http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=squeezing-more-oil-edit-this
A great scientific american article by Maugeri explains how technological innovation can buck the conspiracy theorist's "impending oil theory" on the world's oil supply in the present and the future...more to come on contents of the article.
September 22, 2009
February 9, 2009
NY Times Article---Dark Days for Green Energy
Will credit markets soak the burgeoning green energy industry? Did oil do it for the green industry? I am still looking for that article or report that states $X dollars per barrel will make alternative energy investments not worth doing.
Let's face it. In order for green energy to seem promising by any stretch of the imagination, speculation has to be tightly "regulated".
It probably seems plausible to stabilize petroleum with the same dirty incentives as subsidizing corn and other grains. The problem with that, of course, is that means that we are giving our taxpayer dollars to big oil.
But does that mean that we subsidize oil so that it is expensive enough so that alternative energy investments are bright green???
What about directly subsidizing the green energy movement?
Infant industry arguments--here we come!
February 4, 2009
Dark Days for Green Energy
By KATE GALBRAITH
Wind and solar power have been growing at a blistering pace in recent years, and that growth seemed likely to accelerate under the green-minded Obama administration. But because of the credit crisis and the broader economic downturn, the opposite is happening: installation of wind and solar power is plummeting.
Factories building parts for these industries have announced a wave of layoffs in recent weeks, and trade groups are projecting 30 to 50 percent declines this year in installation of new equipment, barring more help from the government.
Prices for turbines and solar panels, which soared when the boom began a few years ago, are falling. Communities that were patting themselves on the back just last year for attracting a wind or solar plant are now coping with cutbacks.
"I thought if there was any industry that was bulletproof, it was that industry," said Rich Mattern, the mayor of West Fargo, N.D., where DMI Industries of Fargo operates a plant that makes towers for wind turbines. Though the flat Dakotas are among the best places in the world for wind farms, DMI recently announced a cut of about 20 percent of its work force because of falling sales.
Much of the problem stems from the credit crisis that has left Wall Street banks reeling. Once, as many as 18 big banks and financial institutions were willing to help finance installation of wind turbines and solar arrays, taking advantage of generous federal tax incentives. But with the banks in so much trouble, that number has dropped to four, according to Keith Martin, a tax and project finance specialist with the law firm Chadbourne & Parke.
Wind and solar developers have been left starved for capital. "It's absolutely frozen," said Craig Mataczynski, president of Renewable Energy Systems Americas, a wind developer. He projected his company would build just under half as much this year as it did last year.
The two industries are hopeful that President Obama's economic stimulus package will help. But it will take time, and in the interim they are making plans for a dry spell.
Solar energy companies like OptiSolar, Ausra, Heliovolt and SunPower, once darlings of investors, have all had to lay off workers. So have a handful of companies that make wind turbine blades or towers in the Midwest, including Clipper Windpower, LM Glasfiber and DMI.
Some big wind developers, like NextEra Energy Resources and even the Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, a promoter of wind power, have cut back or delayed their wind farm plans.
Renewable energy sources like biomass, which involves making electricity from wood chips, and geothermal, which harnesses underground heat for power, have also been slowed by the financial crisis, but the effects have been more pronounced on once fast-growing wind and solar.
Because of their need for space to accommodate giant wind turbines, wind farms are especially reliant on bank financing for as much as 50 percent of a project's costs. For example, JPMorgan Chase, which analysts say is the most active bank remaining in the renewable energy sector, has invested in 54 wind farms and one solar plant since 2003, according to John Eber, the firm's managing director for energy investments.
In the solar industry, the ripple effects of the crisis extend all the way to the panels that homeowners put on their roofs. The price of solar panels has fallen by 25 percent in six months, according to Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, who said he expected a further drop of 10 percent by midsummer.
(For homeowners, however, the savings will not be as substantial, partly because panels account for only about 60 percent of total installation costs.)
After years when installers had to badger manufacturers to ensure they would receive enough panels, the situation has reversed. Bill Stewart, president of SolarCraft, a California installer, said that manufacturers were now calling to say, "Hey, do you need any product this month? Can I sell you a bit more?"
The turnaround reflects reduced demand for solar panels, and also an increase in supply of panels and of polysilicon, a crucial material in many panels.
On the wind side, turbines that once had to be ordered far in advance are suddenly becoming available.
"At least one vendor has said that they have equipment for delivery in 2009, where nine months ago they wouldn't have been able to take new orders until 2011," Mr. Mataczynski of Renewable Energy wrote in an e-mail message. As he has scaled back his company's plans, he has been forced to cancel some orders for wind turbines, forfeiting the deposit.
Banks have invested in renewable energy, lured by the tax credits. But with banks tightly controlling their money and profits, the main task for the companies is to find new sources of investment capital.
Wind and solar companies have urged Congress to adopt measures that could help revive the market. But even if a favorable stimulus bill passes, nobody is predicting a swift recovery.
"Nothing Congress does in the stimulus bill can put the market back where it was in 2007 and 2008, before it was broken," said Mr. Martin, the tax lawyer with Chadbourne & Parke. "But it can help at the margins."
The solar and wind tax credits are structured slightly differently, but the House version of the stimulus bill would help both industries by providing more immediate tax incentives, alleviating some of their dependency on banks.
Both House and Senate would also extend an important tax credit for wind energy, called the production tax credit, for three years; previously the industry had complained of boom-and-bust cycles with the credit having to be renewed nearly every year.
Over the long term, with Mr. Obama focused on a concerted push toward greener energy, the industry remains optimistic.
"You drive across the countryside and there's more and more wind farms going up," said Mr. Mattern of West Fargo. "I still have big hopes."
Let's face it. In order for green energy to seem promising by any stretch of the imagination, speculation has to be tightly "regulated".
It probably seems plausible to stabilize petroleum with the same dirty incentives as subsidizing corn and other grains. The problem with that, of course, is that means that we are giving our taxpayer dollars to big oil.
But does that mean that we subsidize oil so that it is expensive enough so that alternative energy investments are bright green???
What about directly subsidizing the green energy movement?
Infant industry arguments--here we come!
February 4, 2009
Dark Days for Green Energy
By KATE GALBRAITH
Wind and solar power have been growing at a blistering pace in recent years, and that growth seemed likely to accelerate under the green-minded Obama administration. But because of the credit crisis and the broader economic downturn, the opposite is happening: installation of wind and solar power is plummeting.
Factories building parts for these industries have announced a wave of layoffs in recent weeks, and trade groups are projecting 30 to 50 percent declines this year in installation of new equipment, barring more help from the government.
Prices for turbines and solar panels, which soared when the boom began a few years ago, are falling. Communities that were patting themselves on the back just last year for attracting a wind or solar plant are now coping with cutbacks.
"I thought if there was any industry that was bulletproof, it was that industry," said Rich Mattern, the mayor of West Fargo, N.D., where DMI Industries of Fargo operates a plant that makes towers for wind turbines. Though the flat Dakotas are among the best places in the world for wind farms, DMI recently announced a cut of about 20 percent of its work force because of falling sales.
Much of the problem stems from the credit crisis that has left Wall Street banks reeling. Once, as many as 18 big banks and financial institutions were willing to help finance installation of wind turbines and solar arrays, taking advantage of generous federal tax incentives. But with the banks in so much trouble, that number has dropped to four, according to Keith Martin, a tax and project finance specialist with the law firm Chadbourne & Parke.
Wind and solar developers have been left starved for capital. "It's absolutely frozen," said Craig Mataczynski, president of Renewable Energy Systems Americas, a wind developer. He projected his company would build just under half as much this year as it did last year.
The two industries are hopeful that President Obama's economic stimulus package will help. But it will take time, and in the interim they are making plans for a dry spell.
Solar energy companies like OptiSolar, Ausra, Heliovolt and SunPower, once darlings of investors, have all had to lay off workers. So have a handful of companies that make wind turbine blades or towers in the Midwest, including Clipper Windpower, LM Glasfiber and DMI.
Some big wind developers, like NextEra Energy Resources and even the Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens, a promoter of wind power, have cut back or delayed their wind farm plans.
Renewable energy sources like biomass, which involves making electricity from wood chips, and geothermal, which harnesses underground heat for power, have also been slowed by the financial crisis, but the effects have been more pronounced on once fast-growing wind and solar.
Because of their need for space to accommodate giant wind turbines, wind farms are especially reliant on bank financing for as much as 50 percent of a project's costs. For example, JPMorgan Chase, which analysts say is the most active bank remaining in the renewable energy sector, has invested in 54 wind farms and one solar plant since 2003, according to John Eber, the firm's managing director for energy investments.
In the solar industry, the ripple effects of the crisis extend all the way to the panels that homeowners put on their roofs. The price of solar panels has fallen by 25 percent in six months, according to Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, who said he expected a further drop of 10 percent by midsummer.
(For homeowners, however, the savings will not be as substantial, partly because panels account for only about 60 percent of total installation costs.)
After years when installers had to badger manufacturers to ensure they would receive enough panels, the situation has reversed. Bill Stewart, president of SolarCraft, a California installer, said that manufacturers were now calling to say, "Hey, do you need any product this month? Can I sell you a bit more?"
The turnaround reflects reduced demand for solar panels, and also an increase in supply of panels and of polysilicon, a crucial material in many panels.
On the wind side, turbines that once had to be ordered far in advance are suddenly becoming available.
"At least one vendor has said that they have equipment for delivery in 2009, where nine months ago they wouldn't have been able to take new orders until 2011," Mr. Mataczynski of Renewable Energy wrote in an e-mail message. As he has scaled back his company's plans, he has been forced to cancel some orders for wind turbines, forfeiting the deposit.
Banks have invested in renewable energy, lured by the tax credits. But with banks tightly controlling their money and profits, the main task for the companies is to find new sources of investment capital.
Wind and solar companies have urged Congress to adopt measures that could help revive the market. But even if a favorable stimulus bill passes, nobody is predicting a swift recovery.
"Nothing Congress does in the stimulus bill can put the market back where it was in 2007 and 2008, before it was broken," said Mr. Martin, the tax lawyer with Chadbourne & Parke. "But it can help at the margins."
The solar and wind tax credits are structured slightly differently, but the House version of the stimulus bill would help both industries by providing more immediate tax incentives, alleviating some of their dependency on banks.
Both House and Senate would also extend an important tax credit for wind energy, called the production tax credit, for three years; previously the industry had complained of boom-and-bust cycles with the credit having to be renewed nearly every year.
Over the long term, with Mr. Obama focused on a concerted push toward greener energy, the industry remains optimistic.
"You drive across the countryside and there's more and more wind farms going up," said Mr. Mattern of West Fargo. "I still have big hopes."
September 9, 2008
OIL, WAR AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY with Michael Klare
SATURDAY, SEPT. 27, 2008 Between The Lines Radio Newsmagazine presentsa pre-election forum "OIL, WAR AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY"with MICHAEL T. KLARE,one of the world's leading experts on energy and security issues,
preceded by a documentary film screening of"BLOOD AND OIL:The Dangers and Consequences of America's Dependency on Foreign Petroleum"produced by the Media Education Foundation
Join us Saturday, SEPTEMBER 27 for a pre-election forum with Michael T. Klare, Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and defense correspondent for The Nation Magazine. Klare is author of the new book, "Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy.
Oil hit $100 and barrel earlier in January of this year and spiked to $142 a barrel within months. But unlike the oil shocks of the 1970s, this dizzying leap is not the product of an OPEC embargo or a sudden flare-up in the Middle East. Rather, it is a harbinger of a permanent new structure of world power, one in which market forces and military strength matter far less than the scarcity of vital natural resources.
Klare, a pre-eminent expert on resource geopolitics, forecasts a future of surprising new alliances and explosive danger. World leaders are now facing the stark recognition that all materials crucial for the functioning of modern industrial societies are being depleted at an accelerating rate. The only survival, Klare says, lies in international cooperation.
ACES/ECA Arts Hall55 Audubon Street, Orange Street EntranceNew Haven, CT3-5:30 p.m.
Suggested donation: $15 per ticket, $5 students. Seating limited, please call 1-(203) 268-8446 for advance reservations, directions.
http://www.squeakywheel.net/BloodAndOilFlyerBW.pdf
preceded by a documentary film screening of"BLOOD AND OIL:The Dangers and Consequences of America's Dependency on Foreign Petroleum"produced by the Media Education Foundation
Join us Saturday, SEPTEMBER 27 for a pre-election forum with Michael T. Klare, Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and defense correspondent for The Nation Magazine. Klare is author of the new book, "Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy.
Oil hit $100 and barrel earlier in January of this year and spiked to $142 a barrel within months. But unlike the oil shocks of the 1970s, this dizzying leap is not the product of an OPEC embargo or a sudden flare-up in the Middle East. Rather, it is a harbinger of a permanent new structure of world power, one in which market forces and military strength matter far less than the scarcity of vital natural resources.
Klare, a pre-eminent expert on resource geopolitics, forecasts a future of surprising new alliances and explosive danger. World leaders are now facing the stark recognition that all materials crucial for the functioning of modern industrial societies are being depleted at an accelerating rate. The only survival, Klare says, lies in international cooperation.
ACES/ECA Arts Hall55 Audubon Street, Orange Street EntranceNew Haven, CT3-5:30 p.m.
Suggested donation: $15 per ticket, $5 students. Seating limited, please call 1-(203) 268-8446 for advance reservations, directions.
http://www.squeakywheel.net/BloodAndOilFlyerBW.pdf
September 4, 2008
WSJ Article on Oil Supply Data Probed for Manipulation
I am wondering to what extent the an investigation into oil-supply data manipulation would disrupt oil-futures trading enough to encourage increased transparency, or if the timing of the probe is not good since the summer has ended and prices are rebounding from the summer high.
Oil-Supply Data Probed for Manipulation
CFTC Regulators Look at Energy Firms, Take Depositions About Oddball Trading
By ANN DAVISSeptember 4, 2008; Page C1
Commodity-market regulators are investigating whether energy-market players are injecting false data into the marketplace to influence perceptions about crude-oil supply and demand, people familiar with the probe say.
Among other things, regulators are concerned that companies may be reporting inventory levels that benefit their own trading positions but that may not be accurate, people familiar with the regulators' thinking say.
Unexpected drops in oil inventories reported each Wednesday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration can spark price spikes on the main oil futures benchmark on the New York Mercantile Exchange. A company could theoretically underreport barrels in its tanks, for example, at a key hub to suggest oil is scarcer than it really is, and then sell its physical oil at a premium when oil prices jump on misleading news.
Another concern is whether companies conduct some physical oil sales and purchases solely to influence short-term pricing on oil futures markets.
It isn't clear whether the regulators, at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, have certain energy firms in their sights. But people familiar with the agency's operations say its concerns stem from tips from sources in the oil-trading world about big market moves that occurred unexpectedly.
The CFTC is taking depositions, or testimony, about some of those periods, lawyers say.
The agency has become more active in soliciting and acting on leads from traders and experts in physical energy handling, according to people familiar with the CFTC's operations.
Among the periods the agency is examining, these people say, is a rapid shift in the structure of oil markets in July 2007. Price relationships flipped in a way that was extremely profitable for traders who may have had close knowledge of continuing and rapid drain-off in oil inventories. Oil for near-term delivery had been selling at a discount to oil to be delivered months and years into the future. Suddenly, oil for immediate delivery became much more expensive when a glut of oil at a key hub at Cushing, Okla. rapidly drained.
An agency spokeswoman said, "The CFTC has already announced one enforcement action [in July 2008] in the crude oil markets that resulted from the agency's nationwide crude oil investigation, and these investigative efforts are ongoing. Ensuring the integrity of the futures markets is critical, particularly in the energy sector given the impact energy prices have on all consumers."
It is illegal to report false data to the EIA. One issue is how much the EIA vets the information it receives; the CFTC is interested in doing more thorough examinations of inventory data that it suspects may be inaccurate. Jonathan Cogan, spokesman for EIA, says while the EIA doesn't do physical inventory checks to audit the accuracy of the reported numbers, the agency looks at other data on supply and demand to determine if the inventory data appears on target.
The CFTC's probe about data integrity is part of a longer-term oil markets investigation as well as a broader effort by the CFTC to improve its information about and its understanding of the workings of the energy markets it regulates.
Pressure on the CFTC to exert more aggressive oversight has mounted lately as Congress has debated whether to require the agency to take new steps to curb abuses or study the impact of speculation on the market. Several lawmakers have criticized the agency for lax regulation.
The CFTC recently hired outside consultants to help it dive into the ins and outs of physical oil shipping and terminals. They are hosting intensive boot camps for its enforcement attorneys to give them a road map of who owns key infrastructure and how they use it. The idea is to better grasp where, if a trader wanted to manipulate prices, the markets might be vulnerable.
The latest requests for information in the oil-market probe could help the enforcement staff build an encyclopedic database of who's who in the oil-trading world. It is loading emails and trading data onto a digitized platform, according to people familiar with its demands.
Long Arm of the CFTC
The CFTC sent out a new wave of broad information requests a few weeks ago to large oil traders, including Wall Street firms, energy companies and physical-oil merchants, after sending an earlier set of inquiries this spring, people involved in the cases say. It is seeking the names of the firms' biggest traders and their email and instant-message correspondence about the oil markets dating back to early 2007, or in some cases back to 2005. It has also asked about storage holdings, among other physical assets the traders may own or control.
Some people who have seen the requests characterize them as overly broad. Among other queries, the CFTC asked some recipients to disclose any unfair, improper, unethical and unlawful practices, they say.
The requests follow more-targeted subpoenas issued last fall about trading in refined oil products and other subpoenas in December, inquiring about transactions on a widely used energy price-reporting system run by Platts, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos. "Platts has full confidence in the integrity of our price assessment processes, which are designed to bring transparency and efficiency to the marketplace." says a company spokeswoman.
The agency previously settled civil charges against a unit of Marathon Oil Corp. alleging that company attempted to manipulate the cash price of crude oil through bidding activity on Platts. The Marathon unit didn't admit or deny wrongdoing. The CFTC is continuing to aggressively pursue any misleading reporting to Platts, people involved in the matters say.
The lines of inquiry in the CFTC oil probe have clear parallels to a series of successful cases it has prosecuted over the past several years against natural-gas traders who reported false data to industry trade publications and price-reporting services including Platts. Those cases have resulted in several civil settlements, and recently criminal sentences for some defendants.
The CFTC is seeking to obtain data from the EIA about what various companies report and that the EIA uses to compile its widely watched weekly energy inventory estimates. Traders the world over watch the data as an important barometer of energy supply, since the data the U.S. publish are far more robust than in many other nations.
EIA's Explanation
The EIA says while it has shared data with the CTFC in the past, it doesn't provide an entire data feed for an open-ended time frame. Mr. Cogan, spokesman for EIA, says, "The reason why this data is protected at the individual level is ... that in order to get truthful, accurate, timely reporting of data -- which is data that competitors would find useful -- we try to ensure that that data is not available at the company level. That way companies will feel they can accurately report to us. It will benefit the whole market with better information."
Enforcement attorneys also have been pursuing a theory that some traders have leased oil tankers as floating storage to make oil inventories on the ground appear less-well supplied than they really are, say attorneys familiar with its inquiries.
Skeptics of the theory argue that the largest crude-oil tankers are small in context of hundreds of millions of barrels of total U.S. oil inventories. They are extremely expensive to lease and holding that much oil in storage is also capital-intensive, so any scheme to hold oil off the market would be risky.
Write to Ann Davis at ann.davis@wsj.com1
Oil-Supply Data Probed for Manipulation
CFTC Regulators Look at Energy Firms, Take Depositions About Oddball Trading
By ANN DAVISSeptember 4, 2008; Page C1
Commodity-market regulators are investigating whether energy-market players are injecting false data into the marketplace to influence perceptions about crude-oil supply and demand, people familiar with the probe say.
Among other things, regulators are concerned that companies may be reporting inventory levels that benefit their own trading positions but that may not be accurate, people familiar with the regulators' thinking say.
Unexpected drops in oil inventories reported each Wednesday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration can spark price spikes on the main oil futures benchmark on the New York Mercantile Exchange. A company could theoretically underreport barrels in its tanks, for example, at a key hub to suggest oil is scarcer than it really is, and then sell its physical oil at a premium when oil prices jump on misleading news.
Another concern is whether companies conduct some physical oil sales and purchases solely to influence short-term pricing on oil futures markets.
It isn't clear whether the regulators, at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, have certain energy firms in their sights. But people familiar with the agency's operations say its concerns stem from tips from sources in the oil-trading world about big market moves that occurred unexpectedly.
The CFTC is taking depositions, or testimony, about some of those periods, lawyers say.
The agency has become more active in soliciting and acting on leads from traders and experts in physical energy handling, according to people familiar with the CFTC's operations.
Among the periods the agency is examining, these people say, is a rapid shift in the structure of oil markets in July 2007. Price relationships flipped in a way that was extremely profitable for traders who may have had close knowledge of continuing and rapid drain-off in oil inventories. Oil for near-term delivery had been selling at a discount to oil to be delivered months and years into the future. Suddenly, oil for immediate delivery became much more expensive when a glut of oil at a key hub at Cushing, Okla. rapidly drained.
An agency spokeswoman said, "The CFTC has already announced one enforcement action [in July 2008] in the crude oil markets that resulted from the agency's nationwide crude oil investigation, and these investigative efforts are ongoing. Ensuring the integrity of the futures markets is critical, particularly in the energy sector given the impact energy prices have on all consumers."
It is illegal to report false data to the EIA. One issue is how much the EIA vets the information it receives; the CFTC is interested in doing more thorough examinations of inventory data that it suspects may be inaccurate. Jonathan Cogan, spokesman for EIA, says while the EIA doesn't do physical inventory checks to audit the accuracy of the reported numbers, the agency looks at other data on supply and demand to determine if the inventory data appears on target.
The CFTC's probe about data integrity is part of a longer-term oil markets investigation as well as a broader effort by the CFTC to improve its information about and its understanding of the workings of the energy markets it regulates.
Pressure on the CFTC to exert more aggressive oversight has mounted lately as Congress has debated whether to require the agency to take new steps to curb abuses or study the impact of speculation on the market. Several lawmakers have criticized the agency for lax regulation.
The CFTC recently hired outside consultants to help it dive into the ins and outs of physical oil shipping and terminals. They are hosting intensive boot camps for its enforcement attorneys to give them a road map of who owns key infrastructure and how they use it. The idea is to better grasp where, if a trader wanted to manipulate prices, the markets might be vulnerable.
The latest requests for information in the oil-market probe could help the enforcement staff build an encyclopedic database of who's who in the oil-trading world. It is loading emails and trading data onto a digitized platform, according to people familiar with its demands.
Long Arm of the CFTC
The CFTC sent out a new wave of broad information requests a few weeks ago to large oil traders, including Wall Street firms, energy companies and physical-oil merchants, after sending an earlier set of inquiries this spring, people involved in the cases say. It is seeking the names of the firms' biggest traders and their email and instant-message correspondence about the oil markets dating back to early 2007, or in some cases back to 2005. It has also asked about storage holdings, among other physical assets the traders may own or control.
