BP America Inc., ConocoPhillips, Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Illinois Clean Coal Institute, Japan Coal Energy Center, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Repsol YPF, Schlumberger Limited, Shell International Exploration and Production, U.S. Department of Energy are currently funding coal sequestration research at
an estimated cost of $1.5 million. This may be misleading because the agreement prescribes 50% of the funding by the U.S. DOE, but nevertheless the research is being conducted and at a hefty subsidation. Broadly I support this project- sponsoring coal research of national and international corporations is perfectly acceptable and it underlines my view that carrot at the end of the stick relations between business and government is necessary. American corporations will see the light- that it's in their interest and it's the public's interest to create a progressive energy portfolio.

That being said, this project's summary as described by Coal-Seq II are to:
• Develop and validate reliable predictive models
for ECBM/sequestration.
• To identify the best geologic/reservoir
environments and operating strategies for
ECBM/sequestration projects.
• To provide a single resource on global R&D and
demonstration activities for the consortium
members.

I think it's great that we're subsidizing sequestration research, because right now we don't have any finite science that can catch up to policy wagon. At the national level there's no recognition (or is it any apathetic response?) of global warming. The Clean Coal Power Initiative, under a guise of eliminating sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018, is a step. However it's a failure by the national government to issue the first step of problem solving- recognition. But I digress...

There are time constraints to this issue and there are reasons to proceed with caution. I'll adress the former and in a roundabout way come back to caution.

In March 2002, President Bush embarked on a $2 Billion, 10-Year Clean Coal Initiative. His Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said back in the day that the United States could not turn its back on cheap coal development. Sure, that's understandable. Abraham has a responsibility to industry as well as the environment. I hope he understood in 2002 and that he understands that today we need answers; we need a national energy policy because Global Warming holds a significant weight in our future practices. Can $2 billion satisfy the needs of energy research? And just for the sake of comparison, what fraction of the Iraq war is this sustainable energy venture costing Americans? What would the energy portfolio of the United States consist of if we weren't guarding the Persian Gulf?

Until the national government and electrical industries fork over the capitol and scientifically prove that carbon emissions from coal gasificiation and sequestration will not leak from beneath the soil carpet, i can't think of a justification for just plowing straight ahead with a national energy policy designed to empower more use of fossil fuels. The Missoula Independent nailed it in Can We Bury Global Warming when they said, "The search for a solution to the climate crisis demonstrates that we need to know a lot more about what lies beneath us."