Oil shale debate continues

Politico:

Seven weeks after a congressional moratorium on oil shale development expired, the Bush administration has issued rules that take the first step toward tapping an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil trapped in sedimentary rock in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado.

The new rules have highlighted a divisive partisan issue among western politicians, with Republicans ready to push forward with development and Democrats urging a more cautious approach. The rules establish a framework for how energy companies will lease federal land for oil shale mining. Opponents say oil shale mining uses so much water that it could threaten their drinking water supply. They also say its heavy consumption of energy could outweigh its energy benefits.

Oil shale is a sedimentary rock that contains trace amounts of oil, which can be extracted at high temperatures. But turning shale into usable oil is expensive, and the industry hasn’t been able to do it in a way that is profitable yet. There are also serious environmental consequences at every step. Digging the shale out of the earth damages the landscape, refining it dirties the air, and both steps require massive amounts of water and energy.

Oil companies and the Bush administration say that incorporating oil shale into the nation’s energy portfolio is a critical step toward energy independence. Utah’s Republican governor and senators share that view.

“Some folks have been talking about this final rule as though it would unleash a flood of oil shale development; that’s just not the case,” Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch said in a statement to the media. “The law is clear that the BLM cannot grant commercial oil shale leases until the government consults at great length with the governors and local officials of the impacted states. I should know, I was the sponsor of the oil shale law, and it clearly puts the governors and local officials in the driver’s seat.”

...

Here is a prediction. If industry is not able to produce shale oil in a way that is profitable it will not be produced in commercial quantities. If it can be done profitably it should be.

The tizzy on the left seems to be premature. I don't know of any companies that want to be engaged in an unprofitable enterprise. Usually those enterprises are run by governments. But if oil can be produced at a profit from the shale the government stands to profit handsomely as well as the companies. There is enough shale oil in the US to provide all our needs for over a 100 years. That probably scares the Democrat carbon phoebes more than anything else.

technorati tags:
political news | news | world news
More at: News 2 Cromley