Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
A wholly predictable energy crisis looms
But at least it might make the case for nuclear
Jeremy Warner, The Independent (UK)
Crisis, what crisis? The Government can hardly be blamed for the weather but it is responsible for the country’s energy policy. Having denied for months that we are in danger of running out of gas this winter, there is a sudden sense of panic in the Downing Street air now that the temperature has begun to drop.
Those who warned of trouble ahead, such as the CBI’s Sir Digby Jones, were accused of being scaremongers. Now we know that Tony Blair was sufficiently concerned to convene a secret meeting with industry representatives nine days ago to discuss just such an eventuality.
Ministers wanted to find out how much big industrial users could cut their consumption by in order to keep the home fires burning and, second, what impact the resulting decline in output would have on the economy. Consultants have now been hired to crunch the numbers.
The National Grid reckons that in the event of a Siberian-style winter, the like of which Britain experiences only once in every 50 years, industrial consumption would need to halve for the best part of two months. Even a one in ten type winter would require a 30 per cent reduction in demand for 40 days. The Met Office, for its part, reckons there is 65 per cent chance of a colder than average winter this year and a 35 per cent chance of it being a severe one. …
The prospect of a three-day week for industry will not warm the cockles of Mr Blair’s heart any more than the idea of householders running out of gas to fire their central heating systems. Whether we run out or not, still higher fuel bills are a certainty. If there is a small sliver of consolation for the Prime Minister, it is that an energy crisis this winter will make the case for new nuclear build unassailable.
(19 November 2005)
OPEC secy gen: $60 oil too high, but likes $40-$50
David Bird, Schlumberger
NEW YORK – Crude oil prices in the $60 range or higher are excessive and have been potentially damaging to the world economy, but OPEC will defend prices in the $40-$50 a barrel range, the group’s secretary general reportedly said.
In its Monday edition, Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, an industry newsletter, quotes Adnan Shihab-Eldin as saying the reasons for the price range above OPEC’s abandoned $22-$28 span are strengthening demand growth and the need for more investment in the industry than in the past.
(18 November 2005)
Natural gas depletion and what it will mean this winter
Jerome a Paris, Daily Kos
…In recent years, gas-fired power plants have been built in many countries, starting with the USa and the UK, on the basis of plentiful – and cheap (expectations were for 2-4$/mbtu gas prices) natural gas. Suddenly, gas is neither cheap, nor plentiful, and it’s going to be a painful experience – call it a grand rehearsal for peak oil…
(20 November 2005)
Brazil government pushes for Chinese backed dam
Larry Rohter, NY Times
PAQUIÇAMBA, Brazil – Here at the great bend of the mighty Xingu River, the
Brazilian government is pushing to construct a dam that could end up being
the world’s second-largest, generating huge amounts of hydroelectric power.
But the main beneficiaries of the project are not likely to be the Indian
tribes or other local residents, but instead a government halfway across
the world, in China.
To satisfy the appetite of a rapidly growing industrial base, state-owned
Chinese companies have begun involving themselves in mining projects in the
eastern Amazon, ranging from aluminum and steel to nickel and copper.
Processing each of those materials requires large amounts of electricity,
and the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, intent on forming what he
calls “a strategic alliance” with China, is eager to perform that task.
Meanwhile, the river dwellers whose lives will be disrupted by the dam
predict it will cause extensive environmental damage and encourage an
influx of poor settlers seeking jobs that will not exist. They also
complain that they will not receive the power they have long been demanding
of the government and will be forced to move.
(20 November 2005)
Row is all Bush’s fault, Chavez tells Mexico
Free-trade area can go to hell, he tells supporters
Greg Morsbach, The Guardian
Caracas – President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has sought to deflect a growing dispute with Mexico by blaming the US for sowing discord in Latin America.
Wearing a wide-brimmed Mexican sombrero, Mr Chavez told thousands of supporters at a weekend rally in Caracas that the row was not with the Mexican people but their pro-US president, Vicente Fox. Venezuela and Mexico downgraded their diplomatic relations last week in a dispute over Mexico’s support of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). …
The political rift between Venezuela and Mexico centres on fundamentally different visions for a free zone covering North and South America. Mr Fox is in favour of establishing a free trade area stretching from Alaska to Patagonia. Mr Chavez is pushing for the creation of a trade pact he calls the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas.
So far, only Cuba has signed up to his project , but Mr Chavez says he is confident the leaders of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay share his vision for such an agreement. …
(21 November 2005)
Profile of Bolivia’s Evo Morales
Che’s Second Coming?
David Rieff, NY Times Magazine
The Indian leader of a coca-growers’ movement wants to make Bolivia the next domino in Latin America’s revolt against globalization, neoliberalism and the Bush administration.
————
…How seriously to take Morales’s tough talk about drug “depenalization” and
nationalization of natural resources – oil, gas and the mines – is the
great question in Bolivian politics today.
…Bolivia has considerable oil reserves and, far more crucially, has the
second-largest proved reserves of natural gas in South America after
Venezuela – some 54 trillion cubic feet. Talk to ordinary Bolivians, and it
often seems as if their profound rage and despair over what is taking place
in their country is at least partly due to the gap between Bolivia’s
natural riches and the poverty of its people. “We shouldn’t be poor” is the
way Morales put it to me.
(1X November 2005)
Exxon and the World Bank developing enemies in Cameroon
Tansa Musa, Reuters via Planet Ark
KRIBI – Oil was meant to bring hope and money to this sleepy fishing town in Cameroon, but Kribi’s residents say they can barely make ends meet.
The terminus for a 1,070-km (665-mile) pipeline bringing oil from landlocked Chad to Cameroon, Kribi was full of expectations that wealth would trickle down from the $4 billion venture — one of Africa’s biggest infrastructure projects. Instead, Kribi’s fishermen say a reef was destroyed during the construction of an offshore facility three years ago and this has endangered their
livelihoods. Their complaints echo those heard from others living along the Doba pipeline route. “These people only cared about their pipeline and the money they will make from it, they cared little about us,” said Agathe Mbedi, who sells fish at Kribi’s market.
“They destroyed the rock that shielded the water in which fish used to breed. They promised to replace it, but have done nothing. Our men are earning less money, our children are out of school and we risk starving.” The World Bank, which funded the venture, helped set up what it calls unprecedented safeguards to manage earnings from the pipeline, which is operated by a US-led consortium and promised revenues of $500 million for Cameroon.
The venture, led by Exxon Mobil Corp., had been viewed by many rights activists as a test case of whether petrodollars can fight poverty in Africa instead of fuelling conflict and corruption. But criticism has been growing. Local rights campaigners say the new wealth is simply enriching foreign firms and political elites in one of the world’s poorest regions. …
(18 November 2005)
