Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.... <br /> <br />:n <br />-..] <br />;0 <br /> <br />the rim have little or no g:o~ndwater. The oil shale mine drainage waters <br />are thus quite site specific. Indeed, the C-b tract may yield even higher <br />flow rates than shown in Table 4-2 based on its location (see footnote lj)). <br />Clearly very wide differences in quantity among sites is to be expec~ed. <br />Moreover, as we shall discuss below, the quality may also varl significantly <br />and may not resemble the aquifer water, depending upon whether or not the mine <br />water has passed through and been exposed to rubblized shale. <br />For purposes of estimating water trea~~ent costs in modified in sit~ oil <br />shale processing, we have developed the composite water balance given in <br />Table 4-3. We have chosen a product output of 57,000 bbls/day of pumpable <br />shale oil, rather t~an an upgraded product as in Sec~ion 3, in order that we <br />may be consistent wit~ t~e developers' projected pla,s. In t~e earlier stages <br />of commercial development, it is probable that the product would be the one <br />assumed. On the other hand, as commercial develc~ment progress, shale oil <br />upgrading may be expected to be integrated into ~~e plants. This would, however, <br />not be likely to take place until some considerable time i~ ~~e =uture, so t~at <br />L~e assumption of s~ale oil production with off-site upgradi~g is quite <br />reasonable and provides the best basis for comparison. In any case, upg=ading <br />requirements could be backed out from the discussion of Section 3. The assumpt~on <br />of electric power production is also consistent wi~~ the developers' plans, <br />al~~ou~h the combined ~/cle system assumed parallels the di~ection Occid~ntal has <br />chosen as likely. The reason for our choice is that it is a more ez:icient <br />process t..i.an generation by an open cycle gas turbine syster.\ '..,i th only a re la'ti ',rely <br />small increase in water consumption. At the same time, it enables the use of the <br />cooling tower as an integral part of the ~ater trea~~ent system for *hich r~~Qr~ <br />wastewater can be used as makeup, so that upstream removal of ~onia and organics <br />need not be as efficient (and, therefore, as expensive} as it would ~eed ~o be <br />if the retort water were to be treated for discharge to a river. <br />The estimated water balance of Table 4-3 assumes that all plant and <br /> <br />process wa~ers are recycled or reused, ~~d that any wa=er requiremen~s ove~ <br />and above the process generated re~ort water and r~of= waters are met from <br />mine drainage grouncwa~er~ This is consistent wit~ the estimates made by <br />bo~~ prospective developers of modified in situ processing in the Piceance <br />Creek Basin. We recognize that this need not always be the case, but it is7 <br />H <br />