FAQ
Q: Are there any companies that are turning coal-to-oil (coal2oil)?
A: Converting coal into petroleum has been around for a long time, but the process was not economical. We're developing a new coal2oil conversion process.
Q: Why use coal2oil instead of ethanol?
A: Alternative energy sources (ethanol, wind, and water) are unreliable. 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. With increased ethanol demand, a food price spike has followed. Meanwhile, oil is reliable. 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 (coal2oil) is the way to make more oil. Oil is now (11/10/07) almost a $100.00 a barrel. Using ethanol which is a corn based fuel for transportation is 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 much does turning coal-to-oil (coal2oil) cost?
A: The whole process of turning coal-to-oil (coal2oil) from start to finish would cost about 1/4 the going rate of a barrel of oil.
Q: How do you turn coal-to-oil (coal2oil)?
A: This is done by "coal liquefaction-- process--(which) is the chemical process of adding hydrogen to coal under high temperature and pressure to liquefy coal into crude oil (People's Daily, 10-4-2000)."
Q: What about CO2?
A: CO2 is now an asset. It is used for enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR).
Q: Are there any coal-to-oil projects that are being planned in the U.S.?
A: Malmstrom Air Force Base, Great Falls, MT and Beluga, AK are coal-to-oil (coal2oil) projects that need funding.
Q: Which political party favors turning coal-to-oil (coal2oil)?
A: Senators McCain and Obama support the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. Further, Governors Schweitzer of MT, and Rendell of PA have demonstrated political leadership for coal-to-oil (coal2oil) clean energy. Gov. Schweitzer seeks to build coal-to-oil (coal2oil) plants. Interviewed on 60 Minutes on Feb 26, 2006 by Lesley Stahl, "we can have the technology up and running in the next five years. The governor says that this will change the world, and that the key to the country's energy future is buried in the grassy plains of eastern Montana." The price tag to get his plan rolling-1.5 billion-is a bargain, the governor says, now that crude is trading around $60 (now $70 as of May 3,2006). On November 1, 2007, crude prices continue to soar as petroleum has reached $93. On 6/8/06 it was reported that according to Eric Stern, the governor's senior advisor on the project, "one of the reasons Fischer-Tropsch fuels burn cleaner is because many of the impurities are removed during the synthesis (MissoulaNews.com)." Meanwhile, Gov. Rendell stated that "we are going to be part of changing how America produces its fuel. We are going to ensure Pennsylvania has a long-term supply of clean, secure and affordable energy. Not only will Pennsylvania be the first state to build such a plant (coal2oil), we will also be the first state to use its purchasing power to lead a consortium to purchase some 40 million gallons of the Pennsylvania produced fuel (9/29/05-UltraCleanFuels.com).
Courtesy Republican Herald:"
Delay on coal-to-oil an outrage REPUBLICANHERALD.COM 08/30/2007. There's only one word for the fact that John W. Rich and other fuel companies aren't producing oil from coal right now - inexcusable. The Schuylkill County executive has painstakingly lined up as much capital as possible; his company only requires that the U.S. government co-sign on one loan. However, he's not only awaiting word on that decision, but also results of a mandated environmental impact review. It has been too many years for either of these obstacles to be overcome. The loan negotiation process has been ongoing since 2003, and the environmental review since 2006. It took far less time for PPL Electric Utilities to go through the process with its nuclear reactors; surely, fossil fuel production isn't nearly as potentially dangerous or complex. From the White House down to local officials, the drumbeat is sounding louder for alternative energy sources. Consumers are demanding more, and quicker, action on this issue. With the world's oil supplies increasingly under threat from terrorism, and increasingly more expensive, it doesn't take rocket science to see how beneficial alternative energy supplies can be. It's so blatant it's practically a shout - here are Rich and others, ready and able to begin production of oil from coal, and they're being stonewalled. These companies have proven their fuel can be efficiently, and fairly cheaply, produced. Furthermore, they can produce oil without agricultural consequences like those in ethanol production. Indeed, coal-to-oil technology actually helps the environment, by clearing away waste coal. We fail to see what part of this the government doesn't understand. Rich and other industry executives shouldn't have to put up with it. We expect them to maintain pressure on lawmakers to help speed the process; and it wouldn't hurt us ordinary citizens to make our voices heard on this issue as well. It's past time for us to be taking advantage of fuel alternatives readily available right now. It's a national embarrassment that the government is obstructing the drive toward energy independence, and the worst hypocrisy to hear it proclaim that it's "doing all it can." The time for action on coal-to-oil is now. "
