Commitment and patience are essential to meet the energy needs of the world, says the president of Exxon Rich Krueger, in his remarks at the 2009 International Conference on Petroleum Technologies, which is being held these days in Doha as a response to the Copenhagen Conference. Instead of an alternative to carbon, Kruger suggests investing in the development of carbon capture systems
While many heads of state and scientists are gathering in Copenhagen and trying to formulate an emergency plan to save the planet from warming through a new agreement under which all countries in the world will commit to reducing carbon emissions, companies that make a living from energy from fossil sources such as oil and gas are preparing for a massive battle. At a parallel conference they are holding these days in Doha, the capital of Qatar, the senior officials of the oil and gas industry claim that there is no need to switch to alternative energy and that the problem can be solved by increasing energy efficiency (so that less carbon can be burned without reducing the energy consumption of the planet's inhabitants) and another proposal is that the fossil energy companies will participate in the development of carbon absorption systems.
"Meeting the world's growing energy needs requires commitment and patience on the part of industrial companies, governments and people around the world. This is according to the president of Exxon Mobil. "Our industry has faced significant challenges in the past," Kruger told an audience of approximately 3,000 managers and experts from the oil industry on the day The opening of the oil and gas industry exhibition and convention. "And every time, we have proven that the key in times like this is to keep a long-term view and focus on the fundamentals."
Krueger noted that ExxonMobil Corporation has maintained its capital investment plan throughout the recession and has even announced plans to invest between $25 billion and $30 billion annually over the next five years on energy projects around the world. "These are record levels of investment, made possible by our long-term view of industry cycles and our financial discipline," Krueger said.
Energy efficiency is an essential factor in meeting the world's growing energy needs, according to Krueger. "This is actually the largest source of energy available to us now. We estimate that by 2030, the amount of energy that will be saved through improved efficiency will be equivalent to approximately 145 million barrels of oil per day, approximately twice the amount of new energy from all sources combined."
Kruger also noted the essential role of technology in bringing new sources to the market, which have a smaller impact on the environment. Pointing to carbon capture and storage (CCS) as an example of a promising technology for the future, Krueger emphasized that ExxonMobil Corporation has spent over three decades researching, developing and implementing the technologies that make up CCS. "We have made great strides, we must remember that energy solutions are not created in a vacuum while ignoring factors of size, scope and cost."
Krueger emphasized the important role of governments and policy makers. "We need government leaders who are willing to commit to building a stable regulatory and financial framework that supports investments in the energy industry. Furthermore, we need policymakers with the patience to ensure that this long-term policy is implemented and protected over time."
Kruger concluded, "Ultimately, success will be determined by the extent to which industrial companies, governments and people from all over the world work together in a shared commitment to a better energy future."
The global warming deniers know who you work for.
16 תגובות
Yael, sent.
tall,
interesting.
Can you send me links on this subject to an email?
Maybe enough with this rebuttable claim of the "expert predictions"
There are enough experts who contradict the refutable claims of the IPCC and its "expert" members. They have studies **that cannot be refuted!**** What's more, today the IPCC's scientific basis can be refuted without any problems, the current disclosure also shows that the "experts" already know they were wrong....
It is not clear to me what else is needed to convince you, the believers, that the problem probably lies in language - faith.
I have uploaded several links to studies, interviews with experts and other information that contradicts the claims of all the articles supporting the theory. None of you bothered to respond factually to the information, again the problem of faith....
?
Fabricate claims? Is this how it is when you can't answer?
tall:
Where do you get your claims from?
Did you hear me deny something?
In all the discussions on the subject I always said that (like you) I am not an expert on the subject and that you (unlike you) I put my trust in the predictions of the experts.
Are there no real things to discuss and are forced to fabricate claims?
Michael,
It is you who deny, show you the truth in the face and you turn it the other way.
Argue with the facts, we'll see you.
There are very few climate scientists left who support this theory, they are no longer the "majority".
The only thing left is those vested interests trying to "solve" this non-existent problem (on the way to do the trick).
In a few months, a maximum of a year, there won't be anyone left who supports it...
My father emailed me the comment that was deleted by mistake.
This is a response that was between the current 4 and the current 5.
there she is:
anonymous:
The efforts are both worthy and not at odds.
It is clear that we must continue to work on green energy because the mineral fuel reserves will run out at one point or another.
It is also clear that it will take quite some time until all the energy is produced without relying on fossil fuels.
It is also clear that companies that exist by selling fossil fuel will not invest in solutions that will kill the hen that lays their golden eggs, and therefore the money they invest in finding ways to capture carbon is not money that would otherwise be invested in other solutions.
light:
Your words are the same as what I said in a previous answer that was accidentally deleted because of the mess that was in another discussion.
I of course agree with you.
We all know that tomorrow morning we will not wake up with 100% energy from renewable sources. After all, according to the agreements that are taking shape, we will continue to emit greenhouse gases until at least half a century. I propose to oblige the oil companies by law that as long as we use fossil fuels they will invest a certain percentage of their profits in the capture of PADF, etc. The solutions are not contradictory and it will be necessary to implement both approaches.
Depends on what environment you mean, if you mean climate, then yes, they won't be able to change anything, not with the ideas put forward there, assuming it's even possible to affect the global climate.
Kudos to you for being exposed to the "environmental reality", whatever it is, and for being weaned off wild picking of wild flowers and the curse of smoking, I don't know what that has to do with how to respond to that.
Where does Nir get the "greatness of mind" to state that all of Copenhagen was gathered
They do nothing for the environment???!! This type of comments
Suitable perhaps for the discourse of 15-year-olds who have not yet been exposed to the environmental reality.
Do we all have to repeat the curse of smoking again or if you want, picking
A wild of wildflowers to understand that environmental activism benefits everyone.
Michael, don't you think that instead of allocating resources in technology for capturing and storing carbon, it makes much more sense to invest them in developing technologies to produce energy without carbon emissions?
Kudos to them, it's good to know that there are those who are really working to improve the situation, unlike the group that was gathered in Copenhagen.
I must say that his words are more honorable than one might expect.
For example - he does not join the chorus of global warming deniers nor the one that denies human influence on global warming.
He simply suggests other ways that he thinks will solve the problem without harming his profits.
Considering his role - this is a reasonable and logical response to the situation.
In my opinion - the efforts he proposes are also worth investing in and it is good that the oil companies are engaged in them.
If they succeed, for example, in capturing all the carbon, the problem of greenhouse gas emissions will be solved.
I do not accept the claim that the carbon must be released in the future - it is all a question of "how it is captured and how stable is the compound in which it is captured".
I'm just afraid that from an energetic point of view this is a solution for a limited time because eventually the mineral fuel will run out.
Probably carbon capture systems, his interest is that they continue to use oil. Even if they capture the carbon at some stage it will be released and instead of investing in technologies for capturing and storing it, it is better to invest in clean energy production technologies.