Shale industry scales back potential in region — The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel #ColoradoRiver

August 3, 2014

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

An oil shale industry in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming is likely to be about one-third the size it had been envisioned, an industry association said. Instead of a 1.5-million barrel-per-day industry, the more likely scenario is a 500,000-barrel-per-day industry, according to estimates by the National Oil Shale Association. The estimates were dramatically reduced “in light of a more pragmatic view of what an industry might look like in 50 years or so,” the association said, in an estimate that also noted that oil shale production would demand less water than had been previously believed.

The United States in 2013 consumed 6.89 billion barrels of petroleum products or 18.89 million barrels per day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The oil shale association’s estimate is based on production of 225,000 barrels per day from in-situ means, or heating shale deep below the surface; 200,000 barrels per day from retorting shale on the surface; and 75,000 barrels per day from modified techniques, such as heating it in an earthen capsule, which is left in place.

Additional information about water demands of each technique sharply lowered the association’s estimate of water use from its 2013 estimate of 1.7 barrels of water per barrel of oil. Depending on approach, production from oil shale could require between 0.7 barrels of water per barrel of oil to 1.2 barrels of water per barrel of oil. Production of 500,000 barrels per day could demand between 16,400 acre feet to 28,900 acre feet of water per year…

The reduction in the anticipated size of an oil shale industry is the result of new information that came to light this year, the association said.

“Projects have matured, and some developers have taken a new look into technologies that dramatically reduce water needs,” the association said. “However, estimates are still preliminary and may change as projects reach commercialization.”

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Water Lines: Colorado needs a better water plan — Jim Pokrandt #ColoradoRiver #COWaterPlan

July 16, 2014

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Jim Pokrandt):

It’s almost time for football training camps, so here’s a gridiron analogy for Colorado River water policy watchers: Western Colorado is defending two end zones. One is the Colorado River. The other is agriculture. The West Slope team has to make a big defensive play. If water planning errs on the side of overdeveloping the Colorado River, the river loses, the West Slope economy loses and West Slope agriculture could be on the way out.

This is how the Colorado River Basin Roundtable is viewing its contribution to the Colorado Water Plan ordered up by Gov. John Hickenlooper. A draft plan will be submitted this December and a final plan in December 2015. The Roundtable is assessing local water supply needs and environmental concerns for inclusion into the plan and there is plenty of work to consider in the region. But the big play may very well be the keeping of powerful forces from scoring on our two goal lines.

Here’s why: Colorado’s population is slated to double by 2050. Most of it will be on the Front Range, but our region is growing too. Mother Nature is not making any new water. We still depend on the same hydrological cycle that goes back to Day 1. So where is the “new” water going to come from? Right now, there seems to be two top targets, the Colorado River and agriculture (where 85 percent of state water use lies in irrigated fields). Colorado needs a better plan.

The Colorado Basin Roundtable represents Mesa, Garfield, Summit, Eagle, Grand and Pitkin counties. This region already sends between 450,000 and 600,000 acre feet of water annually across the Continental Divide through transmountain diversions (TMDs) to support the Front Range and the Arkansas River Basin.

That water is 100 percent gone. There are no return flows, such as there are with West Slope water users. On top of that, this region could see another 140,000 acre feet go east. A number of Roundtable constituents have long-standing or prospective agreements with Front Range interests wrapped around smaller TMDs. Existing infrastructure can still take some more water. That’s the scorecard right now. We assert another big TMD threatens streamflows and thus the recreational and agricultural economies that define Western Colorado, not to mention the environment.

In the bigger picture, the Colorado River Compact of 1922 requires Colorado to bypass about 70 percent of the river system to the state line to comply with legal limits on depletions so six other states can have their legal share of the water. Failure to do so, by overdeveloping the river, threatens compact curtailments and chaos nobody wants to see. For one thing, that kind of bad water planning could result in a rush to buy or condemn West Slope agricultural water rights.

The Roundtable has heard these concerns loudly and clearly from its own members across the six counties as well as from citizens who have given voice to our section of the water plan, known as the Basin Implementation Plan (BIP). A draft of the BIP can be viewed and comments offered by going online to http://coloradobip.sgm‐ It is under the “Resources” tab.

Jim Pokrandt is Colorado Basin Roundtable Chair.

More Colorado Water Plan coverage here.

Climate change: “The fossil-fuel industry…has been able to delay effective action” — Bill McKibben

July 15, 2014

Inylchek Glacier Kyrgyzstan

Inylchek Glacier Kyrgyzstan

Here’s an essay about the risk of doing nothing about climate change from Allen Best writing for The Mountain Town News. Click through and read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:

Bill McKibben, a writer and activist, has made the most cogent arguments. Two years ago, after crunching the numbers, he concluded that private companies own five times more carbon in the ground than the world can possibly absorb. “On current trajectories, the industry will burn it, and governments will make only small whimpering noises about changing the speed at which it happens,” he wrote in an essay titled “A Call to Arms” that was published in the June 8 issue of Rolling Stone.

He identifies a clear problem. “The fossil-fuel industry, by virtue of being perhaps the richest enterprise in human history, has been able to delay effective action, almost to the point where it’s too late,” he wrote. [ed. emphasis mine]

McKibben’s has been fighting the Keystone XL pipeline, which would export Alberta’s bitumen to refineries along the Gulf Coast. It’s largely a symbolic fight, as Michael Levi points out in his book The Power Surge. The tar/oil sands would, if fully developed, elevate atmospheric concentrations of C02 by 60 ppm. At current rates of tar/oil sands mining, that would take 3,000 years, he says. Isolating the climate debate to Alberta’s bitumen, he says, is a mistake.

But Keystone XL represents business as usual. We need accelerated change. The United States should follow the lead of British Columbia in levying a carbon tax. My impression of B.C.’s tax is that it not precisely the best model. We need a revenue-neutral tax, accelerating over time, giving the private sector clear market signals to instigate changes.

Henry Paulson, the former treasury secretary in the Bush years, made this case in an 1,800-word essay in the New York Times on June 22. A few days later, a group that includes Paulson, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Stanford’s George Schultz, who is another former treasury secretary, and a number of other high-profile individuals — including billionaire Tom Steyer — released a report titled “The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States.”

More climate change coverage here and here.

“Oil shale has been the next big thing in Colorado for over a hundred years” — Ed Quillen #ColoradoRiver

April 26, 2014
Map of oil shale and tar sands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming -- via the BLM

Map of oil shale and tar sands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming — via the BLM

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

Microwaving rock in northwest Colorado could turn the oil shale business inside out, said a Grand Junction inventor who is working to restart oil shale at a time when many are pulling away from it. Using equipment small enough to be loaded onto two trucks traversing the surface could result in minimal surface disturbance, said Peter Kearl, a Grand Valley native who heads Qmast LLC,, the company pursuing the project.

Not only would his technology disturb little of the surface, it also would likely produce — rather than use — water, Kearl said.

It could be run using natural gas from the Piceance Basin itself as a fuel source and leave behind subterranean caverns that could be used for carbon sequestration, Kearl said.

Most approaches to developing oil shale, from retorting it above the ground to mining and in-situ heating in large expanses, have run afoul of environmental and cost concerns.

Rather than employing a “big-risk, big-reward” approach such as that of Royal Dutch Shell before it pulled out of oil shale entirely last year, Kearl said he’s hoping to use a more measured approach and achieve more reliable and regular results.

Several other oil shale ventures are pushing ahead in Utah, and Kearl acknowledged that it might be easier to test his technology across the state line.

“But I’m a Colorado boy,” he said, voicing his preference for developing oil shale in the Centennial State.

He has a geology degree from what was known then as Mesa College and a degree in hydrogeology from the University of Nevada.

It also helps that the richest, though deepest, deposits of the Green River Formation’s oil shale are in the northwest corner of Colorado. Colorado, Utah and Wyoming contain the world’s largest deposits of oil shale that contain as many as 4.2 trillion barrels of oil, according to recent estimates.

Applying microwaves to heat-
targeted areas of rock makes more sense than heating large areas using other methods of heating, Kearl said.

“The fundamental physics are definitely on our side,” he said.

The process would send the microwave equipment down a well to heat the hydrocarbon-bearing rock to the point that it would release crude oil that then could be collected by conventional drilling, he said.

The technology could tap shale on steep slopes from the side, allowing the oil to simply flow out, he said.

He presented his idea in 2012 at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory on the Stanford University campus.

The more targeted approach he advocates could prove to be a financial success, Kearl said.

A well 300 meters deep could produce revenue of $80 million, based on $100-per-barrel crude prices, he said.

Kearl and his partners are working to arrange financing of $5.5 million for a test. That step is difficult because the federal government appears to be uninterested in making available any more land for research, demonstration and development leases.

The effective ban on experimentation “thwarts inventiveness,” Kearl said.

So he’s also looking for a small parcel of land, a quarter of an acre would do, on which to test his technology, including his estimate that he could produce about half a barrel of water for each barrel of oil he produces.

The patented microwave technology he’s considering wouldn’t require a large electricity supply, he said, because the process also would produce natural gas, which could be used to fire the generators for the microwave equipment.

Read the post with Ed’s quote here.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

ExxonMobil and Natural Soda Holdings, Inc. to research oil shale development #ColoradoRiver

March 11, 2014
Colony Oil Shale Project Exxon -- Photo / Associated Pres

Colony Oil Shale Project Exxon — Photo / Associated Pres

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

ExxonMobil and Natural Soda Holdings Inc. have edged another step closer to undertaking oil shale research-and-development projects with the Bureau of Land Management’s approval of their development plans. The approvals are for the company’s research, demonstration and development leases on federal land southwest of Meeker in Rio Blanco County. The projects still must undergo review by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety.

For ExxonMobil, its project marks a renewed attempt to commercially extract petroleum from oil shale after what was then Exxon shut down its Colony Project in 1982. That shutdown resulted in some 2,000 workers losing their jobs and caused economic repercussions for years from Glenwood Springs to Grand Junction.

Natural Soda, meanwhile, has extensive experience with another kind of mining at a site just north of its federal lease. It injects hot water underground to solution-mine for baking soda, known as nahcolite in its natural form. On its lease, it proposes first removing the nahcolite using its normal process, then producing oil from underground by heating it using either a downhole burner or a closed-loop steam system.

ExxonMobil also is proposing an in-situ, or in-place, development project involving heating the oil shale underground and then pumping out the oil — a process different from the Colony Project, which involved surface mining and heating of oil shale. Exxon wants to hydraulically fracture the oil shale, fill the fractures with conductive material and then electrically heat the shale.

The companies acquired the leases under a second round of R&D leasing conducted by the BLM. The leases initially cover about 160 acres but potentially can be enlarged by some 480 acres for commercial development if certain conditions are met.

Shell, Chevron and American Shale Oil hold R&D leases in Rio Blanco County from the earlier round of leasing — including three leases in Shell’s case — with the potential to convert each lease to nearly eight square miles for commercial development. But while AMSO continues to work on an in-situ project, Chevron, and more recently Shell, have ended their oil shale projects in connection with their leases. Shell had done the most work of any company on an in-situ shale project in Colorado before shutting it down last year.

Economics, environment

In approval documents for the ExxonMobil and Natural Soda plans, BLM White River Field Office manager Kent Walter wrote that each proposed action “with mitigation represents an opportunity to develop domestic energy sources and to inform and advance knowledge of commercially viable production, development and recovery technologies of oil shale resources consistent with sound environmental management. It also will provide a basis for informed future decisions about whether and when to move forward with commercial scale development and allow for the assessment of its impacts on the environment.”

David Abelson, an oil shale policy advisor for the Western Resource Advocates conservation group, said that if history is any indication, there’s a strong likelihood the latest projects won’t prove economically viable.

But he added, “One thing I think we have learned over the years is to proceed cautiously so we don’t repeat what happened in western Colorado in the early ‘80s.”

He said both Shell and Chevron showed a big difference from companies’ past practice in acknowledging failure early on rather than proceeding to the point where shutting down a project is economically devastating.

New approach

He said ExxonMobil and Natural Soda also will operate under a framework governing the second round of leases that requires more reporting regarding protection of air and water quality and other concerns.

“And that is good public policy. That’s the basis for making smart decisions,” he said.

ExxonMobil repeatedly has emphasized the desire to take a prudent, step-by-step approach to its new oil shale undertaking, something reiterated in its development plan.

“It is recognized that development of a commercial(ly) viable in situ oil shale technology will require a paced approach to thoroughly evaluate and optimize technology viability, with appropriate focus on environmental protection, water conservation and responsible land use,” the company said in the plan.

It plans to first conduct an appraisal phase involving drilling one or more test wells to ascertain the oil shale resources within the lease, along with groundwater monitoring wells to do baseline testing of water quality before further work ensues.

It currently estimates a resource of 600 million barrels of oil are contained in the shale within its lease.

The appraisal phase would be followed by three experimental phases, first to establish the ability to install the technology in the test zone, secondly to heat the zone, and then to do a pilot test to determine commercial viability on a field scale.

“ExxonMobil has consistently proposed a staged and deliberate development program that allows for technical advancement while minimizing the potential for environmental impacts,” its plan says.

Natural Soda also is outlining a phased approach in its plan, starting with a monitoring well to be drilled as soon as this year. That would be followed by steps such as building processing facilities, installing heating elements, operating the facilities and expanding and replicating the process over a period of up to nine years.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Oil shale: An alliance of conservationists are asking Utah to reconsider recent permits for groundwater disposal

January 25, 2014
Deep injection well

Deep injection well

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Conservation groups are asking the state of Utah to reconsider its December approval of a groundwater discharge permit for Red Leaf Resources’ oil shale project.

The request comes as the company hopes to begin mining shale this spring for a commercial demonstration project in the Bookcliffs about 55 miles south of Vernal.

The groups on Tuesday filed what’s called a “request for agency action” with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the department’s Division of Water Quality. It seeks review and remand of the division’s December decision and an order revoking the permit.

Attorney Rob Dubuc of Western Resource Advocates filed the action on behalf of Living Rivers, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Great Old Broads for Wilderness and the Sierra Club.

In a news release, the groups said the permit “lacks measures to prevent or detect surface or groundwater pollution, in violation of state law.”

Shelley Silbert, executive director with Great Old Broads for Wilderness, said in the release, “Amazingly, they are not even requiring monitoring of springs, seeps, or groundwater on site.”

Spokespersons for the Department of Environmental Quality and Red Leaf Resources could not be reached for comment Wednesday. In a December news release, the department said that “leachate produced from mining operations appears to have levels of dissolved contaminants that are comparable to, or less than, the levels in existing groundwater in underlying rocks.”

It also said rock just below the project area “is of very low permeability and protects underlying aquifers from any contaminants that could possibly be released from the capsule.”

Red Leaf Resources plans to try out what it calls a capsule approach in which it will excavate shale from a pit, install heaters and collection pipes, replace the shale and heat it to produce oil. The groundwater permit applies to a test capsule, and if the company wants to build additional ones for commercial production it would have to seek a major modification to the permit.

The conservation groups’ challenge of the permit says a planned 3-foot-thick liner made of up shale mixed with clay is inadequate. It says the Division of Water Quality determined groundwater just beneath the mine site doesn’t quality for protection because it is not usable, but in fact the division is required to protect all groundwater from contamination.

Meanwhile, a British Company, The Oil Mining Co (TOMCO), is moving ahead with plans to implement Red Leaf’s kerogen recovery process just west of the Colorado Border. Here’s a report from Gary Harmon writing for The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

A British company filed papers in Utah to begin mining oil shale on land just west of the Colorado state line. TomCo submitted a notice of intent to begin mining on 2,919 acres in Uintah County for shale, which it plans to roast in large earthen capsules to release oil.

Red Leaf Resources, which owns the technology that TomCo plans to use, last month received a groundwater discharge permit for its operation, and TomCo said it is working to obtain a similar permit for its leases, which are on state property.

TomCo, which is an acronym for The Oil Mining Co., anticipates tapping the leases for 126 million barrels of oil on what is known as the Holliday Block lease. TomCo licensed the Red Leaf technology, in which oil shale is excavated and the pit is lined with a network of pipes. The crushed shale is then replaced into the pit and covered over, then heated by the network of pipes beneath, to the point at which the oil breaks free of the surrounding rock and is collected with another network of pipes. Once the oil has been recovered, the material is left in place beneath its covering.

The EcoShale In-Capsule Process is expected to produce up to 9,800 barrels of oil per day on TomCo’s leases.

TomCo said it hoped the Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining would approve the permit for mining in the middle of this year, and then open the matter for a 30-day comment period.

Red Leaf, meanwhile, expects to begin mining shale this spring for a commercial demonstration project the company hopes will allow it to tap as many as 600 million barrels of oil at the rate of 9,800 barrels per day.

Red Leaf Resources expects it to take a year to construct its first test capsule and that it will take into next year before oil will be recovered.

Red Leaf’s site is on Seep Ridge, about 15 miles southwest of the TomCo holdings.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

‘I firmly believe we will some day see oil shale become a reality’ — Glenn Vawter

December 9, 2013
Oil shale deposits Colorado, Wyoming and Utah

Oil shale deposits Colorado, Wyoming and Utah

Here’s a recap of a presentation about the future of oil shale at Rifle Community College on November 19, written by Mike McKibbin for the Rifle Citizen-Telegram. Here’s an excerpt:

The long sought-after petroleum product is infamous for its long-held promise of economic benefits, high-paying jobs and what sounds like an almost non-ending supply to meet America’s growing energy needs.

But while that reality has proved elusive for centuries, some, such as Glenn Vawter, executive director of the National Oil Shale Association, are ever optimistic. The nonprofit group promotes factual information about oil shale…

“I firmly believe we will some day see oil shale become a reality, and 75 percent of the world’s oil shale is in the U.S.,” Vawter said. “It’s already been produced commercially for decades in Brazil, Estonia and China.”[...]

The underground mining processes used by companies such as Unocal, which produced 10,000 barrels of shale oil a day during its limited operation, totaled five-million barrels and was proven feasible, Vawter said.

The in-situ process that companies are now developing has the advantage of no mining, Vawter said.

Currently, research, design and development projects on Bureau of Land Management leases are underway by American Shale Oil, ExxonMobil and Natural Soda in western Garfield and Rio Blanco counties, along with Red Leaf Resources and Enefit American Oil in Utah.

“It was discouraging that Shell recently announced they were pulling out,” Vawter said. “But Red Leaf plans to start commercial production of up to 10,000 barrels a day in Utah next year. There’s a lot going on over there in Utah. They have policies that are more welcoming to energy and oil shale industries.”

Enefit has operated shale oil projects in Estonia for decades, Vawter pointed out, with a proven technology.

And Vawter pointed to a recent U.S. Geological Survey estimate of 4.3 trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. Of that, Vawter said up to 1.14 billion barrels are now considered recoverable. That is up to six times more than the total oil reserves in Saudi Arabia and significantly more than known U.S. conventional oil resources.

“There are places in the Piceance Basin that are estimated to have one million barrels in just one acre,” Vawter said. “The Piceance Basin could have up to 152 trillion barrels.”

Water used in the oil shale process has often been cited by opponents as a large hurdle, Vawter said, but current processes for a 1.5 million barrel per day project would require just 2 to 3 percent of an estimated 8 million acre feet per year of water in the Colorado River.

“That’s not an insignificant amount, but it’s far less than some still believe,” he said…

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Text of the Colorado Basin Roundtable white paper for the IBCC and Colorado Water Plan

December 3, 2013
New supply development concepts via the Front Range roundtables

New supply development concepts via the Front Range roundtables

Here’s the text from the recently approved draft of the white paper:

The Colorado River Basin is the “heart” of Colorado. The basin holds the headwaters of the Colorado River that form the mainstem of the river, some of the state’s most significant agriculture, the largest West Slope city and a large, expanding energy industry. The Colorado Basin is home to the most-visited national forest and much of Colorado’s recreation-based economy, including significant river-based recreation.

Colorado’s population is projected by the State Demographer’s Office to nearly double by 2050, from the five million people we have today to nearly ten million. Most of the growth is expected to be along the Front Range urban corridor; however the fastest growth is expected to occur along the I-70 corridor within the Colorado Basin.

Read the rest of this entry »

‘Keeping the last wild river in the [#ColoradoRiver] Basin intact is important to a healthy environment’ — Susan Bruce

December 2, 2013
Yampa River Basin via the Colorado Geological Survey

Yampa River Basin via the Colorado Geological Survey

Here’s a post arguing to keep the Yampa River riparian system as a baseline for a healthy river from Susan Bruce writing for the Earth Island Journal. Here’s an excerpt:

Governor John Hickenlooper’s directive to the Colorado Water Conservation Board earlier this year to create a Colorado Water Plan by 2015 has put the Yampa, which has the second largest watershed in the state, under the spotlight.

Efforts to dam the Yampa go back to the proposed construction of Echo Park Dam, which Congress vetoed in 1952, bowing to a groundswell of public outcry led by David Brower, then with the Sierra Club. But in a compromise he later regretted, Brower supported the construction of two other dams: Glen Canyon on the Colorado River and Flaming Gorge on the Green River. The Green and Yampa rivers used to have similar flows and ecosystems. The construction of the Flaming Gorge Dam in 1962 modified the Green’s hydrograph, reducing sediment flow by half and tapering its seasonal fluctuations to a slower, more consistent flow, opening the way for invasive species like the tamarisk tree to crowd out native ones.

More recently, in 2006, there was a proposal to build a reservoir near Maybell, CO, and pump water from the Yampa to a reservoir about 230 miles away for municipal and agricultural use on the Front Range. But the plan was scrapped due to environmental and cost concerns; the reservoir would have cost between $3 billion and $5 billion.

The oil and gas industry is also eyeing the Yampa. Shell Oil had plans to pump about 8 percent of the Yampa’s high-water flow to fill a 1,000-acre reservoir, but it shelved the proposal in 2010, citing a slowdown of its oil-shale development program. Still, oil production in Colorado is at its highest level since 1957 and gas production at an all-time high. While industrial and municipal water needs are projected to increase with population growth, the largest water user, agriculture, will continue to divert the lion’s share of Colorado’s water, around 80 percent. All of which mean the pressure to suck up Yampa’s water is only going to grow.

The most unique characteristic of the Yampa is its wild and unimpeded flow, in particular the extensive spring flooding that washes away sediment, giving the river its brownish hue. This “river dance” helps establish new streamside forests, wetlands, and sandy beaches, as well as shallows that support species like the endangered Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. By late fall, the water barely covers the riverbed in some stretches…

The rafting industry, which contributes more than $150 million to Colorado’s economy, has a strong voice when it comes to the Yampa’s future. Although damming the Yampa would provide a more consistent flow over a longer season, George Wendt – founder of OARS, the largest rafting company in the world – speaks for most outfitters when he says he would rather see the Yampa retain its natural state.

Conservationists also argue that the Yampa’s full flow helps meet Colorado’s legal obligation to provide water to the seven states within the Colorado Basin and Mexico. Measures being considered to protect the Yampa include an instream flow appropriation by the Colorado Water Conservation Board that would reserve Yampa’s water for the natural function of rivers, and a Wild and Scenic River designation by Congress.

Many proponents of keeping the Yampa wild point to its value as a baseline – an ecosystem naturally in balance. “If things go awry on dammed rivers, which they do, we have a control river, so to speak,” says Kent Vertrees of The Friends of the Yampa. “Keeping the last wild river in the Colorado Basin intact is important to a healthy environment and so future generations can experience in situ millions of years of history little changed by man.”

More Yampa River Basin coverage here and here.

School of Mines 33rd Oil Shale Symposium recap

October 21, 2013
Map of oil shale and tar sands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming -- via the BLM

Map of oil shale and tar sands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming — via the BLM

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

It could require less than half a barrel of water to buoy up a barrel of oil from the high desert of the west, Shell Oil Co. said. One barrel of oil could be produced from oil shale for as little as a third of a barrel of water, Tom Fowler, commercial lead for the Shell project, said at the 33rd Oil Shale symposium at Colorado School of Mines.

Water use has long been a point of contention in the running battle over the development of oil shale.

Shell’s announcement comes on the heels of its decision to shift assets away from oil shale in northwest Colorado to other assets, among them a $12.5 billion shale-to-gas plant in Louisiana.

“We were laser-focused on water,” and the techniques refined in Colorado “translate very well to other places, I’m specifically thinking of Jordan, where they also are very concerned about their water, Fowler said.

Shell’s new estimates are based on a project producing 50,000 barrels of oil per day.

One major factor in Shell’s reduction in anticipated water use was to switch from water cooling to air cooling, especially in the power-generation part of the process. Power is needed to heat the rock to about 700 degrees Fahrenheit to free kerogen from the rock. Vaporized kerogen condenses into crude oil that can be recovered.

Shell also reduced its estimates of water use by targeting the deepest, though not richest, layers of oil shale, Fowler said. By recovering oil from the deepest layers, which lie beneath groundwater, the company eliminated any need to steam-strip the area from which it removed kerogen. That, combined with other efforts to reduce and better manage water, could reduce the ratio of water to oil to 0.3 barrels of water to 1 barrel of oil. It also would leave the richest layers of shale still available for development with more refined techniques in the future, Fowler said. Shell’s estimates include domestic water and usage for reclamation and other purposes.

The most kerogen-rich oil shale in the world sits in northwest Colorado, under thousands of feet of overburden and Shell’s departure leaves one company pursuing development of shale in place, with little surface disturbance.

Two companies, Enefit American Oil and Red leaf Resources, are mining more shallow resources in Utah and heating them to recover oil.

Shell’s estimates don’t apply to those techniques, but Enefit American Oil says its methods will require between one and three barrels of water per barrel of oil, with the likely outcome closer to the lower end.

Opponents of oil shale development frequently cite a Government Accountability Office report, widely panned by industry officials, citing water needs at seven barrels per barrel of oil produced.

More oil shale coverage here via Gary Harmon writing for The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

While oil shale development in the United States suffered a blow when Shell Oil announced it was pulling out of its much-touted Mahogany project, other nations are encouraging industry development. Genie Energy, which is still moving ahead on its project in northwest Colorado, has a new project in Mongolia. Irati Energy, based in Canada, is moving ahead on a pilot oil shale project in Brazil. Enefit American Oil, a subsidiary of Eesti Energia, the world’s largest oil shale company, also has a concession, or lease, in Jordan, to produce electricity and oil from shale deposits there.

And while Shell pulled out of Colorado, it didn’t pull out of oil shale. The international energy giant still is working on an oil shale project in Jordan, despite abandoning its plans to produce oil from shale in the Colorado portion of the Green River formation.

China, Morocco and other countries are seeing development of their oil shale deposits, as well.

Northwest Colorado, the focal point of the richest, thickest deposits of oil shale in the world, however, is seeing no new interest in its deposit even as Enefit American Oil is working to produce oil from shale in neighboring Utah.

David Argyle organized Irati Energy to begin work on the Brazil project and he’s on the lookout for new resources. He’s not looking immediately at the U.S., however.

“We don’t have the time or patience” to work through the regulatory issues facing oil shale development in the United States, Argyle said, noting that he doesn’t reject development in the United States out of hand.

The industry, however, has to overcome emotional opposition, despite having a good environmental record, Argyle said.

“In Brazil, we’re getting quietly on with it. In Israel, they’re getting quietly on with it,” Argyle said of oil shale development.

Boom-bust cycles aren’t a major issue because the Brazil project anticipates a 200-year lifespan, Argyle said.

Another project in Brazil has a 300-year lifespan, he said.

The development around the world demonstrates that “oil shale has a global footprint” that is growing, Argyle said. That footprint expanded into Mongolia by accident, said Claude Pupkin, Genie Energy CEO. Genie Energy sent a geologist to Mongolia on an unrelated mission and he stumbled on a “world class,” previously unrecognized oil shale deposit, Pupkin said.

“We’ll do a pilot project that is smaller than AMSO,” Pupkin said, referring to the American Shale Oil project in Colorado.

In both cases, the projects will be in-situ, meaning that there will be little surface disturbance. Genie obtained commercial production rights and is working with the government in Mongolia to establish a regulatory system for development, Pupkin said.

Colorado’s deep oil shale deposits don’t fit with the retorting technology developed in Estonia, Enefit American Oil CEO Rikki Hrenko said.

Update: From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

With the shadow of Nazi occupation looming over the country, Sweden turned to oil shale in 1940.

“Oil shale got the Swedish economy through World War II,” Dr. Harold Vinegar said.

Vinegar outlined for the Oil Shale Symposium at Colorado School of Mines last week how Sweden exploited a low-grade oil shale deposit near the town of Kvantorp, using an in-situ process that bore a striking resemblance to the in-situ process Shell Oil Co. was pursuing in northwest Colorado. Vinegar is an oil and energy scientist who spent more than 30 years with Shell.

The Swedes already were mining the same oil shale deposit when they became frustrated by the cost and difficulty of digging to reach the shale they retorted to produce oil, Vinegar said.

Fredrick Ljungstrom came up with the idea of heating the shale in place and leaving the soil above it undisturbed. Ljungstrom drove heating elements in a closely spaced hexagonal pattern down into the shale and sunk a collection well in the center.

The heaters and wells were shallow, in the tens of feet instead of the thousands of feet below the surface in the Piceance Basin.

Making the project more difficult was the lack of electricity. Ljunsgstrom could only get electricity to heat the shale four months of the year, during the spring runoff, when hydroelectric power was available, Vinegar said.

During those months, Ljungstrom used a mobile transformer to direct power into the cells he was using at any given time to heat the rock to 400 degrees Fahrenheit.

“It really was a brilliant idea,” Vinegar said.

And it worked.

The Ljungstrom process produced 90,000 barrels of oil from 1942 to 1945 and 1.5 million barrels during its production life that ended in 1959. The oil produced from Ljungstrom’s in-situ process was lighter and cleaner than the oil produced from the retort process on the same deposit, Vinegar said. Groundwater beneath the deposit was protected by an impermeable clay layer that prevented contamination, Vinegar said.

In addition to inventing what is known as the Ljungstrom process for oil shale, Ljungstrom was also a co-inventor, with his brother, of high-pressure steam boilers, steam turbines and steam locomotives.

He also was a sailing innovator and the Ljungstrom rig — an arrangement of sails — is named for him.

The land he used to produce oil from shale over the years has changed.

“The area revegetated naturally,” Vinegar said. “It’s now a park where the in-situ process was run.”

More oil shale coverage here and here.

‘Worldwide production of oil shale has nearly doubled in the last six years’ — Jeremy Boak

October 16, 2013
Map of oil shale and tar sands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming -- via the BLM

Map of oil shale and tar sands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming — via the BLM

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

Reports of the death of the oil shale industry are grossly exaggerated, a Colorado School of Mines expert said.

Oil shale “is no longer in its infancy,” Jeremy Boak, director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at Mines, said during the opening of the 33rd annual Oil Shale Symposium here. “It might be in its rambunctious adolescence.”

Worldwide production from oil shale has nearly doubled in the last six years from 18,000 barrels per day of crude oil from oil shale to 35,000 barrels per day, Boak said.

The states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming contain the richest deposits of oil shale in the world. The deposits of northwest Colorado are the most significant of them.

Shell Oil, however, this year announced it was pulling out of its Mahogany Project in Rio Blanco County, citing increased risk and competition. Shell was working on producing oil from deeply buried oil shale with little surface disturbance. Even though it is ceasing its Colorado operations, Shell is continuing to work in Jordan on a project, Boak said.

Other energy giants, such as Petrobras in Brazil, and Total in France, are continuing to work on oil shale production.

Planned projects and others in the works could account for production increases of as much as 10 percent over the next five to 10 years, Boak said.

Though critics have questioned the amount of water an industry would use, “I think we’ve got a perfectly good estimate of water use,” about 0.4 percent of the water used annually in Colorado each year, Boak said.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Parker-based Independent Energy Partners and the School of Mines are testing a new oil shale production technology

October 5, 2013
Geothermic fuel cell well field -- via Independent Energy Partners

Geothermic fuel cell well field — via Independent Energy Partners

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

A Colorado company is working with the Colorado School of Mines on the next stage of testing for a novel approach to developing oil shale. Parker-based Independent Energy Partners is pursuing the concept of using what it calls a geothermic fuel cell to employ heat to produce oil from shale in-situ, or in place, underground. Strings of fuel cells would be stacked in wells drilled into the shale.

The idea was first conceived by Marshall Savage, whose family has extensive land holdings in western Colorado’s Piceance Basin and who serves as IEP’s vice president of technology development.

A fuel cell can convert a fuel like natural gas into electricity through a chemical process. The patented, downhole heater being developed by IEP will use the waste heat to warm up the oil shale rock in what’s called a geothermic process, versus the geothermal one of tapping heat from the ground.

The company plans to use locally produced natural gas to get the fuel cells going, but under the concept the cells then will operate on gas generated along with oil in the heating process. Electricity production will be a side benefit of the process, and IEP President and Chief Executive Officer Alan Forbes said the process would be water neutral because water produced by the fuel cell would offset consumption. Carbon emissions would be minimal because there’s no combustion, he said.

The company had Pacific Northwest National Laboratory do work to confirm the concept’s technical viability, and had Delphi, a solid oxide fuel cell maker, make a downhole prototype. Now, IEP is paying about $900,000 for the School of Mines to do prototype testing at its Colorado Fuel Cell Center. The school received a small unit earlier this year and a stacked one more recently.

Initial testing will be followed next year by in-ground tests on campus, and then field tests in oil shale formations, with a goal of producing oil in 2015. IEP holds several leases on private property in Rio Blanco County.

“It’s kind of an exciting research project,” said Jeremy Boak, director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the School of Mines.

Said Forbes, “We’re pretty confident it’s going to work fine, it will work as advertised.”

Boak said one challenge the company might face is rock shifting when heated and damaging heaters. He said he thinks Shell faced such problems but was able to solve them. [ed. emphasis mine]

The company is pressing forward even as Shell has announced the end of its Colorado oil shale research and development project, citing a desire to focus on other global opportunities.“I know that they haven’t been doing really well at a corporate level and I think they’re just readjusting their priorities,” Forbes said.

He said IEP’s work is “moving right along.”

“We’re quite pleased with the progress and the parties we’re working with right now.”

Those parties include the energy giant Total, which also is a partner with American Shale Oil in an in-situ project in Rio Blanco County and is invested in Red Leaf Resources’ project to mine and process oil shale in Utah.

“I think Total is very energized by this (IEP) approach and other approaches and is eager to see something proceed here,” Boak said.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Oil shale: Shell’s exit from the game does not worry companies left standing #ColoradoRiver

September 29, 2013
Colony Oil Shale Project Exxon -- Photo / Associated Pres

Colony Oil Shale Project Exxon — Photo / Associated Pres

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Some companies pursuing oil shale projects in Colorado and Utah voiced confidence in their efforts Wednesday even as they absorbed the news that Shell is shutting down its undertaking in Rio Blanco County.

Among them is American Shale Oil LLC, which holds a federal research, development and demonstration lease in Rio Blanco County and is working to develop oil shale in-situ, meaning in place underground. “AMSO’s still committed to its project. We still believe (oil shale) is a viable resource using our approach” to develop it, said Claude Pupkin, chief executive officer of Genie Energy, which owns a 50 percent interest in AMSO.

