January 30, 2009
Officials scrap plans for plant at Malmstrom By PETER JOHNSON Tribune Staff Writer
Air Force officials announced Thursday that they have rejected private proposals to build a coal-to-liquids fuel plant at Malmstrom Air Force Base and will no longer pursue development of the large synthetic fuel plant at the Great Falls installation.
In a news release, Gary Strasburg, of Air Force environmental public affairs, said a review by Air Force experts determined the private corporate proposals to build a plant were not viable, at least in part because of possible conflicts with Malmstrom's primary nuclear missile mission.
Preliminary plans calling for building the large plant on or near Malmstrom's dormant runway could have created conflicts with the missile wing's mission, including reducing security near the nuclear weapons storage area and an "explosive safety arc" surrounding it, and interfering with missile transportation operations on internal Malmstrom roads, Air Force officials said. The plant's tall structures also could have created helicopter-flight safety issues.
Deputy Assistant Air Force Secretary Kathleen Ferguson made the decision after reviewing information provided by the Air Force Real Property Agency, Air Force Space Command and Malmstrom's 341st Space Wing, Strasburg said.
"Malmstrom will continue to support the decisions of our senior leaders as we help provide the nation with its strategic deterrent force," said base spokesman 1st Lt. Korry Leverett.
In the fall of 2007, Ferguson's predecessor, William Anderson, met with Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and the state congressional delegation to propose offering 700 acres of "underutilized land" at Malmstrom to a developer willing to build and operate a CTL synthetic fuel plant capable of producing up to 30,000 barrels of fuel a day. Such a plant was expected to cost about $2 billion.
The proposal was part of a plan to help the U.S. wean itself off of foreign fuel. The Air Force, a huge user of fuel, plans to certify that all its planes can fly with a 50-50 blend of conventional jet fuel and coal-derived diesel within a few years.
At a public meeting in Great Falls early last year, Air Force officials cited Montana's abundant coal reserves, plentiful Missouri River water and good rail and power lines as reasons to consider Malmstrom for the plant. The following day, they met in a closed industry forum with approximately 100 industry developers, contractors and financiers to see who might be interested in building such a plant.
The Air Force Real Property Agency later sought specific proposals, but stipulated the project would:
Be wholly funded by private sources for construction, operations and maintenance.
Not adversely affect the missile wing's operations or the quality of life of Malmstrom airmen.
Meet all federal laws and regulations. The 2007 energy law bars federal agencies from buying synthetic fuels that have greater greenhouse gas emissions than conventional petroleum.
Strasburg said he could not say how many developers submitted proposals or comment on whether economic and environmental issues played a role in the decision until after the companies have a chance to review and comment on the decision.
He did say that a changeover in Air Force leadership last year and the recent switch in presidential administrations did not impact the decision.
Malmstrom is not being considered for any other energy projects, Strasburg said, adding that the Air Force "no longer has any proposals on the table to develop a synthetic fuel plant, but is open to such proposals."
However, the Air Force has developed wind farms at Dyess AFB in Texas, and F.E. Warren AFB in Wyoming, and placed solar panels at Nellis AFB in Nevada, to reduce conventional energy use at those facilities, he said.
Montana congressmen and Great Falls business leaders said they weren't surprised by the Air Force's rejection of the synthetic fuel plant but hope the Air Force keeps trying to reduce its fuel needs while keeping Malmstrom in the running for other missions.
"In a time when we, as a nation, should be investing in our energy future, this proposal would have been a great way for Montana to invent our way to energy security," said U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont. "While this news is certainly disappointing, I will continue to work with Malmstrom and the Great Falls community to find additional missions and increased opportunities for the Air Force throughout Montana."
"Like the Air Force, one of my top priorities is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and boost domestic energy production here at home," said U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
"Instead of renting out the base to a civilian facility, I believe Malmstrom is better suited for the Air Force's new Global Strike Command," said U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
He said he and Baucus worked to get Malmstrom on the list of finalists for the mission, which would involve about 900 new personnel and combine overall control of the nation's nuclear missiles and bombers at one site. There are six Air Force bases in the running for that command, which is provisionally operating at Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C.
Though the Air Force kept the decision on the CTL plant "close to chest," Great Falls Development Authority President Brett Doney said industry sources told him "it was unlikely that such an expensive project using new technology could be built in today's uncertain energy and capital market."
Such a project would require extensive federal backing, he said, adding that proposals closer to the coal mine mouth in southeastern Montana have a better shot.
"We appreciate the Air Force considering Malmstrom for the project, but believe there are other significant missions Malmstrom is competitive for that would be more compatible to its current mission," Doney said.
"I'm glad that Air Force planners considered Malmstrom's critical missile mission, because we wouldn't want to lose that mission and the base, too," said David Weissman, chairman of the Great Falls Chamber of Commerce's Military Affairs Committee.
Weissman and longtime Malmstrom supporter Warren Wenz said they wished the Air Force would have considered a site for the synthetic fuel plant east of the base and near the proposed coal-fired Highwood Generating Station, instead of on the runway.
"I'm pleased with the decision for the community and base," Wenz said. "In my view, it would not have been appropriate to build such a big facility so near where people live and work who are involved in support of our nuclear mission.
"I felt it would be better to build the CTL plant off the base to create some possible synergies in rail, power and water line systems with the proposed Highwood plant," he added.