Coo-5 107-1 Predicted Costs Of

COO-5 107-1 PREDICTED COSTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS FOR A COMMERCIAL OIL SHALE INDUSTRY Volume 1 - An Engineering Analysis BY Thomas D. Nevens Charles H. iPrien William J. Culbertson, J r. R. Edwin Hicks , John R. Wallace Ronald F. l’robstein Graham C. Taylor George Dotnahidy Andrew P. J ovanovich July 1979 E Work Performed Under Contract No. EP-78-S-02-5107 Charles H. Prien Center for Oil Shale Research Denver Research Institute Denver, Colorado and Water Purification Associates Cambridge, Massac h uset ts and Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Denver, Colorado PA DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. COO-5 107 -1 Distribution Category UC-91 PREDICTED COSTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS FOR A COMMERCIAL OIL SHALE INDUSTRY Volume I An Engineering Analysis Thomas D. Nevens, William J. Culbertson, Jr., John R. Wallace, Graham C. Taylor, Andrew P. Jovanovich and Charles H. Prien Charles H. Prien Center for Oil Shale Research Denver Research Institute Denver, Colorado 80208 R. Edwin Hicks and Ronald F. Probstein Water Purification Associates Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142 George Domahi dy Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation Denver, Colorado 80217- -L Jirly 1979 THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UNDER CONTRACT NO. EP-78-S-02-5107 n PREFACE The U.S. Department of Energy funded this project as part of an attempt to assess realisticzlly the possibility of an oil shale industry contribution to domestic petroleum production. This two volume report assesses the costs of environmental controls for a commercial (not pilot or prototype) oil shale industry using currently available technology. The task was performed by an assemblage of engineers, scientists, and economists with experience in natural resource eval uation, oi 1 shale techno1 ogy , and envi rcn- mental engineering. Early drafts of this report were reviewed by groups within DOE, by members of the National Laboratory System, and by private consultants. The<r comments were weighed and incorporated i nto this f i nal draft. The authors are aware of the current sociopolitical milieu. This work can have impact. As the editors put the final touches on these volumes the President of the United States called for massive public support of a synfuels industry. Of course, there are a range of opinions. Like the authors of the recently published report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School, we hope our work helps "the United States to come to terms with the realities of the energy problem, not with romanticisms, but with pragmatism and reason. " Finally, sadly, we dedicate this volume to the memory of the late Dr. Charles Prien, gentleman, scientist, and a co-author of this report. C. Gale and M. Shaffron DRI, August 1, 1979 iii ABSTRACT The pollution control costs for a commercial oil shale industry were determined in a joint effort by Denver Research Institute, Water Purification Associates of Cambridge, and Stone and Webster Engineering of Boston and Denver. Four commercial oil shale processes were considered. The results in terms of cost per barrel of syncrude oil are predicted to be as follows: Paraho Process, $0.67-$1.01; TOSCO I1 Process , $1.43-$1.91; MIS Process, $2.02-$3.03; and MIS/Lurgi -Ruhrgas Process , $1.68-$2.43. A1 ternative pollution control equipment and integrated pollution control strategies were considered and optimal systems selected for each full-scale plant. A detailed inventory of equipment (along with the rationale for selection), a detailed description of control strategies, itemized costs and predicted emission levels are presented for each process. Capital and operating cost data are converted to a cost per barrel basis using detailed economic evaluation procedures. Ranges of cost are determined using a subjective self-assessment of uncertainty approach. An accepted methodology for probability encoding was used, and cost ranges are presented as subjective probability distributions. 1’- Volume I presents the detailed engineering results. Volume I1 presents the detailed analysis of uncertainty in the predicted costs. A iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Seldom, if ever, in the memory of those who participated in this research, has a more d'ifficult project been encountered. When the engineering results were complete we discovered we had created an information explosion. The results might never have been communicated but for Herculean efforts by the DRI Word Proces ing Center, particularly Carolyn Bauer, Don Weiss, Bev Slater, and Lorna Sc dnase, and the efforts of the DR! Chemical Division secre- taries Martha Lee, Carole Taylor and Kathy Allmer. Also we acknowledge the support and encouragement of the Division of Environmental Impacts, Office of Technology Impacts, Office of Environment, U.S. Department of Energy. Our editors, Mike Shaffron and Chuck Gale, of the DRI Chemical Division, struggled mightily in order to make this volume readable. In addition to integrating the work of nine authors, they found and corrected literally hundreds of inconsistencies in the working drafts of this report. All remaining errors and failures to communicate are the responsibility of the authors. V CONTENTS PREFACE ................................. iii ABSTRACT ................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENT .............................. v FIGURES ..................................xi i i TABLES ..................................xvii 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES ......................... 2 1.3 THEAPPROACH ........................ 3 1.3.1 Environmental Regulation............. 3 1.3.2 Selection of Oil Shale Processes ......... 3 1.3.3 Selection of Pollution Control Technologies ... 5 1.3.4 Engineering Cost Estimates ............ 7 1.3.5 Emission Estimates................ 8 1.3.6 Economic Analysis ................ 8 1.3.7 Analysis of Uncertainty ............. 9 1.4 THE RESULTS ........................ 9 1.5 CONCLUSIONS ........................ 13 2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................... 1.6 2.1 SCOPE OF THE EFFORT .................... 16 2.1.1 The Process Models ................ 16 2.1.2 The Regulatory Scenarios ............. 20 2.1.3 The Pollution Controls .............. 21. 2.2 OVERALL RESULTS ...................... 23 2.2.1 Pollution Control Strategies ........... 23 2.2.2 Summary of Environmental Control Costs ...... 23 2.3 CONCLUSIONS ........................ 25 2.4 ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTY ................. 29 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED OIL SHALE PROCESS MODELS ......... 30 vii . 3.1 PARAHO DIRECT MODE PLANT .................. 32 63 3.1.1 Basic Parameters Assumed for Paraho Plant .... 32 3.1.2 Paraho Direct Mode Retort Plant Description ... 33 3.1.3 Plant and Mine Sites ............... 34 3.1.4 Mining and Crushing ............... 38 3.1.5 Retorting .................... 39 3.1.6 Shale Oil Recovery Processing Sequences ..... 44 3.1.7 Product Gas Upgrading .............. 44 3.1.8 Disposal of Retorted Shale ............ 46 3.1.9 Material Balance Around Paraho Retorts ...... 47 3.1.10 Supporting Facilities .............. 47 3.1.11 Energy Balance Around Paraho Retorts ....... 47 3.1.12 Paraho Direct Mode Retort Detailed Description . 47 3.2 TOSCO I1 PROCESS ...................... 66 3.2.1 Basic Parameters Assumed for TOSCO I1 Plant ... 66 3.2.2 TOSCO I1 Plant Description............ 67 3.2.3 Colony Underground Mine ............. 68 3.2.4 Crushing, Screening, Conveying Operations .... 68 3.2.5 Retorting and Oil Recovery Unit ......... 71 3.2.6 Upgrading Units ................. 73 3.2.7 Disposal of Solid Wastes ............. 79 3.2.8 Supporting Facilities .............. 79 3.2.9 Plant Fuels ................... 81 3.2.10 Material Balances ................ 82 3.2.11 Energy Balance .................. 82 3.3 MODIFIED IN SITU PLANT ................... 82 3.3.1 Basic Parameters Assumed for Modified In Situ Plant ..................... 82 3.3.2 Description of Occidental Modified In Situ Retorting Process ................ 87 3.3.3 MIS Retort Preparation ............. 89 3.3.4 MIS Retort Operation .............. 91 3.3.5 MIS Plant f'low Diagrams of Variation Analyzed . 92 3.3.6 MIS Plant Material and Energy Balances ...... 32 3.4 MODIFIED IN SITU PLUS LURGI-RUHRGAS ABOVEGROUND RETORTING COMBINAlION ....................... 95 3.4.1 Basic Parameters Assumed ............. 95 3.4.2 Crushing ..................... 99 3.4.3 Lurgi-Ruhrgas Plant Flow Diagram......... 99 3.4.4 Slurry Backfilling and Grouting .........102 3.4.5 Material Balance Around MIS Retorting Plant with Lurgi-Ruhrgas Aboveground Retorting and Slurry Backfill

Load more