In northeastern Utah, Red Leaf Resources continues to move “full-speed ahead” with its project, with the next goal being a commercial demonstration of its surface-mining and processing approach to develop oil shale, said CEO Adolph Lechtenberger.

“Everything we look at in our technology says it’s certainly economic at today’s oil prices,” he said.

Shell said this week it is ending its in-situ Colorado oil shale project, which it began in 1996. Shell has been a leader in oil shale research in the region and owns three federal RD&D leases in Rio Blanco County. Shell said it had decided to focus on other opportunities and assets in its global energy portfolio, including oil shale projects in Jordan and Canada.

Last year, Chevron, which also holds a federal RD&D lease in Rio Blanco County, also said it was ending its oil shale project.

ExxonMobil, which recently was granted a federal RD&D lease in Rio Blanco County for an in-situ project, declined to react to Shell’s decision, saying it doesn’t comment on the activities of other companies. But spokesman Patrick McGinn said it is continuing lab-based work on its process.

Different barrel of oil

ExxonMobil is hoping to fracture shale, fill fractures with conductive material and then heat the shale with an electric charge to produce oil. “We are concentrating our efforts on developing additional improvements in thermal and electrical process efficiency to further improve the economic and environmental factors of any commercial development.

“Field experiments to test new developments could be conducted at either (the company’s Parachute-area) Colony Mine or the ExxonMobil RD&D lease in Rio Blanco County. We do not anticipate field tests in 2013,” he said by email.

Lechtenberger said it’s unfortunate to see a player of Shell’s size pull out of Colorado. “They’ve done a lot of good work over the years and made pretty good strides,” he said.

But he added, “I think we’re going after a different barrel of oil than Shell was going after.” Shell was targeting shale deep underground, he noted.

“Our technology is going after shale closer to the surface, easier to mine, with a lower cost to remove,” he said.

Enefit also is working on a surface shale project in Utah. Lechtenberger said he thinks the deeper-shale projects in Colorado “are going to be a challenge. I think they’re going to be capital-intensive and they’re going to take good technology to do it.”

Companies pursuing the in-situ process in Colorado are targeting the heart of what is the world’s largest oil shale resource and extends into Utah and Wyoming. They also say their approach will result in fewer surface impacts.

AMSO has been working through some challenges with heaters for its project and is currently evaluating alternative heaters it can use.

Pupkin said it’s important to note that Shell isn’t pulling out of oil shale altogether. “They have a very active project ongoing in Jordan and our understanding is that it’s because Jordan not only has very attractive oil shale but they’ve put in place a regulatory framework that makes investment projects capital-attractive,” he said.

Regulatory uncertainty

Jeremy Boak, director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the Colorado School of Mines, said the last he heard Shell has more than 200 people working on oil shale in Jordan. Worldwide, it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on oil shale, he said. “They’re clearly not abandoning oil shale as a concept. They’re just deciding that Colorado is not the place they want to do it right now even though it’s (home to) the world-class resource.”

Pupkin said he thinks the regulatory uncertainty related to the Bureau of Land Management’s changing position regarding royalties and other oil shale rules contributed to Shell’s decision. Shell has voiced concern over that uncertainty in the past but didn’t specifically cite it this week.

The BLM also has sharply reduced the amount of land potentially available for oil shale leasing in the three-state region, and particularly in Colorado. “We think that the Obama administration has taken a pretty negative approach towards oil shale,” Pupkin said.

Jeff Hartley of Red Leaf Resources noted that his company doesn’t face the constraints Shell faced with BLM lands because it is working on school trust lands instead.

Viable technologies

Chevron spokeswoman Cary Baird said she doesn’t believe her company raised regulatory concerns as an issue when it made its oil shale decision. Rather, it was just a matter of prioritizing what opportunities to invest financial and human resources in at a global level, she said, somewhat echoing Shell’s reasoning. “There are difficulties occasionally in getting good, qualified people to work on different projects and when you have a global portfolio it makes it more complicated,” she said.

Shell’s decision comes as companies are using hydraulic fracturing to produce growing amounts of natural gas and oil. Shell just this week identified a location for a $12.5 billion natural-gas-to-liquids facility it hopes to build in Louisiana.

“When you compare the challenge of oil shale to the viability of these other sources, Shell like Chevron decided to place their focus on viable technologies and viable business models,” said David Abelson, oil shale policy advisor for the Western Resource Advocates conservation group. He said he wasn’t surprised by Shell’s announcement, and that it’s learned what other companies have learned over a century about the “extremely challenging” economics of developing oil shale.

“Shell has always said that this is a research project and they always talked about it being a heavy lift to create a viable fuel and what they learned is what Chevron learned,” he said.

He said Shell hasn’t been among the strongest boosters of oil shale. “It was the elected officials that got ahead of Shell and claimed the viability of these technologies,” he said.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Shell turns its back on the ‘Next big thing’ — plans exit from the oil shale game after 30 some years

September 26, 2013
Oil shale deposits Colorado, Wyoming and Utah

Oil shale deposits Colorado, Wyoming and Utah

Oil shale has been the “next big thing” in Colorado for over 100 years. It looks it will take a bit longer to develop as Royal Dutch Shell is pulling out of the play in western Colorado. Here’s a report from Cathy Proctor writing for the Denver Business Journal. Here’s an excerpt:

“There’s been a shift in our oil shale project,” spokeswoman Carolyn Tucker said Tuesday. “The energy market has evolved since Shell first started its oil shale research project in 1981. We plan to exit our Colorado oil shale research project in order to focus on other opportunities and producing assets in our broad global portfolio,” she said in an email.

“Our current focus is to work with staff and contractors as we safely and methodically stop research activities at the site,” she said.

The announcement regarding the closure of Shell’s oil shale research and development work comes as the company announces plans to put its assets on the market across the United States, including oil and gas assets in northwestern and southeastern Colorado…

…scientists have spent decades trying to unlock oil shale’s bounty, and many believe that breakthroughs are years away — if they ever happen. Chevron, another Big Oil major, abandoned its oil shale research efforts in February 2012.

I hate to tell you that I told you so but here’s an article that I wrote in 2008 for the Denver Examimer.

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Hannah Holm):

In 2008, the Colorado and Yampa-White Basin Roundtables, which are groups of stakeholders responsible for “bottom-up” regional water planning, commissioned a study on future water needs for energy development. The initial phase of the study raised eyebrows with the estimate that if oil shale really took off, the industry could be using nearly 380,000 acre feet of water/year by the 2040s, largely due to water use by power plants needed to provide the energy to extract oil from shale. An acre foot is approximately enough water to supply 2-3 households for a year.

A later version of the roundtables’ study revised the oil shale water use projections down significantly, in part by changing assumptions about how the energy for the extraction process would be generated (with less thirsty natural gas-fired plants rather than coal-fired plants). This version settled on an estimate of 120,000 acre feet/year to supply a large-scale oil shale industry and concluded that it could be supplied mostly from the White River.

Although significantly lower than the earlier estimate, 120,000 acre feet/year is still much more than the water needs projected for other energy development sectors in the region, including natural gas development. Water use of that magnitude could impact the state’s ability to develop water from the Colorado River and its tributaries for other uses, including meeting the needs of our growing cities. Current uses, such as irrigated agriculture, could also be impacted if senior water rights were applied to meeting the industry’s needs.

So … does Shell’s withdrawal from oil shale research in the region mean water planners no longer need to account for this potentially large increase in the use of our region’s water? Not necessarily, since several other companies are still actively working on their oil shale research and development projects.

However, since the water use estimates used in the roundtables’ studies were based largely on the technologies Shell was testing, the numbers will certainly need to be reconsidered, and the time horizon may be pushed back even further.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

In a major setback to the effort to develop oil shale in the United States, Shell is closing down its research and development project in Rio Blanco County.

The company was the biggest player in oil shale in Colorado, holding three federal research, development and demonstration leases.

Shell spokeswoman Carolyn Tucker said the decision reflects an evolving energy market since Shell began its oil shale research in 1981.

“We plan to exit our Colorado oil shale research project in order to focus on other opportunities and producing assets in our broad Global portfolio,” she said in an e-mail. “Our current focus is to work with staff and contractors as we safely and methodically stop research activities at the site.”

In an interview, she said employment at Shell’s research site has ranged anywhere from 10 to 50, depending on activity levels.

“It’s not going to be an abrupt exit,” she said.

Shell has obligations and projects it needs to wind down, including reclamation and decommissioning work required by the Bureau of Land Management, she said.

Chevron, which also received a research and development lease from the BLM, decided early last year to divest itself of the lease, saying it wanted to focus on other priorities.

Just last month, Shell announced plans to sell its oil and gas project in Routt and Moffat counties. That followed an earnings decline and a review of Shell’s various oil and gas projects in the Americas, followed by a decision to keep those with the most growth potential.

At that time, Tucker said that decision had no bearing on its oil shale project, saying it involved a separate business that’s still in the research stage.

But she said this week’s decision results from another review project looking specifically at Shell’s oil shale assets, which also include holdings in Jordan and Canada.

“A number of factors went into the decision. Based on those many factors we’ve chosen to put those resources into the other oil shale assets and not in Colorado,” Tucker said.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union Thanks Secretary Salazar for Protecting Water from Oil Shale Speculation #coriver

March 31, 2013


Here’s the release from the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union:

Today, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union launched an ad campaign thanking outgoing Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar for his smart approach to protecting western water and Colorado farms and ranches from costly oil shale speculation. In the ad, RMFU says, “Thank you Secretary Salazar for not gambling our water away on oil shale!”
(View the ad here.)

The ad will run in seven newspapers across the state, including the Denver Post, Boulder Daily Camera, Longmont Daily Times-Call, Loveland Daily Reporter Herald, Canon City Daily Record, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, and Pueblo Chieftain.

The Salazar plan requires oil shale companies to demonstrate that oil shale technology is commercially viable and will not jeopardize water supplies or air quality before Interior will consider granting commercial leases. The plan also ensures that technologies developed include proper safeguards for western water, land, wildlife, air quality, and local economies.

Agriculture is a keystone of Colorado’s economy and way of life, and as the state moves further into the second year of the worst drought in a decade, water supplies are already overtaxed. One of the greatest threats oil shale speculation poses, is to western water sources.

The Government Accounting Office and industry experts have said oil shale could require up to 140 percent of what Denver Water supplies to residents and local businesses.

“Colorado’s farmers and ranchers applaud Secretary Salazar for protecting our farms, our ranches, and our food,” said Bill Midcap, RMFU Director of External Affairs. “Western farmers believe in common sense, and that’s what the secretary used in determining this approach to protecting our water from costly oil shale speculation. We wish we saw a little more of this common sense approach in other public land policy. Colorado farmers and ranchers are facing the worst drought in more than a decade, and we simply cannot afford to gamble away our scarce water resources on oil shale speculation.”

More coverage from The Pueblo Chieftain (Nick Bonham):

The Rocky Mountain Farmers Union is thanking outgoing U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar with an advertising campaign. The union praises Salazar, a San Luis Valley native, for protecting Western water and Colorado ranches and farms.

The ad is appearing in seven state newspapers, including The Pueblo Chieftain, and it reads: “Thank you Secretary Salazar for not gambling our water away on oil shale!”[...]

“We wish we saw a little more of this common-sense approach in other public land policy. Colorado farmers and ranchers are facing the worst drought in more than a decade, and we simply cannot afford to gamble away our scarce water resources on oil shale speculation.”

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Bureau of Land Management: Oil shale and tar sands record of decision hits the street #coriver

March 24, 2013


From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

The Bureau of Land Management on Friday proceeded with plans to sharply reduce the amount of land available in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah for possible oil shale leasing, and to require a research-first approach.

The agency also said it is seeking public comment on proposed revisions to royalty rates and other regulations applying to commercial oil shale development. It has identified several options for amending the rates, including setting a 12.5 percent minimum royalty rate — the same as for oil and gas leases — with the flexibility of the secretary of Interior to increase it later if warranted. Royalty rates adopted by the administration of George W. Bush consist of a 5 percent initial lease rate that eventually reaches 12.5 percent by the 13th year of commercial production. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said that approach shortchanges taxpayers.

The BLM said it has decided to make about 679,000 acres available for potential oil shale leasing in the three states, and 132,000 acres available for potential tar sands leasing in Utah. Only 26,300 oil shale acres are available in Colorado, compared to about 360,000 acres previously. Overall, the oil shale acreage is down from about 2 million acres the Bush administration allocated for potential commercial leasing. In addition, the acreage is available initially only for research, development and demonstration leases, with the ability for companies to convert to a commercial lease after meeting clean air and water and other requirements. “This plan maintains a strong focus on research and development to promote new technologies that may eventually lead to safe and responsible commercial development of these domestic energy resources,” Salazar said in a news release. “It will help ensure that we acquire critically important information about these technologies and their potential effects on the landscape, especially our scarce water resources in the West.”

The Obama administration agreed to reconsider the Bush-area shale land allocations and commercial regulations to settle two lawsuits by conservation groups. Conservationists largely praised Friday’s announced decisions.

Michael Saul, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation, said it’s important that companies show their projects are economically justifiable and environmentally sound before obtaining commercial leases. “On the whole we think this is a common-sense approach,” he said of the BLM decision.

In a news release, Rifle City Council member and former Mayor Keith Lambert noted that the city long has argued commercial leasing shouldn’t occur until R&D leases show oil shale can be developed responsibly, with minimal impacts. “The city of Rifle appreciates that attention has been given to these concerns as the impacts of oil shale development have been and will be felt in this community and others,” he said.

But Garfield County Commissioner Tom Jankovsky said the BLM’s land decision won’t satisfy the county and commissioners will have to meet “and decide where we’re going to head from here.” Asked where that might be, he said, “There’s only one place to head, the same place the environmentalists go when they’re not satisfied.”

Northwest Colorado counties and several in Utah and Wyoming were concerned about the direction the new land plan was heading. Jankovsky said Garfield commissioners will have to talk to other affected counties and see if there might be some agreement on how to move forward, possibly with litigation. The Colorado acreage made available in the plan is centered in Rio Blanco and Garfield counties, home to what are considered the richest deposits of oil shale in the world.

This oil shale actually is a kerogen that’s locked up in the rock and must be processed through means such as heating to extract it. It differs from the liquid oil now being pulled from shale formations in the United States and other countries through hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

Western Colorado’s oil shale industry has gone through several booms and busts as companies have sought to develop the resource economically. Several companies now hold federal R&D leases in Colorado and Utah. Brian Straessle, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute industry group, said Friday’s decision “takes 1.3 million acres off the table for potential investment in American energy development. That is a step backwards for America’s economic and energy future.”

U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, decried locking up land from oil shale development and said the new regulations floated Friday would discourage production. “Today, President Obama is turning his back on new innovation by driving investment overseas and hurting America’s energy security,” he said.

However, U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., who serves on the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said, “Oil shale holds great promise for Colorado and the West, but despite decades of trying to extract shale oil, there has not yet been an economical or ecologically feasible method to develop it. The Interior Department’s plan will ensure that commercial oil shale development is feasible and sustainable before leases are issued. It also will make sure that we do not sacrifice our most precious resource, water, in pursuit of oil shale development.”

Said Bill Midcap of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, “The plan just makes all kinds of sense when it comes to conserving our water resources.” Midcap praised Salazar’s leadership. “He’s brought a lot of common sense to oil shale, (common sense) that we value out here in the West, something we need more of in this country,” Midcap said.

Friday’s oil shale announcements come as Salazar is just about to leave office. The proposed royalty and other regulatory changes also come more than 10 months later than when the Interior Department had committed to proposing them under the lawsuit settlement agreement.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Bureau of Land Management: Oil shale and tar sands record of decision hits the street #coriver

March 22, 2013


Click here to read the ROD. Here’s the introduction:

This Record of Decision (ROD) approves the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposal to amend 10 Resource Management Plans (RMP) to designate certain public lands, managed by the BLM, in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as available for application for leasing and future exploration and development of oil shale and tar sands resources. This ROD does not address, and does not change, any decisions for the management of the public lands for other resource uses and values in the areas subject to these 10 RMPs. The RMP amendments were described as the Proposed Plan Amendments in the November 2012 Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FPEIS) (BLM 2012a). This ROD provides the background for the development of the plan amendments, describes in brief the alternatives considered, and presents the rationale for approving the proposed decisions contained in the Proposed Plan Amendments. In addition, the ROD describes the clarifications and modifications made to address protests received on the plan amendments. The BLM’s purpose and need for this planning action is to evaluate the appropriate mix of allowable uses with respect to oil shale and tar sands leasing and potential development in light of Congress’s policy emphasis on these resources. Specifically, as adopted, the Proposed Plan Amendments amend the applicable RMPs to close certain specified areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming currently open for application for future leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands. The BLM’s focus in this planning initiative is the potential development of oil shale and tar sands as sources of energy, consistent with congressional policy as expressed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which required that a commercial leasing program be established for these resources. Under the approved 2013 land use plan amendments, the BLM amends 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to make approximately 678,000 acres available for potential development of oil shale, and approximately 132,000 acres available for development of tar sands.

This ROD provides that the areas allocated as open for future oil shale leasing are, at this time, open only to research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and the regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, Subpart 3926 (43 CFR Subpart 3926) for conversion to a commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, which would be included in the converted lease, would be specified in the RD&D lease. Similarly, while there is no formal RD&D program for tar sands, this resource is not, at present, a proven commercially viable energy source. Therefore, the BLM has determined that it is necessary to obtain more information about the environmental consequences associated with tar sands development, prior to committing to broad-scale commercial development.

