| |
 |
| July 23rd, 2008 |
|
Media Contact(s): Mark Eddington or Lindsey Stimpson, 202-224-5251 |
[  ] Listen to Radio Clip |
Printable Version |
[  ] Watch Television Clip |
HATCH MAKES THE CASE FOR DEVELOPING OIL SHALE TO MAKE U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENT
Utah Senator Says Democrats' Speculator Bill Won't Produce One Drop of Oil |
| |
WASHINGTON – Cracking down on oil speculators alone will not solve the nation’s energy crisis, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told members of the Senate today.
Speaking on the Senate floor about the Democrats’ Speculator Bill, Hatch said the proposed bill would “not produce one drop of oil” and asked if that was the best Congress could do. He said an important key to energy independence is to tap the nation’s vast reservoir of oil shale – a solution Democrats have been sabotaging at every opportunity.
“When the Democrats took over Congress, they immediately began dismantling every effort to develop oil from oil shale, oil sands, and coal to liquids, even though they knew full well that we have more oil in those resources than all the rest of the world combined,” Hatch said.
“Democrats in Congress have made a lot of noise about the tens of billions of dollars we spend each year on the War on Terror, but it apparently doesn’t bother them as much that our citizens send more than $700 billion every year to foreign governments to feed our addiction [to foreign oil],” Hatch added.
“Congress’s lamebrained, anti-oil actions have put our people at the mercy of foreign governments that are smart enough to produce their own energy. We are selling away our nation's place in the world and funding the rise of our most aggressive competitors and even our enemies.”
Contrary to the arguments made by liberal Democrats and their environmental extremist allies, Hatch said the technology is in place now to develop oil shale.
“Did you know China and Brazil have been smart enough to produce their own oil from oil shale for decades, and that Estonia has produced it for 80 years?” Hatch asked. “Yet we are stopping its development.”
Hatch added developing that resource is better for the environment than making oil from ethanol. For instance, he said, “oil shale uses less water than ethanol and no more than gasoline. He further cited statistics indicating the development of oil shale would use less land than ethanol and leave far less of a greenhouse gas footprint.
Sen. Orrin Hatch’s complete remarks on the Senate floor follow:
Mr. President, I wish to address the legislation under consideration in the Senate today, the Speculator Bill.
Here we are, the Congress of the greatest nation in the world facing a national energy crisis – a crisis that effects every single American, the American Economy, and America’s place in the world. And this is the best we can do? This is our answer, another proposal that will not produce one drop of oil?
Mr. President, frankly, I’m embarrassed for this body and for the people we represent.
At some point, I wonder when the leaders of the Democratic party will wake up and realize that blaming and taxing the energy industry does not equate to an energy policy – it’s an anti-energy policy. Finding someone to blame is no substitute for finding more oil. And the answer to getting America to use less oil, is not always more taxes and more mandates.
We are a country of addicts. And the seeds of our addiction to foreign oil have been sown here, by an anti-oil Congress. If members of Congress are hunting for someone to blame, Mr. President, they are in luck, because the hunt begins and ends right here, under the Capitol dome.
It is very clear that the most extreme environmental groups have an anti-oil agenda, and it is just as clear that the Democrats have adopted that agenda as their energy platform. It’s a recipe for disaster, and America is reaping the whirlwind as a result.
Some are still arguing for more solar, wind, and geothermal as an answer to high gas prices. Well, I sponsored the current tax incentives for renewable electricity, and I hope my actions speak to my support for renewables. But I know enough about energy to recognize that trains, planes, automobiles, and ships do not run on electricity, they run on oil.
We rely on oil for 97 percent of our transportation needs. The other 3 percent is made up mostly of biofuels, especially corn ethanol. I have strongly opposed the current ethanol mandate, but I have long supported free-market incentives for ethanol. In fact, I sponsored the CLEAR Act, which is the current law giving tax incentives for E-85 fuel and E-85 infrastructure. We need as much ethanol as we can make, and I’m all for it, but I also recognize that ethanol has so many inherent limitations that it will not be able to break us free from our dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. President, the fact of the matter is that we will have to tap into our nation’s gigantic resources of oil shale or we will remain addicted to foreign energy traffickers for the long haul. When the Republicans controlled Congress in 2005, we passed a very bipartisan energy bill which promoted each of these very necessary unconventional oil resources, along with alternatives, renewables, and conservation. When the Democrats took over Congress, they immediately began dismantling every effort to develop oil from oil shale, oil sands, and coal to liquids, even though they knew full well that we have more oil in those resources than all the rest of the world combined.
In most cases, an addiction brings about financial ruin. Democrats in Congress have made a lot of noise about the tens of billions of dollars we spend each year on the War on Terror, but it apparently doesn’t bother them as much that our citizens send more than $700 billion every year to foreign governments to feed our addiction.
Congress’s lamebrained, anti-oil actions have put our people at the mercy of foreign governments that are smart enough to produce their own energy. We are selling away our nation's place in the world and funding the rise of our most aggressive competitors and even our enemies.
Mr. President, did you know that China and Brazil have been smart enough to produce their own oil from oil shale for decades, and that Estonia has produced it for 80 years? Did you know the United States controls more than 70 percent of the world’s known oil shale resources? Yet we are stopping its development. Is it because our industry can’t compete or is unwilling to invest in oil shale production? They most definitely are willing, but the sad, sad fact of the matter is that our own government owns most of the oil shale in the United States, and our own government has said “no.”
The biggest argument I keep hearing against oil shale development is that we can’t allow the government to even establish rules for oil shale development, because we just plain don’t know enough about it, yet. We don’t know how much water it will use; we don’t know how much wildlife habitat it will use, we don’t know about the greenhouse gas footprint. Well guess, what, Mr. President, the Department of Energy has been studying oil shale for decades, and we actually have a pretty good idea about each of those questions.
Why do the Democrats say no to oil shale production, Mr. President? I’ve heard some say they are concerned about water use. So let’s take a look at water use compared to ethanol.
Mr. President, did you know that oil shale uses less water than ethanol and no more than gasoline? Right now, corn does not rely on irrigation, for the most part. However, if we hope to increase ethanol’s share of the fuel supply, we would have to move into drier areas that require irrigation. A September 2007 article in Southwest Hydrology states that irrigated corn requires well over 700 barrels of water for each barrel of ethanol. A barrel of ethanol has about 30 percent less energy than a barrel of oil. In other words, to make just one oil equivalent barrel of ethanol, it would take over 1,000 barrels of water. The Department of Energy reports that oil shale, for the entire process, including land restoration, would require just three barrels of water for every barrel of shale oil, about the same as gasoline.
So let’s compare how much water it would take to make enough ethanol to produce 20 percent of our fuel with the amount of water it would take to produce the same amount of oil shale. We would need about 64 cubic miles of water to produce that much ethanol, and only .17 cubic miles of water to produce the same amount of oil shale.
It is time we stop confusing U.S. oil shale with Canadian oil sands. They require completely different processes. Canadian oil sand production uses a lot of water and a lot of steam to produce oil from oil sands. With oil shale, you apply heat directly to the rock. The last thing you want in your process is water. They are very different, so let’s stop pretending they’re the same thing.
The other red herring often raised against oil shale is a concern about land use and wildlife habitat. Mr. President, did you know oil shale uses much less land than either ethanol or gasoline? One acre of corn produces 7 to 10 barrels of ethanol. One acre in the oil patch produces about 10,000 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces between 100,000 and 1 million-plus barrels of shale oil! That’s right, on average, an acre of oil shale will produce around 500,000 barrels of oil.
So those of you who are truly concerned about land use and wildlife habitat, let’s look at how much land it would take to make enough ethanol for 20 percent of our fuel supply compared to the same amount of oil shale.
It would take the area of Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and South Dakota combined to produce enough ethanol for 20 percent of our fuel supply. I said it before, I believe we need to produce as much ethanol as we can, but it is a very land-intensive activity.
So what about oil shale? As you can see, Mr. President, producing 20 percent of our oil from oil shale would take up the equivalent of the smallest county in Kansas being in production at one time. And as each oil shale acre is used, it would be restored to nature according to the very strict mining and oil and gas laws already on the books.
Mr. President, we are learning that land use is very important, and not just in terms of wildlife habitat and watershed protections. Scientist have determined that disturbing land for activities like cultivating corn and switchgrass, or any other crop, releases giant amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. This last February, Science magazine published a peer-reviewed study which calculated the greenhouse gas footprint of ethanol from corn production. Even taking into account that burning ethanol is an improvement over gasoline, the researchers discovered that when land disturbance is calculated, corn ethanol emits 93 percent more greenhouse gases than gasoline. Thank goodness for switchgrass: our new hope for the future of biofuels. The problem is, Mr. President, that the same study calculates that switchgrass, even when grown on existing corn land, still produces 50 percent more carbon emissions that gasoline.
The Department of Energy calculates that oil shale production emits only 7 percent more greenhouse gases than gasoline, and that is without any carbon capture technology, which many in the industry plan to use.
Whether your concern is carbon emissions, water use, or wildlife habitat, oil shale is a better answer than ethanol. And when it comes to transportation fuels, ethanol is the only alternative of any real significance.
I am certainly not here to bash ethanol. I still believe we should produce as much as possible. But ethanol is the only significant alternative to transportation fuels available today, and it’s important that we start dealing in realities around here. To be honest, Mr. President, when it comes to energy policy it has felt like Never-Never Land on Capitol Hill. On one hand, we pass a giant mandate on top of giant incentives to produce ethanol, with all its limitations. On the other hand, we ban oil shale production, which would give our people access to almost unlimited amounts of cheap energy. The oil shale industry is not asking for any environmental loopholes, mandates, or subsidies. They simply ask to have access to the federal government’s vast oil shale resources.
Mr. President, I have no problem with debating the impact of speculation on oil prices. It is something we ought to be discussing. But it is no substitute for providing our people with the transportation fuels they need, and we’ll never accomplish that goal until we find more and use less.
|
| |
| ### |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
