Posts Tagged by Environmental Pressure Groups
Environmental Extremists Try to Stop Keystone XL Pipeline From Canada
| August 25, 2011 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Energy |
Environmental extremists continue to try to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada which would help provide oil for both Canada and the United States. Once again standing in the way of American energy independence. As we have noted before if the pipeline from Canada is stopped, the Canadians have the option of selling their oil to China. In turn, we would have to buy our oil from China at a higher price, both in terms of money and our increased dependence on them for our resources. It’s beyond me how this makes sense even to the greenies.
In the Natural Resource Defense Council’s (NRDC) “onearth” blog, Andrew Nikiforuk lambastes Canada for a Calgary-based company’s attempt to build the Keystone XL pipeline to carry tar sands oil (“bitumen,” a type of petroleum) from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico—bringing upwards of a million barrels of oil per day to refineries in Texas. The construction of the pipeline needs approval from the U.S. State Department, sparking a two-week protest at the White House that landed 110 people in jail over the weekend.
Meanwhile, the lack of a domestic supply of oil has left America dependent on the Middle East and subject to the market fluctuations brought about by unrest in the region. The result? Americans paying over $3 per gallon for gasoline while struggling with 9.1 percent unemployment. And yet there sits in the Canadian wilderness a resource that could help America ensure its energy security.
Read more here.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Earthworks Pressures Obama Administration to Eradicate Mining
| August 16, 2011 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues, Mining |
Earthworks is pressuring the Obama Administration to eradicate mining in the United States. They have launched a campaign to put pressure on the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that is full of misleading information and misinformation to incite the greenies to action. They have sent out an email encouraging their followers to call and email the EPA, the White House and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Here is more insight from Wizbang Blog.
Environmentalists love the moras of federal regulation and rulemaking as they can almost always find one rule or law that contradicts another, thereby opening a means to sue. And if, by chance, the government does actually clarify contradictory rules the environmentalist merely attempt to move the goal posts.
That’s the tactic employed by Earthworks, an environmental Non-Government Organization (NGO). The group has been running a national campaign this week aimed at pressuring the EPA to provide additional federal regulations to close what they’ve deemed “loopholes” in the Clean Water Act. Their website claims that the bill as it stands now is confusing and allows American mining companies to “dump their toxic mining waste directly into our waters!”
They’ve selected the language “closing loopholes,” but the truth is that Earthworks and its supporters are looking to add layers of federal regulations to the Clean Water Act so that it is nearly impossible for the mining industry to function in the U.S. The fact that such a move would cripple American jobs and stall economic growth isn’t an issue for Earthworks.
Environmentalists hate the 2002 “fill rule” (first proposed by the Clinton administration and implemented during the Bush administration) because it ended the definitional ambiguity on “fill material,” and, thereby ended an avenue to litigate coal. If mining overburden – the material that goes into a valley fill – can be interpreted as “waste,” then environmentalist lawyers could argue that this “waste” is excluded from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ “purpose based” definition of “fill material.” As a result, these litigants would allege that the Corps doesn’t have the authority to issue section 404 permits to valley fills.
Another similar rule deals with how mining companies treat water waste. It is common for the mining industry to construct lakes in which waste is deposited until it can be treated and cleaned. The environmentalists want to prevent waste from ever entering these lakes at all, making it impossible to clean up mining residuals, and ultimately, continue mining.
Furthermore, these changes Earthworks are demanding will not just affect the coal mining industry, but numerous other types of mining, potentially devastating an entire portion of our economy. This is why the EPA backed off of this issue, after initially supporting a re-visiting of the rule in 2010. The fact that even Obama’s anti-mining EPA has backed off changing this rule, showing you how out of touch with reality some of these environmental campaigns really are.
Here are some ways you can help: CLICK HERE TO SEND A LETTER, CLICK HERE TO CALL THE EPA
Read more on how you can TAKE ACTION and help stop Earthworks’ assault on the mining industry at the Resourceful Earth website.
More at: Rigth Truth, Southern Sass, Lonely Conservative, Don Surber at Daily Mail, 1389Blog
Oil Shale: Let’s Tap United States Oil Shale Reserves
| July 13, 2011 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Energy |
Oil Shale
There is a lot of discussion about the viability of tapping the United States Oil Shale reserves. This discussion occurs every time the U.S. gets into a bind with oil prices and the frustration of our dependency on foreign oil.
Some say it’s impossible to refine the oil shale into usable oil efficiently. But China and Brazil are doing it and we have more than both of those countries combined. Perhaps it is the Obama administrations refusal to allow the development of oil shale leases at the behest of environmental pressure groups.
Should we tap the United States oil shale reserves?
With all the talk that global oil production has reached its peak, and will only slowly decline from here, you may be surprised to learn that there is a vast untapped reserve that could possibly yield 1.4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to supply the daily oil needs of the United States for 191 years.
And where is this incredible reserve –The Middle East, Russia or Brazil? None of the above. It’s right here in the U.S. Specifically, in the great open spaces of Colorado’s Piceance Basin and the Uintah Basin in Utah.
So why isn’t the U.S. tapping this liquid gold and ending the country’s reliance on foreign sources of oil, regional instability and governments unfriendly to America? Well, as with many things, there’s a catch. It isn’t exactly oil. Well, not yet. Which brings us to a little history.
In the Cretaceous Period, roughly 100 million years ago, the vast Western Interior Sea covered much of western Colorado and eastern Utah. In the same way oil deposits were created elsewhere in the world, lots and lots of animals, fish, plankton, etc. died and settled on the sea bottom. Eventually, they turned to organic-rich shale rock. And the remnants of that organic material remain in the rock today, as a compound called kerogen – the building blocks of oil.
“I like to call it ‘teenage’ oil,’” says Glen Vawter, the director of the National Oil Shale Association. “If it had been buried for maybe a few more million years, it would have been petroleum.”
And therein lies the challenge. How to speed up nature and turn the kerogen into oil. The best way to do it is to heat the rock – to as much as 900 degrees Fahrenheit – which drives off the hydrocarbons as a gas. Condense the gas, and it becomes oil. Refine the oil and it becomes diesel, jet fuel, even gasoline.
It sounds simple enough, right? Well, let’s take another look at history.
The government and oil industry have known about “oil shale” for more than 100 years. In fact, vast tracts of land were set aside in the early 20th century as the Naval Petroleum Reserve. It was to be the source of fuel for the U.S. Navy during wartime. Like gold prospectors, hundreds of oil shale entrepreneurs staked claims through Colorado’s Piceance Basin, where the oil shale came up out of the ground as the Rocky Mountains were formed. They set up furnaces to convert the shale to oil and the word went out about a new western oil boom.
But the boom went bust when no one could produce significant quantities of oil economically, not when there was still plenty elsewhere that just bubbled up from the ground. So prospectors and companies pulled out and the nascent oil shale industry went dormant.
In the 1970s, as the price of oil soared in the wake of the Arab oil embargo, oil shale again looked like a shining beacon of energy independence. Exxon invested hundreds of millions of dollars in mines and plants to produce commercial quantities of crude. It hired thousands of locals to work in the industry. Boom times were back.
But in 1982, the price of oil plunged. And in what is still known as Black Sunday, Exxon pulled out – literally overnight – putting 2,000 people out of work. The boom had again gone bust.
“Oil shale is the fools’ gold of the petroleum industry,” says Randy Udall, an energy expert and son of politician Mo Udall. “We’ve been trying to do this for 100 years and everyone who has tried to produce oil shale has lost their shirt and broken their pick.”
Udall is one of many people who believe oil shale will never pay off. “Oil shale is kind of a mirage on the highway,” he says. “As you approach it, it recedes further and further away from you. I compare it to pulling the sword from the stone.”
If oil shale is Excalibur, there are still plenty of people trying to become the industry’s King Arthur. In Utah, EnShale has developed new technology to more efficiently extract oil from the shale by heating it on the surface. Crushed rock goes in one end – light crude comes out the other. The company has plans on the table for a commercial facility it claims could produce 15,000 barrels a day. Eesti Energia of Estonia (where oil shale is fueling power plants) is moving into Utah to develop its version of surface conversion — “retorting.” And Red Leaf Resources is experimenting with new surface technology that converts shale to oil with minimal environmental impact.
Big companies like Shell, Exxon, Chevron and American Shale Oil are taking a different tack. They are trying to convert the oil ‘in situ’ – where it is – underground. They’re spending tens of millions of dollars on research to heat the rock 1,000 feet deep and release the oil so it can be pumped to the surface with a conventional well. The technology is incredibly complex. Shell has even been experimenting with a ‘freeze wall’ – basically a vertical ice rink – that keeps ground water out of the oil producing area – and vice versa.
The companies say they have ‘proof of concept’ that in situ oil shale conversion is possible. Now the trick is to make it commercially viable.
And that’s where they run headlong into environmental concerns. A Rand Corporation study found that producing oil shale will take an enormous amount of water. And in Colorado and Utah, there is barely enough to go around as it is. The study also found that converting 100,000 barrels of oil from shale underground every day would take enough power to light a million homes, and that upping production to 1 million barrels a day would require the construction of 10 new 1200mw power plants.
Environmental groups argue that given the failed promise of oil shale so far, it’s just not worth it to try again.
But with oil hovering between $90 and $100 per barrel, gas near $4 per gallon and the Obama administration taking the drastic step of releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to shore up a wobbling economic recovery, oil shale proponents argue that we can’t afford not to develop this resource. They claim the revenues could run into the trillions of dollars and thousands of jobs would be created.
The battle over oil shale has now landed in the halls of Congress. The Bush Administration had come out with a plan to develop oil shale leases on federal land, which includes much of the Piceance Basin. But after it was sued by environmental groups, the Obama White House put those plans on hold and has ordered a review. That prompted Wyoming Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) to recently introduce a bill that would put it back on the fast track. The American Energy And Western Jobs Act is now before the Senate committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Glen Vawter has spent 40 years chasing the promise of oil shale. Can it be done this time? “I hope it can,” he says. “And you know, I believe it might be, because we have this new technology.”
The old joke around western Colorado goes like this: Oil shale is the fuel of the future…..and always will be.
Now consider this: Estonia is developing oil shale. So is Brazil. China, too. The U.S. has far more than any of those countries.
Even the U.S. Department of the Interior says there’s 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the western United States.
You can watch the news report in the video below.
Hybrid Hypocrites
| June 30, 2011 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Mining, Rare Earths |
Kevin at Wizbang Blog has this to say about the Enviro Conundrum …
Turns out there’s a major discovery of said copper (and gold) near Bristol Bay, Alaska, about 200 miles southwest of Anchorage, that if unearthed, would produce over 80 billion tons of copper. Even though it’s still in the planning stages, the Pebble Mine appears to hold some of the largest natural reserves of copper and gold in the world.
Environmental groups are fiercely opposing the proposed mine. As noted at Resourceful Earth, environmentalists want to massively scale up development of electric vehicles, solar panels, windmills, etc but don’t want to approve of projects that will extract these minerals need to build these new green products from the earth. They’d much rather that the messy business of producing “green” be done overseas…
New from Resourceful Earth: The Enviro Conundrum
| June 30, 2011 | Posted by Beth Shaw under Mining, Rare Earths |
Green hypocrisy is nothing new, in fact it seems to be an integral part of the environmental movement. Like layers of an onion, as one layer of hypocrisy is pulled away it only reveals yet another layer.
The latest from Resourceful Earth exposes one of the Enviro Conundrums facing the environmentalists these days. That conundrum is that they are making it virtually impossible to mine for copper in the United States under the pretense of saving the environment. A good example of this is the Pebble Mine Project in Alaska. The problem with this is that the alternative forms of energy they purport to be clean and green use substantially more copper than what we have been using all along.
Referring to a piece written by Joseph Moser at The Daily Caller Resourceful Earth notes:
Moser’s point is important — environmentalists want to massively scale up development of electric vehicles, solar panels, windmills, etc but don’t want to approve of projects that will extract these minerals from the earth. Do they think that these materials are summoned out of the sky? No — you have to dig them up out of the ground, and unfortunately, that disturbs the natural environment. But you can’t have it both ways, and there is no alternative to this.
As Moser notes, cars use a lot of copper. As do solar panels and windmills. Each modern windmill built uses almost 10,000 pounds of copper, which has risen in price by 700 percent in the last 10 years. One way to increase the feasibility of ‘green’ energy development would be to encourage projects such as Pebble which would reduce the price of raw materials used in these projects.
So if we aren’t getting copper here in the United States than where is all that copper coming from to power up those electric cars and cell phones? Why China of course. China is providing 97% of the copper production while the U.S. provides lest than 1%. No wonder it is costing us so much!
Do you think that China is being more conscientious than the United States would be about how they are extracting copper from the Earth? It seems to me that for the environmentalists its more about it being out of sight and out of mind than a sincere concern about our environment.
Mines located in other countries often have horrid safety rates — much worse than those of the United States — and little to no regard for pollution or environmental damage. Just because you can’t see the mines or pollution that exist in China, etc. doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
That IS an enviro conundrum.
Read more ….
As Moser notes, cars use a lot of copper. As do solar panels and windmills. Each modern windmill built uses almost 10,000 pounds of copper, which has risen in price by 700 percent in the last 10 years. One way to increase the feasibility of ‘green’ energy development would be to encourage projects such as Pebble which would reduce the price of raw materials used in these projects.
So if we aren’t getting copper here in the United States than where is all that copper coming from to power up those electric cars and cell phones? Why China of course. China is providing 97% of the copper production while the U.S. provides lest than 1%. No wonder it is costing us so much!
Do you think that China is being more conscientious than the United States would be about how they are extracting copper from the Earth? It seems to me that for the environmentalists its more about it being out of sight and out of mind than a sincere concern about our environment.
Mines located in other countries often have horrid safety rates — much worse than those of the United States — and little to no regard for pollution or environmental damage. Just because you can’t see the mines or pollution that exist in China, etc. doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
That IS an enviro conundrum.
Read more ….

