Coal-to-Liquids Plant Proposed for Great Falls’ Malmstrom Air Force Base

(November 2007)

For the past three years, concerned citizens in Great Falls have been fighting a pitched battle against the proposed Highwood Generating Station—a highly-polluting, 250-megawatt coal-fired power plant that would be located on the outskirts of their community.  This Fall, all three members of Montana’s congressional delegation joined with an Air Force official in announcing a second project—a $1.3 billion coal-to-liquid fuels (CTL) refinery that would be located at Malmstrom Air Force Base.  While the underlying technology, the principal players, and the desired end-products all differ, there are a number of similarities between the two proposals.

According to preliminary reports, the Malmstrom project would be a 22,000 barrel-per-day operation.  The gasification system would most likely support about 300 megawatts of gross electricity production, but only about 100 megawatts of that would be available for off-system sales (due to the prodigious electricity requirements of the Fischer-Tropsch refining process).  The target date to begin operation is 2011, four years prior to the date the Air Force hopes to obtain half the fuel for its in-country flights from domestic coal resources.

Predictably, several state and local politicians, economic development officials, and the Great Falls Tribune were quick to endorse the project.  Proponents point to job creation, the importance of reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil, and the desirability of providing a new mission for Malmstrom.  They also echo the Governor’s promise that this type of development would produce “virtually no pollution,” and that the project would only proceed if it was “completely clean and green.”

Under scrutiny, these assurances ring hollow.  While it is true that gasification technology produces less pollution than conventional coal technology, it still imposes major impacts on the environment.  First, the fuel must be mined and transported to the facility—an estimated six million tons annually (three tons of coal for every four barrels of product), or more than five times as much as is needed for the proposed Highwood Generating Station.  The Malmstrom CTL project’s water demand would be equally massive.  It is estimated that each gallon of liquid fuel product would require five to seven gallons of input water.  Based on the more conservative number, the facility would consume 1.7 billion gallons per year—enough to meet the domestic needs of 26,000 people (ironically, the same exact amount that the Highwood plant would consume).  According to The Wall Street Journal, the water requirements of CTL plants have caused China to lose interest in the technology.

But perhaps the largest concern with CTL is its extravagant production of global warming pollution.  The CTL process results in nearly twice the amount of carbon dioxide per gallon of liquid fuel product as does traditional petroleum refining.  Promoters of the technology promise that this greenhouse gas could be captured, and “sequestered” underground.  But sequestration is hardly a panacea.  By reducing the overall plant efficiency, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) imposes significant environmental and financial costs.   Furthermore, even with CCS, the overall carbon footprint of CTL fuel still exceeds that of gasoline by about 4% (see figure).

If constructed, the Malmstrom project will be in very limited company.  In fact, the world’s only commercial CPL operation is run by the South African Synthetic Oil Limited (SASOL) company.  SASOL has two synfuel plants that produce a sizable percentage of South Africa’s fuel needs, and also a sizable percentage of South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, one of these plants has the distinction of being the largest single point source of carbon dioxide on the planet.  According to a news report from 2005, the plant emits 28 million tons of carbon dioxide per year—nearly as much as the combined total of all sources in Montana.  Due largely to environmental concerns, the Sasolburg plant has been converted to natural gas, and the Secunda plant now operates on a combination of coal and gas.

Proponents of the Malmstrom facility did little to engender good will with an information session they hosted on October 3rd.  While local government and business interests were allowed to attend the closed meeting, local clean energy advocates were “uninvited” on October 2nd.  Rich Liebert, president of Citizens for Clean Energy, stated: “The press and public have a right to know what’s going on and who attended.”  He urged that Montana not follow the path of the Cheney Energy Task Force, which met in secret in 2001 to craft federal energy policy.  The members and deliberations of that body have never been disclosed.

Another area of concern is a potential link between the Malmstrom proposal and the Highwood project.  Tim Gregori, president of Southern Montana Electric, stated that he received a call from the Pentagon inquiring about opportunities to work together to sequester carbon.  Gregori also asserted that there is a natural “synergy” between the projects, which he claims could cooperate on coal shipments and other matters.  Finally, he suggested that the Highwood plant could provide electricity for the CTL operation.

In a journalistic lapse, the Great Falls Tribune failed to confirm these statements with the Air Force.  The idea that a gasification project would purchase its electricity from a conventional coal plant (rather than supplying its own) seems particularly unlikely.  The comments do, however, underscore Highwood’s ongoing need to find additional customers for its significantly oversized plant.

MEIC will continue to monitor both projects, and provide assistance to local citizens pursuing superior, clean energy alternatives for their community.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

• Video: Crude Substitute: The Folly of Liquid Coal (by the Natural Resources Defense Council)
  
• Digging Deeper into Coals-to-Liquid Fuels
• Montana Environmental Community Statement on the Proposed Malmstrom Air Force Base coal to Liquids Project (January 30, 2008)
• Letter from Rep. Waxman, chair of the House Oversight committee, asking the military how it can build these CTL plants and comply with a new provision in the Energy Bill that says federal agencies can’t buy fuel that results in more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional fuels.

IN THE NEWS

Air Force Eyes Montana Site for Coal-to-Liquids Plant, Energy Prospects West (February 5, 2008)

"Air Force pitches coal-to-liquids plant," by MATTHEW BROWN, Associated Press (published on Thursday, January 31, 2008)