SPE 116599

Environmental Considerations Related to Oil Shale Development

Emily J. Knaus, INTEK Inc., Anton R. Dammer, U.S. Department of Energy

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 21–24 September 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Recently, public attention has been directed at global warming, greenhouse gases and overall environmental quality in the
United States and around the world. Fuels production inherently produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct and the public and
the legislature have deemed it necessary to consider these impacts. Development of the vast oil shale resource within the
United States must be accomplished with consideration to the impacts such development will have on the environment.
Those factors include oil shale developments impact on air quality, land disturbance, water use and quality, wildlife, and
others.

A great deal of environmental analysis on oil shale development has taken place including the Oil Shale Prototype Leasing
Program (1970’s) and most recently, the DOI BLM’s Programmatic EIS on the oil shale region of the western United States.
This paper will synthesize these and other analyses to provide a comprehensive description of environmental considerations
related to the development of oil shale.

Air quality considerations include the release of oxides, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and water vapor. Commercially
available stack gas clean-up technologies currently in use elsewhere should be effective in controlling oxides and particulates
emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2) will be produced in large quantities and may need to be captured, used in other commercial
applications, or otherwise sequestered.

America’s best oil shale resources are highly concentrated in several major deposits in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. The
footprint that an oil shale industry would have in this region would be ~31 square miles per MMBbl/d of shale oil. This paper
will consider the land disturbance of surface mining, underground mining, in-situ production, other surface impacts, and
spent shale. Surface and groundwater impacts will also be assessed.

Environmental control technologies have advanced to improve efficiency, and reduce or better control effluents and
emissions. Companies have implemented sophisticated environmental management systems that are incorporated into project
development and plant management and operations. This paper will consider all of the potential impacts on the environment
posed by oil shale development as well as how existing and emerging technologies are addressing these concerns.
2 SPE 116599

Introduction

The environment and climate change have become topics on the global mainstage. Amid this movement, demand for liquid
fuels appears to be outstripping conventional world oil supply. Tight world oil supplies and record high prices have led
industry and the federal government to look to the United States’ (U.S.) unconventional resources including oil shale as a
means to augment domestic oil supply.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) directed the formation of a Task Force on Unconventional Fuels to make
recommendations to the U.S. Congress and the President. As part of its work, the Task Force estimated that domestic oil
shale could achieve production of 2.5 million barrels per day (MMBbl/D) within 30 years1. This increase in U.S. oil supply
could yield many potential benefits including reducing the upward pressure on oil prices. Other economic benefits may
include new jobs, revenues to the states and Federal government from taxes on the production of oil, and an increase in the
nation’s gross domestic product. In addition to economic benefits, increasing the domestic supply of oil would decrease the
nation’s dependence on foreign suppliers of oil, contributing to the overall national security.

While there are many benefits associated with the increase in domestic production of oil, it is important to consider the
potential adverse impacts that shale oil production activities may have. Industry is rapidly developing technologies to extract
oil from shale. Before production reaches a large scale, it is imperative to address the environmental impacts, in particular
related to climate change.

This paper provides an overview of the impacts of the major oil shale recovery technologies on the environment and
discusses the existing and proposed technologies to mitigate these impacts. The objective is to address four important aspects
of environmental concerns related to future oil shale development in the U.S.: 1) air quality, 2) water use and quality, 3) land
disturbance, and 4) wildlife. Although there has not been any commercial development to date, the analysis in this paper is
intended to provide an approximation based on current understanding of the scale and scope of potential future development.
Once the oil shale technologies are proven and implemented, more comprehensive impact analysis can be done.

Background on Oil Shale

Oil shale is carbonate rock, generally marlstone that is rich in organic sedimentary material called “kerogen.” Oil shales are
“younger” in geologic age than crude oil-bearing formations; natural forces of pressure and temperature have not yet
converted the sediments to crude oil. Kerogen, however, can be converted to high quality petroleum products. Oil shale may
contain anywhere from 10 to 60 or more gallons of oil per ton.
The United States has large oil shale deposits in the Green River Formation located in western Colorado (CO),
southeastern Utah (UT), and southern Wyoming (WY). The oil shale in this region is very rich and concentrated. Other
significant, less concentrated deposits exist in the Devonian, Antrim, and Chattanooga shale formations in several eastern and
southern states, and in parts of Alaska (Figure 1). This paper will focus on the western U.S. resource.
2
Figure 1: Principal Oil Shale Deposits in the Western United States The western U.S. oil shale region consists
of 17,000 square miles or 11 million acres in
the Piceance (CO), Uinta (UT), Green River,
Washakie (WY), and Sand Wash (CO) Basins.
The Piceance Basin, which contains more than
80 percent of the recoverable resources of the
Green River Formation, underlies a 35 mile by
35 mile (1,225 square miles) area of western
Colorado. America’s total oil shale resources
could exceed 6 trillion barrels of oil
equivalent. Much of the shale is in deposits of
insufficient thickness or richness to access and
produce economically. However 2 trillion
barrels is in resources with richness greater
than 25 gallons per ton, of which 1.2 trillion is
found in the Green River formation.

