Talk:Oil shale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 USGS vs EIA 2 Economics 3 Shales and Sands 4 Reserves 5 Biased economics 6 Environmental Considerations 7 Classification of processes

[edit] USGS vs EIA

It's worth noting that the 'USGS' figures in the first paragraph are nearly double the EIA's figures. I don't know which is correct. Dan100 10:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

...but as I can include a reference and I see no reason why this publication should be inaccurate, I've changed the figures to these. Dan100 11:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economics

Are the dollar figures noted in this section US dollars, or other; and at what time? This [1] seems to say US$30/bbl in 2005 is the floor for economic production rather than the $40/bbl stated in the article. --69.157.100.206 16:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It probably depends upon details of each study. It doesn't matter much. OPEC does not have to follow market forces and can drop the price at any time so as to drive a price-sensitive competitor out of business. (SEWilco 18:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC))

Not nowadays it can't. The Saudis and other OPEC countries are already producing about as much oil as they can. —wwoods 18:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In what way is the price set by OPEC related to the upper limit of their production rate? Couldn't they cut their production rate to one barrel a day and sell it for $20 if they so desired? (SEWilco 19:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Sure, but then whoever they sold their oil to could turn around and resell it at the market price, which is the price at which overall production and overall consumption are ~equal. By cutting production, OPEC could raise the price of oil. (Which maybe would push the world into a depression, which would lower the demand for oil and hence lower the price...)

—wwoods 21:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know how market forces work. However, the point here is that it is not right to be using OPEC-driven market prices as a guide for when a competitor to OPEC becomes competitive. There is a flaw in that logic, as OPEC can choose to undercut the price of a competitor and force the competitor into an unprofitable situation. (SEWilco 22:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

With the discovery of the 2 trillion barrel deposit below Colorado, the stakes in the "Shale Oil Recovery" game just went through the roof. Shale oil is now the single biggest fossil fuel resource on earth and the US has possibly as much as 72% of the total. Historically, when prosented with a potentially huge profit, US producers have found a way to exploit the resource. Even with conventional methods, the production of the Colorado reserves would be more profitible than Gold Mining per ton of material. Having followed my Grandfather into the petroleum industry, I feel comfortable in predicting that the shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountains will yeild in excess of 20 billion dollars (US) per annum by 2010. -VeeRay-

Getting Oil Shale to Relieve Looming Oil Shortage. Under the assumptions a) oil shale can be extracted economically at $30-$40 per barrel; b) US shale reserves about equal to estimated world oil reserves; c) the US government could guarantee a large scale purchase of oil from oil shale at $40/ barrel to be put either into reserve or sold on the market with say a 10 billion per year to support commercial production could we bring stability to the oil maket price? This would effectively cap the long term price of oil at some deliverable level. --WalterSchneiderPittsburgh 13:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[[2]]

[edit] Shales and Sands

What's the difference between tar sands and oil shales? --Atlastawake 20:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Tar Sands consist of Bitumen mixed in a soil. Oil Shale is a shale (which is a rock) which contains a large quanitity of Kerogen (IIRC all shales contain some Kerogen). According to the chemists, Bitumen has a lower average molecular weight then Kerogen and is soluble in carbon disulphide. These differences make Bitumen easier to refine into oil. Toiyabe 17:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reserves

I've added the Confusing tag to the Reserves section. This section switches back and forth between talking about some countries having certain amounts of billions of tons of oil shale, and others having certain numbers of billions of barrels. --Xyzzyplugh 18:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased economics

The following refers to the section "Economics" in the article.

This section is incredibly biased towards the Oil Tech process and appears to be written by a promoter. No credible comparative economic study I've seen has come to this conclusion--one can only reach a defendable conclusion by using and disclosing a consistent set of economic assumptions. For example, there is no mention of the 1990 NRC report "Fuels to Drive our Future", which tried to compare different oil shale processes with other sources of synthetic fuels using consistent economic assumptions. That is not to say that the Oil Tech process should be dismissed out of hand, but there is no objective basis for making these claims in an encyclopedia.

The Oil Tech process is merely one of hundreds that have been tried, and there is no technical basis for its prominence in a general article on oil shale. It would be far better to present a systematic classification table based on heat source, heat transfer method, above or below ground, and then give multiple examples of the various types.

The same problem is true for the statement that the Oil Tech process would be environmentally safe. Even if it were true, there is no independent study I've seen, and certainly none referenced here, to substantiate that claim. It is certainly true that open-pit mining is cheaper than room and pillar mining and is necessary if aboveground shale oil production is to be a significant player in our energy needs, but is it universally accepted that digging up large fractions of the Uinta and Piceance Basin and returning it as a different material is environmentally safe? This conclusion is somewhere between unsubstantiated and subjective. Akburnham 00:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)A. K. Burnham

[edit] Environmental Considerations

This section is equally flawed and appears to be written by someone who has no direct experience with oil shale. First, by what basis does the author claim that waste rock is a known carcinogen? Even if it were true for waste rock from some specific process, the differences in spent shale from different processes are vast, so it cannot be generally true. The statement that rock expands by about 30% after processing due to a popcorn effect is obsurd urban legend. The increase in mined oil shale volume occurs efore processing merely because there are interparticle voids introduced to any solid when it is broken up, and the fractional increase depends on the width of the particle size distribution. Beds of oil shale do not expand during retorting, as I have observed hundreds of times. A rare exception can occur for extremely rich oil shale veins (~60 gal/ton), which may froth during pyrolysis like a coking coal, but such cases are vanishingly small in importance, do not occur under load, and can be easily compacted away if they do occur.

Akburnham 00:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)A. K. Burnham

Anyone can edit. Find sources and add details, delete what is wrong and unsourced. (SEWilco 04:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Classification of processes

According to the Alan K. Burnham, James R. McConaghy "Comparison of the Acceptability of Various Oil Shale Processes" (see footnote 13), the Alberta Taciuk Process (ATP) is classified as conduction through a wall (various fuels). User by the IP address 59.100.34.181 changed this classification of ATP to the hot recycled solids (inert or burned shale). Is it possible to get some reference confirming this classification? By my knowledge, ATP is quite different from Galoter and other processes it's put together right now. Beagel 08:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A diagram of the ATP internals is on the developer's site (http://www.uma.aecom.com/MarketsAndServices/41/64/index.jsp). A more detailed sketch and description are in Southern Pacific Petroleum N.L. Annual Report 2000 p15. Both indicate that spent shale is recycled from the combustion zone to the retort zone which puts the ATP in the hot recycled solids class. However, the ATP process does use heat transfer by conduction through a wall to dry the raw shale prior to the hot solids recycle. The Galoter (http://www.kirj.ee/oilshale/6_golubev_2003_3s.pdf) also uses a different heating method (externally generated hot gas) to dry the raw shale. There are several other errors in the Burnham and McConaghy reference. For example, the Paraho Direct and Indirect are interchanged (Pforzheimer, H. "paraho Oil Shale Project" Symposium of Aternate Fuel Resouces, Santa Maria, CA March 25-27. 1976) and Petrosix uses externally generated hot gas (Hohmann,J.P., Martignoni, W.P., Novicki, R.E.M., Piper, E.M. "PETROSIX - A successful oil shale operational complex" Proceedings of the Eastern Oil Shale Symposium, Lexington, Kentucky, Nov 17,1992 p.4-11).59.100.34.181 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I was confused because of using conduction through a wall to dry the raw shale. And, of course, the design of ATP and Galoter retorts are quite different. I hope the classification is done correctly right now. Do you like to check also the section concerning insitu process? I don't have myself knowledge on insitu process.Beagel 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not as familiar with insitu processes, but what has been written is consistent with my understanding. Nice work!59.100.34.181 11:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The previous contributor, who did an excellent job describing the diversity of oil shale processes, noted and corrected the classification errors I made in my hurriedly written AICHE paper. Those errors were caught, and a corrected table was presented at the 26th Oil Shale Symposium in Golden, Oct 2006. I have changed the reference to that paper, which was unfortunately left out of the CD just distributed by the CSM but can be downloaded from the LLNL library web site. I would also request that someone in the oil shale community who knows a lot more than me about environmental issues upgrade that section, which is still not very good.

Thank you Alan. I have a feeling that different in-situ processes need more detailed descriptions. Unfortunately I don't knew much about in-situ processes. Maybe you would like to take a care of in-situ section?

I agree that environmental section needs to be improved. I have also problem with the table US Companies with Oil Shale operations or pilot projects. I don't think this is complete list. Also, somebody added Petrobras to this list. Maybe we should change the list global and add also Fushun Mining Group, VKG, Eesti Energia and other producers to the list? Or maybe we should remove the table at all? Beagel 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)