“70,000 unfarmed hectares in the Niari region,” > translation > another huge area of rain forest destruction and wild habitat destruction for a bit of oil.

I'm all in favor of another third world country becoming energy positive, but worry about the associated environmental costs.

About the same destruction is being done next door (but in a much larger scale) in Alberta, Canada to export oil south of the border. The latest request for added exploitation areas was temporarily refused because it would destroy many more thousand hectares of forest land.

There is another method, (in situ) to extract oil with less land damage but since it is more costly and would reduce profits, it is not used.

Big Oil should not be given the choice, i.e. do it cleanly or don't do it.

Sorry Jonas, but it's a Faustian bargain. Two of the most environmentally destructive practices on the planet, palm oil plantations and tar sands exploitation, in one country in exchange for an unlikely sustainable future.

How much unsustainable development do we need to get to your vision of a sustainable future? I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way. Indonesia is a much more developed country but rampant corruption and climate change are ensuring that their once vast rainforests will soon vanish.Where is the sustainability in that?

There are much more sustainble ways to encourage development, such as tourism.By the way, I'm not in the business of bashing developing countries. We in the West already made the same mistakes, and some much worse.

Short term gain but long term devastation, the oil sands in Canada is one of the most energy hungy processes know, not to metion the acres of poisoned tailings water. The Congo will get sc**wed just like the poor are in western Africa with their oil extraction. The problem is the oil companies have no real interest in long term solutions or the environment so 'strong' government is needed to keep them in check, just what Africa lacks and Canada lacks for that matter.

Can all you wise and wonderful armchair critics please go away and get to work and find a solution to our energy/fuel problem and when you have then come back and tell us all how we can fix it without destroying the planet. It's too bad we can't harness critisism, there seems to be enough of that around to power the world just by itself.

Merv: some stories just deserve criticism. You'll find lots of enthusiasm around here for the numerous solutions that do work.

Merv Nash:

You must be kidding. There are many well known ways to transport oneself and goods around without Oil or Coal.

The world is just about to back track 100+ years and rediscover clean electric vehicles and electric trains.

Dirty coal fired power plants are (also) not needed to produce the extra electricity required. Combined Hydro, Wind, Solar, Waves, Geothermal and Nuclear can produce all the electrical energy required (and much more).

Cost was the main road block, but Oil at $150 to $200 a barrel will take care of that within another year or two.

Note: We export huge amount of clean electricity to our neighbours including Eastern USA. The average selling price went down from 8.5 cents/KWh in 2007 to 8.0 cents/KWh in 2008 (- 6%) delivered to NY State while oil went up over 60%. Unbelievable but true. Electrified vehicles may correct this unbalance somewhat but electricity will remain much cheaper.

JamesEE:

The Congo River and its many affluents have huge undeveloped Hydro potential. The same $$ billions invested in Hydro plants and power distribution grids would create more jobs, much less GHG and benefit many more people with essential electrical energy for many decades to come.

Wind and Solar power may not be suited (or urgent) where you have very large undeveloped hydro potential.

John Taylor, where did you read that the Niari region is densely forested?

Or has it become fashionable nowadays to just assume that oil palm trees in Africa imply deforestation? They're even growing in Kenya's mountains for Christ's sake.

So please stop the propaganda. Niari is a highly degraded forest zone. Palm trees there would sequester a lot of carbon.

The only problem is that, to my best knowledge, the Niari valley is not in the nothern part of the Congo, but in the southern part ; and that, unfortunately, that area is not suitable for thte cultivation of the oil palm. So, the targeted production will not be reached.

The only problem is that, to my best knowledge, the Niari valley is not in the nothern part of the Congo, but in the southern part ; and that, unfortunately, that area is not suitable for thte cultivation of the oil palm. So, the targeted production will not be reached.

The only problem is that, to my best knowledge, the Niari valley is not in the nothern part of the Congo, but in the southern part ; and that, unfortunately, that area is not suitable for thte cultivation of the oil palm. So, the targeted production will not be reached.

Amanegone, do you really think a company like Eni would invest billions into such a project without knowing where palms can grow? That would be pretty absurd! :-)

Oil palms grow all over the tropical belt. I'm sure they chose the Niari region because it is relatively close to export infrastructures and close to Brazzaville; the best areas to grow the palm are far up North, but that region is inaccessible.