Panel hears drawbacks of coal-to-liquids facilities by Karl Puckett, Tribune Staff Writer

The Montana Legislature’s Energy and Telecommunications Interim Committee met in early November to discuss the feasibility of building two of the proposed coal-to-liquids facilities- one close to Bull Mountain near Roundup and the other at the Great Falls Malmstrom Air Force Base. One of the key ingredients to such a power plant is water and this is the main reason why, in the desert-climate of Montana, the legislature is taking a more active role in evaluating the state’s potential for more fossil fuel accommodation. Experts vary about how much water it will take; estimates range from one to seven barrels of water per barrel of fuel. The committee, which met on the premise that they would further educate themselves on the issue, seemed to leave the meeting with more questions than answers about the future of Montana coal reserves.

There are several things to know about the coal-to-liquids technology. It’s proven. During World War II, Germany perfected the science because they were forced to create an economy based on sustainability because the country was confronted with oil sanctions. During apartheid, South Africa also used the science effectively and the article mentioned them as having a developed coal-to-liquids program. The problem with the Fisher Troppe method is that there are still questions that have remained unanswered for over 60 years- even the softest environmental groups are asking that before the resource is development further (and before our state becomes as dependent on the development as officials are talking about) we research all the coal facts. Brett Doney, President of the Great Falls Development Authority, said that the committee has a steep learning curve and he’s right; this state- with plentiful 120 billion tons of coal reserves, state government pressure to set up an alternative to Middle Eastern oil and the possibility for subsidizing the industry- has a lot of work to do to ensure the public that our investments are going to work for us in the future. Brian Schweitzer, being a key player in state politics as head executive, has a significant role in our future energy policies and supports the technology full-heartedly. Denny Rehberg was also mentioned in the article for his introduction of legislation that set up 10 pilot coal-to-liquid programs throughout the country. Chuck Kerr’s (President of Great Northern Properties, which owns and manages coal reserves) conclusion that “Challenges include finding locations with enough water and dealing with the complex nature of the technology” is an obvious indication that current research is not finite or satisfactory. Brady Wiseman mentioned that, aside from research, Montana needs a state-of-the-art legal framework for the industry to operate within. The article did not mention the unproven science of carbon sequestration, which is what has Montana and out-of-state coal developers antsy. I suppose this was one of its biases.

To learn more about this topic, use the google. Activists in this state will be talking and writing about energy development for years to come. What will and won’t work can only be proven by action. But I have an increasing faith that the public will have a larger concern with the environmental repercussions of coal than they did in the latter half of the 19^th century with other resource development.