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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

ABOUT THE YELLOW JACKET WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

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.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

- 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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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’

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

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 www.WesternResources.org/oilshale2050.

*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: http://ostseis.anl.gov/involve/pubschedule/index.cfm

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 KSL.com (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

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.