"Other arguments used to defend the oil shale moratorium relate to concerns over water, land use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil shale development," Hatch added. "They are valid questions with valid answers. The fairest way to analyze these arguments is to compare oil shale with gasoline and with ethanol, our country's most significant alternative transportation fuel."

Hatch talked about how developing oil shale will require far less water and land than ethanol production. He said the entire process of oil shale production, even without carbon capture technology, emits only 7 percent more carbon than gasoline, compared to 93 percent more with ethanol or 50 percent more by turning to switchgrass for alternative fuel development. Hatch also pointed out how the U.S. has between 1 trillion and 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil from shale, compared to the world's current oil reserves of about 1.6 trillion barrels.

Hatch is also worried Congress will allow a moratorium to continue that prevents commercial leases for shale projects on federal lands, which make up about 73 percent of the U.S. oil shale resources.

Bishop held up a huge map of the country that depicted how most Western states are made up of vast amounts of federal land, which is in sharp contrast to Eastern states, where Bishop said lawmakers have no problem locking up resources on federal lands.

"This is the mind-set problem we must deal with," Bishop said. Adequate access to roads on public lands, he noted, is critical to developing energy projects in Utah.

Bishop said the country needs to focus on developing alternative energy sources while, at the same time, going after traditional sources such as oil from shale. One by-product of relying on shale oil to someday reduce gas prices, he added, is to help a population of poor people dig their way out of poverty by spending less on energy needs.

Crossroads Urban Center executive director Glenn Bailey called it "curious" as to why Bishop is choosing to connect the shale debate with poverty.

"I just think that it's strange that we don't hear a lot of discussion from our elected leaders about problems of the poor and what to do about it, except when it comes to countering environmental opposition to oil shale and offshore drilling," Bailey said.

Bailey said a drop in gas prices, via oil shale development, significant enough to benefit the poor may never come or, if it does, will be a long way off. He said a better approach would be to develop a program that provides training for low-income wage earners to find "green" jobs in industries that support emerging technologies, such as retrofitting homes and businesses to use solar power. Bailey said the jobs will be a long-term solution in a more "deep and meaningful way."

Hatch and Bishop recommended that more people get involved in voicing their opinion about shale development and by learning more at two Web sites: www.unconventionalfuels.org and ostseis.anl.gov.

---

E-MAIL: sspeckman@desnews.com