. Bureau of Land Management to lease 799.2 acres near Mt. Princeton hot springs for geothermal exploration on November 12

Update: From the Associated Press via The Aspen Times:

The Bureau of Land Management had planned to offer 800 acres of public property for geothermal during its auction this month, but will postpone action on the proposed lease until its February auction. Federal officials want more time to study the potential effects of geothermal development on water and property rights.

From The Chaffee County Times (Danny Bay):

According to the SRHA, anyone has the right to enter these federally owned sub-surface lands, prospect, and file a mining claim and plan of operation. Since the geothermal resource sits underground, it is sub-surface land. This is the basis for the sale on Nov. 12, the first geothermal lease to be auctioned by the BLM in the state of Colorado. It is open to anyone who chooses to register. Henderson said that the new owner of the federal lease will only have up to one year to create what will lead to the development of the resource. “They can’t sit on it indefinitely,” Henderson said.

But what [Buena Vista resident Steve] Glover said horrifies him is that if a developer does begin commercial production of electricity, the lease becomes open permanently. “They can ramp it up from a small project and no one could do a blessed thing about it,” he said, adding that it has the potential to expand vastly and turn one of the most aesthetically beautiful parts of Colorado into a semi-permanent industrial area…

Bill Bennett, energy use adviser for Sangre De Cristo Electric Association, said he thinks a plant could be hidden very well by building it inside, like something similar to a greenhouse or by putting bunkers around it to shield the noise. “Geothermal can run 24 hours with no down capacity. A 10-megawatt plant could supply 84 percent of all the electricity we supply all year. There are people who understand that it has no consumption, no combustion and no pollution, but they just don’t want to look at it,” Bennett said.

In response to this, Glover referenced a Salt Lake Tribune article about a 10-megawatt geothermal plant in Utah that, after six months of generating power, produces only one megawatt of net energy and buys almost as much electricity to keep the plant running as the plant produces. “There seems to be a real rush to do this. There’s a lot of ego involved in being the first to do it and I understand this. But it could come at a great cost and it should be carefully considered,” Glover said. “It would be a shame to so easily allow this to go forward.”

More geothermal coverage here and here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Sheep Mountain Alliance files lawsuit against Montrose County Commissioners over Piñon Ridge uranium mill special use permit

From The Telluride Watch (Karen James):

In a complaint filed in District Court last week local conservation group Sheep Mountain Alliance alleged that the Montrose County Commissioners violated county zoning rules and abused their discretion when in September they unanimously approved a special use permit allowing the construction and operation of a uranium mill on 880 acres in Paradox Valley zoned for agricultural use. “Our main point is the industrial use in an agricultural zone,” said plaintiff’s attorney Travis Stills of the Durango-based Energy Minerals Law Center describing the grounds for the lawsuit against Chairman David White, Vice Chairman Gary Ellis, and Commissioner Ron Henderson…

The suit also charged that Montrose County Planning and Development Director Steve White abused his discretion and acted beyond his authority when making decisions regarding the special use permit application filed in July 2008 by Energy Fuels Resources Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Toronto-based Energy Fuels Inc…

Finally the complaint alleges that a meeting took place in March 2008 between EFRC representatives, the BOCC, three Montrose County employees, a Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment employee, and one member of the public in violation of state open meetings laws. At that meeting transportation, water, use of uranium, jobs and salaries, and the contents of the special use permit application were discussed, according to the complaint. The Colorado Sunshine Law states that, “All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.” Although no minutes were taken nor a recording made, the BOCC made several decisions regarding the proposed mill at that meeting including one to seek a special use permit for the agricultural district as a means to approve the EFRC proposal, according to the complaint. “As best as we can tell the decisions were arrived at outside the public process,” said Stills, who wrote in the court filing that “These decisions predetermined the outcome of the challenged [special use permit] proceedings and constitute an abuse of discretion and actions in exceedance of authority.”

Meanwhile, nuclear power plant developer Alternate Energy Holdings is shopping a combination nuclear/solar plant to state lawmakers, according to The Durango Telegraph. From the article:

The company has spotlighted Colorado because of its commitment to clean energy and replacing aging coal plants. Alternate Energy Holdings CEO Don Gillispie told Colorado Energy News, said the company was encouraged by the support from businessmen, labor leaders, politicians and members of the state’s administration. “They clearly understand that nuclear plants not only create clean power necessary to help with environmental challenges, but low-cost, reliable energy to stabilize the electric grid while creating thousands of high-paying jobs,” he said.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Public comment sought on Moffat Project

Here’s the release from Denver Water (Stacy Chesney):

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project, which proposes to enlarge Gross Reservoir north of Boulder.

Denver Water is proposing the project to help resolve three major water supply challenges it is facing:

1. the risk of a near-term water supply shortfall;
2. the risk of running out of water in the north end of its system during a single dry year;
3. and a serious imbalance in its water collection system, in which about 80 percent of the supply exists on the south side of the system.

The project is part of Denver Water’s multi-pronged water strategy to increase supply and decrease demand by implementing an aggressive conservation plan, completing and expanding its recycled water distribution system and developing additional water supply.

“Our customers have done an excellent job of conserving water, and we have been completing our recycled water system,” said David Little, director of planning. “These strategies are helping extend our supplies into the future. It is imperative, however, that we develop additional supply to correct the imbalance in our system and secure water for our future. We believe the best solution is to produce new water supply by expanding an existing reservoir instead of building a new reservoir.”

The Moffat Collection System Project proposes raising Gross Dam by approximately 125 feet. Gross Reservoir is fed by tributaries of the Colorado River and South Boulder Creek, and feeds the north side of Denver Water’s system. If approved, the Moffat Project would produce 18,000 acre-feet of new supply — enough water for roughly 45,000 households annually.

“We have been working with interest groups and local agencies to develop plans to offset environmental impacts of the Moffat Project and to provide significant environmental enhancements for the communities affected by the project,” said Little. “Denver Water is committed to encouraging wise use of the water we serve and to using our facilities and resources to enhance the environment in the watersheds we use.”

Denver Water, Grand County, the cities of Boulder and Lafayette, environmental groups and others still are discussing the proposed environmental enhancements, which go far beyond what the Corps requires for mitigating impacts caused by the Moffat Collection System Project. These enhancements will benefit tributaries to the Colorado River in Grand County and South Boulder Creek in Boulder County, among other locations.

The enhancements offered by Denver Water include:

- up to 2,000 acre-feet of additional water for augmenting streamflow in Grand County;
- $2 million for improving water quality in Grand County;
- $2 million for stream modifications to improve aquatic habitat in Grand County; and
- a partnership with Boulder and Lafayette to provide 5,000 acre-feet of storage space in an enlarged Gross Reservoir to improve aquatic habitat in South Boulder Creek.

Denver Water is encouraging public participation in the two federal regulatory processes occurring for the Moffat Collection System Project. The two processes are:

An amendment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Gross Reservoir hydropower license<br.
An application for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Draft EIS and Draft FERC Hydropower License Amendment were published Friday, Oct. 30. Each document has a 90-day comment period ending Jan. 28, 2010.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will hold three Public Hearings on the Draft EIS. At each location, Denver Water will hold an Open House from 4 to 6 p.m. The Public Hearings begin at 6 p.m.:

Tues., Dec. 1 — Boulder Country Club, 7350 Clubhouse Road, Boulder, CO 80301
Wed., Dec. 2 — Inn at Silver Creek, 62927 U.S. Highway 40, Granby, CO 80446
Thurs., Dec. 3 — Doubletree Hotel, 3203 Quebec Street, Denver, CO 80207

See more information on how to comment on the Draft EIS and Draft FERC Amendment.

