The Oil Drum

56 comments on Montana could supply the whole US with fuel!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Anonymous on August 26, 2005 - 1:01pm

The danger is if they are in fact able to pull this off. The problem is this wacky notion that we need to continue AS WE ARE, when continuing as we are is the source of all our problems of environmental degradation, climate change, overpopulation, soil depletion, fresh water shortages, etc. How do you stop a runaway train except by running over the cliff of 'not enough energy to keep going'? Let's hope this Montana thing doesn't fly.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Stuart Staniford on August 26, 2005 - 1:26pm

My feeling is that CTL is the nearest thing to gasoline post-peak, and so it will come into play. However, I also suspect that it cannot be ramped up nearly as fast as oil production is capable of depleting, so there will still be some net depletion over-all. CTL, oil sands, etc, are basically ways to lower the depletion rate (which is a good thing!)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on February 26, 2006 - 12:28pm

The main reason that I believe in a "Bumpy Plateau" rather than a HL decline for TOTAL world oil & equivalents is because that coal to fuel and NG to fuel schemes will come on-line.

However, the time constraints are such that the unconvential sources will always be running behind (hence the bumps) declines in convential production.

Diesel is preferred for coal > fuel (C-H ratio, gasoline is more of a stretch). Gasoline from NG (same reason).

Plans for more than small projects are still years away from a "Financial Decision Point". Figure eight years from "FDP" to operations.

Water is a limitation out in MO.

A multistage plant using high sulfer Illinois coal (max buildout 200,000 b/day of diesel) is building Stage 1 (from memory). No water problems there.

Carter wanted to build these plants 32 years ago.

TERRIBLE for GW :-((

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Anonymous on August 26, 2005 - 5:28pm

Anonymous Oil Drum Reader on Fri Aug 26 at 4:01 PM EST said: "The danger is if they are in fact able to pull this off. The problem is this wacky notion that we need to continue AS WE ARE."

So it seems like maybe you aren't so sure you believe in doom, you are just hoping for it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Anonymous on August 26, 2005 - 8:50pm

It's doom either way, non? --If we become able to keep going "as we are," we guarantee runaway earth warming, and environmental decimation not just of Montana but of the whole USA and the World in our consumer hunger. --And if we aren't able to keep going "as we are," there will be a bottleneck time of ugly consequences for sure; what civilization has ever survived the collapse of its energy base? I think there'll be big die-back, but not die-off (extinction of the human species), so --past the bottleneck-- there will be a new day (very different from, and perhaps saner than today because it will be less all-consuming than the current arrangement we have created).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)