| |
|
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
|
|
unbossed: "Almost unnoticed (as Karen Tumulty also recognized), what with so many political stories breaking this week, the former head of the FISA court lambasted the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program in a speech on Saturday. Judge Royce Lamberth views the program as deeply threatening: 'We still have to preserve our civil liberties,' he said."
"2008 pres"
9:52:30 PM 
|
|
From CNN, "Public support for the war in Iraq has fallen to a new low and Republican support is beginning to waver, a poll published Tuesday found. In the latest CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll, 69 percent of those polled believe things are going badly in Iraq, and anti-war sentiment among Republican poll respondents has suddenly increased."
"2008 pres"
9:43:08 PM
|
|
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming have vast reserves of oil shale. As usual the U.S. government and others are looking west to exploit the resources here. One thing is different now from the past; conservationists, sportsmen, water officials, environmentalists and Monkey Wrenchers [ed. We just threw that in  ] are looking back. Here's an article from today's Denver Post arguing that pollution from oil shale extraction needs to be factored in to accurately cost out the effects. From the article:
Commercial production of oil shale in western Colorado will require new power plants that will greatly increase pollution, according to an analysis released Monday by a coalition of conservation groups. The same groups that two weeks ago publicized the vast water needs for commercial oil shale production attacked the power needs for oil shale production as envisioned by the federal government. One million barrels per day will require an estimated 12,000 megawatts of capacity annually, the groups said. That is three times all the electricity produced in Colorado in 2005.
The environmental coalition that has been highlighting the potential impacts of commercial oil shale development is arguing that decisions about commercial leasing of federal lands for oil shale should be slowed down. The federal government has issued research and development leases to three companies in Colorado that are studying new ways to melt shale rock in the ground and extract oil and gas from it. Commercial leases are planned to be released in several years. Legislation pending before the House of Representatives would slow the Bureau of Land Management's leasing process. "It's a fool's errand to unlock commercial leasing before more is known," said Robert Randall, staff attorney for Western Resource Advocates.
Randall said a consultant for the coalition came up with pollution predictions using information about power needs gleaned from several sources, including a 2005 Rand corporation study and a 2004 U.S. Department of Justice analysis.
The predictions show production of a million barrels of oil per day could: Release more than 105 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, a roughly 80 percent increase in the carbon dioxide emitted by all electrical generating units in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah; Increase sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions by more than 35,000 tons each year; Have a significant impact on visibility in protected areas around the Piceance Basin in northwestern Colorado.
More from email (Thanks Theo):
Developing oil shale on the west slope is going to require about 12,000 megawatts of electricity from somewhere, probably coal-fired power. But the new limits on ozone proposed by the EPA means that there is very little room for new industrial development that adds to air pollution. And the ozone issue is just the tip of the iceberg - 12,000 megawatts of coal-fired power will have a host of impacts, from mercury in water supplies to a huge increase in global warming pollution from Colorado.
Existing power plants are nearing their full production rates. To keep up with demand, the electricity for oil shale development will likely have to come from new power plants. The most readily available fuels for new plants are coal and natural gas. And the currently low cost of coal will make this dirtiest of fossil fuels the more economically attractive choice for power production. Our experts did an analysis of the likely impact that would come from producing one million barrels of oil per day from shale. That's the low end of what the Department of Energy projects could be operational within two or three decades. The bottom line: The new power plants needed to support a one million barrel-per-day industry could emit 105,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide every year. That's about 80 percent more than was released by all existing electric utility generating units in the states of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah in 2005. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions, the major culprits in acid rain, could increase by over 35,000 tons per year each. That's 20 percent more sulfur dioxide and 16 percent more nitrogen dioxide than was emitted by all of the electrical generating units in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming in 2002. If these emissions are concentrated where the oil shale deposits are, namely the Piceance Basin in Colorado and the Green River Basin in Utah, they could further impair air quality in a region that's already seeing spikes in air pollution from the natural gas boom. Of course, major new generating stations will also require significant water supplies for their cooling systems.
More coverage from The Rocky Mountain News. They write:
The concerns were the second major salvo from green activists against oil shale. Earlier this month, the same groups warned that oil shale development on the Western Slope could require water equal to the amount consumed by two Denver-sized cities annually.
Industry officials were critical of the environmentalists' claims. One called the numbers guesswork: "It's an assertion based on a hypothetical that is akin to shadowboxing," said Greg Schnacke, executive vice president of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association.
"2008 pres"
6:55:05 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 1:05:04 PM.
|
|
|
