• Save
Energy forum022213
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Energy forum022213

on

  • 806 views

Presentation on the status of oil shale development in the U. S. and elsewhere

Presentation on the status of oil shale development in the U. S. and elsewhere

Statistics

Views

Total Views
806
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
806
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Contours of Ro (vitrinite reflectance) are a measure of the maturity of oil source rocks, with values of 0.6 and 1.35% correlating to, respectively 1) the onset of oil generation and 2) the point where most oil is broken down to natural gas in most oil source rocks. The red outline shows an area where the formation is pressurized by the generation of hydrocarbons in very impermeable (tight) rocks, generally considered as favorable for shale-hosted oil plays. The cross section lies in the Uinta Basin of Utah and shows where the Green River Formation contains oil shale and where that oil shale has been heated to the point where it has generated oil. About half of Utah’s oil production comes from the Green River Formation.
  • Richness is key to the ability to produce the shale oil from oil shale. This recent USGS plot of resource vs oil yield makes it clear that 1) most of the resource is in rocks that are probably too lean (15 gal/ton) lies in Colorado, although significant (billion barrel amounts) are present in each state.In-place oil shale resources examined by grade in the major basins of the Green River Formation, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming2013, Birdwell, Justin E.; Mercier, Tracey J.; Johnson, Ronald C.; Brownfield, Michael E. USGS Fact Sheet: 2012-3145
  • (0.3 lbs/bbl raw shale oil)
  • Division of Reclamation and Mines Safety
  • (20) Energy Demands on Water Resources; Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, 2006; p 80.
  • Production of sweetened cola requires very large amounts of water to produce sugar crops. The U. S. consumes about 1 million barrels per day of carbonated soft drinks, although it is unclear 1) what percentage are sweetened naturally, 2) what the water footprint of diet soft drinks would be.
  • Comparison of the organic richness of the Green River oil shale and the Bakken shale-hosted oil plays indicating why companies are investing in the challenging effort to produce oil from the immature organic material of the Green River Formation.
  • Need basis for GDP estimates

Energy forum022213 Energy forum022213 Presentation Transcript

  • Shale Oil Production from Oil Shale:Where? How Soon? How Much? How Risky? Dr. Jeremy Boak, Director Center for Oil Shale Technology & Research Colorado School of Mines Energy Forum & Expo Grand Junction, February 22, 2013
  • Colorado School of Mines Colorado School of Mines is a uniquely focused public research university dedicated to preparing exceptional students to solve today’s most pressing energy and environmental challenges. Founded in 1874, the institution was established to serve the needs of the local mining industry. Today, Mines has an international reputation for excellence in engineering education and the applied sciences with special expertise in the development and stewardship of the earth’s resources.2
  • COSTAR and the Oil Shale Symposium• Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research – Membership - Total, ExxonMobil – Rock mechanics, geology and stratigraphy, geochemistry, GIS database development• 33rd Oil Shale Symposium and Field Trip – Symposium October 14-16, Mines Campus, Golden CO – Field Trip October 17-18, Western CO & Eastern UT – 12-15 countries represented, most major players and many smaller companies3
  • Taking on the world’s toughest energy challenges™4 Sponsors
  • Outline• What are oil shale and shale oil?• Where is it and how much is there?• Who is developing it here?• How soon will it be produced here?• How much is being produced?• What are the risks?• Conclusions5
  • WHAT ARE OIL SHALE AND SHALE OIL?6
  • What is Oil Shale?• Organic rich sedimentary rock formed in lake or marine environments – Commonly carbonate rich; some are not classical argillaceous mudstones – Kerogen-rich, primarily algal and bacterial – Immature precursor to oil & gas• Produces oil upon heating7
