Government Ocean and air R&D should be revamped Unlike the reports of many government advisory committees that simply vanish into bureaucratic pigeonholes without Administration comment or recognition, the report of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere commands an Administration response. Not because the Nixon Administration is all that eager to comment on the rec­ommendations, but because the law, which requires the annual report, also requires the Secretary of Commerce to comment on the report.

So early this summer, Commerce Sec­retary Frederick B. Dent found himself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of having to comment on the report, and in so doing, defend the Nixon record—a record, in the view of some, that has brought the nation's oceanic effort to a state of "arrested momentum."

In short, the 25-member committee, chaired by Dr. William A. Nierenberg, director of Scripps Institution of Ocean­ography, has examined the federal budget for atmospheric and oceanic pro­grams, resource management organiza­tion, energy programs, coastal zone programs, atmospheric affairs, and fisheries in its second report to Con­gress and the President. The commit­tee's findings and recommendations are to the point. The committee notes that the impact of budget cutbacks and re­straints on oceanic and atmospheric programs have been "subtle rather than abrupt," but have had a "distorting effect on programs" nonetheless. This has fueled even more severe problems because of a lack of a strong manage­ment focus for the programs at a suffi­ciently high level of Government.

Hence, at the top of the committee's list of recommendations is a call for putting the federal oceanic and at­mospheric efforts into a single agency at the department level and for restoring or boosting federal funds for the pro­grams. The committee observes that the federal budget crisis is less severe than it appeared to be in January and it strongly urges Mr. Nixon to "direct a reconsideration of high-priority needs in oceanic and atmospheric affairs as part of the fiscal 1975 budget review."

On energy matters, the committee recommends an intensified exploration and drilling effort to develop offshore resources as well as construction and operation of single-purpose, single-point mooring deep-water oil terminals— which are "generally preferable to multiple-use superports"—in the Gulf by 1976 and off the East Coast by 1978. The committee also recommends that offshore and coastal development for power plant siting be seriously con­sidered.

Although the U.S. is at the threshold of practical weather modification, much complex research remains to be done.

"Unless the scientific manpower and funding are better directed, we assuredly will continue to make very slow progress toward weather control," the committee says. Hence, the committee recom­mends increased funding for the effort and focusing weather modification pro­grams by the National Oceanic and At­mospheric Administration.

Secretary Dent's comments on these and other aspects of the report contain little, if anything, that is surprising. In essence, he has recited Administration programs and how they go part way or further toward meeting concerns ex­pressed by the committee. For instance, he notes that the Administration has proposed power plant siting legislation, but adds that the committee's sug­gestions warrant serious consideration. And he says the committee's reorganiza­tion suggestions would get "further con­sideration" although the President's proposed Department of Energy and Natural Resources would go a long way toward meeting the suggestions.

That the cutback in federal funds has had a significant impact on the nation's oceanic and atmospheric programs is undeniable, Mr. Dent concedes. Some such cutbacks "were taken with re­luctance, in recognition that there would be some adverse effects," he says, but "I do not believe that any programs of overriding national importance have been sacrificed." Even so, he says the committee's concerns are noted and would be reviewed to determine whether some restoration should be made in fiscal year 1975 and beyond.

The committee's concerns about the nation's océanographie fleet also war­rant investigation, he says, adding that the cut in the fleet would be more like 18% than a committee figure of 25%.

Environmental impact of oil shale studied Unlocking the U.S.'s vast oil shale resources to provide an added source of energy and petrochemicals has moved much closer to reality. Late last month the Interior Department released its final environmental impact statement on the prototype leasing program it has proposed. A decision to implement the program has not been made, however, Interior officials stress, and any such action will not be announced by Secre­tary Rogers C. B. Morton "for at least 60 days."

Nevertheless, oil shale developers are encouraged. For one, H. I. Koolsber-gen, chairman of Oil Shale Corp., hails the statement's release as "a posi­tive step forward," noting that the Federal Government owns 80% of a resource estimated to contain 1.8 trillion

barrels of oil in the Green River forma­tion of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. "The technology is in hand, the costs are competitive, and we are confident that oil shale can be developed with a minimum of alteration to the environ­ment," Mr. Koolsbergen says.

Just how much environmental dam­age would be done depends, of course, on how large an industry develops. The prototype program envisions an indus­try producing no more than a total of 250,000 barrels of oil per day on six tracts—two each in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Surface mining might be used in one of the Colorado tracts, underground mining on that state's other tract as well as the two in Utah. In situ processing or retorting is foreseen for the tracts in Wyoming. The sites contain an estimated 20 to 30 or more gallons of recoverable oil per ton of shale. Interior also has made an analysis of environmental impact of a "mature" industry producing 1 million barrels of oil by 1985.

Generally localized environmental effects would result from the prototype industry while the mature industry would produce regional effects, accord­ing to Interior's 3200-page, six-volume analysis. Prototype development would require up to 13,000 acres of land as compared to some 80,000 acres for a mature industry. In contrast, oil shale lands with a commercial development potential total some 11 million acres.

Vegetation would be destroyed during operations and the landscape altered, but grasses can be grown on mine waste disposal sites. Filling box canyons with wastes is one disposal technique, In­terior officials say, noting that only 5% of such wastes might be used in paving and building block applications.

Wildlife populations would decline somewhat, and the area's rural char­acter would be transformed. Prototype development, requiring a 10-year, $1 billion investment, would create 13,000 new jobs and add 34,000 to the Green River area's population of 119,000; a mature industry would double that population.

Air quality would decline through prototype development, which would likely cause thermal inversions for some 20 days a year. Indeed, agency officials are watching closely for the outcome of Environmental Protection Agency hear­ings on nondegradation of air quality (C&EN, July 23, page 8). A strict ruling might well restrict or even bar oil shale development.

Successful bidders on the 20-year leases that Interior contemplates selling will be required to draw up detailed mining plans.

Assessing costs vs. benefits, Jared G. Carter, Interior deputy under-secretary, believes that the environmental impacts "don't look unbearable" compared to the nation's overall energy needs. His views, barring substantial environ­mentalist opposition, could portend a favorable decision by Secretary Morton.

10 C&EN Sept. 10, 1973