Oil shale, the scam that just keeps on giving.

But the fact that the people who run the most powerful country are pushing for it and news that Germany is pushing more coal plants leads to the conclusion that there is very little if any chance of averting major ecological catastrophe very soon in geological time (impossible to predict in very short human-scale time periods).  With the exception of a tiny minority of us, humans continue to prioritize themselves and needless material possessions, at great expense to the rest of the Earth and all others who live here, and I've seen no changes to the contrary.

This is nothing new, but with the vast majority of people realizing the harms that global climate change is causing and will continue to cause, one would think that they'd reexamine their lifestyles, goals, and priorities.  But nooooooo!

The BLM under the Bush administration has become a pimp for the oil industry.  

Funny how Republicans are all for states' rights, until a state (like Colorado) disagrees with their policies.  Most Coloradans do not want more industrial development on public lands in Colorado, but it is being forced down their throats by this administration and the BLM.

i read the article on oil shale in today's grist, and it doesn't come as the biggest shock to me, nor does it strike me as environmentally irresponsible.  i am in the investment profession in nyc, and take a strong personal interest in clean tech.  consequently, i have had a series of meetings with non-conventional energy companies in growth stages of production, and i can say with certainty that oil shale stands to pose great benefit for our environment (full disclosure: i am NOT invested in any such company and consequently have no benefit in promoting their services).  the reason for this is that not all technologies require greater energy input than output. (though some clearly do)  in this respect i was pretty angry to see an across-the board smackdown of oil shale from different posters.  let me address a few issues:

groundwater seepage is not a concern for well organized approaches as certain companies undertake the stict approach of lining all oil-shale pits with bidium clay.  as water is absorbed into the clay molecules, they swell to create an airtight seal nationally recognized by the EPA as the highest standard of protection, and enforced at most treatment plants and industrial worksites.

margeret e: you are absolutely right! extracting the oil requires heating the shale to temperatures of 700 degrees, yet performed efficiently, this produces a tremendous amount of energy that can be collected as both liquid and gaseous fuel.  temperatures above 850 degress can be problems however, as this causes the shale to decompose and potentially release noxious gases into the air.  responsible strategies will not employ technologies w/ heating temps above 800 to avoid this risk.

something positive to consider about oil shale is this: a pit is dug and oil shale excavated.  the pit lined with the clay, supplied with a collection drain, and then backfilled with shale and the pipes necessary to heat.  reclamation can start immediately.  when the process has been run to completion, all technology is removed horizontally from the pit.  essentially, this leaves an identical pit (with rearranged rocks) as to what existed before, yet with appropriate vegetation species on top (which was not there).  a pretty impressive approach i thought.

i am an avid reader of grist, extremely environmentally conscious, and yes--anti-bush.  but i say this not to win support from fellow posters, but as a reminder that being pro-environment is about more than being against anything "oil" or party-line liberal. we all have a responsibility to be informed of the facts in order to understand which ideas hold up, and which don't (belive me there are oil shale approaches that DON'T).  but don't immediatly discount an idea that comes from one side or immediatly praise an idea that comes from another.  be informed.  remember: at a certain point the world runs according to numbers, and no matter how evil or good an idea might be, not bush not, not gore, not anyone will support something that loses money (it's just reality)

so don't worry so much about all those inefficient ideas for energy, because long term if they don't produce more than they require, they won't survive. ( a GREAT example of this is biofuels, which is HORRIBLY inefficient and is a scary imbalance of resources to products.  in my opinion there is nothing more evil--check out the water consumption) alternative energies to get behind are solar and wind, because these are for REAL, especially as soon as photovoltaic efficiencies increase and supply costs for polysilicon come down (solar).  

anyway, don't mean to lecture and i hope no one takes this as promotion for oil shale, but its just a reminder that not all alternative energy is good because it's alternative, and not everything "oil" is bad because it's oil.  stay out there, keep your ears to the ground, and enjoy.

Just for starters the proposals for super-clean mines never seem to result in a lack of toxic runoff in the real world. Ask the people trying to live where coal was mined. There is no such thing as a clean mine site, land is always destroyed permanently.

Secondly there are at least two ways to get more energy out of the same area of land with less pollution know as wind and concentrated solar thermal power. Either of these methods gets us more usefull power per acre than coal mining and coal is more energy dense than oil shale.

Thirdly oil shale projects would require the diversion, use and pollution of huge amounts of already scarece fresh water on the lands involved.

Finally, in an era when we should be reducing fossil fuel use due to CO2 forced global warming and ocean acidification bringing new sources of fossil fuels on-line rather than implementing alternatives strikes me as bogglingly stupid.

All evil it is.

Where is the electricity going to come from to power the rods that will heat rock to 700F for 3 years - in the middle of the arid desert of northwestern Colorado? (BTW, I live in Colorado, near Boulder).

Will new power plants need to be built in order to produce the electricity needed to heat and freeze mountains in order to extract the shale?

What about the combined effect of burning that much coal (to provide electricity to the mining) and then burning that much oil (up to 800 billion barrels) - what is the net effect on our environment for the next 5-20 years? Does anyone care?

If we're going through all this complicated processes to extract oil, that definitely means we're in Peak Oil. No more cheap, easy-to-get-to, gushes-out-of-the-ground light sweet crude. The oil that remains will get more expensive to extract, will require more and more energy than ever before, and will pose a greater threat to the environment if for no other reason than because it's being BURNED. Why aren't our politicians talking about Peak Oil?

Is our way of life really more important than our health and the health and well-being of our children and their children? Is driving a car more important than clean drinking water? Is it more important than healthy, abundant food? Is it?

As they say in the industry, oil shale is the energy source of the future, and always will be. Having an energy content of an equal weight of baked potatoes, production of oil from shale (a misnomer)probably yields less energy than required to get it, especially using Shell's scheme, is especially dirty if mined and retorted at the surface, and uses water that we don't have. The economics of this endeavor completely ignore the value, in dollars, of the services the natural landscapes provide us. If you want more information on this matter, and how oil shale fits into our overall energy problems, try The American West at Risk: Science, Myths, and Politics of Land Abuse and Recover, published by Oxford University Press, 2008.