Nuclear Safety Plan Has Ukrainians Worried

March 27, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

Pavol Stracansky

KIEV, Mar 27 (IPS) – A 300 million euro loan to improve nuclear safety in the Ukraine has been attacked by environmental groups who say it will instead be used to keep ageing reactors working well beyond their planned lifespans – increasing the risks of a nuclear accident – while doing nothing to address serious issues with the country’s energy intensity.The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which approved the loan earlier this month, has said that the money will be used to upgrade safety at nuclear plants to international standards.

But environmentalists say it will instead be used by state energy company Energoatom to keep open or restart ageing reactors and that the EBRD should be helping the Ukraine move away from nuclear power and support renewable energy projects.

Iryna Holovko of the pan-European Bankwatch NGO, which together with other environmental groups has opposed the loan, told IPS: “Energoatom and the Ukrainian government is imposing another 20 years of additional nuclear risk – because of the increased risks associated with ageing of reactors – on the people of Ukraine without developing or offering an alternative option.”

Nuclear power is key to Ukraine’s energy production. Fifteen plants around the country provide almost half of its electricity.

But while many countries in Europe have recently reaffirmed their opposition to nuclear power or abandoned or scaled back their reliance on it in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, Ukraine’s energy policy has been amended in the last two years to include new nuclear capacity and the extension of the lifespans of existing plants by, in some cases, 20 years.

Environmental groups in the Ukraine point to an accident at the Rivne nuclear power plant’s Reactor 1. Its original lifespan had expired at the end of 2010 but it was given an extension for 20 years. One month later there was an accident, although no radiation leaked.

The funding provided by the EBRD, together with a further European Commission loan under the Euratom Treaty, will support a programme including more than 80 measures addressing safety issues at plants, such as replacing equipment and improving accident management.

Environmental groups claim that Energoatom has not properly analysed the risks and safety issues related to the safe operation of nuclear units for decades beyond their original lifespans.

In particular, they argue, a reactor at the South Ukrainian nuclear power plant will be restarted again using the financing approved by the EBRD. The reactor’s lifespan has expired and it is no longer generating electricity. But Energoatom has been told its lifespan can be extended and the reactor restarted if it carries out safety upgrades.

Holovko told IPS: “It is one thing to improve the safety of nuclear reactors that still have some years of their original operating time left, but it is not OK to finance measures at facilities whose lifespans have expired and which have already stopped working and at the same time saying the loan has nothing to do with lifespan extension.”

Greenpeace and other groups such as the German NGO Urgewald have said that the EBRD, as one of the largest investors in the Ukraine and other European countries, should be spending money on decommissioning old nuclear reactors and supporting renewable energy instead.

Jutta Matysek of Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe said: “European public money should be used to support renewable energy to help Ukraine overcome its dependence on nuclear energy and imported carbon fuel. A country which is still suffering from the terrible effects of the Chernobyl disaster will not survive another nuclear catastrophe.”

The EBRD has vigorously defended the financing. The bank says its energy policy is geared towards improving energy efficiency, but that it has a clear mandate to financing nuclear safety improvements at an operating facility.

In a statement following approval of the loan, the bank said: “Nuclear safety is a consideration of the utmost priority at any time regardless of whether a unit has just been connected to the grid or has been producing electricity for decades.”

Stressing that the bank has no mandate to force a sovereign state to rule out the use of any source of energy, it added: “Ukraine is currently reviewing its own energy strategy but has made it clear that it will continue to use nuclear power generation. Consequently, addressing the safety issues and raising standards is the EBRD’s primary concern and its due role.”

It also emphasised that Energoatom’s safety upgrade plan had taken into account recommendations from the International Atomic Energy Agency and Ukrainian and international experts.

EBRD representatives in the Ukraine who spoke to IPS stressed that the bank has invested more than 200 million euros in renewable energy projects in Ukraine to date. It has also lent tens of millions of euros to local municipalities for energy efficiency projects.

EBRD Ukraine representative Anton Usov told IPS: “The EBRD should get more recognition for its efforts to make Ukraine more energy efficient and for the renewable energy projects we have implemented in this country – something which no other institution has done.”

Environmental groups say sensitivity to nuclear safety remains particularly high because of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

A nationwide poll carried out in April 2011 showed that 39 percent of respondents believed Ukrainian plants were “quite dangerous” and that 25 percent said they were “extremely dangerous”. More than 69 percent said they were completely opposed to the construction of new nuclear power plants.

But Usov said that there was no widespread opposition to extending the lifespans of ageing reactors, and that the public accepted that nuclear power was essential to meeting the country’s energy needs.

He told IPS: “People in Ukraine are generally sensitive to nuclear industry-related subjects for obvious reasons….There is a broad understanding in society that the country cannot survive without nuclear power plants, at least in the short-term.”

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Energy, Environment, Europe, Health, Report Tagged With: , ,

As Cyprus Collapses, It’s a Race to the Mediterranean Gas Finish Line

March 27, 2013 by

By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

Cyprus is preparing for total financial collapse as the European Central Bank turns its back on the island after its parliament rejected a scheme to make Cypriot citizens pay a levy on savings deposits in return for a share in potential gas futures to fund a bailout.

On Wednesday, the Greek-Cypriot government voted against asking its citizens to bank on the future of gas exports by paying a 3-15% levy on bank deposits in return for a stake in potential gas sales. The scheme would have partly funded a $13 billion EU bailout.

It would have been a major gamble that had Cypriots asking how much gas the island actually has and whether it will prove commercially viable any time soon.

In the end, not even the parliament was willing to take the gamble, forcing Cypriots to look elsewhere for cash, hitting up Russia in desperate talks this week, but to no avail.

The bank deposit levy would not have gone down well in Russia, whose citizens use Cypriot banks to store their “offshore” cash. Some of the largest accounts belong to Russians and other foreigners, and the levy scheme would have targeted accounts with over 20,000 euros. So it made sense that Cyprus would then turn to Russia for help, but so far Moscow hasn’t put any concrete offers on the table.

Plan A (the levy scheme) has been rejected. Plan B (Russia) has been ineffective. Plan C has yet to reveal itself. And without a Plan C, the banks can’t reopen. The minute they open their doors there will be a withdrawal rush that will force their collapse.

In the meantime, cashing in on the island’s major gas potential is more urgent than ever—but these are still very early days.

In the end, it’s all about gas and the race to the finish line to develop massive Mediterranean discoveries. Cyprus has found itself right in the middle of this geopolitical game in which its gas potential is a tool in a showdown between Russia and the European Union.

The EU favored the Cypriot bank deposit levy but it would have hit at the massive accounts of Russian oligarchs. Without the promise of Levant Basin gas, the EU wouldn’t have had the bravado for such a move because Russia holds too much power over Europe’s gas supply.

Cypriot Gas Potential

The Greek Cypriot government believes it is sitting on an amazing 60 trillion cubic feet of gas, but these are early days—these aren’t proven reserves and commercial viability could be years away. In the best-case scenario, production could feasibly begin in five years.

Exports are even further afield, with some analysts suggesting 2020 as a start date.

In 2011, the first (and only) gas was discovered offshore Cyprus, in Block 12, which is licensed to Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. (NBL). The block holds an estimated 8 trillion cubic feet of gas.

To date, the Greek Cypriots have awarded licenses for six offshore exploration blocks that could contain up to 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. Aside from Noble, these licenses have gone to Total SA of France and a joint venture between Eni SpA (ENI) of Italy and Korea Gas Corp.

But the process of exploring, developing, extracting, processing and getting gas to market is a long one. Getting the gas extracted offshore and then pumped onshore could take at least five years and some very expensive infrastructure that does not presently exist. The gas would have to be liquefied so it could be transported by seaborne tankers.

The potential is there: Cyprus’ gas discoveries adjoin Israeli territorial waters where the discovery of the massive Leviathan gasfield (425 billion cubic meters or 16 trillion cubic feet) and smaller Tamar gasfield (250 billion cubic meters or 9 trillion cubic feet) have foreign companies in a rush to cash in on this.

There are myriad problems to extracting Cypriot gas—not the least of which is the fact that some of this offshore exploration territory is disputed by Turkey, which has controlled part of the island since 1974.

Gas exploration has taken this dispute to a new level, with Turkey sending in warships to halt drilling in 2011, and threatening to bar foreign companies exploring in Cyprus from any license opportunities in Turkey. The situation is likely to intensify as Noble prepares to begin exploratory drilling later this year in Block 12.

In the meantime, there is no shortage of competition on this arena. Cyprus will have to vie with Israel, Lebanon and Syria—all of which have made offshore gas discoveries of late in the Mediterranean’s Levant Basin, which has an estimated total of 122 trillion cubic feet of gas and 1.7 billion barrels of oil.

Blackmailing Cyprus?

While Greek Cypriot citizens are not willing to gamble away their savings on gas futures, Russia and the European Union are certainly less hesitant.

This is both a negotiating point for Cyprus and a convenient tool of blackmail for Russia and the EU. Essentially, the bailout is the prop on a stage that will determine who gets control of these assets.

Theoretically, Cyprus could guarantee Russia exploration rights in return for assistance. As much as this is possible, the EU could ease its bailout negotiations if it becomes clear that a Russian bailout of sorts is imminent.

Gas finds in the Mediterranean and particularly across the Levant Basin—home to Israel’s Leviathan and Tamar fields—could be the answer to Russian gas hegemony in Europe. The question is: How much does Cyprus count in this equation? A lot.

Though only half of the estimated resources in the Levant Basin, Cyprus’ potential 60 trillion cubic feet of gas could equal 40% of the EU’s gas supplies and be worth a whopping $400 billion if commercial viability is proven.

Russia is keen to keep Cyprus and Israel from cooperating too much toward the goal of loosening Russia’s grip on Europe before Moscow manages to gain a greater share of the Asian market.

Russia is also not keen on Israel’s plan to lay an undersea natural gas pipeline to Turkey’s south coast to sell its gas from the Leviathan field to Europe. Turkey hasn’t agreed to this deal yet, but it is certainly considering it. This is fraught with all kinds of political problems at home, so for now Ankara is keeping it as low profile as possible.

With all of this in mind, Russia is doing its best to get in on the Levant largesse itself. While it’s also courting Lebanon and Syria, dating Israel is already in full force. Gazprom has signed a deal with Israel that would give it control of Tamar’s gas and access to the Asian market for its liquefied natural gas (LNG). Tamar will probably begin producing already in April at a 1 billion cubic feet/day capacity.

In accordance with this deal, which Israel has yet to approve, Gazprom will provide financial support for the development of the Tamar Floating LNG Project. In return, Gazprom will get exclusive rights to purchase and export Tamar LNG. It is also significant because Tamar is a US-Israeli joint venture—so essentially the plan is to help Russia diversify from the European market.

What does this mean for Cyprus? The chess pieces are still being put on the board, and both fortunately and unfortunately, Cyprus’ gas potential will be intricately linked to its bailout potential.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Cypriot-Bailout-Linked-to-Gas-Potential.html

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Filed Under: Economic Crisis, Energy, Europe, Featured, Geopolitics, Trade Tagged With: ,

Climate Rally Draws "Line in the Sand" on Canadian Pipeline

February 17, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

tar_sands-629x472

The tar sands in Alberta, Canada. Credit: howlmonteal/cc by 2.0

Stephen Leahy

UXBRIDGE, Canada, Feb 16 (IPS) – The largest climate rally in U.S. history is expected Sunday in Washington DC with the aim of pressuring President Barack Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.Activists are calling Keystone "the line in the sand" regarding dangerous climate change, prompting the Sierra Club to suspended its 120-year ban on civil disobedience. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune was arrested in front of the White House during a small protest against Keystone on Wednesday.

"The Keystone XL pipeline is part of the carbon infrastructure that will take us to dangerous levels of climate change," said Simon Donner, a climate scientist at the University of British Columbia.[pullquote]3[/pullquote]

"By itself, Keystone won’t have much of an impact on the climate, but it is not happening on its own," Donner told IPS.

Carbon emissions are increasing elsewhere, and the International Energy Agency recently warned humanity is on a dangerous path to four degrees C of warming before the end of this century. Children born today will experience this. Preventing that dire future is inconsistent with expanding tar sands production, Donner said.

A new study released this week revealed that the volume of Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly. Ice volume has fallen 80 percent since 1980, according to the latest data from European Space Agency satellite, CryoSat-2. Summers with a sea ice-free Arctic are only a few years away, scientists now agree. This will have significant and permanent impacts on weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere.

"Keystone XL is the key to opening up the expansion of the tar sands industry," said Jim Murphy, senior counsel with the National Wildlife Federation.

"By rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, we can keep this toxic oil in the ground," Murphy said in a statement.

Keystone XL is intended to bring 700,000 to 800,000 barrels of a heavy, tar-like oil from the northern Alberta tar sands 2,400 kilometres south to the refineries on the Gulf Coast. Nearly all the resulting fuels are destined for export.

Since the seven-billion-dollar Keystone XL crosses national borders, it is up to President Obama to issue a permit declaring the pipeline serves the "national interest" in order for it to be approved.

"The only way Keystone XL could be considered in the national interest is if you equate that with profits for the oil industry," Steve Kretzman of Oil Change International previously told IPS. Oil Change is an NGO that researches the links between oil, gas, coal corporations and governments.

"It couldn’t be simpler: Either we leave at least two-thirds of the known fossil fuel reserves in the ground, or we destroy our planet as we know it," wrote Sierra Club’s Michael Brune in explaining the decision to engage in civil disobedience.

"That means rejecting the dangerous tar sands pipeline that would transport some of the dirtiest oil on the planet," said Brune.

Tar sands carbon emissions on a "well-to-tank" basis (i.e., production) result in emissions that are on average 72 to 111 percent higher than other U.S. transportation fuels, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Canada’s tar sands aren’t really a "carbon bomb" from a scientific perspective, says Donner. The world’s coal deposits contain many times more carbon. However, the tar sands and Keystone have symbolic importance.

"Climate change is a complicated problem. Lots of things need to be done to address it. We’re at a point where changes need to happen soon," he says.

Writing in the Daily Kos Saturday, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, CEO of the environmental justice group Green For All, writes, "Hurricane Katrina taught us a lesson – and Superstorm Sandy reinforced it. People living in neighborhoods with the fewest resources have a harder time escaping, surviving, and recovering from disasters.

"And they’re more vulnerable to the extreme weather climate change will bring. For example, African-Americans living in Los Angeles are more than twice as likely to die during a heat wave than other residents of the city," she says in a piece titled "Why People of Color Should Care about the Keystone Pipeline".

"To permit the pipeline would represent a heartbreaking acquiescence to climate change on the part of President Obama and our national leaders. It would be throwing our hands up helplessly in the face of one of the biggest threats our country has ever faced. That’s not the kind of leadership we voted for.

"There are certain points in history, like the Civil Rights Movement, when the consequences of inaction are so great that we have to make bold choices," Ellis-Lamkins says. "This is one of those times."

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Canada, Energy, Environment, Human Rights, Politics, Report Tagged With: , , , ,

Brazilian Ethanol in the Slow Lane to Global Market

February 17, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

sugarcane_640-629x472

Sugarcane harvesters have become a fixture in the Brazilian landscape. Credit: Mario Osava /IPS

Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Feb 15 (IPS) – Following a promising start, Brazil’s dream of positioning ethanol in the global market on an equal standing with petroleum-based fuels is hindered by new and old challenges.Brazil’s goal of expanding ethanol sales across the world will only be attained when there are "more countries in a position to buy and supply," noted Eduardo Leão de Sousa, director of the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Union (UNICA), an organisation that represents the country’s top sugar and ethanol producers.

Brazil and the United States produce close to 85 percent of the world’s ethanol, according to information from the International Energy Agency. Since it is produced almost exclusively for domestic consumption, international sales are still marginal.

De Sousa told IPS that the critical level of demand necessary to stimulate ethanol production is not something that emerges spontaneously and must be driven by public policies, such as regulations that require a certain volume of renewable fuel to be blended into petroleum-based transport fuels.

Growing demand is led by the United States, spurred by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) programme that set increasing annual quotas for ethanol production through 2022, and the European Union (EU), which aims to bring the percentage of renewable fuels in transport vehicle engines up to 10 percent by 2020.

The RFS programme, created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and further expanded in 2007, with the aim of cutting greenhouse gas emissions and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, established a limit of 56.78 billion litres for annual consumption of conventional ethanol fuels, which are those produced from food crops such as corn.

As U.S. consumption is nearing that limit, the bulk of the increase towards the 2022 target of 132.5 billion will have to come from cellulosic ethanol – a biofuel from wood, grasses or the inedible parts of plants, which is new and still too costly to produce- and from "advanced" biofuels.

"Advanced" or "second generation" biofuels are those produced by sustainable feedstock, which are defined by availability of the feedstock, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels and biodiversity and land use impact.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency designated sugarcane ethanol as an advanced biofuel because it lowers GHG emissions by more than 50 percent as compared to gasoline, taking into account the full lifecycle of production and consumption, including the use of land to grow the crop.

This development will boost demand for ethanol produced by Brazil and other sugarcane growing countries, bringing it up to 15.14 million litres by 2022.

As for the EU, based on a directive to promote the use of energy from renewable sources (Directive 2009/28/EC) that requires that 10 percent of the energy used in transport be sourced from renewable fuels by 2020, ethanol consumption for that year is projected at 15 to 16 billion litres, half of which could be supplied from outside the bloc, according to de Sousa.

EU and U.S. imports combined, then, will equal Brazil’s current domestic market, developed over the course of almost four decades, de Sousa estimated.

But that demand is not a sure thing. The EU’s executive body, the European Commission, is considering revising its transport fuel target to impose a limit on crop-based biofuels in an effort to prevent negative impacts on food supply, while in the United States the powerful oil and corn lobbies are pressuring against the RFS, the UNICA director said.

Out to conquer emerging markets

Another huge potential market is China, but only if it adopts an ambitious programme once "a supply of diverse and permanent sources is guaranteed," de Sousa forecasted.

Many countries introduced the use of ethanol as a fuel additive in the 1990s. But there are numerous cases in which national programmes for the adoption of this biofuel were postponed or implemented on a trial basis. For example, after establishing a voluntary three percent biofuel blend in 2003, Japan is still reluctant to make it mandatory.

On the supply side, efforts are also "timid," although sugarcane ethanol is being produced in other South American countries and in Central America and Africa, as well as in Southeast Asia, where UNICA sees "great potential."

Mexico has extensive agricultural land but fragmented into tiny private plots that hinder large-scale production. Something similar occurs in India, which already has a large cane production to supply sugar for its 1.2 billion people, de Sousa said.

In Africa, the lack of infrastructure and labour trained for ethanol production are an obstacle to this activity. In Angola and Mozambique, where Brazilian companies are implementing sugar projects, landholding is also an issue, but for a different reason. As all land is state-owned, producers cannot purchase land and must depend on government concessions.

This eliminates land purchase costs but drives away investors who see property as a guarantee.

"The key is having clear rules and streamlining implementation," said Felipe Cruz, investment director at Angola’s Capanda Agroindustrial Pole, an initiative of the Brazilian company Odebrecht, which is building the Angolan Bioenergy Company (Biocom) set to begin production this year.

"The focus is on sugar," António Carlos de Carvalho, Biocom manager and financial director, said. Angola, which was self-sufficient in that food crop prior to independence in 1975, lost its entire sugarcane industry during its 27-year-long civil war. Now it is trying to rebuild it with projects across the country.

In addition to 260,000 tons of sugar, Biocom plans to produce 30 million litres of ethanol, which will be used to replace petroleum-based additives.

Blazing a winding trail

As a pioneer in the use of ethanol fuel and a major sugarcane producer, Brazil has developed technology and companies in the field that have made it possible for the country to pursue ethanol projects in every continent.

This strategy was launched as a response to rising international oil prices in the mid 1970s, when Brazil imported 80 percent of the fuel it consumed.

A decade later, almost all new vehicles manufactured in Brazil were running exclusively on ethanol, while the rest of the country’s vehicle fleet had switched to gasoline blended with an increasing percentage of biofuel. Today, vehicles run on a blend that ranges from 18 to 25 percent.

This initial success was followed by a crisis produced by a drop in oil prices. But in the 1990s, amid growing environmental concerns, Brazilian ethanol emerged as a effective way of reducing pollution.

Also at this time, the U.S. began producing and using flexible-fuel vehicles (or flex vehicles), which run on any blend of up to 85 percent ethanol. In Brazil, an improved version of flex vehicles with no limit to the percentage of ethanol triggered a new biofuel boom in 2003.

But without the expected climate agreements and with environmental concerns clouded by the more pressing economic crisis, global interest in ethanol has waned. Brazilian efforts to create an international market for this product, led by one of ethanol’s champions, former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003-2011), are not yielding the expected results.

While the strong support from the U.S. -the world’s largest producer of ethanol since 2006-means that Brazil is no longer alone in its efforts, it has exacerbated critics who argue that diverting huge volumes of corn to ethanol production will raise food prices.

Another cause for concern is the potential development of electric and hydrogen vehicles.

De Sousa is confident that "cellulosic ethanol will alter this equation," expanding biofuel production and increasing its sustainability, while all the other alternatives will only be competitive in the long term.

However, no alternative should be ruled out. "Every region will find the solution that is most suitable" for its conditions, he concluded.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Agriculture, Development, Energy, Environment, Latin America, Report Tagged With: ,

Q&A: Venerable Sierra Club Gets Radical on Tar Sands

February 17, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

brune

Michael Brune. Courtesy of Sierra Club.

George Gao

NEW YORK, Feb 15 (IPS) – The term “civil disobedience” takes its roots from an 1849 essay by U.S. poet, philosopher and environmentalist, Henry David Thoreau, originally entitled “Resistance to Civil Government”.Civil disobedience is often used as a non-violent tool of protest against widespread injustices, such as in the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

On the morning of Feb. 13, prominent activists gathered in front of the White House in Washington, DC, and participated in an act of civil disobedience, to protest the idea behind the Keystone XL Pipeline.

This pipeline would run from Alberta, Canada all the way across the United States, to its coastline in the Gulf of Mexico. It would carry about a million barrels of crude oil each day, and according to protestors and scientists, contribute dangerously to climate change.[pullquote]3[/pullquote]

The protestors – who include NASA climate scientist James Hansen, poet Bob Haas and lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., among others – were arrested after blocking a main thoroughfare in front of the White House and refusing to move.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, was among the participants in this event. It was his organisation’s first act of civil disobedience in its 120-year old history, and the first time its executive director was arrested.

Brune spoke with IPS correspondent George Gao about his experience at the protest, as well as the environmental significance of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Can you describe what unfolded on the morning of Feb. 13 outside of the White House?

A: We organised about 50 community leaders from across the country who have been resisting various aspects of both the tar sands and other destructive projects in civil disobedience outside of the White House.

The point of this was to call on President (Barack) Obama to make sure that he’s doing everything within his power to turn away from extreme energy sources, and to embrace clean energy as much as he can.

Q: What specifically makes the tar sands’ oil deposits in Alberta, Canada – and the Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport these deposits – unique and deserved of such attention, as compared to other pipelines?

A: The tar sands is the most carbon intensive fuel source on the planet. It’s hard to access and takes a lot of energy to extract this thick gooey oil out of the ground. So we are deeply concerned that by expanding production of the tar sands, it will make it almost impossible to stop runaway climate change.

We have been advocating that instead of building a massive pipeline that would take almost a million barrels of oil per day, from Canada down into the U.S., that we should investing that same money, seven billion dollars worth, in clean energy instead – solar, and wind and energy efficiency and advanced energy technologies.

So we were fighting this both because the pipeline itself was highly destructive, but also because it’s a symbol of the kind of investments that we need to turn away from as a society.

Q: Proponents of the pipeline argue that this will create easy jobs for a slumping economy – ready jobs that the U.S. know how to allocate. Is this a misperception?

A: We have to be honest in this debate: there are jobs in installing a pipeline, and for many people those are important jobs. Any energy investments create jobs. If you create a coal plant, that will put people to work, if you create a pipeline, that will put other people to work.

But if we’re going to be honest about that, we should also be honest about the big picture, which is that we can produce more jobs – we have produced more jobs in clean energy than with dirty fuels.

There are at least three times more jobs that come from solar and wind than for an equivalent amount of gas or coal or oil. So if we care about climate change, of course you want to move to clean energy. If you care about the economy and producing jobs, you should probably move to clean energy as well.

The folks who are the most defensive and resistant towards a clean energy transition are the ones who are profiting from our dependence on fossil fuels.

Q: Does the pipeline run through any environmentally sensitive areas or protected lands in the United States?

A: It runs through Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, which is one of the most important drinking water supplies in the country. It also runs through people’s farms and ranches, many of whom have been farming and ranching in those areas for generations.

I was next to a couple of ranchers yesterday from Nebraska. They don’t want any part of a dirty oil pipeline running through their farm. They don’t feel as though companies like TransCanada and others have any right to take their property, risk their water supply – all for a substance that will pollute our air and pollute our atmosphere.

Q: What executive powers does U.S. President Barack Obama wield over this situation?

A: An enormous amount. The president can reject this pipeline outright. The State Department is currently reviewing the proposal, will issue a recommendation – or what’s known as a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – and then it is the president’s decision about whether the pipeline should be built or not.

One person gets to decide. That’s why we were out in front of the White House.

Q: Do you see this decision as a significant moment that sets the tone for future climate change policies in the U.S.?

A: Absolutely. We’re having the largest rally in U.S. history on climate change in the National Mall this Sunday, and it’s coming at a time where there are several important decisions that the president will make: about mountain top removal, about fracking across the country, about drilling in the arctic, whether or not to build a deadly and destructive pipeline.

What we’re seeing is a resurgence of committed, passionate Americans who are willing to advocate and fight for clean energy, and it’s really inspiring to be a part of.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Americas, Energy, Environment, Health, Interview, Politics Tagged With: ,

Can Leak Detection End the Pipeline Impasse? Interview with Adrian Banica

February 17, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy

By James Stafford of Oilprice.com

Pipelines used to be things that were just built without blinking. It is said that there are enough pipelines now in the US to encircle the Earth 25 times with enough left over to also tie a bow around it. Today, getting a pipeline built is not so easy – there are too many environmental concerns and the industry has become highly polarized. But here’s one thing that could bring everyone together: pipeline safety technology. And it’s something we all want, especially for those who live along the thousands of miles of aging pipeline routes that carry hazardous liquids.

Spawned by research that started in space, remote-sensing technology designed to detect dangerous leaks in pipelines has the potential to provide the neutral ground for decisions to be made and consensus to be formed. The clincher: This technology is not only affordable -it saves money and could eventually save the industry.

In an exclusive interview with Oilprice.com, Adrian Banica, founder and CEO of Synodon – the forerunner in leak detection systems – discusses:

• How a technology that started in space has the potential to quell intensifying protests

• Why Keystone XL will eventually be a reality – sooner rather than later

• How remote sensing technology can fingerprint pipeline leaks

• How remote sensing technology can find the little leaks before they become big leaks—at no extra cost

• Why North America’s new pipelines aren’t the problem and why the focus should be on aging pipelines that are going to experience a lot more leaks

• How this technology could bring the industry and environmentalists together

• How external leak detection can save lives in high-risk areas

Interview with James Stafford of Oilprice.com

James Stafford: Now that pipelines are the hottest topic on the oil and gas scene and have found themselves on the frontline of conflict between environmentalists and the industry, high-tech leak detection systems such as Synodon’s remote sensing technology seem to be offering a way out of the chaos. Can you put this into perspective for us?

Adrian Banica: Yes. In North America alone, there are upwards of a million kilometers of transmission pipelines – and this does not even count the gathering and distribution pipelines. What we offer is attractive to both sides in this conflict: environmentalists want it and the industry can afford it.

Methods for inspecting pipelines have existed for many decades. What we’re providing is a better way of doing it. Synodon’s technology offers an accurate and precise method of oil and gas leak detection. This technology detects small leaks before they become big leaks.

James Stafford: In layman’s terms, how does it work?

Adrian Banica: It is relatively simple. Synodon has developed a remote sensing technology that can measure very small ground level concentrations of escaped gas from an aircraft flying overhead. This "realSens" technology is mounted on a helicopter and piloted by GPS over a pipeline.

Think of this gas sensor as a big infrared camera that is particularly adept at detecting very, very small color changes in the infrared spectrum. The color changes that we detect are caused by various gasses that the instrument looks at. Every gas in nature absorbs and colors the infrared light that passes through it in a very specific way. From the shade of the color, we can also infer how much methane or ethane we can see with our instruments. In effect, it’s like a color fingerprint of the gas.

James Stafford: Can you give us a sense of how this technology has evolved into what it is today—essentially the potential tool for bringing environmentalists and industry leaders together over the pipeline issue?

Adrian Banica: Yes. It started in space. Back in the 1990s, I was aware of technology being developed for various space programs, including Canada’s and NASA’s. I was looking for technologies that could solve oil and gas problems, but that were also novel, unique. That is how the whole idea started: It was matching a technology that the Canadian Space Agency funded to develop an instrument that measured carbon monoxide and methane from orbit.

So the idea then was if one can detect methane from space, why couldn’t we adapt that technology to detect methane by flying it on a plane? In 2000, I founded Synodon in order to monetize and commercialize this.

James Stafford: How effective are automated leak detection systems?

Adrian Banica: They are typically only able to detect high level leaks above 1% of the pipeline flow. They measure the volume of the product that passes a sensor (flow measurements) and the pressure in the pipeline–if there is a leak the pressure will be lower downstream from it, among other things. However, as a recent report from the Department of Transportation in the US points out, these systems only detect a leak at best about 40% of the time, irrespective of how big a leak is.

It is also important to differentiate between catastrophic leaks and small leaks. For catastrophic leaks, most pipelines use these flow meters which operate 24/7. But smaller leaks can only be detected by performing an above-ground survey either by foot patrol, vehicle or aircraft. The predominant technologies used would be sampling gas sensors, thermal cameras, laser detection or our remote sensing system.

James Stafford: So this remote sensing technology uses a sort of "fingerprinting" to detect leaks, but we understand that it has much more to offer the industry …

Adrian Banica: Yes. The core offering is the technology we developed for natural gas and liquid hydrocarbon leak detection, but there is a basket of services designed to reduce the overall costs for our clients. During our leak detection surveys, we collect a lot of different types of data such as visual images, thermal images and very, very accurate GPS information. We’ve repackaged all those data sets into new value-added products. We can provide these extra services without incurring additional costs.

For instance, we could offer some of those services for new construction, in which case it would speed up the process of getting all the information required for the necessary regulatory filings.

The most important thing, as I mentioned earlier, is trying to find small leaks before they become large leaks. All our services and all the data we provide are geared towards preventative maintenance. We sought to add services beyond leak protection because all pipeline operators still need to get their other data sets from somewhere. We are consolidating everything they need in a very cost effective and efficient manner.

James Stafford: A late-2012 study on leak detection by the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has brought this subject to the forefront. Dr. David Shaw, one of the report’s authors, says that pipeline leaks, ruptures, and spill are "systematically causing more and more property damage…in bad years you have $5 billion in damages due to pipeline-related accidents". The logic of the study is that pipleline operators could be spending 10 times more on leak detection given what kind of damages they are being awarded now.

Adrian Banica: Yes, the study makes the most valid point here, and that is that leak detection systems represent a bottom line savings, not an expense. For instance, Dr. Shaw has pointed out that pipeline companies would likely be justified in spending $10 million per year for every 400 miles of pipelines because they are already spending more than that on public property damage.

We have demonstrated that we can detect a leak that is less than 1 liter/min or 380 gallons/day. If our technology was deployed every 30 days and the leak were to happen in the middle of this period (on average), the total spill would be 5,700 gallons (380×15 days), which is 50 times smaller than the standard technology daily leak rate. That’s a huge difference.

Another difference is that pipeline operators pay around $12 per hour to have personnel walk the pipeline, and they can only catch leaks that are close enough for them to see.

James Stafford: Could leak detection systems also save lives?

Adrian Banica: Yes. The PHMSA study points out that 44% of these old hazardous liquid pipelines are in High Consequence Areas (HCAs)—which means that peoples’ lives are at risk if they blow up. We’re talking about 44% of over 170,000 miles of these pipelines. On a public platform, this alone should lend a new urgency to the leak detection debate. The point is that remote—or external—sensors can head off a dangerous leak faster than an internal system.

The challenge then is to convince pipeline operators to adopt external technologies that actually detect leaks rather than relying on the inconsistencies of visual detection, which sooner or later would see the pools of oil, but it might be a while.

James Stafford: Is the market ready for this technology?

Adrian Banica: The market is ready, but not necessarily because of leak detection—it’s the overall basket we discussed earlier.

There is a tremendous need in the industry for remote leak detection. But we had to account for budget constraints within our potential clients. We think we’ve developed a technology that’s very capable of providing the information our customers are looking for and doing so at a competitive price they are willing to pay.

We’ve been operating on the North American market for the last 2.5 years. It’s a very large market that has lately been in the eye of the media and the environmentalists. We’re talking about over 55 companies in Canada and almost 700 pipeline operators in the US, where some 100 companies operate or control roughly 80% of the pipeline infrastructure. It is also a regulated market, and regulators require operators to perform some level of leak detection surveys.

James Stafford: Will Keystone XL—or the San Bruno pipeline explosion—have any notable impact on the regulatory environment or the market for remote sensing technology?

Adrian Banica: Personally I don’t think that either of these will impact the leak detection practices in the industry. Rather, the driver will be the aging pipelines which will continue to have incidents and spills which the public will not accept.

James Stafford: And how is this playing out on the regulatory scene?

Adrian Banica: Congress passed a new law a year ago on this topic. The US regulators have yet to act on new regulations based on this law, but the trend is indeed there. Pipeline companies are concerned about potential upcoming new regulations and are working with the regulators to try and come up with proactive solutions and preempt their moves. There are a lot of discussions going on in the US on this topic right now and the regulator has proposed a set of new rules which are out for comment and discussion in the industry. It is a slow and drawn out process.

James Stafford: Everyone is waiting for the Obama administration to make a decision on Keystone, and while most analysts seem to think it will be given the final green light, the protest movement shows no sign of letting up. How do you see this playing out?

Adrian Banica: With the governor of Nebraska now approving it, I think the administration has no choice and no excuses for not approving it.

James Stafford: Would regulations governing pipeline safety actually boost support for Keystone XL?

Adrian Banica: Personally, I don’t think so. The most vocal opposition for Keystone comes from the side of the environmental movement that does not want to see the pipelines build in order to decrease our overall dependence on oil rather than their concern for spills. So it is a philosophical position based on decreasing CO2 emissions rather than one based on spills in the environment which will not be appeased by regulations.

James Stafford: What about any potential regulatory protection leak detection systems could offer pipeline companies?

Adrian Banica: The benefit to our customers is that they can demonstrate due diligence and that they have employed the best techniques available to ensure pipeline integrity. They will be covered if there is any court action or regulatory action. The value of our data in case something does happen could be quite substantial.

There may be small differences in the regulations with the US being somewhat stricter and tighter than the Canadian regulations. So there are a few more incentives for US based customers to use our service.

James Stafford: Protests continue over the Enbridge pipeline in Vancouver, for instance. How could this play out. Could big pipeline players like Enbridge be able to embrace something like your technology to quell some of those protests?

Adrian Banica: This is a good case in point. Yes they absolutely could, and should. I’m very firm on that answer and I think they are looking at it. Enbridge is a customer of ours already in the United States and they’re very aware of what we offer and do.

James Stafford: So these are early days for commercial viability?

Adrian Banica: These are very early days, and we have just turned the corner from a science concept into something that is commercially realizable. We spent 2011 and 2012 working very hard to penetrate the industry and to convince clients that this is not a science project anymore—this is a genuine commercially viable technology. We are now starting to see the adoption of our technology and services. So I believe we are at the tipping point and by no means do I think that shareholders have missed the boat.

James Stafford: Adrian, thank you for your time. This has been a very interesting discussion and the topic is one we will be following closely over the coming months. Hopefully we will get a chance to talk later in the year to see if any of the developments discussed have come to pass.

Adrian Banica: Absolutely, I’d be delighted to catch up later in the year.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Can-Leak-Detection-End-the-Pipeline-Impasse-Interview-with-Adrian-Banica.html

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Filed Under: Energy, Environment, Interview Tagged With: , ,

Aubrey McClendon and the Destruction of the Natural Gas Market

February 7, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy

By. Dan Dicker of Oilprice.com

Aubrey McClendon is gone – or at least he’s on his way out from Chesapeake energy (CHK). But the destruction of the natural gas market, where he was the ringleader in the shale gas land grab and cratering well price, is his real legacy, and not likely to be recovered from anytime soon. While Aubrey will now go into a very wealthy retirement, he leaves behind a decimated market and a long road to making natural gas a true transition fuel to energy independence and a renewable future.

The market failed us, failed all of us as a nation – because it couldn’t prevent McClendon and Chesapeake from poking holes randomly through Texas and Western Pennsylvania in search of shale gas and ultimately flooding the market with it, cratering the price and its profitability. And it is margins and profitability that make markets work.

And while McClendon made himself the best paid CEO in the nation, he assured us that our necessary and important transition to natural gas would be made much more difficult, if not impossible: you just cannot support innovation without profits. It is not just "cheap gas" that is the answer to spurring economic growth, grow manufacturing and sell natural gas as a transport fuel or even as an export fuel here in the US – it is margins and it is profits.

And Chesapeake destroyed that for everyone in the gas game (and destroyed themselves too), with forced development of leases, multiple joint ventures with foreign oil companies, over leverage, over production and destruction of shareholder value to the benefit of the CEO. Natural gas is no longer a good business to be in, there are too many players, too many wells and no ready demand sources to soak up the surplus. We are further away from a natural gas future, a cleaner, greener and more independent future, and we have Aubrey McClendon to thank.

So, good riddance to the "Bernie Ebbers of Energy" – but where does that leave us in natural gas? We have a surplus not likely to end anytime soon and a price that will languish well under "excitement" levels for those that explore and produce. Without that excitement, you’ll not see any incentive to fundamentally move any closer to a natural gas future, either as a transport or as a further supplement into the electrical grid. It may be counterintuitive but true: cheap gas hasn’t done anything to promote gas. Recent proposals to convert LNG import terminals into export plants are a bizarre market reaction to a natural gas BUST – and a silly solution to what really is a US natural resource bonanza.

But that legacy is what we’re saddled with now, and makes practically everything in the natural gas space difficult to invest in. I haven’t recommended a natural gas company (save for EnCana at an opportune low) and won’t until the numbers in the market can generate some excitement again. I have no interest in E+P in natural gas, or even transport and do not believe in much in the projected export business, save for Cheniere (LNG), the lone working export terminal here in the US.

For 2013 at least and perhaps through 2014 as well, natural gas will greatly underperform almost everyone in the rest of the energy sector – and that’s the unfortunate legacy of Aubrey McClendon.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Aubrey-McClendon-and-the-Destruction-of-the-Natural-Gas-Market.html

This article should not be republished or redistributed without the permission of the original author or copyright holder.


Filed Under: Energy, Report Tagged With:

Draft Arctic Oil Spill Agreement “Inadequate”

February 6, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

arctic_ship_640-629x472

Rising temperatures mean the vast Arctic Ocean, which used to be frozen over for much of the year, is now an open shipping line for more than half the year. Credit: public domain

Joe Hitchon

WASHINGTON, Feb 06 (IPS) – Environmentalists are warning that a meeting of environment ministers that took place Monday in Sweden has agreed on a weak and inadequate response plan in case of an oil spill in the Arctic Ocean.According to Greenpeace, an environment watchdog, a leaked copy of the document suggests that the eight member states that make up a group dubbed the Arctic Council have failed to agree on the technical details necessary for dealing with a large-scale disaster, even while it opens the way for increased drilling and oil exploration in the Arctic.

“We are unimpressed by what we’ve seen from this totally inadequate document,” Ben Ayliffe, a Greenpeace campaigner based in Washington, told IPS. “It does nothing to prepare governments for dealing with disasters or for protecting the Arctic from disasters.”

According to the United Nations’ global climate office, Arctic sea ice reached its lowest level on record in 2012. That process, which overwhelming scientific data attributes to human-induced climate change, has created a virtual gold rush to the Arctic.

Rising temperatures mean the vast Arctic Ocean, which used to be frozen over for much of the year, is now an open shipping lane for more than half the year, on average. This has resulted in a scramble to lay claim to Arctic territory, which is estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey to contain 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered energy resources.

However, environmentalists are concerned that no mechanisms are in place to prevent or respond to an environmental disaster.

According to Richard Steiner, a biologist and expert on oil spills based in Alaska, this past summer, a record 46 merchant ships transited through what is known as the Northern Sea Route, a 10-fold increase from just two years ago. “There has been an extraordinary increase in shipping across the Arctic Ocean, mainly with very hazardous petroleum products on board,” Steiner told IPS.

He also warns that an increase in offshore oil and gas drilling potential in the Arctic demands robust laws. Yet, he says, the Arctic Council agreement has no technical performance standards, enforcement mechanisms or operational guidelines.

“They are charging forward with this Arctic offshore oil drilling development and shipping without the proper safeguards in place, and it’s really tragic,” Steiner said. “I’m afraid they are going to wait for a big spill disaster before putting the right systems in place.”

He added that this is what happened with the Exxon Valdez case, when an oil tanker ran aground in Alaska in 1989.

“I’m afraid this is what’s going to happen in the Arctic, too,” he continues. “Despite the lessons learned … very little has changed as far as prevention policy is concerned.”

No proven capacity

The Arctic Council, established in 1996, is made up of states with territory in the Arctic, and comprises Canada, Denmark (including Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. The new oil spill treaty will be formally voted upon by members in May, and would become the second binding agreement reached by the Arctic Council since a search-and-rescue agreement was signed in 2011.

Yet Ayliffe says the document doesn’t adequately deal with the complex issues involved with a potential spill.

“It’s a nightmare scenario,” Ayliffe says. “The technical difficulties of responding to a disaster a mile beneath the ice make the kind of operation that BP had to do in the Gulf impossible in the Arctic.”

Despite earlier assurances by the Arctic Council that any agreement would include specific environmental protections, including oil spill recovery and prevention strategies, Ayliffe says the agreement “fails to outline any essential response equipment, methods for capping wells, or cleaning up oil-affected habitat and wildlife, relying instead on vague statements of steps Arctic nations should take within available resources.”

The document contains ambiguous language regarding oil spills, only asking countries to take “appropriate steps” to deal with a spill, without specifying clear demands or requirements. It also lacks guidelines relating to the liability of oil companies in case of a disaster or guidelines on how to adequately deal with a spill.

“No oil company has ever proven it can respond to an oil spill in ice, and the agreement offers nothing in regard to how a company would stop or clean up a Deepwater Horizon-style disaster,” Ayliffe said, referring to the massive 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico, when nearly five million barrels of oil spewed from a blown oil well in the sea floor for nearly three months.

“We are hoping that, because of the outrage that has been caused by this document, before the May vote there will be time to fill some of the holes.”

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Energy, Environment, Report Tagged With: ,

Hydroelectric Project Threatens Chile’s Lake Neltume

February 6, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

lake_neltume_640-629x167

Panoramic view of Lake Neltume. Credit: Marianela Jarroud/IPS

Marianela Jarroud

SANTIAGO, Feb 06 (IPS) – “This is paradise and they want to destroy it. This has had an enormous psychological impact on us,” says Guido Melinao, leader of the Mapuche indigenous community of Valeriano Cayicul, referring to the Neltume hydroelectric power plant project planned by the Spanish-Italian consortium Endesa-Enel.The plant, to be built with an investment of 781 million dollars, would have an installed capacity of 490 megawatts and generate an estimated average of 1,885 gigawatt-hours of electricity annually.

In addition to the hydropower plant, which will be run with the waters of the Fuy River and empty into Lake Neltume, Endesa-Enel’s plans also include the construction of a high-tension power line to distribute the electricity through Chile’s Central Interconnected System.

The project was submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment System in February 2010, but was withdrawn after receiving more than 500 observations. It was resubmitted in December of the same year.

In January 2011, the governmental Regional Council turned the project down, on the grounds that it was incompatible with local and community development policies, plans and programmes.

Nevertheless, there has still been no official final decision on the plant’s construction.

The town of Neltume is located in the municipality of Panguipulli, 860 kilometres south of Santiago. The area, known as Siete Lagos (Seven Lakes), is one of the most popular tourism destinations during high season in the Región de Los Ríos (Region of Rivers).

It is an area rich in natural heritage, with a wealth of forests, rivers, streams, lakes and lagoons.

The area has also served as “a refuge for communities who have managed to establish and maintain their own spaces despite the expansion of the forestry industry in the 20th century,” Juan Carlos Skewes, director of the Department of Anthropology at Alberto Hurtado University, told IPS.

“The way in which these communities populate their territory reflects ancient, archaeological patterns,” explained Skewes. These include “the placement of settlements in sites with a view of the sunrise, and the attempt to always maintain the connection between the volcano and the lake.”

Lake Neltume is surrounded by Andes mountain peaks and offers a view of the Choshuenco volcano.

The “rewe” or totem that is a fundamental part of the ceremonial complex of the Huilliche or Southern Mapuche indigenous people who inhabit the area is placed on one of the lake’s shores.

Jorge Weke, the "werkén" (spokesperson) of the Koz Koz Parliament of Panguipulli, told IPS that the company intends to “desecrate this complex, which would be a sacrilege".

Skewes noted that this complex “is not visible to Chileans and is scarcely documented in the literature. We are talking about a practice that dates back at least 700 years from an archaeological perspective and has remained intact until today.”

At the bottom of the lake there is “a kind of underwater archaeological site that only the Mapuche are aware of,” composed of the bones of bulls, offered up as sacrifices in their ceremonies.

The hydropower plant project will raise the water level of the lake, and as a result, the lakeshore where the rewe is placed will be submerged underwater. The water temperature will also be altered, which will have repercussions for the area’s biodiversity, noted Skewes.

The bones deposited in the lake bed will be moved as well.

In the belief system of the Mapuche, a central role is played by the “ngen” or spirit masters of nature. Each element of nature – the forest, air, water, etc. – has its own specific master who must be respected. If the ngen are not properly respected, they will leave and take with them the element of nature that they govern, explained Skewes.

As a result, the torrential rains that fell during the last "nguillatún" (a religious ceremony), held in December, were viewed by the local Mapuche communities as a “terrible omen”.

“Not only because it rained heavily, but because the rain raised the water level in the lake to the level it would reach if the hydroelectric plant project goes through. This is why they ended up praying to the spirits standing in the water,” he added.

This has caused “tremendous stress” for the Mapuche, who view the behaviour of the weather “as a reflection of the behaviour of human beings".

Local Mapuche communities have also protested over the dozens of species of medicinal plants that will be destroyed by the project, including orange ball trees (Buddleja globosa), canelo (Drimys winteri) and Chilean laurel (Laurelia sempervirens).

There are currently five communities, made up of hundreds of people, opposed to the power plant.

Only one group from the community of Juan Quintumán is in favour of it, although its leaders declined to share their reasons for supporting the project for this story. However, it is public knowledge that some community members have received money, construction materials for housing repairs, livestock and feed from the company.

These differing stances towards the project have led to rivalries between communities, which will persist for generations to come, believes Skewes. “This is creating internal divisions that run very deep,” he said.

In a press release dated Jan. 21, Endesa Chile stated that it “has been present in the community of Juan Quintumán and the towns of Neltume, Choshuenco and Puerto Fuy since 2007, maintaining close working ties that have resulted in the development of numerous projects in areas like culture, infrastructure, health and education.”

Skewes criticised the “public insanity” of the Chilean government, for attempting to promote a supposed dialogue on equal footing between a multinational consortium and an indigenous family living in the vicinity of Lake Neltume.

For now, the project’s opponents have refused to participate in the consultation established in the country’s new environmental law. In their view, it is being imposed as an alternative to the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169, which requires that indigenous and tribal peoples be consulted on projects that affect them.

Weke travelled to Italy to present his people’s opposition to the project to the Enel board of directors. Melinao, for his part, has visited the embassies of both Italy and Spain in Santiago, and declared that “we will die fighting for our land.”

* This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Energy, Environment, Featured, Latin America Tagged With: ,

Solar Streetlights Light the Way Toward Green Energy in Caribbean

February 4, 2013 by

Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS

Desmond Brown

St. Kitts residents welcome solar streetlights in areas they say have been too dark and prone to crime. Credit: Desmond Brown/IPS

BASSETERRE, St. Kitts, Feb 02 (IPS) – The tiny federation of St. Kitts-Nevis and its larger neighbour to the north, Jamaica, are leading the Caribbean’s search for new ways to become more energy efficient by installing new solar streetlights, a green alternative to traditional ones.In St. Kitts, the project is a collaborative effort between the government of Denzil Douglas and Taiwan, which have had diplomatic relations for the past 28 years. The Federation of St. Kitts-Nevis is one of a handful of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries to have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, as most of the others have diplomatic relations with mainland China.

"During the past year, we have successfully placed solar panels on the roof of Government Headquarters and set smart LED lights on the Kim Collins Highway and Frigate Bay Road," the resident Taiwanese ambassador, Miguel Tsao, told IPS. "Both ventures are significant and important. Also these projects were initiated with our joint efforts to tap into the unlimited clean energy source."

Instead of relying on fossil fuel, Tsao wants to see citizens doing their part to harness renewable energy to help make the vision of a green island a reality. The diplomat added that there are other important initiatives planned for the island, including the establishment of the first ever solar-farm and the second phase of an Agro-Tourism Demonstration Farm early in 2013.

Benefits of solar lights

The solar streetlights were installed by the Taiwanese company Speed Tech Energy. "It’s a unique Cobra design. The lamp pole is solid steel and type and it can resist wind speeds of up to 250 kilometres per hour," Lucas Chiu, the company’s general manager, told IPS.

Solar panels convert the sunlight into electricity during the day, and the generated electricity is stored in a battery.

Chiu explained that in cloudy or rainy days the batteries will still charge at 15 to 30 percent. Streetlights will function for three nights (for 13 hours each night), even during periods of continuous rainy days.

Orville Liddie, a 29-year-old local resident, told IPS that there were no lights in those areas for several years and that the solar streetlights could not have come at a better time. "To me it’s a benefit to the communities where the lights have been installed because before the lights there were extremely dark spots," he said.

"I am a driver and I have always been concerned that when you are driving through those areas at night people could jump out into the road and put road blocks or there could be very serious accidents. I was particularly concerned for the bus drivers because criminals could hold them up at those dark spots at knife point or even at gunpoint," Liddie added.

Nevis, the smaller island in the twin-island federation, is also showing its neighbours in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) that it is a leader in the area of generating clean and efficient energy and reducing energy costs, in spite of its small geographic and population size.

In 2010, the 13-kilometre-long island with a mere 12,000 residents, launched the first wind farm ever to be commissioned in the OECS with a promise to provide jobs for islanders, a reliable supply of wind energy, cheaper electricity and reduction in surcharge and the use of imported oils.

The island has been lauded by officials of the Bill Clinton Climate Change Initiative for its efforts towards a "Green Nevis". During a recent visit, a delegation from the Clinton Climate Change Initiative led by Councilor Jan Hartke and Ambassador Paoli Zampolli held discussions with island officials on work that has already been done to move from fossil to alternative energy on Nevis.

"We have been delighted to see how the government has taken the lead and has mobilised the endeavor to bring geothermal to Nevis, and we will help the government with consultation in an effort to make alternative energy a reality on the island," said Hartke.

He noted that the Bill Clinton Climate Change Initiative aims to bring down the enormous electricity rates in small island states through alternative resources, with the assistance of wind, solar or waste energy.

Jamaica’s efforts

Jamaica is implementing its streetlight energy-saving initiative jointly with the United States-based technology and engineering solutions firm, Green Energy RG LLC.

A government statement said the aim is to significantly reduce the cost to the budget to maintain the country’s approximately 93,000 streetlights, which totals upwards of 2 billion Jamaican dollars per year.

On Jan. 8, the first set of solar-powered light emitting diode (LED) fixtures were installed at Osbourne Store, a community in the central parish of Clarendon.

"We hope to be able to proceed to install lights all over Clarendon and then into other parts of Jamaica. We hope that we will be able to complete the programme…by midyear, and then we can evaluate the results and determine where we go from there," the country’s local government and community development minister, Noel Arscott said.

Arscott said the pilot phase will see some 5,000 LED panels being installed in Clarendon as well as sections of St. Catherine and Kingston and St. Andrew. Additionally, he said the ministry’s offices at Hagley Park Road in the capital Kingston would also be retrofitted with energy saving solutions.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2013.

This article may not be republished, broadcast, framed, or redistributed without the written permission of IPS – Inter Press Service. Republication of this material without permission from IPS, the copyright holder, constitutes a violation of United States and international copyright laws and may result in legal action.


Filed Under: Americas, Development, Energy, Featured Tagged With: , ,
«Older Posts