Germany,ofallplaces,isholdingbackthe

Germany, of all places, is holding back the EU’s emissions deal — and France wants to follow suit for some reason

posted at 3:21 pm on June 20, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

That’s gotta’ hurt. The Germans’ ambitious Energiewende plan to cut down on nuclear while subsidizing wind and solar was supposed to land them at the head of the Europeans’ green-energy cool-kids table, but their subsequently skyrocketing energy prices cutting into their competitiveness and their reversion to coal-fired power plants has the European Union worried that the Germans might mess up the whole arrangement. Via Bloomberg:

The European Union’s attempt to cap greenhouse-gas emissions over the next 16 years is threatened again as rising pollution from the bloc’s biggest economies shows even developed nations want to burn cheap coal.

Germany, Europe’s largest economy, boosted consumption of the fuel by 13 percent in the past four years, while use in Britain, No. 3 in the region economically, rose 22 percent, statistics from oil company BP Plc show. While Germany pledged to cut heat-trapping gases 55 percent by 2030 from 1990 levels, it’s managed 25 percent so far and is moving in the wrong direction, according to the European Environment Agency.

The EU is seeking to craft a deal in October that would cut greenhouse gases 40 percent by 2030 in the world’s biggest effort to combat global warming since the Kyoto climate treaty of 1997.

Reverting to coal is what happens, of course, when you 1) resist natural-gas drilling innovations on purely ideological grounds; 2) pour a bunch of public money into price-inefficient wind and solar technology when your weather consistently provides neither of these things; and 3) start shuttering nuclear power plants based on nothing other than anti-nuclear sentimentalism. In terms of the European Union’s Kyoto-ish internal scheme, Germany is still doing better with its emissions than others (like Poland, which uses coal to generate 80 percent of its electricity and wants assurance that it won’t be penalized for being a poorer country before it signs onto the arrangement), but Germany was supposed to be leading the charge here and is instead lagging behind their own targets.

But here’s the really facepalm-worthy part about all of this: France — over-taxed, over-regulated, GDP-growth-challenged France — has some of the lowest energy prices in Europe thanks to their own heavy share of nuke plants. It’s been one of their few economic saving graces, but the Socialist government for some reason wants to follow in Germany’s nuke-drawdown footsteps despite their coal-heavy results, via the Financial Times:

A so-called energy transition law, unveiled by the Socialist government on Wednesday, reiterated an election pledge by President François Hollande to cut the share of nuclear power in French electricity generation to 50 per cent by 2025 from about 75 per cent today, the highest level among developed economies.

Critics say the government is compromising a vital strategic asset that has allowed France to charge among the lowest prices in Europe for electricity.

But, under pressure from the left and its Green party allies, the government insists the country needs to rebalance its energy mix to boost its lagging performance in non-nuclear renewables and meet ambitious environmental targets.

“We are not exiting nuclear, but its part [in the mix] must fall,” said Ségolène Royal, energy minister. “It is thanks to nuclear that we can make a secure energy transition.”

So, even though you have clean nuclear power, you want to “invest” in wind and solar… just for the sake of wind and solar? …Because you have so much money to spare, and everything?

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: coal, emissions, energy, Europe, European Union, France, Germany, green energy, nuclear

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

SenateEnergyCommitteeclearspro-KeystoneXLmeasure,with

Senate Energy Committee clears pro-Keystone XL measure, with Mary Landrieu pointedly leading the charge

posted at 4:41 pm on June 19, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

In the face of the relentless dillydallying on the part of the Obama administration on the Keystone XL pipeline, Canada went ahead and starting exploring the potential of cutting deals with other markets in Asia — and yesterday, the Canadian government approved their own Northern Gateway pipeline to carry crude from the Alberta oil sands out to the Pacific Ocean for shipment via tankers. There has been some speculation about the possibility of the Obama administration approving the Keystone XL pipeline now that Iraq’s oil output is on seriously unstable footing (although, reality check: The Keystone XL pipeline by itself wouldn’t have enough of an impact on the global oil market to directly mitigate any future disruptions from the Middle East), but I have the gravest doubts that the Obama administration is going to say anything more about the pipeline until after the elections, come what may.

Regardless, Democrat Mary Landrieu has no intention of backing off of her campaign to use the pipeline’s elevated name recognition to differentiate herself from President Obama and tout her ostensible clout as head of the Senate Energy Committee to her energy-lovin’, red-state constituents. Via Time:

Mary Landrieu chairs the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, a perch that offered the vulnerable Louisiana Democrat an opportunity Wednesday to mix policy and politics.

With President Barack Obama delaying a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reluctant to schedule a floor vote on a bill that would subvert Obama’s authority, Landrieu pushed through a committee vote on the controversial pipeline. It passed, 12-10, with Landrieu joining Republicans to vote in favor of the project.

The move could be a political boon for Landrieu, a moderate Democrat locked in a difficult fight to win reelection in the conservative Bayou State. One recent poll found that 67% of Louisiana voters favored construction of the pipeline, with just 12% opposing the project. Nearly four in five respondents cited Keystone as an important issue in the race.

And with Landrieu’s main Republican challenger Bill Cassidy up by three points in RCP’s polling average, I suppose it is a worthwhile political endeavor. As practical endeavor, however — not so much, as Republicans pulling for the Senate majority are wont to point out. Via National Journal:

“I do question the purpose of today’s vote,” said Sen. John Barrasso, who heads the Senate Republican Policy Committee, ahead of the vote in the committee that Landrieu chairs. “With all due respect this vote seems more like a cheerleading exercise than a meaningful effort to get Keystone built.”

“The obstacle of getting Keystone built is Senator Reid and members of the Senate who continue to elect him majority leader,” Barrasso said. …

But Landrieu fired back at the Wyoming Republican before the vote, challenging the idea that she’s merely staging a piece of political theater.

“There was no popcorn and Coca-Cola handed out today in this meeting, and there were no tickets sold to get in here,” Landrieu said, addressing Barrasso directly. “This is the United States Senate.”

But as far as Harry Reid actually allowing a vote on the measure before the midterms? Fuhgeddaboudit, unless somehow some major political calculus changes before November.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Canada, Democrats, energy, Keystone XL Pipeline, Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, Oil and Gas Industry

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Canada just approved its own domestic version of the Keystone XL pipeline

Canadajustapproveditsowndomesticversionof

Report:TheU.S.isabouttobecomea

Report: The U.S. is about to become a “titan of unprecedented proportions” in the oil market

posted at 8:41 pm on June 17, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

And a darn good thing it is, too. The International Energy Agency’s researchers have in previous reports noted that they were counting on an acceleration in oil production from Iraq as a pretty clutch factor in the global formula that determines oil prices; Iraq’s major energy hubs don’t seem to be in any immediate danger, but sans that hoped-for output acceleration or even just with stagnant output, growing global demand could start sending prices upward in a big way — and Iraq is hardly the only traditional supplier struggling with political instability and investment problems.

It’s encouraging news, then, that the United States is on track to become the world’ biggest oil exporter by 2020 — and even better, that other countries with potential shale deposits are now moving more quickly than expected on adopting the hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques that have helped us get there.

In its most recent analysis, which takes a five-year view of the oil market, the IEA predicted that tight oil production from outside the U.S. could account for 650,000 barrels a day of global oil supply by 2019.

Although that is just a fraction of the 5 million barrels a day the U.S. is expected to produce from its shale oil fields by 2019, it highlights the continuing impact techniques like fracking are likely to have in helping increase global oil supply even toward the end of the decade when the IEA expects U.S. oil production growth to plateau.

Indeed, by some estimates, the U.S. contains no more than 15% of the world’s total shale and light tight oil resources, but the impact of their development on the oil market is already profound. By the end of the decade the IEA expects North America to produce 20% of the world’s oil supply and to have become a “titan of unprecedented proportions” in oil product markets as its exports of refined products soar.

Other countries might not have the resources or the geology (not to mention the relative regulatory and investment freedom, because of their own self-imposed folly) to replicate our shale boom, but it’s pretty amazing to remember that just a few years ago, nobody was expecting this miraculous turnaround — and that it’s happened largely outside of the Obama administration’s purview.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: energy, exports, Middle East, oil, Oil and Gas Industry, OPEC, shale

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

RussiajustcutoffUkraine’snaturalgassupplies

Russia just cut off Ukraine’s natural gas supplies

posted at 6:41 pm on June 17, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Even amid the escalating tension, officials from Russia, Ukraine, and the European Union were all huddled together as of Sunday evening still trying to work out some kind of last-minute deal to dissuade Russia from cutting off Ukraine’s gas supplies for the third time since 2006 — but nothing doing. As Keith Johnson at Foreign Policy reported:

Monday morning, Gazprom, the big Russian gas firm, said it halted gas flows to Ukraine and that it won’t ship any more until Kiev pays its hefty arrears and then prepays thereafter.

Gazprom said that Ukraine was guilty of “persistent nonpayment,” and said Kiev owes it about $4.5 billion. Russian officials said they would only be willing to go back to negotiations if Ukraine settles its outstanding debt. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev blamed Ukraine for the crisis after it rejected “very beneficial, very preferential proposals” from Gazprom.

Ukrainian leaders sounded a defiant note after the shut-off, saying the energy fight was part of a broader offensive by Moscow against the beleaguered country.

“This is not about gas. This is part of the general plan of Russia to destroy Ukraine,” said Arseniy Yatseniuk, Ukraine’s prime minister, according to the Financial Times. “Ukrainians will not pull $5 billion out of their pockets a year so that Russia can use this money to buy arms, tanks and planes and bomb Ukrainian territory.”

Ukraine can live off of its stored gas supplies for now, particularly as the northern hemisphere enters the summer months, but if this keeps up through next winter, Ukraine could be in big trouble. In the meantime, Russian gas shipments to Europe — which make up thirty percent of Europe’s total gas supplies, half of which are shipped via pipeline through Ukraine — are supposed to continue uninterrupted, but again, if push comes to shove, there may come a point when Ukraine starts siphoning off some of those pipeline shipments for its own use.

During a cutoff in Ukraine’s gas supply in 2009, exports to Europe also took a hit, with Gazprom saying that Ukraine had siphoned off deliveries destined for the EU. It then decided to halt all supplies through Ukraine.

This time, Ukrainian officials said they had adequate inventories and other supply sources to meet domestic needs at least until the end of the year.

“The Ukrainian side has prepared for this eventuality and we are ensuring reliable transit as well as supplies to domestic consumers,” Yuri Prodan, Ukraine’s energy minister, said, according to the Interfax news agency.

The EU urged Kiev not to deplete its natural-gas storage facilities, worried that both Ukraine and Europe could otherwise face shortages. The 28-country bloc relies on Gazprom for over a third of its gas imports, with some countries 100% dependent on Russian gas.

Still, Russia has a lot to lose by barging intransigently ahead, too; even if Russia can follow through with its threat to bring alternate non-Ukrainian pipeline routes online, this is an excellent reminder for European Union members of how unreliable a partner Russia is and will only reinforce their current push to look for more diversified energy sources to cut down on their Russian energy dependency — an eventual fate of which Russia is not at all a fan. Even with the new energy deal Russia just inked with China, Europe is still a major energy market that Russia and its energy-export-reliant economy cannot afford to lose.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: energy, European Union, fracking, natural gas, Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

WillPresidentObamatakethehintfromNorth

Will President Obama take the hint from North Dakota’s energy boom during his visit?

posted at 7:11 pm on June 13, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

President Obama journeyed to North Dakota on Friday where, for the first time during his entire presidency, he visited an American Indian reservation to “tout the strides his administration has made with Native Americans, unveil new education and economic measures aimed at Native Americans, and speak of the difficult work that remains to pull many tribal members out of crippling poverty and endemic unemployment.” Indeed. For the number of ways in which the federal government blithely engenders the conditions that keep many Indian reservations in states of crippling poverty, I recommend this handy piece from PERC’s Shawn Regan at Forbes, but while President Obama happened to be in North Dakota this afternoon anyway, why wouldn’t he finally take the opportunity to at least momentarily draw the nation’s attention to the state’s uniquely productive energy boom and economic prosperity? Via the Bismarck Tribune:

Is the president skipping what some call the North Dakota economic miracle because the solutions aren’t coming out of Washington? Or is it because the president’s Environmental Protection Agency just issued a costly new set of rules for all U.S. electricity providers that could adversely impact North Dakota’s energy costs and continued economic prosperity?

We’d argue that the president should view North Dakota’s economy and energy landscape as a model for other states to emulate, with an incredibly low unemployment rate of 2.6 percent; high-paying jobs; low-cost, affordable energy (some of the least expensive in the nation); and clean air. Indeed, North Dakota’s energy abundance and diversity is one reason Gallup named it the happiest state in the nation.

Small businesses play an important role in the state’s energy landscape — from manufacturing parts and supplies for the energy sector to building homes and providing needed services for workers attracted by new created high-wage jobs.

North Dakota’s affordable, ample energy supply also frees these businesses from the burden of high energy costs, enabling them to grow and employ even more people. In turn, small businesses can pass their savings down to consumers, helping families live better, more affordable lives and bolstering the local economies of the communities they call home.

The geopolitical implications of allowing America’s energy boom to expand are just the gravy.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, economy, energy, jobs, national security, North Dakota, Oil and Gas Industry

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Isittimetostartnurturingastronger

Is it time to start nurturing a stronger “NOPEC”?

posted at 2:31 pm on June 13, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

The obvious answer is an emphatic, resounding “Duh!“, and the insurgency going down in Iraq is far from the only very excellent reason why. In just the past couple of years, we’ve seen major production disruptions from Libya, Sudan, and Nigeria; we’ve sidelined Iran with sanctions on their energy-dependent economy to put pressure on their nuclear program; and Venezuela is looking none too stable these days, is it?

These guys are all big players in the worldwide energy scene, and since the most efficient way to engender global energy security and economic prosperity is to consistently add greater volumes to the “global bathtub” that is the international oil market, the North American reserves recently unlocked by technological innovation present an excellent opportunity for Canada, the U.S., and Mexico to ramp up production and make some major money while applying downward pressure on global gas prices. As CNBC’s Ron Insana notes, fully unleashing our combined energy forces is an excellent strategy to start employing more robustly, on behalf of both our economy and our foreign policy:

With the U.S. leading the way in the fracking revolution, Canada in tar sands and with a newly liberalized energy sector in Mexico, North America could easily rival and exceed OPEC’s production of crude oil, natural gas, distillates and other petrochemical products—making North America the envy of the energy world.

It saddens me that in the absence of any cogent fiscal policy efforts emerging in Washington, something as simple, and beneficial, as the notion of NOPEC has not made its way to the West Wing. …

Combined, NOPEC could become the “swing producer” of energy products in world markets, helping to drive down prices of energy products that are currently hostage to OPEC’s whims, geopolitical risk and, on occasion, excessive speculation that whips oil markets round and round.

In addition, a concerted effort by the Three Amigos could also expand the opportunity for North America to become the world’s manufacturing hub, thanks to advantageous energy pricing, increasingly competitive labor markets, property rights protections, the rule of law and relative political stability.

There are, unfortunately, some major standing obstacles to this empowered NOPEC scenario, not the least of which is the Obama administration more or less stalling on allowing offshore drilling, drilling on federal lands, and furthering Arctic exploration. What’s more, the White House seems determined to stick it to Canada by continuing to dither on the Keystone XL pipeline, so as not to appear too sympathetic to the fossil fuel industry and piss off the Tom Steyers of progressive donor circles. Mexico, for its part, has finally, mercifully decided to break up its state monopoly and allow for foreign investment in their energy sector — although the perhaps even bigger problem is that foreign investors might not want to even go there, what with the gang violence that has pieces of Mexico sliced and diced into veritable war zones. Via Bloomberg:

Oil shale drillers in Texas have had to contend with environmental opposition and soaring costs. A few miles south of the border in Mexico, Angel Torrez and co-workers duck gunfire sprayed from drug traffickers. …

Torrez’s predicament reveals the challenge facing Mexico as it attempts to replicate the kind of shale bonanza taking place in Texas. …

“Shale will not take off in Mexico like it did in Texas in the near future,” Dwight Dyer, a senior analyst at the consulting company Control Risks, said by telephone from Mexico City. “Unless the security situation along the northeastern border improves significantly, smaller companies will probably take their time before jumping in.” …

The crime wave has also been hitting the national oil company’s bottom line. More than $300 million in stolen natural gas condensate from the Burgos basin was smuggled across the U.S. border by drug cartels from 2006 to 2010, according to a lawsuit filed by Pemex in a Houston federal court in 2010. Fuel-theft losses rose to 10.3 billion pesos ($790 million) last year from 3.5 billion pesos in 2009.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: domestic energy production, energy, Oil and Gas Industry

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

The United States produced enough energy to suppy 84 percent of its needs in 2013

TheUnitedStatesproducedenoughenergytosuppy

StateDeptcorrectsKeystoneXLreporttoaccount

State Dept corrects Keystone XL report to account for more railroad deaths, times four

posted at 6:01 pm on June 6, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

I don’t know how much more evidence we could possibly need to confirm that terrestrial pipelines are more efficient, more safe, and more environmentally friendly than oil-and-gas transport by rail — but the Obama administration just provided some. In an update to the report on Keystone XL released in January that basically concluded the pipeline’s construction would have a neutral impact on carbon emissions, the State Department corrected some errors by quadrupling its estimation of the accidental human deaths that may occur if oil-by-rail shipment continues to proceed apace, via Reuters:

The State Department on Friday corrected several errors it made in a key study evaluating the impact of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, including a understatement of how many people could be killed on railroad tracks if the project were rejected and oil traffic by rail increased. …

The January report determined that blocking the controversial pipeline could increase oil train traffic and lead to an additional 49 injuries and six deaths per year, mostly by using historical injury and fatality statistics for railways. …

But the report mistakenly used a forecast for three months of expected accidents rather than full-year figures, officials said. The correct estimate of deaths should be roughly four times as large – between 18 and 30 fatalities per year. …

Revising that footnote has no impact on the State Department’s estimation of expected greenhouse gas emissions tied to the pipeline, a spokesperson said.

For the umpteenth time: Canada is going to develop their oil sands with or without the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline — hence the State Department’s conclusion on the project’s emissions neutrality. There are plenty of other eager markets available besides ours to which Canada can sell their wares, and in the meantime, all the adamantly opposed eco-radicals have really achieved in thwarting the pipeline is an explosion in railroad shipments from Alberta, Canada to our refineries in the Gulf. Really well done, guys.

With that in mind, Josh Kraushaar at National Journal posed a rather interesting question today concerning energy issues in particular and the administration’s agenda in general going forward: Does Obama even care anymore?

The president reportedly has told his close allies that losing the Senate would be “unbearable,” but his administration is doing everything possible to make things difficult for his party’s most vulnerable senators. On energy issues alone, the administration’s decisions to impose new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired plants and indefinitely delay a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline could help burnish his long-term environmental legacy, but at the expense of losing complete control of Congress.

Even as the White House and environmental allies are insisting the regulatory push is a political winner, Obama is getting pushback from his own party. In Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes took a page out of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s playbook, deeming the administration’s EPA regulations part of its “war on coal.” Other battleground-state Democrats have been more circumspect in their reaction, but few have embraced the new regulations with open arms. And every red-state Senate Democrat up in 2014, whose fates determine whether they hold the majority, criticized the administration for its latest delay in approving construction of Keystone XL. Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana has even tailored her campaign messaging around opposition to Obama on energy issues.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, energy, Keystone XL Pipeline, Oil and Gas Industry, Senate Democrats

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

NorthCarolinasays“Yes!”tofracking posted

North Carolina says “Yes!” to fracking

posted at 1:21 pm on June 6, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Thanks to the political obfuscation of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York is still stubbornly refusing to get on board with the shale oil-and-gas revolution despite its prime positioning on top of the Marcellus/Utica shale formations it shares with Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. Too bad for New York, ’cause the state is missing out on a piece of the job- and wealth-creating action that has helped to keep our otherwise meandering economy afloat because of a few radically overblown but completely manageable environmental(ist) concerns. Other states, like North Carolina, are quickly getting over their erstwhile reluctance:

North Carolina’s governor signed a law on Wednesday that will lift a longtime state ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, allowing shale gas exploration to begin as early as next year.

The Republican-led state legislature moved quickly last week to fast-track permits for fracking, in which rock formations are cracked and infused with chemical-laced water to extract natural gas. …

“We have watched and waited as other states moved forward with energy exploration, and it is finally our turn,” said Republican Governor Pat McCrory. “This legislation will spur economic development at all levels of our economy, not just the energy sector.” …

A 2012 North Carolina law cleared the way for fracking to begin, but called for a separate vote after rules were drafted to protect the environment. The new law allows permits to be issued without further legislative action two months after state regulations are completed, likely early next year.

Good thing, too — North Carolina may not have quite the underground riches of, say, Texas or North Dakota, but you never know until you try. In the meantime, fellow Southern states Louisiana and Mississippi have been prepping to take advantage of their own shale reserves and take part in the production boom that has so rapidly transformed America’s energy outlook in a matter of just a few years.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: drilling, economy, energy, fracking, jobs, North Carolina

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Europe:Sorrywerejectedyou,Canada;wereally

Europe: Sorry we rejected you, Canada; we really want your oil sands after all

posted at 4:41 pm on June 5, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

One of the reasons eco-radicals harbor such strong distaste for the Keystone XL pipeline is because they believe that Canada should quixotically eschew the economic opportunities in their oil sands and instead leave those natural resources in the ground. Their quest to kill the pipeline has therefore always been epically illogical, since Canada will and has found a way to get their oil to market, either to our Gulf refineries via rail transport or else by building their own domestic pipelines out to the coasts for shipment by sea.

These Keystone XL-hatin’ eco-radicals almost had a helpful partner in the European Union, which — heeding the complaint that oil sands are somewhat more carbon-intensive than conventional crude — was all ready with legislation meant to encourage the use of cleaner transport fuels by slapping heavy and deliberately discriminatory penalties on imports of Canada’s oil sands. Canada was all ready to get to work and trade with Asian countries anyway, but all the better if they can open up the European market, too — and Europe’s newfound skittishness about energy security and eagerness to reduce dependence on Russia has the bloc looking to diversify its supplies.

I mentioned last month that the EU was rethinking its high-minded pooh-poohing of the oil sands, and it looks like Canada may actually get its wish in the form of a major reversal on those forthcoming EU regulations that will instead allow Canada’s oil sands to do steady business there, via the Financial Times:

Canada today exports little crude to Europe, but it has plans to increase those exports if new pipelines are built linking the oil sands to ports, such as TransCanada’s proposed Energy East project to take oil from Alberta to the east coast. …

Chris Davies, a European parliamentarian on the environment committee, said that Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate commissioner, had lost out to stronger voices in the commission with industrial and trade portfolios. “She got beat,” Mr Davies said. …

The latest draft of the EU legislation is a reversal from earlier versions of the plan, which would have required fuel suppliers to disclose the carbon footprint of the original crude oil that was used to make their products, and stay below maximum limits for associated emissions. …

Under the new methodology, companies will only have to make their emission cuts based on EU averages for the “output” fuels – the petrol or diesel – regardless of whether it was originally made from heavy crude or not.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Canada, energy, Europe, natural gas, oil, pipeline, Russia

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Reuters:ThatJulydeadlineforanIrannuke

Reuters: That July deadline for an Iran nuke deal? Probably not gonna’ happen.

posted at 4:01 pm on June 4, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Back when the United States and the other members of the P5+1 group (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China) embarked on their latest mission last year to strike a deal with Iran to prevent any nuclear proliferation on their part, there was a lot of criticism of the Obama administration for creating an opportunity for an only apparently willing and newly cooperative Iran to get exactly what it really wanted: Some relief from economic sanctions in exchange for doing nothing, and more time to stall on dismantling the threatening aspects of their nuclear program, even while Iranian envoys claim that they are sincerely hunting for a deal.

Mmm hmm. Via Reuters:

It is increasingly unlikely that six world powers and Iran will meet their July 20 deadline to negotiate a long-term deal for Iran to curb its nuclear programme in return for an end to economic sanctions, diplomats and analysts say. …

The latest round of talks in Vienna last month ran into difficulties when it became clear that the number of enrichment centrifuges Iran wanted to maintain was well beyond what would be acceptable to the West. That disagreement, envoys said, can be measured in tens of thousands of centrifuges. …

Barring a surprise breakthrough in the next round in Vienna on June 16 to 20, Western officials said an extension was virtually a foregone conclusion. “We’re far apart,” one diplomat said, adding that the talks would be “long and complicated.” …

If there is an extension, the Obama administration will seek the blessing of Congress. U.S. officials voiced confidence to Reuters they would ultimately get it, but it appears it would not come without a fight.

Technically, the interim agreement from last November included a possible six-month extension if the two sides weren’t yet on the same page, and as Reuters mentions, the Obama administration has signaled that it will try to get approval from Congress before going forward with the negotiations and limited sanctions relief for another half a year. The White House managed to lobby a bipartisan majority in the Senate into submission last winter when it came to Iranian sanctions, but it might not be able to do so again without Congress heaping a lot of unwanted extra attention onto the issue.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: diplomacy, energy, foreign policy, Iran, Middle East, nuclear power, sanctions, United States

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

So. Russia and China just signed a major natural-gas deal.

So.RussiaandChinajustsignedamajor

Bloomberg:ForgetSiliconValley;entrepreneurialmillenialsareheading

Bloomberg: Forget Silicon Valley; entrepreneurial millenials are heading to the Texas oil patch

posted at 1:21 pm on May 21, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

•  Share on Facebook

California Gov. Jerry Brown practically laughed in Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s face when Perry brought to California his ongoing campaign to promote the Lone Star State’s business-friendly tax and regulatory charms to major companies, but Texas’s economic prowess combined with their eagerness to get on board with the unconventional drilling techniques that have spurred an oil-and-gas production boom on state and private lands in just the last few years is already taking its toll on the more chimerical California.

As Joel Kotkin at City Watch detailed back in March, a handful of big energy companies have been pulling up from California and planting roots in Texas recently as California’s regulations and permitting process become increasingly and deliberately onerous, and as Bloomberg reports today, it isn’t just well-established energy companies looking for better opportunities elsewhere. The young and the restlessly entrepreneurial are noticing that some of today’s best chances for technological innovation and wealth creation aren’t necessarily in Silicon Valley anymore:

Mark Hiduke just raised $100 million to build his three-week-old company. This 27-year-old isn’t a Silicon Valley technology entrepreneur. He’s a Texas oilman.

The oil and gas industry is suddenly brimming with upstart millennials like Hiduke after decades of failing to attract and retain new entrants. Now that a breakthrough in drilling technology has U.S. oil and gas production surging, an aging workforce is welcoming a new generation of wildcatters, landmen, engineers, investors, entrepreneurs and aspiring oil barons. …

Hiduke’s company, Dallas-based PetroCore LLC, received the $100 million commitment from a local private-equity firm in May. He and his three partners plan to buy underdeveloped land and drill shale wells, he said. They’ll draw on the expertise of their engineer, who, at 57, is old enough to be his father.

The shale boom has “created a lot of opportunity for young professionals to jump in and be given enormous responsibility,” Hiduke said by telephone May 6. “It’s pretty much tech and then energy.”

As oil and gas producers change their focus from grabbing land to drilling, young entrepreneurs are forming companies to trade everything from minerals to leases and wells to equities. They’re competing against, and sometimes collaborating with, industry veterans twice their age.

I don’t know how many more testaments we could possibly need to reaffirm the fact that the booming oil-and-gas industry is one of the few supports holding up an Obama economy that is otherwise being held together by spit, but this is definitely one of them.

•  Share on Facebook

Tags: California, energy, entrepreneurship, jobs, millennials, Oil and Gas Industry, Texas, wealth

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

NewO’Keefevideo“punks”Hollywoodenviros posted

New O’Keefe video “punks” Hollywood enviros

posted at 9:21 am on May 21, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

•  Share on Facebook

For those who remember the controversy surrounding the financing of the anti-fracking Matt Damon film Promised Land, this new undercover video from James O’Keefe and Project Veritas will simply confirm suspicions. O’Keefe set himself up as an ersatz Middle Eastern oil baron in order to test the Hollywood environmental waters to see how welcome his supposed money would be in attacking American energy independence. The big names in this effort, Ed Begley Jr and Mariel Hemingway, will get the most notice but are in essence collateral damage. The real targets for this probe are Josh and Rebecca Tickell, award-winning producers who are all too keen to take Middle Eastern money to attack American natural-gas exploration:

“This latest investigation shows the dark side of Hollywood’s environmental movement. Hollywood is willing to take and conceal money from Middle Eastern oil interests in order to advance their cause of destroying American energy independence,” O’ Keefe said. He will be independently premiering “Expose: Hollywood’s War on US Energy” in Cannes, France Wednesday.

Within the video, actor Ed Begley Jr., an outspoken environmental activist and current Governor on the board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science, Golden Globe and Oscar-nominated actress Mariel Hemingway, and liberal producer and director Josh Tickell are approached by an undercover reporter posing as a member of a Middle Eastern oil dynasty named “Muhammad” and his “ad executive” Steven Sanchton in the Beverly Hills Hotel located in Los Angeles, California. The pair offer $9 million in funding to American filmmakers to fund an anti-fracking movie.

“If Washington D.C. continues fracking, America will be energy independent and then they won’t need our oil anymore,” Muhammad states within the video. The “ad executive” accompanying him to the meeting later follows up, “Knowing where the money comes from..” At this point, he is interrupted by Hemmingway, who assures him none of the information regarding where the money is coming from to produce the movie will leave the table.

The Cannes launch got the attention of The Hollywood Reporter:

Muhammad, accompanied by a man pretending to be an ad executive, seemingly has the two actors agreeing to participate in the scheme, even after he acknowledges that his goal is to keep America from becoming energy independent. The meeting, which appears to have been secretly recorded, took place a few months ago at the Beverly Hills Hotel.

But the real target of the sting operation appears to be Josh and Rebecca Tickell, a husband and wife team known for their environmental movies, such as 2008′s Fuel, which won an award at Sundance and was later screened at the White House for members of President Obama‘s administration.

Begley tells THR that if it looks like he’s agreeing with faux Muhammad about anything, it’s because the Tickells asked him to be polite so that they’d get their funding for a movie they’re making called Fracked, a film that will argue a technique for extracting natural gas called fracking is bad for the environment. Also, Begley says that he is hard of hearing and couldn’t understand everything Muhammad was saying.

The video also includes some audio from phone conversations between the fake Muhammad’s representatives and the Tickells. “We’re confident that we can keep this zip-locked. You know, tight. Tight. Air-tight forever,” Josh Tickell is heard saying. “If we don’t protect who is kind of funding this thing … if we have to disclose that or that becomes a necessary part of it, the whole enterprise will not work.”

Rebecca Tickell adds: “Because if people think the film is funded by Middle Eastern oil it will, it will not have that credibility,” and Josh Tickell says, “It’s money, so in that sense we have no moral issue.”

Yeah, I suspect that last statement won’t be much of a surprise to anyone who’s worked in Hollywood, either.

The Tickells, Begley, and Hemingway are crying foul now. In comments to THR, they claim that O’Keefe’s editing made things look worse than they are, and are demanding the release of all the video. That didn’t do much to help ACORN, or for that matter, Planned Parenthood when dealing with Live Action’s exposés. The Tickells say that no deal was actually consummated, and that they would have done “due diligence” at that point, but O’Keefe wouldn’t have had $9 million anyway. The point of O’Keefe’s sting is to expose Hollywood enviro eagerness to accept oil-baron money from the Middle East to attack American energy production, and this video certainly does that much. Not that people couldn’t figure that much out from Promised Land‘s Abu Dhabi funding, if they wanted.

The Tickells have decided to keep trying to fund Fracked anyway:

Update: Late Tuesday, the Tickells created a video response that also serves as a pitch to raise $72,000 via an IndieGoGo crowdfunding campaign to make Fracked. “I’m about to tell you a story of the lengths that some people will go to discourage the transition to green energy,” Josh Tickell says in the video. “If it wasn’t so serious it might even be kind of funny. Recently, my wife and I were royally punked.”

Actually, the story is about how some Hollywood enviros will sell out to the worst offenders in order to build their soapboxes. And hey, why do they need to go on IndieGoGo anyway? Doesn’t Mark Ruffalo and Woody Harrelson have $72 grand between them?

•  Share on Facebook

Tags: energy, environmentalism, Hollywood, hypocrisy

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair