The U.S. Government is set to destroy America’s stockpile of thorium, which element is the likeliest source of safe nuclear energy, and is also the likeliest replacement of the fossil fuels that are increasingly threatening the world’s future if a uranium 235 and plutonium nuclear-bomb World War III won’t end the world before global burnout does.
Some people think that a WW III is the world’s biggest threat; others think that a global burnout from fossil-fuels usage is. Thorium-based electricity could provide the solution to both concerns. But the U.S. Government has stunningly ignored thorium, because their top goal is to win control over the entire world (U.S. hegemony, an all-inclusive U.S. global empire), and only the uranium-based nuclear reactors produce feedstock to make nuclear bombs (for conquest), which is the U.S. Government’s top goal. So, their plan is simply to get rid of the thorium ‘waste’ from its nuclear industries. According to the narrative from the U.S. Government’s propagandists, “in 1973 the United States government shut down all thorium related nuclear research due to the success of the uranium reactor to produce energy, so the vast majority of the nuclear reactors that exists today use enriched uranium (U-235) or reprocessed plutonium (Pu-239) as their source of energy,” but the truth is quite otherwise: thorium-research was shut down because bomb-production was the real purpose of all nuclear development in the U.S., then, and now. They wanted more nuclear bombs. (Whereas bombs can be made from thorium producing uranium-233, it’s more difficult and far less suitable for major industrial-scale nuclear industries. As one 2011 engineering analysis concluded, thorium-based production of electricity would “have extraordinary proliferation resistance because thorium cannot be made directly into a weapon.5 The reactor cannot be used to create substantial, pure quantities of plutonium or 238U, which are needed to make bombs.2” Unfortunately, however, this is also why the U.S. Government has shunned it.)
America’s Government has built nuclear power upon the foundation of producing fission-bombs, nuclear weapons, which need U-235 and plutonium, that are required for large-scale bomb-making, instead of to build America’s nuclear-electricity production upon the basis of vastly safer thorium, which doesn’t explode. Thorium is being considered a mere ‘waste’, because it’s not useful for bomb-making (although thorium can do that on a small scale). China, by contrast, is racing past the U.S. to build-out mankind’s thorium electrical-production future, instead of to focus upon producing the biggest nuclear-weapons stockpiles like the U.S. and Russia have been doing (to make bombs for potential usage against each other).
Fortunately, two U.S. Senators are now trying to block America’s planned destruction of its thorium stockpiles, which are residues from the production of nuclear weapons and from existing uranium-235-based nuclear electricity-generation. These two Senators want America, not China, to be leading the world into a far safer future. However, they do this not in order to prevent global burnout, nor to prevent a nuclear-war global holocaust, but, instead, in order to prevent a termination of U.S. global hegemony (U.S. rule over the entire world). Loss of U.S. global hegemony is what they are actually worrying about. They simply want America to beat China. It’s purely a competitive goal, for them — not actually a mankind goal (which it is in China): to reduce global warming.
On 23 April 2006, the thorium-reactor expert Kirk Sorensen’s blog, “Energy From Thorium” headlined “Don’t throw away U233!”, and he wrote:
When I learned that the entire National Defense Stockpile of thorium (3216 metric tonnes) was slated for burial in the Nevada desert, that was bad enough. But the destruction of our U233 really breaks my heart and hurts so much worse.
Uranium-233 is the ideal fuel to start a liquid-fluoride reactor, and there is a very little bit in the world, left over from different attempts to get a thorium-powered future going. Now the DOE is taking great pride in the fact they are going to throw it away. I can only comfort myself with the idea that if they knew how valuable this material is for starting a liquid-fluoride reactor, they would never do this.
It gets even worse – the $128 million that they plan to spend to “blend” down this little bit of U-233 could be used to progress liquid-fluoride reactors, which currently get about $40K a year under the DOE Gen-4 program. The fellow that gets the money tells me it’s enough to “answer the phone”.
And once blended with U-238, the U-233 will be unrecoverable (I’m sure this is what they want). We could not isotopically separate it like natural uranium, since it will be far, far too radioactive to introduce into a diffusion plant. So it’s gone – thrown away when it could have started a thorium reactor.
What a tragic loss and waste.
This wasn’t a problem only of the war-mongering George W. Bush U.S. Presidency, which then was in power. It’s instead bipartisan in Washington. Thus, journalist Ambrose Evans Pritchard, in Britain’s Telegraph, bannered, on 29 August 2010, “Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium: If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.”. He meant it seriously, and he wondered why America hadn’t already initiated such a “Manhattan Project II,” in order to put the environmentalist rhetoric of Obama, and of other American liberals, into an authentically promising means of actually achieving their asserted environmentalist objective against global warming. He closed by saying, “If it works, Manhattan II could restore American optimism and strategic leadership at a stroke: if not, it is a boost for US science and surely a more fruitful way to pull the US out of perma-slump than scattershot stimulus. Even better, team up with China and do it together, for all our sakes.” However, twelve more years of “stimulus” (without much stimulation) were yet to pass, before even just two U.S. Senators decided to team up together so as to push that idea through, but not cooperatively, with China (such as that journalist had proposed) — but instead as a means of beating China, so as to maintain America’s continuing global hegemony, against China and Russia. (The U.S. Government has actually been secretly continuing its Cold War even after the Soviet Union and its communism ended in 1991. The U.S. Government’s actual enemy wasn’t communism: it turned out to have been Russia and any other resistant nation; the Cold War, on America’s side, was America’s war against all nations — to control all of them. That’s just a historical fact. Communism was just an excuse.)
On 18 May 2022, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville headlined a press release, “Tuberville, Marshall Introduce Bill to Save Clean, Safe Nuclear Power”, and he announced:
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, today introduced the Thorium Energy Security Act to prevent the destruction of Uranium 233 (U-233), a critical element used to produce clean energy.
“Thorium and U-233 hold the promise to produce clean, safe power and are vital to our national security. Energy will continue to be at the heart of global conflicts, so the United States must invest in energy technology,” Senator Tuberville said. “China clearly saw the value in our thorium research — they’ve taken up where we left off, and we may soon see thorium-powered Chinese aircraft carriers and thorium reactors on the Belt & Road courtesy of American technology.”
“Uranium-233 is too valuable and too useful to just be thrown in the trash, a fact that the Chinese Communist Party understands but our Department of Energy clearly does not. While we are spending millions of dollars to destroy U-233, the CCP is investing in it by preparing to build a new generation of advanced aircraft carriers and nuclear reactors powered by U-233,” said Senator Marshall. “The United States needs to lead on advanced nuclear reactors and not leave the future of innovative clean energy technologies in the hands of China. Preserving this valuable national resource is the first step on that path.”
In the 1960s, the United States pioneered thorium molten salt breeder reactor technologies at Oak Ridge National Labs. This promising technology, which employed uranium 233 (U-233), produced clean, safe power, but did not produce plutonium like other reactor designs. As our country was focused on growing our nuclear arsenal, the U.S. shelved thorium and U-233 for decades.
In 2001, the Department of Energy began the process of destroying our stocks of U-233. …
Since then, their bill has been bottled-up being considered in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. After these decades of the U.S. Government’s trying to find a way to ditch thorium as mere waste because it’s not useful for making nuclear bomb-heads, because it doesn’t explode, our Government might at last start to put it to use replacing fossil fuels, which goal, for this Government, has, thus far, been only a rhetorical matter, in order for liberal politicians to appeal to their snookered voters (who don’t recognize the difference between mere rhetoric versus actual intentions), not something that liberal politicians ever actually cared about or intended to solve. (Of course, conservative politicians have instead been saying that human-created global warming doesn’t even exist, that it’s just a hoax. Their voters don’t even care about the environment, and the future — not even about their own descendants.)
According to the World Nuclear Association, “The use of thorium as a new primary energy source has been a tantalizing prospect for many years. Extracting its latent energy value in a cost-effective manner remains a challenge, and will require considerable R&D investment. This is occurring preeminently in China, with modest US support.” The near future will actually decide whether America trashes its thorium, or instead will use it to compete against China.
According to a 2011 article published by the American Chemical Society, “Should We Consider Using Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors for Power Generation?”:
Thorium is four times more abundant than uranium and naturally occurs in only one isotope, 232Th, eliminating all enrichment activities inherent in uranium mining and processing. … [In order to operate a thorium reactor,] there is a start-up load of approximately 1.5 tons of fissile material, such as 235U, 238U, or 239Pu, after which the reactor thermally breeds 233U [by constant feeding of the 100% thorium fuel feedstock, into the reactor] to maintain fission [the reactor’s energy-production]. Conventional nuclear reactors [which use 100% U-235 as their fuel feedstock] need 510 times more initial material [enriched uranium] to start and continuous feeding of enriched uranium.1 Perpetually needing to transport enriched uranium presents proliferation risks. Thorium by itself does not pose proliferation risks and presents a much smaller radiation risk.
Recently, Sorensen delivered a 10-minute TED-talk explaining why thorium-based nuclear-based energy will be the world’s future. Finally, the idea that he’s been championing for twenty years is starting to get some traction in war-mongering Washington DC — the world’s global-imperialist capital. Finally, something serious might be afoot to halt global warming, but its motivation is instead to keep the U.S. Government in control over all nations — so as not to lose America’s hegemony. It’s a “national security” matter, to America’s Government: to remain “Number 1” (regardless of whether doing so might actually be endangering both America’s, and the entire world’s, national security, thus threatening everybody’s safety). That’s what it’s really about. All of the liberals’ rhetoric about stopping global warming has merely been PR cover for bomb-making and continuing America’s global hegemony, nothing serious to stop global warming.
The only possible competitor to thorium as an ecologically friendly electrical energy source is generally thought to be nuclear fusion, but that has always been unlikely and now seems to be even more unlikely than before. On 23 June 2022, Science magazine headlined “Out of gas: A shortage of tritium fuel may leave fusion energy with an empty tank”, and explained why the feasibility of ever achieving a fusion reactor is looking smaller the more that the barriers to achieving it are becoming scientifically understood. That’s the exact opposite of the prospects for achieving thorium fission reactors. Thorium seems to be the only practicable way to avoid global catastrophe.
The U.S. Government’s obsession for global hegemony has been threatening everybody, everywhere. Either it will end, or else the world will end, maybe even within our own lifetimes — especially if the U.S. Government’s grasping for global hegemony will produce WW III. The U.S. Government is global warming’s friend, and everybody’s enemy. Will that change? Nothing yet indicates it will. But perhaps China or some other country will pull us all through this perilous historical moment.
Funding and Policy Challenges Facing Africa’s Petroleum Industry
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
Europe’s major tourist sites battle climate change to survive
Endgame: Time, History and Alternative World Futures
Behind President Putin’s visit to Iran
Double standards haunt US and Europe in dealings with Turkey and the Middle East
Telephone Conversation with the U.S. Secretary of State and Pakistan’s FM
The ideological and non-ideological underpinnings of violent extremism: An American study
Editor’s Note: Modern Diplomacy, along with Global Leaders especially OPEC members, mourns Mohammad Sanusi Barkindo, OPEC Secretary General, whose unexpected death occurred early this month. Modern Diplomacy is hereby reproducing one of his last speeches in which he examined, among others, a few of the significant policy issues affecting investment in the sector.
“At the end of this month, I will hand over the baton as Secretary General to my brother and friend Haitham Al-Ghais of the State of Kuwait. He is a seasoned veteran of the oil industry and an astute diplomat who has dedicated himself to OPEC for many years,” said Barkindo.
Barkindo, 63, a veteran of the oil industry, was due to step down at the end of this month after six years in the top job at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
Today, I would like to talk about some of the funding challenges facing our industry here in Africa and globally, as well as examine a few of the policy issues affecting investment in the sector. Before I do so, I would like to draw your kind attention to a couple of important milestones in Nigeria’s recent history. One year ago this month, the Petroleum Industry Bill was adopted by both houses of the 9th National Assembly and signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari. This was a ground-breaking achievement, culminating many long years of hard work. I am confident that the implementation of the law will help unlock the full potential of our petroleum industry, strengthen its ability to attract long-term investment, as well as support a dynamic and diverse economy.
If our NOCs are to continue to innovate and flourish, it is of utmost importance that they have predictable and unfettered access to investment capital. Regular Investment at adequate levels is the lifeblood of our industry. It is essential if we are to develop new technologies, strengthen our human capacity and remain leaders in innovation so that we can do our part to meet the world’s growing need for energy, shrink our overall environmental footprint, and expand access to underserved communities.
Yet our industry is now facing huge challenges along multiple fronts, and these threaten our investment potential now and in the longer term. To put it bluntly, the oil and gas industry is under siege!
For starters, the evolving geopolitical developments in Eastern Europe, the ongoing war in Ukraine, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and inflationary pressures across the globe have come together in a perfect storm that is causing significant volatility and uncertainty in the commodity markets and, more importantly, in the world of energy.
Against this backdrop, a number of industrialized countries and multilateral institutions continue to pursue stringent policies aimed at accelerating the energy transition and fundamentally altering the energy mix.
Putting these issues aside for a moment, we must not forget that our industry is still reeling from the enormous investment losses of recent years.
In a very short timespan, the industry has been hit by two major cycles – the severe market downturn in 2015 and 2016, and the even more far-reaching impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In 2020, the first year of the pandemic and one of the darkest periods in the history of oil, upstream oil capital expenditure fell by around 30%. This exceeded the colossal 26% annual declines experienced during the severe industry downturn in 2015 and 2016.
Looking further down the road, OPEC’s most recent World Oil Outlook gives us some perspective on what is to come. It shows the global oil sector will need cumulative investments of $11.8 trillion in the upstream, midstream and downstream through to 2045 to meet expectations for significant growth in energy demand.
With regard to demand, there is only one direction, and that is up. In fact, OPEC projects that total primary energy demand will expand by a robust 28% in the period to 2045. Oil is expected to retain the largest share of the energy mix, accounting for just over a 28% share in 2045, followed by gas at around 24%. In other words, oil and gas together will continue to supply more than half of the world’s energy needs for many decades. These hydrocarbons are especially vital to the energy mix in regions like Africa, which will see massive population shifts and economic growth in the coming years. These developments increase the urgency of eradicating energy poverty.
The impacts of the two major market cycles are manifesting themselves in real time. Years of underinvestment in the oil sector help explain the current market tightness and razor-thin spare capacity margins.
In OPEC’s 62-year history, spare capacity has never been as low as it is today, and this takes into account periods of war, natural disaster and other market shocks. If this trend continues, it could haunt us in the future.
We could, however, unlock resources and strengthen capacity if the oil produced by the Islamic Republic of Iran and Venezuela were allowed to return to the market. As we know, their oil industries have been held hostage by geopolitics, while Libya has faced internal challenges that have at times sharply curbed its exports. Unfortunately, the disruptions affecting these three OPEC Member Countries not only contribute to the current market tightness, they directly affect the welfare and development of these great nations.
Here, it is also important to remember that it takes time to return to normal operations and restore production capacity. This is especially the case in countries that have had to endure restrictions on investment and exports, and following severe market shocks like we saw in 2020. As we all know, you cannot turn a tap and solve the world’s oil needs overnight; it takes time, technology, logistics and capital.
Reading the daily news feed, the upstream has become a favourite scapegoat for the current market conditions. However, this discounts the current capacity challenges that also plague the downstream, especially with regard to transportation fuels. Refinery closures in recent years – coupled with a number of untimely accidents at important regional refineries – have curtailed supplies and helped fuel the energy market volatility of recent months.
OPEC’s 2022 Annual Statistical Bulletin helps shed light on the situation. Worldwide refinery capacity fell by more than 330,000 barrels per calendar day year-on-year in 2020 and remained below pre-pandemic levels last year despite the robust global economic rebound. The Middle East, China, as well as Africa and India, have recorded refining capacity additions. However, refinery capacity in the OECD declined for the third consecutive year in 2021. Comparing the pre-pandemic year of 2019 to 2021, OECD refining capacity fell by a significant 1.5 million barrels per calendar day, or 3.3%. Given the global refining squeeze at the moment, the construction of the Dangote refinery in Lagos, with its capacity of around 650,000 barrels per day, is a huge step in the direction of addressing not only Nigeria’s longer-term demand – but significantly improving the capacity outlook of the global down-stream sector.
The urgent need to ensure predictable investment is one reason OPEC joined hands with a number of key non-OPEC oil-producing countries in the Declaration of Cooperation back in December of 2016. With our combined expertise and experience to guide us, the participating countries were able to move quickly and decisively to address the widening market crisis at the onset of COVID-19. Rarely in the history of our industry have we witnessed such far-reaching efforts to restore sustainable stability to the global oil market, which in turn has been vital to the global economic recovery.
Let me stress here that many African producing countries, both OPEC and non-OPEC Members, have been instrumental in supporting the framework Declaration of Cooperation from the start. These efforts have not gone unnoticed by policymakers, energy analysts and some of the leading stakeholders in the international oil industry. We remain optimistic these market-stabilization efforts will extend beyond the Declaration of Cooperation’s current production adjustment schedule, which is due to expire at the end of August, particularly taking into consideration the persistent volatility and enormous uncertainties in the market. Last week’s important OPEC and non-OPEC Ministerial Meeting, which by the way was the 30th held since the beginning of the DoC, demonstrated once again the commitment of our participating countries to remain resolutely focused on oil market stability and supporting the global economy.
OPEC is a unique Organization and has always dedicated itself to cooperation and teamwork regardless of the geopolitical landscape. We have drawn on this experience to support the growth and stability of the global oil market by continually expanding data exchanges, technical capacity and high-level cooperation with many leading oil-consuming countries, producers and institutions. Our first High-level Meeting of the OPEC-Africa Energy Dialogue took place last year, marking a major milestone in our collaboration with like-minded organizations across this great continent.
These efforts to build strong sustainable relationships are proving their worth. Over the longer term, we believe these Dialogues will facilitate the sharing of experiences, lessons learnt and best practices to support efforts for an inclusive and sustainable way forward.
Regrettably, we are seeing global energy cooperation becoming more fragmented. New regional alignments are threatening to reverse years of progress towards creating a more stable and interconnected energy system. We cannot afford to allow multilateral energy cooperation and global energy security become collateral damage of geopolitics.
As many of you know, I have been involved in the global climate negotiations since their inception three decades ago, representing Nigeria in the early years and more recently OPEC. The past negotiating sessions were never easy. However, there was always space around the table for multiple viewpoints to be heard and consensual outcomes to be found.
Unfortunately, the policy narrative in the run-up to and during COP26 last year in Glasgow, UK was heavily distorted against hydrocarbons and divorced from the reality of the world’s energy needs. Developing countries were urged to turn their backs on their own hydrocarbon assets, even though their right to sovereignty over the use of these natural resources is carved in the Paris Agreement’s principle of equity in the context of sustainable development.
Efforts to unwisely encourage divestment in the hydrocarbon industries are unfortunately becoming more pronounced. Last month, UN Secretary-General António Guterres suggested in remarks at a White House-sponsored event that our industry is ignoring its responsibility to address the climate change challenge and is undermining global climate policies.
Such misleading pronouncements are terribly unfair to many of us in this industry who have dedicated ourselves to working towards inclusive, just and sustainable solutions to the climate challenge. In fact, key stakeholders in the industry are participating in the intergovernmental arrangements and initiatives to develop, deploy and promote cutting-edge technologies to reduce emissions from the production and consumption of energy.
Furthermore, I would respectfully point out that the G7 countries only a few weeks ago called on energy-exporting countries to increase oil production and acknowledged the critical role of OPEC in this regard.
Then at last week’s G7 Summit in Germany, the leaders took a step in the right direction by recognizing the need for continued investment in fossil fuels to help meet the world’s energy needs. It is imperative that they translate these words into policy actions that affirm the importance of a broad portfolio of energy options, including oil and gas, and support an investment climate that makes this possible.
Inopportune remarks and efforts to discourage oil exploration and development are bound to sow the seeds of a more pronounced energy crisis and undermine global energy security. Moreover, they jeopardize efforts to achieve universal, reliable and affordable energy access for people across the globe, including those in developing countries.
Both the market and consumers deserve clear and consistent policies which recognize that oil is indispensable to global economic development and the world’s energy mix. Our industry cannot afford to sleepwalk into another crisis. It is of utmost importance that we seize opportunities to encourage world leaders to return to the roots and principles of the Paris Agreement. This means focusing on inclusive, Party-driven negotiations and decision-making based on the science and data, not emotions and rhetoric.
COP27, which will take place in Egypt later this year, offers a prime opportunity for developing nations, including those producing oil and gas, to make our voices heard. This is a chance to return to a balanced and holistic process to address critical issues such as adaptation, mitigation and the means of implementation, especially climate finance and technology.
Furthermore, COP27 provides a platform to reaffirm the importance of multilateralism and mutual respect among nations. These principles are pillars of OPEC’s own success dating back to its founding in 1960 in Baghdad, Iraq.
We also need more cooperation and financial firepower when it comes to tackling energy poverty. Globally, more than 750 million people lack reliable electricity. A further 2.6 billion do not have safe and clean fuels and technologies for cooking and heating. In Sub-Saharan Africa, OPEC data show that an estimated 47% of people have no electricity and approximately 85% lack access to clean cooking and heating fuels. Considering the enormous energy resources available on this continent, this is simply hard to accept.
At OPEC, we are committed to expand energy access and help achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Many of our Member Countries are already taking a lead in developing and deploying innovative technologies that can help ensure a stable and sustainable energy supply for all. We are proud that our sister Organization, the OPEC Fund for International Development, has helped finance energy projects across the global south since it was set up by OPEC Member Countries, including Nigeria in 1976.
Each step we take to improve energy access is a step in the right direction, but we need all forms of energy to reach our destination. As Nelson Mandela once said, “You can start changing our world for the better daily, no matter how small the action.”
When I first became Nigeria’s delegate to OPEC in 1986, little did I know that I would end up as its Secretary General 30 years later. I will forever be grateful to President Muhammadu Buhari for sending me to OPEC to serve as its 28th Secretary General. It has been gratifying to enjoy his full support, advice and guidance throughout my tenure, during which time I drank from his fountain of wisdom and reservoir of knowledge of OPEC. Muhammadu Buhari is the only current President in the world to have served as Minister of Petroleum and Head of delegation to the Organization.
Serving as Secretary General of OPEC for two terms has been the honour of a lifetime. Over the past six years, we have witnessed both challenging and historic moments, which have underscored time and again the importance of cooperation and teamwork. It has also been a source of pride to see African oil-producing countries becoming more prominent on the global energy stage, not only in OPEC, but through organizations like the Gas Exporting Countries Forum and International Energy Forum with whom we share many members in common.
Together with my very able colleagues at the Secretariat in Vienna, our Member Countries and those in the Declaration of Cooperation framework, we have turned a historic page and wrote several glorious chapters of our industry in the last six years.
At the end of this month, I will hand over the baton as Secretary General to my brother and friend Haitham Al-Ghais of the State of Kuwait. He is a seasoned veteran of the oil industry and an astute diplomat who has dedicated himself to OPEC for many years.
As we move on to a new chapter, we can take comfort in knowing that OPEC and its Member Countries will continue to devote themselves to the core principles of the Organization’s statute: supporting a stable and secure energy future for the benefit of producers, consumers and the global economy. The best is yet to come for OPEC, for Nigeria, and for this great industry.
Increasing global carbon emissions has stimulated many countries in the world to find ways to reduce their emissions, in particular, from the energy sector. Undoubtedly, development of renewables and cleaner energy to displace conventional fossil energy has become the answer to this emissions problem for many, for instance electric vehicles, hydrogen-based vehicles, biodiesel, and methanol fuel.
As the biggest economy in Southeast Asia, Indonesia also finds ways to increase the use of renewables and reduce its carbon footprint. One of the government’s plans is to phase-out the coal power plants by 2030. Nevertheless, as the country with a huge coal reserves, reaching up to 38 million tons, it is reasonable that Indonesia must find another way to utilize its resources after the coal phase-out and downstreaming could be the answer for this. In the long run, it is estimated that by 2045 the DME and methanol production in Indonesia could reach 14.13 million tons and 6.15 million tons, respectively.
The Indonesian government has prepared at least eight roadmaps for development and utilization of coal, which aims to optimally use the coal resources and reserves in the country. Among the eight roadmaps, coal gasification to produce dimethyl ether (DME) and methanol is one of them.
The conversion of coal to methanol is a normal strategy for a country with abundant coal resources. Similar to Indonesia, with its abundant coal resources and reserves, China also boosts its methanol industry and uses coal as the feedstock. China has seen the production and consumption of methanol increasing over the years and become one of the world leaders in methanol producers with a production reaching 69.9 MMTs.
Provided that the coal gasification projects are well-executed in Indonesia, the government could reduce its LPG import by replacing LPG with DME. On the other hand, methanol could be used as feedstocks for various industries, including the petrochemical industry. It also can be used for biodiesel production where Indonesia still needs to import methanol for this purpose.
Despite its benefits, the coal downstreaming does not come without any challenges and objections. First, the coal downstreaming might not be economically viable. A study by IEEFA highlights that Indonesia’s coal downstreaming projects, such as DME would not be profitable. Second, the development and use of more coal, such as coal gasification, might create more environmental pollution even though it is lower compared to the conventional use.
Future of coal downstreaming in Indonesia
Currently, Indonesia only has one methanol producer located in Kalimantan with a production capacity of 660,000 tonnes annually. With a demand of methanol of more than one million tonnes annually, Indonesia has become the net importer of methanol.
While there are many ways to produce methanol–from coal (brown methanol), natural gas (gray methanol), natural gas combined with CCS (blue methanol) and biomass (green methanol), Indonesia still relies on natural gas for methanol production. Production of methanol from natural gas faces two major challenges, which is the fluctuating price of the feedstocks and declining supply.
Given the coal reserves in the country, coal downstreaming offers a way to keep developing the methanol industry in Indonesia. In addition to the feedstocks availability, Indonesia still needs massive development for its methanol industry. And for this, Indonesia manages to attract investors for its coal downstreaming (gasification) project.
For example, China invested USD 560 million for a coal to methanol (gasification) project in Aceh, Indonesia which could produce 600,000 tons of methanol annually. Another example is the USD 2 billion investment by PT Air Products East Kalimantan (PT APEK), a joint venture between Air Products, Bakrie Capital Indonesia, and Ithaca Resources in Bengalon District, East Kalimantan to build a methanol factory with a capacity of 1.8 million tons per year.
Nevertheless, there might be a competing interest between coal downstreaming products, methanol, syngas, DME, and others, either for energy or for feedstock for the chemical industry. This is because allocating more products for energy use may mean less for the opposite purposes. Therefore, there is a need to align the allocation of coal downstreaming products.
As there are already alternative policies to reduce LPG use and considering that many petrochemical industries require methanol as its key feedstocks, it is suggested that the coal downstreaming should be more focused on methanol production instead of DME for the LPG substitute purpose.
First, in addition to DME for LPG substitute, the project by Indonesian state-owned gas company (PGN), gas network (jargas) for household development, might be a great alternative. The jargas project could also reduce the use of LPG by households. Second, there is the induction stove policy which aims to replace the use of LPG-based stove.
Even though these two programs are still in the initial process of development and still require a lot of improvements, the petrochemical industries could not easily find the alternatives for the methanol they need.
It is very important for the government, specifically the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (KESDM) and Ministry of Industry (Kemenperin) to synergize the roadmap and coal downstreaming policy, in particular, the methanol and DME production. Hence, the policy enacted by the government could support and complement each other.
*Felicia Grace Utomo is a Researcher in environmental and energy management at the Purnomo Yusgiantoro Center. She graduated from Development Economics from the Atma Jaya University in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Europe is still looking for reliable alternative sources of energy especially gas, as its energy relations fell nosedive with Russia. It has been exploring energy sources from Asian region down to Africa. But while African energy sources exist, it largely lacks infrastructure to transport it up to Europe. And transporting gas would have to go across borders which requires some kind of regulations and clearance agreements between the African countries.
The Trans-Saharan gas pipeline (also known as NIGAL pipeline and Trans-African gas pipeline) was first proposed back in the 1970s. The inter-governmental agreement on the pipeline was signed by Energy Ministers of Nigeria, Niger and Algeria on 3 July 2009 in Abuja. It has not materialized, among many factors, due to lack of finance and multiple complicated government bureaucracy. But Europe’s demand is pushing for fixing some solutions and resolving obstacles to realize this project.
Nigerian authourities said that Russia’s Gazprom has negotiated with Nigeria about its possible participation in the project. Experts described this interest as a business strategic step to gatekeep and control the flow of gas from Africa into Europe. Russia would be interested either tactically delay the project. Its aim is to be the leading supplier, and any other competitors must be placed under tight-monitoring and control.
Charles Robertson, Global Chief Economist at Renaissance Capital, questioned in an email discussion how Russia can heavily invest in Africa’s energy sector, especially in the exploration and production of oil and gas to be exported to Europe.
“Russia or Kazakh oil competes with Libyan, Angolan or Nigerian oil. Russia or Kazakh gas competes with Algerian or Egyptian gas. Russia can supply food – but that’s mainly needed by north Africa,” he wrote, and concluded: “By forging strong cooperation, the European Union (EU) has more of the industrial machinery that Africa might need to industrialize, although Chinese machinery may be more appropriate for the technical level of industry in Africa.”
Russian companies have exited mega-projects in Zimbabwe, and also went out from Botswana, Cameroon and Sierra Leone. Russians were not chosen after the project bidding process in Mozambique. There are, therefore, other reliable potential foreign corporate investors such as Indian company GAIL, France’s Total S.A., Italy’s Eni SpA and Royal Dutch Shell have expressed interest in participating in the project.
Differences exist though. According to the Algerian Energy Minister Chakib Khelil – “only partners that can bring something to the project, not just money, should be there. On the other side, Energy Ministers of Algeria and Nigeria have said that “if things go well, there will be no need to bring international oil companies into the project” and “if the need for partnership in the project arises, not every partner will be welcome on board on the project.”
Mahamane Sani Mahamadou, Minister of Petroleum for the Republic of Niger; Mohamed Arkab, Minister of Energy and Mines, Algeria, and Chief Timipre Sylva, Minister of State for Petroleum Resources of Nigeria as well as the Director Generals of National Oil Companies (NOCs) of the three African countries held thorough discussions on the implementation of the the multi-billion Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline (TSGP) in June 2022, in Abuja, capital of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
According to reports, a Steering Committee made up of the three Ministers and Director Generals of the NOCs, established during the two-day meeting, will be responsible for updating the feasibility study for TSGP and will meet at the end of July 2022 in Algiers to discuss how to progress with the TSGP project.
The Ministry of Petroleum of Niger commends all parties for this significant step, viewing both the establishment of the taskforce and roadmap as key drivers towards making the TSGP as reality. With energy poverty increasing across the African continent due to limited investments in energy projects, delays in exploration, production and infrastructure rollout, the Covid-19 pandemic and global energy transition-related policies, the TSGP project will bring in a new era of energy reliability for Africa.
With the 4,128 km pipeline running from Warri in Nigeria to Hassi R’Mel in Algeria via Niger, the pipeline will not only create a direct connection between Nigeria and Algeria’s gas fields to European markets but will bring significant benefits for Niger.
With over 34 billion cubic meters of gas, Niger, in its own rights, also has the potential to become a gas exporter, and with Europe expanding energy ties with Africa, the TSGP project will mark a new era of improved regional cooperation in Africa, enhancing gas monetization and exports while scaling up Niger-exports to Europe via Algeria.
Meanwhile, with the pipeline making headway, opportunities for the country to increase domestic gas utilization on the back of new reserves from Niger and Nigeria have arisen. With Niger seeking to improve electricity access and ensure energy affordability through increased exploitation of gas, the TSGP initiative will be a game changer.
The pipeline will enable up to 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas to be traded yearly enhancing regional and international energy trade, enabling Niger to expand the role of natural gas in its energy mix and address energy poverty.
The efforts of Afreximbank for the creation of an African Energy Bank is a huge testimony of how Africa can enhance cooperation and leverage domestic solutions to optimize its oil and gas market, notes Sebastian Wagner, Executive Chair of the Germany Africa Business Forum. “What we want to see is African financiers rallying towards supporting the rollout of TSGP. Increased oil and gas exploration, production and assets development is what will bring Africa out of energy poverty by 2030,” Wagner acknowledged in comments.
With gas emerging as the energy of the future, the US$13 billion TSGP project could lead to socioeconomic growth by unlocking massive investments across the energy sector. It will simultaneously help create jobs in various industries including energy, petrochemicals and manufacturing whilst optimizing energy production and positioning Africa as a global energy hub.
The pipeline will start in the Warri region in Nigeria and run north through Niger to Hassi R’Mel in Algeria. In Hassi R’Mel the pipeline will connect to the existing Trans-Mediterranean, Maghreb–Europe, Medgaz and Galsi pipelines.
These supply Europe from the gas transmission hubs at El Kala and Beni Saf on Algeria’s Mediterranean coast. The length of the pipeline would be 4,128 kilometres (2,565 mi): 1,037 kilometres (644 miles) in Nigeria, 841 kilometres (523 miles) in Niger, and 2,310 kilometres (1,440 miles) in Algeria.
Reports say the pipeline to be built and operated in partnership between the NNPC and Sonatrach. The company would include the Republic of Niger. Initially NNPC and Sonatrach would hold a total 90% of shares, while Niger would hold 10%.
The annual capacity of the pipeline, previously estimated at US$10 billion, would be up to 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas. The pipeline was originally expected to be operational by 2015. In the year 2019, the project is still in the prospecting phase. Now, it is unknown what next as there are also safety concerns about the project itself and the future practical operations.
Nigeria, Niger and Algeria are among the least secured areas in the region because of various active terrorist movements that destabilize the all technical processes and construction of gas pipelines across Africa. That, however, the Trans-Saharan gas pipeline is still seen as an opportunity to diversify the gas supplies to the European Union.
Climate change is destroying heritage sites across Europe and globally. Ancient historical landmarks could disappear completely unless swift action is...
Hamm: “What time is it?” Clov: “The same as usual.” Samuel Beckett, Endgame When studying history, it becomes difficult to...
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s upcoming visit to Iran (July 19, 2022), will be his second visit overseas after his visit...
The New Champion Dialogues of the World Economic Forum will bring together entrepreneurial leaders from business, government and civil society...
Since Pakistan announced that the Financial Action Task force was about to lift Pakistan from the “Grey List”, India was...
In addition to tackling COVID and the monkeypox outbreak, the UN health agency has also been keeping a close eye...
After multiple consecutive shocks, including the COVID-19 pandemic which led to the first recession in almost three decades, the Mozambique...
Biden goes to Riyadh: Realism may not need to trump principle
The Increasingly Complicated Situation of China’s Inflation Trend
The United States Military Crisis in Personnel Strength
Petros Iosifidis on media policy and communication
The United States of America, the sanctions system and anti-Chinese manoeuvres
Policy Support Indispensable for China’s Economic and Financial Recovery
Russia has made a decisive break with the West and is ready to help shape a new world order
Walk of Truth calls for action after the Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief