Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Life cycle consumptive water use for oil shale development and implications for water supply in the Colorado River Basin

  • WATER USE IN LCA
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Oil shale is an unconventional petroleum source that can be produced domestically in the USA. Oil shale resources are primarily located in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, within the Colorado River Basin. In this paper, we analyze the life cycle consumptive water use for oil shale production and its impacts on water resources of the Colorado River Basin.

Methods

The study is focused on life cycle consumptive water use for oil shale development. Consumptive water use is defined as “water that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products, or otherwise removed from the immediate water environment.” The analysis includes direct consumptive water requirements to extract, process, and refine shale oil, as well as indirect consumptive water use for generating the electricity associated with the extraction and processing. From the results, strategies for water supply certainty are discussed, and strategies for implementation are suggested. In addition, refining the shale oil outside of the oil shale region (removing the need for local water), using dry cooling systems for electricity generation, and building desalination plants in California (to replace water) are evaluated.

Results and discussion

Life cycle consumptive water use for oil shale is significant and could impact water availability for consumers in the lower Colorado River Basin. At a level of oil production of 2 million barrels per day, the life cycle consumptive water use would be significant: between 140 and 305 billion gallons (0.4 and 0.9 million acre-ft.) of water per year if surface mining and retorting is done, or between 150 and 340 billion gallons (0.5 and 1 million acre-ft.) of water per year if the Shell in situ process is used. Strategies could be implemented to provide water supply certainty including refining the shale oil outside of the region (removing some need for local water), using dry cooling systems for electricity generation, and building desalination plants in California (to replace water).

Conclusions

Water supply in the Colorado River Basin could be a primary constraint to the development of oil shale. At a level of oil production of 2 million barrels per day, the life cycle consumptive water use would be significant. Energy companies or governments may want to invest in water management and supply strategies that would eliminate the uncertainty associated with the water availability in the Colorado River Basin for oil shale development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

Bpd:

Barrels of oil per day

gals/bble:

Gallons of water per barrel of oil equivalent

kWh:

Kilowatts hour

lb CO2e/bble:

Pounds of CO2 equivalent per barrel of oil equivalent

References

  • Andrews A (2008) Developments in oil shale. Congressional Research Service, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartis TJ, LaTourrette T, Dixon L, Peterson DJ, Cecchine G (2005) Oil shale development in the United States: prospects and policy issues. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkenpas MB, Fry JJ, Kietzke K, Rubin ES (2004) Integrated environmental control model. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulay MA et al (2011) Categorizing water for LCA inventory. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:639–651

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boysen DB, Boysen JE, Boysen JA (2002) Creative strategies for produced water disposal in the Rocky Mountain Region. 9th Annual Integrated Environmental Petroleum Consortium, Albuquerque

  • Brandt AR (2007) Comparing the Alberta Taciuk Processor and the Shell In Situ Conversion Process—energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions. Available at: http://www.ceri-mines.org/documents/27symposium/papers/ma15-2brandt.pdf. Accessed on June 2013

  • Brandt AR (2008) Converting oil shale to liquid fuels: energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions of the shell in-situ conversion process. Environ Sci Technol 42:7489–7495

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt AR (2009) Converting oil shale to liquid fuels with Alberta Taciuck Processor: energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions. Energ Fuel 23:6253–6258

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen NS, Wood AW, Voisin N, Lettenmaier DP, Palmer RN (2004) The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water resources of the Colorado River Basin. Clim Chang 62:337–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Pipeline Planning of the Pipeline: Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers (1992) Pressure pipeline design for water and wastewater. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2004a) Strategic significance of America's oil shale resource, vol II. Department of Energy, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2004b) Strategic significance of America's oil shale resource, vol I: Assessment of strategic issues. Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2009) Estimating freshwater needs to meet future thermoelectric generation requirements: update 2009. National Energy Technology Laboratory, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2010) Annual energy outlook: early release. Energy Information Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2011) Policy analysis of produced water issues associated with in-situ thermal technologies. Energy Information Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2012) Refinery capacity report. Energy Information Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2013a) Strategic unconventional fuels fact sheet: oil shale conversion technology. Office of Petroleum Reserves, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2013b) Petroleum and other liquids. Energy Information Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (1973) Final environmental statement for the prototype oil shale leasing program, vol I. Department of the Interior, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (1991) Colorado River system consumptive uses and losses reports: 1981–1985. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (1998) Colorado River system consumptive uses and losses reports: 1986–1990. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2002a) 2001 Colorado River accounting and water use report: Arizona, California, and Nevada. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2002b) Colorado River system consumptive uses and losses reports: 1991–1995. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2003) 2002 Colorado River accounting and water use report: Arizona, California, and Nevada. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2004) Colorado River system consumptive uses and losses reports: 1996–2000. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2005a) 2003 Colorado River accounting and water use report: Arizona, California, and Nevada. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2005b) 2004 Colorado River accounting and water use report: Arizona, California, and Nevada. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2005c) Colorado River system consumptive uses and losses reports: 1971–1975. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2005d) Colorado River system consumptive uses and losses reports: 1976–1980. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2006) 2005 Colorado River accounting and water use report: Arizona, California, and Nevada. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2007) Provisional Upper Colorado River system consumptive uses and losses report: 2001–2005. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2008a) Proposed oil shale and tar sands resource management plan amendments to address land use allocations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and final programmatic environmental impact statement. Bureau of Land Management, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2008b) 2006 Colorado River accounting and water use report: Arizona, California, and Nevada. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2008c) 2007 Colorado River accounting and water use report: Arizona, California, and Nevada. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2008d) Colorado River Basin natural flow and salt data. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2009a) Provisional Upper Colorado River system consumptive uses and losses report: 2006–2010. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • DOI (2009b) The law of the river. In: Board ERC (ed) Alberta’s energy reserves 2009 and supply/demand outlook 2010–2019. ERCB, Calgary

  • Emmenegger FM et al (2011) Taking into account water use impacts in the LCA of biofuels: an Argentinean case study. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:869–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Energy Resources Conservation Board (2010) Alberta’s energy reserves 2009 and supply/demand outlook 2010–2019. Calgary, Alberta

  • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2013) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Form No. 6: annual report of oil pipeline companies. FERC, Washington

  • Gary HJ, Handwerk EG, Kaiser JM (2007) Petroleum refining: technology and economics, 5th edn. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleick HP (1994) Water and energy. Ann Rev Energ 19:267–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göklen KE, Stoecker TJ, Baddour RF (1984) A method for the isolation of kergogen from Green River oil-shale. Ind Eng Chem Prod Rd 23:208–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson TA (1975) Synthetic fuels data handbook. Cameron Engineers, Inc., Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Hospido A, Núñez M, Antón A (2013) Irrigation mix: how to include water sources when assessing freshwater consumption impacts associated to crops. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:881–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaramillo P (2007) A life cycle comparison of coal and natural gas for electricity generation and the production of transportation fuels. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 97 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson HR, Crawford PM, Bunger JW (2004) Strategic significance of America's oil shale resource, IIth edn. DOE, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamenev I, Munter R, Pikkov L, Kekisheva L (2003) Wastewater treatment in oil shale chemical industry. Oil Shale 20:443–457

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kounina A et al (2013) Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:707–721

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2007) Gross domestic product deflator inflation calculator. Available at: http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflateGDP.html

  • National Oil Shale Association (2012) Fact sheet: oil shale and water

  • National Oil Shale Association (2013) Current oil shale project. Available at: http://www.oilshaleassoc.org/oil_shale_project.html. Accessed on May 2013

  • Norviel WS, McClure F, Carpenter DE, Scrugham JG, Davis SB, Caldwell RE, Emerson FC (1922) An assessment of oil shale technologies. Colorado River Compact Office of Technology Assessment Materials Program, 1980

  • Office of Technology Assessment Materials Program (1980) An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies

  • Oil I, Commission GC (2007) Rocky Mountain region crude oil market dynamics: final report. Interstate Oil and Gas Compact. Commission, Oklahoma

    Google Scholar 

  • Semiat R (2008) Energy issues in desalination processes. Environ Sci Technol 41:8193–8201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma G (2012) Refinery projects outlook 2012: cracking time for Eastern markets. Infrastructure Journal

  • Shell (2013) Shell Mahogany research project: technology. Available at: http://www.shell.us/aboutshell/projects-locations/mahogany/technology.html. Accessed on May 2013

  • Smith JW (1961) Ultimate composition of organic material in Green River oil shale. US Bureau of Mines, Nevada

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith S (2005) Focus on Australian shale oil. Available at: http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/2002/calgary/Smithdoc.pdf. Accessed on May 2008

  • Tendall MD, Raptis C, Verones F (2013) Water in life cycle assessment—50th Swiss discussion forum on life cycle assessment, Zürich, 4 December 2012. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1174–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USGS (2009) Water science glossary of terms. USGS, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  • USGS (2013) Fact sheet: in-place oil shale resources examined by grade in the major basins of the Green River formation, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. USGS, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan QJ (2009) Coal, oil shale, natural bitumen, heavy oil and peat, IIth edn, Environmental impacts of oil shale and pollution control technologies. EOLSS, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams B (2003) Heavy hydrocarbons playing key role in peak-oil debate, future energy supply. Oil Gas J 29:20

    Google Scholar 

  • WRA (2009) Water on the rocks: oil shale water rights in Colorado. Western Resource Advocates, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu M, Mintz M, Wang M, Arora S (2009) Water consumption in the production of ethanol and petroleum gasoline. Environ Manage 44:981–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Younos T (2005) The economics of desalination. J Contemp Water Res Educ 132:39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the US National Science Foundation (grant number 0628084). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of this organization.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International College of National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok, 10240, Thailand

    Aweewan Mangmeechai

  2. Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213-3890, USA

    H. Scott Matthews

  3. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213-3890, USA

    Paulina Jaramillo, W. Michael Griffin & H. Scott Matthews

  4. Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213-3890, USA

    W. Michael Griffin

Authors
  1. Aweewan Mangmeechai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulina Jaramillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Michael Griffin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Scott Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aweewan Mangmeechai.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Stephan Pfister

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mangmeechai, A., Jaramillo, P., Griffin, W.M. et al. Life cycle consumptive water use for oil shale development and implications for water supply in the Colorado River Basin. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 677–687 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0651-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0651-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation