600977033
Oil Shale
and the
Environment
'..> V>V "The Resource ................... 1
l>-i.«'--"v ?v ^ ."" The Processes. .................. 4
.
.... & ENVI..W ..... .. rROTECTiON AQ»f The Environment ............. .10
L J. .ft«ll Research&Development...25
The Outlook .................... 28
For Further Reading ............ 29
-------
WHAT THIS REPORT IS ABOUT
This is a report about an American energy re-
source, oil shale. It is also a report about the envi-
ronment and the environmental changes that an
oil shale industry could bring about. This subject
is currently surrounded by controversy, unresolved
issues, conflicting interests, and uncertainties.
There is an urgency to produce more domes-
tic oil as existing supplies dwindle and world oil
prices rise. But what we know about the environ-
mental consequences of oil shale development is
sparse and often speculative. However, we do know
that a relatively small region of the country will have
to bear the full burden of these environmental con-
sequences. So — two issues become basic to the
future of oil shale:
Should the resource be developed now
with all of the attendant environmental
risks, or can we afford to wait until we
find out more about the risks and their
prevention?
And
Is it fair to trade local lifestyle for the
national good?
The purpose of this report, then, is to put oil
shale development into a realistic environmental
perspective and to describe what the government is
doing to insure that development does not exact an
intolerable environmental price.
-------
The Resource
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
Since early in the twentieth century, people had been coming to Greenville, my town, a quiet, small town
in a nice but somewhat desolate part of western Colorado called the Piceance Basin. It was a region character-
ized by high plateaus, angular cliffs, narrow valleys, and box canyons. It was always a little too hot in the
Greenville summers and too cold, too bleak, in the Greenville winters. It was not a perfect place, by any means.
But the air was clean, the skies were blue, and the water, what there was of it, was pure. In short, Greenville
was a rough and hardy place where people lived simple, uncomplicated lives.
Some of us used to think of it as God's country. A lot more of us thought it was just plain "our" coun-
try. But the people who came from outside — engineers, businessmen, politicians, developers, and even envi-
ronmentalists — knew better. They knew Greenville for what it really was. Shale Country.
OIL SHALE-WHAT IS IT?
Rock. A layered, grey-brown, sedimentary rock
laid down eons ago in fresh water lakes. The oil in
oil shale is contained in kerogen, a solid, powdery,
largely insoluble organic substance.
Kerogen is a complex material composed mainly
of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen.
The kerogen molecule is large and heavy. Each
molecule is bound to the other molecules by the
oxygen and sulfur and hydrocarbon bridges so that
a three-dimensional network is formed. This net-
work extends through the mineral portions of oil
shale and binds them together.
How much kerogen is in a given deposit of
oil shale depends on how much organic material
found its way into the prehistoric lake beds. Richer
deposits of oil shale contain up to 20% kerogen.
These high grade deposits produce 25 to 35 gallons
of oil per ton of shale.
Grades of Shale
HIGH
25 or more gallons per ton
MEDIUM
15 to 25 gallons per ton
LOW
-------
WHERE IS OIL SHALE FOUND?
In geologic basins, sandwiched between layers
of other kinds of sedimentary rock. Low grade,
shallow deposits underlie large parts of the east-
ern and central states and northern Alaska. But
most of the resource, and the most valuable part
of it, is locked in the Green River Formation
underlying 1 6,500 square miles of Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming. Almost all of this oil shale land —
80% of it — is owned by the Federal government.
Colorado's Piceance Basin contains 85% of this
western high grade shale. These beds of shale,
called marlstone by geologists, range from 10 to
2000 feet thick. Much of this Colorado shale is
relatively easy to get at, lying 1 00 to 1 000 feet
below the surface, with some outcrops near the
edge of the basin. The remainder of the high
grade shale is in Utah's Uintah Basin (10%) and
in Wyoming (5%). Some of these deposits also
outcrop along cliffs and ledges — others are bur-
ied as deep as 3000 feet.
-2-
-------
SHALE COUNTRY
Area: Colorado, Utah, Wyoming: 1 6,500 contiguous square miles.
Population: Sparse, about 3 persons per square mile. Population centers are small towns, averaging
about 2,000 people, located in river valleys adjacent shale lands.
Economy: Ranching (cattle, sheep), farming (hay, alfalfa), mining (coal, uranium, vanadium, lime-
stone, trona).
Landlook: Piceance Basin, Colorado: cliffs, buttes, canyons, sagebrush, pinyon-juniper, some Douglas
fir and aspen at higher elevations.
Uintah Basin, Utah: high desert, desert shrubs, salt desert shrub, pinyon-juniper and sage-
brush.
Elevation: Piceance Basin: 6000 - 8500 ft; Uintah Basin: 4600 - 8000 ft.
Climate: Semiarid. 45°F to 90°F summer, —40°F to 60°F winter. Temperature inversions are
common, particularly in Colorado.
Snow is major precipitation — 7 inches per year (Wyoming) to 24 inches per year (upland
Colorado shale areas). Summer thunderstorms.
Water: Main source is the Colorado River and its tributaries, the Green and White Rivers. Some
underground supplies are available.
River water is controlled by intricate system of water rights covering whole of Colorado
River system.
Runoff from oil shale land is legally committed to agricultural and stockwatering use.
Some owners of privately held shale lands also own some water rights.
HOW MUCH OIL IS THERE IN U.S. OIL SHALE
DEPOSITS?
A large amount. The U.S. Department of the In-
terior estimates that 80 billion barrels of oil can be
recovered from western marlstone using present day
technology. This is more energy than is contained
in known U.S. oil and natural gas reserves. But it is
only about one tenth of the estimated 800 billion
barrels of shale oil that might eventually be recover-
able under more advanced technology and different
economic conditions.
The U.S. consumes about 6 billion
barrels of petroleum products annually.
-3-
-------
The Processes
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
Oil Shale. The fact of the matter was, Greenville was sitting next to one of the richest deposits of oil
shale in the United States. And ever since the talk about shale began over seventy years ago, we always knew —
our parents always knew — that it was just a matter of time before someone would come and get it.
HOW DO YOU GET THE OIL OUT OF THE SHALE?
By heating it. Heating breaks the chemical net-
work holding the heavy kerogen molecules together,
and "cracks" the individual large molecules into
smaller molecules. This releases a liquid hydrocar-
bon mixture, some combustible gases, and a coke-
like residue. It is the liquid hydrocarbon mixture,
the shale oil, that is the most valuable.
Long ago, Indians of the mountain west acciden-
tally found that marlstone would burn, so they
threw chunks of it on their campfires. Later, some
settlers in the region used marlstone to build their
fireplaces, only to find their fireplaces caught fire.
Today's methods of getting the oil out all involve
heating processes.
The well established method of room and pillar
mining can be used for underground extraction. In
room and pillar mining, part of the shale is blasted
to rubble, leaving a large room with pillars of shale
left standing to support the roof of the mine. About
30% to 40% of the shale in the mine is left behind
in these supporting pillars. The shale broken up
by blasting is then taken to primary crushers within
the mine to be reduced to a size that can be placed
on conveyor belts for delivery to the main crushing
plant on the surface.
If shale deposits lie close enough to the surface,
they can be mined by the open pit method. Only
four or five oil shale sites in Colorado are suitable
for open-pit mining.
Conventional Recovery
Mining the Shale
Crushing
Retort Crude Shale Oil Refinery Oil Products
BUT HOW DO YOU GET THE OIL OUT?
One way is to mine the shale and put it through
the heating process above ground. This is a conven-
tional way of recovery, a familiar process used in
such industries as copper refining and steel-making.
Another, newer way is to break up the shale
while it is still in the ground and heat it in place
(in situ).
Conventional Recovery
Conventional recovery consists of four basic
steps: mining the shale, crushing it to the proper
size for the retort vessel, retorting the shale to
release the oil, and refining the oil to bring it up
to a high-quality product. In this recovery method,
the shale can be mined underground or on the sur-
face, depending on the depth and nature of the oil
shale deposit.
In open pit mining, the overburden on top of the
shale is blasted loose and carried to a disposal area
away from the mine. Then, the exposed shale is
reduced to rubble by explosives and taken to the
crushing plant on the surface by truck or conveyor
belt, as in underground mining. As the overburden
and shale are removed in successive stages, the mine
widens and deepens, forming a stadium-like pit that
can cover many square miles.
Minimum shale thickness for underground min-
ing is about 30 ft, but 60-ft seams are preferred.
Whether to use underground or surface mining
depends largely on the stripping ratio - the thick-
ness of the overburden compared to the thickness
of the shale. A ratio of less than 2.5:1 favors sur-
face mining. If the stripping ratio is greater than
-4-
-------
2.5:1, underground mining is generally indicated.
Fn the center of the Piceance Basin, 2000-foot thick
shale beds are overlaid by 1000 feet of overburden
giving a stripping ratio of 0.5:1. Or, for every foot
of overburden removed, the mine will yield two
feet of oil shale.
Once delivered to the crushing plant, fractured
shale is broken up into still smaller pieces, with
the size depending on the size necessary for the
particular heating method used in the next step
of the process that gets the oil out of the shale.
The crushed shale is then fed into a closed re-
torting vessel and heated to very high temperatures
— between 800°F and 1 000°F — to decompose the
kerogen. About 75% of the kerogen is separated
from the rock at these temperatures.
The retort is essentially a large kiln with a raw
shale feeder hopper, various mechanisms that intro-
duce heat to the shale, pipes to collect the oil and
gas products, and a grate to discharge the shale resi-
due that remains after the oil is released.
A 100,000 bbl/day retorting and up-
grading plant would process about 50
million tons of shale per year.
Different retorting processes apply heat to the
shale in different ways. The heat carrier can be
either a gas or noncombustible solids such as cera-
mic balls or sand. Internal combustion retorts are
used in some processes in which gas is the heat car-
rier. The heat-carrying gas is formed in the com-
bustion of the carbon portion of the shale. This
gas circulates through the crushed shale mass re-
leasing additional gas and an oily vapor. Other pro-
cesses recycle gas heated outside the retort through
the shale. In processes that use hot solids, the
solids come into direct contact with the shale in
the retort and transfer their heat to it. Generally
speaking the internal-combustion gas retort pro-
duces slightly less oil, and oil of somewhat lower
quality, than does the gas-recycle or hot-solids
retort.
The oily vapor produced as the kerogen decom-
poses during retorting is condensed to form the
raw shale oil. This oil has a high nitrogen content
as well as appreciable sulfur and oxygen. The
amount of nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen in the raw
shale oil varies with the retorting process.
These contaminants in the raw shale oil have to
be reduced through intermediate processing before
the oil can be used directly as refinery feedstock.
Raw shale oil has a pour point ranging from
70°F to 90°F. Below this temperature, it becomes
an elastic mass and will have to be processed or
blended to reduce its viscosity if it is to be shipped
via conventional pipeline to the refinery. However,
it may be possible to ship the oil by heated pipeline
or heated rail tank cars without having to change its
flow characteristics.
Pour point is the temperature at which
the oil will flow. The pour point of
conventional high grade petroleum is
about 40°F.
At the refinery, raw shale oil is upgraded to fur-
ther remove its nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur con-
tent. This is done by chemically reacting the oil
with hydrogen so that it becomes a synthetic crude
oil that is essentially the same as high grade conven-
tional crude oil.
itr-SM?
purity Y:j
y. ........ .{wt
Jtitroger> :
More
r6xygen ' , . iS.'^ift •'• v
Sulfur • • ' x0Ti; £. IJ& ' - • . -More
— 5 —
-------
In-Situ Process
Shale Retorted'in Mountain Shale Oil Recovery Crude Shale Oil
Refinery
Oil Products
In Situ Recovery
In "true" in-situ processing, a central well is
first drilled into the bed of shale. Several other
wells are then drilled in a pattern around the cen-
tral well. Explosive charges are placed in the wells
and detonated to fracture the surrounding shale.
Sometimes the shale is fractured by pumping
water into the wells under very high pressure.
This fracturing process is necessary to create path-
ways (void spaces) in the normally impermeable
shale so that heat can be transferred to it. For
a given in-situ site, about 30% of the shale volume
has to contain void spaces for enough combustion
to take place to decompose the kerogen.
Once the shale is fractured, it is ignited by a
flame from compressed air and a combustible gas
pumped into the central well. The hot combus-
tion gases circulate along the pathways in the
fractured shale, heating it to retorting tempera-
tures and releasing the gas and oil from the kero-
gen. After a few hours, the externally-fed gas is
shut off, but compressed air continues to be fed
to the burn zone where combustion is sustained
by the carbon residue that remains as the shale is
retorted.
The gas produced in the retorting process is with-
drawn from a well downstream from the central
injection well. Some of this gas is recirculated to
the central well to aid combustion.
The vapor produced in in-situ retorting con-
denses to liquid in a sump at the base of the shale
area and is pumped to the surface.
In a "modified" version of in-situ recovery,
about 30% of the lower portion of the shale bed is
first mined by conventional methods. This leaves
a void space beneath the shale. The shale is then
fractured with explosives, filling the mined-out
space with shale rubble. The rubble column is
ignited, retorting the shale in place, as in the "true"
in-situ method, to produce gas and oil.
The oil from in-situ processing has the same
characteristics as the oil retorted on the surface
and has to be processed to remove impurities
before being used as refinery feedstock.
WHICH WAY IS BEST - CONVENTIONAL OR
IN SITU?
It's hard to say. Each method has its advan-
tages and disadvantages — economically and envir-
onmentally.
Conventional, aboveground retorting will give
higher oil yields for a given amount of shale re-
torted. But in-situ recovery may cost less, although
comparative costs for the two methods have not yet
been firmly established.
Each technique poses equally severe environmen-
tal problems, even though they may be different.
For example, in-situ recovery may not produce as
much air pollution as aboveground retorting, but
controlling potential water pollution underground
may be more difficult in in-situ recovery than in
aboveground retorting.
When an oil shale industry gets under way in
full force, both conventional and in-situ recovery
methods will probably be used, sometimes in com-
bination for certain oil shale deposits.
WHAT IS LEFT AFTER THE OIL IS TAKEN
OUT OF THE ROCK?
Most of the rock — in the form of spent shale.
Whether conventional or in-situ recovery is used,
all of the inorganic material in the shale remains
after the oil is removed. This amounts to about
85% of the total weight of the shale.
-6-
-------
Spent shale is relatively useless. Some of it can
be used in fill for roads, but there is essentially no
market value in spent shale. What to do about the
huge quantities of this leftover rock will be a major
problem in an oil shale industry.
Only about 15% (by weight) of oil
shale can be converted to oil.
WHAT CAN YOU GET FROM OIL SHALE
OTHER THAN OIL?
Gas. Some of the gas produced in the gas-
recycle retort and the hot-solids retort and in some
in-situ recovery methods has a high heating value.
This gas can be processed relatively inexpensively to
provide on-site electric power for mining, retorting,
and refining. It can also be treated to become high
quality pipeline gas suitable tor other industrial as
well as residential consumption. The gas produced
by the internal-combustion gas retort, however, is of
low heating value and requires special, costly process-
ing for it to be made suitable for power generation.
High-Btu gas from a 10,000 bbljday
retort could supply the energy needs
of a town of 2000 people.
WHAT ELSE CAN YOU GET FROM OIL SHALE?
A few byproduct minerals. Some oil shale de-
posits contain sodium bicarbonate (nahcolite) and
a form of aluminum (dawsonite). Dawsonite can
be extracted and converted to aluminum which
could lessen to some degree the U.S. need to import
aluminum ore. Nahcolite could be extracted and
transformed to soda ash, or used for sulfur removal
from power plant stack gas. But, in general, oil and
gas are the main products of oil shale.
IS SHALE OIL IN COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION
IN THE U.S.?
No. Not yet. People have thought about pro-
ducing oil from U.S. shale on and off for more than
1 00 years. Shale oil has been produced for a number
of years on a relatively small scale in Scotland,
Estonia, as well as in South Africa and China. But
each time it looked as though a U.S. shale oil indus-
try was about to come into being, it was shelved be-
cause a more economical energy supply appeared.
In 1 850, an oil-shale boom appeared to be imminent
in the United States — a plant to process shale went
into operation in Ohio — but in 1 859, the landmark
discovery of natural liquid petroleum in Titusville,
Pennsylvania, cut short the oil shale boom before
it really began. Again, in 1 91 5, an oil shale rush
began after the U.S. Geological Survey reported find-
ing rich shale deposits in the Rocky Mountains. But
soon the East Texas oil fields dimmed the future of
oil shale.
Now the story is different. Known U.S. liquid
petroleum supplies are dwindling and the country
is searching for new sources of energy for the
future. Diminishing U.S. oil reserves and the rise
in the price of world oil has prompted major ad-
vances in oil shale recovery technology. Of all
the new ways to supply U.S. liquid energy needs
that are under development, oil shale is the closest
to commercialization.
But bringing an oil shale industry on stream is
by no means an easy matter. Many troublesome
questions remain — political, economic, and envi-
ronmental. People in industry and government are
working to find answers to these questions. The
public is waiting for the answers, and for the oil.
ARE ANY OIL SHALE PROCESSES READY FOR
FULL-SCALE PRODUCTION?
Yes, several. Concentrated development of both
conventional and in-situ recovery processes has
been going on since the 1 960s, and is continuing
today, under both industry and government spon-
sorship.
At the moment, three types of hot-gas retorting
methods are sufficiently well developed to be ready
for installation in full-scale plants.
— Union Oil Company has announced plans to be-
gin operation of its vertical gas-recycle Retort B
process in a 50,000-bbl/day plant at a site in
Colorado. This process was tested at Union's
5-ton/day pilot plant at Brea, California.
— Paraho Development Corporation, a 1 7-com-
pany consortium, is scheduled to produce a total
of 80,000 barrels of shale oil in its vertical gas-
combustion kiln on Navy oil shale land at Anvil
Points, Colorado, under joint Navy/ERDA finan-
cing. The Paraho process is based on a design
that has been used for many years to process
limestone. Paraho has also proposed to build an
11,500 ton/day commercial plant.
-------
— Superior Oil Company will utilize a unique,
circular gas-combustion retort in which the shale
travels horizontally through the retorting zone.
Superior intends to use this retort on its own
shale properties in Colorado. This shale con-
tains dawsonite and nahcolite, which will be
recovered as part of the shale oil processing
sequence.
Of the heated-solids retorting methods, two are
ready to be considered for commercial operation.
— The Lurgi-Ruhrgas process is a modified coal
carbonization technique developed in the 1950s
by Lurgi and Ruhrgas A.G. in Germany. The
oil shale version uses sand or recycled shale ash
heated to about 900°F to retort the shale. The
raw shale for this process has to be crushed to
a fineness of less than 14 to 1/> inch.
— Another hot-solids process is the TOSCO II
retort. This method, developed by the TOSCO
Corporation from a Swedish design, uses 1/2-inch
ceramic balls heated to about 1 000°F to transfer
heat to the shale. To be used in this process,
the shale has to be crushed to a fineness of less
than 1/2 inch. A semi-works TOSCO retorting
plant built at Parachute Creek, Colorado, by
Colony Development Operations (then a joint
venture of Sohio Oil Company, Cleveland Cliffs
Iron Company, and TOSCO) produced 200,000
barrels of shale oil in eight years of pilot tests.
Recently, the TOSCO Corporation, in conjunc-
tion with Colony, designed a commercial-sized
plant for Parachute Creek to produce 47,000
bbl/day of shale oil and 4300 bbl/day of lique-
fied petroleum gas (LPG).
— TOSCO also plans to begin pilot plant develop-
ment on its Sand Wash Unit, leased from the
state of Utah.
Four in-situ processes are being readied for poten-
tial commercial development.
— Occidental Oil Company's "modified" vertical
in-situ process is the closest to commercialization
of the in-place recovery methods. A recent run
on one of their two commercial-sized (120 feet
square by 270 feet high) in-situ complexes pro-
duced 30,000 barrels of oil in six months from
17-gal/ton shale. The second of these commer-
cial-sized in-situ complexes has been ignited.
— Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL), under
the auspices of the newly formed Department of
Energy (DOE), is developing a modified horizon-
tal in-situ process — rubble in-situ extraction
(RISE) — that is particularly efficient in retorting
shale beds 400 to 2000 feet thick.
— In addition, Geokinetics Inc., is producing oil
from a horizontal modified in-situ pilot process
on its Uintah Basin properties in Utah.
— One "true" in-situ process being considered is in
the pilot plant stage at DOE's Laramie Energy
Research Center (LERC), near Rock Springs,
Wyoming. A recent run of the retort on Green
River shale averaging 21 gal/ton produced 700
gallons of oil in the first 35 days of operation.
A second "true" in-situ process is being prepared
for production by Equity Oil Company in the
Piceance Creek Basin. The heating fluid will be
superheated steam.
Several groups of oil companies have leased fed-
eral oil shale land in Colorado and Utah (Tracts C-a,
C-b, U-a, and U-b) under the U.S. Department of
Interior's Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program com-
pleted in 1974.
— Gulf Oil Corporation and AMOCO plan to develop
a 50,000 bbl/day TOSCO 11 plant on Tract C-a,
along with tests of LLL's RISE in-situ method.
— Occidental Oil Company and Ashland Oil plan
to establish a 57,000 bbl/day Occidental "modi-
fied" in-situ process on Tract C-b, perhaps cou-
pled later with a TOSCO II plant.
— In Utah, Sun Oil Company and Phillips Petroleum
may use the Paraho and TOSCO II processes to
produce shale oil on Tract U-a, while Sun, Phillips,
and Sohio hold an option on Tract U-b to install
the Paraho process.
In addition, the Department of the Interior se-
lected four additional federal tracts in Colorado and
Utah in 1975 for development of prototype in-situ
processes. These tracts will be offered for bid fol-
lowing approval of the environmental impact state-
ment to be issued in late 1977.
-8-
-------
Map of Leased Lands
Colorado
Utah
TRACT
C-a
C-b
U-a
U-b
AREA
(acres)
5088
5093
5120
5120
ESTIMATED RECOVERABLE
SHALE OIL
(million barrels)
1300
723
331
271
-9-
-------
The Environment
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
In 1978, ten years ago, they came to get the shale out - began to, at least. They built a half dozen oil shale
plants, then started mining and retorting it a couple of years later.
Since then, Greenville has never been the same. Not that we expected it would be. Before any of it hap-
pened there were dozens of reports that tried to define what oil shale would bring to . . . and take from . . .
life in Greenville.
In the old days, before the mining began, it was still possible to talk about Greenville without having to
talk about oil shale. Today, Greenville AS oil shale. And oil shale is Greenville's environment — air, water, land
and life.
So, fortunately, a lot of thinking went into it. Because if it hadn't. . .
WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT?
Everybody. The Environmental Protection
Agency, the Department of Energy, other govern-
mental agencies, industry, and public action groups.
Everyone knows that an oil shale industry will
cause some environmental changes — changes that
could be disagreeable, even dangerous.
EPA is studying many aspects of oil shale develop-
ment. These studies are developed by EPA through
funding provided by the Interagency Energy/Envi-
ronment Research and Development Program to
obtain information on health and ecological effects
from pollutants created by the development. EPA
is also developing information on methods that can
be used to control the release of those pollutants.
The purpose of these studies is to ensure that an oil
shale industry will have the fewest possible adverse
environmental effects.
As yet, however, there remain a number of unan-
swered environmental questions. And it may not
be possible to satisfactorily answer the questions
until an operating plant exists. The technologies
are just too new, the affected ecologies not well-
understood, and the scale of operations just too
massive to be able to predict with any certainty
what effects an oil shale industry will really pro-
duce. And, environmental controls for the oil
shale industry are subject to large uncertainties.
Simple extrapolation from existing controls may
be insufficient for oil shale or may not, for a host
of engineering reasons, work with efficiencies re-
quired to meet federal and state standards.
In addition to EPA, sixteen other federal agen-
cies are studying oil shale development — both
processes and environmental controls — through
the Interagency Program. Industry, too, is devel-
oping production methods with an eye toward
reducing adverse environmental effects. Public
action groups are also contributing information
on potential areas of disruptive effects.
Often there is overlap in this research and devel-
opment. While this overlap may involve some dupli-
cation of effort, it does offer the advantage that all
those who will have a hand in the production of shale
oil or who will be affected by the production proces-
ses are being made more aware of each other's inter-
ests. Out of this awareness can come the solutions
to the many problems associated with an oil shale
industry. This will allow the industry to develop in
an economically and environmentally sound fashion
with the best and most practicable technology.
This approach is relatively new in the energy
business. In the past, little thought was generally
given to the adverse effects of energy development.
In this respect, oil shale development may set the
practice for future energy development. Since oil
shale is the liquid energy resource closest to com-
mercialization, it will be the first to have been so
thoroughly environmentally studied before it be-
comes established as an industry.
HOW WILL GETTING THE OIL OUT AFFECT
THE ENVIRONMENT?
In four potentially adverse ways.
— By creating air, water, and solid waste pol-
lution.
— By creating possibly hazardous health effects.
— By disrupting the land.
— By creating boom towns with their stressing
side effects.
-10-
-------
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
Oil shale is Greenville's air. Not what it used to be, but still pretty good. A fter all, there were standards
to be met, state and federal, and the industry worked to meet them with all due speed.
Which is not to say that in those early development years, when standards couldn't be met, when we
first saw that film of dust on the cars we parked on the street, or when our eyes would smart from fumes from
the retorting, that we were not dubious. Mad, in fact. Furious.
But they worked it out like they said they would, and now, except for those rare times when one of the
stack scrubbers goes on the fritz, the air is good. Not as good as it used to be, but better than the air in New
York City, Los Angeles, or even Lake Tahoe, California. But it's just not the old Greenville air.
WHAT ABOUT OIL SHALE AND AIR POLLUTION?
Currently, the air in the tri-state western oil
shale region is relatively clean. But this relatively
clean quality of the air is expected to decline some-
what in the long term as a mature oil shale industry
becomes rooted in the region. It can also be expec-
ted that some people in the area may be affected
by the local concentration of air pollution caused
by the temperature inversions that frequently occur,
especially in Colorado.
In an oil shale industry air pollution will come
from a large number of sources, but basically the
pollution will be in the form of dust and larger par-
ticulates, and gases containing sulfur, nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, and trace hydrocarbons.
What About Dust?
There will be dust and larger particulates in
the air from blasting, from mining, and from crush-
ing the source shale and transporting it. There will
also be dust as a byproduct of hauling the enor-
mous amounts of spent shale from the retorting
area to the storage sites, some of which could be
miles away.
To minimize the amount of air pollution result-
ing from dust and larger particulates, a number of
major steps will be taken.
In all mining operations, wetting agents will be
mixed with water, thus holding down dust during
drilling, after blasting, and along the routes that
take the shale out of the mine.
In the crushing and retorting plants, the shale
will be carried along in covered conveyors and
sprayed with water at points where it is to be trans-
ferred from these conveyors to processing units.
Baghouse filters similar to those used in industrial
smokestacks will be used in crusher units to capture
the dust from the shale as it is being pulverized.
Wet scrubbers will control any particulates gener-
ated in retorting operations. Then, sprays of water
will be used to cut down dust during the transport
and stockpiling of spent shale at disposal sites.
Applied conscientiously, these steps should in
great measure reduce most of the dust and large
particulates that would be potential hazards to air
quality in a modern oil shale operation.
-11 -
-------
What About Gases?
Gases will enter the air from retorting and refining
operations and from electric power generation.
There will also be emissions to the air from vehi-
cles of all sorts — trucks, earthmoving equipment,
workers' automobiles, as well as from commercial
developments that will spring up to serve the new
urban populace. It is expected that there will be in-
creased haze and lowered visibility in the area.
In addition to taking some toll of the quality of the
air humans will breathe, air emissions could cause
cumulative adverse effects on local vegetation and
wildlife.
As with dust and dust control, numerous pre-
ventive measures and controls can greatly diminish
the danger posed by gases released into the air as
byproducts of the oil shale processes.
Sulfur emissions from all gaseous fuels produced
in the retorting process will first be treated to re-
cover ammonia and will then be desulfurized be-
fore being used to heat the shale. Well established
techniques will be used to remove the sulfur from
the retorting and output gases — a Stretford chem-
ical recovery system will be used for the low-Btu
gases produced in the Paraho process, and the high-
Btu gases that are produced by the TOSCO process
will be reacted with hydrogen, followed by chemical
removal methods, to clean out most of the remain-
ing sulfur.
Diesel equipment used in underground mining
will be equipped with devices to reduce particulates
and nitrogen oxide emissions in the exhaust.
How well nitrogen oxides emitted from gases
produced in shale oil processing are controlled will
depend on how much of the nitrogen in the shale can
be converted to ammonia before the gases are used
as power plant fuel. Additionally, burners that use
the gas for fuel will be designed to reduce nitrogen
oxide emissions. If liquid fuels are used in shale
processing, they will be reacted with hydrogen to
transform their nitrogen content to ammonia before
they are burned.
The amount of trace hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide given off to the air from oil shale oper-
ations is expected to be within state and federal
standards. If there is any question of their quan-
tity, the gas streams in which they are contained
will be incinerated before being emitted to the at-
mosphere. Likewise, trace elements, like arsenic
and antimony, are not expected to be emitted from
plant gases in large enough quantities to become a
hazard.
How Much Air Pollution?
Enough to worry about. The amount of pollu-
tants emitted to the air from retorting operations
will vary among the different processes.
In a full-scale industry, several types of processes
will be in operation at one time, centered near the
sources of shale. Pilot plants used to test these pro-
cesses now operate under variances to air quality
standards granted by federal and state agencies.
Emissions from commercial-sized plants, of course,
will have to meet air quality standards, and ways to
reduce emissions are being studied. But at present
none of the processes being considered for a com-
mercial-sized oil shale industry can meet both fed-
eral air quality standards and those in force in Colo-
rado.
Predicted Emission Rates from Oil Shale Retorting Processes Producing 50,000 bbl/day
(tons/year)
Pollutant
Particulates
Sulfur Dioxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
In-Situ Retorting
1,600
8,500
2,300
70
1,000
Surface Retorting
300- 3^250
960- 5,800
600 - 6,400
300 - 3,600
1,400- 4,000
-12-
-------
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
Oil shale is Greenville's water — what there is of it. And there never was all that much to begin with,
what there was came from the Colorado River and its tributaries, the Green, White, and Roaring Fork Rivers,
as well as from underground sources and surface streams.
Oil shale took the water, sometimes as much as three barrels of water for every barrel of shale oil, and
while no one ever died of thirst in Greenville, there were some rough times for ranchers. One summer, in the
early 1980s, there was a real drought, and the cattle suffered. Some ranchers went out of business. But it was
a fluke year to begin with, half the normal precipitation, very dry. Still, without oil shale, it might have been
a different story. It could happen again, of course, but probably it won't, mostly because almost all of the
ranchers sold their land to the oil companies and moved out.
Lucky for Greenville that there was enough advance planning in the late 1970s to assure that all this water,
after it had been used for processing the shale, would go to good, safe use — which it did. It's been recycled and
reused in the processing, again and again. Or, it's been used to irrigate the new vegetation that the companies
planted on the huge mounds of spent shale that built up in the area over the years.
Still, I think I feel a little less comfortable each time I go to the tap for a cold drink on hot summer days.
WHAT ABOUT OIL SHALE AND WATER?
The water question has two parts. What will
withdrawal of the large amounts of water necessary
for extracting and processing oil shale do to local
supplies?
And, what kind and how much water contami-
nation will an industry and its associated towns
cause?
Supply — Is There Enough?
People disagree about how much water a 1-mil-
lion bbl/day oil shale industry and its associated
towns will use. One estimate by the U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior is 1 20,000 to 1 90,000 acre-ft
per year. This is about 2 to 3 barrels of water for
every barrel of oil produced by aboveground re-
torting. Another estimate by the Colorado Water
Conservation Board is 230,000 to 250,000 acre-ft
per year. If nahcolite and dawsonite are recovered
along with the shale oil, another 50,000 acre-ft will
be consumed.
An acre-ft is the amount of water that
would cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot.
Water for an oil shale industry will be taken
mainly from the rivers of the region. Although
much of the water in these rivers is already allo-
cated by law to other consumers under the Colo-
rado River Compact of 1 922, the Upper Colorado
River Basin Compact of 1 948, and the Mexico
Treaty of 1944, the U.S. Department of Interior
projects that there will be ample surface water po-
tentially available for a 1 -million bbl/day oil shale
industry.
-13-
-------
Some people have looked into the alternative of
using groundwater locked in underground strata
(aquifers) to satisfy an oil shale industry's water
needs. One estimate puts the total volume of water
stored in aquifers at ahout 1 0 million acre-ft, enough
to supply a 1-million bbl/day industry for 50 years.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that oil
shale operations will consume less water for a given
amount of energy output than other existing and
emerging energy production processes. However,
whether water is taken from surface streams or
underground aquifers, there is concern about the
effects of depletion, and the disruption of stream-
beds and underground water-bearing strata caused
by mining, well-drilling, and spent shale storage.
And, among some experts, there is also concern
about the long-term availability of water as an oil
shale industry expands.
Salinity: When Oil Shale Drinks, What Suffers?
Heavy depletion increases the salinity of surface
streams. The U.S. Department of the Interior esti-
mates that a shale oil industry using 1 20,000 to
1 90,000 acre-ft of water a year would increase the
salinity of the Colorado River downstream at
Hoover Dam by 1 0 to 1 5 milligrams per liter. But
the Colorado River is already heavily salt-laden from
withdrawal of water for agricultural use, and desali-
nization plants are being built on the lower Colorado
River so that the water obligated to Mexico will be
of the quality specified by treaty.
Some of the groundwater in shale country is as
salty as sea water, and, if it were used in oil shale
operations, it could be highly corrosive to metal
parts. Furthermore, saline aquifers disrupted by
mining activity could release salt into pure water
aquifers adjacent to some of the richest oil shale
deposits. Moreover, saline aquifers punctured by
mining activities could flood the mines, making
continuous pumping necessary and creating the
problem of disposing of brackish water in an envi-
ronmentally acceptable fashion. As yet, the ground-
water consequences cannot be estimated with any
accuracy since so little is known about the aquifers
and the general groundwater flow patterns.
0
r
Water Consumption in Refining and Conversion Processes
Liters per Kilowatt Hour
12345
Geothermal
Electric
Nuclear
Electric
Fossil-Fueled
Electric
Coal
Gasification
Coal
Liquefaction
Oil Shale
Uranium Fuel
Processing
Oil
Maximum
Minimum
Average
100
200 300 400
Gallons per Million BTU Output
500
600
-14-
-------
Water Contamination: With Oil Shale's Gain,
What Loses?
Potential contamination of water supplies has
implications not only for human, agricultural, and
industrial use, but it could threaten the habitat of
wildlife and aquatic species. The large herds of
migratory mule deer and antelope and elk as well
as birds and water species could be adversely affec-
ted by a reduced supply of water or the contamina-
tion of their watering places in the semiarid regions
of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
The enormous amount of water used in oil shale
operations will inevitably become contaminated —
from retorting the shale and upgrading the product
oil, from controlling emissions of pollutants to the
air, from cooling processing units and spent shale,
from boiler blowdown, and from sanitary facilities.
Contaminants will be toxic chemicals, minerals, and
trace metals.
The water released from the oil shale itself in the
retorting process is contaminated with ammonia,
chlorine, carbonates, sulfates, mercury, selenium
and arsenic and various organics such as phenols
and carboxylic acids. The amount of this contami-
nated water is 2 to 5 gallons per ton of shale.
Retorting processes being developed incorpor-
ate ways to treat this wastewater to rid it of con-
taminants. In a typical plant, wastewater will be
cleansed using a series of methods — a foul water
stripping system to remove dissolved hydrogen sul-
fide and ammonia, a holding pond and gravity sepa-
ration unit to separate solid contaminants, and
chemical additives.
Cleaned up wastewater will be recycled through
the process stream so that there will be zero dis-
charge of harmful effluents into surface streams
and groundwater supplies. Moreover, recycling
would reduce consumption by 10,000 to 40,000
acre-ft per year.
Wastewater from mine dewatering, boiler blow-
down, and cooling towers will be used directly,
without treatment, to suppress dust or wet down
retorted shale.
All of these measures apply to mining and above-
ground retorting. In-situ retorting presents a more
severe problem because of the difficulty of con-
trolling the large amounts of wastewater that will
result from underground operations.
Some disposal methods being considered for in-
situ processing are to channel the wastewater into
the piles of retorted shale left in the ground, to
pump it into aquifers that are already heavily salt
loaded, or to let it collect in large evaporation
ponds. However, none of these methods is totally
satisfactory, and the problem remains to be solved
for in-situ processes.
The potentially far-ranging effects of water pol-
lution from the various oil shale processes means
that keen examination of all the potential hazards
must be made and factors carefully weighed before
the shale industry develops.
- 15 -
-------
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
The first thing I remember hearing about oil shale was that the rock would expand like popcorn when
they pulled it out of the ground and took the oil out. But, the experts assured us that this wasn 't only the
case with oil shale. The fact of the matter was, anything that's mined by breaking it up into smaller pieces
expands; more surface area.
What it finally meant for oil shale, after all the explaining was over and the dust literally settled down,
was a lot of rock — tons of the stuff left over. The oil companies called it spent shale. The environmentalists
called it solid waste. We had another name for it. . . .
WHAT ABOUT OIL SHALE AND SOLID WASTE?
There will be a lot of it. Solid waste from oil
shale takes three different forms:
— Fine particles of raw shale produced in crushing
operations
— Catalysts from refining processes if refining is
performed in the area
— Spent shale that remains after the oil is removed.
Particles
One form will be the fine particles of raw shale
produced in crushing operations. For example, the
Paraho process uses fairly large chunks of raw shale
(about 3 inches). In crushing the shale to this size,
about 5% to 10% is left over as granules too small
to be retorted. Some of these small pieces of shale
could be fused to form briquettes that are the right
size for retorting. The remainder will be mixed
with the spent shale for disposal. But inevitably
some finer particles will reach the air to contribute
to air pollution.
Spent Catalysts
Subjecting shale oil to intermediate refining
near the site of retorting operations could pro-
duce another type of solid waste — spent catalysts.
Nickel and cobalt residues used in hydrogen-treat-
ing the oil will be left behind as well as other sub-
stances used in recovering sulfur and removing
arsenic from the oil. These catalysts, contaminated
with potentially harmful compounds, could pollute
the air and water if their disposal is not carefully
controlled.
If intermediate refining is carried out on-
site, spent catalysts and deactivated carbon
used in removing contaminants from the pro-
duct gas will be discarded in the spent shale
storage areas.
Spent Shale — Potentially Dangerous Leftovers
The greatest environmental roadblock to oil shale
development is the disposal of spent shale. The
potential effects of the enormous amount of spent
shale cross all major environmental boundaries.
A 1-million bbl/day oil shale industry using high
grade (30 gallons per ton) shale will generate 1.5
million tons of spent shale a day. This is after
mining, crushing, and retorting. Mining and crushing
operations decrease the density and thus increase
the original volume of rock by as much as 30% to
40% — retorting shrinks the shale somewhat, but
the volume left after retorting is still substantially
more than was mined.
-16-
-------
Spent shale will vary in consistency — depending
on the retorting process — from a lumpy ash-like
material resembling dry chunky peanut butter to
a fine ash-like substance with a carbon residue that
looks like grey talcum powder.
Spent shale will contain potentially harmful
amounts of mineral salts as well as toxic trace me-
tals.
Spent shale stored on the surface could interrupt
water courses, destroy grazing land and the natural
habitat of animal and aquatic species. Stored on
the surface or underground it will be subject to
leaching and erosion. Contamination from leach-
ing and erosion could have widespread adverse ef-
fects on local use of water by industry, by residents,
by wildlife and aquatic species in the region, and on
downstream water quality as the contamination
reached the major river systems.
And, if it is stored on the surface, it will mar
the natural beauty of the countryside. For empha-
sis, people point to the miles of naked rock piles
thrown up on the banks of the Blue River near
Breckenridge, Colorado, by gold dredges in the
1890s that remain as an eyesore today.
Current plans call for spent shale to be stored
mainly on the surface, much of it in gullies and
canyons. Control measures have been worked out
to reduce the possibility of leaching and erosion of
spent shale stored on the surface.
After retorting, the hot shale, which will contain
3% to 5% carbon, will be sprayed with water to
cool it and control dust. It will then be transpor-
ted by conveyor belt or truck to the disposal site.
Here, the spent shale will be piled to a specified
height. As the pile is developed, it will be graded,
and then compacted to a density of 80-90 Ibs/cu ft.
Compaction will give the pile stability and will slow
down weathering. It will also retard leaching since
spent shale is highly absorptive and, once compacted,
percolation of contaminants through it is minimal.
The slope of the sides of the pile will be no greater
than a three- or four-to-one grade to prevent sliding.
A catchment basin will be built downstream from
the spent shale pile to control leaching and runoff
caused by rain or snow, and an impervious layer of
material will be laid down beneath the pile to pre-
vent groundwater contamination. Any runoff will
be returned to the pile to keep it moist. Likewise,
if the spent shale is stored in a canyon, a 100-year
flood dam or retention structure will be built above
the spent shale to control water flow through the
canyon, and a dam will be built below the pile to
catch runoff. The water that reaches the lower dam
will be recycled back to the spent shale.
When the pile reaches its final height, alkaline
salts in the upper layers will be removed. The
spent shale will then be fertilized and planted with
grazing grass and shrubs that can provide feed for
wild herds. Taking out the salts and fertilizing al-
lows for planting directly on the shale, without
adding topsoil. The liquid used to remove the salts
from the top of the pile will be captured and cleans-
ed to remove contaminants before it is released to
the ground.
Experiments in revegetating spent shale have
been going on for 10 years, but the composition of
spent shale and its lack of nutrients lead many to
question the long-term success of any revegetation
efforts. For example, will plants now growing on
spent shale continue growing after irrigation is
stopped? How many plant types will grow on the
spent shale? Will the plants tend to concentrate
any of the contaminants in the roots and leaves?
And what about capillary action that could in time
bring salts to the surface of the revegetated shale
and destroy the plant growth?
Spent shale also can be returned to the mine,
which would help to preserve the scenic quality of
the landscape. This is a readily simple process in
surface mining since it can be done in conjunction
with the return of the overburden to the mined out
areas. It could also be returned to an underground
mine in its dry form or as a slurried sludge although
there are some economic, logistic, and safety con-
straints to be overcome.
However, spent shale returned to the mine (open
pit or underground), or left in the ground after in-
situ retorting, could pose a greater contamination
problem than surface storage because leaching would
be more difficult to control.
Clearly, the problem of what to do with spent
shale is paramount to the success of the oil shale
industry. And it is also clear that the problem has
to be dealt with in relationship to air, water, land,
and the general look and quality of life in the pro-
cessing area.
17
-------
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
As for the land, I can't claim that Greenville looks like Ireland these days. But it's important to remember
that it wasn't green to begin with. Now, it's actually greener than it used to be. They tore up thousands of
acres to get to the shale, then built up hundreds of mounds of spent shale that now cover the countryside.
But they planted it, and the large herds of mule deer we were so worried about ten years ago are doing quite
well after a few bad years. We've been told that the herd is, at least, maintaining its numbers and we see as
many deer as we used to see, along with the other wildlife that live in the region.
But there's no getting around it. The look of the land has changed, but mostly, from what we can tell,
everything that survived here for thousands of years, before they came to get the shale, is still surviving.
WHAT ABOUT OIL SHALE AND LAND
DISRUPTION?
Count on it. A mature 1-million bbl/day oil shale
industry including the towns that develop in the vi-
cinity will occupy about 80,000 acres of land. This
amounts to only about 1 % of all the oil shale lands
that have been explored and evaluated in Colorado,
Utah, and Wyoming. The way in which land is dis-
turbed in oil shale development will be similar to
that associated with any large mining and ore pro-
cessing operation. What will be different is the scale
of the disruption. Although only a small portion of
all of the known shale areas will be affected at one
time, a 1-million bbl/day industry will involve mining
about 1.8 million tons of oil shale per day.
Two tons of oil shale fill a volume about
the size of an office desk.
Mining the oil shale, building roads and plants
and towns, and storing spent shale will have a num-
ber of local impacts, other than aesthetic. These
activities will cause increased erosion and sedimen-
tation, removal or burial of vegetation, and changes
in the mix of native trees, shrubs, and grass species.
Grazing land will be reduced for range cattle and
wild herds.
In the Piceance Basin, development will destroy
critical winter range in the river valleys for deer,
antelope, and elk in the White and Colorado River
regions. The availability of winter range determines
the size of the herd that can be supported by the
available habitat. Destruction of winter range has a
far more severe effect on herd size than similar des-
truction of the more abundant summer range.
The major environmental disruption in surface
mining will be the disturbance of the area being
mined and the disposal of large quantities of over-
burden. Although the overburden will eventually
be returned to the mined-out area for reclamation,
as much as 2000 acres could be disturbed before
any reclamation would take place.
-18-
-------
Underground mining will cause the least ecosys-
tem disruption. The major surface disturbance will
be the construction of roads for mine access. Pro-
perly placed pillars left in the mine will keep severe
depressions from developing on the ground surface.
In-situ operations would also cause some land
disruption: surface subsidence for one. And, since
in some in-situ processes about 30% of the activity
will be carried out at the surface, it shares the same
problems of disruption with conventional mining/
surface retorting operations.
Land disruption goes with oil shale development,
as well as with any other industrial, agricultural,
or residential development. But its effects can be
minimized by returning disturbed areas as nearly as
possible to their natural state. This will require
careful, coordinated planning among industry and
government, with recognition of the well-being of
those who will live and work in the area.
From the Draft Environmental Impact Statement of the Proposed Development of Oil Shale Resources by
the Colony Development Operation:
"The proposed Federal action is the consideration of a right-of-way permit for an oil shale products
pipeline from a plant site in Colorado to Lisbon Valley, Utah. Directly related to this Federal
action is the development of a 4,000 acre underground oil shale mine; mining of 61,000 tons per
day of oil shale for 20 years; construction and operation of a 47,000 barrel a day oil shale plant;
construction of two dams — Davis Gulch processed oil shale disposal catchment and Middle Fork
flood control; disposal of processed oil shale on 800 acres; construction of a 194-mile, 16-inch
shale oil pipeline from the plant site on Roan Plateau to Lisbon Valley, Utah; development of a
15-mile-long service corridor in the Parachute Creek valley; construction of a 75-acre terminal
site in Grand Valley; construction of two 230 kv power lines to the plant site; a 337-acre exchange
of land between BLM and Colony Development Corporation; and diversion of 12.5 cubic feet per
second of water from the Colorado River. "
- 19 -
-------
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
There were major stories in the mid-1970s about mine safety, about the possible cancer-causing effects
of the byproducts of shale mining and retorting. In the ten years since shale came to town, we've had one
major mining mishap.
And cancer? The death rate has stayed pretty much what it's been. But there's always next year's figures
to worry about — and the year after.
WHAT ABOUT OIL SHALE AND HEALTH
EFFECTS?
It is too soon to tell.
There will be the risk of physical injury to wor-
kers in the mines and in processing plants, just as
there is in any major mining and refining operation.
This risk will be minimized by industry compliance
with regulations governing such operations. Many
of the safety procedures and much of the necessary
technical data for estimating the dangers of an oil
shale operation can be inferred from other energy
industries — coal mining, oil refining.
What is not clear cut is how much of a health
hazard air and water pollution from an oil shale
industry will pose for humans —
those directly involved in shale
mining and processing, and
those who live nearby.
So little is known
about the ways in
which pollutants
are transported
through the envi-
ronment and so
little is known
about how the hu-
man body resists
or adapts to dif-
ferent concentra-
tions of pollu-
tants that no |
realistic estimate
can be made of
how these effects
will ultimately
affect the health of
the surrounding
populace.
There is also con-
cern about a more
subtle problem — the
potential cancer-causing polycyclical hydrocarbons
contained in oil shale. This concern stems from the
high incidence of cancer that appeared among British
cotton mill workers who had direct contact with spin-
ning machines that were lubricated with shale oil.
Workers in the Estonian oil shale industry, however,
have no history of occupational cancer. This suggests
that only certain types of shale and shale products are
potentially carcinogenic.
The danger of exposure to crude shale oil is pri-
marily a localized industrial health problem. Expo-
sure of the general public to refined oil shale pro-
ducts on the commercial market poses a more uni-
versal problem. But without a developed American
shale industry, it is very difficult to determine what
cancer-causing risks are to be faced. This entire
question is under study by the federal government,
the academic sector, and the oil companies.
However, as research into this subject has inten-
sified, it has become clear that there are no good,
rapid tests for carcinogenicity. Tests currently used
are only approximations to the effects of shale oil
on humans and really measure genetic effects. Also,
carcinogenicity may only be present when two or
more compounds — by themselves not carcinogenic —
are combined. Thus, it is not a simple matter of iso-
lating carcinogenic compounds, but of testing the
combinations of substances found in the many dif-
ferent products of shale oil.
The cancer question also arises regarding spent
shale. The proper management of this waste is par-
ticularly important because of the volume of mat-
ter and because spent shale will contain organic
compounds with known carcinogenic as well as tox-
ic effects. These hazardous compounds could reach
the public via airborne particulates, runoff water,
as intake by plants and animals, and as organic va-
pors. The quantities will probably be small but,
as with the refined oil shale products, the health ef-
fects are not known. This problem, like the others,
is under study to define its severity and its solution.
-20-
-------
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
Well, the environment suffered and survived, as promised. The money eventually came, as promised,
especially to the merchants, the land speculators, the builders. And the jobs came for those who would train
for them in industry sponsored programs. And with the jobs, came the salaries, the fringe benefits — life insur-
ance, credit unions, cars, and appliances.
But it all came too fast. In less than two years Greenville was Colorado's largest thriving slum. Shanty-
towns sprang up and trailers arrived and parked in the middle of open fields. The sewers were anywhere where
people dumped their waste. Laundry hung from shanty to shanty, turning black from the early dust.
Greenville's small medical clinic was obsolete in a month. The few diners, restaurants, and markets
couldn't stock foodstuffs fast enough. Schools filled to capacity; all the town facilities became woefully in-
adequate. The government sent us aid money but it was either too little or too late. And they talked a lot
about Greenville in the legislature, but not much came of it. They told us we were a boom-town. And I guess
we felt about that the way the Indians must have felt when they were told Columbus discovered America. We
were hostile, angry, disappointed. We felt disenfranchised. They even dug up our graveyard and made a new
one.
Prices skyrocketed — thirty thousand dollars a shanty, two dollars for a dozen eggs. The profiteers ran
amuck, everyone tried to sell us something, we locked our doors at night; then locked our doors during the day.
The oil shale we had been sitting on for years blew right up in our faces.
But give it time, many said. That was the talk then, for those who decided to stay. So we did. A few
years passed, and Greenville finally caught up with the flow of money generated out of our own backyards.
A lot of that money stayed in Greenville; a lot more of it came back in the form of federal and state tax
revenues. Schools, roads, utilities, hospitals, sewers were built.
Services were upgraded. After the shanty town burned down one night, luckily taking the lives of only
the rats that ran through them with abandon, the buildings that went up in their place were solid single-
family dwellings that people built to live in, to settle in.
In the early stages of settlement, engineers and middle and upper management would commute from
as far away as Aspen, or even Denver, to avoid living in booming Greenville. Now, with better facilities and
a stabilized population growth, a number of them are building on a slight rise above the town suddenly called
Greenville Heights. There's even a club under construction with a dozen tennis courts and an olympic-sized
pool to be filled, we're told, with recycled water from the plants. And around the pool, no doubt there'll be
talk about Greenville culture — once only a picture show, already a music group, a library, and an arts and
crafts center, run by one of the companies for workers and their wives to ease the stresses caused by the crazy
boom-town phenomenon.
Now most of those early problems are past. And today in Greenville, population 30,000, we've got new
problems, but believe me, they're no longer the problems of a sleepy country town. Nor are they the problems
of a wild boom-town. Today they're the problems of any small city in the United States. Plus, we've got oil
shale to worry about, and to be thankful for.
WHAT ABOUT OIL SHALE AND BOOM-TOWNS? TO put this type of growth into perspective, consider:
Almost a certainty. ~ A'"1 annual population growth rate of 5% is said
Development of natural resources in the west has bY some sociologists to be the maximum tol-
a history of boom-towns. Recent experience in the erable for the timelV provision of housing,
boom-town phenomenon, and what it causes, comes schools, health facilities and other community
from Sweetwater and Campbell counties in Wyoming. services necessary to a population's well being.
Between 1 960 and 1970, these counties went through - Growth rates between 7% and 10% cause boom-
an industrial boom stemming from the production towns that stress services and people alike.
of petroleum and minerals. During this period, — Beyond a 10% growth rate, the labor market
the population of these counties doubled — in and local government structures often falter
Gillette, the county seat of Campbell county, the and fail to accommodate the new population,
population rose from 3600 people to 7200 people. which creates chaotic conditions.
-21 -
-------
Today, about 160,000 people live and work in the
tri-state oil shale region. A 1-million bbl/day oil
shale industry could double that population. An
initial 250,000 bbl/day industry will create 13,000
new jobs — in construction, mining, trucking, and
retorting and refining trades. This would draw about
35,000 people to the region, with the bulk of the new
population finding employment in new commercial
enterprises established to serve the communities that
develop around the industry.
Shale country population -1977
Colorado 90,600
Utah 23,800
Wyoming 48,900
163,300
What Happens in Boom-Towns?
New jobs and high wages offer a bright outlook,
but there is a painful tradeoff — the cost of living
curves sharply upward, particularly in housing — es-
pecially rental units. As new people arrive, available
housing quickly dwindles. Trailer towns and shanties
spring up on the fringes of older communities, often
with no water or sewage facilities.
Shortages of supplies develop in all areas. Food
and recreation prices rise as a result, but salaries of
local, old-time residents do not. For these people,
prosperity is a price, not a larger paycheck. Discon-
tent among long-term residents and resentment of
newcomers flare to disrupt community spirit and
cohesiveness.
As the boom accelerates, those who think it will
be temporary worry about a bust. This means that
investment in local businesses lags, creating unem-
ployment and making it difficult to entice new em-
ployees into ciafts and professions. Boom-inflated
wages draw workers out of municipal jobs to indus-
trial jobs, which also leaves an employment vacuum.
Health cases overload local hospitals, and new
types of health problems appear, most of them psy-
chological, fostered by the stresses that go along
with boom-towns leading to alcoholism, broken
homes, school dropouts, and down and outs. These
factors lead to personnel problems in the new indus-
try and in local business causing high employee turn-
over and lowered productivity.
Sweetwater County, Wyoming:
Mental health case load increased ten-
fold in 3 years while population doubled.
Ratio of population to physicians
Sweetwater County: 3300 to /
Colorado: 660 to 7
Can Boom-Towns Be Avoided?
Well, maybe.
But it will take thoughtful planning, money to
carry out the plans, and most important of all, per-
haps, it will take the wholehearted support of those
who live in shale country.
A 1-million bbl/day oil shale industry plus its
urban population will require about $4 billion over
a 1 0-year period to provide facilities and services
to adequately take care of the population influx.
The money needed to provide those facilities and
services will come mainly from taxes — local, state,
-22-
-------
and federal. This could amount to a substantial fund
that communities could draw on. For example, local
tax revenues of $33 million per year, state revenues
of about $22 million per year, and federal revenues
of about $1 35 million per year are predicted to
accrue from the Department of the Interior's Proto-
type Oil Shale Leasing Program.
Local communities get much of their revenue
from property taxes, but they also receive money
through state severance taxes levied on resource
developers, reclamation fund taxes, and mining and
corporation license taxes.
Different states have different tax money allo-
cation policies. Some money stays in state treas-
uries, and some is earmarked for specific purposes.
States can also require developers to post bond
money that can be used for reclamation and to
finance expanded services in particualr regions.
Federal tax money returns to the development
regions in the form of bonus bid money and royalty
revenues, general revenue sharing, adverse impact
grants, and front-end loans. Under the Mineral
Leasing Act of 1 920, a certain percentage of bonus
bid money from federal leases returns to states in
which the leased land is located to be used for
schools and roads. In general revenue sharing, a
percentage of federal tax revenue can be designated
for states that are experiencing adverse impacts of
development. States also can apply for adverse im-
pact grants on the basis of demonstrated costs asso-
ciated with development. And, low-cost front-end
loans are available to finance public facilities and
services needed to keep up with resource develop-
ment.
Bonus bid money is the money paid to
the federal government by the oil com-
panies for the rights to mine oil shale on
federal land. It runs into hundreds of
millions of dollars.
But, the fact that there are a number of sources
of money does not mean that money is always immed-
iately available. Research in the boom areas of
Wyoming revealed that there is a 5- to 7-year lag be-
fore tax revenues from new industrial and commer-
cial developments are returned to local commun-
ities. This puts restrictions on how quickly plans
to accommodate accelerated growth can be carried
out.
However, guidelines for planning and fund allo-
cation are to be found in the ways in which Wyoming,
and more recently Canada, in its tar sands petroleum
project, sought means to overcome the stresses
caused by resource development. Wyoming has
become a model for legislation in western states
faced with potential industrial booms to speed up
the flow of needed money to areas that will be af-
fected by a surge of population. A key force in
alleviating boom-town conditions is the Western
Governors Regional Energy Policy Office. This fed-
eration of state policy makers has adopted a number
of policies aimed at ways to forestall adverse societal
impacts of energy development. So, hopefully, by
the time an oil shale industry gets under way mecha-
nisms will be there to permit facilities and services to
keep pace with growth to sustain an acceptable qual-
ity of life.
Boomtown Experience: Wyoming
Housing value (1910) Median
Gillette $20,700
U.S. $17,000
House price 3 bed'/WOO sq ft (1970)
Gillette $45,000
Kansas City, Mo. $25,000
Mobile home housing (1965)
Gillette
within city limit: 30%
outside city limit: 70%
Wage differentials:
City police, road maintenance crews
$500 - $7001 month
Construction jobs for new industry
$1000- $1200/month
-23-
-------
GREENVILLE, COLORADO, September 1988
At first those of us who lived in Greenville were skeptical when they came finally to get the shale.
Skeptical, and just a little scared. A ir pollution was a problem, water pollution was a problem. So was solid
waste, the look of the land, the health effects of the mining. Living itself seemed to be the biggest problem.
But because of what were referred to as "control technologies" in the 1970s, most of these problems have
worked themselves out. Or have been worked out by the oil companies, the federal and state governments,
and the people of Greenville themselves.
As for the environment, it's impossible to pin down the change. Still, I'd say that we've sacrificed about
10% of what our physical life in Greenville used to be. I might add that our sacrifice was about 30% when it
all first began, a surprise to those who spent millions to make sure it wouldn 't happen that way. But fair is
fair, and though in the midst of the initial crush of new men and machines, it seemed that promises had been
made and not kept, those promises are being kept now.
The basic promise, incidentally, was this: America would swap us the "good life" for our shale. It
would exact a piece of our environment, but it would be worth the cost.
Though we don't really feel it yet, we are told that because of the significant growth of our population,
we are better represented in Washington and in Denver; more important, more and more people listen to
Greenville County politicians.
They have to. Because Greenville is oil shale. And oil shale today is a major factor in America's energy
market. There is, I'll have to admit, a certain civic pride in that, but more important, there is something that
can't be that easily defined. Call it a feeling, if you like. Today in Greenville, among those of us who stayed
for the money and the jobs, there is a feeling that after ten up and down years we finally do have some control
over what happens to us. We've been partly led, partly dragged into the mainstream of American industry and
power; and even on the individual level, the feeling is there that we are part of the action, on the edge of a
special frontier.
So what's Greenville today. Environmentally: it's not what it was. Economically: it's a lot bigger, a
lot wealthier. A changed town, one our parents would not recognize, a town that's survived and will, from
all indications, continue to survive.
-24-
-------
Research & Development
It makes sense environmentally, and economi-
cally, to develop environmental controls in tandem
with oil shale processing technology. This will
minimize environmental effects and it will prevent
costly retrofits to oil shale facilities once commer-
cial production is under way. This is the rationale
for the structure of federally sponsored investiga-
tion of oil shale problems.
EPA funds research internally and to other govern-
ment agencies through the Office of Energy, Minerals
and Industry (OEMI). This research is divided into
two basic programs: the Process and Effects Program
and the Control Technology Program.
The Process and Effects Program looks at:
• Characterizing the types of pollutants that
would be expected, measuring the magni-
tude of pollution discharged, and finding
ways to monitor and detect the source of
those pollutants.
• Tracing what happens to the pollution in the
environment. Where does it go? How does it
get there? Once it arrives at its final desti-
nation, has its form changed to become more
or less toxic?
• Defining toxic characteristics. Is human health
to be impaired? What part of the body is most
susceptible to the types of pollution? What
limits must be set to keep hazardous sub-
stances out of the environment?
• Determining the effects on the ecologies of the
area that are disrupted by the industry. What
are the atmospheric and terrestrial ecologies?
What are their needs to sustain life? And what
will the shale oil development impacts be?
Then . . .
• Combining all the consequences of the develop-
ment into one total integrated assessment for
the environment, social and welfare effects,
costs/risks/benefits, and selection of alterna-
tives.
In parallel with the Process and Effects Program,
EPA Control Technology research evaluates and
helps to develop techniques to limit the adverse im-
pacts that shale development could cause. The Con-
trol Technology Program is:
• Investigating mining techniques to reduce the
adverse effects of the extensive amount of
mining that will accompany a commercial oil
shale industry.
• Looking at ways to reclaim those areas that
have been mined or used for spent shale dis-
posal. This includes the research on revegeta-
tion of spent shale piles.
• Assessing the types of the technologies avail-
able to control of water, air, and solid wastes.
• Measuring effluents from the retorting pro-
cesses.
Over $35 million has been earmarked for oil shale
research over the next five years. From $10 to $20
million will come from the EPA/OEMI through the
federal Interagency Energy/Environment Research
and Development Program.
Not all of the work is being done by EPA scien-
tists or in federal research laboratories. Private
industry, universities, and independent research con-
tractors are all part of finding answers to oil shale
problems. These research programs cover many areas:
Oil shale and water pollution — about $3.7
million for research with over 30 different
projects.
-25 -
-------
— Developing a groundwater monitoring model
for oil shale and coal mining areas in Utah
and Wyoming. By General Electric Company,
due in 1981.
— Describing water-related impacts resulting
from in-situ processes that may prove signi-
ficant. By the University of California,
Berkeley.
— Developing a computer model to predict
hydrological effects of oil shale development.
By the U.S. Geological Survey, due in 1977.
— Collecting specific hydrologic data in the
Upper Basin of the Colorado River, identi-
fying where more data are necessary and de-
veloping procedures to assess water quality.
By Colorado State University, due in 1977.
— Determining toxicity of material released
into the water by oil shale mining and conver-
sion. By Colorado State University, due in
1978.
— Determining leaching rates of inorganic salts
from spent shale. By Texas Tech University.
— Developing water control technology for oil
shale mining. By Colder Associates,
Vancouver, Canada, due in 1977.
Oil shale and air pollution — over $2.7 million
in research funds to more than 20 separate pro-
jects.
— Collecting basic atmospheric data for the
most likely oil shale development areas. By
EPA, due in 1980.
— Establishing quality assurance of air moni-
toring programs for energy-related work. By
Rockwell International, due in 1981.
— Studying reaction kinetics of complex organ-
ic sulfur and nitrogen compounds in shale oil
to design more efficient methods to remove
sulfur and nitrogen from shale oil so that
when the oil is burned it will meet strict
air emission standards. By Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, due in 1978.
— Identifying the emissions from gasoline pro-
duced from oil shale. By Southwest Research
Institute.
— Measuring the amounts of particulates, sul-
fur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides at Rifle,
Craig, and Meeker, Colorado. By the State of
Colorado, due in 1977.
Oil shale and human health — over 25 research
projects with $3.8 million in federal funds and
an additional $660,000 by industry.
— Studying human health dangers from pilot-
plant shale operations. There will be joint
U.S. — USSR research to take advantage of
the experience in the Estonian oil shale indus-
try. By National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), due in 1978.
-i
— Finding methods of detecting cell transfor-
mations and carcinogenic effects of sub-
stances involved in in-situ oil shale conver-
sion. By the Lawrence Livermore Labora-
tory, due in 1 977.
— Determining carcinogenic properties of oil
shale products and byproducts: interre-
lated projects cover pulmonary cancer in
laboratory animals, upper respiratory prob-
lems, epithelial cell damage, changes in
lung cell cytology, etc. By EPA and Oak
Ridge National Laboratory and Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory, due between 1977
and 1981.
— Developing new testing, screening, and evalu-
ating procedures to assay the carcinogenic
and co-carcinogenic potential of oil shale
products. By Lawrence Livermore Labora-
tory and the University of California at Los
Angeles, due between 1977 and 1980.
— Studying cell damage and cell recovery from
exposure to hazardous oil shale materials.
By the Department of Energy, due between
1977 and 1978.
— Determining the chronic inhalation toxicity
of shale oil process products. A companion
project is studying toxicity from other forms
of exposure including oral, occular, and epi-
dermal. By the American Petroleum Insti-
tute.
— Comparing potential carcinogenic effects
from oil shale products and alternate energy
sources including coal. By EPA and the
Department of Energy, due in 1 978.
General environmental research for oil shale
development — 1 8 separate projects that deal
with more than one element of the environ-
ment, funded at about $5.5 million.
-26-
-------
Studying the total environmental impact of
oil shale development to compile all back-
ground data on industrial processes for oil
shale, compare their environmental accept-
ability, and identify environmental control
technologies for air, water, and solid waste
emissions. By TRW and Denver Research
Institute, due in 1978.
Assessing the technologies for western energy
resource development. This study will develop
environmental control policies and strategies
for mitigating adverse impacts of western
energy sources. By the University of
Oklahoma, due in 1978.
Developing standardized methods for meas-
uring environmental impacts. By the National
Bureau of Standards, due in 1 979.
Analyzing environmental control technolo-
gies for oil shale development, especially
those that have overlapping areas of develop-
ment. By the University of Utah, due 1977.
Simulating burning of shale oil in power
plants to determine pollutants to be expect-
ed from commercial use of oil shale. By
Laramie Energy Research Center and
Pittsburgh Energy Research Center, due
in 1977.
Assessing the impacts of airborne pollutants
from mining and spent shale disposal on
forest, range, and freshwater ecosystems. By
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, due in
1979.
Assessing impacts of synthetic liquid fuels
development. Examines resource require-
ments, net energy analysis, legal mechanisms,
financing for the industry, government incen-
tive policies and totally integrated socioeco-
nomic and environmental impacts of oil shale
development. By SRI International.
Miscellaneous research — over 40 projects cov-
ering such topics as oil shale characteristics and
properties, process development, and socio-
economic studies. Almost $20 million in fed-
eral funds are allocated for these projects.
— Performing an integrated assessment of the
socioeconomic consequences of coal and oil
shale development, including resources used
in coal and oil shale industries, in terms of
agricultural economic implications and fu-
ture resource competition. By the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, due in 1 979.
— Improving methods for converting shale oil
to liquid and gaseous fuels and reducing sul-
fur, nitrogen, and oxygen in the oil as well
as to produce pipeline quality gas from an
in-situ process. By the Department of Energy,
due in 1977.
— Demonstrating techniques and economic
effectiveness of massive hydraulic fracturing
of shale. By the Department of Energy and
Columbia Gas System Service Corporation.
— Drilling a bore hole 2350 feet deep in the
Piceance Basin for long range experiments in
deep mining, and for the extraction of a
500-ton sample of dawsonite-rich shale for
testing in an alumina removal project. By
the U.S. Bureau of Mines, due in 1 977.
— Evaluating methods of producing aviation
fuel from oil shale and coal. By the U.S. Air
Force and Exxon Research and Engineering.
- Producing 100,000 barrels of shale oil. A
series of projects to mine, commission a
retort, and an initial plant start- up, and
build storage for 80,000 barrels of shale oil.
This work will be carried out at the Anvil
Points facility and may offer one of the best
opportunities to study actual environmental
consequences of an operating oil shale plant.
By the U.S. Navy and Development Engi-
neering Inc., Grand Junction, Colorado.
-27-
-------
The Outlook
The oil shale industry of the future faces the pre-
sent-day challenges of environmental restraints,
socioeconomic problems, and uncertain financial
burdens. Nevertheless, oil shale development is
going forward — urged on by the high price of
world oil, the potential for high profits, and de-
creasing U.S. supply of conventional energy sources.
No one questions the amount of energy that could
come from shale oil, and few doubt the need for in-
creased national energy supplies. But many people
are concerned about the environmental, health, and
socioeconomic tradeoffs posed by oil shale develop-
ment.
Thus, there is a natural conflict between energy
profits and environmental purity — and standing
squarely in the middle of this conflict is government.
Government is playing a large part in oil shale
development. Less dependence on foreign oil is a
stated national goal. Oil shale serves that goal. But
it is also a national goal to maintain a clean environ-
ment and a high quality of life. Oil shale develop-
ment will cause environmental degradation and it
will change the way of life in the development areas.
But if an adequate energy supply will sustain a high
quality of life, then oil shale contributes to that on
a national scale.
The federal government owns most of the land
on which the richest shale deposits lie, and the gov-
ernment sets the environmental and regulatory stan-
dards with which the oil shale companies must com-
ply. More important, perhaps, the price of oil pro-
ducts to the American public is controlled through
complex government price structures. In fact, many
agree that it is economics, not environment, that is
keeping shale oil off the market.
So, what is the outlook for oil shale? Perhaps the
best word is uncertain. The costs of production are
uncertain, the sources for the large capital invest-
ments required are uncertain, the competition from
foreign oil and even from new domestic supply is
uncertain, and new energy sources may capture a
significant share of the market. Moreover, the
costs of protecting the environment are uncertain,
there are uncertain "front-end" costs the industry
may have to absorb to reduce social impacts in oil
shale regions, and government's future role, ubi-
quitous now, is also uncertain.
The growth of an oil shale industry may not be
as explosive as past oil booms. The approach is now
more cautious; the gains and gambles being weighed
more carefully. Nevertheless, oil shale development
is not stagnant. Research into better and more effi-
cient production processes is progressing, studies of
environmental effects are underway, and, in general,
there is guarded optimism in much of the industry.
Perhaps, after being an "almost" industry for so
long, oil shale will soon turn the corner into commer-
cialization as a safe, and environmentally sound, in-
dustry.
-28-
-------
Interagency Energy/Environment Research and Devel-
opment Program - Status Report III, EPA-600/
77-032, prepared by Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry, Office of Research and Development/En-
vironmental Protection Agency (April 1977)
A detailed status report of the Interagency
Program including history, organization, and
the basic rationale for the Program. Some
cost figures are given for environmental con-
trol technologies being developed and for
health and environmental effects studies of
energy use.
A Practical Approach to Development of A Shale
Oil Industry in the United States, prepared by Colo-
rado School of Mines Research Institute, P.O. Box
1 22, Golden, Colorado 80401. Prepared for Gary
Operating Company, Four Inverness Court East,
Englewood, Colorado 80110. (October 1 975)
A technically accurate and easily readable
report concerning all phases of the oil shale
industry. This study puts forth a well-rea-
soned proposal that the oil shale industry
should be developed in a gradual, orderly
manner instead of under a crash program.
The idea has considerable merit from envi-
ronmental and financial standpoints. The
report was summarized as a Position Paper
presented to the Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
regarding the 1976 ERDA Authorization
Bill, H.R. 3474 (5.598)
Energy from Oil Shale: Technical, Environmental,
Economic, Legislative and Policy Aspects of an Un-
developed Energy Source, The Science Policy Re-
search Division, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress. Prepared for The Subcommit-
tee on Energy of the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives
(November 1973)
A somewhat dated but still pertinent report
used by Congress for baseline data. Little
technical discussion but a good overview of
the major issues facing legislators who deal
with energy resources in general and oil shale
in particular, with a synopsis of behind-the-
scene development of the Prototype Oil
Shale Leases. An appendix contains corres-
pondence with selected companies interested
in oil shale development.
For Further Reading
Synthetic Fuels - Oil Shale, Coal, Oil Sands
A Quarterly Report by Cameron Engineers, Inc.,
1315 South Clarkson, Denver, Colorado 80210.
One of a series of highly professional surveys of
the most current information regarding synthet-
ic fuels development. The point of view is una-
bashedly pro-development and pro-industry.
Still, in lieu of tracking industry proposals, read-
ing the trade journals, and being in close contact
with oil shale developers, these reports represent
a good way to keep up-to-date on synthetic fuels.
The March 1 977 issue contains oil shale sections
on land, water, corporations, environment, tech-
nology, and government.
Synthetic Liquid Fuels Development: Assessment
of Critical Factors, ERDA 76-129/2, Stanford Re-
search Institute, 333 Ravenswood, Menlo Park,
California 94025. Prepared for the Office of Energy,
Minerals and Industry of the Office of Research and
Development/Environmental Protection Agency and
for the Division of Transportation Energy Conserva-
tion/Energy Research and Development Administra-
tion. (May 1976)
The definitive study of the environmental,
societal and institutional ramifications of
synthetic fuels development. The study was
organized as a technology impact assessment
and called on a large team of experts to con-
tribute in their specialty area. There are 23
separate chapters covering everything from the
legal mechanisms for access to oil shale and
financing the synthetic liquid fuels industry to
the impact of industrial growth on rural society.
Each chapter can stand alone for easy reading.
A Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental
Impacts from Oil Shale Developments
EPA-600/7-77-069, prepared by the Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development/Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (July 1977)
A thoroughly credible review of the potential envi-
ronmental impacts of oil shale development. This
report is a survey about what is, and is not, known
regarding oil shale. The data were assembled from
a wide variety of governmental and industrial data
sources including Detailed Development Plans by
the federal lease tract developers. An abundance of
facts, figures and detailed information is assembled
into a logical format for easy reference.
-29
------- |