17

• Board Meeting Date: 7/11/2007
• Description: WSP Section - Intrastate Water Planning - Oil Shale Water Use
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

-

50 Oil Shale Development in the United States: Prospects and Policy Issues

resource recovery, and analysis of alternative approaches for leasing that allow lower-
cost and more extensive resource recovery, such as larger surface mines, the decou-
piing of mine operations from retorting, and centralized upgrading operations.

Water Consumption
Challenges. Oil shale extraction and processing operations can involve signifi-
cant amounts of water and water availability was and continues to be viewed as a
major constraint on large-scale oil shale development in the Green River Formation
(OTA, Volume I, 1980; Russell, 2005; Smith, 2005).
For mining and surface retorting, water is needed for dust control during mate-
rials extraction, crushing, and transport; for cooling and reclaiming spent shale; for
upgrading raw shale oil; and for various plant utilities associated with power produc-
tion and environmental control. Estimates of process water needs and the extent to
which water can be recycled or economically reclaimed vary considerably. For exam-
ple, the U.S. Water Resources Council estimated that oil shale development will
increase annual consumptive water use in the Upper Colorado Region by about
150,000 acre-feet per year for each million barrels (oil equivalent) per day of produc-
tion, which is the equivalent of about three barrels of water per barrel of oil (U.S.
Water Resources Council, 1981). Other estimates range from 2.1 to 5.2 barrels of
water per barrel of shale oil product (OTA, Volume I, 1980).
In-situ retorting eliminates or reduces a number of these water requirements,
bur considerable volumes of water may be required for oil and natural gas extraction,
postextraction cooling, products upgrading and refining, environmental control sys-
tems, and power production. Reliable estimates of water requirements will not be
available until the technology reaches the scale-up and confirmation stage.
The gross amount of water available locally in the Piceance Basin in a typical
year did not appear to be a constraining factor, according to the 1981 water assess-
ment by the U.S. Water Resources Council. Based on hydrologic understanding at
the time, the council determined that available supplies of ground and surface water
resources could support production of nearly 3 million barrels of shale oil per day.
The most constraining factor appears to be the water supply infrastructure.
Limitations in local water supply systems in place in the late 1970s were expected to
start constraining shale oil production when levels reached 200,000-400,000 barrels
per day (OTA, Volume 1,1980). The Water Resources Council also concluded that
the water supply infrastructure was inadequate, especially in the White River area of
the Piceance and Uinta Basins. Needed infrastructure included reservoirs, pipelines,
and groundwater development. We do not know if these analyses remain valid.
A bigger issue is the impact of a strategic-scale oil shale industry on the greater
Colorado River Basin. The basin's water resources are tightly regulated and in great
demand. Demands placed on the basin have risen considerably since the 1970s and
19805, with rapid population growth in the Southwest, rising demand for electric