The group was made up of sportsmen, energy experts, farmers and former politicians. They met with members of Congress and Obama administration officials to push for tougher regulations as the Interior Department reviews Bush-era rules for leasing public lands and collecting royalties.

Shell in-situ oil shale research project in Colorado’s Rio Blanco County (USGS photo).

On its way out of the White House in 2008, the Bush administration expanded leasing for oil shale research and development and set a sliding royalty rate. Conservation groups at the time argued such policies were premature given the fact that oil shale production has never been proven commercially viable in the United States and many questions remained unanswered.

“Oil shale research should be more than a science project regarding technology,” said fly-in participant Jim Spehar, a former Grand Junction mayor. “Someone needs to be figuring out how communities in northwest Colorado can handle up to six times their current population, as forecast in the most recent impacts analysis for local governments, and who’s going to pay the costs of dealing with that kind of growth.”

Oil shale, not to be confused with shale oil, is most prevalent in the Green River Formation of northwestern Colorado, southwestern Wyoming and eastern Utah. Extracting it involves heating up rocks to pump out the organic kerogen and then converting it into commercial oil. Exxon spent millions in the late 1970s trying to ramp up commercial production on Colorado’s Western Slope, but the Colony Oil Shale Project went bust in 1982.

Shell Oil is widely believed to be the farthest along in terms of current work on its RD&D (Research, Development and Demonstration) leases, but even Shell officials admit commercial production is years, if not decades, away.

“We aim to advance the technology systematically to the point at which an application could be made to convert the 160-acre RD&D tracts to commercial leases,” the company’s website states. “A commercial decision would be middle of the next decade and possibly later depending on the sequence and outcome of research activities.”

Shell officials have confirmed that research at its Mahogany Project in Rio Blanco County shows it will take at least three barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced from oil shale. Critics say such research should be completed and the process proven commercially viable before the federal government sets royalty rates and leasing parameters.

But Shell official Dan Whitney, during a congressional oversight field hearing conducted by Colorado Republican Reps. Scott Tipton and Doug Lamborn in Grand Junction this summer, called the Obama administration review of Bush-era rules “a waste of taxpayer money” that is hindering oil shale development.

Shell has spent an estimated $200 million so far on its Mahogany Project without ever recouping any of that investment with commercial sales of oil. Asked about its “middle of the next decade” statement on its website, a spokeswoman had this to say:

“The exact timing and size of a commercial oil shale operation is dependent upon many factors, including the economic and regulatory environment, project economics and consultations with key stakeholders,” said Shell’s Kelly op de Weegh.

“We are deliberately taking a cautious approach to oil shale technology development. Our research to date has demonstrated that our In-Situ Conversion Process works technically on a small scale. What remains is to prove that it can work commercially.”

Members of Colorado’s conservation community who participated in this week’s fly-in say the state’s outdoor-recreation and tourism-based economy should not be sacrificed for the promise of jobs that still may be decades away.

“The outdoor industry sustains thousands of jobs that depend on outdoor recreation in Colorado and throughout the West,” said Suzanne O’Neill, executive director of the Colorado Wildlife Federation. “With all of the questions surrounding oil shale’s financial viability, it would be irresponsible to trade any of those jobs for promised, but never delivered, employment from oil shale.”

On Wednesday, the Natural Resources Committee voted 7-1 to send a bill to the full legislature that would require all oil pipeline companies to have the routes of their pipelines certified by a state panel headed by the governor before starting construction.

LB4, introduced by Schuyler Sen. Chris Langemeier, would adopt the Oil Pipeline Route Certification Act. Under the bill, authority to issue a route certification for a proposed pipeline ultimately would rest with the governor. It would also establish a panel of experts and landowners to advise the governor, and require the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources to receive applications and hold public meetings regarding a proposed pipeline route. Finally, the proposal requires a route certificate to be obtained before eminent domain rights could be exercised by a pipeline carrier.

It is an open legal question whether the passage of such a bill would be legally viable, since the approval of the project is generally viewed as a federal question. Nonetheless, Nebraska lawmakers are set to begin their first round of debate on Nov. 14 at 1:30 p.m. Four amendments have been filed in advance of that debate.

Heineman came out against the pipeline route earlier this year, citing the importance of the Ogallala aquifer to regional residents and the agricultural industry.

On Thursday, the U.S. State Department announced it needed time to further review the route proposed by TransCanada. A final decision is not expected until 2013.

In light of the federal news, Nebraska Sen. Langemeier told Kevin O’Hanlon of the Lincoln Journal Star that he would consider setting the bill aside.

“The bill is out to have a discussion, but at this point, maybe a discussion is not needed in a special session,” he said. “This might be able to be further discussed … in January,” when the legislature returns to regular session.

Ed Brayton contributed to this report.

According to an administrative consent agreement filed by the EPA in Kansas City, Kan., an inspection at Sivyer Steel in March 2010 found several violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates the storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste. Inspectors cited the company, which produces and finishes steel castings, for operating without proper permits and failures to comply with hazardous waste generator, used oil and universal waste requirements.

As part of the settlement, the company must act within 30 days to demonstrate that its used oil containers and universal waste lamp containers are properly maintain and labeled, and show that all areas of its facility contaminated by leaks of used oil have been cleaned up. Sivyer Steel must also notify the EPA of the existence of any additional area at its facility that may be contaminated by leaked used oil, and take appropriate action to address them.

Last summer the company struck an agreement with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to remove over a four-year period a large pile of used foundry sand at its facility along the Mississippi River. The sand is used in molds to make castings, being contaminated in the process, and was in violation of state regulations that prohibited more than a six-month supply to be stored. In moving the sand to other property, the company also agreed to create a 5-foot buffer of uncontaminated dirt between the sand and groundwater.

In a press release, Issa called his project “an opportunity for private industry to put forward detailed and specific examples so that both the American people and policymakers can determine for themselves what actions can be taken to create jobs.” #

In total, 220 companies wrote (.pdf) to Issa, explaining regulatory impediments to financial success. Some, like Florida fishing captain Steve Papen, run small operations, while others, like the Agricultural Retailers Association, are heavy-hitters. #

In an interview with Roll Call, Papen said he was critical of the state’s strict fishing regulations, which have recently included banning certain species of grouper and snapper from area nets. In his comment to Issa, Papen called the regulations “outdated” and “out of control,” and said that he felt he was being “exploited on every level.” #

Also at the top of the list? One of the most oft-criticized regulatory agencies in the country: the EPA. #

Associated Industries of Florida, the Agricultural Retailers Association and the Florida Farm Bureau all complained about the EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria, which would place strict restrictions on effluent dumped in Florida waterways. In their complaints, Associated Industries and the Florida Farm Bureau said that the criteria were sure to “stymie job growth in Florida.” #

All three groups have blasted the criteria in the past, arguing that they are too costly and not based on sound science. In a January letter criticizing the rules, Associated Industries estimated costs of implementing the standards to be upwards of $3 billion. Their source? A study funded by several polluting agencies. #

Industry representatives aren’t the only ones lashing out at the standards. During a Thursday meeting of the state House Select Committee on Water Policy, several Florida representatives expressed their concerns with the standards. #

State Rep. Charles Van Zant, R-Palatka, said federal standards were an impediment to cleaner Florida waterways, and directed comments to the environmental groups responsible for the lawsuit that forced the EPA to implement standards. #

In comments directed at Sierra Club lobbyist David Cullen, Van Zant said, “If things have gotten worse it is because your lawsuit has blocked us from implementing our standards.” #

In an article in the Florida Tribune, state Rep. Trudi Williams, R-Fort Myers, who chairs the committee, was quoted as saying that the standards would be next to impossible to implement. “There are some criteria that you just can’t meet,” she said. “Even in the Everglades that are beautiful and pristine, the criteria that they want is less than what is naturally occurring there.” #

A mountaintop removal mine in West Virginia (Rick Eglinton/Toronto Star/ZUMA Press)

The White House on Thursday took a giant leap toward eliminating new mountaintop coal mining projects in the Appalachian states, issuing strict new guidelines designed to protect headwater streams by curbing the practice of dumping waste in neighboring valleys.

Announcing the changes, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said the guidelines are intended to make the standards governing new mountaintop projects “clear and consistent,” following a series of EPA decisions over the past year that stakeholders on all sides of the debate found contradictory.

[Environment1] Yet the practical effect of the new standards — which will require mining operations to control levels of toxins in nearby streams — will be to minimize, if not outright preclude, the dumping of mining waste in valleys below the mines. Because the coal industry maintains that most mountaintop projects wouldn’t be worth the additional cost of trucking the debris to more distant dumping sites, the guidelines — if properly enforced — could end most new mountaintop projects before they ever begin.

The move drew immediate criticism from the coal mining industry, which views the new environmental protections as a threat to profits and jobs. But it received high praise from one of the most powerful lawmakers in Appalachia, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), a one-time defender of mountaintop mining who more recently has turned a critical eye toward the practice.

At issue is the mining technique known as mountaintop removal, in which companies use dynamite and draglines to blast and scrape away Appalachian peaks in order to access the coal seams within. In the process, the trees, soil, rock and other debris resting atop the coal are often pushed into adjacent valleys, many of which hold tiny streams forming the headwaters of larger bodies of water below.

The technique has been attractive to coal companies, which save money by eliminating trucking needs (valleys are nearby) and labor costs (dynamite is cheap). But it’s also ravaged neighboring communities by poisoning wells and waterways, contaminating air, killing off wildlife and flooding nearby homes. The EPA estimates that nearly 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams have been buried already by mountaintop projects.

The new EPA guidelines are designed to gauge the health of nearby streams based on their levels of conductivity, which is a good indicator of water’s purity. The runoff from Appalachian mines tends to contain toxins like magnesium, sulfate, bicarbonate, and potassium — all ions that raise conductivity levels. The higher the conductivity, the tougher it is for aquatic life to survive.

Under the new EPA guidelines, mining projects expected to raise conductivity levels of nearby streams above 500 micro-siemens per centimeter — five times the normal level — will be rejected. That level has been shown to harm aquatic life, Jackson said, citing “considerable peer reviewed data.” Effectively, the EPA has attached hard numerical standards to environmental protections more vaguely outlined in the Clean Water Act.

Jackson maintained that the intent of the guidelines is not to create a blanket ban on all new mountaintop removal projects. “This is not about ending coal mining,” she told reporters on a conference call Thursday. “This is about ending coal mining pollution.”

Still, the EPA chief also said that there are “no or very few valley fills that will meet standards like this.”

Indeed, EPA estimates that the Spruce No. 1 Mine near Charleston — at 2,300 acres, the largest mountaintop project ever proposed in West Virginia — would send conductivity levels of nearby streams as high as 2,400 micro-siemens per centimeter. For that reason, the agency last week proposed to veto the project.

No one has to explain to the coal industry that the new guidelines are a threat to the lucrative mountaintopping business. The National Mining Association, a trade group, issued a statement Thursday blasting the EPA’s new rules for what it called a failure “to give greater thought to the impact on jobs, affordable electricity and U.S. steel production.”

“EPA continues to point to ’new science’ that has been found to be both flawed and limited in its findings,” the NMA wrote.

On the other side of the debate have been environmental and community groups, which have fought a decades-long battle against mountaintop removal. In their eyes, the EPA’s new guidelines were a godsend after years watching the agency look away as mine after mine was approved.

The Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, a West Virginia-based advocacy group, applauded the EPA for “finally listening to scientists.” The Rainforest Action Network cheered the agency for “finally flexing its full authority under the Clean Water Act.” And Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the policy represents nothing short of “the most significant administrative action ever taken to address mountaintop removal coal mining.”

The new standards will apply to all mountaintop operations proposed in the future, as well as the nearly 80 pending mountaintop permits the EPA is currently reviewing. The guidelines are specific to the Appalachian states only. “You can’t take this data and apply it outside the region,” Jackson said. But she broached the possibility that the standards could also apply to non-mining projects — things like roads — within the Appalachian states.

The guidelines take effect immediately, although the EPA is accepting public comments and could alter the standards based on that input.

For the Obama administration, it’s been a long road to today’s announcement. On the campaign trail, Obama vowed to end the practice of mountaintop mining in favor of less destructive methods. But the coal industry is a powerful force — and a strong economic engine — in Appalachia. And it has the ear of some of the more influential figures on Capitol Hill, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Faced with those competing pressures, the EPA last year took steps to rein in mountaintop removal, but also issued more than 40 surface mining permits, threatening dozens of Appalachian streams.

At least one powerful Appalachian lawmaker was happy about the EPA’s move to define the permitting standards. The 92-year-old Byrd — who spent a lifetime defending the coal industry that practically defines West Virginia’s economy — said Thursday that he was “pleased” that the EPA took “very seriously” his concerns about the need for clear standards to govern the permitting process.

“Today’s announcement,” Byrd said, “will hopefully now have everyone reading off the same page.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures, in conjunction with the University of Maryland and the Center for Integrative Environmental Research, is releasing reports that also show that economic and environmental interests are aligning in other states.

The studies lay out the rising economic costs of global warming on states’ agriculture, water resources, public health, tourism, transportation, forestry and infrastructure. In some states, cutting greenhouse gas emissions has reduced these costs and fostered economic growth.

The conference recommends that all states pursue tougher environmental regulations because a state’s economy is invariably linked to the economies of its neighbors.

Among the states featured in the new reports are North Carolina, Tennessee, North Dakota and Pennsylvania (pdf here). (Cost-analysis reports for Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey and Ohio were released in July at the conference’s Legislative Summit in New Orleans.)

As in California, energy-efficiency policies are the most cost-effective options for states seeking to reduce greenhouse gases, according to the reports. Minnesota, for instance, saw a return of $3 in economic gains for every dollar spent on its energy-efficiency programs. Other states are considering legislation that would require new buildings to meet certain efficiency standards, while renovations of existing ones would have to meet green standards. You can read the cost reports for 12 states here.

The policy recommendations of the National Conference of State Legislatures will probably encounter some resistance from industry forces. But if California’s example shows anything, it’s that industry can benefit from tougher environmental protections.