Simulated effects of oil-shale development on the hydrology of Piceance Basin, Colorado

Abstract

The present report is the result of a 2-year investigation of the hydrology of Piceance Creek basin conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. This project was one of four concurrent projects contracted in 1972 by the State of Colorado to investigate the possible effects of oil-shale development on the environment of the Piceance basin. Thome Ecological Institute was contracted to make an environmental inventory and impact study; Colorado State University was contracted to study revegetation and rehabilitation of disturbed land; and the Oil Shale Regional Planning Commission was contracted to study regional development and land-use planning. The combined results of these studies should provide the base data necessary to monitor and evaluate the environmental effects of future oil-shale development. To coordinate the activities of the four concurrent oil-shale studies, the Oil Shale Coordinating Committee was established. Within this framework, a Water Resources Steering Committee was formed to monitor the conduct and progress of the hydrologic investigations.

Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of the Uinta Formation and Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Northwestern Colorado, USA

“…The Wasatch Formation, comprised of clay, shale, lenticular sandstone and conglomerate, was deposited prior to ancient Lake Uinta development in the Piceance Creek Basin. (2005) and Weeks et al (1974). (Cole and Picard, 1989).…”

“…This is evident when comparing mapped faults on the surface with mapped faults on the top of the Mahogany Zone ( Figure 3). The green lines in al., 1974;Taylor, 1987). Calcite is distributed throughout the basin, but the dominant carbonate unit is dolomite, which requires a magnesium to calcium ratio of 5-10 to precipitate in hypersaline environments (Desborough, 1978;Müller et al, 1972;Folk and Land, 1975).…”

“…to light teal with concentration categories between 2,000-4,000, 800-2,000, and < 800 mg/L. Groundwater flow paths for the upper and lower aquifer were chosen with consideration of previous literature on the hydrology of the Piceance Creek Basin (Thomas and McMahon, 2012;Kimball, 1984;Taylor, 1982;Robson and Saulnier, 1981;Weeks et al, 1974) and the distribution of specific conductivity (Figure 23). Robson and Saulnier (1981) published water level data for several wells in the basin and contoured the potentiometric surface of the upper and lower aquifers (Figure 7 -Figure 8).…”

“…The concentration distribution map for specific conductivity (Figure 23) shows Combining these observations with the flow model created by Weeks et al (1974), two groundwater flow paths were selected for the upper aquifer ( Figure 32 and Figure 33) and two for the lower aquifer ( Figure 34 and Figure 35).…”

“…. Robson and Saulnier, 1981) and northsouth cross section (right: modified from Weeks et al, 1974) Robson and Saulnier, 1981) and cross section (right: modified from Weeks et al, 1974) displaying presumed flow paths in the Piceance Creek Basin. The black lines on the map view depict major faults.…”