Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[SLCforme]

Originally Posted by T-Mac

RFPCME, I have to agree with you. I was speaking with a client of ours today who now works for BP since they purchased the company he is with. We discussed the oil shale and tar sands in the Wyoming, Colorado and Utah area. He was mentioning that Nine Mile Canyon itself has enough natural gas in it to supply the state of Utah for over 80 years. That is just that little canyon. However, because of the ancient writings on the walls, no one can touch it. Also, we discussed the amount of oil shale and tar sands that exist in the area and getting at it. He said that there are at least 2 companies that he knows of right now that are testing different technologies to get at the shale. He also said that the technology to get at it is advancing quickly and has changed a lot over the last few years. He also said that they mentioned to him that they can make money on it at $80 a barrel. Now just to get the technology down to get it out of the ground without disrupting the environment to drastically. Just a little info from my discussion today.

I wish that were true. There is already natural gas pumping going on in Nine Mile Canyon and it is causing lots of damage to the ancient sites. Just the vibrations caused by the trucks going up and down the roads in causing adobe walls to fall over etc. The gas companies want to increase production but there has been a fight over it, so maybe your friend was referring to that.

[T-Mac]

My understanding from him is that they have recently put a halt to it. He would know about it because the company he is with was bought out by BP a couple of years ago and that company was the one who originally found the natural gas there.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by SLC Tortfeasor

This is getting a bit off-topic, but I Googled "oil shale water" and came up with several interesting hits. Here are a few of them:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/birger_shale.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008060617 (Orrin Hatch says it takes 3 barrels of water to get one barrel of oil)

http://www.postindependent.com/article/20070915/VALLEYNEWS/109150056 (a summary of different perspectives on the oil shale/water issue; one person estimates you need 1-3 barrels of water per barrel of oil)

http://www.examiner.com/x-395-Colorado-Water-Examiner~y2008m6d17-Shell-Oil

Also, here's one recent article (an opinion piece) from the Deseret News. For your convenience, I'll just paste it into this post.

Processing oil shale squanders water
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Jul 2, 2008 by Mark Danenhauer

It seems a day does not go by we don't hear something on the radio or read an ad in a paper about the importance of developing oil shale. Proponents of oil shale see it as another means to help the United States achieve energy independence, a very worthy cause. However, how much of this rhetoric is just good politics in these days of $4 a gallon gasoline, and how much of this is actually good, well-thought-out policy?

A very serious concern of mine relates to the impact of oil shale on our state's limited water resources. In case anyone forgot, we do live in the second driest state in the country, averaging only 12 inches of precipitation annually. More importantly, the area where most of Utah's oil shale is located averages even less. Utah has limited water resources, which are already heavily stressed and will be even more so as our population doubles in the next 40 years.

The oil shale in Utah is located near the Green and White rivers, major tributaries of the Colorado River. The Colorado River is one of the most heavily used and managed water systems in the United States. Millions upon millions of people all over the southwestern United States rely on water from this system for everything from growing crops to meeting drinking water needs.

The Colorado River Compact guides how this river system is managed. Recently, after years of debate, the compact was amended in order to determine how the water would be allocated in times of a drought. This was done because there simply is not as much water in the system now as there was when the compact was originally created.

Let's see how this water scarcity relates to oil shale.

Oil shale can be converted to a liquid by one of two processes: either above ground or in-situ. The method in Canada is above ground. This process requires an astounding five barrels of water to create one barrel of oil. The other process, in-situ, processes the shale in the ground. This process is still new, so the amount of water required for it has not yet been determined. In-situ has never been done on a large scale.

Regardless of which method is used, the fact remains that processing oil shale into oil requires an incredible amount of water. While it may be true that there is a huge quantity of oil shale in Utah, there simply is no way to meet the incredible water needs to produce oil from it. There are many unknowns when it comes to water and oil shale. How much water will it actually require? Where will that water come from? Does that water even exist? If processed in-situ, will the groundwater be polluted?

Utahns are incredibly aware and educated when it comes to water. They made it possible for people to settle in the dry western United States thanks to modern irrigation. Now, as we move forward into the future, let's continue to be forward-thinking and innovative and make sure we fully understand how the production of oil shale will impact our state's precious and limited water supplies.

We can't simply jump on board the bandwagon and proclaim that we need to develop oil shale without understanding what that means to our limited and precious water resources.

Mark Danenhauer is the river solutions coordinator for the Utah Rivers Council.

Copyright C 2008 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

SLC Tortfeasor: A very thoughtful and reasoned post. Posts like yours greatly add to the quality of the discussion.

