Article published Nov 21, 2007

GFDA explores options for coal-to-liquid plant

By JO DEE BLACK

Tribune Business Editor

A coal-to-liquids fuel plant would ease the military's dependence on foreign oil, but it also will take significant capital investment.

In addition, some environment groups object to the technology and the pending change in administration has the potential to shift federal support for such projects.

"In my opinion, I give this a 5 percent chance," said Great Falls Development Authority President Brett Doney of the proposed coal- to-liquids plant at Malmstrom Air Force Base.

Nonetheless, during its Tuesday meeting the GFDA board agreed to follow up on a request by the U.S. Air Force and will look into what it will take to buy 160 acres near Malmstrom to use for a rail spur.

If built, the plant will be paid for by private investments, cost $2 billion and produce 25,000 barrels of fuel a day. When the plan was originally announced, the proposed site was located close to the base's closed runway.

Now plans are to look at approximately 400 acres near the southwest edge of the military's property, which will not encroach on the runway.

However, the additional 160 acres are needed for an oval rail track to bring 125-car coal trains to the plant each day.

Decisions about acquiring the land and how to pay for it will be made down the road, said GFDA Board Member Steve L'Heureux.

"But if we don't at least explore it, then we are saying no to the project," he said.

In addition, GFDA will approach the city of Great Falls, Cascade County and state officials about appointing a task force to work with the U.S. Air Force on the project.

The base's runway, which closed in 1996 after Malmstrom lost its refueling mission, was another topic discussed at the GFDA meeting.

Some community members became concerned that development on private land on either end of the runway could jeopardize efforts to gain another military flying mission.

GFDA commissioned a land-use compatibility study to inventory property in areas needed for protection zones around the runway.

The land or development rights for property in those zones could be acquired a couple of ways, Doney said.

"There could be a community trust with the funds raised by the community," he said. "Or the city or county could buy it, probably with a bond, and there would probably be a public vote."

Doney cautioned that there is not a single example of a community with a closed military runway that bought land to preserve protection zones. It's only been done by communities with an operating base runway in an effort to retain active flying missions.

"There is no way to tie this runway project to jobs," he said. "What we are saying to the Air Force is we believe so strongly in this asset, that we've stepped up. Our hopes then would be that a military flying mission is squeezed out of an area with more development and congestion or for a research and development use for an agency such as NASA."

Competition for such projects and missions is fierce, Doney said.

"If we raise the money, if we lead this charge, people will want to know what you are going to do to get a mission," he said.