Cautionary tale on shale

Advocacy groups, by their very nature, have agendas. So we tend to carefully examine their conclusions when they release reports about their respective issue of the day.

Take the latest report by Western Resource Advocates. It says the pursuit of oil shale and tar sands development in the West should be abandoned due to impacts to air and water quality.

The regional environmental advocacy group is but one voice in this debate. But it is noteworthy that some of the very same conclusions reached by this organization regarding oil shale development are strikingly similar to the findings of the 2005 Rand report conducted on behalf of the Bush administration.

Of particular concern is the significant amount of water needed for commercial development of oil shale. The Western Resource Advocates report notes that producing oil from shale would siphon water from the state's water supply at a time when the West's water supplies are tightening.

The Rand report — quoting the U.S. Water Resources Council — estimates that oil shale development would increase water consumption by 150,000 acre feet per year in the Upper Colorado Region. An acre foot of water, on average, meets the industrial and municipal needs of four people for a year.

Large-scale development of oil shale, some experts say, could be decades away under the most favorable market projections. In the interim, Utah's population is expected to increase substantially. Water resources ?— with Utah being the second most arid state in the nation — will be needed for residential and municipal uses.

While extraction methods are evolving, both the Rand and Western Resources Advocates raise concerns about damage to the area's landscapes.

"Of all the environmental impacts of oil shale development, the most serious appears to be the extent to which land will be disturbed," the Rand report stated.

Environmental impacts must be carefully considered as government agencies lease public lands for extraction of oil shale or tar sands.

Market forces will drive investors' decisions to develop these resources. Here again, questions remain whether oil shale or tar sands would be a significant source of oil for the nation. Seemingly, clean air considerations alone weigh in favor of natural gas development over shale oil.

When considering energy returns on investment, Western Resource Advocates quotes Boston University research, which says returns for shale oil are "considerably less" than conventional crude oil — both at the wellhead and at the refined fuel stages of processing.

Again, one advocacy organization's report is not the last word in this discussion. But this new report — coupled with very similar findings in a report commissioned by the previous Republican administration — provides considerable food for thought on development of these resources.

Policymakers should, of course, study the potential of all domestic energy supplies. But they must do so with eyes wide open.