Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

We Are One President Away From a Future of Fossil Fuel Addiction

By David Sassoon, SolveClimate. Posted October 6, 2008.


America's energy and climate future will be determined by what the nation decides to do with its deposits of oil shale.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On October 1st a long-standing ban on the commercial development of oil shale on federal lands expired. That means America is now on the edge of an abyss, about to take the plunge into an endless fossil future. The steady march toward this awful future of extended oil addiction is a fact hidden in plain view.

It is a march being aided and abetted by half a billion dollars of oil and coal lobby money, by the recent votes of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and by a media more lap dog than watchdog. Though unintended, even all the campaign talk about a clean energy economy is serving to obscure this clear and present danger.

Oil shale is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels known to man. Its extraction releases two to five times more greenhouse gases than conventional crude oil, and uses vast amounts of water. In Western lands where oil shale deposits are abundant, water is already in scarce supply.

America's energy and climate future will be determined by what the nation decides to do with its deposits of oil shale. There are as much as 1.8 trillion barrels of oil locked up in shale deposits in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. There's more oil in the shale than there ever was in Saudi Arabia. It's value? More than half a trillion dollars over a 25-year period. It's the most important energy issue there is, and almost no one is talking about it.

Here's what you have to do to extract oil shale. Oil workers start by constructing a five foot thick wall around a 1000-foot square foot cube of the Earth. They drill deep holes into the cube at 25 foot intervals and insert massive electric heating coils. The coils are turned on and left on continuously for two or more years at 650 degrees F. Finally, the oil slides out of the shale. You've heard of electric cars? This is electric oil.

If oil shale gets developed, the nation and the globe will be sent on a path to an endless fossil future and a steep acceleration of global warming pollution. Forget clean energy. It will be lights out, game over.

The Bush-Cheney administration has been working for eight years to open federal lands -- where the oil shale rests -- to oil companies, and they are on the brink of success. That means that the only thing standing in the way of an endless fossil future is the next president. John McCain has already voiced his staunch support for development of these resources. But the Republican machine, and a pliant media, have managed to focus the nation on a distraction: offshore oil, even though there's only a small puddle of the stuff. Offshore, we'll get 1.2 percent of US oil supply twenty years from now.

The oil industry has almost secured rights to federal lands where the oil shale is. Without firing a shot, they purchased the regime at home. Then they pulled the wool over America's eyes, using the most effective propaganda tools money can buy from the public relations industry. While hollering about offshore oil, they uttered precious little about oil shale itself, and absolutely nothing about how its oil is extracted. So when the ban on offshore oil drilling expired, no one noticed that the ban on oil shale development expired, too.

So Congress has now allowed the door to swing open to "develop" almost two million acres of oil shale deposits. It has granted permission to the oil industry to initiate a cube-by-cube boiling of the earth itself, the consumption of every last drop of water in the Colorado basin and the unconscionable acceleration of global warming pollution.

This diabolical outcome -- worthy of a cackling criminal mastermind in a James Bond thriller -- has been in the making since early in the Bush-Cheney administration's first term. An overt federal program for oil shale development emerged into public view in the Energy Act of 2005 -- in Section 369 -- which required the Department of the Interior to develop a commercial leasing program for oil shale. The Department is about to issue a final development plan.

Since Congress has dutifully provided the kicker by allowing the oil shale moratorium to expire, the leasing plan can now move forward. The administration's simultaneous orchestration of these two final oil policy movements is the culmination of years of effort, a chilling parting legacy.

The only factor still remaining in the way of an endless fossil future is the next President. The oil shale leasing program will be under his control, and so the upcoming election presents voters with yet another fateful choice.

It is clear what another Republican administration will bring. Last June, Senator McCain unveiled his energy plan and called for offshore drilling and oil shale development. Since then, contributions to his campaign from the oil industry have soared.

For his part, Senator Obama has refused oil money. His stance on Alberta's tar sands -- a dirty fuel very much like oil shale -- remains "an open question," much to the dismay of the Canadian government, but so far, he has been silent on oil shale. Senator Obama would do well to clarify his stance on oil shale development, and offer voters a crystal clear alternative to the endless fossil future, which is closer than anybody cares to admit.

Oil shale is the energy story of the century. It is the policy crossroads. If the nation continues on the path prepared by Bush-Cheney and embraced by McCain-Palin, it leads to an endless fossil future. That's the key story, the key choice.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, oil, cheney, obama, global warming, mccain, fossil fuel, drilling, oil shale

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oil shale = EXTINCTION of Homo Sapiens
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 6, 2008 11:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

OIL SHALE, TAR SANDS AND COAL MUST BE LEFT IN
THE GROUND TO AVOID THE EXTINCTION OF US
HUMANS.
We have to convert to plug-in hybrid cars so that electricity made
by low-CO2 methods powers most of our driving. Nuclear power
produces the least CO2 of ANY source of electricity.
32 countries have nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb.
The top 4 producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal
fired power plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China,
India and Russia. Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050
requires drastic action in the USA, China, India and Russia.
Coal, oil shale and tar sands must be left untouched in the ground.

I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear produces the least CO2
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 6, 2008 11:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007

Page 13 gives life cycle CO2 per kilowatt hour:
Source of energy ............... CO2 per kilowatt hour
Wind turbines .............................. 58 grams
Nuclear ......................................... 30 grams ** The Winner
Coal ............................. 966 to 1306 grams depending on the coal
Solar ........................................... 100 to 280 grams
Hydro ............................................ 240 grams
Natural gas ............................... 439 to 688 grams, gas varies

Nuclear power is also the cheapest, at 30% less than coal, in spite
of the best efforts of the coal industry to drive up cost by
demanding absurdly high levels of safety.

Page 75: A coal fired power plant gives you 100 to 400 times as
much radiation as a nuclear power plant. Worldwide, an average
person gets 0.01 millirem/year from nuclear power plants, the same
as eating one banana.

Page 71: The natural background radiation in northeastern
Washington state is 1700 millirem/year.
The natural background radiation on the Zuni uplift is 500 to 700
millirem/year.
The natural background radiation in New Mexico is greater than the
calculated dose from the Three Mile Island meltdown, if you were
next to the reactor.
A chest x-ray gives you 10 millirem.

Page 98: There is a table of millirems per year from the
background in a list of inhabited places.
Chernobyl: 490 millirem/year
Guarapari, Brazil: 3700 millirem/year
Tamil Nadu, India: 5300 millirem/year
Ramsar, Iran: 8900 to 13200 millirem/year
Zero excess cancer deaths are recorded. All are natural except for
Chernobyl.

Page 269: "[E]very day the collective households and industries of
America throw away nearly a million tons of garbage containing
toxic heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, as well as plastics that
will never break down. That garbage will be our culture's real
legacy, enduring for millions of years after all the present nuclear
waste has decayed."

Reference: "The Revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102.
Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including
Chernobyl. terra = mega mega

fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy
coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342
natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85
hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883
nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8

As you can see, nuclear is by far the safest source of electricity for
which I have statistics. Wind turbines can fall off of their towers
and crush you. Workers can fall off of the building while
installing solar panels. Money spent making nuclear safer would
save more lives if it were spent converting TO nuclear from any
other source. Wind and solar are by far the most expensive
options by 600 times or so, and both are intermittent. The lead
required to make batteries for wind and solar would remain
poisonous forever. Nuclear fuel is recyclable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In point of fact
Posted by: rickiey on Oct 7, 2008 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need oil. Even if we go to a 100% alternative energy power grid, with electric cars, we will STILL need oil. Just not as a fuel.

We can get that oil from the middle east, and deal with the devil it causes, or we can get it at home, where we can control the environmental impact.

The decision seems pretty obvious to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clean coal horsehockey already in play
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 7, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as the Bailout (that Obama/McCain voted for) is siphoning off $700B of public funds from any potential progress such as universal healthcare (AIG alone cost $85 Billion, UV Healthcare would have cost less than $84 billion), clean coal is siphoning off any hope of renewable investment. Dollar for dollar, Obama/McCain are both going to result in fossil fuel addiction and wasting money, flushing it down the fossil fuel toilet and it WILL NOT be available to do what is actually necessary: renewable conversion and grid decentralization.

But hey, what the owning class wants the owning class gets... when will people pick up a rock or a stick and start the beatdown of the rich? Because THAT is the only thing the owning class understands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement