Energy Development Water Needs Assessment and Water Supply - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Energy Development Water Needs Assessment and Water Supply Alternatives Analysis-Phase II Oil Shale Symposium - CO School of Mines October 20, 2010 Shaden Musleh & Ben Harding

Energy Water Needs Assessment § Two phases: § Estimating energy development water needs § Evaluating water supply alternatives to satisfy those needs § Joint Energy Development Water Needs Assessment Committee § Colorado River basin and Yampa/White River basin Roundtables § Oil Shale water use will occur in two basins § Direct use in White River and Colorado River basins § Population and processing in Colorado and White River basins 2

Phase II Approach § Refine Water Use Estimates § Review Phase I unit water use § Localize water use estimates § Develop water use scenarios § Evaluate use of Piceance Basin groundwater § Evaluate ground water quality § Evaluate potential tributary connection § Evaluate feasibility of groundwater use § Develop water supply project alternatives § Develop model and analyze alternatives 3

Phase I Oil Shale Industry Production Scenarios Level of Development of Oil Shale Time Frame Low Medium High Short-term None None R & D (2007 – 2017) Surface: 50,000 bbl/day Surface: 50,000 bbl/day Mid-term None (2018 – 2035) In situ: 25,000 bbl/day In-situ: 500,000 bbl/day Surface: 50,000 bbl/day Surface: 50,000 bbl/day Long-term None (2036 – 2050) In-situ: 150,000 bbl/day In-situ: 1,550,000 bbl/day 4

Phase II Timeframe Refinements § Phase I timeframes unrealistically short § Use Athabasca oil sands as a reasonable analog to development of an oil shale industry in the Piceance basin § Initial field demonstration of technical feasibility for one or more in situ technologies would occur by 2015 § initial technical feasibility of above-ground retorting has likely already been established § Initial commercial production would occur 20 years later (compared to the 17-year period prior to development of first commercial production at the Athabasca oil sands) 5

Timing § Athabasca Oil sands § Surface-mined § Separation process 1926 § First commercial extraction 1967 - 30,000 bbl/day § Second mine 1978 § Third mine 2003 § 2005 production - 760,000 bbl/day § 2006 production - 1,126,000 bbl/day 6

Evaluation of Scenarios for Piceance Basin Oil Shale Industry Timeframe for Development Projected Phase I Scenario Field demonstration of technical feasibility 2015 Initial commercial production: 2035 50,000 barrels/day 550,000 barrels/day 2018 – 2035 2053 - 2060 1,550,000 barrels/day 2036 – 2050 2061 - 2071 7

Planning Scenario § Sub-committee decided to use a “build-out” scenario § Adopted the High, Long-term scenario from Phase I § 1,500,000 bbl/day in situ § 50,000 bbl/day above-ground 8

Oil Shale Development Direct Water Use § Construction/Pre-production § Electrical Energy § Assumed use of Combined Cycle Gas Turbines near production § Use of coal-fired thermal generation is not very likely § Production § Assumed that by-product water produced by retorting would be treated and used for process purposes, thus offsetting some water needs. § Reclamation § Spent Shale Disposal § Upgrading § Evaluated several alternative assumptions regarding the level of water use for upgrading and its location § Upgrading might be done locally or outside the study area. 9

Oil Shale Development Indirect Water Use § Water required to support population growth and economic activity due to oil shale development § Consistency with IBCC process – employment/population estimates from Harvey Economics § Have been refined in Phase II to specific areas: § Garfield County § Mesa County § Rio Blanco County 10

Oil Shale Development Direct Water Use Estimates (bbl/bbl) In-situ Above-ground retorting retorting Low High Low High Construction/Pre-production 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.07 Electrical energy 0.41 1.00 0.17 0.26 Production 0.47 0.47 Reclamation 0.45 0.54 0.02 0.17 Spent shale disposal 0.80 1.60 Upgrading 0.57 1.60 0.60 1.60 11

Estimates of Water Co-Produced when Retorting Oil Shale (bbl/bbl) In-situ Above-ground retorting retorting 0.80 0.30 12

Regional Employment Percent of Process Employment Employment In situ 14,375 84% Above-ground 1,920 11% Energy generation 800 5% Total oil shale 17,095 100% Source: Harvey Economics, August 2010; Year 32 13

Increase in Population due to Oil Shale Development Number of people Garfield County 28,223 Mesa County 9,176 Rio Blanco County 13,690 Total Population 51,090 14

Oil Shale Development Indirect Water Use Estimates § Assumptions: § Direct workforce water use: 100 gallons per-capita per day (gpcd) § Indirect workforce water use: 200 gpcd § Energy generation Direct workforce: 200 gpcd – Assumed to be living off-site § Water required for electricity generation to support population growth not included § Assumed to come from the grid 15

Oil Shale Development Indirect Water Use Estimates (Build-out Scenario) In-situ Above-ground retorting retorting acre-feet bbl/ acre-feet bbl/bbl per year bbl per year Construction and 0.11 7,800 0.46 1,100 production Electrical energy 0.008 560 0.002 5.6 16

In Situ Industry Configurations and Total Unit Water Use In Situ Unit Use Scenario Description Comments Scenario (bbl/bbl) Down-hole combustion heating, Without energy direct use or use by energy IS-1 -0.22 off-site upgrading. Low estimates. workforce; no upgrading use; low estimates. Down-hole combustion heating, Without energy direct use or use by energy off-site upgrading. High IS-2 0.01 workforce; no upgrading; high estimates. estimates. Shell in situ conversion process (ICP), off-site upgrading. Low IS-3 0.20 No upgrading use; low estimates estimates. Based on low estimates of electricity use and Shell ICP, on-site upgrading. Low other process water uses. ICP will likely IS-4 0.77 estimates. require less intensive upgrading. Shell ICP, off-site upgrading. High Based on high estimates of electricity use and IS-5 1.02 estimates. other process water uses; no upgrading use. Based on high estimates of process water Down-hole combustion heating, uses. No electrical heating. Combustion- IS-6 on-site upgrading. High 1.61 based processes are more likely to require estimates. more upgrading. Highest combustion value. Uses low estimate of upgrading, as ICP pro- Shell ICP, on-site upgrading. Low cess is more likely to require less upgrading. IS-7 1.59 upgrading. High estimates, Otherwise uses high estimates. Highest ICP value. 17

Above-Ground Industry Configurations and Total Unit Water Use Above- Unit Use Ground Scenario Description Comments (bbl/bbl) Scenario Seems a likely possibility, if above-ground product is compatible with down-hole in situ product; small Off-site electricity, off-site AG-1 1.45 upgrading. Low estimates electricity demands can be met from grid. Use with down-hole in-situ. Likely that above-ground retort product will require Off-site electricity, on-site more intensive upgrading, so this estimate may be low. AG-2 2.05 upgrading. Low estimates Use with ICP. Use co-produced gas for on-site combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT). Likely that above-ground retort On-site electricity, on-site AG-3 2.22 product will require more intensive upgrading, so this upgrading. Low estimates estimate may be low. Use with ICP. Seems a likely possibility, if Above-Ground product is compatible with down-hole in situ; small electricity Off-site electricity, off-site AG-4 2.47 upgrading. High estimates demands can be from grid. Use with down-hole in situ method. Seems a likely possibility with ICP in situ, since the small above-ground production might require on-site Off-site electricity, on-site AG-5 4.07 upgrading. High estimates upgrading; small electricity demands can be from grid. Use with ICP. On-site electricity, on-site AG-6 4.33 Use co-produced gas for on-site CCGT. Use with ICP. upgrading. High estimates 18

Water Supply: Develop Conceptual Projects § White River Basin § Identified Supplies § No feasible groundwater § Demand would be met only by surface water § Imports from Colorado River § Exxon change case 19

Total Water Use for Selected Scenarios Industry Water Use, acre-feet/year Unit Use Scenario (bbl/bbl) Low Medium High IS-1 -0.22 -16,000 54,000 IS-4 0.77 110,000 IS-7 1.59 3,400 AG-1 1.45 5,200 AG-3 2.22 10,000 AG-6 4.33 -13,000 59,000 120,000 Total 20

21

22

Water Resources Modeling § Develop Model § Colorado and White Water Allocation (StateMod) Models § Disaggregate demands to nodes § Disaggregate annual demands to model time step § Assign water rights § Evaluate water supply alternatives 23

Water Resources Modeling § Colorado Model (1909-2005), White Model (1909-2006) § Monthly Time step § River basin is divided into river nodes - gauging stations, river confluences, diversion structures and reservoirs. § River water is distributed among nodes based on available river water supply, decreed water right and priority, demands, and delivery capacity. 24