I had a chance to ask a couple of questions of Shell engineers following a presentation they made at Colorado School of Mines. Back of the envelope, a million barrel per day operation would require electrical power close to the total amount currently generated in Colorado. Utah and Wyoming are already net electricity exporters; unless someone builds new transmission capacity to California (and such plans are proposed, from time to time), they would just be trying to compete with existing coal- and gas-fired generating capacity.

I also got to ask "If you put that amount of energy into oil shale, and you put the same amount into coal-to-liquids, which would generate more liquid fuel?" They said that their current systems analysis suggested that coal-to-liquids would produce more. As a Colorado resident, I have to say that I'll be happy to see them invest the money in coal-to-liquids in southern Illinois instead of oil shale in northwest Colorado. Between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, I assume they've got plenty of water to support it.