"Unlike those from coal carbonization, these high-quality liquid fuels are tailored to current military and civilian needs. They are suitable without further processing for direct use in today's planes, ships, motor cars, oil burners, locomotives, and tractors.

"Unlike coal carbonization, the processes in which the Bureau is interested are flexible and readily adaptable to changes in demand. Should another war occur, commercial plants producing Diesel fuel and motor gasoline by coal hydrogenation could be converted to aviation gasoline and jet fuel production almost overnight.

"In contrast to the Karrick process for coal carbonization with steam, which requires a noncoking bituminous coal, the modern synthetic-fuel processes can use any kind or rank of coal from anthracite to lignite. Thus, it is obvious that these processes offer better prospects for the revival and long-term prosperity of the entire coal industry.

"All who have investigated this problem from the technologic and economic standpoint agree that the full-conversion methods now under development offer far greater promises of quality liquid fuels at reasonable costs than any coal carbonization process."

The detailed statement issued by the Bureau of Mines follows:

Unfortunately for the coal industry, reading of the article written by Staff Correspondent Harlan Trott in the Christian Science Monitor for March 20, shows that the low-temperature carbonization process cited is not one for producing oil from coal. Instead, the main products from each ton of coal are 1,500 pounds of another type of solid fuel and 26 gallons of a material that is properly labeled as tar. The solid fuel would not compare from the consumer's viewpoint with oil or natural gas and would further help to glut an already crowded solid-fuel market. The saturation of this market is illustrated by the fall in anthracite production, the premium smokeless fuel, from 57,000,000 tons in 1948 to 42,000,000 tons in 1949.

The tar as it comes from the process would not yield substantial quantities of aviation gasoline, motor gasoline, kerosene, Diesel oil, or domestic heating oil. The hydrogenation process is the only known way to convert it to useful products, such as gasoline and light oil. Under the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Act, the Bureau of Mines has carried on a very extensive program of development on this hydrogenation process. This work has now gone far enough to show clearly the disadvantages of hydrogenating the tar alone, for the yield of liquid product obtained thereby from a ton of bituminous coal is only 20 to 30 gallons, whereas if the coal is hydrogenated in its entirety the yield of liquid products is 80 to 100 gallons-a three- to five-fold increase from each ton of coal. Furthermore, there is no solid residue from the hydrogenation process that must be sold on a saturated and declining market.

The low-temperature carbonization processes have had an interesting history. This is summed up neatly in the first paragraph of a paper presented by Dr. R. P. Soule, an eminent industrial fuel engineer, at the International Conference on Bituminous Coal in 1931 as follows:

"An alternative title for this paper would be 'Low Temperature Carbonization: Its Rise and Fall.' This much-discussed method of treating coal has compressed an eventful lifetime into the short period of the last 10 years. Its rise to prominence in the public eye was phenomenal. Its fall from grace has been no less spectacular. It now seems to be entitled to sing, if a rather inelegant figure of speech will be pardoned, the concluding line of the song 'Rose of Washington Square' that Fanny Brice once made popular, 'I ain't got no future, but oh, what a past!'1

IF PROFITABLE, MORE COAL WOULD BE CABRONIZED IN THIS WAY

The coal industry would indeed be negligent of its own interests if it had failed to take advantage of the fantastic claims for the proposal which the Christian Science Monitor purports to demonstrate in its article. This is particularly true since the process discussed, as well as numerous other lowtemperature carbonization processes, has been well known to the industry for more than 20 years. Fortunately, the industry now has economic data of greater reliability than that supplied in the article; namely, attempts to construct and operate plants on a commercial basis here in the United States. At least five plants involving the investment of millions of dollars were built as follows:

1 Lesson From Low-Temperature Carbonization, by Dr. R. P. Soule, International Conference on Bituminous Coal, p. 272, published by Carnegie Institute of Technology.

Three of these plants either have failed or have not found the economics of the operation sufficiently favorable to justify continuing. Of the remaining two, one company failed, then reorganized, and is still operating. The one lowtemperature carbonization operation that appears successful is the Disco process now operated by the Disco Co., a subsidiary of the Pittsburgh Consolidation Coal Co. Mr. George H. Love, president of the Pittsburgh Consolidation Coal Co., stated at the dedication of the second and last plant built that "while there are some credits for the recovery and sale of tar, these credits fall far short of offsetting the cost of operating the plant" (The Black Diamond, April 23, 1949). This plant's successes are not based on the production of oil or byproducts but on the sale of smokeless solid fuel.

In addition to the three major commercial operations that failed, scores of pilot and semi-commercial-scale plants have been built, tested, and abandoned after investment of large sums.

With a record of a number of failures, it is easy to see why the fuel industry has questioned the feasibiilty of low-temperature carbonization. Even the most successful plant treats only about 1,000 tons of coal a day.

ONLY THE INVENTOR MAY RESTRICT USE OF HIS PATENTS

Recurrently, low-temperature carbonization of coal has been proposed by inventors and others as a panacea for this Nation's fuel problems. More than a thousand patents have been issued in this country and abroad for various modifications of this process as applied to coal and oil shale, including those credited to Louis C. Karrick in the Monitor article.

The Bureau of Mines has made a careful study of the 20 Karrick patents, one of which was issued to Louis' brother, S. N. Karrick. All but two of these patents relate to low-temperature carbonization of coal, and the claims cover certain apparatus and features of such operations. The other two patents cover details of a process for distilling coal and shale underground.

Contrary to Mr. Karrick's charges of Government suppression of his patents, the fact is that under the laws of the United States only the owner of a patent may suppress, or otherwise restrict, the use of a patented invention.

None of the patents on the Karrick process referred to in the Christian Science Monitor article is assigned to the Government, and the Government could not in any way restrict their use. Upon issuance of these patents, the Government, in effect, published them by the sale and distribution of printed copies, and any and all information disclosed in these patents thus has been available for many years to anyone interested in the subject. For the nominal sum of 25 cents, the United States Patent Office will provide a copy of any one of them.

2

Of the 20 Karrick patents relating to fuels, six have already expired, five more are due to expire this year, and another four will expire before the middle of next year. These expired patents may be used by any person or organization without any license or other arrangements with the inventor. It is beyond the power of any inventor or any Government agency, under existing law, to restrict or impede the use of any patent that has expired.

The Christian Science Monitor article contains references to patents on the German synthetic liquid fuels processes that were purchased by the Standard Oil Co. and associated major oil companies, and gives the impression that the Bureau of Mines is expending its funds to develop these processes for the benefit of the oil companies. While the coal-to-oil processes being employed by the Bureau of Mines are major modifications of the processes of German origin, the plants and processes of the Bureau's synthetic liquid fuels program do not "stem from patents owned by large oil companies," as alleged in this article. In developing the processes and in designing the plants, all of which it should be noted are essentially experimental, the Bureau used all available scientific and technological information. This information included not only publications in United States and foreign journals but also a mass of previously unpublished reports and data concerning the research developments and actual commercial operations in Germany during the recent war. Any patents involved in this study were considered_merely as publications. In this connection, it is well known that many of the so-called German patents have expired and that the remainder are available for licensing by anyone upon application to the Department of Justice.

BUREAU OF MINES HAS PUBLISHED SIX PAPERS CONCERNING THE KARRICK PROCESS The article repeatedly charges that the Government has suppressed information relating to the Karrick process. An examination of the facts reveals that between 1925 and 1931 the Bureau of Mines published in the technical journals no less than six separate papers covering in considerable detail the Karrick method for low-temperature carbonization of coal. These papers constitute probably the most comprehensive analysis ever published on the gaseous and liquid products of any low-temperature carbonization process. All information and data collected by the Bureau of Mines in its other studies in this field also have been made available to the public through official reports and articles in technical and scientific journals. To the best knowledge of its staff, the Bureau of Mines has not withheld publication of any phase of Mr. Karrick's process. However, there are letters in the Bureau's files proving that Mr. Karrick would not submit for publication by the Bureau certain work that he did as a research fellow with the Carnegie Institute of Technology of Pittsburgh, Pa., in cooperation with the Bureau of Mines at its central experiment station. Mr. Karrick stated at that time that his attorneys had advised him not to submit this material for publication as it would prejudice the patents for which he was applying in his own name with no assignment to the Government.

The Karrick method is just one of an infinite number of variations of the lowtemperature carbonization process. The results to be expected, and in fact the results claimed for it, do not differ greatly from those of other low-temperature carbonization processes. In the opinion of the Bureau of Mines, the Karrick process is one of the least efficient because of the high cost of first producing the high temperature steam to be used in carbonizing the coal and then condensing it to recover the tar products.

PROCESS WOULD FLOOD COUNTRY WITH SOLID FUEL

The article states flatly that this process "would end the Nation's domestic oil shortage permanently." Let us see how much coke or char would be produced in thus making our 1949 production of 2,000,000,000 barrels of petroleum. A ton of bituminous coal would give about two-thirds of a barrel of low-temperature tar which would then have to be hydrogenated to produce gasoline and oil. Three

The six papers relating to Mr. Karrick's coal-carbonization process which were published by the Bureau of Mines are 1. Domestic Coke and Factors Affecting the Coke Formation (Properties of Domestic Smokeless Fuel), by L. C. Karrick and J. D. Davis, Proceedings American Gas Association, 1925, pp. 900-907.

2. Fractionation Analyses of Gas From Low-Temperature Carbonization of Coal (Utah), by F. E. Frey and W. P. Yant, Ind. and Eng. Chem. 19, pp. 21-26.

3. Composition of Light Oils From Low-Temperature Distillation of Utah Coal, by Ralph L. Brown and R. B. Cooper, C. I. T. Bull. 31 (1926), Ind. and Eng. Chem. 19, pp. 26-31 (1927).

4. Composition of Tar From Low-Temperature Carbonization of Utah Coal-I, by Ralph L. Brown and B. F. Branting, C. I. T. Bull. 35 (1928), Ind. and Eng. Chem. 20, p. 392 et seq.

5. Composition of Tar From Low-Temperature Carbonization of Utah Coal-II, by Ralph L. Brown and R. N. Pollock, C. I. T. Bull. 41 (1929), Ind. and Eng. Chem. 21, p. 234 et seq.

6. Study of Wax From Low-Temperature Tar (this was the same Karrick-Utah tar), by J. D. Davis and K. M. Irey. C. I. T. Bull. 48 (1931).

billion tons of coal would be required and it would produce 2.25 billion tons of coke; 2.25 billion is five times the total amount of bitumious coal mined in 1949 (435 million tons); and it is 35 times the amount of coke (63,000,000 tons) produced in the United States in 1949.

Even if we produced in this manner only 10 percent of the petroleum demand, which would require 200,000,000 barrels of low-temperature tar, it would necessitate the marketing of 225,000,000 tons of coke or char which is three times the coke manufactured in the United States in 1949, or about two and a half times the tonnage or coal marketed at retail in the same year (90,000,000 tons).

The maximum possible development of low-temperature carbonization cannot satisfy the demand for gasoline and Diesel fuel when petroleum production falls materially below our needs. To supply large quantities of oil and gasoline, it will be necessary to resort to processes and raw materials in which liquid fuel is the principal product rather than a byproduct. That is why the Bureau of Mines has constructed demonstration plants for complete conversion of coal to oil. Before and during the last war, Germany had a few coal hydrogenation plants in which the operation was integrated with low-temperature carbonization. Such a combination is no longer significant for advances have been made in lowtemperature carbonization that make the Karrick and similar processes obsolete. For example, it has been found that by low-temperature distillation of coal in an atmosphere of hydrogen, a liquid yield approximately double that obtained by normal low-temperature carbonization can be realized. This new process also gives a high percentage of light oil instead of tar. It is being actively developed by the Bureau of Mines. It now appears that the synthetic liquid fuels plant of the future will employ either complete gasification of coal to produce synthesis gas and hydrogen or the prior distillation of the coal in an atmosphere of hydrogen with subsequent gasification of the coke.

On the other hand, the use of the Karrick low-temperature carbonization process to produce a smokeless fuel for industrial and domestic use is not promising. The coke or smokeless fuel produced as the major product lacks the physical stability of high-grade coals and cannot readily be handled or shipped without substantial breakage into small pieces suitable only for limited uses. If the coke fines are briquetted, as they would have to be for most home uses, the economics of the process become still more unsatisfactory and much of the tar would have to be used as a binder material. With rigid and long established standards and operating practices prevailing in the steel industry, the coke or char from low-temperature carbonization is not suitable for blast furnace use. Further, the estimated cost of such coke is much too high for its use either by the railroads or by utility and power plants.

PROCESS TWO DECADES BEHIND THE TIMES

The article in the Christian Science Monitor seems to be trying to resurrect a process that fuel technologists recognized as about obsolete 20 years ago. Quoting further from the comments of Dr. R. P. Soule in 1931 (Low-Temperature Carbonization of Utah Coals, p. 27):

66

*

* * Ten years ago low-temperature carbonization inspired high hopes and great expectations. Even 3 years ago interest had not abated. Yet today (all regard it with) utter indifference. * Over $50,000,000 were spent in the United States alone during the past 10 years in a series of fruitless attempts to develop a process that not only would work but-which was found to be equally important-would pay a profit as well. The popular interest in the subject and the not-too-modest claims made on its behalf attracted experimenters and promoters whose genius, if any, must assuredly have lain in other lines.

*

* * *

"Those who have followed the subject * * I will recall the remarkable yields claimed-yields of coke, gas, and tar, which when cubic feet and gallons were reduced to sober pounds, rarely showed less than one and one-half tons of products recovered from every ton of coal. * * They will recognize the accounting practice that evaluates tar in terms, not of creosote and pitch, but of derived products as remote from the tar itself, as typewriters and sewing machines are from pig iron.

66*

* * low-temperature carbonization in this country has most nearly approached technical and commercial success using processes which sought to develop low-temperature coke as a domestic fuel."

the Christian Science Monitor to be one of the finest newspapers in the land.

The article that I refer to is to be found in the Monday, March 20, 1950, issue. The resolution that was introduced in the Senate by Senators Morse, Lehman, and myself was on March 1. Twenty days later, I came across this article. The article is entitled, "Coal Industry Revival Foretold in Oil Distilled From Unmined Seams." It is by Harlan Trott.

Since the Secretary of the Interior is here, I think it is appropriate that I call it to his attention. I am sure that he has seen it or surely, the people of the Bureau of Mines, the professional and scientific personnel, have come in contact with it, because this is a most revealing article; and, by the same token, it is a most challenging one, because it outlines in detail, with quotations and documentation, a process of producing oil, crude oil, and all sorts of byproducts, from coal, which is, according to the article, at least feasible and, according to some information furnished, in question-and-answer form, by some gentleman of the Bureau of Mines, practical.

I know that this discussion has gone on for many years. This is known as the Karrick process. May I say, as one United States Senator, that I am not at all satisfied with the Bureau of Mines' attitude on the process. I have discussed this with the most eminent scientists at the University of Minnesota; likewise, at the School of Mines at Rapid City, S. Dak. I think those two schools of mines are known as being very good. And, while I am not a technician, I think this sort of comment cannot be ignored.

For example, in the article it is stated that one of the processes being used now in the coal-to-oil is the old German formula which was, I believe, brought under the jurisdiction of the Standard Oil Co. in 1929.

This article points out that the Bureau of Mines is primarily interested in coal-gasoline, not coal-to-crude-oil.

The article goes on to point out that the process that Mr. Karrick has developed is about one-third as costly as the process of coal-togasoline in terms of capital investment.

I am not going to discuss in detail the article, but will say that I hope, when the Commission is established, that this will be further investigated.

The article concludes with something that has been mentioned here.

I want to say, again, I have never known the Christian Science Monitor to be a sheet that overexaggerates or a publication that deals in half-truths.

May I quote from it?

Mr. Karrick declares that he never has felt reasonably certain that disposing of his patents to large private oil interests would insure their commercial development in the near future and at the same time safeguard his public trusteeship. He believes that the position of the major oil companies, particularly at this time, is not advantageous to his public-spirited purpose.

With domestic crude oil selling currently for about $2.53 a barrel, private companies naturally are interested in keeping up crude oil imports, it is pointed out, since crude oil can be obtained abroad for about 34 cents a barrel and shipped to the United States at a tanker cost of about 80 cents a barrel, and sold at a heavy profit.