Energy policy — oil shale: Department of Justice is investigating Gale Norton’s role in 11th hour Bush administration rules

A picture named tarsandstrucks.jpg

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams):

On its way out the door last fall, the Bush Interior Department tried to lock in rules that would require oil shale royalty rates for production on public lands starting at about 5 percent – far below traditional oil and gas royalty rates because of the speculative nature of the resource.

In its ongoing investigation of former Bush Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who later signed on as an attorney with Dutch Royal Shell – one of the leading researchers of oil shale production in Colorado – the Times turned up e-mails where Norton tips her hand on the strategy she suggested for locking in royalty rates despite changing administrations…

Oil shale production involves either mining shale and super-heating it to force out the kerogen, or organic matter, in order to refine it into petroleum; or heating the shale underground in what’s known as in-situ production. Both methods require huge amounts of water and electricity, and environmentalists argue research and development funds would be better spent on renewables.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Environmental effects catalogued

A picture named colonyoilshaleproject.jpg

Here’s a recap on Thursday night’s meeting of the Garfield County Energy Advisory Board, from Dennis Webb writing for the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:

…the level of disturbance where any development might take place would be significant, said Jeremy Boak, director of the industry-funded Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the Colorado School of Mines. Boak said oil shale development would have less of a region-wide impact on the land than has been seen with local natural gas development. That’s thanks to the world-class richness and unmatched density of the region’s oil shale resource, which has underground concentrations of as much as a million barrels of oil per acre, he said. But where any oil shale development might occur, “you will for a time essentially have scraped off the surface if you’re doing a process like Shell’s,” Boak said…

Boak said the biggest environmental challenge for shale development is water — how much is used and how quality is affected.

More coverage from the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (John Colson). From the article:

He [Jeremy Boak, head of the Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research at the School of Mines] said one company, Red Leaf Resources in Utah, had recently completed tests on a shale-oil extraction process that involved heating up the rock in place, underground, and piping out the kerogen…

He noted that Shell, which is one of the corporate sponsors of his institute, is working on a process involving the stripping away of the surface, followed by the drilling of numerous bore holes to be used to heat the “extraction zone” to a temperature of some 700 degrees Fahrenheit. Other bores are drilled around the extraction zone, to be used to freeze the area around the zone to prevent the oil and other contaminants from flowing into nearby ground water. Once the oil has been extracted, he said, the process calls for the injection of water into the bore-holes that turns to steam and scours out the area once permeated by the kerogen. That water is then to be treated and recycled, he said…

“But it will be pretty disruptive of the surface,” he said of that technology, which would involve in-situ plants that would move from one zone to another, scraping topsoil and drilling holes. He said reclamation would be easily accomplished using the same topsoil that had been removed prior to the process. Boak indicated that some of the new technological processes are said to consume relatively little water, but conceded that studies are needed to determine how much water is available for such uses, and what might be the effects of oil shale extraction on area water supplies and water quality. In addition, he said, there are potential impacts to the general ecology of the area that must be identified, as well as the socio-economic effects on the region’s communities.

More oil shale coverage here and here.

Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District: What is the future of agriculture?

A picture named irrigation.jpg

Here’s a recap of a discussion last week at the Lower Ark monthly meeting, from Chris Woodka writing for The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

“Things look pretty bleak for agriculture then?” asked Pueblo County Director Reeves Brown during a presentation by Eric Hecox, administrator of the Interbasin Compact Commission.

“It looks bleak for agriculture if what’s happened in the past continues,” Hecox responded. “There is opportunity for agriculture to lease water to the cities through programs like the Super Ditch. That has the potential of reducing the impact.” Hecox explained the evaluation tool the Colorado Water Conservation Board is developing with the IBCC to look at different mixes of strategies to meet Front Range needs that include new supplies from the Colorado River, conservation, reuse, identified projects, agriculture transfers and reuse.

“Is it impossible to challenge growth?” Brown asked.

“It’s not a strategy we’ve looked at in the past,” Hecox said. “In practice, we can’t stop growth, but we can talk about how we grow.”

Peter Nichols, the Lower Ark’s water attorney, said solutions lie in reasonable compromises, such as the Super Ditch sponsored by the Lower Ark district, that allow resources to be shared. “I was part of a 2001 study, where we looked at water all over the world. No community stopped growing for lack of water,” Nichols said. “In the 1990s, the five fastest growing states were also the driest. People no longer settle where the water is, because it’s convenient to move it.”

Colorado would need between 830,000 and 1.7 million acre-feet of new supplies annually to meet the demand, which probably is not available on the Colorado River alone. Under compacts negotiated in 1922 and 1948, as well an an international treaty with Mexico and federal rules, Colorado is entitled to 445,000-1.4 million acre-feet available annually on average, Hecox said. The high end would most likely be available if the Colorado River supply is somehow increased, either through pipelines from other basins – which appear unlikely – or other measures like cloud seeding, desalinization in California or tamarisk reduction. “If the last 20 years are a guide, a pipeline isn’t likely,” Hecox said.

Still developing projects within Colorado would be worthwhile. The South Platte basin already imports 345,000 acre-feet an the Arkansas basin 132,000 acre-feet annually. “Every acre-foot of West Slope water saves an acre-foot in the Arkansas and South Platte,” Nichols said. “The Arkansas Valley has a tremendous interest in developing West Slope projects.” That’s expensive, however.

A 250,000 acre-foot project would cost between $7.5 billion-$10 billion, according to state projections. The water rights already held by oil companies seeking to one day extract oil from shale are in the 500,000 acre-foot range, which further muddies the supply picture, Hecox said. A call from downstream states – California, Arizona and Nevada – has never happened and may be unlikely, but it could curtail rights within Colorado, Hecox said. Finally, climate change could reduce the amount of water physically available. When the 1922 Colorado River Compact was negotiated, the observed climate was wetter than it is now. Since 2000, flows have fallen far below the historical levels of the previous 80 years…

Drying up agriculture has been the easiest target for cities in the past, and state studies show more is on the way. The amount will depend on planning that begins today. “If we lose 500,000 acres of agriculture, how do you feed all these people?” Lower Ark General Manager Jay Winner asked. “It’s very important to create a relationship between agriculture and the cities.”

More Colorado water coverage here.

Colorado River District: ‘Dust in the Wind and Other Winds of Change’ seminar recap

A picture named dustbowl.jpg

From the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Gary Harmon):

…the U.S. Department of the Interior is conducting a water-supply and demand study of the basin from Wyoming and Colorado to California, an Interior Department official said Friday at the Colorado River District’s water seminar. The exact form of the study will be shaped by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and a variety of stakeholders from around the basin, said Anne Castle, assistant secretary for water and science. “We all know that every drop of the Colorado River is allocated,” Castle said. That makes it all the more important to put the water in the river to the best use as the population of people dependent on it grows and the amount of water it carries shrinks as a result of drought and climate change…

Castle, who lived for a time in the 1970s on Orchard Mesa, most recently was a partner in the Denver law firm of Holland & Hart. In her new position, she oversees Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey.

More Colorado River Basin coverage here.

Windy Gap Firming Project not without its detractors

A picture named windygap.jpg

Here’s a joint release from Clean Water Action, Fort Collins Audubon Society, Sierra Club PCG, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Environment Colorado and Western Resource Advocates. From the release:

WGFP engages the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Water Supply Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Because of this engagement with federal environmental laws, the process is likely to be long, expensive, and high risk. Specifically, such engagements often boil down to a yes/no permitting decision after years and millions of dollars have already been spent. Additionally, any farmer, city, oil shale company, county, water district, organization, or member of the public can challenge these decisions, thus resulting in potentially more time and expense. Consider examining recent water-supply examples where delay, expense, and conflict have occurred: Two Forks (Colorado), Animas La Plata (Colorado), and King Williams Reservoir (Virginia). Alternatives to WGFP that are less time-consuming, expensive, and risky should be immediately investigated and implemented.

WGFP participants, including PRPA and Fort Collins, should be aware that the WGFP water right is a junior right that is junior to many of the oil shale rights placed on this same Colorado River water.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: No shortage of possible recovery technologies

A picture named oilshaledepositsutwyco.jpg

Here’s a roundup of the current state of oil shale recovery technologies and leasing pressure from industry from Dennis Webb writing for the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:

As oil shale enthusiasts hope for another chance to try out new ideas on federal lands, environmental groups question the need for a new round of RD&D leases. There are plenty of private oil shale holdings where research and development can occur, said Mike Chiropolos of Western Resource Advocates. Meanwhile, for environmentalists and policymakers pondering the potential impacts of oil shale development, recent patent activity gives them some things to think about.

For example, Chevron’s concept involves injecting carbon dioxide into underground shale formations, along with possible combinations of ammonia, acids, hydrocarbons and other substances. Critics worry about protecting groundwater in these and other oil shale approaches, and they fear how much water oil shale development will require. But Chevron has said it will pursue only a process that’s environmentally sound, and it contends its method actually could produce excess water and result in sequestration of carbon dioxide, thus helping combat global warming.

John Dorgan of Golden filed a 2007 patent application involving a concept to produce potable and nonpotable water from oil shale development, with the option of using the nonpotable water to sequester carbon dioxide. Such ideas may hold promise for reducing oil shale development’s environmental impacts. But Chiropolos said that particularly where federal land is involved, any ideas that are pursued, including any incorporating solar, would require a hard look at potential impacts, such as how many acres of land would be affected.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

New real estate group to focus on public land and water quality issues

A picture named crestedbutte.jpg

From the Greeley Tribune:

A group of real estate agents have organized a group in northern Colorado with a goal of bringing attention to the connection between the quality of life that attracts employers and the conservation of public lands and water. The primary focus of the Northern Colorado Home Ownership Alliance is a concern for the long-term impacts on Colorado’s clean water and public land because of the hardrock mining of uranium and other minerals. The group also hopes to focus on the need for clean energy and climate protection legislation that leads to the creation of new markets for renewable energy producers, local green collar job growth, and economic opportunity for families.

Energy policy — oil shale: Center of the American West — ‘What Every Westerner Should Know About Oil Shale’

A picture named oilshaledepositsutwyco.jpg

The University of Colorado Center for the New American West has just published a new online book titled What Every Westerner Should Know About Oil Shale. I personally can’t wait to curl up with my laptop and a good book. Here’s the release.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: H.R. 2540, Protecting Investment in Oil shale the Next generation of Environmental, Energy and Resource Security (PIONEERS) Act

A picture named tarsandstrucks.jpg

U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn has just introduced some dumb legislation. Here’s a report from David O. Williams writing for the Colorado Independent. From the article:

Besides winning the award for the most convoluted legislative acronym, Lamborn’s Protecting Investment in Oil shale the Next generation of Environment, Energy, and Resource security (PIONEER) Act, H.R. 2540, comes at a time when Colorado officials are skeptically asking for more accountability from current oil shale leases. Five research and development leases were issued for federal lands in Colorado in 2005 (and one in Utah), but now state officials want to see what kind of results oil and gas companies are getting on those parcels before recommending another round of research and development leases as laid out in the Bush administration regulations.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Anadarko and General Synfuels kick off pilot project near Rock Springs, Wyoming

A picture named oilshaledepositsutwyco.jpg

From the Casper Star-Tribune:

…it’s going to require new, environmentally friendly technology to make it commercially viable to develop all that oil shale, they say. Some of that technology could come out of an oil shale research and development pilot project slated for Sweetwater County, officials involved in the effort said. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. — under an agreement with General Synfuels International — is launching Wyoming’s first oil shale research program in nearly three decades to determine the economic and environmental feasibility of developing oil shale in southwest Wyoming. General Synfuels, a wholly owned subsidiary of Earth Search Sciences Inc., secured the exploration agreement last month for a small parcel of private land south of Rock Springs, according to Anadarko spokesman Rick Robitaille…

The exploration agreement in Wyoming covers a 160-acre site about 35 miles south of Rock Springs on a Union Pacific Railroad section, said John Christiansen, a spokesman for Anadarko’s mineral programs, in a phone interview from Houston. The agreement will allow General Synfuels to test and develop the company’s patented technology to recover hydrocarbons from oil shale using a process that prioritizes “environmental sensitivity,” said Luis Lugo, CEO of Earth Sciences…

The Wyoming Wildlife Federation and other conservation groups are wary, however, of industry’s motives in oil shale development and how companies might actually use federal lands. WWF Executive Director Walt Gasson said many people hunt and fish on public lands in southwest Wyoming, and those recreational opportunities could be affected by any oil shale development. He said the pilot oil shale research projects could possibly result in hundreds of thousands of acres of vital wildlife habitat for big game and sage grouse being occupied by machinery at the exclusion of all other uses. “I realize we need some energy development, but they’ve already blanketed western Wyoming with roads and wells,” Gasson said. “Are we so desperate that we’ll sacrifice the places we’ve hunted for generations for something as uncertain as oil shale?” Steve Torbit, Rocky Mountain regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation, predicted the entire oil shale experiment will be “a colossal waste of water” for the region. He said extracting and producing oil from shale will require tremendous quantities of water that may not be readily available.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Meeker: Oil shale conference Tuesday

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg

From the Craig Daily Press:

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Northwest Colorado Farmers Union, the Douglas Creek Conservation District and White River Conservation District will host a conference Tuesday in Meeker about how oil shale will affect the Western Slope’s water supply, agriculture and local communities. The conference will feature a presentation about oil shale’s suspected impacts to western Colorado, including reports by the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Yampa/White/Green River Basin Roundtable, Western Resource Advocates and Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado.

