Energy: Some Truths, Some Lies and A Whole Lot of Controversy
Mary Anne Simpson
July 19, 2007
Today, July 19 at 9:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, NYMEX Crude is $75.52. NYMEX Heating oil futures is $211. 09. NYMEX Henry Hub futures is $6.56. Electricity in the three main markets range from $54.50 to $71.93 a megawatt hour. These are verifiable facts.
A report entitled, "The Hard Truths About Energy" spear headed by Lee Raymond former chairman of Exxon Mobil and head of the Petroleum Council with contributions from nearly 400 heavy weights in the energy business, 19 countries and over 1,000 people was released as reported by the International Herald Tribune.
The report does find that energy demands will increase by at least 50 percent in the next 25 years. It also finds that the complexities of addressing these energy demands are heavy weight considerations. This is where the truths get a little fuzzy. The cost of inflation, carbon dioxide restraints, geopolitical factors, and the reduced number of trained petroleum engineers. It does advocate the use of alternative fuels and it can be assumed funding for the mega million project start ups.
On the other hand Congressman Bartlett of Maryland and Congressman Udall from New Mexico members of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus find that after a quick review of "The Hard Truths," some annoying facts like how is this going to play out for consumers and developers of new energy sources.
As reported by the Energy Bulletin, The Hard Truths Report may be soft soaping the real impact of increased demands and supply and delivery issues as it will impact the United States. A report issued by the GAO in March, emphasized that the United States may well be unprepared for disruptions in oil supply and delivery. The International Energy Commission last week predicted world oil shortages by 2012.
There is much ado on Capitol Hill to provide necessary funds for various capital expenditures of alternative energy plant production, but nary a dollar can be seen. The initial start up for these mammoth projects in the the 100 million to 1 billion dollar range.
On the other hand, China has partnered up with Sasol of South Africa who has been in the Coal to Liquid business and varieties in between for over 50 years to build two state of the art clean coal to liquid plants by 2008. China has thus far been granted loans from the International Finance Committee for over 178 million dollars of the expected 305 million dollar cost of building the start up.
Sasol has made great strides in perfecting the gasification and processes for turning coal in to fuel for a variety of purposes. The new methods are costly, but may reduce the cost of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The production of coal to liquid or gas has employed various means to reduce the heating effect caused by the process. It is this heating effect that causes pollution and global warming. Some methods include the combined use of biomass with coal at the ratio of 30/70.
The question of heating, water use and clean air is the subject of dispute with many concerned about the United States slow moving entrance into the alternative energy sources. While various alternative sources like wind, biomass and others provide a clean method of energy production. The gravity of the world consumption of oil, gas, electricity and in particular the United State's severe limitations has to be addressed.
Sasol has been in the alternative energy and coal to liquid and gasification for over 50 years. China is going full steam ahead with securing their energy supplies not to mention nurturing global energy partners that the United States find repugnant. More importantly they are getting the funds to the developers to build the plants and supply chains.
Sasol was not important to the United States when oil was in the range of $35 to $40 a barrel. Those days are over and that is the "Truth." In order for the alternative methods of energy production to make economic sense the cost of $35 to $40 per barrel must be the benchmark. As mentioned above oil has been hovering between $70 to $75 per barrel with no break in the foreseeable future.
It is time for the United States Congress and the Administration to quit crying over split and fractious policy and provide immediate funds for research and development of alternative energy projects desperately in need of funding. It is the "Truth" about our national security and our place in the world economy.
A report entitled, "The Hard Truths About Energy" spear headed by Lee Raymond former chairman of Exxon Mobil and head of the Petroleum Council with contributions from nearly 400 heavy weights in the energy business, 19 countries and over 1,000 people was released as reported by the International Herald Tribune.
The report does find that energy demands will increase by at least 50 percent in the next 25 years. It also finds that the complexities of addressing these energy demands are heavy weight considerations. This is where the truths get a little fuzzy. The cost of inflation, carbon dioxide restraints, geopolitical factors, and the reduced number of trained petroleum engineers. It does advocate the use of alternative fuels and it can be assumed funding for the mega million project start ups.
On the other hand Congressman Bartlett of Maryland and Congressman Udall from New Mexico members of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus find that after a quick review of "The Hard Truths," some annoying facts like how is this going to play out for consumers and developers of new energy sources.
As reported by the Energy Bulletin, The Hard Truths Report may be soft soaping the real impact of increased demands and supply and delivery issues as it will impact the United States. A report issued by the GAO in March, emphasized that the United States may well be unprepared for disruptions in oil supply and delivery. The International Energy Commission last week predicted world oil shortages by 2012.
There is much ado on Capitol Hill to provide necessary funds for various capital expenditures of alternative energy plant production, but nary a dollar can be seen. The initial start up for these mammoth projects in the the 100 million to 1 billion dollar range.
On the other hand, China has partnered up with Sasol of South Africa who has been in the Coal to Liquid business and varieties in between for over 50 years to build two state of the art clean coal to liquid plants by 2008. China has thus far been granted loans from the International Finance Committee for over 178 million dollars of the expected 305 million dollar cost of building the start up.
Sasol has made great strides in perfecting the gasification and processes for turning coal in to fuel for a variety of purposes. The new methods are costly, but may reduce the cost of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The production of coal to liquid or gas has employed various means to reduce the heating effect caused by the process. It is this heating effect that causes pollution and global warming. Some methods include the combined use of biomass with coal at the ratio of 30/70.
The question of heating, water use and clean air is the subject of dispute with many concerned about the United States slow moving entrance into the alternative energy sources. While various alternative sources like wind, biomass and others provide a clean method of energy production. The gravity of the world consumption of oil, gas, electricity and in particular the United State's severe limitations has to be addressed.
Sasol has been in the alternative energy and coal to liquid and gasification for over 50 years. China is going full steam ahead with securing their energy supplies not to mention nurturing global energy partners that the United States find repugnant. More importantly they are getting the funds to the developers to build the plants and supply chains.
Sasol was not important to the United States when oil was in the range of $35 to $40 a barrel. Those days are over and that is the "Truth." In order for the alternative methods of energy production to make economic sense the cost of $35 to $40 per barrel must be the benchmark. As mentioned above oil has been hovering between $70 to $75 per barrel with no break in the foreseeable future.
It is time for the United States Congress and the Administration to quit crying over split and fractious policy and provide immediate funds for research and development of alternative energy projects desperately in need of funding. It is the "Truth" about our national security and our place in the world economy.
Print
Email
