BLM Oil Shale

Editor’s Note:  The story posted below is another example of the failure to rely on scientific data when assessing oil shale’s impact on water quantity.  Please refer to the CRE’s analysis on the nexus between water and oil shale below, as provided in the CRE’s comment to BLM on the oil shale PEIS: 

“Much of the criticism associated with oil shale focuses on the impacts that oil shale development would have on water supplies.  For example, the 2009 lawsuit brought by environmental organizations (that resulted in the settlement requiring BLM to take a fresh look at the EIS) argued, “oil shale development could dry up many streams and rivers – including the Colorado river.”  The complaint further contended that “commercial oil shale development will impact water supplies, as water dedicated to this use will increase stress on a resource already over taxed by other activities….[And] commercial oil shale development will cumulatively impact water supplies by contributing to global warming.”  Likewise, reports issued by Western Resource Advocates offer cautionary language about water usage and oil shale development  While extracting oil from oil shale would require significant amounts of water, there is no evidence that the water usage required would be unsustainable or problematic.

 Of great importance, in the 2012 Draft PEIS, BLM has not identified the water usage required for the development of oil shale as a justification to revisit the 2008 land use plans.

Accordingly, it would be inappropriate for BLM to modify land use plans based on the quantity of water that is projected for use for oil shale production.

 Moreover, both the 2008 Final PEIS and the 2012 use the same assumptions and analyses regarding water usage for oil shale development. For example, both the 2008 PEIS and 2012 Draft PEIS assume (based on a 2005 study by the Rand Corporation) that the in-situ process would require 1-3 bbl of water per barrel of oil shale produced; and that 2.6-4.0 bbl of water per barrel of oil shale produced would be required for a surface mine and surface retort.  Likewise, both the 2008 PEIS and 2012 Draft PEIS find that production levels of 50,000 bbl of oil per day would requires 7,050 acre-ft/year of water.  Finally, both the 2008 PEIS and 2012 draft PEIS conclude that there will be a water surplus of 340,348 (ac-ft/yr) in 2000 and 268,425 (ac-ft/yr) in 2030 in Colorado. 

Just as the 2008 PEIS did, the 2012 Draft PEIS supports the conclusion that oil shale development will not adversely impact water availability.  Without any changes in the data or analysis for water use between the 2008 PEIS and 2012 Draft PEIS, water usage for oil shale development cannot serve as a purpose to revisit the land use plans.

Moreover, recent developments in technology suggest that the assumptions used by BLM regarding water usage for oil shale development are incorrect.  Red Leaf Resources has recently stated that the company uses less than half barrel of water to produce a barrel of oil.  Red Leaf further explains that the amount of water required for oil shale production is unrelated to the technology used to produce the oil shale, but is instead required for dust control and to meet on-site worker demand.”

From: Public News Service

DENVER – A group of Front Range water providers is worried that the Bureau of Land Management’s oversight of potential water use by oil shale companies doesn’t go far enough. The Front Range Water Council is made up of representatives from Denver, Colorado Springs, Aurora and other cities in the region.

Jim Lochhead, president of the group and CEO of Denver Water, says half of the Denver water supply comes from the Colorado River, and he’s worried that oil shale production could overtax the river’s resources.

“We’re concerned that the BLM and the United States not go too far too fast in their leasing program, before really understanding and quantifying these impacts on the river.”

Oil shale extraction is a water-intensive process that attempts to force the oil from rock. The BLM is proposing a wait-and-see approach because it isn’t sure what the water demands by oil and gas companies will be. The Front Range Water Council voiced its concerns about that approach in a recent letter to the BLM on the proposed land use plan for oil shale and tar sands leases in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

A 2005 report by the RAND Corporation found that if the U.S. produced 3 million barrels of oil from shale a day, the country would see $20 billion annually in direct economic benefits and a drop in oil prices by as much as 5 percent.

However, Ken Neubecker, executive director of the Western Rivers Institute, wonders if the cost is too high.

“This is a really important issue for the whole state, whether you’re an environmentalist or whether you’re a Front Range water developer.”

Neubecker says the “wait-and-see” approach isn’t good enough.

“It’s all of our problem when it comes to water. We need to know a lot more about what water is available and where all the different needs are before we start saying, ‘OK, we can lease 2 million acres for oil shale development. Let’s go.'”

According to a report from Western Resource Advocates, oil and gas companies hold some rights to Colorado River water which predate the rights held by cities for drinking water. The BLM is expected to have a new plan in place by the end of the year.