RECOVERY OF BITUMEN FROM OIL-IMPREGNATED

SANDSTONE DEPOSITS OF UTAH

Alex G.(Oblad, J. D. Seader,

Jan D. Miller, and James W. Bunger
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah

Paper presented at 68th Annual Meeting of AIChE, Los Angeles, Californ

November 16-20, 1975

ABSTRACT

Utah contains at least 26 billion barrels of potential oil as

bitumen in oil-impregnated sandstone (tar sand) deposits.

As shown

in this paper, these tar sands are significantly different in

physical and chemical properties from commercially developed Canadian
tar sands.

These differences prevent direct adaptation of existing

technology and necessitate a substantial, new research effort before

development of this United States energy resource can be realized.
Research is now underway to study methods for recovering the
bitumen from the sands and to upgrade the bitumen to a more valuable
fuel product.

Both near-ambient extraction and high-temperature

retorting techniques are being explored.

Preliminary data on these

recovery studies are included in this paper.

Introduction

Interest in energy sources other than petroleum has accelerated

recently as the United States demand for energy has increased without
a corresponding increase in United States crude oil reserves.

Much

attention is being given to other fossil fuels, such as coal, oil shale,
and tar sands, as well as to nuclear, geothermal, wind, ocean currents,
and solar energy sources.
According to the Utah Geological and Mineral Survey, as reported
by Ritzma

(1), the state of Utah contains at least 26 billion barrels

of potential oil as in-place bitumen in approximately 50 known deposits

or groups of deposits in and near the Uinta basin of northeastern Utah
and in the southeastern portion of the state.

The Utah deposits represent

approximately 90 to 95 percent of the known tar sand deposits in the

United States.
As shown in Table 1, the extent of Utah tar sands is small in
comparison to the enormous bitumen potential of Canadian tar sands,
which amounts to almost one trillion barrels.

Nevertheless, the

Utah deposits do represent an appreciable potential when compared to

the United States domestic petroleum and condensate production of 3.2
billion barrels of equivalent oil in 1974 and the United States crude
oil imports of 1.3 billion barrels during the same year.
Although several tar sand deposits in Utah have been and one is being
mined for paving material, to date, essentially no fuel products have
been realized from Utah tar sand deposits.

Only in Canada is a

commercial plant operating to produce a synthetic crude oil. As shown

-2in Table 1, this plant, operated by Great Canadian Oil Sands, Ltd. (GCOS)
manufactures approximately 20 million barrels of synthetic crude oil
per year.

Another plant, being constructed by Syncrude Canada Ltd.,

is designed to produce approximately 44 million barrels of synthetic

crude oil per year.

As a result of these sizable commercial ventures,

considerable recovery and processing technology is available to facilitate

further development of tar sand resources.
Direct adaptation of technology developed for Canadian tar sands
to Utah tar sands is difficult, however, because of significant
differences in the physical and chemical nature of the deposits from these
two major areas.

As discussed in some detail below, the principal dis-

tinguishing features of the Utah deposits include the consolidated and

anhydrous nature of the sand, the lower bitumen content, the more
variable bitumen composition, and the general lack of adequate amounts
of water for recovery and processing.
Consequently, a substantial, new research effort is required and
is being conducted to support the development of Utah tar sands.

This

paper discusses the extent of Utah tar sand deposits, the physical
and chemical properties of the sand and bitumen, the possible significance of these properties, our current research in recovery
technology, and plans for bitumen upgrading studies.

Comparisons are

made with properties of Athabasca deposits in order to facilitate

correlation with existing technology.

-3Extent and Nature of Utah Tar Sands

The extents of the six largest Utah deposits are listed in Table 2.
A one-billion-barrel deposit corresponds to sufficient bitumen to
produce 100,000 barrels of synthetic crude oil per day for 20 years.
In general, the Utah deposits are not as rich in bitumen as the vast
Canadian deposits which average 12 to 13 weight percent (2).

Although

many occurrences of bitumen saturation up to 17 weight percent can be

found, the average for reserves in Utah falls in the range of 5 to 10
percent.
The relationship between bitumen saturation and maximum yield
is shown in Figure 1.

The maximum yield of bitumen for a highly

saturated sand (17%) is almost one barrel of bitumen per ton of tar
sand.

The Athabasca deposit, currently being processed in Canada,

typically contains 0.7 barrel bitumen per ton of tar sand from which
almost 0.5 barrel of synthetic crude oil can be produced.
Because bitumen saturation is a limiting factor in the economics
of recovery, the differences between Utah and Athabasca deposits will be
reflected in the percent of in-place bitumen that is ultimately recoverable.

Camp (2) estimated in 1974 that the lower limit for a viable

mining process is about 10 weight percent bitumen content with in-situ

processes requiring somewhat less.

It is not currently known what

percentages of Utah tar sands exceed these presumed bitumen contents.

The composition of tar sand deposits in northeastern Utah differ
considerably from the Canadian Athabasca deposits.
a P. R. Spring and an Athabasca sample

Typical values for

are shown in Table 3.

The

-4P. R. Spring deposit contains much less fine sand or clay and is
virtually dry.

This small content of fines should be advantageous

in bitumen-sand separation processes.

The low content of water in most

Utah tar sands, which results in a bitumen-wet sand, should have a

significant effect on the mechanism and method of bitumen recovery.
The higher permeability of Utah tar sands should enhance bitumen recovery
by

in-situ

processes.

A comparison of sieve analyses for sands from Asphalt Ridge and

Athabasca deposits is shown in Figure 2.

The sand from Asphalt Ridge

tar sand is essentially alpha-quartz and consists of particles that

are approximately twice the diameter of sand particles from the
Athabasca deposit.

Coarser sand particles are more desirable from a

processing standpoint.

It is also interesting to note that some Utah

tar sands can be crushed and ground down to a size almost the same as
the sand particles, whereas, the sticky clay-like nature of Canadian
sands prohibits the attainment of such a fine subdivision.

This

property of Utah tar sands, which is due primarily to the consolidated

nature of the mineral matter, lends added flexibility to potential
recovery processes.
Physical property data and elemental analysis for four representative
bitumens are given in Tables 4 to 6.

These data, which were obtained

at the Laramie Energy Research Center of ERDA (9), demonstrate several

important similarities and differences among bitumens.

API gravities

are all low and compare favorably with values from petroleum residues.
Carbon-to-hydrogen atomic ratios indicate Asphalt-Ridge bitumen is
the least aromatic, while Tar-Sand-Triangle bitumen is the most aromatic.

-5A low carbon-to-hydrogen atomic ratio should improve bitumen processing

characteristics and the value of syncrudes thereby derived.

Bitumen

molecular weights shown in Table 5 were determined by vapor pressure

osmometry in benzene and show averages ranging from 568 to 820.

It

is interesting to note that the higher molecular weight bitumens from

Asphalt Ridge and P. R. Spring deposits are also the most hydrogen
saturated suggesting that bitumen maturation conditions have been less
severe than for bitumens from the Tar Sand Triangle and Athabasca
deposits. The asphaltene content, which correlates with Conradson
carbon residue, is a measure of the coke-forming tendency of the bitumen.
Viscosities in Table 5 correlate with average molecular weights.
-Because viscosities are so high, elevated temperatures are required to
cause bitumens to flow.

The extremely high viscosity for the P. R. Spring

sample is due not only to its high molecular weight but also to the
presence of higher concentrations of polar heteroatomic functional
groups (a).

The effect of temperature on the viscosity of two bitumens

is shown in Figure 3.

Over a temperature range from 100 to 200F,

the viscosity of Aslphalt Ridge bitumen is more than an order of magnitude greater than Athabasca bitumen.
Elemental analysis of four bitumens analyzed by Bunger et al. (9)
are given in Table 6.

Nitrogen contents of northeastern Utah bitumens

are twice as high, while the sulfur contents are an order of magnitude
less than Tar Sand Triangle and Athabasca bitumens.

These differences

are important considerations in bitumen upgrading sequences and conditions.

-6Bunger et al.{9) conducted simulated distillation and functional

group analysis for the bitumens in Table 6.
curves are shown in Figure 4.

Simulated distillation

Canadian and southeastern Utah bitumens

contain appreciably larger quantities of lower boiling naphthas (<375C)

than do bitumens from the Uinta Basin of Utah.

Uinta

Basin samples

have slightly higher contents of 375 to 535C gas oils and >535C
residues than do Athabasca and Tar Sand Triangle samples.
Gross compositions for the same four bitumens are given in
Table 7 (9).

The figures shown have been normalized to account for

100 percent of the bitumen.

Principal functional groups present in the

acid portion are phenols, carbazoles, and carboxylic acids.

Principal

functional groups present in the bases are sulfoxides, amides, and

pyridine benzologs. The high-sulfur bitumens have higher percentages
of sulfoxides while high-nitrogen bitumens contain substantial quantities
of strong pyridine-type bases.

Principal functionality responsible

for the appearance of compounds in the neutral Lewis bases are ketones,
carbazoles, and highly condensed aromatics.

The acids, bases, and

neutral Lewis bases are generally of high molecular weight and possess
substantial aromatic character.

The purely hydrocarbon molecules, both

saturated and aromatic, invariably represent the lower molecular weight

portion of the bitumen as dictated by geochemical conditions.

Saturated

hydrocarbon molecules are predominantly of mixed naphthenic-aliphatic

carbons.

The aromatic hydrocarbon molecules generally contain one to

three aromatic rings with condensed naphthenic

making up the remainder of the molecules.

and aliphatic carbons

-7-

Recovery of Bitumen
Because of the considerable differences in the chemical and physical
nature of Canadian tar sands, as compared to Utah tar sands, particularly
those deposits found in northeastern Utah; and because of the great
differences in geographical and climatic conditions between Canada and
Utah, the economical processing of Utah tar sands will most likely require
a different procedure than the one currently used commerically in
Canada or than those previously demonstrated in laboratory or pilot-plant
studies on Canadian tar sands as described by Camp (2) and Berkowitz
and Speight (10).

Lowe (11) has summarized efforts to recover bitumen

from tar sands in the United States.

Further research is currently

underway at the University of Utah to explore methods for recovering

bitumen by both near-ambient-temperature extraction and high-temperature
retorting techniques.
Hot Water Extraction
Despite the much lower water content of Utah tar sands compared to
Canadian tar sands, bitumen can be separated from Utah tar sands by
hot water extraction.

A successful bench-top laboratory procedure

developed at the University of Utah is shown schematically in Figure 5

for Asphalt Ridge tar sands.

Feed is prepared by breaking chunks of

tar sand into lumps approximately 3/8-inch in diameter.

These lumps

are digested at 90 C for 15 minutes with 200 grams of 5 weight percent

aqueous sodium silicate solution per 600 grams of tar sand.

During the

digestion period, the slurry is subjected to a relatively high shearing

action by an agitator operating at 1000 RPM.
Upon completion of the first stage of digestion, the slurry
volume is doubled by adding cold water.

A second stage of digestion

-8follows with agitation for one minute.

The slurry is transferred to

a flotation cell where the volume is again doubled by the addition of

cold water.
occurs.

Rapid settling of sand and floating of bitumen concentrate

Underflow is separated by a 28 mesh screen into tail and

scavenger, which can be recycled.

A typical mass balance for this laboratory hot-water extraction
process is shown in Table 8 for a sample of Asphalt Ridge tar sand
containing 17.4 weight percent bitumen.

Based on 100 pounds of feed (dry

basis), 15 pounds of bitumen concentrate, 82 pounds of tail, and 3 pounds

of scavenger are obtained.

Because of the highly viscous nature of the

bitumen, separation of sand from the bitumen is incomplete.

Based on

the data in Table 8, bitumen and sand recovery figures are shown in
Table 9.

Recovery of bitumen is 67.8 percent with no recycle.

Recovery and purity of bitumen must be increased.

A more sophisti-

cated processing system involving a one-gallon stirred-tank reactor has

recently been installed and initial experiments conducted.
recovery has been increased to 96 percent.

Bitumen

This new system permits more

efficient digestion and settling operations and will facilitate study

of a number of processing variables including:
1.

Source of feed and bitumen content

2.

Size distribution of feed

3.

Digestion temperature, time, and agitation

4.

Phase separation temperature

5.

Type and concentration of dispersant

6.

Solids/water ratio

-9Thermal Recovery
Although more difficult processing steps are required and close
control is necessary, thermal recovery of bitumen avoids the usage of
water and/or solvent required for near-ambient recovery processes and
bypasses handling of the very viscous bitumen.
When subjected to elevated temperatures, bitumen distills, cracks
to form volatile compounds, and condenses to form coke.

Isothermal thermo-

gravimetric analysis (TGA) was conducted on samples of Asphalt Ridge tar

sands.

The curves shown in Figure 6 were generated from experimental

data obtained by placing 10 to 15 mg samples of tar sand in a silica

crucible, lowering it into a furnace maintained at an elevated temperature,
and determining the weight loss over a time period.

For the.data plotted

in Figure 6, the original bitumen content of the tar sand was 16 weight
percent.

For temperatures above 500 C, an appreciable percentage of

the bitumen is cracked during less than 10 minutes residence time.

As

temperature is increased, however, coke yield can increase and an

optimum cracking temperature exists.
An important consideration in thermal processes for bitumen recovery
is the energy requirement.
shown in Figure 7.

Results from a typical calculation are

Ten thousand tons of tar sands containing 14 weight

percent bitumen and 0.3 weight percent water are subjected to a temperature of 520C

in the absence of an external oxidizing agent.

input of 5,750 million Btu is required.

2.-4 weight percent coke.

A heat

Exit sand is assumed to contain

As shown in Figure 8, the coked sand can be

combusted with air to recover 9,680 million Btu assuming the combustion
gas and clean sand are cooled to 20C.

Thus, a small fraction of

original bitumen can provide the energy required for thermal recovery.

-10Peterson and Gishler (12) demonstrated the applicability of thermal

recovery to Canadian tar sands.
beds as shown in Figure 9.

They utilized two separate fluidized

A relatively large flow rate of clean sand

is recycled from the fluidized burner to the fluidized coker.

The

University of Utah is studying the applicability of thermal processing

to Utah tar sands and is seeking improved equipment configurations for
more efficient energy recovery.

The absence of fines and the somewhat

larger sand particle sizes of Utah tar sands are important considerations
in thermal processing by fluidization techniques.
Bitumen from hot-water extraction and cracked products from
thermal recovery are currently being characterized.

Upgrading studies

are planned and will include visbreaking-coking, hydrocracking,

hydrogenation-hydrotreating, and catalytic cracking.
upgrading techniques will also be characterized.

Products from these

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the efforts of K. M. Jayakar,
J. E. Sepulveda, and V. N. Venkatesan in obtaining the new data
reported here.

The work reported here was supported by Department of

Development Services of the State of Utah, Mobil Foundation, Incorporated,

and NSF Grant AER 74-21867.

REFERENCES
1. Ritzma, H. R., "Utah's Tar Sand Resource: Geology, Politics, and
Economics," Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of AIChE,
Los Angeles, California, November 16-20, (1975).
2.

Camp, F. W., The Tar Sonde of Alberta* Canada* Second Edition,

Cameron Engineers, Inc., Denver, Colorado, (1974).

3. Ritzma, H. R., "Oil Impregnated Rock Deposits of Utah," Utah
Geological and Mineralogical Survey Map 33, (1973).
4. Wood, R. E., and H. R. Ritzma* "Analysis of Oil Extracted from
Oil-Impregnated Sandstone Deposits in Utah," Utah Geological
and Mineralogical Survey, Special Studies 39, (1972).
5.

Campbell, Jock A., "Oil Impregnated Sandstone Deposits of Utah,"

Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, Reprint 99, (1975).

6. Holmes, C. N., B. M. Page, and Paul Averitt, "Geology of the

Bituminous Sandstone Deposits Near Sunnyside, Carbon County, Utah,"
U. S. Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Preliminary Investigation Map
. 86,(1948).
7. Peterson, Parley R., "Informational Core Drilling in Utah's OilImpregnated Sandstone Deposits, Southeast Uinta Basin, Uinta
County, Utah," Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Report
of Investigation 88, (1974).
8. Marchant, L. C, L. A. Johnson, and C. Q. Cupps, "Properties of Utah
Tar Sands - Three-mile Canyon Area, P. R. Spring Deposit," U. S.
Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 7923, (1974).
9.

Bunger, J. W., K. P. Thomas, and S. M. Dorrence, "Analysis of

Compound Types and Properties of Utah and Athabasca Tar Sand
Bitumens," Paper presented at the Gordon Research Conference on
Fuel Science, New Hampton, New Hampshire, June 23-28, (1975).

10. Berkowitz, N., and J. G. Speight, "The Oil Sands of Alberta,"

Fuel* 54* pp. 138-149 (1975).
11. Lowe, R. M., "Status of Tar Sand Exploitation in the United States,"
Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of AIChE, Los Angeles,
California, November 16-20, (1975).
12. Peterson, W. S., and P. E. Gishler, "A Small Fluidized Solids Pilot
Plant for the Direct Distillation of Oil from Alberta Bituminous
Sands," Canadian J. of Research* F28* pp. 62-70, (1950).

TABLE 1
Utah Tar Sands in Perspective
Billions of
Barrels
Utah tar sands, in-place bitumen
Canadian tar sands, in-place bitumen

26
900

GCOS plant production of synthetic crude

0.02/yr

U.S. domestic crude o i l and condensate production (1974)

3.2/yr

U.S. crude o i l imports (1974)

1.3/yr

U.S. gasoline consumption by automobiles (1974)

1.8/yr

TABLE 2

Extent of Utah Tar Sand Deposits

In-place Bitumen
Billion Barrels (3)

Approximate Weight %
Bitumen in
Tar Sand *

12.5 - 16.0

5 (4)

P. R. Spring (N. E. Utah)

4.0 - 4.5

6 (5)

Synnyside (N. E. Utah)

3.5 - 4.0

9 (6)

H i l l Creek (N. E. Utah)

1.16

8 (7)

Asphalt Ridge (N. E. Utah)

1.048

8 (5)

C i r c l e C l i f f s (S. E. Utah)

0.86

5 (4)

Deposit
Tar Sand Triangle (S. E. Utah)

*Seeps and pools were discounted as not being representative of the

deposit.

TABLE 3
Typical Tar Sand Composition
Weight Percent
Athabasca*
P.R. Spring**
Minerals
Sand ( 44 microns)

75.3

90.5

Fines ( 44 microns)

8.4

1.5

12.0

7.5

4.3

0.5

100.00

100.00

Bitumen
Water

Porosity, Vol. %

~ 0

Air Permeability,
millidarcies

-50

8.4

133

* Estimated from data of Camp (2)

** Estimated from data of Marchant et al.

(8)

TABLE 4
Analysis of Utah Bitumens (9)
Deposit

S.G.(60/60)

API
Gravity

Atomic
C/H ..

Asphalt Ridge

0.970

14.4

0.606

P.R. Spring

0.998

10.3

0.637

Tar Sand Trianigle

0.992

11.1

0.691

Athabasca

0.989

11.6

0.670

TABLE 5
Other Properties of Utah Bitumens (9)

Average
M.W.

Viscosity,
Centipoises,
77F

Wt. %
Asphaltenes

Asphalt Ridge

668

2,950,000

3.4

P.R. Spring

820

32,500,000

16.0

Tar Sand Triangle

578

1,299,000

26.0

Athabasca

568

638,000

16.4

Deposit

TABLE 6
Analysis of Utah Bitumens (9)

Deposit

Elemental Composition (Wt. %)

H
N
S
0

Asphalt Ridge

85.3

11.7

1.0

0.14

1.1

P.R. Spring

84.4

11.0

1.0

0.75

2.2

Tar Sand Triangle

84.0

10.1

0.46

4.38

1.1

Athabasca

82.6

10.3

0.47

4.86

1.78

TABLE 7
Gross Compositions of Bitumens (9)

Fraction

Athabasca

Weight Percent of Bitumen

Tar Sand
P.R.
Spring
Triangle

Asphalt
Ridqe

Acids

10.3

10.3

15.9

10.1

Bases

7.9

10.5

12.7

12.9

Neutral Lewis Bases

21.0

21.5

19.1

19.3

Saturated Hydrocarbons

22.0

25.7

26.6

29.3

Aromatic Hydrocarbons

38.8

32.0

25.7

28.4

TABLE 8
Typical Mass Balance for Hot Water Extraction Process
Concentrate
Pounds
Wt. %

Pounds

Tail
Wt. %

Scavenger
Pounds
Wt..-*

11.8

78.5

4.1

5.0

1.5

49.5

Sand

3.2

21.5

77.9

95.0

1.5

50.5

Total

15.0

100.0

82.0

100.0

3.0

100.0

Bitumen

Basis:

100 pounds feed (dry basis)

Asphalt Ridge Tar Sands (17.4 Wt. % Bitumen)

TABLE 9
Bitumen Recovery - Hot Water Extraction Process
Asphalt Ridge Tar Sands
Percent of Feed
Bitumen

Sand

Concentrate

67.8

3.9

Tail

23,6

94.3

8.6

1.8

100.0

100.0

Scavenger

FIGURE CAPTIONS

1.

Y i e l d of Bitumen from Tar Sands

2.

Comparison of Sieve Analyses

3.

Comparison of Bitumen V i s c o s i t i e s

4.

Simulated D i s t i l l a t i o n Curves f o r Several Bitumens

5.

Laboratory Hot Water Extraction Procedure

6.

Isothermal TGA Curves f o r Asphalt Ridge Tar Sand

7.

D i r e c t Cracking and Coking of Tar Sand

8.

Combustion of Coked Sand

9.

Fluidized-Beds Process f o r Thermal Recovery of Bitumen

1.0110

c
a

c
o

0.8
ATHABASCA
BITUMEN

.a

0.6
LJ
>-

Z
UJ 0.4

ATHABASCA
SYNTHETIC CRUDE

CD

X
<
5

10
WT. % BITUMEN IN TAR SANDS

15

20

Z 100
L.I
Lo_t

o
CO
o

80
ATHABASCA

cr
II- 6 0

UJ

o
UJ
Q.
CO
CO
<
UJ
>

ASPHALT RIDGE
40

20

<
-J

i _ b

40
100
PARTICLE SIZE (microns)

400

1000

1/ ,V

<p/

I0 :

104
ASPHALT RIDGE

l0

o
a.
>C/>

O
O
>

I02

ATHABASCA
10"

I0l

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

TEMPERATURE (F)

>

^\f I

600

500 P.R. SPRING-A

ASPHALT RIDGE - v

y / /

UJ

a:

z>
\<

400 -

a:
Q_
UJ
i-

EICOSANE
C2oH42

300 -

\ - TAR SAND TRIANGLE

^ - ATHABASCA

200 -

i
10

_ L

20

30

...

.. i._

40

50

60

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT (%)

KI
W(W

ASPHALT RIDGE TAR SANDS

TAR SAND FEED
600 GRAMS
5 Wt. % AQUEOUS
SODIUM SILICATE
200 GRAMS

COLD WATER
500 GRAMS

GRINDING
LUMPS
< 3/8 INCH

1000 RPM

(>

1000. RPM
DIGESTION
STAGE I
90C
I5min.

DIGESTION
STAGE 2

<EZD

I mm.
BITUMEN
CONCENTRATE

COLD WATER
1000 GRAMS

PHASE
SEPARATOR

SCAVENGER

GRINDING

28 MESH
SCREEN
TAIL

(%) sson 1H9GM 3Aiivnnwno

*o

VAPOR
1,220 TONS

85% OF BITUMEN FLASHED

Wt. %
CRACKED BITUMEN 97.54
WATER VAPOR 2.46
100.00
TAR SANDS
10,000 TONS
20C

wt. %
BITUMEN
SAND
WATER

14.0
85.7
0.3
100.0

COKER
FLASH
DISTILLATION
WITH CRACKING
520C

COKED SAND
8,780 TONS
Wt. %
SAND 97.6
COKE
2.4
100.0

HEAT IN
5,750 MILLION BTU

COMBUSTION GAS
2,460 TONS
20C

COKED SAND
8,780 TONS
520C

HEAT OUT
9,680 MILLION BTU

BURNER
COMBUSTION
OF COKE
650C
ii

AIR
2,250 TONS
20C
CLC.MIN OMINU

8,570 TONS
20C
<r

fc

{ A" OP

VAPOR
FLUE GAS

TAR SANDS

r\

<E)

SEPARATOR
FLUIDIZED
BURNER

\J

FLUIDIZED
COKER

SYNTHETIC
CRUDE

COKED SAND
AIR

VAPOR
&

CLEAN SAND