Page added on November 10, 2012
The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.
The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration. It faces a 30-day protest period and a 60-day process to ensure it is consistent with local and state policies. After that, the department would render a decision for implementation.
The move is sure to rankle Republicans, who say President Obama’s grip on fossil fuel drilling in federal lands is too tight.
Interior’s Bureau of Land Management cited environmental concerns for the proposed changes. Among other things, it excised lands with “wilderness characteristics” and areas that conflicted with sage grouse habitats.
Under the plan, 677,000 acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming would be open for oil shale exploration. Another 130,000 acres in Utah would be set aside for tar sands production.
The administration and Democrats said that while the plan would curtail what was originally sought for oil shale development, it still opens up a significant amount of land that was previously unavailable for the energy production method.
The administration noted the plan pushed forward Friday also included two research, development and demonstration (RD&D) leases for oil shale development.
“The proposed plan supports the Administration’s all-of-the-above approach to explore the full potential our nation’s domestic energy resources and to develop innovative technology and techniques that will lead to safe and responsible production of resources, including oil shale and tar sands, which industry recognizes are years from being commercially viable, but require RD&D today,” Interior spokesman Blake Androff said.
Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) praised the plan, saying the administration exercised the right amount of caution on oil shale development, which has not yet been brought to commercial scale and brings concerns about the amount of water used in the practice.
“I am glad the Interior Department is taking measured steps to encourage research and development of our oil shale resources. With water being one of our most precious commodities in the West, I have concerns about the potential impacts of commercial oil shale development. Nonetheless, I look forward to seeing this technology explored further,” Udall said in a Friday statement.
Oil shale development is not to be confused with drilling into shale formations for oil and natural gas. The practice, which involves separating hydrocarbons bound up in rocks, has not been widely executed since Exxon’s failed Colorado venture in the 1980s.
Bobby McEnaney, senior lands analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, praised Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for the proposed final plan.
“By significantly reducing the acreage of wilderness potentially available for leasing, Secretary Salazar is laying out a creative, thoughtful and more responsible approach in managing some of our most precious resources,” McEnaney said in a Friday statement.
Congressional Republicans are not likely to be as pleased.
GOP lawmakers, along with some Democrats, have pushed for more fossil fuel production in the West. Republicans have led the charge, saying Obama’s policies on fossil fuel drilling on federal lands are too restrictive.
While Obama notes domestic oil-and-gas production has increased during his administration, Republicans contend that it is activity on private and state land that is driving the boost. They point to this year’s dip in oil-and-gas production on federal land — though levels are still higher than they were during the Bush administration.
The Congressional Western Caucus released a report in August to deliver that message.
“This proposal will place further limitations on the exploration and development of our country’s natural resources and is yet another example of how this administration continues to stand in the way of North American energy independence,” Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), the chairman of House Energy and Commerce’s subcommittee on Energy and Power, said in a statement to The Hill.
Oil and gas lobby the American Petroleum Institute, an ally of congressional Republicans, slammed the decision.
Jack Gerard, the group’s chief, said Thursday he would take a “wait-and-see” approach to Obama’s second term to gauge whether he would live up to campaign rhetoric in which he praised the domestic oil-and-gas industry.
Reid Porter, the lobby’s spokesman, said Friday’s news was a disappointing sign from the administration.
“This is another step in the wrong direction that limits development and investment in one of the nation’s most energy-rich areas and goes against a prior government decision that would allow for research and development over a much wider geographical area. Just days after the election this decision by the administration sends negative signals to industry and capital markets at a time when we need to encourage growth and innovation in the U.S.,” Porter said in a statement to The Hill.
8 Comments on "Obama Administration Shuts Down Oil Drilling Out West"
Plantagenet on Sat, 10th Nov 2012 10:21 pm
Gosh…I wonder why Obama didn’t mention this new policy to shut down oil and gas drilling and destroy US jobs during the campaign?
Instead, he pretended to support US workers—what a phony liar!
Beery on Sat, 10th Nov 2012 11:38 pm
“Obama Administration Shuts Down Oil Drilling Out West”
Notice the misleading headline?
PrestonSturges on Sat, 10th Nov 2012 11:53 pm
Indeed the headline was total busshit, much like the time “the administration banned oil production in the Gulf of Mexico.”
Also, it was not at all clear what the article was even about. Fracking? Or is it “what-the-heck-let’s-call-it-“oil”-anyway” oil shale?
PrestonSturges on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 12:01 am
Actually as far as I can tell THIS ISN’T EVEN ABOUT “DRILLING.”
This is about strip mining for oil shale, and reducing a large chunk of the watershed of three western states into a toxic slag heap.
As I kept saying, the Romney never laid out how much of the west he planned to leave as uninhabitable wasteland.
PrestonSturges on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 12:14 am
Why does PeakOil keep reposting articles in this “howling retard format?”
This is not in the original article from The Hill, but this “drilling ban” bullshit seems to have already gone viral.
Mikey on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 1:45 am
Honestly, this is bullshit. Oil shale cannot be developed economically at anything less than 90 dollars a barrel, I am told. There might be a day very soon when we need oil shale (when shale oil fizzles soon), until then I agree that we should not make an outhouse out of some pristine portions of the West because of strip minning oil shale.
On the other hand, anybody that is defending this president over anything that has anything to do with the energy is an idiot. This president loathes fossil fuels and over the next 4 years we are going to see what his “policies” mean for the energy future of our country. It will take us years to recover from liberal, democratic idealism towards energy. Wind, solar, biofuels, spend, spend, spend, subisidize, subsidize, subsidize. Put that in your car and drive to the mall, or take your lazy kids to school every day in the SUV. You are going to need some long extension cords.
BillT on Sun, 11th Nov 2012 3:25 am
It’s time to put limits on the rape of the world by petroleum corporations. We need to preserve those parts of our country that are still reasonably pristine for our future generations. ‘For Profit’ Capitalism is killing the world we need to survive. Not prosper, just survive. I am not an Obama supporter, but I do support this action.
SOS on Mon, 12th Nov 2012 12:13 am
This is an example of what peak oil really is: a political phenomona. Peak oil = Peak Politics. Peak oil has nothing at all to do with physical limits.