Comment: US coal reserves, as opposed to coal resources, are suddenly not looking as rosy as is often portrayed. Indeed, a look at the National Academy of Sciences report, item 1b, would hint the situation is potentially dire looking a few decades ahead, although that is not the general impression given.

Article: The United States may not have nearly as much coal as is popularly believed, and mining the remaining resources may be more dangerous for workers and the environment than current operations, the National Academy of Sciences said in a report Wednesday.

With domestic production of oil, gas and uranium far below peaks, coal has been promoted by elected officials and energy experts as the only bright spot in the national fuel supply picture. But as Congress considers billions of dollars in aid for projects to make gasoline and diesel substitutes from coal, and to build coal-fired plants that would capture their own carbon emissions, the study said that estimates of coal reserves were unreliable.

“There is probably sufficient coal to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of consumption,” the study said. “However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply of coal for the next 250 years.”

The 250-year estimate was made in the 1970s and was based on the assumption that 25 percent of the coal that had been located was recoverable with current technology and at current prices, said one member of the study group, Edward S. Rubin, a professor of environmental engineering and science at Carnegie Mellon University.

But he said that more recent studies by the United States Geological Survey showed that at least in some areas, only 5 percent of the coal was recoverable with today’s technology and at current prices. The 100-year forecast was based on current consumption rates, about 1.1 billion tons a year. By 2030, the rate of coal consumption could be 70 percent higher or 50 percent lower than it is now, the study found...

1b/ Major Boost Needed in Federal Support for Coal R&D ([US] National Academy of Sciences, Wed 20 Jun)

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20070620.html

Comment: This is the report referred to in item 1a above. The full report costs $US36-42.3, depending on version, but the crux of the report is available free, in the Report Brief (PDF, 2.46 Mb, 4 pages). This is the fourth report in as many months suggesting global coal reserves may be considerably less than commonly believed, except that this report suggests taking up to 10 years to determine an accurate estimate of US coal reserves. The research is being done by the USGS and EIA, both of which have a track record of over-estimating oil reserves or future oil production rates. Fortunately, there are academics doing the research now. Note also that the report questions the myth of enough coal for 250 years, indeed, is certain there is enough coal only to 2030, and that is at current rates of production.

Article: From page 2 of the Report Brief (emphasis in bold ODAC’s):

Accurate and comprehensive estimates of national coal reserves are essential for a coherent national energy strategy, particularly for community, workforce, and infrastructure planning. Although the United States is endowed with a vast amount of coal, coal reserves (i.e., the coal that can be economically mined using current mining practices) are a small proportion of total coal resources.

Present estimates of coal reserves— which take into account location, quality, recoverability, and transportation issues—are based upon methods that have not been updated since their inception in 1974, and much of the input data were compiled in the early 1970s. Recent programs to assess coal recoverability in limited areas using updated methods indicate that only a small fraction of previously estimated reserves are actually recoverable. Such findings emphasize the need for a reinvigorated coal reserve assessment program using modern methods and technologies.

A coordinated federal-state-industry initiative to determine the magnitude and characteristics of the nation’s recoverable coal reserves, using modern mapping, coal characterization, and database technologies, should be instituted with the goal of providing policy makers with a comprehensive accounting of national coal reserves within 10 years. The report estimates that such an initiative, which should be lead by the U.S. Geological Survey and involve participation by the Energy Information Administration at DOE, states, and industry, will require additional funding of approximately $10 million per year.

From the News Release (emphasis in bold ODAC’s):

To formulate national energy policies, federal policymakers need accurate estimates of the amount, location, and quality of mineable coal. Such estimates are particularly important for community, workforce, and infrastructure planning. It is clear that there is enough coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030, and probably enough for 100 years, the committee said. However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply for the next 250 years.

**********************************************************************************************************

2/ Australia: Dr Roger Bezdek in Australia, 19-28 June 2007 (ASPO-Australia, June 2007)

http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/content/view/82

Event Details: Dr Roger Bezdek's Australian tour is underway. On Thursday 21st June, he provided the keynote speech at a logistics and supply chain conference in Sydney. He is also providing briefings to business and Government in Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

ITINERARY:

Tue 19th June: Canberra - Briefings with Govt Dept, Parliament and DITR

Wed 20th June: Canberra - Briefing at Parliament House, 1pm (for Members and staff)

Thu 21st June - Sydney: Conference breakfast & keynote speech

Mon 25th June - Melbourne: 12:30pm DoI theatrette Level 29, 80 Collins St - Peaking of World Oil Production

Tue 26th June - Melbourne: 2pm-4:30 Telstra Dome, Municipal Association of Victoria

Wed 27th June - Brisbane: Brisbane Institute, 6pm $22

Thu 28th June - Brisbane: 5:15pm Peak Oil Risk Management (Australian Institute of Company Directors, $50)

Contact Bruce.Robinson (at) ASPO-Australia.org.au or 0427 398 708 for details.

Comment: ASPO-Australia has also added links for media coverage of Roger’s tour to their website. From what I can tell media coverage of Peak Oil in Australia over the past year, mainly as a result of ASPO-Australia’s work, has been very good. There is a link to an ABC Lateline Interview - ABC Lateline Business TV interview with Ali Moore on the threat of Peak Oil (19th June). It is an excellent interview but the video stops when Roger is in mid-sentence. He says globally we discovered 6 billion barrels of oil last year, but does not get to say we used just over 30 B barrels.

**********************************************************************************************************

3a/ Fire sale at Bear Stearns alarms Wall Street as hedge funds plunge (The Independent, Thu 21 Jun)

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2686929.ece

Comment: Not directly related to energy, but the financial system we have. One concern with Peak Oil is that due to rising oil prices, and therefore inflation and interest rates, PO might break the financial system. However, from time to time articles pop up in the media that suggest the financial system is not exactly in good health now, before PO really kicks in. Hedge funds are essentially investment funds for the rich/super-rich, except that unlike say pension funds, they are not regulated.

Article: A planned fire sale of assets from two crippled hedge funds has been attracting the attention of a nervous Wall Street, for fear it could reveal billions of dollars of hidden losses across the financial system.

Bear Stearns, the investment bank formed in 1923, was last night still struggling to save its two funds, which got into trouble after the US sub-prime mortgage market collapsed. But creditors including Merrill Lynch moved during the day to auction off more than $1bn (£500m) in assets seized as collateral for loans.

The two funds had raised about $1.5bn from investors but were using debt and derivative instruments to make bets of about $30bn on the financial markets. Its investments were mainly in complex financial instruments backed in part by sub-prime mortgages.

The number of sub-prime borrowers - Americans given high-priced home loans, despite being deemed a poor credit risk - who have got into arrears or had their homes repossessed has spiked to a record level, and the effects of rising defaults are rippling through the financial system.

The mortgages have been parcelled together with other investments into products called collateralised debt obligations (CDOs), which are sold on piece-by-piece to other investors. Their sheer complexity is such that their value is usually calculated using mathematical models rather than open-market prices.

Demand for new CDOs backed by sub-prime mortgages has already dried up. If the price existing assets fetch in an auction proves disappointing, hundreds of banks, hedge funds and other investors could discover they are sitting on losses they did not realise. Hank Paulson, US Treasury secretary, warned yesterday that there would continue to be "after-shocks", but insisted they would be contained and would not damage the overall economy.

Late on Tuesday, Merrill Lynch rejected a rescue plan for the two funds that would have involved Bear Stearns putting in more money. Instead, it began yesterday handing out details of some $800m in CDOs and other assets that it had seized and planned to auction. Deutsche Bank was among other creditors rumoured to be doing the same. The UK's Barclays also has an unquantified exposure to the two funds.

The funds were set up and run by Ralph Cioffi, a Bear Stearns mortgage-bond veteran, who successfully auctioned off $4bn of higher-quality assets last week as he battled to satisfy creditors and save the fund.

Investors have been clamouring for their money back since sub-prime mortgage market bets went awry in April and the fund suddenly found itself down 23 per cent from the start of the year.

The first two lenders to unwind their positions, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, reportedly did so directly with Bear Stearns, rather than dumping billions of dollars of bonds on the market. JP Morgan pulled its auction of seized assets at the last minute yesterday in order to do the same, but it appeared that Merrill Lynch was going ahead.

