now says that it has more than it needs to ride out a conventional war. The new objectives are the result of a continuing study of wartime industrial needs, explains George A. Lincoln, director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness. His office determines the kinds and quantities of items the Government should stockpile for war emergencies. Within the next six months, he adds, the conventional war objective of all items now maintained in the nation's hoard of strategic and critical materials will be reassessed. At that time, according to another OEP source, the office will turn its energies to a similar study of nuclear war stockpile objectives. Natural rubber shapes up as the touchiest item among the 18. Since Feb. 20, when the General Services Administration announced that it had been directed by OEP to halt immediately all use of government-held natural rubber in U.S. aid programs, the product's price has climbed steadily on the international market apparently in anticipation of new government purchasing. But OEP director Lincoln says that he does not regard the 15,000-ton shortage (between the new 385,000-long-ton conventional war stockpile objective and the 370,000 long tons which the Government now has on hand) "sufficiently critical to purchase new quantities at this time." Mr. Lincoln says he will authorize GSA to seek Congressional approval to dispose of material found to be in excess of stockpile objectives.
need for 12 items objective 42,000,000 2,500 4,800
objective 38,200,000 Removed from 4,800
6,700 22,200,000
1,900 19,000,000
1,300,000 650,000 4,130,000 3,000 130,000 8,300,000 200 200,000 250 1,500
950,000 320,000 3,600,000 6,500 385,000 1,000,000 200 232,000 40 2,100
Nuclear blasting to get second gas well test Government and industry officials ink contract for Project Rulison, the second collaborate experiment on the use of nuclear explosions to spur natural gas production from " t i g h t " formations. Scheduled for late May, the experiment calls for detonating a 40-kiloton device 8400 feet underground in a natural gas formation near Rifle, Colo. It is aimed at supplementing the economic feasibility data obtained from Project Gasbuggy, the first joint government/industry gas stimulation experiment. Signing the agreement are, from left: Herbert E. Grier, president of CER Geonuclear Corp., Under Secretary of the Interior Russel E. Train, AEC Chairman Glenn T. Seaborg, and C. Wardell Leisk, chairman of Austral Oil Co.
FUELS:
Gasoline from Coal Somewhere in the coal fields of Appalachia, on a reasonably level plot of land where the soil has good bearing quality, where winter is only moderately severe and transportation by highway, rail, and waterway is available, and where—most importantly— coal is in bountiful supply, a gasolinefrom-coal plant has been designed, built, operated, and maintained hypothetically. Data on this still paperbound operation are contained in the Office of Coal Research's interim report on Project Gasoline, prepared by Ralph M. Parsons Co., Los Angeles, Calif. [The production of gasoline, synthetic crude, and chemicals from coal are three related, but separate, OCR projects (C&EN, Jan. 6, 1969, page 40; June 12, 1967, page 96).] The report is a followup to Parsons' feasibility study published in September 1962 which was based on a confidentiality agreement with Consolidation Coal Co. and Standard Oil (Ohio). The present report contains process details not revealed before. To fully appreciate the report, it might well be better to read it from back to front. About half its total consists of a voluminous and detailed appendix which contains material balances and flow diagrams (complete with equipment sizings) for each of
the process's sections. These sections include coal pretreatment; extraction; cyclone separation; carbonization; hydroconversion; catalyst regeneration; hydrotreating and hydrocracking; and catalytic reforming. Further forward in the body of the report the limitations of this handiwork are set forth. "This design," the report says, "is conceptual and no pretense is made that all of the problems are solved or even recognized." The report goes on to note that design work was done, "mostly by short-cut methods" though inaccurate equipment sizing that has resulted should not substantially affect the cost of the plant. It then lists areas where additional work is needed to push toward an optimal design; these areas include many of the process's basic operations. Based on scaleup of laboratory and small pilot-plant data, the report says, a commercial plant can turn out 48,026 barrels per day of gasoline using a charge of 20,522 tons of coal. Estimated plant costs are about $244.5 million, excluding land, catalysts, royalties, and working capital. To return a 6.4% after-tax profit on investment, gasoline from the plant would have to sell at about 15.5 cents per gallon at the plant delivery rack, a price at which, the report admits, "the economic feasibility of the project continues to be marginal." APRIL 7, 1969 C&EN 13
