” 1. Oil shale has a smaller carbon footprint than ethanol. When calculating the carbon emissions of the entire oil-shale process, without the use of carbon-capture technology, its total carbon footprint is about 7 percent larger than gasoline. But a peer-reviewed article in the February issue of Science calculates the entire carbon footprint of ethanol to be 93 percent larger than gasoline. The article reports that even the switchgrass footprint is 50 percent larger than gasoline.
2. Oil shale uses less water than ethanol and no more than gasoline. Increased ethanol production will require more irrigation. A September 2007 article in Southwest Hydrology states that irrigated corn requires more than 780 barrels of water for each barrel of ethanol. The Department of Energy reports that oil shale, for the entire process, including land restoration, requires three barrels of water for every barrel of shale oil, about the same as gasoline.
3. Oil shale uses much less land than either ethanol or gasoline. One acre of corn produces 10 barrels of ethanol. One acre in the oil patch produces about 10,000 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces between 100,000 and 1 million-plus barrels of shale oil! (No, that’s not a typo.) In carbon emissions, water use and wildlife habitat, oil shale is a better answer than ethanol. And when it comes to transportation fuels, ethanol is the only alternative of any real significance.
4. Oil shale has been commercially produced in Brazil for 30 years and in Estonia for 80 years. Technology is not a barrier.
5. Oil shale failed in 1982 due to the price dropping to $10 a barrel, not because of technology or scarcity of water. A lot has changed since then. Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1982 was the Computer. Today, we have better technology, better environmental regulations, and OPEC can no longer flood the oil market.
6. Current law gives each governor, before any commercial leases are granted, the right to set the pace of oil-shale development. But Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., has put a moratorium on commercial leasing regulations, effectively taking away that right for Utah’s governor. The action produces no additional rights for Colorado but destroys Utah’s right to move forward.”
Right! I have wondered for years why this is not done!
When it comes to oil drilling/shale/whatever, are there any long term environmental issues with what remains? We have been inundated with articles out here in Colorado about the environmental impacts of abandoned gold/silver/etc mines and I have wondered if that is to stir public sentiment against the oil shale extraction. Anyone have any input?
As much as I agree with states rights, I don’t think we can leave offshore drilling and oil shale to the individual states. Some of the most productive areas may drop out and just let the rest of the states carry the burden.
The Price issue not withstanding, we need to resolve the energy independence issue and the balance of payments. We cannot go on issue bonds to purchase oil.
We need a national energy policy..not state energy policies.
Then don't irrigate. If the corn won't grow without adding water, it wasn't meant to grow there. Try some other feedstock.
I don’t understand how the moratorium put in place by Colorado’s governor affects leasing, or oil shale operations, in Utah.
Ditto for coal-to-liquids, which is economical at less than $50 per barrel. And remember, the United States are the 'Saudi Arabia of coal.'
Technology is not a barrier - the Democrats are the ONLY barrier...