Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />00 <br />~, <br /> <br />Experiments have been made with underground explosions (non-nuclear) <br />and in-situ burning or retorting, the results of which have been some- <br />what inconclusive. Prien indicates chat surface retorting is more <br />feasible at present, and in-situ has not been proven economically or <br />technically successful to date (Prien, 1974). However, several lease- <br />holding companies are currently experioent~ng with a modified in-situ <br />process. According to several speakers at the 1978 Colorado School <br />of Hines Oil Shale Symposium, this approach seems quite promising. <br />Nuclear explosions to release trapped gas have been tried, but con- <br />tamination and other problems have not been completely resolved. It <br />is unlikely this will be a feasible application in the near future. <br /> <br />Retorting of shale to recover the solid organic matter--kerogen-- <br />is done by heating the rock to temperatures above gaaoF, at which point <br />the kerogen pyrolyzes into oil vapors that cae then be recovered. Sev- <br />eral methods of retorting have been developed, none of which is ab- <br />solutely superior to any other in terms of products derived or in <br />economic viability. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Recove=ing oil from shale economically depends upon a number of <br />things. One factor that has been mentioned in the literature is the <br />strong influence of world.oil prices, which would have to be about $13 <br />per barrel to wake extensive investments in oil shale development econ- <br />omically feasible. That price is currently hovering at $11 per barrel, <br />which is high enough to encourage experimentation in the richest oil <br />shale resource areas of Colorado. All indications in reports and in <br />papers delivered at the 1978 Colorado School of Hines Oil Shale Sym- <br />posium indicate that much res€aLch is curre~tly being done on the <br />topics of oil shale mining, chemistry, and engineering in anticipation <br />of eventually developing a full-scale comcercial industry. <br /> <br />The disaggregation of the U.S. Department of Energy emerging energy <br />technology projections was made from regionwide numbers for oil shales <br />with one major parameter in mind, the locatiQn of the oil shale resource. <br />Unlike more widespread resources, the relatively restricted location of <br />oil shale essentially dictates where this industry will develop. Mining <br />and retorting are most likely to be concentrated in the areas of richest <br />(i.e., highest gpt ratio) productivity potential. Sufficient water <br />supply does not appear to be a restriction on the development of the <br />various oil shale processing methods. The modified in-situ process <br />could in fact produce excess water, for which treatment for recycling <br />or disposal would then be a problem. All indications are that such <br />~ater contains high levels of total dissolved solids, organics, and <br />caustic chemicals in solution (e.g., see Goldstein, et al, 1978, <br />p. 4-19; and Probstein, et al., 1978 pp. 116-121). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It has been found that local aquifers such as those encountered <br />in the oil shale mining process often cause ~ine dewatering problems. <br />Water quality in these circlJmstances varies from relatively pure to <br />highly saline and presents additional treataent a~d disposal problems. <br />This excess water is not to be confused with the excess process water <br />discU5S~d above. <br /> <br />C-ll <br />