More Moffat Collection System Project coverage here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Ecoshale surface mining test said to be successful

From the Vernal Express (Mary Bernard):

On Wednesday, Dr. Laura Nelson, vice president of Ecoshale, said the company’s pilot project has produced a high quality oil-shale product. And, “we did so working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to make an environmentally sensitive product.” Nelson was briefing the Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining at the Uintah Basin Applied Technology College in the success of Ecoshale’s feasibility test. Ecoshale’s synthetic product has properties rated by the American Petroleum Institute (API) as 39 condensate oil and between 34 and 35 prompt oil with no fines, or impurities, in the oil. Based on the test study, Nelson projects full-production at 30,000 barrels a day would cost $20.21 per barrel, not including transportation…

“Ecoshale has access to the largest block of surface mine-able resource in region,” says Nelson. “The resource is called kerogen an organic matter with petroleum-like qualities which is heated in above ground capsules to extract oil from the shale.” The shale is mined, crushed and placed into a nearby bentonite-line earthen capsule where the oil product are extracted. It’s a slow heating process that produces a high quality product. The capsule and related structures occupy about five acres. The entire process has been patented by Ecoshale. “Our process has a small footprint, low carbon emissions, uses no water and employs a rapid reclamation of the landscape,” Nelson says. “Additionally, the bentonite lining protects against contact with surface or ground water sources throughout the process.”

More oil shale coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Likelihood of increased use of deep injection wells for disposal of produced water forecasted

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson):

“We’ve talked in the past about regulating oil and gas activity,” confirmed Garfield County Commissioner Trési Houpt, although the talk has focused on regulations for surface land-use considerations only. “We haven’t talked about subsurface regulating,” Houpt said, adding that she is unsure if it is feasible, given overriding state and federal laws, or advisable.

[Denise Onyskiw, of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission] told the commissioners that both types of wells regulated by her program involve the injection of water and other fluids into well bores. The “recovery” wells, she said, are for the purpose of getting at oil or gas deposits that could not be brought up to the surface by normal methods. The “disposal” wells, she explained, are used because “[the gas drilling companies] have all this water and don’t have anywhere to put it,” referring to the thousands of gallons of water used in the process of drilling the wells and extracting the oil or gas.

Onyskiw told the commissioners that both types of wells regulated by her program involve the injection of water and other fluids into well bores. The “recovery” wells, she said, are for the purpose of getting at oil or gas deposits that could not be brought up to the surface by normal methods. The “disposal” wells, she explained, are used because “[the gas drilling companies] have all this water and don’t have anywhere to put it,” referring to the thousands of gallons of water used in the process of drilling the wells and extracting the oil or gas. This water carries varying levels of certain chemicals, known as “hydrocarbons,” that are either used in the drilling process or occur naturally. The fluids are injected into the disposal wells, according to Onyskiw, and the substances permitted in the wells include produced water, drilling fluids, “spent well-treatment fluids” and others. Not permitted, she said, are “unused frac’ing fluids, lubricating wastes and sanitary wastes,” among others…

Use of a well for disposal purposes, she said, requires notification of adjacent landowners within a quarter-mile of the well, and the provision of documents to the COGCC describing the existing water quality of the aquifers that might be affected, among other kinds of information. Onyskiw said the state permits this kind of disposal only when it affects aquifers that produce hydrocarbons on their own; are too deep to be used economically for drinking water, or too contaminated already to be used for drinking water. The disposal wells, she said, are lined to prevent contamination of aquifers through which the bore passes, and regulations require that the pressure used to inject the waste water be well below that used in hydraulic fracturing of actual gas wells, so that the subterranean rock around the well is not broken up.

After the presentation, Onyskiw told a reporter that the likelihood of greater use of disposal wells is related to changing regulations governing the use of pits, lined with impermeable membranes, to hold a variety of waste fluids during the drilling process. The COGCC now requires that, once the fluids are drained and disposed of, the liners themselves must be sent to a receiving site for disposal. Garfield County’s landfill will no longer accept the liners due to their bulky and potentially toxic nature, and the COGCC reportedly has considered returning to a former rule that allowed the companies to simply bury the liner in place.

More coverage from the Grand Junction Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Traffic is likely to be the biggest issue Garfield County officials will face as they deal with an expected increase in the use of injection wells to dispose of fluids associated with natural gas development, a state official said Monday.

Meanwhile, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is stepping up regulation of stormwater runoff from drilling pads, according to a report from Dennis Webb writing for the Grand Junction Sentinel. From the article:

The state also is seeking information such as schedules for stormwater-management inspections and maintenance on the pads, and the number of associated pits and whether they have fencing to keep out wildlife. State regulators inspect sites once wells are drilled, and they can ensure requirements such as those for any interim reclamation are met. But companies aren’t required to notify the state when pads have been constructed. Oil and gas officials are concerned about pads that may have been built before companies realized they would be cutting back on drilling, leaving state inspectors unaware of them because drilling never began. The issue is particularly pertinent for Western Slope operations because climate and topographical factors often cause companies to build pads months in advance of planned drilling, which because of the slowdown may not have ended up occurring on some pads. “What we want to do is get the location of these pads, work with the operators, see where we stand on interim reclamation,” said Margaret Ash, the agency’s field inspection manager. Oil and Gas Commission Director Dave Neslin said the agency is particularly concerned about runoff problems that could occur on inactive pads during the snowy winter. Ash said inspectors want to make sure the sites are stabilized from an erosion control standpoint and are properly secured if no activities are taking place on them.

Michael DeBerry, manager of Chevron’s operations near De Beque, said its temporary suspension of drilling has caused it to go ahead with interim reclamation efforts such as stormwater control and weed management on some pipeline rights of way and other oil and gas development sites. “It’s purely a matter of, with the slowdown, it’s appropriate to take these steps. It’s just a matter of environmental stewardship,” he said.

More oil and gas coverage here.

Energy policy — oil and gas: Garfield County commissioners urge COGCC officials to start cleanup of spring near Debeque

Outfitter Ned Prather’s spring is still contaminated and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is under fire from the Garfield County Commissioners asking that the cleanup proceed while the search for the contamination goes on. Here’s a report from John Colson writing for The Aspen Times. From the article:

Commissioner Mike Samson joined Commissioner John Martin in agreeing to send a resolution to the COGCC urging that something be done quickly to clean up the contamination at the Prather springs. Commission[er] Trési Houpt, who serves on the COGCC, excused herself from the discussion to avoid a conflict of interest. But, speaking from a seat in the gallery, she urged her fellow commissioners to “do what you need to do” in order to call attention to the situation.

After examining months worth of investigations by the COGCC and the various gas drilling operators working wells in the area, a consultant reported in September of this year that the contamination “likely” came from drilling rigs. According to the report, the types of chemicals found in the springs matched the types of chemicals used in the drilling operations of Williams and OXY, two prominent gas companies. The consultants also found “inconsistencies” in the earlier investigations by the gas companies themselves, and recommended further monitoring of the situation. This would include soil samples, water samples and tests to determine whether the plume of contaminants has spread beyond the immediate area around the springs. But, according to Dick Prather (Ned’s brother) and attorney Richard Djokic, there is no plan for such monitoring and testing. And while the Prather brothers were assured that a cleanup plan would be in place by last June, there is no such plan in existence that they know of, Djokic said…

Judy Jordan, the county’s liaison for the oil and gas industry, at one point told the commissioners, “This doesn’t have to do with the commission, it has to do with the staff.” She said the COGCC staff should have long ago recommended to the oil and gas commission that, regardless of where the contamination came from, the state should clean up the mess so the Prathers can salvage their livelihood as outfitters. Speaking after the meeting, Jordan said that once it is known where, exactly, the contamination came from, the state can then go to the appropriate company for payment of the cleanup costs. Representatives of Williams and OXY reported that their companies are doing all they can to determine the source of the contamination, although they indicated that the problems did not come from their companies…

Visibly unhappy about the fact that he and his brother cannot ply their trade for fear of poisoning their clientele, Prather said, “I guess the frustrating part is that, as landowners, you would think that [the gas companies] would want to be sure they did what was right” as far as impacts on other landowners.

More coverage from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

[Commissioner Mike Samson] said Gov. Bill Ritter is shortchanging the county by seeking to divert severance taxes away from energy-impacted communities to help balance the state budget, while leaving the COGCC without the resources to do its job. [Commissioner Trési Houpt] said the agency has a fund for remediation projects. The county’s oil and gas liaison, Judy Jordan, suggested that the state do remediation on the property now and bill the responsible companies once they’re identified.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress is calling for the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate hydraulic fracturing techniques to determine safety to water supplies. Here’s a report from Katie Burford writing for The Durango Herald. From the article:

The call for a study was included in a conference report accompanying the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on Friday.The conference report provides the EPA and other funded agencies additional instructions on how to use the money. The provision urges the EPA to “carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information.” Because the report must be approved by both houses of Congress, [Bruce Baizel, a staff attorney with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project] said it represents a clear consensus on the need for more study…

[Christi Zeller, executive director of the La Plata Energy Council, an industry group] said the EPA had studied fracing under the Clinton and Bush administrations, but never as it specifically related to drinking water. The differences on fracing lie in the question of whether the EPA should regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act and whether companies should be forced to disclose the chemicals they use. Federal legislation introduced in the House and Senate in June would require both. So far, Udall, Bennet and Salazar have not signed on as co-sponsors for the bill, which in the House was introduced by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Denver.

Finally, near Walsenburg, according to the Associated Press (Judith Kohler) via the Denver Post:

Bernice and Jerry Angely like to show visitors the singed T-shirt a friend was wearing when their water well exploded and shot flames 30 feet high. The friend wasn’t hurt. But that and an explosion at another home weeks earlier forced Colorado to suspend natural gas drilling around this southern plains town until someone could find out why dangerous levels of methane were getting into the groundwater…

“The water is so saturated with methane and other chemicals it is not to be used for human consumption,” said Bernice Angely, who’s had water trucked to her home 10 miles west of town since her well blew up in July 2007.

Petroglyph Energy Inc., a Boise, Idaho-based firm that has worked the rolling plains of the Raton Basin since 1999, suspended drilling until it can stem the methane. Colorado also is rewriting rules that had allowed Petroglyph to discharge water runoff from its drilling into streams and creeks. But Petroglyph says it’s not clear the drilling caused the methane leaks or prompted other area water wells to run dry. Eying what it calls an extremely promising natural gas field, it believes a shallow water formation tapped by area homeowners isn’t connected to a deeper one pumped by the company for its drilling operations. Petroglyph chief operating officer Paul Powell also believes a growing number of new homes in the area could explain some of the dry water wells. “We’ll do what we need to do,” Powell said, stressing that his firm is working with the state on a solution.

Petroglyph has a plan to prevent the flow of methane into water wells by creating a hydraulic barrier. The company has proposed pumping water from an underground formation and injecting it into a row of wells where gas drilling occurs. Powell said gas will migrate into a void, and “if the void is full of water, there isn’t room for gas to migrate through it.” State regulators say the plan is plausible but that Petroglyph needs to prove it works. Democratic U.S. Rep. John Salazar, who farms in the nearby San Luis Valley, has asked the U.S. Geological Survey to weigh in by evaluating the area’s water quality and formations to determine if the gas drilling is to blame for the problems.

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

Despite some speculation the commissioners might vote Monday on a resolution of support for the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, a measure introduced by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Denver) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jared Polis (D-Boulder), the commissioners actually decided to take on the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC).

More oil and gas coverage here and here.

Energy policy – nuclear: New rules for in-situ uranium mines under review

From the Fort Collins Coloradoan (Bobby Magill):

Once the state approves them, those rules, now in the process of being written by Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety officials, aim to keep groundwater contamination from the mine in check and determine how much input the public will have in the mine permitting process…

The proposed rules lay out how Powertech would have to study what the groundwater quality is at the mine site before mining begins, prove that other similar mines elsewhere have been able to prevent groundwater contamination, and how it plans to reclaim the mine once its operations are complete and return the groundwater quality to what it will be before mining begins. The rules, required by a 2008 state law regulating in situ leach uranium mines like the one Powertech is proposing, have been evolving since May. The latest revision went public Oct. 20…

Specifically, the proposed rules would require the company to, among other things:

> Compare the plans for the Centennial Project to and describe at least five other in situ leach mines elsewhere that did not contaminate the groundwater, illustrating Powertech’s ability to keep its toxic chemicals contained.

> Submit a plan to the DRMS for determining the mine site’s “baseline” water quality, or the groundwater quality prior to the start of mining. Once the plan is submitted, the public will be allowed 10 days to comment.

> Carry out that plan for five calendar quarters, describing in detail both pre-mining surface and ground water conditions.

> Create an extensive groundwater monitoring plan.

The proposed rules allow the state to deny Powertech a mining permit if it can’t prove it will fully reclaim the mine and clean any groundwater it has contaminated, there are any future domestic or agricultural uses for any of the groundwater Powertech might contaminate, or, among other reasons, Powertech willfully violates environmental protection requirements of the rules.

More nuclear coverage here.

Creede: Hydroelectric project retrofit scores stimulus dough

From The Aspen Times (Scott Condon):

[Aspenite Ruthie Brown] secured a $308,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a $600,000 low interest loan to install a 340-kilowatt hydroelectric project at her family’s A.E. Humphrey Ranch in Creede. The system will produce roughly enough power to supply 230 homes once it is completed in spring 2011. Brown said she is a strong supporter of renewable energy and wanted to demonstrate to ranchers in the San Luis Valley that hydroelectric power is a cost-effective investment. Her family is negotiating with a local utility to sell the power generated back to the grid. That will provide the income to maintain the historic ranch and keep the land undeveloped for additional generations, she said. Her family tapped into a special program by the agriculture department to award $62.5 million in stimulus money to grants and loans for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. The funds were awarded to 705 farms and ranches across the country. Flux Farms of Carbondale, a consulting firm on renewable energy projects, is helping Brown with the project…

The cost of the project is about $900,000. Utilizing the existing dam that her great grandfather constructed 90 years ago was key to making it affordable, Brown said. She is projecting that the project will show a small profit after just one year, thanks to the grant and low-interest loan through the agriculture department. Brown is working with state Sen. Gail Swartz of Snowmass Village to streamline the permit process for micro-hydro projects so that more landowners in Colorado will pursue them. Construction at the Humphreys Ranch is expected to begin next year.

More hydroelectric coverage here and here.

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

Colorado U.S. Sen. Mark Udall Wednesday took his boldest step yet on the road to a national nuclear renaissance as part of a program designed to combat global warming. He introduced the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009 in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor in which he acknowledged he was likely stepping on an environmental landmine. “For some, news that a Udall is speaking favorably about nuclear power will come as a stark – and perhaps unpleasant – surprise. But I also believe public and expert opinion on the risks and benefits of nuclear power has changed,” Udall said…

The Senate bill, co-sponsored by Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, would clear the way for the U.S. Department of Energy to engage in research into modular and small-scale nuclear reactors, cost-efficient manufacturing for nuclear power facilities and enhanced proliferation controls…

Keith Hay, energy advocate for Denver-based Environment Colorado, said Udall’s own state would bear the environmental brunt of a revival of the nation’s nuclear power industry, which currently accounts for a about 20 percent of the nation’s electrical power, although no new nuclear plants have come online since the Three Mile Island disaster. “We don’t think that renewable energy is a silver bullet; we just think that there are some things that shouldn’t be part of the buckshot going forward, and nuclear [power] certainly shouldn’t be part of that buck shot,” Hay said. “We certainly agree with Sen. Udall that climate change is important and a pressing need, but we clearly disagree with Sen. Udall on the path forward.”

More nuclear coverage here and here.

Energy policy — nuclear: Piñon Ridge mill clears county permit hurdle

From The Denver Post (Bruce Finley):

The proposed Piñon Ridge mill awaits approval by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Montrose County commissioners, after 25 hours of hearings, last month issued a local permit. Federal environmental regulators will leave the decision to the state. Energy Fuels executives are preparing to submit a 12-volume application to state health regulators, triggering a technical review.

Here’s the post from October 4 announcing the county’s approval.

More nuclear coverage here and here.

The town of Rifle is keeping a close watch on oil and gas exploration in the Beaver Creek Watershed

From the Grand Junction Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

The Rifle City Council on Wednesday agreed to let Laramie Energy II build two additional drilling pads in the Beaver Creek drainage, where the council last year issued a watershed permit for five Laramie pads, pipelines and associated facilities.

Beaver Creek, south of Rifle, is the city’s best and oldest water supply, said council member Alan Lambert. He said protecting it from Laramie’s operations has been a concern for council members, but Laramie has gone far to address those concerns.

Key steps have included putting in the monitoring system and relocating Beaver Creek Road away from the creek to provide a buffer from possible spills.

More Rifle coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Secretary of Interior Salazar requests probe of 11th hour oil shale leases

From the Houston Chronicle (Jennifer A. Dlouhy):

Salazar, a former Democratic senator from Colorado, said there were “serious questions” surrounding the abrupt changes made to six oil shale research, demonstration and development leases on Jan. 15, five days before former President George W. Bush left office. The changes governed the terms of any future commercial oil shale production on six leased tracts of federal land. Salazar said the questionable changes included the locking in of a potentially “lucrative” 5 percent royalty rate that energy companies pay to the federal government. That rate is well below the double-digit percentage commanded on other public lands. Salazar formally asked Mary Kendall, the Interior Department’s inspector general, to launch an investigation.

The six existing leases that Salazar wants scrutinized include three held by Shell Oil Co. that are already being reviewed as part of a Justice Department probe of former Interior Secretary Gale Norton. Investigators are examining whether Norton illegally steered the oil shale leases to Shell while negotiating with the company for her current job there.

The secretary made his call for a probe public even as he moved to open up new public lands in the West for new oil shale development. Companies will have 60 days to apply for the second round of oil shale research, development and demonstration projects on new tracts in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. These projects will be limited initially to 160 acres. If energy companies prove they can commercially produce shale oil from the lands, the leases could eventually be expanded to 660 acres — a fraction of the 5,120 acres that would be allowed for commercial production under the initial six contracts.

More coverage from the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

But the process remains highly speculative, and environmentalists who have legally challenged the Bush rules say the current technology requires far too much water for arid western lands to support, too much electricity that would further exacerbate global warming and that the process degrades sensitive Rocky Mountain landscapes with adverse impacts on wildlife and tourism. “We want to avoid the booms and busts of the past,” said Salazar, a former U.S. senator from Colorado, referring to a devastating oil shale bust on the Western Slope in the 1980s. “We want to ensure the potential development is done in a way that is environmentally appropriate, and we want to assure that the American taxpayers get a fair return for the potential development of America’s public lands.” The Bush rules called for a royalty rate starting at 5 percent to be paid by oil and gas companies to the federal government for the use of public lands. Critics claim that rate is far too low. “There is a question about how those royalty rates could actually be set when these very important fundamental questions [about technology, water and power] have not been answered,” Salazar said, adding the 11th-hour process was done without public scrutiny and was too favorable to a handful of companies currently holding leases.

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

The opposition has politicized the debate, Jeremy Boak, head of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the Colorado School of Mines, told the AP. Boak said Salazar’s decision to limit new RD&D leases and more closely monitor their progress will inhibit research. “I feel like the arguments are highly political arguments, not technical ones,” Boak said.

But Gov. Bill Ritter Tuesday issued a statement supporting Salazar’s new rules for the next round of RD&D leases, as well as his decision to pursue an Interior Department investigation of amendments made to previous leases during the waning days of the Bush administration.

More oil shale coverage here and here.