Author: admin

  • Oil prices lowest in 18 months

    Inventories down: Meteorologists at Weather Derivatives have said demand for heating oil in the US north-east, which has the world’s largest heating fuel appetite, should remain 40 per cent below normal levels until January 11. The weakening in demand is also apparent in the level of US oil inventories, which expanded last week.

    Unsettling for OPEC: The speed with which prices had wilted could unsettle producers in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which have been struggling over the last few months to nudge crude back up over $US60 a barrel. Broker Michael Davies predicted that if the warm weather persisted, OPEC could be forced to defend a level of $US50 a barrel. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, announced two production cuts near the end of last year totalling 1.7 million barrels a day in a bid to shore up prices.

    The Canberra Times, 8/1/2007, p.11 Provided by eRisk

  • U.S. competes with India and China for Oil

    Former US secretary of defence James Schlesinger, the co-chairman of the group writing a report on US oil dependency, said the oil dependence of China and India should be a concern, noting Beijing had already negotiated with rogue and "near-rogue" states such as Iran and Sudan to secure future oil resources, The Australian Financial Review (20/12/06, p.10) reports.

    Competition with India, China: It also puts the United States in competition with China and India for oil imports, says the report, titled ‘National security consequences of US oil dependency’. “At best these trends will challenge US foreign policy; at worst, they will seriously strain relations between the United States and these countries,” the report by a 26-member group says.

    Managing dependence: "The central task for the next two decades must be to manage the consequences of dependence on oil, not to pretend the US can eliminate it," the report says, adding that energy issues must be integrated with – but not be central to – US foreign policy.

    The Australian Financial Review, 20/12/2006, p.10 Provided by eRisk

  • Caltex embraces bio-fuels

    Caltex says it has achieved its year-end target of over 100 Caltex-supplied service stations selling ethanol blended petrol, says The Australian Financial Review (22/12/06, p.13).

    E10 at 125 stations: E10 Unleaded petrol, blended with 10 per cent ethanol, is now sold at over 125 service stations in the Caltex network from Canberra to Cairns. This has doubled availability within the network in just six months.

    Biodiesel added: All diesel fuel supplied from the Caltex distribution terminal in Newcastle is New Generation Diesel, enhanced with two per cent biodiesel. Over 235 service stations supplied by Caltex new sell E10 Unleaded petrol or New Generation Diesel, or both.
    Caltex supplies a range of biodiesel blends to commercial customers in New South Wales and South Australia.

    Ready for increasing demand: Caltex has terminal and blending facilities in place to support increasing demand for biofuels, with plans to expand into new and existing markets. More service stations selling E10 Unleaded are also planned.

    The Australian Financial Review, 22-26/12/2006, p.13  Provided by eRisk

  • Energy Australia drops 100% green power

    EnergyAustralia’s 100% GreenPower accredited product, known as PureEnergy 100, will no longer be offered to residential customers as a green energy tariff from 11 December, 2006.

    GreenFuture is no longer offered as a green energy tariff. EnergyAustralia’s new green energy tariffs apply to customers who choose one of EnergyAustralia’s green energy options and are supplied under a contract with EnergyAustralia. The regulated retail tariffs and charges applying from 1 July 2006 remain unchanged.

    Green Energy Tariffs – PureEnergy 10 (10% GreenPower accredited): PureEnergy 10 can be purchased for a contribution of: $12.00 (exc GST) or $13.20 (Ind GST) per quarter for all current residential tariffs: and $15.00 (exc GST) or $16.50 (inc GST) per quarter for current business tariffs where annual consumption is less than 15MWh.

    PureEnergy Premium can be purchased for a contribution of: $99.00 (exc GST) or $108.90 (inc GST) per quarter for all current residential tariffs: and $123.00 (exc GST) or $135.30 (inc GST) per quarter for current business tariffs where annual consumption is less than 15MWh.

    PureEnergy 100 (100% GreenPower accredited): PureEnergy 100 can be purchased for a contribution of 4.2500c/kWh ext GST (4.6750c/kWh inc GST) on the variable energy component (c/kWh rates) for all current busines tariffs.

  • NSW does not have CO2 dumps

    Sourced from eRisk  

    Potential carbon dioxide storage sites in the Gippsland, Bass or Otway Basins are likely to be well beyond coastal waters and therefore subject primarily to Commonwealth legislative power, says a report to the Australian Greenhouse Office.

    No suitable sites in NSW: Geological studies have, as yet, found no suitable site for geosequestration located in New South Wales, and recent policy statements from the NSW Government do not indicate that it is considering geosequestration as a solution to greenhouse emissions.

    NSW Benchmark Scheme: NSW has adopted a unique Greenhouse Benchmark Scheme to address the issue of greenhouse emissions. The scheme requires electricity retailers and other parties to meet mandatory targets for abating the emission of greenhouse gases from electricity production and use. The Greenhouse Benchmark Scheme promotes capture of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in forests as an activity which will facilitate the issue of an abatement certificate under the Scheme. However, the sequestration of carbon dioxide in onshore or offshore natural Reservoirs is not contemplated.

    Reference: "A Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office on Property Rights and Associated Liability Issues, 2005", p.56-57. Contact: The Communications Director, Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Heritage, GPO Box 787, Canberra ACT 2601, email: communications@greenhouse.gov.au website: http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/publications

  • Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

    Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington

    ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

    Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

    The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

    Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

    “As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

    The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

    Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

    Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

    Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.

    Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme:

    Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment

    A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels

    A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb

    Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”.

    The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.

    Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.

    Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.

    Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.

    Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

    Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.

    The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel.

    However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.

    Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil.

    Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”