[sciencegirl]

I live in Edmonton, Alberta. I was listening to the radio yesterday and the governor of Montana was the guest they were talking with.

The Governor took a trip to Alberta trying to improve relations with Alberta recently. He admitted on the radio that we are running out of oil, and hinted that Alberta for our tar sands and Montana for their coal reserves would be where most of our energy will come from in the future. He mentioned that the current electricity grid runs east and west in our two countries and that he wanted to improve our electricity transmission so that the grid would also move electricity north and south, so that in the future we could sell this energy to the highest bidder. (not that this would solve PO or anything)

His numbers I found to be questionable though because he said that if Montana was mined for coal at increasing rates due to PO that in 50 years they would have only used 2 or 3 % of their total coal reserves. Sound fishy to me. What does everyone else think ?



Anyway thats all I remember from the radio interview

[AirlinePilot]

Sounds fishy to me too sciencegirl. Folks seem to perpetually get the math of growth wrong. Somehow I doubt those numbers are correct. I'm just going on intuition there though.

We are really going to tear through coal quickly IMHO once we get to the crisis point with oil and biofuels. I doubt it is going to take us more than a hundred years to go through ALL the coal thats easily mine-able. I actually think we are pretty close to that point now. All the close to surface and easily gotten at veins are being produced now.

I'd be interested in what the numbers are for Montana coal as far as reserves go and mining right now.

[sciencegirl]

I think the Governor said that Montana's coal reserves were the third largest in the world. Don't quote me on that because i was at work while that radio broadcast was on, so i am not 100 %.

I also think the Governor was overestimating the coal reserves in Montana but that is just my gut feeling.

The internet says that Montana's coal reserves are 120 billion tonnes in liquid terms, over one quarter the size of the entire Middle East oil ..
(this is quoted from Montana's Official State Website)

[sciencegirl]

Here is the Official Montana state website

http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

Take a looky see

[joewp]

[s]According to the EIA, Montana has 1.2 billion short tons in recoverable reserves, and they mined 40 million short tons of it in 2005. That means it will be exhausted in 30 years at this rate,[/s] so I don't know what he's talking about. But then again, when it comes to estimating energy reserves and consumption, most politicians demonstrate time and time again that they don't know what they're talking about.

Pardon me, I was looking at the wrong table. The recoverable reserves of Montana are 75 billion tons, which would make them last about 1800 years at current rates. The 1.2 billion tons is the reserves of producing mines only. I'm not sure what the difference is, or why those other reserves aren't producing.

But even if all those reserves begin producing, and production can ramp up at 5% a year, those massive reserves will only last about 90 years. Amazing, isn't it?

[AirlinePilot]

Good observation joewp. What happens If instead of 5% its 7 or even 10% growth? That isn't out of the question IMHO. That 90 years becomes 50 or so pretty darn quick.

[shortonoil]

Mining in general is very energy intensive, and it is heavily dependant on oil. As oil production declines, and the available energy from it does like wise, many of those now designated reserves, will no longer be reserves. They will become unusable geological deposits, buried under hundreds of feet of non-removable overburden.

If you have ever had the privilege to pay for the fuel pumped into heavy equipment, you would have found that the amount of diesel that a CAT D9 burns in a day is amazing! As the cheap easy energy from oil dwindles away, those 180 years of reserve will soon become 20 or 30.

[efarmer]

I know how revolutionary the diesel engine was and is. But technology has a way of being useful even when it is outmoded. For example the telegraph would still work perfectly but is replaced by radio, telephony, and internet style digital communications. So I strongly suspect that big coal projects will simply drive the creation of 21st century steam engines that can burn what they dig. I would imagine the steam engine will be a turbine instead of a boiler like the old steam shovels.

I have no idea what the liquid fuels crisis will deliver, but I have a strong hunch we are going to see many older ways of doing things get picked back up and dusted off, or reapplied with new spins.

BTW, that is simply a staggering amount of coal energy in Montana.
They might consider inviting the folks from Washington D.C. out there, they know how to dig a mighty big hole in a short period of time, and do so without getting their hands dirty.

"Rather be a stick in the mud than a lightning rod."