United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA/600/S7-85/032 Apr. 1986
&EPA Project Summary
Economic Evaluation of Oil
Agglomeration for Recovery of
Fine Coal Refuse
L Larkin and J. D. Maxwell
In this project economics of an oil-
agglomeration process with and with-
out an oil recovery system were evalu-
ated for recovering coal fines from a
fine refuse stream of 105 ton/hr* from
a coal preparation plant. The two base
case processes studied are an oil-
agglomeration process in which heptane
is used and recovered and an oil-
agglomeration process in which fuel oil
is used and blended with the product.
The economics for both processes were
estimated with and without a pond
credit (savings in coal preparation plant
investment resulting from the smaller
waste disposal pond needed for the oil-
agglomeration process). The total capi-
tal investments for the recovery and
nonrecovery processes without a pond
credit are $21 million and $13 million,
respectively. With the use of the pond
credit, the total capital investment for
the recovery process is $9 million, and a
capital investment credit of $0.2 million
is received for the nonrecovery process.
The first-year annual revenue require-
ments for the recovery and nonrecovery
processes are $6.4 million (0.86 $/106
Btu) and $8.0 million (1.10 $/10s Btu)
with a pond credit and $8.5 million
(1.15 $/10e Btu) and $10.3 million
(1.42 $/108 Btu) without a pond credit,
respectively. These costs compare quite
favorably with an eastern bituminous
coal which has a heating value of
11.000 Btu/lb and cost of 1.85 $/10B
Btu (40.70 $/ton). Both the recovery
and the nonrecovery processes appear
to be economically feasible, but the
•Readers more familiar with metric units may use the
conversion factors at the back of this Summary.
recovery process is more cost-effective
for recovering fine coal from refuse
streams.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory. Research Triangle
Park, NC. to announce key findings of
the research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the same
title (see Project Report ordering in-
formation at back).
Introduction
In this report, the economics of an oil-
agglomeration process with and without
oil recovery system are evaluated. The
two base case processes studied are an
oil-agglomeration process using heptane
with a heptane recovery system and an
oil-agglomeration process using fuel oil
that does not have an oil recovery system.
The design data for the processes are
based on information from vendors and
researchers of oil-agglomeration and oil
recovery systems. The econmics of both
processes are presented and compared,
and several case variations are also
examined.
Background
Much of the coal lost in the waste from
coal-cleaning plants consists of fine coal
that is difficult to separate from noncoal
minerals with conventional coal-cleaning
techniques. The use of highly efficient
coal-cleaning processes and cleaning of
coal with finely dispersed pyrite, both of
which necessitate more extensive use of
fine coal-cleaning techniques, can dra-
matically increase the quantity of coal
lost in the fine waste stream and the
-------
volume of fine waste produced. The coal
loss represents a substantial potential
resource, and the waste itself, which
consists of a slurry that is difficult to
dewater and must be confined in a pond,
poses increasingly serious economic and
environmental problems. Consequently,
interest in methods of cleaning and
recovering fine coal has increased. One
of the most effective methods is the oil-
agglomeration process developed by the
National Research Council of Canada.
The oil-agglomeration process is a
means both of cleaning fine coal and of
recovering the coal in a more useful form.
Fine coal (in the minus 28-mesh range) is
dispersed in an agitated vessel with a
light oil such as heptane, fuel oil, or
kerosene, and in some cases a small
quantity of a binder such as asphalt is
used. By carefully controlling the degree
of agitation, the oil is dispersed in small
droplets in which the coal and other
oleophilic (oil attracted) minerals collect,
forming small spherical particles. Over
90% of the coal in a fine coal slurry can be
recovered in this manner. In spite of its
effectiveness, the process has not gained
commercial acceptance because of the
cost of the oil used. The agglomeration
process becomes more economically at-
tractive when designed for low oil-to-coal
ratios; however, there is also a corre-
sponding decrease in coal recovery
efficiency and product quality. Recovery
and reuse of the oil would allow the
agglomeration process to operate at
higher oil consumption levels with greater
coal recovery and improved product
quality.
The recovery process is ostensibly
simple: the mechanically dewatered ag-
glomerate is heated to vaporize the oil
and the vapor is condensed to recover the
oil. Several companies have investigated
aspects of an oil-agglomeration process
with an oil recovery system but many
technical and practical details remain to
be defined. The primary technical chal-
lenge is the development of a heating
system that provides efficient and con-
trollable heat transfer without thermal
and mechanical damage to the particles.
Design and Economic Premises
The design and economic premises
used in this study were developed by the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for
economic comparisons of processes re-
lated to coal-cleaning and emission con-
trol in electric utility applications. The
conceptual process designs are based on
information provided by vendors of oil-
agglomeration and oil recovery equipment
and systems. The plant is assumed to
operate at 5,500 hr/yr for 30 years, with
a total operating life of 165,000 hours.
The quantity and composition of the
feed to the oil-agglomeration plant for
this study are assumed to be similar to the
fine coal refuse produced by the Brecken-
ridge Camp No. 11 coal-cleaning plant
near Breckenridge, Kentucky. The refuse
consists of a 10% solids slurry produced
at a rate of 5.8 million ton/yr. The solids
have a maximum size of 28 mesh and
consist of 47.5% coal, 2.5% pyrite, and
50% other noncoal minerals. The base
case design conditions for the oil-
agglomeration process (using heptane)
with a heptane recovery system (recovery
process) and the agglomeration process
(using No. 2 fuel oil) without a recovery
system (nonrecovery process) are shown
Table 1. Process Design Conditions
in Table 1. Heptane was selected as the
oil in the recovery process because of its
distinct properties which make it easier to
recover than other oils, and No. 2 fuel oil
was used in the nonrecovery process
mainly because of its lower cost.
A 30-day-capacity holding pond and a
30-year-capacity waste disposal pond are
provided for the oil-agglomeration plant
as a replacement for the large volume
waste disposal pond that would have
been required for the coal-cleaning plant
if the waste had not been processed. The
waste disposal ponds are square earthen-
diked impoundments with a median di-
verter dike and a 12-in. clay lining.
Raw materials consist of a propane
precipitated asphalt at 189.2 $/ton and
commercial grades of heptane. No. 2 fuel
oil, and kerosene at 1.60, 1.09, and 1.32
$/gal., respectively. All raw materials are
Process
Heptane
With Recovery
Fuel OH
Without Recovery
Feedstock
Rate. 10*lb/hr
Slurry concentration. % solids
Solids composition. %by wt(dry)
Coal
Noncoal minerals
Pyrite
Operating Conditions
Time, hr/yr
Coal recovery. % of coal feed
Oil. % of undried product
Asphalt, % of undried product
Oil recovery. % of oil feed
Product"
Production, ton/yr
Solids composition. % by wt (dry)
Coal
Noncoal minerals
Sulfur
Water
Heating value. Btu/lb (dry)
Waste
Rate. W'lb/hr
Solids, %
Coal. % of waste
2.1
10
47.5
50
2.5
5.500
92
18'
2
97.7
289.000
89
8
3
<5
12,900
1.9
5
0.3
2.1
10
47.5
50
2.5
5,500
90
6.1"
0
0
302.000
83
14
3
30
12.000
1.9
5
0.4
* This number corresponds to 14.1% of oil based on the weight of the feed solids and 21.4% oil based
on the dry weight of the agglomerated product (water-free basis).
"This number corresponds to 5.0% oil based on the weight of the feed solids and 8.7% oil based on
the dry weight of the agglomerated product (water-free basis/.
CAII product percentages and the heating values are based on the dry weight of the product (coat
and all noncoal minerals, including pyrite) and do not include the weights or effects on heating
value ofresidualoH. asphalt, or water (the heating values of the residual oil and asphalt ate taken
into account in the economics).
-------
delivered by rail in tank cars and are
stored in tanks sized to provide a storage
capacity of 30 days.
The economic estimates consist of
capital investments and both first-year
and levelized annual revenue require-
ments. Capital investments are based on
mid-1982 costs and annual revenue
requirements are projected to 1984 and
are based on 5,500 hr/yr of operation at
full capacity. The capital investments also
include pond credits which are deter-
mined by subtracting the cost of the 30-
day-capacity holding pond and the 30-
year-capacity waste disposal pond for the
agglomeration plant from the cost of the
coal-cleaning plant 30-year-capacity
waste disposal pond.
Process Description
Oil Agglomeration with
Heptane Recovery
The process consists of four identical
trains of agglomeration and heptane
recovery equipment, supplied by a single
feed tank and raw material storage and
supply system. The flow diagram is shown
in Figure 1. The agglomeration plant is
designed to process a 10% solids slurry at
a rate of 2 x 108 Ib/hr (about 4,000
gal./min of slurry) for 5,500 hr/yr for 30
years. The 10% solids slurry is recovered
from the coal-cleaning plant holding pond
and pumped to a scalping screen that
removes particles over 0.5 mm in size.
The slurry that passes through the screen
is stored in an agitated tank from which it
is pumped to the high-shear mix tank.
Along with the slurry, 18% heptane and
2% asphalt (both based on agglomerated
product from the screen) are added to the
mix tank. The high degree of agitation
produces very fine droplets of heptane
and asphalt in which the coal and other
oleophilic minerals agglomerate. The
slurry flows to the low-shear mix tank
which has a lesser degree of agitation
and allows the small agglomerates formed
in the high-shear mix tank to coalesce
into particles 2 to 3 mm in diameter (an
adequate size particle for thermal drying).
The slurry flows by gravity from the
low-shear mix tank to a vibrating screen
which removes agglomerated particles.
The unagglomerated particles (mostly
noncoal minerals) and liquid drain to a
refuse tank. The agglomerated particles
are transferred by belt conveyor to the
heptane recovery system. The agglomer-
ation plant is designed to recover 92% of
the coal in the waste and produce 289,000
ton/yr of product containing 89% coal,
8.0% mineral matter, and 3.0% sulfur
with a heating value of 12,900 Btu/lb
(not including residual heptane and the
asphalt binder).
The recovery system consists of a
fluidized-bed dryer; a particle purge ves-
sel; and associated gas circulating, solids
collecting, and condensing equipment.
The particles are transported from the
feed bin in a screw conveyor and fed to
the dryer through an air lock. The particles
are fluidized with a heated mixture of
60% heptane and 40% water vapors
which vaporizes 95% of the heptane and
water in the particles.
The gas from the dryer passes through
a cyclone and filter to remove entrained
solids. Two-thirds of the gas is recycled
through a compressor and heated to
465°F before entering the dryer and one-
third is passed through a water-cooled
shell-and-tube heat exchanger that con-
denses and cools the heptane and water
to 100°F. The condensate drains to a
condensate tank in which the heptane
and water separate. The heptane is
returned to the agglomeration system
and the water is pumped to the waste
pond. Approximately 97.7% of the hep-
tane is recovered.
Oil-Agglomeration Without
Oil Recovery
The nonrecovery process used No. 2
fuel oil and is based on conditions typical
Asphalt
Storage
Tank
Heptane
Storage
Tank
Heptane
Feed
Tank
Mud Cat
Coal Refuse Pond
n
Low-Shear
Agglomerating
Tank
Scalping
Screen
Overflow
to
Disposal
Fluid/zed
Bed
Feed Dryer
Bin
To Drain
• To Disposal
Pond
Steam
Recycle
Gas
Heater _ - -
Preparation Plant.
fl Clean Coal
Stockpile
Figure 1. Oil-agglomeration process with heptane recovery.
-------
of those conventional oil-agglomeration
processes in which the quantity of oil
used is minimized to reduce cost. The
nonrecovery process differs from the
recovery process by the use of a less
expensive oil and a much lower oil content
in the agglomerated product (6.1 % fuel oil
based on the agglomerated product from
the screen—see Table 1) and the absence
of the oil recovery system. As a result of
the lower oil content, the coal recovery is
somewhat lower (90%) and the product
particle size is smaller (+100 mesh). [The
quantity of oil used in the agglomeration
process has the greatest effect on the
product particle size and coal recovery
rate. The physical properties of the oil
(e.g., density, viscosity) will have a slight
effect, but were not evaluated in this
study since their effect was considered to
be very minor when compared to the
effect of the oil level.] The flow diagram
for the nonrecovery process is shown in
Figure 2. The equipment and process
descriptions for the nonrecovery process
are similar to the agglomeration circuit in
the recovery process except for the dele-
tion of the asphalt binder for the agglom-
erated coal which is not needed since the
nonrecovery product is not thermally
dried.
Results
Capital investments and first-year and
levelized annual revenue requirements
are developed for the base case processes
just described. Several case variations
and sensitivities are examined for the
base cases, and the alternative of using
kerosene or heptane instead of fuel oil is
evaluated for the nonrecovery process.
Capital Investment
The summary of the capital investment
estimates for the base case processes is
shown in Table 2. The total capital
investment for the recovery process is $9
million with the pond credit and $21
million without the pond credit. The total
capital investment for the nonrecovery
process using fuel oil is almost $13 million
without the pond credit and a capital
investment credit of $0.2 million is re-
ceived with the pond credit. The major
capital investment difference for the base
case processes is in the total process
capital. The total process capital for the
nonrecovery process is approximately
43% less than the recovery process. The
smaller process capital cost for the non-
recovery process is due to the exclusion
of the heptane recovery system, which
accounts for approximately 43% of the
total process capital for the recovery
process.
The pond credit for the nonrecovery
process is approximately 6% higher than
the recovery process. This is a result of
the nonrecovery process using a lower
oil-to-coal ratio, and thus having lower
coal but higher ash recoveries, which
subsequently decrease the quantity of
waste solids and require a smaller refuse
pond for the nonrecovery process.
The pond credit has a very large effect
on the capital investments and the differ-
ence is illustrative of the large cost
associated with pond disposal of large
volumes of waste. The pond credit re-
duces the total capital investments for the
recovery process by approximately 57%
and the nonrecovery process by more
than 100%.
Annual Revenue Requirements
The first-year annual revenue require-
ments for the recovery process are $6.4
V"" I f_ r
\ Coal Refuse Pond/
Scalping
Screen
Overflow
to
Disposal
°™ ggy°
No. 2
Fuel Oil
Storage
Tank
Low-Shear
Agglomerating ^T^>
Screen
Tank
High-Shear -
I Mixing
Tank
Overflow Collection
k I Tank I I Tank
Agglomerated
Fine Coal
ci—r5>
Preparation Plant
Clean Coal__
Stockpile
To Disposal Pond
Figure 2. Oil-agglomeration nonrecovery process with fuel oil.
4
-------
Table 2. Summary of Capital Investments
Investment Area
Total Cost, $1000$
Nonrecovery Process
Recovery Process With No. 2 Fuel Oil
Total process capital
Total indirect investment
Working capital
Other capital charges
Total capital investment
10.015
6.546
909
4.029
5.668
3.704
1.109
2.279
excluding pond credit
Pond credit
Total capital investment
21,499
(12.168)
9.331
12.760
(12.926)
1166)
million, as compared with $8.0 million for
the nonrecovery process with fuel oil,
including the pond credit in both cases.
The difference in annual revenue re-
quirements between the two processes is
due mainly to the larger quantity of oil
consumed by the nonrecovery process,
which replaces that lost in the coal
agglomerates. Even though a heat credit
is applied for the oil, it is not enough to
offset the difference between the cost of
the two processes. The first-year unit
revenue requirements are 0.86 $/108
Btu (22 $/ton) for the recovery process
and 1.10 $/106 Btu (27 $/ton) for the
nonrecovery process, including the pond
credit in both cases. Without the pond
credit, the unit costs are 1.15 $/106Btu
(30 $/ton) for the recovery process and
1.42 $/106 Btu (34 $/ton) for the non-
recovery process. These costs compare
quite favorably with an eastern bitum-
inous coal which has a heating value of
11,OOOBtu/lbandcostof1.85$/106Btu
(40.70 $/ton).
Case Variations
Since the design data for the processes
are based on laboratory tests, several
case variations and sensitivities are ex-
amined, as shown in Table 3, for different
pond credits, raw material costs, asphalt
contents, and coal recoveries for the
recovery process and the nonrecovery
process with fuel oil. Different heptane
recoveries and purge gases are also
evaluated for the recovery process, along
with the effects of including a pelletizing
system for the product. The effects of
using alternate agglomerating agents
(oils) and of using a centrifuge to separate
the liquid from the coal agglomerates are
also evaluated for the nonrecovery pro-
cess.
The pond credit has a major effect on
both the capital investment and annual
revenue requirements of both processes.
With the pond credit, the capital invest-
ments for the recovery and nonrecovery
processes are 57% and over 100% lower,
respectively, than capital investments
without pond credits. The first-year an-
nual revenue requirements for the re-
covery and nonrecovery processes are
increased 34% and 28% without the pond
credit. The smaller percentage increase
for the nonrecovery process results from
the greater importance of the raw material
cost, which is the predominant factor in
its annual revenue requirements. The
recovery and nonrecovery processes are
also sensitive to raw material price,
asphalt content, and coal recovery rates.
The recovery process is also sensitive to
heptane recovery rates and slightly sensi-
tive to the type of purge gas selected. The
addition of a pelletizing area to the
recovery process increases the capital
investments and annual revenue require-
ments by 13% and 23%, respectively, and
the use of a centrifuge in the nonrecovery
process increases its capital investment
and annual revenue requirements by
150% and 1O%, respectively. However,
the cost for adding the pelletizing area to
the recovery process (first-year annual
revenue requirements of 1.06 $/106 Btu
with the pond credit) and using a centri-
fuge in the nonrecovery process (first-
year annual revenue requirements of
1.21 $/106 Btu with the pond credit) is
still less than the cost of the premise coal
at 1.85$/108Btu.
The first-year annual revenue require-
ments of the nonrecovery process are
projected for two other agglomerating
agents (heptane and kerosene). The other
nonrecovery processes in which the
weight of heptane and kerosene in the
product is the same as for the fuel oil
process have substantially higher annual
revenue requirements—$10.5 million for
the kerosene process and $15.3 million
for the heptane process, as compared
with $8.0 million for the fuel oil process.
The predominant difference is the oil
costs—1.09, 1.32, and 1.60 $/gal. for
fuel oil, kerosene, and heptane, respec-
tively.
Effect of Oil Consumption on
Annual Revenue Requirements
The effect of the quantity of oil used on
the cost of the nonrecovery processes is
shown in Figures 3 and 4 in comparison
with the recovery process at different oil
recovery efficiencies. The recovery pro-
cess has the same oil and asphalt content
in the agglomerated product as the base
case processes—18% oil and 2% asphalt
in the agglomerated coal.
The nonrecovery process annual reve-
nue requirements increase rapidly with
increasing oil consumption. This is pri-
marily due to the higher consumption of
fuel oil which is the predominant cost
factor in the first-year annual revenue
requirements. The cost of the nonrecovery
product with the pond credit exceeds the
cost of the premise coal (1.85 $/108 Btu)
at oil levels of 11 % or higher (9% without
the pond credit) as shown in Figure 4.
The recovery process annual revenue
requirements are not related to oil content
in the agglomerated coal but to the
efficiency of the oil recovery system. As
the recovery efficiency decreases (percent
oil loss increases), the annual revenue
requirements increase rapidly as shown
in Figures 3 and 4. At an 18% to 20% oil
loss in the recovery process, the cost of
the product with the pond credit exceeds
that of the premise coal at 1.85 $/108
Btu. With no pond credit, the cost of the
recovery product exceeds the premise
coal at an oil loss of approximately 13.5%.
At the base case conditions evaluated
in this study, the recovery process is less
expensive to operate than the nonrecov-
ery process. Also, a poorer quality of
product is produced in the nonrecovery
process, and there may be greater un-
certainty concerning the capability of the
nonrecovery process (at the low oil levels)
to actually yield a product suitable for use
in a pulverized-coal-fired boiler. However,
the nonrecovery process could be eco-
nomically competitive if lower than base
-------
Table 3. Case Variation Cost Sensitivities
Oil Agglomeration With Heptane Recovery
Capital
Investment
Variation
Pond credit
Base case
50% of base case
No pond credit
Raw materials price"
80% of base case
Base case
140% of base case
Asphalt used*
50% of base case
Base case
150% of base case
Coal Recovery*
90% of base case
Base case
105% of base case
Heptane recovery
80%
90%
95%
Base case (97.7%)
99.7%
Purge gas
Base case (air)
Inert gas
Nitrogen
Pallatization
Base case
Base case with
palletization
Centrifuge
Base case
Base case with
centrifuge
Oils
Base case (fuel oil)
Kerosene
Heptane
$10"
9.3
15.4
21.5
9.29
9.3
9.4
9.1
9.3
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.1
10.0
9.6
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.3
9.2
9.8
9.3
10.5
Change. %
+66
+131
-0.1
+1
-2
+3
+2
-2
+8
+3
+1
-1
-1
+5
+13
Annual Revenue
Requirements*
$/1OtBtu
0.86
1.00
1.15
0.79
0.86
1.01
0.78
0.86
0.94
0.95
0.86
0.82
1.96
1.34
1.03
0.86
0.74
0.86
0.74
0.75
0.86
1.06
Change, %
+16
+34
-8
+17
-9
+9
+10
-5
+128
+56
+20
-14
-14
-13
+23
Oil Agglomeration With Fuel Oil
Capital Annual Revenue
Investment Requirements*
$10*
(0.2)
6.3
12.8
(0.3)
(0.2)
0.1
(0.2)
1.0
1.5
(0.2)
(1.2)
(0.2)
0.1
(0.2)
0.1
0.5
Change. % $/10*Btu
1.10
+3,250 1.26
+6.500 1.42
-50 0.86
1.10
+150 1.60
1.10
+600 1.41
+850 1.27
1.10
-500 1.02
1.10
+ 150 1.21
1.10
+ 150 1.45
+350 2. 1 1
Change, %
+15
+29
-22
+45
+28
+15
-7
+ 10
+32
+92
*1982 dollars.
"first-year annual revenue requirements in 1984 dollars.
cAsphalt and heptane or fuel oil.
a1%. 2%. and 3% of undried product for the recovery process; 0% and 3% for the nonrecovery process.
'83%. 92%. and 97% for the recovery process; 81%. 90%. and 95% for the nonrecovery process.
case oil recoveries are achieved in the
recovery process. As shown in Figure 3,
the first-year annual revenue require-
ment with pond credits for the recovery
process with only 2.3% oil loss (base
case) is equivalent to the revenue re-
quirements for the nonrecovey process at
an oil level of 4.5% in the product, but at
oil losses greater than 6.5% (recoveries
less than 93.5%), the first-year annual
revenue requirements for the base case
nonrecovery process (oil level of 6.1 % in
the product) with pond credits are less
than for the recovery process.
Conclusions
Based on typical costs for coal, the oil-
agglomeration process appears to be an
-------
Recovery Process Oil Loss. % of Heptane Feed
5.0
10.0
I
15.0
I
20.0
I
I
a
o
II
10 O
-
H
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
£ 3.0-
C
2.0-
1.0-
Nonrecovery Process with No. 2 Fuel Oil
Recovery Process with Heptane
~~" ~~" Premise Coal Price (1.85 S/10* Btu)
• Base Case
0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Nonrecovery Process Oil in Product, % by wt. in the Agglomerated Coal
Figure 3. First-year annual revenue requirements (with pond credit) for the recovery and nonrecovery processes.
18.0
20.0
effective method for recovering coal fines
from coal-cleaning plant refuse. Both the
recovery and the nonrecovery processes
appear to be economically feasible
methods but, depending on the base case
amounts of oil used in the two processes
and the efficiency of the oil recovery in
the recovery system, the recovery process
is more cost effective. As a result of the
more favorable economics for the recov-
ery process at the higher oil recovery
efficiencies (greater than 93%). it is
recommended that this technology be
tested to determine if the recovery system
can be operated with the desired effi-
ciency. If the recovery system cannot
operate at the higher oil recovery effi-
ciencies (greater than 93%), examination
of the nonrecovery process may be ad-
visable.
Metric Conversions
Readers more familiar with metric units
may use the following metric conversion
factors:
Nonmetric
Times Yields Metric
Btu
°F
gal.
in.
Ib
ton
1.055
5/9(°F-32)
3.785
2.54
0.454
907.2
J
°C
I
cm
kg
kg
-------
5.0
Recovery Process Oil Loss, % of Heptane Feed
10.0 15.0 20.0
•6
I
6.0-
5.0-
*^
jo § 4.0-
§ tj
5 $
.gl
II „.
s>a
= oa
1.0-
Nonrecovery Process with No. 2 Fuel Oil
Recovery Process with Heptane
Premise Coal Price (1.85 $/10e Btu)
Base Case
Figure 4.
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Nonrecovery Process Oil in Product, % by wt. in the Agglomerated Coal
First-year annual revenue requirements (without pond credit) for the recovery and nonrecovery processes.
18.0
20.0
L Larkin and J. D. Maxwell are with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle
Shoals, AL 35661.
Julian W. Jones is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Economic Evaluation of Oil Agglomeration for
Recovery of Fine Coal Refuse." (Order No. PB 86-161 304 /AS; Cost: $11.95.
subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1986/646-116/20802
-------
p- a>
co
oo <
en a>
O S
w c
IS) V)
CD
10
q =
D -
3 a
B) C
s. c
O:
I
0)
00
------- |