It's the Oil Shale, Stupid

A long-standing ban on the commercial development of oil shale on federal lands expired on September 30th. That means America is now on the edge of an abyss, about to take the plunge into an endless fossil future. The steady march toward this awful future of extended oil addiction is a fact hidden in plain view.

It is a march being aided and abetted by half a billion dollars of oil and coal lobby money, by the recent votes of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and by a media more lap dog than watchdog. Though unintended, even all the campaign talk about a clean energy economy is serving to obscure this clear and present danger.

Oil shale is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels known to man. Its extraction releases two to five times more greenhouse gases than conventional crude oil, and uses vast amounts of water. In Western lands where oil shale deposits are abundant, water is already in scarce supply.

America's energy and climate future will be determined by what the nation decides to do with its deposits of oil shale. There are as much as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil locked up in shale deposits in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. There's more oil in the shale than there ever was in Saudi Arabia. It's value? More than half a trillion dollars. It's the most important energy issue there is, and no one is talking about it.

Here's what you have to do to extract oil shale. Oil workers start by constructing a five foot thick wall around a 1000-foot square foot cube of the Earth. They drill deep holes into the cube at 25 foot intervals and insert massive electric heating coils. The coils are turned on and left on continuously for two or more years at 650 degrees F. Finally, the oil slides out of the shale. You've heard of electric cars? This is electric oil.

If oil shale gets developed, the nation and the globe will be sent on a path to an endless fossil future and a steep acceleration of global warming pollution. Forget clean energy. It will be lights out, game over.

The Bush-Cheney administration has been working for eight years to open federal lands -- where the oil shale rests -- to oil companies, and they are on the brink of success. That means that the only thing standing in the way of an endless fossil future is the next president. John McCain has already voiced his staunch support for development of these resources. But the Republican machine, and a pliant media, have managed to focus the nation on a distraction: offshore oil, even though there's only a small puddle of the stuff. Offshore, we'll get 1.2% of US oil supply twenty years from now.

The oil industry has almost secured rights to federal lands where the oil shale is. Without firing a shot, they purchased the regime at home. Then they pulled the wool over America's eyes, using the most effective propaganda tools money can buy from the public relations industry. While hollering about offshore oil, they uttered precious little about oil shale itself, and absolutely nothing about how its oil is extracted. So when the ban on offshore oil drilling expired, no one noticed that the ban on oil shale development expired, too.

So Congress has now allowed the door to swing open to "develop" almost two million acres of oil shale deposits. It has granted permission to the oil industry to initiate a cube-by-cube boiling of the earth itself, the consumption of every last drop of water in the Colorado basin and the unconscionable acceleration of global warming pollution.

This diabolical outcome -- worthy of a cackling criminal mastermind in a James Bond thriller -- has been in the making since early in the Bush-Cheney administration's first term. An overt federal program for oil shale development emerged into public view in the Energy Act of 2005 -- in Section 369 -- which required the Department of the Interior to develop a commercial leasing program for oil shale. The Department is about to issue a final development plan.
Since Congress has dutifully provided the kicker by allowing the oil shale moratorium to expire, the leasing plan can now move forward. The administration's simultaneous orchestration of these two final oil policy movements is the culmination of years of effort, a chilling parting legacy.

The only factor still remaining in the way of an endless fossil future is the next President. The oil shale leasing program will be under his control, and so the upcoming election presents voters with yet another fateful choice.

It is clear what another Republican administration will bring. Last June, Senator McCain unveiled his energy plan and called for offshore drilling and oil shale development. Since then, contributions to his campaign from the oil industry have soared.

For his part, Senator Obama has refused oil money. His stance on Alberta's tar sands -- a dirty fuel very much like oil shale -- remains "an open question," much to the dismay of the Canadian government, but so far, he has been silent on oil shale. Senator Obama would do well to clarify his stance on oil shale development, and offer voters a crystal clear alternative to the endless fossil future, which is closer than anybody cares to admit.

Oil shale is the energy story of the century. It is the policy crossroads. If the nation continues on the path prepared by Bush-Cheney and embraced by McCain-Palin, it leads to an endless fossil future. That's the key story, the key choice.

All the rest is commentary.

Related Stories

Does McCain's Energy Policy Point to a Cabinet Post for Cheney?

New Report Caculates Shale Oil's Enormous Carbon Footprint

Comments

[NemoNoOne]

I know I'm going to get in trouble for this, but here goes.

First, my credentials. I'm a PhD physical chemist, work in the private sector (with no ties to any oil company) as a government research contractor dealing with computer models of security problems. I am a flaming political liberal, product of effete eastern schools, and a firm supporter of BHO. Over the years, I have worked technically on both alternative energy sources (photovoltaics, synfuels) and environmental (air) contamination. I am convinced of the overwhelming importance of anthropogenic contributions to global climate change.

So, I'm sort of one of the white hats.

Thus, it pains me to observe that this article, though correct in its particulars, is a bit of a rabble-rouser. Draconian solutions are almost never completely sensible and they dangerously close down rational discussion. I know that we can expect nothing but environmental and financial abuse from the "oil companies," but we should not foreclose exploitation of this source of hydrocarbons, at least as an interim measure. There will come a day, should we be smart enough, when we use natural HCs as raw materials for synthetics and not for fuel. Then the costs for extraction will not be so important, and environmental safeguards will be implemented. In summary, put a cork in the outrage and work for a sane method for exploiting this material.

Nemo

[David Sassoon - Huffpost Blogger]

My intention was indeed to sound an alarm. I don't think what I've written will close down rational discussion, because on oil shale, there isn't even much of any discussion going on. I'd like to provoke one. Go ahead and hit the snooze button if you want. The alarm will sound again anon.

The oil industry is doing its fiduciary duty, looking forward with a strategy to stay in business forever doing what they do. It is not looking for a sane method of exploiting this material, but the most profitable. There's the rub.

I'm not sure how exploitation of oil shale could ever be an "interim measure." Unlock the gates, allow heavy investment, and you are pretty much committed to an endless fossil future.

I'm not recommending kicking oil addiction cold turkey. I'm suggesting long-term crop substitution -- which in the context of oil shale means not allowing oil farmers to plant new drills which will be almost impossible to eradicate.

[NemoNoOne]

Thanks for the clarification - I was pretty sure that was your intent. Given the timing of the expiration, I can see the need for an alert like the one you've given. It's just that tarring (forgive the intentional pun) with a broad brush makes it hard to decide whether it's worth doing anything other than shutting down shale exploitation. Any suggestions for how to have that discussion, or is it too late?

By the way, my "interim solution" comment was more wishful thinking than planning. I was hoping for some hard work to be done on safer and more elegant extraction methods. I must agree that, should such method(s) be developed, your argument is probably correct and we condemn ourselves to, at least, another century of uncontrolled emissions. The saner aspects of our nature always fall victim to greed and the bottom line.

Nemo

[Semaj51]

There may be oil in them thar hills -- but as of yet, no efficient, cost realistic method to get at it. And even if there is a big push for oil shale, it will take decades to go through all the legal/court actions.

[Egalitare]

Given the inputs (especially water) needed to bring this product to market, how can this be MORE cost effective than wind and solar?

[drkazmd65]

It can't be,... even if they were to try and use solar or wind power to fire up the heating coils for cooking out the oil in shale - the power needed would have been better put to use doing other work for America than heating rocks.

It just doesn't make long-term sense - except as a means for the oil companies to stay in business and maintain their current power & status.

[mjt218]

Solar and Wind do not have anything to do with transportation fuels. Power generation is an independent issue. We do not use oil in the United States to generate electricity for the most part. We use oil predominantly as a transportation fuel. You can cover the whole US with solar panels and wind farms, and we would still need every drop of oil we currently do.

As a result, if we continue to rely on oil as a transportation fuel, the price for oil will remain high. If the price of oil is high enough (slighlty over $100/barrel), there is an economic driver for oil shale development, using the methods described in this post.

KillTheMessenger argues that reducing demand for oil is the way to reduce its price. If we move to hybrid vehicles and become more efficient and conservative (or if our economy tanks), we drop the demand and thus the price of oil. Oil Shale is then not economical and will remain untouched.

[David Sassoon - Huffpost Blogger]

I wouldn't be so complacent. Take a look at the web site of the Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force and you'll see how this effort is being managed out of the Department of Energy's Office of Petroleum Reserves.

Reporting into that office are the three working groups of the Task Force: Oil Shale and Tar Sands; Enhanced Oil Recovery and Heavy Oil; Coal-to-Liquid Fuels. It gets hard to breathe just reading the names of those three working groups.

And here is what it says in the Executive Summary of the report the Task Force prepared for the President and Congress:

"The days of cheap oil are likely over. As discovery and production of conventional oil becomes more difficult and costly..... the world and our nation must now begin a transition to the next most economic and energy efficient set of energy resources. As it may take 20 years or more to achieve ... significant volumes of unconventional fuels, urgent action ... is needed.

Our nation is endowed with a wealth of resources that can be converted to fuels for transportation, home heating, and other uses. These include coal, heavy oil, and oil producible by carbon dioxide enhanced recovery....

Oil sands development success in the Province of Alberta, Canada provides a laudable example of industry, government, and stakeholder collaboration that could be emulated....."

If you want see to a snapshot of the endless fossil future, take a look at Alberta "a laudable example.... that could be emulated."

[KillTheMessenger]

Wait... are you chiding them for stating facts????

The days of cheap oil are over. Fact.

Discovery and production of conventional oil is ever more difficult and expensive. Fact.

We do need a transition to different energy sources. Fact.

It will take 20 years to extract unconventional sources on any scale. Fact.

Our nation has the mentioned sources. If oil shale turns into a loser, the very same things are valid for coal of which there is still plenty. So it's a fact, like it or not.

Oil sands were being "successfully" developed in Alberta. At least of the time of writing of that source that was a fact. I think as of today the developers over there are jittery watching oil prices, though.

All of these are, pretty basic, facts. The deception comes into play when these people make claims about the economy and the cost of these resources. But you did not include any citations of that part.

[realpolitic]

David is correct. Oil shale burns very dirty and the energy required to get it out of the ground is enormous. The U.S. Water resources council estimated consumptive water use of around three barrels of water per barrel of shale oil production How can western states, thirsty for water now, release so much water for the development of oil shale? They will go completely dry. The development of shale oil fields is a huge environmental disaster waiting to happen. With the enormous lobbying influence big oil dollars buy, our country will undoubtedly go in this direction. We will then spend enormous sums trying to counter the accompanying global warming disasters that result from severe storms, lack of fresh water, contagious disease spread, etc.

[KillTheMessenger]

"Oil shale burns very dirty"

How "dirty" something burns only depends on the details of the combustion process. One can engineer clean burning processes around virtually any fuel... at a cost, of course.

"the energy required to get it out of the ground is enormous"

But that is the clincher. It is by no means clear that there is a net economic advantage from tapping into these deposits. And if one were to discount for the price of GHG emissions, it is trivial that there is absolutely no economic upside. Of course that is not how the game is being played politically. As long as these "fuels" move taxpayer money into somebodies pockets, they are fair game. See Corn Ethanol that is a total loser and still has managed to make plenty of people plenty rich.

[mrblubitz]

Yeah, and where do you think the natural gas pipeline Palin is so proud of is heading? Oil shale in Canada. It was never intended to lower the cost or provide an affordable heat source for the lower 48.

We were slimed again.

[realpolitic]

At least she winks at us in her adorable way!!!