We present the enclosed "Improvements In The Cost Of Liquid Fuels From Direct Coal Liquefaction", a report made by oil company researchers more than a decade ago, as more affirmation that the technologies do exist to convert our abundant coal into the liquid fuels we need. The research was performed at the nearly-unknown Alabama coal liquefaction facility, whose existence we revealed to you in a dispatch made many months ago.
We offer a few comments we think to be pertinent following the excerpt:
"Improvements in the Cost of Liquid Fuels from Direct Coal Liquefaction
Authors: A. Basu, J.G. Masin, N.C. Stewart
Affiliations: Amoco Oil Company; Electric Power Research Institute
Published in: Petroleum Science and Technology, Volume 10, Issue 10, 1992
Abstract
This paper presents an assessment of recent improvements in the technology for direct coal liquefaction on the estimated commercial economics. The basis for the design and cost estimates is a series of studies sponsored by Amoco Corporation and Electric Power Research Institute, which were derived from the highly detailed Breckinridge Project, completed in the early 1980s under DOE sponsorship. The technology, design, and cost estimates reflect the current two-stage liquefaction technology practiced at the Advanced Coal Liquefaction Research facility in Wilsonville, Alabama.
Details of the design bases and cost estimates and how they compare with the original Breckinridge study are described. Also examined are effects of feed coal rank, product slate, and the source of hydrogen (natural gas or coal) on the costs. Finally, the ways that projected future improvements in the technology will change the design and lead to lower costs are discussed."
Details of the design bases and cost estimates and how they compare with the original Breckinridge study are described. Also examined are effects of feed coal rank, product slate, and the source of hydrogen (natural gas or coal) on the costs. Finally, the ways that projected future improvements in the technology will change the design and lead to lower costs are discussed."
First, of course, our old farmer, the DOE, put the fox, Big Oil's Amoco, in charge of this particular hen house. So, it's little wonder that no eggs made their way to our public market.
Second, the testing appears to have been done in Alabama, but was based on research performed by an earlier "Breckinridge Project, completed in the early 1980s under DOE sponsorship". We'll attempt to find our more about "Breckinridge" and make report to you.
Third, and finally, we're told: "future improvements in the technology will change the design and lead to lower costs". Fine. Where are the results of those "future improvements"?
As with several other government and industry-sponsored reports we've brought to your attention, though, the true import of this submission is, simply:
We know how to make the liquid fuels we need, cleanly and efficiently, from our abundant coal, just as the South Africans, for many decades, have been doing; and just as the Chinese are making ready, in a big way, to do..
And, again as with other of our reports, that knowledge forces the question: