The solid heat carrier (SHC) retorting method, so-called Galoter process, was developed for oil shale processing at the end of the 1940s. Since then the method has undergone several improvements. Nowadays there are different modifications of Galoter process in use – Petroter, Enefit-140 and TSK-500 technologies. The major differences between these technologies are in sizing (throughput), technical solutions and layouts. Recently a shale oil plant based on a new technology, Enefit-280, was commissioned. Enefit-280 is a technology successor of Enefit-140 where the heating of solid heat carrier is accomplished using the circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion technology as opposed to the conventional heat carrier combustion technology in Enefit-140. The CFB technology in Enefit-280 was integrated into the process to improve the performance of SHC heating process and reduce the emissions. Operational experience has demonstrated that the modified technology of SHC oil shale retorting has a potential to play a key role in shale oil production with reduced environmental impact.
1. Kann, J., Elenurm, A., Rohtla, I., Golubev, N., Kaidalov, A., Kindorkin, B. About thermal low-temperature processing of oil shale by solid heat carrier method. Oil Shale, 2004, 21(3), 195–203.
2. Han, X., Kulaots, I., Jiang, X., Suuberg, E. M. Review of oil shale semicoke and its combustion utilization. Fuel, 2014, 126, 143–161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.02.045
3. Golubev, N. Solid oil shale heat carrier technology for oil shale retorting. Oil Shale, 2003, 20(3S), 324–332.
4. Estonian Chemical Industry Association. Estonian Shale Oil Production Best Available Technique (BAT), 2013 (in Estonian, summary in English). https://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/p6levkivi6li_toostuse_pvt_aruanne_05072013.pdf
5. Järvik, O., Oja, V. Molecular weight distributions and average molecular weights of pyrolysis oils from oil shales: Literature data and measurements by size exclusion chromatography (SEC) and atmospheric solids analysis probe mass spectroscopy (ASAP MS) for oils from four different deposits. Energ. Fuel., 2017, 31(1), 328–339.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b02452
6. Kaidalov, K., Kaidalov, A., Elenurm, A., Kindorkin, B., Vereshcaka, S. Method for improving the quality of middle-heavy shale oil and for increasing commodity output at thermal processing of fuels in the solid heat carrier unit. Oil Shale, 2007, 24(4), 499–508.
7. Estonian Oil Shale Industry Yearbook 2017. https://www.ttu.ee/public/p/ polevkivi-kompetentsikeskus/aastaraamat/Polevkivi_aastaraamat_ENG_2018-06-27c.pdf.
8. Arro, H., Prikk, A., Pihu, T., Öpik, I. Utilization of semi-coke of Estonian shale oil industry. Oil Shale, 2002, 19(2), 117–125.
9. Kuusik, R., Martins, A., Pihu, T., Pesur, A., Kaljuvee, T., Prikk, A., Trikkel, A., Arro, H. Fluidized-bed combustion of oil shale retorting solid waste. Oil Shale, 2004, 21(3), 237–248.
10. Ots, A., Poobus, A., Lausmaa, T. Technical and ecological aspects of shale oil and power co-generation. Oil Shale, 2011, 28(1S), 101–112.
https://doi.org/10.3176/oil.2011.1S.03
11. Liu, H., Liang, W., Qin, H., Wang, Q. Synergy in co-combustion of oil shale semi-coke with torrefied cornstalk. Appl. Therm. Eng., 2016, 109, Part A,653–662.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.125
12. Yang, Y., Wang, Q., Lu, X., Li, J., Liu, Z. Combustion behaviors and pollutant emission characteristics of low calorific oil shale and its semi-coke in a lab-scale fluidized bed combustor. Appl. Energ., 2018, 211, 631–638.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.071
13. Hensler, T., Binder, C., Sieger, H., Aarna, I., Orth, A. The multi-functional role of high-throughput CFB’s in the oil shale industry. In: 12th Int. Conf. Fluid. Bed Technol. (CFB-12). Krakow, 23–26 May 2017, 773–780. http://www.cfb12:org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/01/art92-THE-MULTI-FUNCTIONAL-ROLE.pdf
14. Konist, A., Pihu, T., Neshumayev, T., Siirde, A. Oil shale pulverized firing: boiler efficiency, ash balance and flue gas composition. Oil Shale, 2013, 30(1), 6–18.
https://doi.org/10.3176/oil.2013.1.02
15. Hotta, A., Parkkonen, R., Hiltunen, M., Arro, H., Loosaar, J., Parve, T., Pihu, T., Prikk, A., Tiikma, T. Experience of Estonian oil shale combustion based on CFB technology at Narva Power Plants. Oil Shale, 2005, 22(4S), 381–397.
16. Dung, N. V. Factors affecting product yields and oil quality during retorting of Stuart oil shale with recycled shale: a screening study. Fuel, 1995, 74(4), 623–627.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(95)98368-O
17. Ahmad, N., Williams, P. T. Influence of particle grain size on the yield and composition of products from the pyrolysis of oil shales. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol., 1998, 46(1), 31–49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-2370(98)00069-2
18. Oja, V., Elenurm, A., Rohtla, I., Tali, E., Tearo, E., Yanchilin, A. Comparison of oil shales from different deposits: Oil shale pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis with ash. Oil Shale, 2007, 24(2), 101–108.
19. Han, X. X., Jiang, X. M., Cui, Z. G. Studies of the effect of retorting factors on the yield of shale oil for a new comprehensive utilization technology of oil shale. Appl. Energ., 2009, 86(11), 2381–2385.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.03.014
20. Gerasimov, G., Khaskhachikh, V., Potapov, O. Experimental study of kukersite oil shale pyrolysis by solid heat carrier. Fuel Process. Technol., 2017, 158, 123–129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.12.016
21. Lai, D., Zhang, G., Xu, G. Characterization of oil shale pyrolysis by solid heat carrier in moving bed with internals. Fuel Process. Technol., 2017, 158, 191–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2017.01.005
22. Gerasimov, G., Volkov, E. Modeling study of oil shale pyrolysis in rotary drum reactor by solid heat carrier. Fuel Process. Technol., 2015, 139, 108–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.08.001
23. Huang, Y., Zhang, M., Lyu, J., Yang, H., Liu, Q. Modeling study on effects of intraparticle mass transfer and secondary reactions on oil shale pyrolysis. Fuel, 2018, 221, 240–248.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.076
24. Tian, Y., Li, M., Lai, D., Chen, Z., Gao, S., Xu, G. Characteristics of oil shale pyrolysis in a two-stage fluidized bed. Chinese J. Chem. Eng., 2018, 26(2), 407–414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjche.2017.02.008
25. Cai, R., Zhang, H., Zhang, M., Yang, H., Lyu, J., Yue, G. Development and application of the design principle of fluidization state specification in CFB coal combustion. Fuel Process. Technol., 2018, 174, 41–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.02.009
26. Pihu, T., Konist, A., Neshumayev, D., Loo, L., Molodtsov, A., Valtsev, A. Full-scale tests on co-firing of peat and oil shale in an oil shale fired circulating fluidized bed boiler. Oil Shale, 2017, 34(3), 250–262.
https://doi.org/10.3176/oil.2017.3.04
27. Han, X., Jiang, X., Cui, Z., Liu, J., Yan, J. Effects of retorting factors on combustion properties of shale char. 3. Distribution of residual organic matters. J. Hazard. Mater., 2010, 175(1–3), 445–451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.10.026
28. Elenurm, A., Oja, V., Tali, E., Tearo, E., Yanchilin, A. Thermal processing of dictyonema argillite and kukersite oil shale: transformation and distribution of sulfur compounds in pilot-scale Galoter process. Oil Shale, 2010, 25(3), 328–334.
https://doi.org/10.3176/oil.2008.3.04
