Page 3 of 3

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postPosted: Thu 07 Jun 2018, 21:30:28
by ROCKMAN
Yoshua – “Man and Wärtsilä are producing crude oil engines with over 50% fuel efficiency. Most diesel engines can run on crude.”. That’s great. Now please answer the question: “…who the f*ck drives a vehicle powered by a crude oil engine?”

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postPosted: Fri 08 Jun 2018, 09:16:05
by Yoshua
Rockman

No one. It doesn't work.

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postPosted: Fri 08 Jun 2018, 09:33:26
by Tanada
Yoshua wrote:Man and Wärtsilä are producing crude oil engines with over 50% fuel efficiency. Most diesel engines can run on crude.

All crudes are not the same. It is actually possible to blend crudes to get the right mix.

Would this lead to a perfect world? No. Could we do with less asphalt, plastics and other products? Probably yes.

I don't see this being done today. On contrary, our governments are demanding cleaner fuels. We will most likely continue on this highway until we hit a wall and have us another nice financial meltdown and who knows perhaps a nice little war as well and a little bit of chaos and anarchy with some starvation on top.

If the crude oil engine is a solution then the net energy from petroleum production would rise to 80-85% per barrel.


This is one of those 'situational' possibilities. For example adapting a large marine diesel of the type MAN and Wartsilla specialize in to power crude oil tanker to burn crude oil on the outbound journey and burn bunker fuel on the return trip would make some economic sense depending on the quality of the crude itself and the length of the trip. A tanker from the Persian Gulf to say Chile in South America would probably get some advantage from burning crude on the outbound journey, unless KSA is willing to sell the tanker company bunker grade oil so cheap that it offsets the difference.

Wartsilla and MAN both also offer modified large marine diesel designs for stationary power plants. They even offer a type of combined cycle where the waste heat from the diesel engine is harvested to spin a turbine and recover even more of the energy in the fuel being burnt. Back a dozen or so years ago they did a study for Venezuela to modify their engines to burn straight Orimulsion in one of these combined cycle designs. Turns out that if Chavez had taken this option VZ would have had very cheap grid power for their whole country burning the extra heavy crude oil in the form of Orimulsion. No more need to import power or fuel, and by switching over they could have actually eliminated their existing fossil plants that burn more refined fuel or old fashioned coal. The Orimulsion option would have stabilized and greatly expanded the grid power and have provided electricity at rates like those in KSA where it is cheap enough to grossly waste on all sorts of trivial uses, like air conditioning poorly insulated tents! It would have also have opened up more export capacity for VZ by reducing domestic demand for fossil power station fuels allowing that small quantity of increased exports to take place as Orimulsion substituted for domestic demand.

Before ROCKMAN objects that they stopped making Orimulsion when Chavez took control, A) Chavez is dead now, and B) just because he ordered them to stop selling Orimulsion does not mean they can not change their minds and start producing it again. Political factors were the reason they stopped, not physical.

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postPosted: Mon 11 Jun 2018, 05:41:23
by charmcitysking
Tanada wrote:Before ROCKMAN objects that they stopped making Orimulsion when Chavez took control, A) Chavez is dead now, and B) just because he ordered them to stop selling Orimulsion does not mean they can not change their minds and start producing it again. Political factors were the reason they stopped, not physical.


Hi Tanada

Thanks for that post - was wondering if you might be able to elaborate a bit more on the above quote or provide a link or two with more info on the political factors which contributed to the Chavez regime's decision to stop producing Orimulsion.

Re: The ETP model was wrong - But is there a top for oil pri

Unread postPosted: Mon 11 Jun 2018, 09:03:30
by Tanada
charmcitysking wrote:
Tanada wrote:Before ROCKMAN objects that they stopped making Orimulsion when Chavez took control, A) Chavez is dead now, and B) just because he ordered them to stop selling Orimulsion does not mean they can not change their minds and start producing it again. Political factors were the reason they stopped, not physical.


Hi Tanada

Thanks for that post - was wondering if you might be able to elaborate a bit more on the above quote or provide a link or two with more info on the political factors which contributed to the Chavez regime's decision to stop producing Orimulsion.


Certainly. Orimulsion (Orinoco Emulsion) was developed by the engineering staff of PDVSA the Venezuelan state oil company. After Chavez took control there was a protest strike by those who had worked hard for all their lives to rise in Venezuela who found themselves targeted by the Chavez regime because of their success and status as scapegoats. In 2002-03 the targeted held a general strike to prove to Chavez that he needed them for Venezuela to remain a successful growing economy. Rather than admit he needed the skilled workforce Chavez instead fired the vast majority of the engineers at PDVSA and placed people he considered politically reliable in charge. Chavez then sought to curry favor with mainland China and the in name at least Communist government there by offering to ship them Orimulsion at a discounted price. When the new managers proved incompetent at increasing production enough to cover the new discount sales to China Chavez cancelled the already existing contracts to western countries like Canada which had invested heavily to convert some power stations to run on Orimulsion with decade long supply contracts. In the ensuing mess Venezuela was required to pay off those power stations they cancelled contracts upon several hundred millions to satisfy the contracts.

At the same time all that was taking place the Canadian Alberta bitumen being produced was being diluted with lighter grades of oil to create a product called 'dilbit' for Diluted Bitumen and sold to regular refineries in the existing infrastructure. Even though Dilbit sells at a discounted price from intermediate grades of natural crude oil it sells at a much higher price than VZ was getting for Orimulsion which was marketed as a 'liquid coal substitute' and priced on an energy basis like coal, not petroleum. The leadership of VZ did a turnabout and decided that Orimulsion was an evil capitalist plot to get Venezuela's vast bitumen resources for a price only a fraction of what its 'true value' is so the Chavez government declared they were 'winding down' Orimulsion production and sales to everyone but China who they were still trying to get closer ties to politically.

Dilbit and Orimulsion were both created for the same reason, to thin out the bitumen grade petroleum so that it could be easily shipped by pipeline or tanker vessel. The energy content of the two systems is much closer than you might think intuitively with Dilbit being diluted with light grades of petroleum and Orimulsion being diluted with distilled water. However the vast majority of the energy in both mixtures comes from the Bitumen, not the liquid used to thin it to easy flow viscosity levels. Orimulsion lost its political support and as world oil prices rose it came to a status of political hostility so production was dropped or 'wound down'. The reality remains however that securing enough dilutant grade petroleum to make dilbit out of bitumen is expensive outside north America. In the USA/Canada the Fracking boom created a large and inexpensive supply of light fractions of petroleum ideal for use in making Dilbit. In Venezuela and other locations however securing water to make Orimulsion is a far less expensive and convenient choice. Ultimately it boils down to end use. If you want to put the resulting liquid through a standard refinery designed and optimized for intermediate grades of crude oil then you want Dilbit because you can just add it to the mixture of crude's you are already refining with no extra steps. On the other hand if you goal is to get an easily moved liquid for use in direct combustion as a fuel instead of as a refinery feed stock Orimulsion is by far the superior choice in terms of price. Orimulsion was successfully used for years as boiler fuel for electric utilities and industrial scale boilers and was successfully tested as a diesel fuel substitute in medium (railroad locomotive) and large (ship and power station scale) Diesel fueled engines.

If nothing else Venezuela could convert their electrical grid and railroad network over to burning internally made Orimulsion and not only save a lot of expense on fuel but also have more lighter grade oil to export, a double benefit. It all comes back around to the political decision makers and how they choose to run things.

Re: Orimulsion: A potential energy source?

Unread postPosted: Mon 11 Jun 2018, 12:22:22
by ROCKMAN
And some details from a while back. There is no meaningful basis for comparing Orimulsion to dilbit IMHO:

Re: Orimulsion: A potential energy source?
Post by ROCKMAN » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:27 pm

No one said orimulsion can't be refined. In essence that's what upgraders do...call it refining light. Orimulsion is just a very poor quality feedstock with limited product capability. But efforts to improve the process have been ongoing for the obvious reason: the huge reserve base of billions of bbls. But that wasn't the initial question: why orimulsion and not dilbit: insufficient local/cheap source of light oil. From

http://www.digitalrefining.com/article/ ... KjmavJMFcs

"Article Summary - A number of leading oil companies, including Exxon, BP, Shell, Total and Petrobras, have given consideration to the manufacture of oil-in-water emulsion fuel from heavy refinery residues as a means of enhancing refining margins. The margin enhancement arises from recovery to the fuel pool of high-value cutter stock added to residue to meet heavy fuel oil viscosity specifications and to make a transportable fuel oil product.

In the summer of 2008, a commercial demonstration of Quadrise Fuels’ proprietary multiphase superfine atomised residue (MSAR) technology was successfully completed at Mazeikiu Nafta’s 200 000 bpd refinery in Lithuania. More than 140 000 barrels (22 000 mt) of MSAR fuel was manufactured in a joint initiative between the refinery, Quadrise Fuels International (QFI) and its technology licensor AkzoNobel. The fuel was subsequently transported over 300 km by rail and combusted at the 1800 MWe Elektrenai power plant owned by Lietuvos Elektrinė.

The commercial demonstration established the technical and commercial viability of MSAR technology in an operating refinery environment, and opens opportunities for refiners to add significant value to residue streams without incurring the high capital costs and extended schedules associated with conventional hydrogen addition or carbon rejection upgrading technologies.

Emulsion developments - Commencing in 1990, British Petroleum (BP) and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) successfully established a 6.5 Mtpa market for their proprietary emulsion fuel known as Orimulsion — a 70% bitumen in 30% water emulsion. The product, manufactured from 
8° API Orinoco bitumen, was exported worldwide as a boiler fuel for power generation.

By 2003, supply contracts with major generating companies (gencos) had been secured for power plants in North and Central America, Europe and Asia. A US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report established that under adequate safeguards Orimulsion could comply with all environmental legislation, and the technical success of Orimulsion for a 160 MWe Wärtsilä diesel generator plant in Guatemala opened new horizons for the application of the fuel. By 2006, more than 60 million tonnes of Orimulsion had been shipped to end users worldwide. However, production of the product ceased in December 2006."
,

Re: Orimulsion: A potential energy source?

Unread postPosted: Tue 12 Jun 2018, 10:57:10
by Carnot
I agree with both Tanada and Rockman on Orimulsion. Here is a link to a paper written on the subject in 2004. Essentially Orimulsion is a residual fuels costed very much at coal pricing. It never made a lot of sense both economically and technically. when combusting the Orimulsion a not inconsiderable amount of energy would be used to vapourise the water ( a lot of water) which would reduce efficiency, unless there was a means to condense the water in the flue gas; especially difficult with a high sulphur fuel loaded with other undesirables.

Not surprisingly Orimulsion was pulled and upgrader technologies were pursued which the socialist government then expropriated for the benefit of the people (i.e. those connected to the regime). Nothing really changes.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/ven ... ulsion.pdf

Re: Orimulsion: A potential energy source?

Unread postPosted: Tue 12 Jun 2018, 11:13:06
by ROCKMAN
Carnot - And one has to wonder how a power plant burning Orimulsion would comply with the new EPA rules on emissions.

Re: Orimulsion: A potential energy source?

Unread postPosted: Tue 12 Jun 2018, 11:21:42
by charmcitysking
Tanada - many thanks for the comprehensive explanation. Your posts are always appreciated!

And cheers to RM for the technical input on Orimulsion as well!

Re: Orimulsion: A potential energy source?

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jun 2018, 13:30:23
by ROCKMAN
charm - 'And cheers to RM for the technical input on Orimulsion as well!" Thanks but just cutting and pasting from the web. The only thing lower then my knowledge of Orimulsion is my interest in the subject matter. LOL.