A coalition of more than 100 Colorado businesses, conservation groups and sporting groups are supporting the Bureau of Land Management's proposal to scale back the amount of land available for oil shale research and development, saying the state's water supply is too fragile to be put at risk.

The coalition sent a letter yesterday to BLM acting Director Mike Pool stating that the "technology behind oil shale development is unproven and could pose an unacceptable risk to Colorado's water. No one knows just how much water would be needed for oil shale or what the full potential threat to water quality is in our state."

"We have to be smart about oil shale, or we risk the future of Colorado's farms and ranches, the ability of municipalities to meet water needs for Colorado families, or having enough water in our rivers for recreational uses such as fishing and rafting," the five-paragraph letter said. "We do not have to choose between energy production and meeting our water needs if we take the right approach."

The letter -- signed by a wide variety of groups, including Colorado Trout Unlimited, the Gunnison Angling Society and the Valley Organics Growers Association -- urges Pool and BLM to adopt the draft programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) unveiled in February that would significantly downsize a George W. Bush administration plan to develop oil shale in the West (Greenwire, Feb. 3).

BLM's proposal would reduce available lands for oil shale development -- a still largely experimental process of extracting crude from shale rock -- by more than 75 percent in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The proposal has infuriated the industry, GOP congressional leaders and some local government leaders.

The federal agency is expected to finalize a plan for oil shale and oil sands development in the three states as early as next month.

With Colorado suffering drought conditions this summer, the groups are questioning whether it's worth the risk to explore large-scale development of oil shale, which likely would need to be heated to extremely high temperatures before it can be refined, a process some fear could require billions of gallons of water.

"We simply don't know what the impacts will be to water if oil shale is thrown into the mix," said Jeff Crane, executive director of the Carbondale, Colo.-based Colorado Watershed Assembly, who signed the letter. "Protecting our watersheds must be a priority, and oil shale is a threat if it's not done right."

The latest letter in support of BLM's draft plan is not the first from Colorado business, sporting and conservation groups.

The Colorado Wildlife Federation in April took out newspaper advertisements endorsing BLM's proposed plan and thanking Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for "standing up for our water and wildlife and taking a cautious approach to oil shale leasing and development" (EnergyWire, April 24).

Concern about the potential volume of water use associated with commercial-scale oil shale and oil sands development is not new.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the United States holds the equivalent of 2 trillion barrels of oil -- about half the world's oil shale reserves. The Colorado Water Conservation Board last year analyzed state water needs through 2050 and estimated that 39 billion gallons of water a year would be needed to produce 1.5 million barrels of oil a day from oil shale deposits in the state (Land Letter, Jan. 13, 2011).

Major oil companies with interest in oil shale development, such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, have been purchasing senior water rights from mostly agricultural users in western Colorado's Piceance Basin, which lies between the White and Colorado rivers. Both rivers likely would be tapped to operate drilling equipment as well as to cool turbines at new power plants that would be necessary to support oil shale development projects.

With the populations of both Utah and Colorado expected to nearly double by 2050, Boulder, Colo.-based Western Resource Advocates released a report in March that concluded there are simply too many gaps in existing research to say with certainty that commercial-scale oil shale development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming would not deplete already dwindling water resources.

"The oil shale industry should be required to conduct the necessary research prior to commercial leasing," the letter said, "to prove that oil shale is economically viable and that it will not pose a dangerous risk to our drinking water, our agricultural industry, and our rivers."

Click here to read the letter to BLM.

Streater writes from Colorado Springs, Colo.