Cautionary tale on shale

Later this week, Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Pete Dominici, R-N.M., and Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., are expected to visit the Vernal area and western Colorado to examine federal lands that hold rich deposits of oil shale. Record high oil prices have spurred renewed interest in developing these resources.

For many reasons, it is in the nation's best interest to develop or secure new energy sources. But as policymakers explore the Uinta Basin and the Piceance Basin in northwestern Colorado, they will discover that oil shale development is largely uncharted territory. The prospects of recovering more than 300 billion barrels of shale oil in Utah alone are enticing but the development of this resource raises many other issues such as environmental impacts, technological readiness, market feasibility and the ability of rural communities to cope with boom development.

The RAND Corp., in a 2005 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, urges a cautious approach. Its report, "Oil Shale Development in the United States, Prospects and Policy Issues," is a must-read for Sens. Hatch, Dominici and Salazar as they undertake this visit.

The report warns that oil shale mining, processing and disposal of spent shale could cause significant environmental problems. Most of the resources in the Piceance Basin, for instance, are covered by more than 500 feet of overburden. "Mining such thick deposits covered by so much overburden would require very large mines, comparable in size to the largest open-pit mines in the world," the report states. Does the West want yet another mine that is visible from space?

Known recovery technologies require significant amounts of water. The U.S. Water Resources Council estimates that oil shale development will require 150,000 acre-feet per year for each million barrels per day of production. That's roughly three barrels of water to one barrel of oil, according to the Rand report.

Considering that an acre-foot of water can supply the annual indoor and outdoor needs of one to two urban households, there must be very careful debate to ensure the region's precious water supply is put to it highest use.

Other negatives related to production are air pollution, carbon emissions and water quality. Hatch, Salazar and Dominici, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, need to ask pointed questions about these impacts.

Last, this congressional delegation would do well to take a page from history. Speculators have contemplated oil shale development in the region for some 40 years, biding their time until crude oil prices would render it economically feasible. That didn't happen until the 1980s when western Colorado experienced a short-lived boom, which was heavily subsidized by the federal government. When oil prices bottomed out, the operations literally vanished overnight, upsetting local economies for many years.

As the Rand report notes, there is wisdom in exploring new technologies and studying the potential of the reserves. But Congress must do so with eyes wide open.