Thread: Fueling America
View Single Post
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-05-2008, 12:03 PM
Dirt McGirt's Avatar
Dirt McGirt Dirt McGirt is offline
Bad Motherfucker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,773
Rep Power: 99
Dirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddhaDirt McGirt could be the buddha
Quote:
The Politics of Oil Shale

By Jon Birger, senior writer

Complete article: The politics of oil shale - Jun. 6, 2008


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- You'd think this would be oil shale's moment.

You'd think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast - 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. [Some estimates put total US oil Shale at 1.7 trillion barrels. Saudi Arabia and Russia combined amount to 260 billion barrels -1d].

You'd think politicians would be tripping over themselves to arrange photo-ops with Harold Vinegar (whom I profiled in Fortune last November), the brilliant, Brooklyn-born chief scientist at Royal Dutch Shell whose research cracked the code on how to efficiently and cleanly convert oil shale - a rock-like fossil fuel known to geologists as kerogen - into light crude oil.

You'd think all of this, but you'd be wrong.

Last month, the U.S. Senate's Appropriations Committee voted 15-14 to kill a bill that would have ended a one-year moratorium on enacting rules for oil shale development on federal lands (which is where the best oil shale is located). Most maddening of all - at least to someone like myself not steeped in the wacky ways of Washington - the swing vote on the appropriations committee, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., voted with the majority even though she actually opposes the moratorium.

"Sen. Salazar asked me to vote no. I did so at his request," Landrieu told The Rocky Mountain News. A Landrieu staffer contacted by Fortune doesn't dispute this, but notes that Landrieu did propose a compromise which Republicans rejected.

Arghh!

She was speaking of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who has emerged as the Senate's leading oil shale opponent. Salazar inserted the aforementioned moratorium into an omnibus spending bill last December, and in May he proposed a new bill that would extend the moratorium another year.

Salazar's efforts have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell's single biggest R&D expenditure.)

Salazar says he's simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don't get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.

I recently spoke with Republican U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Wayne Allard of Colorado, the two lawmakers working hardest to end the oil shale moratorium. Here are some excerpts from the interviews:

Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?

Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world's oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I'm for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don't run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we're seeing that ethanol has major limitations.
By Federal Lands are we talking National Parks? Funny how we entrust the government with preserving our lands and then they turn around and call us liberals and environmentalists when we don't want to exploit it for capital gain. I hardly believe Hatch and Allard are socialists, so it'd be opened up to big oil only. The quickest solution to the gas crisis right now is the mass production of cars with better fuel efficiency. A 6 month wait for hybrids...the demand is there.
__________________
Reply With Quote