BBC NEWS Americas Chavez signs Ecuador oil accord
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has signed a series of energy co-operation agreements during a visit to Ecuador.
They include the refining of up to 100,000 barrels of Ecuador's crude oil a day in Venezuela, which Quito says will save it more than $300m a year.
The deal is likely to raise concerns in the US over the growing regional clout of Mr Chavez, who has strained ties with Washington, correspondents say.
Ecuador has been portraying Mr Chavez's visit as technical, not political.
Ecuadorian President Alfredo Palacio's secretary said Quito was not interested in joining Venezuela's energy alliance aimed at challenging Washington's economic clout in the region.
But whenever Mr Chavez travels, Washington watches him very closely, the BBC's Daniel Schweimler says.
He constantly criticises US policy in the region and has found firm allies in Cuba's Fidel Castro and Bolivia's Evo Morales among others, our correspondent says.
His visit to Ecuador comes several weeks after Quito had thrown out the US oil company Occidental Petroleum, accusing it of breaking trade rules.
That dispute provoked strong criticism in the US and has put in doubt the future of a free trade agreement the two countries were negotiating.
But it is just the kind of move Mr Chavez would support and it also won widespread approval in Ecuador, especially among indigenous groups and workers, our correspondent says.
Statement
The Ecuadorian foreign ministry has issued a statement saying that the Venezuelan president's visit is much more technical than political. The statement said they were trying to build integration on the continent and not form any kind of anti-US access.
Both Ecuador and Venezuela are major oil producers.
Ecuador wants Venezuela to refine its crude oil at a discount and then help it to build its own refinery.
Ecuador has scarce refining capacity and imports petroleum-based products, principally from the US.
However, the exploitation of Latin America's energy resources is a burning issue in the region and any visit by President Chavez is unlikely to be seen as purely technical, our correspondent says.
E-mail this to a friend
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
BHP unearths loads of uranium - Business - Business - smh.com.au
STAND by for BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam copper/uranium orebody in South Australia's far north to get a whole lot bigger, forcing an increased focus on Australia's strategic role in fuelling the global rush into nuclear power to combat fears of global warming.
A new resource estimate for the deposit is expected to be included in BHP's 2005-06 annual report, due to be released in the week starting September 18.
It is expected to show a major increase in the resource estimate, which was last updated in 2004.
Even without the expected increase, Olympic Dam already ranks as the world's fifth biggest copper resource and the number one uranium deposit.
While the resource upgrade would push the deposit up the ranks of copper deposits, it is the expected hike in the uranium resources that will create most interest. That is because of the rush to secure long-term uranium supplies for nuclear power, and China and India emerging as new buyers on the block.
Olympic Dam already accounts for 40 per cent of the world's known uranium resources, with 1.524 million tonnes (300 years at present production rates) of the radioactive material. That figure is expected to sharply increase after the September resource upgrade.
Since acquiring WMC last year for $9.2 billion, BHP has carried on with the aggressive drilling program involving 18 drill rigs aimed at determining the size of Olympic Dam.
The drilling program has shown the deposit remains open in a number of directions (notably to the south) and at depth.
Results from the drilling are being fed into a pre-feasibility study, due to be completed at the end of 2007, which assesses a $7-$10 billion expansion of Olympic Dam that would triple current production of copper and uranium to 600,000 tonnes and 15,000 tonnes respectively.
Richard Yeeles, group manager of corporate affairs for BHP's base metals division, said this week that the drilling program was "really about defining the size of the orebody".
"We're still trying to establish that," Mr Yeeles said. "We are going quite deep now and we're finding we are still in ore in some places. What that drilling is indicating is that we have yet to define the depth of the orebody.
"The previous resource estimate certainly did not include the results of the most recent deeper drilling."
Recently added to the program are five deep holes that will probe for mineralisation to a depth of 2.5 kilometres.
"There is perhaps no more than three or four [previous holes] that have gone much deeper than 1000 metres," Mr Yeeles said. "But those that have are still finding, in some sections, that they are still in ore."
The reporter owns BHP shares
STAND by for BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam copper/uranium orebody in South Australia's far north to get a whole lot bigger, forcing an increased focus on Australia's strategic role in fuelling the global rush into nuclear power to combat fears of global warming.
A new resource estimate for the deposit is expected to be included in BHP's 2005-06 annual report, due to be released in the week starting September 18.
It is expected to show a major increase in the resource estimate, which was last updated in 2004.
Even without the expected increase, Olympic Dam already ranks as the world's fifth biggest copper resource and the number one uranium deposit.
While the resource upgrade would push the deposit up the ranks of copper deposits, it is the expected hike in the uranium resources that will create most interest. That is because of the rush to secure long-term uranium supplies for nuclear power, and China and India emerging as new buyers on the block.
Olympic Dam already accounts for 40 per cent of the world's known uranium resources, with 1.524 million tonnes (300 years at present production rates) of the radioactive material. That figure is expected to sharply increase after the September resource upgrade.
Since acquiring WMC last year for $9.2 billion, BHP has carried on with the aggressive drilling program involving 18 drill rigs aimed at determining the size of Olympic Dam.
The drilling program has shown the deposit remains open in a number of directions (notably to the south) and at depth.
Results from the drilling are being fed into a pre-feasibility study, due to be completed at the end of 2007, which assesses a $7-$10 billion expansion of Olympic Dam that would triple current production of copper and uranium to 600,000 tonnes and 15,000 tonnes respectively.
Richard Yeeles, group manager of corporate affairs for BHP's base metals division, said this week that the drilling program was "really about defining the size of the orebody".
"We're still trying to establish that," Mr Yeeles said. "We are going quite deep now and we're finding we are still in ore in some places. What that drilling is indicating is that we have yet to define the depth of the orebody.
"The previous resource estimate certainly did not include the results of the most recent deeper drilling."
Recently added to the program are five deep holes that will probe for mineralisation to a depth of 2.5 kilometres.
"There is perhaps no more than three or four [previous holes] that have gone much deeper than 1000 metres," Mr Yeeles said. "But those that have are still finding, in some sections, that they are still in ore."
The reporter owns BHP shares
Cap on foreign role in Snowy fails to placate critics - Business - Business
SNOWY Hydro will be spared from foreign control after the federal, NSW and Victorian governments caved into rising public and political anger at its imminent $3 billion-plus sale.
But despite the three governments unanimity on the appropriateness of the sale, the privatisation is not out of the woods yet.
The Electrical Trades Union plans to block it at the NSW Labor Party conference next month unless Snowy workers are given a better superannuation deal. The union was a key opponent of government plans to sell the state's electricity industry 10 years ago.
Community objectors said yesterday that their concerns went beyond foreign control. A Jindabyne protest leader, Acacia Rose, said: "The bottom line is that one of the iconic industrial achievements should remain in public hands, and that that is the only guarantee on things like foreign ownership because government commitments tend not to stick."
The threat remains of a High Court challenge involving a coalition of politicians, farmers and environmentalists.
The independent MPs Peter Andren and Tony Windsor will push for the parliamentary motion approving the sale to be rescinded. Mr Andren said: "Today's joint announcement is simply a sticking of a collective federal and state digit in the dyke, or at least the dam of public opinion.
"Caps can't be guaranteed beyond this Parliament, and the Government knows it."
Having slipped the sale through Federal Parliament without legislation, the Government announced legislation would reaffirm the sale and prohibit individual foreign investors owning more than 15 per cent of Snowy Hydro.
Total foreign ownership will be capped at 35 per cent, head office will remain in Cooma, most directors will be Australian and the company must be incorporated here. The cap will cut the sale price by tens of millions because it reduces the likelihood of takeovers, and the legislation will delay a sale until early August.
Yesterday the Minister for Finance, Nick Minchin, said the foreign control issue was being targeted because it was "the biggest concern raised" and because foreign ownership of Telstra and Qantas was similarly restricted.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, said Australians could "only benefit from this sale" because environmental and farm water flows were guaranteed and because the "private sector is better at running private businesses than the government".
The NSW Minister for Commerce, John Della Bosca, said "the legislative protections we have been able to achieve will keep the company in Australian hands".
The Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, initially an anti-sale advocate who lobbied Mr Howard, applauded the foreign limit, which he said had settled Coalition nerves.
Now he wants the 15 per cent ceiling on individual foreign holdings extended to locals, to stop big Australian companies taking control.
There were also claims yesterday that Snowy Hydro was trying to buy the silence of its workers by arranging $1000 share allocations for them after the sale was completed.
SNOWY Hydro will be spared from foreign control after the federal, NSW and Victorian governments caved into rising public and political anger at its imminent $3 billion-plus sale.
But despite the three governments unanimity on the appropriateness of the sale, the privatisation is not out of the woods yet.
The Electrical Trades Union plans to block it at the NSW Labor Party conference next month unless Snowy workers are given a better superannuation deal. The union was a key opponent of government plans to sell the state's electricity industry 10 years ago.
Community objectors said yesterday that their concerns went beyond foreign control. A Jindabyne protest leader, Acacia Rose, said: "The bottom line is that one of the iconic industrial achievements should remain in public hands, and that that is the only guarantee on things like foreign ownership because government commitments tend not to stick."
The threat remains of a High Court challenge involving a coalition of politicians, farmers and environmentalists.
The independent MPs Peter Andren and Tony Windsor will push for the parliamentary motion approving the sale to be rescinded. Mr Andren said: "Today's joint announcement is simply a sticking of a collective federal and state digit in the dyke, or at least the dam of public opinion.
"Caps can't be guaranteed beyond this Parliament, and the Government knows it."
Having slipped the sale through Federal Parliament without legislation, the Government announced legislation would reaffirm the sale and prohibit individual foreign investors owning more than 15 per cent of Snowy Hydro.
Total foreign ownership will be capped at 35 per cent, head office will remain in Cooma, most directors will be Australian and the company must be incorporated here. The cap will cut the sale price by tens of millions because it reduces the likelihood of takeovers, and the legislation will delay a sale until early August.
Yesterday the Minister for Finance, Nick Minchin, said the foreign control issue was being targeted because it was "the biggest concern raised" and because foreign ownership of Telstra and Qantas was similarly restricted.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, said Australians could "only benefit from this sale" because environmental and farm water flows were guaranteed and because the "private sector is better at running private businesses than the government".
The NSW Minister for Commerce, John Della Bosca, said "the legislative protections we have been able to achieve will keep the company in Australian hands".
The Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, initially an anti-sale advocate who lobbied Mr Howard, applauded the foreign limit, which he said had settled Coalition nerves.
Now he wants the 15 per cent ceiling on individual foreign holdings extended to locals, to stop big Australian companies taking control.
There were also claims yesterday that Snowy Hydro was trying to buy the silence of its workers by arranging $1000 share allocations for them after the sale was completed.
Who cares about high fuel prices? - Business - Business - smh.com.au
SHOPPERS have defied record-busting petrol prices to splurge on winter coats, boots and toys with a fervour not seen since the housing boom.
Raising fears the Reserve Bank may again raise interest rates this year, annual growth in retail sales has rebounded to 7.4 per cent.
Figures from the Bureau of Statistics show consumers are once again lashing out on shoes and clothes, with sales up 2.7 per cent in April compared to March. Sales of recreational goods were up 2 per cent and retail sales as a whole 1.4 per cent.
The spending spree comes despite petrol prices jumping more than 12c a litre in the month.
An equities economist with CommSec, Andrew Mitchell, said the rebound was "astonishing" given escalating bowser prices.
"The rise in retail spending indicates Australians have successfully altered their behaviour to avoid absorbing the full impact of soaring petrol prices," he said.
This had been achieved by shifting to public transport and cars that were more fuel-efficient, he said
An unseasonably warm March was also thought to have boosted the number as people delayed buying woollen coats until April.
Department store sales surged 1.5 per cent for April as indicated by last week's strong sales reports from David Jones and Myer.
Proving that when the going gets tough, the tough get spending, Victoria was at the forefront of the spending splurge, up 2.7 per cent.
NSW households put on a reasonable showing, spending 1.1 per cent more than in the previous month.
A senior economist at National Australia Bank, David de Garis, warned the shameless spending spree could attract unwanted attention from the Reserve Bank, which could raise rates as soon as August to tamp inflation.
"These data very much keep the RBA in play as far as monetary policy is concerned," Mr de Garis warned.
But with the latest interest rate rise yet to hit, some warned the consumer resurgence could be short lived.
"Australian households are now very sensitive to interest rate changes because they are carrying historically high amounts of debt," Mr Mitchell said.
Separate figures showed the NSW economy was approaching crunch point as approvals of new homes and units teetered near two-decade lows.
Building approvals have tumbled 23 per cent in the past year, to 2349 a month.
The chief economist at Challenger Finance, Ron Woods, said the number of NSW approvals was "frighteningly low" given the housing demands of a growing population.
"Back in 1983, there were about 6 dwelling units approved per 10,000 people in NSW," he said. "Today there are just over half as few approved, [at] 3.4 flats and houses per 10,000 people."
SHOPPERS have defied record-busting petrol prices to splurge on winter coats, boots and toys with a fervour not seen since the housing boom.
Raising fears the Reserve Bank may again raise interest rates this year, annual growth in retail sales has rebounded to 7.4 per cent.
Figures from the Bureau of Statistics show consumers are once again lashing out on shoes and clothes, with sales up 2.7 per cent in April compared to March. Sales of recreational goods were up 2 per cent and retail sales as a whole 1.4 per cent.
The spending spree comes despite petrol prices jumping more than 12c a litre in the month.
An equities economist with CommSec, Andrew Mitchell, said the rebound was "astonishing" given escalating bowser prices.
"The rise in retail spending indicates Australians have successfully altered their behaviour to avoid absorbing the full impact of soaring petrol prices," he said.
This had been achieved by shifting to public transport and cars that were more fuel-efficient, he said
An unseasonably warm March was also thought to have boosted the number as people delayed buying woollen coats until April.
Department store sales surged 1.5 per cent for April as indicated by last week's strong sales reports from David Jones and Myer.
Proving that when the going gets tough, the tough get spending, Victoria was at the forefront of the spending splurge, up 2.7 per cent.
NSW households put on a reasonable showing, spending 1.1 per cent more than in the previous month.
A senior economist at National Australia Bank, David de Garis, warned the shameless spending spree could attract unwanted attention from the Reserve Bank, which could raise rates as soon as August to tamp inflation.
"These data very much keep the RBA in play as far as monetary policy is concerned," Mr de Garis warned.
But with the latest interest rate rise yet to hit, some warned the consumer resurgence could be short lived.
"Australian households are now very sensitive to interest rate changes because they are carrying historically high amounts of debt," Mr Mitchell said.
Separate figures showed the NSW economy was approaching crunch point as approvals of new homes and units teetered near two-decade lows.
Building approvals have tumbled 23 per cent in the past year, to 2349 a month.
The chief economist at Challenger Finance, Ron Woods, said the number of NSW approvals was "frighteningly low" given the housing demands of a growing population.
"Back in 1983, there were about 6 dwelling units approved per 10,000 people in NSW," he said. "Today there are just over half as few approved, [at] 3.4 flats and houses per 10,000 people."
Oil Stays Above $72 a Barrel Amid Nuclear Tensions With Iran
Oil Stays Above $72 a Barrel Amid Nuclear Tensions With Iran
May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil stayed above $72 after climbing to a two-week high amid heightened tensions in the dispute over Iran's uranium enrichment program.
Iran will enter discussions ``without preconditions'', the country's foreign minister was quoted as saying by the Associated Press, softening the tone of earlier comments from a ministry spokesman that the Islamic Republic wouldn't halt its pursuit of nuclear technology.
Crude oil for July traded at $72.46, up $1.17, in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 13:50 p.m. in London after climbing as high as $72.73 a barrel, its highest level since May 11.
`Geopolitical instability has pushed the price up by about 80 cents this morning,'' said Veronica Smart, an analyst for the U.K.- based Energy Information Centre. ``And if there's a major hurricane season I don't think there'll be a price ceiling. The right combination of events would mean $100 a barrel isn't unrealistic.''
Foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany may meet in Vienna June 1 to consider a package of incentives to get Iran to abandon uranium enrichment, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. Iran has completed tests of the nuclear fusion process, AFP said, citing the engineering chief of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization.
``Halting or stopping enrichment is not on the agenda,'' said Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, contrary to reports in the New York Times yesterday that the Islamic Republic was prepared to back down.
Russian Guarantee
Russia and its international partners are prepared to guarantee Iran's right to develop nuclear energy if the government eases international concern over its intentions and cooperates fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Interfax news service said yesterday, citing Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
``These sort of geopolitical tensions are elevating prices above levels that we see as supported by fundamentals,'' said Gerard Burg, energy and minerals economist at National Australia Bank Ltd. in Melbourne. ``At the same time, though, those fundamentals are very strong.''
Oil prices reached a record $75.35 a barrel last month after militant attacks cut production in Nigeria, U.S. gasoline stockpiles declined for eight straight weeks and the U.S. sought Security Council sanctions against Iran.
Those risks have added a premium of as much as $30 a barrel to world oil prices, National Australia's Burg said. There is little prospect of prices easing, with summer gasoline demand getting under way in the U.S. and the hurricane season about to begin, threatening the disruption of supplies from the Gulf of Mexico.
Oil prices may rise above $80 and perhaps $90 if hurricanes cause serious damage, he said.
OPEC Gathers
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which pumps almost 40 percent of the world's oil, is unlikely to change its oil quotas when members meet June 1, according to the oil ministers of Iran, Algeria and the United Arab Emirates.
Spare volume from OPEC members could triple to 6 million barrels a day by 2010 from 2 million barrels a day now, concentrated in Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Nigeria, acting Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo said in an interview in Caracas yesterday.
``According to forecasts of expansions in a number of our member countries, this spare capacity is due to increase substantially by the end of the year, and this will continue in the medium term, between now and 2010,'' Barkindo said. Spending on exploration and production over that time will total $100 billion, he said.
Concern about high oil prices prompted hedge-fund managers and other speculators to make their biggest bet on rising prices in the week ended May 5, when they held a record net-long position in New York oil futures of 94,094 contracts.
Speculation Tempered
They have reduced their positions for three straight weeks as the UN's dispute with Iran dragged on and as U.S. refiners increased gasoline production to swell stockpiles before summer.
Net-long oil positions fell 30 percent to 54,600 contracts in the week ended May 23, a seven-week low, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission said May 26.
Fund managers reduced their bets on rising gasoline futures in the same period by 42 percent to 8,649 contracts, the lowest since January 2005, according to commission data.
``The whole commodity market generally has lost a bit of its speculative heat,'' Commonwealth's Thurtell said. ``The stock numbers aren't so bad.''
Brent crude oil for July settlement was at $71.86 a barrel, up $1.27, on the London-based ICE Futures exchange at 12:28 p.m. London time.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Grant Smith in London at Gsmith52@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 30, 2006 09:05 EDT
Oil Stays Above $72 a Barrel Amid Nuclear Tensions With Iran
May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil stayed above $72 after climbing to a two-week high amid heightened tensions in the dispute over Iran's uranium enrichment program.
Iran will enter discussions ``without preconditions'', the country's foreign minister was quoted as saying by the Associated Press, softening the tone of earlier comments from a ministry spokesman that the Islamic Republic wouldn't halt its pursuit of nuclear technology.
Crude oil for July traded at $72.46, up $1.17, in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 13:50 p.m. in London after climbing as high as $72.73 a barrel, its highest level since May 11.
`Geopolitical instability has pushed the price up by about 80 cents this morning,'' said Veronica Smart, an analyst for the U.K.- based Energy Information Centre. ``And if there's a major hurricane season I don't think there'll be a price ceiling. The right combination of events would mean $100 a barrel isn't unrealistic.''
Foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany may meet in Vienna June 1 to consider a package of incentives to get Iran to abandon uranium enrichment, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday. Iran has completed tests of the nuclear fusion process, AFP said, citing the engineering chief of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization.
``Halting or stopping enrichment is not on the agenda,'' said Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, contrary to reports in the New York Times yesterday that the Islamic Republic was prepared to back down.
Russian Guarantee
Russia and its international partners are prepared to guarantee Iran's right to develop nuclear energy if the government eases international concern over its intentions and cooperates fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Interfax news service said yesterday, citing Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
``These sort of geopolitical tensions are elevating prices above levels that we see as supported by fundamentals,'' said Gerard Burg, energy and minerals economist at National Australia Bank Ltd. in Melbourne. ``At the same time, though, those fundamentals are very strong.''
Oil prices reached a record $75.35 a barrel last month after militant attacks cut production in Nigeria, U.S. gasoline stockpiles declined for eight straight weeks and the U.S. sought Security Council sanctions against Iran.
Those risks have added a premium of as much as $30 a barrel to world oil prices, National Australia's Burg said. There is little prospect of prices easing, with summer gasoline demand getting under way in the U.S. and the hurricane season about to begin, threatening the disruption of supplies from the Gulf of Mexico.
Oil prices may rise above $80 and perhaps $90 if hurricanes cause serious damage, he said.
OPEC Gathers
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which pumps almost 40 percent of the world's oil, is unlikely to change its oil quotas when members meet June 1, according to the oil ministers of Iran, Algeria and the United Arab Emirates.
Spare volume from OPEC members could triple to 6 million barrels a day by 2010 from 2 million barrels a day now, concentrated in Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Nigeria, acting Secretary General Mohammed Barkindo said in an interview in Caracas yesterday.
``According to forecasts of expansions in a number of our member countries, this spare capacity is due to increase substantially by the end of the year, and this will continue in the medium term, between now and 2010,'' Barkindo said. Spending on exploration and production over that time will total $100 billion, he said.
Concern about high oil prices prompted hedge-fund managers and other speculators to make their biggest bet on rising prices in the week ended May 5, when they held a record net-long position in New York oil futures of 94,094 contracts.
Speculation Tempered
They have reduced their positions for three straight weeks as the UN's dispute with Iran dragged on and as U.S. refiners increased gasoline production to swell stockpiles before summer.
Net-long oil positions fell 30 percent to 54,600 contracts in the week ended May 23, a seven-week low, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission said May 26.
Fund managers reduced their bets on rising gasoline futures in the same period by 42 percent to 8,649 contracts, the lowest since January 2005, according to commission data.
``The whole commodity market generally has lost a bit of its speculative heat,'' Commonwealth's Thurtell said. ``The stock numbers aren't so bad.''
Brent crude oil for July settlement was at $71.86 a barrel, up $1.27, on the London-based ICE Futures exchange at 12:28 p.m. London time.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Grant Smith in London at Gsmith52@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 30, 2006 09:05 EDT
Electric Power & Energy Education.PGS Energy Training: Electric Power & Energy Education.PGS Energy Training:
7. Fundamentals of Energy Statistical Analysis Two 75 minute sessions – June 15 8. Energy Commodity Swaps & Electric Power Contacts for Differences (CfDs)One 75 minute session – June 21 9. Fundamentals of Gas and Electricity Utility Rates Two 75 minute sessions – June 21 10. How to Value Energy and Electric Power Assets Using Real Option Analysis Two 75 minute sessions – June 22 11. Fundamentals of Energy and Electricity Options (NYMEX, OTC, Physical and Asset-based) Two 75 minute sessions – June 28 12. Best Practices in Energy Procurement Two 75 minute sessions – June 29 13. An Introduction to Forward Energy Markets, Natural Gas Trading, & Wholesale Electric Power TransactionsTwo 75+ minute sessions – July 12 14. How to Financially Hedge Natural Gas & Electricity Price Risk Two 90 minute sessions – July 13 15. An In-Depth Introduction to Today's U. S. Electric Power IndustryTwo 75 minute sessions – July 19 16. Introduction to the Texas (ERCOT) Electric Power Market One 75 minute session – July 20 17. Energy Risk Management - Fundamentals & Practical Applications Two 75 minute sessions – July 21
7. Fundamentals of Energy Statistical Analysis Two 75 minute sessions – June 15 8. Energy Commodity Swaps & Electric Power Contacts for Differences (CfDs)One 75 minute session – June 21 9. Fundamentals of Gas and Electricity Utility Rates Two 75 minute sessions – June 21 10. How to Value Energy and Electric Power Assets Using Real Option Analysis Two 75 minute sessions – June 22 11. Fundamentals of Energy and Electricity Options (NYMEX, OTC, Physical and Asset-based) Two 75 minute sessions – June 28 12. Best Practices in Energy Procurement Two 75 minute sessions – June 29 13. An Introduction to Forward Energy Markets, Natural Gas Trading, & Wholesale Electric Power TransactionsTwo 75+ minute sessions – July 12 14. How to Financially Hedge Natural Gas & Electricity Price Risk Two 90 minute sessions – July 13 15. An In-Depth Introduction to Today's U. S. Electric Power IndustryTwo 75 minute sessions – July 19 16. Introduction to the Texas (ERCOT) Electric Power Market One 75 minute session – July 20 17. Energy Risk Management - Fundamentals & Practical Applications Two 75 minute sessions – July 21
Introduction to Heat Rates, Spark Spreads, Generation Optionality, Tolling & Heat Rate Linked Power Transactions
����::::::
Learn all about heat rates, spark spreads, tolling arrangements and generation optionality. This seminar will also show how heat-rate-linked power transactions can be used to hedge electricity price risk and profitably arbitrage fuel and electricity price discrepencies. Click Here to Register
What You will Learn (Session #1) -->
What heat rates are and how they are expressed.
The difference between a generating plant's operating heat rate and its economic or conversion heat rate.
How to correctly convert coal, oil and natural gas prices to equivalent electric power prices.
How to correctly calculate fuel quantities. (For example, how many MMBtus per day of natural gas is needed to serve a 50 MW on-peak power deal?)
What the spark spread is and what the difference is between spot and forward spark spreads.
How to define the spark spread as both a product price spread and as a market implied heat rate.
The basics of spread trading using a spark spread example.
The structure of forward tolling, reverse tolling and power purchase arrangements -- and what to watch out for.
How tolling arrangements can be used to sell natural gas by "wire".
What You Will Learn (Session #2) -->
Why and how coal and natural gas fired generating units are valuable call options on the spark spread.
How to hedge electric generation assets while keeping the upside income potential that results from the asset's optionality. ( A detailed example.)
What heat-rate-linked power transactions are, and why they are important.
How heat-rate-linked power transactions can be used to hedge electricity price risk. (Mini Case Study)
How heat-rate-linked power transactions can be used to arbitrage natural gas/electricity price discrepencies without access to physical generation facilities. (Mini Case Study)
Your InstructorJohn Adamiak is President and Founder of PGS Energy Training and is an expert in energy derivatives and electric power markets. Mr. Adamiak is a well-known and highly effective seminar presenter who has over 20 years experience in the natural gas and electric power industries. His background includes 10 years as a seminar instructor, 9 years of energy transaction experience, and 6 years of strategic planning and venture capital activities. John's academic background includes an M.B.A. degree from Carnegie-Mellon University.
Who Should Attend this SeminarThis seminar will benefit those organizations and professionals interested in learning the relationship between coal, natural gas and electric power prices and the basics of power generation economics. Energy producers, utilities, banks, law firms, municipals, ISOs, power marketers, industrial companies, and electric generators will gain valuable insights, as will energy and electric power executives, traders, marketers, (sales, purchasing & risk management professionals), accountants, trading support staff, auditors, attorneys, government regulators, rate-making specialists, plant operators, engineers and corporate planners.
Why Choose PGS?
����::::::
Learn all about heat rates, spark spreads, tolling arrangements and generation optionality. This seminar will also show how heat-rate-linked power transactions can be used to hedge electricity price risk and profitably arbitrage fuel and electricity price discrepencies. Click Here to Register
What You will Learn (Session #1) -->
What heat rates are and how they are expressed.
The difference between a generating plant's operating heat rate and its economic or conversion heat rate.
How to correctly convert coal, oil and natural gas prices to equivalent electric power prices.
How to correctly calculate fuel quantities. (For example, how many MMBtus per day of natural gas is needed to serve a 50 MW on-peak power deal?)
What the spark spread is and what the difference is between spot and forward spark spreads.
How to define the spark spread as both a product price spread and as a market implied heat rate.
The basics of spread trading using a spark spread example.
The structure of forward tolling, reverse tolling and power purchase arrangements -- and what to watch out for.
How tolling arrangements can be used to sell natural gas by "wire".
What You Will Learn (Session #2) -->
Why and how coal and natural gas fired generating units are valuable call options on the spark spread.
How to hedge electric generation assets while keeping the upside income potential that results from the asset's optionality. ( A detailed example.)
What heat-rate-linked power transactions are, and why they are important.
How heat-rate-linked power transactions can be used to hedge electricity price risk. (Mini Case Study)
How heat-rate-linked power transactions can be used to arbitrage natural gas/electricity price discrepencies without access to physical generation facilities. (Mini Case Study)
Your InstructorJohn Adamiak is President and Founder of PGS Energy Training and is an expert in energy derivatives and electric power markets. Mr. Adamiak is a well-known and highly effective seminar presenter who has over 20 years experience in the natural gas and electric power industries. His background includes 10 years as a seminar instructor, 9 years of energy transaction experience, and 6 years of strategic planning and venture capital activities. John's academic background includes an M.B.A. degree from Carnegie-Mellon University.
Who Should Attend this SeminarThis seminar will benefit those organizations and professionals interested in learning the relationship between coal, natural gas and electric power prices and the basics of power generation economics. Energy producers, utilities, banks, law firms, municipals, ISOs, power marketers, industrial companies, and electric generators will gain valuable insights, as will energy and electric power executives, traders, marketers, (sales, purchasing & risk management professionals), accountants, trading support staff, auditors, attorneys, government regulators, rate-making specialists, plant operators, engineers and corporate planners.
Why Choose PGS?
Fundamentals of LNG Markets & Operations�::::: "LNG is in the spotlight for the natural gas industry on a both national and global basis. For the forseeable future, LNG appears to be competitively priced versus U.S. domestic supplies, but LNG brings its own unique international baggage that may change trading, pricing and capacity dynamics in the U S. markets. The global impacts of the LNG trade and U.S. infrastructure developments are crucial to the success or failure of LNG as a growing part of the U.S. Natural Gas industry. Click Here to Register
Find out why FERC has placed LNG expansion issues among its highest priorities in national energy policy and whether this strategy makes economic and engineering sense. Learn critical dynamics before costly decisions are made. This two-session seminar will bring you up-to-speed on how to make money in this growing and dynamic industry sector.
What You will Learn (Session #1)
� What is LNG and where does LNG come from.
� Key countries and companies are players in the LNG trade.
� The details of the LNG Supply and Value Chain.
� How is LNG transported and stored.
� LNG safety and security issues.
� Market area and Supply area terminals.
� How the process for existing terminals work.
� Key factors impacting LNG the gas quality debate.
� How pipeline operations and market patterns could change.
� The impacts on pipeline capacity for new LNG terminal projects.
� Ways to assess pipeline access and locational basis issues.
What You will Learn (Session #2)
� New �Internationalization� Dynamics of Gas Markets.
� Developing LNG Contracting and Locational Basis Issues.
� LNG Contracting issues versus traditional U.S. gas Contracting Issues.
� Changing Marke"
Find out why FERC has placed LNG expansion issues among its highest priorities in national energy policy and whether this strategy makes economic and engineering sense. Learn critical dynamics before costly decisions are made. This two-session seminar will bring you up-to-speed on how to make money in this growing and dynamic industry sector.
What You will Learn (Session #1)
� What is LNG and where does LNG come from.
� Key countries and companies are players in the LNG trade.
� The details of the LNG Supply and Value Chain.
� How is LNG transported and stored.
� LNG safety and security issues.
� Market area and Supply area terminals.
� How the process for existing terminals work.
� Key factors impacting LNG the gas quality debate.
� How pipeline operations and market patterns could change.
� The impacts on pipeline capacity for new LNG terminal projects.
� Ways to assess pipeline access and locational basis issues.
What You will Learn (Session #2)
� New �Internationalization� Dynamics of Gas Markets.
� Developing LNG Contracting and Locational Basis Issues.
� LNG Contracting issues versus traditional U.S. gas Contracting Issues.
� Changing Marke"
a>
LNG is in the spotlight for the natural gas industry on a both national and global basis. For the forseeable future, LNG appears to be competitively priced versus U.S. domestic supplies, but LNG brings its own unique international baggage that may change trading, pricing and capacity dynamics in the U S. markets. The global impacts of the LNG trade and U.S. infrastructure developments are crucial to the success or failure of LNG as a growing part of the U.S. Natural Gas industry. Click Here to Register
Find out why FERC has placed LNG expansion issues among its highest priorities in national energy policy and whether this strategy makes economic and engineering sense. Learn critical dynamics before costly decisions are made. This two-session seminar will bring you up-to-speed on how to make money in this growing and dynamic industry sector.
What You will Learn (Session #1) -->
• What is LNG and where does LNG come from. • Key countries and companies are players in the LNG trade. • The details of the LNG Supply and Value Chain. • How is LNG transported and stored.• LNG safety and security issues. • Market area and Supply area terminals.• How the process for existing terminals work.• Key factors impacting LNG the gas quality debate.• How pipeline operations and market patterns could change.• The impacts on pipeline capacity for new LNG terminal projects. • Ways to assess pipeline access and locational basis issues.
What You will Learn (Session #2)
• New “Internationalization” Dynamics of Gas Markets. • Developing LNG Contracting and Locational Basis Issues.• LNG Contracting issues versus traditional U.S. gas Contracting Issues.• Changing Market Liquidity for LNG products: U.S. Versus Global Trades.• The Looming Pacific Basin versus Atlantic Basin Supply Price War.• How various market forces, governmental policies and regulations may affect the prospects for growth of an LNG spot market.
Your InstructorGreg Peters has over 20 years of energy industry consulting and management experience and is an expert in energy products and services marketing, and supply planning, procurement and energy management. Mr. Peters' consulting experience includes several years as Manager of Price Waterhouse's National Public Utilities Consulting Services and currently as President, Envision Energy Solutions Company. Envision provides gas, electric and fuel management consulting services to a wide range of industrial, commercial and municipal end-users. Previously, Mr. Peters has had fuel procurement, fuel management and planning responsibilities for Columbia Energy Services Corporation, Equitable Gas Company, and The Peoples Natural Gas Company.
Who Should Attend this SeminarProfessionals from natural gas and electric utilities, pipelines, attorneys; government regulators; traders & trading support staff, energy producers and marketers, banks and hedge funds, government regulators, LNG buyers and operators, energy and electric power executives; accountants & auditors, engineers, industrial trade groups, shipping and cargo executives, environmentists and anyone needing a strong foundation in understanding the impacts of LNG on the U. S. natural gas business.
Why Choose PGS?Save time and travel expenses while you increase your knowledge. PGS seminars are known for their clear explanations and in-depth content. Over 3,000 energy and financial professionals have already attended PGS Energy Training's proven courses. View Past Seminar Attendees
PrerequisitesThis fundamental level, group live seminar has no prerequisites. No advance preparation is required before the seminar.
Registration Fee
$295 for the first attendee and $155 for each additional participant.
Click Here to Register
Payment & CancellationsPayment is due prior to the start of the seminar by Visa, Master Card, American Express, Diners Club or check. Seminar fees will be charged to your credit card at the time of registration unless other arrangements have been made. Please make checks payable to "PGS Energy Training" 43 Fawnvue Drive, Suite 700 • Mckees Rocks, PA 15136. Cancellations can be made up to two (2) business days prior to the start of the seminar for a full refund. No refunds will be made thereafter, but credit will be given toward future seminars. Substitutions may be made at any time. For more information on PGS policies regarding administrative matters and complaint resolution, please contact our offices at 412-494-0450.
CPE
LNG is in the spotlight for the natural gas industry on a both national and global basis. For the forseeable future, LNG appears to be competitively priced versus U.S. domestic supplies, but LNG brings its own unique international baggage that may change trading, pricing and capacity dynamics in the U S. markets. The global impacts of the LNG trade and U.S. infrastructure developments are crucial to the success or failure of LNG as a growing part of the U.S. Natural Gas industry. Click Here to Register
Find out why FERC has placed LNG expansion issues among its highest priorities in national energy policy and whether this strategy makes economic and engineering sense. Learn critical dynamics before costly decisions are made. This two-session seminar will bring you up-to-speed on how to make money in this growing and dynamic industry sector.
What You will Learn (Session #1) -->
• What is LNG and where does LNG come from. • Key countries and companies are players in the LNG trade. • The details of the LNG Supply and Value Chain. • How is LNG transported and stored.• LNG safety and security issues. • Market area and Supply area terminals.• How the process for existing terminals work.• Key factors impacting LNG the gas quality debate.• How pipeline operations and market patterns could change.• The impacts on pipeline capacity for new LNG terminal projects. • Ways to assess pipeline access and locational basis issues.
What You will Learn (Session #2)
• New “Internationalization” Dynamics of Gas Markets. • Developing LNG Contracting and Locational Basis Issues.• LNG Contracting issues versus traditional U.S. gas Contracting Issues.• Changing Market Liquidity for LNG products: U.S. Versus Global Trades.• The Looming Pacific Basin versus Atlantic Basin Supply Price War.• How various market forces, governmental policies and regulations may affect the prospects for growth of an LNG spot market.
Your InstructorGreg Peters has over 20 years of energy industry consulting and management experience and is an expert in energy products and services marketing, and supply planning, procurement and energy management. Mr. Peters' consulting experience includes several years as Manager of Price Waterhouse's National Public Utilities Consulting Services and currently as President, Envision Energy Solutions Company. Envision provides gas, electric and fuel management consulting services to a wide range of industrial, commercial and municipal end-users. Previously, Mr. Peters has had fuel procurement, fuel management and planning responsibilities for Columbia Energy Services Corporation, Equitable Gas Company, and The Peoples Natural Gas Company.
Who Should Attend this SeminarProfessionals from natural gas and electric utilities, pipelines, attorneys; government regulators; traders & trading support staff, energy producers and marketers, banks and hedge funds, government regulators, LNG buyers and operators, energy and electric power executives; accountants & auditors, engineers, industrial trade groups, shipping and cargo executives, environmentists and anyone needing a strong foundation in understanding the impacts of LNG on the U. S. natural gas business.
Why Choose PGS?Save time and travel expenses while you increase your knowledge. PGS seminars are known for their clear explanations and in-depth content. Over 3,000 energy and financial professionals have already attended PGS Energy Training's proven courses. View Past Seminar Attendees
PrerequisitesThis fundamental level, group live seminar has no prerequisites. No advance preparation is required before the seminar.
Registration Fee
$295 for the first attendee and $155 for each additional participant.
Click Here to Register
Payment & CancellationsPayment is due prior to the start of the seminar by Visa, Master Card, American Express, Diners Club or check. Seminar fees will be charged to your credit card at the time of registration unless other arrangements have been made. Please make checks payable to "PGS Energy Training" 43 Fawnvue Drive, Suite 700 • Mckees Rocks, PA 15136. Cancellations can be made up to two (2) business days prior to the start of the seminar for a full refund. No refunds will be made thereafter, but credit will be given toward future seminars. Substitutions may be made at any time. For more information on PGS policies regarding administrative matters and complaint resolution, please contact our offices at 412-494-0450.
CPE
An In-Depth Introduction to Today's U. S. Electric Power Industry
�
If you find today's electric power industry difficult to understand, you are not alone.
This easy-to-follow seminar will quickly bring you up-to-speed on both the details and the "Big Picture" of this key industry. Register today, and learn how it all fits together. Click Here to Register
What You will Learn (Session #1) -->
The basics of voltage, current, Ohm's Law, reactive power, other electricity terms and concepts and the difference between power (MW) and electrical energy (MWh).
How power moves across transmission lines, and what line losses, shrinkage, var support, and parallel flows are.
How the North American power industry is structured, the locations of the synchronistic grids, and how the electric distribution system works.
What a control area is and how it operates.
What spinning reserve, quick start capacity and load shedding procedures are, and how the industry "keeps the lights on".
How control areas manage AC frequency, schedule interchange, and manage Area Control Error (ACE).
How the re-dispatch of generating units can impact the amount of available transmission capacity.
What ATC is, how it's calculated, and why it's important.
Where to access a list of popular power industry websites.
What You will Learn (Session #2) -->
An overview of the different types of electrical generating units such as coal-fired, simple-cycle, combined cycle, cogeneration units and a discussion of today's difficult choices.
What the terms lambda and economic dispatch mean, and how they impact today's world.
Who the industry participants are, and how we got to today's bifurcated world of regulated and open-access electric power markets,
Why electricity is so complicated at both the physical and political levels.
A map and discussion of today's ISO/RTO status, and where the industry is headed.
What the terms ISO, RTO, Transco, ITC, LMP, ICAP, LICAP, LSEs, NERC, PJM, ERCOT, MISO, TSP, SMD and FTR mean, and why they are important.
The definition of bilateral bulk power transactions.
The fundamentals of how an ISO/RTO auction market works.
The pros and cons of auction versus bilateral markets: Two fundamentally different approaches.
The basic types of electric power transmission capacity and what OASIS is.
Your InstructorJohn Adamiak is President and Founder of PGS Energy Training and is an expert in energy derivatives and electric power markets. Mr. Adamiak is a well-known and highly effective seminar presenter who has over 20 years experience in the natural gas and electric power industries. His background includes 10 years as a seminar instructor, 9 years of energy transaction experience, and 6 years of strategic planning and venture capital activities. John's academic background includes an M.B.A. degree from Carnegie-Mellon University.
Who Should Attend this SeminarThis seminar will benefit a wide variety of organizations in the electric power, financial and energy industries. Professionals from banks, energy producers, electric utilities, energy marketers, industrial companies, electric generators, and municipals will gain valuable insights, as will natural gas, oil and electric power executives, traders, marketers, (sales, purchasing & risk management professionals), accountants, economists, trading support staff, auditors, attorneys, government regulators, rate specialists, plant operators, engineers and corporate planners.
Why Choose PGS?Save time and travel expenses while you increase your knowledge. PGS seminars are known for their clear explanations and in-depth content. Over 3,000 energy and financial professionals have already attended PGS Energy Training's proven courses. View Past Seminar Attendees
PrerequisitesThis fundamental level, group live seminar has no prerequisites. No advance preparation is required before the seminar.
Registration Fee
$295 for the first attendee and $155 for each additional participant.
Click Here to Register
Payment & CancellationsPayment is due prior to the start of the seminar by Visa, Master Card, American Express, Diners Club or check. Seminar fees will be charged to your credit card at the time of registration unless other arrangements have been made. Please make checks payable to "PGS Energy Training" 43 Fawnvue Drive, Suite 700 • Mckees Rocks, PA 15136. Cancellations can be made up to two (2) business days prior to the start of the seminar for a full refund. No refunds will be made thereafter, but credit will be given toward future seminars. Substitutions may be made at any time. For more information on PGS policies regarding administrative matters and complaint resolution, please contact our offices at 412-494-0450.
CPE Credits
This group live seminar is eligible for 3.0 CPE credits. PGS telephone seminars are eligible for CPE credits only if seminar participants use the printed seminar slides – not the Internet posted slides. Be aware that state boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. As of January 1, 2002, sponsored learning activities are measured by program length, with one 50-minute period equal to one CPE credit. One-half CPE credit increments (equal to 25 minutes) are permitted after the first credit has been earned in a given learning activity. You may want to verify that the state board from which your participants will be receiving credit accept one-half credits.PGS Energy Training is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be addressed to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors, 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 700, Nashville, TN, 37219-2417. Web site: www.nasba.org. CPAs interested in attending any seminars should contact our offices for details on CPE credits granted and any prerequisite requirements.
�
If you find today's electric power industry difficult to understand, you are not alone.
This easy-to-follow seminar will quickly bring you up-to-speed on both the details and the "Big Picture" of this key industry. Register today, and learn how it all fits together. Click Here to Register
What You will Learn (Session #1) -->
The basics of voltage, current, Ohm's Law, reactive power, other electricity terms and concepts and the difference between power (MW) and electrical energy (MWh).
How power moves across transmission lines, and what line losses, shrinkage, var support, and parallel flows are.
How the North American power industry is structured, the locations of the synchronistic grids, and how the electric distribution system works.
What a control area is and how it operates.
What spinning reserve, quick start capacity and load shedding procedures are, and how the industry "keeps the lights on".
How control areas manage AC frequency, schedule interchange, and manage Area Control Error (ACE).
How the re-dispatch of generating units can impact the amount of available transmission capacity.
What ATC is, how it's calculated, and why it's important.
Where to access a list of popular power industry websites.
What You will Learn (Session #2) -->
An overview of the different types of electrical generating units such as coal-fired, simple-cycle, combined cycle, cogeneration units and a discussion of today's difficult choices.
What the terms lambda and economic dispatch mean, and how they impact today's world.
Who the industry participants are, and how we got to today's bifurcated world of regulated and open-access electric power markets,
Why electricity is so complicated at both the physical and political levels.
A map and discussion of today's ISO/RTO status, and where the industry is headed.
What the terms ISO, RTO, Transco, ITC, LMP, ICAP, LICAP, LSEs, NERC, PJM, ERCOT, MISO, TSP, SMD and FTR mean, and why they are important.
The definition of bilateral bulk power transactions.
The fundamentals of how an ISO/RTO auction market works.
The pros and cons of auction versus bilateral markets: Two fundamentally different approaches.
The basic types of electric power transmission capacity and what OASIS is.
Your InstructorJohn Adamiak is President and Founder of PGS Energy Training and is an expert in energy derivatives and electric power markets. Mr. Adamiak is a well-known and highly effective seminar presenter who has over 20 years experience in the natural gas and electric power industries. His background includes 10 years as a seminar instructor, 9 years of energy transaction experience, and 6 years of strategic planning and venture capital activities. John's academic background includes an M.B.A. degree from Carnegie-Mellon University.
Who Should Attend this SeminarThis seminar will benefit a wide variety of organizations in the electric power, financial and energy industries. Professionals from banks, energy producers, electric utilities, energy marketers, industrial companies, electric generators, and municipals will gain valuable insights, as will natural gas, oil and electric power executives, traders, marketers, (sales, purchasing & risk management professionals), accountants, economists, trading support staff, auditors, attorneys, government regulators, rate specialists, plant operators, engineers and corporate planners.
Why Choose PGS?Save time and travel expenses while you increase your knowledge. PGS seminars are known for their clear explanations and in-depth content. Over 3,000 energy and financial professionals have already attended PGS Energy Training's proven courses. View Past Seminar Attendees
PrerequisitesThis fundamental level, group live seminar has no prerequisites. No advance preparation is required before the seminar.
Registration Fee
$295 for the first attendee and $155 for each additional participant.
Click Here to Register
Payment & CancellationsPayment is due prior to the start of the seminar by Visa, Master Card, American Express, Diners Club or check. Seminar fees will be charged to your credit card at the time of registration unless other arrangements have been made. Please make checks payable to "PGS Energy Training" 43 Fawnvue Drive, Suite 700 • Mckees Rocks, PA 15136. Cancellations can be made up to two (2) business days prior to the start of the seminar for a full refund. No refunds will be made thereafter, but credit will be given toward future seminars. Substitutions may be made at any time. For more information on PGS policies regarding administrative matters and complaint resolution, please contact our offices at 412-494-0450.
CPE Credits
This group live seminar is eligible for 3.0 CPE credits. PGS telephone seminars are eligible for CPE credits only if seminar participants use the printed seminar slides – not the Internet posted slides. Be aware that state boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. As of January 1, 2002, sponsored learning activities are measured by program length, with one 50-minute period equal to one CPE credit. One-half CPE credit increments (equal to 25 minutes) are permitted after the first credit has been earned in a given learning activity. You may want to verify that the state board from which your participants will be receiving credit accept one-half credits.PGS Energy Training is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be addressed to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors, 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 700, Nashville, TN, 37219-2417. Web site: www.nasba.org. CPAs interested in attending any seminars should contact our offices for details on CPE credits granted and any prerequisite requirements.
Fundamentals of the U.S. Natural Gas Industry: "The extreme volatility of natural gas prices has created significant opportunities and major risks for a wide variety of industry players. What if you knew which tactics to try� and which to steer clear of? This two-session seminar will bring you up-to-speed on the new rules of this dynamic industry. Click Here to Register
What You will Learn (Session #1)
The terminology, concepts and mechanics of the natural gas industry and how the natural gas business functions along each segment of the delivery value chain.
Essential definitions and quantitative unit conversions for natural gas wholesale and retail transactions.
Who the key industry participants are and how they manage gas supplies for their respective segment.
How natural gas is regulated and how it evolved to today's 'open access' regulated environment.
The essentials of Physical Market Hubs, Electronic Trading Exchanges and Market Centers.
The role of suppliers and marketers and how end-users can evaluate their requirements, strengths, weaknesses and competitive position.
What You will Learn (Session #2)
The fundamentals of gas transportation, pooling, nominations, confirmations, scheduling and balancing through the delivery chain.
How and why the current natural gas market is undergoing dramatic price changes and price volatility and the impacts on the downstream markets.
Natural gas pricing concepts and mechanisms, and the essentials of basis, commodity pricing and risk management.
How to assess and compare energy services providers and the commodities and services they offer and how to get what you want with effective negotiation tactics.
Wha"
What You will Learn (Session #1)
The terminology, concepts and mechanics of the natural gas industry and how the natural gas business functions along each segment of the delivery value chain.
Essential definitions and quantitative unit conversions for natural gas wholesale and retail transactions.
Who the key industry participants are and how they manage gas supplies for their respective segment.
How natural gas is regulated and how it evolved to today's 'open access' regulated environment.
The essentials of Physical Market Hubs, Electronic Trading Exchanges and Market Centers.
The role of suppliers and marketers and how end-users can evaluate their requirements, strengths, weaknesses and competitive position.
What You will Learn (Session #2)
The fundamentals of gas transportation, pooling, nominations, confirmations, scheduling and balancing through the delivery chain.
How and why the current natural gas market is undergoing dramatic price changes and price volatility and the impacts on the downstream markets.
Natural gas pricing concepts and mechanisms, and the essentials of basis, commodity pricing and risk management.
How to assess and compare energy services providers and the commodities and services they offer and how to get what you want with effective negotiation tactics.
Wha"
Gore's 'Truth' splits hurricane scientists�-�World�-�The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
Al Gore's new movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," opens with scenes from Hurricane Katrina slamming into New Orleans. The former vice president says unequivocally that because of global warming, it is all but certain that future hurricanes will be more violent and destructive than those in the past. Inconvenient or not, the nation's top hurricane scientists are divided on whether it's the truth. With the official start of hurricane season days away, meteorologists are unanimous that the 2006 tropical storm season, which runs from June 1 through November, is likely to be a doozy. The first tropical storm of this season showered light rain yesterday on Acapulco, a Mexican Pacific resort, but forecasters said the weather could worsen. Tropical storm Aletta was stalled 135 miles from Acapulco, with maximum winds of 45 mph, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami, which said the storm could move toward land today. The 2004 and 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons broke many records, and as forecasters predict 15 named storms, nine or 10 making it to hurricane strength and four or five of those major, 2006 is shaping up as another bad one. The top names and brightest minds in hurricane science are divided, writing papers and publishing rebuttals regarding the nature and causes of the current "active period" that began in 1995 and is expected to run at least another 10 to 15 years. They study the same facts, but draw opposite conclusions. Scientists disagree In one corner, subscribing to the theory that the Atlantic Basin is in a busy cycle that occurs naturally every 25 to 40 years, are Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, and William Gray and Phil Klotzbach of Colorado State University, who pioneered much of modern hurricane-prediction theory. "There has been no change in the number and intensity of Category 4 or Category 5 hurricanes around the world in the last 15 years," Mr. Landsea said, in a telephone interview from Miami. On the other side are Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the most respected hurricane scientists in the world, a team of meteorologists from Georgia Tech led by Peter Webster, an MIT-educated monsoon specialist, and Greg Holland, who earned his doctorate at Colorado State under Mr. Gray. "You cannot blame any single storm or even a single season on global warming. ... Gore's statement in the movie is that we can expect more storms like Katrina in a greenhouse-warmed world. I would agree with this," said Judith Curry. She is chairwoman of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is co-author, with Mr. Webster, Mr. Holland and H.R. Chang, of a paper titled "Changes in Tropical Cyclones," in the Sept. 16 issue of Science, a weekly publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper concluded that there has been an 80 percent increase in Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes worldwide. Balancing the atmosphere
Al Gore's new movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," opens with scenes from Hurricane Katrina slamming into New Orleans. The former vice president says unequivocally that because of global warming, it is all but certain that future hurricanes will be more violent and destructive than those in the past. Inconvenient or not, the nation's top hurricane scientists are divided on whether it's the truth. With the official start of hurricane season days away, meteorologists are unanimous that the 2006 tropical storm season, which runs from June 1 through November, is likely to be a doozy. The first tropical storm of this season showered light rain yesterday on Acapulco, a Mexican Pacific resort, but forecasters said the weather could worsen. Tropical storm Aletta was stalled 135 miles from Acapulco, with maximum winds of 45 mph, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami, which said the storm could move toward land today. The 2004 and 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons broke many records, and as forecasters predict 15 named storms, nine or 10 making it to hurricane strength and four or five of those major, 2006 is shaping up as another bad one. The top names and brightest minds in hurricane science are divided, writing papers and publishing rebuttals regarding the nature and causes of the current "active period" that began in 1995 and is expected to run at least another 10 to 15 years. They study the same facts, but draw opposite conclusions. Scientists disagree In one corner, subscribing to the theory that the Atlantic Basin is in a busy cycle that occurs naturally every 25 to 40 years, are Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, and William Gray and Phil Klotzbach of Colorado State University, who pioneered much of modern hurricane-prediction theory. "There has been no change in the number and intensity of Category 4 or Category 5 hurricanes around the world in the last 15 years," Mr. Landsea said, in a telephone interview from Miami. On the other side are Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the most respected hurricane scientists in the world, a team of meteorologists from Georgia Tech led by Peter Webster, an MIT-educated monsoon specialist, and Greg Holland, who earned his doctorate at Colorado State under Mr. Gray. "You cannot blame any single storm or even a single season on global warming. ... Gore's statement in the movie is that we can expect more storms like Katrina in a greenhouse-warmed world. I would agree with this," said Judith Curry. She is chairwoman of Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is co-author, with Mr. Webster, Mr. Holland and H.R. Chang, of a paper titled "Changes in Tropical Cyclones," in the Sept. 16 issue of Science, a weekly publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The paper concluded that there has been an 80 percent increase in Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes worldwide. Balancing the atmosphere
edmontonsun.com - Alberta - Cool it over global warming, Tories told
climate scientist is warning Alberta politicians not to get caught up in the hysteria over global warming.
Timothy Ball likens the furor over climate change to the apprehension over the Y2K problem, which turned out to be a costly dud.
The former University of Winnipeg professor told an all-Tory legislature committee yesterday that dramatic climate changes are common in history and they shouldn't get too excited about the greenhouse gases being blamed for global warming.
"I understand that you have to respond," he said. "You can't ignore any environmental issue, but you have to set priorities."
He claimed Ottawa spent $5 billion to avoid predicted year 2000 computer crashes, while countries that spent nothing had no problems.
"You can spend billions with the wrong priorities because people are so concerned and their fears are preyed upon," said Ball, a Victoria, B.C., consultant.
He claimed Environment Canada has spent $3.7 billion on climate change over five years and has been forced to close weather stations to pay for it.
Pembina Institute policy analyst Chris Severson-Baker said he was surprised the committee would provide a forum for "a climate change debunker."
"The scientific consensus is so strong on this that to say things like that is like trying to argue the earth is flat. It's just false," he said. "People in a position to do something ought to be focused on coming up with creative policy solutions."
Environment Minister Guy Boutilier said Alberta will reduce carbon dioxide emissions regardless of disagreement among scientists on the issue. "We'll be the first province in Canada with strong regulations on carbon dioxide emissions, and I believe it's a prudent approach in managing risk."
A spokesman for federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said the Conservatives are committed to reducing greenhouse gases, but not at any cost.
"It's been pretty clear the previous government was willing to spend anything with little result," Ryan Sparrow told the Sun. "We're focusing on a more holistic approach."
While some MLAs applauded Ball's presentation on behalf of the Friends of Science, Neil Brown suggested Ball was playing games with statistics and demanded to know who is funding the organization.
"I have never received any money from any oil and gas company," Ball responded.
climate scientist is warning Alberta politicians not to get caught up in the hysteria over global warming.
Timothy Ball likens the furor over climate change to the apprehension over the Y2K problem, which turned out to be a costly dud.
The former University of Winnipeg professor told an all-Tory legislature committee yesterday that dramatic climate changes are common in history and they shouldn't get too excited about the greenhouse gases being blamed for global warming.
"I understand that you have to respond," he said. "You can't ignore any environmental issue, but you have to set priorities."
He claimed Ottawa spent $5 billion to avoid predicted year 2000 computer crashes, while countries that spent nothing had no problems.
"You can spend billions with the wrong priorities because people are so concerned and their fears are preyed upon," said Ball, a Victoria, B.C., consultant.
He claimed Environment Canada has spent $3.7 billion on climate change over five years and has been forced to close weather stations to pay for it.
Pembina Institute policy analyst Chris Severson-Baker said he was surprised the committee would provide a forum for "a climate change debunker."
"The scientific consensus is so strong on this that to say things like that is like trying to argue the earth is flat. It's just false," he said. "People in a position to do something ought to be focused on coming up with creative policy solutions."
Environment Minister Guy Boutilier said Alberta will reduce carbon dioxide emissions regardless of disagreement among scientists on the issue. "We'll be the first province in Canada with strong regulations on carbon dioxide emissions, and I believe it's a prudent approach in managing risk."
A spokesman for federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said the Conservatives are committed to reducing greenhouse gases, but not at any cost.
"It's been pretty clear the previous government was willing to spend anything with little result," Ryan Sparrow told the Sun. "We're focusing on a more holistic approach."
While some MLAs applauded Ball's presentation on behalf of the Friends of Science, Neil Brown suggested Ball was playing games with statistics and demanded to know who is funding the organization.
"I have never received any money from any oil and gas company," Ball responded.
Lateline - 30/05/2006: Professor challenges scientific community over global warming
Reporter: Tony Jones
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: James Lovelock, thanks for joining us again. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK, SCIENTIST AND AUTHOR: It's my pleasure. TONY JONES: Now, you refer to yourself as someone in the role of a doctor who has to tell his patient they've got a malignant cancer. Tell us why you use that analogy. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Well, I think a doctor in a position like that has one of the toughest jobs in life, bringing really bad news to someone and in a way the way that the world's climate is changing is almost like that and I've been thrown into the position as a kind of planetary doctor, if you like, of bringing that particular bit of bad news. It may not be quite as bad as a cancer in someone, but it is pretty serious anyway. TONY JONES: Now, your Gaia thesis explains the world as a living organism. You say this organism, the earth, is so seriously ill that it will soon pass into a morbid fever that will last as long as 100,000 years. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Yes, indeed. The reason I can say that, and other scientists say the same thing, is that the Earth went through a similar event 55 million years ago when roughly the same amount of carbon dioxide was put into the atmosphere as a result of a geological accident. We are doing just the same thing. TONY JONES: We've looked at your book, 'The Revenge of Gaia'. It looks like a kind of cry from the heart. Is it in fact your last plea to the world, as you see it, to save it from extinction? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I'm pretty old, but I hope it's not my last plea to the world. (Laughs) I hope it's not the world's last event either. But it is a warning cry, if ever there was one. TONY JONES: Do you seriously think the human race actually faces extinction? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: No, I don't. We're an incredibly tough species. There will be humans surviving around breeding pairs in all sorts of places, whatever happens. But it is serious and I should add here that there's nothing certain in science. We might be saved by some natural events, such as a sequence of big volcanoes or it may be when the penny drops in the United States, they'll say, "But we can fix it" and do something about it like putting up sun shades in space. But, it is a very serious problem and we should look at it that way. TONY JONES: It's so serious that you write that billions of people could die and that the few - you have talked about breeding pairs. I mean, you say in your book that the few breeding pairs of people will end up in the Arctic because that's the only place where the climate will be compatible with life. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Well, when we look back at the past events of history 55 million years ago, which seems to be our fate now, most of the earth's surface, the great continents, were overheated and turned to scrub or desert and could support very little people. The people who are in those regions now will just not be able to survive. There will be no food and no water for them. So the consequences are almost inevitable. TONY JONES: Can you paint a picture for us then of the world as you imagine it, both at the Northern and Southern hemispheres if no major change happens to stop global warming now? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Yes, they will become dry scrub and desert, those regions, and this is what happened in the past and when it happened in the past, living things, life migrated to the polar regions and survived through the change, which lasted for 200,000 years and when things returned to normal, the living things up there in the Arctic or in the Antarctic - of course that was then joined to the rest of the world and not a separate continent - migrated back and that's why there was no extinction at that time and there won't be in this time. There will be no extinction either of people or of - there will be of some plants and animals, but by no means all of them. TONY JONES: What do you say to those who believe your theories are more like philosophy than science? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Well, all I can say to them is I wish they were right. No, the theory is well established now and, indeed, in the UK the Geological Society awarded me their senior medal, the Walleston Medal, this year purely for Gaia theory. TONY JONES: Can you just go back and tell us how you formulated the Gaia Theory in the first place? I understand it actually came out of conversations with a novelist? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: No. It began, strangely enough, at NASA's jet propulsion laboratory in California as long ago as the 1960s and my job was to help them design instruments for finding life on Mars and this was the kind of space operation and this enabled me to look back at the Earth and see what it was about the Earth, as if I was some alien, that would tell me that there was life on it and it immediately became obvious to me that the atmosphere reveals the presence of life on the Earth. It's a mixture of very strange gases, oxygen and methane, mixed together. That's the kind of gas mixture that goes into the intake of your car. It's potentially explosive if its composition were different in proportion. So we have a very strange atmosphere and that made me think there must be something in the surface that controls it and regulates it and keeps it constant and safe. This is what made me think of this great system Gaia and when I told my friend, the novelist William Golding, about it and he said, "Oh, you better give an idea like that a proper name" and he was the one that suggested Gaia. TONY JONES: Now you're talking about the revenge of Gaia, that Gaia in fact will take revenge on the human race for what it's done. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Yes. Well, that's a bit of a metaphoric statement and it expresses strongly what I feel and you see I regard our planet as a sort of living organism that's regulated the atmosphere, the water and the chemical composition of the Earth for 3.5 billion years. It's kept it comfortable for life for a quarter of the age of the universe and it's amazing that we're in the midst of wrecking it. TONY JONES: If global warming continues at the rate that it is now, what are the steps that need to be taken to stop us reaching the tipping point, which you've been writing about. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I'm not sure that we can stop it but we've got to try, obviously, by cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions. But remember, it's not just emissions that does the damage. During the course of our development to our present numbers over 6 billion, we've taken an awful lot of the land surface of the Earth for farming and to produce timber for our homes and that land surface used to be used before we took it away to regulate the Earth and we can't put that back quickly. So this is among the reasons why I think it's probably too late to do very much. TONY JONES: I'm intrigued to hear you say that because you seem to have moved beyond the point we were at the last time we spoke, for example. You were advocating nuclear power worldwide as a way of stopping carbon emissions. Are you now thinking it's too late to do that? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I think it probably is. I don't think that we have time to do it worldwide, although it takes nowhere near as long to build a nuclear power station as is often stated. I think most people forget that the first nuclear power stations that were producing energy for people, not making bombs, were in the United Kingdom and they took only 3.5 years to build and even then when we knew very little about it, I think they could be built in two or three years now if there was the will to do so. TONY JONES: Bearing in mind what you've just said, Australia, for example, is now having a serious nuclear debate that could go on, in fact, for many years. The big concerns are both political - that nuclear power is not politically feasible, but that it's not economically viable. What do you say to the Australian politicians who are thinking along those lines? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I think the anti-nuclear stories are very understandable. You've got to look at their history. Not too many years ago, most of us were scared rigid of the possibility of a nuclear war between America and Russia and that sort of filled our lives for an awful lot of years after World War II and during that time a great fear of everything nuclear built up and we haven't dispelled that fear, in spite of the cessation of the Cold War. But nuclear power is nothing about bombs. Modern nuclear power stations are useless for making bombs and the dangers are not real. They've been exaggerated beyond all belief in the decent and proper cause of making people fight against the idea of nuclear weapons. That sort of objection should not be applied to nuclear energy, which quite the reverse could be our saving. TONY JONES: The primary objection now obviously is nuclear waste is simply very, very difficult to deal with and obviously remains radioactive for many thousands of years. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I had dinner with a famous gentleman Hans Blix about a year ago and he turned to me and said, "What on earth is all of this fuss about nuclear waste? "There's hardly any of it, is there?" And this is the truth of it. The quantity of nuclear waste is trivial, tiny. No great problem. It stays where it is and that's it. You just think of the carbon dioxide waste. Every year we produce in the world enough carbon dioxide that if you froze it solid to dry ice, it would make a mountain 1 mile high and 12 miles around in circumference. Now, that is deadly waste and it will kill nearly all of us if we don't stop doing it. TONY JONES: I have heard it said that you think nuclear waste is so containable you actually wouldn't mind having it buried safely in your own backyard. Is that so? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: It is, indeed. I would be very glad to have it because when it is freshly produced, it stays hot for about 10 or 20 years and I'd use it for free home heating. I'd be glad to use it. It would be a waste not to. TONY JONES: Now, Professor Lovelock, you've been a proponent for nuclear power for decades and this has been a huge problem for the green movement, which, as you know, you're widely regarded as the father of the environmental movement. Now you appear to be arguing as well that sustainable development is no longer possible. You alluded to this before. Can you tell us what you mean by that? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: If you go right back in history to Malthus, he proposed that overpopulation would ruin us all, destroy civilisation, way back 200 years ago. He was laughed at and people sort of said, "No, no, no." He was exaggerating. "It's not that bad." I happen to think he was just right because when he produced his ideas there was about a billion people in the world and if you kept the population of the world to a billion you could do almost anything. We could all drive around in gas guzzlers and it wouldn't really matter. The sad thing is I'm afraid it's not just population that has grown, but we've tended to use all of those wasteful things as well and this is what has landed us in the mess we are now in. So the green ideas of sustainable development would have been wonderful if we had done them 100 or 200 years ago, but now they are hopelessly too late. TONY JONES: You seem to be arguing for the complete abandonment of agriculture in some areas of the world at least and the replacement with synthetic foods. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I don't think we'll have to abandon them. Gaia will abandon them for us, in a sense, because as the climate changes, already it is happening in East Africa and I think you're finding it more and more in Australia. Growing food becomes more and more difficult. And so if we want to carry on with large numbers, we all just have to synthesise food and for that we'll need lots of energy. TONY JONES: So in fact you think it's too late for the green solution? The sustainable agriculture combined with large-scale alternative energy, sources like wind farms, hot rocks, wave energy? All of those things combined with solar power, you don't think that will all work? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I'm afraid it won't. They would have worked with a small population like back in Malthus's time. If civilisation had developed that way we might not be in the mess we are now in. But you can't support 6 billion, growing towards 7 billion people, on that kind of energy source. It just won't work. TONY JONES: So, do you actually think that the green movement, the environmentalists who hold to those views are deluded? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: No, I don't. As you rightly said, I'm very much associated with them and have been a green for most of my life. It's just that the green movement on the whole are not very scientific and scientists who should be speaking out on these matters are nowadays hampered by the fact that science is fragmented into a multitude of different expertises and each one sees the Earth only through the tiny fragment of their discipline. So you don't get a clear voice of science. I suppose it's been thrown at me because amongst scientists I'm one of the few that looks at the planet from the top down from outside. TONY JONES: But, a final question for you: if you don't think that the green movement is deluded, you do apparently think it is doomed. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: No. I think the green movement has got to reform and change its attitude away from the rather negative and rather pointless fear of chemicals and nuclear energy and things like that that they've had for so long. I'm afraid that all comes because most of the green movement is supported by people living in big cities. We're nearly all urbanised nowadays and they've lost touch with the natural world. They don't see the world as it really is. They only see their city environment and I think they've got to grow up and start realising that their citizens have a really wonderful planet that's looked after itself for such a long time and we're the enemies of it and not the supporters. TONY JONES: Professor James Lovelock, some provocative thoughts there. We thank you once again for taking the time to join us on Lateline. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Thank you
Reporter: Tony Jones
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: James Lovelock, thanks for joining us again. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK, SCIENTIST AND AUTHOR: It's my pleasure. TONY JONES: Now, you refer to yourself as someone in the role of a doctor who has to tell his patient they've got a malignant cancer. Tell us why you use that analogy. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Well, I think a doctor in a position like that has one of the toughest jobs in life, bringing really bad news to someone and in a way the way that the world's climate is changing is almost like that and I've been thrown into the position as a kind of planetary doctor, if you like, of bringing that particular bit of bad news. It may not be quite as bad as a cancer in someone, but it is pretty serious anyway. TONY JONES: Now, your Gaia thesis explains the world as a living organism. You say this organism, the earth, is so seriously ill that it will soon pass into a morbid fever that will last as long as 100,000 years. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Yes, indeed. The reason I can say that, and other scientists say the same thing, is that the Earth went through a similar event 55 million years ago when roughly the same amount of carbon dioxide was put into the atmosphere as a result of a geological accident. We are doing just the same thing. TONY JONES: We've looked at your book, 'The Revenge of Gaia'. It looks like a kind of cry from the heart. Is it in fact your last plea to the world, as you see it, to save it from extinction? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I'm pretty old, but I hope it's not my last plea to the world. (Laughs) I hope it's not the world's last event either. But it is a warning cry, if ever there was one. TONY JONES: Do you seriously think the human race actually faces extinction? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: No, I don't. We're an incredibly tough species. There will be humans surviving around breeding pairs in all sorts of places, whatever happens. But it is serious and I should add here that there's nothing certain in science. We might be saved by some natural events, such as a sequence of big volcanoes or it may be when the penny drops in the United States, they'll say, "But we can fix it" and do something about it like putting up sun shades in space. But, it is a very serious problem and we should look at it that way. TONY JONES: It's so serious that you write that billions of people could die and that the few - you have talked about breeding pairs. I mean, you say in your book that the few breeding pairs of people will end up in the Arctic because that's the only place where the climate will be compatible with life. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Well, when we look back at the past events of history 55 million years ago, which seems to be our fate now, most of the earth's surface, the great continents, were overheated and turned to scrub or desert and could support very little people. The people who are in those regions now will just not be able to survive. There will be no food and no water for them. So the consequences are almost inevitable. TONY JONES: Can you paint a picture for us then of the world as you imagine it, both at the Northern and Southern hemispheres if no major change happens to stop global warming now? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Yes, they will become dry scrub and desert, those regions, and this is what happened in the past and when it happened in the past, living things, life migrated to the polar regions and survived through the change, which lasted for 200,000 years and when things returned to normal, the living things up there in the Arctic or in the Antarctic - of course that was then joined to the rest of the world and not a separate continent - migrated back and that's why there was no extinction at that time and there won't be in this time. There will be no extinction either of people or of - there will be of some plants and animals, but by no means all of them. TONY JONES: What do you say to those who believe your theories are more like philosophy than science? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Well, all I can say to them is I wish they were right. No, the theory is well established now and, indeed, in the UK the Geological Society awarded me their senior medal, the Walleston Medal, this year purely for Gaia theory. TONY JONES: Can you just go back and tell us how you formulated the Gaia Theory in the first place? I understand it actually came out of conversations with a novelist? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: No. It began, strangely enough, at NASA's jet propulsion laboratory in California as long ago as the 1960s and my job was to help them design instruments for finding life on Mars and this was the kind of space operation and this enabled me to look back at the Earth and see what it was about the Earth, as if I was some alien, that would tell me that there was life on it and it immediately became obvious to me that the atmosphere reveals the presence of life on the Earth. It's a mixture of very strange gases, oxygen and methane, mixed together. That's the kind of gas mixture that goes into the intake of your car. It's potentially explosive if its composition were different in proportion. So we have a very strange atmosphere and that made me think there must be something in the surface that controls it and regulates it and keeps it constant and safe. This is what made me think of this great system Gaia and when I told my friend, the novelist William Golding, about it and he said, "Oh, you better give an idea like that a proper name" and he was the one that suggested Gaia. TONY JONES: Now you're talking about the revenge of Gaia, that Gaia in fact will take revenge on the human race for what it's done. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Yes. Well, that's a bit of a metaphoric statement and it expresses strongly what I feel and you see I regard our planet as a sort of living organism that's regulated the atmosphere, the water and the chemical composition of the Earth for 3.5 billion years. It's kept it comfortable for life for a quarter of the age of the universe and it's amazing that we're in the midst of wrecking it. TONY JONES: If global warming continues at the rate that it is now, what are the steps that need to be taken to stop us reaching the tipping point, which you've been writing about. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I'm not sure that we can stop it but we've got to try, obviously, by cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions. But remember, it's not just emissions that does the damage. During the course of our development to our present numbers over 6 billion, we've taken an awful lot of the land surface of the Earth for farming and to produce timber for our homes and that land surface used to be used before we took it away to regulate the Earth and we can't put that back quickly. So this is among the reasons why I think it's probably too late to do very much. TONY JONES: I'm intrigued to hear you say that because you seem to have moved beyond the point we were at the last time we spoke, for example. You were advocating nuclear power worldwide as a way of stopping carbon emissions. Are you now thinking it's too late to do that? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I think it probably is. I don't think that we have time to do it worldwide, although it takes nowhere near as long to build a nuclear power station as is often stated. I think most people forget that the first nuclear power stations that were producing energy for people, not making bombs, were in the United Kingdom and they took only 3.5 years to build and even then when we knew very little about it, I think they could be built in two or three years now if there was the will to do so. TONY JONES: Bearing in mind what you've just said, Australia, for example, is now having a serious nuclear debate that could go on, in fact, for many years. The big concerns are both political - that nuclear power is not politically feasible, but that it's not economically viable. What do you say to the Australian politicians who are thinking along those lines? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I think the anti-nuclear stories are very understandable. You've got to look at their history. Not too many years ago, most of us were scared rigid of the possibility of a nuclear war between America and Russia and that sort of filled our lives for an awful lot of years after World War II and during that time a great fear of everything nuclear built up and we haven't dispelled that fear, in spite of the cessation of the Cold War. But nuclear power is nothing about bombs. Modern nuclear power stations are useless for making bombs and the dangers are not real. They've been exaggerated beyond all belief in the decent and proper cause of making people fight against the idea of nuclear weapons. That sort of objection should not be applied to nuclear energy, which quite the reverse could be our saving. TONY JONES: The primary objection now obviously is nuclear waste is simply very, very difficult to deal with and obviously remains radioactive for many thousands of years. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I had dinner with a famous gentleman Hans Blix about a year ago and he turned to me and said, "What on earth is all of this fuss about nuclear waste? "There's hardly any of it, is there?" And this is the truth of it. The quantity of nuclear waste is trivial, tiny. No great problem. It stays where it is and that's it. You just think of the carbon dioxide waste. Every year we produce in the world enough carbon dioxide that if you froze it solid to dry ice, it would make a mountain 1 mile high and 12 miles around in circumference. Now, that is deadly waste and it will kill nearly all of us if we don't stop doing it. TONY JONES: I have heard it said that you think nuclear waste is so containable you actually wouldn't mind having it buried safely in your own backyard. Is that so? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: It is, indeed. I would be very glad to have it because when it is freshly produced, it stays hot for about 10 or 20 years and I'd use it for free home heating. I'd be glad to use it. It would be a waste not to. TONY JONES: Now, Professor Lovelock, you've been a proponent for nuclear power for decades and this has been a huge problem for the green movement, which, as you know, you're widely regarded as the father of the environmental movement. Now you appear to be arguing as well that sustainable development is no longer possible. You alluded to this before. Can you tell us what you mean by that? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: If you go right back in history to Malthus, he proposed that overpopulation would ruin us all, destroy civilisation, way back 200 years ago. He was laughed at and people sort of said, "No, no, no." He was exaggerating. "It's not that bad." I happen to think he was just right because when he produced his ideas there was about a billion people in the world and if you kept the population of the world to a billion you could do almost anything. We could all drive around in gas guzzlers and it wouldn't really matter. The sad thing is I'm afraid it's not just population that has grown, but we've tended to use all of those wasteful things as well and this is what has landed us in the mess we are now in. So the green ideas of sustainable development would have been wonderful if we had done them 100 or 200 years ago, but now they are hopelessly too late. TONY JONES: You seem to be arguing for the complete abandonment of agriculture in some areas of the world at least and the replacement with synthetic foods. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I don't think we'll have to abandon them. Gaia will abandon them for us, in a sense, because as the climate changes, already it is happening in East Africa and I think you're finding it more and more in Australia. Growing food becomes more and more difficult. And so if we want to carry on with large numbers, we all just have to synthesise food and for that we'll need lots of energy. TONY JONES: So in fact you think it's too late for the green solution? The sustainable agriculture combined with large-scale alternative energy, sources like wind farms, hot rocks, wave energy? All of those things combined with solar power, you don't think that will all work? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: I'm afraid it won't. They would have worked with a small population like back in Malthus's time. If civilisation had developed that way we might not be in the mess we are now in. But you can't support 6 billion, growing towards 7 billion people, on that kind of energy source. It just won't work. TONY JONES: So, do you actually think that the green movement, the environmentalists who hold to those views are deluded? PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: No, I don't. As you rightly said, I'm very much associated with them and have been a green for most of my life. It's just that the green movement on the whole are not very scientific and scientists who should be speaking out on these matters are nowadays hampered by the fact that science is fragmented into a multitude of different expertises and each one sees the Earth only through the tiny fragment of their discipline. So you don't get a clear voice of science. I suppose it's been thrown at me because amongst scientists I'm one of the few that looks at the planet from the top down from outside. TONY JONES: But, a final question for you: if you don't think that the green movement is deluded, you do apparently think it is doomed. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: No. I think the green movement has got to reform and change its attitude away from the rather negative and rather pointless fear of chemicals and nuclear energy and things like that that they've had for so long. I'm afraid that all comes because most of the green movement is supported by people living in big cities. We're nearly all urbanised nowadays and they've lost touch with the natural world. They don't see the world as it really is. They only see their city environment and I think they've got to grow up and start realising that their citizens have a really wonderful planet that's looked after itself for such a long time and we're the enemies of it and not the supporters. TONY JONES: Professor James Lovelock, some provocative thoughts there. We thank you once again for taking the time to join us on Lateline. PROFESSOR JAMES LOVELOCK: Thank you
Reuters AlertNet - UN Kyoto chief judges climate change options
By Gerard Wynn
LONDON, May 30 (Reuters) - Huge green investment into developing countries, planned under a Kyoto Protocol scheme, should tick quality of life, clean energy and climate change boxes, the UN-appointed overseer of such projects told Reuters.
The United Nations and World Bank have high hopes for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is seen levering some $100 billion investment into developing countries by 2012.
The idea is that rich nations which are lagging their greenhouse gas emissions targets can meet part of these goals by investing in clean energy projects in developing countries.
But projects should span a range of goals, delivering jobs and long-term clean energy as well as cuts in greenhouse gases, said Jose Miguez, appointed this year chairman of the UN body which decides which types of CDM project are eligible.
"The environmental benefits must be clear for future generations," he said.
"(Renewable energy) creates a stable structure for recycling CO2, or in the case of hydro, not emitting at all. We have to create incentives for these types of projects, not for ones we have doubts about."
Miguez is also head of the Brazilian body which approves Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects at the national level.
On "doubts", he listed several types of industrial-scale type project to exclude from CDM, on fears they would swamp smaller ventures.
He opposed funding the destruction of a super-greenhouse gas and byproduct of air conditioning, HFC 23, which has nearly 12,000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2).
His comments could worry the emerging carbon market, however, which saw 58 percent of $2.5 billion CDM investment last year directed into HFC projects, which investors like because of the high multiple pollution cuts they yield compared to CO2.
AMAZON
Under mooted project types under consideration for CDM, Miguez opposed so-called carbon capture and storage -- which siphons off heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants to bury it underground -- saying the risk of leaks could sink such projects in legal wrangles.
And he saw no hope for developing countries such as Brazil arguing that they count their forests -- which absorb greenhouse gases -- as emission cuts.
"If you put this under CDM, you would destroy CDM," he said, adding the Brazilian Amazon had the capacity to absorb more than 300 times the total carbon cuts needed by rich countries to meet their Kyoto goals.
But for the right kinds of projects Miguez saw CDM delivering a massive win-win, fanning up to $100 billion investment into poor countries by 2012, and at the same time making a huge impact on climate change.
"We started in Rio in 1992 and now we have 1 billion tonnes (planned) CO2 reductions (under CDM) and other cuts in developed countries. We have achieved a lot in my opinion."
He saw the Kyoto scheme as only the beginning of a global shift in attitudes on global warming, pointing to the success Brazil has had weaning itself off fossil fuel gasoline onto ethanol, a renewable fuel derived from its huge sugar cane crop.
"Brazilian ethanol has nothing to do with the Kyoto Protocol or the market mechanisms... Now we are looking at ethanol-fuelled planes."
By Gerard Wynn
LONDON, May 30 (Reuters) - Huge green investment into developing countries, planned under a Kyoto Protocol scheme, should tick quality of life, clean energy and climate change boxes, the UN-appointed overseer of such projects told Reuters.
The United Nations and World Bank have high hopes for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is seen levering some $100 billion investment into developing countries by 2012.
The idea is that rich nations which are lagging their greenhouse gas emissions targets can meet part of these goals by investing in clean energy projects in developing countries.
But projects should span a range of goals, delivering jobs and long-term clean energy as well as cuts in greenhouse gases, said Jose Miguez, appointed this year chairman of the UN body which decides which types of CDM project are eligible.
"The environmental benefits must be clear for future generations," he said.
"(Renewable energy) creates a stable structure for recycling CO2, or in the case of hydro, not emitting at all. We have to create incentives for these types of projects, not for ones we have doubts about."
Miguez is also head of the Brazilian body which approves Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects at the national level.
On "doubts", he listed several types of industrial-scale type project to exclude from CDM, on fears they would swamp smaller ventures.
He opposed funding the destruction of a super-greenhouse gas and byproduct of air conditioning, HFC 23, which has nearly 12,000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (CO2).
His comments could worry the emerging carbon market, however, which saw 58 percent of $2.5 billion CDM investment last year directed into HFC projects, which investors like because of the high multiple pollution cuts they yield compared to CO2.
AMAZON
Under mooted project types under consideration for CDM, Miguez opposed so-called carbon capture and storage -- which siphons off heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants to bury it underground -- saying the risk of leaks could sink such projects in legal wrangles.
And he saw no hope for developing countries such as Brazil arguing that they count their forests -- which absorb greenhouse gases -- as emission cuts.
"If you put this under CDM, you would destroy CDM," he said, adding the Brazilian Amazon had the capacity to absorb more than 300 times the total carbon cuts needed by rich countries to meet their Kyoto goals.
But for the right kinds of projects Miguez saw CDM delivering a massive win-win, fanning up to $100 billion investment into poor countries by 2012, and at the same time making a huge impact on climate change.
"We started in Rio in 1992 and now we have 1 billion tonnes (planned) CO2 reductions (under CDM) and other cuts in developed countries. We have achieved a lot in my opinion."
He saw the Kyoto scheme as only the beginning of a global shift in attitudes on global warming, pointing to the success Brazil has had weaning itself off fossil fuel gasoline onto ethanol, a renewable fuel derived from its huge sugar cane crop.
"Brazilian ethanol has nothing to do with the Kyoto Protocol or the market mechanisms... Now we are looking at ethanol-fuelled planes."
Cool Energy has commenced field trials of a new gas
Perth headquartered Cool Energy has commenced field trials of a new gas processing plant, incorporating two gas treatment technologies, at ARC Energy's Xyris site in the Perth Basin.A key component of the gas treatment is Cool Energy's CryoCell technology. The CryoCell, a new technology that removes CO2 from natural gas streams, will undergo an extensive testing program over the next five months. The tests will involve a wide range of process conditions, maximising the amount of data gathered to determine optimum operating parameters and configuration for commercial use. The CryoCell technology aims to unlock previously uneconomic gas reserves due to a high CO2 content and help to fulfill the rising demand for energy. The processing plant will also test Woodside's new gas dehydration technology, which aims to remove water from natural gas streams. The dehydration technology is a fundamentally new concept in extracting water from natural gas.Cool Energy plans to test the gas dehydration technology initially for approximately four weeks before adding the CryoCell technology in series."The commissioning of the new gas processing plant is a significant milestone as we celebrate entering a very important development phase. The success of the tests for the gas dehydration plant and the CryoCell will determine the optimum conditions the company will seek for its first commercial plant," Ms Jessie Inman, Managing Director of Cool Energy, said."Cool Energy is aiming to complete the trials of the gas dehydration and CO2 removal plant and begin a commercial project by the end of the year.Importantly, the field trial in Perth Basin will also provide live data to analyse all aspects of the technology including those that may need further research and development."Both technologies were developed at WA's Curtin University of Technology. The Australian Government is providing financial assistance for the CryoCell through an AusIndustry Innovation Grant.Shell Global Solutions International of The Hague will provide advice and assistance to Cool Energy during the CryoCell testing period. Shell Technology Ventures is a significant shareholder in Cool Energy.The gas dehydration technology is being field tested by Cool Energy on behalf of Woodside. The testing is on schedule and budget.It is still early days, however the commissioning is a significant milestone in the evolution of the project. Data will be collected from the plant during the testing program. After completion of all of the tests, the results will be analysed in the third and fourth quarter of 2006.About Cool EnergyCool Energy is headquartered in Perth, Western Australia.Cool Energy's technology was initially developed by Curtin University of Western Australia.In gas feedstocks with higher concentrations of CO2, Cool Energy's technology will permit the elimination of dedicated solvent processes and their supporting utilities, and thus allow operators substantially lower capital and operating costs.Cool Energy's gas processing development partners include ARC Energy Ltd, Centre for Energy and Greenhouse Technologies Pty Ltd, Curtin University of Technology, Nido Petroleum Ltd, Process Group, Shell Global Solutions International and Woodside Energy Ltd.
Perth headquartered Cool Energy has commenced field trials of a new gas processing plant, incorporating two gas treatment technologies, at ARC Energy's Xyris site in the Perth Basin.A key component of the gas treatment is Cool Energy's CryoCell technology. The CryoCell, a new technology that removes CO2 from natural gas streams, will undergo an extensive testing program over the next five months. The tests will involve a wide range of process conditions, maximising the amount of data gathered to determine optimum operating parameters and configuration for commercial use. The CryoCell technology aims to unlock previously uneconomic gas reserves due to a high CO2 content and help to fulfill the rising demand for energy. The processing plant will also test Woodside's new gas dehydration technology, which aims to remove water from natural gas streams. The dehydration technology is a fundamentally new concept in extracting water from natural gas.Cool Energy plans to test the gas dehydration technology initially for approximately four weeks before adding the CryoCell technology in series."The commissioning of the new gas processing plant is a significant milestone as we celebrate entering a very important development phase. The success of the tests for the gas dehydration plant and the CryoCell will determine the optimum conditions the company will seek for its first commercial plant," Ms Jessie Inman, Managing Director of Cool Energy, said."Cool Energy is aiming to complete the trials of the gas dehydration and CO2 removal plant and begin a commercial project by the end of the year.Importantly, the field trial in Perth Basin will also provide live data to analyse all aspects of the technology including those that may need further research and development."Both technologies were developed at WA's Curtin University of Technology. The Australian Government is providing financial assistance for the CryoCell through an AusIndustry Innovation Grant.Shell Global Solutions International of The Hague will provide advice and assistance to Cool Energy during the CryoCell testing period. Shell Technology Ventures is a significant shareholder in Cool Energy.The gas dehydration technology is being field tested by Cool Energy on behalf of Woodside. The testing is on schedule and budget.It is still early days, however the commissioning is a significant milestone in the evolution of the project. Data will be collected from the plant during the testing program. After completion of all of the tests, the results will be analysed in the third and fourth quarter of 2006.About Cool EnergyCool Energy is headquartered in Perth, Western Australia.Cool Energy's technology was initially developed by Curtin University of Western Australia.In gas feedstocks with higher concentrations of CO2, Cool Energy's technology will permit the elimination of dedicated solvent processes and their supporting utilities, and thus allow operators substantially lower capital and operating costs.Cool Energy's gas processing development partners include ARC Energy Ltd, Centre for Energy and Greenhouse Technologies Pty Ltd, Curtin University of Technology, Nido Petroleum Ltd, Process Group, Shell Global Solutions International and Woodside Energy Ltd.
The Border Mail - Border �not an N-plant option�: "THE Border is unlikely to be chosen as a site for a nuclear power plant, according to a Canberra-based think tank.
The Australia Institute recently identified Westernport Bay � in which Phillip Island is located � and Port Stephens as likely candidates to accommodate a nuclear power plant in the event Australia decides to become a nuclear-powered nation.
Institute researcher Andrew Macintosh said the criteria included existing transmission lines to feed power into the electricity grid, proximity to large population base, such as Sydney or Melbourne, and rail and port access for the transport of imported nuclear fuel rods.
He said the Border and inland Australia lacked the water to cool a nuclear power station and the Murray River and its storages were already over-allocated.
The power station would need to be on the coast to have access to large volumes of cooling water.
Mr Macintosh said new technology may allow gas to be used to cool a nuclear power plant but it was unlikely this technology would be used in Australia.
While fresh nuclear fuel rods would be imported, spent fuel would need to be stored permanently and in Europe power stations were often required to store the radioactive waste on site.
While some sites in Australia might be suitable for nuclear power the option was still not viable.
�The Prime Minister has asked for the debate but he knows full well that nuclear power is not economical at the moment,� Mr Macintosh said.
�It�s too expensive to run and why not go to gas first?
�The debate is really about energy options. If you want to cut emissions you need to look at a range of options.�
The institute�s executive director Clive Hamilton said it was not clear whether the Government had considered where power plants could be located.
�Other li"
The Australia Institute recently identified Westernport Bay � in which Phillip Island is located � and Port Stephens as likely candidates to accommodate a nuclear power plant in the event Australia decides to become a nuclear-powered nation.
Institute researcher Andrew Macintosh said the criteria included existing transmission lines to feed power into the electricity grid, proximity to large population base, such as Sydney or Melbourne, and rail and port access for the transport of imported nuclear fuel rods.
He said the Border and inland Australia lacked the water to cool a nuclear power station and the Murray River and its storages were already over-allocated.
The power station would need to be on the coast to have access to large volumes of cooling water.
Mr Macintosh said new technology may allow gas to be used to cool a nuclear power plant but it was unlikely this technology would be used in Australia.
While fresh nuclear fuel rods would be imported, spent fuel would need to be stored permanently and in Europe power stations were often required to store the radioactive waste on site.
While some sites in Australia might be suitable for nuclear power the option was still not viable.
�The Prime Minister has asked for the debate but he knows full well that nuclear power is not economical at the moment,� Mr Macintosh said.
�It�s too expensive to run and why not go to gas first?
�The debate is really about energy options. If you want to cut emissions you need to look at a range of options.�
The institute�s executive director Clive Hamilton said it was not clear whether the Government had considered where power plants could be located.
�Other li"
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Govts agree to cap Snowy Hydro foreign ownership. 30/05/2006. ABC News Online
The New South Wales, Victorian and Federal Governments have confirmed they will limit foreign ownership of the Snowy Hydro Scheme, and impose conditions on its new owners.
The three governments are selling their shares in the Australian icon, which will be listed on the stock exchange.
Several federal Coalition MPs, independents and the minor parties have raised concerns about the sale.
Finance Minister Nick Minchin says legislation will be introduced into Parliament next month to limit foreign ownership to 35 per cent, and to stop any individual or company owning more than 15 per cent.
The bill will also ensure that the head office of Snowy Hydro will remain in Cooma, in New South Wales and that at least two-thirds of the board - including the chairman - must be Australian citizens.
The New South Wales and Victorian Governments say they support the Commonwealth's legislation
The New South Wales, Victorian and Federal Governments have confirmed they will limit foreign ownership of the Snowy Hydro Scheme, and impose conditions on its new owners.
The three governments are selling their shares in the Australian icon, which will be listed on the stock exchange.
Several federal Coalition MPs, independents and the minor parties have raised concerns about the sale.
Finance Minister Nick Minchin says legislation will be introduced into Parliament next month to limit foreign ownership to 35 per cent, and to stop any individual or company owning more than 15 per cent.
The bill will also ensure that the head office of Snowy Hydro will remain in Cooma, in New South Wales and that at least two-thirds of the board - including the chairman - must be Australian citizens.
The New South Wales and Victorian Governments say they support the Commonwealth's legislation
The great uranium bull run
Uranium has been getting exposure on many different fronts recently. If you've been following the hoopla in Iran, you may recall the recent television footage showing a room full of elated Iranian scientists jumping for joy as though Iran's soccer team won the World Cup. With a zoom of the lens though it was apparent the excitement was focused on a couple of scientists who were gripping vials of what looked like rock salt.
I like to think I'm a pretty adventurous person, but you sure wouldn't catch me jumping around with uranium hexafluoride (UF6) in my hands (it's highly toxic and reacts violently with
water). This joyous occasion was warranted for the Iranians, though, as these vials were a monumental step in the Iranian nuclear technology program. UF6 happens to be the chemical form of uranium used during the enrichment process and it ultimately brings Iran one step closer to fabricating the fuel for its reactors.
Even though Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad doesn't seem to have the most politically correct speechwriters employed in his administration, and his off-color comments regarding the West and Israel don't bode well for his international reputation, he nonetheless absolutely insists the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful and necessary in order to produce much-needed power for his country.
Iranian nuclear progress seems to bring fear and trepidation to various world leaders. But regardless of any personal opinions on this affair, the reason I mention Iran is that they are taking the path the whole world will ultimately have to take in order to procure the energy needs of the future.
As global energy concerns have moved to the forefront of everybody's minds, a big drive toward alternate energy is underway. Nuclear energy is becoming a steadily more acceptable alternative to the fossil fuels that power the globe today and uranium is the commodity poised to shoulder this drive.
Nuclear energy is the largest and most talked about form of alternate energy as more than 16% of the world's electricity is currently generated from it. Last summer I penned an essay discussing the current powerful bull market in uranium and in it I outlined various fundamentals that have lead to the sharp rise in price of uranium oxide (U3O8), the mineral commonly referred to as "yellow cake".
Now there are many different sectors within today's secular bull market in commodities that provide investors with opportunities to multiply their capital. The metals and energy markets have commanded the lion's share of attention thus far. Precious metals and base metals have been on a tear in recent years, greatly rewarding prudent speculators and investors. And with oil and natural gas leading the way, the energy markets have been very rewarding as well.
Uranium, on the other hand, falls somewhere in between metals and energy in its fundamental characteristics, but its performance has been in a league of its own. As seen in the chart below, uranium has been a hot commodity indeed in recent years. Even since I last wrote about it only 10 months ago it has powered higher by 43%.
As recently as 2000, uranium was trading as low as US$7 per pound, while today it trades at $41.50, a massive 493% gain in just six short years. This gain dwarfs those of most every other metal and energy commodity, and I believe there is still much more room to run.
The price for uranium today is the highest it's been in 27 years. And with its current trend it may only be a matter of months before it matches its all-time high of just over $43 per pound. But until it started to take off in 2003, uranium spent a couple decades hovering around the $10 range. There are several reasons why uranium has finally awoken from its dormant state.
Just like all commodities taking part in this soaring bull market, fundamentals are ultimately the driving force behind each secular trend. And like most other hard commodities, uranium is in the midst of a massive economic imbalance as mined supply is not even close to keeping up with soaring demand.
Though uranium has been entrenched in this imbalance for many more years than most other commodities, it is only recently the supply/demand spread has become noteworthy. Meeting uranium demand to power today's reactors has not been an issue up until now for various reasons. First, not many new reactors were being built, so demand was not growing very fast. And second, massive global stockpiles built up during the Cold War have been more than sufficient to supplement mined supply in meeting demand.
But stockpiles and recyclables from dismantled nuclear weapons are quickly dwindling and will only last for so long. And now that nuclear energy is in vogue again, the growing pipeline of reactors coming online in the next decade will substantially add to the overall demand for uranium.
Today there are 441 operational nuclear power reactors around the world and there are another 178 either in construction, planned or proposed. It is estimated that in 2006 over 170 million pounds of uranium will be required to operate these reactors. And this is most likely a conservative number considering the hundreds of research reactors, ships and submarines that consume uranium.
Interestingly, in 2004, global mined production of uranium was just over 100 million pounds. Even though 2005 global production figures are not published yet, I think it is safe to assume it to be within a few percent of the 2004 amount. If 2006 mined uranium was also in the same ballpark, which it is expected to be, this would leave a mined-to-consumed uranium deficit of nearly 70 million pounds.
This spread is obviously going to need to be accounted for by stockpiles and weapons recycling, but how much longer can those sources be sustained? There is only a finite supply of uranium above ground available to cover this negative spread. Therefore rising prices driving increasing production over many years is the only thing that will bring this supply imbalance together.
And as indicated earlier, uranium demand will not subside either. There are currently 27 nuclear reactors under construction around the world and another 151 planned and proposed - 49 of those in China and India alone. These new reactors will add further supply pressure to the already pinched producers.
The underlying reason nuclear reactors are gaining popularity is the fact that we live in an era in which the natural resources requirements necessary to fuel the growing global population and economy are at all-time highs. And the finite nature of the commodities needed to fuel this growth is starting to reveal itself. As global oil supply has perhaps hit its peak production and as the push toward environmentally friendly forms of energy grows, the coal and gas methods that provide the majority of the world's electricity are destined for reduction.
Today about 80% of all global energy is generated from fossil fuels, and this will inevitably have to change. Environmental concerns aside, there were only so many dinosaurs and plants squished in the earth's crust millennia ago able to provide us with today's energy needs.
And at the rate this planet is growing, these finite supplies will become more difficult and expensive to obtain and are ultimately running on the path towards depletion. So as the world's increasing energy demands mount mixed with an environmental push towards "clean" energy, nuclear fuel is edging towards center stage.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the world is finally starting to forget about the Chernobyls and Three Mile Islands of the past and embrace nuclear fuel as a key to the future. What's helped ease people's hesitancy toward nuclear technology is its cutting-edge developments. Next-generation nuclear reactors already in development and construction are designed to be much safer, more powerful, less wasteful and cheaper to build than legacy reactors.
Reactors such as the pressurized water reactor (PWR) and the boiling water reactor (BWR) are today's most common reactor. And even though advanced PWRs and BWRs are already in development, these reactors will always have the risk, though minuscule, of a core meltdown. Major technological advances are in place, however, that have enhanced safety, redundancy and containment rendering nuclear meltdowns an extremely-low-probability risk.
The Three Mile Island reactor is a PWR and the partial meltdown was ultimately contained in a manner in which nobody was harmed. Though it was a scary situation, the 25-year-old safety measures at this still-operational reactor prevented a catastrophe.
And new, fourth-generation nuclear reactors are now starting to appear in the limelight. Instead of the typical light-water reactors mentioned above, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are able to demonstrate how far nuclear technology has come.
The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is an amazing design coming to market soon. Simply put, nearly half-a-million fuel spheres reacting within a giant pressure vessel are cooled with chemically inert helium, the gas coolant of choice in High Temperature Reactors (HTR), while the gas in turn transfers the heat to a power conversion system which converts it to electricity.
This technology is quite fascinating. Each fuel sphere encases a 0.5mm particle of enriched uranium properly coated and encased in graphite forming a sphere, or pebble, the size of a tennis ball. Housing these hundreds of thousands of tennis-ball-sized pebbles is a giant pressure vessel about 20 feet wide and 100 feet tall. This vessel is lined with a 3-foot-thick layer of graphite bricks that serve as neutron reflectors and passive heat transfers.
These pebbles heat up from their internal nuclear fission and become extremely hot. In order to remove the heat generated by this nuclear reaction, helium is pumped into the vessel. It enters the vessel at about 500 degrees Celsius (932 degrees Fahrenheit), absorbs the heat, and is driven to the bottom of the vessel into a low-pressure turbine at about 900 degrees C (1,652 F). After the turbine does its magic, the helium is cooled, recompressed, reheated and pumped back into the vessel to repeat this process. Because PBMRs are HTRs, they are far more efficient in converting heat to electricity (in general, efficiency is higher at higher temperatures of operation).
The best part about a PBMR is its safety. Conventional reactors require water and control rods to stay safe; if anything happened to these systems and there was not a quick resolution, a meltdown could occur. But unlike the water used in conventional reactors, the gas used in a PBMR cannot absorb neutrons or become radioactive.
Furthermore, the top temperature reached in the PBMR is, by design, well below the temperatures that could cause a physical breakdown of the fuel pellets. Therefore, even if there is a complete system failure, the reactor will stop any nuclear fission and go idle by itself, allowing the pebbles to cool down naturally. The simple physics of the PBMR design preclude it from entering a runaway nuclear reaction.
And as far as costs go compared to conventional reactors, the PBMR does not need safety backup and off-site emergency support, hence noticeably lowering capital expenditures involved in planning and construction. The M in PBMR also proves important as they are modular by design. 10 PBMRs in one station can exist within an area the size of three football fields and produce 1100MW of electricity, which is enough to service about 300,000 homes.
Another HTR being rolled out is the Gas Turbine - Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR). This larger-than-PBMR design uses an annular (doughnut-shaped) core with 102 hexagonal fuel element columns of granite blocks. In the core the gas flows through coolant channels within the fuel elements into a power conversion system, which is housed in a separate vessel containing a gas turbine, generating electricity in a similar fashion to the PBMR.
The GT-MHR also touts a meltdown-proof reactor with massive improvements in thermal efficiency increasing it by about 50%. Because of its significant thermodynamic efficiencies, the GT-MHR yields 50% more electrical power from the same number of fissions as low-temperature reactors and also significantly lowers the amount of radioactive waste produced per unit of energy.
These are only a couple of the many new reactor designs today, and such advancements in nuclear reactor technology only solidify the case for uranium. As reactors become safer, cheaper and easier to construct, nuclear fuel will power more and more homes and businesses in the coming decades. And unlike fossil fuels, there is an abundant amount of uranium in the earth. But just like most other commodities, it is going to require significant time and capital in order to ramp up production to meet the demands of today and tomorrow.
The chart below provides a snapshot of not only the secular bull market uranium is carving for itself, but the much similar trend of commodities in general. The commodities bull market is represented by the venerable CRB Commodities Index. This index serves as an excellent proxy for the strategic trend of the overall commodities markets.
The commodities that have powered the CRB higher are metals and energy. Even though uranium is not a component of the CRB, it has a similar nature to the all-stars that comprise it. Many of the metals and energy commodities have experienced greater than three-digit gains so far, but uranium has outpaced them all by quadrupling since 2003.
The reason for uranium's incredible gain is its fundamentals. There are estimated to be over 3 million metric tons of known recoverable uranium reserves, triple this in conventional resources and even more with recalculations based upon today's prices. But getting it to market is the hard part.
Just like pulling any metal from the earth, it requires a great deal of capital to explore, develop and construct a uranium mine. And because uranium prices had been so low in the last 20 or so years, very little uranium exploration took place and very few significant discoveries were made.
To add another twist to this already short-supplied market, many mining companies are struggling with governmental red tape and foot-dragging in bringing uranium mines into operation. Uranium more than any other metal has strict regulatory measures due to the environmental and social risks involved, or perceived to be involved, in bringing it to market. And according to the CEO of Denison Mines, a large Canadian uranium producer, the red tape is getting even thicker.
Now if this were the chief of a small uranium company in an obscure part of the world, I'd be a little less concerned. But Denison is a significant uranium producer and of all countries to have bureaucratic incongruities, Canada is the one that concerns me the most. Canada just happens to be the country with the third largest uranium resources in the world and is the largest global producer.
Peter Farmer of Denison chimed in his concerns in a recent interview after his company's annual meeting in April. Farmer echoed the strain suppliers are under as demand is growing, and went on to criticize the bureaucratic constraints miners are experiencing. Farmer points to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, recently signed into action, as a cumbersome delay in the licensing and permitting process for project development and hints that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is seemingly in an administrative maelstrom.
In Canada it now takes longer today to obtain a project permit than it did several years ago, when the price of uranium was depressed. And in Australia, the second-largest uranium producer, I am told it is just as difficult if not more difficult to obtain the appropriate permissions for development.
Another interesting insight from this interview, which I suppose makes sense, is that most of the natural resources regulatory agencies are having serious personnel issues. I would suspect this spills over to all of the commodities sectors in that many of the government employees are switching from the public sector to the private sector with promises of big salaries and hefty options. So mixed with the new rules and regulations, there is an administrative backup miners are having to deal with.
Though this red tape proves quite unfortunate today, it is time to play catch-up for uranium explorers. In order to meet the growing demand for uranium, many more mines will need to be constructed and many more economical discoveries will need to be made.
The good news is with uranium at $41.50 per pound today, there is ample incentive for prospecting activity, and a lot of companies are taking to the hills in search of the next great uranium deposit. And for investors, the only way to take advantage of this run in uranium is through these companies that will bring the yellow cake to market today and tomorrow.
Uranium stock investing has really caught on since last summer when I first wrote about it. I have been tracking dozens of these companies and have seen this sector catch on like wildfire. Any publicly traded company that has staked a claim on a potential uranium deposit has seen its stock go through the roof.
In my previous essay I explained in detail how uranium is traded, but in a nutshell it is not traded on the futures markets. For investors getting the itch to take part in this bull run, uranium stocks are the only way to go. Unfortunately there are not that many real good ones to choose from as there are only a handful of producers publicly traded.
But the list of junior explorers, mining hopefuls that are ultimately the future of bringing more uranium to market, continues to grow. Rapidly emerging within the resource-friendly Canadian exchanges, uranium juniors have been the talk of the town. Ambitious businessmen and geologists are forming uranium exploration companies and many existing mineral miners are shifting their focus to uranium in order to capture the massive influx of capital pouring into uranium stocks.
As explorers, developers and producers struggle to bring their product to market, the stocks of the companies well-positioned to capitalize on the increasing uranium price will continue to skyrocket. But prudence is extremely virtuous in this realm. When speculating and investing in uranium stocks, it is very important to discern between the fly-by-nighters and the legitimate explorers. In addition, uranium is just one of many commodities poised to excel in this continuing bull market.
The bottom line is the uranium needed to fuel the growing nuclear-friendly economy is in major short supply. Even though the price of uranium has rapidly ascended of late, $40 uranium may seem cheap years down the road. The companies that are able feed this market will greatly prosper until this economic imbalance disappears. Investors and speculators can take part in this enduring secular bull market by buying stocks in these companies, and the rewards should be legendary.
Scott Wright is an analyst at Zeal LLC.
Uranium has been getting exposure on many different fronts recently. If you've been following the hoopla in Iran, you may recall the recent television footage showing a room full of elated Iranian scientists jumping for joy as though Iran's soccer team won the World Cup. With a zoom of the lens though it was apparent the excitement was focused on a couple of scientists who were gripping vials of what looked like rock salt.
I like to think I'm a pretty adventurous person, but you sure wouldn't catch me jumping around with uranium hexafluoride (UF6) in my hands (it's highly toxic and reacts violently with
water). This joyous occasion was warranted for the Iranians, though, as these vials were a monumental step in the Iranian nuclear technology program. UF6 happens to be the chemical form of uranium used during the enrichment process and it ultimately brings Iran one step closer to fabricating the fuel for its reactors.
Even though Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad doesn't seem to have the most politically correct speechwriters employed in his administration, and his off-color comments regarding the West and Israel don't bode well for his international reputation, he nonetheless absolutely insists the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful and necessary in order to produce much-needed power for his country.
Iranian nuclear progress seems to bring fear and trepidation to various world leaders. But regardless of any personal opinions on this affair, the reason I mention Iran is that they are taking the path the whole world will ultimately have to take in order to procure the energy needs of the future.
As global energy concerns have moved to the forefront of everybody's minds, a big drive toward alternate energy is underway. Nuclear energy is becoming a steadily more acceptable alternative to the fossil fuels that power the globe today and uranium is the commodity poised to shoulder this drive.
Nuclear energy is the largest and most talked about form of alternate energy as more than 16% of the world's electricity is currently generated from it. Last summer I penned an essay discussing the current powerful bull market in uranium and in it I outlined various fundamentals that have lead to the sharp rise in price of uranium oxide (U3O8), the mineral commonly referred to as "yellow cake".
Now there are many different sectors within today's secular bull market in commodities that provide investors with opportunities to multiply their capital. The metals and energy markets have commanded the lion's share of attention thus far. Precious metals and base metals have been on a tear in recent years, greatly rewarding prudent speculators and investors. And with oil and natural gas leading the way, the energy markets have been very rewarding as well.
Uranium, on the other hand, falls somewhere in between metals and energy in its fundamental characteristics, but its performance has been in a league of its own. As seen in the chart below, uranium has been a hot commodity indeed in recent years. Even since I last wrote about it only 10 months ago it has powered higher by 43%.
As recently as 2000, uranium was trading as low as US$7 per pound, while today it trades at $41.50, a massive 493% gain in just six short years. This gain dwarfs those of most every other metal and energy commodity, and I believe there is still much more room to run.
The price for uranium today is the highest it's been in 27 years. And with its current trend it may only be a matter of months before it matches its all-time high of just over $43 per pound. But until it started to take off in 2003, uranium spent a couple decades hovering around the $10 range. There are several reasons why uranium has finally awoken from its dormant state.
Just like all commodities taking part in this soaring bull market, fundamentals are ultimately the driving force behind each secular trend. And like most other hard commodities, uranium is in the midst of a massive economic imbalance as mined supply is not even close to keeping up with soaring demand.
Though uranium has been entrenched in this imbalance for many more years than most other commodities, it is only recently the supply/demand spread has become noteworthy. Meeting uranium demand to power today's reactors has not been an issue up until now for various reasons. First, not many new reactors were being built, so demand was not growing very fast. And second, massive global stockpiles built up during the Cold War have been more than sufficient to supplement mined supply in meeting demand.
But stockpiles and recyclables from dismantled nuclear weapons are quickly dwindling and will only last for so long. And now that nuclear energy is in vogue again, the growing pipeline of reactors coming online in the next decade will substantially add to the overall demand for uranium.
Today there are 441 operational nuclear power reactors around the world and there are another 178 either in construction, planned or proposed. It is estimated that in 2006 over 170 million pounds of uranium will be required to operate these reactors. And this is most likely a conservative number considering the hundreds of research reactors, ships and submarines that consume uranium.
Interestingly, in 2004, global mined production of uranium was just over 100 million pounds. Even though 2005 global production figures are not published yet, I think it is safe to assume it to be within a few percent of the 2004 amount. If 2006 mined uranium was also in the same ballpark, which it is expected to be, this would leave a mined-to-consumed uranium deficit of nearly 70 million pounds.
This spread is obviously going to need to be accounted for by stockpiles and weapons recycling, but how much longer can those sources be sustained? There is only a finite supply of uranium above ground available to cover this negative spread. Therefore rising prices driving increasing production over many years is the only thing that will bring this supply imbalance together.
And as indicated earlier, uranium demand will not subside either. There are currently 27 nuclear reactors under construction around the world and another 151 planned and proposed - 49 of those in China and India alone. These new reactors will add further supply pressure to the already pinched producers.
The underlying reason nuclear reactors are gaining popularity is the fact that we live in an era in which the natural resources requirements necessary to fuel the growing global population and economy are at all-time highs. And the finite nature of the commodities needed to fuel this growth is starting to reveal itself. As global oil supply has perhaps hit its peak production and as the push toward environmentally friendly forms of energy grows, the coal and gas methods that provide the majority of the world's electricity are destined for reduction.
Today about 80% of all global energy is generated from fossil fuels, and this will inevitably have to change. Environmental concerns aside, there were only so many dinosaurs and plants squished in the earth's crust millennia ago able to provide us with today's energy needs.
And at the rate this planet is growing, these finite supplies will become more difficult and expensive to obtain and are ultimately running on the path towards depletion. So as the world's increasing energy demands mount mixed with an environmental push towards "clean" energy, nuclear fuel is edging towards center stage.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the world is finally starting to forget about the Chernobyls and Three Mile Islands of the past and embrace nuclear fuel as a key to the future. What's helped ease people's hesitancy toward nuclear technology is its cutting-edge developments. Next-generation nuclear reactors already in development and construction are designed to be much safer, more powerful, less wasteful and cheaper to build than legacy reactors.
Reactors such as the pressurized water reactor (PWR) and the boiling water reactor (BWR) are today's most common reactor. And even though advanced PWRs and BWRs are already in development, these reactors will always have the risk, though minuscule, of a core meltdown. Major technological advances are in place, however, that have enhanced safety, redundancy and containment rendering nuclear meltdowns an extremely-low-probability risk.
The Three Mile Island reactor is a PWR and the partial meltdown was ultimately contained in a manner in which nobody was harmed. Though it was a scary situation, the 25-year-old safety measures at this still-operational reactor prevented a catastrophe.
And new, fourth-generation nuclear reactors are now starting to appear in the limelight. Instead of the typical light-water reactors mentioned above, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are able to demonstrate how far nuclear technology has come.
The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) is an amazing design coming to market soon. Simply put, nearly half-a-million fuel spheres reacting within a giant pressure vessel are cooled with chemically inert helium, the gas coolant of choice in High Temperature Reactors (HTR), while the gas in turn transfers the heat to a power conversion system which converts it to electricity.
This technology is quite fascinating. Each fuel sphere encases a 0.5mm particle of enriched uranium properly coated and encased in graphite forming a sphere, or pebble, the size of a tennis ball. Housing these hundreds of thousands of tennis-ball-sized pebbles is a giant pressure vessel about 20 feet wide and 100 feet tall. This vessel is lined with a 3-foot-thick layer of graphite bricks that serve as neutron reflectors and passive heat transfers.
These pebbles heat up from their internal nuclear fission and become extremely hot. In order to remove the heat generated by this nuclear reaction, helium is pumped into the vessel. It enters the vessel at about 500 degrees Celsius (932 degrees Fahrenheit), absorbs the heat, and is driven to the bottom of the vessel into a low-pressure turbine at about 900 degrees C (1,652 F). After the turbine does its magic, the helium is cooled, recompressed, reheated and pumped back into the vessel to repeat this process. Because PBMRs are HTRs, they are far more efficient in converting heat to electricity (in general, efficiency is higher at higher temperatures of operation).
The best part about a PBMR is its safety. Conventional reactors require water and control rods to stay safe; if anything happened to these systems and there was not a quick resolution, a meltdown could occur. But unlike the water used in conventional reactors, the gas used in a PBMR cannot absorb neutrons or become radioactive.
Furthermore, the top temperature reached in the PBMR is, by design, well below the temperatures that could cause a physical breakdown of the fuel pellets. Therefore, even if there is a complete system failure, the reactor will stop any nuclear fission and go idle by itself, allowing the pebbles to cool down naturally. The simple physics of the PBMR design preclude it from entering a runaway nuclear reaction.
And as far as costs go compared to conventional reactors, the PBMR does not need safety backup and off-site emergency support, hence noticeably lowering capital expenditures involved in planning and construction. The M in PBMR also proves important as they are modular by design. 10 PBMRs in one station can exist within an area the size of three football fields and produce 1100MW of electricity, which is enough to service about 300,000 homes.
Another HTR being rolled out is the Gas Turbine - Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR). This larger-than-PBMR design uses an annular (doughnut-shaped) core with 102 hexagonal fuel element columns of granite blocks. In the core the gas flows through coolant channels within the fuel elements into a power conversion system, which is housed in a separate vessel containing a gas turbine, generating electricity in a similar fashion to the PBMR.
The GT-MHR also touts a meltdown-proof reactor with massive improvements in thermal efficiency increasing it by about 50%. Because of its significant thermodynamic efficiencies, the GT-MHR yields 50% more electrical power from the same number of fissions as low-temperature reactors and also significantly lowers the amount of radioactive waste produced per unit of energy.
These are only a couple of the many new reactor designs today, and such advancements in nuclear reactor technology only solidify the case for uranium. As reactors become safer, cheaper and easier to construct, nuclear fuel will power more and more homes and businesses in the coming decades. And unlike fossil fuels, there is an abundant amount of uranium in the earth. But just like most other commodities, it is going to require significant time and capital in order to ramp up production to meet the demands of today and tomorrow.
The chart below provides a snapshot of not only the secular bull market uranium is carving for itself, but the much similar trend of commodities in general. The commodities bull market is represented by the venerable CRB Commodities Index. This index serves as an excellent proxy for the strategic trend of the overall commodities markets.
The commodities that have powered the CRB higher are metals and energy. Even though uranium is not a component of the CRB, it has a similar nature to the all-stars that comprise it. Many of the metals and energy commodities have experienced greater than three-digit gains so far, but uranium has outpaced them all by quadrupling since 2003.
The reason for uranium's incredible gain is its fundamentals. There are estimated to be over 3 million metric tons of known recoverable uranium reserves, triple this in conventional resources and even more with recalculations based upon today's prices. But getting it to market is the hard part.
Just like pulling any metal from the earth, it requires a great deal of capital to explore, develop and construct a uranium mine. And because uranium prices had been so low in the last 20 or so years, very little uranium exploration took place and very few significant discoveries were made.
To add another twist to this already short-supplied market, many mining companies are struggling with governmental red tape and foot-dragging in bringing uranium mines into operation. Uranium more than any other metal has strict regulatory measures due to the environmental and social risks involved, or perceived to be involved, in bringing it to market. And according to the CEO of Denison Mines, a large Canadian uranium producer, the red tape is getting even thicker.
Now if this were the chief of a small uranium company in an obscure part of the world, I'd be a little less concerned. But Denison is a significant uranium producer and of all countries to have bureaucratic incongruities, Canada is the one that concerns me the most. Canada just happens to be the country with the third largest uranium resources in the world and is the largest global producer.
Peter Farmer of Denison chimed in his concerns in a recent interview after his company's annual meeting in April. Farmer echoed the strain suppliers are under as demand is growing, and went on to criticize the bureaucratic constraints miners are experiencing. Farmer points to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, recently signed into action, as a cumbersome delay in the licensing and permitting process for project development and hints that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is seemingly in an administrative maelstrom.
In Canada it now takes longer today to obtain a project permit than it did several years ago, when the price of uranium was depressed. And in Australia, the second-largest uranium producer, I am told it is just as difficult if not more difficult to obtain the appropriate permissions for development.
Another interesting insight from this interview, which I suppose makes sense, is that most of the natural resources regulatory agencies are having serious personnel issues. I would suspect this spills over to all of the commodities sectors in that many of the government employees are switching from the public sector to the private sector with promises of big salaries and hefty options. So mixed with the new rules and regulations, there is an administrative backup miners are having to deal with.
Though this red tape proves quite unfortunate today, it is time to play catch-up for uranium explorers. In order to meet the growing demand for uranium, many more mines will need to be constructed and many more economical discoveries will need to be made.
The good news is with uranium at $41.50 per pound today, there is ample incentive for prospecting activity, and a lot of companies are taking to the hills in search of the next great uranium deposit. And for investors, the only way to take advantage of this run in uranium is through these companies that will bring the yellow cake to market today and tomorrow.
Uranium stock investing has really caught on since last summer when I first wrote about it. I have been tracking dozens of these companies and have seen this sector catch on like wildfire. Any publicly traded company that has staked a claim on a potential uranium deposit has seen its stock go through the roof.
In my previous essay I explained in detail how uranium is traded, but in a nutshell it is not traded on the futures markets. For investors getting the itch to take part in this bull run, uranium stocks are the only way to go. Unfortunately there are not that many real good ones to choose from as there are only a handful of producers publicly traded.
But the list of junior explorers, mining hopefuls that are ultimately the future of bringing more uranium to market, continues to grow. Rapidly emerging within the resource-friendly Canadian exchanges, uranium juniors have been the talk of the town. Ambitious businessmen and geologists are forming uranium exploration companies and many existing mineral miners are shifting their focus to uranium in order to capture the massive influx of capital pouring into uranium stocks.
As explorers, developers and producers struggle to bring their product to market, the stocks of the companies well-positioned to capitalize on the increasing uranium price will continue to skyrocket. But prudence is extremely virtuous in this realm. When speculating and investing in uranium stocks, it is very important to discern between the fly-by-nighters and the legitimate explorers. In addition, uranium is just one of many commodities poised to excel in this continuing bull market.
The bottom line is the uranium needed to fuel the growing nuclear-friendly economy is in major short supply. Even though the price of uranium has rapidly ascended of late, $40 uranium may seem cheap years down the road. The companies that are able feed this market will greatly prosper until this economic imbalance disappears. Investors and speculators can take part in this enduring secular bull market by buying stocks in these companies, and the rewards should be legendary.
Scott Wright is an analyst at Zeal LLC.
Guardian Unlimited Books Special Reports Gore's plea on climate change wins ovation
Bonn, 26 May 2006--A first round of UN climate negotiations for the period following the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has successfully concluded in Bonn, Germany.
“We have set an ambitious agenda which focuses on a sound process leading towards science-based emission reduction targets on the part of industrialized countries within the next few years” said Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of the “Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol”. “There is a strong sense of urgency and there’s clear consensus that there should be no gap after 2012, when the first commitment period ends”, he added.
The Kyoto Protocol requires 36 industrialized Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below levels specified for each of them in the Protocol. Overall, this should amount to reductions of at least 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.
Richard Kinley, acting head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat said: “Developing countries, which will be hit hardest by climate change, are pushing for rapid agreement on deeper emission cuts. This is the message we have also been hearing from business leaders meeting here in Bonn, who have underlined the importance of a speedy process from their perspective. Obviously, the carbon market needs clear signals.”
The issue of new technologies and private sector also featured prominently in the first round of the “Dialogue on long-term cooperative action”, open to all 189 Parties to the Convention, which were held earlier during the Bonn meeting.
“Industrialized countries have emphasised the importance of these negotiations being based on the latest scientific data and taking into account new technological solutions available today” said Gao Feng, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, Implementation. “Negotiations on the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol and discussions in the ‘Dialogue on long-term cooperative action’ are mutually reinforcing in shaping international action to combat climate change”, he added.
Halldor Thorgeirsson, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, Scientific and Technological Advice, pointed towards the progress that had been made in the Convention’s subsidiary bodies during the May meeting. “Representatives have been excited by the prospects offered by new technologies such as carbon capture and storage”, he said. “Countries agreed to take forward the work on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.”
The next rounds of negotiations under Kyoto Protocol and talks under the Convention will take place at a United Nations Climate Change Conference from 6 to 17 November in Nairobi, Kenya.
Referring to the urgency of the "planetary emergency", he urged his audience to take their own action to combat climate change. "I want you to arm yourselves with knowledge. I want you to learn it in your own words. I want you to make the changes in your own lives," he said. "Become an activist as a consumer, as a voter, as a citizen."
Describing the threat posed by global warming, he said there had been "an utter transformation in the relationship between the human species and our planet", which gave humankind the capacity to do lasting damage. "We now have the capacity to literally change the relationship between the Earth and the sun."
He warned that action or inaction would be judged by future generations. They would ask, he said: "What were they thinking? Didn't they see this coming? Were they too distracted? Were they too busy? Didn't they care?"
Bonn, 26 May 2006--A first round of UN climate negotiations for the period following the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has successfully concluded in Bonn, Germany.
“We have set an ambitious agenda which focuses on a sound process leading towards science-based emission reduction targets on the part of industrialized countries within the next few years” said Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of the “Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol”. “There is a strong sense of urgency and there’s clear consensus that there should be no gap after 2012, when the first commitment period ends”, he added.
The Kyoto Protocol requires 36 industrialized Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below levels specified for each of them in the Protocol. Overall, this should amount to reductions of at least 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.
Richard Kinley, acting head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat said: “Developing countries, which will be hit hardest by climate change, are pushing for rapid agreement on deeper emission cuts. This is the message we have also been hearing from business leaders meeting here in Bonn, who have underlined the importance of a speedy process from their perspective. Obviously, the carbon market needs clear signals.”
The issue of new technologies and private sector also featured prominently in the first round of the “Dialogue on long-term cooperative action”, open to all 189 Parties to the Convention, which were held earlier during the Bonn meeting.
“Industrialized countries have emphasised the importance of these negotiations being based on the latest scientific data and taking into account new technological solutions available today” said Gao Feng, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, Implementation. “Negotiations on the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol and discussions in the ‘Dialogue on long-term cooperative action’ are mutually reinforcing in shaping international action to combat climate change”, he added.
Halldor Thorgeirsson, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, Scientific and Technological Advice, pointed towards the progress that had been made in the Convention’s subsidiary bodies during the May meeting. “Representatives have been excited by the prospects offered by new technologies such as carbon capture and storage”, he said. “Countries agreed to take forward the work on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.”
The next rounds of negotiations under Kyoto Protocol and talks under the Convention will take place at a United Nations Climate Change Conference from 6 to 17 November in Nairobi, Kenya.
Referring to the urgency of the "planetary emergency", he urged his audience to take their own action to combat climate change. "I want you to arm yourselves with knowledge. I want you to learn it in your own words. I want you to make the changes in your own lives," he said. "Become an activist as a consumer, as a voter, as a citizen."
Describing the threat posed by global warming, he said there had been "an utter transformation in the relationship between the human species and our planet", which gave humankind the capacity to do lasting damage. "We now have the capacity to literally change the relationship between the Earth and the sun."
He warned that action or inaction would be judged by future generations. They would ask, he said: "What were they thinking? Didn't they see this coming? Were they too distracted? Were they too busy? Didn't they care?"
UN conference agrees agenda for negotiations on new emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol
Bonn, 26 May 2006--A first round of UN climate negotiations for the period following the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has successfully concluded in Bonn, Germany.
“We have set an ambitious agenda which focuses on a sound process leading towards science-based emission reduction targets on the part of industrialized countries within the next few years” said Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of the “Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol”. “There is a strong sense of urgency and there’s clear consensus that there should be no gap after 2012, when the first commitment period ends”, he added.
The Kyoto Protocol requires 36 industrialized Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below levels specified for each of them in the Protocol. Overall, this should amount to reductions of at least 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.
Richard Kinley, acting head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat said: “Developing countries, which will be hit hardest by climate change, are pushing for rapid agreement on deeper emission cuts. This is the message we have also been hearing from business leaders meeting here in Bonn, who have underlined the importance of a speedy process from their perspective. Obviously, the carbon market needs clear signals.”
The issue of new technologies and private sector also featured prominently in the first round of the “Dialogue on long-term cooperative action”, open to all 189 Parties to the Convention, which were held earlier during the Bonn meeting.
“Industrialized countries have emphasised the importance of these negotiations being based on the latest scientific data and taking into account new technological solutions available today” said Gao Feng, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, Implementation. “Negotiations on the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol and discussions in the ‘Dialogue on long-term cooperative action’ are mutually reinforcing in shaping international action to combat climate change”, he added.
Halldor Thorgeirsson, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, Scientific and Technological Advice, pointed towards the progress that had been made in the Convention’s subsidiary bodies during the May meeting. “Representatives have been excited by the prospects offered by new technologies such as carbon capture and storage”, he said. “Countries agreed to take forward the work on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.”
The next rounds of negotiations under Kyoto Protocol and talks under the Convention will take place at a United Nations Climate Change Conference from 6 to 17 November in Nairobi, Kenya.
Bonn, 26 May 2006--A first round of UN climate negotiations for the period following the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has successfully concluded in Bonn, Germany.
“We have set an ambitious agenda which focuses on a sound process leading towards science-based emission reduction targets on the part of industrialized countries within the next few years” said Michael Zammit Cutajar, Chair of the “Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol”. “There is a strong sense of urgency and there’s clear consensus that there should be no gap after 2012, when the first commitment period ends”, he added.
The Kyoto Protocol requires 36 industrialized Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below levels specified for each of them in the Protocol. Overall, this should amount to reductions of at least 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.
Richard Kinley, acting head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat said: “Developing countries, which will be hit hardest by climate change, are pushing for rapid agreement on deeper emission cuts. This is the message we have also been hearing from business leaders meeting here in Bonn, who have underlined the importance of a speedy process from their perspective. Obviously, the carbon market needs clear signals.”
The issue of new technologies and private sector also featured prominently in the first round of the “Dialogue on long-term cooperative action”, open to all 189 Parties to the Convention, which were held earlier during the Bonn meeting.
“Industrialized countries have emphasised the importance of these negotiations being based on the latest scientific data and taking into account new technological solutions available today” said Gao Feng, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, Implementation. “Negotiations on the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol and discussions in the ‘Dialogue on long-term cooperative action’ are mutually reinforcing in shaping international action to combat climate change”, he added.
Halldor Thorgeirsson, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, Scientific and Technological Advice, pointed towards the progress that had been made in the Convention’s subsidiary bodies during the May meeting. “Representatives have been excited by the prospects offered by new technologies such as carbon capture and storage”, he said. “Countries agreed to take forward the work on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.”
The next rounds of negotiations under Kyoto Protocol and talks under the Convention will take place at a United Nations Climate Change Conference from 6 to 17 November in Nairobi, Kenya.
A new reliance on coal could sap green cred from the ethanol industry By Amanda Griscom Little Grist Magazine Muckraker 26 May 2006
As ethanol boosterism spreads far and wide -- from Bush's bully pulpit to the New York Times editorial page to green-group press releases -- a quietly emerging trend is threatening to undermine the biofuel's environmental credibility.
How green is this ethanol plant?
Photo: iStockphoto.More and more ethanol manufacturers are looking to power their plants with cheap coal instead of its cleaner and increasingly expensive competitor, natural gas, thereby potentially limiting ethanol's environmental benefits. And the Bush administration is doing its part to accelerate this trend. Under pressure from a group of senators and representatives from corn- and coal-producing states, the U.S. EPA is considering a rule change under the Clean Air Act that would relax pollution regulations on ethanol plants, clearing the way for them to burn coal with fewer restraints. While only four of roughly 100 ethanol plants currently operating in the U.S. are powered by coal (practically all of the rest are fueled by natural gas), some 190 more are under construction or soon to be built. One energy analyst, Robert McIlvaine, president of the Illinois-based research group McIlvaine Company, predicts that "100 percent" of new ethanol plants built in the U.S. over the next few years will be coal-fired, "largely because of the exorbitant cost of natural gas right now, and the comparatively predictable future supply of homegrown coal." A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor also points out that many ethanol manufacturers are increasingly being drawn toward coal.But Nathanael Greene, a renewable-energy expert with Natural Resources Defense Council, doesn't see such a clear-cut trend. "Less than a quarter of the 16-plus ethanol plants that came online last year were coal-fired, even given current natural-gas prices," he says. He believes that many ethanol-industry leaders will stick with natural gas or opt for zero-emission renewable fuel sources for their plants in order to protect their much-advertised eco-friendly image and avoid the arduous environmental-review process required for coal-plant construction.Still, some enviros see cause to worry about a tilt toward coal, particularly because ethanol production in the U.S. is already fossil-fuel intensive. Nearly all of the ethanol on the U.S. market today is derived from corn, which tends to require substantial fossil-fuel inputs to grow, harvest, and process. While the eco-utopian promise of cellulosic ethanol -- derived from substances such as switchgrass and woodchips that require comparatively negligible fossil-fuel inputs -- lingers on the horizon, cellulosic technology is still in its infancy, years away from widespread use. According to recent research on ethanol's environmental benefits from the University of California at Berkeley, corn-derived ethanol produced by a natural-gas powered plant offers a 38 percent greenhouse-gas reduction compared to gasoline, while corn-derived ethanol produced by a coal-fired plant offers a greenhouse-gas benefit of only about 19 percent. Cellulosic ethanol, by comparison, is far more conducive to processing without any fossil fuels, and thus is expected to offer an 88 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions compared to gasoline. Greene estimates that an ethanol industry using environmentally preferable production methods could fully replace the gasoline used in America by mid-century and slash U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 1.7 million tons per year, equivalent to 80 percent of current greenhouse-gas emissions from transportation.
Not Ethanol It's Cracked Up to BeInstead of striving to produce the cleanest, greenest ethanol, however, many in the industry want to keep production costs as low as possible, and they're supported by members of Congress who also want to use ethanol's soaring popularity to bolster the coal industry. In March, the EPA -- reportedly at the behest of at least one corn-state politician -- proposed changing a rule in order to let ethanol-fuel plants more than double their air emissions, from 100 tons per year of any pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act to 250 tons per year. "This proposal is clearly designed to usher in this wave of new coal-fired plants -- loosening the rules so that the facilities can be bigger, dirtier, and cheaper," says Greene's colleague John Walke, director of NRDC's clean-air program. Walke warns that if the EPA approves it, his group might file suit. While ethanol-fuel manufacturers can build coal-fired plants under current rules, the facilities have to be kept relatively small to meet pollution restrictions, and must undergo a rigorous permitting process. On the other hand, a bipartisan group of 33 members of Congress led by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) threw its support behind the proposed rule change earlier this month in a letter [PDF] to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. The Renewable Fuels Association, an industry trade group, also backs the change. A public-comment period on the proposal concluded earlier this month, and a final decision is expected soon. "It's widely accepted that the EPA will go ahead and make this important change," says Matthew Hartwig of RFA.
In The Same Vein
Corn at the Right TimeEthanol is suddenly all the rage in D.C. and DetroitAccording to Kyle Downey, a spokesperson for Thune, "The current rules are needlessly impeding the growth of ethanol nationwide." He further argues that the trend toward coal is a good thing for the planet in the long run because it will accelerate the development of ethanol-friendly infrastructure, thereby paving the way for a system based on cellulosic ethanol: "The cheaper the ethanol in the short term, the greater the consumer demand will be for a shift from gas to ethanol, and the quicker America will transform fueling stations from gasoline to ethanol," he says, suggesting that the industry could then gradually move toward lower-emission forms of ethanol.Environmentalists reject this logic, arguing that the ethanol industry is booming now and doesn't need looser environmental regulations to succeed. "The ethanol markets are already exploding with 25 percent growth per year without this rule change," says Greene. "The industry is expected to double in less than four years. It's very clear that there is an economically viable way of growing the ethanol industry rapidly without sacrificing public health." He points to new corn-ethanol facilities fueled by zero-emission technologies. A plant in Nebraska was built next to a cattle farm so it could use methane from the bovine waste to power its operations. Two others in Minnesota use fuel from gasified biomass, and a demonstration plant being built in Illinois will be powered by solar thermal collectors. These facilities can produce corn ethanol with nearly 70 percent lower greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline, says Greene. "I suspect we'll see substantial growth in this area," he predicts.
Spend Your $.02
Discuss this story in our blog, Gristmill.RFA's Hartwig agrees that zero-emission ethanol plants are economically sound and part of an important trend; still, he sees them as only one part of the puzzle. "We need a diversified approach to growing this industry," he says. "There is plenty of room for coal, natural gas, and renewables."But if the industry wants to keep promoting ethanol as the eco-friendly fuel of the future, it would be well advised to lay off the coal and lean on clean energy. -->
Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing, classified documents, or other useful tips on environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the people behind them. Please send 'em to muckraker@grist.org.
- - - - - - - - - -
Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on environmental politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the magazine. Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.
As ethanol boosterism spreads far and wide -- from Bush's bully pulpit to the New York Times editorial page to green-group press releases -- a quietly emerging trend is threatening to undermine the biofuel's environmental credibility.
How green is this ethanol plant?
Photo: iStockphoto.More and more ethanol manufacturers are looking to power their plants with cheap coal instead of its cleaner and increasingly expensive competitor, natural gas, thereby potentially limiting ethanol's environmental benefits. And the Bush administration is doing its part to accelerate this trend. Under pressure from a group of senators and representatives from corn- and coal-producing states, the U.S. EPA is considering a rule change under the Clean Air Act that would relax pollution regulations on ethanol plants, clearing the way for them to burn coal with fewer restraints. While only four of roughly 100 ethanol plants currently operating in the U.S. are powered by coal (practically all of the rest are fueled by natural gas), some 190 more are under construction or soon to be built. One energy analyst, Robert McIlvaine, president of the Illinois-based research group McIlvaine Company, predicts that "100 percent" of new ethanol plants built in the U.S. over the next few years will be coal-fired, "largely because of the exorbitant cost of natural gas right now, and the comparatively predictable future supply of homegrown coal." A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor also points out that many ethanol manufacturers are increasingly being drawn toward coal.But Nathanael Greene, a renewable-energy expert with Natural Resources Defense Council, doesn't see such a clear-cut trend. "Less than a quarter of the 16-plus ethanol plants that came online last year were coal-fired, even given current natural-gas prices," he says. He believes that many ethanol-industry leaders will stick with natural gas or opt for zero-emission renewable fuel sources for their plants in order to protect their much-advertised eco-friendly image and avoid the arduous environmental-review process required for coal-plant construction.Still, some enviros see cause to worry about a tilt toward coal, particularly because ethanol production in the U.S. is already fossil-fuel intensive. Nearly all of the ethanol on the U.S. market today is derived from corn, which tends to require substantial fossil-fuel inputs to grow, harvest, and process. While the eco-utopian promise of cellulosic ethanol -- derived from substances such as switchgrass and woodchips that require comparatively negligible fossil-fuel inputs -- lingers on the horizon, cellulosic technology is still in its infancy, years away from widespread use. According to recent research on ethanol's environmental benefits from the University of California at Berkeley, corn-derived ethanol produced by a natural-gas powered plant offers a 38 percent greenhouse-gas reduction compared to gasoline, while corn-derived ethanol produced by a coal-fired plant offers a greenhouse-gas benefit of only about 19 percent. Cellulosic ethanol, by comparison, is far more conducive to processing without any fossil fuels, and thus is expected to offer an 88 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions compared to gasoline. Greene estimates that an ethanol industry using environmentally preferable production methods could fully replace the gasoline used in America by mid-century and slash U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 1.7 million tons per year, equivalent to 80 percent of current greenhouse-gas emissions from transportation.
Not Ethanol It's Cracked Up to BeInstead of striving to produce the cleanest, greenest ethanol, however, many in the industry want to keep production costs as low as possible, and they're supported by members of Congress who also want to use ethanol's soaring popularity to bolster the coal industry. In March, the EPA -- reportedly at the behest of at least one corn-state politician -- proposed changing a rule in order to let ethanol-fuel plants more than double their air emissions, from 100 tons per year of any pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act to 250 tons per year. "This proposal is clearly designed to usher in this wave of new coal-fired plants -- loosening the rules so that the facilities can be bigger, dirtier, and cheaper," says Greene's colleague John Walke, director of NRDC's clean-air program. Walke warns that if the EPA approves it, his group might file suit. While ethanol-fuel manufacturers can build coal-fired plants under current rules, the facilities have to be kept relatively small to meet pollution restrictions, and must undergo a rigorous permitting process. On the other hand, a bipartisan group of 33 members of Congress led by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) threw its support behind the proposed rule change earlier this month in a letter [PDF] to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. The Renewable Fuels Association, an industry trade group, also backs the change. A public-comment period on the proposal concluded earlier this month, and a final decision is expected soon. "It's widely accepted that the EPA will go ahead and make this important change," says Matthew Hartwig of RFA.
In The Same Vein
Corn at the Right TimeEthanol is suddenly all the rage in D.C. and DetroitAccording to Kyle Downey, a spokesperson for Thune, "The current rules are needlessly impeding the growth of ethanol nationwide." He further argues that the trend toward coal is a good thing for the planet in the long run because it will accelerate the development of ethanol-friendly infrastructure, thereby paving the way for a system based on cellulosic ethanol: "The cheaper the ethanol in the short term, the greater the consumer demand will be for a shift from gas to ethanol, and the quicker America will transform fueling stations from gasoline to ethanol," he says, suggesting that the industry could then gradually move toward lower-emission forms of ethanol.Environmentalists reject this logic, arguing that the ethanol industry is booming now and doesn't need looser environmental regulations to succeed. "The ethanol markets are already exploding with 25 percent growth per year without this rule change," says Greene. "The industry is expected to double in less than four years. It's very clear that there is an economically viable way of growing the ethanol industry rapidly without sacrificing public health." He points to new corn-ethanol facilities fueled by zero-emission technologies. A plant in Nebraska was built next to a cattle farm so it could use methane from the bovine waste to power its operations. Two others in Minnesota use fuel from gasified biomass, and a demonstration plant being built in Illinois will be powered by solar thermal collectors. These facilities can produce corn ethanol with nearly 70 percent lower greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline, says Greene. "I suspect we'll see substantial growth in this area," he predicts.
Spend Your $.02
Discuss this story in our blog, Gristmill.RFA's Hartwig agrees that zero-emission ethanol plants are economically sound and part of an important trend; still, he sees them as only one part of the puzzle. "We need a diversified approach to growing this industry," he says. "There is plenty of room for coal, natural gas, and renewables."But if the industry wants to keep promoting ethanol as the eco-friendly fuel of the future, it would be well advised to lay off the coal and lean on clean energy. -->
Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing, classified documents, or other useful tips on environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the people behind them. Please send 'em to muckraker@grist.org.
- - - - - - - - - -
Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on environmental politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the magazine. Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