  • Oil Shale, Oil-Bearing Shale and Gas Shale Oil shale, Sh Top of Oil Window ale oil Base of Oil Window Oil-bearing shale, Shale- hosted oil Source - USGS, Petroleum Systems and Gas Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas in the shale, Shal Uinta-Piceance Province, Utah and Colorado e gas8
  • WHERE IS IT AND HOW MUCH IS THERE?9
  • Global Oil Shale Resource Estimates 11. Canada 13. Sweden 10. Estonia 15,241 million barrels 6,114 million barrels 16,286 million barrels 4. Russia 270,944 million barrels 1. Green River Formation 4,280,000 million barrels 15. Ukraine 4,193 million barrels 16. Kazakhstan 2,837 million barrels 3. China 328,000 million barrels 12. Thailand 2. Other United States 6,401 million barrels 619,000 million barrels 9. Australia 24,000 million barrels 8. Morocco 37,800 million barrels Data Source: J. R. Dyni, Geology 17. Turkey and Resources of Some World Oil- 1,985 million barrels Shale Deposits, (2006) U. S. Geo- logical Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2005-5294, U. S. Geological 14. Egypt 7. Brazil 5. Israel 6. Jordan Survey, Reston VA 5,700 million barrels 80,000 million barrels 250,000 million barrels 102,000 million barrels Updates from 26th through 31st Oil Shale Symposia, Colorado School of Mines10
  • Green River Formation oil shale resources 4,500 Total Resource: 4291 Greater Green River 4,000 billion barrels Uinta 3,500 Piceance 3,000 US Total Resource (USGS)Resource (BBO) U. S. Reserves 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 5 10 15 Oil 20 25 30 Yield (gal/ton) 35 40 45 11 Source: USGS Fact Sheet: 2012-3145
  • WHO IS DEVELOPING IT HERE? HOW SOON WILL IT BE PRODUCED?12
  • Red Leaf Resources EcoShaleTM Process• Oil shale mined and placed in an ex- cavation with an impermeable clay liner• Expendable closed wall heating pipes placed horizontally throughout the capsule• Liquid drain system in bottom of capsule; perforated pipes at top of capsule collect hydrocarbon vapour• Clay liner completes containment structure on top, with overburden subsequently replaced to start immediate reclamation• Natural gas burners produce hot exhaust gas that is circulated through the capsule• Produces a high grade, light synthetic crude• Target for production test start: 201313
  • Enefit280 Commercial Technology• Currently producing oil in Estonia• Utah startup targeted for 2019-202014 Photo Courtesy of Enefit
  • ShaleTech ParahoII Operating in Australia15 Photo Courtesy QER
  • Shell In-Situ Conversion Process (ICP)‣ Electric resistance heaters gradually heat shale in subsurface‣ Applicable to oil shale and heavy oil/bitumen‣ Accelerates natural maturation of kerogen by gradual heating in oil shale‣ High recoveries & light hydrocarbon products yielding high quality transportation fuels16
  • ExxonMobil Electrofrac™ Process• Create electrically conductive fractures (vertical or horizontal)• Planar heat source more effective than radial conduction from wellbore• Typical simulation – 150 foot fracture height – 5-year heating converts 325 feet of oil shale – 120-ft fracture spacing, – 74% heating efficiency 17
  • AMSO Process • Minimal surface footprint • Protection of aquifers • Low water usage • High energy efficiency • Low gas emissions • High-value jobs18
  • IEP’s Geothermic Fuel Cell™ Technology• Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) generate high temperature, heat rock in a borehole.• As rock is heated, liquid & gaseous hydrocarbon released to collection wells.• After warm up, GFC self-fuels from recovered gases created by its own waste heat.• Self-fueling, steady-state operating system, produces oil, natural gas and electricity that can be sold to energy markets• Green, reliable, baseload power that isn’t subject to wind or sun. EXCESS GAS $ GAS CLEAN- FUEL PRE- FORMER OIL OUT GAS OUT UP FUEL & AIR IN ELECTRICITY OUT $ $ GAS FLOW OIL FLOW19
  • HOW MUCH IS BEING PRODUCED?20
  • Historic Oil Shale Production 50 US 45 Figure courtesy of China Alan BurnhamMined Shale, Million tonnes 40 Sweden 35 Brazil 30 Germany 25 Russia Scotland 20 Estonia 15 10 5 0 21
  • Projected Global Oil Shale Production 225 Jordan 200Mined shale, million tonnes United States 175 China 150 Brazil 125 Russia 100 Estonia 75 50 25 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year22
  • WHAT ARE THE RISKS?23
  • Four Political Concepts about Oil Shale• Technology Development: There is no commercially available technology for production of shale oil from oil shale• Access to the Resource: The preferred alternative in the PEIS for Oil Shale and Tar Sands represents a reasonable and cautious path forward for oil shale development• Environmental Impact: The environmental impacts of oil shale development would be devastating to the region• Environmental Impact: We do not know enough about water use to allow commercial leasing for shale oil production24
  • TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT: NO COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGY?25
  • Commercial Shale Oil Technology26
  • ACCESS TO THE RESOURCE: A REASONABLE AND CAUTIOUS APPROACH?27
  • PEIS preferred alternative discourages new Colorado oil shale leasing 2008 preferred Most preference 2012 preferred right area in the current RD&D Close to Sage program would Grouse habitat not be available if current efforts fail Tiny, scattered parcels are not suitable for commercial operations Odd-shaped parcels make commercialization more difficult Lean shale below Mahogany zone, so only a 400,000 bbl/acre resource – 1/5 the value in the basin center28
  • Danger of offering too much acreage?• Concern #1: Development might go too fast – Just because land is offered does not mean it will be leased • It merely enables industry to select the most promising areas • Projects will still need many permits • Acreage with pristine wilderness or sage grouse unlikely to be offered – Development likely to occur more cautiously than last time • Not in a Federally driven panic • Industry remembers last time • Industry takes the technology risk, pays bonus and rental• Concern #2: Industry will tie up land at fire-sale prices and do nothing – BLM has authority and responsibility to: • Make sure industry fairly compensates the public for leases on public lands • Provide and enforce performance criteria on leases – If you don’t want oil shale development, what is so bad about companies paying a bonus payment to the government and then doing nothing to disturb the land?29
  • Issues for RD&D and Commercial leasing are and should be different• RD&D Lease Program an • Commercial Leasing approp- opportunity to explore riate for a technology demon- innovative technology strated on private land OR on – In-situ oil shale processes a an RD&D lease greater step out from established – Most surface processes under con- industrial processes than ex-situ oil sideration have operated at relati- shale processes, and by vely large scale definition, have to be tested in situ – Requiring RD&D step for all com- – Making investment case for a mercial leases makes no sense for commercial lease to a company or processes demonstrated at large the government would have been scale or operated commercially very difficult at the conceptual elsewhere stage of a new process – Industry asserted in 1980s that – Developing and demonstrating 5120 acres too small for viable some in-situ processes can only be commercial operation; can a 640- done effectively on deep oil shale acre commercial lease make sense? owned by the Federal Government – Why has oil shale been singled out to require research before leasing?30
  • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: WOULD THEY BE DEVASTATING?31
  • Surface reclamation was demonstrated on the prototype leases Before and after surfaceBEFORE reclamation of Rio Blanco Corporation’s Tract C-a AFTER32
  • Air Emissions a Significant Issue• Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program (PSD) of 1977 Clean Air Act projected to limit shale oil production to ~400,000 bbls/day – Visibility reduction in Flat Tops Wilderness Area thought to drive the limit• Colorado SO2 emission limit attainable by most processes – 95-99% cleanup of pyrolysis gas if burned for process heat – Substantial removal of trace (non-H2S) sulfur species• In public’s best interest to ensure that PSD standards are scientifically sound – Government must have resources necessary to deal sensibly with this issue in a time frame that allows industry to adjust33
  • Carbon Management• Industry estimate: 10-20% greater 700 lifecycle emissions than conventional crude oil 600 – EOR, flaring of stranded gas make some crude oil worse than shale oil 500 Annual CO2 ( million tons) – 85-90% from power plant• CO2 emissions regulation 400 approach should be universal 300 – Don’t single out oil shale for special treatment one way or the other 200 – Don’t let Government micromanage process design and development 100 – Let industry respond in the most economic manner 0 – Mitigation approaches may develop at the same pace as oil shale 0 10 20 30 Fischer Assay (gal/ton)34
  • Socioeconomic Impacts: Easier to Manage This Time?• Revenues lag impacts; government can’t respond soon enough – Solution: portion of bonus payments flow directly to local governments• Oil shale development will be a smaller relative change this time – Productivity increases mean fewer employees are needed – Public infrastructure advanced, partly from Oil Shale Trust Fund – Private investment has benefited the area (e.g. Battlement Mesa)• What guarantee is there against another industry collapse? – companies are more cautious this time (billions lost in the 1980s) – 1980s oil price high because of political not market forces; they were more susceptible to collapse – Return to Federal policies of the 1970s would not be a good idea• But who is responsible for managing these impacts?35
  • What About Water Contamination?• Some oil shale processes avoid water contamination – AMSO operating in illitic oil shale below aquifers – Other companies will operate in thick multi-mineral zone where nahcolite industry has demonstrated isolation from aquifers• Resource in aquifer system protected by current law – Oil shale production must prevent or cleanup contamination• BLM, DRMS (and EPA in some circumstances) have authority and responsibility to protect these waters – Stepwise development will avoid significant contamination through learning curve – Can such development or learning happen without a commercial leasing program?36
  • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: WE DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WATER USAGE?37
  • Site Water Use Estimates Declining 16 • If you don’t know how much is Original Model too much, what good is know- 14 ing exactly how much water anSite Water Use (barrels/barrel oil 2011 Update oil shale industry might use? 12 2012 Update • Industry says 1-3 bbl 10 water/bbl oil, without refining 8 – Is 2 barrels of water per 6 barrel of oil acceptable? • At 2 bbl/bbl, 1million BOPD 4 industry requires ~100,000 2 acre-ft/yr – 3.5% of Colorado consump- 0 tive water allocation for the Colorado River Basin (<1% of 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 Colorado’s total water usage in Reclamation Efficiency 2005) 38
  • Colorado Water Use with Oil Shale5,003.1 billion gallons per year Public-supply 6.3% Irrigation Industrial (crop) 1.0% 89.9% Thermo- electric 0.9% Irrigation (golf course) Oil 0.3% shale, 1MMBO Domestic PD Mining Livestock 0.3% 0.9% 0.2% 0.2%39
  • Water Use in Perspective• Oil shale gives very attractive economic gains for water use: – The shale oil generated is worth ~200 times the water used – 1MMBOPD uses 1% of Colorado’s water to produce 15% of its GDP – Agriculture uses 80-90% of the water and produces 1-2% of the GDP – Tourism/recreation use ~5% of the water and produce ~5% of the GDP• Oil shale producers have water rights sufficient to produce 10% of the country’s liquid-fuel needs – What compelling public need would one use to justify confiscating those property rights under eminent domain?40
  • Water Use for Alternative Fuels41 Source: King, C. W., and M. E. Webber, (2008) Water Intensity of Transportation, Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 42, no. 21, p. 7866-7872
  • Conclusions• Oil shale development is not in its infancy – There are exciting new technical activities in oil shale development happening today. – Oil shale, like all alternative energy sources, has significant challenges to meet. – Much is already known about potential impacts, but government is not yet doing its job.• Potential Impact ≠ Certain Catastrophe• Impacts may constrain but should not prohibit development42
  • Same Old Story?43
  • Websites• Oil Shale Symposium Information: – 26th-31st Proceedings: http://ceri-mines.org/oilshaleresearch.htm – 32nd Oil Shale Symposium program and abstracts: http://mines.conference- services.net/programme.asp?conferenceID=3190&language=en-uk• Tell Ertl Oil Shale Repository (Arthur Lakes Library) – http://inside.mines.edu/Tell_Ertl• Center of the American West – What Every Westerner Should Know About Oil Shale – http://centerwest.org/projects/energy/oil-shale/• DOE documents – http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/publications/• Center for Oil Shale Technology and Research (COSTAR) – http://www.costar-mines.org/ – Email: jboak@mines.edu44
