Oil Shale

Spread the Truth

False Attack: MARK UDALL IS OPPOSED TO DEVELOPING OIL SHALE IN COLORADO.

In a desperate attempt to mischaracterize Mark Udall's strong record on Energy, Bob Schaffer and his Big Oil cronies claim that Mark is standing in the way of Oil Shale development.

The Truth: MARK UDALL IS WORKING HARD WITH THE COMMUNITIES OF THE WEST SLOPE TO MAKE SURE OIL SHALE IS DEVELOPED RESPONSIBLY AND IN A WAY THAT PROTECTS THEIR ECONOMY.

Mark Udall has consistently supported the research and development of Oil Shale taking into account its tremendous demand for Colorado's most precious resource: Water.

Mark Udall Has Consistently Supported The Responsible Research And Development Of Oil Shale. "One part of the 2005 [energy] law set up a program for oil shale research, development and demonstration projects. I think that makes good sense and deserves support... The question has never been whether or not to develop oil shale. Instead, the question is how it can be done in a way that makes good sense and can help, rather than hurt, the Western Slope's economy." [Udall op-ed, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 7/13/08]

Mark Udall has Never Denied the Potential Of Oil Shale, But Has Worked Hard to Make sure it Is Developed in a Responsible Way. "Oil shale has potential as an energy source, but Colorado's Western Slope has had experience with a rush to development that ended up hurting our region's economy," said Udall. "My legislation will ensure that oil shale is developed in a responsible way....The 2005 Act calls for a crash program. I share the view of many West Slope Coloradans who are opposed to this crash program and rushing commercial development before the Interior Department knows enough to do it right and before Colorado's communities have a chance to prepare for what it will bring. My amendment will slow that process down so that we can be thoughtful about oil shale development." [Congressman Mark Udall Press Release, 6/27/2007]

The Western Slope (Where all the Colorado Oil Shale is Located) has agreed with Mark Udall's Concerns and Approach: "We agree with Ritter, Salazar and Udall that it doesn't make sense to authorize leasing of federal lands now for commercial oil-shale development when there are so many unknowns about the technology and how it will affect the environment, water supplies and communities in this region. Heck, even the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have found it difficult to assess the impact of the BLM leasing plan because of the technological uncertainty." [Grand Junction Daily Sentinel 9/5/2008]

Even Conservative Republican State Senator Josh Penry (R-Grand Junction) Says a Rush to Oil Shale Development Doesn't Make Sense. "How the state chooses to manage the remaining water in the Colorado River Basin is a tremendous decision, which requires a 'methodical approach', Penry said. 'That's the reason I don't think it makes a lot of sense to rush to a commercial decision on oil shale before the R&D (research and development) phase is complete,' he said. 'Let's figure out a technology that actually works; let's figure out what that production method will mean for our water and other resources; then let's make a judgment about the future of oil shale with all of the information in front of us and our eyes wide open." [Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 8/29/07]

Chevron Has Said to Delay Commercial Oil Shale Regulations until Workable Technology Has been Demonstrated. "Koffer said Chevron would like to see the BLM proceed with commercial oil shale regulations but not issue commercial leases until workable technology has been demonstrated." [Grand Junction Daily Sentinel 8/7/2008]

Shell Oil has Said they Will not Be Ready for Commercial Sale of Oil Shale for more than 15 years. "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." [Denver Post 7/23/08]
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9964442

According to a Rand Study, Commercial Oil Shale Development "should proceed at a measured pace" because of Uncertainties about Technology Performance. "Many uncertainties about technology performance and environmental impacts are unresolved, and most of the critical issues will not be fully resolved until the initial round of large-scale commercial facilities are constructed and operated. Given this, oil shale development should proceed at a measured pace." [RAND, Gauging the Prospects of the US Oil Shale Industry]
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9143/RAND_RB9143.pdf

"Energy Companies are Still Many Years Away from Making Oil Shale Commercially Viable": Oil shale is complicated stuff and energy companies are still many years away from making oil shale commercially viable. Even with cutting-edge technology, extracting oil from Colorado rock requires enormous amounts of electricity and water. It would require building several coal-fired power plants to make enough electricity to remove the oil. Also, it takes at least three barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil from oil shale. Under current assumptions, full-scale oil shale production would have a significant impact on water available for agriculture. [News 4, 8/20/2008]

BOB SCHAFFER'S RECORD:

BOB SCHAFFER SUPPORTS RUSHING FORWARD WITH OIL SHALE NO MATTER HOW MUCH WATER IT WILL USE

Bob Schaffer Supports Rushing forward On Oil Shale Development, But Is Wrong About How Much Water it Will Take: "Secondly, when it comes to water, it takes approximately, according to the Department of Energy, 3 gallons of water to produce one barrel of oil through oil shale." [Bob Schaffer at SEPB Debate 8/14/2008]

Fact: Oil Shale Development Uses 3 Barrels of Water for Every Barrel of Oil. "In producing oil shale is about 3 barrels per barrel of oil. Earlier analyses of water availability for oil shale need to be updated based on current and expected demands for water from the Colorado River Basin." [Gauging the Prospects of U.S. Oil Shale]
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9143/RAND_RB9143.pdf

West Slope Leaders Are Concerned About Water Use: "I always kid my friends on the Front Range that if oil shale comes online, we're going to start stealing their water," Penry said Monday." [Sen. Penry, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel 8/29/2007]

THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME BOB SCHAFFER HAS BEEN CARELESS WITH COLORADO'S WATER

In 2003, Schaffer backed Referendum A, a $2 billion water project measure that Colorado voters defeated in every single county and Western Slope voters slammed by a nearly 4-1 margin: Schaffer backed Referendum A, a $2 billion water project measure that Colorado voters defeated in every single county and Western Slope voters slammed by a nearly 4-1 margin. Referendum A would give the state Water Conservation Board and the governor discretion over which projects get funded with the revenue bonds if voters approve the measure.

"Schaffer defends his support of Referendum A in 2003 election" [Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Political Notebook Headline, 07/14/08]

Opponents called the bond proposal a "blank check" for projects that could damage the state's environment and fuel runaway growth. Attorney General Ken Salazar, U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, and former Gov. Dick Lamm all opposed the measure. [Denver Post, 12/10/06; Denver Business Journal, 11/7/03; Rocky Mountain News, 11/5/03; Rocky Mountain News, 11/5/03; Denver Post, 10/19/03]

Even Western Slope Republicans Admit Schaffer's Support of Referendum A Indicates Where He Stands on Protecting West Slope Water: [Water attorney and former state Rep. Matt Smith, R-Grand Junction], "said candidates' positions on the measure will indicate to voters where they stand on protecting Western Slope water. "I've seen some candidates try and describe why they were on the wrong side of that issue," Smith said. "They have not done well. It branded them, I think, badly on the thoughtlessness of the issue. It's going to be very difficult for them to get away from." [Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 03/18/08]

Water is a precious resource on the Western Slope. Schaffer wanted to sell it to the highest bidder.

Bob Schaffer backed a court decision that would have made water from the Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River available for sale. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that 240,000 acre-feet of water from the Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River is available for sale by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the benefit of all the citizens of Colorado. In July 2001, the bureau was in the process of writing rules to regulate the distribution and sale of that water for the next 50 years as part of its overall Upper Colorado River Recovery Program. Originally, the Bureau bowed to demands by the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and its allies who wanted all water in the Blue Mesa Reservoir reserved for their exclusive use. But in a Colorado Supreme Court decision on Nov. 20, 2000 (case number 98SA327), the court ruled that while 60,000 acre-feet are indeed reserved for the Upper Gunnison Basin, 240,000 acre-feet are available for use anywhere in Colorado.

In 2001 both the environmentalists worried about urban growth and residents of the Western Slope teamed up against the Bureau of Reclamation not to let 'one more drop' of water travel to the Eastern Slope. But U.S. Reps. Joel Hefley, Schaffer and Tom Tancredo responded on July 18 with a letter to Interior Secretary Gale Norton urging her to ensure that the BuRec follows the Colorado Supreme Court decision and lets all Coloradans bid for that water. [Denver Post, 7/28/01]

Former Republican Congressman Scott McInnis accused Schaffer of capitulating to front-range water interests at the expense of the San Luis Valley....

McInnis: "Baloney, He Can't Wriggle Out of This. It Was All About Water": In late July 2004, responding to Schaffer's reason for voting against the establishment of the Sand Dunes National Park as an expansion of federal land, Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO3) said, "Baloney... He can't wiggle out of this. It was all about water." McInnis claimed in an interview on August 2, 2004 with the Alamosa Valley Courier that Schaffer voted against the national park creation because the City of Aurora wanted water from the Baca Ranch of which the Great Sand Dunes National Park was created. (Alamosa Valley Courier, 8/4/04)

McInnis: Schaffer "Walked On Us" on Water: In late July 2004, criticizing Schaffer's reason for voting against the establishment of the Sand Dunes National Park as an expansion of federal land, Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO3) said, "This is going to be a big deal for the Valley." He called, according to the Alamosa Valley Courier, the bill creating the Great Sand Dunes National Park the most significant piece of legislation for the San Luis Valley during his fourteen years in Congress, "and he [Schaffer] walked on us." (Alamosa Valley Courier, 8/4/04)

BOTTOM LINE:

MARK UDALL WANTS TO DEVELOP OIL SHALE RESPONSIBLY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ECONOMY OF THE WEST SLOPE, THE NEED FOR BETTER TECHNOLOGY AND THE SIGNIFICANT DEMAND FOR COLORADO'S MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE: WATER.

BOB SCHAFFER IS SELLING OUT WESTERN COLORADO BY AGAIN BEING IRRESPONSIBLE WITH COLORADO'S WATER TO LINE THE POCKETS OF THE OIL COMPANIES.