I mentioned this 10 years ago to a co-worker who had spent 10+ years working on oil drilling crews. He said, it won't work because the oil would be damaged by the level of heat require to separate it from porous rock. You would be causing the same wear and tear that the oil receives in your engine just to release it from the shale.
He did not consider the shale response to heat causing the release nor did he consider the separation that occurs as the oil changes between it's contained state in the shale and it's transitions as it converts toward becoming steam.
I see as another form of gasification but with the ability to capture the oil in different stages and states depending upon it's desired use. Because of the energy used to produce microwaves, I am curious what the energy input to output balance would look like. I know the result will not be more energy out than in. Obviously the ability to do something as usual will be restrained by the cost to do it.
I wonder how much heat is needed to extract the oil from the shale. Perhaps they could use a portion of the extracted oil to propagate the extraction process.
I mentioned this 10 years ago to a co-worker who had spent 10+ years working on oil drilling crews. He said, it won't work because the oil would be damaged by the level of heat require to separate it from porous rock. You would be causing the same wear and tear that the oil receives in your engine just to release it from the shale.
He did not consider the shale response to heat causing the release nor did he consider the separation that occurs as the oil changes between it's contained state in the shale and it's transitions as it converts toward becoming steam.
I see as another form of gasification but with the ability to capture the oil in different stages and states depending upon it's desired use. Because of the energy used to produce microwaves, I am curious what the energy input to output balance would look like. I know the result will not be more energy out than in. Obviously the ability to do something as usual will be restrained by the cost to do it.
Typical microwave technology on the high power end of the RF technology is:
Approximately 80% or so with an actual industrial Microwave tube and for an Oscillator type of tube between 50 and 60%. The Microwave tube used in the high power industry aren't much bigger than 100 KW and most operate at 925 MHZ. The oscillator tubes operate at a whole lot of different frequencies depending on what you are using it for. Lower frequencies for heating steel like in the Auto Industry that I have seen run from 1 KHZ to about 400 KHZ and then I worked with one in the foam industry that was running at around 8 MHZ.
Typical microwave technology on the high power end of the RF technology is: ............
Thank You , that is good information. I went out to find more information about the cost to produce using microwaves vs current extraction methods. Well it appears to be vary comparable until you factor in the ability to extract oil from mediums that currently are cost prohibitive. So actually microwave may actually have the ability to extract more oil from more places making it perhaps more cost effective than current methods. Further reading suggested that microwave could replace many current processes but would likely be more beneficial as an addition to the process where it could offset current costs simply be improving production efficiency instead of a costly move to retool altogether.
I don't know what the right frequency would be for use to extract oil, but a guess would be in the high end above a mega HZ. In that range the heating is not from magnetics, but from oscillating the dipoles. When a material starts to pick up energy from the high frequency it is called being lossy. Things like most plastics are not lossy at normal temps, but as their temperature increase they do become lossy. An example of this is when you use your home microwave, that operates at 2450 MHZ. The plastic bowl really isn't lossy until the food inside heats up and then the bowl heats too and as it approaches 200*F it too becomes lossy. When it becomes lossy you can have thermal runaway and melt it down quite quickly.
It would be really tricky to try to use microwaves to heat thing in situ, but maybe you could extract the material and run it through a system on a conveyor belt. I saw a huge system developed by an east coast company that used trailers with microwave units in them to heat wet coal on a conveyor belt. They would use something like 20 of these trailers with huge power needs to dry the coal. The last I had heard of this was about 5 years ago and they had some severe problems with explosions within the applicator. You almost always end up with arcs inside of the applicator when you are using high power and with coal dust present it would just go boom. I don't know if they solved it or not. That company was Ferrite. I also worked with IMS system too. Both of these were 100 KW @ 915 MHZ. We also had some 25 KW @ 915 MHZ units from England and a oscillator tube system from Cleveland that was 200 KW output at 8 MHZ.
Let's pretend for a moment, that this is already a proven technology and is 'shovel ready". What would be the practical upsides of extracting crude oil with microwave technology today?
Let's pretend for a moment, that this is already a proven technology and is 'shovel ready". What would be the practical upsides of extracting crude oil with microwave technology today?
I have no idea. It is an expensive process to run, to buy the equipment and to maintain the equipment. I don't have a clue as to why someone would use it for extracting oil.
I was following a group from Eastern Europe that was using High Power Microwaves to remove pollutants from coal boiler operations. That intrigued me, but oil extraction I don't see where it would make sense. But, who knows.
The cost isn't the problem many are concerned about. Again it's the market price of oil. I've seen several articles now and the focus keeps shifting from production cost back to market price especially where inventories and output are already suppressing market value. The idea that something could drag the price of oil even lower is not exactly a rosy picture to producers....
A couple of articles only discussed the effect on fossil fuel dependence, consumption and environmental impact should microwave be used. Interesting topic but the articles are quickly proving to have a lot of agendas built in to influence.
Let me answer my own question then. Theoretically...if it were extremely inexpensive to use, it would be an asset, because the oil produced would be less expensive than conventional procedures, and less expensive to produce than current shale oil procedures. The whole premise behind Saudi's 2015-2016 drive to keep oil cheap, was to make shale oil production non-profitable, thus driving those units out of business, because a market price of $40/bbl oil means a loss for shale oil producers.
If a way is found to keep production costs at a very low benchmark, then shale oil is still profitable even at $40 or less, and the tables are turned on Saudi Arabia--they will have lost their leverage, no matter what level of daily production they set.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-01-2017).]
Let me answer my own question then. Theoretically...if it were extremely inexpensive to use, it would be an asset, because the oil produced would be less expensive than conventional procedures, and less expensive to produce than current shale oil procedures. The whole premise behind Saudi's 2015-2016 drive to keep oil cheap, was to make shale oil production non-profitable, thus driving those units out of business, because a market price of $40/bbl oil means a loss for shale oil producers.
If a way is found to keep production costs at a very low benchmark, then shale oil is still profitable even at $40 or less, and the tables are turned on Saudi Arabia--they will have lost their leverage, no matter what level of daily production they set.
I just don't see it being inexpensive. I have worked with this type of equipment and it is expensive to buy, to run and to maintain. You get about 6 to 8,000 hours out of a microwave tube and a 100 KW @ 915 MHZ tube was between $6 and 10K. The 200KW Oscillator tube was about $30K, but didn't need replacement anywhere near as often. But, other things go bad. You are operation from 16 KV to 30 KV and things just don't hold up. It also takes special training and people with knowledge to maintain the equipment. We were a small operation compared to what would be needed and we were paying about $35K a month for electricity.
I just don't see it being economical enough to use.
I just don't see it being inexpensive. I have worked with this type of equipment and it is expensive to buy, to run and to maintain. You get about 6 to 8,000 hours out of a microwave tube and a 100 KW @ 915 MHZ tube was between $6 and 10K. The 200KW Oscillator tube was about $30K, but didn't need replacement anywhere near as often. But, other things go bad. You are operation from 16 KV to 30 KV and things just don't hold up. It also takes special training and people with knowledge to maintain the equipment. We were a small operation compared to what would be needed and we were paying about $35K a month for electricity.
I just don't see it being economical enough to use.
I agree, unless new developments have been made. The article says the power of 500 microwave ovens so that's 5 times larger than one that you mentioned. Power to operate the equipment could be supplied by a natural gas generator as mentioned but that would be another huge piece of equipment. I can't imagine the transmission line or waveguide needed to deliver that much power down a bore hole. But, it must be possible.
Originally posted by maryjane: What would be the practical upsides of extracting crude oil with microwave technology today?
According to the blog in the opening post ...
quote
Now the never-ending quest for new technologies has yielded a potentially revolutionary replacement or substitute for fracking: microwaving shale to extract oil and gas. ... which can be far less water- and energy-intensive than fracking.
...even greenies would have to concede this is promising:
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. In situ recovery using microwaves also avoids the massive environmental impact of mining and then processing the kerogen. What’s more, natural gas that often is flared off in conventional oil-well production could be used to power the generator that creates the microwaves.
The greenies also decry the chemicals used in fracking and the polluting of ground water wells also claim they make tap water flammable.
I agree, unless new developments have been made. The article says the power of 500 microwave ovens so that's 5 times larger than one that you mentioned. Power to operate the equipment could be supplied by a natural gas generator as mentioned but that would be another huge piece of equipment. I can't imagine the transmission line or waveguide needed to deliver that much power down a bore hole. But, it must be possible.
Wave guide cross section is determined by the frequency.
Waveguide name Recommended frequency Cutoff frequency lowest order mode Cutoff frequency next mode Inner dimensions of waveguide opening EIA RCSC * IEC A inch[mm] B inch[mm] WR2300 WG0.0 R3 0.32 to 0.45 GHz 0.257 GHz 0.513 GHz 23 [584.2] 11.5 [292.1] WR2100 WG0 R4 0.35 to 0.50 GHz 0.281 GHz 0.562 GHz 21 [533.4] 10.5 [266.7] WR1800 WG1 R5 0.45 to 0.63 GHz 0.328 GHz 0.656 GHz 18 [457.2] 9 [228.6] WR1500 WG2 R6 0.50 to 0.75 GHz 0.393 GHz 0.787 GHz 15 [381] 7.5 [190.5] WR1150 WG3 R8 0.63 to 0.97 GHz 0.513 GHz 1.026 GHz 11.5 [292.1] 5.75 [146.05] WR975 WG4 R9 0.75 to 1.15 GHz 0.605 GHz 1.211 GHz 9.75 [247.65] 4.875 [123.825] WR770 WG5 R12 0.97 to 1.45 GHz 0.766 GHz 1.533 GHz 7.7 [195.58] 3.85 [97.79] WR650 WG6 R14 1.15 to 1.72 GHz 0.908 GHz 1.816 GHz 6.5 [165.1] 3.25 [82.55] WR510 WG7 R18 1.45 to 2.20 GHz 1.157 GHz 2.314 GHz 5.1 [129.54] 2.55 [64.77] WR430 WG8 R22 1.72 to 2.60 GHz 1.372 GHz 2.745 GHz 4.3 [109.22] 2.15 [54.61]
