Massive potential for new oil production technique

Posted: December 10, 2016 by tallbloke in Carbon cycle


Oil 81788220


Potential extraction for three types of U.S. oil reserves (from top to bottom): zapping, tapping and fracking. These figures from the USGS show “technically recoverable” deposits. Scale: 1:4.2 trillion. GETTY/SHUTTERSTOCK

What do Hot Pockets and oil shale have in common? As it turns out, more than you might imagine. True, you can’t bake oil shale the way you can Hot Pockets. And you can’t steam Hot Pockets (unless you like ’em soggy) the way you can oil shale when you want to siphon off its black gold. But there is one preparation method that works for both these two improbable sources of abundant energy, and it’s probably in your kitchen at this very moment: microwaves.

As strange as it sounds, producers are experimenting with ways to zap previously unextractable oil resources with microwaves, which has the potential to kick-start an even bigger energy revolution than fracking — and appease environmentalists while they’re at it. This is potentially “a whole shift in the paradigm,” says Peter Kearl, co-founder and CTO of Qmast, a Colorado-based company pioneering the use of the microwave tech. Some marquee names are betting on the play: Oil giants BP and ConocoPhillips are pouring resources into developing similar extraction techniques, which can be far less water- and energy-intensive than fracking.

If producers can find a way to microwave oil shales in the Green River Formation, which sprawls across Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, the nation’s recoverable reserves could soar and energy independence could become more than an election slogan. Even with existing methods — strip-mining the shale and then cooking it, or injecting steam to cook the rock underground (hydraulic fracturing is useless here) — the formation contains enough oil to last the U.S. 165 years at current rates of consumption. Microwave extraction could goose those numbers even higher. After all, there are more than 4 trillion (with a “t”) barrels of oil in the Green River Formation. And yet this microwave extraction technology comes at a time when the world is awash in oil, and prices are so low that domestic producers are having a hard time pumping at a profit.

Time for a quick geology lesson. Don’t worry, if “painless” and “geology lesson” ever belonged in the same sentence, it’s this one. The most important takeaway: Don’t confuse shale oil with the not-at-all-confusingly-named oil shale. Shale oil is essentially liquid oil locked up in rock that’s found in deep formations and requires hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for it to flow freely to the wellbore for extraction. Oil shale, on the other hand, isn’t really oil yet. Instead, it is found in more shallow formations that contain solid organic materials called kerogen. “You can get oil out of it,” says Dr. Seth Shonkoff, executive director of the energy science and policy institute PSE Healthy Energy, but it “usually involves subjecting the oil shale to high heat.” High heat from, say, microwaves. OK, class dismissed.

In Kearl’s playbook, you’d leave the kerogen in the ground and bring its oil to the surface. Producers would microwave oil shale formations with a beam as powerful as 500 household microwave ovens, cooking the kerogen and releasing the oil. It also would turn the water found naturally in the deposits to steam, which would help push the oil to the wellbore. “Once you remove the oil and water,” Kearl continues, “the rock basically becomes transparent” to the microwave beam, which can then penetrate outward farther and farther, up to about 80 feet from the wellbore. It doesn’t sound like much, but a single microwave-stimulated well, which would be drilled in formations on average nearly 1,000 feet thick, could pump about 800,000 barrels. Qmast plans to have its first systems deployed in the field in 2017 and start producing by the end of that year.

Kearl claims there are multiple environmental advantages to this technique. Fracking can slurp up to 10 million gallons of water per operation — not good, especially in the arid West. “We don’t need water for our process,” Kearl says, “and we don’t have wastewater to dispose of afterward.” In fact, microwave extraction might produce water — one barrel of water for every three barrels of oil.
Full post

  1. ivan says:

    Peak oil… Anyone…?

    It would appear that the doom-sayers are really going to get their knickers in a twist over this. We can expect a lot more of the CO2 is evil propaganda to be forthcoming because it goes against their religion that anything the plebs do is bad.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Cost could be an issue. From the full post:

    ‘Kearl and company may overcome technical challenges and stand ready to bring microwaved wells on line, but there’s nothing they can do about their highest hurdle: the price of oil. Kearl estimates his pumping costs will be about $9 per barrel, which is only about $2 more than conventional wells. However, a recent report claims the price of oil needs to be $65 per barrel in order for new oil-patch investments to break even. The current price is about $47. So, unless the price of oil soars, all that microwavable oil shale may remain untapped.’ [bold added]

  3. TA says:

    Very interesting! I’m continuously amazed at human ingenuity. The future looks a little brighter.

  4. catweazle666 says:

    The mining and cooking of oil shale to extract the kerogen was the basis of the Scottish oil industry in the 19th century when Scotland was the World’s primary exporter of petrochemicals (not a lot of people know that!) and replaced whale oil for illumination in lamps, seriously damaging the whaling industry and potentially saving whales from extinction.

    The massive mounds (bings) near Glasgow are the spoil from the shale mines.

    The dire prognostications about the oil running out also date from this era!

  5. Mike SIngleton says:

    The earlier and larger play for this technology is what the Harris corporation is doing they are currently conducting underground testing in the Alberta Oil Sands with some of the major producers. First mooted in 2008. Caution, heat transfer to the ground will be your enemy. Have to take into account the full energy lifecycle so total energy input per unit of oil produced is as yet an unknown but will be penalized by the thermal to electrical energy conversion step.

  6. rishrac says:

    TA, the future was and always will be bright. We’ve had some people trying to turn off the lights.

  7. gallopingcamel says:

    Current estimates are that oil must be priced at $70 per barrel or more to make shale oil profitable. As the conventional reserves run down prices will rise so it is just a matter of timing.

  8. gallopingcamel says:

    Too bad I retired last month. My understanding is that shale oil needs >0.5 MW microwave generators.

    Depressed collector klystrons operating around 2.5 GHz (S-band) can have have efficiencies of around 70% so they should be excellent RF sources for this application. Then there is the problem of transmitting the RF power down a well that may be thousands of feet deep. Conventional rectangular waveguides have too much loss. Back in 1962 I worked on 2, 4 and 6 GHZ microwave systems using 3″ circular waveguides that had 40 times lower loss than rectangular guides. In those days the BSTJ (Bell System Technical Journal) was proposing circular waveguides for long haul microwave communication.

    Fifty five years later nothing much has changed yet here is a patent that proposes to use 3.5″ circular waveguides for shale oil applications:

    While I wish these guys lots of luck there is plenty of “Prior Art” that is 50 or 60 years old, so I expect several of the claims in this patent to be rejected!

  9. michael hart says:

    “,,,and appease environmentalists while they’re at it.”

    No. You will never appease environmentalists. Even if you abandoned all oil production today, they would still be complaining about the legacy until the end of eternity.