Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l\:) <br />w <br />o <br />c..:l <br /> <br />'spinoff growth spawned by EET development (e. g., municipal a nd steam <br />electric power generation uses) has been estimated as being roughly 15 to <br />20 percent as much as the consumption by the EETs themselves. Thus, total <br />average annual net consumption for a 1.5 million bbl/day EET industry <br />would be about 200,000 to 250,000 acre-feet, depending upon the mix of oil <br />shale and coal gasification facilities. 1 <br /> <br />The fourth and final major assumption behind this conclusion concerns <br />the interpretation of the Colorado River Compact. It was assumed that the <br />Upper Division States (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) incur an <br />obligation pursuant to article III (c) of the Colorado River Compact to <br />deliver one-half (i.e., 750,000 acre-feet per year) of the water required <br />by ,the Mexican Water Treaty. 2 <br /> <br />If the Upper Division States were to incur no obligation whatsoever, <br />the additional 750,000 acre-feet per year of water could, all other assump- <br />tions remaining constant, be used to support a synfuels industry larger <br />than the 1.5 million bbl/day industry indicated here.3 Likewise, if the <br />Upper Division States were to incur an obligation in excess of 750,000 <br />acre-feet then something less than an industry of 1.5 million bbl/day <br />could be sustained. <br /> <br />1. Expressed relative to Btu output, net wat.er consumption for an oil <br />shale plant was estimated to be 5.38 x 10-11 acre-feet per Btu':(exclusive <br />of the Btu value of by-product off-gases), while that for high-Btu <br />gasification facilities was estimated to be 8.22x 10-11 acre-feet per <br />Btu. This difference in values is what leads to the 200,000 to 250,000 <br />acre-foot range, the water consumption of an 8.7 trillion Btu/day industry <br />being a function of the mix of EETs assumed. <br /> <br />2. The assumption employed in this assessment is for illustrative purposes <br />only and is not to be taken as representing the position of any Bpper or <br />Lower Division State or of any Federal official or agency. <br /> <br />3. The reader must not assume that an additional 750,000 acre-feet of <br />water for the Upper Basin would mean that an EET industry four times <br />larger than the one indicated here (i.e., 1.5 million versus-6 million <br />barrels of oil per day) could be supported EET development in some Upper <br />Basin States would still be constrained by localized limitations on sur- <br />face water availability before the industry achieved a size of 6 million <br />bbl/day. <br /> <br />1-4 <br />