Only when oil goes for $ 500 a barrel will we get serious about giving it up . Yes? - Page 3

Samia · 07-18-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by suchandra

Meanwhile the companies producing these green energy products all belong to the same people who sell the fossil fuels. And how could it be otherwise, the acquisition costs of all these solar and wind energy paraphernalia no average earner can afford - the whole thing only pays off after 20 years of heavy deffered payment. And in case someone is unable to pay, his whole real estate confiscated by his principal bank.

"I can pay it, but I have nothing left over to eat," says Cambero..........
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...ver-usat_x.htm

Well the big oil people are finally seeing the cash in wind and solar but right now most of the money is being made by buying your right to be an energy hog ( carbon credits ) and take a look at who owns most of those trading companies, the same folks spreading the misinformation.
True energy freedom will NEVER happen in America because most alternative sources are like you said too expensive for the average people to afford and most of them are really untested in large scale long term use.
The real way to change is by simply cutting back and not eating meat

suchandra · 07-19-2008, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samia

Well the big oil people are finally seeing the cash in wind and solar but right now most of the money is being made by buying your right to be an energy hog ( carbon credits ) and take a look at who owns most of those trading companies, the same folks spreading the misinformation.
True energy freedom will NEVER happen in America because most alternative sources are like you said too expensive for the average people to afford and most of them are really untested in large scale long term use.
The real way to change is by simply cutting back and not eating meat

Wonder why people accept all this. Biogas systems - gas produced from cow manure is in India affordable for anyone who keeps 10 cows.
In the West they installed a situation where average farmers can never pay for such a biogas system. They installed a couple of such biogas systems obviously just for fun to show people that they have the knowledge but for normal people impose conditions that make it impossible to produce biogas.

Quote:

A program local farmers can take part in to build systems that convert agricultural waste into clean energy is already getting criticized.
The 9 million dollar program announced yesterday is to help farmers and rural businesses carry out feasibility studies for the installation of biogas systems.
Applicants can receive up to 40 per cent of funding needed to set up the systems, to a maximum of 400-thousand dollars.
Biogas systems are fuelled by renewable materials such as manure, crops, crop residues and food processing byproducts. The biogas can be used like natural gas to fuel electrical generators, engines, boilers and burners.
But Susan Antler, of the Composting Council, says the program lacks environmental controls.

Got Biogas? Cow Power to Light Up 50,000 California Homes

photo originally uploaded by troymckaskle

A California startup founded by a dairyman turned entrepreneur has signed an agreement to supply up to 3 billion cubic feet of bovine biogas - methane extracted from cow manure - to utility PG&E (PCG). That's enough cow power - 30 to 50 megawatts - to light up about 50,000 homes and keep a small natural gas plant running for a year. The deal between Bakersfield-based BioEnergy Solutions and PG&E of San Francisco highlights the win-win-win potential of renewable energy - and how global warming laws are creating opportunities for relatively low-tech solutions by companies far outside the Silicon Valley orbit.

In this case, cow power is good for the environment, the economy and entrepreneurs like BioEnergy's David Albers. California is home to nearly 2 million cows and more than 2,000 dairies. Unlike the coastal cows enjoying the ocean view in the photo above, most California cows live on industrial-scale dairies in the Central Valley. Those operations produce enormous quantities of manure and thus methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases. The resulting air and water pollution and other environmental impacts have resulted in stricter state regulations on dairying in recent years. Albers, who also is an attorney, has represented his fellow dairy owners in their tangles with regulators and environmentalists.
California, meanwhile, has imposed a mandate that 20 percent of electricity sold by investor-owned utilities like PG&E, Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) come from renewable energy sources by 2010. That's making cow poop look profitable as source of really natural gas. "We found the perfect storm of opportunity," Albers told Green Wombat. "It’s such a great solution on so many levels, given the air quality problems in the Central Valley and the renewable energy mandate." Albers started BioEnergy Solutions last year and began negotiating with PG&E, which had just signed a cow power deal with a company called Microgy. Like its competitor, BioEnergy Solutions will install methane digesters at dairies, where manure will be pumped into covered lagoons. As methane is released from the decomposing manure, the digester will remove the carbon dioxide and impurities before piping the gas to a PG&E plant to be burned to produce greenhouse gas-free electricity. Albers says BioEnergy will install and operate the digesters at no cost to dairy owners while giving them a share of the gas sales (he wouldn't say how much) and any renewable energy credits that result. "Even though there’s been a lot of digester technology out there, there's never been a situation where the dairyman can share in the profits," Albers says.

The first digester will be installed at Albers own 3,000-cow dairy in Fresno County this spring and he expects gas to begin flowing to a PG&E plant by summer through existing pipelines. BioEnergy will need to install between 20 and 30 digesters over the next two-and-a-half years to supply 3 billion cubic feet of methane gas annually to the utility at market rates. Albers declined to reveal BioEnergy's funding but said the company is self-financed.
There's still plenty of room on the range for prospective cow power pioneers. The BioEnergy contract will supply just 10 percent of the 30 billion cubic feet of gas typically used by a single large natural gas power plant each year, according to PG&E spokesman Keely Wachs. The big question, of course, is whether renewable energy startups will be able to step up and meet the ambitious targets set by PG&E and other utilities.

suchandra · 07-29-2008, 11:14 AM

Honor to whom honor is due! At least they are not lost for words, after all quite nice profit.

From Times Online

July 29, 2008
BP profits hit record $13.4bn on soaring oil price

Robin Pagnamenta
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle4420895.ece

BP, the British oil giant, unveiled a 23 per cent rise in profits this morning, boosted by record global crude prices.
Replacement cost profit, which strips out unrealised gains from changes in the value of fuel stocks, hit a record $13.44 billion (£6.7 billion) during the first half of the year, up from $10.93 billion a year ago.
During the second quarter to June 30 2008, profits rose from $6.48 billion to an all-time high of $6.85 billion.
Despite the record result, the company said that it was struggling to restore earnings from its troubled US refining division and offered little news on TNK-BP, its Russian joint venture.

BP is currently engaged in a row with its Russian joint-venture partners over control of TNK-BP, and last week its chief executive, Robert Dudley, fled Moscow and is running the business from a secret location.
Today's results showed that the bulk of gains were derived from BP’s exploration and production division, which benefited from “higher oil and gas realisations” during the period.
Oil prices averaged more than $120 a barrel in the second quarter, nearly twice the level during the same period of 2007. Crude touched an all-time high of $147 per barrel just a few days after the end of the quarter, on July 11.
The company also reported an improvement in throughput from its troubled refining operation but said that margins had been badly squeezed during the period, wiping out any potential financial gain.
Refinery throughputs increased to 2.239 million barrels per day, up from 2.128 million a year ago, reflecting continued efforts to resolve safety and technical problems at its facilities at Texas City and Whiting, Indiana in the US.
However, BP said replacement cost profits from refining and marketing had plunged to $539 million during the second quarter, down from $2.7 billion a year ago.
The company blamed the result on poor refining margins, which it said remained “significantly lower” than in 2007, as well as lower sales volumes resulting from “higher fuel prices and lower demand”.
Average global refining margins, at $8.19 per barrel for the quarter, were less than half the $16.66 posted a year ago, although they were an improvement on $4.57 in the first quarter of 2008.
BP acknowledged that “a number of differences” had arisen between BP and AAR, its Russian joint venture partner in TNK-BP. It said it continued to work to resolve these matters but that it was “currently not possible to predict the outcome”.
The oil giant said overall oil production levels were broadly steady at 3.83 million barrels per day.
BP shares rose 1.88 per cent to 529p in morning trade.

suchandra · 07-31-2008, 01:06 PM

11.15am BST update

Shell announces £2m an hour profits

Shell stoked the furore over high petrol and wider fuel prices today by reporting profits of nearly $8bn (£4bn) in the second quarter of the year, equivalent to £2m an hour.
The figures were boosted by earnings from the company's controversial oil sands business in North America which increased their earnings by 74% over the last three months.
But Jeroen van der Veer, the Shell chief executive, warned that talk of windfall taxes against the energy companies would be unfair and counterproductive. "Let's hope it does not happen," he said. "I don't see why it will help consumers in the long term."
Shell argues that it is investing more heavily in new oil and gas production than ever before to meet soaring demand and a windfall tax would damage its ability to provide supplies into the future. The company also says that the British government should not tax profits made in other parts of the world.
Profits in Canada - from tar sands - should be invested in Canada, said Van der Veer. "I fail to see why the UK can tax that away," he added.
Van der Veer was speaking as Shell unveiled second-quarter earnings on a current cost of supplies basis of $7.9bn as against $7.6bn for the same period of 2007. But underlying earnings were estimated by the oil company at $8.6bn, up 26% on last year.
The company declined to say how much it had earned from British motorists at its network of petrol service stations but it insisted it was "one of the cheapest" suppliers and pointed out that its overall refining and marketing business had been having a rough period with big profits coming from exploration and production.
A doubling of the oil price to $120 per barrel across the quarter drove those profits while Shell admitted that its overall oil and gas production fell slightly to 3.1m barrels of oil equivalent per day in the second quarter 2008, from 3.1m in the same quarter last year.
The company was hit by civil unrest in Nigeria and changes to its tar sands business but the carbon-intensive operation in Canada still produced earnings of $351m, up 74%. Van der Veer dismissed threats of boycotts by ethical investment funds over the tar sands operation saying they should be careful because failure to exploit unconventional sources of new oil could leave the world using more coal.

Shell said its spending on organic capital investment will increase to $30-31bn this year, up from a planned $28-29bn, and reflecting rising costs and the weak dollar. It also expects to spend $10bn on acquisitions.

suchandra · 08-12-2008, 12:07 AM

Get ready for Rs2.5/litre hike on fuel every month!
2008-08-11 10:40:00
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/...11018-3-1.html
Commodity Online
NEW DELHI: Are you ready to pay Rs 2.5 extra for every litre of petrol that you fill in your car every month? Yes, Rs2.5/litre hike on petrol and Rs0.75/litre for diesel every month may be a reality in India, if the government approves a report from an expert committee on oil pricing.

Global crude oil prices have cooled down, and many Indians these days hope that the Indian government may reverse the decision to hike in petrol and petroleum products prices it had effected in June.

But get ready for your hopes to be dashed. The B K Chaturvedi Committee that the government has set up to study the oil pricing mechanism and financial problems faced by oil companies has suggested that fuel prices in India should be raised every month.

It has recommended the government to hike the petrol prices by Rs.25 a litre and diesel prices by Rs 0.75 a litre every month to ensure that fuel prices in India would match global prices by the year 2010.

"This is a recommendation by the Chaturvedi Committee that has looked into the financial problems faced by oil companies in India. The government may not accept this suggestion," a senior official in the Ministry of Petroleum told Commodity Online.

The Committee has suggested to drop the import duties on petrol and diesel and fix the prices at which refineries sell fuel to the oil marketing companies.

It has also called for a city-specific dual fuel pricing mechanism across India.

India hiked petrol and diesel prices in June. Accordingly, in New Delhi, the cost of petrol and diesel rose to Rs 45.52 and 31.76, respectively. In Mumbai, petrol rose to 50.52 and diesel to Rs 36.08. In Kolkata, petrol and diesel prices went up by Rs 48.95 and Rs 33.92, respectively. In Chennai, petrol rose to Rs 49.61 and diesel to Rs 34.40.