[rellimpank]

---he's a little low oon his price but on the right page--need lots of nukes for electrical power generation too--

[sgtbono2002]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to realise we could turn coal into fuel.
The technology is old and works.

Ofcourse right when this plant starts to open the Saudi's will lower their price to try to put them out of business , we cvant fall for that one. We need to be self sufficient for oil in this country and tell the others to Kiss it. Just Kiss it.

[Mulch]

Another article

[Last Dakotan]

Not a new idea - even here.
Kiln-in-Gas bankrupted the great Allis Chalmers company in the early 1980's.

[Sam Gamgee]

This is something entirely different I take from oil shale - which I believe is far more expensive to process.

[spokeshave]

HA..Ha...ha......................

Schweitzer said Montana has a huge advantage over other states because it owns the Otter Creek reserves, which the federal government traded to it after President Clinton halted a proposed gold mine near Yellowstone National Park

Eat your shorts lefties

[Rakkasan1]

"environmentalists" will oppose this, too.

[RightWhale]

Alaska has half the country's coal reserves. Much of it is wet coal, and low sulfur. The wet coal can be converted by hydrothermal processing or hot-water drying, which yields a liquid coal-water fuel that can be burned almost like oil. Some roads would have to be built to get at the coal.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Sounds like a good idea...as long as oil stays above 30 dollars per barrel. I don't see why it wouldn't, unless the entire world went full tilt boogie in extracting crude.

[dennisw]

btttt

[Bommer]

The Fischer-Tropsch technology, discovered by German researchers in 1923 and later used by the Nazis to convert coal into wartime fuels, was not economical as long as oil cost less than $30 a barrel.

Is that $30 in 1923 dollars, which equals something like $1200 of our dollars today?

[backhoe]

From the vault of memories:

Oil from Coal....Boon, Bane, or Boondoggle?

-That Trillion-Dollar Ripoff-- Clinton's Utah Coal Deal--

[Quix]

Wellllll,

quit standing around lighting each other's farts and

JUST DO IT!

[glorgau]

Montana could supply the entire United States with its aviation, gas and diesel fuel for 40 years without creating environmental damage.

And how do they get this coal out of the ground? Strip mining leaves huge scars. Better to just build more nukes.

[fallujah-nuker]

I like the synthetic oil from coal idea, but sending electricity from Montana to California is wasteful. Let California build nukes, or start unplugging all the hot tubs in Marin County.

[operation clinton cleanup]

"We can do it cheaper than importing oil from the sheiks, dictators, rats and crooks that we're bringing it from right now."

I'm all for that....

[truth_seeker]

"An entry level Fischer-Tropsch plant producing 22,000 barrels a day would cost about $1.5 billion, he said."

To get 5 million barrels per day would be (5,000,000/22,000) x $1.5 billion = $341 billion.

Ramp that up, and we would not be totally free of imported crude, but far on such a path.

I dare say it is highly doable. And the money is simply investment, returned through product sales.

And this is just transport fuels from coal. We also have vast reserves of oil shale (Utah, Colorado and Wyoming).

I've read that Alberta province has GREATER hydrocarbon reserves, than Saudi Arabia (oil shale and tar sands).

And Canada is already producing same, albeit relatively small scale.

Resulting from the 1979 Khomeini oil scare, the US government kicked off building "demonstration" plants for oil from shale.

One such plant by Union Oil was at Parachute Creek, Colorado. The Navy guaranteed to buy the oil produced for about $40 per barrel.

I think this project was eventually mothballed, as we enjoyed years of relatively cheap imported crude.

[Kay]

Head Waters (HW) was just mentioned on Mad Money (Cramer) today. It is an alternative fuel company and converts coal and heavy oil into liquid fuel.

[GotDangGenius]

I'm a legislator in Montana. Governor "Hollywood" as we like to call him-- because he's more interested in getting on TV than he is in actually solving much- but we're still giving him the benefit of the doubt, is a little loony for the most part.
If he's serious, he'll have the backing of the Republican legislators and a vast majority of the people in Montana, but if he's trying to pull another "I am for natural resource use" and then appoint a bunch of whacko greenies from the extreme anti-people "Montana Environmental Information Center" to run anything short of a single compost toilet, you can take the fellow as seriously as you take Cindy Sheehan calling the President the most trustworthy person on the face of the earth.

We'll see. I know Brian personally, and I have been pleasantly surprised at how rational and reasonable he has become once becoming Guv, but I still can't forget his campaign of absolute lying and bull... as I say, we'll see if he's actually serious. If he is, I'll back "Governor Hollywood" 100%.