We'll repeat the title, as it appears in the link, and our comment follows the abstract:
"Analyses of Illinois no. 6 Coal Liquefaction results generated in the Wilsonville, Alabama Unit
VALENTE A. M., CRONAUER D. C.
BP Products North America, Incorporated, Warrenville, Illinois 60555
Abstract
A database was set up to correlate the coal liquefaction results generated at the Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Two-Stage Coal Liquefaction Facility in Wilsonville, AL. Published information available in the public domain was used, centering on runs made with Illinois No. 6 seam bituminous coal with two reactors in a close-coupled mode. A linear regression analysis was performed to determine the effects of process variables on conversions and product yields. Bimodal catalysts were more effective than a unimodal catalyst, as indicated by 10 wt % higher resid + unconverted coal conversion, 1 wt % greater hydrogen consumption, 19 wt % greater C4-1000 °F liquid production, and 14 wt % lower resid yield. Another significant result was a lower coal conversion, hydrogen consumption, C1-C3 yield, light (IBP-350 °F) distillate yield, and C1-C3 selectivity, when using half-volume reactors rather than full-volume reactors under similar conditions, including space velocities. This was apparently due to flatter reactor temperature profiles and lower catalyst-to-thermal volume ratios. Overall preferred processing conditions for converting coal to distillate liquids included the use of EXP-AO-60 catalyst, high reactor temperatures (>810 °F, 432 °C) and a high process solvent resid concentration (>50 wt %, if mechanically possible). The space rate of coal in the reactors is best set at a point where resid production is minimized, if justifiable by process economics."
You will, perhaps, by now have received our previous dispatch relating the Supreme Court's ruling against Amoco, in a case involving coal-to-liquid conversion rights. The BP operating unit involved in the DOE/Alabama project detailed in this submission is, in fact, an old Amoco division acquired by BP, as part of their merger with Amoco. Other sources document Amoco executives' interest in coal conversion technology, and their intent to pursue it, prior to the merger.
Based on the Supreme Court case, it might not be injudicious to assume that BP acquired proven coal conversion technology in the Amoco merger, and are now looking for places to try it out, using Federal, DOE, subsidies to fine-tune and commercialize it prior to commercialization at the site of a major coal holding.