Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Oil Shale : Green River Kerogen

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Technology of getting oil from shale

Unread postby wildsparrow » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 09:23:08

Has anyone seen this article? Could perhaps delay the onset of PO -

rockymountainnews

Originally published on slashdot so the site may be running slow due to high traffic.
User avatar
wildsparrow
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby backstop » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 09:50:21

WildSparrow -

Last Monday I saw the British government's cheif scientist interviewed on TV over Katrina. He was very clear on the strong probability that the unprecedented GoM sea temperatures (that changed the storm from a Cat.1 to a Cat 5 in just 24 hours) were an outcome of Global Warming.

He spoke of the growing global scientific consensus of this origin for Katrina's destructive power. The implication is that what we now see in sudden global oil problems is a shock of Climate Destabilization interacting with the stresses of Peak Oil.

I suggest that being committed to action over one while being complacent over the other is pointless and, as in NO, lethally dangerous and economically ruinous. I'm not accusing you of complacency by the way, but rather those who hype the likes of tar sands and oil shales for profit.

They ignore the fact that far from increasing our CO2 pollution via these options, we urgently need to cut it globally by 2/3rds, just to stop making the problem of excess atmospheric CO2 worse.

Given also that the scale of growth of these FFFs (filthiest fossil fuels) required to keep ahead of annual oil reserves' depletion is way beyond anything ever acheived in the days of cheap oil, they are, in reality, a non-starter.

So, in answer to your question, could they perhaps delay the onset of PO, I'd have to say no, not a chance.

regards,

Backstop
backstop
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Varies

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Raxozanne » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 10:18:47

Sorry I keep on editing this because I don't know what I want to say really apart from that I agree with what Baby says below. At 3.5 units for every 1 unit of energy invested these sands are no where near as good as oil was and will not be able to keep business as usual.
Last edited by Raxozanne on Sun 04 Sep 2005, 11:01:51, edited 4 times in total.
Raxozanne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 10:28:27

Drop heaters down the shaft. Cook the rock until the hydrocarbons boil off, the lightest and most desirable first.

Power heaters with?

So around the perimeter of the productive site, you drill lots more shafts, only 8 to 12 feet apart, put in piping, and pump refrigerants through it.

Power super-giantic freezer with?

When you wish upon a star
Sitting at a table in Las Vegas...
When you wish upon a star
You dreams come true

and you get something for nothing.
So maybe they should look for oil in Walt Disney World. :P :razz: :P :lol:
BabyPeanut
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby NeoPeasant » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 14:00:25

And between the second and third paragraph of this article explaining why you needn't worry about oil is an ad for a GM SUV.

Newspapers are roughly 50% by weight automobile and suburban real estate ads. They would not exist without them. Newspapers don't dare publish anything suggesting that auto suburbia has anything less than a rosy future.
NeoPeasant
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby bobbyboy » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 20:33:28

According to Jean Laherrere the electricity costs alone for this Shell project are $200/Barrel.
The production with 50 workers on site (+100 at headquarters) is rumored to be 10 b/d with an electric bill of 2000 $/d!

Link:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/OilShaleReview.pdf

He also points out the 3.5:1 EROEI claim is for the heating only, other energy costs such as the refrigeration seem not to have been included.
User avatar
bobbyboy
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun 16 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby joe1347 » Mon 05 Sep 2005, 21:26:12

bobbyboy wrote:According to Jean Laherrere the electricity costs alone for this Shell project are $200/Barrel.
The production with 50 workers on site (+100 at headquarters) is rumored to be 10 b/d with an electric bill of 2000 $/d!

Link:
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/OilShaleReview.pdf

He also points out the 3.5:1 EROEI claim is for the heating only, other energy costs such as the refrigeration seem not to have been included.



Is the $200/barrel cost for shale oil considered typical?
User avatar
joe1347
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 05 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Etalon » Mon 05 Sep 2005, 21:57:05

To be viable, I would think they would be using nuclear power for the heating/refrigeration. It would be more efficient than normal, as waste heat from the plant can be used directly as the heat source.

This whole oil shale thing does not seem to be about "making" energy (yes im well aware you cant make energy) it seems to be about using a inconvenient energy source (nuclear power) to make convenient energy source you can use in your car. I say make, as it looks like you end up putting more energy in than you get out, although the energy out is of higher value.
Etalon
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun 04 Sep 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby sicophiliac » Tue 06 Sep 2005, 02:18:09

Ok, It seems like anytime a new technology or potential means to extract oil gets brought up its almost always shot down by the doomers sighting global warming concerns. However signifigant that problem is or may be its still not the issue here. Can this postpone peak oil ? Id say theres a good chance of it. They state an EROEI of 3.5:1 which is better than the rate of tar sands. That link did state that was only for the energy envolved in heating it rather then the refrigoration too but that might have just been overlooked in the article. It was not explicitly mentioned by the way... and I doubt Shell would simply forget to factor that in before investing millions of dollars into this. Also with any really small scale experimental procedure like this the total costs of energy and what not in ratio to energy recovered would be alot higher then a large scale comerically viable project. Its like the first experimental nuclear plants of the first time somebody did research setting up a small scale offshore drilling rig.
User avatar
sicophiliac
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: san jose CA

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby wildsparrow » Tue 06 Sep 2005, 03:43:10

backstop wrote:WildSparrow -

Last Monday I saw the British government's cheif scientist interviewed on TV over Katrina. He was very clear on the strong probability that the unprecedented GoM sea temperatures (that changed the storm from a Cat.1 to a Cat 5 in just 24 hours) were an outcome of Global Warming.

He spoke of the growing global scientific consensus of this origin for Katrina's destructive power. The implication is that what we now see in sudden global oil problems is a shock of Climate Destabilization interacting with the stresses of Peak Oil.

I suggest that being committed to action over one while being complacent over the other is pointless and, as in NO, lethally dangerous and economically ruinous. I'm not accusing you of complacency by the way, but rather those who hype the likes of tar sands and oil shales for profit.

They ignore the fact that far from increasing our CO2 pollution via these options, we urgently need to cut it globally by 2/3rds, just to stop making the problem of excess atmospheric CO2 worse.



I agree with you. I was just hoping that perhaps these alternative sources of oil might buy us some time to make the transition to a more sustainable way of life a little smoother and less panicked. Of course, the chances of governments seeing this way are non-existent. But it might buy a little time for those of us who are thinking past our next election results.
User avatar
wildsparrow
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun 14 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney, Australia

Shells Shale Oil Technology - QUESTION?

Unread postby Lehyina » Tue 06 Sep 2005, 04:29:56

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?
User avatar
Lehyina
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Shells Shale Oil Technology - QUESTION?

Unread postby Dukat_Reloaded » Tue 06 Sep 2005, 04:36:34

It's bull, just another scam to get investors money.
User avatar
Dukat_Reloaded
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Shells Shale Oil Technology - QUESTION?

Unread postby Lehyina » Tue 06 Sep 2005, 04:36:41

Probably should have posted this under Wildsparrows earlier thread. Apologies for not seeing it earlier. Mods feel free to move this.

{thread merged by moderator}
User avatar
Lehyina
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed 12 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby rowante » Tue 06 Sep 2005, 05:35:32

This reports suggest this will not mitigate world peak.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/200 ... 14.sum.pdf

In-situ retorting
In-situ retorting entails heating oil shale in place, extracting the liquid from the ground, and transporting it to an upgrading or refining facility. Because in-situ retorting does not involve mining or aboveground spent shale disposal, it offers an alternative that does not permanently modify land surface topography and that may be significantly less damaging to the environment. Shell Oil Company has successfully conducted small-scale field tests of an insitu process based on slow underground heating via thermal conduction. Larger-scale operations are required to establish technical viability, especially with regard to avoiding adverse impacts on groundwater quality. Shell anticipates that, in contrast to the cost estimates for mining and surface retorting, the petroleum products produced by their thermally conductive in-situ method will be competitive at crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel. The company is still developing the process, however, and cost estimates could easily increase as more information is obtained and more detailed designs become available.

Development Timeline.
Currently, no organization with the management, technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced its intent to build commercial-scale production facilities. A firm decision to commit funds to such a venture is at least six years away because that is the minimum length of time for scale-up and process confirmation work needed to obtain the technical and environmental data required for the design and permitting of a first-of-a-kind commercial operation. At least an additional six to eight years will be required to permit, design, construct, shake down, and confirm performance of that initial commercial operation. Consequently, at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase. Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.
My emphasis.
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. - Aldous Huxley

Sydney Peak Oil
rowante
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue 06 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Shells Shale Oil Technology - QUESTION?

Unread postby Ming » Wed 07 Sep 2005, 07:39:34

Lehyina wrote: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?

Seems obvious that they turned the heat off before fully "milking" that spot.
That seems reasonable, since it was just a reduced scale trial...
User avatar
Ming
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Ming » Wed 07 Sep 2005, 07:52:01

According to Jean Laherrere the electricity costs alone for this Shell project are $200/Barrel.

There are probably huge improvements in heating costs if the process is scaled up to commercial size: The heat loss in each heated patch is used as heat input in the adjacent patches...
One cant be this negative on everything: If Shell did this small scale test and now is willing to apply the necessary investment to do a commercial scale test, it surely means that they believe it might be worth it…
User avatar
Ming
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby go5star » Thu 08 Sep 2005, 19:14:56

Oil shale can be processed efficiently, economically and with little environmental impact. Shell is not the only player in town and as many of you have noticed there is quite a bit of information missing from their equations. Let me first start of by saying, I think the Rand report was CRAP! It would have received a failing grade by any university professor for lack of documentation. Come on guys (and gals), did any one not notice the prediction for the price of oil in 2025? $50 per barrel, or how about the price for the Shell process footnote on page 43, "RAND calculation assuming specific heat of oil is 0.5 and average deposit richness of 25 gallons per ton." Why didn't they actually publish their calculations and the entire set of assumptions they used. Utter CRAP. Oil shale, lest I sound repetitve is ready to be used and can be processed economically. I'll tell you how later but I have to run for now.
User avatar
go5star
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun 21 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby sicophiliac » Fri 09 Sep 2005, 01:40:25

Go5star - Do you work in the energy industry or something? Your post ending is intruiging me.
User avatar
sicophiliac
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: san jose CA

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby go5star » Fri 09 Sep 2005, 12:33:53

sicophiliac wrote:Go5star - Do you work in the energy industry or something? Your post ending is intruiging me.


We are working with a new process. Before I tell you about the new process. Let's examine why the old processes did not work.

1. Pollution and Environmental issues. a. Problems arose from the use of oil shale as a heat source. (the assumption was it was readily available and cheap) It burns very dirty. Major CO2, CO, NOx and other emissions. b. The expansion of shale when heated (popcorn effect) made restoration and mitigation difficult or impossible especially because contaminants from the burning shale were attached to the spent shale. Significant amounts of kerogen were also left in the shale. This forced the companies to maintain tailings piles which were ugly to look at and had the potential to pollute ground water.

2. No redundancy. All of the old retort processes used one BIG retort. When there were issues with the one BIG retort, everything ground to a halt. This killed productivity and profits. Issues with the retorts included channeling where the heat just like water would find the path of least resistance in a retort and would not heat all the shale evenly. This caused some of the aforementioned pollution problems, was not very efficient at extracting all the oil and even made it so that they had to shut down some of the retorts and jackhammer carbon deposits off the sides.

3. Lost economic benefits. By burning shale as a heat source and letting those vapors come in contact with the other shale many of the light ends were being burned off. This typically left a thick oil and heavy tars as the end product. This product would then have to be hydrogenated and refined.

4. Use of water. Old methods used (or polluted) 3 barrels of water for every one barrel used.
Last edited by go5star on Fri 09 Sep 2005, 13:37:48, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
go5star
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun 21 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests