Van Jones: The Green Man

I attended a speech by Anthony “Van” Jones, who was President Obama’s Special Advisor for Green Jobs for brief period in 2009. Van Jones, as he’s better known, was in Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of 2009.

His vision is a greener and a more economically sound America. He sees green-collared jobs as an untapped reserve from which hundreds of thousands of jobs can be created by retrofitting buildings, building green power plants (solar, hydro, or wind), and by creating new research and development teams. Since Van Jones is also a civil rights activist, he values the low skilled jobs created as equally as important as the environmental benefits. He sees these jobs as a way to keep people out of the jails and stimulate the economy. He also said that the U.S. is far behind many other countries and has much catching up to do. He placed the burden on today’s generation of students, saying that his generation “failed” to make any progress in energy. And, he argued that it would be entrepreneurship, not government, that would head the charge. Government just needs to provide the proper grounds for the green economy to grow, he advises.

I thought Van Jones was one of the best speakers I had ever seen, but at the same time, I recognized his background. He was Yale Law School graduate, who knew the right buttons to push. He also treaded very softly when forced to pick a side. In essence, he talked like a politician. Regardless of how he said it, I still believe his message is urgent. But, I believe his plan will take entirely too long. His vision that American energy companies will grow in a green-friendly business environment is true. But aren’t there already enough incentives and grants going out to these companies? It is taking too long! It is my belief that the government, not business, will get us out of this carbon addiction; it will get us out of this mess like it did when a space shuttle (also publicly funded) got us out the gradational pull of the earth and landed on the moon. As he said, we are already far behind other countries. Do we really want to risk falling behind even more? Corporations are known for taking nibbles before bites. Government has the resources and no investor or bottom line to attend to. It can act unilaterally and with great impact, not the slow and sometimes backwards steps we have seen from corporations. To keep things even, it was business that built the skylines, not the government. Tell me what you think. Should government do the job or let others do it?

Pennsylvania Tax On Natural Gas Making Progress

According to a Wall Street Journal article written on September 29, 2010, Pennsylvania is coming closer to passing a bill that will tax the extraction of natural gas. Pennsylvania is the only state that produces large amounts of gas without a tax. The debate over provisions to include in this bill is very divided. The governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, wants the gas companies to pay for environmental protections and infrastructure improvements, and “replenish the state’s depleted coffers” (WSJ). On the other side of the argument, Republicans are resisting the bill. Many of their favored policies include allowing companies to use mineral rights in an area if a certain percentage of people has agreed to it, and a lower tax than the democrats are proposing, at least in the beginning. At this point the bill has passed in the house, but politicians are expecting difficulty because the senate is Republican controlled.

This current event is not entirely political, though. It also shows a lot about the growth of the natural gas industry. Again, according to the Wall Street Journal Article, Pennsylvania’s output of natural gas has quadrupled since 2009. This is a massive increase in only a year. The house’s bill would tax 39 cents per thousand cubic feet of gas. This would raise $120 million in 2010 and $326 million in 2011-2012 (WSJ).

The main objective of this bill, I believe, is to pay for more state projects like infrastructure. I do not mind the Pennsylvania government taxing these gas companies so that it can pay for the environmental protections and infrastructural improvements. However, I believe that this measure crosses the line when the Governor hopes that this tax revenue can “replenish the state’s depleted coffers” (WSJ). It seems wrong to have gas companies paying for budget shortfalls of the government. Not only does it seem wrong, but it will, without a doubt, drive up the cost of natural gas. This industry is growing rapidly, but this could be happening because of the relatively low price of natural gas. Overall, I am for a bill that will tax natural gas in Pennsylvania. These companies should pay for their environmental protections and pay their fair share. I just would prefer that the government does not tax this young industry too heavily so it can continue its rapid growth.

Day, Matt. "Pennsylvania House Passes New Natural-Gas Production Tax." Wall Street Journal (2010) Web. 29 Sep 2010.

Germany Aspires For Longer Energy Lifespan

Yesterday in Berlin, the cabinet discussed several tactics to make energy plants throughout Germany more eco – friendly with a longer lifespan. Their focus is to cut greenhouse – gas emissions while achieving over 50% of renewable energy use with in 40 years. Through providing a longer lifespan of renewable energy plants, they are expecting that this will serve as a “bridge” to the next energy trend. They describe this “bridge” as a short-term trend until the next big energy invention comes out. They also explain how renewable energy is not the future but just the pathway to the future inventions.

