Post on 12-Feb-2022
AN ASSESSMENT OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SAND DEVELOPMENT
IN THE STATE OF UTAH
PHASE I
MAY 1980
Prepared by the
Utah Energy Office
in cooperation with
the
Uintah Basin Association of Governments
for
The Department of Energy
Washington, D.C.
UTAH LEGISLATIVE PRINTING OFFICE
PREFACE
This assessment is the result of an interest and commitment by the
State of Utah to both promote development of its vast energy resources
and to manage the impacts associated with such development. As the
development of Utah oil shale and tar sands became more imminent a
specific proposal to study the impacts from this impending development
was made to the Department of Energy. It was noted during the discus
sions leading to the research contract for this assessment that, "...it
appears that a great deal of information is needed to assure that such
development will proceed in a manner that benefits the citizens of Utah
and the nation." It is in this context that this assessment is being
conducted.
Phase I of this assessment, which is the subject of this document,
is a description of the potential development scenario as revealed
through individual project proposals and as considered likely to actu
ally occur by 1990 by the Department of Energy in concurrance with the
State of Utah. The scenario developed in Phase I is then to be used as
the starting point for a detailed impact analysis which is the objective
of Phase II of this assessment.
The Utah Energy Office has undertaken the task of compiling all the
information provided by the individual company proposals and the Uintah
Basin Association of Governments into this Phase I document. The work
for Phase I was done by Buzz Hunt, Jeff Burks, and Rod Millar of the
Energy Office Staff with help from Rick Anderson, a research intern.
The Energy Office Staff wishes to thank the many reviewers of an
earlier draft for their many helpful suggestions and comments which
contributed to this Phase I effort. We also wish to acknowledge the
help in providing information and guidance from Chuck Henderson, of the
Uintah Basin Association of Governments, Jim Bunger, the Utah State
Science Advisor, Howard Ritzma, of the Utah Geological and Mineral
Survey, Brent Jones, of the Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, for his
help on the graphics in this document and the individual company project
managers for their cooperation in providing details on their proposals.
Finally we wish to thank Patti Wardle for her excellent typing and
retyping of the manuscript and her good humor when confronted with our
constant revisions which followed each retyping.
- i i i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Preface i i
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Executive Summary vii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Purpose and Organization of Report 1
B. Oil Shale Resources in Utah 3
C. Tar Sand Resources in Utah 6
II. CURRENT STATUS OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SAND DEVELOPMENT IN
UTAH 10
A. Current Status of Oil Shale Development 10
B. Current Status of Tar Sand Development 12
C. Constraints and Problems 15
D. Production Scenarios 23
III. OIL SHALE PROJECTS IN UTAH 28
A. White River Shale Project 28
B. Paraho Project 39
C. Tosco Sand Wash Project 45
D. Geokinetics Inc. In-situ Project 54
IV. TAR SAND PROJECTS IN UTAH 62
A. Sohio Natural Resources Company Project 62
B. Great National Corporation Project 70
References 78
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Utah Tar Sands Characteristics 9
II-l Production Scenarios 26
II-2 Mining Scenarios 27
III-l White River Shale Project 30
III-2 White River Dam 35
III-3 Paraho Oil Shale Project 41
III-4 Tosco Sand Wash Project 47
III-5 Geokinetics Oil Shale Project 55
IV-1 Sohio Tar Sand Project 63
IV-2 Great National Tar Sand Project 73
-v-
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Oil Shale Areas Uinta Basin 5
1-2 Tar Sand Deposits 8
III-l Active Oil Shale Operations 61
IV-1 Asphalt Ridge Tar Sand Deposit 65
IV-2 Sunnyside Tar Sand Deposit 74
-vi-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. Introduction
A. Purpose and Organization of Report
The development of snythetic fuels in the State of Utah is a topic
of increasing national concern and public debate. As these discussions
continue, a great deal of information is needed to assure that the
development of snythetic fuels will proceed in a manner that benefits
the citizens of Utah and the nation. This report represents the first
of a two-phase assessment of current oil shale and tar sand development
within the state and is intended to provide policy-makers with up to
date information on the status of each proposed project. It is hoped
that this information will prove valuable to those who must reach deci
sions affecting the ultimate development of Utah's vast oil shale and
tar sand resources.
Baseline data assembled in this report was gathered from existing
development plans, environmental impact reports, resource development
status reports, and discussions with project participants, academic
researchers, and state and local officials. The format used in organ
izing these materials consisted of identifying those projects in Utah
which may contribute to the production of synthetic fuels by 1990, and
to specify for each of those projects:
(1) the resource to be used,
(2) technologies to be used,
(3) Potential markets and transportation possibilities for the
product,
(4) water requirements of the project, including source, storage
and transportation,
(5) air quality impacts of the project,
(6) socioeconomic impacts,
(7) disposal program for wastes removed for mine development or
underground retorts,
(8) construction and production schedules for the project, and
(9) project sponsors and/or participants.
The results of this assessment are to be published in two separate
reports. Phase I of the assessment is the subject of this report and
should not be considered comprehensive, but rather an outline of the
major factors to be considered in the development of the subject re
sources. Since the current status of synthetic fuels projects in Utah
cover all stages of development (from conceptual to pilot plant), much
of this information is tentative and for some recent industry activity,
information is not yet available. It should also be recognized that
much of the information used was provided by the firms themselves, and
thus, reflects each firm's attitude toward its own development.
Phase II of the assessment will further elaborate on those projects
identified and include new information on additional projects which are
now getting underway. Phase II will emphasize the impacts of develop
ment and the likely problems and constraints to production. Cumulative
impacts will also be discussed in an attempt to assess the entire oil
shale and tar sand industry in Utah from the state and local perspec
tives. Specifically, Phase II will:
(1) identify major federal decisions needed for each project (or
for general synfuel development),
(2) identify unique environmental problems for each project (en
dangered species, etc.),
-viii-
(3) show the general relationship of oil shale projects and tar
sand projects to other energy development in the Uinta Basin,
(4) show the relationship of oil shale and tar sand development to
major transportation development,
(5) identify supporting state and federal projects or activities,
e.g., water projects, etc., and
(6) identify the specific organizations involved and coordination
required for integration of oil shale and tar sand develop
ments with related projects.
The remainder of Chapter I briefly reviews the magnitude of oil
shale and tar sand resources within the state. A summary of the current
status of industry development is discussed in Chapter II. Chapter III
provides details of proposed oil shale projects and Chapter IV provides
details of tar sand projects.
B. Oil Shale Resources in Utah
The Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah contains an estimated 321
billion barrels of identified in-place oil (from oil shale of 15 gallons
per ton or more). Of this in-place oil it is estimated that 80 percent
of the 25 gallons per ton or more, resource can be extracted with known
technology. This amounts to approximately 50 billion barrels of recov
erable shale oil and represents nearly twice the proven U.S. petroleum
reserves and more than a seven year U.S. oil supply at current consump
tion rates.
C. Tar Sand Resources in Utah
In the United States, deposits of tar sand have been found in 24
states. The largest deposits and those regarded as potentially con-
-ix-
taining commercially exploitable quantities of oil are found in only six
states: Alabama, California, Kentucky, New Mexico, Texas and Utah.
Utah contains approximately 93 percent of the U.S. total resource base.
These Utah deposits (51 are known) are estimated to contain 25.1
billion barrels of oil which is roughly equivalent to the total U.S.
domestic proven reserves of petroleum.
II.. Current Status of Oil Shale and Tar Sand Development in Utah
A. Current Status of Oil Shale Development
Processing oil shale involves heating (retorting) crushed shale to
a temperature of approximately 900 degrees Fahrenheit at which point the
organic material in the oil shale breaks down and forms a vapor from
which a crude oil (kerogen) is then condensed.
Retorting processes fall into two broad categories, above-ground
and in-situ. In above-ground recovery, oil shale is mined, crushed and
fed into a surface retort. In-situ recovery of oil shale involves
subjecting an in-place oil shale resource to heat injected into the pay
zone driving the volatilized kerogen out to a recovery well.
Development work on these two categories of oil shale processing is
continuing and it is expected that both types of recovery will be uti
lized in Utah. In order to stimulate oil shale development activities
the DOE has undertaken a commercialization program to provide front end
monies to assist in the design and construction of a commercial size oil
shale retort module. In addition Public Law 96-126 authorized DOE to
allocate $2.2 billion to stimulate and promote the production of syn
thetic fuels from projects which are within one year of commencement of
construction.
-x-
B. Current Status of Tar Sand Development
In Utah, tar sands have been used as a source of asphalt paving
material for many years. Recently, interest in tar sands development
has been renewed. Current development work has focused primarily on
three extraction processes: 1) solvent, 2) thermal and 3) hot water.
These three processes can be utilized in either above-ground or in-situ
recovery operations.
The above-ground recovery technology is currently more advanced
than the in-situ processes. However the fact remains that 85 percent of
the tar sand resource is too deeply buried to be accessible by surface
mining techniques and deep underground mining of tar sands may not be
economically feasible. Therefore, if full potential of this resource is
to be realized there is a pressing need to develop in-situ technologies.
C. Constraints and Problems Associated with Commercial Develop
ment of Utah Oil Shale and Tar Sand Deposits
Currently there exists an array of economic, technical, environ
mental, and leasing constraints and problems that must be fully addres
sed before development of these resources can be undertaken. These are:
1. Economic
There are economic uncertainties about the future cost of oil pro
duced from oil shale and tar sands which are due to a lack of well
defined technologies for application on a commercial scale, changing
government regulations and the general inflationary trend among input
costs. Also there are uncertainties due to unstable oil supply condi
tions which affect the future price of world oil. Compounding these
problems are the extremely large capital outlays required for a commer
cial scale operation.
XI
2. Legal and Land Ownership
The legal issues surrounding oil shale development center on ques
tions of ownership claims while the problem of tar sand issues are defi
nitional in character.
There currently exist two major legal cases with regard to Utah oil
shale resources. The first case concerns the contested ownership of
43,000 acres of unpatented mining claims filed on oil shale land under
the Mining Law of 1872. The second major legal case with regard to oil
shale concerns the State of Utah's claim to 157,000 acres of oil shale
land in Uintah County. These legal issues should be resolved in the
courts soon.
The legal constraints to tar sands development involve complex and
obtruse legal arguments over the difference between oil, heavy oil, and
oil in a deposit of oil sand. These issues have prevented the leasing
of tar sands on federal lands. This problem could be resolved by the
passage of legislation presently introduced in the Congress.
3. Technical
There exist several technological problems that must be solved to
have a viable synthetic fuel industry. These problems include an in
adequate resource assessment, the need for more research and development
and the need for data to scale up recovery processes for a commercial
scale operation.
4. Mining and Construction
Of the many factors that could impede the rate of development or
the eventual size of a synthetic fuels industry in Utah, perhaps the
single most limiting constraint is the construction and mining indus
try's ability and capacity to allocate limited resources amongst a
-xii-
number of competing demands. A number of large scale energy, water, and
defense projects ranging from the 3,000 MWe Intermountain Power Project,
to the MX missile defense system are currently planned for siting in
Utah. Simultaneous construction with the oil shale and tar sand pro
jects (which could require 1,100 to 1,750 additional underground miners)
will place severe stress on the construction industry capacity to absorb
this growth.
5. Regulatory
Any proposed development of synthetic fuel processes faces an array
of continuing changing regulations and permit requirements. Consistency
in regulatory policy and simplification of the permitting process could
enhance a more stable environment from which development could proceed.
6. Environmental
Environmental impacts from oil shale and tar sand development range
from air and water quality impacts to land use conflicts associated with
national parks and recreation areas. Regulations which have not been
promulgated yet will also have an unknown impact on development scenar
ios.
7. Water
Synthetic fuel development will create additonal demand on the
water resources of Utah. It is believed that the state faces no serious
deficits of water for energy development, however, there are several
major issues which center around the question of priority determination,
i.e., how will the increased demand for water affect the current system
of water allocation? Changing needs and requirements could make the
acquisition of existing water rights by energy developers more diffi
cult.
-xiii-
0. Production Scenarios
Two possible development scenarios have been compiled and appear in
table II-l. These scenarios are based on 00€ projections of expected
industry activity and the industry proposals. The DOE projections are
more conservative than the industry proposals, but they are based on
production by 1990 while the industry proposals are not confined to that
time period.
The scenarios consider four oil shale projects; three above-ground
recovery projects and one in-situ project and two above-ground tar sand
projects. The low projections are: 113,000 BPD for oil shale and
13,000 BP0 for tar sands for a total of 126,000 BPD by 1990. The high
projections are: 177,000 BP0 for oil shale and 50,000 BP0 for tar sands
which is a total of 227,000 BPD by 1990.
In order to reach those production goals it will be necessary to
mine 212,400 TPD for the low proposal and 468,300 TPD for the high
proposal. On a yearly basis these numbers are: 70,097,000 TPY for the
low scenario and 154,470,000 TPY for the high case. The low case repre
sents nearly six times the entire 1979 Utah coal production and the high
case is over thirteen times the entire 1979 Utah coal production.
III. Oil Shale Projects in Utah
There are four oil shale project proposals for Utah. These are:
1) The White River Shale Project, 2) The Paraho Project, 3) The Tosco
Sand Wash Project and 4) The Geokinetics Inc., In-situ project. The
first three are above-ground recovery projects and the fourth is a modi
fied in-situ project. Tables III-l through II1-5 summarize the project
proposals for these four oil shale projects.
-xiv-
IV. Tar Sand Projects in Utah
There are currently only two proposals to construct a tar sands
industry in Utah. The Sohio Natural Resources Company Project to be
located on Asphalt Ridge and The Great National Corporation Project to
be located on the Sunnyside Tar Sand Deposit. Both of these proposals
are to be above-ground recovery projects. Tables IV-1 and IV-2 sum
marize the proposal data for these projects.
-xv-
J
J
AN ASSESSMENT OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SAND DEVELOPMENT
IN THE STATE OF UTAH
PHASE I
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Organization of Report
The development of synthetic fuels in the State of Utah is a topic
of increasing national concern and public debate. As these discussions
continue, a great deal of information is needed to assure that the de
velopment of synthetic fuels will proceed in a manner that benefits the
citizens of Utah and the nation. This report represents the first of a
two-phase assessment of current oil shale and tar sand development
within the state and is intended to provide policy-makers with up to
date information on the status of each proposed project. It is hoped
that this information will prove valuable to those who must reach deci
sions affecting the ultimate development of Utah's vast oil shale and
tar sand resources.
Baseline data assembled in this report was gathered from existing
development plans, environmental impact reports, resource development
status reports, and discussions with project participants, academic re
searchers, and state and local officials. The format used in organizing
these materials consisted of identifying those projects in Utah which
may contribute to the production of synthetic fuels by 1990, and to
specify for each of those projects:
(1) the resource to be used,
(2) technologies to be used,
(3) potential markets and transportation possibilities for the
product,
(4) water requirements of the project, including source, storage
and transportation,
(5) air quality impacts of the project,
(6) socioeconomic impacts,
(7) disposal program for wastes removed for mine development or
underground retorts,
(8) construction and production schedules for the project, and
(9) project sponsors and/or participants.
The results of this assessment are to be published in two separate
reports. Phase I of the assessment is the subject of this report and
should not be considered comprehensive, but rather an outline of the
major factors to be considered in the development of the subject re
sources. Since the current status of synthetic fuels projects in Utah
cover all stages of development (from conceptual to pilot plant), much
of this information is tentative and for some recent industry activity,
information is not yet available. It should also be recognized that
much of the information used was provided by the firms themselves, and
thus, reflects each firm's attitude toward its own development. Phase
II of the assessment will further elaborate on those projects identified
and include new information on additional projects which are now getting
underway. Phase II will emphasize the impacts of development and the
likely problems and constraints to production. Cumulative impacts will
also be discussed in an attempt to assess the entire oil shale and tar
sand industry in Utah from the state and local perspectives. Specifi
cally, Phase II will:
-2-
(1) identify major federal decisions needed for each project (or
for general synfuel development),
(2) identify unique environmental problems for each project (en
dangered species, etc.),
(3) show the general relationship of oil shale projects and tar
sand projects to other energy development in the Uinta Basin,
(4) show the relationship of oil shale and tar sand development to
major transportation development,
(5) identify supporting state and federal projects or activities,
e.g., water projects, etc., and
(6) identify the specific organizations involved and coordination
required for integration of oil shale and tar sand develop
ments with related projects.
The remainder of this introduction will briefly review the magni
tude of oil shale and tar sand resources within the state. A summary of
the current status of industry development is discussed in Chapter II.
Chapter III provides details of proposed oil shale projects and Chap
ter IV provides details of tar sand projects.
B. Oil Shale Resources in Utah
Oil shale is neither oil nor shale, but rather, a fine-grained
sedimentary rock containing organic matter which yields substantial
quantities of oil upon pyrolysis (chemical change caused by heat). Oil
shale deposits occur throughout the world, but those in the United
States are among the highest grade. The Tertiary age (eocene) deposits
of the Green River formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming account for
an estimated 75 percent of the total U.S. resource and 90 percent of the
total recoverable U.S. resource.
-3-
Utah's Uinta Basin contains an estimated 321 billion barrels of
identified in-place shale oil (from oil shales of 15 gallons per ton or 2
more). Several estimates exist on the magnitude of the "potentially
recoverable" resource base, but it is conservatively estimated that 80
percent of the "25 gallons per ton or more" resource can be extracted
3 with known technology. Thus, from the resource base identified by "25
gallons per ton or more," the Uinta Basin contains an estimated 50
billion barrels of recoverable shale oil. This amount represents nearly
twice the amount of proven U.S. petroleum reserves and more than a seven
year U.S. oil supply at current consumption rates.
Oil shale resources occur on 11 million acres of land in the three-
state Green River formation oil shale region, of which 4.9 million acres
occur in northeastern Utah (see figure 1-1). Approximately 78 percent
of this land is federally owned and is administered by the U.S. Depart
ment of Interior. This federal land contains 79 percent of the total
in-place resource in the state.
There are legal proceedings currently pending which cast doubt on
the title to Utah oil shale lands. The most significant case at present
concerns the ownership of some 157,000 acres of oil shale land in Utah;
an area which includes federal prototype lease tracts U-a and U-b. The
State of Utah has sued the Department of Interior for title to these
lands, completing about 65 percent of the state's entitlement to lands
under statehood enabling legislation. Federal courts at the district
and appellate levels have ruled in favor of Utah, but the Department of
Justice has appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and a final
decision is not expected until June 1980.
-4-
Figure 1-1
STATE OF UTAH
BEAVER
-J HACHURES ENCLO JTAJ UNDERLAIN BY 0
m ^ O F ALL GRADES
WATHITW SHADED AREA CONTAINS SHALE OF 25 GALLON PER TON GRADE 30 FEET OR MORE THICK.
St George
0 Kanab
1 U - W 113- W.
Utah Geological and Mineral Survey
ARIZONA
OIL SHALE AREAS UINTA BASIN, NORTHEAST UTAH
- 5 - File no. 1363-A
C. Tar Sand Resources in Utah
Tar sand, oil sand, bituminous bearing rock, oil impregnated rock
and bituminous sand are terms used interchangeably in describing hydro-
5
carbon bearing deposits. These are distinguished from more convention
al oil and gas reservoirs principally by the high viscosity of the hy
drocarbon which is not recoverable in its natural state through current
oil production techniques.
The most common terminology used to describe this resource is "tar
sand," however, this term is somewhat of a misnomer. The heavy oil
substance contained in these deposits is more accurately called bitumen,
a dense viscous substance exhibiting chemical characteristics similar to
petroleum and other liquid hydrocarbons found in close proximity to
these deposits. In addition, the material containing the bitumen is not
always sand or sandstone; limestone, siltstone, and oolite mud deposits
have also been found to contain these heavy oil deposits. Unlike oil
shale which is homogeneous over large areal extents, tar sand deposits
are highly heterogeneous, consisting of many separate occurrences char
acterized by noncontiguous beds and variations in point-to-point rich
ness. Despite the inexactness of the term "tar sand" as it refers to
domestic deposits, the term is firmly enough entrenched in the technical
and industrial literature as well as legislative documents that it will
also be used for the purposes of this assessment.
Tar sand deposits are reported on every continent except Antarcti
ca. The largest and best known are the Athabasca deposits in
Alberta, Canada, (1,100 billion barrels) and the Orinoco Tar Belt in c
Venezuela (2,000 billion barrels). In the United States, deposits of
-6-
tar sand have been noted in 24 states. The largest deposits and those
regarded as potentially containing commercially exploitable quantities
of oil are found in only six states: Alabama, California, Kentucky,
New Mexico, Texas and Utah. Utah contains approximately 93 percent of
the U.S. total resource base.
Utah contains 51 known tar sand deposits grouped for the most part
within and around the Tertiary age formations of the Uinta Basin in
northeastern Utah and the older Permian and Triassic age formations of
central southeastern Utah. At least five of the deposits can be classi
fied as "giant" petroleum fields having more than 500 million barrels of
oil (bitumen) in-place. Four other deposits are considered to be "very
large" petroleum fields (100 to 500 million barrels in-place) and 15
others are rated as "large" fields (10 to 100 million barrels of in-o
place resource). Locations of Utah's tar sand deposits are shown in
figure 1-2.
Combined, Utah tar sand deposits are estimated to contain 25.1 bil-g
lion barrels of oil. Of this total, 10.8 billion barrels are in the
Uinta Basin and 14.3 billion in the central southeast part of the state.
This amount is roughly equivalent to the total U.S. domestic proven
reserves of petroleum. The size and resource characteristics of the
major Utah tar sand deposits are given in table 1-1.
Studies of the chemical and physcial characteristics of Utah tar
sand bitumen show that, as a group, central southeast bitumens are
similar to Athabasca bitumen in terms of the high sulfur content and
lower nitrogen and hydrogen content. Comparatively, the Uinta Basin
bitumens (non-marine origin) are higher in nitrogen and hydrogen con
tent, higher in viscosity, but lower in sulfur content.
-7-
Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Department of Natural Resources
114° W
42° N. n r w IDAHO 112° W.
~'\ CACHE BEAR] j RICH , \ LAKE" I
Figure 1-2
STATE OF UTAH
41° N 41° N
40° N 40° N
39° N
3B° N
V N
39" N
W N
114" W 113° W. 112' W
\ Or ARIZONA
37" N
110° W
TAR SAND DEPOSITS
Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Department of Natural Resources
V o (DOTTED AREA SHOWS EXTENSION
INTO SUBSURFACE)
Table I-l
UTAH TAR SANDS CHARACTERISTICS
Name of Deposit
Asphalt Ridge
Sunnyside
Tar Sand Triangle
P.R. Spring
Hill Creek
Circle Cliffs i
Size of Oil Reserve
106 Bbls.
1,150
3,500-4,000
12,500-16,000
4,000-4,500
1,160
1,300
Areal Extent Sq. Mi.
20-25
35-90
200-230
240-270
115-125
27.7
No. Pay Zones
2-5
1-12
1
1-13
6-13
1-3
Gross Thickness of Deposits (feet)
10-135
15-550
5-300
10-102
53-65
5-310
Gal/Ton
9.5-27
NA
4.9-13.7
.2-30.5
1.0-21.2
NA
Source: UGMS
II. CURRENT STATUS OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SAND DEVELOPMENT IN UTAH
A. Current Status of Oil Shale Development
Even though oil shale as a source of petroleum has been recognized
in this country since the early 1920's, producing oil from oil shale at
an attractive rate of return and a price that is competitive with con
ventional petroleum sources has proved elusive for more than fifty
years. Awaiting the time when projections of diminishing supplies of
conventional crude oil and increases in price would provide oil shale
with a more competitive posture, oil shale has continued to be a subject
of intense interest, research, and speculation by potential developers
and government officials.
Speculation and interest on the part of private firms and govern
ment entities has led to the development and testing of many different
processes for producing oil from oil shale. Processing oil shale in
volves heating (retorting) crushed shale to a temperature of approxi
mately 900 degrees Fahrenheit at which point the organic material in the
oil shale breaks down and forms a vapor from which a crude oil (kerogen)
is then condensed.
Retorting processes fall into two broad categories, above-ground
and in-situ. In above-ground recovery, oil shale is mined, crushed and
fed into a surface retort. There it is heated, either by gas combustion
or indirectly, and kerogen is extracted. In-situ recovery of oil shale
involves subjecting an in-place oil shale resource to heat injected into
the pay zone. The heat breaks down the organic material in the shale
producing oil vapors which flow through the rock to a recovery well.
Much work has been done on the development of above-ground oil
shale retorting processes and a number of processes have been demon
strated on a pilot plant scale. However, oil shale technologies have
-10-
not been proven viable on a commercial scale. The scale-up to
full-sized, above-ground, commercial retorts will require modules ten to
fifty times the size of existing pilot plant prototypes. Scaling up
will entail significant economic risks as well as requiring major tech
nical modifications and adjustments.
Similarily, development of in-situ technology remains in a relative
infancy exhibiting some of the same uncertainties that characterize the
above-ground technologies. In-situ processes involve recovery of the
shale oil resource in place without the need for mining. One firm,
Geokinetics Inc. is currently developing in-situ technologies suitable
for exploiting Utah's near surface oil shale resource. While still
classifying their work as research and development, Geokinetics is the
only project in Utah to have actually produced shale oil in any signifi
cant amounts.
Recently, in an attempt to remove the economic and technical un
certainties and promote the commercial production of synthetic fuels,
the Department of Energy (DOE) has undertaken a two-phased commerciali
zation program. In Phase I, DOE will assign contracts of $5 million
each to three firms, Tosco, Paraho and Superior, for the engineering and
design of a commercial size oil shale retort module. Design and engi
neering is to be accomplished within 18 months at which time DOE will
review and select designs for awarding $140 million in grants for con
struction and operation. In addition, Public Law 96-126 authorized DOE
to allocate $2.2 billion to stimulate and promote the production of
synthetic fuels from projects which are within one year of commencement
of construction. The funding is to be allocated as follows:
-11-
(1) $1.5 billion - in price supports/purchase agreements,
(2) $100 million - in project feasibility studies,
(3) $100 million - in support of commercial scale production
facilities, and
(4) $500 million - in reserve for loan guarantees.
B. Current Status of Tar Sand Development
In Utah, tar sand deposits have been used as a source of asphalt
paving material for a good many years. As early as 1892, tar sand was
being mined from the Sunnyside deposit in Carbon County and transported
12 to Salt Lake City where it was used as paving material. For the past
35 years the Uintah County Roads Department has been mining tar sand for
paving and patching from a 10 acre asphalt pit located on the Asphalt
Ridge deposit near Vernal, Utah.
Recently, Utah tar sands have attracted a sustained interest in
their development as a potential alternative crude oil source. Two
different approaches for recovering bitumen from tar sands are currently
under development, above-ground and in-situ recovery processes.
Technologies for above-ground recovery of bitumen from Utah tar
sands have primarily focused on three processes: 1) solvent, 2) thermal
and 3) hot water.
Under the direction of Dr. Alex Oblad, the University of Utah tar
sands research efforts have concentrated on developing both thermal and
hot water extraction technologies. This effort has had as its objective
the development of technology for recovery of Utah tar sands by mining
and surface processing. This research has determined that a modified
hot-water process can be designed to allow efficient recovery of bitumen
from Utah tar sands. Utah tar sands are predominantly "oil wet"; a
-12-
characteristic originally thought to exclude the hot-water process as a
functional method of recovery for Utah bitumens. Recovered bitumen from
Uinta Basin deposits can be used directly as a premium grade paving
asphalt, or converted by thermal or catalytic means to a synthetic crude
13 oil. Using a thermal recovery process, bitumen can be recovered
directly through retorting in a fluidized bed. The yield from this
process is a more refined crude oil than that from the hot-water pro
cess. Currently, the Great National Corporation proposes to utilize a
hybrid of these technologies in a pilot plant targeted for the Sunnyside
deposit in Carbon County, Utah.
Sohio Natural Resources Company has developed a process very simi
lar to the hot-water extraction process. Sohio refers to their process
as a "continuous counter current solvent assisted extraction process".
This technology has demonstrated favorable results which warrant further
laboratory development work for the purpose of expanding into a pilot
plant demonstration program. The Asphalt Ridge deposit in Uintah County
is targeted for this effort.
In-situ recovery of tar sands involves the application of energy to
the tar sand reservoir to heat and mobilize the bitumen. Various in-
situ technologies have the objective of establishing a communication
path between the production well(s) and the tar sand reservoir, thereby
allowing the mobilized bitumen to flow and be pumped to the surface.
At reservoir temperature the bitumen is virtually immobile. As
energy is applied to the reservoir and the temperature raised, the vis
cosity of the bitumen drops. At a temperature of approximately 300
degrees Fahrenheit the bitumen is fluid enough to flow through the pore
space.
-13-
The Laramie Energy Technology Center (LETC) has completed two ex
periments on the Asphalt Ridge deposit utilizing an in-situ technique.
The most recent experiment used a reverse burn fireflood method followed
by a forward combustion stage. LETC is also planning to conduct an
in-situ recovery test through steam stimulation. Laboratory information
is being collected and a field project planned for the near future.
Santa Fe Energy Company has proposed a forward combustion in-situ
pilot project for the Tar Sand Triangle deposit in Wayne County. This
pilot project is scheduled to commence near the end of 1980 or in 1981
pending an ammendment of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 providing for a
15 general hydrocarbon lease on federal lands.
At the present time there is no in-situ technology that has proven
viable on a commercial scale. Even though all of the leading in-situ
processes are based on technological concepts originally developed for
enhanced recovery in conventional oil fields, a multitude of technical
problems still need to be resolved if in-situ production is to become a
viable economic venture.
While proposals have been slow in developing there is a consider
able amount of interest and activity being channeled into research and
development for recovery of oil from Utah tar sands. Yet, despite the
efforts of current research activities the fact remains that recovery
processes have not been developed to the point where they are ready for
commercial application. Uncertainties still remain and continue to
retard resource development.
Although above-ground recovery technology is currently more ad
vanced, the fact remains that 85 percent of the tar sand resource is too
deeply buried to be accessible by established surface mining tech-
-14-
niques. Therefore, if full potential of this resource is to be real
ized there is a pressing need to develop in-situ technologies.
C. Constraints and Problems Associated with Commercial Develop
ment of Utah Oil Shale and Tar Sand Deposits
Full scale commercial development of oil shale and tar sand de
posits in Utah is not without complications. Currently, there exists an
array of economic, technical, environmental, and leasing constraints and
problems that must be fully addressed before development of these re
sources can be undertaken. Input on these matters must come from all
parties involved, i.e., the government sector (federal, state, local),
industry, and other parties at interest. The following is an introduc
tion to the most important constraints and problems.
1. Economic
Recently, the economic feasibility of oil shale and tar sand devel
opment has become more attractive. Increases in the ceiling price
charged by OPEC nations coupled with price decontrol of domestic crude
oil have combined to make oil produced from oil shale and tar sand
appear more competitive with conventional liquid hydrocarbons. Yet,
several major economic problems remain unresolved.
The development of commercial scale operations for the mining and
processing of oil shale and tar sand is currently surrounded by economic
uncertainty. The source of this uncertainty is twofold: 1) uncertain
ties about the future cost of oil refined from oil shale and tar sand
and 2) uncertainty with regard to the future price of world oil.
Uncertainties of future costs are due to a lack of well-defined technol
ogies for application on a commercial scale basis, changing government
regulations, and the general inflationary trend among input costs.
-15-
Uncertainty in terms of the future price of world oil is attributable to
unstable supply conditions.
Compounding the problem of economic uncertainty is the extremely
large capital outlays which are required for a commercial scale plant.
Given the uncertainty of the economic environment and the corresponding
risk inherent within any development proposal, most firms will not be
inclined to invest massive capital outlays without some form of govern
ment assistance. If commercial development is to proceed, the federal
government must help cover the inherent high risk associated with these
commercial ventures.
As noted by Utah Governor Scott M. Matheson in testimony before the
Mines and Mining Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives,
Congress has acted strongly to resolve the historical economic uncer
tainties that have continually plagued synthetic fuel development.
This action has taken the form of a combination of purchase agreements,
price guarantees, loan guarantees, and loans in the proposed Energy
Security Corporation legislation and insurance against the unlikely pos
sibility of oil price deflation provided in the Windfall Profits Tax Act
of 1980.
2. Legal and Land Ownership
Ownership patterns of the resources and the attendant legal issues
represent significant impediments to the development of a commercial oil
shale and tar sand processing industry. The legal issues involved,
however, differ between oil shale and tar sand resources. The legal
issues surrounding oil shale center on questions of ownership claims
while the problems of tar sand issues are definitional in character.
-16-
There currently exist two major legal cases with regard to Utah oil
shale resources. The first case concerns the contested ownership of
43,000 acres of unpatented mining claims filed on oil shale land under
the Mining Law of 1872. Until 1920, oil shale was considered a locat-
able mineral and, therefore, claims were based on simply demonstrating
18 the presence of an oil shale deposit. However, the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920 changed the law by making oil shale a leasable mineral.
Due to this change in the law, uncertainty has arisen over the
legality of competing claims. Holders of the pre-1920 claims have been
involved with the Department of Interior over the validity of their
claims during the last 50 years. The continued question of the legiti
macy of these existing claims has resulted in an injunction suspending
enforcement of lease terms on two federal oil shale tracts in Utah (U-a
and U-b). Thus, development on these tracts has been postponed indefi
nitely.
The second major legal case with regard to oil shale concerns the
State of Utah's claim to 157,000 acres of oil shale land in Uintah
County. Under the terms of the Statehood Enabling Act of 1894, the
State of Utah was to receive title to four sections of land in each
township. According to the legislation, the sections to be received by
the state were sections 2, 16, 32, and 36. However, in 1894 much of the
state was unsurveyed, thus, the legal transfer of ownership from federal
to state title was never transacted. In the course of time, many of the
sections of land the state was entitled to receive have become included
in homesteads, national parks, recreation areas, reclamation with
drawals, military and Indian reservations, etc. The State of Utah has,
therefore, selected the oil shale land in lieu of the orginal sections.
-17-
This decision on the part of the state has been challenged by the feder
al government. Lower court rulings in favor of Utah have been appealed
to the Supreme Court. A decision by the court on the competing claims
should allow for a more orderly development process on the lands in
question.
Legal constraints also exist with regard to the development of a
commercial tar sand processing industry. Almost 90 percent of the po
tential tar sand leases in Utah are owned and managed by the Department
19 of Interior through the Bureau of Land Management. Currently, there
are no leasing procedures for tar sand on federally managed lands.
Involved in delaying such leasing procedures are complex and ob-
truse legal arguments over the difference between oil, heavy oil, and
oil in a deposit of oil sand. Mining versus in-situ methods of ex
traction and the methods and degrees of extraction and stimulation
needed for recovery are issues which must also be resolved.
Construction of a commercial scale tar sand processing plant that
is economically viable requires a substantial amount of recoverable
resources. In the absence of federal procedures for leasing of tar
sands, Utah has established regulations for leasing tar sands on state
lands under a single oil, gas, and hydrocarbon lease. However, state
leases alone are in most cases not sufficient to provide the required
resource volume for a commercial tar sand processing industry. Passage
by Congress of legislation which would establish a uniform federal
leasing program would be a first step in opening up federal lands for
tar sand development.
-18-
3. Technical
There exist several technological problems that must be solved to
have a viable synthetic fuel industry. These problems include an inade
quate resource assessment, the need for more research and development,
and data for commercializing recovery processes.
The problem of resource assessment is mainly concerned with tar
sands. Adequate resource characterization that would allow for intelli
gent economic evaluation of a property for leasing purposes has been
20 conducted on less than 10 percent of Utah tar sands.
The identification of appropriate technologies for mining and pro
cessing purposes is also of extreme importance. This identification can
best be done through an orderly research and development program, in
volving interaction between industry and appropriate public agencies.
Large monetary outlays will most likely be necessary for research and
development. Federal funding may be required as an incentive to under
take such research.
Uncertainties still surround the scale-up of oil shale processes.
The largest pilot plant surface retort in the U.S. has a capacity of
21 about 1,200 tons of oil shale per day. A commercial module would
probably require a unit some six to 10 times larger. Thus, commer
cial-sized facilities must still be tested.
4. Mining and Construction
Of the many factors that could impede the rate of development or
eventual size of a synthetic fuels industry in Utah, perhaps the single
most limiting constraint is the construction and mining industry's
ability and capacity to allocate limited resources amongst a number of
competing demands.
-19-
Utah is on the eve of a decade of explosive growth. A number of
large scale energy, water, and defense projects ranging from 3,000 Mwe
Intermountain Power Project to the MX missle defense system are current
ly planned for siting in Utah. Simultaneous construction of these
projects and a synthetic fuels industry will place severe stress on the
Utah construction industry capacity to absorb this growth. This threat
ens to create serious bottle-necks in the supply of skilled construction
labor, materials and equipment. Accordingly, widespread shortages could
occur resulting in escalating costs of construction and significant
delays in construction timetables.
In addition to potential shortages in the construction industry,
the mining industry could also be faced with manpower shortages. Three
of the four oil shale projects in Utah anticipate utilizing a conven
tional room-and-pillar mining technique as is used in underground coal
mining. These operations would require mine development from 158,800
TPD to 261,900 TPD to support a surface retorting shale oil production
level of 93,000 BPD to 157,000 BPD. This would require an additional
1,100 to 1,750 underground hard rock miners from a skilled occupational
25 category that is already in serious short supply in Utah.
Achievement of a commercial synthetic fuels industry in Utah during
the next decade will require labor, materials and equipment capacity
that may not currently exist in the state. In light of other competing
demands for similarly skilled manpower, materials and equipment from
other in-state projects and projects in neighboring states, serious
impediments could result that would inhibit the rate of development or
eventual size of a synthetic fuels industry in Utah.
-20-
5. Regulatory
Any proposed development of synthetic fuel processes faces an array
of regulations and permit requirements. While the number of such re
quirements is large, it is the continual change in regulatory policy
that has nurtured development delays. Consistency in regulatory policy
and simplification of the permitting process could enhance a more stable
environment from which development could proceed.
6. Environmental
Development of oil shale and tar sand deposits will invariably
impact the environment. Mining by open cut methods will impact the
landscape necessitating reclamation of lands disturbed in this fashion.
A January 1980 DOE analysis identifies a list of yet to be defined
environmental regulations that might constrain synthetic fuel develop-
22 • •
ment. These include air quality emission control measures for visi
bility, changes in the original prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) regulations, extension of PSD limiting increments to other pollu
tants, short-term nitrogen oxide ambient standards, development of
hazardous waste tests and regulations, toxic product regulations, and
occupational safety standards.
Also, competition with other resources such as recreational use
associated with National Parks and other recreational areas in Utah will
create environmental conflicts. The extent that this will inhibit
synthetic fuel development in Utah will have to await completion of
ongoing environmental assessments by the BLM, the National Forest Ser
vice, the National Park Service and, of course, any congressional action
in response to these assessments.
-21-
7. Water
Synthetic fuel development will create additional demand on the
water resources of the state. Currently, it is believed that the state
faces no serious deficits of water for energy development. However,
several major issues concern the demand for water for energy develop-
23
ment. These issues center around the question of priority determina
tion. Exactly how will the increased demand for water affect the cur
rent system of water allocation?
The current legal principle governing water rights in Utah is based
upon the Utah Code Annotated (1953) as revised, and in associated case
law. The governing principle was established as a mechanism by which
private sector development and productive use of the state's water
resources was encouraged. The basis of the legal principle is the
appropriation doctrine. This doctrine, in turn, is composed of three
main components: 1) beneficial use, 2) priority and 3) obligations of
appropriators.
Competing demands for the allocation of water resources in Utah
have historically been solved by reliance on the appropriation doctrine.
Thus, any appropriator who could document his water right as the initial
appropriation (thus the meaning of the first in time first in right, or
priority), and could subsequently show that his use of the water had
beneficial results and had met the legal obligations specified by the
contract, in turn, had seniority against competing claims. Note, there
are two implications for such an allocative mechanism. First, the pro
visions of allocation hold in the case of the transfer of water rights
from one party to another. Secondly, implicit in the provisions is the
assumption that private beneficial use is synonymous with public benefi
cial use.
-22-
The implications noted are of importance for water-energy policy
issues facing the State of Utah. Much of the water needed for synthetic
fuel development will be obtained by purchases of existing water rights.
The transfer of the existing property right implies a transfer of the
responsibilities to use the water in a manner which produces beneficial
results and simultaneously meets the obligations specified in the origi
nal proposal. (Note, these obligations encompass the responsibility to
control pollution of water flows.) Thus, it is the project developers,
not the state, that must shoulder the burden of responsible water man
agement.
Furthermore, the association of private beneficial use with public
beneficial use will most certainly be questioned as public interest
groups continue their effort of supporting more publicly-oriented legis
lation. The recognition of a possible dichotomy between private and
social benefits will in turn have ramifications on the market for water
rights. It has long been recognized within the economic discipline that
such a dichotomy forces government intervention into a market in order
to preserve social benefits. It is thus possible that in the future
acquisition of existing water rights by energy developers may become
more difficult.
D. Production Scenarios
The various uncertainties and contingencies facing oil shale and
tar sand development make the projection of future production scenarios
somewhat precarious. However, two possible scenarios have been com
piled, and appear in table II-l. Ranging from a low of 126,000 barrels
per day (BPD) to 227,000 BPD, the scenarios are based on discussions
with project proponents as well as federal, state and local government
officials. -23-
Of the oil shale projects listed in table II-l, Paraho and Tosco
are now completing their negotiations with DOE for grants of $5 million
each for engineering and design of commercial-sized retort modules.
Tosco proposes to design a 43,000 BPD facility, while Paraho proposes to
design a 6,000 to 10,000 BPD plant. The projections assume that this
work will lead to the construction and operation of these plants. If
these demonstration projects prove successful, it is assumed that Tosco
will increase its capacity to 47,000 BPD, and that Paraho may choose to
gear-up to 30,000 BPD sometime beyond 1990. Spokesmen for Geokinetics
feel confident that the firm can expand its present research and devel
opment activity by mid 1982 to produce 2,000 BPD. Moreover, if federal
leases become available Geokinetics intends to produce 20,000 BPD by
1990.
Perhaps the greatest uncertainty in the projections concerns the
White River Shale Project (WRSP). Pending a definitive outcome of cur
rent court cases, WRSP will reportedly adopt whichever technology proves
more feasible between the Paraho and Tosco processes. Current develop
ment plans for WRSP calls for the ultimate production of 100,000 BPD.
Tar sand production scenarios are also rather tentative, and are
based on the assumption that pilot plant operations will determine
necessary information to pursue commercialization.
Column A in table II-l gives the level of production which DOE
24 considers most probable given the current situation. Column B gives
the original company proposed production which may be subject to revi
sion depending on initial development results. Columns C and D are the
low and high company projections as indicated in the project proposals.
The oil shale figures are based on 94 percent recovery of kerogen from
-24-
the retorted shales. The tar sand figures are based on a resource
containing 11.3 gal/ton of bitumen and a recovery efficiency of 90
percent.
Likewise, the estimates of mining requirements in table II-2 are
based on the same efficiencies as for table II-l and resource richness.
The figures given in table II-2 indicate what perhaps will be the big
gest constraint to synfuels development in Utah, i.e., mining produc
tion. For the A & C scenario there will be required 212,400 tons per
day (TPD) or 70,097,000 tons per year (TPY). In the B & D scenario
these figures are 468,300 TPD and 154,470,000 TPY. The A & C scenario
is nearly six times the entire level of coal production in Utah for 1979
and scenario B & D is about thirteen times the coal production for 1979.
It is clear that a synfuels development of 100,000 to 200,000 BPD is an
extremely large scale development and will require much planning to
successfully implement.
-25-
Table II-l
PRODUCTION SCENARIOS OIL SHALE AND TAR SAND DEVELOPMENT
BY 1990
Oil Shale Projects3^
White River (28GPT) Tosco (25GPT) Paraho (25GPT) Geokinetics Oil Shale Subtotal
(Barrels per day) A B
40,000 43,000 10,000 20,000 113,000
100,000 47,000 10,000 20,000 177,000 "i
Barrels per (330 day) year A B
13,200,000 14,190,000 3,300,000 6,600,000 37,290,000
33,000,000 15,510,000 3,300,000 6,600,000 58,410,000
b) c) Tar Sand Projects
Great National Sohio Tar Sand Subtotal
Barrels C
8,000 5,000
13,000
per day D
25,000 25,000 50,000
Barrels per (330 day) year C D
2,640,000 1,650,000 4,290,000
8,250,000 8,250,000 16,500,000
Total Utah Production
Barrels per day Barrels per (330 day) year A&C BSD A&C B&D
126,000
r
227,000 1 41,580,000 74,910,000
A - DOE projections B - Original Company production plan C - Company low production plan D - Company high production plan
a) - Assumes 94% recovery of kerogen from retorted shale b) - Assumes 90% recovery of bitumen-from processed tar sand c) - Assumes tar sand with 20 gal/yd or 11.3 gal/ton
-26-
Table II-2
MINING SCENARIOS OIL SHALE AND TAR SAND DEVELOPMENT
BY 1990
Oil Shale Projects9)
White River (28GPT) Tosco (25GPT) Paraho (25GPT) Geokinetics (23GPT)
(In-situ) Oil Shale Subtotal
Tons per day A B
64,000 76,900 17,900
NA 158,800
160,000 84,000 17,900
NA 261,900
Tons per (330 day) year A B
21,120,000 25,377,000 5,900,000
NA ^52,397,000 ^
52,800,000 27,770,000 5,900,000
NA 86,470,000
Tar Sand Projects ' c'
Great National Sohio Tar Sand Subtotal
Tons per day Tons per (330 day) year C D C D
33,000 20,600 53,600
103,200 103,200 206,400
10,900,000 6,800,000 17,700,000
34,000,000 34,000,000 68,000,000
Total Mining Production
Tons per day Tons per (330 day) year A&C B&D A&C B&D
212,400 468,300 70,097,000 154,470,000 1
A - DOE projections B - Original Company production plans C - Company low production plan D - Company high production plan
a) - 94% recovery of kerogen from retorted shale b) - 90 % recovery of bitumen from processed tar sand c) - Assumes tar sand with 20 gal/yd or 11.3 gal/ton
-27-
III. OIL SHALE PROJECTS IN UTAH
A. White River Shale Project
The White River Shale Project (WRSP) was formed in June 1974 by
Phillips Petroleum Company, Sun Oil Company (now Sunoco Energy Develop
ment Company—Sunedco), and Sohio Petroleum Company (now Sohio Natural
Resources Company—Sohio).
The project was formed for the express purpose of establishing a
plan for joint development of the oil shale resource awarded through the
Federal Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program. The lease to Tract U-a was
awarded to Phillips and Sunedco in May 1974 for a bonus bid of $76.6
million. Sohio then joined Phillips and Sunedco to create the White
River Shale Oil Corporation which was awarded a lease on Tract U-b in
June 1974 for a bonus bid of $45.1 million. Effective January 1, 1975,
Sohio was assigned the lease on Tract U-b.
As required by provisions of the federal leases, WRSP has conducted
an extensive two year environmental monitoring program to establish
baseline data pertaining to the quantity and quality of surface water
and groundwater, the quality of the air, and the population, distribu
tion and relationships of flora and fauna. Environmental monitoring is
continuing in an effort to answer some questions raised by the baseline
monitoring work and to extend the data base.
Extensive conceptual engineering studies have also been completed
and submitted to the federal government outlining plans for development
of the tracts. These were submitted in the form of a "Detailed Develop
ment Plan."25
-28-
Questions as to the ultimate disposition of title to the U-a and
U-b tract area in light of existing mining claims and applications for
state leases have led White River to seek and be granted a preliminary
injunction against the Federal Government. This injunction suspends the
terms, conditions, and obligations of the leases under the Federal Oil
Shale Lease Program until the problems of existing mining claims and
state lease applications are resolved. Moreover, the resolution of
these issues is held up pending the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
involving the State of Utah and the Federal Government over Utah's
selection of 157,000 acres (including tracts U-a and U-b) of
"in-lieu-of" lands. (See Chapter II, Section C, for details.)
The WRSP plans to produce 100,000 BPD by 1990, however, table II-l
shows a DOE projection for WRSP at 40,000 BPD. If the DOE projection is
correct then the 100,000 BPD projection by WRSP may still be possible
but not until after 1990. In either case the projected production
levels will require an incredible mining effort. Table II-2 shows that
this project could require from 21,120,000 TPY to 52,800,000 TPY to be
mined. This is two to five times the entire coal mining production in
Utah for 1979.
Table III-l summarizes the WRSP statistics.
1. Oil Shale Resource
The WRSP is working toward the development of oil shale resources
on 10,240 acres of Federal Lease Tracts U-a and U-b. The tracts are
located in a remote section of northeastern Utah lying immediately south
of the White River in the southeastern portion of the Uinta Basin, (see
figure III-l).
-29-
Table III-l
WHITE RIVER SHALE PROJECT
SITE Uintah County, Utah; T. 10 S., R. 24 E.
10,240 acres on Federal lease U-a, U-b
PRODUCTION 40,000 to 100,000 BPD
First Production: 1989
WATER REQUIREMENTS Usage:
Source:
11,000 to 26,000 acre-feet/year
White River Reservoir
EMPLOYMENT Peak Construction:
Operation:
Mi ne:
4,200
990
430 to 1,060
PROCESS Technology:
Spent Shale:
Surface retort- Paraho, Tosco II, and Union B
55,000 to 138,000 TPD 18,163,200 to 45,400,000 TPY
MINING OPERATION Type:
Production:
Grade of Shale:
Underground, room and pillar
64,000 to 160,000 TPD 21,120,000 to 52,800,000 TPY
28 GPT
-30-
Assayed samples of oil shale from Tracts U-a and U-b show an aver
age thickness of approximately 55 feet with an average yield of 28
gallons of kerogen per ton. This rich oil shale deposit, known as the
Mahogany Zone, has an overburden which ranges from 250 feet to 1,225
feet. The total oil shale resource present in the Mahogany Zone is
estimated to be 1,060 million barrels. Current estimates anticipate
that approximately 70 percent of this resource could be recovered by the
WRSP project.
2. Mining and Processing Technology
Extensive conceptual engineering studies have been completed by
WRSP and submitted to the Area Oil Shale Office (U.S. Geological Survey)
for approval. The schedule and technologies described in the engineer
ing studies are based on state-of-the-art knowledge of oil shale mining
and processing. As knowledge of technologies is further developed and
regulatory and economic conditions dictate, the plan and development
schedule presented can be expected to be modified.
WRSP's plans are to follow a modular development approach in com
mercializing oil shale operations on Tracts U-a and U-b. At the present
time, WRSP anticipates that they will utilize a proven deep room and
pillar mining operation. Mined oil shale will be moved above-ground
where it will be prepared as retort feed by several stages of crushing
and screening. Primary crushing will be carried out in the mine.
The crushed shale will be processed by above-ground retorts. The
specific principal technology of the "above-ground" processing method
has not yet been selected. Several technologies are currently being de
veloped and demonstrated. The results and success of these demonstra
tions will be used in making the final selection.
-31-
In-situ technology is not being considered as a candidate for the
primary recovery technology at this time. WRSP is, however, evaluating
the progress being made in this area and will adjust its development
plans to accommodate in-situ as a secondary recovery technology as it is
further developed and refined.
3. Market and Transportation of Shale Oil
Potential marketing areas for the shale oil have been identified.
These areas are:
(1) the Wasatch Front,
(2) the Los Angeles, California area, and
(3) the midwestern United States.
Of the three areas considered, the midwestern United States market
27 appears to be the most promising.
Serving the Los Angeles Basin market would require construction of
a pipeline south from the project site to existing crude petroleum
pipelines in the Four Corners area of Utah. From this location connec
tions could be made with refineries in Arizona, New Mexico and Southern
California. Under this marketing proposal, shale oil (upgraded kerogen)
from WRSP would have to compete with North Slope crude from Alaska.
Alaskan crude has already caused gluts on the West Coast, making this
market alternative temporarily undesirable. This existing market condi
tion is, of course, subject to change over a period of time.
In considering the Wasatch Front area of Utah as a potential mar
ket, limiting factors exist in the refining capacity of the area to
absorb the total shale oil output. Even though there is an existing
10-inch pipeline corridor between Rangely, Colorado and Salt Lake City,
project officials indicate that construction of a new pipeline from the
project site to Salt Lake City would be required.
-32-
To move the shale oil into what the project sponsors view as the
primary market area, a 16-inch pipeline will be constructed for the
commercial phase of the development. The proposed pipeline will convey
the shale oil from the project site along one of two alternative routes
to destinations in Wyoming. Both of these routes are intersected by two
major pipelines which terminate in the midwest, and both have the exist
ing excess capacity to handle the approximate 100,000 BPD of shale oil
from the WRSP facility. The two alternative routes are:
Alternative one. This route would run from the project site to
Casper, Wyoming. From the project site to Colorado Highway 64, the line
would follow existing Bureau of Land Management corridors containing
pipelines and roads. From Highway 64, the new pipeline would follow an
Amoco right-of-way containing a small-diameter crude line to
Sunbeam, Colorado. From Sunbeam, the line would proceed north to
Wamsutter, Wyoming. The line from Wamsutter would follow an Amoco
right-of-way containing a small-diameter crude line to Casper, Wyoming.
Alternative two. This route would run from the project site to
Fort Laramie, Wyoming. From the project site to Highway 64, the route
would be similar to that of Alternative one. The line would follow the
Amoco right-of-way from Highway 64 to Baggs, Wyoming, via
Sunbeam, Colorado. It would then proceed from Baggs in a new corridor
to Coyote Springs, where it would follow another Amoco small-diameter
crude pipeline to Fort Laramie.
4. Water Requirements
The WRSP has requested 26,000 acre feet per year from the state's
proposed White River Dam Project. Company spokesmen believe, however,
that technological improvements may ultimately reduce actual water re-
-33-
quirements to as low as 13,000 acre feet per year for a 100,000 BPD
shale oil facility.
Of a number of alternative sources of water for WRSP, the company-
prefered alternative is a planned dam and reservoir on the White River
to be built by the State of Utah Division of Water Resources. The
project would be a multipurpose development that would provide a firm
water supply for oil shale processing on Tracts U-a and U-b and would
have sufficient capacity to furnish water for additional oil shale
development in the area.
The site selected for the dam to be built on the White River is
located near the center of Section 17, T. 10 S., R. 24 E., approximately
four miles west of the processing facilities. The proposed dam embank
ment would be a zoned earth and rock fill structure rising to approxi
mately 129 feet above the stream channel. White River Dam statistics
are summarized in table II1-2 and the dam site is shown in figure III-l.
Raw water for plant and processed shale use will be obtained from a
pumping station located on the south bank of the reservoir. The pumping
station will pump water through a two mile, 24-inch pipeline to an
on-tract storage pond. The on-tract storage pond will be constructed to
provide operational flexibility, including three days reserve. Also,
additional storage will be maintained to ensure a reliable supply of
water during an outage of the reservoir pumping station or pipeline and
to control drainage water.
5. Air Quality Impacts
The WRSP property is in a Class II, Prevention of Significant Air
Quality Deterioration (PSD) Area. Construction and operation of the
proposed project will impact the atmospheric environment at each devel
opment stage.
-34-
Table III-2
WHITE RIVER DAM, RESERVOIR AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER PROJECT
SITE Uintah County, Utah
Section 17, T. 10 S., R. 24 E.
PRODUCTION Capacity:
Power Generation:
105,000 acre-feet (total) 67,000 acre-feet (active) 500,000 acre-feet (annual flow)
5 MW
COST
EMPLOYMENT
TECHNOLOGY
Dam and Reservoir
Power Plant:
Construction:
Operation:
Start-up:
Completion:
Dam:
Power Plant:
$19 million (State funds)
$6 million (State funds)
300
10
1981
1983
Earth and rock fill
Hydroelectric, Kaplan turbine
-35-
WRSP officials believe that all emission and air quality standards
will be met during the construction and operating phases of development
activities. However, while significant on-tract and off-tract impacts
are not anticipated by company officials, previous air dispersion model
ing results point to potential problems in meeting existing PSD Class II
particulate increment limits. Further modeling efforts must await the
final selection of a retorting technology.
6. Socioeconomic Impacts
Construction workers will make a sizable transient addition to the
local population. To help alleviate adverse socioeconomic effects in
the local area a temporary campsite will be established to provide
housing services and recreation for site workers and their families and
for indirectly employed people who will come into the area to provide
goods and services to the camp population.
As proposed in the Detailed Development Plan, the campsite will be
located at Bonanza, five miles north of the construction site. It will
consist of mobile homes as well as eating, shopping, and recreational
facilities. The projected campsite population is calculated to peak at
about 7,000 in the 10th year.
A pool of operations manpower will serve mining, retorting, upgrad
ing, and all of the support functions necessary to the project as it
moves through all phases of commercial operations.
Mining manpower requirements will grow steadily through all phases
of the project until it levels off at 1,060 men at full production. In
contrast, the manpower requirements for processing operations decrease
between Phase II and III, then steadily increase to a final manpower
requirement level of 990 men at full production.
-36-
The housing needs of the operations work force will be of a more
permanent nature. The town of Vernal, population 8,000, will provide
most of the permanent housing and required services to meet the needs of
the work force from the oil shale project.
WRSP is working closely with local government agencies to insure
that they are informed of WRSP's schedule and plans. This will hopeful
ly facilitate advance planning and adequate front-end financing to help
guarantee orderly municipal expansion in response to the rapid influx of
new residents. However, due to the magnitude of growth that is antici
pated, serious problems could arise in the provision of public services
by local impacted communities.
7. Program for Disposal of Spent Shale
It is estimated that for each ton of oil shale processed by WRSP
22 there will be 0.86 ton of spent shale for disposal. Therefore, a
100,000 BPD facility requiring 160,000 TPD of oil shale will result in
138,000 TPD of spent shale, which is approximately 45,400,000 TPY, for
disposal. At the completion of the 20 year WRSP project there will be
950 million cubic yards of spent shale which could cover 900 acres to an
average depth of 200 feet.
Southam Canyon just south and to the west of the processing area is
the company-preferred disposal area for shale processed in all stages of
the White River Shale Project. Factors relevant to using Southam Canyon
as a processed shale disposal area are:
(a) There is sufficient space in this canyon to hold the
anticipated volume of processed shale from the entire
project within the lease boundary.
-37-
(b) The low average rainfall in the area of Tracts U-a and
U-b will result in a low level of surface drainage from
Southam Canyon.
The processed shale will be brought from the retorting area by con
veyor to a truck loading bin. From there, trucks will move the spent
shale to the disposal area where they will dump and compact the material
in layers. Bulldozers will complete the sculpturing and contouring of
the pile so that it blends in with the surrounding topography.
Spent shale ranges in particle size from fine to gravely, depending
on the retorting process, and contains all the basic nutrients found in
the native soil except for nitrogen and phosphorus.
Studies conducted for the WRSP by the Institute for Land Rehabili
tation at Utah State University have shown that selected plants can be
established on processed shale. Ten native plant species have demon
strated the ability to grow when transplanted directly into processed
shale; however, pre-planting, planting, and post-planting management
operations need to be established and carried out to successfully re-
vegetate spent shale.
8. Construction and Production Schedules
The WRSP plan currently regarded by the company as most probable
among alternatives is a modular development of mining, processing, and
related operations in four phases up to full commercialization of a
100,000 BPD shale oil production facility.
The first phase includes sinking an access shaft for initial test
ing and examination of the ore body to obtain geotechnical data for
final mine design and to provide a bulk sample for retort and crusher
conformation.
-38-
Work on opening the mine will begin towards the end of the second
year and should be completed within six months time. Opening of this
operation will provide 2,000 to 10,000 tons per calendar day of shale
and permit selection of those retorting and crushing techniques best
suited for producing oil from the specific shale mined on Tracts U-a and
U-b.
Phase II will involve engineering studies followed by construction
of a single commercial-sized retort along with a working mine and ancil
lary facilities. Construction of the mine and above-ground facilities
will require three years at which time full operations will commence and
continue for two years.
In Phases III and IV, construction of full scale commercial opera
tions will begin during the first quarter of year eight. The first and
second train units (modular additions), attendant ground facilities and
mining operations will be developed concurrently. Start-up and mine
production for support of the first train will be initiated during the
eleventh year of the development plan. A second train start-up and sup
porting mine production will be initiated in year twelve.
9. Project Participants and/or Sponsors
The WRSP participants are Phillips Petroleum Company, Sunoco Energy
Development Company, and Sohio Natural Resources Company.
B. Paraho Project
The Paraho Project is a proposed plan for development of oil shale
28 resource in the Uinta Basin. The project will be a concerted effort
between the Paraho Development Corporation, its project team, sponsors
and the DOE. As envisioned, the project will be divided into two
phases. Phase I will define the design, cost, schedules, and perform-
-39-
ance plans for constructing and operating a retort module and associated
facilities. Phase II goals will be to construct and operate the retort
module and support equipment for a period adequate to confirm the tech
nical, economic, and environmental control data for a commercial pro
duction plant. The primary benefit of Phase II will be the demonstra
tion of process technology and economics at a scale fully representative
of commercial operations. Also, socioeconomic and environmental impact
data will be available on an adequate scale for reasonable evaluation.
The Paraho Development Corporation has already undertaken the three
year, $10 million, privately funded Paraho Oil Shale Demonstration which
was completed August 31, 1976. The work was performed at the leased
Anvil Points Facility near Rifle, Colorado and used Green River oil
shale from the edge of the Piceance Creek Basin. A Paraho Pilot retort
(2h foot inside diameter) and a Paraho Semi-works retort (8h foot inside
diameter) were designed, constructed, and installed. Valuable research
information gained from the Colorado project will, in many instances, be
applicable to the proposed Utah project.
The Paraho project expects to produce 6,000 to 10,000 BPD with
10,000 BPD prefered by 1990. This would require 17,900 TPD of oil shale
or 5,900,000 TPY. This level of mine production is larger than any
existing underground mine in Utah. Table 111-3 summerizes the Paraho
project statistics.
1. Oil Shale Resource
The site for the Phase II program is on a 582 acre State of Utah
oil shale lease in northeastern Utah. The lease is in Section 32, T. 9
S. , R. 25 E. The lease expires in July of 1998. (See figure III-l for
site location.) The lease is 1*5 miles from Federal Prototype Lease
-40-
Table 111-3
PARAHO OIL SHALE PROJECT
SITE Uintah County, Section 32, T. 9 S., R. 25 E.
582 acres on state lease
PRODUCTION 6,000 to 10,000 BPD
First Production: 1984
WATER REQUIREMENTS Usage:
Source:
200 to 400 acre-feet/year
White River Reservoir
EMPLOYMENT Peak Construction:
Operation:
Mine:
800
400
72 to 120
PROCESS Technology:
Spent Shale:
Surface, Paraho, gravity feed vertical retort
9,200 to 15,400 TPD 3,050,000 to 5,080,000 TPY
MINING OPERATION Type:
Production:
Grade of Shale:
Underground, room and pillar
10,740 to 17,900 TPD 3,544,000 to 5,900,000 TPY
25 GPT
-41-
Tract U-b. Environmental data developed for Tracts U-a and U-b will be
used for Phase I work associated with the Paraho lease.
It is estimated, by company officials, that the leased oil shale
resource contains 87 million barrels of 25 gallon per ton material. Of
this 87 million barrels of in-place resource 62 percent or 54 million
barrels could ultimately be recovered.
2. Mining and Processing Technology
The processing technology to be used by Paraho centers on the
construction and operation of an above-ground oil shale retort module.
The retorting process has been tested at the Paraho Anvil Point demon
stration site with the result of over 100,000 barrels of crude oil
having been produced. The next step in the technological development of
the process is the demonstration of a full-size retort module.
The basic design of the retort module was pioneered by Paraho in
1966 for the calcination of limestone. The module is characterized by a
vertical kiln where an air and gas mixture is injected into the module
at three separate distributor levels. This mixture is combusted which
results in the separation of oil and gas from the retorted shale.
Many of the design features of the retort module are currently
known, according to company officials. These would include the sizing
and spacing of distributing holes, the control of heating and cooling
within the separate zones of the module, the solid feeds and distribu
tion methods, the disengagement of oil mist and gas from the top of the
retort, and the characteristics of the oil mist droplets and design gas
velocity for electrostatic precipitators. Other design factors are
still under development for the full-size retort module.
-42-
3. Market and Transportation of Shale Oil
At this stage of the Paraho development program, specific product
markets and transportation networks have not been identified. While
preliminary data obtained by company officials has shown the economic
viability of a commercial operation, such viability will be highly
dependant on the structure of the markets and transportation alterna
tives faced by Paraho.
4. Water Requirements
The water for the project will be provided from the White River.
Paraho officials expect that the proposed White River Dam and Reservoir
will be constructed in time to provide water on a contract purchase
basis. Total water requirements per annum are estimated in the range of
200 to 400 acre feet. The facility will operate on a zero discharge-
waste water concept.
5. Air Quality Impacts
Paraho officials believe air quality impacts will be controlled to
meet existing regulations. Work performed on a similar retort module in
Colorado provided air quality results favorable to appropriate regula
tions. With regard to the Utah project, the pollutants emitted from the
mining, retorting, rock handling, gas combustion, and associated fuel
uses will be primarily nitrogen oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide,
and sulfur dioxide. The use of a gas cleanup system, baghouse collec
tors, and wet suppression is expected to control emissions to an accept
able level.
6. Socioeconomic Impacts
Paraho officials estimate that as many as 800 workers could be
required during the peak of the construction phase. Estimated manpower
-43-
requirements for the operations phase of the program may entail as many
as 400 workers.
Such an influx of people into the sparsely populated Uinta Basin
presents the possibility of adverse socioeconomic and cultural effects.
Basic services such as housing, medical care, education for children,
etc. will require advanced planning by corporate officials, public
agencies, and local community organizations. The problem of financing
such services via tax revenue will be severely restricted due to a lag
time between demand for services and tax revenue collection. Front-end
financing will be required to mitigate these adverse effects. The form
of this financing will be subject to negotiation between Paraho, local
communities, and public agencies.
Paraho officials believe serious consideration should be given to
the idea of a new town located near the existing community of
Bonanza, Utah. As seen by Paraho, the major advantages of this idea are
that the local existing communities would receive less adverse impact,
commuting time for employees would be reduced, rapid fluctuations in
population as activities go from construction to operation could be more
easily accommodated, and the expansion "boom town" effects could be
isolated and handled in an efficient manner. What effect such isolation
would have on worker motivation or the required wage scale needed to
attract experienced personnel has not been determined.
7. Program for Disposal of Spent Shale
The Paraho project (at 10,000 BPD) would provide approximately
15,400 TPD or 5,080,000 TPY of spent shale. Processed shale will be
placed above ground and protected against leaching, erosion, and dust
generation. The specific program for disposal has not been released by
company officials.
-44-
8. Construction and Production Schedules
Company officials currently project a period of 68 months in which
both Phase I and Phase II can be completed. Variations in this schedule
are likely, however, due to acquiring necessary environmental approvals,
receiving needed financing, variations in construction time, and demon
stration of a commercially viable technology.
The overall program schedule (currently) can be broken down as
follows:
a) Phase I — 18 months (January, 1980 - June, 1981)
b) Phase II —
i) Phase II decision - six months (June, 1981 -
January, 1982)
ii) Detailed design - six months (January, 1982 -
June, 1982)
iii) Construction - 18 months (June, 1982 - January, 1984)
iv) Operation - 24 months (September, 1983 - September, 1985)
9. Project Participants and/or Sponsors
The project participants include, Paraho, the Standard Oil Company
(Ohio), the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company, Davy McKee Corporation, VTN
Consolidated, Inc., and Aero Vironment, Inc. Sponsors include Sohio
Shale Oil, Phillips Petroleum, Mobile Research and Development,
Cleveland - Cliffs Iron Company, Moon Lake Electric Association, Davy
McKee Corporation, and Paraho.
C. Tosco Sand Wash Project
The Oil Shale Corporation (Tosco) presently holds leases on five
tracts of state land, totaling 14,688 acres at its Sand Wash properties.
Under terms of a Unitization Agreement signed with the state in 1975,
-45-
Tosco is now in its fourth year of an eight-year plan to prepare the
leases for future commercial development. As presently conceived, the
29 company seeks to eventually construct a 47,000 BPD oil shale facility.
However, the initial development may be only 43,000 BPD. The preferred
47,000 BPD production level would require the mining of approximately
84,000 TPD or 27,770,000 TPY of oil shale. This is more than twice the
total Utah coal mining effort in 1979. Table III-4 summarizes the Tosco
project statistics.
These plans are still tentative, however, as several unpredictable
risks and uncertainties exist with respect to technology (mining and
processing technologies have not been demonstrated at the commercial
scale), financing (a 47,000 BPD facility requires approximately $1.2
billion in capital investment with four to five years of outlays prior
to receiving initial income from production), a rapidly changing regula
tory climate, and a lack of a predictable federal energy policy.
In its four years of early development activities at the Sand Wash
site, Tosco has conducted:
(1) exploration of the geology and hydrology through core dril
ling,
(2) environmental baseline monitoring as a forerunner to prepar
ing an impact analysis,
(3) revegetation program,
(4) equipment procurement and permit acquisition for an experi
mental mine,
(5) socioeconomic planning, and
(6) preliminary engineering and cost estimating for commercial
scale facilities.
-46-
Table 111-4
TOSCO SAND WASH PROJECT
SITE Uintah County, Utah T. 9 S., R. 21 E.
14,688 acres on state lease
PRODUCTION 43,000 to A7,000 BPD
First Production: 1988
WATER REQUIREMENTS Usage:
Source:
18,000 acre-feet/year
White River
EMPLOYMENT Peak Construction:
Peak Operation:
Mine:
3,075
700
500 to 560
PROCESS
MINING OPERATION
Technology:
Spent Shale:
Type:
Production:
Surface, horizontal retort (TOSCO II)
66,100 to 72,200 TPD 21,800,000 to 23,900,000 TPY
Underground, room and pillar
76,000 to 84,000 TPD 25,377,000 to 27,770,000 TPY
Grade of Shale: 25 GPT
-47-
1. Oil Shale Resource
The mining zone of commercial interest in the Sand Wash area is the
Mahogany Zone of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River forma
tion. According to design parameters used by the Tosco Mining Depart
ment, the depth of the mining zone varies from 1,800 to 2,400 feet below
the surface (depending on the location within the lease units).
The state lands included in the Unitization Agreement are situated
approximately 12 miles southeast of Ouray, Utah and 34 miles due south
of Vernal, Utah, in Uintah County (see figure III-l).
2. Processing Technology
The mining operation now contemplated will use conventional room
and pillar underground mining techniques. Access to the mining zone
from the surface will be through vertical shafts, with mine ventilation
provided by a forced air system.
The solid shale rock is drilled, blasted, and then hauled to the
surface for crushing. In a series of steps the shale is reduced from
large chunks (weighing up to several thousand pounds) to small,
half-inch sized pieces.
The technique used to extract kerogen from shale is referred to as
the "Tosco II" process developed and refined by Tosco from an earlier
Swedish method. At the heart of this process is the Tosco II retort
unit, where crushed shale is mixed with small, heated ceramic balls in a
sealed rotating cylinder called a pyrolysis drum. When the shale
reaches a temperature of about 900 degrees Fahrenheit, the organic
material yields kerogen vapors and other gases. The kerogen vapors are
then condensed into an oil and upgraded. By-products of this process
include ammonia, coke and sulfur. Gas similar to low BTU natural gas is
also produced, and is intended to be used as plant fuel.
-48-
The composition and usability of kerogen is within the range of
properties of conventional crude oils, its only unusual properties being
a high "pour point" (not considered a problem), and a high nitrogen
content. The nitrogen level is sufficiently high to interfere with
conventional refinery processes, and therefore, requires removal by
standard hydrogenation processes.
The hydrogenation process produces a synthetic crude oil of premium
quality which can be readily converted into transportation fuels in a
typical refinery.
3. Market and Transportation of Shale Oil
Potential markets for the product include most of the Rocky Moun
tain region, as well as Southern California, where Tosco presently owns
refineries for future processing of shale oil. The company may also opt
to exchange or sell shale oil on the open market.
Oil product shipment after upgrading will probably be by pipeline.
The closest existing crude oil pipelines are the Chevron pipelines
(Rangely, Colorado to Salt Lake City) within 15 to 20 miles of the plan
area; the Amoco pipeline 40 miles to the east at Rangely; and the Pure
Oil pipeline, some 140 miles south at Lisbon, Utah. The Colony Oil
Shale Project in Colorado has applied for a federal permit to build a
pipeline from Colorado to Lisbon. When built, the line would pass
within 50 miles of the Sand Wash site. Thus, several options are avail
able for shipping shale oil via a new connection from Sand Wash to an
existing or planned common carrier pipeline.
By-products, (LP6, sulfur, coke, and ammonia) if produced commer
cially, will probably be transported by truck. The nearest rail heads
accessible by improved highway are at Castle Gate, Utah and
Craig, Colorado, located 120 and 140 miles from the site, respectively.
-49-
4. Water Requirements
Tosco has filed a request with the state for 18,000 acre feet per
year from the White River for its water supply. More than 1,700 barrels
of kerogen can be produced per acre-foot of water consumed under current
technology, although recent research by Tosco suggests that with further
technological improvements, water consumption could be reduced by as
much as 20 percent.
Water diversion facilities from the White River would be located in
the general vicinity of the proposed Ute Indian Irrigation Project east
of Ouray, Utah. Such diversion would require releasing water from the
White River Dam which would flow downstream to the point of diversion,
and then be pipelined south to the project location.
Tosco has filed an application with the Utah Division of Water
Rights to appropriate an additional 10,000 acre-feet of water per year.
This application also includes provisions for a 19,890 acre-feet reser
voir which would cover a land area of about 560 acres. Prior to any
final reservoir site selection, an overall environmental and engineering
assessment will be made to determine the consequences on land use (both
in the immediate area and the affected lands downstream) and the geo
logic suitability of alternative sites.
5. Air Quality Impacts
Tosco properties are located in a Class II PSD Area. Air quality
at the Sand Wash Project will be affected in at least two ways. First,
dust will be generated by construction, transportation, and process
activities, adding to the suspended particulate matter in the air.
Secondly, gaseous emissions will be released from the plant, mining and
reclamation equipment and employee vehicles.
-50-
Since the Tosco Sand Wash Project will be using similar technolo
gies and development plans as is being used at their Colony Project in
Colorado, some conclusions on air quality impacts from the Colony Pro
ject might be relevant to the Sand Wash site. At Colony, Tosco employ
ees Venturi water scrubbers on all stacks to remove particulate matter.
Ammonia and sulfur recovery and coking units are to be used to reduce
emissions of No S09 and hydrocarbons. Contained arsenic is also re-
moved and disposed of as a solid waste.
The crushing and conveying facilities will use bag dust collection
units to remove dust, and the equipment will be enclosed to prevent
windblown dust during movement. The stacker/reclaimer on the spent
shale pile will use a water spray dust suppression system, and dust
prevention techniques will be used for spent shale disposal.
In July 1979, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a PSD
permit, claiming that Colony's proposed emissions monitoring program
will adequately assess the air quality impacts and assure continued
compliance with the conditions of the PSD permit.
6. Socioeconomic Impacts
As mentioned earlier, Tosco1s Sand Wash Project is situated 34
miles south of Vernal, Utah. Vernal, located in the center of an agri
cultural valley, is the closest major town to the leases and is the
Uintah County seat with a population of approximately 8,000. The Uinta
and Ouray Indian Reservation is directly north of the Sand Wash Project,
and the nearest permanent dwellings are in the vicinity of the reserva
tion hamlet of Ouray. In addition to these areas, Roosevelt, Utah,
(located 38 miles west of Vernal on U.S. Highway 40) will also be im
pacted by the Sand Wash Project.
-51-
Socioeconomic analyses conducted by Tosco indicate that a 47,000
BPD commercial oil shale facility will generate 2,400 construction jobs,
1,000 permanent operating jobs, and roughly 3,400 jobs in related areas
of employment; a total of 6,800 new temporary and permanent jobs. While
the Sand Wash Project could potentially triple the tax base of Uintah
County, there is a "tax lead time" of approximately five years. Conse
quently, increased demand on roads, housing, schools, water, sewer, and
other infrastructures pose serious problems for the small rural communi
ties of this area.
7. Program for Disposal of Spent Shale
After the kerogen has been removed from the oil shale, the retorted
shale is cooled and water added to bring its moisture content to approx
imately 13 percent. Immediately after retorting, the processed (or
spent) shale has the consistency of fluffy black dust and the addition
of water makes it denser, impervious to wind, and more easily trans
ported and compacted. The processed shale is then transported by cover
ed conveyor to a nearby yet to be identified canyon or valley where it
is spread and compacted in terraced embankments. At the full production
level of 47,000 BPD there will be generated approximately 72,200 TPD or
23,900,000 TPY of spent shale.
Extensive revegetation studies have been conducted by Tosco at both
the Colony and Sand Wash sites, involving experimental revegetation
plots of about 500 square feet. In cooperation with the U.S. Forest
Service and the Plant Materials Center at Meeker, Colorado, a total of
75 different species of grass, trees, shrubs and other flowering plants
have been grown successfully in spent shale.
-52-
In May 1976, Tosco hauled approximately 360 tons of spent shale
from Colony to Sand Wash to test the ability of native Utah plants to
grow in spent shale. Several designs were used in planting. Prelimi
nary results showed that plants receiving supplemental water through
drip irrigation were green and growing sooner than those not receiving
water. Five native species and two introduced species showed excellent
promise in revegetation of spent shale. These included the native
Gardner saltbush, Broadcastle saltbush, Bonneville saltbush, Shortwinged
saltbush, and Fourwing saltbush. The introduced species were Mediter
ranean camphorfume and Prostrate summer cypress. Thus far, the Fourwing
saltbush has shown the best survival and growth of all species planted.
8. Construction and Production Schedules
As discussed earlier, several uncertainties still exist concerning
the actual construction and production of a commercial facility. Under
the Unitization Agreement, Tosco is committed to spend a minimum of $8
million in development activities by 1984.
According to generic schedules, Phase I (development stage) will
last five years and employ 500 people at the end of the period. Phase
II (plant construction stage) is scheduled for years six through nine.
Employment will peak in the eighth month of the eighth year at 3,075 and
then decline to 1,175 at the end of construction. Phase III (operation
stage) will occur in years 10 through 20 with employment running steady
at 1,000 to 1,200 employees.
9. Project Participants and/or Sponsors
The Tosco Corporation is the sole participant in the Sand Wash
project and receives some sponsorship from DOE.
-53-
D. Geokinetics Inc. In-situ Project
Geokinetics Inc. is the only oil shale operation in the state to
have actually produced oil from shale in any significant amount. The
company's production in 1976 was 166 barrels. In 1977, production was
1,780 barrels, and in 1978, 3,434 barrels.30 Production for 1979 is
estimated at 5,000 barrels. Geokinetics has been shipping their shale
oil via tanker trucks to the Plateau Refining Company at
Roosevelt, Utah, where it has been blended with normal refinery feed
stock and refined to yield gasoline and diesel fuel. The company has
recently contracted to sell their product to the U.S. Department of
Defense.
In terms of corporate structure and financial resources, Geokinet
ics is miniscule; especially in comparison to the White River Shale
Project and the Tosco Sand Wash Project. Geokinetics began its field
activities five years ago, working out of tents at its isolated Tavaputs
Plateau site as a small, single-family operation. It has since obtained
funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and continues to classify its
activities as Research and Development.
Mitchell A. Lekas is president of the company and inventor of what
he terms the "Lofreco Process" (an acronym derived from low front end
cost) which comprises a horizontal in-situ retorting process. Not only
does the method minimize the need for substantial front-end capital
expenses, but it is also best adapted to thinner beds of low-grade shale
which might not otherwise appear commercially feasible for development.
Geokinetics plans to commence with commercial operations by 1983 at
2,000 BPD and eventually to scale up to 20,000 BPD by 1990. Table III-5
is a summary of the statistical data on Geokinetics.
-54-
Table III-5
GEDKItETICS OIL SHALE PROJECT
SITE Uintah County, Utah Section 2, T. 14 S., R. 22 E.
Approx. 3,000 acres on state lease
PRODUCTION 2,000 to 20,000 BPD
First Production: 1982
WATER REQUIREMENTS
EMPLOYMENT
PROCESS
MINING OPERATION
Usage:
Source:
Peak Construction:
Operation:
Technology:
Spent Shale:
Type:
Production:
Grade of Shale:
None for processing
Underground for workers
50
50 to 500
In-situ, modified horiz
None (remains undergrou
None
None
23 GPT
-55-
1. Oil Shale Resource
Geokinetics holds both state and private oil shale leases on ap
proximately 30,000 acres. About 3,000 acres of state leases are suit
able for their horizontal in-situ process with an estimated 120 million
barrels of recoverable shale oil. These leases are located approxi
mately 70 miles south of Vernal, Utah, (see figure III-l) in the remote
Tavaputs Plateau area (Section 2, T. 14 S. , R. 22 E.). The area con
tains relatively thin shale seams (20 to 30 feet thick) lying under
shallow overburden (ranging from 0 to 150 feet deep). Average grade of
the resource is 23 gallons per ton, and the company expects to achieve a
50 percent recovery rate on in-place oil.
2. Processing Technology
Geokinetics version of the in-situ retorting process involves an
in-place rubblization of the shale seam and the creation of a minimum
void space. In this process, a pattern of blastholes is drilled from
the surface, through the overburden, and into the oil shale bed. The
holes are loaded with explosives and fired, using a carefully planned
blast system. The blast results in a well fragmented mass of oil shale,
with a high permeability. The void space in the fragmented zone comes
from lifting the overburden and producing a small uplift of the surface.
The fragmented zone constitutes an in-situ retort. The bottom of
the retort is sloped to provide drainage for the kerogen to a sump where
it is lifted by a number of production wells. Air injection holes are
drilled at one end of the retort and off gas holes are drilled at the
other end.
The oil shale is ignited at the air injection wells to establish
and maintain a burning front that occupies the full thickness of the
-56-
fragmented zone. The front is moved in a horizontal direction through
the fractured shale towards the off gas wells at the far end of the
retort. The burning front heats the oil shale ahead of the front,
driving out the kerogen, which drains to the bottom of the retort where
it flows along the sloping bottom to the production wells. As the burn
front moves from the air-in to the air-out wells, it burns the residual
coke in the retorted shale as fuel. The combustion gases are recovered
at the air-out wells. These gases are combustible and could be used for
power generation. Progress of the burn front is monitored by thermo
couples set in thermocouple wells.
Although the process was designed to retort relatively thin oil
shale beds under shallow overburden, the basic horizontal burn can
potentially be applied as a secondary recovery process for room and
pillar mining operations to recover shale oil from pillars and from
lower grade oil shales above and below the mined zone.
3. Market and Transportation of Shale Oil
Geokinetics is trying to establish markets at refineries in
Salt Lake City and Roosevelt, Utah, and Fruita, Colorado. In order to
make their shale oil acceptable to these refineries, they are investi
gating the feasibility of controlled blending of shale oil with normal
refinery feedstock, and upgrading shale oil (removing excess nitrogen
content) by hydrotreating processes.
The company intends to continue using tanker trucks for the trans
portation of their R & D output. By mid-1982, Geokinetics expects to
have completed its R & D program and to be ready to commence commercial
production of 2,000 barrels per day. The company hopes to be able to
establish a pipeline linkage to existing common carrier lines to
Salt Lake City.
-57-
4. Water Requirements
Geokinetics1 method of oil shale production requires no water. In
fact, water is produced as about 50 percent of the total liquids re
covered from their in-situ retorts. At the present time, the firm is
using an evaporation pond to dispose of excess water.
The only water requirements necessary for their continued activi
ties is that which is used in maintaining their camp (Kamp Kerogen).
The camp is presently using a well which was drilled 1,300 feet below
the surface. This aquifer will not be affected by the retorting process
due to its depth and the impermeability of the rock above it.
5. Air Quality Impacts
Geokinetics' properties are located in a Class II PSD Area. Stud
ies have been underway since January 1978 to collect baseline values for
local climatic conditions and to provide a data base for a future Impact
Analysis.
6. Socioeconomic Impacts
Due to the remote location of the test site and poor communication
systems, Geokinetics established Kamp Kerogen in 1975 as a
fully-equipped, self-contained living facility for employees and their
dependents. The camp's present census consists of 26 men, 13 women, and
12 children. Housing and utilities are furnished by Geokinetics.
Vernal, Utah, will be impacted to the extent that outside supplies and
professional services will be required by Kamp Kerogen residents.
Present employment (approximately 30) will be expanded to about 50
to operate a commercial unit of 2,000 barrels per day. Employment will
be expanded in accordance to the number of units eventually put on
commercial production.
-58-
7. Program for Disposal of Spent Shale
Since this project utilizes an in-situ retort for production of the
shale oil there will be no spent shale. However, the blasting and
retorting of the oil shale zone causes disruption of the ground surface
and destroys all the surface vegetation. Two factors are at work here.
First, the larger vegetation such as trees must be removed to facilitate
the uplifting of the ground surface which results from the below surface
blasting. The surface uplift is necessary in order to obtain the needed
void space in the oil shale zone. Secondly, the remaining vegetation is
destroyed by the heat flux rising to the surface from the burning re
tort.
These two factors result in total destruction of all surface vege
tation. Therefore, a revegetation program will accompany the commercial
production program.
8. Construction and Production Schedules
In its five years of operations, Geokinetics has blasted 23 experi
mental retorts and burned 13. Dimensions have ranged from 30 to 182
feet in length and 10 to 220 feet in width. Best recovery was obtained
from retort #16 (2,067 barrels) with dimensions of 87 feet long 62 feet
wide, and 20 feet thick.
This year Geokinetics plans to continue testing retorting pro
cedures in an effort to optimize oil recovery. They have just blasted a
full commercial-sized retort (220 x 220 x 30 feet) for further testing.
In 1980, the company will blast a cluster of three full-sized retorts,
and in 1981, burn this cluster and blast a second three-retort cluster.
By 1982, Geokinetics plans to burn this second cluster and by mid-year
expects to have achieved their overall R & D objectives. If results are
-59-
favorable, the company will at that time commence production of 2,000
barrels of shale oil per day.
9. Project Participants
The participants in this project are Geokinetics Inc. and the U.S.
Department of Energy.
-60-
IV. TAR SAND PROJECTS IN UTAH
A. Sohio Natural Resources Company Project
On October 15, 1977, the State of Utah Board of State Lands ap
proved a "Commitment to Cooperative Development Plan" submitted by Sohio
31
Petroleum Company, now Sohio Natural Resources Company. The plan pro
vided that Sohio would pursue the common development of tar sand de
posits on leases located on Asphalt Ridge in Uintah County.
The Cooperative Development Plan requires Sohio to complete two
specific tasks. The first was to perform additional geological work
concerning the resource in the cooperative plan area. The second task
requires Sohio to prepare a mining plan including information on the
mining and processing methods anticipated for development of the tar
sand resource contained within Sohio held leases on Asphalt Ridge. This
plan has been submitted to the Division of State Lands for review.
The Sohio project expects to produce approximately 5,000 BPD to
demonstrate the technology and then to scale up to 25,000 BPD by 1990.
At full production the processing plant would require approximately
103,200 TPD or 34,000,000 TPY of raw tar sand. This is over three times
the total Utah coal mining output for 1979. Table IV-1 summarizes the
project data for Sohio.
1. Tar Sand Resource
The Asphalt Ridge bituminous sandstone deposit is located on a
northwest-trending cuesta about 15 miles long which cuts diagonally
principally across T. 5 S. , R. 21 E. in Uintah County. The areal extent
of this deposit is about 20 to 25 square miles consisting of two to five
separate pay zones of a minimum thickness of five feet each. In-place
resources at Asphalt Ridge are currently estimated to be 1,150 million
-62-
Table IV-1
SOHIO TAR SAND PROJF.CT
SITE Uintah County, Utah Section 31, T. 5 S., R. 22 E.
1,828 acres on state lease and fee land
PRODUCTION 5,000 to 25,000 BPD
First Production: 1989
WATER REQUIREMENTS
EMPLOYMENT
PROCESS
Usage:
Source:
Peak Construction:
Operation:
Mi ne:
Technology:
Spent Sand
3,600 acre-feet/year
Green River
N/A
N/A
N/A
Surface, solvent/water extraction
17,900 to 89,800 TPD 5,914,000 to 29,630,000 TPY
MINING OPERATION Type:
Production:
Grade of Tar Sand:
Surface, strip mining
20,600 to 103,200 TPD 6,800,000 to 34,000,000 TPY
20 gal/yd3 or 11.3 GPT
-63-
barrels and analyses of these deposits indicate that this tar sand
contains from 6.4 to 29 gallons of bitumen per ton of material with an
average of about 11.3 GPT for the Sohio leases.
The Sohio leases are located throughout the Asphalt Ridge deposit.
The pilot plant and mine sites are to be located in Section 31, T. 5 S.,
R. 22 E. on Fee land. Sohio has 1,508 acres of State Oil, Gas and other
Hydrocarbon leases and 320 acres of free land for a total of 1,828 acres
for the Cooperative Development Plan (see figure IV-1).
2. Processing Technology
Sohio has developed on a laboratory scale two bitumen extraction
processes that can be applied to the Asphalt Ridge tar sand resource.
Of the two processes, the "continuous counter current solvent assisted
bitumen extraction process," or Sohio process, has been determined to be
the most successful using the Asphalt Ridge resource. Sohio has been
approached by several organizations that have bitumen extraction tech
nologies they feel are ready for field testing. Negotiations are cur
rently going on between Sohio and technology developers with the possi
bility that one or more of these technologies will be tested with or in
place of the Sohio Process.
The steps involved in the Sohio process are:
(1) mining,
(2) conditioning,
(3) screening,
(4) extraction,
(5) recovery, and
(6) up-grading.
-64-
Figure IV - 1
Asphalt Ridge Tar Sand Deposit
LETC IN-SITU FIELD EXPERIMENT
R 20 E R 21 E R 22 E
I I I I I
The mining operation anticipated to be employed by Sohio for the
removal of the tar sand deposit on Asphalt Ridge is an open cut method.
Tar sand will be mined from a partially exposed pay zone averaging 36
feet in thickness. Mining will be done using bulldozers equipped with
ripper teeth to loosen the bitumen laden sand deposits. The loosened
material will be removed by front-end loaders. The mine will provide
two to three tons per hour of crushed tar sand ore to the pilot plant.
During the conditioning step fresh water is mixed with the crushed
tar sand and fed into the conditioner where mixing with a sodium car
bonate solution takes place and bitumen is separated from the sand.
After the conditioning step, the sand is screened to remove over
sized material. This material is returned to the conditioner while the
tar sand "pulp" is introduced into the extraction column. There, water,
solvent and sand are mixed and separated from the hydrocarbon stream.
The slurry of sand and water is allowed to separate with the sand being
sent to disposal and recovered water pumped to a water tank to be re
cycled. The hydrocarbon solvent stream, having been separated from the
sand and water slurry, then undergoes further processing to extract the
solvent from the bitumen resulting in the recovery of 99 wt. percent of
the bitumen originally present in the tar sand. The pilot plant facili
ty will produce one barrel of bitumen (42 gallons) per hour.
3. Market and Transportation of the Product
A market for raw bitumen already exists in Utah for paving asphalt,
however, with additional processing the upgraded bitumen can be produced
into a more valuable product and thereby extending its market. During
the pilot plant demonstration bitumen will be handled for distribution
to final destinations by tanker truck.
-66-
4. Water Requirements
The Green River will be the source of water for the pilot plant
facility on Asphalt Ridge. Sohio Natural Resources Company owns an
approved water right application to 3,600 acre-feet from the
Green River.
Net water requirements for the Sonio Process are anticipated to be
about 3.5 barrels of fresh water per barrel of bitumen or 39.6 gallons
of water per ton of tar sand. Recycling of water during the extraction
of bitumen is considered by company officials to be an essential feature
of the Sohio Process. This recycled water is used during the condi
tioning step. Water loses for the Sohio process are 1.03 gallons of
fresh water per barrel of bitumen extracted.
5. Air Quality Impacts
The Sohio Development Plan indicates that the pilot plant facility
will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local air emissions
regulations. Dust generation will be controlled by wet suppression in
the mining area and paving of main access roads and other heavy traffic
areas. Emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides will be control
led by use of low sulfur fuel for heating and boilers with appropriate
burner designs.
6. Socioeconomic Impacts
At this time, socioeconomic impacts of the proposed pilot plant
have not been addressed.
7. Program for Disposal of Waste Materials
For each ton of Sohio tar sand processed there will be approxi
mately 0.87 ton of spent sand to dispose of. Therefore, at full pro
duction there will be approximately 90,100 TPD or 30 million TPY of
spent sand for disposal.
-67-
During the mining process, overburden that is removed will be
stockpiled for future reclamation use upon completion of the pilot plant
program. Reclamation will involve replacement of overburden and pro
cessed sand into the mined out area. The area will be graded in a
fashion that will be as near to the original contours as possible and
revegetated with Indian ricegrass, Utah sweetvetch, Winterfat, Russian
wildrye and Alkali sacton.
The ability to recycle process water will almost eliminate the need
to handle waste water. Process water that is generated for disposal
will be stored in lined evaporation ponds.
Sanitary wastes will be handled by an on-site packaged system. No
wastes will be discharged.
8. Construction and Production Schedules
Sohio proposes to implement a phased approach to the development of
the tar sand resource on Asphalt Ridge. The proposed approach calls for
the design and construction of a processing plant by the end of 1982.
Scale up of the process and construction of a commercial facility by
June 1989 is planned pending the outcome of the field process develop
ment work.
Phase I will involve three tasks:
(1) completion of laboratory process development work,
(2) design of the pilot plant, and
(3) obtaining necessary permits and approvals, and completing
notification procedures.
The design of the pilot plant will require twelve months. This
work will involve detailed process and mechanical design of the condi
tioning, screening, extraction, solvent recovery, sand dewatering, water
-68-
recycle, and material handling systems. Details of the mining opera
tion, waste sand disposal, and environmental protection equipment will
be developed.
Necessary permits and approvals will be obtained. All notifica
tions that need to be made will be performed during Phase I. Phase I
should be completed by the end of 1981.
Phase II will also involve three tasks:
(1) construction of the pilot plant,
(2) operation of the pilot plant, and
(3) completion of a commercial feasibility study.
The pilot plant will be constructed on cooperative area property
and will be operated for up to two years following construction. The
site has been used previously for pilot plant operations by others.
Associated with construction of the processing facility will be the
development of a surface mine that will provide tar sand to the facili
ty. Topsoil will be removed and stockpiled for site reclamation in the
future.
An evaluation of the Sohio process for application to a commercial
operation will be performed upon the successful completion of the pilot
plant program. Assuming that the pilot plant program is successful, the
commercial feasibility study will require twelve months to complete.
The work will include technical and economic assessments of a commercial
scale operation. The results of this study will be the primary basis
for making a decision whether to proceed with design, construction, and
operation of a 5,000 to 25,000 BP0 commercial facility.
Phase II will require three years and four months overall to com
plete. At the end of this period, Sohio will have the technical and
-69-
economic data necessary to move into Phase III. Phase III will involve
the completion of three tasks:
(1) design of the commercial facility,
(2) preparation of a detailed development plan, and
(3) acquisition of necessary construction permits and approvals,
and completion of all necessary modifications.
Phase III is expected to require two years and eight months to complete.
In Phase IV, the construction of the commercial facility will begin
as soon as the necessary permits and approvals have been received. This
will be near the end of 1987 based on the current schedule. Construc
tion is expected to take eighteen months. Operation of the commercial
facility is projected to start in 1989. The facility will use Utah
Power and Light power and water from the Green River.
9. Project Participants
Sohio Natural Resources Company is the sole project participant.
B. Great National Corporation Project
Great National Corporation currently holds leases on state and
private tracts within the Sunnyside tar sand deposits in Carbon County,
Utah. The Sunnyside deposit is considered a major oil resource deposit
containing an estimated 3.5 to 4 billion barrels of in-place bitumen.
The Sunnyside deposit is considered an excellent prospect for develop
ment due to a good surface minable resource, excellent pay-zone thick
ness, high bitumen saturation, moderate overburden to pay-zone ratio,
• 32 low bitumen sulfur content, and good access by road and rail.
Currently, the Great National Corporation, in conjunction with
Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc., (FB&DU), has submitted a proposal for a
-70-
pilot plant development of a refinery grade crude oil extracting pro-
33 cess. This pilot plant would process 150 TPD of tar sand to produce
80 BPD of bitumen. The design of the proposed pilot plant is based upon
research work done at the University of Utah under the direction of
Dr. Alex Oblad and funded by DOE. Work done to date by FB&DU and Great
National using private funding has indicated that the technology and
process developed by the University of Utah is both technically and
economically feasible.
The scope of the pilot plant includes the design, construction,
testing, and operation of the combined hot water - thermal tar sand
process. The capacity of the pilot plant is to be 80 BPD requiring 150
tons of tar sand per day. The objectives of the pilot plant are:
(1) Demonstrate the feasibility of the hybrid process in an 80 BPD
pilot plant for the production of a snythetic crude suitable
for further refining.
(2) Collect operating data from the principal process equipment to
ascertain optimal process operating variables, i.e., flows,
temperatures, pressures, residence times, compositions, recy
cle rates, and others.
(3) Study effects of various feed compositions on the principal
process equipment and the viability of producing hydrogen from
light gases to be used to hydro-treat the oil, to saturate the
olefins, and to remove nitrogen and sulfur.
(4) Study effects on process equipment, i.e., wear rates, resist
ant material, maintenance schedules, etc.
(5) Determine the feasibility of constructing a facility to pro
cess the tar sand on a commercial basis.
(6) Determine coke yield.
-71-
After the pilot plant is successfully demonstrated it is expected
that a commercial facility would be constructed to produce from 8,000 to
25,000 BPD. At full production the facility would require 103,200 TPD
or 34 million TPY of raw tar sand feed. Table IV-2 summarizes the
project data for Great National.
1. Tar Sand Resource
The Sunnyside tar sand deposit is located in Carbon County, Utah in
Townships 12, 13, and 14 South, Ranges 13, 14, and 15 East. The deposit
outcrops for nine miles along the southwest side near the top of the
Book Cliffs. The dominant lithologies in which the deposit occurs are
sandstone and siltstone. The formations in which the deposits are
located are the Upper Wasatch and the basal Green River, both of the
Eocene period. The areal extent of the entire deposit ranges from 35 to
34 90 square miles and contains three to 12 principal pay zones. Gross
thickness of the pay range is estimated between 15 to 500 feet and the
overburden thickness ranges between 0 to 500 feet.
The Great National Project leases are located in Sections 3, 4, 9
and 10 of T. 14 S., R. 14 E. The plant site is to be located in Section
17, T. 14 S., R. 14 E. The resource location and plant site is shown in
figure IV-2.
2. Processing Technology
Under the guidance of the University of Utah Department of Mining,
Metallurgical and Fuels Engineering two separate processes for tar sand
recovery have been developed. These processes are a hot water process
where a thick bitumen is produced, and a high temperature thermal proc
ess where a low pour point synthetic oil is produced. The Great Nation
al Project will use a hybrid of these processes. The work done to date
-72-
Table IV-2
SITE Carbon County, Utah Sections 3, 4, 9, 10, 17, T. 14 S., R. 14 E.
Approx. 1,200 acres on fee land
PRODUCTION
WATER REQUIREMENTS
EMPLOYMENT
PROCESS
8,000 to 25,
First Produc
Usage:
Source:
Peak Constru
Operation:
Mi ne:
Technology:
Spent Sand:
000 BPD
tion:
iction:
1989
3,600 acre-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Surface, hi extraction
28,800 to !
-feet/year
Dt water/thermal
90,100 TPD 9,500,000 to 30,000,000 TPY
MINING OPERATION Type:
Production:
Grade of Tar Sand:
Surface, strip mining
33,000 to 103,200 TPD 10,900,000 to 34,000,000 TPY
20 gal/yd3 or 11.3 GPT
-73-
Figure IV - 2
Sunnyside Tar Sand Deposit
R14E R15E
-74-
indicates that the hybrid process offers the potential for combining the
advantages of both processes and excluding the disadvantages of each.
Extraction of bitumen from the sand is optimally performed by the hot
water extraction process whereby the production of the final product is
through the thermal process.
The hot water extraction process is divided into two separate
phases, the digesting phase and the flotation phase. The digesting
phase is designed to disengage the bitumen from the solid sand. The
flotation phase is characterized by injection of a mixture of water and
air which allows the bitumen to "float" to the surface where it can be
skimmed off. This final bitumen is thick and has a high viscosity.
The thermal heating process is similar to the process of petroleum
cracking. Crushed tar sand is subjected to mild pressure and high
temperature in a reactor vessel. The product is then recovered as a
synthetic crude oil.
The proposed hybrid process is still in the laboratory stage. The
principle technical and economic issues which remain to be resolved and
which require larger scale verification are a marriage of the hot water
and thermal process, confirmation on overall yield and oil recovery from
the sand, confirmation on overall thermal balance, maintenance and wear
for certain critical equipment items, and suitability of the crude oil
produced for refinery feed stock. Company officials believe the pro
posed pilot plant will be of sufficient size to provide usable data to
address these issues.
3. Market and Transportation of Tar Sand Product
As in the case for shale oil, tar sand products will most likely be
utilized regionally or at points east of the region. Tar sand products
-75-
are chemically similar to conventional petroleum, thus, they are quite
suitable as feedstocks to existing refineries. A portion of the tar
sand production may well be used to supply state and regional needs for
asphalt.
4. Water Requirements
The water requirements for this technology have not been firmly
established. Water requirements for the hot water process will probably
fall between two to five barrels of water per barrel of product. Water
requirements for the thermal process may be somewhat less. The question
of water supply has not been firmly answered at this time.
5. Air Quality Impacts
Specific air quality impacts have not been addressed. It is as
sumed that particulates generated from mining activity will be similar
to other strip mines in the west. The hot water process is expected to
have virtually no emissions, while the thermal process may have small
amounts of sulfur gas emissions. Processing or conversion facilities
will have emissions similar to those experienced for equivalent proces
ses in modern refineries.
6. Socioeconomic Impact
At this time, socioeconomic impacts of the proposed development
have not been addressed.
7. Program for Disposal of Waste Materials
The program for disposal of processed sand has not been specified
at this time. At full production there will be 90,100 TPD or 30 million
TPY of Spent Sand for disposal.
8. Construction and Production Schedules
The program plan and schedule for the pilot plant demonstration is:
-76-
(1) Phase I - organization, engineering, and design (four months).
(2) Phase II - detail drawings, procurement, and construction (12
months).
(3) Phase III - Component testing, start-up activities, data
taking, and continuous operation demonstration (12 months).
Thus, total time involved in the pilot plant demonstration is 28 months.
Current plans are to construct the commercial plant in three separ
ate modules, each handling one third of the design output (approximately
25,000 BPD). The hot water digestion and flotation cell units would re
quire five subunits in each of the modules. Expected life of the com
mercial plant is 40 years.
9. Project Participants
The project participants are Great National Corporation and Ford,
Bacon and Davis Utah, Inc.
-77-
References
1. Prien, C.H., "Oil Shale Resources," in Pollution Control Guidance for Oil Shale Development, E.R. Bates and T.L. Thoem, eds., Environmental Protection Agency, July, 1979, p. 1-6.
2. Ibid., p. 1-8.
3. Ibid., p. 1-7.
4. Science and Public Policy Program, University of Oklahoma, Energy Resource Development Systems Report Volume III: Oil Shale Environmental Protection Agency, E.P.A.-600/7-79-060c, March 1979.
5. Ritzma, H.R., Utah's Tar Sand Resource: Geology, Politics and Economics, paper No. 107A, Symposium on Oil Shale and Tar Sands, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Los Angeles, California, November 20, 1975.
6. Bunger, J.W., Utah State Science Advisor, Personal Communication, November, 1979.
7. U.S. Senate, Report by the Subcommittee on Synthetic Fuels of the Committee on the Budget, Synthetic fuels, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1979, p. 11.
8. Ritzma, H.R., Map 47: Oil-Impregnated Rock Deposits of Utah, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah, January, 1979.
9. Ritzma, H.R. Op. Cit., 1975.
10. Bunger, J.W., Development of Utah Tar Sands - A Status Report, Mines and Minerals Report #5, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, October, 1977, p. 10.
11. Thoem, T. L., Director, Energy Policy Coordination Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum, March 25, 1979.
12. Glassett, J.M., and, Glassett, J.A., Tar Sands Mining Methods, Erying Research Institute, Provo, Utah, August, 1977, p. 1-5.
13. Bunger, J.W., Utah State Science Advisor, Written Communication, November, 1979.
14. Sohio Natural Resources Company, Development Plan for the Ashphalt Ridge Cooperative Area, Sohio Natural Resources Company, October 12, 1979.
15. Leavell, L.D., Vice Pres., Santa Fe Energy Co., written communication to Senator Moroni Jensen, Chairman Tar Sand Task Force, Utah, March 24, 1980.
-78-
16. Marchant, L.C., Tar Sands Project Manager, Laramie Technology Center, U.S. Department of Energy, Presentation before the Utah Tar Sands Task Force, March 27, 1980.
17. U.S. Congress, H.R. 6478, A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act of February, 25, 1920, sponsored by McKay-McDade, 96th Congress 2nd Session, February 11, 1980.
18. Cameron Engineers, Inc., Shale Oil Status Report, Denver, Colorado,
July 1979, p. 20.
19. Ritzma, H.R., Op. Cit. 1979.
20. Bunger, J.W. Op. Cit. ref. 13.
21. Cameron Engineers, Op. City p. 21.
22. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Synthetic Fuels and the Environment: An Environmental and Regulatory Impact Analysis, Office of Technology
23. Weaver, R., "Water-Energy Policy Issues Facing Utah", in Utah Economic and Business Review, Vol. 38, No. 9, September, 1978, p. 2.
24. Petzrick, Paul, Oil Shale Operations Manager, U.S. D.O.E., personal communication, April 11, 1980.
25. White River Shale Project, Detailed Development Plan for Federal Lease Tracts U-a and U^, Vol. I and II, White River Shale Project, June, 1976.
26. Ibid., Vol. I., p. 1.5-5.
27. Ibid., Vol. II., p. 7.17-3.
28. Paraho Development Corporation, Proposal for the Design arid Demonstration Plan for a Surface Oil Shale Retorting Module, Vol. I Proposal Abstract, Paraho Dev. Corp. July 30, 1979.
29. Tosco Corporation, Sand Wash Project, Tosco Corporation, Vernal, Utah, January 1978.
30. Hutchinson, D.L., Geokinetics, Inc., Personal Correspondence, November, 1979.
31. Sohio Natural Resources Company, Development Plan for the Asphalt Ridge Cooperative Area, opt. cit.
32. Glassett, J.M., and, Glassett, J.A., The Production of Oil From Intermountain West Tar Sands Deposits, Erying Research Institute, Provo, Utah, March, 1976, p. 64.
33. Ford, Bacon and Davis Utah Inc., Proposal for Pilot Plant Construction and Operation of Crude Oil Production from Utah Tar Sands, F.B. & D. Utah Inc., January, 1980.
34. Ritzma, H.R. op. cit., 1979.
-79-