You are on page 1of 15

Summary

Introduction
Shale oil deposits are found around the world, but the largest are by far located in the United States. The United States has an estimated 620 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale deposits. Other countries with significant reserves include Brazil(300 bbls) Russia(40 bbls), the Congo(40 bbls), Australia(15 bbls), and Canada(15 bbls). (International Energy Agency 2005). These deposits are typically carbonate or silica based, and typically found at depths of around 900 meters. The type of deposits naturally affects the approach taken for mining and retorting. There are two methods for extracting shale oil. One is in-situ mining, which uses hydraulic fracturing. The other is surface mining. After each step, the shale oil is heated, either in-situ or in retorts, so that it undergoes pyrolysis and forms hydrocarbon liquids.

Historical Development
Shale oil was discovered in the early 1900s, and although several pilot plants were developed, no appreciable amounts of shale oil were actually produced or shipped until 1921, in which 223 barrels of shale oil were produced (Russell 1980). Interest in shale oil production was extremely low from 1921 to 1944 due to the discoveries of much more profitable and conventional oil sources found elsewhere. However, due to fuel shortages caused by world war two, there was renewed interest in oil shale. From 1944 1969, research activity was steady, and many different proposals were made for extracting shale oil, including using a nuclear device to fracture shale oil. It was during this time period that the first large-scale mining and retorting operationg for shale oil was developed. Research in retorting and shale oil technologies was very slow from 1969-1973. The oil of embargo of 1973 again renewed interest in shale oil, with research programs being developed in Colorado (Russell 1980). However, all research in the United States was halted in the 1980s due to rising estimates of project costs, and the low global oil prices (Killen 2010). By the early 1990s, more than 20 modern technologies for oil shale processing had been conceived and tested. Some encountered design or technology problems associated with scale-up, but others have been taken from the laboratory to commercial methods. Most U.S. oil shale development efforts were terminated in the mid 1980s due to rising estimates of project costs and low global oil price and demand outlooks. 1

Shale Formation Types


Oil shale is a marlstone that contains varying amounts of kerogen, which is a solid organic material. When kerogen is heated to about 482 degrees Celsius, it decomposes into hydrocarbons and a carbonaceous residue. The cooled hydrocarbons condense into a liquid called shale oil. (Anderson 1992) 70% of the worlds oil shale resources are in the United States, which contain 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil2 Between 1985 2005 the u.s. had no concerted effort to develop its major unconventional fuels, including oil shale. During this same time period, Canada did develop the oil sands and is producing over 1 mil barrels/day, mostly exported to the U.S3 Oil shale is a marlstone containing kerogen, an immature hydrocarbon laid down millions of years ago as plants and animals. Initial methods of mining oil shale required mining the ore and heating the shale to temperatures 900 degrees farenheit in large surface kilns called retorts. 4 From 1981 to today, shell has researched in-situ conversion process. The process involves inserting heaters directly into the underground shale formation and heating the rock to roughly 700 degrees
1 2

Oil shale: a solution to the liquid fuel dilemma p 25 Energy science, engineering and technology series 4 3 Energy science, engineering and technology series 40 4 Energy science, engineering and technology series 55

Fahrenheit. This heating causes the kerogen molecules to crack, transforming them into lighter-end hydrocarbons that can then be produced using conventional means. The heavier end of the carbon chain molecules is left behind in a solid and immobile state. We have determined that the product produced is roughly 1/3 gas, 2/3 light transportation liquids.5 Canadas oil-shale deposits range from Ordovician to cretagceous age and include deposits of lacustrine and marine origin. In the 1980s a number of the deposits were explored by core drilling. The oil shales of the new brunsick albert formation have the greatest potential for development. The alberta oil shale averages 100 l/ton of shale oil. Marinates, including the Devonian kettle point formation and the Ordovician colingwood shale of southern Ontario have relatively small amounts of shale oil (40 l/tone) but yield can be doubled by hydroretorting Cretaceous boyne and favel marinates form large resources of low-grade oil shale in the prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. 6 The first phase in organic matters geologic transformation to petroleum is intermediate conversion to kerogen.

5 6

Energy science, engineering and technology series p 95 Energy science, engineering and technology series p 136

Surface mining
Surface mining works best where the shale oil deposit is relatively shallow, such as in areas where the overburden is less than 150 feet, or can also be economically feasible for deeper deposits where the stripping ratio is about 1:1. The stripping ratio is the ratio between the overburden, and the oil shale deposit thickness. Surface mining has generally fallen out of favour because of the environmental impacts which include surface area disturbance, habitat disturbance from noise caused by blasting, risks to surface and groundwater quality due to run-off, air quality deterioration due to dust, and the overburden and spent shale oil rock clean up requirements after mining is completed. (Killen 2010)

The mined rock is heated in a retort, which pyrolyses the kerogen into oil.

What is room and pillar mining vs long wall mining?

Mining
Underground Mining
The mining techniques used are similar to that in coal mining. Consequently, they are well established and economically proven. The room and pillar mining method is the favored approach. In this method, chambers are excavated, with pillars providing vertical support. This approach can be used in seams up to 100 feet thick. The room and pillar method can recover about 60% of the oil shale in place, and the excavated rooms can be used to store the bulk of the processed shale rock afterwards (James t. Bartis 2005).

Modified in-Situ approach In-situ mining


In-situ mining is necessary for oil shale deposits which are too deep for economical recovery via surface mining. This situation applies to most of the shale oil deposits of the world. For in-situ mining, the oil shale must be broken, or fractured before processing due to the low permeability of the shale oil. This is necessary so that the oil that is produced during the heating stage is able to drain into a producing well. The shale oil is fractured with explosives or with hydraulic fracturing. After fracturing, the shale oil is heated to about 500 degrees Celsius. The heat is supplied either through an in-situ combustion process,

or through wells that are heated. For the former, control is very difficult and the recovery rate is variable. For the latter process is easier to control but rather inefficient in terms of energy consumption. Along with being the only method for economically processing deep shale oil deposits, insitu mining is able to avoid many of the environmental issues associated with strip mining (International Energy Agency 2005).

One method of in-situ mining is to drill a well, set explosives, and to then heat the rubble from the explosion to liquefy the shale oil into a hydrocarbon and carbonaceous residue. The liquid hydrocarbons are then pumped from the bottom of the exploded well. A challenge for this method is that the rubble remaining in the retort must be removed after each heating cycle. This rubble must then be treated for pollutants and heavy metals, which is expensive. (Anderson 1992) The main problems with in-situ mining is that

Hydraulic Fracturing
Stabilizing fluid

Hydro-retorting In-situ conversion process: this involves drilling holes up to 2,000 feet deep, inserting electrical resistance heaters, and heating the shale to 650-700 fareneheit over a period of months. The process converst the kerogen to gas and petroleum like liquids. This process consums high amounts of energy to operate the heaters, and also requires freezing the perimeter of the production zone to restrict groundwater flow.

Surfactants
Challenges
Transport in Shales and the design of improved water-based shale drilling fluids 1996 Borehole instability in shales is the prime technical problem area in oil and gas well drilling, estimated to cost 500 mil/year Current industry challenges associated with drilling more difficult wells like horizontal multilaterals and extended reach wells o Push for environmental friendliness by switching from poorly biodegradable oil-based muds that are technically superior but environmentally acceptable to water-based muds, Shale stability suffers from a lack of understanding of shale/drilling fluid interactions o Drilling problems are often approached on a trial-and-error process Shales are ill-defined, heterogeneous media ranging from weak clay-rich gumbos to highly cemented shaly siltstones with a low-permeability matrix drilling fluids may induce failure by changing the stress state and/or the shale strength

Horizontal Drilling
Challenges
The major challenge for shale drilling technology is in the area of borehole instability, which is estimated to cost the industry about 500 million per year. Currently, the understanding of shale/drilling fluid interactions are not well understood. As a result, drilling problems are solved with a trial and error approach instead of analytically (Eric Van Oort 1996). On average, problems associated with wellbore stability have added on average between 10 15% to normal drilling costs. Other challenges are associated with drilling more difficult wells like horizontal multilateral wells, and extended reach wells. These difficulties are increased due to the heterogeneous media that composes shale oil, which can range from weak clay-rich deposits to cemented siltstones with a very low permeability. As well, the push for materials that are environmental friendly is the main factor for the introduction of technically inferior, but more environmentally acceptable water-based muds from technically superior, but poorly biodegradable oil-based muds. (Eric Van Oort 1996) drilling fluids may induce failure by changing the stress state and/or the shale strength

Drilling Fluids
Drilling fluids have a direct impact on the performance of a drilling operation. For shale oil, which is highly impermeable, heterogeneous, and composed of many laminar layers, some important properties of a drilling fluid include its: rheological properties, which affect the drilling fluids carrying capacity for drill cuttings fluid loss control, which affects the fluid invasion into the rock formation. Specific fluid weight, which is important for the hydrostatic control of the well column inhibition properties which maintain the wellbore stability and help minimize cuttings sticking to the drill bit. Lubricant properties, which prevent problems such as stuck pipe. Generally, lubricity for oilbased drilling fluids is not a concern due to the nature of the continuous oleic phase. However, water-based fluids do require additives to increase the lubricity for acceptable results.

In general, there is a push in drilling fluids to move from oil-based drilling fluids technically inferior, but more environmentally friendly water-based drilling fluids. Another significant issue with water based drilling fluids is their tendency to cause swelling in shale rock formations due to the high clay content. Swelling in a wellbore can decrease the overall productivity of a well. Thus, the research of surfactants and their effects on the minerals in the wellbore and on the drilling performance are critical to improving a wells overall productivity. For shale reservoirs, which have a low permeability, two major problems encountered due to drilling fluids are the drilling fluids invading and changing the wettability of the reservoir rock due to some type of surfactant, and the surfactant promoting the formation of a viscous emulsion barrier in the area around the well bore. Proppant Transport Stokes law is used as a first estimate of proppant transport. However, Stokes law has many simplifying assumptions which limit its use. These assumptions include a stagnant fluid, no wall effects, perfect spheres, a laminar settling regime, and no particle to particle contact. While the general relationships that Stokes law demonstrate still holds, it is insufficient for actually predicting proppant transport. However, according to Stokes law, the following relationships are true: As the viscosity of a fluid increases, the settling velocity decreases. Eventually, the proppants will be suspended in solution with a high enough viscosity, which is found in some cross-linked fluids. Because slickwater treatments have very low viscosity, proppants will only be suspended if the densities of the proppant and the slickwater is the same. Larger diameter proppants increase the settling velocity. As a consequence, simply making the proppants larger so that they are less dense and therefore buoyant in slickwater may cause other problems due to the increased diameter.

Due to the incorrect assumptions of Stokes law as listed above, industry uses mathematical models to simulate proppant transport. These models do use Stokes law as a starting point, but attempt to make some refinements. However, these models have so far, been unable to accurately model proppant transport to a high degree of accuracy, necessitating the use of lab work. (T.T. Palisch 2010)

Oil-Based Drilling fluids


Oil-based drilling fluids were originally made with oil or diesel. Currently, there are environmentally friendly oil based drilling fluids called synthetic base fluids. Oil-based drilling fluids are either 100% oil based, or a water/oil inverse emulsion.

Water-in-Oil emulsions
Water/oil inverse emulsion

Oil-in-water emulsions
Water based fluids usually are composed of: Water Clay, biopolymers, or polymers: these provide the rheological properties that aid in suspending and bringing the drill cuttings to the surface. Weighting additives to control the fluid density, which controls the subsurface hydrostatic pressure Briding agents, which have a certain particle size distribution. These agents deposit a thin layer on the surface of the wellbore that prevents fluid invasion to the rock surrounding the well bore.

Research is currently being conducted into the effects of surfactants on wellbores for several factors.

On average, problems associated with wellbore stability have added on average between 10 15% to normal drilling costs. From: Do Shales Swell? A Critical Review of Available Evidence Conventional Cross-linked fluids Cross-linked fluids were originally developed in 1968, and when added to non cross-linked fluids, the combination creates a complex, high-viscosity fracturing fluid that results in better transport of the proppant. The benefits of a cross-linked fluid is that the viscosity is permanently increased until a breaking agent is introduced to break the cross-links in the fluid. However, cross-linked fluids can contain many hazardous chemicals, such as boric acid, sodium tetraborate, decahydrate, ethylene glycol, and monoethylamine, making the use of less chemically toxic fluids desirable. (EPA 2004) Slick-water fracture treatments It is estimated that slickwater fracs comprise more than 30% of stimulation treatments pumped in 2004. Slickwater fracks basically use a large volume of water to fracture the reservoir enough to make it commercially viable. Common mixtures are simply a mix of water and a polyacrylamide friction reducer or a low concentration linear gel, both of which slicken the water which reduces the fluid friction in the pipe. Due to this low viscosity, slickwater frac fluids are not able to transport proppant very well,

and consequently create narrower fracture widths. To solve this problem, slickwater fracs are done at higher volumes. These volumes are enormous, with flow rates in excess of 100 bbl/min in use in areas of Barnett Shale. The primary benefit of slickwater fracturing is the reduced gel damage within a fracture as compared to using conventional cross-linked fluids. Furthermore, slickwater treatments use much fewer chemicals, and the fluids are easily recovered and recycled. However, these benefits are sometimes nullified by the location of a drilling site if it is not close to an accessible source of water. While still an area of research, it has been proposed that slickwater fracs provide a more complex fracture geometry due to its lower viscosity and higher injection rates compared to conventional cross linked fluids. There are of course some concerns with using slickwater fracturing. The primary concern is the large amount of water used. The large amount of water used, while also an economical concern, and a source of friction between other users of a water source (farmers) can also create problems in the reservoir itself. Namely, because slickwater has low wallbuilding capabilities, slickwater fracs have higher leakoff, and can cause formation damage. Finally, the low viscosity of slickwater limits the types of proppants available for use, with many operations choosing to use smaller-sized proppants. (T.T. Palisch 2010)

Drilling fluid Challenges


Well-bore instability and cuttings sticking to the drill bit The promotion of water-based drilling fluids has led to a number of problems, which mostly stem from the clay swelling, and resultant stickiness of the shale surrounding the well bore. These two phenomena lead to issues such as hole erosion, bit balling, hole closure, hole collapse, and poor mud condition. Bit balling is the phenomena by which a drill bit accumulates too many drill cuttings, and its distribution of applied forces become off balance, which result in a reduced rate of penetration. The bit ball problem also causes cuttings to be re-crushed on the bit face, which leads to a reduction in the flow of cooling fluid, and accelerated wear and tear of the drill bit. Both of these problems are minor compared to the long term problem of borehole stability. See appendix A for a picture of a balled drill bit. Below is a photograph of what a balled drilled bit looks like. Bit balling is usually solved by using a chemical detergent, which helps to minimize sticking to the drill bit. Borehole instability is fundamentally caused by inadequate mud weight and the influx of water into the formation. The influx of water increases the instability of the well bore by increasing pore pressure and by decreasing shale strength through swelling. With oil based muds, many of the problems now occurring were avoided. For example, the hydraulic diffusivity of shales is very low. As a consequence, oil-based muds would not enter the shale pores unless the differential pressure between the mud and the well bore were high enough to exceed the minimum capillary entry pressures. Usually, the mud pressure is higher than the formations pressure, but not higher than the capillary pressure. This is ideal as it creates a confining pressure on the borehole walls. However, with water based muds, the capillary pressure is no longer a stopping factor, as shales are generally water-wet. (A.H. Hale and F.K. Mody September 1993) In addition to well-bore instability problems caused by the drilling fluids used, there are also mechanical issues as well. These mechanical issues arise due to uneven compressive stresses in a rock formation. Before a well is drilled, the stresses within a rock formation can be separated into Swrt, an overburden/vertical stress, and two horizontal stresses, SHmax the maximum horizontal stress, and SHmin the minimum horiztonal stress. As the well is drilled, the stress factors are redistributed as the forces provided by the rock in the wellbore are replaced by the hydraulic pressure of the drilling fluid mud. If the redistributed stresses exceed the strength of the rock surrounding the wellbore, due either to compressive or tensile forces, then the wellbore will experience instability. Much research has gone into predicting these instabilities using models of well bores. One of the main areas of research is in determining which stresses used in the models accurately simulate the actual field results. These models are applied in the field by first studying the mechanical characteristics of the reservoir through exploratory wells. Oftentimes critical values must simply be estimated because they are difficult to measure. From the results of the model, information regarding the critical minimum and maximum density of the drilling fluid mud can be predicted which will prevent compressive and tensile failure (Addis 1990).

New Technology Advances

Environmental Challenges

East Texas Barnett Shale


A summary of the evolution of the East Texas Barnett Shale (hence referred to as Barnett Shale) drilling practices is given below. This summary was mainly taken from one paper, Stimulation of Gas Shales: Theyre All the Same Right? by H. Lee Matthews. Mainly, while the evolution of drilling practices has proceeded along several fronts, including hydraulic fracturing, horizontal well drilling techniques, fracture stages, and simultaneous or sequential fracturing techniques, Barnett Shale has seen an evolution of technology in the type of drilling fluids used. Operators have switched from conventional cross-linked fluids to slickwater fluids with very good results in the tight-gas reservoirs found in Barnett Shale. Horizontal drilling has also been introduced with these lateral wells being uncemented, single stage affairs that were initially 2000 2500 ft in length, and are now made to be much longer. The Barnett Shale of North Texas is described as a black, organically rich, fine-grained shale. A representative breakdown of this shale is 30-39% clay components, 29-38% quartz, and 25-30% other minerals. Much interest as of late has been shown in Barnett Shale due to its position as the largest gas producing field in Texas. Its current production is in excess of 1.6 Bcf/d. The Barnett shale ranges in depth and thickness from 3500 and 150 ft respectively in areas like Erath county, to more than 8000 ft and 1000 ft in Denton county. The primary goal for a Barnett Shale completion is to contact as much of the reservoir as possible with a conductive flow path back to the reservoir. Along with this objective, it is also desirable to limit the fractures to the reservoir itself. Barnett Shale was first explored by drilling exploratory vertical well bores to determine the composition and characteristics of the rock. It was found that hydraulic fracturing would be highly applicable for Barnett shale due to its mechanical properties and mineral composition. Since the beginning of commerical gas production from Barnett Shale in 1981, there have been many changes in the drilling and completion practices. Mainly, the types of fluids used have evolved significantly. Initially, conventional cross-linked fluids which consisted of titanium and zirconium based crosslinkers with HPG (hydroxypropyl guar) and CMHPG (carboxymethyl hydrodxypropyl guar) were used during hydraulic fracturing. Slickwater fracturing started to be used with success in about 1997. Adjustment of parameters, such as the quantity of proppant used, was necessary, as there was difficulty in using high concentrations of proppant, with the final amount being 0.05 0.5 ppg, increasing to 1-2 ppg at the latter stages. Typical fluid volumes for each vertical well were about 2,000-2,400 gallons per foot of gross interval. Much of the success of using slickwater in Barnett Shale has to do with the very brittle nature of the formation, allowing it to be easily fractured. However one of the concerns of using slickwater in Barnett Shale is that the Barnett Shale reservoir does not have a strong fracture barrier, and also has a water source nearby, which could possibly be contaminated by fractures if they extended there. (Matthews 2007)

Appendix A
Stokes law ( )

the particle settling velocity, density of the particle density of the fluid g = gravity d = diameter of the particle viscosity of the fluid

Balled Drill bit

Bibliography
A.H. Hale and F.K. Mody, SPE, Shell Development Co., and D.P. Sallsbury, SPE, Kem-Tron Inc. "The Influence of Chemical Potential on Wellbore Stability." SPE Drilling and completion, September 1993: 207-217. Addis, M.R. McLean and M.A. Wellbore Stability analysis: A Review of Current Methods of analysis and Their Field Application. Conference report, Richardson, Texas: British Petroleum, 1990. Anderson, Bill D. Berger and Kenneth E. Modern Petroleum: A Basic Primer of the Industry. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Publishing Company, 1992. EPA. Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. EPA, 2004. Eric Van Oort, A.H. Hale, F.K. Mody, and Sanjit roy. "Transport in Shales and the design of improved water-based shale drilling fluids." SPE Drilling and Completion, 1996: 137-146. International Energy Agency. Resources to Reserves: Oil and Gas Technologies for the Energy Markets of the Future. Paris, France: International Energy Agency, 2005. James t. Bartis, Tom LaTourrette, Lloyd dixon, D.j. Peterson, Gary Cecchine. Oil Shale Development in the United States. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 2005. Killen, Peter M. Crawford and James C. "New Challenges and Directions in Oil Shale Development Technologies." In Oil Shale: A solution to the Liquid Fuel Dilemma, by Arthur M. Hartstein, Olubunmi Ogunsola Olayinka I. Ogunsola, 21-60. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press, 2010. Matthews, H. Lee. "Stimulation of Gas Shales: They're All the Same - right?" SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. College Station, Texas, U.S.A: SPE International, 2007. 16. Russell, Paul L. History of Western Oil Shale. East Brunswick, New Jersey: The Center for Professional Advancement, 1980. T.T. Palisch, M.C. Vincent, and P.J. Handren. Slickwater Fracturing: Food for Thought. Denver, Colorado: SPE Porudction and Operations, 2010.

You might also like