We some time ago documented Texaco's interest in coal-to-liquid conversion technologies, and submit the enclosed links and excerpts as further evidence of the CoalTL accomplishments they, and others, made.
However, a fate befell Texaco very similar to the one met by Gulf Oil, subsequent to Gulf's documented research and development of coal-to-liquid conversion technologies in the 1970's and 1980's.
Explanation follows the links and excerpts:
"Title: Coal-to-methanol: an engineering evaluation of Texaco gasification and ICI methanol-synthesis route. Final report
Authors: Buckingham, P.A.; Cobb, D.D.' Leavitt, A.A.; Snyder, W.G.
Publication Date: August, 1981
Report Number: EPRI-AP-1962; OSTI ID: 6108583; ON: DE81904235; Technical Report
Research Organization: Fluor Engineers and Constructors, Inc., Irvine, CA
Abstract:
This report presents the results of a technical and economic evaluation of producing methanol from bituminous coal using Texaco coal gasification and ICI methanol synthesis. The scope of work included the development of an overall configuration for a large plant comprising coal preparation, air separation, coal gasification, shift conversion, COS hydrolysis, acid gas removal, methanol synthesis, methanol refining, and all required utility systems and off-site facilities. Design data were received from both Texaco and ICI while a design and cost estimate were received from Lotepro covering the Rectisol acid gas removal unit. The plant processes 14,448 tons per day (dry basis) of Illinois No. 6 bituminous coal and produces 10,927 tons per day of fuel-grade methanol. An overall thermal efficiency of 57.86 percent was calculated on an HHV basis and 52.64 percent based on LHV. Total plant investment at an Illinois plant site was estimated to be $1159 million dollars in terms of 1979 investment. Using EPRI's economic premises, the first-year product costs were calculated to $4.74 per million Btu (HHV) which is equivalent to $30.3 cents per gallon and $5.37 per million Btu (LHV). 126 Pages."
We've previously documented that coal-to-liquid conversion performed "indirectly", through coal gasification and subsequent condensation, over one of a number of appropriate and effective catalysts, into liquid hydrocarbons, does leave behind a carbonaceous residuum that can itself be further processed to extract even more liquid hydrocarbons.
Texaco was assigned to examine those possibilities, as well; and, one year after the foregoing coal gasification/methanol synthesis report just cited, published the following:
Title: Gasification of residual materials from coal liquefaction: Type-III extended pilot-plant evaluation of a molten Exxon donor solvent (EDS) liquefaction process residue from Illinois No. 6 coal
Author: Robin, A.M.; Yang, H.L.
Publication Date: August, 1982
Report Number: DOE/ET?10137-T4: FE-2247-30; OSTI ID: 5074428; DE82019929; DOE Contract Number: AC01-76ET10137
Research Organization: Texaco, Inc., Montebello, CA
Abstract:
A Type III Extended Pilot Plant Evaluation of Exxon EDS Vacuum Residue, which was obtained from the liquefaction of Illinois No. 6 coal at the Exxon Baytown Texas coal liquefaction pilot plant, was successfully completed at Texaco's Montebello Research Laboratory. A total of forty-four tons of EDS residue was gasified during five runs which were carried out at 1200 psig in the Texaco pilot plant residue gasifier. The solvent dilution levels, the steam-to-residue ratio and the oxygen-to-residue ratio were varied to determine optimum operating conditions. A total of 97 hours of on-stream time was accumulated. The longest continuous run was 28 hours. This work was authorized by DOE Delivery Order Number 6 under DOE contract DEAC01-76ET10137. It is part of a continuing project to evaluate residual materials from various DOE sponsored coal liquefaction projects to determine their suitability for conversion to hydrogen in one of the Texaco gasification processes."
Now, a number of points bear emphasis:
First, Texaco, as happened with Gulf Oil after their documented coal liquefaction developments, was, in 2001, also acquired by Chevron, whose subsequent coal conversion research, and CTL research partnership with Penn State University, we have documented for you.
And, the work reported herein was performed on residue "obtained from the liquefaction of Illinois No. 6 coal at the Exxon Baytown Texas coal liquefaction pilot plant". We have earlier documented the existence of that facility, run, ominously and predictably, by yet another Big Oil stalwart, Exxon. Where are the reports on it's operations and results?
Further, the enclosed reports concerned work that was supposed to be "part of a continuing project to evaluate residual materials from various DOE sponsored coal liquefaction projects".
What are the results of the entire "continuing project"; and, what, and where, are the results from all the other "various DOE sponsored coal liquefaction projects"?
Finally, since two oil industry pioneers in coal liquefaction technology, Texaco and Gulf, have been acquired by Chevron, and Chevron, as we've elsewhere documented, is now in a "coal conversion partnership" with Penn State University, what are Chevron's plans and current operations relative to coal-to-liquid conversion?
r