The land use plan amendments remove from potential oil shale and tar sands leasing the following categories of lands within the planning area in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (1) all areas that the BLM has identified as having wilderness characteristics (LWC) (2) the whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area, as designated by the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council on April 10, 2008; (3) core or priority sage-grouse habitat, except in Wyoming, where the BLM will coordinate its approach with the policy direction in Wyoming’s Executive Order (E.O.) 2011-5, which has been recognized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as an adequate regulatory mechanism for the conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse; (4) all Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and areas currently under consideration for designation as ACECs; and (5) all areas identified as excluded from commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing in Alternative C of the September 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) Programmatic EIS (BLM 2008a). In total, more than 1,340,770 acres of the planning area in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are excluded from oil shale leasing and development, and more
than 301,100 acres in Utah are excluded from tar sands leasing and development.

If and when applications to lease are received and accepted for oil shale or tar sands resources within the acres available for leasing under this ROD, the BLM will conduct additional required analyses, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed development, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation measures. On the basis of that analysis of future lease application(s), the BLM will establish general lease stipulations and best management practices (BMPs) and amend applicable land use plans, if necessary. After a lease is authorized, actual development will require additional analysis to address the site-specific conditions of the proposed development and to develop mitigation measures as necessary. The attached RMP Amendments to Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (Attachment — Appendix A) (also referred to as the Approved Plan Amendments) describes the specific decisions made in this ROD.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Anvil Points: Oil shale research facility cleanup completed

March 11, 2013


From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb) via The Denver Post:

High up the Roan Plateau above the 365-acre research site, four gaping mine portals large enough that big trucks once drove through them have been closed off to all but bats. The portals tapped mines that were sometimes 1,000 feet long or more, employed hundreds of miners at their peak and provided 400,000 cubic yards of oil shale that underwent retort heating processes at the research site…

Congress transferred the research site and the oil shale reserves to the Bureau of Land Management in 1997, and provided that cleanup of the site would be paid for by federal revenues from nearby oil and gas development. “There were huge waste piles of retorted oil shale that didn’t pose an immediate hazard but still needed to be cleaned up,” said John Beck, who is branch chief for lands and realty for the Colorado state office of the Bureau of Land Management, and oversaw the $24 million cleanup project.

“I think they did a very good job with the (cleanup) work over there,” Cooley said.
He said he didn’t think the site posed much of an environmental concern. But still, “I think it did need to be cleaned up and put to bed, so to speak, from an aesthetic standpoint if nothing else,” he said.

For the BLM, part of the problem was that waste shale had been dumped in an adjacent valley that’s home to the intermittent West Sharrard Creek, a tributary of the Colorado River, raising concern about the potential for contamination from runoff. Carla DeYoung, a BLM ecologist who was an inspector for the project, said arsenic levels in the waste measured six times background levels in the area.

In addition, a fire of undetermined origin in a waste pile created a lot of ash that had to be shipped to a landfill in Denver. The fire also drew oil out of the shale and it accumulated at the base of the waste pile. Petroleum-contaminated material was shipped to C B Industries Delta, a Delta facility where it could be spread out and “land-farmed,” a process under which bacteria can consume the petroleum.

The sheer volume of waste also proved daunting. The BLM planned on building one waste repository but ran out of room and had to build a second, smaller one nearby, and eventually an even smaller third one…

The repositories include geomembrane liners at the bottom and 30-inch-thick clay caps on top, covered by reseeded topsoil. Other aspects of the cleanup included demolition and site restoration work involving a former water treatment plant near the river that supplied Anvil Points, and closing off of the mine entrances, which are highly unstable because of the loose surrounding shale.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Colorado River Basin: Recent study by the Bureau of Reclamation highlights future supply problems #coriver

March 4, 2013


Here’s a guest column running in The Denver Post, written by Allen Best, that gives an overview of the current state of the Colorado River. Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

Tow icebergs from Alaska? Pilfer from a tributary of the Yellowstone River in Wyoming? Or, even sneak water from the Snake, boring a 6-mile tunnel from a reservoir near Jackson Hole to the Green River? While it’s sure to make Idaho’s spud farmers cranky, it would help Tucson, Los Angeles and that parched paradigm of calculated risk, Las Vegas.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and everybody else with a megaphone has carefully branded these ideas as improbable or worse. Only slightly more credible is the idea of a pipeline from the Mississippi River. It could originate near Memphis, traverse 1,040 miles and, if reaching Castle Rock, rise 6,000 feet in elevation. Pumping would require a steady 800 megawatts of electricity, or a little more than what the Comanche 3 power plant in Pueblo produces.

In theory, this 600,000-acre feet of muddy Mississippi would replace diversions from the Colorado River headwaters between Grand Lake and Aspen. Those diversions range between 450,000 and 600,000 acre-feet annually. That would leave the creeks and rivers to the whims of gravity and geography, at least until arriving at Las Vegas and other places with growing thirst.
Cheap water? Not exactly: It would cost $2,400 per acre-foot for this Memphis-flavored sludge, assuming the idea isn’t grounded by protests from barge and riverboat operators. (Sometimes they, too, say they need more water.)

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Folks from both sides of the Great Divide are finding economic common ground around urging caution in the development of oil shale #coriver

January 14, 2013


Here’s a guest column written by Deborah Ortega and Allyn Harvey running in The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

It is not often that we find common ground across the Rockies on issues that affect our friends and neighbors. We sometimes think of issues as “ours” or “theirs,” though many issues transcend the mountains.

Communities and local businesses across our state depend on clean, abundant water from the Colorado River Basin. There is no greater reminder of that fact than the current drought and the resulting economic impacts we are facing.

It is with those challenges in mind that people in communities from the Western Slope to the Front Range — such as Carbondale, New Castle, Rifle, Grand Junction, Thornton and Denver — support a balanced, commonsense approach to oil shale that requires research prior to commercial leasing of taxpayer-owned land in the West.

Oil shale development could pose a significant risk to the health of our rivers and the availability of water for agriculture, drinking supplies and local businesses. We need to know the risks ahead of any commercial development.

Energy development in our state has always been a significant economic driver, but it must still work in concert with our other job-creating industries that rely on their fair share of the water supply. Impacts to our water sources could affect the livelihoods of millions of residents in every corner of our state.

The technology to make oil shale viable still has not been developed. Since commercial technology does not yet exist, there is no possible way to know the impacts, especially on our water, that would accompany full-scale oil- shale development. All of us have a right to know the facts, so that municipalities, farmers and ranchers, as well as tourism and outdoor recreation businesses that depend on healthy rivers and safe drinking water supplies can plan and make wise decisions. Some have suggested that development will not use much water, and others say it will take too much. The only thing we know for sure is that we don’t know for sure.

The Government Accountability Office reviewed a wide range of estimates that found that industrial-scale oil shale development would require as much as 140 percent of the amount of water Denver Water provides each year (or as much as a city 30 times the size of Grand Junction would use).

There are also those who say that investing public land and water in oil shale will provide a worthwhile return in jobs on the Western Slope and energy for our nation. We hope they are right. We don’t know that for sure either. But we have 100 years of promises and a dismal record of failure with projects such as the Exxon Colony Project, which devastated the local economy after laying off more than 2,000 workers when it closed down on “Black Sunday,” May 2, 1982.

No good investor would put money into a venture without first seeing the books. The Bureau of Land Management’s new plan does just that by requiring oil shale companies to do the research first, so we know just how much water would be needed and what the impacts to water quality would be, before going forward with commercial leasing.

Our neighbors in Arizona and Nevada have also asked that we know the impacts to water — particularly the Colorado River — prior to commercial development.

It was former Denver Water Manager Chips Barry — often heralded by those on both sides of the divide for bringing people together — who cited concerns that industrial-scale oil-shale development could prevent Colorado from fulfilling its obligations to downstream users. In 2009, he told The Denver Post, “That is a risk not only for Denver Water but for the entire state.”

More than 100 business leaders, recreation organizations, farmers, ranchers and others asked the BLM to ensure that Colorado water is protected. Sportsmen have cautioned that reduced stream flows will negatively impact fish and the region’s outdoor-dependent economy. These businesses depend on healthy rivers and safe water supplies. We cannot afford to gamble the backbone of our economy without fully understanding the risk that oil shale poses to it.

We have much to offer here in the West. People come to our communities to visit, and sometimes they stay and call it home, largely because of our big skies and outdoor recreation. We are all concerned about the potential impact on existing water rights throughout the Colorado River Basin once oil shale companies begin to exercise the senior rights they hold. In a worst-case scenario, this could turn the West Slope into an industrial zone, ruin the Colorado River and threaten drinking water supplies on both sides of the Copntinental Divide.

As local officials, our responsibility is to ensure safe, healthy drinking water for our residents and a healthy community. With that in mind, both of our municipalities have taken positions supporting a cautious approach to oil shale. Given that a commercial industry does not yet exist, it is just smart planning to require that research of oil-shale technologies be completed first and impacts fully analyzed before moving forward with a commercial leasing program, as the federal plan suggests. That is an approach that puts the health of our water and the future of our communities first, to ensure that communities on both sides of the Rockies — and our entire region — continue to thrive.

More oil shale — the next big thing for over a hundred years now — coverage here and here.

‘There’s been a great deal of speculation on water needs for oil shale, but it’s all based on unproven technology’ –Steven Hall

January 9, 2013


Oil shale has been “The next big thing” in Colorado for over a hundred years now. Here’s an article exploring the water needs of oil shale development, from Judith Lewis Mernitc writing for the High Country News via the Glenwood Springs Post Independent. Click through and read the whole article, there is a lot of good detail there. Here’s an excerpt:

Trapped in fossil-fuel purgatory, oil shale has to be heated to super-high temperatures, a process called “retorting” that requires enormous amounts of water. No one can even say for sure how much, although some energy companies try.

Utah-based Red Leaf claims its technology needs only a tiny amount; other estimates say that full-scale development of oil shale in Colorado would require more water than all of Denver uses in a year.

“There’s been a great deal of speculation on water needs for oil shale, but it’s all based on unproven technology,” says Steven Hall, Colorado spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management, which recently signed a lease with ExxonMobil for an experimental oil shale project in the Piceance Basin.

“I don’t think the technologies those (low) water-use estimates are based on are commercially or environmentally feasible,” Hall said.

In November, the BLM published a fresh analysis of oil shale development’s environmental impacts on Western public lands. Much of the analysis, which also looks at tar sands in Utah, is concerned with water — the lack of it in this arid region, the great need any energy-extraction technique has for it, and the vulnerability of freshwater aquifers to industrial contamination…

Lawmakers including Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, warn that the BLM’s parent, the U.S. Department of Interior, stands in the way of economic progress. But not even the oil producers have figured out how to get the water to the rock without incurring huge energy costs — costs that may not pencil out in the final analysis.

In other words, it may take more energy to get the water to the oil shale than anyone can actually extract from it…

This problem with the so-far embryonic industry is what regulators and industry experts call an “energy-water nexus” issue: Just as water needs energy to travel from source to tap, nearly every form of energy needs water throughout its lifecycle, from mining to generation to reclamation.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Water Under Pressure: What Oil Shale Could Mean for Western Water, Fish and Wildlife

December 8, 2012


Click here to read a new report on oil shale exploration and production [well, maybe someday] from Melinda Kassen:

For more than a century, efforts to wring oil out of rock formations in the Rocky Mountain West have waxed and waned. The deposits underlying northwestern Colorado, southwestern Wyoming and northeastern Utah have been portrayed as “the Saudi Arabia’’ of oil shale, a vast source of domestic energy that would cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil, create many jobs and produce millions of dollars of revenue for state and local governments.

That same area, the 16,000-square-mile Green River Formation, is home to some of the nation’s most valuable fish and wildlife habitat. Colorado’s Piceance Basin boasts North America’s largest migratory mule deer herd and some of the country’s largest elk herds. The huge tracts of public land also support greater sage-grouse, Colorado River cutthroat trout, black bear, bald eagles and mountain lions. Hunting, fishing, other wildlife-based activities and outdoor recreation are cornerstones of the regional economy and integral to the area’s lifestyle, heritage and identity. Coursing through the wildlife habitat, ranches, fruit orchards and communities is the water that allows the people, the wildlife and the commerce all to thrive in the semi-arid climate. The rivers, fed by mountain snow and beloved by anglers, include the Green, the White, Uintah, Lake Fork, Strawberry and Duchesne. They include Utah’s top two fishing destinations, the renowned Green River gorge and Strawberry Reservoir, as well as hundreds of miles of headwaters trout and larger reaches with fat rainbows and browns.

This report explores how large-scale commercial oil shale development in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado could affect the region’s water supply and quality and what that might mean for fish, wildlife and communities. After more than 100 years of trying, we are still several years away from an economically viable oil shale industry. The technology is unproven and the potential environmental impacts are unknown. Even conservative estimates indicate the volume of water needed to transform kerogen – a precursor to oil – into a usable fuel could be huge. For a resource that lies in the midst of the semi-arid West, with sparse precipitation and few large rivers, it is not
clear where the water would come from, or how it would affect the fish that live in the local streams. With the region already straining its water supply and facing continued population growth, finding another increment of water for oil shale, while protecting native and sport fisheries, may be an insurmountable challenge.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is currently proposing a cautious approach to oil shale development. The BLM has proposed keeping development off sensitive wildlife habitat, limiting new public leases to research and demonstration projects and moving ahead with commercial leases only after the pilot projects produce results. This approach is a prudent way to test oil shale potential and limit the risk to the regions water supplies

From American Rivers’ The River Blog (David Moryc):

If you were to draw up a list of rivers where you wouldn’t want to extract oil shale in the United States, the Green, the White and the Upper Colorado would be in the list. (Similar to developing a massive copper and gold mine in the most productive salmon watershed on the planet, but I digress.)

Yet, due to a curse of geology that is unfortunately exactly where industrial-scale oil shale production of oil shale is proposed that could require as much as 123 billion gallons of water, according to a new report [PDF] authored by Melinda Kassen.

More coverage of oil shale — the next big thing for over a hundred years now — here and here.

Farmers and conservationists both find something to like in Interior’s new oil shale leasing policy #CORiver

November 20, 2012


From the Colorado News Connection (Kathleen Ryan) via the La Junta Tribune-Democrat:

Bill Midcap, renewable energy director with the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, likes the new plan. He says it will help preserve one of Colorado’s most precious resources: water. “We all know that water has all the potential of running out of Colorado. We think it’s prudent that they ensure to the agricultural community how much water is going to be taken, before they move forward.”

The new policy says that public lands can only be leased if oil shale companies can show the economic and environmental viability of the technology used for research or development. The previous policy made nearly 2 million acres available without those restrictions; now, just under 700,000 acres of public land could be used. Twenty-six thousand of those acres are in Colorado. Supporters of increased oil shale research – including the oil and gas industries – worry that the amount of public lease land available is too small to offset economic costs and risks in development.

Ken Neubecker, director of the Western Rivers Institute, says the viability restriction is important, because energy companies often have water rights that trump those of agriculture or Colorado cities. Also, he warns, the current technology used to develop oil shale abroad is not practical in the arid Mountain West. “That is actually a pretty water-intensive operation, using two-and-a-half to four barrels of water for each barrel of oil. It’s a lot easier to do in Estonia and Latvia, but it’s not that easy to do here. Those are wet countries, and this is very dry country.”

Midcap says the new plan leaves him optimistic that the government will listen to the concerns of Coloradans and those across the West about the region’s natural resources. “Farmers and ranchers have a strong enough voice that I don’t think we’ll be pushed out. I think our voice is strong.”

More oil shale coverage here and here.

How a Water District that Wasn’t Needed Had a Board that Wasn’t Legal & Tried to Take Half of a River for Technology that Doesn’t Exist

November 10, 2012


Update: I added an article from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. Scroll down to the bottom.

Here’s the release from Western Resource Advocates (Jason Bane):

The Colorado Supreme Court heard oral arguments today [November 7] in a case that has significant implications for the entire State of Colorado. The Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District (YJWCD) of Rio Blanco County is appealing a Water Court ruling that strips the district of massive amounts of water rights intended to be leased for oil shale production.

Today’s hearing comes just weeks after local residents filed a separate lawsuit alleging that the YJWCD is unlawfully taking budget action that has left the district hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

“This is an odd situation to say the least,” said Rob Harris, Staff Attorney for Western Resource Advocates. “We’re talking about a water district that isn’t needed, run by a board that wasn’t legal, trying to gather water rights equal to half of the White River—all to meet the theoretical demands of an oil shale technology that doesn’t exist.”

In 2009, the board of the YJWCD filed water court applications equal to almost half of the White River—with the expressed intent to lease that water for potential oil shale production. In 2011, Western Resource Advocates and a coalition of local residents, business owners, ranchers, and others (the Coalition) challenged the legality of these water rights applications. The YJWCD board voluntarily abandoned half of the contested water rights in the face of opposition, and the Coalition filed a legal challenge in regards to the other half.

“The timeline is clear, and so is the law in this case,” said Mike Sawyer, one of the attorneys representing the Coalition group. “The Yellow Jacket board didn’t have a valid board to approve new office supplies, let alone a water rights application.”

In July 2011, the Colorado Water Court stripped the YJWCD of the remaining contested water rights. Because only four of the nine seats on the YJWCD board were legally occupied in Sept. 2009, the board had no legal quorum when it filed for the contested water rights. After the Water Court denied a “Motion for Reconsideration” in Sept. 2011, the YJWCD filed an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court did not render a decision following today’s oral arguments, but is expected to issue a written opinion within the next several months.

On Oct. 18, two local residents and landowners filed a lawsuit against the YJWCD. Joe Livingston and Ted Edmonds are plaintiffs, which alleges (among other things) that the board has violated Colorado Budget Laws and TABOR requirements in running a debt that had reached ($142,257) by the end of 2011.

