Talk:Oil shale extraction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Chemistry
Chemistry Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Good article Oil shale extraction has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Fortune & Shell's ICP

This Fortune article may provide some useful information for inclusion on Shell's ICP. -MmmmJoel 18:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

What is more correct title:Oil shale extraction or Shale oil extraction?Beagel 06:50, 29 July 2007 (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)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in November 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Gprince007 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've copyedit the entire article and did the best i could. Since it is a technical article, i had a lot questions and doubts which were promptly clarified by User:Beagel. However, as my last experience with the Oil shale article goes, it was copyedited by me, but after my copyed it went thru a lot of changes which resulted in it being denied a proofread. This time i request the editors to desist from making drastic changes, so that the proofreading can be effectively carried out. Again, thanx to User:Beagel for clarifying my doubts in the article. Some "copyed's notes" are still in the article and hope they'll be clarified soon. Gprince007 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick-fail Good Article nomination

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article does a quality job in some areas, but is seriously lacking in terms of comprehensiveness and NPOV.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Exemplary work in both of the above areas. Good job.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Article has no information on the economics of the process or the environmental impact. If the majority of content is to stay in other articles, then at least an introductory paragraph and a {{mainarticle}} link needs to be included in this one. In my view, the economics sub-article is easily large enough to stay separate. But Environmental effects of oil shale industry should absolutely be merged with this one; it would not make this article exceed the recommended article length.
    B. Focused:
    Too focused actually.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Fails per the complete lack of treatment of the economic and environmental aspects of the topic. Leaving out two points of often serious contention with critics of the process is failing to provide equal weight to all significant viewpoints on the subject, and thus violates a completely neutral point of view.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Without including at least a cursory mention within this article, splitting the controversial economic and environmental aspects of this topic into separate articles could be a case of POV-forking. Using only a See also section link for these topics is not enough. While splitting away subtopics is recommended when the content of one subject grows to large, there still must be a small section and a {{mainarticle}} link in the parent article to preserve neutrality and broad coverage. As articles with obviously non-neutral treatment of a topic quick-fail the GA nomination, no hold period has been provided to try and remedy these problems. VanTucky Talk 23:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing this article. Unfortunately I can't agree with your opinion concerning non-neutral treatment and POV-forking. Neutrality has been the essential topic. The case is that Oil shale extraction, as also Oil shale economics, Environmental effects of oil shale industry, and several others are spin-off from the the Oil shale article. Not going into details why these spin-off articles were created, I will only say that this was because the main article became too long and this approach was suggested during peer review and agreed between active editors. So, the Oil shale article deals with all aspects (including economics and environment) in summary style and specific aspects related to the oil shale are dealt in specific articles. Although nobody suggested before that summary of economics and environment should be included also this article, there is no problem to do this. As these summary sections aöready exist in the Oil shale article, it's mainly copy-paste work. So, I think that putting this article on hold to fix a problem (already fixed actually), or asking second opinion was probably better solution than just failing. I also disagree with merging the Environmental effects of oil shale industry into this article. Environmental effects related not only to the oil extraction, but also to the oil shale combustion at the oil shale-fired power plants. I agree that the Environmental effects of oil shale industry article needs to be expand. As there is process to improve all oil shale series article at least to GA level, this work will be definitely done. Beagel (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thorough and considered response. You are correct in a sense, in that I would have normally held the article for a single issue. But if that issue is one of the quick-fail criteria, then I am obligated to quick-fail the article. As NPOV issues are often more contentious - and thus, more time consuming - to work out, I have no way of gauging if they can be completed in a week, and so I don't feel comfortable ignoring the standard quick-fail response. Happily, you seem to have fixed it to a basic necessary standard to attain GA. I won't press on the merge issue, as that isn't a cut and dry criterion for passing (obviously). Good luck with the other articles and thanks for your hard work, VanTucky Talk 19:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Informal peer review

Usual random ramblings:

  • Lead: 'an immature form of hydrocarbon'. I think this is wrong, isn't it? The kerogen and hydrocarbon articles seem pretty clear that kerogen is not a hydrocarbon. Even if it is, I'm not sure 'immature' would be the right way to describe their relationship.
Y Done. Lead is changed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead:First sentence is a bit long (and I like long sentences!). Also uses 'form' three times in three lines. Suggest reformat to two separate sentences.
Y Done. Lead is changed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead:'It is a process wherein'. Think you can drop this and just start the sentence 'The shale is...'
Y Done. Lead is changed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead: Suggest change 'currently' to 'as of 2008', so that if the article is not updated it will remain accurate despite any changes to the industry.
Y Done. Lead is changed. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ex-situ technologies: There is a problem with the copyright for the pic of the Stuart oil shale processing plant. The pic is not released under the GFDL license that has been assigned to it, which allows both commercial and non-commercial use. Ask for advice from some copyright experts on whether there is another free use license that can be used, or whether fair use is a possibility.
  • Ex-situ technologies: 'internal hot gas/solid carrier technologies'. Reader has no idea what these mean at this point. Are they explained later?
Y Done. Listed, which technologies are hot gas carrier technologies and which are hot solid carrier technologies. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More comments later. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, i think refering to the first point what it's trying to say that it isn't a hydrocarbon however when subjected to the right heat and temperature for long enough kerogen will release hydrocarbons. So it has the potential to create hydrocarbons however it just hasn't been subjected to the right conditions yet. Dexcel (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, but that is not at all the same thing as an 'immature form of hydrocarbon'. How about 'Oil shale extraction refers to the process in which kerogen, a mixture of organic chemical compounds found in sedimentary rocks, is converted into a usable hydrocarbon in the form of a petroleum-like shale oil and combustible shale gas.'? 4u1e (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another informal peer review

More informal peer review comments, sorry for the extremely long delay on these from the first time you asked. This is only a start, I'll be back with more, probably in a few days.

  • The convert template for the temperatures in the lead section has odd spacing to my eyes. I think I'd prefer nbsps around the '/'. Obviously this isn't the right place to argue about it though!
    • Don't know how to add spaces to the template. I changed template format and hope you like it more this way. If not, it is always possible to change back.Beagel (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Does the table contain the names of oil shale processing technologies or companies that use these types of methods? The Hom Tov link is to a company rather than a process (although obviously they could have the same name).
    • These are names of technologies. At the same time, most of companies have their own technologies and obviously this reflects in the technology name. In case of Hom Tov, the company name and the technology name are identical. Although the Hom Tov articles is about the company, its also consists a paragraph about the technology.Beagel (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How about linking some more of the company names in this table.
    • these are technologies, not companies. There is only an article about Petrosix technology, and not about any other technology (in case of Hom Tov there is a paragraph in the company stub). The company names are linked later in text (if there is an article about the company, because usually the oil shale companies are not "mainstream" companies and often don't have their own articles in the Wikipedia).Beagel (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • link char
  • The Stuart oil shale processing plant image's text (from Greenpeace) claims non-commercial use only. This is not a wikipedia compatible licence.
    • I left a request at the WP Austrialia website for a free image of the Stuart plant. The current image is currently not visible.Beagel (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 'is mined either by underground mining or surface mining' - too much mining!
    • One mining less.Beagel (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (this is probably a bit picky) 'usually heated to 450 °C' - do you mean 'it is usually heated but sometimes it isn't' or 'it is heated, usually to 450 °C but sometimes to other temperatures'?
    • It means usually to 450 °C, but different technologies may use different temperatures.Beagel (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 'the lump shale is used in internal hot gas carrier technologies (internal combustion technologies, externally generated hot gas technologies)' - What does the bracket mean here?
Just to give example, which group of technologies uses gas for heat transfer and which one uses solid matter.Beagel (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • it would be better to define the particulate size in particulate oil shale technologies at the 1st instance of it appearing
  • 'are, feed shale' - do you mean to use a comma here? also the later one in this sentence.
  • what is a gravitational shaft retort?
    • In this context gravitational means vertical. Replaced.Beagel (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 'the yield of oil accounts for 14-17% of shale and the oil consists of a small amount of low-boiling fractions' - is there a missing 'the' before 'shale'? define 'low-boiling fraction'.
  • The ATP retort picture is very small as a thumbnail. I would recommend larger. Making it large enough to read the text does require it to be a lot larger though...
  • 'capacity of processing 40 tonnes per hour of oil shale' - is this a lot?
  • 'Internal combustion technologies use heat transferred by flowing gases, which are generated by combustion within the retort.' - is this the oil shale itself that is combusted within the retort? how does this fit with the lack of oxygen mentioned earlier?
  • 'Hot recycled solids technologies use heat, which is transferred by mixing hot solid particles with the oil shale.' - use heat to do what? don't all the technologies use heat?
  • From what I've read so far the intro is very good but the readability of the text declines after this. I think it is probably a bit difficult/technical for the hypothetical "bright teenager" to understand as there are a number of presumably technical terms that aren't explained eg 'spouted bed', 'low-boiling fractions', 'rotary kiln-type retort', 'syngas' etc etc. JMiall₰ 19:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The hypothetical bright teenager - do you know, JMiall, if is this discussed somewhere on WP? Interesting issue. One of the readability tools gives an age, which is a nice sanity check when reading an article that's outside of one's knowledge zone; am wondering if the target age has been discussed and where in the teenage years it falls. Novickas (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing much comes up under a search for 'bright teenager' does it which I'm sure used to be in some guideline or other. Here's some helpful links. JMiall₰ 16:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the WP article "Make technical articles accessible" is a good piece, although it does not directly address the target age. I'm thinking 'assessed as understandable at age 19 by at least one tool' as a goal to strive for. However, the tool [1] has hung my PC several times - could you see if it works better for you, and if so, invoke it occasionally and share the results on request? Novickas (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The tool ties up Firefox on my PC for a while but eventually comes back with some data. I can share this if you would like. Currently the various reading ages are reporting ~18-20 however I do not know what they are really testing for. JMiall₰ 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, who knows what their algorithms are. That would take a whole other round of research. In any case - it's good you don't have to reboot to use it, and as this article evolves, it would be nice if you could use that tool on it once in a while. Thanks, Novickas (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

More things to do:

  • link bitumen, centrifuge, carbon dioxide, Alberta, maybe grade, condenser etc. I'm sure I've missed many.
    • links added. However, needs one more check after other changes are made.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • when you introduce the various technologies you almost always don't use the word 'the' when refring to the technology or process
  • 'The retort-style prototype was reported to have passed a test.' - what prototype, what test?
    • Sentence removed.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Israeli promoters of this process' - is the Israeli important here?
    • The technology is developed in Israel, but in this context this is not important. Word removed.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Fischer Assay' has inconsistent capitalization
  • 'A 100 gram sample crushed to 8 mesh (2.38 mm) screen' - what does this mean?
  • 'cooled with ice water into a graduated centrifuge tube' - are the vapours cooled with ice water in the condenser or after? Why is it important to tell us about the graduated tube?
  • 'hot gas generated by natural gas or pyrolysis gas' - from the burning of natural gas?
  • is an 'oil shale rubble pile' a pile of rubble and oil shale or just a pile of oil shale?
  • 'has being operating' - ?
  • 'high availability' - what does this mean?
  • 'The hydrogen or hydrogen donor react with coke precursors' - what is the hydrogen donor? what is a coke precursor?
  • 'In this process conversion reaction occurs' - missing a/the
  • what is hydrotreating?

more to follow... JMiall₰ 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Other issues answered below (see answers/proposals from Alan Burnham).Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the article upon request to help fix any remaining errors.

  • In the introduction section, I don't think it is correct to say that Alberta Taciuk is currently being used commercially. It was demonstrated at near commercial scale in Australia, analogous to the Unocal Colorado operations in the early 1980s. It is being considered for commercial operations today at multiple locations, but it is not being used currently. The further detail on this process in the hot recycled solids section should be updated. It states that a system is currently being designed (2007 reference) and will start operation in 2008. It can't happen that fast.
    • Alberta Taciuk is removed from the list of technologies in commercial use. the 2008 deadline is removed.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that that "low-boiling fractions" should be defined for the Galator process. It looks to be too high for the naphtha or gasoline fraction, based on data Cameron Engineer's Handbook, so it could be gasoline and jet fuel ranges. I will try to find out but do not guarantee success.
  • Someone asks whether 40-tonnes per hour is a lot. It depends on your perspective. That gives a few hundred barrels per day. We would need a thousand such retorts in the United States to make a significant dent in our oil consumption. US industry would probably opt for larger retorts. The Alberta Taciuk demonstration unit was 250 tonnes per hour. The Unocal demonstration was 400 tonnes per day. But Estonia needs much less oil than the US.
  • The question was asked about what burns in an internal combustion retort. It depends on the design of the particular retort and the quality of the oil shale being used. Sometimes it is primarily reinjected pyrolysis gas. Sometimes it is primarily the char left on the retorted shale. Sometimes it is a combination of those two plus some oil in locations where the air reaches the retorting zone. How much detail is appropropriate?
  • A question was asked about a sentence starting with "Hot recycled solids technologies use heat...". That sentence has apparently been changeed, but its replacement ("Hot recycled solids technologies use for the heat transfer solid particles (usually shale ash)")is not clear. It would be better as "Hot recycled solids technologies use solid particles (usually shale ash) to carry heat in the the retorting zone". In the following sentence, the grammar would be better adding "the" before "feeding" and deleting the comma before "and" for proper parallel construction.
  • A comment was made about the use of technical terms such as "spouted bed". Spouted beds are a type of fluidized beds and are described in a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed). Add a connection as appropriate. I would suggest changing "rotary kiln-type retort" to "rotating kiln." I thought I would find the term in the Wikikpedia article on cement, but it only mentioned that it is made in a kiln. I recommend changing "syngas" to "synthesis gas" and referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_gas.
    • changed per recommendations.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A question was raised about a sentence "The retort-style prototype was reported to have passed a test." I agree that this sentence makes no sense and could be deleted. The reference at the end gives a good review of various activities, and is maybe appropriate elsewhere, but it is not obvious how it relates to this sentence.
    • Sentence removed, more description added.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Recent discussions with colleagues suggests that "Fischer Assay" is preferred to Fischer assay, but consistency is more important than which is used.
    • Changed to "Fischer Assay".Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A description of Fischer assay has been added to the same paragraph as that describing Hom Tov. It should be a separate paragraph and probably first. The question of shale size could be better stated, "A 100-g sample crushed to <2.38 mm is heated..." I didn't write the sentence about the graduated centrifuge tube, but that is how you measure the amount of oil. It seems obvious to me, but if it is not obvious to others, perhaps it should be stated explicitly.
    • Moved. Sentence changed per recommendation.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that "the burning of natural gas or pyrolysis gas" is better.
  • An "oil shale rubble pile" is a "pile of oil shale rubble". Rubble implies that it is broken into chunks by mining.
    • changed to "pile of oil shale rubble".Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I assume "has being operating" should be "has been operating"
    • Changed to "has been operating".Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "High availability" means that it works a high percentage of the time. Whoever contributed this sentence might be able to give a numerical percentage.
  • "hydrogen donor" is a chemical that donates hydrogen to others during chemical reactions. Tetralin is one example. The Exxon Donor Solvent coal liquefaction process (http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=0&page=0&osti_id=7350242) uses such agents. The Exxon Donor Solvent process is not describing in the Wikipedia article on Coal, but it should be, and then a reference could be added. A coke precursor is a chemical structure in the oil shale that is prone to form coke during retorting but has not yet done so.
    • Explanations added.Beagel (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A question was raised about "In this process conversion reaction occurs". It is not correct as written. It could be "In this process, conversion occurs" or "In this process, the conversion occurs" or "In this process, conversion of kerogen to oil and gas occurs" or "In this process, retorting occurs" or other options.
  • "Hydrotreating" is the reaction of oil with high pressure hydrogen. The term is also used in the Wikipedia article on gasoline. A search of the term on the web gives numerous articles, one being http://www.uop.com/refining/1060.html.

(Akburnham (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Thank you very much.Beagel (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)