Posted 8 months, 5 days ago in 
Loading ...
It is interesting that no one seems to be asking why big-technology oil companies need lots of water to yield kerogen-based oil from the Green River shale formation. Is it because they are going to flush out the underground oil in a cascade of high-pressure water? Just what marvelous new unrevealed technology requires so much water? Maybe they are going to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen and the burn them to develop energy. Huh?
The simple answer is that the enormous amount of energy required to separate the kerogen from the predominant mass of non-energy bearing rock must come from either new nuclear plants or coal-fired plants — both of which require lots of water. The renewable forms of energy are totally inadequate for the job and they know it.
Worse yet is the real prospect that after we further deplete our coal reserves to get the oil we will discover we have spent more energy than we have obtained in the shale-derived oil.
LARRY SODERBERG
Parachute
44 Responses to “Separating kerogen from rock will take too much energy”
Posted March 21st, 2009 at 7:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Keep on saying it Larry. Maybe one day the Oil Shale advocates will get it.
It seems some believe that water is not necessary for life to exist on this planet but oil is.
Posted March 21st, 2009 at 8:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Worse yet is the real prospect that after we further deplete our coal reserves to get the oil we will discover we have spent more energy than we have obtained in the shale-derived oil.”
Here we go. Let’s put up every possible excuse to avoid using our native energy sources. Now Mr. Soderberg is concerned that we are going to deplete our coal reserves. LOL.
Mr. Soderberg, I am 100% convinced, would love to have a genie pop out of a bottle , go poof!, and make 100% of our coal reserves disappear. That way no more of it can be burned.
Who are you kidding Mr. Soderberg? Stick to you water impediment. You may have just a little bit of credibility there.
I realize that carbonphobics will put up every possible road block to the production of oil shale. I believe that oil shale has enough economic obstacles to keep it from being viable any time soon. But I am all in favor to letting the technology develop. Just in case we need it.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 10:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullisfrog: “Here we go. Let’s put up every possible excuse to avoid using our native energy sources. Now Mr. Soderberg is concerned that we are going to deplete our coal reserves. LOL.”
If the bullishfrog had read what the letter writer actually stated, instead of what he “thinks” he said, his post might make some sense. As it now stands, it does not. And, we have to wonder whether bullishfrog is serious about the point raised by the letter writer, or if he merely wishes to take a “pot shot” at someone else.
It would seem to some of us that the letter writer brings a valid point for consideration. The question really is: How much does it cost, both in energy, financial, and other terms, to extract a set amount of energy from a particular source vs. the real benefits to be derived. If the cost to “extract” is greater or about equal, then the the only result is a “shift of wealth” without any real benefit being derived.
To some of us, the point raised by Mr. Soderberg is a very valid one and, despite bullishfrogs laughter (LOL), it is one worthy of very serious consideration.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres fails, as usual, at reading comprehension. Had he made even a small effort at reading my post, instead of automatically attacking it, he would have discovered the following:
1. My basic point, as stated, is “I believe that oil shale has enough economic obstacles to keep it from being viable any time soon. But I am all in favor to letting the technology develop. Just in case we need it.”
2. My second point is that opponents of developing oil shale are often opponents of developing any hydrocarbons. Why? Because they are mainly concerned about global warming, not energy independence or the cost of energy to the consumer. Fair enough. But let’s be honest about the real reason.
3. My laughter refered to the letter wirter’s phoney concern about depleting our coal reserves of which have have enough to last a very,very, long time.
So, when Laitres responds to me what he is doing is what he usually accuses others of doing: “And, we have to wonder whether bullishfrog is serious about the point raised by the letter writer, or if he merely wishes to take a “pot shot” at someone else.” I took no pot shot, that is all Laitres did.
Finally, when Laitres writes in his last sentence “To some of us”, I ask who is he representing?
Is there a group of posters on this site who have chosen Laitres to post on their bahalf? Or, as I suspect, is he that arrogant that he presumes he posts on behalf of others? No one else does this on this site so I wonder what gives him the right?
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Producing oil from shale is, has been, and will always be a net energy loss.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Kemo, even if it is, shale oil could make sense, and I say COULD, under certain circumstances. If, for example, the energy used in its production can be purchased more cheaply (say from coal burning) than the energy shale produces (liquid hydrocarbons for use in transportation), it would still make sense.
I realize that there are a lot of obstacles to shale oil development, but I see no reason to stop research in the field.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “RLaitres fails, as usual, at reading comprehension.”
Had the individual paid more attention to what the letter writer said, and seriously considered the point raised, he would not have allowed himself to be diverted to any extraneous issues such as “potential future technology.” Or, perhaps that is what he seeks to do, It would not be the first time.
The only point the letter writer brought up was that it is not now feasible, and attempting to do so would contribute nothing. He was talking about now, not the future. If bullishfrog wishes to discuss the “future” he should probably write a letter to the editor or post in the forum section.
Bullishfrog may need to take cognizance of his totally reactionary responses and stick to the question at hand instead of engaging in intellectually feeble attempts to “rationalize” his positions, or to divert attention.
So, bullishfrog may need to go back and re-read the letter. There he might note that the individual said absolutely nothing about, as bullishfrog stated “make 100% of our coal reserves disappear.” That is a total distortion of the letter writer’s words, and represents an exagerration of the words of the writer.
Is it any wonder that no constructive discussion ever ensues in most of these forums if meanings are immediately distorted and mis-represented?
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If we are going to use that standard we need to cease ethanol production as it too uses more energy than is derived.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “If bullishfrog wishes to discuss the “future” he should probably write a letter to the editor or post in the forum section.”
Laitres, just as soon as you are named editor of this publication, I will leave. Until then I will write what I see fit.
“Had the individual paid more attention to what the letter writer said, and seriously considered the point raised, he would not have allowed himself to be diverted to any extraneous issues such as “potential future technology.” Or, perhaps that is what he seeks to do, It would not be the first time.”
The letter writer’s point, which Laitres apparently does not understand, is that shale oil extraction requires too much energy. My response was to let the research continue. In post 6 I opined that even if it takes more energy than it produces, shale oil extraction may still be feasible. This, apparently, is too much for Laitres to comprehend.
RL: “The only point the letter writer brought up was that it is not now feasible, and attempting to do so would contribute nothing. He was talking about now, not the future.”
And my response is that NOW we should continue to explore the technology.
RL: “So, bullishfrog may need to go back and re-read the letter. There he might note that the individual said absolutely nothing about, as bullishfrog stated “make 100% of our coal reserves disappear.” That is a total distortion of the letter writer’s words, and represents an exagerration of the words of the writer.
And what I wrote was: “Mr. Soderberg, I am 100% convinced, would love to have a genie pop out of a bottle , go poof!, and make 100% of our coal reserves disappear. That way no more of it can be burned.”
Anyone with reading comprehension would realize that this was my response to the writer’s phoney concern about depleting our coal reserves.
RL: “Is it any wonder that no constructive discussion ever ensues in most of these forums if meanings are immediately distorted and mis-represented?”
You are 100% wrong Laitres. There is no constructive discussion when someone like you (and luckily there aren’t many like you left here) uses the forum for offensive attacks on those with whom you disagree rather than engaging on the facts being discussed.
I have had plenty of substantive discussions with folks on your political side of the spectrum who do not display the elitist arrogance that you do.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dgpgrove said: If we are going to use that standard we need to cease ethanol production as it too uses more energy than is derived.
Absolutely correct, ethanol is also a net energy loss. Making ethanol is almost identical to whiskey making. At least whiskey is profitable and brings temporary relief to some from the nonsense in these discussions.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dgpgrove: “If we are going to use that standard we need to cease ethanol production as it too uses more energy than is derived.”
The efficacy of that industry is already under serious question and for many reasons, as it should be. Unfortunately, due to “special interests” and political considerations, it may not get the serious critical study and questioning it, as does every other endeavor, deserve.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres post 7: “Had the individual paid more attention to what the letter writer said, and seriously considered the point raised, he would not have allowed himself to be diverted to any extraneous issues such as “potential future technology.” Or, perhaps that is what he seeks to do, It would not be the first time.”
And yet, Laitres engages in a discussion on the merits of ethanol. Where did the letter writer discuss ethanol?
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dgpgrove brought up the ethanol subject in post #8 and ethanol fits easily into the discussion.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Kemo, I agree with you. I am not here to censor. That is RL’s job.
I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in RL’s argument.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “Laitres, just as soon as you are named editor of this publication, I will leave. Until then I will write what I see fit.”
And, who said any different? However, is the individual confusing “freedom to speak” with “freedom from challenge” on the statements he makes and the bases upon which those would seem to lay?
That being said, this will end the exchange between us on this issue. He may have the “last word” if he wishes. Some of us have better things to do with our time. If, for some, that translates into “elitist arrogance” (bullishfrog words), that is their opinion, and one to which they are also entitled.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “Laitres, just as soon as you are named editor of this publication, I will leave. Until then I will write what I see fit.”
Laitres: And, who said any different?
YOU DID when you wrote: ““If bullishfrog wishes to discuss the “future” he should probably write a letter to the editor or post in the forum section.”
RL: “However, is the individual confusing “freedom to speak” with “freedom from challenge”
As you may have already noticed, RL, I do not lay back from you “challenges”. And I will continue to respond in kind when you pursue your offensive tone.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, they are not “going to flush out the underground oil in a cascade of high-pressure water”. No, they are not “going to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen and the burn them to develop energy”. How much is “so much water”? How much energy is “the enormous amount of energy”? How much is “lots of water”? These are technical issues. Even in an in-situ process, both energy and water come from combustion of kerogen that is not released from shale as gas or oil. Water would be cleaned and reused. The original post infers that all water and energy will have to be supplied from outside sources and does not quantify the amounts of required water or energy, which relegates discussion to vague uncertainties. A certainty is that if oil prices after 1981 had stabilized at or above $45/barrel, shale oil would have been economically feasible in western Colorado.
Posted March 22nd, 2009 at 8:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Get educated, people.
Shell wanted to use heaters, in-situ. Too expensive to get the freeze wall going. They are working on it. 10 to 15 years out. They have already made plans to build a coal fired plant upwind of GJ. Bought the land, bought the right-of ways, bought the coal, bought the water.
Some company suggested using microwaves designed by Raytheon. Not likely. They are working on it. 20 years in design and development, minimum.
Chevron has the easiest, and perhaps the best, shot at getting somewhere by using liquid CO2, sort of like de-caffeinating coffee. At least ten years to a pilot facility. Using a liquid to attach and extract kerogen might actually work, to some small degree.
Otherwise, it is dig, crush, and heat. I think a more realistic target price would be $75…but I’m just guessing there.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 7:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sounds like dc is presenting 2nd hand evidence of several prospective shale oil projects from literature and not 1st hand experience of having prepared one engineering and economic feasibility of producing shale oil. In 1981, the crude oil price of $45/barrel would have brought to western Colorado investment necessary to get one shale oil project started up. That is a fact compared to the cost, start-up date and methodology speculation defining current shale oil projects in literature.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 7:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan says $45 in 1981 would have been enough. DC says $75 is what it may take today.
Adjusting for inflation, $45 in 1981 would be well over $75 today.
My guess is that it will take over that in current dollars, plus a government guarantee that it will cover the difference below a certain Dollar number, before private capital is willing to commit to a commercial project.
The important thing is to keep working the problem.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 7:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
My information about Shell comes directly from Shell corporate representatives. The same is true of Chevron. I have only been able to find info about Raytheons’ microwave idea in literature because there has (to my knowledge) never been a public presentation of the plans and accompanying technology.
Unlike a certain county commissioner I could name, I am not in the habit of blowing smoke up peoples butts. I try, to the best of my ability, to deal in facts I have learned from first hand experience. If I am wrong about something, enlighten me. I have no problem admitting my mistakes. We all make them and I am certainly no exception.
However, to simply imply I don’t know what I am talking about without corraboration is bad form. Will you post your economic and feasibility study so that we may become more educated?
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 8:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, Let me be more accurate. You’re getting your 2nd hand information from corporate representatives; who edit, sanitize and remove information helpful to competitors. I did the same in the 80s and do the same now. Investors paid for this information and will not give it up. Calling that bad form is no enticement. We all do the best we can with the information we can get. Then we guess. There are some of us that don’t have to guess.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 9:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
Since your sole purpose seems to be to accuse me of being uninformed, please enlighten us about your current (present day) experience in the oil shale debate. So far, you claim to have had involvement in the issue in 1981 and “do the same now”.
Kindly tell us who you are, what you do, and where you get your substantial (but, as yet, unsubstantiated) information. The only guess I made was regarding the current price that would make oil shale production feasible. Since the only technology currently proven is mining and heating the shale, any other suppositions regarding the feasibility of economically sound production are guesses, educated or otherwise. And unless you provide us with actual information, I am afraid your claims must be considered in the same category.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan you stated;
” In 1981, the crude oil price of $45/barrel would have brought to western Colorado investment necessary to get one shale oil project started up.”
In 1986 the Unocal oil shale plant began producing synthetic crude oil with a price subsidy from the government that provided for a price of $40-45 per barrel. The plant shut down in 1991.
From the NYT March 27, 1991:
” “We have operated the project for nearly five years and produced nearly 4.5 million barrels of high-quality synthetic crude oil, making this the largest oil shale effort in U.S. history,” said Richard J. Stegemeier, Unocal’s chairman, president and chief executive. “But we have not been able to achieve sustained production rates high enough to avoid cash losses.”
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, I appreciate that you are interested, that you have obtained possibly all of the shale oil information that is available and that you have drawn conclusions from that data. I am not interested in adding to that information or to your conclusions. By the way, who and how many are the “us” of which you speak? You and I are the only ones dialoguing. Please be afraid my claims must be considered as you might also conclude from guessing. And, please have the last word as I know you must.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
“And, please have the last word as I know you must.”
You give yourself away with that last comment, sir.
The “us” to which I refer is the readership of this message board. Many, many people read the ongoing dialogue here and it is important to make sure that they are not misinformed. You may infer my ignorance all you want. Credibility is in transparency,and you are not very. Everyone on this board has had ample opportunity to know who I am and the depth of my involvement in oil and gas issues. I know what I know and I am not too proud to admit it when I am wrong.
Your vague insinuations that you are some sort of insider with better information than the rest of this community of readers are just that, vague insinuations. Give us your name and your credentials, add to that some real hard information with citations of sources other than wikipedia or some political blog.
One more thing. I invite you to go back over all the threads I have posted on and give me the percentage of threads where I have made the last post. I don’t have the inclination because I am fairly certain I know what you will find. If you are trying to pick a fight with me, just say so. Otherwise, I suggest you go visit gjresult., where your rhetoric will buy you some credibility.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, My short response is, “So what”? My long response is, “Your statements are not relevant to my statements”.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 11:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
In post #17 you stated
” A certainty is that if oil prices after 1981 had stabilized at or above $45/barrel, shale oil would have been economically feasible in western Colorado. ”
I was pointing out that Unocal in the 1980’s was receiving $45 a barrel for their synthetic oil and could not make a go of it. If you replaced the word “certainty” with “remote possibility”, I might agree with you. If you have had any real world experience with the Oil Shale industry, you would realize that uncertainty is the operative word. Do the terms “Scale up,” “Stream factor,” “Material handling,” EROI, have any meaning to you?
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, I am not interested in your agreeing with me nor in dazzling you with my real world shale oil experience. My experience is not with Unocal, making your statements irrelevant to my statements. I refer to the Shale Oil industry, because oil is our product not shale; just a little sophistication that those outside the industry don’t appreciate. And, your terms are the same in crude oil refining and natural gas processing; a related industry in which I have over 4 decades of experience.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
I am curious. If Dan didn’t work for Unocal, what company could he have worked for where could he have accumulated so much “real world” experience with “shale oil”? Just for the record, drilling for and producing oil and gas has almost nothing in common with the search for a way to get oil from rocks soaked with kerogen. Kerogen is not oil. Nor is it gas.
You would think that with 4 decades of experience, he would have some little fact he could throw our way. Not just vague claims of his so-called superior information. I, for one, would love to be dazzled with his wealth of knowledge.
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m curious as to why he even bothers posting anything if he’s ” … not interested in adding to that information or to your conclusions” (from post #25).
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
The ” Shale Oil Industry ” must know something that Dan* doesn’t, why else would they be accumulating all those water rights.
*See post 17
Posted March 23rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Maybe a new water park.
Posted March 24th, 2009 at 11:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now that you all know Dan did not work with Unocal, who did he work with? You all really don’t know much about shale oil do you? You all weren’t around Grand Junction in the 70s were you? You just read about oil shale, think you are discussing shale oil and are not qualified to evaluate the merits of shale oil. You talk about kerogen as if it is a product, when it is the raw material pyrolyzed in one design by an advancing flame front into oil and gas streams and extracted as such. Low pressure, high concentration carbon dioxide, hot, wet gas streams containing varying compositions of liquid hydrocarbons and sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen and other contaminants present a challenge for processing. High viscosity, medium gravity shale oil containing sulfur, nitrogen and other components must be thermally cracked and hyrotreated to produce usable products. These oil and gas processing steps require most of the front end capital investment for shale oil production. Mining requirements are also a front end capital investment for surface retorting and more of a recurring expense for insitu retorting. Such a project’s gas production would make it energy self-sufficient. An investor in a dual retorting project would delay surface retorting until insitu retorting production captured sufficient earnings to produce positive cash flow. Why would you all request shale oil information when misuse and illogical conclusions are all you accomplish, such as water rights? Dan rescued this post in #17 from completely off-topic inane jibberish and self-indulgent nonsense, then leaves you to your devices. What happens, you all end up right back spewing the same off-topic jibberish and nonsense.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 10:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan,
A lot of words to say that the keys to Oil production from Oil Shale is about material handling, and heat transfer. And the bottom line is that it is a source of oil of last resort. i.e., it is too expensive (EROI) to produce in significant quantities for the foreseeable future. You may be too closely associated with the Oil Shale industry see the forest for the trees. Having said that, it may be the proper time to implement a properly planned research and development program for Oil Shale synthetic oil production.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 11:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“You talk about kerogen as if it is a product,”
Your slip is showing as well as your ignorance of Shells’ technology. The process envisioned and applied by Shell would forego much of the processing to which you refer as their process releases the light end of the hydrocarbon chain, leaving the heavier constituents in the ground. Shell claims that only minimal refining is necessary after they have cooked the kerogen.
Your basic premise is that anyone who doesn’t have the outdated experience you have in the work done in the 70s’ has no credibilty to speak on the subject. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the realities of the 21st century.
And is there some particular reason you are referring to yourself in the third person? Your anonymity strips you of credibility. The above technical jibberish can be lifted from any one of hundreds of articles on the subject.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 1:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Shell’s process employs electric heaters that gradually heat shale-rock formations to 650 to 750° F, which converts kerogen into oil and gas products, approximately 1/3 gas and 2/3 light oil and are brought to surface using traditional methods. Shell has successfully produced 1,700 barrels of high quality light oil plus associated gas. Only light oil has ever been produced from kerogen, because heavy oil can be handled as a liquid only in a vacuum environment such as found in refinery crude oil vacuum towers. Heavy oil has always been left behind in all retorts. At atmospheric pressure, high temperatures crack heavy oil into shorter chained hydrocarbons and gas. For the record, hydrocarbon chains refer to various oil components such as pentanes, hexanes, heptanes and octanes; not to “the light end of the hydrocarbon chain”. Refiners refer to minimal refining as thermal cracking and hydrotreating, which is required in light hydrocarbon processing. Shell chooses its words (light oil, minimal refining) carefully to avoid unwarranted outcries from those not educated in the required technology that some people categorize as “technical jibberish”.
Shell’s new freeze wall is designed as an impervious wall keeping water out of the insitu processing and kerogen products out of underground water sources. The freeze wall was not employed during the successful production of 1,700 barrels of oil. Some of us do not rely on only literature for knowledge of shale oil or oil shale processing. The equipment may be different but the thermodynamics are the same. There are people who cannot condone anyone on blogs understanding such topics and their implications. Merging crude oil projection of over $30/barrel with Shell’s technical shale oil retorting success is worth looking forward.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan, I was the manager of engineering at the Fruita refinery when we processed Union’s shale oil. As I recall, it’s been a while, what they delivered to us was hydrotrated gas oil that we fed directly to a hydrocracker. Is gas oil also Shell’s product after upgrading?
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 3:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog, Unfortunately, I am not a Shell guy either. I remember those trucks rolling into and out of Fruita while I was helping a gasoline blender and propane distributor outside of Fruita design and operate an NGL fractionator after our major shale oil projects closed down in 1982. I didn’t know there was anyone around who had refining experience.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dan, I worked in the refining industry from 1969 to 1987.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 3:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here is a link to a Shell site that gives a clue as to the quality of their shale oil:
http://www-static.shell.com/static/usa/downloads/about_shell/upstream/icp_factsheet.pdf
It sees to me that the Shell process is a method of converting coal to oil, since a btu from coal is a lot cheaper than one from oil. The real competition may be between Coal to liquids technology and Coal to shale oil.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here is the Shell Shale Oil Process incorporating the freeze wall into the insitu process.
http://www-static.shell.com/static/usa/downloads/about_shell/upstream/fwt_factsheet.pdf
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 5:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog, My experience started in 1963; refining, pipeline, process simulation programs, shale oil, NGL fractionation, equipment design and international crude oil refining magazine technical editor. As I gained experience, I enjoyed seeing projects through from beginning to end, a chemical engineer’s dream; process/equipment design, supervising construction and operator training. I edited on the side (like a hobby) while I was working in industry.
Posted March 25th, 2009 at 6:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well rounded experience Dan. I was on the tech service/operations side for most of my refining career and then added economics and planning.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.