blk coal is suitable for ctl process, page-6

The above ground CTL process has 2 drawbacks. The capex to build a commercial size plant is substantial, but so is the capital required to build an oil refinery or UCG/TL plant. There are 3 main differences between CTL and UCG/TL.
1) UCG/TL does produce substantially less emissions than its above CTL equivalent.That is why AA & Shell in La Trobe valley Vic have invested in a project exprimenting with injecting the CO2 produced deep into the ground.
2) The UCG/TL process has not been proven on a commercial scale. Linc are doing trials to see if they can produce sufficient syn gas from each bore drilled. Hence, i am not investing till the process is demonstrated it can be done on a massive scale.
3) One advantage of handling the coal above ground is that this process poduces a richer grade of syn gas that can be converted into many products and not just diesel and jet fuel. SASOL website lists almost 100 products they sell from their process. In turn some of these products are further processed into stuff as variable as shampoo, plastics and fertiliser.

Hence, if BLK and others can find a method to bury their emissions then CTL plants will spring up all over as crude sources diminish. To be viable the coal deposites need to be close to surface with wide seams and massive in size.
Just like those at BLK.