The cabinet exposed that after 2030, the energy plants will need to be replaced and that is why they are talking about investing in newer plants that last longer. Replacing and upgrading these plants will cost Germany over € 19 billion. In addition, it is imperative that Germany upgrades their grid system so that they may provide energy to as many consumers as possible.

I think it is great that Germany has such high aspirations in reducing greenhouse-gasses and using as much renewable energy as possible. I am not surprised by these aspirations though because they have the most extensive recycling program in the world, which many citizens help to partake in. If any country is confused on where to start for being more eco-cautious, they should look up to Germany for their goals and achievements in going green. I must agree with Germany that renewable energy is only a trend to what is coming up in the future because there are always new inventions and more efficient ways of production as time goes on, but why spend and invest in so much money in a 40 year plan if there is going to be something new? Why don’t they invest that money into new inventions and research teams? Though these questions consume my thoughts, I have no doubt that Germany will succeed in their green aspirations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575519493309998222.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines

Bob Dudley & His Difficult Task

In a recent WSJ article, Bob Dudley's new role and difficult task are discussed.  First, the article raises the question as to why no other companies, like Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell, haven't made any advances toward the company, especially with stock prices so low.  Then, it goes on to tell of the difficult task that lays ahead for the new CEO, Bob Dudley.  It talks of his career path and how he got to where he is, with his start at Amoco, then move to BP when they acquired the company in the late nineties. He is the first CEO at BP that is not British, which further raises expectations.  In 2003, he left BP to lead their venture in Russia.  There, he saw the company go from nothing to one of Russia's leading producers.  After much controversy with the Russians, he was forced to leave and in return was given a position on the board of BP.  With the Deepwater Horizon incident and Tony Hayward's public mistakes, he was given the chance in the big chair.  In front of him lies the task of reforming BP and restoring their faith in the American public.

I can't help but wonder, after 102 years of a British CEO, was hiring an American the first step in restoring American's faith (WSJ Art)?  However, Dudley has all the credentials that could be asked of any CEO.  The controversy with Russia strikes me as a little odd, as it went as far as the Russian's investigating the whole ordeal (WSJ).  Although, this means that Dudley has experience with scandal.  The job ahead of him is quite an extensive one.  He has to fully reshape the company and reinstate that they are using ethical practices.  I feel he is the best hope they have right now, as the company's stock prices still suffer the consequences of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  I, too, am wondering why no other companies haven't taken the chance to acquire BP, as Exxon and Shell are certainly poised to do so.  The energy industry as a whole is completely affected by how BP recovers from this and it is all in the hands of Bob Dudley.  Personally, I wish him success in this task because many jobs and companies are on the line here, as BP's reach is that of a spider, a little bit in every sector. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703793804575511791844265192.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines

Native Energy

NativeOne, a renewable energy developer and member of the Mission Indians, has joined forces with the LeeChee Chapter of the Navajo Indians to build a solar power plant on Navajo land. This plan only highlights the trend to build alternative energy plants on Native American lands. Not only are these lands expansive (Navajo’s are big as West Virginia), but some are ideal for the alternative energy markets. Most of the land is in the west. This land used to be seen useless, for it has limited trees, water, and metals. But it does have an abundance of wind and sun, and it is located closely to the now highly populated southwestern part of the United States. Therefore, transmission lines will not be as expensive, and, oftentimes, they are already there. Native American’s, with their special status in the States, also have the ability make it much easier on investors to avoid regulations and other barriers. This is possibly the most appealing aspect to investors.

Now you might be wondering why the Indians would allow these companies to tarnish their land with these monstrous power plants. Predictably, the answer is money. The LeeChee will not charge for the land but will receive a cut of the revenue until NativeOne pays off its investment and receives tax credits. Then, it will hand the plant over to the LeChee, who will then have to operate and maintain the plant. Another reason for the massive amount of interest from Indians is the expansion of gambling. Governments are allowing for more casinos. Therefore, competition is created. Tribes fear a decline in casinos and also see jobs being made in the construction of these new power plants.

If this NativeOne’s vision does come to be a reality, it would set the precedent for many more green power plants to be built. Since Indians will be mutually benefiting off of other Indians this vision might not be so farfetched. It will be interesting to see if bigger players are able to enter. Given the lack of green power plants in the States, this niche market could change the game.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/native-americans-a-new-player-in-renewables/

A New Company With A New Plan

Through the split of Encana Corporation, Cenovus Energy was developed in 2009 as an independent oil company in Canada. They mainly focus on increasing oil production by taking strategic measures in developing plans and relying on technology. Cenovus also focuses on meeting consumer’s needs by providing untapped oil. This untapped oil is extracted from the earth’s mantel and has never been touched before providing only the best quality. Technology is also very important to Cenovus because it helps with the reduction of water, steam, natural gas, and electricity making oil extraction more efficient and less harmful. Technology also helps with production, making extraction an easier process.

In the north of Bonnyville, Cenovus Energy is developing a three-phase two billion dollar expansion plan. This plan not only benefits the company’s goals in production, but also it offers 1,000 jobs for the public. The first phase is already under construction, and is expected to operate during 2014. The other two phases are anticipated to operate between 2016 and 2019. The purpose of this three-step plan is to increase production by supplying more oil to consumers. The first phase of the plant is estimated to supply 210,000 barrels of oil per day as opposed to the 100,000 barrels per day offered in the original plant. The next two phases will raise the amount of oil extracted by bringing in 235,000 barrels. After the phases are complete, Cenovus expects to reduce their prices and also reduce the amount of energy put into extracting the oil for their consumers.

Now that this new company has emerged into the Energy industry with a comprehensive expansion plan, it presents a challenge for other Energy companies. The challenge is that now these companies have to figure out a way to increase their oil production. If Cenovus is producing and supplying more oil, their consumer rates will increase and other Energy companies will lose consumers. As a result, companies are challenged with finding a way to provide more oil or come up with another invention that will win back their customers.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/oilsands+expansion+approved/3551215/story.html

http://www.cenovus.com/operations/index.html

Quantum Energy Buys Into Utilities Market

According to a September 22^nd Wall Street Journal Article, Quantum Energy Partners, an energy firm run out of Houston, Texas, is starting a new company called Quantum Utility Generation LLC. The new energy company is to be run by Larry Kellerman who now works for a power generation company owned by Goldman Sachs. Quantum Energy Partners is collecting $500 million from investors and raising $500 million of its own funds to start this project. In doing this, they are entering the market of asset deals when prices are low. A market of asset deals is where assets like power plants are bought. This lull in the market exists because there is a lot of shifting going on in this part of the industry. As the article states, sellers are trying to get out of the business quickly and buyers are trying to acquire facilities like power plants for low prices. To emphasize this point, in the last month and a half PPL Corp. decided to sell plants to LS Power and Blackstone Group LP bought Dynegy Incorporated. All of these are major acquisitions.

This might seem like an unimportant article about another acquisition, but the interesting part is Quantum Energy Partners’ goal. They believe that coal power plants are on the way out because of increased environmental regulation. Therefore, they plan to build newer, more efficient, natural gas, solar, and wind plants. This could represent a new trend for the power production industry. Companies will have no choice but to begin investing in cleaner technologies when the government makes the old, less efficient ones much more expensive.

In many cases I would be happy to see this sort of article. I am pleased that Quantum Energy is taking a risk by going into this market and I like that they are investing in cleaner energy. However, I do not like that their motivation seems only to be government policy. The article states that they are going into cleaner energy because states are enacting clean energy requirements that will promote solar and wind. Yes, there should be incentives to move into newer technologies, but I would prefer the government taking a more passive role in this regard. That is not to say that they should step out. But it does not seem right that any sort of government determines which technologies are developed in such an important industry, especially when there are such strong options as nuclear power.

Peters, Mark. "Quantum Energy to Form New Company." Wall Street Journal (2010): Web. 22 Sep 2010.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575506000363635496.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines

California Regulators Approve 370-Megawatt Solar Power Plant

The energy industry is the largest industry in the world. This industry includes extracting, producing and marketing products. Products in the oil industry mainly include Oil and Gas. Peak Oil is a term used to describe the the point were the global petroleum extraction is reached. It is estimated that by the ear 2020 petroleum extraction will reach the peak. This issue is widely worrisome, after the oil peak it is evaluated that global petroleum production will rapidly fall where all Oil wells are going to be depleted. Scientists worldwide are extremely worried and are looking for alternative sources of energy to compensate future oil depletion. Focuses nowadays are around efficient alternative sources which could be slightly comparable to petroleum efficiency.

One of the most efficient sources of energy is the solar thermal energy. Solar thermal energy is often referred to a technology harnessing both solar and thermal energy sources. One of the main aspects of Solar Thermal energy is its cost effective efficiency. Research is ongoing globally in order to adapt this highly effective energy technology.TU Delft (Delft University of Technology) is the main axis of research to improve the efficiency of this technology. This research tackles the improvement of the efficiency from 7% to 9%.

On wednesday, the california regulators approved the construction of a 370 Megawatt solar-thermal power plant. over 9 facilities that will double the United States solar power generation capacity. The solar thermal power plant is going to be located in the mojave desert in california in three parts. This construction is privately owned by BrightSource Energy Corp. However, this project still requires the approval of the Unites States Bureau of land management as the land on which the project is going to be constructed is owned by the government, a federal land. The department of treasure along with the department of energy granted BrightSource a 1.4 billion dollars loan in order to facilitate the financing of the project.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100922-713910.html

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/economical-solar-panels-more-energy/

9/22

3M Takes On Energy

With the energy industry taking on such significant changes and produces the best profits, many large corporations are looking to make the move into energy.  This idea attracted giant, 3M, into creating its own energy division. In early 2009, they announced the creation of it's Renewable Energy Division, which is aimed at reaching into every aspect of the industry.   “The products within the new division will include products currently sold to the industry, new-to-the-world products invented for the renewable energy market, and products adapted from existing technologies” (3M Press Release).  According to the press release, they plan to separate this new division into two units, one focusing on generating new ideas and  managing products currently available to the market and another on spreading these things throughout the market and handling deals already place.  3M is envisioning new innovations in wind and solar energy. Also, they want to create new geothermal and biofuel products that will reduce costs.  They hold big ideas for this endeavor.

Being as the energy industry is becoming a key factor in the world market today, it comes as no surprise to me that 3M is entering the industry. They are a giant company and it only makes sense.  However, competition from these companies should not be overlooked by the already key players in energy.  3M has the ability to significantly change the landscape and this could hurt companies like Shell, Chevron, and Exxon.  Yes, they possess a good portion of the industry, but companies like 3M won't have trouble finding the resources to accomplish their goals.  Their new Renewable Energy Division should prove to be nothing but successful in my opinion, being as they hold much success in many of their other ventures.  The energy industry is rapidly changing and growing and I feel this could be a good thing overall.  It will take away the power held by the current key players. Although, I'm not to sure if adding other giants to the mix will just shift the power in their direction as apposed to dividing it evenly.

3M Press Release
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Renewable/Energy/Resources/Press_Releases/?PC_7_RJH9U52308NR50I0NISNKB32G3_assetId=1180612441603

Worth Mentioning

THIS IS NOT MY POST FOR THE WEEK, however I felt it was worth mentioning on here.  I saw an ad in the WSJ that says that ExxonMobile, Chevron, Shell, and Conoco Phillips are teaming together to work on a containment plan that will trap oil in the Gulf of Mexico should anything like the recent spill ever happen again.  This was very intriguing to me. Also, I found it interesting that BP was not involved in this when all the other big players are. I am wondering if this was a strategic move on their part or if BP opted out, which I doubt in their state.

Refiners Fight Emissions Law

Global warming is one of the main concerns of nations worldwide. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed in 2006 the Global Warming Solutions Acts. This act implies the reduction of greenhouse gases by 25% in California. Recently, several energy companies and refineries are standing against the Global Warming Solutions Acts and are spending millions of dollars to support proposition 23. it is an overall refineries campaign to support proposition 23 which demands the suspension of the California environmental law. Refineries such as Tesoro Corp and Valero spent 4.5 million dollars of financial support of proposition 23.

For thousands of people this is an issue of ethics, numerous environmentalists and clean energy companies gathered to oppose proposition 23. However, environmentalists are dominated by the Oil industry regarding contributions matching large companies such as Royal Dutch Shell. On the other hand, other large oil companies took the corporate social responsibility initiate and remained neutral, companies such as Exxon, BP and Chevron.

focusing on the consumers effect, the Global Warming Solutions Act also known as AB 32 if implemented would negatively effect the consumer. AB 32 requires the reduction of Green House gases emitted, this reduces the economic activity of such refineries and this will escalate the price of oil. both camps decided to meet in an economic summit in order to finally decide whether AB 32 is going to be implemented according to votes.

In my opinion, I find it an extremely controversial issue. the implementation of the Environmental Law would definitely effect the economic status of the united states which is already vulnerable. on the other hand, the environment is already in jeopardy. If AB 32 was overruled, this would make things worse and contribute negatively towards the environment and global warming.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704394704575495902377602556.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines

Is Transocean's Denial Hurting Their Reputation?

The Energy company, Transocean, is being sued by the state of Louisiana for being responsible towards the damages of the oil spill in the Gulf. Earlier this year, their rig carried 700,00 gallons of fuel which sank in the Gulf. Transocean argues that their company is not the only one that caused problems in the Gulf and that their damages are nowhere near to those in comparison of BP and there fore they take no responsibility of the overall damage. Because Transocean does not accept the full responsibility, Louisiana will not be able to fund repairs of the damages caused by the spill. Transocean is concerned that if the judge rules against their favor, they will be facing many financial issues.

Through this crisis, Transocean is faced with the opportunity to help repair what their rig has damaged. But because of financial matters, they prefer to fight against the allegations and deny that their rig sank underwater. As a result, the state of Louisiana is left destitute not being able to pay for the damages. The Coast Guard reacted by assigning both BP and Transocean responsible for breaking the Oil Pollution Act.

I think that Transocean should make an agreement with BP and the state of Louisiana to help repair damages. It is odd that at first Transocean admits that their rig sank under water at first and then denies it to the judge and coast guard. If Transocean does not do what they can to help clean, they will most probably aggravate customers and then eventually lose them and see a decline in their profit. Transocean would also probably be seen as a loyal and honest company if they help with the mess they contributed to.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703743504575494253381504666.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines

The Oil Compromise

My article talks about the dilemma between putting more regulations on drilling in the United States, possibly exacerbating problems of the already weak American economy and overtaxing oil companies. The author’s first point is that Democrats say they have started to shy away from regulating offshore oil operations because it is simply too expensive or, more often, that it will further push our economy downward. Republicans, however, argue that Democrats fear a different bill will be proposed that will stop the EPA from spending money to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants and other major polluters.

An amazing statistic the author pointed out was that there are only 55 inspectors for about 3,000 oil and gas facilities in the Gulf. The final part of the article was concerned with what the oil companies think. The American Petroleum Institute stated, “The government is seeking to write energy policy and penalize the industry with disconnected policies and proposals that do not take into account long-term consequences.”

In reference to the author’s first point, I think that Democrats should push for more regulation. Not much can compare to negative effects of the oil spill in the Gulf just a few months back. The cleanup was in the billions and politicians are now worried about the costs of regulation going up from $184 million to $250. To me, that seems like nothing for the government and the oil industry to cover with so much at stake; so, I feel the out-of-pocket money excuse is a fraud. I also don’t buy that other excuse of the Democrats. They are not waiting for the economy to do better. More regulated offshore drilling cannot affect the American economy in such a powerful way—not nearly as powerfully as the BP oil spill. I buy the Republicans’ reasoning. There seems to be no real reason why the Democrats would sell out on one of their core values unless to compromise. With only 55 inspectors and 3000 oil operations, something must give. But, the quote from the American Petroleum Institute makes it clear that there is much backing for those who are already anchored at sea.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704285104575492301373764356.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines

Yet Another Spill in the Oil Industry

In another unfortunate turn of events for the oil and gas industry, an oil pipeline outside of Chicago has sprung a leak. This pipeline, which is part of the large Lakehead system that is operated by Enbridge Inc., carries 70% of the oil that travels from Canada to the United States, a volume averaging 670,000 barrels per day. The leak was detected today and the pipeline was shut down immediately. The leaking section contained about 17,000 barrels of oil at the time of the breach. Enbridge has begun to excavate the breached section of pipe and vacuum oil from the site. So far, they have collected about 7,000 barrels of a mixture of oil and water. They have also found that the oil has already contaminated a retention pond near the leak.

Enbridge Inc. is not unfamiliar with problems like this. In July, another pipeline from the Lakehead system spilled 20,000 barrels into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. In 2007, Enbridge had to shut down three pipelines because there was an explosion and a fire on one. This disaster will affect the oil and gas industry heavily. Crude oil prices have already risen 2.2% to $76.45 per barrel in light of this news. This is because investors expect to see the demand for oil remain the same, while stockpiles could decrease as a result of losing a key inflowing pipeline. There are, however, other pipelines in the Chicago area through which Enbridge can send oil.

With the PG&E explosion that Adam wrote about, this Enbridge leak, the BP explosion, and the Mariner Energy explosion that I explained two weeks ago, I am feeling rather frustrated with the energy industry. I considered the general reaction to the BP spill to be quite strong, and I would still stick to that claim. But this event has pushed me beyond my limit. I am now frustrated with the number of problems with the energy industry that seem to have been occurring recently. It is difficult to point to any one source, but as I have said before, I would rather not have avoidable disasters put the oil and gas industry in a bad light. I only hope that Enbridge cleans up quickly and continues shipments. Disruptions like this can make oil prices skyrocket. During the 2007 issue at Enbridge, prices pushed $100 a barrel. This is something that American consumers do not want for obvious reasons.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621204575487750674045766.html

Sept. 9th PG&E Pipeline Explosion

On September 9th, 2010, a natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, California exploded. This explosion destroyed an entire neighborhood, killed four as of now, and left many homeless.  There were fifty-eight homes destroyed and millions of dollars in damage.  This raises many questions and ethical issues about the emergency procedures of Pacific Gas & Electric, the company who owned and operated the pipeline.

A Wall Street Journal article explains what happened in the events leading up to this explosion and times in recent history when this company had been negligent and not responded quick enough.  For three weeks, residents of this San Bruno neighborhood had been complaining about an odor of gas in the air, and their complaints fell on deaf ears.  When PG&E became aware of the leak, it took to long to shut the line off due to manual shut-off valves.  California law requires automatic ones, but it gives companies until 2012 to make these updates.  This WSJ article also outlines similar instances in PG&E's history, one of them being very recent.  In 2008, there was a similar explosion in Rancho Cordova, Calif. However, this explosion cost only one life and one home, paling in comparison to last week's explosion.  In this case, residents smelled the odor of gas and it took the company four hours to locate the leak.  This, again, was not quick enough in matters that should be dealt with as emergency.  Ironically, one month before the 2008 explosion, the company had said it would strive to develop better response methods. The 2010 explosion will cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars and will leave local families scarred indefinitely.

This raises many questions about the ethical practices of these large utility companies.  In just two years, PG&E had two explosions with eerily similar circumstances and apparently did not learn their lesson.  This is going to continue to shine a bad light on the energy industry as a whole, especially in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion.  Politicians are calling for further regulations on the industry but will that ensure they take social responsibility seriously? I believe these companies need to be tossed around in the media to ruin their public image.  When events like this occur, with such a loss of life and property, we as the public need to take action to get these companies to truly ensure the correct emergency procedures, and even further so they update their systems to the safest possible method.  For three weeks, the local residents had complained of a gas odor.  How did they not respond in three weeks? This is a display of true negligence and they must answer for it.  Social responsibility, when concerning human lives, shouldn't be a matter left up to these companies to handle on their own.  Time and time again they show us that they aren't making the necessary changes.  The energy industry is not in a good position right now and soon the public will want more ethical practices to be in place to ensure no more human lives are lost.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704505804575484140379122562.html?KEYWORDS=california+gas+pipeline+explosion

India Banns American Nuclear Power Plants

Last week, the Indian Parliament passed a law that forbids American Energy companies, such as General Electric, to produce nuclear power plants with in their country. The Indian parliament banned American companies because there are no liability laws that protect workers from accidents. Other countries such as Switzerland and France offer these laws and therefore India sees an advantage with them.

The United States and India are working on an agreement to allow American nuclear plant companies into their country. One of the proposals is the “government-to-government agreement.” This agreement would force India to take cover over foreign suppliers if they are ever sued. The other proposal is for India to ignore the law or pass one that is the exact opposite so that American companies may still produce nuclear power plants there. The last option is that India’s only nuclear operator takes full responsibility of all United States suppliers.

I think it is imperative that the United States and India work out an agreement because this law that was just passed could be harmful to the American economy closing the market and offering less demand to the American companies. Nuclear power plants are seen to be as something that is supposed to “boom” in the future, and if countries like India who need a lot of power are rejecting companies from the American market, than the US economy misses an opportunity in the economic advancement.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362404575479603830675106.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines

Petrobras has an oil production facility in the middle of the Amazon rainforest. It is as green as it gets in terms of oil drilling and refining. It is also very worker-friendly. They go so far as to call it “sustainable development”. They justify that phrase by including not only ecological but economic and social influences into the idea of sustainable. They have not only created many new and much greener techniques to extract oil but have also created over 1,800 jobs and even started a school to teach the workers how to read.

I think this plant is what all oil production facilities should be like. I wish that every plant would be like this plant. Maybe it is just a little dreamy though. But, it is possible that they could extend the lives of the fossil fuel industry if they would only be a little more concerned. Do you think the less concerned, short-term efficiency and profit approach taken by most oil companies is worth the risk of lost profits in the future due to a hastened move towards green energies?

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/07/20/is-there-greener-side-drilling-oil

New Chinese Regulation Of Natural Gas

In China, the government of one province, Habei, is beginning to regulate the natural gas industry more heavily. So far, the natural gas industry for homes has been unregulated and the government has only paid attention to its use in power plants. This shift comes as more consumers, due to their new wealth, are using more power. They are also changing from coal to natural gas, which is more environmentally friendly.

The government is also pushing this sort of regulation to promote natural gas. Primarily because of its cleaner qualities, they are trying to expand it to 10% of their energy consumption from the current 4% level, by 2020. Habei plans to do this by maintaining a lower price. In order to accomplish this, they want to keep gas companies’ returns on equity, or returns on investments, below 8%. The effects of this change could be minor if it does not spread to other areas in China. But if it does spread to urban areas, many companies will have to adapt. According to the article, urban gas distributors have been excellent investments in Hong Kong. With pricing limits set, their prospects and the shape of the growing natural gas industry in China could drastically change.

I find this to be an interesting article because of the role the government has taken. It has good intentions, to protect consumers from high energy prices and to promote a cleaner fuel, but I believe that the results could be more significant. In the end, I think that a higher proportion of China’s power could be created using natural gas as a result of this policy, but some companies will have to make big changes in order to comply with the proposed 8% caps. I am not a fan of government intervention, but in this case, it sounds wise and reasonable.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703713504575476740661162412.html

Struggle Intensifies Over California Climate-Law Referendum

The growing opposition to the 2006 California climate-change law has led to Proposition 23.  Prop 23, which will be voted on in November, puts a hold on the climate-change law until the state's unemployment level reaches below 5.5% for four consecutive, with it currently at 12%.  On both sides of the issue, people are raising large sums for the campaign and it is poised to become one of the top debates for November's election.  This issue has gained attention from some of the biggest players in the industry, who do not shy away from large political donations.  Such players are the well-known Koch brothers from Texas, who contributed $1 million dollars. Valero is said to have contributed $4 million.  Also, Carly Fiorina, who is the former head of HP and is now running for California Senate seat, now publicly supports the proposition.  If Proposition 23 isn't voted through, then this would mean costly measures for corporations to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. This is what led to Proposition 23 being created.


This effects the energy industry landscape and should be followed tediously for many reasons.  First, if it passes, it would mean that the industry could put off the necessary changes for a while.  This would release capital that was previously tied up in this project, allowing them to further invest in other more profitable ventures. Therefore, investing in these corporations would be a better and more enticing opportunity for investors.  Also, it could keep other states from passing similar climate-change bills of their own.  On the other hand, if the proposition does not pass, it will mean costly changes for the companies.  They will have to invest much of their capital in updating their facilities to meet the new industry standards for greenhouse-gas emissions.  This could both deter investors and cut profits. These are two things that are always avoided by industries, because they negatively effect the business in every way. The campaign for Proposition 23 should be quite interesting and will need to be closely followed, with things like polls, to make sure the companies are ready for the outcome and can prepare for the worst.  I feel that Proposition 23 will be a key factor in energy corporations' business plans for the foreseeable future.




http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100907-705036.html

An Updated Clean-Coal Plant for Energy Suppliers to Invest in

As the environment faces climate change, people around the world including industries are looking at “going green” in pursuit to protect the world. One way that the Energy industry is doing this is through the FutureGen 2.0. This advance piece of technology helps cut greenhouse-gas emissions from coal fired power plants. The FutureGen 2.0 is made up of underground storage system that holds up to one million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. The FutureGen 2.0 is the revised plan of the original FutureGen, which lowered coal emissions through a process in which heat and pressure were applied to coal, also known as the coal gasification process.

Coal is a major aspect of the United State’s Energy supply. With creating a way to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this coal power plant becomes more appealing to energy suppliers to invest in, since “going green” is the new rave. Though there are issues in where to set up the FutureGen storage system, it is seen to be one step closer to saving the environment.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100831-714716.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_middleHeadlines

Shale's Rebellion: Natural Gas in Shale Rock Has the Potential to Change to the World

North America has over 1,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas underneath of it. This is enough natural-gas to fuel our appetite for the next 45 years. The author, Amy Meyers Jaffe, believes that shale gas is the solution to all of our energy problems--economic, environmental, and political. For economic problems, she explains how competition will lower prices of the gas, while keeping money spent on energy in the States. As for environmental problems, natural gas is half as harmful as coal, the major producer of electricity in the US. Politically, shale reserves have the capacity to make countries more sovereign because shale gas is plentiful around the world. Ms. Meyers Jaffe pointed out that countries, like Ukraine, have allied themselves with Russia and Iran just to support their energy needs.

She paints this beautiful picture of a new vibrant and friendly energy supply system. All will be well, so she makes it seem. She does admit, however, if embraced, it will slow down our inevitable move to renewables. On top of that, she brings up but quickly dismisses two flaws with her energy solution. She assumes that the cost of recovering this currently expensive gas will go down. She also hastily shoves aside the environmental issues even though the drilling does indeed have a serious potential to contaminate underground water sources.

Honestly, I think her arguments are compelling, but I'm not sure if I buy them. She seems overly biased and seemed to hide the negatives. Shale gas does have great potential to change the world but whether it happens or not is uncertain. One of the biggest flaws that I saw in her argument was that she made it seem as if we would no longer need the Middle East; natural gas is not a substitute for gasoline. And natural gas will for the most part only replace coal, which is a product that is found abundantly in the US. So with my thinking, is it worth the risk of trying to extract natural gas at a high price and with the risk of serious environmental harm only to replace coal?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html

Another Oil Rig Explodes In The Gulf Of Mexico

At about 10:00 AM on September 2, 2010, an oil platform exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. No one died from the explosion but all 13 workers were forced to evacuate into the ocean. The platform, which is owned by Mariner Energy Inc., is approximately 93 nautical miles South of Vermillion Bay in Louisiana and 245 miles away from the site of BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig. Fortunately, this explosion is relatively minor because this rig only produces gas, it does not drill, and the explosion caused an estimated 10 gallons of gas to enter the ocean.

However, the effects on the energy industry could be quite large. After the BP spill, there has been a backlash against offshore drilling. Politicians are debating about whether or not to repeal a moratorium on the industry or simply regulating it more thoroughly. Now there is more talk of maintaining the moratorium in light of this explosion. If it stays, oil companies will have to pack up and shift their operations elsewhere. This would mean higher production costs passed onto consumers and huge job losses along the Gulf coast. Looking forward, this could diminish the presence of oil rigs around the country and perhaps push us away from oil consumption.

I hope that this accident will not take away from the current moratorium debate. The ban on deep water drilling seems like a knee-jerk reaction that will have significant consequences, like job losses, for the Gulf Coast and big energy companies. I support increased oversight on offshore platforms, not massive changes to a very important Gulf industry.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467600528128386.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

Browse LNG Natural Gas Project, Land Acquisition Issues

     The Browse LNG project is one of epic proportions.  It is a plan to gain access to natural gas reserves in western Australia.  The project is being undertaken to tap natural gas reserves of over 13 trillion cubic feet. Although some shares are still up for sale, there is several global corporations that are involved in this, including BP, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell.  The entire plan is being held up by Australia's Native Law that protects the land rights of Aboriginal people.  They seemed to be for the plan until a division broke between two native tribes.  The Western Australian Premier mentioned something of a compulsory acquisition which angers some of the indigenous people.

     This project, estimated at $30 billion,  would allow the energy industry to grow immensely.  It is a pivotal investment to some of the largest corporations in this industry.  It has been stalled for months now and the continued stalling is going to hurt the companies that have contributed.  With funds tied up in this project, it stunts their ability to invest elsewhere, in plans that are moving.  It will be a great burden to these corporations and the natural gas industry itself.  It is key that it gets moving as planned but it is all up to the Australian government and if they can do a good job of convincing the Aboriginal people that is, in fact, beneficial to them.  As of now, it is a stand still, and the industry will stand idle as well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575466552910021166.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines