Richard WarnickBush’s Synfuel Assault on Utah
They can’t be serious. That’s always my first thought. In 2003 I figured President Bush couldn’t be serious about invading Iraq– after all, that would be illegal, morally wrong, and bound to have disastrous consequences. Now it may be our turn to suffer the consequences. The federal government has come back to the idea, sensibly abandoned in the early 1980s, of extracting tar sands and oil shale in Utah. These are known as synthetic fuels, or synfuels. To use an analogy, it’s scraping the bottom of the barrel for the last drop of oil.
Mining tar sands in Alberta, Canada.
Oil shale and tar sands development in Utah would ruin vast natural areas to the point they would be unrecognizable and ecologically defunct. Wilderness designation isn’t even relevant to this debate. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the Bureau of Land Management is required to “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” This applies to all public lands.
According to the BLM’s Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing on 431,224 acres of wildlands would severely affect Utah’s Canyonlands National Park, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and a stretch of the San Rafael Swell along Interstate 70. A 90-day public comment period on the report ends in March.
More than 100,000 acres of wilderness-quality land could be industrialized, construction of reservoirs would alter natural streamflow patterns, hydrocarbons and herbicides could cause “chronic or acute toxicity” in wildlife, and habitat for 20 threatened or endangered species could be lost, the report says.
If the BLM settles on the development scenario it prefers, nearly 25,000 acres in the “Tar Sands Triangle” adjacent to both Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park’s Maze District would be open to industrial tar sands development.
Some of the BLM’s “special tar sands areas” in the region exist within both parks, but those sections would not be leased, according to the report. The parks would be indirectly affected, the report says, because views from within their boundaries could be reduced.
More than 70,000 acres in the San Rafael Swell along I-70, an area which the BLM in the report calls “spectacular” and “one of the region’s most well-known and popular scenic attractions,” would be open to tar sands leasing, completely displacing all other uses of the land, including all forms of recreation, according to the report.
In the PR Spring area above the Book Cliffs about 50 miles west of Grand Junction, more than 150,000 acres could be leased for tar sands development. More than 7,000 acres could be leased in White Canyon along Utah Highway 95 near Natural Bridges National Monument. Other areas northeast of Price, south of Vernal and a few miles west of Dinosaur, CO are also slated for leasing. See the map on the continuation of this post.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:14 am
In another example of; it doesn’t matter what party they come from, the entire area was designated as a” National Energy Sacrifice Zone” by Jimmy Carter in 1978, I believe.
Grand Junction CO. saw that boom and subsequent flash in the pan, that caused the region to economically collapse. Exxon announced that one day the whole project was scrapped after the feds pulled out. The feds backed out of the Synfuels Corp. and its promise of 15 billion in federal funding.
People left their home keys to their mortgaged homes under the doormats, and left town.
As for our northern neighbor the “development” of tar sands as a oil resource in Alberta has been described as the single greatest environmental crime ever committed. That simply is how things are done in Canada where people can’t, won’t or don’t see the results.
In forestry they often don’t replant after clear cutting. It is often not required by the filthy crown, who owns all this land, and is the sponsor.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:29 am
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-biggest-environmental-crime-in-history-764102.html
February 13th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Sorry about the above, my “copy” did not, and I was unable to clear the old link.
Jim Evans would be a good point man to contact to find out which way the winds are blowing in Colorado, if he is still around, the link is from 2005. He may be more forthcoming than your own people that are just licking their chops at the prospects.
The groups in both states will have to work together to stop the “oily industrial government complex”. Hurry, though I’m so sure it is a done deal. Note that encana, a canadian energy services player which is the biggest player in Colorados’ gas industry, and of course in the Alberta tar sands, will be right at home. It has a history of never cleaning up, leaving messes, spiriting profits out of the country…and is of course full in league…with the filthy crown.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Oh yeah, this is my own opinion, and I say HEADS UP UTAH. With the resurgence of the possible construction of new nuclear power plants, the obvious and logical conclusion is that Utah will also be the main target for obtaining the uranium required. All on federal land of course.
You too Saskatchewan. The anglo-american alliance led by neo cons, and many other politicos of all stripes, has and is tilling the world, so of course it was only a matter of time before they brought the road show home. Beware the filthy crown, in its ideas are the origin of corporate hegemony in the western world.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Here is the Jim Evans link, don’t know why it won’t html.
energy.senate.gov
February 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
try again, it is fairly important.
Jim Evans
February 13th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
I remember the synfuels bust, but can’t muster that much sympathy for Mr. Evans. Rural western counties want the booms, they just hate to bear the costs themselves and always have their hands out to the feds for PILT and whatnot. Maybe they ought to care about the destruction of public lands. Once the oil shale and tar sands deposits are mined out, the land will be utterly worthless for anything except astronaut moon landing practice.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
It isn’t sympathy I was trying to point out, it is the synergy of the federal government, outside large corporations, and local regional cronyism that permeates so much of all economy in our Country. I would say these days, but it has really been historically endemic.
There is a company that claims to be able to get the oil from the shale by microwaving the shale bodies, drilling a collection well, and getting the oil this way for about 30 dollars a barrel. If they can, it will be like Texas circa 1925.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
nbsp;nextbigfuture.com
Don’t know what’s up with html links today.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:46 am
[...] in February, I wrote: They can’t be serious…. The federal government has come back to the idea, sensibly [...]