3b/ Hamish McRae: The global squeeze on monetary conditions may not be over quickly (The Independent, Thu 21 Jun)

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/comment/article2686885.ece

Comment: The Independent website is down again, so no quote from article. Hamish is warning that the increase in interest rates is not over yet (in the UK), and higher interest rates could last for years rather than months.

**********************************************************************************************************

4/ Rate Rise Pushes Housing, Economy to `Blood Bath' (Bloomberg, Wed 20 Jun)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=adDRCBB5fqZQ&refer=exclusive

Comment: Lengthy article suggesting that the problems with the US housing market have not bottomed out yet.

Article: The worst is yet to come for the U.S. housing market.

The jump in 30-year mortgage rates by more than a half a percentage point to 6.74 percent in the past five weeks is putting a crimp on borrowers with the best credit just as a crackdown in subprime lending standards limits the pool of qualified buyers. The national median home price is poised for its first annual decline since the Great Depression, and the supply of unsold homes is at a record 4.2 million, the National Association of Realtors reported.

``It's a blood bath,'' said Mark Kiesel, executive vice president of Newport Beach, California-based Pacific Investment Management Co., the manager of $668 billion in bond funds. ``We're talking about a two- to three-year downturn that will take a whole host of characters with it, from job creation to consumer confidence. Eventually it will take the stock market and corporate profit.''

Confidence among U.S. homebuilders fell in June to the lowest since February 1991, according to the National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo index released this week. Housing starts declined in May for the first time in four months, the Commerce Department reported yesterday. New-home sales will decline 33 percent from 2005's peak to the end of this year, according to the Realtors' group, exceeding the 25 percent three-year drop in 1991 that helped spark a recession...

**********************************************************************************************************

5/ Oil Is Not Well (The American Spectator, Thu 07 Jun)

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11545

Comment: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., The American Spectator, is "adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute" according to the article credits, which Wikipedia describes as "a right-leaning U.S. think tank". Does this mean that the US right-leaning think tanks are moving towards Peak is near? Who knows, but the article does toe the economists'/right-leaning usual line in two aspects. Economics, "Simple market forces are going to coax the U.S. toward oil alternatives", and nuclear energy, will help solve the problem.

Article: The presidential candidates, hustling for their parties' presidential nominations, tell us that they are going to make us "energy independent." At the same time they also tell us that $3.00-a-gallon gasoline at the pump is highway robbery. Some announce that they are going to investigate the oil companies. This is political schizophrenia. We cannot approach energy independence and maintain cheap oil prices simultaneously. In fact, in the near future neither goal is possible. America with 5% of the world's population uses 25% of the world's oil. And right now the world is consuming about as many barrels of oil a day as it is producing, which is 85 million barrels. In terms of oil production, the world is now at what is called "peak production."

... Thus oil experts such as Boone Pickens predict $80 a barrel oil by the end of the year. He doubts that the world can produce more that 85 million barrels a day. That means the price of gasoline will be even higher than $3.00 a gallon. Verleger predicts $100 a barrel oil before the end of 2008. Imagine what you will be paying for a gallon of gas then.

... Peak production of oil, however, is here and now.

**********************************************************************************************************

6a/ Now Russia tries to hit Exxon deal (Telegraph, Fri 21 Jun)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/21/cnexxon121.xml

Article: Exxon-Mobil has become the latest western oil and gas company to become embroiled in Russia's attempt to curtail foreign control of its energy assets.

State-run gas company Gazprom wants to halt an Exxon-led project from supplying China, in a move that echoes attempts to restrict the operations of Royal Dutch Shell and BP.

Exxon, the world's largest oil and gas company, run by chief executive Rex Tillerson, said yesterday that it was in talks with Gazprom. "The purpose of the discussions is to find a mutually acceptable option for the parties involved," Exxon said.

The US company and its partner Neftegas have a deal with the China National Petroleum Corporation to supply gas from its Sakhalin-1 project in far east Russia.

But Gazprom's deputy chief executive, Alexander Ananenkov, said Exxon's supply deal, which he claimed was to export 80bn cubic metres of gas a year, would leave Russia short.

However, analysts say the dispute it bound up with Russia's strategy to claw back control of oil and gas assets that were sold in the 1990s.

