John Gordon Javier Alvare · UT2 R3 H2 UT2 R3 CH4 AB Dil 1 H2 AB Dil 1 CH4 MX HO1 H2 MX HO1 CH4 . 8...
33
John Gordon Javier Alvare 32 Oil Shale Symposium
Transcript of John Gordon Javier Alvare · UT2 R3 H2 UT2 R3 CH4 AB Dil 1 H2 AB Dil 1 CH4 MX HO1 H2 MX HO1 CH4 . 8...
John Gordon Javier Alvare
32 Oil Shale Symposium
2 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
Reactor! Separator!
Electrolytic regeneration!
Separator!
H2 or !CH4! Ni, V, Fe!
Electrical Power!
Na salt!Na!
Sulfur!
Make up Na!
Simple Process
3 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
Feed C (%) H (%) N (%) S (%) H/C
(mol) S/N (mol) API
Colorado R1 83.57 10.80 1.90 0.72 1.55 0.11 20.1 Jordanian R2 77.27 9.03 0.55 12.96 1.40 6.88 15.3 Australian R1 84.10 11.30 0.97 0.55 1.61 0.16 25.9 Uintah 1 R2 79.50 11.83 0.48 0.70 1.79 0.43 43.4 Uintah 2 R3 84.70 11.63 1.36 0.22 1.65 0.05 32.4 Alberta Dil 79.40 10.47 0.47 3.83 1.58 2.37 17.4 Mexican HO 81.37 10.58 0.44 5.00 1.56 3.31 14.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
0.01 0.1 1 10
AP
I G
ravi
ty
S/N (mol/mol)
CO R1
Jord R2
Aus R1
UT1 R2
UT2 R3
AB Dil
MX HO
4 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
� Assume • 2 moles Na per mole S • 3 moles Na per mole N • Ignore metals and TAN – they come out too
� SR = Actual Na / Na based on assumption
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
CO R1 Jord R2 Aus R1 UT1 R2 UT2 R3 AB Dil MX HO
SR = 1, KG Na/bbl
5 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
� Present • Shoot molten sodium into reactor at fast
rate • Reaction of Na with S is fast – exotherm • Local thermal cracking – not ideal for
good yield � Future
• Control rate of sodium addition � EM Pump � Conventional pumping of dispersions
• Expect reduced thermal cracking � Expect yield improvement
6 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Sulf
ur
Rem
oval
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Hydrogen and Methane
Aus R1 H2
Aus CH4
CO R1 H2
CO R1 CH4
Jord R2 H2
Jord R2 CH4
UT1 R2 H2
UT1 R2 CH4
UT2 R3 H2
UT2 R3 CH4
AB Dil 1 H2
AB Dil 1 CH4
MX HO1 H2
MX HO1 CH4
7 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Nit
roge
n R
emov
al
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Hydrogen and Methane Aus R1 H2
Aus CH4
CO R1 H2
CO R1 CH4
Jord R2 H2
Jord R2 CH4
UT1 R2 H2
UT1 R2 CH4
UT2 R3 H2
UT2 R3 CH4
AB Dil 1 H2
AB Dil 1 CH4
MX HO1 H2
MX HO1 CH4
8 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Volu
me
Yie
ld (V
f/V
i)
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Hydrogen and Methane
Aus R1 H2
Aus CH4
CO R1 H2
CO R1 CH4
Jord R2 H2
Jord R2 CH4
UT1 R2 H2
UT1 R2 CH4
UT2 R3 H2
UT2 R3 CH4
AB Dil 1 H2
AB Dil 1 CH4
MX HO1 H2
MX HO1 CH4
9 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Volu
me
Yie
ld (V
f/V
i)
Sulfur Removed (Si-Sf)/Si
Hydrogen and Methane
Aus R1 H2
Aus CH4
CO R1 H2
CO R1 CH4
Jord R2 H2
Jord R2 CH4
UT1 R2 H2
UT1 R2 CH4
UT2 R3 H2
UT2 R3 CH4
AB Dil 1 H2
AB Dil 1 CH4
MX HO1 H2
MX HO1 CH4
10 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Volu
me
Yie
ld (V
f/V
i)
Nitrogen Removed (Ni-Nf)/Ni
Hydrogen and Methane
Aus R1 H2
Aus CH4
CO R1 H2
CO R1 CH4
Jord R2 H2
Jord R2 CH4
UT1 R2 H2
UT1 R2 CH4
UT2 R3 H2
UT2 R3 CH4
AB Dil 1 H2
AB Dil 1 CH4
MX HO1 H2
MX HO1 CH4
11 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Nit
roge
n R
emov
ed (N
i-N
f)/N
i
Sulfur Removed (Si-Sf)/Si
Hydrogen and Methane
Aus R1 H2
Aus CH4
CO R1 H2
CO R1 CH4
Jord R2 H2
Jord R2 CH4
UT1 R2 H2
UT1 R2 CH4
UT2 R3 H2
UT2 R3 CH4
AB Dil 1 H2
AB Dil 1 CH4
MX HO1 H2
MX HO1 CH4
12 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
� Can yield be improved? • Determine the impact of reduced rate of sodium
addition • Can nitrogen effectively be removed without
yield penalty?
13 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
AP
I G
ravi
ty
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Hydrogen and Methane
Aus R1 H2
Aus CH4
CO R1 H2
CO R1 CH4
Jord R2 H2
Jord R2 CH4
UT1 R2 H2
UT1 R2 CH4
UT2 R3 H2
UT2 R3 CH4
AB Dil 1 H2
AB Dil 1 CH4
MX HO1 H2
MX HO1 CH4
14 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
AP
I G
ravi
ty
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Australia R1: Hydrogen and Methane
Aus R1 H2
Aus CH4
Model H2
Model CH4
15 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
AP
I G
ravi
ty
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Colorado R1: Hydrogen and Methane
CO R1 H2
CO R1 CH4
Model H2
Model CH4
16 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
AP
I G
ravi
ty
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Jordanian Hydrogen and Methane
Jord R2 H2
Jord R2 CH4
Model H2
Model CH4
17 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
AP
I G
ravi
ty
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Utah 1 R2: Hydrogen and Methane
UT1 R2 H2
UT1 R2 CH4
Model H2
Model CH4
18 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
AP
I G
ravi
ty
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Utah 2 R3: Hydrogen and Methane
UT2 R3 H2
UT2 R3 CH4
Model H2
Model CH4
19 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
AP
I G
ravi
ty
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Hydrogen and Methane
AB Dil 1 H2
AB Dil 1 CH4
Model H2
Model CH4
20 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
AP
I G
ravi
ty
Stoichiometric Ratio (Act/Theo)
Hydrogen and Methane
MX HO1 H2
MX HO1 CH4
Model H2
Model CH4
21 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
� At lower SR, API generally rises in agreement with model
� At high SR near or above 1, API rises generally above the model • Likely due to solids drop out.
22 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
High boiling fraction eliminated
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sim
dis
t Tem
p (
C )
Fraction Boiloff
UT1 R2_Treated
UT1 R2_AR
23 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
Mostly the same boiling but with dramatically reduced sulfur
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sim
dis
t Tem
p (
C )
Fraction Boiloff
Jord R2 Treated
Jord R2 AR
24 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
Fractions boil at lower temperature “Resid” fraction is reduced
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sim
dis
t Tem
p (
C )
Fraction Boiloff
Dilbit treated Dilbit AR
25 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
� For Shale Oil • Boiling point curves remain mostly unchanged
� For Heavy Oil & • Shift of 60C typical, major reduction in resid
(>540C), faction above 720C almost completely eliminated
27 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0 10 20 30 40
scf H
2 /
bbl
SR * kg Na Theo / bbl
Hydrogen
Aus R1 H2 CO R1 H2 Jord R2 H2 UT1 R2 H2 UT2 R3 H2 AB Dil 1 H2 MX HO1 H2 Theoretical Regression
1H per Na
1.77H per Na
28 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
0
Electro regeneration has been demonstrated Over 5000 hours
Stable membrane performance
Washed solids from Jordanian Oil Shale Post Reaction
SO2 Emissions = 0 CO2 Emissions = less
31 32 Oil Shale Symposium – Golden, CO – October 2012
� Molten sodium upgrading demonstrated small scale
� Margins and returns look attractive
� Emissions can be reduced
� John Gordon
� [email protected] � (801) 631-5961
� For Canada � Neil Camarta
�
� (403) 470-0141
Field Upgrading Inc.
US Department of Energy DOE Award No.: DE-FE0000408
