Comments – Enefit American Oil Utility Corridor Project DEIS

A coalition of environmental groups argues that the BLM should deny rights-of-way for Enefit's oil shale project in Utah, citing severe risks to air and water quality, climate change, and endangered species, while alleging the project's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is legally deficient.

• The South Project aims to produce 50,000 barrels of synthetic crude oil per day for 30 years by strip mining up to 28 million tons of rock annually over 14 square miles, potentially generating 750 million tons of waste rock.
• The project is expected to consume approximately 11,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Green River, totaling over 100 billion gallons over 30 years, which the commenters argue would jeopardize endangered Colorado River fish.
• Oil shale processing is identified as highly carbon-intensive; the Enefit280 process is reported to be up to 40% more carbon intensive than conventional fuel development and more so than tar sands.
• The commenters argue that the requested rights-of-way for natural gas, water, power, and fuel pipelines act as public subsidies that make the project economically feasible, as Enefit has rejected more expensive alternatives.
• The Draft EIS is criticized for failing to quantify the South Project's climate and air pollution impacts, with the BLM claiming the information is unknown because the project has not been fully designed.
• The project could nearly double oil production in the Uinta Basin, which the commenters claim will significantly exacerbate existing ozone and air pollution problems in the region.
• There are concerns regarding the toxicity of spent shale waste, noting that in Estonia, such waste contains soluble inorganics like arsenic and selenium, as well as carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
• The commenters allege that Enefit is violating federal regulations by attempting to prove commercial viability on private land (the South Project) rather than on its 160-acre federal RD&D lease tract.
• The document argues that the BLM failed to properly consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act regarding the impacts of water depletions on four endangered Colorado River fish species.
• The project is claimed to threaten the survival of Graham’s beardtongue and White River beardtongue plants, with the commenters asserting that existing conservation agreements are inadequate.
• The commenters suggest the BLM should use the 'social cost of carbon' and 'social cost of methane' protocols to quantify the environmental and economic damages of the project's emissions.
• The document highlights the risk of synthetic crude oil (SCO) spills into the White River and Evacuation Creek, noting that unconventional oils like bitumen tend to sink and persist in waterbodies.

APA

Earthjustice (2016). Comments – Enefit American Oil Utility Corridor Project DEIS. https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/trustetalenefitutlilitycorridordeiscomments.pdf

Chicago

Earthjustice. Comments – Enefit American Oil Utility Corridor Project DEIS. 2016. https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/trustetalenefitutlilitycorridordeiscomments.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Earthjustice |title=Comments – Enefit American Oil Utility Corridor Project DEIS |date=14 June 2016 |url=https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/trustetalenefitutlilitycorridordeiscomments.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{earthjustice2016comments, author = {{Earthjustice}}, title = {{Comments – Enefit American Oil Utility Corridor Project DEIS}}, publisher = {Earthjustice}, year = {2016}, month = jun, url = {https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/trustetalenefitutlilitycorridordeiscomments.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }