WSP07287 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1'\.") --J C.V OJ The most promising aquifers for EET developments in the Upper Green River Basin are the Laney and Tipton Shale member9 of the Green River Formation.. Well yields are as large as 170 gallons per minute (gpm) from the Tipton Member, but are somewhat lower for the Laney Member. Recharge rates into the Washakie Basin are low, but total ground water reserves are adequate because of little past exploitation. The Washakie Basin is underlain primarily by the Bridger Formation, which yields small amounts of water to wells. l':~P. '<::}f: The Great Divide Basin has moderately rich sources of ground water. Much of the basin is covered by the Wasatch and Battle Springs formations. It is reported that well yields as high as 500 to 1,000 gpm could be pos- sible from deep wells favorably placed in these formations. Two other, smaller formations, the Fort Union and Lance, could also produce large quantities of water. In general, water reserves are large, but recharge rates are low for the Great Divide Basin. Only three regions in the White River and Yampa River basins have been surveyed in detail for ground water resources (fig. 3.5). The first region, the Sierra Madre uplift in Wyoming (including approximately the northern one-half of the mapped area on fig. 3.5), has aquifers that could produce up to 500 gpm. Ground water recharge rates are high in this region. The ground water resources between Craig and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, are fairly well known because of the coal-mining ac- tivity there. Well yields are typically only 5 to 10 gpm because the cemented nature of the major aquifers in the region allows for few inter- stitial spaces to hold water. ;;~\; . .....:, Extensive studies h~ve been made of the ground water resources in the Piceance Creek Basin1 (see chapter 5, fig. 5.1) in anticipation of the commercial extraction of oil shale. It is estimated that the Piceance Creek Basin contains 2.5 to 25 maf of reserves. However, only part of the reserves could be recovered either because of economic limitations or because of close hydrologic connections with surface water supplies. In addition, the density and depth of fractures is poorly understood in this area. Since ground water is stored and transmitted through this fracture system, the ground/surface water interface is difficult to in- terpret (Welder, 1978). Well yields in the Piceance Creek Basin vary according to surface location and well depth, with production ranging from 100 to 1,000 gpm. It appears that ground water recharge rates would allow an oil shale operation of ]70,000 to 200,000 barrels per day (3 barrels of water per b.1rrel of 011) If tlie probJcl1I of physical coonectivity witli surf.1ce hy- drology (and subsequent leg::d interference with p.lIrfilCe w.ncr rip,hts) could be solved. Ground water resources of the Piceance Basin could be an important, if not the exclusive, source of water supply for EET de- velopment. 1. "Piceance Creek Basin" usually refers to the geologic basin, while "Piceance Basin" usually means the river drainage basin. ,. ~; -. 3-24