After the presentation, a panel featuring a local agriculture producer, a Rio Blanco County commissioner and a representative from the Colorado River District to discuss the issues. A representative from Shell Oil Company also will be there to provide an industry perspective and share some of its plans for western Colorado. Audience members will be allowed to ask questions of the presenters after the panel discussion.

The conference is scheduled for 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Old Public Library at the Fairfield center, 200 Main St. in Meeker. Sandwiches and drinks will be provided.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Studies of effects of development and production ‘unnecessarily heighten public anxiety’ according to the National Oil Shale Association

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg

Now here’s a surprise. The National Oil Shale Association is crying foul over three studies of the environmental effects of potential oil shale development and production. Here’s a report from Gary Harmon writing for the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:

None of the reports assesses any benefits that might be expected from oil shale development, such as distribution of royalties, taxes, economic development opportunities and a sustainable employment base, the Glenwood Springs-based association said in a statement.

A study conducted by the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado Association of Governments based forecasts on the growth associated with development of tar sands in Alberta, Canada. That study, the National Oil Shale Association said, failed to offer a reliable projection of development, but was nonetheless used to project population growth and then to forecast water use by the Colorado, White River and Yampa river basin roundtables. The studies, released last year, “tend to create public fear and may stymie the current efforts by industry to perfect technologies that can meet regulatory, economic and public expectations,” according to the oil shale association.

The criticism is fair as far as it goes, said Aron Diaz, executive director of the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado. “We do understand there are some big differences” between the tar sands and oil shale, but the tar sands model was the one considered most prudent. “Local government is not ready for full-scale development” of oil shale, Diaz said. “We’re more interested in making sure local, state and federal government recognize that local government will need a lot of help up front to make sure the industry can thrive.”

The roundtable study also appears to overstate demand for water, the industry association said, because it fails to anticipate the demands of different technologies. The roundtable study predicted an annual demand of 400,000 acre feet of water but that “a realistic large-growth scenario would be half of that, or less,” the association said.

An inventory of water rights held by energy companies also overstates the holdings because the count by Western Resource Advocates includes all the rights held by the Colorado River Water Conservation District and the Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District, the oil shale association said. That inventory did include the entire holdings of the river district, spokesman Chris Treese said. It’s unlikely that the district would devote all its water rights to industrial uses for oil shale, Treese said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: The debate over potential water requirements goes on

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess2.jpg

The debate over the water requirements for oil shale development would seem to be a waste of time since no one really knows how much water it is going to take or the effects on groundwater. Shell spokesman Tracy Boyd told the Colorado Independent a couple of weeks ago that the company feels that the ratio of water to liquid hydrocarbons will be about 3 to 1. Is that an estimate or a calculation based on Shell’s pilot data? That’s why Secretary Salazar is taking it slow and cautiously with regard to leasing.

Here’s a report from Dennis Webb writing for the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

Recent studies have created unnecessary hysteria by overstating likely water use associated with potential oil shale development, an energy company official says. Tracy Boyd, a spokesman for Shell, told a Club 20 audience Saturday at Two Rivers Convention Center that water consumption is a serious issue that requires planning. But he said studies such as one released earlier this year by Western Resource Advocates “do a pretty significant job of heightening anxiety for oil shale development,” rather than help provide rational evaluation and planning…

Rob Harris of Western Resource Advocates, a Boulder-based environmental group, defended the conclusions of his group’s research, saying the amount of water rights acquired by energy companies can’t be ignored. “When we see a huge number of decreed water rights that are out there in the world, it makes us think, ‘Well, gee, we have to plan for that,’ ” Harris said…

Dave Merritt, former chief engineer of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, said the study includes in its estimates past district rights that have been abandoned.

Harris acknowledged the report contains some errors but said the river district still has a lot of water rights that haven’t been abandoned. While the water rights could be used for other reasons, it’s reasonable to expect energy companies would be interested in them if full-scale oil shale development occurred, he said.

From the Durango Herald (Garrett Andrews):

Craig Cooper carries a small piece of sedimentary rock in his bag next to his MacBook Pro when he travels on speaking engagements. Friday it was the Southwestern Water Conservation District’s 27th annual Water Seminar, where the Idaho National Laboratory energy specialist held up the innocuous chunk of oil shale and told the audience it’s time to think hard about developing the fossil fuel wisely because, he said, development will happen one way or another. As a scientist focused on energy production, Cooper is passionate in his objectivity. He works at the intersection of water and carbon management, leading research in oil shale development, working both with environmental groups and multinational oil corporations. But for all his enthusiasm, his message is simple:”Policymakers need answers to questions. “The bottom line is that there’s a lot of energy here and people are going to come and get it and that’s going to create problems,” he said.

With this conclusion foregone, Cooper said he works to create transparency in energy development. Some of his ideas sound disconsonant to environmental groups, which he said are often right to criticize certain methods of oil-shale extraction but should know that the function of business is not to perform virtuous, costly acts for free.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: USGS revises estimates of total Piceance Basin reserves upward

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess2.jpg

From the Glenwood Springs Post Independent (Pete Fowler): “The U.S. Geological Survey now estimates the Piceance Basin has around 1.525 trillion barrels worth of ‘in-place oil shale resources.’ The agency also found an estimated 43.3 billion tons of nahcolite in the Piceance Basin. It’s embedded with oil shale in many places and produces ‘large quantities’ of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide when it’s heated in oil shale processing, the USGS said. At the time of the last USGS assessment in 1989, the agency said there was about 1 trillion barrels of oil in the Piceance Basin’s oil shale. It is not known how much of the oil is actually recoverable because developing oil shale “has significant technological and environmental challenges and no economic extraction method is currently available in the U.S.,” the USGS said in an announcement. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said in a statement, ‘The USGS scientific report shows significant quantities of oil locked up in the shale rocks of the Piceance Basin. I believe it demonstrates the need for our continued research and development efforts.'[…]

“Western Colorado Congress spokesman Duke Cox said the announcement is an interesting statistic but it’s never really been about exactly how much oil shale there is. He said, ‘There’s an enormous potential, but the problem is for 100 years, industry has been trying to figure out a way to unlock that potential, and we’re still not there.’ He said it will most likely take at least 10 years before anyone knows if they can harvest oil shale and turn a profit without government subsidies.”

Here’s the USGS release:

The U.S. Geological Survey has updated its assessment of in-place oil shale resources in the Piceance Basin in western Colorado. Development of oil shale has significant technological and environmental challenges and no economic extraction method is currently available in the U.S. Therefore it is unknown how much of the assessed in-place (total amount present) resource is recoverable. “For the first time in 20 years, we have an updated assessment of in-place oil shale in the Piceance Basin of Colorado,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. “The USGS scientific report shows significant quantities of oil locked up in the shale rocks of the Piceance Basin. I believe it demonstrates the need for our continued research and development efforts.”

The Piceance Basin has an estimated 1.525 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources. This study also found an estimated 43.3 billion tons of in-place nahcolite resources in the Piceance Basin. This mineral is embedded with oil shale in many areas, and produces large quantities of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide when heated in oil shale processing. Oil resources can only be obtained from oil shale rock when heated to great temperatures, 530 to 930 degrees Fahrenheit. These temperatures are required because oil shale does not contain crude oil but instead contains kerogen, which is an organic precursor to oil that must be heated for oil production.

The Piceance Basin contains one of the thickest and richest oil shale deposits in the world and is the focus of most on-going oil shale research and development extraction projects in the U.S. This new assessment is about 50 percent larger than the 1989 assessment of about one trillion barrels. Almost all of this increase is due to assessments of new geographic areas and subsurface zones that had too little data for previous research and assessments. The USGS is updating its assessments of oil shale resources in support of recommendations in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The USGS is also conducting oil shale assessments in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah and the Greater Green River Basin of southwest Wyoming.

To learn more about the “Assessment of in-place oil shale resources in the Green River Formation, Piceance Basin, Colorado,” please visit the USGS Energy Resources Program Website.

Energy policy — oil shale: The need for a regional debate on development

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg

From Denver Post guest columnist Sharon Bronson writing about the development of oil shale: “Frankly, the oil shale debate in Colorado demands a broader regional conversation about energy development and water management in the West. We are all painfully aware of how rapid development, an extended drought and global warming are stressing our water resources. As the seven Colorado River basin states, along with Mexico, continue to fight over a shrinking water “pie,” how will the water for commercial oil shale development be supplied? What are the downstream impacts of pursuing this type of energy policy? Is producing oil shale a better use of this water than raising crops? We need straight answers to these hard questions. The BLM, even today, acknowledges that the development technologies for oil shale have yet to be proven as commercially viable, and their associated impacts are unknown.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Arkansas River Basin Water Forum day 1

A picture named arkansasriverbasin.jpg

Here’s a recap of the Colorado Water Conservation Board Executive Director Jennifer Gimbel’s keynote on the first day of the Arkansas Basin Water Forum, from Chris Woodka writing for the Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:

Water for energy – whether that means hydroelectric, biofuels, oil shale or power plant cooling involves choices for Colorado in a time when shortages are nearing critical points, a top water official said Tuesday. “When you are dealing with water, you are dealing with our future. It’s going to take choices, and it’s going to take trade-offs,” Colorado Water Conservation Board Executive Director Jennifer Gimbel said. Gimbel made her comments during the keynote speech of the Arkansas River Basin Water Forum being held at Colorado State University-Pueblo. The event continues today with the topic “Water to Fuel Our Future.”[…]

the state’s population is expected to triple by 2050, and climate change will mean warmer temperatures, a longer growing season, decreased flows in river, more rain, earlier runoff and increased variability in the weather, Gimbel said. Conservation and reuse will go only so far to meet anticipated shortfalls, she said. “We need to continue building infrastructure,” Gimbel said. “However, the infrastructure we do have needs to be managed collectively. That means more multiuse projects.”

Construction of dams, given a black eye in the public consciousness, benefits rivers by moderating flows and improving fisheries, Gimbel said. Her primary example was the Arkansas River voluntary flow agreement – made possible by balancing water accounts between dams – that created sufficient flows for the Arkansas River Headwaters State Recreation Area, which draws more rafters that any other American stretch of river.

New water projects are increasingly more difficult during tough budget times, however. About $45 million has been cut from CWCB construction funds to make this year’s state budget balance and deeper cuts could be looming in the future, Gimbel said. Other forms of energy development have varying impacts on water supplies. Wind farms use little water, but could impact birds; solar power may use more water than previously believed; ethanol production of 7 billion gallons annually eats up 19 million acres of farmland; oil shale has the potential to use more than double the amount of water imported into the Arkansas Valley each year; and coal-bed methane produces poor-quality water that state law deals with uncertainly.

Energy policy — oil shale: Opponents of Shell’s 2008 filing on the Yampa organizing

A picture named yamparivereofmaybell.jpg

Here’s an update on opposition to Shell’s filing for a diversion from the Yampa River, from Brandon Gee writing for the Steamboat Pilot & Today. From the article:

Routt County, the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District and the towns of Oak Creek and Yampa will pool their resources in opposing Shell Oil’s application to take 375 cubic feet of water per second from the Yampa River west of Craig.

The Routt County Board of Commissioners approved the “common interest agreement” Tuesday. The others also are ex pected to approve the agreement if they haven’t already, County Commissioner Nancy Stahoviak said. The entities are among 25 groups that have logged oppositions against the application filed by Shell Frontier Oil and Gas in water court in Steamboat Springs in late December 2008.

The agreement will allow the agencies to share confidential information and attorney work product “in a way that has been recognized by the courts as protected,” Routt County Attorney John Merrill said…

Routt County, the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District and the towns of Oak Creek and Yampa will pool their resources in opposing Shell Oil’s application to take 375 cubic feet of water per second from the Yampa River west of Craig.

The Routt County Board of Commissioners approved the “common interest agreement” Tuesday. The others also are ex pected to approve the agreement if they haven’t already, County Commissioner Nancy Stahoviak said. The entities are among 25 groups that have logged oppositions against the application filed by Shell Frontier Oil and Gas in water court in Steamboat Springs in late December 2008.

The agreement will allow the agencies to share confidential information and attorney work product “in a way that has been recognized by the courts as protected,” Routt County Attorney John Merrill said…

Shell spokesman Tracy Boyd said,“I think, given the choices, we’d prefer to have it referred to someone else in a referee function rather than go to trial.” “Generally speaking, we’d rather work with interested parties rather than work with a trial scenario. … We’re more interested in contacting all the entities and getting a better understanding of what their concerns are.”[…]

Light noted that there is no designated alternate referee and said she expects O’Hara to serve in that role. She also expects O’Hara to schedule a status conference with Shell and its opponents in the next 30 to 60 days. “The entire case is before him now,” Light said. “It’s exactly the same process, except Judge O’Hara is doing everything.”

The 25 statements of opposition enumerate a number of different concerns with Shell’s request. The city of Steamboat Springs argues that its water rights in the Yampa River Basin “may be adversely impacted if the subject application is granted without adequate protective terms and conditions.”[…]

In its statement, Routt County argues that, if approved, the diversion seriously would hinder the development of water resources for the unincorporated South Routt County community of Phippsburg, whose public water system is operated by the county. The county also states the diversion would impair the development of water resources for agricultural uses and would have a serious negative impact on its ability to finance and develop future water projects.

Across the board, statements of opposition also say that Shell has yet to prove its need for the water, that the claimed rights are not speculative, and the feasibility of its project, which includes a 45,000-acre-foot reservoir…

Some of the most strongly worded statements come from Steamboat attorney Tom Sharp on behalf of the Mount Werner and Morrison Creek Metro politan water and sanitation districts. In the statements, Sharp alleges outright that the application is “based upon the speculative sale or transfer” of the rights and that the water re­quested is excessive and wasteful.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Development effects on water supplies

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg

From the Colorado Independent (David O. Williams): “A Shell Oil official confirmed Friday that the “in-situ” oil shale production the company is researching at its Mahogany facility near Rangely currently consumes about three barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.

“But, he said, contrary to recent media reports on an environmental study of energy company water rights on Colorado’s Western Slope, Shell is not trying to “corner the market on water” in the Colorado and White River basins.”

Energy policy — oil shale: Development impacts on water supplies

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess2.jpg

Here’s a look at Western Resource Advocate’s report “Water on the Rocks: Oil Shale Water Rights in Colorado” released yesterday, from the Daily Sentinel:

A commercial oil-shale industry in western Colorado has the potential to be the biggest water guzzler this region has ever seen, sucking up much of the water now flowing to agriculture and possibly impacting water availability for cities and towns in Colorado. Understanding that there are numerous uncertainties regarding how much water oil companies may actually use in oil-shale development, Western Resource Advocates in Boulder looked at the water issue from a different angle: How much water have they applied for legally? The numbers are eye-catching, to say the least. Six oil companies already have filed for water rights on the Colorado and White rivers totaling more than 7.2 million acre feet. That’s the entire annual allocation for the four states in the Upper Colorado River Basin, including Colorado. Those filings don’t mean the entire Upper Colorado Basin would be dried up to serve oil shale. Many of the filings are for conditional rights that might only be available in years with heavy spring runoff. Others might never be used, as oil companies develop technologies that require less water…

As Chris Treese of the Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District put it, “Any large transfer of water to oil shale would shift the West Slope landscape from an agricultural landscape to an industrial one.”

More coverage from Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dennis Webb):

Karin P. Sheldon, the group’s executive director, said energy companies essentially have cornered the market on Western Slope water rights. Exercising these rights for large-scale commercial oil shale development would jeopardize many agricultural uses involving junior water rights and water now leased from energy companies, and harm the ability of Western Slope and Front Range communities to meet future water needs, the group said. It found that ExxonMobil owns the most rights, with 49 conditional claims and ownership in 48 irrigation ditches. Shell holds 31 conditional rights, has ownership in five irrigation ditches and is in the process of securing rights on the Yampa River. Several other companies have water rights holdings. Among them, Chevron has 28 conditional rights and ownership in 24 irrigation ditches, and its Unocal subsidiary possesses absolute rights to another 48 wells and springs and owns 13 ditches…

The report says a Bureau of Land Management analysis of water needs associated with commercial oil shale development on public land is deficient. BLM spokesman David Boyd said the agency acknowledged last year that more study on impacts will be needed once the technology for developing oil shale is known. That study would occur before any commercial leasing takes place, he said. Boyd said that acknowledgment was made in its programmatic environmental impact statement on oil shale development. Shell is researching oil shale development technology in Rio Blanco County. Shell spokesman Tracy Boyd said he hadn’t looked at the new report in detail, but that the report bases water use estimates on another study that makes an unrealistic assumption of an industry producing 1.5 million barrels of oil per day from shale by 2036. It also overstates associated water use, he said.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Effects of development on water supplies

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg

Western Resource Advocates released a new report today that does the science, law and economics around oil shale development. Here’s the release from WRA:

Western Resource Advocates (WRA) released its report, “Water on the Rocks: Oil Shale Water Rights in Colorado,” that quantifies the water rights that oil companies have established in western Colorado. The report sheds light on the large volume of water already in the hands of oil shale development interests and warns of the problems that commercial oil shale extraction could cause for Colorado communities, farmers, ranchers, and western rivers.

The “Water on the Rocks” report calls on leaders to carefully consider the full impacts of commercial oil shale development before making decisions. Hundreds of oil shale water rights, totaling almost 2 million acre-feet of stored water and over 11,000cfs of diversions, pepper Colorado’s western river basins and pose challenges to Colorado and other downstream states if these rights are put into use.

“Large scale commercial oil shale development would harm both West Slope and Front Range communities,” said Karin P. Sheldon, WRA’s executive director, “A shift of water to oil shale will dramatically change the landscape in the areas developed. It could mean an end to agriculture and to the historic economic base of these rural communities.”

“Water on the Rocks” is the first report to thoroughly catalogue how much of Colorado’s water is already in the possession of the oil shale industry. The report:

Identifies all major water rights energy companies have targeted for oil shale development in Colorado.

Projects likely water requirements associated with oil shale development based on anticipated technologies.

Analyzes the legal and hydrological issues affecting development of Colorado’s water allocation under the 1922 Colorado River Compact and 1948 Upper Basin Compact.

Explains how the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program affects and limits additional uses of water on the Colorado River.

“Water on the Rocks” reaches the following conclusions:

Commercial oil shale development would transform western Colorado. Oil shale development would transfer water presently used for agriculture to oil shale production. Agricultural lands would be dried-up and thousands of acres would be transformed into industrial landscapes.

Oil shale development in western Colorado would affect Colorado’s Front Range communities. Front Range water providers and the Colorado River Water Conservation District agree that oil shale development may challenge existing water projects and compromise development of future supplies.

Oil shale will accelerate climate change, further stressing water availability.
Huge quantities of greenhouse gas emissions caused by oil shale extraction would pose a serious threat to the climate of an already dry region.

Total water demands must be clearly understood before committing to commercial oil shale development. Estimates point out that it will require 1 to 4 barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil from shale.

The sources and quantity of the energy required to extract oil shale must be identified before development is pursued. Initial estimates indicate that it will require 10 new power plants and 5 new coal mines to produce one million barrels of shale oil per day.

“Despite a significant investment, industry remains years away from establishing the economic viability, technical efficiency, and environmental performance of the technologies,” said David Abelson, Western Resource Advocates oil shale policy advisor. “It is vital that policy makers understand the water, economic, and environmental impacts before committing to a commercial development program.”

To read the report and view maps of where these water rights are located, click on www.westernresourceadvocates.com/land/wotrreport/index.php.

More coverage from the Denver Business Journal:

The report — “Water on the Rocks: Oil Shale Water Rights in Colorado” — was issued Wednesday. It says the rights to nearly 2 million acre-feet of stored water in Colorado, plus the right to divert more water from the state’s western rivers, is already owned by oil companies. The report said if those rights are put to use, shifting water from agriculture and other uses to oil shale development, the affects would reach from local communities to Denver and other Front Range cities.

More coverage from the Denver Post (Mark Jaffe):

Oil companies have amassed nearly 7.5 million acre-feet of water rights for oil-shale development — enough water for double the population of Colorado, according to a study by Western Resource Advocates. “Oil companies have cornered the market” in western Colorado,” said Karin Sheldon, executive director of the nonprofit, environmental group. All those “paper” water rights will not be used, but it is difficult to know which ones will be tapped, Sheldon said. The oil-company water rights — some dating to the 1890s — are senior to those of Front Range water utilities and the Vail and Aspen ski resorts.

Projects for both Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District could be affected, the study says.

ExxonMobil and Shell Exploration & Production — two of the large holders of water rights — both said that estimates of water or oil shale should be lower than current projections and that they will work with other water users.

More coverage from LocalNews8.com (Idaho Falls): “Tracy Boyd of Shell Exploration & Production questions the group’s projections. He says the group assumes production will be at levels the industry doesn’t expect until much later.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here, here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Opposition lining up

A picture named yamparivereofmaybell.jpg

The town of Hayden is working through the water court process and plans to file in opposition to Shell’s December 30, 2008 filing for water on the Yampa River. Here’s a report from Blythe Terrell writing for the Steamboat Pilot & Today. From the article:

Resident Donna Hellyer asked the Town Board of Trustees last week to voice opposition to Shell, which wants to take 375 cubic feet per second of water during high flow periods. Hayden missed a deadline to file a statement of opposition, said Geoff Blakeslee, vice chairman of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Hayden trustees on Thursday asked town staff members to explore legal and other options. “The next level is make people understand we’re not in support of it,” Town Manager Russ Martin said Monday…

Meanwhile, Mark Jaffee has an background article — with a bit of speculation about the future of the Shell filing — running in the Denver Post. From the article:

A bid by the Shell Exploration and Production Co. for a 15 billion- gallon water right has sparked opposition letters from 25 federal, state and local agencies, along with businesses and environmental groups. The battle runs from Parker, which is seeking more water amid Front Range suburbs, to Dinosaur National Monument, where National Park Service officials worry that Shell’s plan to divert water for oil-shale development may hurt the park. Other objections filed with the Steamboat Springs water court came from a coal company, a power company, an agricultural ditch company and Cross Mountain Ranch, a hunting resort…

“There is a big target on the Yampa. Everyone is looking to tap into it,” said Glenn Porzak, a water lawyer for the city of Steamboat Springs. Water-rights applications usually generate no more than seven protest letters, Porzak said. The biggest case he was ever involved in had about 19. “This Yampa case is big,” he said…

Many of the groups filing opposition letters are just seeking more information — such as the one from the Colorado State Engineer. “We want to make sure that the water right isn’t speculative, that it will be put to a beneficial use and that Shell can and will develop the required infrastructure,” Assistant State Engineer Kevin Rein said. “There isn’t enough information in the application to do that.”[…]

Moffat County filed a letter because the proposed reservoir would bury a county road. “We just want to be part of the process to protect our citizens,” said Moffat County Commissioner Tom Gray, who criticized the many letters from groups outside the river basin with no direct standing. “We hope the water court weeds out opposers who don’t have standing and who would not be harmed.”

Among the other filers and the issues they raise are:

• The federal Bureau of Land Management, which says Shell has not yet applied for rights of way through public land needed for its plan.

• The state Division of Wildlife, which is seeking more information on the potential impact of the water right on recovery plans for endangered fish species in the Yampa and Colorado rivers.

• The Colorado River Conservation District, which wants more detail on the impact of the proposed right on the state’s obligation to interstate water compacts.

The environmental groups filing include the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Trout Unlimited and the Colorado Environmental Coalition.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Alberta tar sand production

A picture named tarsandstrucks.jpg

Here’s a look at the scale of the operation to develop Alberta’s tar sands, from Robert Kunzig writing for National Geographic. Click through and read the whole thing. Here is an excerpt:

Where the trapline and the cabin once were, and the forest, there is now a large open-pit mine. Here Syncrude, Canada’s largest oil producer, digs bitumen-laced sand from the ground with electric shovels five stories high, then washes the bitumen off the sand with hot water and sometimes caustic soda. Next to the mine, flames flare from the stacks of an “upgrader,” which cracks the tarry bitumen and converts it into Syncrude Sweet Blend, a synthetic crude that travels down a pipeline to refineries in Edmon ton, Alberta; Ontario, and the United States. Mildred Lake, meanwhile, is now dwarfed by its neighbor, the Mildred Lake Settling Basin, a four-square-mile lake of toxic mine tailings. The sand dike that contains it is by volume one of the largest dams in the world…

Nowhere on Earth is more earth being moved these days than in the Athabasca Valley. To extract each barrel of oil from a surface mine, the industry must first cut down the forest, then remove an average of two tons of peat and dirt that lie above the oil sands layer, then two tons of the sand itself. It must heat several barrels of water to strip the bitumen from the sand and upgrade it, and afterward it discharges contaminated water into tailings ponds like the one near Mildred Lake. They now cover around 50 square miles. Last April some 500 migrating ducks mistook one of those ponds, at a newer Syncrude mine north of Fort McKay, for a hospitable stopover, landed on its oily surface, and died. The incident stirred international attention—Greenpeace broke into the Syncrude facility and hoisted a banner of a skull over the pipe discharging tailings, along with a sign that read “World’s Dirtiest Oil: Stop the Tar Sands.”[…]

“Oil sands represent a decision point for North America and the world,” says Simon Dyer of the Pembina Institute, a moderate and widely respected Canadian environmental group. “Are we going to get serious about alternative energy, or are we going to go down the unconventional-oil track? The fact that we’re willing to move four tons of earth for a single barrel really shows that the world is running out of easy oil.”[…]

Without the [Athabasca River], there would be no oil sands industry. It’s the river that over tens of millions of years has eroded away billions of cubic yards of sediment that once covered the bitumen, thereby bringing it within reach of shovels—and in some places all the way to the surface. On a hot summer day along the Athabasca, near Fort McKay for example, bitumen oozes from the riverbank and casts an oily sheen on the water. Early fur traders reported seeing the stuff and watching natives use it to caulk their canoes. At room temperature, bitumen is like molasses, and below 50°F or so it is hard as a hockey puck, as Canadians invariably put it. Once upon a time, though, it was light crude, the same liquid that oil companies have been pumping from deep traps in southern Alberta for nearly a century. Tens of millions of years ago, geologists think, a large volume of that oil was pushed northeastward, perhaps by the rise of the Rocky Mountains. In the process it also migrated upward, along sloping layers of sediment, until eventually it reached depths shallow and cool enough for bacteria to thrive. Those bacteria degraded the oil to bitumen…

And every day in the Athabasca Valley, more than a million tons of sand emerges from such crushers and is mixed with more than 200,000 tons of water that must be heated, typically to 175°F, to wash out the gluey bitumen. At the upgraders, the bitumen gets heated again, to about 900°F, and compressed to more than 100 atmospheres—that’s what it takes to crack the complex molecules and either subtract carbon or add back the hydrogen the bacteria removed ages ago. That’s what it takes to make the light hydrocarbons we need to fill our gas tanks. It takes a stupendous amount of energy. In situ extraction, which is the only way to get at around 80 percent of those 173 billion barrels, can use up to twice as much energy as mining, because it requires so much steam.

Most of the energy to heat the water or make steam comes from burning natural gas, which also supplies the hydrogen for upgrading. Precisely because it is hydrogen rich and mostly free of impurities, natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, the one that puts the least amount of carbon and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Critics thus say the oil sands industry is wasting the cleanest fuel to make the dirtiest—that it turns gold into lead. The argument makes environmental but not economic sense, says David Keith, a physicist and energy expert at the University of Calgary. Each barrel of synthetic crude contains about five times more energy than the natural gas used to make it, and in much more valuable liquid form.

McEachern, who works for Alberta Environment, a provincial agency, says the tailings ponds are his top concern. The mines dump waste water in the ponds, he explains, because they are not allowed to dump waste into the Athabasca, and because they need to reuse the water. As the thick, brown slurry gushes from the discharge pipes, the sand quickly settles out, building the dike that retains the pond; the residual bitumen floats to the top. The fine clay and silt particles, though, take several years to settle, and when they do, they produce a yogurt-like goop—the technical term is “mature fine tailings”—that is contaminated with toxic chemicals such as naphthenic acid and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and would take centuries to dry out on its own. Under the terms of their licenses, the mines are required to reclaim it somehow, but they have been missing their deadlines and still have not fully reclaimed a single pond.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — oil shale: Water requirements for production

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg

Here’s a recap of a February forum hosted by the Rocky Mountain and Northwest Colorado Farmers Unions and the Bookcliff Conservation District, from Mike McKibbin writing for the Rifle Citizen Telegram. From the article:

Dan Birch, deputy general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District went over the results of a water demands study released late last year by the Colorado, White and Yampa River basin water roundtable. It looked at the combined estimated water needs for coal, natural gas, oil shale and uranium over the next several decades…

Direct and indirect water demands for the oil shale industry could reach 152,000 acre-feet in the long term…

Still, Birch said he did not think water availability would limit future energy production, including oil shale. “Energy interests already have an abundant amount of conditional water rights to use,” he said. “If they have none, they have the resources to acquire new sources. And those rights will be acquired from agriculture.” Birch said the river district would rather see those rights acquired through new appropriations and perfection of an estimated thousands of cubic feet of conditional water rights and hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of conditional storage rights already held by the industry. “I think there may be an opportunity somewhere in the mid-range of these estimates to work with the industry on a water project to provide water not only for the industry, but for agricultural, municipal, environmental and other needs,” Birch said. Any new storage project would not be built on the main stem of any major river in Colorado, Birch said…

Electrical production needs for the in situ processes rise to near 19,000 megawatts in the long-term, high-production scenario, he added. “To compare, the Craig generating station, which I think is the largest coal-fired plant in Colorado, has a 1,300-megawatt capacity,” Birch said. In the mid-range estimate, Birch said it could be possible for Shell to generate their own electricity, using natural gas produced on site.

In situ processes also require an estimated 1.5 barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced, while the underground mining and retort process previously used by Exxon and others in the last oil shale boom used 2.9 barrels of water per barrel of produced oil, Birch said. Shell, which has tested an in situ process using electrical heaters and a “freezewall” to protect groundwater for the last several years in Rio Blanco County, might only require one barrel of water per barrel of oil, he added. Those figures assume a long-term, high-production rate of 1.5 million barrels of oil a day for the in situ process, Birch pointed out…

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Sierra Club to fight Shell’s application for a diversion on the Yampa River

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess2.jpg

The Sierra Club has a record of defending northwestern Colorado (see Green River through Dinosaur National Monument). It looks like they are going to help with the opposition to Shell’s filing on the Yampa River, according to All American Patriots. From the article:

The Sierra Club is fighting to protect a key river in northwestern Colorado from a water grab by the oil industry…

In an effort to protect the Yampa River and the fish, wildlife, and communities that depend on it, the Sierra Club filed a statement of opposition in Colorado Water Court today to block Shell’s request. “Communities, ranchers, fish and wildlife all rely on the Yampa River. It doesn’t make sense to hand over our scarce water just so an oil company can squander it on a pipe dream like oil shale,” said Sierra Club Representative Eric Huber.

Meanwhile here’s an editorial call to arms for residents and government entities in the Yampa Valley to get involved with water policy for the area, from Steve Aigner writing in the Steamboat Pilot & Today. He writes:

Colorado and Yampa Valley water experts voice increasing concern about previous optimistic beliefs about the reliable yield of the Colorado River system and our valley’s Fish Creek Basin, rivers and creeks. In Colorado, we believed we had an estimated 600,000 AF to develop, but during a 2007 trial between Denver Water and several Western Slope communities, experts on both sides agreed in their testimony that Colorado had only 159,000 AF left to develop, according a recent article in the High Country News.

We have endured the worst 10-year drought in the Colorado River’s recorded history of a long wet cycle. Now, we wonder about the potential impact of a drier climate. Still, contrary to the very optimistic belief that Steamboat Springs “has sufficient water rights to service a community of 100,000+ people under drought conditions for 35+ years,” the city’s first Steamboat Water Supply Master Plan in December says we need a redundant water supply. By 2027, the increase in water demand from the estimated buildout and population growth of the west Steamboat Springs area will more than double, from 3,141 AF to 7,206 AF. Because the reliable firm yield of Fish Creek Basin is only 7,000 AF, we will need to rely on the water supply cushion of 3,000 AF to 6,500 AF offered by the Yampa River Basin and conditional rights to Elk River water.

We face several uncertainties — a drier climate, a fire in the Fish Creek Basin and a call on the 1922 water compact from lower basin states. Incidentally, the water level of Lake Mead, a reservoir on the Colorado River, is only 1,112 feet above sea level. At 1,050 feet, the federal government will cut water to seven states dependent on the Colorado River, perhaps triggering the water call, according to a Bloomberg News article Friday.

A small quibble with the Mr. Aigner: A water call this year is highly unlikely. A call would be triggered if the upper basin states failed to deliver the running 10 year average of 7.5 million acre feet per year. We’re not close to that yet.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Upper Yampa River Water Conservancy District keeping an eye on Shell’s application

A picture named yamparivereofmaybell.jpg

The Upper Yampa River Water Conservancy District filed a statement in opposition to Shell’s water court application for a diversion on the Yampa River, according to a report from Melinda Dudley writing for the Steamboat Pilot & Today. From the article:

The Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District filed a statement of opposition on Friday to Shell Frontier Oil and Gas’ Dec. 30 request for substantial water rights on the Yampa River. “We’re in it to look after the constituency and our district,” Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District General Manager Kevin McBride said. “It doesn’t do the Upper Yampa any good to be taking water out.” The water district is joined in its opposition by the South Routt towns of Oak Creek and Yampa. Although upstream of Shell’s proposed diversion in Moffat County, town officials worry that the company’s request could affect future water rights and development across Northwest Colorado.

The term “opposition” can be a bit misleading, McBride said. “Filing an opposition could mean anything from an entity having a real opposition to simply wanting to be notified of the proceedings,” McBride said. “If you want to be notified of the proceedings, you have to oppose.” Town officials in Yampa and Oak Creek, both of which piggybacked on the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District’s opposition, have made it clear that their opposition is more than just a way to stay informed…

Shell’s filing would allocate the Yampa River “basically to 100 percent,” affecting future water rights, Oak Creek Trustee Josh Voorhis said Thursday, when the Oak Creek Town Board agreed to join the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District’s pending opposition. The deadline for oppositions on the matter is today…

[Shell’s proposed reservoir] would be built off the main stem of the Yampa in the Cedar Springs Draw in Moffat County. The proposed reservoir’s potential 45,000 acre-foot size compares to the 33,275 acre-feet in Stagecoach Reservoir and 25,450 acre-feet in the newly expanded Elkhead Reservoir between Hayden and Craig.

Meanwhile the Moffat County Commission approved participation in a groundwater study proposed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, according to a report from the Craig Daily Press. From the article:

[Moffat County Commission]: Approved, 3-0, signing a grant contract with the Colorado Water Conservation Board to hire Colorado Geological Survey to investigate local groundwater and aquifer conditions before widespread coal-bed methane development occurs locally.

Interior pulls Bush eleventh hour oil shale leases

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess3.jpg

Reuters: “A Bush administration plan for demonstration oil shale leases will be scrapped because the proposal is flawed and royalties to the government are too low, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said on Wednesday. ‘If oil shale technology proves to be viable on a commercial scale, taxpayers should get a fair rate of return from their resource,’ he told reporters on a teleconference.”

More coverage from the Salt Lake Tribune (Patty Henetz):

Making good on a promise he made a week before President Barack Obama took office, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Wednesday tossed out a Bush administration move to speed oil-shale development on public land in Utah and Colorado. During a teleconference, Salazar called the Bush rule one of many flawed last-minute policies “that don’t pass the smell test.” Earlier this month, the new Interior boss shelved leases for oil and gas drilling near national parks in Utah. Wednesday’s announcement means any additional research-and-development leases the U.S. Bureau of Management may have offered after mid-January won’t go forward. Under the Bush regulation, the leases would have allowed substantially more acreage and set royalties at 5 percent, a figure Salazar said would sell taxpayers short.

More coverage from the Deseret News (Amy Joi O’Donoghue):

Yet another blow was delivered to Utah’s oil industry Wednesday by U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar with his announcement that he is cancelling a second round of offering oil shale research and development leases on federal land in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado…

The decision marks the second time Salazar has reversed a decision of the previous administration involving Utah’s public lands. Earlier, he rescinded bids made on 77 parcels of Bureau of Land Management land for potential oil and gas development offered at a December auction in Salt Lake City. He characterized the offering of the bids in much the same way, saying the Bush administration rushed headlong into the process in the waning days of the administration without proper review. Some of the parcels, he said, were located in close proximity to many Utah landmarks, including Canyonlands and Arches national parks…

Steve Bloch, attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, lauded Salazar’s decision. “What he is proposing makes a lot of sense, and that is not to rush ahead pell-mell and offer large swaths of land until companies can affirmatively demonstrate that shale development is economically feasible and can be done in an environmentally sound and sustainable manner.”

More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.

Energy policy — Oil shale: Moffat County files objection to Shell application on Yampa River

A picture named shelloilshaleprocess3 .jpg

The Moffat County Commissioners — while not against Shell building a reservoir for oil shale production — have filed an objection in water court as a hedge to be kept in the loop on the filing, according to a report from Colin Smith writing for the Craig Daily Press. From the article:

The three commissioners voted unanimously at their Tuesday meeting to file a statement of opposition with the Steamboat Springs water court regarding the energy company’s December 2008 water filing. Commissioners and other county officials said multiple times that the county’s action does not mean it is opposed to Shell’s request. “The fact is, we don’t have a position at this point,” said Jeff Comstock, Moffat County Natural Resources Department director. Filing a statement of opposition is the only way for the county or anyone else to be involved with the water court’s process, he said…

Moffat County has several vested interests in whether Shell’s water is approved, Comstock said. The county has existing water rights on the Yampa River and should be involved when a large request is considered by the court. Not only that, Comstock said, Shell’s existing proposal would “inundate” a county road and make it unusable. Perhaps biggest of all, though, Shell could affect an existing arrangement between the county, local residents and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, he added. Under terms of a 2004 agreement, Fish and Wildlife will allow another 54,000 acre-feet of water development on the Yampa River before it requires new users pay for ways to protect four species of endangered fish. If Shell’s water right falls under the agreement, officials worry it could take everything left in the river for development…

Dan Birch, Colorado River District deputy general manager, said his agency’s concerns would be “greatly eased” if Shell voluntarily decided its request would not fall under the existing endangered fish agreement. In that event, Shell would have arrange its own agreement with Fish and Wildlife to preserve the four species. “If suddenly Shell is covered under (the current agreement), their water right filing would essentially use up all the remaining development in the river,” Birch said. “That’s just an enormous issue for any water user, including the power plants, the mines, the (Colorado) River District, Moffat County and any other water users in the basin.”