I thoroughly agree that water is the limiting factor in oil shale development, as it is in any development in the Mtn. West. I don't know about the amounts of water necessary for above ground processing of oil shale. The ratio of water to refined oil from shale might be indeed 4 or 5 to 1. But even at that ratio, the development of oil shale is still realistic, if not inescapable.

I learned tonight that the US uses 408B gallons of water per day. By far and away, the biggest use is for irrigation, almost 57%. Irrigation is tough on water because it pollutes it, leaching salts out of the soil, especially in the Mtn. West because of the high alkaline content in the rocks and soil. Water costs in the West are also artificially low, because of the massive water development projects that took place during the 20th century.

So, yes, there is going to be a cost in water. How big is this cost? It's relative. 275 million gallons a day is a very small percentage of overall US usage. What this probably means is better conservation and less date production in the Imperial Valley in California, which is where a great deal of Colorado River water goes (I won't miss dates much!). And the water use in oil shale production is probably less environmentally damaging than agriculture in the Mtn. West since the water lost is steam, relatively free of pollutants.

All of the above refers to above ground production. In-situ production, meaning in the ground, is a whole different tar baby, much more risky--technologically, environmentally, financially. I think we are better off above ground, at least in the near future.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by SLC Tortfeasor

This is getting a bit off-topic, but I Googled "oil shale water" and came up with several interesting hits. Here are a few of them:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/birger_shale.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008060617 (Orrin Hatch says it takes 3 barrels of water to get one barrel of oil)

http://www.postindependent.com/article/20070915/VALLEYNEWS/109150056 (a summary of different perspectives on the oil shale/water issue; one person estimates you need 1-3 barrels of water per barrel of oil)

http://www.examiner.com/x-395-Colorado-Water-Examiner~y2008m6d17-Shell-Oil

Also, here's one recent article (an opinion piece) from the Deseret News. For your convenience, I'll just paste it into this post.

Processing oil shale squanders water
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Jul 2, 2008 by Mark Danenhauer

It seems a day does not go by we don't hear something on the radio or read an ad in a paper about the importance of developing oil shale. Proponents of oil shale see it as another means to help the United States achieve energy independence, a very worthy cause. However, how much of this rhetoric is just good politics in these days of $4 a gallon gasoline, and how much of this is actually good, well-thought-out policy?

A very serious concern of mine relates to the impact of oil shale on our state's limited water resources. In case anyone forgot, we do live in the second driest state in the country, averaging only 12 inches of precipitation annually. More importantly, the area where most of Utah's oil shale is located averages even less. Utah has limited water resources, which are already heavily stressed and will be even more so as our population doubles in the next 40 years.

The oil shale in Utah is located near the Green and White rivers, major tributaries of the Colorado River. The Colorado River is one of the most heavily used and managed water systems in the United States. Millions upon millions of people all over the southwestern United States rely on water from this system for everything from growing crops to meeting drinking water needs.

The Colorado River Compact guides how this river system is managed. Recently, after years of debate, the compact was amended in order to determine how the water would be allocated in times of a drought. This was done because there simply is not as much water in the system now as there was when the compact was originally created.

Let's see how this water scarcity relates to oil shale.

Oil shale can be converted to a liquid by one of two processes: either above ground or in-situ. The method in Canada is above ground. This process requires an astounding five barrels of water to create one barrel of oil. The other process, in-situ, processes the shale in the ground. This process is still new, so the amount of water required for it has not yet been determined. In-situ has never been done on a large scale.

Regardless of which method is used, the fact remains that processing oil shale into oil requires an incredible amount of water. While it may be true that there is a huge quantity of oil shale in Utah, there simply is no way to meet the incredible water needs to produce oil from it. There are many unknowns when it comes to water and oil shale. How much water will it actually require? Where will that water come from? Does that water even exist? If processed in-situ, will the groundwater be polluted?

Utahns are incredibly aware and educated when it comes to water. They made it possible for people to settle in the dry western United States thanks to modern irrigation. Now, as we move forward into the future, let's continue to be forward-thinking and innovative and make sure we fully understand how the production of oil shale will impact our state's precious and limited water supplies.

We can't simply jump on board the bandwagon and proclaim that we need to develop oil shale without understanding what that means to our limited and precious water resources.

Mark Danenhauer is the river solutions coordinator for the Utah Rivers Council.

Copyright C 2008 Deseret News Publishing Co.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

SLC Tortfeasor: A very thoughtful and reasoned post. Posts like yours greatly add to the quality of the discussion.

I thoroughly agree that water is the limiting factor in oil shale development, as it is in any development in the Mtn. West. I don't know about the amounts of water necessary for above ground processing of oil shale. The ratio of water to refined oil from shale might be indeed 4 or 5 to 1. But even at that ratio, the development of oil shale is still realistic, if not inescapable.

I learned tonight that the US uses 408B gallons of water per day. By far and away, the biggest use is for irrigation, almost 57%. Irrigation is tough on water because it pollutes it, leaching salts out of the soil, especially in the Mtn. West because of the high alkaline content in the rocks and soil. Water costs in the West are also artificially low, because of the massive water development projects that took place during the 20th century.

So, yes, there is going to be a cost in water. How big is this cost? It's relative. 275 million gallons a day is a very small percentage of overall US usage. What this probably means is better conservation and less date production in the Imperial Valley in California, which is where a great deal of Colorado River water goes (I won't miss dates much!). And the water use in oil shale production is probably less environmentally damaging than agriculture in the Mtn. West since the water lost is steam, relatively free of pollutants.

All of the above refers to above ground production. In-situ production, meaning in the ground, is a whole different tar baby, much more risky--technologically, environmentally, financially. I think we are better off above ground, at least in the near future.

[murdoc9]

I realize I don't post as often - I usually only get a chance to get my fix on this site every few days, so sorry if this is a late reply.

Reading the replies from the forumers there seems to be a great deal of optimism for oil shale refining... not so much support for my position. With Oil (although falling ~ $10 the last two days/barrel) well over $130/barrel and projected by many to surpass $200/barrel money seems so easy to obtain, and on the surface shale seems to have real potential.

IF the oil companies were to pay fair value for their land, water and emissions for the shale I would be all on board. What the oil/energy companies are seeking are subsidies from the american public in one or all of those three categories. Most notably they want to not pay for pollution they generate or any disturbances to the land that their development will cause or even contribute to.

Beyond that their primary inputs are very scarce and are growing scarcer and thus more expensive (unless subsidized). Technology may advance to $30/barrel someday, but right now, from what I have read and understood $80/barrel seems more realistic for their primary inputs. Add in the externalities (which granted are hard to place a hard value on - until a cap and trade comes into play) and the profit margin for the people of our country disappears. The entire profit from this enterprise would come from energy companies placing their costs onto the people by means of land and resource degradation.

I realize this would mean jobs and tax revenue for the state of Utah, but I don't think that is what is best for the country or even the state of Utah for the long run - even if oil is 200/barrel.

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by delts145

I would hate to see some massive bulding across a major street like Main.

However, I definately would like to see a building with an arc tunnel straddling the interior corner of an intersection. The arc would lead through the building and into a vibrant and interesting interior block full of mixed-use commercial/residential. Something very old world style, with a great fountain in the middle of the interior plaza.

The one thing a tower spanning Main Street would add is a center anchor to the downtown. That would be cool if it were not so intrusive. That is where you are right.

However, a nicely designed building spanning...let's say on 2nd or 3rd south between State and 1st East would do wonders for infill and extension of the downtown in an East/West direction.

Aside from being a downhill downtown with a focus that is basically on 2 streets (I am not forgetting how the downtown will move westward also) an Eastern extension that already exists with less than high rise (unless you consider 11-12 stories high rise...which to extent they are but only in a minor way) then you would see a dynamic "weight" added to the downtown. By weight I mean a solid fundamental structure that beg for more larger buildings to compliment it.

[UTAZLoVer]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

The one thing a tower spanning Main Street would add is a center anchor to the downtown. That would be cool if it were not so intrusive. That is where you are right.

However, a nicely designed building spanning...let's say on 2nd or 3rd south between State and 1st East would do wonders for infill and extension of the downtown in an East/West direction.

Aside from being a downhill downtown with a focus that is basically on 2 streets (I am not forgetting how the downtown will move westward also) an Eastern extension that already exists with less than high rise (unless you consider 11-12 stories high rise...which to extent they are but only in a minor way) then you would see a dynamic "weight" added to the downtown. By weight I mean a solid fundamental structure that beg for more larger buildings to compliment it.

Let's correctly, responsibly, beautifully develop all the infill land and fulfill all the tremendous development potential we have currently have downtown before we begin thinking about development above our enormously (thanks Brigham Young) wide streets.

[WASDEN]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

The one thing a tower spanning Main Street would add is a center anchor to the downtown. That would be cool if it were not so intrusive. That is where you are right.

However, a nicely designed building spanning...let's say on 2nd or 3rd south between State and 1st East would do wonders for infill and extension of the downtown in an East/West direction.

Aside from being a downhill downtown with a focus that is basically on 2 streets (I am not forgetting how the downtown will move westward also) an Eastern extension that already exists with less than high rise (unless you consider 11-12 stories high rise...which to extent they are but only in a minor way) then you would see a dynamic "weight" added to the downtown. By weight I mean a solid fundamental structure that beg for more larger buildings to compliment it.

In a post 9/11 world I think you would need a pretty solid argument for such a design- unless you want to see the street spanned by such a building closed down permanently. Sounds cool though.

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by UTAZLoVer

Let's correctly, responsibly, beautifully develop all the infill land and fulfill all the tremendous development potential we have currently have downtown before we begin thinking about development above our enormously (thanks Brigham Young) wide streets.

I was talking about how much more potential you would have by taking the building style that was talked about as spanning Main Street.

I could see that style, as I said, spanning 2nd or 3rd south between 1st or 2nd East. Far less wide streets and it would be an anchor for development outside of the core.

I did not say it was the thing to do...however if one wanted and arched high rise spanning a street then there are less traveled areas to do this.

It was a scenario not a definition of what must be done.

The wide streets are nice but they kill intimacy that most downtowns were build around. Not a negative on wide streets, just a reality.

[Scraperdude801]

LOL guys it was just an idea! It isn't like this is a real development happening here. ... Personally I wouldn't choose main street to do it either, although it would be cool to go in a tunnel with the train. If I had the money to build it somewhere it would probably be over Plum Alley, pierpont or the eastern edge of Exchange Place or the like. I said Main Street because that is the street that Becker had proposed to make pedestrian friendly. So let's all relax.

[Scraperdude801]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

The wide streets are nice but they kill intimacy that most downtowns were build around. Not a negative on wide streets, just a reality.

I totally agree. Our planners/developers have yet to figure out how to utilize our wide streets in a more urban setting. ... I think they offer great oppurtunities for fountains, trees, sculptures, kiosks, and europeanesque roundabouts in our DT. I just wish more people agreed with me.

[Scraperdude801]

Originally Posted by WASDEN

In a post 9/11 world I think you would need a pretty solid argument for such a design- unless you want to see the street spanned by such a building closed down permanently. Sounds cool though.

they are currently constructing such a building in Providence, Rhode Island's Federal Hill neighborhood. A coastal city nonetheless with no land protecting it! ... Can't always live with fear, but 9/11 brings up a whole lot of issues not appropriate for this forum.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Scraperdude801

I totally agree. Our planners/developers have yet to figure out how to utilize our wide streets in a more urban setting. ... I think they offer great oppurtunities for fountains, trees, sculptures, kiosks, and europeanesque roundabouts in our DT. I just wish more people agreed with me.

I definately agree with you Scaperdude. I do think that many people agree on this forum also. We are starting to see some very creative and beautiful things happening with the interiors of our giant blocks. I would definately like to see some of the intersections worked with. It was pointed out by a couple of forumers over on the 222 south main thread how great that section of Main is going to look when the Hamilton Tower is finished, because of the Canyon effect it will create. I agree, but I'm also glad that we have the wider streets and ample sidewalks downtown too. I feel like our wide streets and sidewalks give us many options that can be exercised, like having the new 300 south type layout, Lightrail options are very plentiful or attractive trees, lamps, sculptures, restaurants, etc. A lot of downtowns are plagued with too many streets where there are few options available. They simply have a tower, then a narrow concrete sidewalk, then the narrow street. Often these narrow streets in other downtowns must be kept unencumbered, because of limited traffic options. The towers lining the streets themselves are attractive, but the streetscape is extremely bland and uninteresting.

[leerjet]

While we're talking about it, I love what they did with broadway... NOT! I am so pissed off that they decided to put in LAME, PLAIN concrete medians and walkways instead of brick, stone or even stamped concrete!!!

They had a really great opportunity to add some character and they did a crap job.

[Viperlord]

I did a little loop through Downtown today after work....

The hyatt at the gateway is starting to rise already. It looked like forms were set for the elevator shaft on the first floor, as well as some of other forms for the foundation.

The Broadway park lofts are about to the 4th floor if I recall. Also a new larger crane has been placed on site.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by murdoc9

I realize I don't post as often - I usually only get a chance to get my fix on this site every few days, so sorry if this is a late reply.

Reading the replies from the forumers there seems to be a great deal of optimism for oil shale refining... not so much support for my position. With Oil (although falling ~ $10 the last two days/barrel) well over $130/barrel and projected by many to surpass $200/barrel money seems so easy to obtain, and on the surface shale seems to have real potential.

IF the oil companies were to pay fair value for their land, water and emissions for the shale I would be all on board. What the oil/energy companies are seeking are subsidies from the american public in one or all of those three categories. Most notably they want to not pay for pollution they generate or any disturbances to the land that their development will cause or even contribute to.

Beyond that their primary inputs are very scarce and are growing scarcer and thus more expensive (unless subsidized). Technology may advance to $30/barrel someday, but right now, from what I have read and understood $80/barrel seems more realistic for their primary inputs. Add in the externalities (which granted are hard to place a hard value on - until a cap and trade comes into play) and the profit margin for the people of our country disappears. The entire profit from this enterprise would come from energy companies placing their costs onto the people by means of land and resource degradation.

I realize this would mean jobs and tax revenue for the state of Utah, but I don't think that is what is best for the country or even the state of Utah for the long run - even if oil is 200/barrel.

Murdoc: Thanks for raising the "Cap-and-Trade" issue. To be honest, I didn't know much about cap-and-trades until I did some reading on it this evening. Very interesting and impressive.

From a development perspective, "cap-and-trade's", as I now understand them, are going to be a HUGE consideration, as you pointed out. But I don't totally understand how they apply to oil shale development.

I do understand the basic theory (I think????). First, you decide how much pollution a particular industry is creating, such as CO2 emissions in the power generation industry, then you cap those emissions at a value (say 30% below existing emissions). If one polluter can reduce emissions below the cap, they then can trade the difference between the cap and their emissions to another polluter who may be having trouble meeting the cap. These trades have value, because it may be cheaper for the second company to buy the differences (the trade) than it is to reduce their emissions to the cap level. I know the system was developed to deal with SO2 emissions in the US and has worked so well that it is rapidly becoming a standard across the world.

What I am missing is how the cap-and-trade system relates to oil shale development. Is it because oil shale yields petroleum, which in turn yields CO2 when it is burned? I got lost at the end of your discussion.

I will say this, however, the whole concept of cap-and-trades, because they are market driven rather than regulatory driven, make a lot of sense environmentally. I think it would be very interesting if a cap-and-trade systems were instituted across state departments of transportation. It probably would greatly accelerate the serious development of mass transit. But maybe that is already happening. What do you know?

[WASDEN]

Originally Posted by leerjet

While we're talking about it, I love what they did with broadway... NOT! I am so pissed off that they decided to put in LAME, PLAIN concrete medians and walkways instead of brick, stone or even stamped concrete!!!

They had a really great opportunity to add some character and they did a crap job.

I hear ya Leerjet- while I do like the additional parking and trees, it could have been so much more. I too was hoping for some bricked sidewalks or cobblestone in the median (I kinda dig building materials that age well). Overall I think its an improvement and has given the street a more pedestrian feel- although it is a gauntlet to drive a car through there . Hopefully after some years Broadway will look as cool as Provo's main drag. Anyone know a timeline for when they might start the portion East of Main??

[UTAZLoVer]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Murdoc: Thanks for raising the "Cap-and-Trade" issue. To be honest, I didn't know much about cap-and-trades until I did some reading on it this evening. Very interesting and impressive.

From a development perspective, "cap-and-trade's", as I now understand them, are going to be a HUGE consideration, as you pointed out. But I don't totally understand how they apply to oil shale development.

I do understand the basic theory (I think????). First, you decide how much pollution a particular industry is creating, such as CO2 emissions in the power generation industry, then you cap those emissions at a value (say 30% below existing emissions). If one polluter can reduce emissions below the cap, they then can trade the difference between the cap and their emissions to another polluter who may be having trouble meeting the cap. These trades have value, because it may be cheaper for the second company to buy the differences (the trade) than it is to reduce their emissions to the cap level. I know the system was developed to deal with SO2 emissions in the US and has worked so well that it is rapidly becoming a standard across the world.

What I am missing is how the cap-and-trade system relates to oil shale development. Is it because oil shale yields petroleum, which in turn yields CO2 when it is burned? I got lost at the end of your discussion.

I will say this, however, the whole concept of cap-and-trades, because they are market driven rather than regulatory driven, make a lot of sense environmentally. I think it would be very interesting if a cap-and-trade systems were instituted across state departments of transportation. It probably would greatly accelerate the serious development of mass transit. But maybe that is already happening. What do you know?

I think they could probably implement a sort of cap-and-trade policy capping the amount of water used/wasted in oil shale production - encouraging some in the industry to innovate and develop new ways to extract oil in this manner using less water than is currently required to do so and then selling their credits to other companies who prefer to use the current technology. Allows for oil shale development and helps work to reduce the amount of water that is used (even if it is greywater) since that has been raised as a major concern regarding oil shale development.

Thoughts??

[T-Mac]

Gateway Hyatt






Lexie Tower Site

[urbanboy]

Thanks T-mac