DENVER - Oil and gas companies are renewing their exploration of oil shale as a potential fuel source, despite spending billions of dollars in the past and not producing any commercial fuel. This month, the U.S. Interior Department announced that testing will begin at three sites, two in Colorado and one in Utah.

Bill Midcap, director of renewable energy at Rocky Mountain Farmers' Union, says that the industry estimate of taking three gallons of water to produce one gallon of oil from shale isn't realistic in the arid Rockies.

"We're really concerned over how it's going to impact the water resource, when the Colorado River and other water resources in the state are already highly sought after and pretty much allocated as what Mother Nature gives us."

Midcap praises Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's limited approach to exploration. Companies can only explore on 160-acre sites, and must meet strict planning and reporting standards. A representative for Exxon-Mobil, which will spearhead the Colorado exploration, has said that a "careful, phased approach" makes the most sense.

Despite the industry assurances, Midcap and others worry that the risks of oil shale will outweigh the benefits.

Ken Brenner is a third-generation rancher in the Yampa Valley in Routt County, and he has doubts.

"We don't really know the impacts. There isn't currently a viable process for turning oil shale into oil so that we can assess that technology and the impacts that it will have here in Western Colorado."

The idea that oil can be produced from certain shale has a long history in the Mountain West. The Center for the American West says oil shale contains a hydrocarbon so volatile that some pieces ignite when held to a flame. But Brenner says old-timers are skeptical.

"The old locals that live out in this country that are familiar with oil shale, they kind of tongue-in-cheek refer to it as 'The energy source of the future - and it always will be." "

In 1980, Exxon predicted that Colorado would be producing eight million gallons of oil a day from shale. Thirty years later, a single gallon of fuel has yet to be produced.

The Center for the American West's report on oil shale is at
www.centerwest.org

The Interior Department release is at
www.blm.gov




get more stories like this via email

The construction of more solar farms in the U.S. has been contentious but a new survey shows their size makes a difference in whether solar projects are favored by neighbors.

South Dakota's largest solar installation, the Wild Springs project in New Underwood, began operations in March and covers more than 1.5 square miles. The survey showed projects under 100 megawatts are generally favored by neighbors, while larger ones like Wild Springs are unpopular.

Kristi Pritzkau, finance officer for the City of New Underwood, said the construction traffic was tough on the town of just over 600 but the project's builder, National Grid Renewables, is giving back to the community.

"They had to use our well, so they paid for the water, and they paid for a new pump for it, too," Pritzkau pointed out. "They've been really great with the city."

Prtizkau noted the company donated to the town's pool and Lions Club and has created a school scholarship program, all part of the more than $500,000 of charitable giving it has promised in the project's first 20 years of operation. It is also expected to bring in $12 million of tax revenue to the county in the same time frame.

Sioux Falls-based Missouri River Energy Services has plans to build a new solar project near Brookings and build a transmission line from South Dakota into Minnesota.

Tim Blodgett, vice president of member services and communications for the company, said federal grant programs and tax credits provide incentives and South Dakota produces more energy than it can use.

"With the development of more wind, the development of solar, there's a lot planned right now to get these resources out of this area," Blodgett explained. "Into Minneapolis and other places where there's larger demand for the energy."

Currently, more than half the state's power generation comes from wind, followed by hydropower.


get more stories like this via email

Virginia officials support the Environmental Protection Agency's new emissions rule. The federal clean truck standards will reduce emissions by up to 60% in 2032 and prevent 1-billion metric tons of carbon pollution. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Virginia and nationwide.

Phillip Jones, Newport News Mayor, said the new rule helps end the city's environmental disparities.

"We have a very large multiple coal company in downtown Newport News in the southeast part of our community," he said. "That's going to lead to higher rates of asthma for that community. There's a lot of air-quality issues in downtown Newport News."

Jones noted the city has taken steps to reduce emissions. The city's school district has been using propane-powered buses and Newport News is purchasing alternate energy-powered vehicles. He added any opposition to this work centers on larger upfront costs, but the long-term benefits are worthwhile. The EPA's rule goes into effect in 2027.

Transportation agencies are also working to cut emissions. Hampton Roads Transit has been working to cut emissions with cleaner buses.

Sibyl Pappas, chief engineering and facilities officer with Hampton Roads Transit, said the agency's upcoming bus maintenance facility furthers its emissions-reduction goals.

"It's very near where Dominion Energy is bringing offshore wind onshore. So, we've talked with Dominion about buying wind power. So, potentially, those buses are zero emissions at the tailpipe and zero emissions at the generation point," Pappas said.

The facility will open in 2029 and be net zero-ready upon completion. While HRT had some hiccups with electric buses, Pappas feels the EPA rule encourages climate-smart initiatives for all economic sectors.

As state budget negotiations continue, groups fighting climate change are asking California lawmakers to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies rather than slash programs designed to slow global warming.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's current proposal would cut oil and gas tax breaks by $22 million this year and $17 million the following year.

Barry Vesser, COO for The Climate Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, would like to see all subsidies eliminated.

"Oil and gas companies are one of the drivers of climate change, so we should not be making their profit margins bigger by providing public subsidies, and making it harder for renewables to compete against them," Vesser argued.

Gov. Newsom has also proposed to cut funding for climate-friendly programs helping lower-income families buy an electric vehicle or switch from gas to electric appliances.

Kevin Slagle, vice president of strategic communications for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement, "California's already tough business climate is pushing companies to the brink. Removing incentives will drive California straight into the arms of more expensive foreign oil, ramping up costs for everyday Californians who can least afford it."

Vesser countered the threat of higher gas prices is a red herring.

"There's a lot that goes into calculating how much the cost of gas is, and this is not even pennies on the dollar," Vesser contended.

The state Senate's early action proposal estimated the budget deficit will be between $38 billion and $53 billion. The governor is expected to release new details on his budget priorities in mid-May. The Legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15.