[Antimatter]

go5star,

What do you think of Shell's project, compared with your process, which uses coal gasification for heat to cook the shale and power on the side if I recall correctly. What sort of energy return are you expecting, keeping in mind that the shale has to be mined if not done in-situ?

[go5star]

Debating with optomist is a unqiue experience. It gets shriller and then he disappears for a while soon to return with more company press releases. You have to wonder how and where he sourced them.

No press releases just the facts and I don't remember debating anyone just yet. However on that note.

Our process uses coal gasification for a heat source. Coal gasification creates a syngas at 2500 degrees fahrenheit. The syngas is typically somewhere between 25-40% hydrogen. The syngas needs to be cooled before it can be burned in a gas turbine and some of that is accomplished through steam power cogeneration. However before it is sent off for steam cogen we borrow that syngas and run it through a rotary kiln where the heat from the syngas extracts the kerogen from the shale. The resulting gas stream is then sent through a distallation tower where the petroleum cuts are taken (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, fuel oil etc.) and the hydrogen is passed back on to the gas turbine units for electricity. The CO2 can be captured and stored for use in sequestration in oil wells in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado thus eliminating the global warming issue and increasing the output of the oil wells. The syngas doesn't necessarily have to be used for electrical generation. It can be used to create other chemicals (Eastman Kodak, Dakota Gasification), artificial natural gas or in a Fischer-Tropsch conversion to liquid fuel.

Why is this different than the older technologies?

1. It gives a clean shale extraction. The resulting shale has enough kerogen extracted and was exposed to burning shale affluent that it can be used in cement as an extender or base ingredient. This eliminates the disposal problem as well as helping with aggregate and cement shortages.

2. Because the shale isn't burned and the CO2 is captured in the gasification process it is much healthier for the air and environment.

3. Our shale never comes in contact with water and therefore doesn't pollute the water. The only water we use is for steam for the cogeneration of power.

4. We don't burn off our light ends by burning shale for our heat source but instead have a very light resulting product. If it is reconstituted instead of being sent through a distillation tower it is 26 api at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

5. We have many potential sources of revenue.
a. Sulfur from the coal gasification process that is extracted.
b. Electricity
c. Oil and Oil products
d. Aggregate for sale to cement and construction industries
e. CO2 sales for the increase of oil production
f. Instead of electricity additional liquid fuels from the syngas via Fisher-Tropsch.

[go5star]

go5star,

What do you think of Shell's project, compared with your process, which uses coal gasification for heat to cook the shale and power on the side if I recall correctly. What sort of energy return are you expecting, keeping in mind that the shale has to be mined if not done in-situ?

We look at the Shell project as cooking your dinner in the freezer. It doesn't make a lot of sense to us so far. Shell has inferred that they have problems finding a heating element that will last and is economically resuable. Also putting a freeze wall around an area doesn't prevent oil seeping down on the bottom side into ground water.

As for Eroei, we feel we have a very positive equation. Exactly what the equation is, its difficult to tell. If it is just the production of oil the equation isn't that great. However when you consider the energy necessary to create all of the other products we are creating such as electricity, hydrogen, CO2 for sequestration, sulfur, and cement/road aggregrate it seems to be a very eroei positive process. Keep in mind that Eroei is an equation that does not adjust for dollar equivalencies. In other words one ton of Uintah basin coal contains 23400000 btus. The one ton of coal costs $31.00. From this one for every one ton of Uintah basin coal we are using we are creating 37800000 btus as well as other profitable byproducts as well. Our figures indicate that for one ton of $31.00 coal and 5.4 tons of $2.50 shale we produce $651.00 of saleable product.

[NuclearJoe]

Shell's ingenious approach to oil shale is pretty slick

On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.

While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.

Wow.

This article gives the casual reader the idea that there is 1000 Giga barrels of oil to be had from Shell's new shale technology. But if the stated recovery data is accurate and one does one's own arithmetic based on 1500 bbls recovered from a plot of land 20 by 35 feet (i.e 700 square feet) one gets 93,000 bbls per acre , 60 million barrels per square mile and 60 Giga barrels per thousand square miles. Now that's a goodly amount of oil (especially for Shell Oil' share holders) but it falls a bit short of the Wow and promise (1000 Giga barrels) implied by the article. There is an apparent factor of 16 discrepancy here. If my own arithmetic is wrong someone please correct me?

the factor of 16 discrepancy is easily accounted for; the Green River formation (where 89% of US shale is located) is 42,700 square kilometers, which translates to about 16,000 square miles!

[sicophiliac]

So Go5star, its not really a new way of extracting the oil shale itself, but rather a creative and environmentally friendly way of using surplus energy that normally wouldnt be utalized during coal gasification to extract the oil shale correct? Isnt that pretty similiar to what Shell is doing ? I dont quite understand all together how and why they freeze the shale for extract other then its got to do with ground water contamination or something. Perhaps you could explain that a bit too.
So far I like what I am hearing... this is good for America.. very good for America economically anyways.

[go5star]

So Go5star, its not really a new way of extracting the oil shale itself, but rather a creative and environmentally friendly way of using surplus energy that normally wouldnt be utalized during coal gasification to extract the oil shale correct? Isnt that pretty similiar to what Shell is doing ? I dont quite understand all together how and why they freeze the shale for extract other then its got to do with ground water contamination or something. Perhaps you could explain that a bit too.
So far I like what I am hearing... this is good for America.. very good for America economically anyways.

The pieces of the puzzle we use have been around for quite some time. It is the unique combination of our process that is different. The difference between our process and Shell's is that our process is ex-situ or above ground and theirs is in-situ or in the ground. The reason they use ice walls surrounding their site is so that the liquefied oil doesn't leak into ground water. But like I said its like creating a box with no bottom because they can't freeze the bottom 1000 feet down. Thus a continued possibility of ground water leakage with the Shell process. The Shell process is also not very intuitive. First they use a lot of energy to drill the holes 1000 feet deep. They then take (probably dirty) coal generated electricity and have to use that electricity to create heat over a long period of time all the while freezing the entire area around their field of processing. Then they have pack up all of their heaters and all of the cooling equipment and set it up all over again. The manpower and energy needed to accomplish all these tasks seems to us to be substantial. Anyway, Shell is pretty tight lipped about 98% of the details of their process so we are all pretty much guessing or surmising from their patents what they are up to.

Our process is very good for the US and its economy. It is also good for the world economy. This will go a long way to creating wealth for the nation, correcting trade imbalances/deficits and will strengthen the dollar. However, make no mistake, it will take time to get enough plants built to make a difference. It also continues our dependence on gasoline, diesel etc. that help cause global warming. We are very strong supporters of alternate forms of energy. We just feel that this will give us another 50-100+ years to safely transition to a new energy based economy without seeing the fabric of civilization destroyed by wars over resources.

[sicophiliac]

Being an ex-situ process wouldnt that limit the maximum amount of potentially extractable oil to only whats with in a few meters of ground level? How would you be able to heat the shale thousands of feet down with out using huge huge amounts of energy?

[go5star]

Being an ex-situ process wouldnt that limit the maximum amount of potentially extractable oil to only whats with in a few meters of ground level? How would you be able to heat the shale thousands of feet down with out using huge huge amounts of energy?

We mine our shale, crush it and send it through a rotary kiln with the inert syngas. Shell has to heat it in the ground up to a 1000 feet down.

[sicophiliac]

Being an ex-situ process wouldnt that limit the maximum amount of potentially extractable oil to only whats with in a few meters of ground level? How would you be able to heat the shale thousands of feet down with out using huge huge amounts of energy?

We mine our shale, crush it and send it through a rotary kiln with the inert syngas. Shell has to heat it in the ground up to a 1000 feet down.

Ah I see, isnt that pretty much what they tried in the early 80s but using natural gas instead as a power source? I take it you know your stuff and from what you say your method seems to be alot more viable then that was. By the way how many billions of barrels of oil do you believe can be recovered through this method in total ? I have heard figures from like 500 billion barrels to something like 1.9 trillion barrels of oil can be had from the oil shale in that area.

[wildsparrow]

So Go5star, its not really a new way of extracting the oil shale itself, but rather a creative and environmentally friendly way of using surplus energy that normally wouldnt be utalized during coal gasification to extract the oil shale correct? Isnt that pretty similiar to what Shell is doing ? I dont quite understand all together how and why they freeze the shale for extract other then its got to do with ground water contamination or something. Perhaps you could explain that a bit too.
So far I like what I am hearing... this is good for America.. very good for America economically anyways.

I guess you are not of the school that believe that in order for humanity to survive, the market economy / capitalism / consumerism ... must die. If getting oil from shale means flogging the horse for a bit longer before it dies on its feet, then, no thankyou. Don't mine the bloody stuff if it means keeping everyone in an oil-induced stupor for a bit longer. It's only useful if it facilitates a massive change of society IMO.

Chances of that happening? Anyone?

[go5star]

Being an ex-situ process wouldnt that limit the maximum amount of potentially extractable oil to only whats with in a few meters of ground level? How would you be able to heat the shale thousands of feet down with out using huge huge amounts of energy?

We mine our shale, crush it and send it through a rotary kiln with the inert syngas. Shell has to heat it in the ground up to a 1000 feet down.

Ah I see, isnt that pretty much what they tried in the early 80s but using natural gas instead as a power source? I take it you know your stuff and from what you say your method seems to be alot more viable then that was. By the way how many billions of barrels of oil do you believe can be recovered through this method in total ? I have heard figures from like 500 billion barrels to something like 1.9 trillion barrels of oil can be had from the oil shale in that area.

Actually its not natural gas, its syngas from the coal gasification process that we use. The old methods used shale for the heat source. As far as recoverable reserves, we are sticking with the 1 trillion barrel figure to be conservative. We have actually talked to people within the DOE who have suggested as much as 4 trillion barrels lies within the Utah/Wyoming/Colorado fields. Our process only scales up to 60,000 barrels a day maximum per plant assuming we burn our syngas in the last stage as electricity. If we apply a Fisher-Tropsch process to convert the syngas instead of burning it for electricity we can produce another 30,000 barrels of liquid product. That is still a drop in the bucket to our daily consumption. As you can see many plants would be needed to really put a dent in the nations needs.

[EnergySpin]

Being an ex-situ process wouldnt that limit the maximum amount of potentially extractable oil to only whats with in a few meters of ground level? How would you be able to heat the shale thousands of feet down with out using huge huge amounts of energy?

We mine our shale, crush it and send it through a rotary kiln with the inert syngas. Shell has to heat it in the ground up to a 1000 feet down.

Ah I see, isnt that pretty much what they tried in the early 80s but using natural gas instead as a power source? I take it you know your stuff and from what you say your method seems to be alot more viable then that was. By the way how many billions of barrels of oil do you believe can be recovered through this method in total ? I have heard figures from like 500 billion barrels to something like 1.9 trillion barrels of oil can be had from the oil shale in that area.

Actually its not natural gas, its syngas from the coal gasification process that we use. The old methods used shale for the heat source. As far as recoverable reserves, we are sticking with the 1 trillion barrel figure to be conservative. We have actually talked to people within the DOE who have suggested as much as 4 trillion barrels lies within the Utah/Wyoming/Colorado fields. Our process only scales up to 60,000 barrels a day maximum per plant assuming we burn our syngas in the last stage as electricity. If we apply a Fisher-Tropsch process to convert the syngas instead of burning it for electricity we can produce another 30,000 barrels of liquid product. That is still a drop in the bucket to our daily consumption. As you can see many plants would be needed to really put a dent in the nations needs.

But what are guys going to do with the CO2 released? Do you have any estimates of the carbon budget of this whole deal? My understanding is that NG burns cleaner than coal (including gasified coal) so you will end up pumping more CO2 up there OR that your requirements for carbon sequestration will be higher.

[go5star]

So Go5star, its not really a new way of extracting the oil shale itself, but rather a creative and environmentally friendly way of using surplus energy that normally wouldnt be utalized during coal gasification to extract the oil shale correct? Isnt that pretty similiar to what Shell is doing ? I dont quite understand all together how and why they freeze the shale for extract other then its got to do with ground water contamination or something. Perhaps you could explain that a bit too.
So far I like what I am hearing... this is good for America.. very good for America economically anyways.

I guess you are not of the school that believe that in order for humanity to survive, the market economy / capitalism / consumerism ... must die. If getting oil from shale means flogging the horse for a bit longer before it dies on its feet, then, no thankyou. Don't mine the bloody stuff if it means keeping everyone in an oil-induced stupor for a bit longer. It's only useful if it facilitates a massive change of society IMO.

Chances of that happening? Anyone?

There is enough coal and oil shale to supply our nations energy needs for at least 100 and maybe as much as 200 years into the future. That is equivalent to all of the progress, discoveries and inventions from 1805 to 2005. Not too shabby and I'm guessing somewhere in that time frame, someone will get fusion going, super efficient solar cells and other unique energy supplies. I take it from the "economy/capitalism/consumerism...must die" comment that you are a Pol Pot anarchist that believes the human race should all revert back to an agrarian society?

[go5star]

Being an ex-situ process wouldnt that limit the maximum amount of potentially extractable oil to only whats with in a few meters of ground level? How would you be able to heat the shale thousands of feet down with out using huge huge amounts of energy?

We mine our shale, crush it and send it through a rotary kiln with the inert syngas. Shell has to heat it in the ground up to a 1000 feet down.

Ah I see, isnt that pretty much what they tried in the early 80s but using natural gas instead as a power source? I take it you know your stuff and from what you say your method seems to be alot more viable then that was. By the way how many billions of barrels of oil do you believe can be recovered through this method in total ? I have heard figures from like 500 billion barrels to something like 1.9 trillion barrels of oil can be had from the oil shale in that area.

Actually its not natural gas, its syngas from the coal gasification process that we use. The old methods used shale for the heat source. As far as recoverable reserves, we are sticking with the 1 trillion barrel figure to be conservative. We have actually talked to people within the DOE who have suggested as much as 4 trillion barrels lies within the Utah/Wyoming/Colorado fields. Our process only scales up to 60,000 barrels a day maximum per plant assuming we burn our syngas in the last stage as electricity. If we apply a Fisher-Tropsch process to convert the syngas instead of burning it for electricity we can produce another 30,000 barrels of liquid product. That is still a drop in the bucket to our daily consumption. As you can see many plants would be needed to really put a dent in the nations needs.

But what are guys going to do with the CO2 released? Do you have any estimates of the carbon budget of this whole deal? My understanding is that NG burns cleaner than coal (including gasified coal) so you will end up pumping more CO2 up there OR that your requirements for carbon sequestration will be higher.

If you see my earlier posts you will see that we are not burning coal. We are using coal gasification. It is completely different and it allows us to capture nearly all of the CO2 that we plan to sequester and sell it to low or non producing oil wells in Utah/Wyoming/Colorado. If and when the oil wells run out of sequestration capacity, there are millions of acres of non-minable coal beds in which we can sequester the gas.

[Antimatter]

If I am understanding correctly the heat provided by partial oxidation of the coal to form syngas provides enough heat to cook the kerogen out of the shale? Hence by running the syngas through a combined cycle gas turbine power could be generated more efficiently than current coal plants, whilst producing oil from shale on the side? If so it could be very usefull.

[Antimatter]

If you see my earlier posts you will see that we are not burning coal. We are using coal gasification. It is completely different and it allows us to capture nearly all of the CO2 that we plan to sequester and sell it to low or non producing oil wells in Utah/Wyoming/Colorado. If and when the oil wells run out of sequestration capacity, there are millions of acres of non-minable coal beds in which we can sequester the gas.

Also for complete carbon sequestation I beleive it is necessary to use a) oxygen blown gasification and b) a water gas shift stage to convert the CO and H2 syngas stream to CO2 and H2 and feed the relativly pure H2 to the turbine, which will add to capital costs. However again if I'm understanding correctly, the carbon budget for the whole deal even without sequestation should be about the same or slightly less than current coal fired power and oil per unit of product?

Thanks for the time.

[go5star]

If I am understanding correctly the heat provided by partial oxidation of the coal to form syngas provides enough heat to cook the kerogen out of the shale? Hence by running the syngas through a combined cycle gas turbine power could be generated more efficiently than current coal plants, whilst producing oil from shale on the side? If so it could be very usefull.

You are correct. The heat of the syngas resulting from the syngas generation process is about 1000C. Shale needs about 575C to extract kerogen. You are correct that an IGCC plant that uses syngas is more efficient than a regular coal fired plant. And, yes we produce oil on the side.

[go5star]

If you see my earlier posts you will see that we are not burning coal. We are using coal gasification. It is completely different and it allows us to capture nearly all of the CO2 that we plan to sequester and sell it to low or non producing oil wells in Utah/Wyoming/Colorado. If and when the oil wells run out of sequestration capacity, there are millions of acres of non-minable coal beds in which we can sequester the gas.

Also for complete carbon sequestation I beleive it is necessary to use a) oxygen blown gasification and b) a water gas shift stage to convert the CO and H2 syngas stream to CO2 and H2 and feed the relativly pure H2 to the turbine, which will add to capital costs. However again if I'm understanding correctly, the carbon budget for the whole deal even without sequestation should be about the same or slightly less than current coal fired power and oil per unit of product?

Thanks for the time.

We are leaving all of the details for carbon sequestration to GE who already has the process down pat. You are correct about the carbon budget as well. Coal gasification electrical plants typically generate 10-20% less CO2 than a conventional coal fired plant and because we are not burning shale, only subjecting it to heat and not burning it as a heat source (as in past processes) we are not generating significant amounts of additional CO2.