Quick Hit: Shell Oil Buying Water Rights in Colorado

Shell Oil put forth a water claim on 15 billion gallons of water, as this article details.  I think this is in addition to the 7.2 million acre-feet of senior water rights that Shell and others bought last week, as I covered here.  The older article that I’m just now getting to says the Yampa River water rights are junior rights.  The end use of the water would likely be the same: drilling for oil in shale formations.  That’s why I’m not sure if the articles are actually about the same purchase or not.  If not, Shell is putting down a lot of money in what is likely to be a very bad investment.  If all the claims make their way past regulators and the court system (no guarantee in itself), it would take another decade before the first drilling could occur (if the technology is ready, another thing not guaranteed).  So in 10 plus years, Shell might be ready to drill for oil in formations.  What do you think our energy portfolio and infrastructure will look like by then?  Does anyone seriously think that oil and gas will be viewed as the best sources of energy in 10 more years?  Of course not – they’re not today and that won’t improve with time.  (The fact that absent massive corporate welfare, oil and gas are even worse sources than they are commonly viewed today seems to escape most peoples’ notice.)  For the sake of our environment and our economy, renewable energy sources are where the smart money is.

Once again, as gas prices inch back up toward $2 per gallon this spring (and likely to go higher again this summer), this is what Shell and other fossil fuel corporations are doing with a great deal of their money: securing water rights so that dozens of gallons of water can be wasted to produce one gallon of oil 10+ years from now.  They’re not incresing refining capacity, which would help lower the price of gas for all of us.  They’re planning to start boondoggle projects.  In too many people’s eyes, it’s alright if Shell and other corporations do so because they’re infallible.  It disgusts me.

Update: The Colorado Independent’s David Williams has an article up on this.

Sen. Salazar’s Language About Energy All Wrong

CO Sen. Ken Salazar held a press conference yesterday where he tried to talk up President-elect Obama’s energy plan.  Citing the need for a “comprehensive energy strategy” (sort of like his wishes for “bipartisanship”), Salazar made sure to mention the continued use of conventional fuels (fossil fuels) and “clean coal”.  To be quite frank, Obama’s and Salazar’s use of this kind of language completely undermines any message of a new eneryg policy.  They’re using words that the fossil fuel industry prefers.

As I’ll lay out in a number of upcoming posts, our greenhouse gas emissions must decrease in the very near future if we want to avoid sending our climate system into an equilibrium state that does not include ice at the poles and sea level many meters higher than it is today.  The continued use of fossil fuels does not and can not help us change our path from that future.  “Clean coal” is no more realistic than hydrogen fueled vehicles.  Both technologies are decades away from commercail viability, at the earliest.  Using the term “clean coal” allows the coal industry to continue ripping up the earth and emitting Gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, which would force the climate system for hundreds of years to come.

Salazar also brought up oil shale as a potential player in our energy portfolio.  I know Salazar is aware that multiple gallons of water and excessive amounts of fossil-fuel powered energy would be required to pump one gallon of oil from shale.  It makes no sense to burn fossil fuels in order to dig up and burn more fossil fuels.  It makes no sense to waste what little water Colorado and other Western states are likely to receive under a changed climate system to push more fossil fuel out of the ground in order to burn it and force the climate system even further from where it was.  It makes no sense for Salazar to push this untested technology while saying things like:

“The time for talk on energy is over and we need to move forward to get to energy independence,” Salazar said.

Sen. Salazar, talking about “conventional fossil fuel”, “clean coal” and oil shale is not moving us forward toward a new energy policy.  It is more of the same – it prevents a new energy policy from being formed, let alone enacted.  Using the fossil fuel industry’s talking points puts Sen. Salazar, and President-elect Obama, closer to the climate change denier/delayer camp.

An additional non-related example can be found below.

2008 Energy Bill: House Version & Initial Reaction

The House passed their initial version of the 2008 energy bill.  Two major focal points of this bill are the following: it would allow drilling 50 to 100 miles off-shore and it would repeal tax breaks (corporate welfare) for oil corporations.  Republicans have been pining for the former and screaming about the latter for months.  Americans generally support increased drilling as long as its coupled with renewable energy research funding increases.  A clear majority of Americans support rescinding the fossil fuel industry’s welfare.  Americans can pretty easily make the connection between $4.00 gas and news of record profits that corporations like Exxon enjoy every quarter.  They’re tired of that being the status quo.  So I say let Republicans continue to scream about stopping the corporate welfare.  They’ll continue to look like ideologues for it.

Republicans are also whining about no “litigation reform”.  But here’s the reality: if the off-shore areas end up going up for lease, which would require Senate passage of the same bill (unlikely this year) and no veto by Bush (not a guarantee in the off-chance Congress actually passes something), it’s not like they’ll drill on those new areas.  Why?  Because here’s the dirty secret Republicans want to keep out of the spotlight: fuel corporations currently hold leases on 68 million acres of land and they’re not drilling on them right now.  More than that, those corporations have no plans to begin drilling any time soon.  They’re enjoying the high fuel prices too much.  Increasing the supply would bring that price down.  That situation was true before demand for fuel started falling in the face of $4.00 gas and is even more true now.  With demand decreasing, they have absolutely no incentive to put more fuel into the market.  So no environmental lawsuits will be issued because no corporation will drill.

Recent Energy News Pieces

After a short break, I’m catching up on some things. There have been quite a few energy-related news articles. I’ll discuss them below.

First, from Friday came news that both John McCain and Bob Schaffer have made up quite a bit of ground in polling done on their respective races in Colorado. Gas prices and potential solutions were cited as having influence in the movement. One factor ties the two together: Coloradans’ view that drilling in shale or off the US coasts will have an effect of gas prices. Not enough is being done, in my opinion, to challenge that false viewpoint. The Republican Machine (newspapers, radio and TV) continues to peddle opening up new lands for lease as a mechanism to reduce oil and gas prices.

What’s wrong with that? Oh, just the fact that Big Energy already owns 68 million acres of land which they could already be drilling. Except they’re not. And they’ve owned this land for years now. Had they drilled, more oil and natural gas would currently be available for market. Read closely: they didn’t drill. And they didn’t drill for a reason. See, by purposefully restricting resources from getting to the market at the same time that demand has kept growing, the value of the resources has grown exponentially in the past five to ten years. But the corporate media has absolutely no interest in ensuring citizens know the entire story. How many times have you seen/read/heard about the vast tracts of land energy corporations already own but won’t drill? The only locations I’ve encountered it are on progressive media.

So it doesn’t take much thought to realize that opening up more land wouldn’t do a thing to reduce gas prices. And let’s make sure we’re very clear on this: taxpayers own the land that the Big Energy corporations want. If we lease those lands and they go undeveloped, Americans are poorer for it.

To the point of the articles: if Colorado and other states vote for folks like Bob Schaffer and John McCain, energy prices will not go down. They’ve demonstrated how beholden they are to energy corporations their entire careers. They’re the cause of the gas prices we now pay because they pushed a pro-corporate energy policy. Why give them more time to prevent us from enacting real solutions like moving renewable energy technologies to market and reducing our dependence on foreign fuels?

A vote for McCain or Schaffer is a vote to keep gas prices high. It’s really that simple.

Random Pieces 3/24/08

Sounds responsible to me: “At this time, there are too many unanswered questions surrounding the development of oil shale. We continue to support the research, development and demonstration process now underway, but the RD&D process should be completed prior to the issuance of commercial oil shale leases and prior to the finalization of any regulations.” (Gov. Ritter’s press release regarding oil shale development.) In Republican-land, there will never be enough RD&D about climate change. Oil shale development? No RD&D or regulations needed.