Shell pilot project
I'm going to shift away from water issues slightly.
On Sunday I read a rant about oil shale on a midwest blog (Sorry, I don't have the link). The author said that he was, "sick of the Left," blocking energy projects. He mentioned the estimated trillions of barrels of oil locked up in oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. As I read his post I quickly understood that he thought that oil shale technology was far enough along that the nation is being denied its benefits both for lower energy prices and independence from foreign oil.
In case there are other readers out there that are thinking along similar lines I feel compelled to let you know what I know about the current situation.
As to water (I bet you knew that I'd get in a water reference somehow). No company has yet demonstrated a commercial oil shale project. Therefore, it is impossible to quantify how much water will be needed to produce the oil shale. We do know that Shell has been buying water rights for years now and I assume that the other companies involved are also doing this. I've seen estimates of total use by oil shale of 300,000 acre feet per year. Coincidentally, that is pretty close to estimates of the remaining water for the Upper Basin States (Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming) in the Colorado River Basin under the Colorado River Compact. In other words, oil shale development may take all the water that is left to develop in Colorado. No water for new agriculture, a growing population or other industries such as electrical generation or biofuels. Colorado's population is expected to grow by 3 million over the next few decades and we're hoping to keep agricultural dryups to a minimum since they provide $16 billion a year to the economy.
In situ extraction is the technology that is mentioned most often now. The two projects that I've read about are those by Shell and Schlumberger. The in-situ recovery process heats the shale, kerogen (the type of hydrocarbon in the shale) it is hoped, will then pool, quickly enough to be commercial, at the bottom of the formation, so that it can be pumped to the surface. Shell plans to use electricity to heat the rock while Schlumberger recently purchased radio frequency technology for heating the rock. Both methods require electricity and would require electrical generation nearby to level costs. In addition, Shell plans to contain the kerogen by utilizing freeze walls -- using a refrigeration process requiring electricity to freeze groundwater -- to prevent migration into groundwater. As I said this is highly speculative although Shell has built a pilot project.
I spoke to a Shell representative, Tracy Boyd, this morning. He told me that commercial production is years away. Still to be solved are technical, scientific, environmental and political issues. That's pretty much everything except the market. No one knows what it will cost per gallon delivered to the refinery and how the current oil market will respond. If current oil prices are largely speculative then the market may react to undermine oil shale. I believe that oil shale's chances in the market will improve markedly after we reach peak oil.
Colorado is hardly holding back in our role of providing energy for the country. Natural gas wells are being drilled at a pace where local government and the state cannot keep up with the impacts to infrastructure as workers move in to fill the positions in the oil patch. Hundreds of mining permits have been issued for uranium mining over the last few years. Wind generators are sprouting like weeds in the northeastern part of the state. Colorado's farmers are producing corn for ethanol and we're building new ethanol plants. Active projects exist for solar, in fact, Denver International Airport is closing in on a new solar plant to provide some of their needs. Geothermal potential is being actively evaluated around the state, primarily in Chaffee County.
So to my blog friend I want to say, "Please don't take the easy rhetorical way out by blaming the 'Left'." Our elected officials, on both sides of the aisle, are pretty much all supportive of oil shale development. There are just too many unknowns right now. Back in the 80s oil shale was going to be the next best thing. Exxon pulled out of their project over a weekend leaving economic devastation in Garfield County. We Coloradans are happy to sell you energy. We just want responsible development so that we can still catch a trout or two, bag that trophy elk or perhaps just enjoy the land through photos we take as we hike the high mesa country where the oil shale is, after the oil runs out. It would also be cool if the development of oil shale didn't destroy groundwater quality and wildlife habitat.
Colorado would like some company in our role as "National Energy Sacrifice Zone."
I have two suggestions for the nation. My blog friend is a citizen of Wisconsin where they have an abundance of fresh water. Why not have the Great Lakes states share in the production of oil shale by building a water pipeline to the area, instead of locking up water under the "Great Lakes Basin Compact?" Make sure that the purpose of the compact is for orderly development of the water, not to lock it up in the basin.
A second suggestion: Why don't you press your congressional representatives to finance solar in Arizona and California (the best spot for solar on the planet)? Part of their commitment must be to ensure that the transmission lines for the power can be built. The first transmission lines could run to Colorado for oil shale development where it will help with the expected loss of hydropower and replace any new coal-fired plants that are in the works. With access to solar the oil shale projects in Colorado won't require new coal-fired plants. Everyone pretty much agrees now that the planet doesn't need the CO2 and we don't need to lose any more miners and mountaintops to this dirty fuel. In addition, you would be adding in the real costs to the environment for the production of oil shale. Let's call it zero-carbon development. This includes the opportunity cost of developing and implementing large scale solar. Let's use oil shale profit to finance solar and wind.
As usual. The reality is not so "black and white", "you're either with us or against us," or "us against them," is it?
Comments
Solar and wind provide electric energy which is not what we need (liquid fuels). Solar and wind could free up a little oil and natural gas that is used in electric production. But, the development, manufacture, and maintenance of solar and wind use up much precious oil, natural gas, and coal. See this report for a full explanation: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
Oil shale extraction is all well and good, as long as you overlook some serious issues:
1) What does the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) look like? Ethanol is suffering from a rather low EROEI; some estimates suggest that it's less than 1 (meaning the energy used to produce the ethanol might be better used elsewhere). The early days of oil saw 100:1 EROEI; nowadays it's close to 10:1 and that's just for oil. Some say that anything below 7:1 is really not worth pursuing.
2) The environmental disaster (oops, I mean "impact") in the Canadian tar sand region is probably a good template of what will happen in Colorado when they start digging up the shale. Good luck getting Shell to clean up their mess when they're done with you.
3) Don't even think of piping the Great Lakes. Lake Michigan is already at historic low levels, leaving some marinas high & dry. If you need water to produce the shale, I'm not sure where it'll come from… but if you expect to reap the benefits of shale extraction without sharing with your water suppliers, don't expect to see more than a case of 12oz bottles coming your way. Here in Georgia, we're getting low on water too & it could get ugly in a few years.
4) Even if you (or Shell) can surmount all the obstacles, all you're doing is putting off the day of reckoning. Fossil fuels are limited by nature, and we need to be looking at sustainable energy rather than business as usual.
One big problem with the argument - the Colorado river, while important to the development of the Western slope and to the states downstream, has absolutely no bearing on development of the Eastern plains, where all the major metropolitan areas of Colorado reside. To state that oil shale would consume all water needed to develop the state is at best irresponsible, and at worst, manipulative. Get your facts straight.
Regarding the water required for oil shale development, why does no one (and especially the detractors) EVER address the very high likelyhood that the water can be reclaimed?
Responses:
Gray - western water law gives you one 'use' then it's downstream for other users. My point was that no one knows how much water will be needed. I was not clear.
Coloradan - All rivers on the eastern plains are already over-appropriated. The only water left for the state to develop is in the Colorado River Basin. Google Yampa Pumpback. Blue Mesa Pumpback or Aaron Million's pipeline. They are all projects to move water across the divide.
Wirth: Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. You're right about solar and wind. I'm looking to solar to provide the electricity for oil shale extraction.
I'm not so sure that's true. One of the elements of water law is the 'consumptive use' vs the 'non-consumptive'. Sewage plants are in the business of reclaiming the 'non-consumptive' portion for all downstream users. And the non-consumptive tends to be a relatively large percentage.
I've not read anywhere that the water needed for oil shale is all consumptive use.
Gray,
The key to Colorado Water law is putting the water to "beneficial use". The water court has issued many decrees over the years with details on where a party can divert and how much water they can divert. The decree entitles the holder to one use of the water.
You're right about the existence of consumptive and non-consumptive uses but they are still subject to a decree. Water for the power plants to generate the electricity is a consumptive use. We all know that irrigators, for example, do not use all of the water they irrigate with even though their use is considered a consumptive use. Some goes down the ditch back to the river while some enters the groundwater table.
Since you commenters are so sharp there is an exception to the one use business, that is, water from transbasin diversions. For example, water that Aurora brings from the Eagle River Basin or Arkansas River Basin can be used to extinction. That's the basin for Aurora's Prairie Waters Project.
John, my point is that the water isn't 'consumed'. It's passed through whatever system it's needed in and returned in one form or another for subsequent uses. In the case of power plant usage the water is used for cooling and returned, usually, to the initial source. The typical objection is that this water comes out hotter than when it went in. If it's from the ocean it goes back to the ocean with only moderate effects because of the mass of the ocean.
In a river system the effects are of more concern. At anything like $135/barrel oil there's surely enough spare change to cool the water.
If there's a regulatory issue the regulation needs to accommodate the situation.
Gray:
Here's a bit from a study of water loss measurement in coal fired plants ( http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/PowerGenTF/DOE%20Documents/WaterReport_IGCC_Final_August2005.pdf ): "Water loss results are summarized in Table ES-1. Figure ES-1 shows the results in the form of a bar graph comparing various types of gasifiers. Figure ES-2 shows a comparison of various power plant systems. Water loss is based on an overall balance of the plant source and exit streams. This includes coal moisture, air humidity, process makeup, cooling tower makeup (equivalent to evaporation plus blowdown), process losses (including losses through reactions, solids entrainment, and process makeup/blowdown) and flue gas losses."
Water loss is the consumptive piece.
France and Japan is 85% energy sufficient because they are using nuclear that we developed 40 years ago. If our nuclear development wasn't based on an old "Hanoi" Jane Fonda movie our country wouldn't be in this predicament. Just this year our country has given to people who want to kill us over $700,000,000,000 billion dollars so that they can buy the weapons to do it; its the largest cash transfer in worlds history. If this continues we won't have a country and we won't be worrying about water, gasoline, oil, coal, nuclear, coal gasification because one of our countries many enemies will have wiped us out. Use nuclear for the energy source to heat the shale, its the only thing thats sustainable and its clean, a small reactor just for this purpose would work and make everything financially feasible. The oil companies could sell off the electricity to Denver to pay for the whole operation.
The last 50 to 100 years have some of the wettest in the past 5,000 or so years (Joshua tree rings show precipitation levels by overlapping various tree sections)With water usage from the western rivers and aquifers at an all time high with more consumptive projects planned the water will not be there and oil shale consumptive/non consumptive is a moot point if we have no water to drink. 36 or so hours with out water and permanent kidney damage starts to occur in most people.
Mike,
You're right about consumptive use going up. However, we can dry up agriculture to get to more water. Who will grow the food then? Good question.
We need to embark on a regional then national assessment of water needs and then prioritize them. Hay for cows may lose out in much of the West.
Thanks for commenting.
Dear John, I strongly believe that water might be one of the issues teh USA faces on oil shale development but i regard it as the least. The industry is currently at a stage of R&D where intensive efforrts for the best way of production is seeked. There is no doubt that extensive pipelines producing water wouldnt be constructed, the underlying problem is that the oil shale project high capital intensive and requires a long gestation period. If government incentives are adequate for the industry, America would reap the benefits of this unconventional resource. Have you read about the final issues concerning oil shale developments which was published in November 2008. At this point in our world, we must try and unlock all energy sources.
Abdul,
Water is certainly not one of the least. I will agree with you if the oil shale developers can devise a process that is less water intensive. The technology today requires huge amounts of electricity and a lot of water is consumed generating it.
Western Colorado is running out of non-appropriated water. Coloradans do not want to see agriculture and recreation run out of the state so that Americans can burn more carbon-based fuels.
Oil shale has been the 'next big thing' for over a hundred years around here. We've heard it all.
Thanks for commenting.
Unless there is some big, new breakthrough, oil shale is not going to be a viable source of energy. It is just too costly and too environmentally harsh. Clean coal has a better shot at helping in the next five to ten years.
Worked for TOSCO long ago on the Sand Wash project.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!