“I take great offense that the board isn’t following the law yet continues to spend my tax dollars to no end,” said Livingston, whose family has owned and operated Big Beaver Ranch near Meeker since 1941. “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”


The YJWCD was created in 1959 with the intent of acquiring water rights that could be leased for future oil and gas production. Most of the district’s income is from a Rio Blanco County mill levy. The YJWCD does not own or operate any water facilities—it exists solely for the purpose of acquiring water rights. Since its inception, the district has spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars trying to adjudicate water rights for the oil shale industry.


- Oct. 2008: Terms of office expire for four of the nine YJWCD board members.
– Sept. 2009: YJWCD submits diligence filings for certain water rights, despite the fact that only four of the nine YJWCD could authorize the filings (a fifth member of the board had resigned in Spring 2009).
– April 2011: Western Resource Advocates joins a local coalition to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the YJWCD board did not have a legal quorum to approve a water rights application.
– July 2011: Colorado Water Court grants the Coalition’s “Motion for Summary Judgment,” and cancels the contested water rights application.
– July 2011: Yellow Jacket files “Motion for Reconsideration” with Water Court.
– Sept. 2011: Water Court denies “Motion for Reconsideration”
– March 2012: YJWCD submits appeal for hearing by Colorado Supreme Court
– Nov. 7, 2012: Colorado Supreme Court hears oral arguments from appeal.

More coverage from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post. Here’s an excerpt:

Colorado’s Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments by the Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District, which is challenging a state water court’s decision rejecting its rights to 140,000 acre-feet of water from the river — water that otherwise would flow into the Green and Colorado rivers.

Yellow Jacket has proposed to build reservoirs east of Meeker to store the water and make it available to oil and gas companies. The district also is talking with towns and irrigators, Yellow Jacket attorney Sarah Klahn said after the hearing.

“There’s plenty of water in the White River,” Klahn said. “There ought to be an effort to keep water in this state, rather than letting it flow downstream to California.”

A coalition of residents whose taxes fund Yellow Jacket, a governmental district, opposes the project…

Justice Greg Hobbs questioned whether holdover status of board members could be a basis for forfeiting water property rights. Hobbs also asked why board members failed to fill positions…

The court is expected to issue a written decision in a couple months.

More coverage from Gary Harmon writing for The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

Colorado’s highest court is considering a challenge to the water rights held by a Meeker-area water conservancy district for eventual use in energy development.

Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District is appealing a water court finding that canceled its right to about 140,000 acre-feet water in the upper White River Basin.

The trial court had agreed with Western Resource Advocates in a lawsuit that when Yellow Jacket filed an application to maintain its rights, the action was invalid because some members of the Yellow Jacket board of directors had yet to be reappointed.

Oral arguments were conducted on Wednesday in Denver.

The district appropriated the industrial rights in the 1960s with an eye to using them in the event oil shale development took off.

While there was always an understanding that the district, which collects $30,000 a year from property taxes, would partner with private industry to develop reservoirs.

No such arrangement, however, exists, Glenwood Springs water attorney Scott Grosscup said., adding that the district’s efforts are aimed at “establishing resources to protect the White River Basin when there is demand” for water by oil shale development.

While attorneys for the district said the suit amounted to an argument over a technicality, Western Resource Advocates attorney Rob Harris said there is more to it.

“We’re talking about a water district that isn’t needed, running a board that wasn’t legal trying to gather water rights equal to half of the White River,” Harris said, “all to meet the theoretical demands of an oil shale technology that doesn’t yet exist.”

Yellow Jacket’s attorney, Sarah Klahn, said Western Resource Advocates was “whipsawed” by precedent that allows Yellow Jacket to proceed with showing due diligence.

Companies not registered with the Secretary of State’s Office have been found to have filed valid reports with the water court, Klahn said.

“Where in Colorado water law does it say you have to have a fully appointed board as a precondition of a water- rights application?” Klahn said.

The problem of having board members sitting on the board past the end of their terms has been rectified with their reappointment by district court, Klahn said.

Appeals of water court rulings go directly to the state Supreme Court and no schedule for a ruling was set.

More water law coverage here and here.

The 2012 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is hot off the press

November 10, 2012


Click here to download a copy.

From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

The Bureau of Land Management today released a final proposal to go forward with sharp reductions in land to be made potentially available for oil shale development in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

However, the acreage reductions are somewhat less than what were laid out in a draft proposal earlier this year.

Under the proposal, about 677,000 acres would be open for application for leasing, compared to about 2 million acres under a 2008 decision under the Bush administration.

In Colorado, about 26,000 acres would be available. About 357,000 acres would be open for leasing in Utah and 293,000 acres in Wyoming.

The total acreage in the final proposal compares to about 462,000 acres that would have been made available in the draft proposal. The BLM said in a news release that the change reflects its correction of acreage identified in the draft study as lands with wilderness characteristics in Wyoming, re-evaluation of some lands designated as areas of critical environmental concern, and refinements to management of greater sage-grouse habitat to reflect information from state wildlife agencies.

However, Colorado’s acreage would continue to be a small fraction of the 360,000 acres made available in 2008.
The final plan also carries forward the draft proposal that only research, development and demonstration leases would be issued at first. Commercial leases would be issued only when a lessee satisfies conditions including those in the RD&D lease.

The final proposal also would result in about 130,000 acres being open for commercial tar sands leasing in Utah.
The agency reconsidered its 2008 decision as part of a lawsuit settlement with conservation groups. While some conservationists and others have said the agency needs to take a go-slow approach to commercial leasing given uncertainties about technologies and impacts, counties that are home to oil shale deposits have called on the agency to keep the 2008 land allocations.

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said in a statement that he welcomes the “measured steps” the Interior Department is taking to encourage oil shale research and development.

“With water being one of our most precious commodities in the West, I have concerns about the potential impacts of commercial oil shale development. Nonetheless, I look forward to seeing this technology explored further. … The Interior Department’s decision today ensures that we will not be out over the front of our skis with untested technology .”

Also today, the Colorado BLM said it signed RD&D leases with ExxonMobil Exploration Co. and Natural Soda Holdings, Inc.

The leases, which the agency had approved in August, are for technologies the two companies are planning to test to develop oil shale in place underground in Rio Blanco County. The leases take effect Dec. 1.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

CMU weekly seminar recap: ‘We’re going to be stressing major reservoirs’ — Eric Kuhn #CORiver

October 31, 2012


From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

The unfounded optimism that underlaid the structure of the 1922 Colorado River Compact might soon take a toll on Colorado and the other sparely populated mountain states that send water south and west to more arid, and more populous states downstream, said the general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District.

The upper basin states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are obligated under the 1922 agreement governing the management of the river to deliver 75 million acres feet of water at Lee’s Ferry in Arizona every 10 years, or 7.5 million acre feet every year, on a rolling average. There is a distinction and it could be significant because of the lower basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada, Eric Kuhn said Monday at the Colorado Mesa University “Natural Resources of the West: Water and Drought” weekly seminar.

The upper-basin states are at most risk because their uses of water would have to be curtailed to meet requirements of downstream states, Kuhn said. In the future, “We’re going to be stressing major reservoirs” as they are emptied to meet downstream needs, he said.

Worse, the compact makes no provision for a simple lack of water, Kuhn said, leaving the upper basin on the hook to deliver, no matter whether there was enough runoff to meet the requirement. That’s because the framers of the original compact based the allocation of water on what had been a high-flow series of years, Kuhn said. That led to the optimistic plan to reconsider the compact in 1962, when the states would better know how to divide up the surplus water they anticipated would be better understood over the next four decades. That meeting never took place as it slowly became clear that the Colorado River historically carried less, not more, water than had been assumed.

A study by the U.S. Bureau Of Reclamation to be released next month will make it clear that even under the 20th century understanding of hydrology, “The demands on the Colorado River exceed its supplies,” Kuhn said. The fact that the lower-basin states are using less water and upper-basin states using more will have political implications, he said.

In the meantime, however, changing climate, receding waters in the Colorado and other changes could lead officials to re-evaluate some assumptions about the way the river should be managed, Kuhn said, noting that a 1944 agreement on the river introduced the phrase “extraordinary drought” without defining it. It might be that such a circumstance is more dire than even today’s conditions, Kuhn suggested. “If the future is going down (as in the level of the river) then is that a new drought?” he asked, “Or is that a new normal?”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here and here.

Colorado River Basin: ‘The water use for oil shale is quite modest’ — Jeremy Boak (School of Mines)

October 30, 2012


Many eyes are on the Colorado River hoping that water in the basin won’t be developed past the carrying capacity of the river. Here’s an article about the concerns over oil shale exploration and production from Dennis Webb writing for the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

The county that’s home to Las Vegas, Nev., is supporting a proposed downscaling of federal land available for possible oil shale leasing and calling for thorough analysis of potential water impacts of commercial oil shale and tar sands development. Clark County’s recent, unanimously passed resolution comes as several other elected officials in Nevada and Arizona also have been sending letters to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar regarding oil shale, expressing concerns about the need to protect Colorado River water quality and quantity. The officials also back a Bureau of Land Management proposal to sharply reduce acreage available for possible leasing in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah.

“We believe that a comprehensive study of the cumulative impacts of oil shale development to the Colorado River basin should be conducted before the BLM considers commercial leasing of public lands,” says a letter signed by Nevada state lawmakers Peggy Pierce and Tick Segerblom, Arizona House Minority Whip Anna Tovar and Commissioner Paul Newman of the Arizona Corporate Commission, which oversees utility and transportation matters. The writers, all Democrats, also cited a Government Accountability Office estimate that industrial-scale oil shale development could require water equivalent to that used by 750,000 households.

Arizona’s House Minority Leader, Democrat Chad Campbell, sent a similar letter, as did Democratic Nevada lawmaker Maggie Carlton, Democratic Nevada state Sen. Mark Manendo and Las Vegas City Council member Bob Coffin. The writers generally urge Salazar to take a balanced approach to oil shale development. In an archived video on Clark County’s website, commissioners there indicated they weren’t trying to tell Colorado what to do or interfere with its economy. Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani said the county simply wants to make sure that due diligence to protect water quality from any oil shale development occurs, to ensure “that what’s coming downstream is appropriate for the valley.”

The Colorado River provides water to 2.5 million people in the county. The commissioners also indicated they were trying to adopt a resolution that wouldn’t interfere with sensitive, ongoing interstate negotiations over Colorado River water.

Chris Treese, a spokesman for western Colorado’s Colorado River Water Conservation District, said if Clark County’s concerns are about water quality, that’s “curious.”

“They’re not going to see any change in their water quality — none,” said Treese, citing the pollution-control regulations that would apply to the industry and amount of dilution that would occur by the time water reaches Las Vegas.

Front Range water entities that rely on Colorado River water also have raised concerns about oil shale’s potential impacts on water quality and the resource’s future availability. The Front Range Water Council sent a letter to the BLM regarding its draft environmental impact statement analyzing a range of alternatives for how much land should be made available for possible leasing. The council said that study’s “analysis of impacts to water supply, water quality, and water development is inadequate, in part because it does not analyze the range of impacts associated with various technologies used by oil shale developers.” The council represents utilities for Denver, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Aurora and other communities collectively meeting the water demands of about 80 percent of the state’s population.

The council says increased population and energy use related to oil shale development would have water ramifications, and the BLM also needs to assess how such development would affect efforts to protect endangered fish in the Colorado River in Colorado. The BLM says the fish impacts would be analyzed for individual leasing authorizations.

Jeremy Boak, director of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the Colorado School of Mines, said some companies pursuing efforts to develop oil shale in place underground by means such as heating are working in geological zones isolated from groundwater, minimizing chances of contamination. Shell, which has been researching the use of a freeze-wall to protect surrounding groundwater, has shown the ability to use a steam process to clean groundwater within the freezewall before the wall is removed, he said.

As for water consumption, Boak believes an oil shale industry might use 2 percent of Colorado’s water, compared to about 80 percent currently for agriculture. “The water use for oil shale is quite modest,” he said.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

CWCB: State of Colorado Receives Partners in Conservation Award

October 18, 2012


Here’s the release from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Ted Kowalski):

The State of Colorado, as well as the other cooperating partners in the Colorado River Supply and Demand Basin Study (“Colorado River Basin Study” or “Basin Study”), were presented today with the prestigious “Partners in Conservation Award” by the Department of the Interior. This award was presented by Deputy Secretary David Hayes in recognition of the cooperation between these different entities on one of the most pressing natural resources issues in the Unites States–the future of the Colorado River basin.

The Colorado River Basin Study is the most comprehensive effort to date to quantify and address future supply and demand imbalances in the Colorado River Basin. The Basin Study evaluates the reliability of the water dependent resources, and also outlines potential options and strategies to meet or reduce imbalances that are consistent with the existing legal framework governing the use and operation of the Colorado River. To date, the Basin Study has published a number of interim reports and appendices, and the final report of the Basin Study is scheduled to be published by the end of November, 2012.

Jennifer Gimbel, Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and Ted Kowalski, Chief of the Interstate, Federal and Water Information Section of the Colorado Water Conservation Board accepted the award on behalf of the State of Colorado. “The Basin Study reflects the cooperative spirit in which the Colorado River Basin States have worked since the adoption of the 2007 Interim Guidelines,” Gimbel said.“Colorado and the other Basin States, the tribes, the federal government, and the many diverse stakeholders must continue to work together in order to address the difficult water imbalances facing the southwestern United States in the next half century. It is clear that there are no silver bullets, but rather we must explore and develop multiple options and strategies in order to meet our projected future water supply/demand imbalance.”

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

CWC Summer Conference: ‘The money available for infrastructure projects, especially for water, is going to be very challenging’ — Carl Steidtmann

August 19, 2012


From Steamboat Today (Frank Ameduri):

“The real issue here with water is, ‘What are we going to do about it?’” Carl Steidtmann said. “The problem is our government entities are deeply in debt.”

Steidtmann, a Steamboat Springs resident who is chief economist for Deloitte, was the lunchtime speaker during the 2012 Summer Water and Energy Conference at the Sheraton Steamboat Resort on Wednesday. The three-day conference goes through Friday and is put on by the Colorado Water Congress. There are 240 people registered for the conference, and attendees include local politicians, state legislators and representatives from water conservancy districts, water departments and municipalities across the state.

Steidtmann’s keynote Wednesday was titled “The Regional Impact of the National Economy: Letting Go of the Status Quo for Water and Energy.”[...]

Steidtmann, who consults with Fortune 500 companies, said water is becoming an increasingly important issue for energy companies because of its increasing scarcity. To illustrate this point, he showed a map forecasting water availability in 2025. “The western part of the U.S. becomes one of those areas of critical water shortages,” Steidtmann said.

In an era of a contracting government where more money is being spent to pay off debt, Steidtmann said infrastructure projects are the ones that are easy to delay. “The money available for infrastructure projects, especially for water, is going to be very challenging,” he said.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“Environmentalism is a luxury good,” said Carl Steidtmann, chief economist for Deloitte Services. “Richer countries are more environmentally conscious.” In his view, poorer nations are more focused on the need to survive, and have a greater impact on the environment as populations grow. It takes money to protect the environment, he said. Energy development has been the greatest factor in the divide between rich and poor nations, but in the future, the availability of food and water will also have economic consequences, he said.

From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“We need to make sure the most water goes to the hottest fires,” said Reeves Brown, executive director of the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. He was among state officials who discussed water project funding last week at the summer convention of the Colorado Water Congress. There is an estimated $5 billion backlog in about 1,000 community water projects across the state.

Mineral severance or federal lease fund revenues are a major source of funds for Colorado water projects to provide drinking water or treat wastewater. Since 2008, the state has looked toward those cash funds to make up shortfalls in other budget areas, particularly health care, education and prisons.

About $250 million over four years in funds that would have gone to local impact grants through DOLA have been diverted. That money would have leveraged three times as much in other grants or loans, Brown said. The Colorado Water Conservation Board has seen $163 million of construction funds diverted during the same period, while making about $80 million in loans to water projects.

More infrastructure coverage here.

Steamboat Springs: Colorado Water Congress Summer Conference August 15 – 17

July 9, 2012


Here’s the link to the registration page. Here’s the description of the event (Meg Meyer):

The 2012 Colorado Water Congress Summer Conference will include water and energy interests once again as we combine forces and explore areas of common interest. The theme of the conference is The Balance of Power. We will spin the concept several different ways as we look at the balance of political power, the balance of governance, and the balance of energy and water sources.

Immediately preceding the CWC Summer Conference, the Colorado Coal and Power Generation group will hold an all-day event at the Holiday Inn in Craig on Tuesday, August 14th which will include a golf tournament and evening barbeque.

In addition, the Interim Water Resources Review Committee will meet in Steamboat, Tuesday afternoon, for their first substantive meeting to prepare for the 2013 legislative session.

The CWC Summer Conference will be held August 15th through August17th at the Sheraton in Steamboat Springs.

We will have three workshops on Wednesday morning covering topics of drought and current weather conditions, public trust, and endangered species. We will try something a little different this year with the conference kicking off with a luncheon on Wednesday. General Sessions will follow on Wednesday afternoon. An evening open public forum will held on Wednesday at 7:30 pm (attendance is optional for water and energy professionals).

We will have networking breakfasts on Thursday or Friday – a light continental breakfast will be served, but no formal speaker. The hotel restaurant or other local venues are available for those that prefer a heartier breakfast. General Sessions will be held on Thursday from 9:00 to 12:00. On Thursday afternoon, we will offer a couple of tours or you may want to use this time to catch up on other business. The POND Committee is also planning outdoor activities. We will have a reception on Thursday evening at 5:00. The Friday morning format will be similar to Thursday and the conference will conclude with a box lunch.

The Front Range Water Council has its eyes on water requirements for oil shale exploration and production

June 19, 2012


Water supply planning requires forecasting demand decades into the future. The Front Range Water Council is wary of water requirements for oil shale — the “Next Big Thing” for over a hundred years now — since many of the water rights that oil companies have purchased are senior to most of the large transmountain diversion projects. Here’s a report from the Colorado News Service (Kathleen Ryan) via The Fowler Tribune. From the article:

Jim Lochhead, president of the group and CEO of Denver Water, says half of the Denver water supply comes from the Colorado River, and he’s worried that oil shale production could overtax the river’s resources. “We’re concerned that the BLM and the United States not go too far too fast in their leasing program, before really understanding and quantifying these impacts on the river.”[...]

According to a report from Western Resource Advocates, oil and gas companies hold some rights to Colorado River water which predate the rights held by cities for drinking water. The BLM is expected to have a new plan in place by the end of the year.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

‘Oil shale development would involve intensive use of water’ — Alan Hamel

June 10, 2012


From The Pueblo Chieftain (Chris Woodka):

“We have to protect the water we have, as well as provide water for endangered species,” said Alan Hamel, executive director of the Pueblo Board of Water Works and a member of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. “Oil shale development would involve intensive use of water, particularly for use in power generation.” Last month, the Pueblo water board and other members of the Front Range Water Council weighed in on the Bureau of Reclamation’s environmental impact statement for oil shale and tar sands…

The Front Range Water Council includes the major organizations that import water from the Colorado River: Denver Water, the Northern and Southeastern Colorado water conservancy districts, Aurora Water, Colorado Springs Utilities, Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Co. and the Pueblo water board. Collectively, they provide water to 4 million people, 82 percent of the population in Colorado.

More Front Range Water Council coverage here and here.

New Ceres Report: Oil Shale Development in Western U.S. Poses Significant Risks to Investors

May 31, 2012


Here’s the link to the report (registration required). Here’s the release from Ceres:

Citing technological uncertainties and a wide range of other risks, a new Ceres white paper supports a federal agency’s proposal to take a cautious approach to oil shale production in the western U.S.

At issue is the Bureau of Land Management’s proposal to focus oil shale production in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado on “Research, Development, and Demonstration” (RD&D) leases only and to reduce the available acreage to about 500,000 acres from nearly two million acres under an earlier plan.

“Given the wide array of uncertainties, BLM’s proposed leasing approach on oil shale makes sense,” said Ceres president Mindy Lubber, citing regulatory risks, water constraints and numerous other questions about various technologies being pursued to extract a non-liquid form of oil from shale rock. “Investors should be similarly cautious in evaluating future investment in this space.”

“Oil shale technologies are still highly speculative, and proving them to be commercially viable will be difficult and require a long period of time with uncertain outcomes,” said Paul Bugala, senior sustainability analyst, extractive industries, at Calvert Investments. “The little that state and federal regulators know about the environmental impacts, especially in the areas of water use and land reclamation, further indicates that caution should be exercised.”

While oil shale reserves beneath the three states in the Green River Formation are vast, holding more than three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, the Ceres white paper, Investor Risks from Oil Shale Development, sends a strong cautionary message to policymakers, investors and companies alike.

The white paper, prepared by David Gardiner & Associates, LLC, identifies five key risks to oil shale development:

Core technological uncertainty: Despite decades of efforts, surface and in-ground technologies for producing oil shale still face many uncertainties. The report states: “The uncertainties around continued testing and development of new technologies and processes for producing oil from oil shale leave a great deal still unknown, including the amount of the resource that is recoverable, the efficiencies and costs of various methods, the impacts on natural resources, and the effects of various technologies on the costs of final products (and thus the competitiveness of oil shale).” The white paper cites an earlier report by the Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels (comprised of federal, state, and local officials) which states: “[t]echnology uncertainty is the largest single risk factor associated with oil shale development. This uncertainty remains even after 50 years of government and industry research to develop a commercially viable retorting technology.”

Market risks: Production of oil shale is characterized by significant capital investment, high operating costs, and long payback periods – at least a decade. Uncertainties about the costs associated with developing a first-generation commercial facility, combined with oil price volatility and other uncertainties, pose investment risks that make oil shale investment less attractive than other potential uses of capital. Sporadic attempts to commercialize oil shale have repeatedly failed once oil prices fall.

Water constraints: Oil shale development’s need for water is a particular concern in water-stressed states such as Colorado and Utah. The report cites estimates showing that surface technologies may require 2 to 4 barrels of water for every barrel of product produced while in-ground technologies may require up to 12 barrels of water per barrel produced. The U.S. Government Accountability Office has suggested that the size of the oil shale industry in Colorado and Utah may be limited by water availability.

Regulatory risks: Lifecycle carbon emissions for oil shale fuels are likely to be 25 to 75 percent greater than for conventional petroleum. This means oil shale development could face risks as carbon-reducing rules and regulations take hold – whether low-carbon fuel standards, a price on carbon emissions, lifecycle emissions requirements, or other measures. Other federal and state environmental regulations, including those related to air and water quality, also pose risks to oil shale development.

Risks from public opposition: Public opposition to oil shale based on the actual or perceived environmental impacts could “derail, delay, or increase the costs of such projects,” says the white paper.

More than 70 percent of the Green River Formation oil shale resources lie beneath federal lands. BLM is presently considering public comments on its proposal to limit development to RD&D leases on 252,181 acres in Utah, 174,476 acres in Wyoming and 35,308 acres in Colorado. A decision is expected in fall 2012.

From the Ceres website:

Ceres is an advocate for sustainability leadership. Ceres mobilizes a powerful coalition of investors, companies and public interest groups to accelerate and expand the adoption of sustainable business practices and solutions to build a healthy global economy. Ceres also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), a network of 100 institutional investors with collective assets totaling more than $10 trillion.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

White River basin: In the event that an economic oil shale production process is developed, is there enough water available?

May 25, 2012


Here’s a guest column written by Colorado River Basin Roundtable member, Greg Trainor, running in the Grand Junction Free Press that looks at the question. From the article:

In Northwest Colorado, where energy development is a major industry and we hear a constant buzz about oil shale (will it or won’t it take off?), the Yampa-White and Colorado Basin Roundtables determined that water demands from the energy industry must be estimated and a plan developed for where this water might come from. The roundtables commissioned an extensive study to find the answers.

The study showed that water use for oil shale has the potential to dwarf all other energy sector demands for water — but that these needs can probably be met with water from the White River Basin through existing and new reservoir projects.

The technology of a future oil shale industry is uncertain, so future water demands are also uncertain. Past industry efforts and current experimental development employ an array of above-ground and in situ (in place) technologies to extract oil from rock, and projected water use varies among these technologies. The study developed high, medium and low oil production and water use scenarios to develop a range of plausible water use estimates.

The study’s high water use estimate uses data from Dutch Shell’s in situ conversion process, which requires electrical heating and cooling. Water needs include water related to supplying electricity as well as directly in the extraction process. At a high production scenario of 1.5 million barrels/day of oil production, this scenario yields an overall estimate of 110,000 acre-feet of water use per year.

This final “high” estimate is significantly lower than the one generated in the first phase of the study. The earlier estimates assumed all energy needs for extracting oil from shale would be met by coal-fired power plants, while Phase II more realistically assumed that the industry would use gas-powered plants, which use much less water.

The study identified three water supply projects in the White River Basin that could potentially meet an annual demand of 110,000 acre feet/year. These three projects are not the only water supply option available, but do demonstrate that the water needs can be supplied from the White River, via development of junior decrees, with reasonable development costs.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Western Resource Advocates: ‘Oil Shale 2050′ report is hot off the press

April 15, 2012


Click here to download a copy of the report Oil Shale 2050: Data, Definitions, & What You Need to Know About Oil Shale in the West. Here’s an excerpt:

As the debate over potential oil shale development in
the western United States continues, Western Resource Advocates (WRA) has focused on understanding the nature of the oil shale deposits; the state of the technologies companies are trying to advance; the environmental, economic, social, and climate impacts of exploiting these deposits; and what development would mean for our energy demands and goals. This report explores these matters.

This report is largely an educational tool, concentrating on the salient issues central to the ongoing debate over the wisdom and feasibility of producing liquid fuel from oil shale. Many of the issues discussed in this report are framed from the perspective of the year 2050. Why 2050? First, it is a baseline that states commonly use to project water demands. It is also roughly the date by which such companies as Royal Dutch Shell predict they might be in a position to produce large quantities of oil from shale, depending on the results of current research and testing…

By the year 2050, economists, biologists, climatologists, and a variety of other scientists predict huge changes to the West. Their models forecast that there will be less water in the Colorado River Basin, with escalating demand from a rapidly growing population. The population of the state of Colorado is projected to swell by 57% over the next 30 years. Utah, the second-driest state in the nation, anticipates a 105% increase in its population by 2050. Because of this growth, in Colorado alone, municipal and industrial water demands are estimated to increase by as much as 83%.

By 2050, the competition for water will be fierce and will only be compounded by climate change. Decisions we make today about a host of concerns, including whether or not to develop oil shale, will directly impact the amount of available water in 2050. As a result of climate change, water in the Colorado River Basin is projected to decrease anywhere from 5% to 20% by 2050. Current projections conclude that we will rely heavily on water currently used for agriculture to cover growing municipal and industrial demands.

By 2050 we might be less reliant on fossil fuels for planes and automobiles. Alternatives might include electric cars powered by renewable sources, or biodiesel made from algae, or energy sources that researchers are not yet exploring.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

State of the Rockies Project: Interior Secretary Salazar says develop but protect the environment at the same time

April 10, 2012


From the Associated Press via the San Francisco Chronicle:

Salazar spoke during the State of the Rockies Project conference at Colorado College, where students have been studying how to preserve the Colorado River basin…

…climate change, drought and population growth in the West have heightened interest in how the states and Mexico can continue sharing the [Colorado] river and still support irrigation, hydropower, tourism, recreation, agricultural and municipal needs and wildlife. Salazar said the Colorado River Compact that outlines how seven Western states and Mexico will share the river system’s water was created without the best science or knowledge. The agreement wrongly assumed there was 2 million acre-feet more available than there really is, he said. Nevertheless, he said the compact will not be reopened. Within Salazar’s department, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is reviewing ideas for how to address a projected imbalance in Colorado River basin supply and demand.

Meanwhile the U.S. and Mexico continue to negotiate details of how to share the river. Salazar’s appearance Monday came the same day that 25 conservation groups delivered a petition urging the U.S. and Mexico to allow some flows to return to the dried-up delta where the Colorado River flows into the Gulf of California. Salazar said the U.S. and Mexico hope to announce results of the negotiations soon. He didn’t give a timetable.

More coverage from Debbie Kelley writing for the Colorado Springs Independent. From the article:

As President Obama’s appointed U.S. Secretary of the Interior, the San Luis Valley native and 1977 CC graduate is familiar with the problems associated with what’s often called “the hardest-working river” in the nation. “The Colorado River is already a water-short river — more water has been allocated than what that river has today, not only along southern states but with the treaty with Mexico,” Salazar said during the 2012 State of the Rockies Project conference, which continues Tuesday. But Salazar assured the hundreds of conference attendees that his department is working on the issues and hopes to announce a new allocation agreement with Mexico soon.

The river is ruled by a compilation of decrees, rights, court decisions and laws that together are referred to as the “Law of the River.” The keystone is the 1922 Colorado River Compact, an interstate agreement for general water allotments, which Salazar said overestimated by 2 million acre feet the annual amount of water that could be extracted from the river. In response to a question from the audience, Salazar said he doesn’t think the Compact will ever be opened up for negotiation: “The legacies that have been created over 89 years are so embedded in the Law of the River,” he said…

Salazar also seized on the connection between the dwindling water supply and the energy industry, deriding the push by U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, for expanded oil shale development. “We need to let the world know how much water would be required to develop those oil shale resources — the estimates I’ve seen are over 1 million acre feet and some at 2 million,” Salazar said. “Where would that water come from? What’s going to be the consequences to the ranchers and farmers dependent on the Colorado River?”

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

State of the Rockies Project: Will and Zak release a new video — ‘A Paddler’s Perspective on the Colorado River Delta’

March 12, 2012


Here’s the link to the video. Will and Zak paddled from the headwaters of the Green River to the Colorado River Delta as researchers for Colorado College’s State of the Rockies Project.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Report: Oil Shale 2050 — Data, Definitions, & Everything You Need to Know About Oil Shale in the West

March 10, 2012


Oil shale has been the next big thing here in Colorado for over a 100 years now. Here’s the release from Western Resource Advocates (Jason Bane):

Today Western Resource Advocates (WRA) introduced a comprehensive new report about oil shale development titled: “Oil Shale 2050: Data, Definitions & What You Need to Know About Oil Shale in the West.” This timely new analysis of oil shale in the Western United States comes just one week ahead of public meetings planned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to discuss a new federal policy on oil shale development.*

“We looked at this issue inside and out, and based on extensive research, we can’t find a good reason why commercial oil shale development should be pursued in the West,” said David Abelson, Oil Shale Policy Advisor at WRA and the lead author of Oil Shale 2050. “Frankly, I sometimes wonder why this is even a discussion. Oil shale would foul our air and water, soak up enormous amounts of water, and disrupt local economies. And nobody has been able to come up with a viable commercial process to produce it anyway.”

Oil Shale 2050 is the first report to link water demands and regulatory frameworks with potential oil shale development, examining the history of oil shale and key data points all under one cover. The release of Oil Shale 2050 is particularly timely; the BLM is holding public meetings in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming next week to discuss proposed federal guidelines for oil shale research and development, and this report is the ideal guidebook for those discussions.

The report also comes on the heels of a late February announcement by Chevron, in which the company decided to stop working on oil shale research in order to redeploy resources towards fuel sources for which extraction technologies already exist.

“Chevron’s announcement is another in a long line of examples proving that nobody knows how to develop oil shale on a commercial scale,” said Rob Dubuc, Staff Attorney and Oil Shale Expert in WRA’s Utah office. “Oil and gas companies are abandoning oil shale research independently, yet the State of Utah is still preparing to turn over public resources for speculative development. That’s like building a factory before you know how to make the widget. It doesn’t make sense.”

Oil Shale 2050 addresses these issues and more, including:

• What is oil shale and how might it be turned into a fuel source?
• Will oil shale production ever be commercially viable?
• How would oil shale development impact the environment compared to the production of more traditional sources of fuel?
• What are the impacts of diverting large amounts of water for oil shale development? How would that impact present and future demand for water?
• How is oil shale different from shale gas and shale oil?

“Even if we could develop oil shale, we would need a larger conversation about whether we should,” said Mike Chiropolos, Chief Counsel to the Lands Program at WRA. “Annual commercial oil shale production could require one-and-a-half times the water needs of all 1.3 million Denver Water customers. Where would that water come from?”

This year may well be the most important year in the history of oil shale speculation, as upcoming decisions by the Department of the Interior and Congress will fundamentally direct the course of oil shale policy for decades. Oil Shale 2050 will be an invaluable tool for decision-makers as they plot the future allocations of Western lands and energy sources.

To download the complete report or fact sheets, go to

*The BLM is holding public meetings on oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming during the week of March 12. For a list of scheduled meetings, go to:

More coverage from the Colorado Independent (Troy Hooper):

“Water is the defining resource in the West,” Mike Chiropolos, chief counsel for Western Resource Advocates, told reporters on a conference call this week. “There is an enormous uncertainty of what the impacts are of utilizing large quantities of that supply.”

The report, “Oil Shale 2050, comes in advance of the Bureau of Land Management’s meetings in Colorado and Utah next week that ask for public feedback to the Department of Interior’s plan to dramatically scale back the acreage of lands available for oil shale and tar sands development. Federal officials are proposing to cut the Bush-era oil leasing inventory from 1.9 million acres to 462,000 for oil shale and from 431,000 acres to 91,000 for tar sands.

U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, however, is sponsoring H.R. 3408, the “Pioneers Act,” which would revive the Bush-era plan to open vast amounts of public lands in Utah, Wyoming and western Colorado to oil shale and tar sands production. His bill made it out of the House Committee on Natural Resources last month, and House Speaker John Boehner has said oil shale revenues will partly pay for national transportation projects in the next five years.

Oil shale production, however, has yet to be proven commercially viable.

More coverage from (Amy Joi O’Donoghue). From the article:

“Oil Shale 2050,” released by Boulder-based Western Resource Advocates, details critical links between the resource development and its use of water in the thirsty West, as well as what the group says is an unproven technology that should be abandoned in pursuit of clean energy alternatives. “The finite research and development dollars available should be invested in clean energy solutions,” said Mike Chiropolos, the group’s chief counsel of its lands programs.

Chriopolos and two other representatives from the organization spoke to the report’s findings in a Wednesday teleconference, noting that after 100 years of trying to pull deposits from the ground, the industry is no closer to success. The trio pointed to the late February decision by Chevron to give up its experimental lease for oil shale in Colorado, instead opting to direct its three staffers on that project to work in other areas. They said they hope that sends a signal to other would-be developers.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Geologic primer for western Colorado

March 6, 2012


Here’s a report from the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson). Click through and read the whole article. Here’s an excerpt:

Peter Barkmann, and environmental geologist and hydro-geologist for the Colorado Geological Survey, offered a primer on the deep geologic history of western Colorado in a presentation last week to the Northwest Colorado Oil and Gas Forum, which meets quarterly in Rifle. Barkmann described the formation of the Mesaverde and other energy-rich rock layers formed from coastal plains sediments deposited 75 million years ago…

The organic deposits of the seaway, laid down over eons, were covered by accumulating layers of rock and sediment. Buried deep underground, subjected to extreme pressure and heat, the organic materials gradually decomposed and permeated the surrounding rock, forming deposits of coal, oil, gas and oil shale.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

Shell is turning dirt on an experimental oil shale lease in western Colorado

March 3, 2012


From the Associated Press via The Washington Post:

Carolyn Tucker of Shell said Thursday that the company continues to make “significant progress” on its oil shale project, which until now has occurred only on Shell land. The Daily Sentinel reports ( ) Shell is preparing to do a test to address the federal government’s goal of developing oil shale while also extracting, or at least protecting, commercially valuable deposits of nahcolite in the same formations. Shell has three federal leases in Colorado’s Rio Blanco County for research on turning oil shale into oil.

More oil shale coverage here.

Chevron gives up their experimental lease on the ‘Next Big Thing’ in energy — oil shale

February 29, 2012


Oil shale has been the “Next Big Thing” in energy in Colorado for over a hundred years now. Chevron is the latest victim of the non-economic energy source. Here’s a report from the Associated Press via The Denver Post. From the article:

Chevron Corp. is giving up its experimental oil shale lease in northwest Colorado, saying it wants to free up its resources for other priorities. The company is working with the Bureau of Land Management to figure out what to do with the lease, including possibly transferring it to another company, The Grand Junction Sentinel reported Tuesday…

Chevron had been studying using carbon dioxide to draw out kerogen, a petroleum-like substance, from rock. The company said in a statement that the research was “productive.”

More oil shale coverage here.

BLM Announces Public Meetings on Potential Environmental Impacts of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development

February 27, 2012


Here’s the release from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Megan Crandall):

The Bureau of Land Management announced today that it is hosting public meetings in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to answer questions about and solicit comments on its oil shale and tar sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PEIS). The meetings will be held at 7 p.m. at the locations and dates listed below:

Monday, March 12, 2012
BLM Colorado River Valley Office
2300 River Frontage Road, Silt, Colorado
7:00 p.m.-9:30 p.m.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Westin Plaza Hotel
1684 West Highway 40, Vernal, Utah
7:00 p.m.-9:30 p.m.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Grand America Hotel
555 South Main Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
7:00 p.m.-9:30 p.m.

Thursday, March 15, 2012
BLM Rock Springs Field Office
280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming
7:00 p.m.-9:30 p.m.

BLM officials will be on hand to take written comments and assist with the commenting process. The Draft PEIS is being prepared by the BLM to assess a range of management alternatives for future oil-shale and tar-sands activities on public lands. The Notice of Availability of the Draft PEIS was issued in the Federal Register on February 3, 2012. A 90-day public comment period began that day and will close on May 4, 2012.

Written comments on the Draft PEIS should be submitted by May 4 using an online comment form on the Draft PEIS Website at This is the preferred method for commenting. Comments may also be submitted by regular mail to: Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, EVS 240, Argonne, IL 60439.

From The Rifle Citizen Telegram:

The Bureau of Land Management will host meetings in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming to answer questions about and solicit comments on its oil shale and tar sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PEIS). The Colorado meeting will be held from 7-9:30 p.m. on Monday, March 12, at the BLM Colorado River Valley Office, 2300 River Frontage Road, in Silt.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

BLM Issues Draft Programmatic EIS for Oil Shale and Tar Sands; Preferred Alternative Identifies Research and Development as Appropriate First Step on Public Lands

February 4, 2012


Here’s the release from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Megan Crandall):

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has published the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) and Possible Land Use Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The publication opens a 90-day public review and comment period.

The Draft PEIS analyzes several alternatives for land allocation and resource management. Under the BLM’s Preferred Alternative identified in the Draft PEIS, the BLM would continue to support the research and development of hydrocarbon deposits in an environmentally responsible way that protects scarce water supplies in the arid West.

If the BLM decides to adopt the Preferred Alternative, 461,965 acres would be available for research and development of oil shale, a kerogen-rich rock (35,308 acres in Colorado; 252,181 acres in Utah; and 174,476 acres in Wyoming). In addition, 91,045 acres in eastern Utah would be available for activities related to tar sands, a type of hydrocarbon-wet sedimentary deposit.

“The preferred alternative continues our commitment to encouraging research, development, and demonstration projects so that companies can develop technologies that can lead to economic and commercial viability,” said BLM Director Bob Abbey. “Because there are still many unanswered questions about the technology, water use, and impacts of potential commercial-scale oil shale development, we are proposing a prudent and orderly approach that could facilitate significant improvements to technology needed for commercial-scale activity. If oil shale is to be viable on a commercial scale, we must take a common-sense approach that encourages research and development first.”

To date, technological and economic conditions have not combined to support a sustained commercial oil shale industry in the United States, and there is currently no commercial development of oil shale in the areas under review in the draft PEIS. Lands that would be open to oil shale development under the Preferred Alternative would be available for Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) leases. The BLM could issue a commercial lease after a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and meets all federal regulations for conversion to a commercial lease.

Additionally, following the recommendations of the Government Accountability Office – which determined that several fundamental questions about oil shale technologies remain unanswered, including critical questions about water demands – the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is undertaking an analysis of baseline water resources conditions to improve the understanding of groundwater and surface water systems that could be affected by commercial-scale oil shale development.

Oil shale is a term used to describe a wide range of fine-grained, sedimentary rocks that contain solid bituminous materials called kerogen. It should not be confused with “shale oil,” which is not addressed by the draft PEIS. Kerogen, which is organic matter derived mainly from aquatic organisms, releases petroleum-like liquids when subjected to extremely high temperatures – more than 750 degrees. Developers have been trying to produce oil from this rock in an economically-viable way for more than a century. The majority of U.S. oil shale (and the world’s largest oil shale deposit) is found in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

Tar sands are sedimentary rocks containing a heavy hydrocarbon compound called bitumen. They can be mined and processed to extract the oil-rich bitumen, which is then refined into oil. However, unlike the oil sands deposits in Canada, oil is not currently produced from tar sands on a significant commercial level in the United States. Additionally, the U.S. tar sands are hydrocarbon wet, whereas the Canadian oil sands are water wet. This difference means that U.S. tar sands will require different processing techniques.

Any new land allocation decisions made on the basis of the Final PEIS would replace the land allocation decisions made in 2008 that proposed making up to 2 million acres of public lands available for commercial oil shale leasing in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming and 431,000 acres available for tar sands leasing in Utah. Some Western communities argued that the 2008 PEIS and Record of Decision would have prematurely allowed commercial leasing without technologies having been proven viable and without a clear understanding of impacts on scarce Western water supplies. In response to those concerns and in settlement of litigation, the agency agreed to reconsider the 2008 land allocation decisions.

A 90-day public review and comment period began on February 3, 2012 and is scheduled to end on May 4, 2012.

Public meetings on the Draft PEIS will also be held in Rifle, CO; Rock Springs, WY; Salt Lake City; and Vernal, UT. The public will be notified of the dates and times of these meetings at least 15 days in advance via local media and the project website.

Written comments on the Draft PEIS may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Website – Using the online comment form available on the project Website: (This is the preferred method of commenting.)

Mail – Addressed to:

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Draft Programmatic EIS
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue—EVS/240
Argonne, IL 60439.

Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment–including your personal identifying information–may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

To read the BLM’s Federal Register Notice of Availability click here.

To read the Draft PEIS click here.

More coverage from Catharine Tsai writing for The Associated Press via The Casper Tribune. From the article:

A new draft environmental impact statement released Friday says the preferred plan now is to make 35,308 acres in Colorado, 252,181 acres in Utah, and 174,476 acres in Wyoming available for research. Also, 91,045 acres in eastern Utah would be available for activities related to tar sands. The public has until May 4 to comment on the proposal. The Bureau of Land Management estimates the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming has about 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil resources, but not all may be recoverable…

Following recommendations from the GAO, the U.S. Geological Survey is analyzing baseline water conditions so it can better understand how commercial-scale oil shale development could affect groundwater and surface water systems.

More coverage from Bruce Finley writing for The Denver Post. From the article:

Energy industry leaders said they are anxious to review details of the “draft programmatic environmental impact statement.”

“Any plan that delays development is not conducive to producing the energy that American consumers demand,” American Petroleum Institute spokesman Reid Porter said. “Testing is extremely important. But also there has to be certainty, an operating environment that’s conducive to investment.”

Rio Blanco County Commissioner Ken Parsons said he would prefer to see a plan that moves toward commercial development. “Some of it has to do with jobs, and there’s the energy independence question.”[...]

…Colorado Department of Natural Resources director Mike King backed the deliberative approach. “We need to be thorough and have a full understanding of potential impacts to the environment and our communities before we take steps toward large-scale leasing or development of oil shale.”

A coalition of farmers, ranchers, sportsmen and city officials and others has supported a rollback of the Bush administration’s 2008 push for opening public lands to tap oil shale. “We’re really concerned about the impacts on water. We cannot gamble away our water on oil shale speculation,” said Bill Midcap, director of renewable energy development for the Rocky Mountain Farmer’s Union. “We cannot risk our farm economy.”

More coverage from the Summit County Citizens Voice. From the article:

The BLM released a draft environmental impact statement outlining how the agency will review and potentially revise land use plans in various jurisdictions in the region.
The BLM announcement garnered a favorable reaction from many quarters.

“Having worked for the BLM and Department of the Interior for many years, I know well the challenge of land management,” said Vern Lovejoy, a former outdoor recreation planner with the BLM in Wyoming. “Oil shale can be developed in many places, but we need to make sure we understand the potential impacts on a site-by-site basis before we enter into leases that will forever change the environment. There has to be more of an analysis than ‘out of sight, out of mind.’”

“Hunting and fishing are huge economic drivers in the West – with an economic impact of $1.5 billion in Colorado alone,” said John Ellenberger is the retired big game manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. “We cannot afford to risk those jobs and the critical big game habitat deer and elk need to survive. But moving forward with oil shale development prematurely puts at risk this world-class wildlife and the jobs and hunting heritage that healthy natural resources provide to our state.”

“While I have long felt there is potential for oil shale development, it is critical that a number of unanswered questions be resolved before commercial-scale leasing takes place,” Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colorado, said in a prepared statement. “Fully understanding the demands of oil shale development on Colorado’s water and local communities is essential to ensuring responsible development.”

More coverage from Troy Hooper writing for the Colorado Independent. From the article:

“While I have long felt there is potential for oil shale development, it is critical that a number of unanswered questions be resolved before commercial-scale leasing takes place,” Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colorado, said in a prepared statement. “Fully understanding the demands of oil shale development on Colorado’s water and local communities is essential to ensuring responsible development.”

Last year, the BLM announced it would reconsider the Bush-era land leasing plan as part of a settlement of a lawsuit by environmental groups in 2009 that challenged the 2008 action.

“For the sportsmen, farmers, ranchers and communities on the Western Slope that depend on clean air and clean water, making sure development is done right the first time is vital to their way of life,” said Udall, noting that the BLM will be accepting public comment on its plan for the next 90 days.

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, issued a statement reminding residents of “Black Sunday,” May 2, 1982, when Exxon’s massive Colony oil shale project went bust on the state’s Western Slope. “In Colorado, we have seen what can happen when we rush into oil shale development,” Bennet said. “We need to be certain we can do this in an environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically viable way– particularly with regard to water, which is critical to farmers, ranchers and the economies of western communities. Secretary Salazar’s announcement marks a balanced and prudent next step in our efforts to ensure that any commercial oil shale development is done in a thoughtful manner. An emphasis on continued research is entirely appropriate in advance of crafting any commercial development guidelines that continue to protect our natural resources and provide a fair return to American taxpayers in the process.”

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Chris Treese (Colorado River District): ‘We’re very concerned about any large project of any kind for Eastern or Western Colorado’

February 4, 2012


Mr. Treese was speaking at the Southern Colorado Water Forum this week. Here’s a report from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“We’re very concerned about any large project of any kind for Eastern or Western Colorado,” Chris Treese, external affairs manager for the Colorado River Conservation District, told the Southern Colorado Water Forum earlier this week…

Colorado’s weather has been, and will continue to be, unpredictable, however. Water availability is dependent on snowpack, and some climate projections claim there will be less snow in the mountains in the next century. But while warmer temperatures appear to be certain, the jury’s still out on the effect on precipitation levels. “It could be more or it could be less,” Treese said. “One thing is certain: The growing season will be longer, driving up demand.”

At one point, Treese portrayed the Colorado River district as a David facing two Goliaths: demand from Colorado’s Front Range for more water and demand from downstream states in the Colorado River Compact…

If one hiked along the western side of the Continental Divide in North-Central Colorado, only three streams that are not part of a diversion project would be crossed, Treese said…

Last year, several counties and water districts announced the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement with Denver Water that set out certain payments and water deliveries that will allow Denver to divert and store more water in Gross Reservoir, located in Boulder County. Such cooperative deals make sense and show that the Western Slope does not deserve its “Not One Drop” reputation, Treese said.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

Colorado River Basin: What are the reasonable water management options and strategies that will provide water for people, but also maintain a healthy river system?

December 25, 2011


Here’s a guest commentary written by Eric Kuhn, David Modeer and Fred Krupp running in The Denver Post. The trio are issuing a call to arms of sort, asking for input for the Colorado River Basin Study. Here’s an excerpt:

Management of the Colorado River is a complex balancing act between the diverse interests of United States and Mexico, tribes, the seven basin states, individual water users, stakeholders, and communities. The challenges posed by new growth and climate change may dwarf anything we faced in the past. Instead of staring into the abyss, the water users, agencies, and stakeholder groups that make managing the Colorado River responsibly their business are working together, using the best science available to define the problem, and looking for solutions.

We’re calling our inquiry the Colorado River Basin Study, and we want your help. As Colorado River management professionals, we have a lot of knowledge and ideas, but we know that we don’t have them all. We want ideas from the public, from you, but we need your input by February 1. You can submit your suggestions by completing the online form at:

The big question we need to answer is: What are the reasonable water management options and strategies that will provide water for people, but also maintain a healthy river system? We don’t believe there’s a single silver bullet that will resolve all of our challenges. We want to continue to explore the benefits and costs of every possibility, from conservation to desalination to importing water from other regions.

The West was built on innovation and hard work, and that spirit is still strong. Our landscapes and communities are unparalleled in their beauty, resilience, and character. The economic well-being of our rural and urban communities in the Colorado River basin is inextricably linked to Colorado River and its environmental health.

That’s why we are asking for the public’s input to help us craft a study showing a path forward that supplies our communities with the water they need to thrive and protects the health of the Colorado River-and the ecosystems and economies it supports.

More Colorado River basin coverage here.

IEA: ‘Without a bold change of policy direction, the world will lock itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system’

November 13, 2011


More from the release:

…”Growth, prosperity and rising population will inevitably push up energy needs over the coming decades. But we cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentally unsustainable uses of energy,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. “Governments need to introduce stronger measures to drive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies. The Fukushima nuclear accident, the turmoil in parts of the Middle East and North Africa and a sharp rebound in energy demand in 2010 which pushed CO2 emissions to a record high, highlight the urgency and the scale of the challenge.”

In the WEO’s central New Policies Scenario, which assumes that recent government commitments are implemented in a cautious manner, primary energy demand increases by one-third between 2010 and 2035, with 90% of the growth in non-OECD economies. China consolidates its position as the world’s largest energy consumer: it consumes nearly 70% more energy than the United States by 2035, even though, by then, per capita demand in China is still less than half the level in the United States. The share of fossil fuels in global primary energy consumption falls from around 81% today to 75% in 2035. Renewables increase from 13% of the mix today to 18% in 2035; the growth in renewables is underpinned by subsidies that rise from $64 billion in 2010 to $250 billion in 2035, support that in some cases cannot be taken for granted in this age of fiscal austerity. By contrast, subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to $409 billion in 2010.

More coverage from James Herron writing for The Wall Street Journal. From the article:

To prevent long-term average global temperatures rising more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels—seen as the maximum possible increase without serious climate disruption—immediate, drastic changes to energy and industrial policies are needed, the IEA said in its World Energy Outlook.

Such a shift looks unlikely given current global economic problems and the move away from low-carbon nuclear power in some countries after the recent nuclear disaster in Japan, the IEA said. Promises to invest to curb carbon dioxide emissions have in many cases failed to acquire legislative urgency.

Meanwhile, Science Daily reports that 99.5% of conservation scientists that participated in a recent survey are concerned about the imminent massive decrease of species biodiversity on the horizon. From the article:

“As with climate change the large level of investment needed if loss of biodiversity is to be stopped will result in an increase of public and political scrutiny of conservation science,” said study author Dr. Murray Rudd from the Environment Department at the University of York. “That makes it important to show how much scientific consensus there is for both the problems and possible solutions.”

583 individuals who had published papers in 19 international journals took part in Dr Rudd’s survey via email. The survey sought to gather opinions on the expected geographic scope of declining biological diversity before posing 16 questions to rank levels of agreement with statements that explored authors’ values, priorities, and geographic affiliation and their support of potential management actions.

“The survey posed the key questions facing conservation science: why people care, how priorities should be set, where our efforts should be concentrated and what action we can take. Scientists were also asked about a range of potentially controversial statements about conservation strategies to gauge shifting opinions,” he said.

The results revealed that 99.5 per cent of responders felt that a serious loss of biological diversity is either ‘likely’, ‘very likely’, or ‘virtually certain’. Agreement that loss is ‘very likely’ or ‘virtually certain’ ranged from 72.8 per cent of authors based in Western Europe to 90.9% for those in Southeast Asia.

Tropical coral ecosystems were perceived as the most seriously affected by loss of biological diversity with 88.0 per cent of respondents who were familiar with that ecosystem type gauging that a serious loss is ‘very likely’ or ‘virtually certain’.

More climate change coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Dan Whitney of Shell Exploration and Production Co says rewrite of oil shale programmatic environmental impact statement by the BLM is, ‘a waste of taxpayer money’

August 29, 2011


From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

Whitney spoke during a congressional oversight field hearing conducted by two Colorado representatives, Scott Tipton and Doug Lamborn, both Republicans serving on the House Natural Resources subcommittee on energy and mineral resources…

The new study is holding back applications for three new leases, limiting the kind of innovation and variety of experimentation that will make oil shale a commercial resource, Whitney said…

Another witness, former Grand Junction Mayor Jim Spehar, called on the committee to support the establishment of an oil shale trust fund or similar mechanism to help communities prepare for and deal with the effects of growth if an oil shale industry is to take shape. A relatively small, 500,000-barrel-per-day oil shale industry could add 50,000 new people to northwest Colorado, Spehar said. “That’s why I’m concerned about getting a head start” on development if and when oil shale development does take place, he said. “Current taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for it.”[...]

Anu K. Mittal of the Government Accountability Office said a study of the potential use of water over the life of an oil shale project can range from one to 12 barrels of water per barrel of the equivalent of oil for an in-situ project, to two to four barrels for an above-ground, retort project. Another analysis offered by the University of Utah’s Institute for Clean and Secure Energy, suggested an average water consumption rate of 2.5 barrels for each barrel of oil from shale, according to Jennifer Spinti, research associate professor at the university.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Congressmen Scott Tipton and Doug Lamborn hold a Committee on Natural Resources subcommittee field hearing in Grand Junction

August 26, 2011


From the Grand Junction Free Press (Sharon Sullivan):

At Wednesday hearing in Grand Junction, Congressmen Scott Tipton (R-CO) and Doug Lamborn (R-CO) repeatedly criticized the Obama administration, claiming the administration is hindering the domestic development of oil shale…

The few non-industry witnesses allowed to testify at the hearing mentioned other factors hampering oil shale development: Technological challenges, low oil prices discouraging investment, and concerns about environmental impacts…

“Oil shale has relatively low energy content and companies have yet to demonstrate net gains in energy production. In essence, commercial oil shale production could use more energy than it would produce,” Frank Smith, of Western Colorado Congress, said.

[Anu Mittal director of Natural Resources and Environment Division at the U.S. Government Accountability Office presented a] report [that] focused on impacts of potential oil shale development on water resources. “Oil shale will require large amounts of water — a resource that is already in scarce supply in the arid West where an expanding population is placing additional demands on water,” Mittal said.

Some analysts project that large scale oil shale development in Colorado would divert water away from agricultural and urban development. Companies have acquired significant water rights within the Colorado and White River Basins of Colorado, and may apply for additional water rights in the future.

Another panelist attending the hearing, Jennifer Spinti, a research associate professor at the University of Utah’s Department of Chemical Engineering and Institute for Clean and Secure Energy, mentioned that the public also needs to be aware of “ancillary water use” of oil shale development. Construction and operation of a nearby power plant to provide energy for an oil shale project would consume significant amounts of water, as well as would water needed to control dust, she said. Potential water contamination is also a concern, Spinti said…

Tipton questioned Helen Hankins, Colorado State Director of the BLM, about the need for another PEIS.

Hankins replied: “The industry is in its infancy. Water, sage grouse, and plants are potentially threatened. There was litigation in 2009 challenging the PEIS — that’s why the (Interior) Secretary is taking a fresh look. It does not affect the six existing (research and development) leases.”

Tipton repeated “regulatory uncertainty is a factor in delaying oil shale research.”

Hankins responded again that a new PEIS will not affect companies’ research and development on private lands, or on the existing leases. “We’re yet many years away from environmental approval and commercially viable oil shale development,” Hankins said. “It gives us time to review the rules.”[...]

“Energy development is one of the key priorities of Secretary Salazar,” Hankins said. “Oil shale is one component of energy development. When it is commercially viable, and environmentally proven, it will be a source.

“However, the BLM’s mission is ‘multiple use.’ Land use plans consider a variety of factors — watershed health, wildlife habitat, as well as energy.”

More coverage from Meghan Gordon writing for Platts. From the article:

Representatives Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton, both Colorado Republicans, criticized the Department of Interior’s February decision to take a new look at a November 2008 federal rule for commercial development of oil shale. At a field hearing of the House Energy and Minerals Resources Subcommittee in Grand Junction, Colorado, the pair couched the oil shale policy in the same terms House Republicans have approached other energy issues this session, saying federal regulations should not stand in the way of industry creating jobs, reducing oil imports and increasing national security…

“The road to viability for the oil shale industry is reliant on a predictable regulatory structure and an environment in which companies can invest in research and development and create jobs,” Tipton said. “The proper implementation of our environmental and safety regulations already on the books is a far better strategy than adding additional layers of bureaucracy to the process.”[...]

Dan Whitney, Shell’s upstream manager for heavy oil development in the Americas, said the producer understands the importance of water to western states and is committed to using it responsibly. He said the company would address the issue by maintaining a diversity of water rights to give operations the flexibility of multiple sources, developing extraction and processing technologies that need less water and to honing water-management practices such as recycling and storage.

Shell holds three “research, development and demonstration” leases for oil shale development in Colorado.

More coverage from the Associated Press (Catharine Tsai) via The Denver Post. From the article:

Dan Whitney of Shell Exploration and Production Co. said his industry needs a stable regulatory environment and one in which numerous companies can lease public land for research projects.

Researchers noted their need for funding and suggested a specific program focused on Western oil shale.

And Anu Mittal of the GAO said the U.S. Interior Department should be responsible for gathering data on water conditions now, so any potential effects of oil-shale activity can be detected years in the future. Her agency in October had recommended collecting baseline data.

They were among 10 speakers at the Grand Junction field hearing of the House Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee. Rep. Scott Tipton and subcommittee chairman Doug Lamborn, both Colorado Republicans, conducted the hearing.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Natural Resources Defense Council report: Western Water Supply at Risk from Dual Impacts of Oil Shale Development and Climate Change

August 20, 2011


Here’s the release from the NRDC (Serena Ingre):

Cities & farms from Wyoming to Southern California could face water shortages due to oil shale development in the Colorado River Basin and a warming climate

San Francisco, CA (August 18, 2011) – Thirty million people from Wyoming to Southern California who depend on the Colorado River as a major source of water supply, including farmers who produce 15 percent of our nation’s crops, could face unprecedented water shortages if oil shale development increases in the Colorado River Basin alongside unchecked climate change, according to a new report released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“The Colorado River – a critical source of water supply for millions of people – has become a house of cards as water use in recent years has exceeded what the basin provides,” said Monty Schmitt, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “If oil shale development moves forward, it will compete with farms and cities in the West for limited water supplies that will become scarcer because of climate change. The time is now for the Bureau of Reclamation and Colorado River Basin states to tackle this challenge head on, through effective planning, water smart energy policies and dramatic investments in water use efficiency – the reliable water supply of the future.”

NRDC’s report, Between a Rock and a Dry Place: The Water Supply Impacts of Oil Shale Development and Climate Change on the Colorado River Basin Water Supply, explores how oil shale development would exacerbate the looming water crisis for states in the Colorado River Basin – Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming. In conjunction with climate change, which is likely to reduce Colorado River Basin’s water supply by 9 to 25 percent by 2050, new oil shale development would further strain future supplies that already are under pressure from current water uses and ongoing growth in urban areas.

Oil shale is found largely in the arid northwestern region of Colorado and in Utah. Producing oil from this rock requires an estimated 3 to 5 barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced. A new oil shale industry producing 1.55 million barrels of oil a day would require a projected 360,000 acre-feet of water a year – the equivalent to one and a half times the city of Denver’s annual water use. This is a “mid-range” estimate of potential water use by oil shale development; high-end estimates of oil shale development could require more than a million acre-feet of water – more than four times Denver’s annual water use.

Agriculture could be most severely affected by future oil shale development. More than half of the water flowing in the Colorado River and its tributaries is used for irrigation. In Colorado, energy companies own senior water rights that could significantly reduce the water available for that state’s agricultural production if oil shale development moves forward. These senior rights would enable energy companies to divert billions of gallons of water from rivers in western Colorado for production of oil shale; much of that water is expected to come initially from agricultural water users. However, the potential impacts could reach other states and Western cities as well.

Agricultural water users today can reduce water consumption during droughts by increasing irrigation efficiency, changing crops or irrigating fewer acres. By contrast, industrial oil shale use could be inflexible in drought years. This inflexible oil shale demand could reduce the existing potential for urban areas to purchase water from agricultural users, increasing the challenge of meeting the water needs of cities during dry periods. Turning flexible agricultural water use into inflexible industrial use could increase basinwide conflicts by reducing water supply to lower basin states, particularly Arizona, making it more difficult to develop a basinwide strategy to live within the long-term supply provided by the Colorado River.

Oil shale processing is also known to significantly degrade both surface and ground water quality. Oil shale tailings and processing waste are known sources of toxic pollutants. For instance, underground oil shale processing that applies heat to oil shale deposits to extract liquefied oil, could become a cause of groundwater contamination. The potential for contamination has been shown by decades of pollution caused by a relatively small amount of spent shale waste at Anvil Points in Colorado.

Finally, the report reveals that oil shale development would significantly contribute to climate change. Oil shale production and refining results in appreciably greater greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil fuels. Well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emission estimates for oil shale show it to have 23 to 73 percent greater emissions in comparison to diesel.

The report proposes key recommendations that NRDC advocates to ensure California, Colorado and the rest of the West have reliable sources of water:

Develop a Comprehensive Colorado River Basin Plan

The Bureau of Reclamation is currently preparing a Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. That study should incorporate the potential state and basin-wide impacts of oil shale development and identify management options to meet future water needs.

Develop State Water Management Plans

Basin states individually and together should develop comprehensive water management plans that take into account current and likely future Basin yield, protection of listed species, climate change, future demand, and opportunities to promote local, state and regional conservation and water use efficiency.

Reconsider Oil Shale Development

Based on current information and existing technologies, proceeding with oil shale development would be inadvisable given significant impacts to water resources and the environment, including increased greenhouse gas emissions. Any further exploration should begin with an analysis of potential impacts to water users, groundwater, and sensitive protected species.

Develop Climate Change Adaptation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts

Colorado River Basin states should take immediate steps to implement a comprehensive regional greenhouse gas reduction effort, including more energy-efficient construction standards, smart growth planning to reduce vehicle miles travelled, and increased use of clean sources of energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal.

Read more about oil shale and Western water solutions from our water and lands experts:

Bobby McEnaney, public lands analyst:

Barry Nelson, senior Western water policy analyst:

Edward Osann, senior policy analyst:

More oil shale coverage here and here.

The DeBeque phacelia and the Parachute penstemon both will be protected under the Endangered Species Act

July 28, 2011



Here’s the release from the Center for Native Ecosystems (Josh Pollock):

Today the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that two Colorado wildflowers found only on and around the Roan Plateau and South Shale Ridge area are now protected as Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and have been proposed for critical habitat protections that will be finalized next year. The federal agency identified the primary threat to both species as current and proposed oil and natural gas drilling operations on public lands.

Parachute penstemon, which occurs in only 6 populations on or near the base of the Roan Plateau, and DeBeque phacelia, which is found only in the vicinity of the growing town of DeBeque and South Shale Ridge, were both found by the Fish and Wildlife Service to be at risk of extinction from a variety of threats associated with oil and gas development including new roads pipelines as well as off-road dirt bike and ATV riding.

“Endangered Species Act protection for these two rare and unique wildflowers will help us balance our need for domestic energy production with preserving our natural heritage,’ said Josh Pollock, Conservation Director at Rocky Mountain Wild. “When we work to keep the parts of the natural world that we cannot, including these plants specially adapted to the rugged beauty of Colorado’s West Slope, we leave a legacy for our children that we can be proud of.”

The announcement of protections for these two species is part of a trio of Endangered Species Act listings for wildflowers in Colorado. As part of the same final listing rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service also designated the Pagosa skyrocket as endangered. The Pagosa Skyrocket occurs in only 2 populations near the town of Pagosa Springs and is highly vulnerable to disturbance from residential and commercial development on the private lands where it is primarily found.

“Today three unique facets of Colorado’s stunning and diverse mountain and canyon country got the protection they so desperately needed,” said Pollock. “All three of these listings are necessary and sensible, given how vulnerable each one of these wildflowers is to the ways that we are using and converting the open lands around us here in the West.”

In a separate announcement in the Federal Register, the Fish and Wildlife Service also proposed critical habitat designation for all three species. The proposed habitat designation includes over 19,000 acres for Parachute penstemon and almost 25,000 acres for the more widely distributed DeBeque phacelia. In the case of Parachute penstemon, the proposed designation acknowledged that the current populations alone would be insufficient to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of the species and therefore included a strip of potential recovery habitat at the north end of the Roan Plateau. The Service determined that this area has the same habitat characteristics as the occupied habitat, including exposed slopes of oil shale. For all three species, the Fish and Wildlife Service also took into account the possible effects of climate change on such plants that are so narrowly dependent on particular soil types and expanded their proposed boundaries for the proposed habitat units beyond the edges of the current populations. The agency also identified these buffers around the currently occupied habitat as necessary to protect the base of pollinators—primarily ground nesting bees and wasps—upon which both species depend.

“The critical habitat proposal that comes along with today’s listing is a model of how the Fish and Wildlife Service should consider habitat protections for rare plants with limited ranges in the face of climate change and continued oil and gas drilling on public land,” said Pollock. “The agency appropriately limited their proposal to places that are not already developed, concentrated on federal public lands, and took into account the need for additional habitat for recovery. While we can’t know everything climate change will do to an individual species, we must begin to acknowledge that it will change habitat for many at-risk species and do what we can to protect additional places with that in mind.”

Both species have been official candidates for Endangered Species Act protection for at least twenty years. In the case of DeBeque phacelia, the Colorado species has been on the official waiting list for 31 years. Center for Native Ecosystems (which has now merged to form Rocky Mountain Wild), the Colorado Native Plant Society, and Dr. Steve O’Kane petitioned to move the two species off the candidate list and finalize their protection under the ESA in 2004 and 2005.

“To say that these protections are overdue would be an extreme understatement,” said Pollock, “but the most important thing is that they are in place now. We hope it is in time to secure a future for these three parts of our web of life in Western Colorado along with the dozens of other rare species that carve out a life in the same difficult habitat.”

There will be a 60 day period for public comment on the proposed critical habitat designation for all three species.

Parachute Penstemon

Parachute penstemon, also known as Parachute beardtongue, is a beautiful perennial with lavender-and-white, funnel-shaped flowers. It occurs in only six populations on and around the Roan Plateau. Only three of those populations are considered large enough to be stable, but two of them are on land owned by Occidental Petroleum. Two of the remaining populations are on top of the Roan Plateau in locations recently leased for oil and gas development. Conservation organizations are challenging the leasing on top of the Roan Plateau in court.

Center for Native Ecosystems, the Colorado Native Plant Society, and Dr. Steve O’Kane (one of the botanists who discovered the species in the 1980s) petitioned in 2004 for the parachute penstemon to be moved from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s candidate list and given the protection under the Act it deserved.

A high resolution photograph of Parachute penstemon is available for download (with credit to Steve O’Kane) at

DeBeque Phacelia

DeBeque phacelia is also found near the Roan Plateau. It occurs only on slopes of clay soil around the growing town of DeBeque, west of Rifle, Colorado. All DeBeque phacelia habitat is found within the larger Piceance Basin region that is Colorado’s third largest natural gas producing area, according the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. More than ¾ of all DeBeque phacelia habitat had been leased for oil and gas drilling.

DeBeque phacelia is a low-growing annual plant with small yellowish flowers. It relies on a bank of seeds within the soil to continue coming up year after year, and therefore disturbance of the slopes where it is found or even the soil below such slopes can destroy its seeds. The Fish and Wildlife Service found that threats to the wildflower’s seed bank and habitat included natural gas exploration and pipelines, expansion of roads and other oil and gas facilities, and even proposed reservoir projects that would be used to support oil shale development experiments in the area north of DeBeque.

Center for Native Ecosystems, the Colorado Native Plant Society, and Dr. Steve O’Kane petitioned in 2005 for DeBeque phacelia to be moved from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s candidate list and given the protection under the Act it deserved.

A high resolution photograph of DeBeque phacelia is available for download (with credit to Rocky Mountain Wild) at

From the Summit County Citizens Voice (Bob Berwyn):

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced July 27 that the DeBeque phacelia and the Parachute penstemon both will be protected and proposed for critical habitat designations based on threats from current and proposed oil and natural gas drilling operations on public lands…

Parachute penstemon grows in only 6 populations on or near the base of the Roan Plateau, and DeBeque phacelia is found only in the vicinity of the growing town of DeBeque and South Shale Ridge. The proposed habitat designation includes more than 19,000 acres for Parachute penstemon and almost 25,000 acres for the more widely distributed DeBeque phacelia.

In the case of Parachute penstemon, the proposed designation acknowledged that the current populations alone would be insufficient to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of the species and therefore included a strip of potential recovery habitat at the north end of the Roan Plateau. The Service determined that this area has the same habitat characteristics as the occupied habitat, including exposed slopes of oil shale…

As part of the same final listing rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service also designated the Pagosa skyrocket as endangered. The Pagosa Skyrocket occurs in only 2 populations near the town of Pagosa Springs and is highly vulnerable to disturbance from residential and commercial development on the private lands where it is primarily found.

More endangered/threatened species coverage here.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 986 other followers

%d bloggers like this: