http://seekingalpha.com/article/881391-energy-after-the-peak-merger-of-coal-and-refiners-replaces-conventional-oil Energy After The Peak: Merger Of Coal And Refiners Replaces Conventional Oil September 21, 2012 | 58 comments | includes: SUN, VLO, WLB Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I am presently working on several coal to liquid projects. (More...) The chart above shows the number of refineries and their output in North America over time. Its clear following the 1970 oil shock that major integrated oil companies have not invested in refineries. This gave rise to the independent refiners as an important resource in the US. Over half of the refining capacity is now owned by independent refineries. The two largest are; Valero Energy Corp. (VLO): Valero is the largest independent refining company in North America and has a capacity of 3.3 million barrels per day. Sunoco Inc. (SUN): The second largest independent, Sunoco refines 990,000 barrels of crude a day. Performance of these refinery stocks may be due for a powerful comeback! To understand how this might occur, let's look at some recent history and the long term trend in the oil business and how these stocks and others like them might benefit from these changes. Major oil companies have for 40 years now under-invested in refineries, creating an artificial scarcity in oil. Some experts observe, if you do not have crude to run through them, why invest in new refineries? But is that received wisdom true? While it is certainly true that the logistic curve computed for conventional oil production in 1954 is accurate, it is not true that conventional oil is the only energy supply available in sufficient abundance at a competitive cost. We have known since 1911 that hydrogen may be added to coal to produce petroleum products. Frederich Bergius received a Nobel Prize in 1931 for this achievement. Following World War II Truman backed the production of a 200,000 barrel per day coal liquefaction plant based on Bergius' process. IG Farben ceded the technology to the UN as part of War Reparations for Germany. BP (BP) acquired the technology and canvassed the White House to close the Missouri plant. Truman kept it open. The plant sold oil that was competitive in quality and cost with conventional oil. BP persisted and eventually Eisenhower created an energy committee which recommended closure of the plant. When South Africa passed their apartheid policies in 1948, and expanded them in 1950, Saudi Arabia refused to sell oil to that country. As a result, South Africans began developing their coal reserves. BP denied them the use of the Bergius direct hydrogenation process, so South Africa used the inferior Fischer-Tropsch process. Until the Shenhua coal company began construction of a Bergius direct hydrognation reactor, most investors thought wrongly that Fischer-Tropsch was the only way to produce coal and that the liquids produced were the best that could be done. Despite the excellent work of Bergius in 1911, the US has supported billions of dollars in coal research, research that ignores Bergius and finds, surprisingly, the need for more research going forward. The numbers for Bergius are, one metric ton of coal is converted into 6.2 barrels of liquid fuels with the application of 125 kilograms of hydrogen gas. This hydrogen gas may be produced by carrying out a shift reaction with another 375 kilograms of coal and 1,125 liters of water. It may also be produced by a high temperature nuclear reactor by direct thermolysis as suggested by Brookhaven Labs and Westinghouse in 1961. This in response to a request from JFK to find a solution to the problem of oil shortages before the crisis hit. BNL felt that with a dedicated effort, we could have oil at competitive rates of $2 per barrel by 1968 and by 1988 transition to an all hydrogen economy where energy costs were $0.20 per barrel equivalent. Many rosy scenarios were built around an industrial economy with energy that abundant at that price. Now, that's leadership! The report languished on the desk of president Johnson after November 1963 and was eventually forgotten. It was resurrected by Jimmy Carter, a former US Navy nuclear engineer. Unfortunately, the very month Carter submitted his revised plan to Congress three things happened that galvanized the nation. The family of Karen Silkwood received a $5 million wrongful death settlement against Kerr-McGee. Ms. Silkwood processed plutonium pellets at Kerr-McGee's Cimmarron fuel processing site. This got the nation asking the question, just how safe is nuclear power? As the media began grinding out this question to a concerned nation, after thirty years of safe nuclear power, as far as most Americans were concerned at the time, Three Mile Island melted down and released radioactive waste despite assurances previously that this could never happen. Then, finally, as a coup de grace, the hit movie China Syndrome, with Jane Fonda, was released to rave reviews. At the end of this unfortunate sequence of events the result on capitol hill was predictable, the nation will spend any amount of money needed to address the energy issues facing it, it will not consider any solution based on nuclear energy. Over the next decade America spent more money on energy research than it spent going to the moon. The result? More research is needed. Bergius was ignored. That's old technology. Old technology or not, the total cost of producing oil today with Bergius is $8.57 per barrel. At today's prices, this produces a gross profit in excess of $100 per barrel! The US consumes 6.8 billion barrels of oil per year. If we made 6.8 billion barrels from domestic coal we would add over $10 billion per week to our economy. This cash flow may be hypothecated to cover all external debt, and bring sanity back to our economy. We might even consider an oil backed dollar in this case. How might these independent refineries benefit from Bergius' technology? Well, they could convert themselves to domestically sourced integrated oil companies using US coal to make petrol. This could be achieved by merging with an appropriately sized coal mine. Such an announcement would precede a dramatic increase in value of both companies. The impact of such a merger would be large. Consider Westmoreland Coal Company (WLB). It has coal reserves of 389.9 million tons of coal and a market cap of $162.94 million, producing $0.42 of value for each ton of reserves. Now, consider Sunoco, Inc., it has no oil reserves and retails 990,000 barrels of oil per day. As a result, it has a market cap of $4.15 billion and sales of $44.61 billion. Look what happens when we merge these two companies and build a $5.54 billion Bergius reactor to make SUN oil from WLB coal: First, the SEC allows us to value WLB's coal as 2.4 billion barrels of oil at nearly $14 billion - providing tremendous returns straight-away. Next, SUN cost of sales plummet and profits skyrocket, increasing market cap to over $170 billion! (click to enlarge) Obviously, with increased valuation, the company is in a strong position to expand. Other independents will also be inspired to compete. Eventually all of America's 279 billion tons of coal will be valued as 1.8 trillion barrels of notional oil production in the future. This is more than twice the oil left in the world today from conventional sources. A reserve of oil that is worth well over $8.8 trillion in the ground. This vast and rising value forms the basis for further productive expansion of the US' industrial economy for another generation.

http://coaltooil.com/ John M. Kocol is developing CoalToOil.com plants that will use a brand new "game changer" American invented Bennett coal to oil process that is much cleaner than the Fischer-Tropsch process, and CO2 would also be converted to methanol at John M. Kocol's CO2toMethanol.com plants via the Olah CO2 to methanol process. End product from plants, gasoline made from coal and methanol made from CO2 [methanol will be converted to gasoline using ExxonMobil's methanol to gasoline technology], will be sold throughout the U.S. and Mexico at John M. Kocol's USMEXenergy.com gasoline stations, resulting in American and Mexican energy independence! COAL-->CoalToOil.com plants-->OIL,GAS, CO2-->SUN, WATER, CO2-->CO2toMethanol.com plants-->METHANOL-->USMEXenergy.com gasoline stations that will sell gasoline made from coal and renewable methanol throughout the U.S. and Mexico Converting CO2 to methanol is synergistic for coal to oil conversion by making it a clean, renewable source of fuel. Meanwhile, pumping CO2 underground according to John M. Kocol is extremely unsafe, for what do you do when the CO2 begins to leak into our clean drinking water and into our air? Read "Coal-to-oil raises long-term environmental questions despite plans to capture CO2" by Willow Belden, Wyoming Public Radio, 2/10/12. Synonymous coal-to-oil terms: coal conversion, coal gasification, coal hydrogenation, coal liquefaction, coal-to-crude oil, coal-to-diesel, coal-to-fuel, coal-to-gas, coal-to-liquid fuel, coal-to-liquids (CTL), coal-to-oil, coal-to-petroleum, liquid coal, methanol-to-gasoline (MTG), underground coal gasification (UCG). Did you know that oil can be made from coal? According to former Department of Energy (DOE) scientist Richard Wolfe, "oil also can be extracted from coal. In fact, oil extraction is the first step toward producing diesel fuel and then gas. Coal is oil before it becomes coal." (Bristol Herald Courier, June 8, 2008, "Inventor Claims To Have Developed ‘Super Clean’ Coal" by Michael Owens). John M. Kocol wrote about using deep unmineable coal seams for underground coal gasification (UCG) (coal2oil conversion process that takes place underground) in What's Next In Science & Technology: "Storing carbon dioxide in deep coal seams could also provide useful methane gas,"06/27/07. HISTORICAL ANALYSIS Below courtesy CleanCoal.com.au: Coal to Oil [CoalToOil.com] (Coal 2 Oil) Explained. The lack of stability in the Middle East and demand pressures from India and China has caused dramatic increases in the price of oil which has affected the global economy. However there are alternative resources that can be used for the production of oil – the main ones being black and brown coal. It just so happens that Australia and particularly the Latrobe Valley and Gippsland Basin in Victoria have some 500+ years of low cost, low sulfur, high moisture Brown Coal that is ideal for (coal2oil) conversion to quality gasoline, aviation fuel and carbon fibers. The history of "Coal 2 Oil" is not unlike the VHS v Beta phenomena whereby Beta had the best tape product but marketing and circumstances of the day lead VHS to dominate as the commercial product of choice. In coal-to-oil (coal2oil) there are two main technologies – 1) Fischer-Tropsch (VHS) & 2) Bergius Hydrogenation (Beta) ECT’s unique de-watering ‘Coldry’ process is applicable to both (coal to oil) technologies; however we are proposing to pursue the 2nd and less popular coal-to-oil (coal2oil) Hydrogenation process which has been developed by the Japanese after many years of testing using Brown Coal from the Latrobe Valley (1988-95). (John M. Kocol favors the American invented coal-to-oil Karrick process over the Fischer-Tropsch and the Bergius coal-to-oil conversion processes). Why are we choosing the less proven (coal to oil) process? The reported differences between the (coal2oil) processes show that Hydrogenation has a higher yield of petroleum per tonne of coal, lower cost and lower greenhouse output than its Fischer-Tropsch (coal to oil) counterpart. Below is an outline of the general (coal2oil) processes and the different products produced: Fischer – Tropsch (coal to oil) Synthesis (as used by SASOL South Africa) Fischer – Tropsch Natural SynGas (GTL) Fischer – Tropsch BTL (Biomass to Liquid) Fischer – Tropsch CTL Coal to Liquid (coal2oil) Bergius Hydrogenation Process (Liquefaction "coal2oil" Japanese Style) Coal To Liquids (CTL) (coal to oil) v Current Crude Oil Refineries CTL (coal to oil) Production Costs Latest News - Japan Ready to Move on Coal Liquefaction (coal2oil) Fischer – Tropsch Synthesis. This (coal2oil) technology evolved in 1925 when Professor Franz Fischer, founding director of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute of Coal Research in Germany and his head of department, Dr Hans Tropsch, patented a (coal to oil) process to produce liquid hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide gas and hydrogen using metal catalysts. The hydrocarbons synthesized in the process were made primarily of liquid alkenes (paraffin’s). Other by-products were olefins (basis of all poly plastics & fibers), alcohols, and solid paraffin’s (waxes). The required gas mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen - the so called synthesis gas - is created through a reaction of coke or coal with steam and oxygen, at temperatures over 900 degrees C. In the past, town gas and gas for lamps were a carbon monoxide-hydrogen mixture, made by gasifying coke in gas works. In the 1970’s it was replaced with imported natural gas (methane). Coal gasification (coal2oil) and Fischer-Tropsch (German coal2oil conversion process) hydrocarbon synthesis together bring about a two-stage sequence of reactions which allows the production (conversion of coal to oil) of liquid fuels like diesel and petrol out of solid combustible black coal. For indirect coal liquefaction (coal2oil), Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis can be used on all types of coal as well as other raw materials which contain coal. Fischer-Tropsch (turning coal-to-oil [CoalToOil.com]) Synthesis took its first serious place in industry in 1935 at Celanese AG chemical company. By the beginning of the 1940s, some 600,000 tonnes of liquid hydrocarbons were produced per year in German facilities, made from coal using Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. Just prior to WW II Germany licensed the (coal2oil) process to four facilities in Japan, as well as a plant in France and in Manchuria. After WW II, the destruction of most of the (coal2oil) production plants and competition from Middle East crude oil made petrol production from coal unprofitable. The only new (coal to oil) production facilities built were in South Africa in 1950 in Sasolburg (hence the brand name SASOL). These (coal to oil) plants were government backed for political reasons (the apartheid era). Currently, the two (coal-to-oil) plants operated by SASOL represent about 28 % of South Africa's diesel and petrol needs, processing some 45 million tonnes of black coal per year. Fischer – Tropsch Natural SynGas (GTL) Syngas can also be created from natural gas and is less costly than making it from coal. Since 1993, Shell in Malaysia (Bintulu) and PetroSA in South Africa (Mossel Bay) have been operating industrial (coal2oil) Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis facilities, which produce liquid fuels from syngas (Gas To Liquid, GTL). A third similar plant is being built by SASOL and Qatar Petroleum in Qatar in the Persian Gulf. In 2005, nine more GTL-facilities were being planned world-wide; most of them using Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. Fischer – Tropsch BTL (Biomass to Liquid) For a number of years German companies have been developing processes to create liquid fuels from biomass (Biomass to Liquid, BTL) the most notable among them being Future Energy GmbH which uses Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis. The syngas is produced from wood, straw, and other raw materials of plant origin. Fischer – Tropsch CTL (Coal to Liquid). In 2006 (in 2011 many more coal2oil plants are being planned) the first US coal-to-diesel production facility is planned in Gilberton, Pennsylvania (ultracleanfuels.com). It will use indirect coal liquefaction (CTL), via coal gasification and Fischer-Tropsch. China, too, has been investing in (coal to oil) technology using indirect Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis / black coal. Significantly in 2002 China began planning a commercial coal liquefaction (coal2oil) plant using the Japanese version of the Bergius /coal hydrogenation (coal2oil) process in Inner Mongolia with commissioning expected in 2008. Bergius Hydrogenation Process (Liquefaction Japanese Style) The second method (direct coal liquefaction "coal2oil") was invented a few years before Fischer-Tropsch, in 1913 in Hanover by Friedrich Bergius. Coal hydrogenation (coal2oil), aka coal liquefaction (coal to oil), involves converting coal into an oil (like crude oil), that can be processed in refineries to make petrol. The Bergius (coal to oil) process, however, works best with Brown Coal and "geologically young" black coal. (Coal To Oil) v Current Crude Oil Refineries Coal liquefaction by whichever route, is capital intensive and therefore benefits substantially from economies of scale. Most studies on process economics have assumed that a full-scale commercial (coal2oil) plant would produce 50,000 - 100,000 bbl/day of liquid products. Such a plant would process 15,000 - 35,000 tonnes/day of black coal or up to double that amount of brown coal. Since coal is more difficult to transport than oil, it would, as a general principle, be better for coal-to-oil (CoalToOil.com) to be carried out in the country of origin and preferably close to the resource. (Coal to oil) Production Costs The use of the Hydrogenation (coal to oil) process and low cost brown coal (USD $4/t) and ECT’s front end ‘Coldry’ drying / de-watering process is predicted to achieve a (coal2oil) production cost of around USD$25 - $30 per barrel (crude oil equivalent) which is a remarkable improvement over the last couple of decades costs. Production costs for the Fischer-Tropsch (coal to oil) process using mainly black coal are purported to be around USD$40+/barrel. Latest News - Japan Ready to Move on Coal Liquefaction (coal2oil) The following information comes from NEDOL Japan who did much of this work in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria. Announcement on June 12 in Tokyo advised: “Japan plans to provide Asian nations – particularly China – with the technology to liquefy coal (convert coal to oil) as part of a broader effort to reduce global dependence on crude oil.” Through NEDOL they will join with Chinese (coal to oil conversion) companies (including Shenhua) “and plan to have a (coal2oil) plant operating by around 2010.” “Construction costs are estimated at 100b Yen (USD877m).” “Japan has also entered into (coal2oil) talks with the Indonesian government”… “Japan was also considering operating (coal to oil plants) in India and Mongolia.” FAQ Q: Are any companies turning coal2oil? A: Here are companies that are using or developing clean coal to oil technology: Baard Energy BP Chevron Texaco CIC Energy Corp Coal India Ltd coal2oil.com Conoco Phillips Consol Energy Inc Dakota Gasification Company Eastman Chemical Company Emery Energy Company Ergo Exergy Excelsior Energy ExxonMobil Gail India Ltd GE Energy Gasification Group Global Resource Corp Great Point Energy Green Rock Energy LLC Headwaters Linc Energy Ltd Metex Resources Ltd Mississippi Power Company Oil and Natural Gas Limited (ONGC) Peabody Energy Pertamina Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) Rentech Sasol Sasol Chevron Shell Shenhua Group Silverado Green Fuel Inc Sinopec Syntroleum WMPI Q: How much coal is needed to make 1 barrel of oil? A: 1/2 ton of coal makes 1 barrel of oil. Q: Why use coal-to-oil or CO2-to-Methanol conversion instead of ethanol? A: Alternative sources (ethanol, wind, water) are unreliable. Please read Harvard Magazine, November-December 2006, "The Ethanol Illusion" by Michael B. McElroy, and U.S. News & World Report, Feb. 12, 2007, "Overselling Ethanol" by Marianne Lavelle and Bret Schulte. Also see the Pickens Plan which supports converting coal to oil. Converting coal to oil is now cheaper, and the coal to oil technology is more efficient. With increased ethanol demand, a food price spike has followed. Therefore, the solution to the predicament that we find ourselves in is to find a way to make more clean energy without using food. Turning coal-to-oil and carbon dioxide-to-methanol is the way to make more clean fuel. Using ethanol which is a corn based fuel for transportation is one of the reasons why we have a global food crisis. According to India's finance minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, "When millions of people are going hungry, it's a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels." Washington Times, April 23, 2008, "Not by bread alone" by Arnaud de Borchgrave. Also read Washington Times, May 6, 2008, "The rise and fall of ethanol" by Times editorial staff. Q: How many gallons are there in 1 metric ton of gasoline? A: 380 gallons = 1 MT of gasoline. ____ CoalToOil.com and CO2toMethanol.com are USMEXenergy.com companies.

timid, not for the easily discouraged. 26 May 2009 Peak Oil: Meet Clear Coal Update 11 June 09: A reader emailed to request contact information for Coal Sack Energy. It seems he has some investors who want to back the company but cannot find a way to invest. Is it possible that Barak Obama -- who promised to bankrupt the coal companies -- has decided to block all access to investing in new coal technology? Just kidding. More likely, the company listed below is playing hard to get, for reasons of its own. So be careful when you invest. Some things sound too good to be true because they aren't.Brian Westenhaus gives us a look at a promising new treatment for coal and other carbon sources, Clear Coal. This process claims to remove all mercury and almost all sulfur from the coal in the process of increasing the available energy. The technology is claimed to make it possible to convert any type or grade of coal, including scrap coal, oil shale, tar sands, etc., into three basic by-products char, synthetic oil and gas - through one integrated process. Greg Boyd, 47, is the more youthful leader of CoalSack Energy. Asked by Bob McCarty for a 60-second spiel to a prospect Boyd answers with some interesting numbers. “I’d say we have a patent on low-temperature carbonization which takes out 99.2 percent of the sulfur from a ton of coal,” Boyd explained. “The mercury is not even measurable. We’re raising the BTUs by upwards of 40 percent, averaging between 28 and 40 percent. With the same ton of coal, we’re producing the highest grade of light sweet crude oil which can be turned into Jet A fuel and that we’re getting about 7,000 cubic feet of gas.” ...Using a low temperature carbonization process, we are able to carefully control internal temperature ranges inside a roasting unit called a Coal Carbonization Module or CCM™ to vaporize the contaminate elements contained within coal. These vaporized elements are then transported to tanks using steam, whereupon they are condensed into their natural, uncontaminated forms. We are able to produce the nearly contaminate-free char, synthetic oil, and synthetic gasses that are sold to industrial markets, such as refined into Coke for steel production, used for electricity production, or refined into liquid fuels like gasoline, diesel, and Jet A. The carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide production is also converted into liquid fuel, and injected into the product stream where it is sold as a value-added product. Those four products are interesting. The char is a clean burning smokeless boiler fuel, which can be used for electricity and heat production. The char may also be used in the production of steel and activated charcoal products including filters and carbon fiber. Char has a higher BTU range than coal, 12MBTU/lb – 14MBTU/lb, making it more valuable per ton. Utilities using char as a fuel source become carbon creditors, and could eliminate expensive flue gas scrubbing units. _NewEnergyandFuel This is an intriguing promise. The process purportedly removes pollutants, incorporates all carbon -- including CO and CO2 -- into useful fuel, and turns low grade "junk coal" into high grade fuels and fuels precursors. I would like to see how it works on bitumens and kerogens, as well as dried compacted biomass. Despite what you may have heard from your peak oil friends, the energy game is just getting started. Only an incompetent political reich can thrust civilisation into abject energy scarcity -- "political peak oil".

http://ecopolitology.org/2009/05/19/clear-coal-not-the-same-as-clean-coal/ Clear Coal: Not the Same as Clean Coal 0 Comments and 0 Reactions by Timothy Hurst on May 19, 2009 More Sharing Services 0 inShare coalsack-ccm [On a recent trip to the Western Slope of Colorado, I had the opportunity to meet Bob McCarty who publishes at BobMcCarty.com. While our politics may differ on many issues, our fascination for the politics and technology of energy may not be as diametric. Bob sent me this post he first published last week to see if I would like to run it elsewhere. I don't know anything about the process described below, nor do I endorse it. But, as is the case with other liquid coal technologies, my concern is that the process all but ignores the carbon content of coal, while emphasizing the cleaning of sulfur and mercury from the product.] By Bob McCarty During a recent flight from Denver to Grand Junction, Colo., I found myself sitting next to Harold L. Bennett, a 78-year-old civil engineer from Albuquerque. In addition to being on his way to a business meeting in Vernal, Utah, Bennett was on his way to securing the nation’s energy future. Before the 55-minute journey on the twin-prop aircraft ended, I learned three important things from Bennett: First, I learned he has held the patent on the world’s only Clear Coal™ — not “clean coal” — technology since the early 1970s and has improved it twice; Second, I learned his technology makes it possible to convert any type or grade of coal, including scrap coal, oil shale, tar sands, etc., into three basic by-products — char, synthetic oil and gas — through one integrated process; and Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I learned the potential of this little-known technology is huge, especially in light of the current economic situation and increasing demand for clean energy. I also learned that 55 minutes was not enough time to soak up every detail about Clear Coal™, so I took Bennett’s advice and set up a telephone interview with Greg Boyd. Boyd, 47, is the de facto leader of Phoenix-based CoalSack Energy, Inc., a fledgling company launched four months ago with the express goal of taking the groundbreaking technology to market. He spoke with me for 40 minutes Wednesday afternoon during an interview that began with my request for him to role play. “You’re in an elevator,” I explained, “when a man wearing a solid-gold ‘I love coal’ button on the lapel of his suit jacket steps into the elevator with you. Share with me the 30-second message you would share with him about CoalSack Energy and Clear Coal™ technology.” Initially balking at the time limit available, he opened up when given more time (i.e., 60 seconds): “I’d tell him we have a patent on low-temperature carbonization which takes out 99.2 percent of the sulfur (from a ton of coal),” Boyd explained. “The mercury is not even measurable. We’re raising the BTU by upwards of 40 percent, averaging between 28 and 40 percent. With the same ton of coal, we’re producing the highest grade of light sweet crude oil which can be turned into Jet A fuel and that we’re getting about 7,000 cubic feet of gas.” Expanding on the “elevator speech,” he explained that Clear Coal™ technology is good for an environment in which pollutants like sulfur and mercury are becoming big problems, expensive to combat. “Scrubbers cost 100 to 200 million (dollars) a copy,” he explained. “At the same time, when (coal) goes through the scrubber, all of the sulfur ash drops out the bottom and all the mercury goes down there. “So what are you gonna do with that? If you can’t separate it, it has to go to some hazardous waste landfill. “Conversely,” he said, “You can’t even measure the mercury after we process the coal.” For a process that produces one barrel of crude per ton of coal, the potential — there’s that word again — becomes enormous, especially in terms of energy security. “In the U.S. last year, I think we were in the neighborhood of 1.5 billion tons of coal use,” Boyd explained. “If we were cleaning a percentage of that, say 10 percent, that’s 185 million barrels a year (and) that could make a huge dent.” Asked whether his five-person company has any competition, Boyd responded with the type of answer only the head of a company marketing revolutionary technology can give with a straight face. old-coal-tech“We don’t have any competition,” he said before going on to say that companies trying to operate in the same arena with CoalSack Energy have been able to remove only 60 percent of the impurities and have had problems with combustion taking place during transport of byproducts. One might think that a company with such revolutionary technology and no competition would be going “gangbusters” from the start, but that’s not necessarily the case with CoalSack Energy. “We’re so new with an awesome process,” Boyd explained, “we just need to get a couple million dollars of operating capital — perhaps from an investment banking firm or a coal producer or maybe a utility — and start putting up our own facilities, and then taking Clear Coal™ technology to the public market.” In recent weeks, Boyd has met with representatives of two “big fish” entities — a commodity hedge fund and a statewide utility — that have expressed interest in the technology. While every contact with entities like those is valuable, he knows that other issues must be addressed in order to make a “go” of the company. “What we really need is a CEO,” Boyd said, saying he hopes one day soon to be able to draw upon his diverse professional experience in the world of finance and focus on business development and trading of byproducts produced via the carbonization process. “We need someone who has a huge Rolodex®, who can call the CEO at Duke Energy, who has experience at this and can really guide the ship.”

First American, a YHI Company, Successfully Demonstrates World’s First Clean Coal-to-Oil Process Posted on September 21, 2012 | Leave a comment Paradise Valley, Ariz — While the rest of the world was having a normal weekday Aug. 28, a small group of business, military and community leaders gathered at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque, N.M. to witness one of the most significant developments in the energy and fuel-production industries of, perhaps, the century. First American International LLC unveiled a working model of the Bennett coal-to- oil conversion process, opening up a world of possibilities to environmentally safe fuel production and coal usage. Coal-to-oil is not new. Two German scientists in the 1920s first accomplished what would become widely known as the Fischer-Tropsch process. But Fischer-Tropsch, which burns coal at extreme temperatures, under very high pressures, is extremely inefficient, costly and produces an environmental catastrophe in its wake. FAI Managing Partner Dennis Yellowhorse Jones sought to eliminate at the demonstration all notions that the Bennett Process resembles Fischer-Tropsch in any other way except that they both produce oil from coal. “The most important fact you must remember … is that this is not Fischer-Tropsch,” Yellowhorse Jones told the audience, which included Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly, among other leaders. The Bennett Process is patented as of 2011 as its own distinct coal-to-oil method. Its inventor, Harold Bennett, also attended the demonstration and explained the unique way his method works. Bennett has worked on the project since he was tapped by the President Jimmy Carter’s administration in the 1970s to find a clean way to utilize coal as a wider fuel source. The Bennett Process slowly heats coal – not burning it – with steam to separate from it a thick tar that can be refined into diesel, jet and other fuels, and char, which can be burned as “smokeless” fuel in the energy industry or processed further into metallurgical coke. Gases captured during the process can be processed for used for a variety purposes, including industrial chemicals. Because of its near-100-percent efficiency, the Bennett Process produces no negative environmental impact, vastly distancing it from Fischer-Tropsch. Financial returns are also much faster, months versus years, or never, with Fischer-Tropsch. The demonstration was a success and guests saw firsthand the tar from a sample of coal pouring from a spout on the machine and the leftover char.

Astra Resources deals into innovative and patented clean coal conversion technology Tuesday, March 06, 2012 by Proactive Investors Astra have made their first step in the acquisition of patented clean coal technology, which can be used for fuel production, coal gasification and power generation - after signing joint venture agreements, which has further expanded Astra's global portfolio. Astra have made their first step in the acquisition of patented clean coal technology, which can be used for fuel production, coal gasification and power generation - after signing joint venture agreements, which has further expanded Astra's global portfolio. International diversified resource company, Astra Resources (FWB Code: 9AR), has signed a joint venture agreement for an innovative and patented clean coal conversion technology. The agreement, between Astra’s subsidiary, Astra Energy Technologies Pty Ltd (AET), Interecotech Pty Ltd (IET), CG Technologies Pty Ltd and Sevastyanov Vladimir Petrovich, will result in AET retaining a 75 per cent stake in the Joint Venture Company and strengthening the company’s portfolio in the field of power generation using commercially proven clean coal technology. AET will be acquiring its 75 per cent stake in the Joint Venture Company through primarily scrip (issued by its parent, Astra Resources Plc), and is subject to the satisfactory completion of a due diligence period agreed between the Joint Venture parties. This scrip issue is intended to be within the existing Astra capital structure. The technology pertains to the scientific process required for the manufacture of Activated Coal Water Fuel (ACWF) and the gasification of that fuel to create hydrogen enriched Syngas, which can be used as a cheaper alternative for generating electricity in modern power stations. Astra CEO Dr Jaydeep Biswas says the company has been actively seeking an innovative clean coal conversion technology to add to its intellectual property bank as part of its broader business strategy. “IET have developed a patented environmentally friendly and cost effective technology utilising poor quality coals for the production of ACWF and low cost hydrogen enriched Syngas, which offers a long-term alternative to oil and is an attractive fuel for the power generation industry,” Dr Biswas says. “Any type of coal can be used as feedstock for ACWF, with low quality Lignite or brown coal being ideal. “This creates greater energy independence for developing countries which frequently have low quality thermal coal reserves and at present import black coal or diesel for their power generation requirements. “Astra’s coal conversion strategy will enable countries with a heavy reliance on importing costly high quality coal, which is unsustainable in the long term due to import expense and process, to use locally mined brown coal reserves for power generation thus significantly reducing generation costs. “These brown coal reserves, which have a low, nil or negative value, will also in-turn provide a significant mining opportunity for Astra resulting and a win-win situation. “This will have an immediate and profound effect as the coal conversion technology will help turn low quality coal reserves into a useable product.” The cost difference between brown and black coal can be as high as $80-100 per tonne, if based on today’s prices, without taking into account the costs of logistics of transporting black coal from producer country mines to developing country power stations, which normally has a sequence of rail-port-shipping-port-rail; this logistics cost can sometimes be as high as the value of the black coal. The development of modern coal water fuels by IET began in the late 1980’s in Russia. The technology was further developed by IET’s scientists and engineers in order to produce energy of even higher specifications, but was never marketed under the name of ACWF (currently a trade mark pending registered product). The technology has been used commercially in Novokuznetsk, Russia. The technology is a bolt-on device for existing power stations to process low quality coal as an alternative to diesel, fuel oil and black coal. For a 300MW black coal or diesel fuelled power station, the bolt-on device is expected to cost $ 40 million. Astra does not intend to get into stand-alone power generation, but will seek revenues from providing the technology, royalty and operating cost savings due to higher efficiency and lower fuel/logistics costs to existing power stations. The technology is based on ultrasonic chemistry, activating coal water mixtures so coal behaves as a liquid, which provides cleaner and higher efficiency combustion. The process has undergone 30 years of development and while it was patented in late 2011 the know-how is believed to be nearly impossible to replicate. The IET coal water fuel can be used in pulverized coal combustion (PCC) plants with great economic and environmental benefits, including: - Significant reduction of greenhouse and noxious gas emissions CO2, NOX, SOX - Minimising slagging of the boilers using high ash coals - Significantly more efficient use of available energy from carbon and volatiles in the raw material compared to other processes which underburn both carbon and volatiles - Reduction of energy input for coal preparation - Reduction in coal preparation plant size to approximately one third of standard size - Reduction in capital operating costs - Reduction in fuel and import costs The presence of water in ACWF also makes the resulting product explosion proof, and as the process converts the coal into a liquid form, delivery and dispensing of the fuel can be simplified. Using ACWF technology, 20-30% less coal is required for the same MW output compared to a power plant which does not use ACWF using the same coal. Additionally, the efficiency of the ICSGCC (3 Cycles) technology, utilising brown and/or black coals is estimated to be in the range of 80-85%, CO2 emissions 0.40-0.38t/MWh. IET’s key staff includes the senior scientists and engineers who spent over thirty years on the testing and development of the technology and have extensive experience in operating the ACWF production plant. Astra Managing Director Silvana De Cianni says with increasing reliance on global oil and natural gas resources, IET’s patented technology offers a cost effective and clean coal based alternative for heating and power generation. “By reducing the cost of the feedstock and importation with the utilisation of coal instead of oil and gas, overall costs to produce heat and electricity are at least halved,” Ms De Cianni says. “The high-energy coal water based fuel produced by this cutting edge process can be immediately used to replace heavy oils in oil-fed boilers of any size for heating and power generation. “Depending on the geographical area the price per unit energy of IET’s coal water fuel may be 30 per cent to 70 per cent lower than the equivalent oil or gas. “Heavy oil boilers are prevalent in developing countries and IET’s technology provides a fantastic low cost alternative in these markets.” ACWF has prospective growth potential for the Central European region, with vast resources of brown coal and a high demand for low emission production of electricity, and a number of potential users in South East Asia, such as India, the Philippines and Cambodia, along with Africa and Australia have welcomed the planned opening of the ACWF plants, indicating their intention to purchase the full initial output. Dr Biswas says Astra has the advantage of being able to receive quality returns on its proposed investment acquisition in a relatively short time frame as the first commercial plant outside of Russia will be able to begin production 12 to 24 months after the acquisition of the IP is completed. “With this new joint venture, Astra signals its intention to become a major player in meeting increased global demand for electricity and addressing the challenges of global warming,” Dr Biswas says. Ms De Cianni says various plants have produced and tested ACWF with excellent results. “It is expected that customers will be able to convert PCC plants to ACWF utilising IET coal preparation and combustion technology with very low capital costs in a short space of time,” Ms De Cianni says. “While upgrades are not required, modular diesel engine power plants burning ACWF can be slightly modified to make them economically competitive with natural gas. “The initial and guaranteed market will serve as a parallel springboard for the quick introduction of the next step, Coal Slurry Gasification.” The thermal and chemical properties of the ACWF produced mean higher rates of reactivity when fed into gasification or combustion reactors, with remarkable results in gas composition and heat produced. ACWF acts as a super-charged feedstock, and can also be used for high yield, low emission production of syngas, the basis for a revolutionary new type of IGCC process. The syngas produced utilizing this technology can be used for direct combustion in converted coal or oil-fired boilers, coal-to-liquid fuel production, electricity generation, and can replace natural gas to produce heat. Using brown coal from Australia’s Latrobe Valley in Victoria and IET gasification technology, the estimated syngas production cost is $1 to $2/GJ, depending on the size of the gasification and price of coal. In comparison to some other energy producers, Astra has access to a large pool of engineers and scientists, all of who have decades of experience in coal conversion technologies in Russia and Australia. In-depth details of all processes and accompanying knowhow of the particular Integrated Coal Slurry Gasification Combined Cycle (ICSGCC)process, and employment of all key scientists forms an integral part of the Intellectual Property acquired through the joint venture. Astra has acquired all documentation and knowhow of the technology which is covered by non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and will make this available to potential investors and partners. To read more about Interecotech’s coal conversion technology, click here. Astra Resources’ global portfolio includes gold interest in Southeast Asia, coal mine in Africa, iron ore in India, Norway and the Philippines, the production of the high-strength T-Steel technology in Hungary, carbon-efficiency businesses and the provision of mining services housing in Rockhampton, Queensland. Astra Resources uncovers new growth opportunity in Nigerian coal Astra Resources’ continues to expand and grow its global presence with the completion of an initial geological investigation and feasibility study to determine the coal potential and viability of two thermal coal sites in Nigeria. Astra Resources dials into Nigerian thermal coal sector with joint venture Astra Resources is one of only a handful of Australian companies exploring the Nigerian coal market, providing investors an exposure to a country developing coal-fired power plants and revitalising the local coal mining industry. Astra Resources continues on global acquisition trail, reveals corporate strategy for future growth Astra’s business model is focused on mining and related opportunities, with exposure to iron ore, gold and thermal and coking coal - along with iron ore sands in the Philippines. Astra Resources global expansion continues with Indian iron ore trading license secured Astra has achieved another milestone for the Indian operations by securing licenses which allow the company to trade and transport self-mined and third party mined iron ore to Paradip Port for export. Astra Resources PLC arrives on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange With a focus on delivering efficiencies from the steel making process and an eye on the urbanising nations of China and India, the listing of Astra Resources PLC provides a springboardfor the company to raise capital as its portfolio of projects expands. Astra Resources PLC pending IPO attracts Minevest Consultants to assist with €1 billion underwriting In a major vote of confidence for Astra Mining's technology and strategic plan, New York based Minevest Consultants in conjunction with major international investment banks has agreed to "unconditionally underwrite" the IPO to the tune of €1 billion. Astra Mining aiming high, to tap Asian growth with Frankfurt listing Astra aims to capitalise on delivering efficiencies from the steel making process, while tapping the expanding resource demands of the world’s largest urbanising nations - China and India.

Astra advancing clean coal technology astra.JPGAstra Energy Technologies (AET), a subsidiary of international diversified resource company Astra Resources, has completed the acquisition of Interecotech’s innovative clean coal conversion technology. The acquisition, which resulted in the formation of Astra Interecotech (AI) to oversee the commercialisation of the technology, follows the successful completion of due diligence into the project. Included in the acquisition is the scientific process required for the manufacture of Activated Coal Water Fuel (ACWF), and Integrated Coal Slurry Gasification Combined Cycle (ICSGCC) technology, with the latter expected by the company to “revolutionise the production of synthetic gas and electricity.” Astra’s CEO, Dr Jaydeep Biswas says that the technology is based on ultrasonic chemistry activating the coal water mixtures so brown coal behaves as a liquid, which provides cleaner and higher efficiency combustion in existing coal-fired power stations. “AI’s ACWF technology has been subject to significant scientific and technical improvements from the current thermal dynamic activation (TDA) technology, a process which has taken approximately 23 years,” Biswas stated. “The technology is a bolt-on device for existing power stations to process low quality coal as an alternative to diesel, fuel oil and black coal, meaning expensive upgrades are not required. This means pulverised coal combustion plants can be converted to ACWF plants, utilising AI’s coal preparation and combustion technology with very low capital costs. Low ranking brown coal is the ideal feedstock for the preparation of ACWF, which is then fed into a specially designed and manufactured combustion unit. Using the milling and homogenisation technologies, ACWF is produced by causing high energy and high pressure cavitation in the coal-water mixture.” The thermal and chemical properties of the ACWF means higher rates of reactivity when fed into combustion reactors. As the input energy required to produce ACWF as a feedstock to other processes is much lower, a reduction in CO2 emissions can be achieved over the processes lifecycle. Additional environmental benefits are gained by the presence of water in ACWF which works to reduce harmful emissions into the atmosphere and makes the product explosion-proof. AI’s ACWF technology also provides users with significant cost savings, requiring 10 to 15% less coal as feedstock for the same MW output in comparison to a power plant that does not utilise the technology. “As any type of coal can be used as feedstock, developing countries with low quality thermal coal reserves will be able to gain greater energy independence by utilising locally mined reserves rather than importing black coal or diesel for their power generation requirements, which is unsustainable in the long term. By replacing oil or gas with ACWF, and dependent on the geographical area, AI can achieve a 30 to 70% lower price per unit of energy.” While the production of ACWF is a relatively simplistic process, AI’s ICSGCC technology is a more complex process, converting coal into electricity in up to three cycles. Including the preparation of Uniform Activated Coal Water Fuel (UACWF) as a feedstock for the gasifier, gasification of UACWF and combined cycle (gas, steam and organic turbines) to generate electricity this process can successfully produce low cost hydrogen-enriched syngas by implementing either a two or three cycle process. Astra Managing Director Silvana De Cianni says the patented and environmentally friendly technology outlines the scientific process required for utilising all types of coal for the production of low cost hydrogen enriched Syngas, however lignite and brown coal is most suited. “The technology produces high yielding, low emission syngas, the basis of a revolutionary new type of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) process. The resulting product is a long-term, and cheaper, alternative to oil, gas, pulverized coal and coal water slurry, and can be used for direct combustion in converted coal or oil-fired boilers, coal-to-liquid fuel production, electricity generation and can replace natural gas to produce heat.” AI’s method of ICSGCC technology is unique in part due to the new type of feedstock (UACWF) that has been developed, which is prepared by special milling and hydro-shock disintegration methods and equipment. The technology for the preparation of UACWF focuses on the use of any type and grade of coal, including low-grade coal, waste of coal processing plants, slag containing unburned carbon and coal fines. The initial focus for AI’s ACWF technology will be SE Asia, followed by Latin America, with prospective growth markets identified in the Central European region due to the vast resources brown coal and a high demand for low emission production of electricity. AI is currently in the process of manufacturing an ACWF and combustion demonstration unit in Russia for the purpose of demonstrating its efficiency and integrity for prospective clients. The company plans to construct a commercial ACWF and combustion plant within the next 12 months and an ICSGCC demonstration module within the next 36 months. AI has also entered into discussion with interested parties that span the globe concerning prospective commercial arrangements. Astra Resources’ global portfolio includes gold interests in SE Asia, coal mine in Africa, iron ore in India, Norway and the Philippines, carbon efficient and commodity businesses, the production of the high-strength T-Steel technology in Hungary, clean coal technology and the provision of mining services housing in Rockhampton, Queensland.

http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/2012/06/coal-is-becoming-both-versatile-and.html Al Fin Energy Sunday, June 24, 2012 Coal Is Becoming Both Versatile and Clean Technology for turning coal into electric power, process heat, and liquid fuels has come a long way over the past ten years. And science and engineering have just begun developing cleaner and more efficient ways of utilising coal for heat, power, and transportation fuels. Comparison of Various Coal to Liquids Methods (PDF) The table above reveals the superior yields and efficiency of direct coal liquefaction (and hybrid liquefaction) as compared to gasification plus Fischer Tropsch, or indirect coal liquefaction. Advantages of Direct Coal Liquefaction (PDF) The presentation summary above describes some economic advantages of direct coal liquefaction over indirect liquefaction -- including lower startup costs. Shenhua Direct Coal Liquefaction Plant State-owned China Shenhua Group made a profit from its pioneering direct coal-to-liquids (CTL) project in the first half of this year (2011), raising hopes that the world’s second largest oil consuming nation may expand forays into alternative fuel production. China has rich coal reserves but limited oil deposits. After backing CTL as a way of improving energy security and easing its growing dependence on overseas crude oil, China went cold on the technology in 2008, cancelling dozens of projects amid concerns about high production costs and the impact it would have on scarce water supplies. The parent of China Shenhua Energy Co , the country’s biggest coal producer, produced 470,000 tonnes of oil products from coal in the first half and costs of the fuel were equivalent to crude oil prices of less than $60 a barrel, according to Shenhua Group’s General Manager Zhang Yuzhuo. _Shenhua DCL Project Proves Profitable As long as oil costs remain high (above $80 a barrel), such projects should provide healthy returns to their backers. The CTL approach depicted above utilises methane as a hydrogen donour in a unique liquefaction process which utilises gasification plus methanol production. The methanol can be further converted to diesel or jet fuel. More details This Accelergy approach to CTL utilises biomass gasification as a hydrogen donour for the coal liquefaction. At this point in time, methane is likely to be more practical to provide hydrogen. The above image portrays three ways of CTL, including Exxon Mobil's coal to methanol to gasoline (MTG), traditional gasification plus Fischer Tropsch, and the use of biomass gasification to provide hydrogen for direct liquefaction of coal to liquids. And just to remind you that the world is not giving up on coal for the generation of electrical power, this EIA graphic projects a steady growth in the use of coal for electrical power generation through 2035 -- consistent with the recent 2012 BP Statistical Review. Coal is second in size only to gas hydrates as a global hydrocarbon resource. Any rational projection of future energy and fuels production would necessarily include coal. Rather than to reject coal altogether, more intelligent energy analysts and policy-makers would do better to continue to press for cleaner, safer, and more efficient ways of utilising this massive energy source -- as a bridge to future sources of energy which can be used for many thousands of years, such as advanced nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and hybrid fission - fusion. Labels: coal, CTL posted by al fin at 12:00 AM 0 Comments: Post a Comment Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom] << Home Newer Posts Older Posts Al Fin Energy Al Fin Central About Me al fin North America Primary interest is seeing that the best of humanity survives long enough to reach the next level. View my complete profile Previous Posts Coal Will Thrive Long After Obama Is Gone Coal Under Attack on All Fronts . . . Plots Comeba... Oil Dependency and the Russian Economy Worrying About a Collapse of Oil Prices German Magazine FOCUS Warns Germans of Collapse Energy Cornucopia in Paradise Pitiful Germany: Who Can Save You Now? The Lesson of $147 a Barrel Oil Peak Oil Stutters, Stammers, Blusters On Peak Oil: Pro and Con Powered by Blogger Subscribe to Posts [Atom]

National Coal Council Study Finds CO2-Based Enhanced Oil Recovery From Coal Benefits Environment, Energy Security And Economy PR Newswire WASHINGTON, June 22, 2012 WASHINGTON, June 22, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Coal Council (NCC) today presented the U.S. Department of Energy with the results of a comprehensive study requested by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. The study, "Harnessing Coal's Carbon Content to Advance the Economy, Environment and Energy Security," concludes that widespread deployment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization (CCUS) technologies at coal-based power and liquid fuels production plants could help increase domestic oil production by more than 3.5 million barrels a day for 40-plus years. The Council's findings are based on contributions from more than 60 leading energy experts in coordination with the National Petroleum Council. Since 2001, the Council has conducted six major carbon dioxide (CO2) management studies for a series of U.S. Energy Secretaries. In this recent report, the Council evaluated the potential market for using CO2 captured from the existing and newly constructed U.S. coal-based electricity fleet and potential coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants as a resource for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. EOR technology has successfully increased U.S. oil production for nearly half a century. "It's time to think of CO2 as a valuable commodity. Advanced coal technology is key to affordably realizing deep reductions in emissions," said Council member and Study Chairman Richard Bajura. "The U.S. uses more coal than any nation except China, and potential production of U.S. oil from coal-derived CO2 for CCUS/ EOR applications dwarfs other projected new domestic sources. We have a unique opportunity to more fully use domestic, low-cost coal to access more oil." Research conducted for the National Energy Technology Laboratory indicates that over 60 billion barrels of oil are economically recoverable using next-generation technology at an assumed world oil price of $85 per barrel. "CO2 -based EOR projects are operating profitably even in the current challenging economic environment," explains Council member and Chairman of the Council's Coal Policy Committee Fred Palmer. "Successful deployment of CCUS/EOR responds to the U.S. Administration's goal to reduce emissions 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. With a regulatory framework that facilitates the increased deployment of this technology at scale, we can increase use of domestic energy, fuel economic growth and enhance national security." Expanding CO2 -based EOR can significantly reduce emissions by capturing CO2 from coal-based generation and safely injecting the carbon deep into oil wells, releasing stranded oil that could not be accessed by more conventional drilling methods. However, the limited availability of CO2 has been a constraint. The study calls for the capture of carbon dioxide from coal plants and transportation through a robust network of pipelines. This will accelerate the use of CCUS/EOR technology, resulting in large increases in domestic oil production, significant job creation and economic growth. The Council found that 18 billion to 31 billion metric tons of additional CO2 could be used in U.S. oil fields over the next 40 years or more, compared to 2 billion metric tons available from natural sources and natural gas processing. Use of CO2 in EOR processes could yield more than 3.5 million additional barrels a day of oil. Additional findings in the report include: By 2035, the combination of coal-based EOR and CTL technology could provide up to 30 percent of U.S. liquid fuel demand and ensure America's energy security for decades. Much of the CO2 resource could come from large coal power plants that are distributed broadly and common in such economically recovering regions as the Ohio River Valley. Use of CO2 -based EOR and CTL could generate $200 billion in economic activity, more than 1 million skilled jobs and $60 billion in tax revenues. At least 100 gigawatts of advanced coal generating capacity could be built or retrofitted over the next two decades. These advanced plants would use an additional 300 million tons of coal annually. CTL plants with carbon capture could convert coal into more than 2.5 million barrels a day of additional oil. An additional 450 million tons of coal would be used annually in these operations. Capturing a high volume of CO2 for commercial purposes, coupled with CTL operations, would increase coal use to 1.75 billion tons annually. This production level is well within the capability of the United States, home to 30 percent of the world's coal reserves. The National Coal Council is a private, nonprofit advisory body chartered by the U.S. Secretary of Energy in 1984 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. National Coal Council members are appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy and reflect diverse interests, including from business, industry and academia. Download an executive summary of "Harnessing Coal's Carbon Content to Advance the Economy, Environment and Energy Security" at NationalCoalCouncil.org. CONTACT: Robert Beck Executive Vice President National Coal Council 202-223-1191 SOURCE National Coal Council The information on this page is provided by PR Newswire. All rights reserved. Reproduction or redistribution of this content without prior written consent from PR Newswire is strictly prohibited. is not responsible for this content. Learn more about this service. About Pr Logo The information on this page is provided by PR Newswire. The Business Journals is not responsible for this content. Learn more about PR Newswire » Advertisement PR Toolkit Want to see your news in The Business Journals & other media. Distribute your Release through PR Newswire. For a limited time, get a 1-Year Membership to PR Newswire FREE of charge. Find out more about PR Toolkit » Click here to find out more! People Around the Country St. Louis Albany Albany Los Angeles See More People on the Move Search and Contact all People on the Move Jobs Around the Country IRS Careers IRS | Local Opportunities Careers at Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless | Local Opportunities E-Commerce Creative Director Scholastic | New York, NY Director of Community Relations - Sales - Virginia Beach Sunrise Senior Living | Virginia Beach, VA Training and Organizational Development Director HDR | Omaha, NE

US EPA Confirms Coal Liquids Cheaper Than Petroleum Wednesday - June 20, 2012 http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/DOE/DOE_reports/600_8-80-002/epa-600_8-80-002.pdf All the way back in 1980, synthetic liquid petroleum made from Coal was less expensive than OPEC oil. And, that is as was officially reported, those full three decades ago, by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, the final statement by the US EPA, in the report we submit to you herein, is: "Sasol's success indicates that producing synthetic fuels from coal can be technically and economically feasible. The technology is available and the Sasol process - coal gasification plus Fischer-Tropsch synthesis - is the only commercially proven process that wtll produce synthetic fuels quickly, on schedule, and at predictable costs." "Sasol" being, as some published reports would have it, though other expositions of the acronym are published and promoted, "South Africa Synthetic Oil Limited", who have, as documented herein and as also seen in: Sasol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; wherein we're told, that "Sasol's primary business is based on CTL (coal-to-liquid) ... technology and this differentiates it from other petrochemical companies. Coal-To-Liquid plants convert coal ... into liquid fuels. Sasol's early experience was in South Africa. Sasol's original CTL plant ... was commissioned in 1955"; been profitably converting Coal into liquid hydrocarbon petroleum substitutes for better than half a century. Again, though, our own United States Environmental Protection Agency devoted considerable effort to studying the Sasol Coal liquefaction industry back in the late 1970's, primarily, we suppose, because they were able to surmise, and as they finally, after some decades, concluded, as seen in our report of: West Virginia Coal Association | US EPA Recommends Coal Liquefaction as a Clean Alternative | Research & Development; concerning: "Clean Alternative Fuels: Fischer-Tropsch; United States Environmental Protection Agency; Transportation and Air Quality Transportation and Regional Programs Division; EPA420-F-00-036; March 2002; A Success Story (!) For the past 50 years, Fischer-Tropsch fuels have powered all of South Africa’s vehicles, from buses to trucks to taxicabs. Sasol’s South African facility produces more than 150,000 barrels of high quality fuel from domestic low-grade coal daily. The resultant fuel is colorless, odorless, and low in toxicity (and has)important emissions benefits compared with diesel, reducing nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter"; that: Liquid hydrocarbon fuels made from Coal are better for the environment than those made conventionally from natural crude petroleum. Not only that, but, the US EPA also concluded that liquid hydrocarbon fuels made from Coal can be cheaper than those made conventionally from natural crude petroleum. As seen in additional excerpts from our initial link in this dispatch, to a document, that, insofar as we have been able to determine, is available to the public, from our government, only in the form of a hard copy that must be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, NTIS, a bureau within the United States Department of Commerce: "Sasol: South Africa's Oil From Coal Story - - Background For Environmental Assessment EPA-600/8-80-002 TRW Environmental Engineering Division; California; January, 1980 J. L. Anastai; TRW, Inc Contract No. 68-02-2635; EPA Project Officer: William J. Rhodes; Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory; Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology; Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711 Prepared for: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Research and Development; Washington, D.C. 20460 Abstract: The report describes the world's only oil-from-coal plant, known as SASOL, operated by South Africa since 1955. When almost 7 billion worth of expansion is completed in the early 1980s, three SASOL plants will produce a total of 112,000 barrels of oil per day, or about half of South Africa's needs. Production costs average $17 per barrel, well below the 1979 OPEC price of more than $20 per barrel. South African motorists pay about $2.40/gallon (¢0.63/liter) of gasoline at the pump. SASOL converts coal to liquid fuels in two steps: (I) the coal is gasified with oxygen and steam under pressure to yield a mixture of reactive gases, and (2) after being cleaned of impurities, the mixture is passed over an iron-based catalyst in Fischer-Tropsch. synthesis units to produce liquid fuels. SASOL's operation is helped by South Africa's abundance of cheap labor and low cost coal. The U.S., like South Africa, has vast coal reserves. Although comparisons are difficult, it has been estimated that oil could not be produced from coal in the U.S. for less than 27 per barrel and perhaps as much as 45. The South African system is the only commercially proven process for the production of synthetic liquid fuels. The report provides some of the background on a process that will receive high priority for environmental assessment. (First of all, if you wonder how "$17 per barrel" oil translates into "$2.40/gallon ... gasoline", they have, in South Africa, a lot more taxes on their fuel than we do. Consider that, today, here in the United States, OPEC oil at $80+ per barrel translates into $3.30+ per gallon gasoline.) Sasol converts coal to liquid fuels in two steps. First, the coal is burned with oxygen and steam under pressure to yield a gaseous mixture which is principally hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane. This gas is cleaned of impurities using processes that produce valuable chemical by-products. Once this is completed, the gas is passed over an iron based catalyst in the second step to produce liquid fuels. Sasol produces a full range of hydrocarbons Including fuel gas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), gasoline, diesel oil, parafin waxes, and chemicals such as alcohol and acetone. (All from Coal, mind you.) The yield of products obtained can be altered by changing such variables as the temperature, pressure, catalyst, or feed gas composition. Even though Sasol's operation is helped by South Africa's abundance of cheap labor and low cost coal, Sasol's success indicates that producing synthetic fuels from coal is one solution to meeting the energy needs of a country without depending on natural gas or crude oil." ------------------------ We'll end our excerpts there, since there are a few things to explain. First, the EPA objected that our costs would be higher, perhaps up to $45 per barrel of liquid hydrocarbons produced from Coal, because of our higher labor costs. Well, excuse us for wanting to make a decent living, but: The EPA and their TRW contractors, as far as we can determine, used actual, established South African Coal and Coal conversion costs in their analysis; but, only speculated on the actual costs of American Coal. In sum, and we assert it without documentation, our as-mined costs for Coal, overall, due to general geologic conditions, are less than those in South Africa, despite whatever differential costs there might be in labor. That will change a bit as our shallower, more accessible seams of Coal deplete, and we have to go deeper, as they do in South Africa, to get it. But, further, as can be learned via: Coal TL vs. Hidden Oil Costs | Research & Development; concerning: "NDCF report: the hidden cost of imported oil; The National Defense Council Foundation, an Alexandria, Virginia-based research and educational institution has completed its year-long analysis of the "hidden cost" of imported oil. The NDCF project represents the most comprehensive investigation of the military and economic penalty our undue dependence on imported oil exacts from the U.S. economy"; the real "cost" of a gallon of imported gasoline, to us as individual US citizens, due to, among other things, public tax-funded military expenditures needed to protect OPEC sources of supply and shipping, and, lost United States employment with it's attendant costs, is at least twice as high as the price posted at the pump. One other objection that could be raised against the information presented in the EPA's report is, that, although not reflected in our brief excerpts, they indicate that Sasol's specific process of converting Coal into liquid hydrocarbon fuels, and into valuable byproducts whose value and profit contributions were not, in the report, accounted for, like "liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), ... parafin waxes, and chemicals such as alcohol and acetone" and "methane", does result in the emission of some significant amounts of Carbon Dioxide. That is something that should be corrected, since it represents an inefficient, and expensive, loss of the Carbon contained in the Coal. And, it can be corrected. As seen, for only one example, in: Exxon Coal + CO2 + H2O Combo Gasification & Conversion | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,318,712 - Catalytic Coal Gasification Process; 1982; Exxon Research and Engineering; Abstract: A carbonaceous feed material, a potassium compound ... are ... gasified in the presence of the added potassium and sodium or lithium constituents. A process for the catalytic steam gasification of coal .... (which process) may be employed in ... gasification operations ... to promote the reaction of steam, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, or a similar gasification agent with (carbon)"; Carbon Dioxide can be reclaimed and utilized as a co-reactant in the initial gasification of Coal. Or, as seen, for two examples, in: USDOE 1976 Atmospheric CO2 to Methanol | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 3,959,094 - Electrolytic Synthesis of Methanol from CO2; 1976; Assignee: The USA as represented by the USDOE; A method and system for synthesizing methanol from the CO2 in air using electric power"; and: West Virginia Coal Association | USDOE Converts CO2 to Gasoline | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,197,421 - Synthetic Carbonaceous Fuels and Feedstocks; 1980; Assignee: The United States of America; This invention relates to the use of a three compartment electrolytic cell in the production of synthetic carbonaceous fuels and chemical feedstocks such as gasoline, methane and methanol by electrolyzing an aqueous sodium carbonate/bicarbonate solution, obtained from scrubbing atmospheric carbon dioxide with an aqueous sodium hydroxide solution"; our United States Department of Energy could have told our United States Environmental Protection Agency, before their report, "Sasol: South Africa's Oil From Coal Story -- Background For Environmental Assessment; EPA-600/8-80-002", was even published, that, Carbon Dioxide, as recovered from whatever source, can be efficiently converted into both industrially valuable Methanol and, even, Gasoline itself. And, the facts that Coal can be efficiently converted into Gasoline and Diesel at less cost than making those fuels from OPEC Oil, and, that Carbon Dioxide can, as well, be converted into Alcohol and Gasoline, were known, as seen herein, to multiple branches of our United States Government more than three decades ago. The additional fact that none of that has been openly reported and made known to the general, tax-paying and OPEC-extorted, United States Public is not just inexcusable and inexplicable, it is despicable.

Nat Gas-to-Liquids Coming to U.S. Print Share By: Ian Madsen, CFA September 20, 2011 | Comment(s): 0 Recommended this article (7) SSL | CHK | RDS.A | KBR | CBI | HON | FLS | FWLT | XOM | CVX | ECA | COG | FST | DVN Attentive investors may have noted an announcement last week by the large South Africa-based energy and chemicals company Sasol (SSL - Analyst Report). The firm said it was commencing an eighteen-month feasibility study to determine the commercial viability of one of two options: either a two million tons per annum or four million tons per annum Gas-to-Liquids, or ‘GTL,’ production facility in southwestern Louisiana. This would be the first GTL facility in the United States, indeed in the Western hemisphere. The liquids produced are expected to be generally kerosene and allied products, for diesel or jet fuel. This could be the start of a major movement to, effectively, substitute abundant, cheap natural gas produced within North America, for expensive, imported crude oil. The economic, balance of payments, financial and investment implications are enormous. Heretofore, this potential substitution has been stymied by a ‘chicken and egg’ problem. Advocates of greater use of natural gas as a transportation fuel -- people like T. Boone Pickens, and the largest developer of shale gas, Chesapeake Energy (CHK - Analyst Report) -- have run into the practical obstacle of natural gas not being a convenient choice for consumers, businesses or institutions. Vehicles have to be fitted with adaptation devices and hardware, plus a large tank to hold compressed natural gas, or ‘CNG,’ squeezing out useful luggage space in passenger vehicles and potential cargo space in trucks and vans. Futhermore, finding stations able to sell CNG at high volumes, dispersed conveniently in cities, towns and along highways, is nearly impossible and would be costly to deploy on a large scale, even if such equipment could be put in place at existing service stations. These stations are owned by integrated oil companies who are not entirely positively disposed to cannibalizing their existing conventional gasoline sales, nor cluttering up and complicating their current operations with a new one of uncertain demand level. So, this new development is extremely positive from a standpoint of encouraging the demand for and consumption of natural gas in a different and much more user-friendly form. Truckers, bus lines, delivery companies, railroads and airlines do not have to change anything about how they operate. In fact, the diesel and aviation fuel from GTL plants, as demonstrated by the ones already built, separately, by Sasol and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A - Analyst Report) in Qatar, have less contaminants than ‘natural’ kerosene fuels refined from crude oil, and burn cleaner, too. The United States currently consumes over eighteen million barrels of crude oil per day, about twelve million of it imported -- at a cost, today, of about $1.08 billion, or about $400 billion per annum, at today’s price of about $90 per barrel. That is money that leaves the United States economy and contributes to its chronic trade and balance of payments deficit. The revenue, aside from Mexico and Canada, generally goes to unstable, unfriendly, despotic and/or corrupt regimes in the Middle East, Africa or Latin America, fuelling war, repression, terrorism or misery of one kind or another. Should that money stay at home, it would be spent in communities across the U.S., benefiting consumers and businesses, generating jobs, and improving state and federal finances, lowering deficits. It would also encourage the growth of a new industry that would revitalize many sectors, in construction of facilities, manufacture of sensors, controls, and other tools and devices, and specialized equipment used in GTL and related plant and infrastructure. Companies involved in the construction of the Qatar GTL plants include KBR, Inc. (KBR - Snapshot Report), Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI - Analyst Report), Honeywell (HON - Analyst Report), Flowserve (FLS - Analyst Report) and Foster Wheeler (FWLT - Analyst Report). In general, heretofore, GTL projects have not been major revenue generators for any of these companies, as there have been few of them, and they are constructed over protracted time periods. However, it is quite possible that could change in the near future. Background Converting to volumes, the indicated proposed capacity would be about 2.4 million cubic meters per annum for the smaller option, or 4.8 million cubic metres for the larger one. Converting from metric, that would be an output of 22 million barrels per annum for the small facility, 44 million for the large one. Other sources indicate that, owing to the nature of the process, approximately 11 thousand cubic feet of natural gas are required to produce one barrel of the liquids in these types of facilities. So, annual consumption of gas for the smaller facility is about 240 billion cubic feet; approximately 480 billiion cubic feet for the larger option. This is significant but not substantial; the U.S. produced about 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from all sources in 2009, so the smaller plant would consume about 1 percent of total U.S. supply by the time it is built and started; the larger one, 2 percent. That is not enough to drive up natural gas prices, especially with the current, and likely continuing, surplus of shale gas. Indeed, some natural gas drillers are running into some unexpected cash flow issues, and have curtailed their drilling plans, or are shifting their emphasis to more ‘liquids-rich’ shale prospects, as light oil and other liquids are also produced in conjunction with much of the shale gas. Economics of GTL Using the crude numbers available: if diesel fuel persists at its recent wholesale price of about US$2.10 per gallon, or US$88.20 per barrel, and natural gas hovers in the range of $4 per thousand cubic feet, then Sasol’s gross margin would be in the neighborhood of $44 per barrel, which, on the surface, looks very lucrative, and compares very well to many unconventional sources of oil such as the Athabasca oil sands in northern Alberta, Canada. It looks even better when considering that, in effect, the Sasol GTL does not require a refinery; it is, in essence, already refining the input resource into finished, high value products. So, the ‘spread’ from the substitute for crude oil to the finished, ‘refined’ liquid is very high. The only real risks or concerns, other than environmental, cost overruns, terrorist vulnerability, political or other ‘black swan’ events, are the normal ones of fluctuations in commodity prices -- specifically, a drastic spike in natural gas prices, or a prolonged slump in the price of oil, and, consequently, oil-based liquid product prices. Neither of these appears to be likely, and could also be partly or wholly hedged against, if judged appropriate and cost-effective to do so. As these sorts of plants are very capital-intensive, and have a small labor component, the operating cash flow will be very high, and the free cash flow not much lower, depending on the quality and durability of the initial construction. Depreciation would be significant, as they are multi-billion dollar plants. Actual physical depreciation should be much lower, hence the high free cash flow. Sasol, and even more so Shell, experienced significant cost overruns in their Qatar GTL plant construction. However, both of them appear to have learned from the experience, and, indeed, their timing was unfortunate, as those plants were built in the late 2000’s, in a period that saw a frenzy of energy-related investment and demand for labor, materials and equipment just prior to the recession of 2008. These drove up prices and prolonged the construction periods. It seems that both companies are still quite positive on GTL, and encouraged to invest in it in the near and extended future. Depending on what happens in Lousiana in the next two years, other energy companies could decide to imitate them, and take advantage of low feedstock costs. ExxonMobil () and Chevron ([url=http://www.zacks.com/stock/quote/cvx]CVX), also have large shale gas divisions, from recent acquisitions. They are undoubtedly reviewing what to do with their burgeoning gas output. A much longer-term concern that seems too remote to call a ‘danger,’ perhaps ever, is that the GTL trend becomes so popular that demand for natural gas drives prices for it up, and production of the liquids output increases to such an extent that their prices fall. That is a ‘problem’ that long suffering companies like Chesapeake, EnCana (ECA - Analyst Report), Cabot (COG - Analyst Report), Forest Oil (FST - Analyst Report) and Devon (DVN - Analyst Report) would love to have. Given the capital commitments, very long construction periods, and sheer abundance of natural gas in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, this potential issue would seem to be a fantasy at this point, and certainly not a ‘nightmare’ that needs to be taken seriously; not for many years to come. Politics and Environment Politically, it would seem to be the proverbial ‘no-brainer’ to support the development of GTL and associated energy infrastructure. Indeed, Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Lousiana, was present at Sasol’s press conference announcing the feasibility study. GTL, as such, has not entered the U.S. presidential election rhetoric as yet, but shale gas and energy policy in general already have, and, should either the Senate or White House change control to a more business and energy-development-friendly orientation late in 2012, it could be very positive for the whole industry, and perhaps GTL in particular. Substituting domestic natural gas for imported crude oil accomplishes many things: cleaner energy use, helping local industry and employment, reducing balance of payments problems, improving public finances, decreasing energy dependence on unfriendly or unreliable foreign sources, and reducing the money flowing to erratic or violent regimes. Shale gas development has been one of the few bright spots in the U.S. economy in the past three years. GTL can amplify and broaden the benefits beyond places like North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and rural Pennsylvania. The shale gas industry is addressing groundwater and other environmental concerns brought about by fracturing practices (aka "fracking"), and -- in Canada, at least -- is making progress in getting rational, tight, explicit regulation enacted. The drillers are also doing a far better, and more proactive job of public education and awareness. It is not essential for politicians to embrace shale gas and GTL development for both to be successful industries, although it would be helpful. They already have a bright future now, regardless of the current sad natural gas price. Investors should look closely at the sector; this could be one of those rare opportunities to get in on the ground-floor of a brand new industry at a relatively bargain price. Read the full analyst report on SSL Read the full analyst report on CHK Read the full analyst report on RDS.A Read the full analyst report on KBR Read the full analyst report on CBI Read the full analyst report on HON Read the full analyst report on FLS Read the full analyst report on FWLT Read the full analyst report on XOM Read the full analyst report on CVX Read the full analyst report on ECA Read the full analyst report on COG Read the full analyst report on FST Read the full analyst report on DVN http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1857360011183223951#editor/target=post;postID=826658486816634231

GAS-TO-LIQUID GAS-TO-LIQUID FUELS IN TRANSPORTATION What is GTL? Picture of GTL facility in Nigeria Gas-to-Liquid (GTL) fuels are fuels that can be produced from natural gas, coal and biomass using a Fischer-Tropsch chemical reaction process. The liquids produced include naphtha, diesel, and chemical feedstocks. The resulting GTL diesel can be used neat or blended with today's diesel fuel and used in existing diesel engines and infrastructure. These fuels provide an opportunity to reduce dependence on petroleum-based fuels and reduce tailpipe emissions. Will GTL be produced in California? Picture of GTL facility under construction in Qatar The GTL process needs large volumes of low-cost natural gas, less than $1.00 per million British Thermal Units (BTUs) (10 cents/therm), to compete with diesel fuel. Natural gas at this price, and in these volumes, does not currently exist in or near California. GTL produced from pipeline-supplied natural gas would not be competitive, due to the higher alternative value of pipeline natural gas (today's value is 70-90 cents/therm). In the long term, technology is expected to develop fuels that can be produced from nearby coal reserves, biomass or waste. Why produce GTL? Natural gas is four times more expensive to transport than oil. Converting remote natural gas into a liquid before transport is more cost-effective. Declining GTL production costs, growing worldwide diesel demand, stringent diesel exhaust emission standards, and fuel specifications are driving the petroleum industry to revisit the GTL process for producing higher quality diesel fuels. Since the late 1990s, major oil companies including ARCO, BP, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, Statoil, Sasol, Sasol Chevron, Shell, and Texaco have announced plans to build GTL plants to produce the fuel. Some remote natural gas can now be economically converted through the Fischer-Tropsch process into a clean diesel fuel. This fuel can be used as a blendstock to upgrade conventional petroleum diesel fuels and extend diesel fuel capacity and supplies. GTL fuel offers a new opportunity to use non-petroleum-based fuels in diesel engines without compromising fuel efficiency, increasing capital outlay, or impacting infrastructure cost. GTL fuel has virtually no sulfur, aromatics, or toxics. It can be blended with non-complying diesel fuel to make the fuel cleaner so it will comply with new diesel fuel standards. Has GTL been used in California? California's nearest GTL supplier is the Shell GTL plant at Bintulu, Malaysia. The plant, which began operation in 1993, was shut down December 25, 1997, and restarted on May 20, 2000. This plant can produce up to 82,000 gallons/day of GTL fuel for worldwide sales. This is equivalent to 2 percent of California's diesel demand. In 2002, GTL fuel was used in Caltrans heavy-duty vehicles for one month. This trial confirmed that there was no fuel-related performance or maintenance problems. Furthermore, Yosemite water trucks used GLT fuel in a 12-month trial beginning in 2004. The results of this trial showed a significant reduction in vehicle emissions. GTL Availability Availability of GTL fuel will continue to be limited, as fuel from the planned world scale Qatar plant will be spread across world markets. In the near-term, GTL fuel can be blended with conventional diesel to reduce existing diesel vehicle exhaust and toxic emissions. Furthermore, it could improve the prospects of new engines meeting the national 2007 and 2010 heavy-duty diesel engine emission standards. Is there a fuel economy loss with GTL? Due to the low density of neat GTL fuel, there may be a slight loss of fuel economy of up to 3.3 percent. However, diesel engines are 20-40 percent more efficient than gasoline engines. Does GTL reduce emissions? Graph of emissions reduction Unmodified diesel engines, fueled with neat GTL, show the following average emission reductions compared to typical California diesel. What are the economics of GTL? While the cost of producing GTL fuel has been declining as a result of better catalysts, scale up and plant design, the transport and distribution costs to market are slightly higher than for locally produced refinery fuels. Research and development is focused on reducing costs further, as well as economies of scale from the new generation of world scale plants in Qatar. With limited GTL fuel available for some years, GTL fuel will be attractive to those markets prepared to pay these additional costs. Main Transportation Page Find Out More... We suggest performing an Internet search (you can search the entire web with the Google search above) using any of the following terms: Fischer-Tropsch Diesel Biomass-to-Liquids, Synthetic Diesel Shell GTL Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis (SMDS) Sasol or Sasol Chevron | Home | Glossary | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Copyright © 2006-2012, California Energy Commission Choices for Home Work School Renewable Energy Transportation Rebates Consumer Tips Videos

Gas to Liquid... 1. Producing natural gas 2. Separating the gas 3. Making synthesis gas 4. Making liquid waxy hydrocarbons 5. Making GTL (gas to liquids) products View the animation an explore the Pearl GTL process 1. Producing natural gas Qatar's North Field is the world's largest natural gas field. It contains over 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, about 15% of the global total. Two unmanned offshore platforms each operate 11 wells. The gas flows through two pipelines to processing facilities at the onshore Ras Laffan industrial zone. QUICK FACTS 1. The steel used in the pipelines weighs as much as 18 Eiffel Towers. 2. Special chemicals are injected with the gas to protect the carbon steel pipelines against corrosion and to stop ice crystals forming inside. 2. Separating the gas Water and condensates are separated from the gas. Other components, such as sulphur, are also removed and cleaned. The gas is then cooled and the natural gas liquids are removed via distillation. The remaining pure natural gas (methane) flows to the gasification unit. QUICK FACTS 1. The extracted sulphur is used for other purposes, such as producing fertilisers, in asphalt and concrete. 2. The natural gas liquids are piped to Ras Laffan port and sold as chemical feedstocks and LPG fuel for heating appliances and vehicles. 3. Making synthesis gas In the gasifier at around 2,200-2,650°F (1,400-1,600°C) the methane and oxygen are converted into a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide known as synthesis gas, or syngas. QUICK FACTS 1. The reaction produces heat, which is recovered to produce steam for power. 4. Making liquid waxy hydrocarbons The synthesis gas enters one of 24 reactors. Each reactor holds a large number of tubes containing a Shell proprietary catalyst. The catalyst serves to speed up the chemical reaction in which the synthesis gas is converted into long-chained waxy hydrocarbons and water. QUICK FACTS The catalyst consists of tiny granules, just millimetres long with microscopic holes, containing minute metal particles. The total surface area of the microscopic holes in the catalyst granules is more than eighteen times the surface area of Qatar. The synthesis process generates a lot of heat, which is also used to produce steam that in turn powers the GTL plant via steam turbines. All water in the GTL process is purified and reused in the utilities system of the plant to generate steam. Placed end-to-end the tubes would stretch from Qatar to Japan. 5. Making GTL (gas to liquids) products The plant creates a range of products from natural gas that would otherwise be produced from oil. Using another Shell proprietary catalyst, the long hydrocarbon molecules from the GTL reactor are contacted with hydrogen and cut (cracked) into a range of smaller molecules of different length and shape. Distillation separates out the products with different boiling points. GTL PRODUCTS GTL Naphtha is used as a chemical feedstock for plastics manufacture. GTL Kerosene can be blended with conventional Jet Fuel (up to 50%) for use in aviation – known as GTL Jet Fuel – or used as a home heating fuel. GTL Normal paraffins are used for making more cost-effective detergents. GTL Gasoil is a diesel-type fuel that can be blended into the global diesel supply pool. GTL Base oils are used to make high-quality lubricants. Part A Extracting pure oxygen Pure oxygen for the gasification process is extracted from the air through eight vast air separation units. Air is cooled to liquefy the oxygen and nitrogen. Distillation separates out oxygen in a “cold box” – like an icebox, this helps to maintain the low temperature that is required to separate the oxygen. QUICK FACTS Each distillation cold box is as tall as a 10-storey building. The air separation units produce over 28,000 tonnes of oxygen each day. If this were not produced on-site, more than 1,000 trucks per day would be needed to bring it in. Part B Generating power using residual heat Residual heat from various steps of the process makes steam that helps drive large compressors. QUICK FACTS Around 8,000 tonnes of steam are generated and distributed each hour. Reusing water (Formerly Effluent Treatment Plant) The plant does not draw on any water from Qatar’s resources. It reuses process water as cooling water and to generate steam for power. QUICK FACTS Water passes though filters with openings 200,000 times thinner than a human hair. http://www.shell.com/home/content/future_energy/meeting_demand/natural_gas/gtl/process/acc_gtl_processes.html

National Coal Council Study Finds CO2-Based Enhanced Oil Recovery From Coal Benefits Environment, Energy Security And Economy PR NewswirePress Release: National Coal Council – 11 hours ago Email Print WASHINGTON, June 22, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Coal Council (NCC) today presented the U.S. Department of Energy with the results of a comprehensive study requested by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu. The study, "Harnessing Coal's Carbon Content to Advance the Economy, Environment and Energy Security," concludes that widespread deployment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization (CCUS) technologies at coal-based power and liquid fuels production plants could help increase domestic oil production by more than 3.5 million barrels a day for 40-plus years. The Council's findings are based on contributions from more than 60 leading energy experts in coordination with the National Petroleum Council. Since 2001, the Council has conducted six major carbon dioxide (CO2) management studies for a series of U.S. Energy Secretaries. In this recent report, the Council evaluated the potential market for using CO2 captured from the existing and newly constructed U.S. coal-based electricity fleet and potential coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants as a resource for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. EOR technology has successfully increased U.S. oil production for nearly half a century. "It's time to think of CO2 as a valuable commodity. Advanced coal technology is key to affordably realizing deep reductions in emissions," said Council member and Study Chairman Richard Bajura. "The U.S. uses more coal than any nation except China, and potential production of U.S. oil from coal-derived CO2 for CCUS/ EOR applications dwarfs other projected new domestic sources. We have a unique opportunity to more fully use domestic, low-cost coal to access more oil." Research conducted for the National Energy Technology Laboratory indicates that over 60 billion barrels of oil are economically recoverable using next-generation technology at an assumed world oil price of $85 per barrel. "CO2 -based EOR projects are operating profitably even in the current challenging economic environment," explains Council member and Chairman of the Council's Coal Policy Committee Fred Palmer. "Successful deployment of CCUS/EOR responds to the U.S. Administration's goal to reduce emissions 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. With a regulatory framework that facilitates the increased deployment of this technology at scale, we can increase use of domestic energy, fuel economic growth and enhance national security." Expanding CO2 -based EOR can significantly reduce emissions by capturing CO2 from coal-based generation and safely injecting the carbon deep into oil wells, releasing stranded oil that could not be accessed by more conventional drilling methods. However, the limited availability of CO2 has been a constraint. The study calls for the capture of carbon dioxide from coal plants and transportation through a robust network of pipelines. This will accelerate the use of CCUS/EOR technology, resulting in large increases in domestic oil production, significant job creation and economic growth. The Council found that 18 billion to 31 billion metric tons of additional CO2 could be used in U.S. oil fields over the next 40 years or more, compared to 2 billion metric tons available from natural sources and natural gas processing. Use of CO2 in EOR processes could yield more than 3.5 million additional barrels a day of oil. Additional findings in the report include: By 2035, the combination of coal-based EOR and CTL technology could provide up to 30 percent of U.S. liquid fuel demand and ensure America's energy security for decades. Much of the CO2 resource could come from large coal power plants that are distributed broadly and common in such economically recovering regions as the Ohio River Valley. Use of CO2 -based EOR and CTL could generate $200 billion in economic activity, more than 1 million skilled jobs and $60 billion in tax revenues. At least 100 gigawatts of advanced coal generating capacity could be built or retrofitted over the next two decades. These advanced plants would use an additional 300 million tons of coal annually. CTL plants with carbon capture could convert coal into more than 2.5 million barrels a day of additional oil. An additional 450 million tons of coal would be used annually in these operations. Capturing a high volume of CO2 for commercial purposes, coupled with CTL operations, would increase coal use to 1.75 billion tons annually. This production level is well within the capability of the United States, home to 30 percent of the world's coal reserves. The National Coal Council is a private, nonprofit advisory body chartered by the U.S. Secretary of Energy in 1984 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. National Coal Council members are appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Energy and reflect diverse interests, including from business, industry and academia. Download an executive summary of "Harnessing Coal's Carbon Content to Advance the Economy, Environment and Energy Security" at NationalCoalCouncil.org. CONTACT: Robert Beck Executive Vice President National Coal Council 202-223-1191