Review of Rare Earth Element Concentrations in Oil Shales 

of the Eocene Green River Formation

Open-File Report 2012–1016

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Review of Rare Earth Element Concentrations in Oil Shales 

of the Eocene Green River Formation

By Justin E. Birdwell

Open-File Report 2012–1016

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Birdwell, J.E., 2012, Review of rare earth element concentrations in oil shales of the Eocene Green River Formation: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1016, 20 p. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iv

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Methods......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Oil Shale Samples ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Pyrolysis Methods...................................................................................................................................................... 8

Leaching Experiments................................................................................................................................................ 8

Analytical Methods..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Data Analysis................................................................................................................................................................10

Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................................11

Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................18

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................18

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................18

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing extent of Uinta, Piceance, and Greater Green River Basins, and approximate extent 

of oil shale in the Green River Formation ...................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. East-west cross section through the Piceance Basin, the Douglas Creek arch, and the eastern part 

of the Uinta Basin showing member subdivisions of the Green River Formation, and lower Tertiary units that 

underlie and overlie that formation................................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 3. Chondrite-normalized rare earth element concentrations for Green River Formation oil shales, 

reference materials, and currently or previously mined U.S. and Chinese rare earth element ores ............................ 14

Figure 4. Rare earth element concentrations in Green River Formation (lacustrine) and marine oil shales 

from northern Tibet normalized to the North American shale composite ..................................................................... 15

Figure 5. Comparison of rare earth element concentrations in raw and processed Anvil Points Mine oil shales ..... 17

Tables

Table 1. Summary of information on Green River Formation oil shale samples ......................................................... 7

Table 2. Detection limits of ICP-AES-MS for rare earth elements using USGS Method 22, 55 Element 

ICP-AES-MS sodium peroxide sinter (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010)........................................................................... 9

Table 3. Rare earth element concentrations in Green River Formation oil shale, reference materials, and 

currently or previously mined U.S. and Chinese REE ores.......................................................................................... 13

Table 4. Rare earth element concentrations in spent and leached Anvil Points Mine oil shale samples 

reported as measured.................................................................................................................................................. 16
v

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

Length

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

Volume

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

cubic centimeter (cm3) 0.06102 cubic inch (in3) 

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32
1

Review of Rare Earth Element Concentrations in Oil 

Shales of the Eocene Green River Formation

By Justin E. Birdwell

Abstract

Concentrations of the lanthanide series or rare earth elements and yttrium were determined for 

lacustrine oil shale samples from the Eocene Green River Formation in the Piceance Basin of Colorado 

and the Uinta Basin of Utah. Unprocessed oil shale, post-pyrolysis (spent) shale, and leached shale 

samples were examined to determine if oil-shale processing to generate oil or the remediation of

retorted shale affects rare earth element concentrations. Results for unprocessed Green River oil shale 

samples were compared to data published in the literature on reference materials, such as chondritic 

meteorites, the North American shale composite, marine oil shale samples from two sites in northern 

Tibet, and mined rare earth element ores from the United States and China. The Green River oil shales 

had lower rare earth element concentrations (66.3 to 141.3 micrograms per gram, μg g-1

) than are typical 

of material in the upper crust (approximately 170 μg g-1

) and were also lower in rare earth elements

relative to the North American shale composite (approximately 165 μg g-1). Adjusting for dilution of 

rare earth elements by organic matter does not account for the total difference between the oil shales and 

other crustal rocks. Europium anomalies for Green River oil shales from the Piceance Basin were 

slightly lower than those reported for the North American shale composite and upper crust. When 

compared to ores currently mined for rare earth elements, the concentrations in Green River oil shales

are several orders of magnitude lower. Retorting Green River oil shales led to a slight enrichment of rare 

earth elements due to removal of organic matter. When concentrations in spent and leached samples 

were normalized to an original rock basis, concentrations were comparable to those of the raw shale, 

indicating that rare earth elements are conserved in processed oil shales.

Introduction

Rare earth elements (REEs) are essential materials in a wide range of products, including 

chemical catalysts, advanced electronics, glass-polishing agents, rechargeable batteries, and high-tech 

magnets (Haxel and others, 2002). To be considered viable for commercial development, REE ore 

content generally must be greater than approximately 1 weight percent (wt %), and several reports on 

the most commonly exploited REE minerals (bastnäsite and monazite) are available from the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) (Long and others, 2010; Cordier and Hedrick, 2010). During a meeting of 

the Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, held on August 24, 2011, in Grand 

Junction, Colo., a question was posed regarding the availability of REEs in oil shale of the Eocene 

Green River Formation (Tipton, 2011). As data on REE concentrations in Green River oil shales are rare 

in the peer-reviewed literature and other publicly available documents, the purpose of this report is to 

provide a cursory review of REE concentrations in Green River oil shales. 

Oil-shale deposits in the Eocene Green River Formation of the Piceance Basin of Colorado, the 

Uinta Basin of Utah and Colorado, and the Greater Green River Basin of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah 
2

(fig. 1) are among the richest in the world, with in-place resources estimated at 1.525 trillion barrels of 

oil (TBO) in the Piceance Basin (Johnson and others, 2010a), 1.32 TBO in the Uinta Basin (Johnson 

and others, 2010b), and 1.44 TBO in the Greater Green River Basin (Johnson and others, 2011). The 

Green River Formation was deposited in two large paleolakes: Lake Uinta in the Uinta and Piceance 

Basins and Lake Gosiute in the Greater Green River Basin (fig. 1; Johnson, 1981). Oil shale, despite the 

name, does not actually contain oil, but rather a type of organic matter called kerogen. The kerogen in 

Green River oil shale is an immature, solid organic material that, like other kerogens, is essentially 

insoluble in nearly all organic solvents. In order to convert kerogen into hydrocarbon oil and gas, it must 

be heated, in the absence of oxygen (pyrolysis), to temperatures between 350 and 500°C or higher in a 

process referred to as “retorting.” Traditionally, oil shale has been utilized by mining the rock and 

processing it in separate above-ground retorting facilities. However, processes in which oil-shale 

deposits are heated in place to generate oil and gas, referred to as in situ retorting, have recently become 

the preferred approaches for many developers attempting to access these deeply buried resources in the 

Green River Formation (Burnham and others, 2010; Ryan and others, 2010). Processing oil shale at the 

surface generates retort oil and gas products along with spent shale that contains mostly mineral 

components and some organic char. Because the organic richness of oil shale varies widely, the amount 

of spent shale generated by surface retorts can represent a wide range of values, although it typically 

will be between 60 and 90 wt % of the original rock.
3

Figure 1. Map showing extent of Uinta, Piceance, and Greater Green River Basins, and approximate extent of oil 

shale in the Green River Formation. Sub-basins in the Greater Green River Basin labeled in blue. Major uplifts 
4

are labeled in black, and minor structural arches are labeled in red. Extent of the Uinta and Piceance Basins 

(dark blue) is the same as the Uinta-Piceance Province boundary (U.S. Geological Survey Uinta-Piceance 

Assessment Team, 2003). Extent of the Greater Green River Basin is the same as the Southwest Wyoming 

Province boundary (U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Wyoming Province Assessment Team, 2005). For the 

extent of oil shale in the Piceance Basin, the base of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River 

Formation as mapped by Tweto (1979) was used for all but the northwest part of the basin, where the base of 

the lower member of the Green River Formation is used. For the extent of oil shale in the eastern part of the 

Uinta Basin, the base of the Parachute Creek Member as mapped by Cashion (1973) and Rowley and others 

(1985) was used. In the western part of the basin, the top of the Mahogany bed as mapped by Witkind (1995) 

was used. In the northern part of the Uinta Basin, only the area where oil shale is at a depth of 6,000 feet or 

less is shown; this area was outlined by using a structure contour map of the top of the Mahogany oil shale bed 

compiled by Johnson and Roberts (2003). For the Sand Wash, Washakie, Great Divide Basins, and 

southeastern part of the Green River Basin, the base of the Tipton Shale Member as mapped by Tweto (1979) 

and Love and Christiansen (1985) was used to show extent of oil shale. For the western part of the Green 

River Basin, the base of the Wilkins Peak Member of the Green River Formation, and for the northern part of 

the Green River Basin, the base of the Laney Shale Member of the Green River Formation as mapped by Love 

and Christiansen (1985) were used. Location of cross section A-A’ of figure 2 is shown. Locations of Unocal 

and Anvil Points mines and Park Canyon sample locations are also shown.
5

Figure 2. East-west cross section through the Piceance Basin, the Douglas Creek arch, and the eastern part of 

the Uinta Basin showing member subdivisions of the Green River Formation and lower Tertiary units that 

underlie and overlie that formation. Modified from Johnson and others (2011a).

Spent shale is a major disposal issue for above-ground oil shale processors and has led to many 

attempts to identify co-products that can be extracted from the spent shale for beneficial uses (Hanni, 

1996). For example, Piceance Basin oil shales rich in the mineral dawsonite (NaAl(OH)2CO3) are

considered to be potential aluminum ores (Smith and Milton, 1966), as sodium aluminate can be leached 

from spent dawsonitic oil shales following high-temperature processing (Dyni, 1972). Spent oil shale is 

also used in countries like Estonia as a component of cement and other building materials (Hanni, 

1996). Recently, it has been suggested that lanthanide series or REEs and yttrium could be exploited as 

co-extraction products from Chinese marine oil shales (Fu and others, 2010a, 2010b).

This report presents the results of analyses conducted on Green River Formation oil shale 

samples from the Piceance and Uinta Basins, focusing on REE concentrations in (1) the Mahogany 
6

zone, which has been targeted for development by a number of companies; and (2) the Garden Gulch 

Member of the Piceance Basin, which is also being considered for use (fig. 2). In addition to raw oil 

shales, samples processed using different pyrolysis methods and leached samples that have been 

extracted with water under different conditions have also been analyzed to assess the effects that 

retorting and leaching have on REE concentrations.

Methods

Oil Shale Samples

Samples were collected from outcrops at the Anvil Points Mine (APM) near Rifle, Colo. (fig. 1);

they are representative of lacustrine oil shales from the Green River Formation Mahogany zone (fig. 2) 

in the Piceance Basin of northwestern Colorado. A sample of Uinta Basin Mahogany zone oil shale 

(UMZ) was collected from outcrops near Park Canyon, Utah (fig. 1). A Unocal Mine (UNO; fig. 1) oil 

shale sample was provided by Phil Hansen of Shale Technologies, LLC, and a sample of the Garden 

Gulch Member oil shale from well cuttings was supplied by Alan Burnham of American Shale Oil, 

LLC. The USGS Green River shale reference material, SGR-1, was also included as a quality-control 

check for REE concentrations determined in this study. Additional samples used in this study include 

APM oil shales that have been subjected to (1) various pyrolysis methods meant to mimic retorting 

processes used to generate liquid oil and (2) leaching tests to assess the potential release of harmful 

pollutants from spent shale tailings piles or exhausted in situ retort materials. Table 1 contains 

additional information on the shale samples used in this study, including oil yields, total organic carbon 

(TOC) and organic matter (kerogen + bitumen) contents.
7

Table 1. Summary of information on Green River Formation oil shale samples. (m, meters; wt %, weight percent; APM, Anvil Points Mine)

Sample Description Lab Abbreviation Longitude Latitude Depth

(m)

TOC

(wt %)1

Fischer 

Assay Oil 

Yield

(wt %)2

Recovered

Rock

(wt %)3

Organic 

Matter 

Content

(wt %)4

Anvil Points Mine (APM) Mahogany zone oil shale (Piceance 

Basin)

APM -107.9529 39.5346 Outcrop 19.30 15.58 - 24.32

Unocal mine oil shale (Piceance Basin) UNO -108.0050 39.5667 Outcrop 14.10 12.98 - 18.80

Utah Mahogany zone oil shale (Uinta Basin) UMZ -109.1249 39.8454 Outcrop 29.70 28.22 - 43.82

Garden Gulch Member illitic oil shale (Piceance Basin) GGM -108.3833 39.8667 640 9.96 10.29 - 16.00

USGS Green River shale Mahogany zone reference material SGR-1 NA5 NA NA 24.71 20.39 - ND6

In Situ Simulator (ISS) spent APM oil shale APM ISS -107.9529 39.5346 - 11.21 - 85.0 ND

High temperature leached spent APM oil shale (ISS-288h, 

leached 1h)

APM ISS HTL-1 -107.9529 39.5346 - 9.69 - 93.4 ND

High temperature leached spent APM oil shale (ISS-288h, 

leached 24h)

APM ISS HTL24-107.9529 39.5346 - 9.75 - 88.5 ND

High temperature leached spent APM oil shale (Fischer Assay 

spent, leached 1h)

APM FA HTL-1 -107.9529 39.5346 - 5.77 - 89.3 ND

High temperature leached spent APM oil shale (Fischer Assay 

spent, leached 24h)

APM FA HTL-24 -107.9529 39.5346 - 5.71 - 88.1 ND

Room temperature leached APM oil shale APM RTL -107.9529 39.5346 - 19.30 - 99.5 ND

Room temperature leached Fischer Assay spent APM oil 

shale

APM FA RTL -107.9529 39.5346 - 5.66 - 79.7 ND

Room temperature leached ISS-288h spent APM oil shale APM ISS RTL -107.9529 39.5346 - 11.21 - 85.0 ND

Hydrous pyrolysis spent APM oil shale APM HP -107.9529 39.5346 - 7.00 - 76.8 ND

1 Total organic carbon (TOC) content determined by Weatherford International (Shenandoah, Tex.) using the Leco method.

2 Oil yields determined using modified Fischer Assay (American Society for Testing and Materials, 1980) by Shale Technologies, LLC (Rifle, Colo.).

3 Recovered rock, wt % of original rock recovered following retorting and(or) leaching.

4 Organic matter (kerogen + bitumen) content estimated by measuring the change in sample mass following muffling at 425°C for 24 hours.

5 Not available.

6 Not determined.
8

Pyrolysis Methods

Prior to pyrolysis, aliquots of APM oil shale were crushed and sieved to obtain a uniform 

material with a particle size range (-8 to +35 mesh or 0.500 to 2.380 millimeters) consistent with the 

American Society for Testing and Materials Fischer Assay procedure (American Society for Testing and 

Materials, 1980). Samples were processed using three different pyrolysis methods. The first, modified 

Fischer Assay (American Society for Testing and Materials, 1980), was used to generate spent shale 

similar to that of surface retorts. In brief, the Fischer Assay procedure involves heating a 100-gram (g)

sample to 500°C at a rate of 12°C/minute (min) (approximately 40-min heat-up time) and holding at that 

temperature for 40 min or until oil generation is complete. The second pyrolysis method uses a batch 

system meant to mimic in situ retorting using an apparatus described by Birdwell and others (2011). The 

In Situ Simulator (ISS) consists of a reactor and gas/oil vapor collection vessel connected by a stainless 

steel flexhose. A 100-g oil shale sample is heated to 360°C at a rate of approximately 3°C/min. The 

sample is held at that temperature for a predetermined time, which can be as short as 6 hours (h) or as 

long as 12 days. The shale sample discussed in this study was held at temperature for 288 h. Before the 

end of the heating period, the collection vessel is prepared by evacuating it to less than 0.6 psia and 

cooling to an internal temperature of less than or equal to 5°C using a laboratory chiller. The reactor is 

then vented to the collection vessel for 1 min. The reactor and collector are then removed from the 

heater and chiller, respectively, and left until they reach room temperature, at which point the products 

and spent shale are collected for further analysis. The third pyrolysis method applied to the APM oil 

shale was hydrous pyrolysis (HP), which is an approach used to generate pyrolysates similar to natural 

petroleum (Lewan, 1997). A typical HP experiment involves heating a 200-g source rock sample with 

approximately 400 milliliters (mL) of deionized water in a 1-liter (L) batch reactor to 360°C at a rate of 

approximately 6°C/min and holding for 72 h, although other combinations of time and temperature can 

be used depending on the goals of the particular study (Lewan, 1997; Lewan and Roy, 2010).

Leaching Experiments

All aspects of the High-Temperature Leaching (HTL) experiments were conducted in the same 

way as the HP experiment, except that the spent shale samples were only held at 360°C for 1 or 24 h 

and a lower shale/water ratio (20 g to 475 mL) was used. Room-Temperature Extraction (RTE) 

experiments were conducted using between 7 and 10 g of pulverized rock added to between 240 and 

290 mL of deionized water. The RTE samples were then placed on a rotary shaker operating in the dark 

at 150 RPM for 10 days. At the end of the extraction period, waters were decanted into appropriate 

sample containers and the solids were collected for analysis.

Analytical Methods

Lanthanide and yttrium concentrations in raw and processed oil shale samples were determined 

on ball-milled samples by SGS Laboratories (Toronto, Canada) using a method that provides 

concentrations for 55 major (excluding silicon and sodium) and trace elements with analysis by 

inductively coupled plasma–atomic emission spectrometry (ICP–AES) and inductively coupled plasma–

mass spectrometry (ICP–MS) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010). Samples (0.1 g) were decomposed using 

a sodium peroxide sinter method (450°C) and the resultant material was leached with water and 

acidified with nitric acid. Following extraction, tartaric acid was added and aliquots of each prepared 

sample were analyzed. Values reported for individual elements are based on results from either ICPAES or ICP-MS, depending on which is optimal for each species. Reporting limits for REEs are shown 

in table 2.
9

Table 2. Detection limits of ICP–AES/MS for rare earth elements using USGS Method 22, 55 Element ICP-AESMS sodium peroxide sinter (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010). (μg g-1, micrograms per gram)

Element Symbol Atomic No. Lower Limit

(μg g-1) 

Upper Limit

(μg g-1) 

Yttrium1 Y 39 0.5 10,000

Lanthanum La 57 .1 10,000

Cerium Ce 58 .1 10,000

Praesodynium Pr 59 .05 1,000

Neodymium Nd 60 .1 10,000

Samarium Sm 62 .1 1,000

Europium Eu 63 .05 1,000

Gadolinium Gd 64 .05 1,000

Terbium Tb 65 .05 1,000

Dysprosium Dy 66 .05 1,000

Holium Ho 67 .05 1,000

Erbium Er 68 .05 1,000

Thulium Tm 69 .05 1,000

Ytterbium Yb 70 .1 1,000

Lutetium Lu 71 .05 1,000

1 Though not a lanthanide series element, yttrium has many of the same properties as the rare earth elements and therefore is 

commonly included with them.
10

Data Analysis

The distributions of REEs and yttrium in geologic samples are generally assessed by first 

normalizing the measured concentrations to those present in chondritic meteorites. By plotting 

chondrite-normalized REE concentrations against atomic number, patterns can be assessed relative to 

the average REE distributions in the upper crust (Taylor and McLennan, 1981) or to standard geologic 

materials such as the North American shale composite (NASC; Gromet and others, 1984). For shale 

samples, normalization to the NASC values can also be informative (Fu and others, 2010a, 2010b).

In addition to examining the distribution patterns for REE concentrations, a set of parameters are 

available for assessing various aspects of REE geochemistry in geologic media. The light REEs

(LREE), which include the elements lanthanum through europium, are present in higher concentrations 

in most rocks. Accumulations of the heavy REEs (HREE), including gadolinium through lutetium, are 

particularly rare and therefore are commercially very valuable. The ratio of LREEs to HREEs is 

between 7 and 10 in most of the upper crust and provides a rough descriptor for the REE distribution in 

a sample (Taylor and McLennan, 1995; Fu and others, 2010a, 2010b).

Another parameter used to describe REE data is the europium anomaly, Eu/Eu*, which is based 

on an idealized, smooth REE distribution. Europium, like the other lanthanides, occurs in a trivalent 

(3+) oxidation state, but can also be reduced to (2+) under certain conditions. Europium anomalies are 

primarily due to the preferential incorporation of the divalent form into plagioclase as a substitute for 

strontium (2+) in reducing magmas (Taylor and McLennan, 1981, 1995). If the magma accumulates 

plagioclase crystals prior to solidifying, it will be enriched in europium, whereas if the plagioclase is 

separated from the magma prior to solidification, the rock formed will be depleted in europium. The 

europium anomaly is calculated as follows (Taylor and McLennan, 1995; Fu and others, 2010a, 2010b):

Eu/Eu* = [Eu]N / ([Sm]N × [Gd]N)

0.5 (1)

Where,

Eu/Eu* represents the ratio of the actual concentration of europium in the sample to the ideal

concentration, assuming an REE distribution profile matching that of a reference 

material, in this case chondrites (dimensionless),

[Eu]N is the chondrite-normalized concentration of europium (dimensionless), 

[Sm]N is the chondrite-normalized concentration of samarium (dimensionless), and

[Gd]N is the chondrite-normalized concentration of gadolinium (dimensionless).

Values of Eu/Eu* less than one are called negative anomalies, whereas values greater than one are 

considered positive. 

A similar parameter, the cerium anomaly (Ce/Ce*

), is used to assess cerium enrichment or 

depletion in a sample relative to a smooth, chondrite-normalized pattern (Taylor and McLennan, 1995; 

Fu and others, 2010a, 2010b). Like europium, cerium has an additional oxidation state and can be 

oxidized to (4+). Cerium (3+) is the more soluble form, whereas in oxic waters, cerium dioxide and 

stable cerium hydroxides precipitate (Elderfield, 1988; Taylor and McLennan, 1995). This leads to the 

enrichment of cerium in sedimentary rocks deposited in oxic environments and depletion in anoxic or 

more reducing environments (Wilde and others, 1996). The cerium anomaly is calculated as follows

(Taylor and McLennan, 1995; Fu and others, 2010a, 2010b):

Ce/Ce* = [Ce]N / ([La]N × [Pr]N)

0.5 (2)

Where,
11

Ce/Ce* represents the ratio of the actual concentration of cerium in the sample to the ideal 

concentration, assuming an REE distribution profile matching that of a reference 

material, in this case chondrites (dimensionless),

[Ce]N is the chondrite-normalized concentration of cerium (dimensionless), 

[La]N is the chondrite-normalized concentration of lanthanum (dimensionless), and

[Pr]N is the chondrite-normalized concentration of praesodynium (dimensionless).

When discussing compositional data for processed samples, it is useful to employ a 

stoichiometric conversion factor before comparing the processed samples to the original. This is 

particularly important for samples like oil shale when they are subjected to pyrolysis, as this process can 

(1) remove a significant amount of solid organic mass during the conversion of kerogen to liquid and 

gaseous products and (2) lead to possible inorganic mass loss if carbonate minerals are present and the 

pyrolysis conditions are such that the carbonates decompose. In mass balance pyrolysis experiments, the 

total mass of solid residue that remains is determined, which can be divided by the initial mass of solid 

material to determine the fraction of recovered rock. The concentration of any species measured in the 

residue can be converted to an original rock basis by multiplying concentration by the fraction of 

recovered rock. This allows for a more meaningful comparison of concentration changes in samples 

before and after processing.

Results and Discussion

Unprocessed REE concentrations in oil shale samples along with values for REEs in reference 

materials are listed in table 3. Good agreement between SGR-1 REE concentrations determined in this 

study and those reported on the certificate of analysis for the material (Wilson, 2001) was taken as 

validation of our analytical results. Chondrite-normalized REE concentration-distribution patterns for 

Green River oil shales were generally similar to each other and to patterns for the upper crust and NASC 

(fig. 3). However, all Green River samples had lower REE concentrations relative to the reference 

materials. Among the Green River samples, the oil shale with the highest organic richness and oil yield 

(UMZ) had the lowest concentration of total REEs (66.3 μg g-1 (micrograms per gram)), whereas the 

sample with the lowest TOC content and Fischer Assay oil yield had the highest REE content (GGM, 

141.3 μg g-1). Samples from the Piceance Basin Mahogany zone (APM, UNO, and SGR-1) all had 

similar REE concentrations that were between those of the GGM and UMZ samples (approximately 95 

μg g-1), consistent with their intermediate TOC values and oil yields. These results indicate that the 

organic matter present in oil shale has the effect of diluting REE concentrations in the bulk rock. Sample 

concentrations were recalculated on an organic-free basis using the organic matter content data reported 

in table 1. These recalculated REE concentrations were still approximately 25 percent lower than those 

of the upper crust or NASC for all samples with the exception of the GGM oil shale, which has a lower 

carbonate content than the Mahogany zone samples. This implies that carbonates may also be diluting 

the REE concentrations in Green River oil shales relative to other crustal rocks. None of the samples 

showed similarities to REE ores from the United States (Mountain Pass carbonitite) or China (laperitic 

clay ore) in terms of REE concentrations or chondrite-normalized distributions.

The Green River oil shales had LREE/HREE ratios that were all around 11, which is slightly 

higher than ratios for rocks from the upper crust or other shales (table 3). It is unclear if this difference 

is related to enrichment of LREEs in oil shale or depletion of HREEs. The europium anomaly values for 

the Green River Formation samples collected in the Piceance Basin were slightly more negative than 

anomalies for the NASC or the UMZ sample, which could be due to different sources of detrital and 

other sedimentary material deposited in the Piceance and Uinta Basins during oil shale formation

(Taylor and McLennan, 1985). The cerium anomaly values in the UMZ were slightly less negative 
12

(0.95) than those for the NASC and Piceance Basin samples (0.91-0.92, excluding the UNO sample that

may have been affected by weathering), possibly indicating that conditions in the Uinta Basin during 

formation of the Mahogany zone oil shales were slightly more oxidizing than in the Piceance Basin 

(Elderfield, 1988; Taylor and McLennan, 1995; Wilde and others, 1996).
13

Table 3. Rare earth element (REE) concentrations in Green River Formation oil shale, reference materials, and currently or previously mined U.S. 

and Chinese REE ores. (μg g-1 ,micrograms per gram)

REE1 Atomic No. APM2 UNO2 UMZ2 GGM2 SGR-12 Chondrite3 Upper Crust4 NASC5 MPC6 CLO7 SGR-1 Ref.8

Y 39 9.0 9.8 6.7 14.2 9.3 2.1 22 NR 146 180 13

La 57 20.1 18.5 13.3 29.8 20.3 .354 30 31.1 38000 20 20

Ce 58 37.7 36.1 25.8 54.2 37.5 .934 64 67.03 55700 40 36

Pr 59 4.34 4.14 2.90 6.21 4.29 .129 7.1 9.1 4630 8 NR9

Nd 60 15.1 15.2 10.6 21.6 15.2 .676 26 30.4 12540 45 16

Sm 62 2.8 2.8 1.8 4.0 2.5 .213 4.5 5.98 1000 20 2.7

Eu 63 .52 .49 .37 .72 .44 .080 .88 1.25 120 2 .56

Gd 64 2.25 2.26 1.58 3.16 2.09 .283 3.8 5.5 240 30 2

Tb 65 .31 .30 .22 .44 .28 .053 .64 .85 18 11 NR

Dy 66 1.68 1.75 1.24 2.65 1.76 .341 3.5 5.54 40 50 1.9

Ho 67 .36 .36 .25 .58 .33 .082 .8 1.27 4.5 9 .4

Er 68 .98 1.17 .72 1.55 .94 .225 2.3 3.275 7 30 1.1

Tm 69 .13 .14 .10 .26 .17 .034 .33 .54 1 5 .17

Yb 70 1.1 1.0 .6 1.7 1.1 .234 2.2 3.11 4 30 .94

Lu 71 .1 .2 .1 .3 .2 .036 .32 .456 .7 5 NR

ΣREE10 96.5 94.2 66.3 141.3 96.4 5.8 168.4 165.4 112,451 485.0 94.8

LREE/

HREE11 11.6 10.8 11.4 11.0 11.7 1.9 9.5 7.1 355.3 .8 11.6

δCe12 .92 .94 .95 .91 .92 ND14 1.00 .91 .96 .72 ND

δEu13 .64 .60 .67 .62 .59 ND .65 .67 .75 .25 .74

1 All concentrations reported in μg g-1.

2 See table 1 for explanation of lab abbreviations.

3 Chondrite concentrations are the average of values reported by Wakita and others (1971) and Taylor and McLennan (1981).

4 Upper crust values reported by Taylor and McLennan (1981).

5 North American shale composite, reported by Gromet and others (1984).

6 Mountain Pass carbonatite, California, reported by Haxel and others (2002).

7 Chinese laterite ore, reported by Haxel and others (2002).

8 From the USGS Certificate of Analysis for SGR-1, reported by Wilson (2001).

9 NR, Not reported.

10 Sum of all REEs + Y in μg g-1.

11 Ratio of the sum of the concentrations of the light REEs (La through Eu) divided by the sum of the heavy REEs (Gd through Lu).

12 Cerium concentration anomaly (calculated using equation 2).

13 Europium concentration anomaly (calculated using equation 1).

14 ND, Not determined.
14

Figure 3. Chondrite-normalized rare earth element concentrations for Green River Formation oil shales, reference 

materials, and currently or previously mined U.S. and Chinese rare earth element ores (see tables 1 and 3 for 

explanations of abbreviations).

Distribution patterns for NASC-normalized REE concentrations in Green River oil shales (fig. 4) 

again show that the oil shale samples have lower REE content than typical shales, as all values plotted 

well below unity. Concentration data representative of two marine oil shale deposits in northern Tibet 

are plotted with the Green River shales (fig. 4). Similar concentrations of the LREEs are observed 

between the Piceance Basin Mahogany zone oil shales and the Tibetan samples; however, the pattern 

beyond samarium shows the Changshe Mountain Area (CMA) and Bilong Co. Area (BCA) shales to 

have somewhat higher concentrations of the HREEs, although they are lower than those in the GGM 

shale.
15

Figure 4. Rare earth element concentrations in Green River Formation (lacustrine) and marine oil shales from 

northern Tibet normalized to the North American shale composite (CMA, Changshe Mountain Area; Fu and 

others, 2010a; BCA, Bilong Co. Area; Fu and others, 2010b). CMA and BCA values shown are based on 

average concentrations for the data reported in Fu and others, 2010a and 2010b (see table 1 for explanation of 

abbreviations).

The REE concentrations measured on post-pyrolysis and leached APM shale samples are given 

in table 4, and recovered rock fractions are given in table 1. Comparison of the uncorrected 

concentrations in the spent and leached samples to that of the original APM shale showed that REE 

concentrations are approximately 25 percent higher on average, which is clearly shown on a parity plot 

(fig. 5a). However, when the spent and leached sample concentrations were adjusted to an original rock 

basis, the differences were significantly smaller and all data essentially fall on a 1:1 line (fig. 5b). This 

indicates that REEs are retained in the refractory fraction of spent oil shale and are not readily 

susceptible to leaching.
16

Table 4. Rare earth element (REE) concentrations in spent and leached Anvil Points Mine oil shale samples reported as measured1.

REE1 Atomic 

No. APM2 APMFA

APM

ISS

APM

HP

APM

RTL

APM

FA RTL

APM

ISS RTL

APM

ISS HTL-1

APM

ISS HTL-24

APM

FA HTL-1

APM

FA HTL-24

Y 39 9.3 11.7 10.8 11.4 9.1 10.9 10.8 11.5 11.7 11.8 11.6

La 57 20.8 25.6 24.6 26 20.2 24.3 25 24.7 26.1 26.6 25.8

Ce 58 39.1 47.1 45.9 49.5 38.1 47.2 46.7 46.4 49.9 50.4 49.2

Pr 59 4.50 5.28 5.24 5.38 4.39 5.24 5.31 5.24 5.56 5.59 5.54

Nd 60 15.6 18.6 18.3 19.6 15.7 19 18.4 18.2 20.8 19.5 20.1

Sm 62 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.3 2.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.7

Eu 63 .54 .63 .62 .67 .52 .64 .59 .69 .76 .62 .59

Gd 64 2.33 2.77 2.56 2.77 2.07 2.51 2.71 2.46 2.87 2.93 2.66

Tb 65 .32 .38 .35 .39 .35 .37 .36 .37 .4 .41 .35

Dy 66 1.74 2.2 2.26 2.12 1.91 2.35 2.26 2.22 2.31 2.37 2.3

Ho 67 .37 .44 .43 .45 .34 .43 .42 .44 .46 .41 .46

Er 68 1.02 1.19 1.1 1.21 1.03 1.32 1.08 1.19 1.39 1.34 1.2

Tm 69 .13 .18 .17 .18 .13 .19 .17 .18 .19 .18 .21

Yb 70 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.4 .9 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1

Lu 71 .1 .18 .17 .17 .11 .18 .17 .17 .19 .18 .17

1 All concentrations reported in μg g-1 as measured in the recovered rock. To adjust from the measured concentration (μg-REE g-1-recovered rock) to an original 

rock basis, multiply the concentration determined for the sample by the fraction of recovered rock following pyrolysis or leaching (see table 1 for values).

2 See table 1 for explanation of lab abbreviations.
17

Figure 5. Comparison of rare earth element concentrations in raw and processed Anvil Points Mine oil shales; 

A, concentrations in processed samples are on an as-measured or recovered rock basis, and B, concentrations 

in processed samples on an original-rock basis (see table 1 for explanation of abbreviations), (μg g-1, 

microgram per gram).
18

Conclusions

Lanthanide plus yttrium concentrations were determined for a limited set of Green River 

Formation oil shale samples collected primarily from surface mineable deposits in Colorado and Utah. 

The results show that Green River oil shales contain lower REE concentrations than is typical of the 

upper crust in general and other North American shales in particular. These lower concentrations are 

likely due to dilution by organic matter and carbonates, with REEs being concentrated in the 

aluminosilicate minerals. REE concentrations measured in shale samples following pyrolysis and(or)

leaching showed that these processes do not have a significant effect on REE content. The lacustrine 

Green River oil shales are similar to marine oil shales collected from deposits in northern Tibet in terms 

of REE concentrations. Green River Formation oil shales do not resemble REE ores mined in the United 

States or China in terms of total REE content or their relative distributions.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the following USGS personnel in Denver, Colo., for their help in the 

preparation of this report: Mike Lewan for collecting the Anvil Points Mine samples (with assistance 

from Ron Hill, now with Noble Energy) and for his help with many of the pyrolysis and leaching 

experiments, Ron Johnson for providing figures 1 and 2, and Jamie Azain for her help processing and 

sending the samples to SGS Labs for analysis. Thanks are also due Alan Burnham (American Shale Oil, 

LLC, Rifle, Colo.) for providing the Garden Gulch Member oil shale, Michael Vanden Berg (Utah 

Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah) for information on the Uinta Mahogany zone oil shale sample,

and Phil Hansen (Shale Technologies, LLC, Rifle, Colo.) for providing the Unocal Mine oil shale 

sample.

References Cited

American Society for Testing and Materials, 1980, ASTM D3904-90 test method for oil from oil shale 

(resource evaluation by the Fischer Assay Procedure): West Conshohocken, Penn., American Society 

for Testing and Materials , Annual Book of ASTM Standards [withdrawn in1996].

Birdwell, J.E., Ruble, T.E., Laughrey, C.D., Roper, D.R., and Walker, Greg, 2011, Differentiating 

organic carbon residues in spent oil shale, in Oil Shale Symposium, 30, Golden, Colo., Colorado 

School of Mines, 18–22 October, 2011, Proceedings: Golden, Colo., Colorado School of Mines, 22 p. 

Burnham, A.K., Day, R.L., Hardy, M.P., and Wallman, P.H., 2010, AMSO’s novel approach to in-situ 

oil shale recovery, in Ogunsola, O.I., Hartstein, A.M., and Ogunsola, O., eds., Oil shale—A solution 

to the liquid fuels dilemma: Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, p. 149–160.

Cashion, W.B., 1973, Geologic and structure map of the Grand Junction Quadrangle, Colorado and 

Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-736, scale 1:250,000.

Cordier, D.J., and Henrick, J.B., 2008, Rare earths, in Minerals yearbook: U.S. Geological Survey, 

p. 60.1–60.15.

Dyni, J.R., 1972, Process for extracting aluminum compounds from dawsonite and dawsonitic oil shale: 

U.S. Patent No. 3,642,433 (assigned to the Secretary of the Interior).

Elderfield, H., 1988, The oceanic chemistry of the rare-earth elements: Philosophical Transactions of 

the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, v. 325, p. 105–126.

Fu, Xiugen, Wang, Jian, Zeng, Yuhong, Tan, Fuwen, and Feng, Xinglei, 2010a, REE geochemistry of 

marine oil shale from the Changshe Mountain area, northern Tibet, China: International Journal of 

Coal Geology, v. 81, p. 191–199.
19

Fu, Xiugen, Wang, Jian, Zeng, Yuhong, Tan, Fuwen, Chen, Wenbin, and Feng, Xinglei, 2010b, 

Geochemistry of rare earth elements in marine oil shale—A case study from the Bilong Co Area, 

northern Tibet, China: Oil Shale, v. 27, p. 194–208.

Gromet, L.P., Dymek, R.F., Haskin, L.A., and Korotev, R.L., 1984, The “North American shale 

composite”—Its compilation, major and trace element characteristics: Geochimica et Cosmochimica 

Acta, v. 48, p. 2469–2482.

Hanni, Rein, 1996, Energy and valuable material by-product from firing Estonian oil shale: Waste 

Management, v. 16, p. 97–99

Haxel, G.B., Hedrick, J.B., and Orris, G.J., 2002, Rare earth elements—Critical resources for high 

technology: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 087–02, 4 p.

Johnson, R.C., 1981, Stratigraphic evidence for a deep Eocene Lake Uinta, Piceance Creek Basin,

Colorado: Geology, v. 9, p. 55–62.

Johnson, R.C., and Roberts, S.B., 2003, The Mesaverde Total Petroleum System, Uinta-Piceance 

Province, Utah and Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-69-B, Chapter 7, 

68 p.

Johnson, R.C., Mercier, T.J., Brownfield, M.E., Pantea, M.P., and Self, J.G., 2010a, An assessment of 

in-place oil shale resources of the Green River Formation, Piceance Basin, Colorado—Oil shale and 

nahcolite resources of the Piceance Basin, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 

DDS-69-Y, Chapter 1, 187 p.

Johnson, R.C., Mercier, T.J., Brownfield, M.E., and Self, J.G., 2010b, Assessment of in-place oil shale 

resources of the Eocene Green River Formation, Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado—Oil shale 

resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS69-BB, Chapter 1, 153 p.

Johnson, R.C., Mercier, T.J., Ryder, R.T., Brownfield, M.E., and Self, J.G., 2011, Assessment of inplace oil shale resources in the Green River Formation, Greater Green River Basin, Wyoming, 

Colorado, and Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-69-DD, Chapter 1, 68 p.

Lewan, M.D., 1997, Experiments on the role of water in petroleum formation: Geochimica et 

Cosmochimica Acta, v. 61, p. 3691–3723.

Lewan, M.D., and Roy, S., 2010, Role of water in hydrocarbon generation from Type-I kerogen in 

Mahogany oil shale of the Green River Formation: Organic Geochemistry, v. 42, p. 31–41.

Long, K.R., Van Gosen, B.S., Foley, N.K., and Cordier, D., 2010, The principal rare earth elements 

deposits of the United States—A summary of domestic deposits and a global perspective: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5220. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5220/.)

Love, J.D., and Christiansen, A.C., 1985, Geologic map of Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey and the 

Geological Survey of Wyoming, scale 1:500,000.

Rowley, P.D., Hansen, W.R., Tweto, Ogden, and Carrara, P.E., 1985, Geologic map of the Vernal 

1° × 2° quadrangle Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous 

Investigations Series Map I-1526, scale 1:250,000.

Ryan, R.C., Fowler, T.D., Beer, G.L., and Nair, V., 2010, Shell’s in situ conversion process—From 

laboratory to field pilots, in Ogunsola O.I., Hartstein A.M., Ogunsola O., eds., Oil shale—A solution 

to the liquid fuel dilemma: Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society: p. 161–183.

Smith, J.W., and Milton, Charles, 1966, Dawsonite in the Green River Formation of Colorado: 

Economic Geology, v. 61, p. 1029–1042.
20

Taylor, S.R., and McLennan, S.M., 1981, The composition and evolution of the continental crust: Rare 

earth element evidence from sedimentary rocks: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of 

London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, v. 301, p. 381–399.

Taylor, S.R., and McLennan, S.M., 1995, The geochemical evolution of the continental crust: Reviews 

of Geophysics, v. 33, p. 241–265.

Tipton, S.R., 2011, American jobs and energy security—Domestic oil shale the status of research, 

regulation and roadblocks, in Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Oversight Field 

Hearing, held August 24, 2011 in Grand Junction, Colo.: Denver, Colo., Colorado Natural Resources 

Committee, accessed October 24, 2011, at 

http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=255532. [Scott Tipton is a 

member of the Colorado Delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives] 

Tweto, Ogden, 1979, Geologic map of Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey and the Colorado Geological 

Survey, scale 1:500,000.

U.S. Geological Survey Uinta-Piceance Assessment Team, 2003, The Uinta-Piceance Province, 

introduction to a geologic assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources: U.S. Geological Survey 

Digital Data Series DDS-69-B, 27 p.

U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Wyoming Province Assessment Team, 2005, The Southwestern 

Wyoming Province—Introduction to a geologic assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources: 

U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS-69-D, 36 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010, References, USGS in-house methods, Method 22—55 element ICPAES-MS sodium peroxide sinter: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed August 30, 2011, at 

http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/projects/analytical_chem/references.html#m22.

Wakita, H., Rey, P., and Schmitt, R.A., 1971, Abundances of the 14 rare earth elements and 12 other 

elements in Apollo 12 samples, in Levinson, A.A., ed., Lunar Science Conference, 2, January 1971, 

Houston, Tex., Proceedings: Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press p. 1319-1329.

Wilde, Pat, Quinby-Hunt, M.S., and Erdtmann, B.D., 1996, The whole-rock cerium anomaly—A

potential indicator of eustatic sea-level changes in shales of the anoxic facies: Sedimentary Geology, 

v. 101, p. 43–53.

Wilson, S.A., 2001, U.S. Geological Survey Certificate of Analysis—Green River Shale, SGR-1: U.S. 

Geologic Survey. (Also available at http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov/geo_chem_stand/shale.html.)

Witkind, I.J., 1995, Geologic map of the Price 1° x 2° quadrangle, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey 

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2462, scale 1:250,000.