This peculiar artifact from our DOE contains the following, both exculpatory and incriminating, disclaimer:
"Portions of this document are illegible in microfiche products. Original copy available until stock is exhausted."
It was first published in early December, 1985.
The details:
"Title: "New technology concept for two-stage liquefaction of coal: conceptual commercial plant design and economics"
Authors: Abrams, L. M.; Caruso, R.; Duddy, J. E.; MacArthur, J. B.; Srouji, M.
Affiliation: Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., Lawrenceville, NJ (USA)
Report: DOE/PC/60017-T2
Contract: AC22-83PC60017
Abstract:
Hydrocarbon Research, Inc. (HRI) is conducting a program for the United States Department of Energy (DOE) for evaluation of a ''New Technology'' concept for Catalytic Two-Stage Liquefaction of coal. HRI has demonstrated greatly improved coal liquefaction process performance by Catalytic Two-Stage Liquefaction (CTSL). (Bench-scale screening studies identified an improved set of operating conditions for Illinois No. 6 (Burning Star Mine) coal and a demonstration run (227-20) at these conditions has been completed. Results from this run were used as a basis for this conceptual plant design and economics study.) The purpose of this study is to identify the economic incentive for CTSL over the conventional single-stage H-Coal Process. This information will be used to guide future experiments for further process optimization. Preliminary designs for CTSL (based on Run 227-20) and the H-Coal Process liquefaction sections are developed based on HRI's design experience from the Breckinridge Project and H-Coal Pilot Plant operations at Catlettsburg. Complete conceptual commercial plant designs are developed for grassroots facilities using HRI's Process Planning LP Model. Product costs are calculated and economic sensitivities are analyzed. Results of the economic evaluation show CTSL reduces the product costs by 12% compared to the single-stage H-Coal Process. 140 refs., 9 figs., 55 tabs."
So, like the Oklahoma research we earlier reported, we have herein more government-sponsored research into the technology for converting coal into the liquid fuels our nation needs, in a state that has no coal. And, we again have mention of Kentucky's Breckinridge and Catlettsburg coal-to-liquid conversion projects, but no linkage, no references, no access to reportage.
But, we do have a CTL process, somewhere, that "reduces the product costs by 12% compared to the single-stage H-Coal Process".
We earlier reported what we could of the Kentucky "H-Coal Process", and managed to find a little more on that coal conversion effort - in Greece, or Turkey. A separate report on that will follow.
In any case, like the Oklahoma research we earlier brought to your attention, herein we have yet more US Government-sponsored research being performed on the conversion of coal into the liquid fuels our nation needs, in a state that has no coal.
Again: What's up with that?