DENVER – Two competing plans for the development of oil shale in the West are making their way through Washington, D.C. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is seeking public input on a plan to open about 500,000 acres of land for oil shale research and development, to test the viability and environmental impact of extraction processes.

It is a scaled down proposal from an initial BLM plan, with about 90 percent less land available for research. Bill Midcap, director of regional action for the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, says he's worried about the effects of this type of drilling on the arid West.

"This could use three barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced. If we're talking about producing 100,000 to a million barrels of oil every day, that's going to be a huge impact on water."

Meanwhile, a competing plan proposed by Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-5th Dist.) made its way out of a House committee last week. The PIONEERS Act opens up nearly two-million acres of public land for oil shale development.

Critics say the Lamborn bill is too expansive and moves too quickly; it mandates commercial leasing on 125,000 acres of public lands by 2016 even though the technology isn't in place. Fellow Colorado Rep. Scott Tipton (R-3rd Dist.) added an amendment to the PIONEERS Act which he says will balance the environmental and economic impacts of oil shale on communities with America's energy needs.

"We've see a boom/bust cycle before, which we simply can't afford, where the communities have to pick up a lot of the infrastructure costs and then, if it doesn't work out, the communities are still left holding the bag."

Tipton says his amendment will help protect Colorado's water as well - although Midcap says the House committee, including Tipton, voted against requiring a study on oil shale's impact on agriculture and drinking water before the PIONEERS Act takes effect. He worries that farmers will end up paying the price for oil shale development.

"Excess water supplies in the state are being traded on the backbone of agriculture."

Public input on the BLM plan is due by May 4; the BLM's information about the proposal is online. There is no date yet on the PIONEERS Act vote.



get more stories like this via email

PITTSBURGH -- Pennsylvanians were overwhelmingly present during three days of virtual public testimony to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week, sharing why a proposal to sharply reduce methane pollution from the oil and natural-gas industry is needed.

The rule would reduce 41 million tons of methane emissions from 2023 to 2035, according to the EPA.

Rajani Vaidyanathan, a Pittsburgh resident and volunteer with Moms Clean Air Force, said during the hearing the changes would have a big impact on her community, where unconventional wells are within a two-mile radius of schools. She said state lawmakers have failed to protect families from pollutants.

"These decisions to allow unconventional wells in our residential neighborhoods are allowed to rest with the local municipal government, who don't always do the due diligence for fear from these large companies who threaten to sue," Vaidyanathan asserted. "We really need a strong, federal protection."

Pennsylvania is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas pollution in the United States. The EPA is accepting written comments from the public on the proposal until Jan. 14. Comments can be made through email, fax and mail delivery.

Caroline Burkholder, sustainability manager at Temple University, said it is the responsibility of environmental advocates to do everything they can to protect urban, rural and suburban ecosystems. She pointed out the importance is even more clear after Hurricane Ida and other storms caused unprecedented flooding and tornado damage to the Philadelphia region this summer.

"I urge EPA to strengthen the monitoring requirement," Burkholder stated. "Specifically, I request that the EPA require regular monitoring at smaller, high-pollutant wells. Hundreds of thousands of these wells across the country generate just a trickle of usable product but are large and disproportionate emitters of methane."

The EPA proposal would also require officials to meaningfully engage communities overburdened by methane pollution in crafting a state plan.

LOS ANGELES -- California-based facilities are refining half of all the oil drilled in the Amazon rain forests, according to a new report by the groups Amazon Watch and Stand.earth. Now, organizations fighting climate change are calling on Gov. Gavin Newsom to end oil imports from the Amazon region.

Paul Koretz, member of the Los Angeles City Council, said California should not be a party to the destruction of a region that sequesters a huge amount of carbon and circulates 20% of the world's oxygen.

"As the Amazon is being logged, burned and drilled, and converted to other land uses, we're losing more and more of it," Koretz pointed out. "And at some point, it could cause climate change to be impossible to reverse."

At the recent climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, California joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, an organization committed to an oil-free future.

On Earth Day this year, the governor committed to end fracking in the state by 2024 and all oil production by 2045. In October, Newsom proposed a 3,200-foot buffer zone for all new wells near residential neighborhoods. The oil industry claims the moves will cost the state jobs and tax revenue.

The group Elected Officials to Protect America (EOPA) is circulating an online petition, asking the governor to phase out oil production even faster and commit the state to 100% clean energy in all sectors.

Dominic Frongillo, co-founder and executive director of EOPA, said the state must defeat its oil addiction.

"California can ramp down production, increase use of clean cars, phase out oil drilling locally, and aggressively invest in a transition to clean energy," Frongillo asserted. "We won't need that oil."

According to Greenpeace, the Amazon Basin sequesters 100 billion metric tons of carbon, more than ten times the amount of global emissions from fossil fuels.

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Groups say new draft rules proposed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) do not go far enough to properly regulate oil and gas waste facilities, or injection wells, used to dispose of liquid waste.

A hearing is set for Dec. 6.

Megan Hunter, senior attorney for Earthjustice, said the rules lack transparency, and fall short of what is necessary to protect human health and the environment, because of loopholes and how much discretion they give to the agency to waive requirements.

She argued neither waste facilities nor injection wells are required to be set far enough back from surface water.

"They can be located within 100 feet of surface waters, within a developed drinking-water well, for example, and the same is true for the injection wells," Hunter outlined. "And that's just not a great enough distance to be protective of surface and groundwater."

Hunter noted Ohio receives liquid oil and gas waste from Pennsylvania and West Virginia in addition to its own products. She contended one of the biggest problems with many injection wells is they do not require the waste to be properly characterized, meaning first responders who may be dealing with a leak or a spill might not know what kinds of chemicals or radioactivity they could be facing.

Silverio Caggiano, retired battalion chief for the Youngstown Fire Department, said if his team gets a call about a leak, it can be dangerous if they don't know what they could be exposed to. He pointed to what are known as "right-to-know" laws, where companies are required to offer information about what chemicals are used and stored in their facilities.

"On a fire-department and first-responder level, the reason why those Right to Know laws are placed in there was so I can prepare for something," Caggiano explained. "If XYZ company is going to put something in there, and they're going to be using this chemical, I have to figure out if I have the ability to detect it and mitigate it."

Groups emphasized the new rules require less oversight than current regulations. They urged the ODNR to hold the oil and gas industry accountable by requiring regular reporting and transparency.