  • BACKUP INFORMATION45
  • Historic Oil and Gas Production 10,000,000 Coalbed Methane CBM 1993-2009 Shale Gas Bakken Eagle Ford Bakken 2004-2012 CBM Trend Shale Gas Trend 1,000,000Production (BOEPD) 5.4%/year 100,000 79.9%/year 18.5%/year 10,000 193.1%/year 1,000 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 46
  • Historic and Projected Oil Production 10,000,000 1,000,000Production (BOPD) 8.7 %/year 9.8 %/year 100,000 Tar Sand 1968-2007 US Oil 1862-1919 10,000 Oil Shale Oil Shale 1999-2030 14.3 %/year Tar Sand Growth US Oil Growth 1,000 Oil Shale Trend 1980 2000 2020 2040 47
  • U. S. Energy Production (to 2011) 30 Coal 25 GasEnergy Production (Quad BTU) Crude Oil 20 Nuclear Biomass 15 Hydroelectric 10 NGPL Wind 5 Geothermal Solar/PV 0 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 48 Data from USDOE EIA
  • DefinitionsKerogen: a mixture of organic chemical compounds that make up aportion of the organic matter in sedimentary rocks. It is insoluble innormal organic solvents because of the huge molecular weight(upwards of 1,000 daltons) of its component compounds. Thesoluble portion is known as bitumen. When heated to the righttemperatures in the Earths crust, (oil window ca. 60–160 °C, gaswindow ca. 150–200 °C, both depending on how quickly the sourcerock is heated) some types of kerogen release crude oil or naturalgas, collectively known as hydrocarbons (fossil fuels). When suchkerogens are present in high concentration in rocks such as shalethey form possible source rocks. Shales rich in kerogens that havenot been heated to warm temperature to release their hydrocarbonsmay form oil shale deposits.The name "kerogen" was introduced by the Scottish organic chemistAlexander Crum Brown in 1912. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen49
  • Definitions• Oil shale: fine-grained immature organic-rich mudstone, marlstone and siltstone, commonly of lacustrine or marine origin• Shale oil: the liquid hydrocarbon produced from oil shale by pyrolysis – BEILBY, G. T. (1897) Thirty Years’ Development in the Shale Oil Industry. J. Soc. Chem. Ind., 18, 876886. – IRVINE, R. (1894) Shale Oil Industry. J. Soc. Chem. Ind., 13, 1039-1044. – TAYLOR, A. (1873) On Bitumen, Oil Shales and Oil Coals. Edinburgh Geol. Soc. Trans., 2, 187189.• Oil-bearing shale: fine-grained mature organic-rich mudstone, marlstone and siltstone that contain liquid hydrocarbons• Shale-hosted oil: oil produced from oil-bearing shale, generally through hydraulically fractured wells• Gas shale: fine-grained mature to overmature organic-rich mudstone, marlstone and siltstone that contain natural gas• Shale gas: gas produced from gas shale, generally through hydraulically fractured wells50
  • Oil Shale Water Use Percen Million gal./day Billion gal./year t100,000 BOPD; 1 BWBO 4.2 1.5 0.03%100,000 BOPD; 3 BWBO 12.6 4.6 0.1%1,000,000 BOPD; 1 BWBO 42.0 15.3 0.3%1,000,000 BOPD; 3 BWBO 126.0 46.0 0.9%2012 Oil & Gas (COGA) 17.8 6.5 0.1%Total CO withdrawals 13,581.2 4957.1 100.0%51
  • Colorado Water Use Million gal./day Billion gal./year Percent Irrigation (crop) 12,321.85 4497.5 90.7% Public-supply 864.17 315.4 6.4% Industrial 142.44 52.0 1.0% Thermo-electric 123.21 45.0 0.9%Irrigation (golf course) 40.64 14.8 0.3% Domestic 34.43 12.6 0.3% Livestock 33.06 12.0 0.2% Mining 21.42 7.8 0.2% Total CO withdrawals 13,581.22 4957.1 100.0%Source: USGS 2005 Estimated Withdrawals and Use of Water in Colorado, 200552
  • Comparative Water UseOil Shale Plant 50,000 bbl/day 7,000 acft/yrEthanol Project 39,000 bbl/day 7,000 acft/yrElectric Power 800 MW 7,000 acft/yrAgriculture 4,000 acres 7,000 acft/yrDomestic 25,000 people 7,000 acft/yr53
  • Water Requirements for Energy ProductionSource Minimum Maximum (L/MWH) (L/MWH)Petroleum extraction 10 40Oil refining 80 150Oil shale surface retorting 170 681NGCC power plant, closed loop cooling 230 30,300Coal integrated gasification combined-cycle ~900Nuclear power plant, closed loop cooling ~950Geothermal power plant, closed loop tower 1900 4200Enhanced oil recovery ~7600NGCC, open loop cooling 28,400 75,700Nuclear power plant, open loop cooling 94,600 227,100Corn ethanol irrigated 2,270,000 8,670,000Soybean biodiesel irrigated 13,900,000 27,900,00054 Source: R. Service (2009) Science 326, 517-518
  • Relative Water Usage1-3 barrels water per barrel of oil from oil shale 4-8 barrels water per 2-liter bottle of sweetened colaSource: AMEC. Energy Development Water Needs Source: Ercin et al., (2011) Water Resources Management 25:721–741Assessment, Phase II Final Report. Prepared for the Colorado RiverBasin Roundtable and the Yampa/White River Roundtable. January2012.55
  • AMSO 2011 Pilot Test and Features of the Process • Minimal surface footprint • Protection of aquifers • Low water usage • High energy efficiency • Low gas emissions • High-value jobs56
  • AMSO CCRTM Process• AMSO’s patent-pending CCRTM* process uses convection to accelerate heat transfer throughout the retort• Faster heat transfer in the process enables fewer wells, hence less surface impact, to extract the shale oil * Conduction, Convection and Reflux57
  • Better Feedstock for Upgrading 45 API 19 API Shell In Situ Gravity Gravity Pyrolysis Surface Retort Pyrolysis 12 350 C In Situ SHALE OIL EXAMPLE 10 Naphtha - 30% Weight % NAPHTHA JET DIESEL RESID 8 Diesel - 30% Jet - 30% 6 Resid - 10% 800 C Surface 4 Retort 2 Tar Like Solid 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 100 120 Carbon Number58
  • Bakken – Green River Comparison TOC (wt %) 0 10 20 30 40 0 Green River 500 Bakken 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 350059
  • Shale and Mudstone Mineralogy Carbonate Average Shale (1975) Bakken calcareous/ Barnett dolomitic L. Green River mudstone Chinese Oil Shale Polish Gas Shale siliceous/ Duvernay feldspathic Muskwa argillaceous marlstone marlstone Thailand oil shale L. Green River Basinal U. Green River Basinal Green River DPargillaceous Q+F=Claymudstone Carbonate/Clastic siliceous/feldspathic mudstoneClay Minerals Quartz + Feldspar60
  • Some GRF Mudstone is Unusual Clay Minerals Average Shale (1975) Bakken Barnett argillaceous mudstone/m U. Green River arlstone L. Green River Chinese Oil Shale Polish Gas Shale Duvernay Muskwa siliceous feldspathic mudstone/m Thailand Oil Shale mudstone/ma rlstone arlstone L. Green River Basinal Green River DP Parachute Ck Savage Clay=Qtz+Fsp Fsp/Qtz+Fsp = 0.25Quartz Feldspar61
  • Unemployment rate comparison U.S. BLS Local Area Unemployment Archive62
  • Foreclosure rates in Garfield County63 Source: Garfield Co. website - Foreclosures historical data
  • Summary and Conclusions• There were negative aspects from the boom and bust in the energy sector 30-years ago• Most resulted from U.S. policies in the 1970’s to incentivize industry and seek unrealistic shale oil production goals• There were positive benefits that are seldom discussed but are still being enjoyed today – e.g. Battlement Mesa and community infrastructure• History has shown that there are lessons to be learned from that earlier era
  • Oil Shale Resources of Green River FormationGreater Green River Basin 1.44 trillion barrels Piceance Uinta Basin Basin 1.32 trillion 1.52 trillion barrels barrels65
  • USGS Richness Map for Tipton Member66
  • BLM Land Map Superimposed67
  • Quality as Important as Quantity State Colorado Utah Wyoming Total Basin Piceance Creek Uinta Greater Green RiverAlternative 1: No Action AlternativeAcreage 346,609 670,558 992,824 2,009,991BBO >15 GPT 643.88 102.99 47.18 794.05% Basin Resource 42.1% 7.8% 3.3% 19%Thousand BBL/Acre 1,858 154 48 395Alternative 2: Administration Preferred Alternative (Draft)Acreage 35,308 252,181 174,476 461,965BBO >15 GPT 64.74 23.67 11.47 99.88% Basin Resource 4.2% 1.8% 0.8% 2.3%Thousand BBL/Acre 1,833 94 66 21668
  • Site Water Use Estimates Declining 16 Reclamation Efficiency = Original Model 14 Recycle Efficiency/PoreSite Water Use (barrels/barrel oil Volumes 2011 Update 12 2012 Update 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Reclamation Efficiency 69
  • How Much Water is Too Much?• Industry says it needs 1-3 bbl water/bbl oil, without refining – Is 2 barrels of water per barrel of oil acceptable? – If you don’t know how much is too much, what good is knowing exactly how much water an oil shale industry might use? – Evaluation of “too much” should be based on a cost-benefit analysis• Large uncertainty about water usage? – primarily from outdated documents – 1-3 bbl/bbl - similar to but a little lower than studies in the 1980s – Technology available to reduce water usage even more• At 2 bbl/bbl, 1million BOPD industry requires ~100,000 acre-ft/yr – 3.5% of Colorado consumptive water allocation for the Colorado River Basin (<1% of Colorado’s total water usage in 2005)• Who has the stewardship responsibility for basin-wide evaluation?70