U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 23, 2009 07:29 PM UTC
28 Comments
It didn’t mention the word “water” once.
Let say for the sake of argument that global warming is caused by natural fluctuations in the climate (note how the deniers no longer say it isn’t happening).
Let us also say that oil is at $125 barrel (not unrealistic once the global economy comes out of the slump if the $ remains depressed against foreign currency).
None of this solves the water problem.
In addition as O&G attempts to destroying the clean water act demonstrate, we need to negotiate with our extractive industries aggressively before we give away the store.
Research leases: fine. You come up with the technology that allows you to extract energy from the rocks in a way that doesn’t impact our scarce water supplies and we’ll talk about a production lease after we get you under a credible regulatory watchdog so that we can protect the interest of anglers and ranchers (and people for that matter–turns out people can’t live without water).
This country was built on cheap energy so I understand the desire for more, but no society in the history of civilization can live without water.
unrealistic if you think the global economy can recover while at that price. Oil above $100 is a dampener on any economic growth.
Until the water question is addressed, large scale oil shale development will remain the chimera it has been since the 1920s.
I feel that the research leases are a good way to get a handle on the water, energy, and cleanup requirements of each process.
The research leases are fine. Without them, it’s all armwaving.
the oil companies have already purchased a large percentage of the water rights on the White and Colorado rivers. If they ever do go into production, agriculture and local communities will certainly be affected.
That those rights can be converted to a different use.
I was under the impression that, once you own the rights, you can do with it as you please.
That if you change the use, you still own the rights but you lose the seniority of the original rights.
But I don’t understand Colorado water law at all.
only a handful of people do, or claim to.
…Andrew Romanoff does.
Better than Bennett anyway;-)
So quit worrying about it. He’s one of the sharpest water lawyers around.
n/t
At least in layman’s terms, the change in use isn’t automatic. However, I don’t think the seniority changes.
From http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterL…
Of the “beneficial uses” that are listed at that link, there’s nothing specific for mining or energy development. “Industrial” looks like a good catch-all.
But you can be damn sure the energy companies do because I’m sure they have the best water law attorneys on retainer money can buy.
What a disgusting way to argue.
I’m tempted to turn this line of attack on them, but then I’d have to take another shower.
They argue for oil shale by bashing global warming.
Global warming could be a total hoax and oil shale would still be crap.
Energy and water are needed to extract it. Neither are available near these deposits. If burning fossil fuels created rainbow colored unicorns instead of carbon dioxide, oil shale would still not be economically or ecologically recoverable.
Hiding behind the weakness of your argument by blaming someone else’s is evil.
Why don’t we enact HR 2454 the Waxman Markey climate bill passed in the House and now in the Senate which includes Section 201.
This establishes a national building energy code phased in as follows:
The goal would be to basically have net zero energy use buildings by the year 2030. The potential energy savings are real and impressive, and in fact this is the only cost effective way to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Take 3 minutes and read this:
http://www.architecture2030.or…
Let’s start using the intelligence our Creator gave us instead of destroying the planet we were given to live on.
my company included, are all over this. In fact, it is our intention, if we can do so with a reasonable price point, to make our next project a net zero home. We can accomplish more and do so sooner with conservation than with any other “green” technology.
and I’m working on a bill with some legislators to be introduced next session amending CRS Title 32, special districts, to allow energy conservation technologies and renewable energy systems to be included in district service plans. Would be statewide, and provide low cost bond funding with a secure revenue stream for bond repayment (ad valorum taxes) just like other district services like water, sewer, etc.
No fiscal note needed, its all off budget.
was net energy. It had too many upgrades inside to say exactly how much it was, but I can say that for the area and space, it was maybe $300 more a month. $200 if you take off the bill I didn’t pay. Pretty reasonable for all the cool appliances and heated floors.
So many people bizarrely discount oil shale out of hand. The resource is beyond massive – the DOE estimates that one 35-mile by 35-mile area in CO contains as much as twice the recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia. I think we’d be derelict to not encourage research into oil shale … and Salazar is discouraging it … not necessarily in words but in deeds.
A couple of points:
Water – Even with large-scale commercial production, there is plenty of water on the West Slope for a good oil shale industry – even when analyzing the very conservative (meaning high) estimate that every barrel of oil will require 3 barrels of water. Companies are finding that they’re actually producing water – the oil shale deposits themselves contain significant quantities of water. Combine this with recycling, and the armageddon-like water use estimates used by oil shale opponents goes down significantly to put it mildly.
Energy Use – Most estimates indicate that the ratio of energy-used to energy-produced will be 3:1 to 6:1. Some technologies are showing results as high as 18:1 or more.
owned or leased (or with preferential lease rights) on some of the richest oil shale lands in the region. The leases are RD&D leases–meaning their purpose is research, development and demonstration. The companies that have these should develop and DEMONSTRATE their technologies and mitigation strategies PRIOR to being handed more public land and mineral resources.
A lot of folks–including the CO river district–are concerned about the massive amounts of water quantity (let alone it’s effects on quality), beyond outright opponents. These questions deserves answers prior to pursuing additional leasing.
Where will the energy come from? And–given the various scenarios that show reduced flows across the CO River Basin–where will the water come from? What is the quality of produced water? If companies are required to bring it up to grade–for returning to the river, for instance–what will the costs be? Why shouldn’t we demand answers to these questions BEFORE plunging further down the road? Why can’t the companies use the massive amounts of land already under their control to demonstrate how they will deal with water and other impacts? That is just common sense.
1. Oil shale is not oil- comparisons to Saudi crude is ridiculous since what makes Saudi oil so good is the ease of extraction
2. Salazar has done nothing to prevent research, what he has done is prevent speculators from buying rights before we know what they are worth or what the impact of a commercial level development will be.
3. Flat out false. There is not “plenty of water on the western slope.” O&G is still fighting us on the Clean Water Act on fracing, so I’m not inclined to let them dump polluted water created during the boiling of oil rock back in to the watershed. Not an inch on this until they show good faith on fracing.
4. Maybe-My understanding is that oil shale has the BTUs of a similarly sized tator tot, but perhaps you have a work around. Since you seem to work for the industry please link to a scientific basis for your energy estimates. Personally I have never gotten this far since the water problem is insurmountable.
BTW I moved to Colorado just as the last shale bust was taking hold–I don’t want to go through that again.
There’s two concepts you should study up on. EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) and EROWI (Energy Return on Water Invested. Both concepts provide ample arguements for any efficent/practical shale oil extraction. There have been over 2000 patents developed to extract shale oil. There may be solutions, but I’m not aware of any that suitably mitigate the majority of the problems. The RAND Corp. did a nice study here:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monog…
that, as far as I know, are currently being tested.
Royal Dutch/Shells’ in situ heating process supposedly works at the 3:1 EROEI (according to them). The problem is the ground water is moving too fast for their “freeze wall” technology to work at commercial scale. I think the density of the “freeze loops” would have to be increased to the point where that 3:1 EROEI drops to 1:1 or worse. It will be a number of years before they are ready to commit to commercial production.
Chevron is testing a technique that uses a process similar to the one used to decaffeinate coffee. It involves injecting a liquid CO2 solution into the ground to bond hydrocarbons (hopefully) to the injected solution, eliminating the need for dewatering the ground (the part that has RD/S flummoxed)and also eliminating the need for so much electricity.
Of course, the Chevron process has its’ own set of problems and the Chevron rep I talked to said it would be 2017 before they could be ready to build a pilot facility.
I never have heard anymore about the Raytheon microwave technology some industry hack touted about three years ago. If anyone knows of another bright idea that is being tested, I would be interested in hearing about it.
that claims an entirely different ‘cold’ technology. I know nothing about it, but saw an article somewhere–it was looking for investors with all the caveats, so who knows. News-Google oil shale and you can probably find it.
It amazes me that the Post and other ‘legitimate’ news sources continue to print articles and op-eds that basically assert that the technology is on the shelf and only not being employed because of the likes of me and my ilk. I wish I were that powerful, then they’d really be screwed.