To quantify the potential of shale oil that

will be produced, this paper refers to the Task
Force on Unconventional Fuels. The Task
Force was established by the Energy Policy
SPE 116599 3

Act of 2005 and is made up of the Departments of Energy, Interior, and Defense, the states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming,
Kentucky, and Mississippi, and representatives of local communities that may be impacted by unconventional fuels
development. Oil shale was one of several unconventional fuels considered by the Task Force. The Task Force evaluated the
production potential of this vast resource and established a number of production scenarios based on various policy options
(see the full report at http://www.unconventionalfuels.org). The analysis of the Task Force estimated that oil shale production
could reach 2.5 MMBbl/D by 20353.

To extract kerogen from oil shale, the shale must be heated to temperatures between 400 and 500 degrees centigrade. This
can be achieved by mining the shale and heating it in surface retorts, or by heating the oil shale in-place (in-situ). There are
four major types of oil shale processes, although there are many technology variations on each. The four main types include
surface mining with a surface retort, underground mining with a surface retort, in-situ retorting, and modified in-situ
retorting. Figure 2 displays a schematic of the four types of technologies.

4
Figure 2: Representative Oil Shale Development Technologies

A) Surface Mining / Surface Retort B) Underground Mining / Surface Retort

Slope Mine Crusher Conveyer Crusher Conveyer Retort Plant
Shovel Trucks Conveyer Crusher Conveyer Retort Plant

ine
Waste

M
pe
Slo
Waste Disposal
Overburden Oil Shale
Disposal
Oil Shale

Mining
Mining

Partial Upgrading Partial Upgrading

To Market To Market

C) Modified In-Situ D) True In-Situ

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Create Void by Mining Rublize shale by explosions Initiate combustion
blasting
Retorted Shale
Virgin
Shale Combustion Front
Free oil movement

Mined Shale

Mined Shale to Shale oil to refinery

surface retorts

Without mitigation, each of these approaches could have significant impacts on the local air, water, land, and wildlife.
The specific impacts will differ in type and intensity depending on the mining and retorting technology applied. This paper
describes the potential impacts, the relevant legislation/laws, and potential
mitigation strategies.

Air Quality

An important consideration in the development of oil shale is its potential

adverse impacts on air quality. The processing of oil shale results in the
release of emissions. When carbonate rock is heated to temperatures necessary
to pyrolize kerogen, it will not only release the shale oil, but also a slate of
gases. The associated impact on air quality is dependent on the process
temperatures and control technologies employed. Oil shale production, like all
fossil fuels, will carry some carbon footprint. In addition, other pollutants are
emitted into the atmosphere if not otherwise limited.

The gases that will be released when oil shale is retorted may include
oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, particulate matter, water vapor, carbon dioxide,
and hydrocarbons depending on the process used. The potential also exists for
the release of other hazardous trace materials into the atmosphere. Figure 3
displays the gases along with potential uses for captured gases.
4 SPE 116599

Many of these gases are federally regulated including sulfur oxides. Oil shale developers will be required to capture and
process, or otherwise treat these emissions. The federal government has regulated emissions of harmful air pollutants since
the enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1963. It has been amended since then, most significantly in 1990. There is currently a
great deal of pressure on Congress to enact legislation that will limit the U.S.’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In light of
the long lead times on oil shale development, producers are likely going to have to contend with regulations regarding CO2
and possibly other greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act today sets limits on the volume of particulate matter, ground-level
ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead that industry can emit5. In recent years, legislation has been
introduced that would provide cap and trade systems for carbon dioxide and other criteria pollutants (including the Clear
Skies Act of 2003 and more recently the Warner/Lieberman bill). Neither has been passed by Congress, but if they do
eventually become law, these bills would significantly limit allowable greenhouse gas emissions. It is likely that Congress
will enact some form of legislation to address greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate change in the near future.

Criteria Pollutants: There are currently commercially available stack gas cleanup technologies that could be used to control
emissions from oil shale production to within permitted quantities. Some of the hydrocarbon gases may also be beneficially
captured and re-used in plant operations or sold for conventional energy use. The oil shale industry will face similar
challenges as the conventional oil and gas industry and should be able to apply many of the technologies developed for that
industry to mitigate against air quality degradation. Nitrous oxides and sulfur oxides in particular can most likely be
controlled using commercially-proven technologies developed for petroleum refining and coal-fired power generation.

Carbon Emissions: In addition to addressing emissions that are currently regulated, it is crucial that oil shale developers
consider possible future requirements for CO2 capture and sequestration. The Department of Interior Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) conducted a study to assess the impacts of commercial leasing of oil shale on BLM lands. The results
were released in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) in December of 2007. The PEIS estimated that
carbon dioxide emissions from a project that processes 1.5 million tons of oil shale per year with a surface retorting plant
would be 802,061 tons6. The majority of these emissions would be due to the retorting process. The other portion consists of
emissions due to the start-up burner, electrical needs, hydrogen plant reformer, flaring of flue gas, diesel combustion, and
mine opening methane.

Carbon Management: There are promising technologies that may be able to capture a large portion of CO2 from the gas
stream such as amine absorbers. If CO2 can be successfully captured, the producer has several options for sequestration.
With significant conventional oil production in close proximity to the oil shale regions of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming,
potential beneficial use for significant quantities of CO2 for improved oil recovery may exist. This is well illustrated in Figure
4 which shows the location of reservoirs which are candidates for CO2 miscible flooding in the United States7. Opportunities
may also exist to sequester CO2 from oil shale operations in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, and in the coal deposits in the
region. Sequestering in coal beds could lead to significant natural gas coal bed methane production.

In addition to the retorting process and equipment, prospective oil shale developers will need to employ appropriate
control technologies to reduce potential air emissions which otherwise could result from construction and operation of
surface facilities.
8
Figure 4: Candidate Fields for CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery
SPE 116599 5

Water Use and Quality

The amount of water required for an oil shale industry and the potential impacts of processing on surface and ground water
quality are of great concern to the local residents and other industries in the region including agriculture. The use of water in
the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming area will not only have impacts on that three-state region, but downstream as well. The
volume of water necessary to support the industry has been estimated as well as the impact that the requirement will have on
the total water supply.

Water Requirements: Development of oil shale resources will require significant quantities of water for mine and plant
operations, reclamation, supporting infrastructure, and associated economic growth. Current estimates based on oil shale
industry water budgets suggest that requirements for new retorting methods will be 1 to 3 barrels of water per barrel of oil.9
Some processes may eventually be net producers.

An oil shale industry producing 2.5 MMBbl/d will have a cumulative demand on water of between 105 and 315 million
gallons per day (MMG/D). This includes water requirements for power generation for in-situ heating processes, retorting,
refining, reclamation, dust control and on-site worker demands. Municipal and other water requirements related to population
growth associated with industry development will require an additional 58 million gallons per day.

To fufill the demand on water, a 2.5 MMBbl/d oil shale industry would require 0.18 million to 0.42 million acre feet of
water per year (MM acre-ft/yr), depending on location and processes used.10 Table 1 displays the water demand for various
sizes of oil shale production. In the West, water will be drawn from local and regional sources. The major water source is
the Colorado River Basin, including the Colorado, Green, and White Rivers11. The Colorado flows 12 million acre feet per
year12. Water may also be purchased from other existing reservoirs. Transfers may be possible from other water basins,
including the Upper Missouri.

13
Table 1: Estimated Water Demand for Oil Shale Production and Associated Population Growth

Water
Oil Shale Oil Shale Projected Additional
Requirement Total New Total New
Production Industry Water Population Water to Support
(Bbl Water Water Demand Water Demand
Rate Demand Growth Population
Used/ Bbl Oil (MMG/D ) (MM acre-ft/yr)
(MBbls/D) (MMG/D ) (People) (MMG/D )
Produced)
1-3 500 21 to 63 96,000 13 34 to 76 0.04 to 0.09
1-3 1,000 42 to 126 177,000 24 86 to 150 0.10 to 0.17
1-3 2,500 105 to 315 433,000 58 163 to 373 0.18 to 0.42

Western oil shale has high water content. Some oil shale contains 30-40 gallons per ton of shale. More typically it holds
2-5 gallons of water per ton. Much of this water can be recovered during processing and used to support operations. Produced
water will contain organic and inorganic substances that can be removed with conventional filtering technologies. Recycling
and re-use of process water will help to reduce water requirements.

Water in the West is treated much the same as other commodities – it can be bought and sold in a competitive market.
Interstate “compacts” control the amount of river water each state is entitled to use. The overall allocation of water today is
governed by the Colorado River Compact, originally agreed to on November 24, 1922. Currently there is a mix of both
absolute and conditional water rights. Absolute rights are those that have been decreed by the state Water Court available for
use. Conditional rights are rights that have not been through the Court process and therefore have not been decreed. They
cannot be used until a decree has been granted and the rights have been determined to be absolute. Conditional rights only
preserve a holder’s seniority in accordance with the doctrine of first in time, first in right. In addition, conditional rights must
undergo a diligence test every six years to preserve the conditional right. Many private companies previously engaged in oil
shale development retain very senior rights they obtained during the 1970s. Because Federal lands and prospective future
leases will not come with water rights, some lessees may need to negotiate water purchases to advance projects.

An absolute right is still subject to being curtailed (a call) in the event the water balance is insufficient for all rights and a
senior right holder is being injured. To help assure supply, it is customary to file an Augmentation Plan which may consist of
a plan for reservoir storage and release or purchase of senior rights that can be provided to a senior right holder. A recent
(October, 2003) agreement between the State of California and the Upper Basin States returns about 0.8 million-acre feet per
year to the Upper Basin States that was being over-used by the State of California.14
6 SPE 116599

The Colorado River Compact allocates 5.3 to 5.9 million acre feet to the states. States are expected too use about 4.8
million acre feet of their allocations by 2020. If all industry water were withdrawn from the river, oil shale development
would increase withdrawals by 0.18 to 0.42 million acre feet per year. Use of connate water and water re-use could reduce
this volume.

Initial estimates indicate that enough water will be available to support oil shale industry development in the Western
states. However, variability of supply during low flow years may cause conflicts among water users. As the industry grows,
additional water resources for human consumption and for oil shale processes will likely be required. The water
consumption growth will slow as oil shale technologies become more efficient. For a mature industry, substantial water
storage and water transfers may be required over time.

Water Quality: Controls are required to protect surface and ground waters from contamination by runoff from mining and
retorting operations, from treatment facilities for products, other wastewaters, and particularly from retorted shale waste piles
with respect to heavy metals in the leachate. Control will also be required for in-situ heating and combustion of oil shale.
The varying processes for developing oil shale will likely lead to technology specific methods for ground and surface water
quality protection.

Water is a by-product of oil shale retorting and if allowed to run-off it can have adverse impacts on surface water. Prior
test data indicate water may be produced at a rate as high as 30-40 gallons per ton of shale retorted, but more typically, it will
range from 2 - 5 gallons per ton depending on the retorting process employed. Produced water will contain a variety of
organic and inorganic substances. These foreign substances can be effectively removed with conventional technology. After
treatment, excess produced water may be discharged or disposed of in evaporation panels.

Alternatively, such water can be minimally treated to remove odorous, volatile substances, and then used to wet spent
shale during disposal operations. If this option were chosen, the water and any remaining mineral and organic substances
would be physically trapped within the compacted spent shale disposal pile. This option could eliminate environmental
hazards associated with disposal of incompletely treated water.

Ground water protection is also critical and is of greater consideration for in-situ processes. Technologies are currently
emerging to create a barrier between the oil shale zone that is being heated and any potential sources of ground water. In
conjunction with its in-situ conversion process (ICP) process currently being tested in Colorado, Shell Oil Company
developed an environmental barrier system called a “freeze wall” to isolate the in-situ process from local groundwater. The
freeze wall is created by freezing ground water occurring in natural fractures in the rock into a ring wall surrounding the area
to be pyrolyzed. This barrier protects groundwater from contamination with products liberated from the kerogen while at the
same time keeping water out of the area being heated.
Figure 5: Land Use
Once pyrolysis is completed, the remaining rock within the freeze wall is
flushed with water and steam to remove any remaining hydrocarbons and to
recover heat from the spent reservoir. Heat from the produced steam can be used
to provide process heat or generate additional electric power. Once the area has
been sufficiently cleaned, the freeze wall can be allowed to melt and groundwater
can flow through this area once more.

Land Disturbance

Maximum cumulative land needed for a one million barrel per day oil shale
industry is estimated to approach 80,000 acres over 40 years15. Of this total,
about 50,000 acres are needed for mine development, storage of overburden,
storage of raw and processed shale, surface facilities, off-site land required for
access roads, power and transmission facilities, water lines, and natural gas and
oil pipelines. Up to 20,000 acres will be required for urban development. The Total Area Land Use
remaining 10,000 acres will be needed for utility rights-of-way. Since the oil
shale deposits occur beneath 17,000,000 acres, the surface area impacted by 17,000 2.5 MMBbl/d
development is approximately 0.5% of the total land area of the oil shale region Square
Miles
(Figure 5).

The amount of land disturbance will be specific to whether the oil shale development employs surface or in-situ retorting.
A consideration in surface retorting is how to handle and dispose of the shale once it has been processed and the kerogen has
been acquired. For in-situ recovery, the residual left behind in the ground are also of concern, as they may affect ground
water quality.
SPE 116599 7

Spent Shale Disposal: In surface retorting operations, after mining and crushing, the raw oil shale will be conveyed to a
processing unit called a retort where the oil shale is heated to a temperature of about 500 degrees centigrade. At this
temperature, the solid organic material in oil shale is converted, by pyrolysis, to shale oil and gas. Spent shale, composed of
carbonate materials and other minerals, is discharged from the retort and cooled. Depending on the location, ore
characteristics, and the process, some spent shales can have contamination of heavy metals or toxic organic compounds that
may require special handling, treatments, or disposal methods.

The volume of the spent shale will be 13 to 16 percent greater than its in-place volume16. Contrary to conventional
wisdom, the spent shale does not actually “swell”. Rather, this increased volume is caused by void spaces in the spent shale
that are not present in the compacted shale before it is mined. Therefore, not all of the spent shale can be returned to the oil
shale mine; surface disposal or alternative uses will be required to some extent in most cases applying surface retorts. Other
beneficial uses of spent shale can include road bed material and aggregate for concrete production and building materials
which can significantly reduce disposal volumes.

In-Situ Recovery Residuals: In-situ recovery technologies use one of two approaches, modified or true in-situ. Modified in-
situ first creates a void space (with surface uplift), either through mining and blasting, or direct blasting followed by direct
combustion of the rubblized shale. True in-situ recovers oil without first creating void spaces. It may involve direct
combustion of the shale or other indirect heating methods. The issues associated with surface mining, deep mining, and spent
shale disposal do not apply to true in-situ processes. However, other subsurface impacts, including potential ground water
contamination, are possible and must be controlled.

A true in-situ process, similar to Shell’s ICP process, has the potential to dramatically reduce waste disposal problems,
runoff and other problems associated with mining, spent shale disposal, and surface reclamation. Since the vertical wells, or a
combination of vertical and horizontal wells, of a true in-situ process are able to access thick sections of oil shale, the surface
area required for a given production rate may be smaller by a factor of as much as 10. There are locations of thick resources
that could yield in excess of 1 million barrels per acre and require minimal surface disturbance. Fewer than 23 square miles
could produce 15 billion barrels of oil over a 40 year project lifetime.

Upgrading: In addition, since the hydrocarbon products may be higher American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity than
those produced by surface retorting technologies further upgrading can be less costly. Upgrading could be done on-site, at
local area refineries, or more distant refineries accessible by pipeline for either surface retorting or in-situ processes. A
regional upgrader, charging a per barrel usage fee based on quality of incoming material, would be a beneficial option for
upgrading liquids to pipeline quality liquids. This would allow efficient use of one or more shared-cost facilities, minimize
footprint, and avoid unnecessary duplication of expensive hydrogen and sulfur recovery plants.

While the surface requirements are relatively small, oil shale processing will create local and regional environmental
impacts. The actual affect on the land will vary from process to process. Mining and surface retorting processes will create
greater land disturbance, there are however, reclamation regulations in place that will require oil shale developers to restore
the land once they have finished developing.

Wildlife

By impacting the land, water, and air, oil shale development will also inherently impact the wildlife of the production area.
The recently completed BLM PEIS has characterized the baseline status of flora and fauna in the region for potential western
oil shale development. This includes a quantitative assessment of the flora and fauna in the region, the endangered species,
and the vital supportive habitat. The site specific impacts of oil shale production, however, will also need to be characterized
on a project-scale to fully understand the extent of oil shale’s impacts.

Site evaluations for individual oil shale projects will be required including project-specific Environmental Impact Studies.
Evaluating the specific flora and fauna for each project will help determine appropriate action to be taken to mitigate the
impact on the plants and animals. Before any activity begins, investigations need to be conducted to determine existing field
conditions. Wildlife management plans will need to be developed with federal and state wildlife authorities to monitor and
track wildlife dislocations and maintain habitat quality.

Of utmost importance in developing oil shale is considering the endangered species in the region and in habitats in close
proximity to oil shale production sites. There may include endangered aquatic, land ranging, and plant species that have been
identified in the oil shale region. Table 2 presents a summary of the number of species that are listed as endangered and
therefore protected by the Endangered Species Act. In addition there are a number of species that are threatened that may
potentially be downgraded to an endangered status. These species are explained in more detail by type following the table.
8 SPE 116599

Table 2: Summary of Major Wildlife of Concern

Type Protected Species Concerns

Aquatic 4 – Endangered Surface water quality

1 – Endangered Water supply
Terrestrial
2 – Threatened Land disturbance/fragmentation
Land disturbance
Avian 2 – Endangered
Protection of critical habitat
6 – Endangered
Land disturbance
Plant 10 – Threatened
Some are unique to region
41 – Sensitive

Aquatic Species: Four of the twelve native fish species are federally listed and protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Critical habitat for these species has been designated within the Upper Colorado River Basin. An additional 25 non-native
fish species are also present in the basin17. Aquatic ecosystems should be further characterized to aid in the development of
procedures for minimizing damage to aquatic habitats. Seasonal variations of aquatic species and correlations between
present water quality and existing aquatic species should be determined. Impact mitigation plans will need to be implemented
based on detailed site-specific data and analyses of the data collected.

Terrestrial Species: Both large and small mammals range across the oil shale region. Large game includes populations of elk,
mule deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, moose, American black bear, and mountain lion. Smaller mammals such as jackrabbit,
American badger, bobcat, coyote, red fox, bats, and rodent species are also present in the region. The PEIS cited water supply
as a major restrictive factor for large game18. Water supply as well as the fragmentation of habitat should be taken into
consideration during the planning of oil shale projects. There are many strategies for minimizing the impact on wildlife
including wildlife corridors that can be employed in management plans. The region contains one mammal that is endangered
and two that are threatened. These species will have to be given special consideration in the wildlife management plans.

Avian Species: There are a large number of migratory and permanent bird residents in the oil shale region. The habitat, water
supply, and overall ecosystem are important to support the avian populations. The California condor and the Mexican
spotted owl are both listed as endangered species and protected by federal law19. The critical habitat designated by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service will have to be protected in the oil shale development plans.

Plant Species: There are six endangered and ten threatened plant species in the oil shale region. The BLM further classifies
41 species of plants as sensitive20. Mining and other land disturbing activities could decimate the populations of many of
these plants. Some are even unique to the region; for example, the Barneby Ridge-Cress is thought to be found solely on the
Uintah and Ouray Reservations of the Ute Indian21. The Endangered Species Act protects the range of these listed species.
Oil shale plans will have to take into consideration those species that are protected in the region.

Conclusion

The Task Force on Unconventional Fuels estimated that it could be possible to achieve production of 2.5 MMBbl/D of oil
shale within 30 years (2035). Such an increase in domestic production could have beneficial impacts on the economy by
reducing the price of oil, the dollars that are spent on foreign imports, and creating new jobs. These fuels could also help
reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign sources of fuel and thereby enhance national security. However, oil shale
development can also potentially have adverse impacts on the environment. The major environmental considerations include
air quality, land disturbance, water requirements and quality, and wildlife. While this paper has presented an overview of
these impacts, there is a great deal more information that needs to be measured.

It is also possible that the environmental impacts may be substantially controlled against with technology in accordance
with current and future U.S. environmental policy. Technologies exist to capture sulfur oxides and nitrous oxides from the
retorting of oil shale. Land disturbance is likely to occur in a concentrated area where the richest of the oil shale deposits
occur. Common reclamation practices may be employed to help restore the landscape after production is complete. Estimates
for water requirements show there is potentially enough water in the oil shale region to support operations of a 2.5 MMBbl/d
development. The demand for water may be reduced as developers begin to utilize process water in their operations.
Protecting wildlife included on the endangered species list among others should be a goal and if developers adhere to best
practices and implement effective wildlife management plans this may be achieved.
SPE 116599 9

There are emerging technologies and strategies for mitigating against many of the harmful affects on the environment that
have been developed from the experience of oil and gas producers, refiners, and power plant operators. It is yet to be
determined how much the cumulative impact of oil shale production will be in the region. The Task Force and virtually all
other stakeholders in oil shale development have noted the importance of understanding the carrying capacity of the western
energy basin (the Colorado, Utah, Wyoming oil shale region) to support concurrent oil shale, petroleum, and other mineral
development and economic growth. The U.S. Department of Energy is constructing the concept for such an analytical
assessment to be conducted over a 3 year period from 2008-11.

It is critical that oil shale production be accomplished without devastating the ecology of the region, atmosphere, or
surrounding groundwater. This, however, may come at a high dollar value. It would be useful to fully evaluate the economic
implications of environmental control technologies. Oil shale developers would gain from engineering their processes with
the environment in mind up front, and also keeping an eye to future greenhouse gas legislation. It is often said that necessity
breeds innovation and by making environmental protection a necessity, it encourages industry to innovate technologies that
will protect the environment.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Department of Energy, Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves for permission to
use its data and other information critical to completing this manuscript. Also, the authors thank the staff of INTEK, Inc. for
their immense efforts in preparing this manuscript. The staff includes Mr. Harry Johnson (Principal Petroleum Engineer), Mr.
Peter Crawford (Senior Manager), and Mr. Marshall Carolus (Senior Analyst). While acknowledging the significant
contribution of these individuals, any errors of fact or inconsistencies remain the responsibility of the principal author.
10 SPE 116599

References

1 Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels., “America’s Strategic Unconventional Fuels: Volume I - Preparation Strategy, Plan, and
Recommendations”., Washington, D.C., (September 2007).

2 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Petroleum Reserves Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves., “Strategic Significance of
America’s Oil Shale Resource: Volume 2 – Oil Shale Resources Technology and Economics”., Washington, D.C., (March 2004).

3 Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels., “America’s Strategic Unconventional Fuels: Volume I - Preparation Strategy, Plan, and
Recommendations”., Washington, D.C., (September 2007).

4 Biglarbigi, Khosrow., “Oil Shale Development Economics”., INTEK, Inc. EFI Heavy Resources Conference Edmonton, Canada., (May
16th, 2007).

5 U.S. Congress., “The Clean Air Act As Amended, P.L. 108–201”., (February 24, 2004).

6 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management., “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement”., Washington, D.C.,
(December 2007).

7 Hitesh Mohan, Marshall Carolus, and Khosrow Biglarbigi., “The Potential for Additional Carbon Dioxide Flooding Projects in the United
States (SPE 113975)., INTEK Inc., (April 2008).

8 Hitesh Mohan, Marshall Carolus, and Khosrow Biglarbigi., “The Potential for Additional Carbon Dioxide Flooding Projects in the United
States (SPE 113975)., INTEK Inc., (April 2008).

9 Cameron, C., M. Hightower, J. Hoffmann and C. Wilson., “Energy Demands on Water Resources, Report to Congress on the
Interdependency of Energy and Water, DRAFT”., Sandia National Laboratories., (July 2006).

10 Wood, Thomas., “Water Resources for Oil Shale”., Battelle., (2006).

11 Ibid.

12 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management., “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement”., Washington, D.C.,
(December 2007).

13 Wood, Thomas., “Water Resources for Oil Shale”., Battelle., (2006).

14 Bunger, J.W., P.M. Crawford, and H. Johnson., “Strategic Significance of America’s Oil Shale Resource – Volume II: Oil Shale
Resources, Technology and Economics”., U.S. department of Energy, Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Petroleum Reserves.,
(March 2004).

15 Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels., “America’s Strategic Unconventional Fuels: Volume III – Resource and Technology
Profiles”., Washington D.C., (September 2007).

16 Ibid., p. I-23.

17 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management., “Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement”., Washington, D.C.,
(December 2007).

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.