John Orr: Coyote Gulch's Climate Change News

Coyote Gulch outage

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:52:52 GMT

We have problems upstreaming to our hosting service today. If you're seeing this things have cleared up.

Energy policy: Oil and gas

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:57:18 GMT

From The Glenwood Springs Post Independent: "EnCana, one of the largest operators in Garfield County, was also recognized with an Environmental Protection Award and the Production Partner of the Year award from the U.S. EPA Natural GasStar Program. That program "encourages companies to adopt cost-effective technologies and practices that improve operation efficiency and reduce emissions of methane," according to the COGCC.

"The COGCC also recognized Chevron North America with a Water Quality Protection Award for initiating "a novel method of erosion control on a well site in La Plata County." The company incorporated a historical reserve pit as part of Chevron's storm water management plan for an existing well site, the agency said."

Category: Climate Change News

John Harja: It's a simple question...Where's the water going to come from?

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:46:43 GMT

Here's a look at the proposed development of oil shale, from The Denver Post. Coyote Gulch wonders why they choose to frame the issue along party lines. Certainly there is that divide in places but many conservatives know that oil shale is not ready for prime time and that the new BLM rules are an attempt by the administration to distract the public from the real issues around a sustainable energy policy, climate change and energy independence. From the article:

Tuesday's release of draft rules for shale exploration by the Bureau of Land Management was the latest shot in the growing battle of politicians pointing fingers over $4-per-gallon gas and oil as high as $147 per barrel. Oil shale, along with drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is part of the solution, Republicans say. Democrats counter that none of those actions would lower energy costs in the short term and that more must be done to develop alternative energy. In the case of shale, some argue, too many uncertainties exist to move forward aggressively. "The administration is trying to set the stage for a last-minute fire sale of commercial oil-shale leases in western Colorado, despite the fact that we are still years away from knowing if the technologies for developing oil shale on a commercial scale are even viable," said Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar...

In a conference call with reporters, Kempthorne said it would be 2015 before shale development produced oil. Even so, he said, that could affect gas prices by signaling to the futures market that the U.S. is ramping up domestic production. [Uh oh, Dirk Kempthorne is predicting the futures market.] For now, the Interior Department is limited in what it can do. Language inserted in a spending bill by Salazar bars the department from issuing final rules on oil-shale development. That moratorium expires Oct. 1. Kempthorne and Republicans want to prevent Salazar from extending that through 2009. Kempthorne said he plans to move swiftly if given an opening. Issuing the preliminary regulations started the clock on the final regulations, which could be published in about two months if the moratorium dies...

Environmental groups that oppose oil-shale development said the 235- page BLM document with preliminary rules is unnecessary. In it, the BLM states that "currently, there is no oil-shale industry and the oil-shale extractive technology is still in its rudimentary [rudimentary!] stages." "The only benefit that could come from this would be for those seeking partisan political gain in trying to give the impression that ... this oil-shale industry has a role to play in impacting high energy prices," said Chase Huntley, policy adviser with the Wilderness Society...

Shell gave a timeline for producing commercial quantities of oil that is far longer than the one suggested by Kempthorne. The company won't be ready for commercial leasing until probably 2015, Boyd said. Extraction of commercial quantities of oil, he said, will be almost a decade after that.

More coverage from The Salt Lake Tribune. They write:

The rules would govern lease management and royalty payments should extracting kerogen from rock for further refining into fuel ever prove economically feasible - an open question given the likelihood of carbon taxes, lack of available Colorado River water and a host of environmental protection restrictions...

But even stalwart Republicans question the connection between pump prices and oil-shale development. During a news conference at the Utah Capitol earlier this month, Sen. Orrin Hatch said that while the companies hoping to develop oil shale "are our nation's energy Minutemen," they cannot bring down the price of oil today. Conservation organizations called the administration's move to develop rules a "false hope." "Instead of gambling our resources on unproven fuel sources, such as oil shale, we should invest in proven options that will reduce prices such as higher fuel economy standards, energy efficiency and renewable generation technologies," Chase Huntley, energy policy adviser for The Wilderness Society, said Tuesday.

Oil shale development would require massive amounts of water that simply may not be available. In an April 8 letter to the BLM, Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination director John Harja said his office didn't understand if there were sufficient physical water, let alone water rights, "to support the scale of development contemplated and the effects this level of water demand might have on agriculture or wildlife [especially endangered fish] inhabiting lands and waters in the area." Harja said Tuesday that he had been in on meetings about the proposed rules, but that none of the issues raised in his letter were addressed. "It's a simple question," he said. "Where's the water going to come from?" Melting kerogen, a waxy substance in shale, is an old technology that poses significant threats to the environment. Kerogen can be further refined into diesel, jet fuel or naphtha. But no oil refinery in the United States currently is accepting kerogen for processing, and oil companies have indicated they are not interested in building new refineries in the country.

More coverage from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:

The embryonic oil shale industry is looking at ways it would pay royalties to the federal government in the event it ever is able to draw petroleum from rock. Politicians, meanwhile, are dueling over whether the federal government should have moved ahead on plans for shale development...

Among the elements of the plan are three options for federal royalties on shale: One, a flat 5 percent royalty; two, a 5 percent royalty on initial production and a 12.5 percent royalty thereafter; or three, a sliding scale based on the market price of oil. [Coyote Gulch thinks that oil shale should be nationalized and profits dedicated to a sustainable energy policy that gets the U.S. off of fossil fuels.]

"We've been pushing very strongly to have regulation proposed," said Tracy Boyd, communications and sustainability manager for Shell Exploration and Production Co.'s Unconventional Oil Division. In setting regulations, the federal government "literally will be defining the rules of the road" and establishing the guidelines under which companies can decide whether their technology is commercially feasible, Boyd said. Shell is working on three research and development leases in northwest Colorado, as well as on private property, but has said it won't make any decision on whether to seek commercial production of shale until the middle of the next decade...

The BLM was free to publish a draft rule, the agency noted, because the moratorium applied only to a final rule. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., dismissed Salazar's fire-sale complaint as ridiculous because the process of rule-writing began in 2004. The oil shale industry is in its infancy, Frank Smith of the Western Colorado Congress said, citing the same finding in the draft rule itself. "We need to know what technology would be available and what technologies would impact the environment," Smith said. The federal government also needs to know how local communities, wildlife and water will be affected, he said.

More coverage from The Rocky Mountain News. They write:

[Governor] Ritter called the Interior Department's proposed rules for oil shale development "premature, unnecessary and irresponsible." "This is a last-ditch, irresponsible attempt by the White House to issue commercial oil-shale leases, at Colorado's expense, and will do nothing to help hard-working Americans or family-owned businesses struggling today with $4-a-gallon gas," Ritter said. "These regulations would set bargain basement royalty rates that could cost Coloradans billions of dollars."[...]

[U.S. Senator Ken] Salazar promised to find a way to extend a congressional moratorium, which expires Sept. 30 at the end of the current fiscal year...

Republican Sen. Wayne Allard said: "You've heard false claims that the department is under a 'frenzied rush' to 'organize a fire sale' of development leases. It is ridiculous to consider the multiyear effort, started in 2004 that included congressional debate and the passage of a proposal, years of planning, studies, R&D and a draft environmental impact statement issued last December, as 'frenzied.' " "It's flat wrong to claim that western communities are being asked to stand aside to accommodate this 'fire sale,' " he added. "The truth is western communities understand both the potential and the realities of the oil shale resource in their backyard."[...]

Chris [Treece], director of external affairs for the Colorado River Water Conservation District in Glenwood Springs, said any oil shale development is likely decades away, despite the proposed rules. He said he hopes that if the oil companies move forward with oil shale production, they can work with the state to ensure that its remaining water supplies are developed responsibly and in a way that would benefit people, the environment and industry.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Climate Change News

Climate Change: Runaway warming?

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:09:52 GMT

Some people just aren't listening. Climate change deniers have succeeded in framing the climate change argument turning the conversation about runaway warming into fear mongering. It is not. As permafrost melts in the Arctic there will be a large release of greenhouse gases.

In other climate change news mining lime to add to the alkalinity of seawater to stimulate carbon capture is getting another look.

Category: Climate Change News

Climate change and water

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:18:26 GMT

beSpacific: "IPCC technical paper on climate change and water."

Category: Climate Change News

Coyote Gulch update

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:22:37 GMT

The server upgrade appears to have gone very well, although it was a day later that we planned. We'll be back online tomorrow.

Energy policy: Oil Shale

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:20:21 GMT

Ken Salazar (via The Washington Post): "The governors of Wyoming and Colorado, communities and editorial boards across the West agree that the administration's headlong rush is a terrible idea. Even energy companies, including Chevron, have said we need to proceed more cautiously on oil shale. With more than 30,000 acres of public land at their disposal to conduct research, development and demonstration projects (in addition to 200,000 undeveloped acres of private oil shale lands they own in Colorado and Utah), they already have more land than they can develop in the foreseeable future."

Here's the link to my Examiner column on oil shale earlier this year.

Category: Climate Change News

Energy policy: Geothermal

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:13:43 GMT

From The Aspen Daily News: "City of Aspen officials have identified five spots in town where an exploratory geothermal well could be drilled. The city has also applied for geothermal water rights for underground stores of water that would be used in the system, making Aspen the first municipality to take advantage of a new state law: The Colorado Geothermal Act. The city hopes to create a public utility that would harvest geothermal heat from under ground and distribute it to downtown Aspen buildings. Preliminary studies show that as much as 1 million square feet could be heated "at a cost competitive with natural gas," according to a city press release...As a network of 19th century mining tunnels runs underneath Aspen's streets, and as those tunnels are filling up with water, a proposed city geothermal system would tap into those waters, which provide a more efficient heating source than solid ground...Aspen...sits on top of a geological phenomenon called the 'Aspen Anomaly,' which refers to an area stretching from approximately Leadville to Paonia where the earth's crust is thinner than in other areas. Thinner crust means warmer underground temperatures than might be expected otherwise."

More coverage from The Aspen Times. They write:

The geothermal heat would work by taking the steam and hot water produced in the earth's core and using it to heat a glycol-based solution that circulates through buildings to heat them. Customers would pay according to the thermal units of energy used as the heated liquid goes by their building. Electricity is still be needed to move the water. Five locations have been identified for possible test wells, according to Overeynder: in Wagner Park, at the base of Aspen Mountain, Smuggler Park, Ajax Park and near the Cowenhoven Tunnel, according to Overeynder. All are on city-owned land or city-owned right-of-ways, except the latter, he said. It is on the edge of a right-of-way and might require land acquisition. The wells will be underground, but Aspen residents can expect an impact during the drilling process. All are the sites are near mined areas, but not in them, he said. Actually drilling into mined areas complicates matters, said Overeynder. However, the city wanted to drill near the mining sites because anecdotal evidence suggested they might hold geothermal activity. Miners used to work in shifts because it was too hot to spend any extended length of time in the mines, according to Overeynder. Overeynder expected the cost of the geothermal energy to be competitive with natural gas. In Pagosa Springs, he said, the energy is sold at 75 percent of natural gas rates. However, he acknowledged that customers with existing natural gas heating systems will need to make infrastructure changes in order to be able to use the geothermal energy. If underground Aspen proves to be a good geothermal source, the city may create a "heat district" like its current electric and water districts, he said. Or it may decide to develop a joint venture with a private company...

The city plans to drill the test well in 2009, and it is still determining the cost of that well and looking for funding from places like the Governor's Energy Office. The well will be drilled as deep as 3,000 feet -- double the depth of historic mines. Depending on what is found, the city might proceed to drill wells at up to five sites. Ultimately, said Overeynder, the city wants to find a well or combination of wells that will produce 5,000 gallons per minute of 140-degree water.

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: Climate Change News

Coyote Gulch outage

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:33:52 GMT

Coyote Gulch is upgrading the server tonight. If all goes well we'll be back in the morning.

Climate Change: The earth is a beautifully complex system

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:27:53 GMT

Here's an article about climate change and its possible effects on water supplies here in the West, from The Fort Collins Coloradoan. They write:

A new national report says climate change -- and along with insect infestations and forest fires -- will likely alter the amount of water flowing downstream from mountain forests, particularly in the West. The report, by the National Research Council, features work from a Colorado State University professor, and aimed to examine already published research around how changing forests nationally may alter the amount and quality of water available downstream. "Climate change will likely affect the yield, timing, and quality of water flowing from forest landscapes," the report says. "Even with conservative estimates of climate change, water resources to meet current demands are not guaranteed under future climate scenarios." Climate change also may alter the frequency and magnitudes of forest fire, increasing the size and severity of wildfires. The report notes that many areas of the country have already seen changes in temperature, and that for them, spring peak runoff is happening three weeks earlier than previously.

Category: Climate Change News

Energy policy: Coal

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:40:29 GMT

Another reason to stop building coal-fired plants. From Science Blog: "Closing coal-fired power plants can have a direct, positive impact on children's cognitive development and health according to a study released by the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. The study allowed researchers to track and compare the development of two groups of children born in Tongliang, a city in China's Chongqing Municipality - one in utero while a coal-fired power plant was operating in the city and one in utero after the Chinese government had closed the plant. Among the first group of children, prenatal exposure to coal-burning emissions was associated with significantly lower average developmental scores and reduced motor development at age two. In the second unexposed group, these adverse effects were no longer observed; and the frequency of delayed motor developmental was significantly reduced."

Category: Climate Change News

Declining water supply effecting food prices and availability

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:59:49 GMT

From The Environmental News Network: "A long list of factors have been blamed for the global food crisis which along with the energy crisis has hit developing countries, and the poor in particular, hardest. Prices of staple foods have risen by up to 100 per cent. A growing population, changes in trade patterns, urbanisation, dietary changes, biofuel production, climate change and regional droughts are all responsible, and commentators point to a classic pattern of price increases caused by high demand and low supply. But few mention the declining supply of water that is needed to grow irrigated and rain-fed crops...Essentially, every calorie of food requires a litre of water to produce it. So those of us on Western diets use about 2,500-3,000 litres per day. The expected addition of a further 2.5 billion people to the world by 2030 will mean that we have to find over 2,000 more cubic kilometres of fresh water per year to feed them. This is not any easy task, given that current water usage for food production is 7,500 cubic kilometres per year and supplies are already scarce."

Category: Colorado Water

Federal appropriations for Colorado

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:20:02 GMT

From The Pueblo Chieftain: "An appropriation of $1.29 million for Trinidad Lake is among $7 million in water or energy projects included in an appropriations bill at the request of U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. Allard, a member of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, announced the appropriations Tuesday. Congress still has to vote on the appropriations bill...Other projects announced by Allard include: $200,000 for the Chatfield Reallocation Study in Denver; $1 million for the CSU SmartGrid Integration Lab at Fort Collins; $1.5 million for Xcel Energy, carbon sequestration on the Front Range; $250,000 for South Boulder Creek at Boulder; $1.509 million for Chatfield Reservoir; $1.203 million for Cherry Creek Reservoir."

Category: Colorado Water

Energy policy: Oil and gas

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:30:58 GMT

Here's a follow-up to the story about benzene in a spring near Parachute, from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:

State regulators have begun examining data provided by four energy companies to try to determine which of their wells' waste may have contaminated drinking water at a cabin northwest of Parachute and sickened a De Beque man. Debbie Baldwin, environmental manager for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, said all four companies cited in connection with the incident met Monday's deadline for providing well site information to the state for evaluation. "At this moment we're trying to figure out which operations are responsible," she said...

The agency issued notices of alleged violation to Williams Production RMT, Marathon Oil Co., Petroleum Development Corp. and Nonsuch Natural Gas. Baldwin said the allegations are only that at this point, based on the proximity of the companies' wells to the cabin and geological and hydrological information in the area. The state required the companies to provide information on any pits used on well pads, including whether they are lined; fluids were placed in the pits; oil and gas condensates were observed on the pits; and any tanks that were used on site and whether any spills occurred. The companies also were required to fence off impacted surface water to restrict access by livestock and wildlife, and provide Prather with water for drinking, household use and livestock. Susan Alvillar of Williams said Prather has been provided with bottled water and a 3,100-gallon tank of fresh water that has been refilled at least three times so he can flush out his water system. Prather has declined to comment on the incident.

Category: 2008 Presidential Election

13th Annual Wallace Stegner Symposium Alternative Energy: Seeking Climate Change Solutions

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:08:49 GMT

Our article about this year's Wallace Stegner Symposium is up at the North Denver News. Enjoy!

Category: Climate Change News

Energy policy: Oil Shale

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:03:05 GMT

The Glenwood Springs Post-Independent cornered Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer in order to talk oil shale. From the article:

Udall and Schaffer spoke to the Glenwood Springs Post Independent late last month about oil shale and other energy-related issues affecting the Western Slope, including whether communities in the area should receive a larger share of revenues generated by energy development. Both men expect the issues surrounding oil shale to play a role in this year's U.S. Senate race, especially as gas prices continue to surge higher and higher. That's because the Bureau of Land Management estimates that the amount of oil locked up in federal shale reserves in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah has more than 50 times the country's proven conventional oil reserves and nearly five times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. "I would ask the president not to play politics with oil shale, but listen to the people of western Colorado who have to live with the consequence of irresponsible oil shale development," Udall said. Schaffer said the demand nationally and internationally is growing, and Coloradans sit on top of a vast resource, and "that demand is going to drive lots of controversy."

Category: Denver November 2008 Election

Energy policy: Nuclear

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:00:26 GMT

From The Salt Lake Tribune: "The cost of hauling away the Moab tailings by 2019 could exceed $1 billion, according to the latest estimate by the U.S. Energy Department, the agency managing the cleanup. Congress ordered updated cost projections based on a cleanup timetable that is nearly a decade shorter than the DOE's. The department had been planning to spend about $30 million a year through 2028 to remove the leftover uranium waste piled up on the banks of the Colorado River outside of Moab. U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said the new cost estimates are "radically different" from the projections of a couple of years ago. 'I question why doing the project more quickly will cost more money,' he said."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: 2008 Presidential Election

Energy policy: Nuclear

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:20:27 GMT

Here's an update on uranium mining in Colorado, from The Denver Post. From the article:

In 12 Western states, the number of uranium mining claims has doubled since 2003 to 414,228, according to an analysis of federal data by the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group. In Colorado, uranium-mining claims filed on federal land have gone from 120 in 2003 to almost 11,000 last year, according to the federal Bureau of Land Management. "We are surely in a boom," said Ronald Cattany, director of the state Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. A more telling measure - for the claims are often speculative - is exploration permits from the state and the BLM. State permits doubled over the past year to 90, Cattany said, and in the past six months, the number of federal exploration permits jumped almost 50 percent to 67...

The state Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety is now setting draft rules to meet the two uranium-mining laws. One law requires more public disclosure of uranium prospecting. Until now, mining-company information filed with the state, such as size and general location, was confidential. The second law tightens controls on in-situ uranium mining. It will require companies to do baseline water-quality studies and restore the aquifer to that level or one set by the state Department of Public Health and Environment. A new fee structure also was set up so that the state can hire consultants to review in-situ mining plans. "These applications and technologies are so nontraditional and complex, we wanted to make sure they are thoroughly reviewed," said Cattany. Colorado's rules will set "a standard of restoration that is higher than historical restoration," said Richard Clement Jr., Powertech's chief executive. "Hopefully, the rules will relieve some of the concerns people have had," Clement said...

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: 2008 Presidential Election

Energy policy: Oil Shale, Tar Sands

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:11:14 GMT

Coyote Gulch reader Theo sends this press release in email:

Duke Cox, Western Colorado Congress, 970-379-3649
Keith Lambert, Mayor Town of Rifle, 970-319-3758
Bob Elderkin, Colorado Mule Deer Association, 970-948-9081

Congressional advocates for the oil and gas industry today continued their relentless and misleading effort to convince Americans that unproven oil shale technology can help reduce the price of gas at the pump. "The Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008,"" introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell claims that the current a one-year funding limitation amounts to a moratorium on oil shale development.

In fact, oil shale development has been proceeding for decades. The federal government is overseeing a major oil shale research and development program that includes four projects in Colorado. Major proponents of oil shale leasing already control 200,000 acres of oil shale deposits. The Department of Energy estimates that up to 3 million acres of oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are in private hands. However, the leading oil shale companies acknowledge that they won't know if their technology works for several more years. yet none have begun development of commercial production facilities. Significant commercial production, they acknowledge, is more than a decade away. The idea promoted by Congressional oil and gas supporters that leasing up to 2 million acres of public land before oil shale technology proves itself will somehow lower gas prices prompted several Western Coloradans to scoff. "That's bogus," said Rifle Mayor Keith Lambert. "I have had discussions with Shell, who's obviously taken the lead as far as research and development. They have indicated they are not anywhere near ready to go. From that standpoint, I don't know how that will make a bit of difference at the pump in so far as no one is ready to pump oil from the ground."

"Horsefeathers," said Duke Cox, president of Escalante Builders and a member of Western Colorado Congress. "Recently released information from experts in mainstream media indicates that market manipulation by giant hedge funds and banks, many of whom are connected to the oil companies, is responsible for much of the recent price hikes. The new GOP bill, said Cox, "is a blatant effort at extorting the American people into setting up the oil and gas industry to record profits for decades to come. People need to know the truth: Domestic drilling will not lower oil and gasoline prices."

A former BLM employee agreed. "That's a bunch of bull," said Bob Elderkin of Silt, who worked on oil shale development before it crashed during the 1980s. "All Bush wants to do is get these things leased while he's in office. The bottom line right now is that Shell has to take its technology to commercial development, which is a decade away. Nobody's else has got anything." Elderkin said the potential impact of oil shale's development on Northwest Colorado's wildlife has not been properly evaluated. "If Shell went commercial, the impact on our wildlife be huge," said Elderkin, a member of the Colorado Mule Deer Association. "Shell drills on five-foot spacing, which means they have to level the ground for every cell. You can visualize what's going to result -- it's disturbance on a mega-scale. And that's just the surface - we're not even talking about water yet.""

Meanwhile, from The Environmental News Network:

The U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Miami this week adopted a resolution aimed at avoiding the use of high carbon fuels such as tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale. The resolution encourages fuel analyses that include emissions from production, not just from burning the fuel. The resolution calls for the creation of guidelines and purchasing standards to help mayors understand the greenhouse gas emissions of the fuels they purchase through their entire lifecycle from production through consumption. "We don't want to spend taxpayer dollars on fuels that make global warming worse," said Mayor Kitty Piercy, of Eugene, Oregon, who submitted the resolution. "Tar sands oil emits up to three times the greenhouse gases in the production process per barrel as conventional oil production," Piercy said. "Our cities are asking for environmentally sustainable energy and not fuels from dirty sources such as tar sands."

Tar sands are deposits of natural bitumen, a viscous oil that must be treated to convert it into an upgraded crude oil so that it can be used in refineries to produce gasoline and other fuels. Extracting oil from these sands uses more water and requires larger amounts of energy than conventional oil extraction, even though many conventional oil fields also require large amounts of water and energy and emits large amounts of greenhouse gases. Many countries have large deposits of tar sands, including the United States, Russia, and countries in the Middle East. The world's largest deposits are in Canada and Venezuela, both of which have tar sands reserves equal to the world's total reserves of conventional crude oil.

The resolution approved by the mayors expresses concern for Canada's environment, stating, "... the production of tar sands oil from Canada emits approximately three times the carbon dioxide pollution per barrel as does conventional oil production and significantly damages Canada's Boreal forest ecosystem - the world's largest carbon storehouse ..." "The mayors have once again confirmed that they're serious about combating climate change," said Mayor Marty Blum of Santa Barbara, California. "Not only will we give preference to clean, renewable energy sources, we are standing our ground when it comes to synthetic petroleum-based fuels that exacerbate global warming."

More Coyote Gulch coverage here.

Category: 2008 Presidential Election

Energy policy: Oil and gas

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 23:10:11 GMT

Ed Quillen takes up the theme of Colorado as a "National Energy Sacrifice Zone" in his column in yesterday's Denver Post. From the article:

The industry shills are upset about a proposed regulation to protect wildlife by forbidding drilling in certain areas at certain times of the year, like mating and birthing seasons. "It could shut down 30 percent of Colorado's drilling activities for three months every year in the seasonal range of several species, including prairie dogs." Well, yes, it could, unless the drillers consulted with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and prepared comprehensive development plans. In other words, they could act responsibly. Is that expecting too much? Under Colorado law, "All wildlife not lawfully acquired and held by private ownership is declared to be the property of the state." So, the state acts to protect public property, including those pernicious prairie dogs, and it's doing something evil? Would you say "Go right ahead" to an industry that proposed damaging your personal property? Likely not - so why would you say that to an industry that wants to damage property that we Coloradans hold in common?[...]

They are not drilling to make sure Coloradans stay warm in the winter. For generations, long before the current boom, Colorado has produced more natural gas than it could consume. With the construction of new pipelines, natural gas can be exported to higher-paying markets. The current drilling boom is for gas to go to those markets, which also raises the price we have to pay. Just why our wildlife is supposed to be sacrificed for the benefit of natural-gas customers in California and the Midwest is a question the drillers have neither raised nor answered. Further, the drillers skip around their damage to another public asset. The water of Colorado belongs to the people of Colorado. And thanks to gas drillers, various people of Colorado have found methane and benzene in their water. Let's face it. The drillers are here for one purpose: To make as much money as they can, as fast as they can, just like the earlier gold and silver mine owners. If it's asking too much for them, in the process of sending Colorado natural gas to California, to follow some rules to protect our property - our wildlife and our water - then goodbye and good riddance, the sooner the better.

Meanwhile we received this link in email from Colorado Media Matters:

The Daily Sentinel misleadingly reported that a proposed wildlife habitat rule discussed at a June 10 hearing of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) "would set a moratorium on drilling for at least three months each year, potentially crippling western Colorado's booming energy industry." However, the article omitted that the COGCC issued revised proposed rules, which, as The Daily Sentinel reported on June 18, "make it clear that energy companies have a variety of options to mitigate effects on wildlife near their drilling sites before being slapped with a 90-day drilling moratorium," according to COGCC acting director David Neslin.

Here's a press release from Western Progress on the subject of opening more federal land to oil and gas exploration to help with gasoline prices in the short term and long term:

While Americans suffer sticker shock at the pump and natural gas costs are expected to soar within the next year, the Bush Administration would have us believe that the cure for those skyrocketing prices lies beneath our feet, and above the law.

The source for this political gamesmanshipis the Bureau of Land Management's latest energy report released last month, EPCA III -- an inventory of oil and gas resources on more than 279 million public acres, 43 million of which are in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

The report, required by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, and skewed to hasten fossil fuel development at the expense of a healthy environment, doesn't pass the laugh test.

In addressing the industrial favoritism of EPCA III, the Wilderness Society's Nada Culver denounced the BLM and Bush Administration for "manipulat[ing] data to reach a predetermined conclusion that supports the oil and gas industry's desire to open more public lands drilling."

A Wilderness Society analysis of EPCA III shows that some lands listed by the BLM as "inaccessible"" are known to be available for leasing including Alaska's Northeast Planning Area, which was put into the "no leasing"" category even though it has undergone two lease sales and is scheduled for a third in October.

Furthermore, the BLM frequently grants "exceptions" to lease terms written to protect the land, and has issued five new "categorical exclusions"" (under the Energy Policy Act) that exempt drilling projectsfrom environmental review. Look for the new exclusions to boost the number of exempt projects, which totaled more than 1,600 between 2005 and 2007.

The report also identifies vast supplies of oil and gas as off limits to drilling due to "impediments" such as laws protecting clean air, clean water and healthy wildlife populations. Yet much of the report's inventoried acreage protected by these impediments is actually found within national parks, national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas.

Most important, there remains one simple fact that calls into question the entire scope of the BLM report: more than 44 million acres of public lands are already under lease for oil and gas drilling across the country, and yet only 26 percent of those lands are actually in production.

"We have found that the oil industry is sitting on 68 million acres [including off-shore leases] of federal oil and gas leases, the size of Colorado," said Democratic chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee Nick Rahall last Wednesday. "They are stockpiling them. Opening up even more areas only gives them an opportunity to speculate even further."

Rahall and other House members have sensibly introduced legislation that would force block oil and gas companies from getting new leases unless they can demonstrate they are developing the ones they already have.

Meanwhile, the administration wants to sell them even more leases to sit on, by opening up treasured places like Colorado's Roan Plateau.

If increased oil and gas drilling throughout the West and across the country is really the answer to cheaper gasoline prices and lower natural gas bills, shouldn't Americans already be experiencing these rollbacks?

Since 2000, drilling on federal lands has steadily increased while in the last three years gas and oil prices have broken record highs. Under the Bush Administration drilling permit approvals set a new record last year with 7,124, making the total number of permits issued since 2001 just over 35,000. All but about 2,000 of those were in Rocky Mountain states.

In addition, a U.S. Energy Information Association report shows that full oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could save only a few pennies at the pump.

Opening up more public lands - treasured, scenic lands where Americans hunt, fish, hike, and camp - to oil and gas development, especially when 33 million leased acres remain vacant,makes a mockery of the BLM's own mission statement, and keeps the nation on a myopic carbon-based fuel path rather than one of renewable energy development and resource conservation.

Meanwhile, the energy industry speaks (via The Summit Daily News):

A Canadian organization found that new regulations proposed for the state's oil-and-gas industry has made Colorado a much worse place for energy companies to invest. The Fraser Institute, which calls itself a non-partisan group, ranked Colorado as the 29th worst jurisdiction for "upstream" oil-and-gas investment out of 81 international jurisdictions, according to its Global Petroleum Survey 2008. That's because of the prospect of the new rules, according to the institute. But others point out that the same organization determined Colorado was one of the best places in the world for drilling just a short time earlier and note that the energy companies are clammoring to increase their presence in the state...

The Fraser Institute based its report on survey results from industry senior executives and managers who responded to its annual survey of "upstream petroleum companies." "Survey respondents were very concerned with Colorado's changes to drilling permit requirements and other stringent regulations," said Gerry Angevine, Fraser Institute's senior economist and coordinator of its annual petroleum survey. "The Colorado Oil and Gas Association estimates the new rules could increase drilling costs by $60,000 to $600,000 per well."

Meg Collins, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said the study indicated that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter and his administration are "sending a clear message to natural-gas and oil companies that Colorado is closing its doors on them." "The Fraser Institute's 2008 report accurately demonstrates the real concern Colorado's natural-gas and oil producers are feeling, given the state's complete rewrite of the rules that govern the industry," she said.

Duke Cox, who has been involved in the rule-making process and is the former director of the Western Colorado Congress, said people should follow what companies say to their investors, rather than what industry may tell the Fraser Institute. Cox specifically referred to what Williams Production RMT [~] one of the largest producers in Garfield County - is telling its investors. Williams, in its most recent Securities Exchange Commission filing this week, said its recent acquisition of 24,000 net acres in the Piceance Basin and the associated increase in drilling activity are the primary drivers of the increase in company's capital expenditure guidance in 2008 and 2009.

Trinidad is on the side of oil and gas developers, according to The Pueblo Chieftain:

Backers of sweeping new state regulations on the energy industry, consumed by a desire to slow natural gas drilling around Rifle and Meeker in the state's northwest corner, continue to pay a price for their tunnel vision. While they weren't looking, Trinidad jumped into the fray. And now, like a pied piper of methane, the small city with a rich energy history of its own is leading a revolt against the new rules. Moreover, the tide of criticism is swelling so big, so fast that some political observers think a possible November ballot question to collect extra tax money from the energy industry may tank. Trinidad leaders are unapologetic. The state's rush to regulate threatened to cripple the economy of Trinidad and a number of other small cities across the state, and all for no good reason, they say. The old approach - local control with an assist from state and federal agencies - worked well, they say. Sweeping new mandates from the state aren't needed, they say.

Las Animas County commissioners summarized their concerns in a complaint filed with the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, the agency drafting the new rules: Coalbed methane development "has made a considerable difference in Las Animas County's economy, leading to a decrease in unemployment rate and an increase in tax revenues. If a proper balance is not reached, the draft rules will have a severe negative impact without significantly protecting public welfare, the environment and wildlife." Left unspoken: Two of the three county commissioners are Democrats, putting them at odds with their party's state leaders, who made the tougher rules a priority after coming to power in Denver...

There's too much uncertainty about the state's motives, [Jay Still, vice president of Pioneer Natural Resources and current chairman of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association] said. "We're still asking, 'What is the problem you're trying to address?'" More time also is needed to study the proposed changes, possibly until year's end, he said. The last time the state's rule book was updated, in the 1990s, the talks lasted five years, he noted. The full-court press by the Trinidad community, the energy industry and speakers such as Still are proving effective at rallying groups around the state, including the Western Slope. Belatedly, regulators moved to relax some rules, including writing into the rules a specific exemption for Las Animas County on new wildlife controls the county considered unnecessary. But now other energy basins are pressing for concessions of their own. Meanwhile, the industry has launched a well-funded statewide advertising campaign to press its case. More recently, the Bureau of Land Management sent notice that, under federal law, the rules will not apply to federal lands. The BLM also noted no problems while working under the state's old system. Right now, the Oil and Gas Commission is still scheduled to adopt a set of rules in August but it's likely that the process will undergo review when the Legislature convenes in January. Even one of the main legislative sponsors of the state's effort, state Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, says she may introduce a new bill to rein in the new rules...

Drilling applications could require aerial photos, detailed topographic maps, access road plans, vegetation and wildlife analysis and a number of mitigation plans, among other documents. The Division of Wildlife would receive new powers to intervene on drilling plans, including the right to potentially call for a 90-day halt to drilling activity in certain energy basins if deemed in the best interest of the breeding and birthing habits of wildlife. Regulators now say they envision the rule seldom coming into play; the industry isn't yet buying the claim. Adjacent landowners would get a bigger say in the permitting process. Regulators shelved an idea of allowing landowners to object outright, but they left in a rule that requires drillers to certify the landowners are notified of the permit process, an invitation for them to find other ways to press their concerns. Another rule calls for a study of methane gas in coal outcrops, or "seeps," including seeps on other people's property, Still says. "What is the problem they want addressed? Have they looked at the economic impact? And how do we gain access to private land?" he asks. Another rule could require drillers to re-inject any water discharges back into the ground rather than to continue using water to stock wildlife and livestock ponds, as many ranchers and wildlife enthusiasts prefer, the industry says. A detailed study by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association reports that few of the new rules are in place in other Western states, including Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, California and one Midwest state surveyed, North Dakota.

New West: "The annual Western Governor's Association meeting kicked off in Jackson Hole Sunday, with the initial discussions focussed on how to protect wildlife amidst the oil-and-gas drilling boom. The Denver Post reports that the governors created a Western Wildlife Council to work on habitat and wildlife corridor issues."

Category: 2008 Presidential Election

Energy policy: Oil Shale

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:00:47 GMT

U.S. Senate and House Republicans introduced bills this week that include lifting the moratorium on finalizing rules for oil shale development and production, according to redOrbit.com. From the article:

House and Senate Republicans picked up on President Bush's request to open up oil shale exploration in Utah and other domestic oil production options with two bills introduced Thursday. Each bill would remove the existing ban on the Interior Department from finalizing regulations to allow oil shale exploration on public lands. It would be a means to encourage companies to seek out producing oil in the West...

The Senate Republicans introduced the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008, which also calls for oil exploration in the outer continental shelf, increase federal money for plug-in cars and increased staff for the Commodities Future Trading Commission. "Our bill can be summed up in four words: 'Find more, use less,'" said Sen. Alexander Lamar, R-Tenn., at a press conference Thursday with 20 Republican Senators, including Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah...

Bennett said Utah has a pilot project moving forward on state land that could prove as early as later this summer how technology works to produce oil shale...

But Chase Huntley, energy policy advisor for The Wilderness Society said oil shale development is a "cruel fiction on the American people, promising a false solution to high gasoline prices that instead would hand over potentially tens of thousands of acres of federal lands to oil shale speculators. "This bill falsely promises that oil shale will lower gasoline prices, when in fact the industry is years if not decades away from proving the economic viability, technical feasibility, and environmental safety of the technologies needed to squeeze oil from rock," Huntley said in a statement. Huntley said the technology to develop oil shale is not ready and its environmental impacts -- particularly how much water it needs to be developed -- are not understood. "Pushing the BLM to finalize rules governing commercial leasing and production of oil shale now is irresponsible," Huntley said...

Meanwhile, the Republicans from the House Western Caucus introduced the Americans for American Energy Act, which also removes the moratorium from the Interior Department...The House bill is more extensive than the Senate one and includes opening up oil drilling in the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge. The Senate bill purposely left that proposal out, Alexander said, because some Democrats have problems with it.

Category: 2008 Presidential Election

10 rare clouds

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:42:22 GMT

Here's a link to photos 10 rare clouds from Cool Things. You water nuts will enjoy them so click through.

Category: Colorado Water

California Air Resources Board: Scoping plan

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:50:48 GMT

Coyote Gulch remembers the bumper stickers that said, "Don't Californicate Colorado." Now we find ourselves wishing for California's sensible policies on greenhouse gases. grist writes, "How do you return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 while promoting jobs, competitiveness, and public health? Conservatives in the U.S. Senate think it can't be done. California knows it can. The Air Resources Board has just published their "Scoping Plan." How do they cut 169 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2020? Efficiency, efficiency, renewables, renewables, and even some conservation: Given that the single biggest source of California's GHG emissions is transportation, surging oil prices will make it that much easier for them to achieve this target and increase the savings for California consumers and businesses."

Category: Climate Change News

Climate Change: The earth is a beautifully complex system

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:23:31 GMT

Here's a recap of the recent conference hosted by the Consortium for Integrated Climate Research in Western Mountains (Cirmount), from The Durango Telegraph. From the article:

The conference, which was hosted by the Mountain Studies Institute June 9-12, attracted more than 120 scientists from across the West, as well as assorted others. The conference was sponsored by the Consortium for Integrated Climate Research in Western Mountains, or Cirmount. The goal of the group, in part, is to create a better and expanded network of monitoring stations in high mountain locations. Colorado has only two mountain monitoring stations - one at Niwot, northwest of Boulder, and another in Senator Beck Basin, between Silverton and Telluride, which is maintained by Chris Landry's Center for Snow and Avalanche Studies. The argument for research stations is that the mountains are like canaries in coal mines. In this case, they serve as early predictors of change to come to lower elevations. Already, high-mountain temperatures have increased far faster than in the valleys.

Dozens of presentations on topics related to this and other warming-related issues, were given in Silverton's tin-ceilinged town hall over the course of the three days. Some ideas, though simple in expression, were complex in implications. Such was the case with water. Between 60 to 80 percent of precipitation in the West arrives in the mountains in the form of snow. Even drizzly Seattle depends upon snow in the Cascades. Most impressive of all is the Colorado River Basin, which includes the Animas, Dolores, Uncompaghre and other rivers that cascade off the flanks of the San Juan Mountains. The Colorado River and its tributaries provide vital sustenance for everywhere, from the haciendas of San Diego to the cornfields of Nebraska, up to 34 million people by some estimates.

Water managers have always assumed they were planning for a future that looked like the past. In the West, that's a limited rear-view mirror, with only 100, maybe 150, years of records. But new evidence of climate change is forcing a firm nudge to the idea that the future won't necessarily look like the past. What the future is almost sure to bring is more heat - much more than the rise of recent decades. "The American West will be the epicenter for warming," said Roger Pulwarty, of the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder. Whether the future will bring more snow, or less, remains uncertain. Warmer clouds can carry 30 percent more precipitation, which might mean lots of snow. Unlike the computer models that show heat, forecasts regarding precipitation are more murky. The only clear message is that winter will, on average, be much shorter - as it already is in California's Sierra Nevada, where runoff is typically 20 days shorter. More isolated sampling also finds earlier runoff over the last 30 years in Colorado, but with a stronger signal in the San Juans.

One of the problems with forecasting precipitation as the globe warms is the coarseness of computer models. While several dozen models show broad trends, such as heat, precipitation in the West depends so much upon the interaction with mountains. Earlier computer models showed the Rocky Mountains as only slight bumps, like the highest point in Kansas. But now, computer scientists are working to come up with finer-scale models, which instead of showing grids every 50 kilometers, show them every few kilometers. That still isn't the sort of resolution that will show the verticality of an Eolus, Vestal Peak or El Diente, but it will be a marked improvement.

Category: Climate Change News

Water policy

Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:02:58 GMT

Best water line of the day so far, "Conservative government destroys Atlanta like Gen. Sherman never could: The colossal mismanagement of water in Georgia has produced an urban crisis with no clear solution other than a return to smart government." -- Rick Perlstein (via AlterNet).

Category: 2008 Presidential Election