Gazprom has its own plans to sell gas to China, but there is a dispute over price. The Russian company is also in talks with TNK-BP, which wants to supply China from the vast Kovykta gas field. But Gazprom has refused permission for the BP joint venture to build a pipeline to China, and the situation looks like being resolved with the Russian company taking control of Kovykta.

Last year, after allegations that Shell had broken environmental licences at its Sakhalin-2 gas field, Gazprom took control of the project. If Gazprom gets its way over the Exxon and TNK-BP projects, the Russian company would exercise total control over supplies to China. Gazprom already supplies 25pc of Europe's gas needs.

6b/ Gazprom bid to cut off China gas (BBC News, Tue 19 Jun)

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6769797.stm

Comment: “But critically, it means that gas shortages in Russia must be more serious than what is being said, analysts believe.” The article does not mention which analysts, but it is well known that the ‘big three’ of Russia’s largest gas fields are in decline, and a fourth has plateaued. Several times late last year the Russian media reported that if there was a shortage of gas in Russia, it is Russians that would suffer, leading to power cuts, not exports to Europe. As it turned out, Russia as elsewhere had a relatively warm winter and no serious problems occurred.

Article: Russian energy giant Gazprom has asked the government to cancel an agreement to pipe large quantities of gas to China from fields in Siberia.

Alexander Ananenkov, the group's deputy chief executive, said plans to deliver 80bn cubic metres of gas a year to China would leave Russia short.

The gas was due to be exported from Exxon Mobil's Sakhalin-1 project on Russia's Pacific coast.

The move could fan fears over Moscow's hold on key gas and oil projects.

"We consider it necessary for a directive to be issued and Sakhalin-1 gas to be sold to Gazprom so we could supply gas to Russia's regions, and for the gas not to be exported as proposed by Exxon Mobile," said Mr Ananenkov, speaking at a meeting of a regional social and economic development council.

He claimed that Russia's four far eastern regions alone need more than 15bn cubic metres of gas a year.

Gas shortages

If the Russian government responds to Gazprom's proposal and intervenes in the export agreements on Sakhalin-1, China will not have any access to Russian gas, despite a growing need for energy supplies to power its booming economy.

Such an action will also heighten concerns over the growing influence of state-run Gazprom and the Kremlin's grip on its domestic gas industry.

Russian gas accounts for 25% of supplies to the European Union (EU).

But critically, it means that gas shortages in Russia must be more serious than what is being said, analysts believe.

Shell was forced to sell its stake in the Sakhalin-2 project to Gazprom after pressure from Russian regulators.

And BP is currently waiting to hear if its licence for the Kovytka gas field in East Siberia - operated under a joint venture - will be withdrawn.

Analysts say Gazprom could face a fight in wresting control of Sakhalin-1 from rival Rosneft - the state-controlled oil firm - which is a shareholder in the project, together with Japan's Sadeco and India's Videsh.

**********************************************************************************************************

7a/ BP sells Siberia stake to Gazprom (BBC News, Fri 22 Jun)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6230556.stm

Comment: BP salvages what it can from the Kovykta gas field TNK-BP project. Not a lot apparently. In item 7c, the IHT article is sceptical the Gazprom-BP joint venture will come to much.

Article: British oil firm BP has sold its stake in a Siberian gas field development to Russian state-controlled firm Gazprom.

BP's Russian joint venture TNK-BP has agreed to sell Gazprom its majority interests in the giant Kovykta field for between $700m-$900m (£350m-£450m).

Analysts said this is a fraction of what TNK-BP's stake is worth, and that it is the latest example of the Kremlin forcing out Western energy firms.

Kovykta is said to have enough gas to supply all of Asia for five years.

'Historic agreement'

The sale comes after Russian authorities had put increasing pressure on TNK-BP, saying the firm was not producing enough gas from the Kovykta field.

Russian officials claimed that under the terms of its licence, Kovykta should have been producing nine billion cubic metres of gas per year by 2006, rather than the less than 2.5 billion cubic metres actually being processed.

TNK-BP said that it could not produce any more because the local region did not require additional supplies and it had been denied an export licence.

Similar pressure was put on Anglo-Dutch energy group Shell last year, before it sold Gazprom its majority stake in the Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project off Russia's Pacific coast.

Shell sold its interests in Sakhalin-2 after Russian authorities continually refused to grant it the necessary environmental certificates.

Future co-operation

BP said it and TNK-BP were now looking to invest in projects with Gazprom "in major long-term energy projects or swap assets around the world".

The firms will set up a joint team to identify strategic opportunities for investment both overseas and inside Russia.

"We will initially be looking for projects of at least $3bn, but the potential for further growth could be very significant," said BP chief executive Tony Hayward.

"This historic agreement lays the ground for powerful co-operation between BP, TNK-BP and Gazprom."

Gazprom is buying TNK-BP's 62.89% stake in Russia Petroleum, the firm with the licence for the Kovykta gas field.

TNK-BP is also selling Gazprom its half-share in East Siberian Gas Company, the company constructing the wider regional gasification project, BP said in a statement.

7b/ Kremlin marches on with Kovykta buy-out (Financial Times, Fri 22 Jun)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/15bd47b8-20e8-11dc-8d50-000b5df10621,s01=1.html

Comment: Same story from the FT.

Article: TNK-BP’s deal to sell its vast Siberian Kovykta gas project to state-controlled Gazprom marks another big step in the Kremlin’s takeover of the energy sector after months of government pressure.

But Friday’s agreement for joint investments by Gazprom and TNK-BP abroad also signals the importance the Kremlin is placing on the need for its state-owned energy champions to expand abroad and to retain some foreign investment.

“Both sides knew they had leverage over each other,” said one person familiar with the matter.

Instead of pulling TNK-BP’s licence over production violations at the field, as the Russian government had threatened to, Gazprom will pay nearly double what TNK-BP has spent on developing the field so far.

TNK-BP’s efforts to develop the field had long been stymied by Gazprom’s refusal to join the project on TNK-BP’s terms.

Without Gazprom, TNK-BP had no real market for the gas because of the state-controlled gas champion’s monopoly on export routes.

Because of this, BP had not even booked the 3,000bn cubic metre field on to its reserves.

“The last thing the Kremlin wanted to do was to have a big scandal with BP,” said another person involved in the process.

“Aside from missile defence and Estonia, a big part of the tension [between Russia and the west] has been energy.”

The deal also leaves a window open for TNK-BP to re-enter the project via an option for a 25 per cent stake in the business to be exercised within one year.

Some analysts said jittery investors should be thankful for small mercies. “This is not going to send investors rushing to invest in Russia, but it’s part of the picture,” said Chris Weafer, chief strategist at Alfa Bank.

“The Kremlin has acknowledged they need the involvement of foreign companies if the growth process is to proceed safely.”

The tie-up with BP for international joint ventures could provide Gazprom with a vehicle for acquisitions in the UK gas market, Valery Nesterov, energy analyst at Troika Dialog, noted.

But Friday’s deal may prove only the first phase of a broader state takeover of TNK-BP.

Many observers had seen the standoff over Kovykta as part of a broader campaign of pressure to force TNK-BP’s Russian shareholders to sell their 50 per cent stake in TNK-BP to state-controlled majors Gazprom or Rosneft.

One person with knowledge of the situation said Friday that the restructuring of TNK-BP was “still unfinished business – the company’s structure is still out of line”, a reference to the Kremlin’s new paradigm of state control.

By the time TNK-BP uses the option, the structure of TNK-BP could have changed, the person said.

Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom’s deputy chief executive, gave the strongest indication of this on Friday when he told reporters that BP might return to Kovykta at a later date.

“To remain in a monastery one has to leave it, be purged of sin and return to it,” he said.

7c/ Gazprom takes over BP project (IHT, Fri 22 Jun)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/22/business/bp.php

Comment: Same story from the IHT. Lengthy article.

Article: … Analysts, however, said BP lost a major asset, though the company had not booked the reserves because the field was not fully developed.

Still, the vague value of the new strategic partnership agreement contrasted with the immediate loss at the Kovykta field - a project BP cultivated for a decade, through two Russian administrations, with an eye on the booming energy market in China.

"BP clearly got fleeced," said Alex Turkeltaub, a managing partner at Frontier Strategy Group, a Cambridge, Massachusetts, consultancy specializing in political risk analysis.

Turkeltaub downplayed the value to BP of bringing Gazprom in as a partner at projects outside of Russia. "This is all window dressing," he said. "I don't see any substance in it now."…

**********************************************************************************************************

8/ Russia to reform national economy to get rid of oil dependence [anti-ODAC propaganda] (Pravda, Fri 22 Jun)

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/93835-0

Comment: The Russian Soviet-era newspaper Pravda seems to have taken exception to the recent Independent article promoting ODAC's point of view on global oil reserves. Apparently, ODAC is linked to the White House. This is news to ODAC.

Article: British scientists recently released a report warning that world oil supplies could run out faster than expected. The scientists seem to have been commissioned by the White House to come up with a forecast that justifies U.S. aggressive policies toward oil-exporting countries.

... However, the scientists at the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre believe that global oil production is set to peak in the next four years, reaching the highest level in 2011. A steep decline in production is expected to occur thereafter, warn the scientists. One can get the impression that these “brand-new” assessments have been carried out at the recommendation of U.S. government research agencies. The findings seem to be designed for using as part of information warfare aiming to justify the United States and its allies interviewing in the affaires of Eurasia. The analysis fits well the belligerent rhetoric of U.S. Senator Richard G. Lugar who advocates NATO enlargement in Eastern Europe and creation of military bases around Russia by stressing the role of hydrocarbons, which are allegedly “becoming a weapon” as the demand of the West for energy keeps growing…

**********************************************************************************************************

9/ US must warm to energy efficiency (Financial Times, Thu 21 Jun)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d044002c-2007-11dc-9eb1-000b5df10621,_i_nbePage=ceecf842-3b01-11da-a2fe-00000e2511c8,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2Fd044002c-2007-11dc-9eb1-000b5df10621%2C_i_nbePage%3Dceecf842-3b01-11da-a2fe-00000e2511c8.html&_i_referer=

Comment: Full article for FT subscribers only.

Article: Between record petrol prices at home, growing geopolitical instability abroad and mounting concern over climate change, the case for fundamental energy reform has never been stronger. Yet the US energy debate remains disproportionately focused on the supply side: how to secure future supplies and finance alternative sources. Too often ignored is the other – and far more cost-effective – alternative: how Americans can use the energy they consume more efficiently.

New research by the McKinsey Global Institute finds that a concerted effort to boost energy productivity – or the level of output achieved from the energy consumed – could have spectacular results. If policymakers embrace a new drive to improve energy productivity, relying on existing technologies, the US could reduce energy demand growth by the equivalent of 11m barrels of oil per day and greenhouse gas emissions by 1.3bn tonnes a year. This would cap energy demand growth and emissions at today’s levels, while strengthening the economy.

**********************************************************************************************************

10/ Another CEO goes public on PO being passed with strong recommendation (ATI Petroleum Press Release, Fri 22 Jun)

http://www.companynewsgroup.com/communique.asp?co_id=121453

Comment: This is an odd Press Release in that the title, “ATI Petroleum annuncia quotazione su NYSE/Euronext e apre ufficio in Francia”, and first two paragraphs are in Italian(?), then switches to English end of second paragraph. ATIP is the Petroleum branch of the US-based ATI Group. An ODAC News subscriber states:

“Another CEO goes public on Peak Oil being passed with strong recommendation. OK he has got interests in Nuclear but he seems to fully understand value of Oil & Gas.”

Note that ATIP is preparing to list on the stock market: “ATIP expands its capital raising efforts and decided to list its stock on the Euronext market rather than in the U.S. because France has the capability of being a gateway to Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia for energy exploration and development.”

Article: Dr. Dinh [Dr. Huu Duc Dinh, Chairman and CEO] added : "Global energy demand is soaring and we believe the rate of change will only increase as populous nations in Asia and Africa continue rapidly developing their domestic economies," "Despite the long-term promise of fusion, solar, wind and other alternative energy solutions, the reality is that the world runs on energy from coal, petroleum and nuclear power. The days of peak oil production have passed and supplies will only grow scarcer as demand increases. Oil and gas must be saved for necessary activities like being the feedstock for fertilizer instead of being used for electricity generation."

**********************************************************************************************************