WSP02094

• File Number: 8271.200
• Description: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program - Development and History - UCRB 13a Assessment
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 9/21/1980
• Title: SPE 9314 - The Availability of Water for Oil Shale Development in the Upper Colorado River Basin
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

SPE 9314

THE AVAilABiliTY OF WATER FOR Oil SHALE DEVELOPMENT
IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASI~

N
00
c.n
W by J. William McDonald. Colol'ado Water Conservation Doard

SPE

8l:x:mtu orP9t.roBJn~ or AIME

This paper W<:iS pre~enled al the ~51h Annual Fall Technj~1 Conference and Exhibition 01 the Socrety 01 Petroleum Eng\l1eersof AIME, held in Dallas, Texas, September 21-24, 1980.
The malenal IS sub,ect to COl'TectlOn by the author. PermIsSIon 10 copy IS reslrided to an abstract 01 not mOre !har' 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expwy., Dallas, Texas 75206.

Availability of Surface Water

It is estimated that the water demands of an oil
shale industry of about 1.5 million bbl!day, as well
as the water demands of the associated growth,2 could
be satisfied from surface supplies without having to
significantly reduce other existing or projected con-
sumptive uses in the Upper Colorado River Basin (see
fig. 1). This conclusion is premised, however, on
four major qualifiers.

First, Burface water supplies can be made avail-
able for the development of oil shale only if:

1. water not presently under contract is pur-
chased from existing U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation reservoirs; and/or

2. new ~eseYVoir. pipeline, and pumping facil-
ities are constructed in order to capture.
store, and transport the water.

For a 1.5 million bbl/day industry, a crude estimate
of the capitalized cost of developing ~eCe8Bary
surface water supplies is $1 billion. This would be
not more than 1 or 2 percent, if that much. of the
capitalized costs of constructing and operating the
oil shale facilities proper.

Second, it must be recognized that the above
conclusion takes ~nto account only the projections of
other consUMPtive uses. The increased depletions and
hydrologic regulation attributable to water projects
serving the oil shale industry could reduce the supply
of instream recreational opportunities and the habitat
available for various fish species from what they would
otherwise be were there no oil shale industry. It is
emphasized, however, that the existence and character
of such ~pacts can vary &ubstantially from one loca-
tion to the next. Thus, investigations at a much
greater level of detail than was pOSSible in the study
from which thiS paper 1s drawn will be necessary before
any definitive conclusions can be reached.

Third. the conclusion stated above takes into
account only those institutional factors that are

References and illustrations at end of paper.

embodied in each State's water rights system and in
the "Law of the River" (i.e., an international treaty,
interstate compacts. U.S. Supreme Court decrees, and
acts of Cong~ess governing the operation of Colorado
River reservoirs). It must be recognized that there
are numeyous otner institutional factoys, such as
Federal environmental regulatory laws and programs.
which may affect the timing, manner, and location of
water resource developments in the Upper Basin even
though they are not part of the traditional body of
laws governi~g the use and allocation of water in and
among the Upper Basin States. It is impossible to
quantify the effect that these latter factors may
have upon the availability of wateY for 011 shale (or
any other use for that matter). Nonetheless, it ls
apparent that they are part of the institutional frame
work within which future questions of water avail-
ability muat he addressed.

Fourth, and finally, the above conclusion must
be qualified by the observation that the amount of oil
shale development in anyone Upper Basin State could
be constrained by interstate compact considerations.
This is because the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact
allocates set percentages of the water available to
the entire .Upper Basin to each Upper Basin to each
Upper Division State.3 Consequently, the level of oil
shale development in anyone State could be subject
to limitations even though the overall size of the
011 shale industry in the Upper Basin did not exceed
1.5 million bbl/day. ~om1ng is the only State not
likely to confront this situation given the probable
siting of potential oil shale developments.

Besides these four qualifications, the above con-
clusion is premised upon four major assumptions. The
first of these assumptions concerns future runoff
conditions. The conclusion assumes that the future
average annual natural flow4 of the Colorado River at
the compact point (Lee Ferry) will be 13.8 million
acre-feet (mat). This was the estimated natural flow
for the perioa 1930-1974 (aee fig. 2), which span of
time also encompasses the most critical period of
record (1931-1974).

The seco~d major assumption concerns projections
of depletions by non-oil shale uses. The conclusion