An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies June 1980 NTIS order #PB80-210115 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 80-600101 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-003 -00759-2 Foreword For many decades, the oil shale resources of the Western United States have been considered possible contributors to the Nation’s liquid fuel supply. This vol- ume reviews several paths to development of these resources and the likely conse- quences of following these paths. A chapter providing background information about the nature of oil shale is followed by an evaluation of technologies for recov- ery of shale oil. The economics and finances of establishing an industry of various sizes are analyzed. The fact that much of the best shale is located on Federal land is examined in light of the desire to increase use of the resources. The conse- quences of shale development in terms of impact on the physical and social envi- ronments, and a discussion of the availability of water complete the report. Policy options addressing barriers that could hinder the establishment of the industry are presented. These options, designed primarily for Congressional con- sideration, are limited to the obstacles OTA identified as currently existing. Other issues, of equal importance for the protection of the environment and the commu- nities, but not constraints to development, are discussed in the body of the report. The assessment deals only with oil shale; no systematic attempt was made in this study to compare this energy source with liquid fuel sources other than conven- tional petroleum or with alternative energy strategies. Other OTA assessments are addressing many of these topics. Volume II evaluates the Federal Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program. Both volumes were prepared in response to requests from the Senate Committee on En- ergy and Natural Resources. We hope they will be of value to the entire Congress when considering domestic energy policies. JOHN H, GIBBONS Director /// Oil Shale Advisory Committee James H. Gary, Chairman Colorado School of Mines James Boyd Charles H. Prien** Private Consultant Denver Research Institute William Brennan Rancher John F. Redmond Rio Blanco County, Colo. Retired, Shell Oil Co. Robert L. Coble* Richard D. Ridley Massachusetts Institute of Technology Occidental Oil Shale, Inc. Roland C. Fischer Colorado River Water Conservation Raymond L. Smith District Michigan Technological University John D. Haun Colorado School of Mines Thomas W. Ten Eyck Rio Manco Oil Shale Co. Carolyn A. Johnson Public Lands Institute Wallace Tyner Sidney Katell Purdue University West Virginia University Estella B. Leopold Glen D. Weaver University of Washington Colorado State University *Resigned March 1979. * *Died April 1979. NOTE: The Advisory Committee provided advice and comment throughout the assessment, but does not necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse the report, for which OTA assumes full responsibility. Oil Shale Technology Project Staff Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division Audrey Buyrn, Materials Program Manager Thomas A. Sladek, Principal Investigator William E. Davis, Social and Economic Impacts Patricia L. Poulton, Environmental and Water Availability Phillip L. Robinson, Economic and Financial Administrative Staff Patricia A. Canavan Margaret M. Connors Carol A. Drohan Jackie S. Robinson Contributors Bob Fensterheim, Health Program Donald G. Kesterke, U.S. Bureau of Mines* Mike Gough, Health Program Albert E. Paladino, National Bureau of Standards** Steven Plotkin, Energy Program Publishing Staff John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joanne Heming *Oil Shale Project Director through January 1979, on detail to OTA from the U.S. Bureau of Mines. **Materials Program Manager through December 1978. Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment Materials Program staff. The staff wishes to acknowledge the assistance and cooperation of the following contractors and consultants in the collection and analysis of data. Steven C. Ballard, University of Oklahoma Colorado School of Mines Research Institute Denver Research Institute Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Renee Ford, editor The John Muir Institute for Environmental Studies, Inc. Colin J. High, Dartmouth College Christopher T. Hill, Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Robert Kalter Associates Kevin Markey, Friends of the Earth The Pace Company Consultants and Engineers, Inc. Plant Resources Institute Quality Development Associates, Inc. Resource Planning Associates, Inc. The Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health Bernel Stone, Georgia Institute of Technology George W. Tauxe, University of Oklahoma Water Purification Associates Richard W. Wright, Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University Wyoming Research Corp. The Materials Program staff also wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the large number of Federal, State, and local government groups and private- sector parties who provided advice and guidance throughout the assessment. Contents Chapter Page 1. Summary ... ... o.. ... ... ... o.. o.. .o . ... ... ... ... ... O.. 3 2. Introduction, . 51 3. Constraints to Oil Shale Commercialization: Policy Options to Address These Constraints. 55 4. Background. .., . 85 5. Technology .,... 119 6. Economic and Financial Considerations . ., ., 179 7. Resource Acquisition . 235 8. Environmental Considerations. ., . 255 9. Water Availability . 359 10. Socioeconomic Aspects . 419 Appendixes A. Description and Evaluation of the Simulation Model . 477 B. Assumptions and Data for Computer Analyses. 480 C, Oil Shale Water Pollutants . 481 D. Technologies for Managing Point Sources of Wastewater. 488 E. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Glossary. 513 Vfl CHAPTER 1 Summary Contents Table No. Page 4. Bvaluation of Potential Financial Incentives for Oil ,Shale Dtvelopment . ..• 21 5. Estimated Shale Oil Production by 1990 in Resource Acquisition .•........•...... 0 0 • Response to Various Federal Actiolls . 26 Environment ........•.................. 6. Actual and Projected Population and Water Availability ....•................. Estimated Capacity of Oil Shale Socioeconomics ... 0 ••••••••••••••• ' •••••• Communities in Colorado ........... ~ . 42 Ba.ckp-oaad •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Ittahll.lllni an on shal. w.trr: List of Rgura. P.~dvesaDdTradeoff•............. 8 Figure No. Page The Objectives for Development . 8 1. The Western Oil Shale Region. • . 6 Attainment of the Objectives . .. 10 2. Oil Shale Deposits of the Green River Constraints. .. 11 Formation. 7 ....... and PoBcy OptleDS. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 12 3. The Relative Degree to Which the Technology . .. 12 Production Targets Would Attain the Economics and Finances ....•............ 15 Objectives for Development. 10 Resource Acquisition ....... 0. • • • • • • • • • •• 22 4. The Components of an Underground Environment ... 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 30 Mining and Aboveground Retortin--8 Oil Water Availability. .. 37 Shale Complex . 14 Socioeconomics. .. 41 5. Ownership of the Oil Shale Lands of the Green River Formation ....... 24 Ust of Tables 6. Privately Owned Tracts in the Piceance Basin.............................. 25 Table No. Poge 7. The Upper and Lower Colorado River 1. Constraints to Implementing Pour Basins. ... .... ... .. .... .... ... 38 Production Targets 0 • '0 ••••••• ' •••• 0 • • 12 8. The Communities in the Colorado Oil 2. Requirements for the Production Targets. 17 Shale Region. 44 3. Subsidy Effect and Net Cost to the 9. Projected Growth of Counties in Government of Possible Oil Shale Northwestern Colorado From Oil Shale Incentives •.......•........ 0 • • • • • • • • 18 Development, 1980-2000 . 45 CHAPTER 1 Summary Summary of Findings Technology and expand regional employment, but would lead to increases in local inflation for certain Two basic retorting technologies are being goods, services, and property. The establish- developed: modified in situ (MIS) for under- ment of a l-rnillion-bbl/d industry by 1990 ground retorting, and aboveground retorting could save more than $10 billion per year in (AGR) for processing mined shale. These charges for imported oil and would substan- technologies are not presently ready for tially increase local employment; however, large-scale commercialization, but a sound the risks associated with overextended de- R&D base exists, and they could be made sign and construction capacity, insufficient ready either by modular demonstration proj- equipment manufacturing capability, and ects or construction of pioneer plants. The possible inefficiency from tight construction MIS process is being developed on two sites schedules could cause damaging cost over- and one commercial facility is planned. runs. Severe regional inflation could be ex- Aboveground retorts have been tested at up pected for land and housing as well as for to one-tenth of full size and at least one other goods and services. commercial-scale retort is planned in con- Shale oil may be price competitive with for- junction with an MIS demonstration. There eign crude, but when expected real rates of are no firm plans for testing other above- return on investment are 12 percent or less, -ground retorts, although several companies the commercialization of the industry could have shown interest. One process would be still be impeded by uncertainties