WSP02094 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n.,,,,~"""""""""'.L"".L,,,.I, V"'" 1"I.L'l..1..l:on .t'VI.\. VJ,1.. ;:U1A..L.t. ULV~1..vrMJ:.L'CJ. LL'C L-nr. u/;'r.t.Ji L.ULUlVWU JiJ..VJ:!..t\ .DI',.;:I.1.Ll ".~ 00 C,;1 ~l... assumes that on-site, average annual depletions by such uses (including evaporation from Lake Powell, Flaming Gorge, and the Curecanti Unit. ~hich reser- voirs are collectively referred to as the mainstem reservoirs in table 1) increase from about 3.8 maf under present (1975) conditions of development to nearly 5.4 maf under year 2000 conditions of develop- ment (see table 1). The projected depletions as~ume a 500 percent increase 1n consumption by steam-elec- tric power generation facilities, construction of essentially all of the Upper Basin's presently author- ized Federal irrigation projects, and increases in exports out of the Upper Basin approximately equal to the announced intentions of those entities which are planning to make such exports. If future depletions by non-oil shale uses were to fall short of this pro- jection, then water would be available to support oil shale developments in excess of 1.5 million bbl/day, and vice versa. The third major assumption upon which the con- clusion is premised concerns the water-consuming char- acteristics of the oil shale industry. While certain steps in oil shale retorting processes evolve ~ater, overall there will be a net consumption of water by oil shale facilities (certain experimental oil shale technologies being exceptions). In the study from which this paper is drawn, net water consumption by the oil shale industry was assumed to be 5,700 acre- feet per year per unit-sized plant (i.e., per 50,000 bbl/day plant). In addition, the consumption attrib- utable to the spinoff growth spawned by oil shale development (e.g., municipal and steam-electric power generation uses) was estimated to be roughly 15 to 20 percent as much a8 the consumption by the industry itself. ThuB, total average annual net consumption for a 1.5 million bbl/day industry was estimated to be about 200,000 acre-feet. The fourth and final major assumption behind this conclusion concerns the interpretation of the Colorado River Compact. It was assumed that the Upper Division States (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) in- cur an obligation pursuant to article III (c) of the Colorado River Compact to deliver one-half (i.e.. 750,000 acre-feet per year) of the water required by the Mexican Water Treaty.S If the Upper Division States were to incur no obligation whatsoever, the additional 750,000 acre- feet per year of water could, all other assumptions remaining constant, be used to support an oil shale industry larger than 1.5 million bbl/day.6 Likewise 9 if the Upper Division States were to incur an obliga- tion in excess of 750,000 acre-feet, then something less than an industry of 1.5 million bbl/day could be sustained. Up to this point in the discussion, no recogni- tion has been given to the fact that the water laws of the Upper Basin States permit one to appropriate a water right, referred to as a conditional decree or permit (depending upon the State), prior to the time that water is actually diverted and put to a con- sumptive use. When a conditional right is eventually perfected into a final right, the priority of the right relates not to the date the first diversion is made, but rather back to the date upon which steps were first taken to appropriate water or an applica- tion was filed with the State Engineer (again, de- pending upon the State). Pursuant to the water rights systems of the ;:,/:J:o:;.-....1."t Upper Basin States, oil shale companies have already appropriated numerous conditional surface rights for future diversion and consumption (and could appro- priate more). The most senior rights date back to 1949 on the Colorado Main Stem River ( in Colorado). Furthermore, the water rights owned by existing irri- gated agricultural users (or any other user for that nwtter) can be purchased by and transferred to oil shale facilities under the laws of the Upper Basin States. However, the transfer process can be cumber- some and costly. At the present time, oil shale companies in Colorado do own some irrigation rights, although the water involved is still being used for agricultural purposes. No effort was made in the study upon which this paper is based to speCifically evaluate the yield from these rights. However, it is estimated that these rights amount to not more than about 10,000 to 20,000 acre-feet per year of historic consumption. By was of comparison, this is about 1 percent of the water presently consumed by irrigated agriculture on an average annual basis on Colorado's Western Slope. Finally, no effort was made in the subject study to estimate the yield of the conditional water rights which oil shale companies have appropriated. Rather, the conclusion as to the availability of water for a 1.5 million bbl/day industry simply assumes that the water rights held by the industry are or will be junior to the water rights held by all other pro- jected consumptive users. Since water can be pur- chased from willing sellers or agricultural rights, it can be said, from a purely legal point of view, that there is e3sentially no constraint on the amount of water that could be obtained for oil shale devel- opment. Availability of Ground Water Very little use is presently made of the Upper Basin's ground water resources. With relatively few exceptions (most notably for uranium mining in the New Mexico portion of the San Juan River Basin), projected non-oil shale uses are not expected to draw upon ground water over the next 20 years. Thus, ground water could, depending upon hydrogeologic and economic factors, be a potentially significant source of supply for oil shale developments, particularly in the two areas discussed below. Piceance Creek Structural Basin, Colorado. The Piceance Creek structural basin underlies the surface drainage area of Yellow and Piceance creeks 1n the White River Basin (Colorado) and Parachute Creek in the Upper Colorado River Main Stem Basin (Colorado). This geologic unit lies in the heart of the richest oil shale deposits found in the Upper Basin. Estimates of average annual discharge from and recharge to the aquifer system (the system is pres- ently in equilibrium) range from approximately 24,000 to 29,000 acre-feet. The volume" of ground water stored in the Piceance Creek structural basin has been estimated to be as small as 2.5 maf and as large as 25 maf. An unknown portion of the ground water in storage would be physically recoverable and, in turn, only a fraction of that amount is likely to be econo- mically recoverable. The structural basin's water quality varies from place to place and from one geologic member to anoth- er. Total dissolved solids concentrations range