Recovery of shale oil condensate from different oil shales using a flow-through apparatus

Four oil shales from different locations and origins have been reacted in a flow-through system (425°C, with N2 or H2 as sweep gases at 1atm pressure) with a view to more closely simulating a practical process for oil shale conversion than can be achieved with a sealed autoclave system. It was observed that there was no general correlation between the yields in the two systems, nor was there a general correlation between the amount of condensate and the amount of volatiles obtained by thermogravimetric analysis. For all four oil shales, the condensate gave more complex gas chromatography–mass spectrometry total ion chromatograms (GC–MS TICs) than the CH2Cl2-solubles from sealed autoclave reactions. Surprisingly, the products from one of the Jordanian oil shales, Yarmouk, and an Australian Julia Creek oil shale were remarkably similar. The product from the lacustrine Colorado oil shale was much more similar to that from a lacustrine algal coal (torbanite) than to those from marine oil shales. The differences in yields and product characteristics between sealed autoclave and flow-through reactions suggest that yields and product distributions obtained from sealed autoclave reactions should be treated with caution. [Display omitted] •The proportion of oil obtained as condensate depends on the locality of the shale.•Fischer Assay oil and 425°C condensate yields for the El-Lajjun shale were similar.•The condensates showed higher S content than sealed autoclave liquids.•NMR spectra showed that aromatic carbons in the products were heavily substituted.•Condensate GC–MS was more complex than that of sealed autoclave liquids.