Some people who have seen the requests characterize them as overly broad. Among other queries, the CFTC asked some recipients to disclose any unfair, improper, unethical and unlawful practices, they say.
The requests follow more-targeted subpoenas issued last fall about trading in refined oil products and other subpoenas in December, inquiring about transactions on a widely used energy price-reporting system run by Platts, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos. "Platts has full confidence in the integrity of our price assessment processes, which are designed to bring transparency and efficiency to the marketplace." says a company spokeswoman.
The agency previously settled civil charges against a unit of Marathon Oil Corp. alleging that company attempted to manipulate the cash price of crude oil through bidding activity on Platts. The Marathon unit didn't admit or deny wrongdoing. The CFTC is continuing to aggressively pursue any misleading reporting to Platts, people involved in the matters say.
The lines of inquiry in the CFTC oil probe have clear parallels to a series of successful cases it has prosecuted over the past several years against natural-gas traders who reported false data to industry trade publications and price-reporting services including Platts. Those cases have resulted in several civil settlements, and recently criminal sentences for some defendants.
The CFTC is seeking to obtain data from the EIA about what various companies report and that the EIA uses to compile its widely watched weekly energy inventory estimates. Traders the world over watch the data as an important barometer of energy supply, since the data the U.S. publish are far more robust than in many other nations.
EIA's Explanation
The EIA says while it has shared data with the CTFC in the past, it doesn't provide an entire data feed for an open-ended time frame. Mr. Cogan, spokesman for EIA, says, "The reason why this data is protected at the individual level is ... that in order to get truthful, accurate, timely reporting of data -- which is data that competitors would find useful -- we try to ensure that that data is not available at the company level. That way companies will feel they can accurately report to us. It will benefit the whole market with better information."
Enforcement attorneys also have been pursuing a theory that some traders have leased oil tankers as floating storage to make oil inventories on the ground appear less-well supplied than they really are, say attorneys familiar with its inquiries.
Skeptics of the theory argue that the largest crude-oil tankers are small in context of hundreds of millions of barrels of total U.S. oil inventories. They are extremely expensive to lease and holding that much oil in storage is also capital-intensive, so any scheme to hold oil off the market would be risky.
Write to Ann Davis at ann.davis@wsj.com1
August 20, 2008
Canadian oil mergers/acquisitions
Aug 19, 2008 4:40:00 PM MSTShell Canada gets regulatory approvals for its $5 billion takeover of Duvernay Oil Corp. (Shell-Duvernay)
CALGARY _ Shell Canada Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc, says it has received Canadian regulatory approvals for its $5 billion deal to buy Duvernay Oil Corp. (TSX:DDV), a Calgary-based natural gas producer.Shell announced late Tuesday it had gotten approval from the Minister of Industry under the Investment Canada Act for its acquisition of Duvernay Oil/Shell said that in approving the deal, the government "determined that the transaction is likely to be of net benefit to Canada for purposes of the Investment Canada Act."The oil giant also said the Commissioner of Competition under the federal Competition Act had granted Shell Canada an advance ruling certificate that says the deal clears competition hurdles.As a result of the two rulings, Shell Canada has now received all necessary Canadian regulatory approvals to proceed with the acquisition of Duvernay.The $83 a share offer for Duvernay was announced in mid-July and expires Aug. 22.Duvernay has major natural gas properties in the Montney area of northeastern British Columbia and northwestern Alberta and generated record output of 25,584 barrels of daily oil equivalent production in the latest quarter.
CALGARY _ Shell Canada Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc, says it has received Canadian regulatory approvals for its $5 billion deal to buy Duvernay Oil Corp. (TSX:DDV), a Calgary-based natural gas producer.Shell announced late Tuesday it had gotten approval from the Minister of Industry under the Investment Canada Act for its acquisition of Duvernay Oil/Shell said that in approving the deal, the government "determined that the transaction is likely to be of net benefit to Canada for purposes of the Investment Canada Act."The oil giant also said the Commissioner of Competition under the federal Competition Act had granted Shell Canada an advance ruling certificate that says the deal clears competition hurdles.As a result of the two rulings, Shell Canada has now received all necessary Canadian regulatory approvals to proceed with the acquisition of Duvernay.The $83 a share offer for Duvernay was announced in mid-July and expires Aug. 22.Duvernay has major natural gas properties in the Montney area of northeastern British Columbia and northwestern Alberta and generated record output of 25,584 barrels of daily oil equivalent production in the latest quarter.
Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline to resume operations
Thomson Financial NewsBP says Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline to resume operations
08.20.08, 6:54 AM ET
LONDON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - BP Plc said on Wednesday that testing of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline would begin, ahead of a move to resume full operation of the route damaged by a fire earlier this month.
Toby Odone, a BP (nyse: BP - news - people ) spokesman, added that the lifting schedule for Azeri crude at Ceyhan will be updated on Wednesday for tanker loadings to resume at the beginning of next week.
(Reporting by Alex Lawler)
08.20.08, 6:54 AM ET
LONDON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - BP Plc said on Wednesday that testing of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline would begin, ahead of a move to resume full operation of the route damaged by a fire earlier this month.
Toby Odone, a BP (nyse: BP - news - people ) spokesman, added that the lifting schedule for Azeri crude at Ceyhan will be updated on Wednesday for tanker loadings to resume at the beginning of next week.
(Reporting by Alex Lawler)
What is The Syncrude Project ?
http://www.cos-trust.com/
At a Glance
The Syncrude Project is a joint venture undertaking among Canadian Oil Sands Limited (36.74%); Conoco-Phillips Oil Sand Partnership II (9.03%); Imperial Oil Resources (25%); Mocal Energy Limited (5%); Murphy Oil Company Ltd. (5%); Nexen Oil Sands Partnership (7.23%); and Petro-Canada Oil and Gas (12%).
The Syncrude Project is operated and administered by Syncrude Canada Ltd. on behalf of the participants.
The Syncrude consortium was formed in 1964 with the official opening of the project and the first barrel shipped in 1978.
Located near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Syncrude operates large oil sands mines, utilities plants, bitumen extraction plants and an upgrading complex that processes bitumen into a light sweet crude oil.
The crude oil produced by Syncrude is referred to as Synthetic Crude Oil ("SCO"), which is a high quality, light sweet crude oil with no residual bottoms and low sulphur content (See Marketing section for more information).
Syncrude is one of the largest holders of Alberta's mineable oil sands leases with eight leases covering approximately 100,000 hectares.
Syncrude has proved and probable reserves of 4.9 billion barrels of SCO, which represent a lifespan of approximately 35 years at Stage 3 capacity with the potential to extend reserve life beyond the year 2050 as the leases are developed.
Syncrude has a long-term growth plan that envisions productive capacity reaching about 500,000 barrels per day of a premium quality, light sweet crude oil post 2016. Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the plan have been completed. The most recent Stage 3 expansion came on-stream in 2006 at a capital cost of about Cdn $8.55 billion, and expanded productive capacity to average approximately 350,000 barrels per day. The next expansions are referred to as the Stage 3 debottleneck and Stage 4, which have not yet been approved and are in the conceptual planning phase. The Stage 3 debottleneck will leverage and optimize the potential of Stage 3, which included pre-investment to enable further production expansion. Stage 4 currently envisions further expansion of upgrading capacity, primarily through the construction of a fourth coker, and additional mining trains on one of Syncrude's undeveloped leases.
In 2007, Syncrude shipped 111.3 million barrels of synthetic crude oil.
Syncrude is a leader in technological innovation of oil sands recovery and has pioneered many of the technologies used throughout the oil sands industry today, including low energy extraction and hydrotransport. These innovations have reduced energy requirements, thereby reducing operating costs and emissions.
Syncrude is fully committed to excellence in environment, health and safety performance in the conduct of its business and in support of a safe, reliable and profitable operation.
Syncrude is a major engine of growth for the Alberta and Canadian economies with over $4.2 billion in total spending during 2006.
More information on Syncrude Canada can be found in their sustainability report, available on Syncrude's website at www.syncrude.ca.
At a Glance
The Syncrude Project is a joint venture undertaking among Canadian Oil Sands Limited (36.74%); Conoco-Phillips Oil Sand Partnership II (9.03%); Imperial Oil Resources (25%); Mocal Energy Limited (5%); Murphy Oil Company Ltd. (5%); Nexen Oil Sands Partnership (7.23%); and Petro-Canada Oil and Gas (12%).
The Syncrude Project is operated and administered by Syncrude Canada Ltd. on behalf of the participants.
The Syncrude consortium was formed in 1964 with the official opening of the project and the first barrel shipped in 1978.
Located near Fort McMurray, Alberta, Syncrude operates large oil sands mines, utilities plants, bitumen extraction plants and an upgrading complex that processes bitumen into a light sweet crude oil.
The crude oil produced by Syncrude is referred to as Synthetic Crude Oil ("SCO"), which is a high quality, light sweet crude oil with no residual bottoms and low sulphur content (See Marketing section for more information).
Syncrude is one of the largest holders of Alberta's mineable oil sands leases with eight leases covering approximately 100,000 hectares.
Syncrude has proved and probable reserves of 4.9 billion barrels of SCO, which represent a lifespan of approximately 35 years at Stage 3 capacity with the potential to extend reserve life beyond the year 2050 as the leases are developed.
Syncrude has a long-term growth plan that envisions productive capacity reaching about 500,000 barrels per day of a premium quality, light sweet crude oil post 2016. Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the plan have been completed. The most recent Stage 3 expansion came on-stream in 2006 at a capital cost of about Cdn $8.55 billion, and expanded productive capacity to average approximately 350,000 barrels per day. The next expansions are referred to as the Stage 3 debottleneck and Stage 4, which have not yet been approved and are in the conceptual planning phase. The Stage 3 debottleneck will leverage and optimize the potential of Stage 3, which included pre-investment to enable further production expansion. Stage 4 currently envisions further expansion of upgrading capacity, primarily through the construction of a fourth coker, and additional mining trains on one of Syncrude's undeveloped leases.
In 2007, Syncrude shipped 111.3 million barrels of synthetic crude oil.
Syncrude is a leader in technological innovation of oil sands recovery and has pioneered many of the technologies used throughout the oil sands industry today, including low energy extraction and hydrotransport. These innovations have reduced energy requirements, thereby reducing operating costs and emissions.
Syncrude is fully committed to excellence in environment, health and safety performance in the conduct of its business and in support of a safe, reliable and profitable operation.
Syncrude is a major engine of growth for the Alberta and Canadian economies with over $4.2 billion in total spending during 2006.
More information on Syncrude Canada can be found in their sustainability report, available on Syncrude's website at www.syncrude.ca.
www.petroleumworld.com
www.petroleumworld.com The World, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, Trinidad, Peru and Latin America's Energy, Oil & Gas Industry on the Internet
WWW.PETROLEUMWORLD.COM is a free service web site that provide real time news and information on Latin America, Bolivia, Brazil, Peru, Trinidad and Venezuela's Energy, Oil & Gas industry prepared by professionals in the area and using the latest technological advances in communication.
WWW.PETROLEUMWORLD.COM is a free service web site that provide real time news and information on Latin America, Bolivia, Brazil, Peru, Trinidad and Venezuela's Energy, Oil & Gas industry prepared by professionals in the area and using the latest technological advances in communication.
Blind faith in oil growth
http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1078-Blind-faith-in-oil-growth
Blind faith in oil growth
George Monbiot
June 08, 2007
Britain's future prosperity has been hardwired to the rising use of transport fuels, without a thought for the supply drying up, writes George Monbiot. Such belief could bring the economy crashing down.
Motorised transport is a form of time travel. We mine the compressed time of other eras -- the infinitesimal rain of plankton on the ocean floor, the settlement of trees in anoxic swamps -- and use it to accelerate through our own. Every tank of fuel contains thousands of years of accretions. Our future depends on the expectation that the past will never be exhausted.
The energy white paper, or policy document, that the British government published on May 23, 2007, talks of new taxes, new markets, new research, new incentives. Anyone reading the report’s chapter on transport would be forgiven for believing that the government has the problem under control: as a result of its measures, we are likely to see a great reduction in our use of geological time.
Buried in another chapter, however, and so far missed by all journalists, there is a remarkable admission: "The majority (66%) of UK oil demand is derived from demand for transport fuels which is expected to increase modestly over the medium term." To increase? If the government is implementing all the exciting measures the transport chapter contains, how on earth could our use of fuel increase?
You won't find the answer in the white paper. It mysteriously forgets to mention that the government intends to build another 2,500 miles of trunk roads and to double the capacity of our airports by 2030. Partly to permit this growth in transport, another white paper, published on May 21, proposes a massive deregulation of planning law. There is no discussion in either paper of the implications of these programmes for energy use or climate change. There are plainly two governments of the United Kingdom, one determined to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel, the other determined to raise it.
What happens beyond the medium term is anyone’s guess. But it should be pretty obvious that more roads and more airports will mean that our rising use of transport fuel becomes hardwired -- the future health of the economy will depend on it. So the government must have examined this question. If our economic lives depend on continued growth in the consumption of transport fuels, it must first have determined that such growth is possible. Mustn't it?
I phoned four government departments -- trade and industry, transport, environment, communities and local government -- in the hope of finding this assessment. But it does not exist. No report has ever been commissioned by the British government on the issue of whether or not there is enough oil to sustain its transport programme.
Instead, both the white paper and the civil servants I spoke to referred me to a book published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), set up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) after the 1974 oil crisis. This in itself is odd. On every other issue that might affect the United Kingdom’s security or economic growth, the government conducts its own assessments. But in this case it relies exclusively on one external source. This reliance seems even odder when you read the IEA's book and discover that it's as polemical as my columns.
Before it presents any evidence, the book dismisses people who have questioned future oil supplies as "doomsayers". It announces that it has "long maintained that none of this [the possibility that oil supplies might be reaching a peak] is a cause for concern". Though it expects the global demand for oil to rise by 70% between now and 2030, and though it anticipates that output from the world's existing oilfields will decline by about 5% a year, it is confident that new supplies will make up the difference.
It bases this assessment on the finding that "the level of remaining reserves of oil has been remarkably constant historically, in spite of the volumes extracted each successive year". As the IEA must know as well as anyone else, this is partly because the level has been forged by members of Opec, the oil producers' cartel. The quota assigned to a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries reflects the size of its reserves. All members have a powerful interest in exaggerating their reserves in order to boost their quotas. The IEA admits in another report that Saudi Arabia has posted a constant level of reserves (260 billion barrels) over the past 15 years, despite the fact that it has produced over 100 billion barrels in the same period. Where has the magic oil come from?
But it is the liars of Opec on whom the agency's optimism relies. The growth in global demand will be met, it says, by a 150% increase in oil production from the Middle East by 2030. What if this oil doesn't materialise? It is a question the IEA raises then rapidly drops. "Because of the uncertainties over the respective amounts of resources and reserves, it is difficult to predict the moment of peak oil, when production might be expected to start to decline. Estimates range from today to 2050 or beyond." Isn't that reassuring?
I should point out that peak oil is not like climate change. There is no consensus among scientists about when it is likely to happen. I cannot state with confidence that the IEA's assessment is wrong. But a report published in February by the US department of energy shows how dangerous it is to rely on a single source. "Almost all forecasts are based on differing, often dramatically differing, geological assumptions ... Because of the large uncertainties, it is difficult to define an overriding geological basis for accepting or rejecting any of the forecasts."
The report then publishes a long list of estimates by senior figures in and around the oil industry of a possible date for peak oil. They vary greatly, but many are clustered between 2010 and 2020. Another report, also commissioned by the US department of energy, shows that "without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented". The disasters invoked by the peaking of global oil supplies can be avoided only with a "crash program" beginning 20 years before it occurs. If some of the estimates in the department of energy's report are correct, it is already too late.
The IEA believes that this crisis will be averted by opening new fields and using non-conventional oil. But these cause environmental disasters of their own. Around half the new discoveries the agency expects during the next 25 years will take place in the Arctic or in the very deep sea, between 2,000 and 4,000 metres. In either case, a major oil spill, in such slow and fragile ecosystems, would be catastrophic. Mining non-conventional oil, such as the tar sands in Canada or the kerogen shales in the US, produces far more carbon dioxide than drilling for ordinary petroleum. It also uses and pollutes great volumes of fresh water and wrecks thousands of acres of pristine land. "In the long-term future," the IEA says, "non-conventional, heavy oils may well become the norm rather than the exception." If our future growth relies on these resources, we commit ourselves to ever-growing environmental impacts.
We don't need to invoke peak oil to produce an argument for cutting our use of transport fuel. But you might have imagined that the UK government would have shown just a little curiosity about whether or not its transport programme will bring the economy crashing down.
Blind faith in oil growth
George Monbiot
June 08, 2007
Britain's future prosperity has been hardwired to the rising use of transport fuels, without a thought for the supply drying up, writes George Monbiot. Such belief could bring the economy crashing down.
Motorised transport is a form of time travel. We mine the compressed time of other eras -- the infinitesimal rain of plankton on the ocean floor, the settlement of trees in anoxic swamps -- and use it to accelerate through our own. Every tank of fuel contains thousands of years of accretions. Our future depends on the expectation that the past will never be exhausted.
The energy white paper, or policy document, that the British government published on May 23, 2007, talks of new taxes, new markets, new research, new incentives. Anyone reading the report’s chapter on transport would be forgiven for believing that the government has the problem under control: as a result of its measures, we are likely to see a great reduction in our use of geological time.
Buried in another chapter, however, and so far missed by all journalists, there is a remarkable admission: "The majority (66%) of UK oil demand is derived from demand for transport fuels which is expected to increase modestly over the medium term." To increase? If the government is implementing all the exciting measures the transport chapter contains, how on earth could our use of fuel increase?
You won't find the answer in the white paper. It mysteriously forgets to mention that the government intends to build another 2,500 miles of trunk roads and to double the capacity of our airports by 2030. Partly to permit this growth in transport, another white paper, published on May 21, proposes a massive deregulation of planning law. There is no discussion in either paper of the implications of these programmes for energy use or climate change. There are plainly two governments of the United Kingdom, one determined to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel, the other determined to raise it.
What happens beyond the medium term is anyone’s guess. But it should be pretty obvious that more roads and more airports will mean that our rising use of transport fuel becomes hardwired -- the future health of the economy will depend on it. So the government must have examined this question. If our economic lives depend on continued growth in the consumption of transport fuels, it must first have determined that such growth is possible. Mustn't it?
I phoned four government departments -- trade and industry, transport, environment, communities and local government -- in the hope of finding this assessment. But it does not exist. No report has ever been commissioned by the British government on the issue of whether or not there is enough oil to sustain its transport programme.
Instead, both the white paper and the civil servants I spoke to referred me to a book published by the International Energy Agency (IEA), set up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) after the 1974 oil crisis. This in itself is odd. On every other issue that might affect the United Kingdom’s security or economic growth, the government conducts its own assessments. But in this case it relies exclusively on one external source. This reliance seems even odder when you read the IEA's book and discover that it's as polemical as my columns.
Before it presents any evidence, the book dismisses people who have questioned future oil supplies as "doomsayers". It announces that it has "long maintained that none of this [the possibility that oil supplies might be reaching a peak] is a cause for concern". Though it expects the global demand for oil to rise by 70% between now and 2030, and though it anticipates that output from the world's existing oilfields will decline by about 5% a year, it is confident that new supplies will make up the difference.
It bases this assessment on the finding that "the level of remaining reserves of oil has been remarkably constant historically, in spite of the volumes extracted each successive year". As the IEA must know as well as anyone else, this is partly because the level has been forged by members of Opec, the oil producers' cartel. The quota assigned to a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries reflects the size of its reserves. All members have a powerful interest in exaggerating their reserves in order to boost their quotas. The IEA admits in another report that Saudi Arabia has posted a constant level of reserves (260 billion barrels) over the past 15 years, despite the fact that it has produced over 100 billion barrels in the same period. Where has the magic oil come from?
But it is the liars of Opec on whom the agency's optimism relies. The growth in global demand will be met, it says, by a 150% increase in oil production from the Middle East by 2030. What if this oil doesn't materialise? It is a question the IEA raises then rapidly drops. "Because of the uncertainties over the respective amounts of resources and reserves, it is difficult to predict the moment of peak oil, when production might be expected to start to decline. Estimates range from today to 2050 or beyond." Isn't that reassuring?
I should point out that peak oil is not like climate change. There is no consensus among scientists about when it is likely to happen. I cannot state with confidence that the IEA's assessment is wrong. But a report published in February by the US department of energy shows how dangerous it is to rely on a single source. "Almost all forecasts are based on differing, often dramatically differing, geological assumptions ... Because of the large uncertainties, it is difficult to define an overriding geological basis for accepting or rejecting any of the forecasts."
The report then publishes a long list of estimates by senior figures in and around the oil industry of a possible date for peak oil. They vary greatly, but many are clustered between 2010 and 2020. Another report, also commissioned by the US department of energy, shows that "without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented". The disasters invoked by the peaking of global oil supplies can be avoided only with a "crash program" beginning 20 years before it occurs. If some of the estimates in the department of energy's report are correct, it is already too late.
The IEA believes that this crisis will be averted by opening new fields and using non-conventional oil. But these cause environmental disasters of their own. Around half the new discoveries the agency expects during the next 25 years will take place in the Arctic or in the very deep sea, between 2,000 and 4,000 metres. In either case, a major oil spill, in such slow and fragile ecosystems, would be catastrophic. Mining non-conventional oil, such as the tar sands in Canada or the kerogen shales in the US, produces far more carbon dioxide than drilling for ordinary petroleum. It also uses and pollutes great volumes of fresh water and wrecks thousands of acres of pristine land. "In the long-term future," the IEA says, "non-conventional, heavy oils may well become the norm rather than the exception." If our future growth relies on these resources, we commit ourselves to ever-growing environmental impacts.
We don't need to invoke peak oil to produce an argument for cutting our use of transport fuel. But you might have imagined that the UK government would have shown just a little curiosity about whether or not its transport programme will bring the economy crashing down.
Brazilian ethanol exports?
The New European Challenge for Brazilian Ethanol Exports
Date Published: 7 Feb 2008
http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?Src=RSS&docid=120514123
Date Published: 7 Feb 2008
http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?Src=RSS&docid=120514123
cellulosic ethanol
I understand that there is a lot of information out there on ethanol made from corn (US) and sugar cane (Brazil). I wanted to have a post and magazine article about cellulosic ethanol because of the supply of raw materials for its production
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18227&a=
Monday, February 26, 2007
Will Cellulosic Ethanol Take Off?
Fuel from grass and wood chips could be big in the next 10 years--if the government helps.
By Kevin Bullis
Cellulosic ethanol, a fuel produced from the stalks and stems of plants (rather than only from sugars and starches, as with corn ethanol), is starting to take root in the United States. This month, Celunol, based in Cambridge, MA, broke ground on an ethanol plant in Louisiana that will be able to produce 1.4 million gallons of the fuel each year starting in 2008. Other companies are moving forward as well with plans to build plants.
But experts from industry and environmental groups say that without loan guarantees and other incentives, the nascent industry will fail to emerge from the current demonstration phase to produce commercial-scale quantities of ethanol. And without that, it may be impossible to meet President Bush's ambitious goal of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels a year by 2017.
Cellulosic ethanol is attractive because the feedstock, which includes wheat straw, corn stover, grass, and wood chips, is cheap and abundant. Converting it into ethanol requires less fossil fuel, so it can have a bigger effect than corn ethanol on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Also, an acre of grasses or other crops grown specifically to make ethanol could produce more than two times the number of gallons of ethanol as an acre of corn, in part because the whole plant can be used instead of just the grain. That's good news because many experts estimate that corn-ethanol producers will run out of land, in part because of competing demand for corn-based food, limiting the total production to about 15 billion gallons of fuel. (Already, corn-ethanol plants--existing and planned, combined--have a capacity of about 11 billion gallons.) The greater productivity of cellulosic sources should eventually allow them to produce as much as 150 billion gallons of ethanol by 2050, according to a report by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That's the equivalent of more than two-thirds of the current gasoline consumption in the United States.
But it will take some time to reach these levels of production. Even producing enough cellulosic ethanol to meet the president's 35-billion-gallon goal will be difficult. That will require that roughly 15 billion gallons would come from non-corn-grain sources such as cellulosic ethanol (about 5 billion gallons might come from biodiesel culled from oils in crops such as soybeans). And reaching 15 billion gallons by 2017 will be a challenge. Currently, according to the ethanol industry's list of producers in the United States, none of the ethanol comes from cellulosic biomass.
Cellulosic-ethanol companies are hopeful that they can meet this goal. Colin South, the president of Mascoma Corporation, also based in Cambridge, says that if all goes well, cellulosic ethanol could supply half of the 35-billion-gallon goal by 2017. But so far Mascoma has only announced plans to build a demonstration facility with a capacity of about half a million gallons of fuel per year. That facility should be ready in 18 months, South says. But as is the case with the new Celunol plant, the facility's primary purpose would be to demonstrate that the company's technology can work at a large scale; it will not always operate at full capacity, as the system is used to test new cost-saving technologies.
Other companies are planning to build plants, but these are also relatively small. Range Fuels (formerly Kergy), based in Broomfield, CO, plans to start construction this year on a 10-million-gallon-per-year plant in Georgia, CEO Mitch Mandich says. A large corn-grain ethanol company, Abengoa Bioenergy, of St. Louis, is building a 1.3-million-gallon biomass ethanol plant in Spain. But even taken together, these plants will supply only a tiny fraction of the 15-billion-gallon target.
"That's a huge goal," says John Howe, vice president of public affairs at Celunol. "That's well beyond what any one company or a large number of companies [can do]. It will take a massive national effort to get close to that goal."
By "national effort," he partly means money for loan guarantees that will encourage financiers to fund the building of large commercial-scale plants. Company executives and cellulosic-ethanol advocates agree on the need for such government help. Iogen Corporation, in Ottawa, Canada, is a case in point. The company has been producing cellulosic ethanol since 2004 and already has an almost 700,000-gallon-per-year demonstration plant. But Iogen's plans for a 20-million-gallon commercial-scale plant are now on hold as the company awaits legislation to be passed in Canada, the United States, or Germany that will provide the financial incentives Iogen needs to build such a big operation.
Yet financing may not be the only hurdle: even if commercial plants can be built, the process may still prove too expensive to compete with corn ethanol, so further work in the lab may be necessary. (See "Redesigning Life to Make Ethanol.")
Indeed, researchers at cellulosic-ethanol companies, national labs, and academic labs are engaged in continuing R&D both in converting biomass into ethanol and in growing more-productive strains of biomass. Right now the conversion is an expensive and water-intensive multistage process. Some groups hope to genetically engineer a single organism to both break down cellulose into simpler sugars and ferment alcohols, thereby simplifying the process. Others are working to improve methods for converting biomass into ethanol using heat and catalysts--the method being used by Range Fuels. And companies such as Celunol are investigating better crops, such as the ancestors of today's sugarcane, that can produce more ethanol per acre.
Some researchers have even given up on the idea of cellulosic ethanol, turning instead to sources such as algae for biofuels. (See "Algae-Based Fuels Set to Bloom.") But Nathanael Greene, an energy-policy specialist at the NRDC, remains optimistic. Although he thinks it's unlikely that cellulosic-ethanol plants will produce more than a few billion gallons of fuel by 2017, "that would put us in the position where the cellulosic industry is really ready to start growing exponentially," he says. "Once we get over that first hump, I think the cellulosic industry will grow quite rapidly, and [it] has much greater longer-term growth potential [than corn ethanol]."
Greene cites the example of the now fast-growing corn-ethanol industry. "It took 10 years to get the first billion gallons and 10 years to get the second billion," he says. "And now we're set to go from 6 to roughly 12 billion in 18 months."
Copyright Technology Review 2007.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18227&a=
Monday, February 26, 2007
Will Cellulosic Ethanol Take Off?
Fuel from grass and wood chips could be big in the next 10 years--if the government helps.
By Kevin Bullis
Cellulosic ethanol, a fuel produced from the stalks and stems of plants (rather than only from sugars and starches, as with corn ethanol), is starting to take root in the United States. This month, Celunol, based in Cambridge, MA, broke ground on an ethanol plant in Louisiana that will be able to produce 1.4 million gallons of the fuel each year starting in 2008. Other companies are moving forward as well with plans to build plants.
But experts from industry and environmental groups say that without loan guarantees and other incentives, the nascent industry will fail to emerge from the current demonstration phase to produce commercial-scale quantities of ethanol. And without that, it may be impossible to meet President Bush's ambitious goal of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable fuels a year by 2017.
Cellulosic ethanol is attractive because the feedstock, which includes wheat straw, corn stover, grass, and wood chips, is cheap and abundant. Converting it into ethanol requires less fossil fuel, so it can have a bigger effect than corn ethanol on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Also, an acre of grasses or other crops grown specifically to make ethanol could produce more than two times the number of gallons of ethanol as an acre of corn, in part because the whole plant can be used instead of just the grain. That's good news because many experts estimate that corn-ethanol producers will run out of land, in part because of competing demand for corn-based food, limiting the total production to about 15 billion gallons of fuel. (Already, corn-ethanol plants--existing and planned, combined--have a capacity of about 11 billion gallons.) The greater productivity of cellulosic sources should eventually allow them to produce as much as 150 billion gallons of ethanol by 2050, according to a report by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). That's the equivalent of more than two-thirds of the current gasoline consumption in the United States.
But it will take some time to reach these levels of production. Even producing enough cellulosic ethanol to meet the president's 35-billion-gallon goal will be difficult. That will require that roughly 15 billion gallons would come from non-corn-grain sources such as cellulosic ethanol (about 5 billion gallons might come from biodiesel culled from oils in crops such as soybeans). And reaching 15 billion gallons by 2017 will be a challenge. Currently, according to the ethanol industry's list of producers in the United States, none of the ethanol comes from cellulosic biomass.
Cellulosic-ethanol companies are hopeful that they can meet this goal. Colin South, the president of Mascoma Corporation, also based in Cambridge, says that if all goes well, cellulosic ethanol could supply half of the 35-billion-gallon goal by 2017. But so far Mascoma has only announced plans to build a demonstration facility with a capacity of about half a million gallons of fuel per year. That facility should be ready in 18 months, South says. But as is the case with the new Celunol plant, the facility's primary purpose would be to demonstrate that the company's technology can work at a large scale; it will not always operate at full capacity, as the system is used to test new cost-saving technologies.
Other companies are planning to build plants, but these are also relatively small. Range Fuels (formerly Kergy), based in Broomfield, CO, plans to start construction this year on a 10-million-gallon-per-year plant in Georgia, CEO Mitch Mandich says. A large corn-grain ethanol company, Abengoa Bioenergy, of St. Louis, is building a 1.3-million-gallon biomass ethanol plant in Spain. But even taken together, these plants will supply only a tiny fraction of the 15-billion-gallon target.
"That's a huge goal," says John Howe, vice president of public affairs at Celunol. "That's well beyond what any one company or a large number of companies [can do]. It will take a massive national effort to get close to that goal."
By "national effort," he partly means money for loan guarantees that will encourage financiers to fund the building of large commercial-scale plants. Company executives and cellulosic-ethanol advocates agree on the need for such government help. Iogen Corporation, in Ottawa, Canada, is a case in point. The company has been producing cellulosic ethanol since 2004 and already has an almost 700,000-gallon-per-year demonstration plant. But Iogen's plans for a 20-million-gallon commercial-scale plant are now on hold as the company awaits legislation to be passed in Canada, the United States, or Germany that will provide the financial incentives Iogen needs to build such a big operation.
Yet financing may not be the only hurdle: even if commercial plants can be built, the process may still prove too expensive to compete with corn ethanol, so further work in the lab may be necessary. (See "Redesigning Life to Make Ethanol.")
Indeed, researchers at cellulosic-ethanol companies, national labs, and academic labs are engaged in continuing R&D both in converting biomass into ethanol and in growing more-productive strains of biomass. Right now the conversion is an expensive and water-intensive multistage process. Some groups hope to genetically engineer a single organism to both break down cellulose into simpler sugars and ferment alcohols, thereby simplifying the process. Others are working to improve methods for converting biomass into ethanol using heat and catalysts--the method being used by Range Fuels. And companies such as Celunol are investigating better crops, such as the ancestors of today's sugarcane, that can produce more ethanol per acre.
Some researchers have even given up on the idea of cellulosic ethanol, turning instead to sources such as algae for biofuels. (See "Algae-Based Fuels Set to Bloom.") But Nathanael Greene, an energy-policy specialist at the NRDC, remains optimistic. Although he thinks it's unlikely that cellulosic-ethanol plants will produce more than a few billion gallons of fuel by 2017, "that would put us in the position where the cellulosic industry is really ready to start growing exponentially," he says. "Once we get over that first hump, I think the cellulosic industry will grow quite rapidly, and [it] has much greater longer-term growth potential [than corn ethanol]."
Greene cites the example of the now fast-growing corn-ethanol industry. "It took 10 years to get the first billion gallons and 10 years to get the second billion," he says. "And now we're set to go from 6 to roughly 12 billion in 18 months."
Copyright Technology Review 2007.
The course that sparked the interest in energy and oil
This is the course and of course the professor that sparked my interest in oil and energy.
The books were a great read, but the research was better.
I did my final paper on the nationalization of Venezuelan oil companies in the 1960s.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil-ns/2005/
The books were a great read, but the research was better.
I did my final paper on the nationalization of Venezuelan oil companies in the 1960s.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil-ns/2005/
Pickens Plan?
The Pickens plan, funded by T. Boone Pickens from BP Capital states that the US is addicted to foreign oil. We've grown more dependent on importing foreign oil more than ever before.
Was Hubbert sort of right?
Pickens is convinced harnessing wind power can be the economic revival that the US currently needs.
Although I have not done enough research to openly support it, its worth a shot looking into.
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
Was Hubbert sort of right?
Pickens is convinced harnessing wind power can be the economic revival that the US currently needs.
Although I have not done enough research to openly support it, its worth a shot looking into.
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
What is Petroleum Coke? Is it alternative energy?
"Petroleum coke or 'pet coke' is a solid high carbon material that is produced as a by-product of the oil refining process. During the oil refining process, crude oil is distilled down into products such as kerosene, diesel fuel, jet fuel, gasoline, home oil and asphalt. Heavier products like asphalt are similar to the sediments found in wine as they both tend to fall to the bottom. Indeed, the petroleum industry often refers to these heavier by-products as 'heavy fractions' or 'bottoms'."
"In an effort to extract the more valuable, lighter fractions like gasoline, refineries run heavier sediments through a coking unit. The almost pure carbon residual is the solid by-product commonly referred to as petroleum coke. The world’s major oil refineries, including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell, Valero, BP, CITGO, and Marathon, all produce varying quantities of petroleum coke."
"Petroleum coke can serve as either an energy source or carbon source. Fuel grade petroleum coke, which serves as an energy source, represents about 71 percent of the total “pet coke” production. This product is burned to produce energy used in making cement, lime, co-generation and other industrial applications. A particularly attractive feature of petroleum coke is that it produces 14,000 BTU/pound as compared to the 8,000 to 13,500 BTU/pound associated with coal and, unlike coal, has very little ash. The cement/lime industries, for instance, utilize large amounts of petroleum coke because they require higher kiln temperatures and the sulfur dioxide from the coke is absorbed into the process."
"Products that utilize petroleum coke as a carbon source include aluminum (calcined coke) and steel (metallurgical coke). "
http://www.oxbow.com/ContentPage.asp?FN=ProductsPetroleumCoke&TS=3&MS=16&oLang=
"In an effort to extract the more valuable, lighter fractions like gasoline, refineries run heavier sediments through a coking unit. The almost pure carbon residual is the solid by-product commonly referred to as petroleum coke. The world’s major oil refineries, including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Shell, Valero, BP, CITGO, and Marathon, all produce varying quantities of petroleum coke."
"Petroleum coke can serve as either an energy source or carbon source. Fuel grade petroleum coke, which serves as an energy source, represents about 71 percent of the total “pet coke” production. This product is burned to produce energy used in making cement, lime, co-generation and other industrial applications. A particularly attractive feature of petroleum coke is that it produces 14,000 BTU/pound as compared to the 8,000 to 13,500 BTU/pound associated with coal and, unlike coal, has very little ash. The cement/lime industries, for instance, utilize large amounts of petroleum coke because they require higher kiln temperatures and the sulfur dioxide from the coke is absorbed into the process."
"Products that utilize petroleum coke as a carbon source include aluminum (calcined coke) and steel (metallurgical coke). "
http://www.oxbow.com/ContentPage.asp?FN=ProductsPetroleumCoke&TS=3&MS=16&oLang=
Offshore Infrastructure Associates Inc.
http://www.offinf.com/
What is OIA?
"(OIA) is a new venture aimed at the development and commercial implementation of renewable energy and resources, principally those related to the marine environment.
OIA's efforts are presently concentrated on the commercial implementation of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), a technology that is not dependent on fossil fuels, is not vulnerable to world energy market fluctuations and is environmentally benign."
"OTEC uses the heat energy stored in the Earth's oceans to generate electricity. It will work in areas where the temperature difference between the warmer, top layer of the ocean and the colder, deep ocean water is about 20°C (36°F), in an environment that is stable enough for efficient system operation."
OTEC is the acronym for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. It is basically supposed to extract electricity from tropical ocean currents, only in oceans/seas with x amount of depth. There's a history to this, the US government had started to invest in this in the 1970s (OPEC crisis), but since oil prices were low enough to beat investing in this technology, the plans were thrown out the window.
Correct me if I'm wrong anybody.
http://www.offinf.com/
What is OIA?
"(OIA) is a new venture aimed at the development and commercial implementation of renewable energy and resources, principally those related to the marine environment.
OIA's efforts are presently concentrated on the commercial implementation of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), a technology that is not dependent on fossil fuels, is not vulnerable to world energy market fluctuations and is environmentally benign."
"OTEC uses the heat energy stored in the Earth's oceans to generate electricity. It will work in areas where the temperature difference between the warmer, top layer of the ocean and the colder, deep ocean water is about 20°C (36°F), in an environment that is stable enough for efficient system operation."
OTEC is the acronym for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. It is basically supposed to extract electricity from tropical ocean currents, only in oceans/seas with x amount of depth. There's a history to this, the US government had started to invest in this in the 1970s (OPEC crisis), but since oil prices were low enough to beat investing in this technology, the plans were thrown out the window.
Correct me if I'm wrong anybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)