Tag: rights

Shell Walks Away From Oil Shale

  • Shell says that even though it's no longer pursing water rights on the Yampa River right now, it's in no way backing off its larger ambitions for oil shale. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

Extracting oil from oil shale takes a lot of water. Most of the oil shale in the U.S. is in areas where there’s not a lot of water. Conrad Wilson reports, one big oil company seems to be walking away from oil shale for that reason. But not everyone thinks that’s the case.

Transcript

Extracting oil from oil shale takes a lot of water. Most of the oil shale in the U.S. is in areas where there’s not a lot of water. Conrad Wilson reports, one big oil company seems to be walking away from oil shale for that reason. But not everyone thinks that’s the case.

In the Western US, some energy companies are betting big on oil shale. That’s a process of basically heating up a shale rock into a liquid that’s eventually refined into oil. But the global recession and the threat of climate change might be giving those companies second thoughts. Add to that a increasingly limited water supply, and oil shale looks like a risky investment.

The process of creating oil shale is energy intensive and uses a lot of water. That’s a problem in the arid West. As the population grows, the value of water is increasing.

Royal Dutch Shell has the most invested in developing an oil shale technology that works. So earlier this year when the company announced it was pulling away from water rights, it sent shock waves through the industry.

“I read that decision as Shell’s acknowledgment that oil shale is a long way off and that this was a really controversial filing and that in a sense it’s not worth it.”

That’s Claire Bastable of the Western Energy Project. It’s an environmental group that keeps on eye on energy issues in the West. Shell had been pursuing water rights on the Yampa River, in the Northwest portion Colorado.

“Shell’s decision was a big deal. We’re talking about 15 billion gallons of water. … It would have basically taken the Yampa River, which is one of the the last free flowing rivers in the West and diverted a huge proportion of it to Shell for potential oil shale development.”

Bastable says the 15 billion gallons Shell was seeking is about three times the amount the city of Boulder, Colorado uses in a year.

But, Shell knows a lot of oil can be extracted from the oil shale. It’s estimated that there are 800 billion barrels of usable oil in the shale – in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.

Dr. Jeremy Boak researches oil shale development at the Colorado School of Mines. He says Shell could be simply postponing extracting that oil. Boak believes oil shale has a future, but it’s still decades away.

“With all of the comments they’ve made about what the time scale for oil shale, Shell has been pretty comfortable that this is going to take time.”

Shell says that even though it’s no longer pursing water rights on the Yampa River right now, it’s in no way backing off its larger ambitions for oil shale.

The company wouldn’t provide someone to comment for this story, but in a statement the company said:

The “ultimate goal is to create a commercial oil shale recovery operation that is economically viable, environmentally responsible and socially sustainable.”

That statement adds timing depends on government regulation and the market. The company could be waiting to see what the government does about climate change and how that affects fossil fuel costs. Shell could also be waiting for oil prices go up before deciding whether oil shale worth the effort.

Eric Kuhn heads up water management for the Colorado River District. He monitors much of the state’s water West of the Continental Divide. Kuhn says there’s probably enough water for oil shale development right now, but it’s hard to say for how long.

“I don’t think they’re dropping the filing changes anything. I think those companies are dedicated to and still have a plan to develop the oil shale resource if they can find a technology that is economically productive or if they can produce the oil shale at a competitive price, I think they will do it.”

Environmentalists in the region hope they won’t. They say Shell’s decision not to pursue the water right now should be a signal to others… oil shale just might not be worth the effort.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links

Climate Change and Civil Rights

  • A climate change bill will mean more expensive energy until the nation can transition from fossil fuels like coal and oil to renewable energy such as biofuels, wind, and solar. (Source: Atmoneytota at Wikimedia Commons)

Eventually a climate change bill will work its way through Congress and President Obama has indicated he’ll sign it. But a civil rights group says a climate change bill will hurt the working poor. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Eventually a climate change bill will work its way through Congress and President Obama has indicated he’ll sign it. But a civil rights group says a climate change bill will hurt the working poor. Lester Graham reports:

A climate change bill will mean more expensive energy until the nation can switch from fossil fuels like coal and oil to renewable energy such as biofuels, wind and solar.

Roy Innis is the Chairman of the civil rights group Congress of Racial Equality. He says higher energy costs will hit the working poor hardest.

Democrats say they’ll get tax rebates to offset the higher costs. Innis doesn’t like the idea.

“We don’t want energy welfare. This is our new civil rights battle: how to have abundant and available, reliable energy at a reasonable cost.”

And Innis says we have that now with fossil fuels.

The Obama Administration says climate change legislation will eventually lead to cheaper energy for everyone and reduce the cause of global warming —which, in the end, could cost people a lot more.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Supreme Court to Hear Beach Walking Case?

Shoreline property owners are asking the nation’s highest court to reverse a ruling that says the public has the right to walk along the beaches of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports:

Transcript

Shoreline property owners are asking the nation’s highest court to
reverse a ruling that says the public has the right to walk along the
beaches of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick
Pluta reports:


The property owners are challenging a Michigan Supreme Court
decision. The state court held that the public owns the Great Lakes
beaches from the water to the high water mark. The case was filed by a
woman who was seeking the right to walk along the shoreline of Lake
Huron.


David Powers is an attorney with the property owners group Save Our
Shoreline. He says the Michigan decision rolled back property owners’
rights…


“And so, if the state has taken private property in violation of the
Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court should be very concerned about
that.”


The other side in the case says the Great Lakes shoreline is such a unique
resource that no one person should be allowed to claim exclusive rights
to it.


There’s no word on when the Supreme Court might make a decision on
taking the case. Lakeshore property rights are being litigated in other
Great Lakes states and whatever the Supreme Court decides to do could
have an effect on those cases.


For the GLRC, this is Rick Pluta.

Related Links

Tribe Sues for Fishing Rights

The Ottawa tribe of Oklahoma has filed suit in federal court, claiming it still owns fishing rights in Lake Erie… but that’s prompting natural resources officials to worry about the prospect of over-fishing in the lake. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen reports:

Transcript

The Ottawa tribe of Oklahoma has filed suit in federal court,
claiming it still owns fishing rights in Lake Erie, but that’s
prompting natural resources officials to worry about the prospect of
over-fishing in the lake. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill
Cohen reports.


Members of the Ottawa tribe say a 200-year-old treaty gave them fishing
rights, but Ohio officials who regulate fishing are hoping the tribe
doesn’t win its lawsuit.


They say, since the tribe is a sovereign nation,
the Native Americans would not have to abide by state limits on fish
catches, and that could ruin the business of the commercial fishing
companies that rely on the lake.


The Ottawa’s lawyer, Dick Rogovin, says the state could compensate.


“If these tribes take a lot of fish out of the water, I think the state’s
got to put fish back in. That’s their obligation: to supply fish for
everybody else.”


Some Native American tribes do have fishing rights in other parts of the
Great Lakes, but court agreements between the tribes and the states put
limits on the catch of fish in those areas.


For the GLRC, I’m Bill Cohen.

Related Links

Eminent Domain Debated

  • The intersection of Devon and Broadway in Chicago, just a few blocks from Lake Michigan. Alderman Patrick O'Connor is concerned that this corner is a bad use of space - not as walkable as the rest of the neighborhood. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Cities are always coming up with projects to improve land or even create jobs, and sometimes existing buildings just don’t fit into those plans. Often, owners of such property won’t sell to make way for new development. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on the legality of one tool cities use to force reluctant landowners to sell. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee looks at one politician’s use of this legal power:

Transcript

Cities are always coming up with projects to improve land
or even create jobs, and sometimes existing buildings just don’t fit
into those plans. Often, owners of such property won’t sell to make
way for new development. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on the
legality of one tool cities use to force reluctant landowners to sell. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee looks at one
politician’s use of this legal power:


This big-city neighborhood is the kind of place where shoppers usually park their cars and walk around. Brick store fronts and restaurants are usually just a few feet from the sidewalk.


But there’s a corner that looks different, though. A lot different.


It’s home to three fast-food buildings. The first business is a popular donut shop. Next door, there’s a fried chicken drive-through. And the last building was once a burger joint, but today it’s home to a car title lender.


To hear the alderman, Patrick O’Connor, tell it, the strip looks like a piece of suburbia landed right in his big-city ward.


“There’s no symmetry, no walkability, it’s all car-related and it’s all basically parking lot. There’s more asphalt than there is building in those places.”


He says this corner on Chicago’s North Side is a bad use of space, and he’s hoping to attract new, more pedestrian-friendly businesses or buildings. But what’s to be done about it if these shops are already there and don’t want to sell? One of O’Connor’s options is to have the city force the owners to sell their properties and then redevelop the land.


The power to forcibly buy property is called eminent domain, and O’Connor says the city’s using it to speed redevelopment throughout Chicago. But O’Connor’s concerned time may run out on the use of this power.


Governments have long-used eminent domain for public use. For example, a city or state might condemn a whole neighborhood, buy out the homeowners, and level the buildings to make way for a road or airport.


But the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case called Kelo versus New London, is considering just how far government can go when using eminent domain to bolster private development.


O’Connor hopes the court sides with local governments.


“In our community there’s not too many open spaces. So what we look to do is to enhance what we have to try to utilize space to the maximum effectiveness. That’s really where the court case hinges, you know, Who’s to say one use is better than another?”


And that question – who decides the best use of a property – is the rallying cry of critics who say cities abuse eminent domain powers.


Sam Staley’s with the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think-tank. He says the Supreme Court case is really about fairness.


“Those people that know how to use the system and know the right people in city council really have the ability to compel a neighbor or another property to sell their property whether they want to or not.”


Staley and other property rights advocates are also convinced that cities don’t need eminent domain for economic development. Staley says local economies can improve without government interference.


“The private sector’s just gotten lazy. They no longer want to have to go through the market, so they don’t come up with creative ways of accommodating property rights of the people that own the pieces of land or building that they want to develop.”


Staley says, instead, developers find it easier to have cities use eminent domain.


But most urban planners and some environmentalists say a court decision against this use of eminent domain could threaten redevelopment of both cities and aging suburbs. John Echevarria is with Georgetown University’s Environmental Law and Policy Institute.


“If you don’t have the power of eminent domain, you can’t do effective downtown redevelopment. The inevitable result would be more shopping centers, more development on the outskirts of urban areas, and more sprawl.”


Alderman O’Connor says constituents will always push urban politicians to put scarce land to better use. He says that won’t change if the court strikes down the broadest eminent domain powers; cities will just have to resort to strong-arm tactics instead.


“The alternative is the city then has to become harsher on how they try to enforce laws. They have to try and run sting operations and go after businesses that are breaking the law and then try to close them down and live with empty places until the sellers get tired and they sell.”


The small business community finds this attitude outrageous. They say as long as they improve their businesses and people frequent them, the market should decide whether they stay or go.


On the other hand, urban planners say the market doesn’t always make best use of land. They say local governments need eminent domain powers to control development, and they’re looking to the court to protect those powers.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Holy Grail of Great Lakes Shipwrecks Found?

  • For a long time, anything any diver salvaged could be claimed as his or her own. Since the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987, anything divers find on public land remains public. But a new discovery may bend some rules. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

A shipwreck hunter believes he might have found what’s been described as the Holy Grail of Great Lakes wrecks. His find has triggered a new debate over who can lay claim to historic shipwrecks and what should happen to them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sally Eisele reports:

Transcript

A shipwreck hunter believes he might have found what’s been described as the Holy Grail of Great Lakes wrecks. His find has triggered a new debate over who can lay claim to historic shipwrecks and what should happen to them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sally Eisele reports:


Of the thousands of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, the wreck of the Griffin is probably the most legendary. For a few reasons. She was built by somebody legendary – French explorer Rene-Robert Cavalier Sieur de La Salle, she was the first European ship to sail the Upper Great Lakes… and she was the first to sink. Actually, she sank on her maiden voyage in 1769, not exactly one of La Salle’s bigger success stories. But the mystery she left behind is pretty big – and it has pretty well flummoxed Great Lakes historians for hundreds of years. Shipwreck scholar Steven Herald is the director of the Manistee County Historical Museum.


“The Griffin loaded its first and only freight cargo downbound at Green Bay, and there has never been a reliable report of anyone who has seen the vessel since. It left Green Bay and disappeared totally.”


Did she run aground? Sink to the bottom of Lake Michigan? No one knows, But Steven Libert, a long-time shipwreck hunter, thinks he might have found a clue. What he’s excited about appears to be a long, wooden pole sticking out of the sand in about 80 feet of water in northwestern Lake Michigan. It doesn’t look like much. But Rick Robol, the attorney for Libert’s company Great Lakes Exploration, says tests indicate it could date back to the 17th century. And it could be part of a ship.


“Great Lakes Exploration does not know at this point what is there. And it does not know whether in fact it is the Griffin or not. Certainly if it were the Griffin, it would be a very substantial find.”


Great Lakes Exploration has filed suit in federal court seeking salvage rights to the site. But the site is in Michigan waters and the state has filed a motion to have the case dismissed. State archaeologist John Halsey says whatever there is should belong to the public, not a private company.


“They have the money to go out and look, they have the money to go out and find, but what they don’t have is the permission to bring stuff up. That’s where the rubber meets the road.”


The state argues the Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 gives any state title to historic wrecks in its waters. Before its passage, pretty much anybody in a rubber suit could salvage shipwrecks. And they did – the evidence is rusting out in garages across the country. The federal law sought to protect these historic sites – which, in the cold fresh water of the Great Lakes, are often well-preserved time capsules. But Wisconsin shipwreck researcher, Brendon Baillod, says a number of cases have already shown the law is full of technical loopholes if you have the money and time to challenge it.


“We have a lot of wrecks that are open game legally. It really is up to the judge who gets the case before them.”


If Great Lakes Exploration does clear the legal hurdles, the next question will be academic. What should happen to their findings? Attorney Rick Robol says it all depends on what’s there.


“Really, shipwrecks have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There are some shipwrecks that may best remain in situ, that is, on site, and there are other that should be recovered. It’s impossible to determine what’s best for a particular wreck without first scientifically studying it.”


At this stage, it’s anybody’s guess as to whether the site contains the remains of a ship or just a pile of very old scrapwood. But preservationists such as historian Steven Herald, argue anything of historical value should really just be left there.


“I’m a great one for leaving it where it is and studying it in as much detail as possible. The easiest way to preserve it is to keep it there.”


One thing is certain, any excavation would likely involve many years and millions of dollars. Oh, and there’s another possibility too, if in fact the Griffin is found. Technically, the vessel still belongs to France, which was in charge around here after all at the time of La Salle’s adventures.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sally Eisele.

Related Links

Part 2: Selling the Right to Develop Farmland

  • Farm museums like this one are sometimes the only remnant of the agricultural life that has been overrun by development. However, some communities are buying farmers' development rights in an effort to save the rural landscape. (Photo by Lester Graham)

One way to keep farms from becoming subdivisions is to pay the farmers to never build on their land. This has been happening on the east and west coasts for decades. But it’s just now beginning to catch on in the Great Lakes region. In the second of a two part series on farmers and the decisions they make about their land, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette takes us to a place where local government is paying to keep land in agriculture:

Transcript

One way to keep farms from becoming subdivisions is to pay the farmers to never
build on their land. This has been happening on the east and west coasts for
decades. But it’s just now beginning to catch on in the Great Lakes region. In
the second of a two part series on farmers and the decisions they make about
their land, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette takes us to a place
where local government is paying to keep land in agriculture:


Whitney Lyon’s farm has been in his family for more than a century. He has 100
acres of cherry and apple trees. The orchards are on a peninsula that stretches
fourteen miles across a bay in Northern Lake Michigan. His farm is about a half
mile from the clear blue water that attracts thousands of tourists here every
year.


Lyon says real estate agents love his property.


“We run clean back to the bay on the north side… that’s view property. It’s
worth 30, 40,000 bucks an acre.”


But it’s not worth that much anymore. The rights to build houses on the Lyon farm have
been sold. The way this works is this: the Lyon’s keep the land, but they get paid
for the real estate value they give up to keep the land as a farm instead of house
sites.


(sound of apple picking)


There’s a thick fog across the peninsula today. Whitney Lyon is picking apples. His
wife Mary is inside watching kids. Mary says the day they sold the development
rights was the best day in their thirty years of farm life. She says she knew they’d
be able to stay on the land. And because of the money they made, she downsized her
daycare business.


“The big change, especially the last two or three years, I no longer just buy stuff
from just garage sales. I have actually been spending money on purchasing things for
the house. Which previously, everything came from garage sales.”


Many of the Lyon’s neighbors have sold their development rights as well. For ten
years, the township government has raised money to buy those rights with an additional
property tax. Almost no other community in the Midwest has a program like this. But,
if approved by voters, five more townships in this area might also start programs after
the November elections. Each township is separately asking voters to approve a property tax.


The American Farmland Trust has helped the townships design the program. The group is
excited because this would provide an example of local governments joining together to
protect farmland. Farmland Trust’s President Ralph Grossie flew in for a campaign event.
In a speech, Grossie told a crowd of about 100 people there’s a disconnect between farmers
and their communities. He says the community benefits from the farms while the farmers
struggle to make ends meet.


“We believe there is a middle ground here, there is a way to strike a deal between those
who manage our landscape – private farmers and ranchers, landowners – and those who
appreciate and benefit from that well-managed landscape. If you think about it, that’s
the heart of the property rights debate. Almost all those conflicts over property rights
are really about who pays for achieving a public goal on private land.”


Grossie says paying farmers with public money is the best option if a community wants to
keep farms. Otherwise, he says government forces farmers to pay when they give up profitable
uses of their land because of zoning laws. But a few in this crowd weren’t buying.


Some are opposed to more taxes on their homes or businesses so the township government can
write big checks to farmers. Others question if younger generations even want to farm.


(sound of noise from crowd)


And some are just plain suspicious of government. Roger Booth is talking to another
opponent of the propposal after the speech. Booth is explaining that when the right
to develop a piece of land is purchased, it’s gone forever. But he points out there
is one exception.


“Eminent domain. And who’s going to decide eminent domain has the right to take it? The
people in power of government at the time. Not today. Thirty years from now.”


Government also has an image problem because prominent local farmers often sit on the
town boards. It’s hard not to notice they could be the ones cashing in on the public treasury.
Critics also point out these programs tax farms to save farmland. And they say buying the
deveolopment rights does nothing to improve the business of farming. Supporters admit this
doesn’t guarantee future success for farms. But they say at least it gives the farmers a
chance to keep farming instead of selling to developers.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Peter Payette.

Related Links

ROOM FOR DEVELOPMENT &Amp; FARMING? (Part 2)

Some Midwesterners concerned that urban sprawl is eating up too much farmland recently took a bus trip to the east coast. They wanted to visit states such as Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Planners in those states have been dealing with the problem of too many people and not enough land for decades. The bus tour participants looked at different ways to preserve open spaces while still allowing development. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant looks at a program that doesn’t cost taxpayers money: