Compare Natural Gas Prices Archives

Do you agree with me?

1. Kool-Aide is the best drink ever invented PERIOD end of story
2.Milwaukee's best + natural ice will always be the worst/cheapest beer
3.The lion king will always be sad….even as adults
4.If you drive through New Jersey you are bound to see at least 1 Arab working at a gas station or Dunkin Donuts note: AT LEAST 1
5.Bankers club will ALMOST ALWAYS give you a hang-over
6.The mall will always be over priced no matter how you look at it
7.Classic Rock will always exist and people will always love it…deal with it
8. People need to learn how to drive….you will say this AT LEAST once a day everyday….
9.Today's "comedy movies" just can't compare to the classics
10.Snow is NOT as fun as an adult as it was as a child….
11.Never buy a Chrysler…it will die 100% guaranteed
12. Happy Gilmore will always be a classic/hilarious movie
13.The parachute & dodge ball were the best part of gym class
14.There is no such thing as prince charming sorry ladies
15.No matter how hard you try…you just aren't going to win the lottery
16. Cops care more about underage drinking then they do about pot smoking
17. There will always be a rivalry in baseball between New York & Boston
18. Never bother a man while he's watching football…he will kill you
19. Men, you'll never get to watch football…at least in peace if your girlfriend/wife/ any women is there
20. Fast food will always exist and as you get older you will eat it more often
21. Pizza Hut is better then Domino's it's just a fact….

history…please help!?

Directions: Choose the letter of the best answer.
1 What was a direct effect of increased
food production during Europe’s
Agricultural Revolution?
A New markets opened.
B Overseas trade increased.
C The population increased.
D Excess food was wasted.
2 During the 1600s, Europe developed
a thriving economy based on
A barter.
B money.
C banking.
D factories.
3 A defining feature of Europe’s
Industrial Revolution was that many
commercial goods were
A purchased in overseas markets.
B manufactured in less developed
countries.
C sold without economic barriers such
as tariffs.
D made by machine rather than by
hand.
4 A geographic advantage of England
in the Industrial Revolution was its
A natural harbors.
B national bank.
C central location in Europe.
D central mountain range.
5 The “Black Country” of England was
known for its
A forest fires.
B smoke from coal.
C fast-flowing rivers.
D political stability.
6 What was one important power
source for factories in 18th-century
England?
A gas
B electricity
C oil
D water

Directions: Choose the letter of the best answer.
1 What impact did the steam engine
have on the growth of industry?
A permitted merchants to reach new
markets
B ended dependence on ocean transport
C reduced pollution compared with coal
D provided an efficient source of power
2 What technology did James Watt
improve?
A the steam engine
B cotton processing
C electric light
D the Bessemer process
3 Which process would be an example
of pasteurization?
A Milk is sterilized.
B Cotton fiber is separated.
C Coal is burned to make steam.
D Steel is made out of iron.
4 By the 1840s, England was connected
by a network of
A craft guilds.
B telephone lines.
C railroads.
D electric lines.
5 Which 20th-century invention is most
comparable to the telegraph in its
impact?
A television
B e-mail and the Internet
C airplanes
D the telephone
6 Which increased as a result of the
Industrial Revolution?
A prices for consumer goods
B dependence on the weather
C the speed of transactions
D isolation of commercial centers

Directions: Choose the letter of the best answer.
1 Which would have been a common
life change in England during the
Industrial Revolution?
A A farmer moves to an industrial area
to work in a coal mine.
B A coal miner works his way up
through the ranks to own the mine.
C A coal miner moves to the country to
run his own farm.
D A lawyer loses his business and is
forced to work in a coal mine.
2 In Great Britain, the Factory Act of
1819 declared it illegal for children
to work more than 12 hours a day.
What does the act suggest about
labor conditions at that time?
A Working conditions were worse in
Great Britain than in other nations.
B The government frequently
intervened on behalf of workers.
C Some children spent more than half of
each day working.
D Factories were unable to attract adult
employees.
3 In the 19th century, millions of
people seeking work migrated
A from Asia to Europe.
B from North America to Europe.
C from North America to Europe and
Asia.
D from Asia and Europe to North
America.
4 Which statement is true of social
class during the Industrial
Revolution?
A People could move freely from one
social class to another.
B Social classes became increasingly
divided.
C The very idea of social classes became
outdated.
D Europe was generally divided
between an upper class and a working
class.
5 Collective bargaining was a process
of negotiation between
A employers and workers.
B employers and the government.
C unions and the government.
D workers and unions.
6 In 1902, Pennsylvania coal miners
refused to work, returning to
their jobs only when guaranteed
a 10 percent pay increase and
reduction of hours. The miners’
action is an example of
A forming a union.
B free labor.
C a strike.
D a picket.

Directions: Choose the letter of the best answer.
Use the quotation to answer questions 1 and 2.
“They are the leaders on the way to
material progress. . . . They guess what
the consumers would like to have and
are intent on providing them with
these things.”
—from Human Action: A Treatise on
Economics, Ludwig von Mises
1 The quotation describes the role in
an industrial economy played by
A entrepreneurs.
B investors.
C labor.
D salespeople.
2 According to the quotation, what
skill is important to a business
leader?
A the ability to raise money
B an understanding of people’s needs
C fair leadership
D a love of material goods
3 What is the goal of industrial
production?
A employment for great numbers of
people
B efficient use of natural resources
C finding new sources of capital
D the manufacture of consumer goods
that can be sold
4 Which event in 19th-century England
most benefited its industrial economy?
A war against Russia
B the growth of democracy
C increased population growth
D a decline in agriculture
5 Which social

Help me revise my paper please?

Today, oil prices are skyrocketing due to the huge dependency. America has meager amounts of oil supply on its own land; hence we look to other countries for help. These countries can charge more than what it is actually worth, causing an uproar about price. With little help that we have day after day, we look for alternative energy as a way to stop our dependency on oil itself. Scientists believe that alternative energy is more reliable than decreasing oil supply; it is less harmful to our surrounding environment and just plain out better for America in the long run.
Oil isn’t only costly financially, it is also costing our environment. Today the world’s dependence on fossil fuels exacerbates air, soil, and water pollution (Roberts1). In addition, it is causing global climate change caused mainly by increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas. In present day there are numerous accounts of controversies concerning the issue of whether or not we should dig for oil on reserves. With alternative energy we will simply cut pollution, we can save the reserves and create energy in more effective ways. Oil, in years to come, will merely run out, causing complete chaos throughout the entire world. The world cannot continue to rely so heavily on fossil fuels without placing the global environment at risk. Acid rain and air pollution are two recognizable consequences of fossil fuel use (Brower1).An even greater threat is that global warming is taking its course. Whether or not one believes the most dire predictions by scientists of the magnitude and effects of global warming, the risks cannot be diminished without substitutes for fossil fuels (Bower1). Most of these energy technologies result in little or no pollution or hazardous waste, drawing entirely on domestic resources (Bower1). Alternative energy produces far less carbon dioxide and other GHGs(Green House Gases) than oil. Moreover it supports local agriculture creating more opportunities for the economy. (Roberts3) The wind will never stop blowing and the sun will never stop shining; therefore alternative, energy is a never ending source.
There are several different ways to produce alternative energy, thus mass amounts can be produced and there is always another option. The most common source of alternative energy is the wind tribune, which is extremely efficient at producing energy. Wind power could replace up to 20% of our total electric consumption in the foreseeable future (Blumenthal1). Wind is a clean source of energy with none of the harmful byproducts like carbon dioxide. Another common source of energy is solar energy. The sun is the single most powerful source of energy that is free and extremely efficient. It is said that capitalizing on this could be one of the best ways to reduce the demands for oil, and looking forward in the future, the solar power can be the primary source of energy by future man (Blumenthal1).Available solar power provides 100times more energy than all proven reserves of coal, oil and natural gas could generate. Not only are there just solar and wind there is hydroelectric energy, which can simply be produced by dams, tidal energy, which uses the natural waves of the ocean, lastly biomass, which can be produced by animal waste, agricultural crops, grains, wood, mill residues, forest and aquatics (Blumenthal1). Yes, wind tribunes can be obnoxious to ones view, solar power can solemnly be found in sunny areas, and damns are sparse, but in reality those complaints are pathetic compared to all the complaints about oil. Scientists are advancing in new ways to make these simple problems disappear by creating smaller wind tribunes that are just as effective and creating new ways to apply the solar power source and hydroelectric source as well. With the various types of energy sources to fall back on it is truly hard for one to say alternative energy isn’t reliable.
Currently the world relies heavily on the energy sources of coal, electricity, and carbon-containing substances such as fossil fuel. These elements, although found within the earth's ecosystem. are neither renewable nor found in abundance(Brower1). Fortunately, all alternative energy sources are renewable and found in abundance. Today, the worldwide energy demands total about 10,700,000 megawatts of power. It’s purely impossible to have such a huge demand with such a small amount of oil to supply that demand. Switching to alternative energy is extremely effective and has been done .A recent study published by the German Wind Energy Institute and the [the environmental campaigners] Greenpeace shows that Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark together have sufficient wind resources to generate more than three times the combined electric power needs of the five countries (Mayer100). Studies have shown these elements such as the sun, wind and water are in abundance and can generate a continual supply of energy, which will never run out or fall s

es esta pagina

link
http://notmilk.com/kradjian.html
The most important information dissemination my.

Not that, but I can make your text too long jajaja.

If I write bad is that I am leading a translator jaja

I have dreams and thoughts like these.

The littlest problem can be urine around toilet. Problems you face at home is bills and gas prices. Your neighbor's problems can be cheating on each other. neighborhood problems can be a neighborhood mom stuffing her infant in a microwave. City problems is crime and drugs on the streets . States can be corruption. Country problems is revolutions and economic trouble. World problems is not nuking each other, religious wars and natural disasters. All this on one planet compared to solar systems, galaxies, and the universe.

What I'm trying to say is from "a boy looking at a anthill with magnifying glass" perspective. Do things really matter?

SECUNDA, South Africa — Every day, conveyor belts haul about 120,000 metric tons of coal into an industrial complex here two hours east of Johannesburg.

The facility — resembling a nuclear power plant, with concrete silos looming over nearby potato farms — superheats the coal to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. It adds steam and oxygen, cranks up the pressure, and pushes the coal through a series of chemical reactions.

Then it spits out something extraordinary: 160,000 barrels of oil a day.

For decades, scientists have known how to convert coal into a liquid that can be refined into gasoline or diesel fuel. But everyone thought the process was too expensive to be practical.

The lone exception was South Africa, a one-time pariah state that had huge reserves of coal and, thanks to anti-apartheid sanctions, limited access to foreign oil. Sasol Ltd., a partly state-owned company, built several coal-to-liquids plants, including the ones at Secunda, and became the world's leading purveyor of coal-to-liquids technology.

Now, oil prices are above a barrel, and Sasol has emerged as the key player at the center of the world's latest alternative-energy boom.

China is building a coal-to-oil plant costing several billion dollars in Inner Mongolia and may add as many as 27 facilities — including some with Sasol's help — over the next several years, according to a recent tally by Credit Suisse.

In the U.S., the Defense Department is studying coal-to-oil technology as a way to reduce the American military's dependence on Middle Eastern crude oil. And the National Coal Council, an industry association, is pushing for government incentives to help generate some 2.6 million barrels of liquid fuel a day from coal by 2025. That would satisfy some 10 percent of America's expected oil demand that year. The plan would require 475 million tons of coal a year, which represents more than 40 percent of current annual U.S. production. Industry officials believe America's coal reserves are big enough to allow for the extra production.

Coal-to-liquids "is not going to replace oil," says Lean Strauss, a Sasol executive who directs the company's overseas energy business. "But it's an important substitute. It is one of the solutions to energy security."

In June, two senators from coal-producing states, Barack Obama of Illinois and Jim Bunning of Kentucky, introduced a bill to offer loan guarantees and tax incentives for U.S. coal-to-liquid plants.

Sasol has found a particularly receptive audience in Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, who says he carries a lump of coal and a vial of liquefied coal with him at all times. He is lobbying coal companies and others to build coal-to-liquid plants across his state, which has some of the biggest coal reserves in the U.S.

Current estimates indicate the world has just 41 years of known oil reserves and 65 years of natural-gas supplies. It has enough coal reserves to last an estimated 155 years, with some of the largest reserves in the two biggest oil-consuming countries, the U.S. and China.

It's far from clear, however, that the world would be better off — economically or environmentally — by burning more coal to fuel cars and trucks.

One problem is that coal-to-oil projects are extremely expensive. A single plant capable of producing about 80,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day — less than 0.5 percent of America's daily oil diet — would cost an estimated billion or more to build.

Energy analysts reckon that some coal-to-liquids projects can offer an acceptable return on investment when oil is priced as low as or a barrel, though such ventures might require government tax incentives to reduce operating costs. It seems likely that oil prices will stay above that level for a while, but the longer-term outlook is anyone's guess. An earlier flurry of interest in coal-to-oil facilities in the U.S. during the Carter administration in the late 1970s died after oil prices collapsed.

Coal-to-oil projects also pose serious environmental questions. When the South African facility superheats coal and turns it into a gas, one of the main waste products is carbon dioxide, thought to be a significant cause of global warming.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S.-based environmental advocacy group, estimates that the production and use of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and other fuels from crude oil release about 27.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon. The production and use of a gallon of liquid fuel originating in coal emit about 49.5 pounds of carbon dioxide, they estimate. Even some boosters of the coal-to-oil plants describe them as carbon-dioxide factories that produce energy on the side.

"Before deciding whether to invest scores — perhaps hundreds — of billions of dollars in a new industry like coal-to-liquids, we need a much more serious assessment of whether this is an industry that should proceed at all," said David Hawkins, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, at a recent U.S. Senate hearing.

Coal-to-oil is one of several promising but potentially polluting technologies that are receiving new attention amid high oil prices. Energy companies are trying to unlock natural gas trapped in shale and other difficult rock formations. They're also tapping oil-soaked sands in Canada and so-called heavy oils in politically challenging places such as Venezuela. Environmentalists fear these new sources will outshine conservation as the way to address the world's growing thirst for energy.

In South Africa, environmental groups say Sasol's facilities have emitted huge volumes of carbon dioxide and pollutants, including sulfur dioxide. They say these have caused a host of respiratory problems in nearby communities. Sasol says its emissions of these pollutants are small compared to emissions by other companies' coal-burning electricity plants in the region.

Sasol officials acknowledge their facilities emit greenhouse gases and that building more coal-to-liquids facilities around the world "could have potentially significant implications, in the long run, for our commitment to reducing carbon intensity," according to a recent company report on its social and environmental programs.

Sasol says it plans to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions per ton of product by 10 percent by 2015. Sasol and many other coal-to-oil proponents say that future coal-to-liquids plants can be built with newer technologies that trap carbon dioxide and store it, sharply reducing their emissions.

To many South Africans, Sasol is a huge success story. The company's daily production now meets about 30 percent of South Africa's transport-fuel needs. The country's 50-rand bank note even features a picture of one of Sasol's plants.

Sasol's share price has more than tripled over the past three years. Analysts estimate it earned about billion in the year ended June 30, about 35 percent higher than the year before — such a sharp rise that South African authorities are contemplating a "windfall tax" on the company.

Coal-to-oil technology dates back to the 1920s, when two German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, developed a process to convert coal into a gas and then use it to make synthetic fuels. Coal-to-oil technology helped fuel the Nazi war machine, which lacked access to sufficient crude oil. International oil companies also experimented with the process but put it aside because oil was cheaper.

South Africa took a different view. The country lacked oil, but had enormous deposits of coal, much of which had limited market value because of its poor quality. In 1950, the government set up Sasol as a state-owned company and authorized funding for its first project, a coal-to-liquids facility called Sasolburg in the South African countryside.

When oil prices soared in the 1970s, South African officials decided to up the ante. They lent Sasol billion to build two new facilities at Secunda — each 10 times as large as Sasolburg. The government also privatized the company, listing it on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in 1979. (The government maintains a 23.5 percent stake).

By the time the facilities were completed in the early 1980s, international oil prices were collapsing. The project was nonetheless a success for the white-dominated apartheid government because international sanctions were restricting South Africa's ability to buy foreign oil. The plants managed to stay profitable by continually boosting efficiency and expanding their end products to include plastics, fertilizers and explosives.

Besides the government loans, Sasol at various times received cash payments from the government when oil prices fell below a certain level. It eventually paid back the loans and stopped receiving subsidies for its coal-to-oil business by 2000.

Today, Secunda is a buzzing industrial hub with 16,000 employees, miles of interlocking pipes and cables, and eight colossal silos. The silos, each big enough to contain a football field, cool steam involved in the conversion process. Fuel trucks wait along the edge of the facility to fill up with gasoline. Nearby mines produce more than 40 million metric tons of coal a year — as much as all of Illinois.

Outside the plant gates, Secunda has a boomtown feel. It has some 35,000 people, a BMW dealership and a multistory casino hotel called Graceland designed to evoke the "grand old age of Colonial America."

A growing focus for Sasol is marketing its technology overseas. The company first tried to do so in the 1990s, after apartheid ended, but executives found doors slammed in their faces. Oil was trading for less than a barrel at the time. "We sat in corridors waiting for meetings that never happened because they didn't even know who Sasol was," recalls Pat Davies, Sasol's chief executive.

Sasol made its first inroads in countries such as Qatar that have big stockpiles of hard-to-transport natural gas. These countries were interested in Sasol's technology for turning natural gas into liquid fuel.

As oil prices began to perk up, Sasol drew interest on the coal front from China, with its big coal reserves and energy needs. In marketing materials produced for Chinese government officials and investors, Sasol offers a simple message: By 2015, 70 percent of China's oil imports will come from the Middle East. Yet the country has coal reserves equivalent to more than half the oil in the Middle East.

By 2004, Chinese energy planners began meeting with Sasol executives in Beijing to discuss the coal-to-oil process. That was followed by a series of meetings with policy makers and Chinese companies, capped by a gathering in Cape Town in June attended by visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

Coal-generated pollution is emerging as a major environmental crisis in China. Yet Chinese officials are apparently willing to accept more coal use if it means improving the country's energy security, especially if local companies can design facilities to use relatively clean-burning varieties of coal.

Shenhua Group, China's largest coal producer, has started work on China's first commercial coal-to-oil facility, designed eventually to produce as many as 200,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day. Although that plant uses a different process from Sasol's at Secunda, Shenhua officials are in negotiations with Sasol to jointly build at least one additional 80,000-barrel-a-day plant using the South African company's technique.

While Sasol would charge a fee for licensing its technology, its main interest is to share ownership in the facilities once they're built because it wants a share of the long-term profits. In China, Sasol is asking for a 50 percent equity stake in the projects. A Shenhua official says negotiations are going smoothly and the company hopes to begin construction soon.

In Montana, at least two companies, including the world's largest private-sector coal company, Peabody Energy Corp. of St. Louis, have said they are looking at potential coal-to-oil sites. Montana's Gov. Schweitzer says any excess carbon dioxide from a facility could be given to oil companies to be injected back into the ground to enhance recovery from old wells.

Bringing Sasol on board is critical, says Gov. Schweitzer. He says Wall Street banks want the South Africans to play a role because Sasol is the only company with a track record in the business. To woo Sasol executives, he says, he took them on a flight over Montana coal country last year.

"These are the guys everyone wants to take to the prom," Gov. Schweitzer says.

Sasol officials say they're interested in Montana and other potential sites in the U.S., provided they can find a suitable partner and receive tax or other incentives.

Coal-to-oil "is coming to the United States," Gov. Schweitzer proclaims. When it does, he says, other countries "will be scrambling to protect their oil supplies — and we'll be energy independent."

First published on August 17, 2006 at 12:00 am
Shai Oster in Beijing contributed to this article.
Sorry for long article. Simple fact is that the US has th largest reserve of coal in the world. Coal to Oil technology is a proven fact, used be Germany in WWII and more recently by South Africa during there period of Aparthide. This country needs long term options and this seems like a viable option. -5dollar galon gas may make people demand for solutions at a louder scream

SECUNDA, South Africa — Every day, conveyor belts haul about 120,000 metric tons of coal into an industrial complex here two hours east of Johannesburg.

The facility — resembling a nuclear power plant, with concrete silos looming over nearby potato farms — superheats the coal to more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. It adds steam and oxygen, cranks up the pressure, and pushes the coal through a series of chemical reactions.

Then it spits out something extraordinary: 160,000 barrels of oil a day.

For decades, scientists have known how to convert coal into a liquid that can be refined into gasoline or diesel fuel. But everyone thought the process was too expensive to be practical.

The lone exception was South Africa, a one-time pariah state that had huge reserves of coal and, thanks to anti-apartheid sanctions, limited access to foreign oil. Sasol Ltd., a partly state-owned company, built several coal-to-liquids plants, including the ones at Secunda, and became the world's leading purveyor of coal-to-liquids technology.

Now, oil prices are above a barrel, and Sasol has emerged as the key player at the center of the world's latest alternative-energy boom.

China is building a coal-to-oil plant costing several billion dollars in Inner Mongolia and may add as many as 27 facilities — including some with Sasol's help — over the next several years, according to a recent tally by Credit Suisse.

In the U.S., the Defense Department is studying coal-to-oil technology as a way to reduce the American military's dependence on Middle Eastern crude oil. And the National Coal Council, an industry association, is pushing for government incentives to help generate some 2.6 million barrels of liquid fuel a day from coal by 2025. That would satisfy some 10 percent of America's expected oil demand that year. The plan would require 475 million tons of coal a year, which represents more than 40 percent of current annual U.S. production. Industry officials believe America's coal reserves are big enough to allow for the extra production.

Coal-to-liquids "is not going to replace oil," says Lean Strauss, a Sasol executive who directs the company's overseas energy business. "But it's an important substitute. It is one of the solutions to energy security."

In June, two senators from coal-producing states, Barack Obama of Illinois and Jim Bunning of Kentucky, introduced a bill to offer loan guarantees and tax incentives for U.S. coal-to-liquid plants.

Sasol has found a particularly receptive audience in Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, who says he carries a lump of coal and a vial of liquefied coal with him at all times. He is lobbying coal companies and others to build coal-to-liquid plants across his state, which has some of the biggest coal reserves in the U.S.

Current estimates indicate the world has just 41 years of known oil reserves and 65 years of natural-gas supplies. It has enough coal reserves to last an estimated 155 years, with some of the largest reserves in the two biggest oil-consuming countries, the U.S. and China.

It's far from clear, however, that the world would be better off — economically or environmentally — by burning more coal to fuel cars and trucks.

One problem is that coal-to-oil projects are extremely expensive. A single plant capable of producing about 80,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day — less than 0.5 percent of America's daily oil diet — would cost an estimated billion or more to build.

Energy analysts reckon that some coal-to-liquids projects can offer an acceptable return on investment when oil is priced as low as or a barrel, though such ventures might require government tax incentives to reduce operating costs. It seems likely that oil prices will stay above that level for a while, but the longer-term outlook is anyone's guess. An earlier flurry of interest in coal-to-oil facilities in the U.S. during the Carter administration in the late 1970s died after oil prices collapsed.

Coal-to-oil projects also pose serious environmental questions. When the South African facility superheats coal and turns it into a gas, one of the main waste products is carbon dioxide, thought to be a significant cause of global warming.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S.-based environmental advocacy group, estimates that the production and use of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and other fuels from crude oil release about 27.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon. The production and use of a gallon of liquid fuel originating in coal emit about 49.5 pounds of carbon dioxide, they estimate. Even some boosters of the coal-to-oil plants describe them as carbon-dioxide factories that produce energy on the side.

"Before deciding whether to invest scores — perhaps hundreds — of billions of dollars in a new industry like coal-to-liquids, we need a much more serious assessment of whether this is an industry that should proceed at all," said David Hawkins, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, at a recent U.S. Senate hearing.

Coal-to-oil is one of several promising but potentially polluting technologies that are receiving new attention amid high oil prices. Energy companies are trying to unlock natural gas trapped in shale and other difficult rock formations. They're also tapping oil-soaked sands in Canada and so-called heavy oils in politically challenging places such as Venezuela. Environmentalists fear these new sources will outshine conservation as the way to address the world's growing thirst for energy.

In South Africa, environmental groups say Sasol's facilities have emitted huge volumes of carbon dioxide and pollutants, including sulfur dioxide. They say these have caused a host of respiratory problems in nearby communities. Sasol says its emissions of these pollutants are small compared to emissions by other companies' coal-burning electricity plants in the region.

Sasol officials acknowledge their facilities emit greenhouse gases and that building more coal-to-liquids facilities around the world "could have potentially significant implications, in the long run, for our commitment to reducing carbon intensity," according to a recent company report on its social and environmental programs.

Sasol says it plans to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions per ton of product by 10 percent by 2015. Sasol and many other coal-to-oil proponents say that future coal-to-liquids plants can be built with newer technologies that trap carbon dioxide and store it, sharply reducing their emissions.

To many South Africans, Sasol is a huge success story. The company's daily production now meets about 30 percent of South Africa's transport-fuel needs. The country's 50-rand bank note even features a picture of one of Sasol's plants.

Sasol's share price has more than tripled over the past three years. Analysts estimate it earned about billion in the year ended June 30, about 35 percent higher than the year before — such a sharp rise that South African authorities are contemplating a "windfall tax" on the company.

Coal-to-oil technology dates back to the 1920s, when two German chemists, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, developed a process to convert coal into a gas and then use it to make synthetic fuels. Coal-to-oil technology helped fuel the Nazi war machine, which lacked access to sufficient crude oil. International oil companies also experimented with the process but put it aside because oil was cheaper.

South Africa took a different view. The country lacked oil, but had enormous deposits of coal, much of which had limited market value because of its poor quality. In 1950, the government set up Sasol as a state-owned company and authorized funding for its first project, a coal-to-liquids facility called Sasolburg in the South African countryside.

When oil prices soared in the 1970s, South African officials decided to up the ante. They lent Sasol billion to build two new facilities at Secunda — each 10 times as large as Sasolburg. The government also privatized the company, listing it on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange in 1979. (The government maintains a 23.5 percent stake).

By the time the facilities were completed in the early 1980s, international oil prices were collapsing. The project was nonetheless a success for the white-dominated apartheid government because international sanctions were restricting South Africa's ability to buy foreign oil. The plants managed to stay profitable by continually boosting efficiency and expanding their end products to include plastics, fertilizers and explosives.

Besides the government loans, Sasol at various times received cash payments from the government when oil prices fell below a certain level. It eventually paid back the loans and stopped receiving subsidies for its coal-to-oil business by 2000.

Today, Secunda is a buzzing industrial hub with 16,000 employees, miles of interlocking pipes and cables, and eight colossal silos. The silos, each big enough to contain a football field, cool steam involved in the conversion process. Fuel trucks wait along the edge of the facility to fill up with gasoline. Nearby mines produce more than 40 million metric tons of coal a year — as much as all of Illinois.

Outside the plant gates, Secunda has a boomtown feel. It has some 35,000 people, a BMW dealership and a multistory casino hotel called Graceland designed to evoke the "grand old age of Colonial America."

A growing focus for Sasol is marketing its technology overseas. The company first tried to do so in the 1990s, after apartheid ended, but executives found doors slammed in their faces. Oil was trading for less than a barrel at the time. "We sat in corridors waiting for meetings that never happened because they didn't even know who Sasol was," recalls Pat Davies, Sasol's chief executive.

Sasol made its first inroads in countries such as Qatar that have big stockpiles of hard-to-transport natural gas. These countries were interested in Sasol's technology for turning natural gas into liquid fuel.

As oil prices began to perk up, Sasol drew interest on the coal front from China, with its big coal reserves and energy needs. In marketing materials produced for Chinese government officials and investors, Sasol offers a simple message: By 2015, 70 percent of China's oil imports will come from the Middle East. Yet the country has coal reserves equivalent to more than half the oil in the Middle East.

By 2004, Chinese energy planners began meeting with Sasol executives in Beijing to discuss the coal-to-oil process. That was followed by a series of meetings with policy makers and Chinese companies, capped by a gathering in Cape Town in June attended by visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

Coal-generated pollution is emerging as a major environmental crisis in China. Yet Chinese officials are apparently willing to accept more coal use if it means improving the country's energy security, especially if local companies can design facilities to use relatively clean-burning varieties of coal.

Shenhua Group, China's largest coal producer, has started work on China's first commercial coal-to-oil facility, designed eventually to produce as many as 200,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day. Although that plant uses a different process from Sasol's at Secunda, Shenhua officials are in negotiations with Sasol to jointly build at least one additional 80,000-barrel-a-day plant using the South African company's technique.

While Sasol would charge a fee for licensing its technology, its main interest is to share ownership in the facilities once they're built because it wants a share of the long-term profits. In China, Sasol is asking for a 50 percent equity stake in the projects. A Shenhua official says negotiations are going smoothly and the company hopes to begin construction soon.

In Montana, at least two companies, including the world's largest private-sector coal company, Peabody Energy Corp. of St. Louis, have said they are looking at potential coal-to-oil sites. Montana's Gov. Schweitzer says any excess carbon dioxide from a facility could be given to oil companies to be injected back into the ground to enhance recovery from old wells.

Bringing Sasol on board is critical, says Gov. Schweitzer. He says Wall Street banks want the South Africans to play a role because Sasol is the only company with a track record in the business. To woo Sasol executives, he says, he took them on a flight over Montana coal country last year.

"These are the guys everyone wants to take to the prom," Gov. Schweitzer says.

Sasol officials say they're interested in Montana and other potential sites in the U.S., provided they can find a suitable partner and receive tax or other incentives.

Coal-to-oil "is coming to the United States," Gov. Schweitzer proclaims. When it does, he says, other countries "will be scrambling to protect their oil supplies — and we'll be energy independent."

First published on August 17, 2006 at 12:00 am
Shai Oster in Beijing contributed to this article.

How do I compare India and America..?

Now that I came to America, it's very natural for me to ponder over differences between India and America.. in terms of simple day to day stuff like:

Are telephones cheaper in India or America?
Is driving cheaper in India or America (i.e. gas prices)
etc

How do I do it?

I mean, one immediate problem I face is difference in currency (approx ratio of 40) and another is difference in earning i.e. if I convert everything in INR, then you earn more in America, so cost of something should be seen as a fraction of how much you earn..

Any insights/perspectives are most welcome…
Examples?

Thanks

Evidently, Nancy Pelosi does not believe the Natural Gas is a Fossil Fuel.

Over the weekend, Pelosi has this to say in an interview with Tom Brokaw about the energy situation.

PELOSI: You could reduce the price at the pump immediately with (inaudible). You can have a transition with natural gas. That is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels.

Could I get some help please?

The Kansas City Star on February 16, 2007 reported on the lowering prices of natural gas. With lower natural gas prices and unseasonably warm weather early this winter the forecast is that gas-heating customers will pay 0 as compared to ,159 last year. At Kansas Gas Service, last year, the price of 1,000 cubic feet of gas was .45; this has been reduced by 15.7108 percent. (Round your answers to 2 decimal places. Omit the “$” & “%” signs in your response.)

Required:

(a)

What percent was the decrease for customer’s bills?

Percentage of decrease

____________

%

(b)

What was the amount of decreased charge for 1,000 cubic feet of gas?

Decrease charge

$

____________

(c)

What is the new price for 1,000 cubic feet?

New price

$

____________

If you can help, please respond. Thank you so much.

 Page 2 of 4 « 1  2  3  4 »