The Effect of Oil Sands Bitumen Extraction Conditions on Froth Treatment Performance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Further development of oil sand deposits requires processing poorer quality oil sands while maximizing bitumen recovery, minimizing the water and solidscontent of the product bitumen, and minimizing overall energy consumption. Bitumen recovery requires two stages: extraction and froth treatment. This work focuses on the effect of process conditions in the Clark Hot Water Bitumen Extraction Process on froth treatment effectiveness. Laboratory approximations are used to represent the two commercialized froth treatment processes in Alberta:the ‘Syncrude’ process, dilution with an aromatic solvent followed by centrifugation; andthe ‘Albian’ process, dilution with a paraffinic solvent followed by gravity settling. Parameters considered are oil sand quality, extraction shear, extraction temperature, NaOH addition in extraction, froth treatment temperature, and froth treatment residence time. It was found that reduced extraction temperature results in lower bitumen recovery at least for low quality oil sands. Higher shear extraction may improve bitumen recovery, but decreases froth treatment effectiveness. For paraffinic solvent based froth treatments, the addition of NaOH in extraction may be required to obtain optimum froth treatment of low quality oil sands. Introduction The Canadian oil industry is producing about 1 million barrels of bitumen and synthetic crude oil per day from oil sands and the production is expected to rise to 2million barrels per day by 2012 [1]. Currently, both insitu and surface mining operations contribute almost equally to the total production. However, production of synthetic crude from surface-mined oil sands is expected to take the lead in the next decade [2]. Expansions of existing oil sand facilities are already underway and the addition of new facilities are planned within the next decade. There are two main stages to oil sand processing: extraction and froth treatment. The most commonextraction process is hot water bitumen extraction. The oil sand is conditioned with hot water, either in a process vessel (conditioning drum) usually with added NaOH, or more recently in a pipeline (hydrotransport) usually with less added NaOH. During conditioning, the slurry is aerated and, ideally, the bitumen separates from the sand, attaches to and spreads on the air bubbles. Water is added to the slurry, which is sent to a separation vessel. The bitumen coated air bubbles are carried upwards to form a froth that is rich in bitumen. The froth also contains free water, emulsified water and suspended solids [3,4]. The froth is collected in two stages yielding a primary and a secondary froth. For high-quality oil sands, a typical primary froth composition is approximately 66 wt% oil, 25 wt% water and 9 wt% solids. A typical secondary froth has lower oil content (approximately 24 wt%) and higher water and solids contents (59 wt% and 17 wt%, respectively). Poorer quality oil sand froths have lower oil content and higher water and solids contents [5]. Free water and coarse solids are relatively easily separated from the froth. However, the froth also contains fine solids and emulsified water droplets, which arecovered with surfactants including asphaltenes and nonsurfactants including ultra-fines (< 200 nm) [4,6,7].
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».