Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Futuremodal, Did you watch this ? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml [/quote] No, I haven't watched "60 Minutes" since they did the slam piece on the Snake River dams a few years ago (and that one was by Leslie Stahl too). But a printed transcript is as good as a view. Thanks for the link. Here's my thoughts: For all intents and purposes, the governor is right, but utilizing the Fischer-Tropsch with Montana coal is a few commercial steps behind the Alberta oil sands, ANWR, and even Wyoming PRB coal reserves. The Alberta oil sands are in Canada (thus fewer environmental roadblocks to it's development) and I believe converting oil sands to crude then to diesel is cheaper than converting coal to gas then to diesel. Of course ANWR is pure petroleum, all we have to do is drill pump and ship it south. And Wyoming has the rail infrastructure and pipeline system to be able to ship synthetic diesel, whereas Montana's PRB is without much in the way of rail or pipeline. If only DM&E had listened to me and proposed their PRB extension by way of Colony into Montana and the Wyoming PRB mines. What Schweitzer should be pusing is synthetic natural gas derived from coal, which is what North Dakota is doing with it's lignite reserves via the Great Plains Gasification site. Right now, it is cheaper to make synthetic natural gas from low rank coals than it is to buy natural gas on the open market, and the differential between synthetic natural gas and wellhead natural gas is greater than the price differential between natural petroleum and synthetic petroleum products. E.g. the risk is the same for both, but the potential payoff favors synthetic natural gas over synthetic petroleum products. One other thing about Schweitzer which keeps me off his bandwagon for now. On the one hand, he is absolutely correct to be pushing development of Montana's coal reserves. On the other hand, he is also quoted as saying that "we" must cut back on "our" emissions of CO2 to "reduce" global warming.[%-)][banghead] Hmmmm. Memo to the Governor's office: You can't simultaneously promote the development of coal and at the same time promote the fantasy of anthropogenic global warming. That's the epitome of trying to have your cake and eat it too! Please read "State of Fear". Then stick with the coal development, and tell the global warming idiots to stick their collective head where the sun don't shine.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag