The ABC’s “7:30 Report” last night had a look at the large amount of optimism that many people have regarding Australia’s natural gas reserves - “As world oil prices skyrocket, experts warn Australia must find an alternative source of fuel. Some argue a cheaper, greener solution is right under the nation’s nose: natural gas.”

Both the APPEA and new Energy Minister Martin Ferguson have been arguing this for some time - though its far from clear how long we can continue to expand LNG exports, expand gas fired power generation (as part of the APPEA’s “transition to lower carbon emissions” strategy), contemplate building GTL plants and use CNG for most or all of our transport as suggested in this report (not to mention supplying the usual industrial and domestic uses of gas) especially when one major potential source of supply (from PNG via the now abandoned pipeline project) has been removed from the equation.
[break]

KERRY O’BRIEN: The recent prediction by the head of Caltex Australia that the price of oil may very well double the already record highs for crude, have only heightened concerns about the security of Australia’s future fuel supplies. The Federal Government, for instance, has launched a national energy security assessment.

As oil production in Australian fields declines, the Government has also sought and won approval under the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea, to expand its search for oil offshore by an area equivalent to five times the size of France.

But Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson agrees that unless there is soon a “eureka oil strike”, Australia must find a new fuel alternative with sufficient reserves to power a vast and vital national car and transport fleet. But there are those who say there’s an obvious solution to the fuel crisis right under our collective nose, a solution that could cut fuel bills by up to 60 per cent. …

NOEL CHILD, TRANSPORT CONSULTANT: At the moment we’re a bit like a bus heading towards the edge of the cliff. Crude oil is going to become short in supply and it’s going to become progressively expensive.

MARTIN FERGUSON, FEDERAL ENERGY & RESOURCES MINISTER: Time is not on our side.

JOHN MIKOLAJUNAS, OES NATURAL GAS: The Government and governments all around the world are scrambling to find alternatives to petroleum products.

GREG HOY: They’re selling off Australian gas by the ship load. Sixteen million tonnes this year, gas ships loaded with liquid natural gas, gas chilled to liquid minus 161 degrees Celsius to reduce its volume to one 600th of its original 84 billion litres in bulk. 2,200 gas ships have already left our shores in long-term, wholesale supply contracts with China, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Spain and the United States, nations scrambling to secure their energy supplies for decades to come.

BELINDA ROBINSON, AUSTRALIAN PATROLEUM PRODUCTION & EXPLORATION ASSOCIATION: It provides an energy source for a world screaming out for energy. There’s no doubt there’s a tightness in the supply of energy, particularly to meet the tigers of India and China. But secondly there’s also an enormous appetite for cleaner energy, so natural gas has around half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal fired electricity.

GREG HOY: But with global demand for natural gas expected to double in the next five years, some are left wondering if Australia is missing its own boat.

OLLIE CLARK, NATURAL GAS VEHICLE ASSOCIATION: The thing that strikes me as being rather quaint, to put it mildly, is that we pay anywhere from about $8 billion to $25 billion to import the oil and we get a paltry $4 billion for the gas that we sell to overseas countries. It seems odd to me, especially given gas is a superior fuel for many, many purposes including the use in motor vehicles.

JOHN MIKOLAJUNAS: There’s massive reserves of natural gas that are not being used and that’s why we’re selling them off to China at such low prices. We should be making use of this fuel ourselves locally because if we don’t, we’re going to be paying for petroleum products. Natural gas can represent a saving of up to about 60 per cent on what you’re paying for petrol and that includes diesel and LPG as well. …

NOEL CHILD: Governments need to look at the issue of where our future transport energy is coming from and take the step, which is a little unpopular in terms of modern economics particularly, of setting some targets and perhaps some mandates otherwise the default position I think is just to continue on the same pathway until the bus does hit the wall.

GREG HOY: The Australian Government is about to embark on an energy security assessment.

MARTIN FERGUSON: With only about a decade of known oil resources remaining at today’s production rates, Australia’s looking down the barrel of a $25 billion trade deficit in petroleum products by 2015.

GREG HOY: There are other strong reasons, supporters say, Australia should go for gas, not just for generating power with greenhouse efficiency, but to fuel the vast motor vehicle fleet of a sprawling nation, using compressed natural gas, half the price and less polluting than LPG, liquid petroleum gas, a by product of the oil industry.

OLLIE CLARK: Globally there are about 800 million vehicles on the roads of the world and there’s about 8 million natural gas vehicles that you pull up at a garage as if you were refuelling with petrol or diesel or LPG and you plug into your car into the natural gas supply and it’s full in a couple of minutes just like it is with the other fuels.

GREG HOY: Australia has abundant reserves of gas, enough to last around a century and a half but there is one far greater attraction for motorists who have grown tired of being battered by rising fuel prices.

JOHN MIKOLAJUNAS: You’d be looking at around 40 cents per litre covering all costs including compression of the gas.

Of course, even if you can produce CNG for 40 cents per litre, in the absence of any government regulation you’ll still end up paying a price that is driven by global oil and gas prices.

Also at the ABC, an opinion column that has a cynical view of the 2020 summit and its recommendations regarding energy - Solar? Wind? Forget it, we’re goin’ to gas!.

If what the Government believes to be appropriate policies can be blessed with the appearance of popular legitimacy then the risk of not being re-elected is minimised. A disturbing account by Anna Rose, one well-motivated young participant who was plonked into the sustainability and climate change sector, certainly supports that impression.

But even though Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter, I’m not sure that the clean coal lobby is the Government’s favourite child. Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson was interviewed by Kerry O’Brien about renewable energy two weeks ago. After several repetitions of an exasperatingly formularised answer about carbon trading schemes, he let slip, “I might also say, you shouldn’t forget a relatively clean source of energy, that is gas.” A pointer towards the real agenda?

I went “sniffing for gas” and turned up Mr Ferguson telling a recent Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference that the Government wants to encourage more domestic gas projects like the Reindeer development off the WA coast, that the Government is pushing ahead with its review of gas retention leases to encourage companies to exploit their existing reserves, that Australia is facing a $25 billion trade deficit in petroleum products within seven years and that the Government has announced 35 new areas for petroleum exploration in Commonwealth waters this year, most of them in Australia’s north west. We are already the world’s fifth largest gas exporter, but the thrust of that seems to be “Find more, pump it out and get it sold, ASAP!” So what if it kills the planet, and us along with it?

Mr Ferguson’s focus on the trade deficit in petroleum products (his seven-year estimate may have to be revised now that oil hits a “record high” nearly every day) seems a little odd when we have countervailing trade surpluses in coal and gas, and when the trade deficit in petroleum products is a drop in the bucket compared to what has happened to our net foreign debt.

But not if you’re pumping for gas. …

Mr. or Madam President,

Vice President Dick Cheney once famously quipped “The American way of life is non-negotiable.” I submit that while our next president might not be so brash in stating this, the root of our energy problems can be traced to this attitude. But, nature doesn’t negotiate. It doesn’t appear that any of the remaining presidential candidates understand the basis of the problems we face: Oil is a depleting, finite resource - albeit one crucial for the “American way of life.”

Because this resource is so crucial - and obviously not just for Americans - depletion is going to drive prices up as consumers bid for dwindling supplies. Threatening to sue OPEC isn’t going to change that. Threatening to tax Big Oil into submission isn’t going to change that. Mandating that we will invent new technologies to meet a greatly increased Renewable Fuel Standard isn’t going to change that. These are the sorts of proposals that merely demonstrate that your grasp of the problem is superficial. And you have to understand the problem in order to begin addressing it. [break]

Shouldn’t we also consider what happens when our “non-negotiable” way of life impacts the way of life for others worldwide? What if the Saudis also consider their way of life non-negotiable? Is suing them supposed to force them to negotiate? What about the person in Kenya whose way of life is eased by the very small amount of oil they consume? Shall we negotiate with that person, or just not invite them to the table while we price them out of the market?

Let’s first consider common ground that you and I may have. I presume we would agree that our dependence on oil is not healthy. It puts the economy in a very vulnerable position. It helps to enrich some countries that are hostile to us. It increases carbon dioxide emissions. I think this reflects the positions of all remaining candidates, and is consistent with my own position.

Now let’s consider a position on which apparently differ sharply: Gas prices must come down. While I understand the position of the average American that we are paying too much for gasoline - what impact do you think price has on demand? Higher prices will eventually spur conservation and encourage alternatives - which helps achieve the objectives of lowering our dependence by lowering our usage. Isn’t this what you want? Instead, all three candidates propose measures to bring down gasoline prices - thus encouraging consumption. Can’t you see the inconsistency in your position?

This is the time to show political leadership. The pandering sickens me. So what if the average person thinks we are paying too much for gas? The average person also voted for your predecessor - so let’s not presume that we must bow to the wishes of the average person. I offer the following unsolicited advice for dealing with this problem. This is how I would address Americans on this subject:

My Fellow Americans,

Spiraling gasoline prices are having a negative impact on the overall economy. Recent polls have shown that high energy prices are one of the biggest concerns of the American public. However, I have to be bluntly honest: There are no easy solutions. The situation we find ourselves in is a result of many years of policies that are short-sighted and have essentially ignored the long-term consequences of a dependence on fossil fuels - which in turn translates into a dependence on crude oil imports. One administration after another has paid lip service to energy independence, and yet our dependence has risen during each administration since Nixon. We are obviously doing something wrong. I believe I know what it is.

We have failed to truly understand why we have a problem. We have failed to understand why we are addicted to oil. We have failed to appreciate the nature of oil, and why it is so difficult to replace it with low energy density biomass. The truth of the matter is that we are addicted to oil because of the unparalleled conveniences it provides us. We sought painless solutions to our addiction. But if breaking an addiction was easy, we wouldn’t be addicted.

I don’t believe it serves a useful purpose to continue promising easy solutions. On the other hand, a big part of the reason that you find yourselves in this vulnerable position is because of the previous hollow promises that were made. So I propose the following measures to begin the process of breaking our oil addiction:

1. We must improve the fuel efficiency of our automotive fleet. It is an embarrassment. Here again, we have sought the easy solution: Just increase CAFE standards. Most people view this as a relatively painless solution. They think that instead of their Ford Expedition getting 14 mpg, the automotive industry has tricks up their sleeves that can push it to 24 mpg. All that is required is a bit of legislation, which doesn’t affect me, the consumer. But that’s not the way it works. To achieve 24 mpg, we are going to require a fundamental change in the SUV mindset.

We have fuel efficient vehicles available now, we just need to convince people to buy them. I propose to offer rebates ranging from $500 to $2000 for vehicles that achieve high fuel efficiency. I propose to penalize vehicles that achieve low fuel efficiency. I propose to phase these changes in over the next 3 years.

2. Continuing with theme of the first proposal, we need to find other ways to reduce our fuel consumption. Europe provides a useful guide here, as the average per capita energy consumption in Europe is half that of the U.S. How do they achieve this?

Primarily, they have achieved this by making fuel very expensive. Because I don’t think it would be fair to penalize you as a result of the decisions made by previous administrations, I propose to make this proposal revenue neutral. The goal here is not to collect more taxes; it is to encourage behaviors that reduce fuel consumption. So here is the specific proposal.

The average American consumes 1,000 gallons of gasoline a year. I propose to increase the federal gasoline tax by $0.20/gallon this year, $0.30/gallon next year, and then $0.50/gallon in each of the two following years. The total tax increase I am proposing is $2.00/gallon. This would still put gasoline prices at less than they are in Europe, but by having a clear understanding that gasoline prices won’t be going down, this will encourage conservation measures.

In order to offset the burden of these higher taxes, I propose a tax credit equivalent to the increased tax burden for the average American. This is equivalent to $200 in the first year of the tax. Those who use less gasoline than the average will actually see their overall tax burden go down. Those who consume more than 1,000 gallons per year will see an overall increase in their tax burden - and will therefore have a strong incentive to reduce their fuel consumption. For those whose fuel usage is for business use, the fuel taxes can be deducted against your business income.

3. Solutions will be required on the supply side as well. However, too many “solutions” to date rely heavily on fossil fuels, which is the very problem we are trying to mitigate. Therefore, I am appointing an independent panel of experts across multiple disciplines - environmental, energy, agriculture - to evaluate various sources for 1). Reliance on fossil fuels; and 2). Negative side effects. There will be specifically defined criteria that alternative sources must meet in order to qualify for tax breaks. For example, energy “producers” - fossil and alternative - will pay a surcharge on the fossil fuel inputs they use to run their operations. This will encourage a move away from the use of fossil fuels to produce “renewable” energy.

4. In order to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels for heating and electricity, I propose to extend tax credits for installation of solar systems, especially those for solar water heating. Tax credits for installation of wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, and various other qualifying energy sources will be extended for 10 years.

5. From my viewpoint, we need to move to a future in which electricity drives our transport systems. The electricity would be derived initially from existing sources like coal and nuclear power, but increasingly from solar, wind, and various other renewable sources. Improved battery technology and energy storage technologies are the key enabling technologies required. Therefore, I am proposing to significantly increase the funding and resources devoted to these technologies. Cash awards will also be available to inventors meeting certain key milestones - as inspired by the Automotive X PRIZE.

These five proposals are merely a start. I understand that for some of you, these changes will be painful. But the pain is coming regardless; I am just proposing to manage it in a more effective and predictable manner. For too long, we have been too passive in managing our oil addiction. The time has come for more aggressive measures.

Such proposals would not be without harsh critics, and would require strong leadership to push them through. Special interests will line up to protect their pocketbooks. Short-sighted politicians will try to protect a few at the expense of many. Will you be the president who takes a stand, tells the hard truth about our energy predicament, and pushes through measures that secure a brighter future for our children? Or will you be like the long succession of presidents who have made hollow promises and offered false solutions - only to see our dependence worsen?

Addiction can be a difficult thing to beat. But make no mistake: The path we have been traveling down is unsustainable, and the bills are starting to come due. If we don’t start paying them now, we will put an enormous burden on our children.

Oil and states don’t mix

Prospective presidential rivals Hillary Clinton and John McCain want to scrap the U.S. federal gasoline tax this summer to help U.S. drivers (Barack Obama doesn’t). Ms. Clinton also wants a windfall tax on Big Oil (a suggestion that will receive a boost when those companies shortly announce further “obscene” profits). Recently, Stephen Harper declared that he might play the “oil card” if Messrs. Clinton and Obama reopen NAFTA. In Moscow, Caracas and Tehran, authoritarian leaders are using oil as a prop or a threat. In a dozen countries, from Iraq to Nigeria, oil is fuelling civil strife.

[break]

Déjà Vu: The Fed’s Interest Rate Dilemma

The good news is we’ve been here before, and we know – well, at least 1980s Fed Chairman Paul Volcker knows – how to get out of this mess. Loose money in the 1960s and 1970s drove up the price of everything. A barrel of oil, which sold for $2.92 in 1965, rose to $40 in 1980. Most people believed that rising commodity prices indicated that the world was running out of resources. The Club of Rome predicted global ruin, and then President Jimmy Carter said that “peak oil” was right around the corner.

Gasoline costs force service firms to raise prices

Small companies such as pet sitters and housecleaners are finding it necessary to pass on some of the rising expense to customers as well as to cut back on driving.

Threat of fuel protests returns as cost of petrol hits £5 a gallon

Ministers are preparing for a fresh confrontation with the road haulage industry as the £5 gallon of petrol became a reality at the pumps yesterday.

Fuel protests returned as hauliers demanded help from oil companies and the Treasury, which is raking in huge surpluses from record petrol prices. The cost of filling an average car could reach £84 next year, one consumer body will say today. Air passengers are also being hit as British Airways announced that it was slapping new fuel surcharges on all tickets from Friday to offset the escalating cost of fuel. Long-haul passengers can expect an extra £30 surcharge.

Flying into trouble

The sky-high cost of fuel means that airlines are going out of business - sooner than environmentalists predicted. What does it mean?

British Airways is big loser as public stay grounded

Nearly half the British public have vowed to fly less in the coming year to help the environment, according to a new survey that will alarm airlines struggling with record fuel prices and the fallout from the credit crunch.

An exclusive poll for The Times shows that 46 per cent of consumers have pledged to cut air travel while 23per cent will fly only with those airlines that have a clear green strategy.

Hurrah! Oil profits are up

Hurrah for big oil profits. Seven million dollars an hour for BP and Shell, as the cost of jet kerosene bankrupts airlines and dear diesel puts up the price of just about everything from corn flakes to cucumbers. The cheer is not ironic; we should celebrate these gazillion- dollar profits because our world is now in deep trouble and without the grotesquely inflated earnings of the oil multinationals, we should be even deeper in the mire.

We will never have cheap oil again

When this wave of higher oil prices subsides, is it going to be business as usual? After the oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1980s, the oil price came back down and we went pretty much back to our bad old ways.

But this time it feels different.

ExxonMobil row masks true green dilemma

Yet underlying the protest from the trust fund Rockers is a big problem for oil companies - their ever-increasing reliance on the support of governments and regulators.

Exxon’s riposte to the climate change and peak oil lobbies is that technology rather than regulation will provide answers to our energy problems.

It is a disingenuous argument because the energy industry is at the governments’ knees begging for help - big dollops of taxpayer cash to build experimental power stations.

Pickens sends landowners letters

A select number of property owners from Childress to Jacksboro learned this week that T. Boone Pickens would like to do a little business with them.

The man who has made billions in gas, oil and hedge funds has an ambitious plan to build a combination water pipeline and electric transmission line from Roberts County in the Panhandle to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Landowners along the proposed route got notification that Pickens’ company is interested in buying right-of-way from them — or seizing it through the law of eminent domain.

The Politics of Gas Prices: Comprehensive Energy Policy Needed

Nothing sheds light on the state of US politics more so than do high gasoline prices. So far, McCain and Clinton both come out in favor of a “gas tax holiday”, although one must give McCain his due as the originator of this brainstorm. Clinton goes further and wants to enact windfall profit taxes on big oil. Both are big big mistakes. Obama, to his credit, has so far not joined in the populist rhetoric that Americans seem to just eat up like apple pie. However, Obama has still not taken me up on my offer to fly (at my own expense) to any place of his choosing for an hour presentation on peak oil so he can craft a real energy policy.

OPEC might hold extraordinary meeting over prices: Kuwait

KUWAIT - OPEC might hold an extraordinary meeting over skyrocketing oil prices, Kuwaiti Oil Minister Mohammad al-Olaim said on Wednesday.

“If there is any requirement for a meeting, we will not hesitate to meet,” Olaim said.

Indonesia may tender to sell crude oil

JAKARTA, April 30 (Reuters) - Indonesia may tender to sell crude oil that is piling up in storage in many production areas either because of bad weather or lack of tankers, energy watchdog officials said on Wednesday.

BPMIGAS marketing chief Budi Indianto told Reuters the total amount was estimated at around 13 million barrels and was spread across various locations in the sprawling archipelago.

Players turns on North Sea taps

Operators in the UK North Sea have started turning the taps back on from North Sea fields after the restart of the Forties pipeline and expect to reach full rates later today.

Mekong nations to form OPEC-style rice cartel - Thai PM

BANGKOK (Thomson Financial) - Thailand has agreed in principle to form a rice price-fixing cartel with Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia as costs of the staple grain surge, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej said on Wednesday.

The grouping of Mekong nations would be similar to the oil cartel OPEC, and would be called the Organisation of Rice Exporting Countries (OREC).

Environmental activist delivers impassioned plea at Caribbean tourism conference

According to Suzuki, “Island people, better than most, understand limits, and that resources are finite. Looming ahead for the entire world is the great crisis of our economy, peak oil, the moment when available oil supplies are all known and being exploited so that supplies will inexorably fall.

“The twin crises of ecological degradation and falling oil supplies will have massive repercussions for all countries, but none more so than those of the Caribbean and especially the tourism industry” said Suzuki.

Global warming expert raises concerns for tourism industry

BANGKOK (AFP) - Nobel Peace Prize recipient Rajendra Pachauri Tuesday warned tourism industry chiefs they need to reduce their impact on climate change as consumers become more environmentally aware.

“The tourism industry, for its own sake, will have to adapt,” Pachauri said to more than 200 Asia Pacific airline, hotel and tourist company chief executives at a conference on tourism and climate change.

Drink wine and save Mother Earth

OSLO (AFP) - Norwegians will soon be able to help save the planet from global warming by savouring a glass of Bordeaux, a wine importer said on Tuesday.

For every bag-in-box of Chateau Le Cluzeau 2006 sold in Norway the importer Bevco will buy carbon credits compensating for 18 kilograms of carbon dioxide.

That is almost six times the estimated amount of CO2 emitted in the production and transport of one bag-in-box.

OECD ministers plead for environment despite economic concerns

PARIS (AFP) - OECD environment ministers on Tuesday stood by efforts to tackle climate change, despite arguments in some quarters that at a time of economic uncertainty, spending on green issues could damage competitiveness.

Judge orders federal government to decide polar bear listing

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A federal judge has ordered the Interior Department to decide within 16 days whether polar bears should be listed as a threatened species because of global warming.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken agreed with conservation groups that the department missed a Jan. 9 deadline for a decision. She rejected a government request for a further delay and ordered it to act by May 15.

Higher energy costs from climate bills

WASHINGTON - People will be paying higher energy prices under a Senate bill to limit greenhouse gases, but how much will depend on how well the country can shift away from burning fossil fuels, an Energy Department analysis said Tuesday.

The Energy Information Administration said annual energy costs could increase on average of as little as $30 or as much as 10 times that much by 2020. The projected cost increases per household ranged from $76 a year more to as much as $723 a year more by 2030.

SUNRGI has released details about its new patent pending solar system that could make it possible to produce electricity at a wholesale cost of US $0.05 per kWh (kilowatt hour), according to the company. Xtreme Concentrated Photovoltaics (XCPV), can concentrate the equivalent of more than 1,600 times the sun’s energy onto solar cells.

Day4 Energy Inc. announced that it has supplied solar modules to Mitsui & Co, Ltd. for an installation sponsored by the Japanese Government’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO). The NEDO project has included the Day4 48MC modules among twenty-six other module types in its evaluation of the positive and stabilizing impact that large-scale photovoltaic (PV) systems can have on the regional utility grid.