Progress on AMSO AMSO’ ’s s RD&D RD&D Progress on Pilot Test Program Pilot Test Program Presentation to the 30 th Oil Shale Symposium Golden, CO October 18-20, 2010 Alan K. Burnham Chief Technology Officer 1
Outline of talk Outline of talk � Who is AMSO? � AMSO’s process in brief � Preparations for our Pilot Test in 2011 � Supporting R&D � Return on invested energy 2 10/20/2010
AMSO is one of three RD&D Leaseholders AMSO is one of three RD&D Leaseholders in Colorado’ ’s Piceance Basin s Piceance Basin in Colorado � EGL Resources obtained a BLM 160-acre RD&D lease in January 2007, held under EGL Oil Shale � IDT acquired EGL Oil Shale in 2008 and renamed it AMSO � In March 2009, TOTAL acquired a 50% interest in AMSO � Upon demonstration of commercial viability, the RD&D lease can be expanded to a 5120- acre Preference Right Area* *Using the USGS 2-million barrels per acre estimate (see map), this area contains an estimated 10 billion barrels of potential resource 3 10/20/2010
Many people contribute to AMSO AMSO’ ’s s effort effort Many people contribute to � Field Operations � Process Design & Construction � Roger Day � Jim McConaghy � � George Nichols Stephen Kesler � � Tim Roe ISI Engineering � � Rob Arcia ZAP Engineering � Oil and Gas expertise � R&D Experiments & Modeling by TOTAL � Len Switzer � Pierre Allix � Schlumberger (SDR, EMI, Z-Seis) � John Foulkes � Shale Tech International � Permitting � New England Research � � Jack Clark Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. � � Western Water & Land Lawrence Berkeley Natl. Lab. � Southwest Research Institute � Business Operations � Weatherford Labs � IDT Corporation � Gushor Inc. � Arnold Mackley 4 10/20/2010
Our process is unique Our process is unique � AMSO’s patent-pending CCR TM* process uses convection to accelerate heat transfer throughout the retort � Faster heat transfer in our process enables fewer wells, hence less surface impact, to extract the shale oil * Conduction, Convection and Reflux 5 10/20/2010
We believe AMSO AMSO’ ’s s process proactively addresses process proactively addresses We believe all environmental and community impacts all environmental and community impacts � Minimal surface footprint � High energy efficiency � Protection of aquifers � Low gas emissions � Low water usage � High-value jobs 6 10/20/2010
Our 2011 Pilot Test will test the key physical and Our 2011 Pilot Test will test the key physical and TM process chemical mechanisms of the CCR TM process chemical mechanisms of the CCR Surface processing facility Better water quality 1000 ft Aquifer system Mahogany zone production heater well well (electrical cables only) monitoring wells oil shale Saline water Dissolution surface Triangular 2000 ft Nahcolitic oil shale convection loop Pilot test interval (2015-2135 ft) ~45 o incline heater Wasatch (no producible water) 7 10/20/2010
Our Pilot Test facilities are under construction Our Pilot Test facilities are under construction TM Pad currently has an TM Pad currently has an Test Pad has an Test Pad has an MWP 2 has MWP 2 has exploration well and a exploration well and a exploration well exploration well three hydrology three hydrology geophysical monitoring geophysical monitoring and will hold the and will hold the wells wells well over the retort area. well over the retort area. Heater Well and Heater Well and The Production Well and The Production Well and the Surface the Surface five monitoring wells will five monitoring wells will Processing Processing be added in 2011. be added in 2011. Facilities Facilities HB Pad has a HB Pad has a hydrology well hydrology well 3 MW power line 3 MW power line installed Feb 2010 installed Feb 2010 Facilities were Facilities were MWP 1 has a MWP 1 has a located to minimize located to minimize hydrology well hydrology well surface impacts surface impacts and staff trailers and staff trailers 8 10/20/2010
Construction of the Surface Processing Facilities Construction of the Surface Processing Facilities will be substantially completed this year will be substantially completed this year Process building Control room Tank farm Fire control system 9 10/20/2010
Design and interpretation of the Pilot Test Design and interpretation of the Pilot Test requires concurrent R&D requires concurrent R&D � Geology, hydrology and geochemistry of the illitic oil shale in the Garden Gulch member � Modeling of microseismic, CASSM and ERT methods to be used for imaging growth of the retort � Pyrolysis of the illitic oil shale under conditions relevant to our process � Rock mechanics at relevant temperatures and confinement � Heat transfer characteristics of boiling and condensing oil � Integration of chemical and physical processes into an overall process simulator—STARS in our case 10 10/20/2010
Oil shale really is oil shale Oil shale really is oil shale � The original definition of Carbonates “shale” was a field geology term not dependent on chemical composition � The Garden Gulch member is Parachute Creek a clay-rich oil shale Member � The term “oil” has always meant that oil could be produced by destructive distillation Quartz + Clay Feldspar Minerals Garden Gulch Member FTIR analysis by Herron et al. at SDR 11 10/20/2010
Our retort zone is very tight and underpressured underpressured Our retort zone is very tight and � A well was completed over the test interval at our retort location 300 � Only 7’ of water and some methane flowed Pressure, psi 200 into the well over six months � Water is brackish Measured gas pressure 100 (>10k ppm TDS and for the R1 interval high chloride) 9-week time constant towards 325 psi � Hydrostatic pressure is 0 about 325 psi 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Week from shut-in 12 10/20/2010
Pyrolysis experiments demonstrate high yields Pyrolysis experiments demonstrate high yields of high quality oil are possible from illitic shale of high quality oil are possible from illitic shale � Apparatus patterned after To GC To vent Ar then vent Burnham-Singleton (1983) Pressure relief valve � Our yields are consistent with those results Back- pressure � 70-90 vol% FA oil yield achieved regulator for 150-750 psi at 2 o C/h Condenser � Effects of pressure modeled by adaptation of Burnham-Braun model (1985, 1990) Flexible lines to enable real-time � Metals and N content lower measurements of liquid weights than previously reported for Green River shale oil Collected Oil � As, Fe, Ni, V below detection (~1 L) N 2 sweeps � H 2 and CH 4 yields indicate in- scale annulus around situ hydrotreating shale can 13 10/20/2010
Oil and gas properties are related logically to Oil and gas properties are related logically to oil yield changes due to coking and cracking oil yield changes due to coking and cracking 0.5 50 AMSO 2010 45 LLNL 1983 0.4 (C1-C4)/(C5+ oil), g/g kinetic model 40 API gravity 0.3 35 0.2 30 AMSO 2010 LLNL 1983 0.1 25 kinetic model 20 0.0 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Oil yield, wt% FA Oil yield, vol% FA 90 1.2 70 1.0 Nitrogen, wt% o F Pour point, 50 0.8 kinetic model 30 0.6 10 0.4 150-750 psi -10 0.2 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 Oil yield, wt% FA H/C atomic ratio 14 10/20/2010
Common generalizations about shale oil Common generalizations about shale oil upgrading and refining do not apply upgrading and refining do not apply � Expected API gravity is 35-40 o with no residuum � Low pour point and metals content mean pipeline restrictions and catalyst poisoning are not an issue � Low nitrogen content (¼ of conventional shale oil and only twice crude oil) and negligible olefin reduces hydrogen demand � Pyrolysis gas contains enough hydrogen for much of the final refining if done on site 15 10/20/2010
The return on invested energy is about 4:1 The return on invested energy is about 4:1 Energy Input (MJ/tonne) Energy Output (MJ/tonne) Field Ops (ext) 10 Premium shale oil 3200 Retorting (int) 675 Gas consumed 675 Surface Ops (ext) 215 Gas exported (C 3 , C 4 ) 480 Reclamation (ext) 5 Total exported 3680 Total External 230 Total in final fuels 3500 Total Internal 675 Estimated NER (EROI) 3.9 � This is one possible conservative estimate using process assumptions yet to be engineered � Retorting energies are for wet shale on a dry shale basis � Lower heating value (H 2 O-g) used for heats of combustion � Produces a nominally pure CO 2 stream from combustor available for sale or sequestration � About 60% of the surface ops power demand is for the O 2 plant that enables CO 2 sequestration � Retorting energy input assumes 15% thermal inefficiency and no heat recovery � Assumes combustion of produced hydrogen and no on-site upgrading � Electric power for surface ops as thermal input, assuming off-site generation at 40% efficiency The NER should be used with caution, as optimizing it optimizes neither process economics nor CO 2 /final fuel delivered, which are the two important quantities 16 10/20/2010
Recommend
More recommend
