-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
Petroleum Product Price Reforms: Now is the Time
The Centre for Resources Management, ORF organized a focus group meeting on the need for reforms in pricing petroleum products on 9th February 2009 at its
Mr Sunjoy Joshi who leads the Energy Group at ORF identified ‘policies that ensure investments in energy and energy infrastructure to keep pace with economic development, elimination of ad-hochism and establishing a level playing field for all players’ as key issues for deliberation in the meeting.
The Chair of the session, Mr S C Tripathi, former Secretary, Petroleum, GoI emphasized autonomy for the Petroleum Regulator as the key means towards the above goals.
In his key note address, Professor Arjun Sengupta, well known economist and the Chairman of the National Commission for Enterprises in the unorganized sector argued that market rationality cannot be indiscriminately applied to petroleum product pricing in
He acknowledged that predictability in policy as well as a level playing field were essential in the sector. He called for a formula based approach in pricing petroleum products towards ensuring price stability for the end users.
Mr Surya P Sethi, Principal Advisor (Energy) to the Planning Commission drew attention to the close link between the issue of taxation and the issue of pricing petroleum products in
Mr P Raghavendran, Vice Chairman, Petrofed informed that
He sought clarification over the dilemma of redistributive interventions such as taxes and subsidies being imposed on the price of the same petroleum product. He called for subsidies to be supported by direct budgetary provisions rather than through ad-hoc adjustments.
Mr Dipankar Mukherjee, former MP Rajya Sabha who also served as a member of the Standing Committee on Petroleum & Chemicals argued in favour of a cost based approach to pricing petroleum products at the refinery gate as opposed to the existing trade parity pricing and emphasized the need for the Government to have the final say over petroleum product prices.
Mr Manish Tiwari, spokesperson for the Congress Party favoured greater autonomy for the Petroleum Regulator as the means to introduce a greater degree of fairness in the industry.
He said that there was no rationale for the Government to cede its sovereign power over taxation to a Regulator but observed that subsidies concerned problems in public distribution systems and governance at the State level was the key to subsidy reforms.
In his view, devolving pricing authority to the regulator could be a judicious measure as it would shield the Government of the day from political fall-outs.
Mr R P Sharma, President, Reliance LNG business, commented that the absence of provisions beyond authorization of laying pipelines and city gas distribution in the Petroleum & Natural Gas Regulatory Act was a significant hurdle in heralding price reforms in the petroleum segment.
Mr M B Lal, Member, Appellate Tribunal (P & NG) agreed with Mr Sharma and added that notification of petroleum products and natural gas is matter for regulatory consideration.
He called for greater transparency in the matter of sharing the subsidy burden through mechanisms such as oil bonds to reduce uncertainty in budgetary planning by public sector oil companies.
There was a consensus among participants on the need for policy makers to undertake measures that would correct the current pricing and subsidy regime that is distorting markets and straining the fiscal environment. It was suggested that ORF should draft a policy brief exploring alternatives to the existing structures.
Source: indianpetro.com
Impact of Power Sector on Social and Environmental Issues: Remedies (part V)
Shankar Sharma, Consultant to Electricity Industry
Continued from Volume V, Issue No. 33…
T |
he combined impact of all these proposed additional capacities is to defeat the avowed policy of the government to make honest efforts to check the growth in GHG emission, and to reduce suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere. Additionally, there will be unhealthy competition developing for land, water and other natural resources by different sectors of our economy. All these will not be in the interest of the society, which will witness massive deterioration of environment and increased social unrests with disastrous consequences.
The recent past experiences of popular opposition to large power projects at Silent valley in Kerala; Bedthi, Nandikur, Tadadi, Hanukon, Chamalapura, Gundia in Karnataka; Girye in Maharastra, Narmada Bachao Andolan, North-East etc. should serve as clear indications of things to come in a conflict situation between electricity requirement on one hand and social and environmental priorities on the other.
While the legitimate demand for energy of all sections of the society is needed for the societal development, the same should not result in unsustainable levels of pressure on the environment and local communities. It is in this background the ever increasing conflict between electricity and environment should be a matter of great concern. As a welfare society we have to seriously review our past policies of adding electricity generating capacities based on conventional technologies which have been done without taking a holistic view of the real costs and benefits of such options to the entire society.
Our society would do well to recognise that the conventional technology power projects based on fossil fuels or large dams or nuclear fissile materials will not only degrade our life sustaining ecosystems, but also cause huge socio-economic problems. It is very pertinent to note that there are unambiguous requirements under our constitution to protect the environment. Article 48A says: “Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.—The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.”
Article 51A says: “Fundamental duties—It shall be the duty of every citizen of
(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.”
The seemingly intractable conflict between electricity requirement on one hand and social and environment on the other should be replaced by a balanced approach, which is eminently feasible with a holistic approach to the needs of different sectors of our economy.
5. INTEGRATED ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: ALETRNATIVE PATH FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
In view of the adverse impact of conventional technology electric power generation processes on the environment and on fresh water resources there is a critical need to find suitable benign alternatives to meet the legitimate demand for electricity of all sections of society on a sustainable basis. In this regard an integrated resource management approach involving the optimal utilization of existing electricity infrastructure, effective demand side management, rational level of electrical energy conservation, along with maximum deployment of renewable energy sources can provide a sustainable solution for the society.
The inefficiency prevailing in Indian Power sector, as depicted in table 4 (please refer volume V, issue 31), shows that there is a huge scope to add virtual generation capacity equivalent to thousands of MW by improving the efficiency of the existing electricity infrastructure to international standards. It will not be an exaggeration to suggest that such efficiency improvement alone can reduce the effective demand on the integrated electricity grid by as much as 30 - 40%.
It must be emphasised that these measures alone, if implemented earnestly, can do away with our deficits for few years to come without the need for additional capacities. These efficiency improvement measures can come at much lower costs as compared to new generating capacities. Without improving the overall efficiency of the power sector massive investments in additional generation capacity will be a huge drain on our environment and economy, and the energy security can never be assured.
Being a tropical country,
Consensus is emerging among the scientists and engineers that effective use of new & renewable energy sources is imperative to keep the GHG emissions within the required limits.
A major constraint in harnessing fully the renewable energy sources has been their perceived high costs. It should be noted that the real cost to the society of the conventional energy sources is much higher than that is being shown in account books because many of the societal costs such as the social, environmental and health costs of such sources are not truly reflected in prices. If we compare objectively the real societal costs of the two sets of sources, there will be no doubt that the renewable energy sources have much lower societal costs and much higher benefits. In view of the serious issues of large scale population displacement, pollution related health problems, fast deteriorating environment etc. which are confronting the modern society all over the world, there is a real urgency that the effective cost of various energy options are arrived at after taking into account all costs, both direct and indirect, to the society. It is because of the lack of such an approach that the modern society is battling with the environmental emergency called Global Warming. Whereas the price of electricity from conventional energy sources is continuously increasing, price of electricity from renewable energy sources is continuously decreasing. The developed countries have engaged in energy profligacy, as though nothing else matters; even the all critical environment.
Table 8 N&RE potential in
|
Potential (Grid interactive power only) |
1. Wind energy |
45,000 MW |
2. Small hydro |
15,000 MW |
3. Solar |
Over 5,000 trillion kWH/year Potential (estimated to be more than the total energy needs of the country) |
4. Bio-mass |
17,000 MW |
5. Ocean Wave |
With about 7,000 Km of coastal line it should be huge, but no estimates available |
Source: Ministry of N&RES
It is not inconceivable to meet most of our electricity needs without basing our policy on coal power. A recent report by Earth Policy Institute,
Table 9 Alternatives available for Karnataka to meet its electricity demand
Technique |
Estimated Potential for savings |
R, M & U (renovation, modernization and up-gradation) |
160 MW / 800 MU |
T&D loss reduction |
1,100 MW / 7,000 MU |
Utilisation loss reduction - non-agricultural |
1,100 MW / 4,300 MU |
Utilisation loss reduction - agricultural |
100 MW peak demand savings and 2,500 MU energy |
Wind energy |
600 MW /2,100 MU |
Biomass |
480 MW / 2,000 MU |
Solar – Water heating |
2,100 MW during 1,050 MW during Evening peak / 1,100 MU |
Solar –residential lighting |
300 MW / 600 MU |
Solar - water pumping for IP sets |
1,000 MW / 3,200 MU energy |
Solar - Public and commercial lighting |
40 MW / 640 MU |
Source: Compiled from various sources including Integrated Energy Policy, Planning Commission
To demonstrate how an Integrated Energy Resource Management approach has the potential to change the way we look at our electricity demand / supply scenario, a pilot study of the Karnataka’s power system was undertaken as shown in the Annexure.
In this model Karnataka’s electricity demand was projected upto 2018 at an annual compounded growth rate (ACGR) of 7% starting from the base year 2006 for which, authentic figures were available. In this model the ACGR is shown to reduce by 0.5% each year to take into account the reduction in demand possible because of the all-round efficiency improvements expected to occur in the society.
This model takes into account the conservatively estimated benefits which can be obtained by deploying various efficiency improvement measures and renewable energy sources as in table 9, and compares the demand V/S supply scenario for next 10 years.
It demonstrates that various efficiency improvement measures can reduce the effective demand on the integrated power grid of Karnataka from a level of 9,281 MW of peak power (and 51,300 MU of annual energy) in 2018 under the business as usual scenario to about 4,300 MW of peak power (and 27,100 MU).
As indicated in table 5 (please refer volume V, issue 31), a peak power demand of 5,600 MW and 39,200 MU of annual energy in Karnataka was actually met in the year 2007-08. These two sets of numbers demonstrate that Karnataka’s power grid can be even surplus by year 2018 by implementing the improvement measures in table 9. In addition to this if we also take into account the additional generation projects already committed to in Karnataka and South India, there can be a comfortable power situation in the near future without having to plan for more of conventional projects.
Such potential benefits indicate that these options can provide additionally an equivalent of about 5,300 MW peak hour support and 25,000 MU per year energy to Karnataka. At the prevailing cost of new generation capacity based on conventional technology (@about Rs. 5 Crores / MW), to get 5,300 MW of additional generating capacity a direct additional investment of about Rs. 26,000 Crores would be needed in addition to many indirect costs to the society.
Of the 5,300 MW of potential benefits available to Karnataka from alternative sources (as indicated in the table 9 above), about 2,500 MW can be obtained by efficiency improvement, energy conservation and DSM measures in the existing infrastructure.
As the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) has estimated, at the prevailing cost of additional electricity generation, it costs a unit of energy about one fourth the cost to save than to produce it with new capacity. As per this universal experience it requires only about Rs. 3,100 crores for saving power equivalent of 2,500 MW, whereas the cost of additional generating capacity of 2,500 MW based on conventional technology will be about Rs.12, 500 Crores. Of the 5,300 MW shown in the model, the remaining 2,800 MW (= 5,300 – 2,500) can be realized through renewable energy sources which will cost a total of about Rs. 10,500 Crores. The capital cost of these renewable energy sources was computed on the basis of information available in Planning Commission’s document on integrated energy policy. Thus, a high level estimation of the cost of implementing the measures indicated in table 9 to obtain a benefit of 5,300 MW equivalents will be about Rs. 13,300 (= 2,800 + 10,500) Crores. This is in stark contrast to the direct cost of about Rs. 26,500 Crores required to install additional generation capacity based on conventional technology. The actual cost to the society in adding generation capacity based on conventional technology will be much higher because of the environmental, social and health costs associated directly and indirectly.
This pilot study on Karnataka provides us a credible base of suitable options to satisfactorily meet the legitimate demand for electricity of all sections of our society for next 10 years without having to resort to additional generating capacity based on conventional power sources such as coal based or large dam based technologies. This model study has attempted to provide benefits only as an order of magnitude and is not intended to be very accurate. This model can be applied to the other states in the country with necessary modifications, and it is safe to aver that the scenario will be similar, because the issues are similar.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Whereas adequate quality electricity is required for the all-round development of our society, the adverse impact on our environment by an irresponsible power sector can be ignored only at our own peril. Energy profligacy and inequitable pattern of energy consumption are the main causes of environmental emergency that is facing the humanity. As Mahatma Gandhiji has said there is enough to meet the needs of all, but not enough to meet the greed of a few.
The past policies of adding new generating capacities without looking for the real need for them and their impact on the society have to be seriously questioned in the light of potential disasters associated with Global Warming. Since the major contribution of electric power generation to Global Warming is well known, our society has to carefully review how the legitimate demand for electricity of various sections of the society can be met on a sustainable basis. In this regard a holistic approach to the needs of various sectors of our economy, including a healthy environment and food security, is crucial.
There is gross inefficiency in the power sector of our country in electricity production, distribution and utilization. Hence any additional investment in adding new generating capacity based on conventional technologies will not only be a huge drain on our economy but will also a serious mistake in medium to long term because of the Global Warming concerns. The adverse impact of electricity industry on air, land and water can be minimized by adopting an integrated energy resource management approach involving optimal utilization of existing electricity infrastructure, effective demand side management, energy conservation, along with deployment of renewable energy sources in an objective manner.
A pilot study on demand V/S supply of electricity in Karnataka for the next 10 years has demonstrated how the additional demand for electricity in the state can be satisfactorily met by a combination of various techno-economically viable alternatives to fossil fuel based or dam based hydro or nuclear power stations. The overall cost of these benign alternatives to our society is much less as compared to the cost of adding new capacity based on conventional technologies. These alternatives are not only of minimum impact on the environment and society, but they are also sustainable.
Our society has no alternative but to be energy efficient, socially & environmentally responsible, and technologically innovative by taking a holistic look at all aspects of our society instead of looking at energy requirements in isolation.
Annexure
Karnataka Electricity Industry – Integrated Resource Management Model for Demand and supply |
||||||||
PART I: High level calculations of benefits: forecast for peak demand power (MW) |
||||||||
|
Year 2009 onwards |
|
2009 |
2011 |
2013 |
2015 |
2017 |
2018 |
A |
Load forecast @7% growth from 6,200 MW base in 2006 with 0.5% reduction in CAGR every year (peak hour demand) |
MW |
7595 |
8051 |
8453 |
8791 |
9055 |
9281 |
B |
Peak demand reduction feasible through existing system improvements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B1. Generation improvement through R, M & U |
MW |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
|
B2. Transmission & Distribution loss reduction |
MW |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
|
B3. Non-agricultural uses |
MW |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
|
B4. Agricultural use (100 MW reduction during peak hours assumed) |
MW |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
Aggregate peak demand reduction feasible through efficiency measures |
MW |
246 |
738 |
1230 |
1722 |
2214 |
2460 |
C |
Peak demand reduction feasible through solar technology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C1. AEH Installations (50% reduction during evening hrs assumed) |
MW |
105 |
105 |
105 |
105 |
105 |
105 |
|
C2. Residential installations |
MW |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
C3. IP sets (100 MW savings during evening hrs assumed) |
MW |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
C4. Public & commercial lighting |
MW |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
Aggregate peak demand reduction feasible through solar technology |
MW |
149 |
149 |
149 |
149 |
149 |
149 |
D |
Demand reduction feasible through wind energy |
MW |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
E |
Demand reduction feasible through biomass |
MW |
48 |
48 |
48 |
48 |
48 |
48 |
F |
Aggregate peak demand reduction feasible through NCE sources |
MW |
257 |
771 |
1285 |
1799 |
2313 |
2570 |
G |
Net peak demand forecast on the grid (= A-(B+F)) |
MW |
7092 |
6542 |
5938 |
5270 |
4528 |
4251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART II: High level calculations of benefits: forecast for annual energy requirement (MU) |
||||||||
H |
Load forecast @7% growth from 34,300 MU base in 2006 with 0.5% reduction in CAGR every year (annual energy demand ) |
MU |
42019 |
44540 |
46767 |
48638 |
50097 |
51349 |
I |
Energy reduction feasible through existing system improvements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I1. Generation improvement through R, M & U |
MU |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
|
I2. Transmission & Distribution loss reduction |
MU |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
|
I3. Non-agricultural use |
MU |
430 |
430 |
430 |
430 |
430 |
430 |
|
I4. Agricultural use |
MU |
250 |
250 |
250 |
250 |
250 |
250 |
|
Aggregate annual energy reduction feasible from efficiency measures |
MU |
1460 |
4380 |
7300 |
10220 |
13140 |
14600 |
J |
Energy reduction feasible through solar technology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G1. AEH Installations |
MU |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
110 |
|
G2. Residential installations |
MU |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
60 |
|
G3. IP sets |
MU |
320 |
320 |
320 |
320 |
320 |
320 |
|
G4. Public & commercial lighting |
MU |
64 |
64 |
64 |
64 |
64 |
64 |
|
Aggregate annual energy reduction feasible through solar technology |
MU |
554 |
554 |
554 |
554 |
554 |
554 |
K |
Energy reduction feasible through wind energy |
MU |
210 |
210 |
210 |
210 |
210 |
210 |
L |
Energy reduction feasible through biomass |
MU |
200 |
200 |
200 |
200 |
200 |
200 |
M |
Aggregate annual energy reduction feasible through NCE sources |
MU |
964 |
2892 |
4820 |
6748 |
8676 |
9640 |
N |
Net annual energy demand forecast on the grid (= H-(I+M)) |
MU |
39595 |
37268 |
34647 |
31670 |
28281 |
27109 |
Note: In this model the projections are shown for alternative years only to make the table compact; NCE sources refer to non-conventional energy sources, which are basically renewable sources; 6,200 MW base and 34,300 MU base mentioned in the table refers to the actual data for Karnataka during 2005-06; various benefits mentioned have been calculated very conservatively, and much higher benefits are possible with diligent implementation; benefits are shown to be spread over 10 years keeping in view the annual budget constraints.
Concluded
Views are those of the author
Author can be contacted at [email protected]
The Nuclear Illusion (part – XIV)
AMORY B. LOVINS AND IMRAN SHEIKH
Continued from Volume V, Issue No. 33…
P |
rivate investors concurred, so in December 2007, Congress tucked into a ~3,500-page omnibus spending bill199 an additional $18.5 billion of loan guarantees,200 plus $2 billion for a uranium enrichment venture that the private sector had refused to finance. Abandoning its initial pretext of pump-priming for just a handful of early plants, the industry continues today to push for this $18.5 billion to be raised to at least $50 billion before President Bush’s term ends. Taxpayers would thus bear nearly all of the risks that the private capital market rejects.201
Just the 2007 increases in U.S. nuclear subsidies are comparable to new plants’ total capital costs: the new 2007 loan guarantees alone are worth $13 billion for a single plant, or an additional 4.3¢/kWh, bringing the total Federal subsidy to 1.6–2.3× private investment.202 Indeed, under some scenarios, public subsidies on offer to a new U.S. nuclear plant could now exceed its entire levelized electricity cost.203 Yet the ante keeps rising, and the quest for market credibility is evidently growing more difficult, not less: Constellation said in June 2007 that the loan guarantees should be “temporary,” meaning that “by the time the 5th nuclear plant (of each technology) has operated for five years, the market will have achieved the necessary level of comfort for the program to terminate.”204 That would be well into the 2020s at best, implying loan guarantees well north of $100 billion.
One would expect the promoters of an allegedly robust and mature technology to risk more of their own assets on the veracity of their claims. These enterprises are certainly big enough: the combined ~2004 revenues of the subsidized U.S. firms exceed the GDP of the world’s 112 poorest nations, so if those firms were a country, they’d have the world’s 13th-biggest economy.205 Yet without government handouts even bigger than the current astronomical levels, the U.S. nuclear revival continues to lack a key element: buyers. And of course such crony-capitalism interventions that shift risk and its cost from investors to taxpayers (or customers) do not make those costs go away, but merely hide, delay, and reallocate them.206
It remains to be seen whether even these extraordinary market distortions will elicit any “orders.” NRG, proposing speculative merchant development of two
On 29 January 2008, a discreet blog interview by the Nuclear Energy Institute’s Vice President, Richard J. Myers, sought to start damping down the unrealistic expectations that the industry had created. He explained210 that the U.S. nuclear revival, rather than coming in one great escalating surge as previously envisaged, will instead come in two wavelets: a mere 5–8 initial plants online in 2015–16,211 plus more ordered as those units approach completion—if they’re on time and within budget. He added the sobering observation that in 2006–07, 28.5 GW of new coal plants had been announced and 22.3 GW cancelled,212 but he didn’t comment on whether the
After a half-century of intense effort to make nuclear power competitive, the market’s verdict is unforgiving. Nuclear salespeople scour the world for single orders despite lavish and rising subsidies, while negawatts and micropower struggle to meet exploding and order-of-magnitude-larger market demand despite meager R&D funding214 and generally smaller and decreasing subsidies.215 This disparity can be expected to widen as more investors learn about negawatts and micropower—both still absent from many official energy statistics, hence scarcely visible to less sophisticated investors—and as the market better recognizes their distributed benefits. And the worse the 2008 credit crunch and economic downturn, the more investors will turn from slow, big, costly units to fast, small, cheaper ones. Even a multi-megawatt wind turbine can be built so quickly that the United States will probably have a hundred billion watts of them installed before it gets its first one billion watts of new nuclear capacity, if any—and the world will probably have more wind than nuclear capacity before a nuclear plant ordered today could be built.216
Notes:
199 This now-common substitute for more normal and transparent legislative processes emerges from a conference committee that tends to add new language, not reconcile disparate versions. Of course legislators have no time to read such a gigantic bill before voting, so mischievous language is often slipped in by unknown authors, then discovered, after approval, only when lobbyists brag about their achievements. In this instance, the loan guarantees were moved from the actual legislation into an accompanying report, which lacks the force of law; the effects of this odd procedure are unclear (“DOE gets congressional approval for nuclear energy loan guarantees,” Nucleonics Week, 20 Dec 2007).
200 See pp. 121–122 at www.rules.house.gov/110/rept/110_omnirpt.pdf: funds can be disbursed by the Secretary of Energy 45 days after submission of an implementation plan to the Committees on Appropriations, but apparently without obtaining their further approval.
201 Benefiting project developers would pay a fee to “insure” against the risk that the loan guarantee would be called, but the nuclear-friendly Department of Energy, not private insurance firms, would set the premia and can be expected to undercollect, sticking future taxpayers with the deficit. If history is any guide, these loan guarantees will go sour, just as about three-fourths of earlier ones reportedly did (“Loan guarantee costs still unclear, former DOE general counsel says,” Nucleonics Week, 22 Nov 2007). Ten of 14 similar guarantees were called in the Carter years, including one synfuel plant that cost taxpayers $13 billion. DOE’s Inspector-General found “significant risk” in the new loan guarantees, and the Congressional Budget Office estimated the default risk at 30–50%. (in 2003, CBO had estimated a “very high—well above 50 percent” risk of default: http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/s14.pdf, p. 11.) CBO, OMB, and GAO all fear the government will be underpaid: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWM5ZWQxYjdiZDQ2YjE4OTEwYmVkM2Q4MTJkZDc5NjU=. DOE’s former General Counsel (supra) says a fee based on a predicted 50% default rate would be “unmanageable” for the industry, which apparently expects a much lower value. Perhaps it’s expecting its friends to offer Federal funds to pay their Credit Subsidy Costs, as Title XVII expressly authorizes (Fed. Reg. 72(204):60129, 23 Oct 2007). Oddly, the loan-guarantee language is not in statue but in a Committee report, apparently so to evade budget-scoring rules. This conceals the cost of the subsidy in a way disturbing like recent concealment of subprime mortgage risks.
202 According to Koplow’s “Government Subsidies to Nuclear Power: A Case Study of UniStar’s Calvert Cliffs III Reactor,” 5 Nov 2007 draft, www.npec-web.org/carbon/DRAFT-20071105-Koplow- NuclearSubsidiesCaseStudy.pdf. His $13-billion estimate is based on data for Calvert Cliffs III from its proposed builder UniStar.
203 Koplow, ref. 186.
204 Dr. J. Turnage (Senior VP, Constellation), testimony to DOE, 12 June 2007, www.lgprogram.energy.gov/061507-TPH.pdf, at p. 129.
205 Koplow, “NuSubsidies Nuclear Consortium,” 2005, www.earthtrack.net/earthtrack/library/NNC_Overview.ppt.
206 At www.thebulletin.org/roundtable/nuclear-power-climate-change/.
207 Ref. 52, n. 53, citing Reuters, 26 Sept 2007.
208 K. Alexander, “Investment in second reactor at South Texas Project carries too much risk, officials say,” American- Statesman (Austin TX), 9 Feb 2008.
209 http://midamericannuclear.com/html/overview.asp, downloaded 14 Feb 2008.
210 “The Nuclear Resurgence and Reasonable Expectations,” http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuclearresurgence- and-reasonable.html.
211 Six weeks later, his colleague Alex Flint (ref. 77) trimmed this to “four to eight…in operation by 2016 or so.”
212 According to another industry source, the cumulative fraction of announced
213 The International Energy Agency’s 2006 World Energy Outlook correctly noted that “nuclear power will only become more important if the governments of countries where nuclear power is acceptable play a stronger role in facilitating private investment.” Lighting the Way, a major 2007 energy study by the InterAcademy Council, a consortium of 90 national academies of science, concluded that “a global renaissance of commercial nuclear power is unlikely to materialize over the next few decades without substantial support from governments” (www.interacademycouncil.net/?id=12161). And in the United States, widely touted as the core of that renaissance, Moody’s Investors Services “does not believe the sector will bring more than one or two new nuclear plants on line by 2015…[M]any of the current expectations regarding new nuclear generation are overly ambitious. In fact, [the next unit] could be well beyond 2015 and [its project costs] could be significantly higher than the approximately $3,500/ kW estimates cited by many industry participants”—in fact, could be $5,000 to $6,000/kW or more, as noted above.
214 G.F. Nemet and D. Kammen note that total
215 For example, Japan has nearly phased out the initial subsidies that gave it the world’s biggest photovoltaic market, yet sales continue robust, partly because a $0.8-billion investment has cut PV costs by >8%/y for a decade. The last detailed technology-by-technology comparison of Federal subsidies, for FY1984 (RMI Publs. #CS85-7 and – 22), sound that decentralized competitors were subsidized 24× less per kWh than was nuclear power in the same year; since then, this ratio has almost certainly risen. Since President Bush took office in 2001,
216 The Global Wind Energy Council expects the world will have installed 240 GW of windpower by 2012 (“Global Wind Energy Report,” 1 Apr 2008, www.gwec.net/uploads/media/Global_Wind_2007_Report_final.pdf), growing by 36 GW/y in 2011–12. By 2015, such ~18%/y compound growth would surpass the world’s 2007 379-GW nuclear capacity, which is expected to stay about flat net of decelerating upratings and accelerating retirements.
to be continued…
Courtesy: Rocky Mountain Institute (Ambio Nov 08 preprint, dr 18, 27 May 2008, DRAFT subject to further peer review/editing)
NEWS BRIEF
NATIONAL
OIL & GAS
Upstream
ONGC calls bids to hire 4 drilling rigs
February 10, 2009. ONGC has invited bids to hire deepwater drilling rigs through contracts that may cost about US$700mn a year as it hastens its exploration plans. Bids were called on January 20 for a rig that can drill at ocean depths of as much as 12,000 feet (3,658 meters). Initial expressions of interest were invited for an additional three rigs with similar drilling-depth capacity. Offshore oil service providers are making presentations to ONGC for the deepwater rigs. The deadline for responses to the first rig tender is February 26. ONGC plans to select the winning bid in six months. ONGC plans to spend Rs71.33bn (US$1.5bn) to increase output in the Mumbai High area, off the west coast of
ONGC achieves all-time record in oil production
February 8, 2009. ONGC, engaged in exploration activities along the Cauvery basin, has achieved an all-time high oil and gas production up to December in the current fiscal. Till December 31 2008, 2.028 lakh tonnes of oil was produced against the target of 2.01 lakh tonnes.
Gas production stood at 939 MMSCM against the targeted 859 MMSCM. In May 2008, ONGC's Cauvery Asset launched
RIL hires rigs from Transocean Inc
February 7, 2009. RIL has reportedly hired three ultra deep sea drilling rigs for US$2.86bn from Transocean Inc of the
Reliance will pay approximately US$928mn each for Dhirubhai Deepwater KG-1 and KG-2 drillships and another US$1.01bn for a yet-to-be-named Enterprise-class drill ship. All the three rigs are under-construction and Reliance will receive Dhirubhai Deepwater KG1 drill ship, capable of drilling up to 35,000 feet in water depths of 12,000 feet, in the third quarter of 2009 calendar year.
Essar Exploration may complete drilling at Ranigunj by March
February 7, 2009. Essar Exploration and Production Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Essar Oil, expects to complete its 15 well development drilling programme at Ranigunj-East CBM (coal bed methane) block in
RPL to begin exports from April
February 9, 2009. Fuel exports from Reliance Petroleum's (RPL) new refinery at
ONGC may revive 15 mt Rajasthan refinery plan
February 5, 2009. According to ONGC, to re-examine the feasibility of setting up a 15 mt refinery in the desert district adjoining Indo-Pak border. Ashok Gehlot, Rajasthan Chief Minister, has reportedly demanded a refinery project in the state that will provide direct and indirect employment to one lakh people. Originally proposed in 2004-05, the project was declared economically unviable after the previous Vasundhara Raje government in Rajasthan did not agree to give fiscal incentive like interest free loan and sales tax exemption for the project.
Spice Gas acquiring auto LPG dealer network
February 5, 2009. Having entered the auto LPG retailing business in mid-2008 when it took over a small player BND in
IOC to buy 1.5 mt of Cairn’s crude oil
February 4, 2009. IOC may buy up to 1.5MT of crude oil from Cairn
Chevron to exit RPL
February 4, 2009. Global energy giant Chevron Corporation,
Oil retailers plan 3-fold hike in outlets
February 4, 2009. IOC, BPCL and HPCL are to chalk out aggressive plans for expansion in the next financial year. They will be commissioning over 2,100 outlets in 2009-10 over three times what they added in the current year at an investment of about Rs12bn. The sharp decline in crude oil prices has led to improvement in financials of these companies and probing them to clock healthy positive margins due to negative retail margins on products such as petrol and diesel for two-and-a-half years. RIL, which was forced to shut 1,400 outlets last year, has no plans to re-open them till the company gets a level playing field. Essar Oil on the other hand has re-opened most of its existing 1,250 fuel retail outlets. Shell, another private sector retailer which has a license to roll out 2,000 retail outlets, is looking at looking at acquisition of sites for new retail outlets. It operates 45 outlets at present. With the international crude oil prices touching a low of US$46 a barrel, down 68% from an all-time high of US$147 in July, analysts say the business environment is conducive for fuel retailers to expand their footprints. Public sector companies are also being aggressive to take as much share as they can before market-linked pricing kicks in.
ONGC to study option of setting up refinery in Rajasthan
February 4, 2009. ONGC has decided to re-evaluate the possibility of setting up a refinery in Rajasthan. This is in response to the State Chief Minister, Mr Ashok Gehlot’s request to examine the viability of such a project in the context of the crude pipeline that is being commissioned by Cairn
Transportation / Trade
End state control on fuel prices
February 10, 2009. Suresh Tendulkar, chairman of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Economic Advisory Council, was quoted as saying that the time was ripe for
GAIL to benefit from RIL gas transport
February 9, 2009. Gail (
PNGRB mulls over open access formula
February 7, 2009. The petroleum and natural gas regulatory board (PNGRB) is working on an open access formula to develop the city gas distribution network in a time-bound manner using the main trunk pipelines. L Mansingh, PNGRB chairman, was quoted as saying that to set up a city gas distribution network across the country, PNGRB is arranging for non-discriminatory access to trunk pipelines or offering open access. The trunk pipelines, after meeting the dedicated and contract supplies, would have to keep 33.5% of the capacity for un-contracted supplies or open access, which would help develop the city distribution network. If capacities of the existing pipelines were found inadequate to keep 33.5% capacity free after meeting the dedicated and contracted supplies, PNGRB would ask the owner of trunk pipelines to enhance capacities. Currently, the government-owned GAIL owns an 8,000-km pipeline across 15 states.
HPCL to triple imports from Iran
February 6, 2009. HPCL is reportedly planning to import 3 mt of Iranian crude from National Iranian Oil Co (NIOC), on term contract in 2009-10 as against the current fiscal year's import of one million tons. This will triple the state-run oil company's crude oil import from the Islamic republic. According to reports, imports from
Policy / Performance
Petroleum Minister wants extra oil bonds of Rs 13,000 crore
February 10, 2009. The Petroleum Ministry has sought additional oil bonds worth about Rs 13,000 crore to cover the revenue loss on fuel sale in the fourth quarter of the current fiscal. The Government has for the first three quarters sanctioned oil bonds worth Rs 60,967 crore to IndianOil, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum to make the good revenue loss on sale of petrol, diesel, domestic LPG and kerosene. Of these, so far Rs 50,980 crore worth of bonds have been issued and the rest will be issued after Parliament approves them next week. For the fiscal 2008-09, the total revenue loss on selling the four products below cost has been estimated at Rs 105,860 crore. Of this, Rs 32,000 crore has been met by upstream companies like ONGC by way of discounts on crude oil it sells to the three fuel retailers. To cover the remaining (loss), we have written to the Finance Ministry for issuing additional bonds worth about Rs 13,000 crore. Oil bonds for the fourth quarter will be issued in Q1 of the next fiscal after actual accounting for actual revenue loss figures. Upstream firms Oil & Natural Gas Corp (ONGC), GAIL India and Oil India Ltd will not have to bear any more subsidy in the fourth quarter as they have already given their share of Rs 32,000 crore. The three fuel retailers currently make a profit of Rs 1.30 a litre on petrol and Rs 2.26 per litre on diesel. However, they continue to lose money on kerosene and LPG Rs 11.70 a litre and Rs 77.51 per cylinder respectively. On all four products put together, they are losing Rs 10 crore per day. On petrol and diesel they make Rs 56 crore per day but on LPG and kerosene they lose Rs 66 crore everyday.
RIL seeks freeing of fuel pricing from govt. control
February 9, 2009. With the export-oriented unit status for its
ONGC to appeal against income-tax claim
February 9, 2009. The Government of India has reportedly allowed Oil and Natural Gas Corp., to appeal against an income-tax notice issued to the company. The tax department had asked ONGC to pay Rs 12 bn in taxes, disallowing the company’s treatment of each oil well as a separate entity to claim a tax break. The department said treating each well in an ongoing business separately would allow oil producers to claim tax breaks for a longer duration than the seven years allowed. ONGC needed approval from the panel to dispute the claim because it is a state-owned company.
Govt. launches ethanol blending on pilot basis
February 5, 2009. The government has decided to launch 10% ethanol-blending programme on a pilot basis in two districts -
Govt. issues bonds to Oil PSUs
February 5, 2009. The Government of India has announced the issue of ‘6.90 per cent Oil Marketing Companies’ Government of
(1) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) for Rs. 119.439bn
(2) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) for Rs46.81bn
(3) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) for Rs53.16bn
The investment in the Special Bonds by the banks and Insurance Companies will not be reckoned as an eligible investment in Government securities for their statutory requirements. However, such investment by the insurance companies will be eligible to be reckoned as investment under other Approved Securities category as defined under Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Investment) Regulations, 2000. Further, the investment by the Provident Funds, Gratuity Funds, Superannuation Funds, etc. in the Special Bonds will be treated as an eligible investment under the administrative order of the Ministry of Finance. The Special Bonds will be transferable and eligible for market ready forward transactions (Repo).
Oil, shipping companies allowed to hedge freight risks
February 4, 2009. The Reserve Bank of
POWER
Generation
NTPC to set up hydroelectric project in Mizoram Text
February 10, 2009. A 460 MW hydroelectric project will be set up by state-run National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) in Mizoram. A MoU was signed between NTPC and the Mizoram government to commission the Rs.30 bn power project in Sahia and Lawngtlai districts of southern Mizoram. The Kaladyne Hydro Electric Power Project (KHEPP) on the Kaladyne river will be NTPC's first hydro power project in the northeast and the second power project in the region after the 750 MW Bongaigaon coal-based thermal power project in Assam. The power project would be commissioned by 2013 and the surplus power would be supplied to neighbouring northeastern states after meeting the requirement of Mizoram. NTPC will execute the project on build, own, operate and maintain basis. Work will start within six months. Power tariff and the power-sharing formula would be determined by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission in consultation with the NTPC, union power ministry and the Mizoram government. It was decided that the electricity generated would be provided to the affected families (people displaced due to construction of the project) free of cost for 10 years from the date of commissioning. The KHEPP project is the fourth hydel power project of NTPC. The three other projects being commissioned are in Himachal Pradesh (800 MW) and Uttarakhand (600 MW and 520 MW).
Sahara Power to set up 1,320 MW power project in Orissa
February 9, 2009.
BHEL bags orders worth $1.4 bn
February 9, 2009. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd had won four contracts worth 70 bn rupees ($1.4 bn) to supply and set up electrical equipment for thermal power projects. The projects with a total capacity of 3,250 MW are located in the central state of Madhya Pradesh, northern Uttar Pradesh, southern Tamil Nadu and western state of
NTPC achieves highest power generation in January
February 9, 2009. NTPC has achieved highest ever monthly generation of 19.2 bn units in January,2009 with eight power stations of the company achieving more than 100% Plant Load Factor (PLF). These NTPC stations are Rihand, Tanda and Dadri (coal) in Uttar Pradesh, Korba in Chhattisgarh, Vindhyachal in Madhya Pradesh, Simhadri in Andhra Pradesh, Ramagundam in Andhra Pradesh and Talcher Thermal in Orissa. With 19.11% of the country’s installed capacity, NTPC accounts for 28.51% of the total power generation in
January power generation up 1.38 pc
February 7, 2009. According to Central Electricity Authority,
Era Infra bags order from NTPC
February 5, 2009. Era Infra Engineering Ltd has secured a contract from NTPC Ltd valued at Rs 2,229,894,607/- for Mail Plant & Offsite Civil Works Package for Mauda Super Thermal Power Project, Mauda (2x500 MW). The value of this contract is approximately Rs5bn if the cost of cement and steel is included. NTPC proposes to complete the project during the Eleventh Plan period. Adhering to this strict time frame, Era Infra will complete the project work within 43 calendar months from the issue of letter of award. Last month, Era Infra had received a Rs495.1mn contract from public-sector power-equipment maker Bhel for engineering-related works at Ukai thermal power station at
GMR Infra in talks for building power plant in Turky
February 5, 2009. GMR Infrastructure Ltd. is in talks with Turkish companies to build a natural gas-fired power station with a capacity of 1,000 MW. The company may join a current project or start from scratch, CEO of GMR's Istanbul-based unit was quoted as
India signs first commercial atomic power contract with
February 4, 2009. India signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a French power major AREVA to build atomic power plants. The MoU was signed by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited officials and AREVA. Initially, Areva is expected to supply two European Pressurised Reactors of 1650 MW, each which are likely to be set up at Jaitapur in
Anil Ambani group fast tracks mega power project
February 4, 2009. Work on the much-delayed 7,480 MW Dadri power project in Uttar Pradesh is expected to start soon with the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (R-ADAG) entering the final stages of tying up with equipment manufacturers. Group company Reliance Power, which is setting up the gas-fired project, has put on the fast track talks with equipment majors such as General Electric (GE) and Bharat Heavy Electricals (BHEL) for turbines, boilers and generators.
The equipment manufacturers have assured that turbines could be supplied within nine to 11 months from the date of placing the order. As per the sources in Reliance Power, the civil work on the site would be started at the earliest. Once completed, the power plant would be the largest gas-fired project at a single location in the world. The project is estimated to cost about Rs.20,000-Rs.25,000 crore (Rs.200-Rs.250 bn). The first phase of the gas-based power project comprising 1,400 MW is likely to be operational by mid-2010. Reliance Power hopes to get gas supplies from the Krishna-Godavari basin, being operated by the Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries. According to the government, the power and fertiliser sectors will be given priority for natural gas produced in the country. As much as 50 percent of the power produced from the Dadri project has been earmarked for Uttar Pradesh, while states in the neighbourhood like
Reliance Industries to build power plant in MP
February 4, 2009. Reliance Industries Ltd is planning to build a 1,250 MW power plant fired by gas trapped in coal at a mine in Madhya Pradesh. The report stated that the company will build a plant with a capacity of 20 MW. The company will then construct three additional units with a capacity of 410 MW each.
Transmission / Distribution / Trade
TVEL to sign $780 mn contract
February 9, 2009. Russian nuclear fuel producer TVEL is set to sign a US$780mn contract to supply fuel for new Indian nuclear power plants. Under the TVEL deal,
Jaiprakash Hydro promoter pledges 60.08 pc stake
February 9, 2009. According to Jaiprakash Hydro Power, one of its promoters has pledged 60.08 per cent stake of the firm with lenders. The promoter, Jaiprakash Associates, pledged over 29.49 crore equity shares, Jaiprakash Hydro Power said in a filing to the Bombay Stock Exchange. The promoter pledged these equity shares to avail term loan as part of project financing. Engaged in power generation, the company has invested in the equity share capital of a joint venture company Jaypee Powergrid with Power Grid Corporation of
Bhel looks at foreign tie-ups to build power transmission links
February 9, 2009. State-owned Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, or Bhel, is in separate talks with European engineering companies Siemens AG and ABB Ltd and
OPG Power signs supply contracts at higher rates
February 5, 2009. OPG Power Ventures Plc has announced that it has agreed contracts at an increased tariff for about half of the group's current installed capacity. The new tariff of Rs6.70 per Kwh represents an increase of more than 65% on the current captive customer rate; 14.81 MW's of the group's current installed capacity is to be sold at this increased tariff. Under the terms of these new contracts, OPG will supply 14.81 MW of power, about 50% of the group's current installed capacity, at the increased average tariff of Rs6.70 per Kwh compared to the captive power rate of Rs3.6 to Rs4.00 per Kwh. Contracts for 11.31 MW of power supply have already become effective and the corresponding throughput of power is already under supply at the increased rates. Contracts relating to the remaining 3.5 MW of power are expected to commence during February 2009.
U'khand yet to revive hydel projects on Bhagirathi
February 10, 2009. The Uttarakhand government is not in a hurry to resume the construction of its two major hydel projects 480 MW Pala Maneri and 381 MW Bhaironghati on the Bhagirathi river. A decision before the coming Lok Sabha elections on the sensitive Bhagirathi issue is unlikely even as a high-powered committee, set up to assess the ecological impact of hydel projects on the river, completed its report last week with a recommendation to maintain at least 4 cumecs of environmental flow during the lean season.
The committee has already submitted its report to the Union power ministry, which is yet to take a decision. On the other hand, the state government is also in no mood to take any hasty decision on the river issue. Significantly, the work on NTPC’s 600 MW Lohari Nagpala, which is also being built on the Bhagirathi, is continuing. NTPC has so far invested Rs 300 crore on the project with contracts of headrace tunnel, barrage and powerhouse already being awarded to various private companies.
SC dismisses Electrical Manufacturing Co's plea against PGCI
February 9, 2009. The Supreme Court upheld Power Grid Corporation of
Rajasthan proposal on hydropower rejected
February 9, 2009. The Environment Ministry has shot down a Rajasthan government’s proposal to construct a series of hydropower dams on Chambal river noting that it will prove disastrous for the highly endangered dolphins and crocodiles besides aquatic bird species found in the region. The refusal came after a two-member team comprising wildlife experts Ranjitsinh and B.C. Choudhary from Wildlife Institute of India (WII) in their report said that the proposed four dams would destroy half of the Chambal sanctuary on the river which demarcates the border of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. The river is home for Gangetic dolphins and crocodiles. The issue had come up for discussion at a recent meeting of the standing committee of the National Board of Wildlife chaired by Environment Minister S. Raghupathy. The members also highlighted that the three already existing such hydropower projects on the river had wiped out dolphins, turtles and crocodiles in the surrounding areas. Rajasthan had sought construction of four hydropower projects on Chambal river to meet the power needs of the villages.
Orissa inks MoUs for 9,780 MW
February 8, 2009.The Orissa government has signed MoUs with eight Independent Power Producers (IPPs) for the generation of 9,780 MW in the state. This will take the total envisaged generation capacity of the proposed IPPs in the state to 27,035 MW. The eight companies will invest Rs 42,023 crore in these projects, taking the total proposed investment by IPPs to more than Rs 1,12,000 crore in the state. The companies, which signed MoUs, are Astharanga Power Company Ltd, Sahara India Power Corporation, Ind-Barath Energy (Utkal) Ltd, Jindal Steel and Power Ltd, Visaka Thermal Power Pvt Ltd, Kalinga Energy, Arati Steel and Chambal Infrastructures and Ventures Ltd. The state
Railways told to give priority to power-grade coal
February 6, 2009. The Union Government’s decision asking the Railways to give top priority to rake allotment for transportation of power-grade coal has come as a boon to Orissa’s major port, Paradip, as well as Bhubaneswar-based zonal railway, East Coast Railway (ECoR). In January, ECoR loaded imported coal at Paradip port at the rate of 9.2 rakes per day on an average, which is the highest ever improving upon the previous best being 8.5 rakes in December 2008 and also in March 2008. The power-grade variety accounted for the larger share of the import 370,964 tonnes out of the total coal import of 546,282 tonnes. However, the loading of imported coal at
Kerala plans 3,500 MW additional power generation capacity
February 5, 2009. The Kerala Government has drawn up a ten-year perspective plan for the power sector that envisages addition of new generation capacity to the tune of 3,500 MW. A major share of the additional capacity is to be contributed by the 2,400-MW super thermal project proposed to be set up at Cheemeni in Kasaragod district. The proposal was cleared by the State Cabinet. The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) and the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (KSIDC) would jointly float a special purpose vehicle to implement the Cheemeni project. It would come up on around 2,000 acres now in the possession of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala. The power crisis in the State was set to worsen during the summer. However, KSEB hoped to manage the situation through an energy conservation campaign. The storage position in the hydel reservoirs in the State is rather precarious now with the water just enough to generate an average 16 million units daily till the onset of monsoon in June. On the other hand, the daily consumption at present is 43 MUs. The consumption will go up to around 48 MUs in March, April and May. But the State will be able to get only 36 MUs a day from cheap sources with 16 MUs coming from hydel sources and 20 MUs from coal and lignite stations in the central sector. The remaining 12 MUs will have to be bought from stations running on naphtha and diesel. Though the petroleum prices had come down in recent days, the average cost of energy from such stations would still be beyond Rs 6 a unit. KSEB will be able to manage the situation without any additional restrictions in power supply if the consumers adopted conservation measures. To achieve this, the Government will launch a public campaign covering all the consumers.
Super thermal power plant for Kasaragod
February 4, 2009. The Kerala Cabinet has approved the setting up of a 2,400-MW super thermal power plant at Cheemeni in Kasaragod district. The plant, based on coal, will be jointly implemented by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) and the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation (KSIDC). The project will come up on 2,000 acres of land belonging to the Plantation Corporation of Kerala. The Cabinet also decided to give guarantee for loans to the tune of Rs 250 crore required for acquisition of land for the proposed Kannur airport. A modern cattle feed plant will be set up at Karunagapilly in Kollam district by the State-owned Kerala Feeds Ltd. The Chief Minister said that the Cabinet decided to reduce bus, taxi and auto charges in the State following the recent cutback in fuel prices by the Centre. The National Transportation Planning and Research Centre, which had been asked to study the issue, had given its recommendation and a decision on it would be taken by the Minister for Transport after discussions with the trade representatives.
India to use Kazakh uranium as fuel for its nuclear reactors
February 4, 2009. In nearest future all new atomic electric power stations of
INTERNATIONAL
OIL & GAS
Upstream
Libya's NOC Takes bigger bite of total's oil fields
February 10, 2009. Total has announced the signature of a MOU with
China North East Petroleum's oil production up
February 9, 2009. China North East Petroleum Holdings, a leading oil producing company in
TNK-BP to increase Uvat production investments
February 9, 2009. TNK-BP is going to increase the volume of its investments into development of oil fields and creation of a new large Uvat oil and gas production region in the southern part of the Tyumen Region up to $2.5 bn by 2010, according to the long-term agreement between the Administration of the Tyumen Region and TNK-BP prolonged in late January 2009. Investments into this project will be raised up to $2.5 bn by 2010, and oil production in the region will be increased up to 2 mtpa (production of oil and gas condensate in 2008 in the southern part of the Tyumen Region amounted to 1.22 mt). The new Urnenskoe and Ust-Tegusskoe fields will be brought into development, and an oil pipeline and oil treatment systems will be constructed. Oil production in the south Tyumen Region will reach 10 million tons a year by 2017 and 20–25 mtpa in future. In particular, Tyumenneftegaz, a subsidiary of TNK-BP, produced 188,872 tons of oil in January 2009 compared to the planned 186,956 tons. The operation of Tyumenneftegaz is based on the use of latest oil recovery enhancement technologies, optimization of well operation, and implementation of other geological engineering measures. Tyumenneftegaz holds licenses for use of subsoil in the south Tyumen Region, Khanty-Mansi Aotonomous Area, and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Area.
Oman eyes oil output boost for 2nd year in 2009
February 9, 2009. Gulf Arab producer
Novatek boosts year-end reserves by 504 mn boe
February 9, 2009. Novatek announced that independent petroleum engineers, DeGolyer and MacNaughton (D&M), have completed their comprehensive reserve appraisals of the Company’s oil and gas reserves as of December 31, 2008. The Company added approximately 504 mn barrels of oil equivalent (boe) of proved reserves under SEC1 standards, inclusive of 2008 production, and produced approximately 219 mn boe during the year. Estimated total proved reserves (according to SEC standards) as of December 31, 2008 increased to 4,963 mn boe from 4,678 mn boe as of year-end 2007. Total proved reserves of natural gas increased from 653 bcm in 2007 to 690 bcm in 2008, an increase of 67 bcm, inclusive of 2008 production.
W&T offshore's year-end proved reserves dive 23 pc
February 6, 2009. W&T Offshore's estimated total proved oil and natural gas reserves at December 31, 2008 consisted of 43.9 million barrels of oil and natural gas liquids and 227.9 bcf of natural gas for a total of 491.1 Bcf equivalent of natural gas. The Company's proved reserves decreased 23% from total proved oil and natural gas reserves of 638.8 Bcfe as of December 31, 2007, primarily due to the impact of lower pricing for both oil and natural gas.
Chevron spies oil at Buckskin deepwaters
February 5, 2009. Chevron has announced a new deepwater oil discovery at the Buckskin prospect located in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The block is approximately 190 miles southeast of
Downstream
American refiners agree to emission settlements
February 10, 2009. Two petroleum refiners have agreed in separate settlements to spend a total of more than $141 million in new air pollution controls at three refineries in
Shell plans Turnaround at Anacortes refinery
February 10, 2009. Shell Oil Co plans a major turnaround at its 145,000-barrel per day
Bulgaria sells stake in Lukoil refinery
February 10, 2009.
GE to supply massive reactors for Eni refinery
February 9, 2009. GE Oil & Gas has received a major contract to supply Italian energy company Eni S.p.A. with the largest refinery reactors of their type ever to be manufactured. The reactors will be a critical part of Eni Refining & Marketing Division's project to boost production at its refinery in
Pertamina doubts feasibility of $4.5 bn refinery project
February 6, 2009. Indonesian state oil and gas company Pertamina has expressed doubts about the economic feasibility of the Bojonegoro oil refinery to be built in Banten with an investment of US$4.5 bn. The internal rate of return of the project is only 10 per cent, well below 14 per cent considered ideal. The margin is too small for the large investment which will carry a high risk. The consortium that plans the project consisting of PT Pertamina,
CNOOC plans to buy refineries in East China
February 6, 2009. CNOOC
Mozambique plans 350,000-bpd refinery
February 5, 2009. Mozambique's OilMoz plans to build a $8 bn oil refinery in the south of
Transportation / Trade
Tethys successfully tests Akkulka gas pipeline in Kazakhstan
February 9, 2009. Tethys announced that the gas pipeline system of its Akkulka gas development in
Russia to delay Yamal-Europe gas pipeline
February 6, 2009.
Policy / Performance
UAE oil minister says oil price too low
February 9, 2009. Crude oil prices at current levels around $40 (
Korea Gas sees higher LNG import costs
February 9, 2009. State-run Korea Gas Corp (KOGAS) expects import costs of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in 2009 to be 5 percent higher than 2008. KOGAS expects to pay an average of 565.74 won per cubic meter of natural gas this year, or about 15,558 won ($11.30) per mmBtu, compared to 537.33 won per cubic meter in 2008. In line with the rise, KOGAS will seek to increase LNG wholesale prices by 4.1 percent this year to 625.17 won per cubic meter. The price hike by the government last year was insufficient to cover higher fuel costs. KOGAS is the country's sole wholesaler of LNG and the world's single-largest commercial buyer of the natural gas. But the final decision on price increases will be made by
PGN asked to build LNG receiving terminal
February 9, 2009. Indonesian Minister for State Enterprises Sofyan Djalil has asked state-owned gas distributor PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (PGN) to solely carry out the construction of Bojonegoro liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal project. The US$500 mn project in Banten has been planned by a consortium of three state companies including PT Pertamina oil and gas company and electricity utility company PLN. PGN could alone implement the project as Pertamina and PLN were hampered by different perceptions.
Sakhalin II to begin exporting LNG to
February 6, 2009. The Sakhalin II oil and gas project in
POWER
Hanford nuclear power plant goes off line
February 9, 2009. Energy Northwest says its nuclear power plant on the
Russia to complete
February 9, 2009. Russia will complete the construction of the $1 billion Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern
Russia to build nuclear plant in Belarus
February 6, 2009. Moscow will finance
Transmission / Distribution / Trade
Tokyo Electric, Toshiba to buy major stake in Canadian uranium supplier
February 10, 2009. Tokyo Electric Power Co., Toshiba Corp. and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation said they will jointly buy 19.95 percent of outstanding shares in Uranium One Inc., a major Canadian producer of uranium, to secure a stable supply of the radioactive element used for nuclear power generation. The three Japanese partners will spend a total of 20.2 bn yen to purchase 117 million new shares to be issued by Uranium One via private placement. The stake will be acquired by Japan Uranium Management Inc., a special-purpose company the three will set up in
Texas electricity rates soar under deregulation
February 9, 2009. In the decade since
Load-shedding to be reduced by half soon in
February 8, 2009. The 12-14 hours of daily power outage that the country is currently facing might further increase but a top government official has said that it will instead be reduced by half from February 26. Similarly, the government official also assured that the pro-longed load-shedding hours will be done away with for good in the next 5 years time. Briefing the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Secretary at the Ministry for Water Resources (MoWR) Shankar Koirala informed that the transmission line within
Renewable Energy Trends
National
Baramati set to be 1st solar-powered town in
February 10, 2009. Baramati is set to become the first solar-powered town in western
Numeric Power to get into green energy products
February 6, 2009. Chennai-based Numeric Power Systems Ltd is looking at expanding into green energy products, and get into the manufacturing of light-emitting diode (LED) fixtures as volumes grow. The green energy products that Numeric offers are LED lighting system for indoor and outdoor applications, solar street lighting systems and LED decorative lighting systems. The subsidiary company offers specialised and standard solar products, which include stand-alone and mini-grid solar power converters, hybrid and grid-tied power systems and solar energy farms. Out of the total revenues (Rs 427 crore last year), 90 per cent was from sale of UPS products and the rest from support product sales. Around 10 per cent of the revenue is from exports.
Jal Board to produce power from Okhla sewage plant
February 6, 2009. The Delhi Jal Board wants to cut down on its electricity bills, earn carbon credits, and all this by utilising bio-gas that is produced at its Okhla sewage treatment plant here in the Capital. After successfully using bio-gas to produce electricity at the Rithala sewage treatment plant, the Jal Board now wants to replicate the model at its 140 million gallons a day sewage treatment plant in Okhla that produces a large quantity of bio-gas. The water utility is hopeful of producing 2 MW of power using the bio-gas. This in turn will help reduce its electricity bills.
The Board will partner with a private operator who will be in charge of designing, construction, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of the bio-gas engines needed for power production. According to sources, work will be undertaken on a design-build-operate-maintain-and-transfer basis for a period of ten years. Three bio-gas engines will be required, one of them to serve as a stand-by, to generate 2 MW of power. The power generated through the use of this bio-gas will be cheaper, because the utility will not have to pay anything for the fuel. Bio-gas is methane-rich gas and is produced in large quantities at the sewage treatment plants so there is no expenditure on that. And once electricity is generated, it will cut our dependence on power that we get from the distribution companies. The average bill each month is between Rs.50-55 lakh and whatever we manage to save will help us earn carbon credits.
Metrowater uses waste for 39 MW power
February 5, 2009. As the state looks for ways to meet the severe power shortage, Metrowater has quietly found itself an economical and eco-friendly solution to generate power it simply uses the methane generated from sewage to create bio-gas that runs four sewage treatment plants. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) has been using commercial and domestic waste water to generate 39 mega watts (MW) of electricity a day enough to power a town like Erode - from over 300 million litres per day (MLD) of sewage. CMWSSB has nine sewage treatment plants (STPs) where around 400 MLD of sewage is treated. Four of these have the capacity to generate bio-gas energy, and there is a proposal to upgrade the other five to add energy generation features. There are also plans to set up three more STPs with similar capabilities. The Koyambedu STP with a capacity of 60 MLD generates seven MW per day, and uses a few units from Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). The 40 MLD Nesapakkam plant generates seven MW, which covers all its needs. The 54 MLD Perungudi plant generates 10 MW. The 110 MLD Kodungayur plant generates 15 MW.
Sewage contains 70% methane, the rest are other gases. Methane has high energy content and this is purified and imported to the gas engine. During winter, the gas production drops as a temperature of 27 to 34 degrees Celsius is needed to digest the sewage sludge. Methane is a poisonous gas and by using it to generate power, the department is also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The STPs have to be renovated by 2011 as the city’s sewage flow is expected to increase from 400 MLD to 680 MLD by 2021. The estimate for the work is being prepared. The three new STPs are to come up in Perungudi, Koyambedu and Nesapakkam.
India seeks global fund for renewable energy
February 5, 2009. A global fund for renewable energy to develop new and innovative technologies was sought by
Global
New Jersey utility proposes $773 mn solar project
February 10, 2009.
The project would meet nearly 7 percent of the statewide goal. The utility estimated that the cost of installing the solar energy systems would be $6.44 per watt.
While PSE&G said it would put up the money to install those solar panels, it wants to pass on the costs to ratepayers. That would amount to about $0.10 per month for the first year for a residential customer, and increase to $0.35 per month in 2013. The project will need the approval of the state Board of Public Utilities.
Solar energy has become more attractive to utilities thanks to a vote by Congress last October to allow power companies to take advantage of an investment tax credit.
The tax credit allows utilities to offset the cost of developing a solar energy project by as much as 30 percent, a benefit that existed only for independent solar power developers.
PSE&G is proposing to break down its $773 mn project into four segments viz. a 40 MW ($264 mn) project to install solar panels on utility poles and street lights, a 43-MW ($273 mn) project to install on schools and city/county land, a 35 MW ($221 mn) project to build a power plant on PSE&G's own property and a 2 MW ($15 mn) project to install panels on the roofs of the state affordable housing communities. PSE&G serves nearly three quarters of the state's population, or 1.7 million gas customers and 2.1 electric customers.
E.ON to test wave power energy generation in Britain
February 9, 2009. E.ON is to launch a wave power energy generation trial in
The first year of testing of the 750 kilowatt Pelamis P2 technology will be an extended commissioning period, with the next two years designed to improve the operation of the equipment.
E.ON claimed it would become the first utility to test a marine energy device at the Orkney centre, which is the only grid-connected marine test site in
Dear Reader, You may have received complimentary copies of the ORF Energy News Monitor. Our objective in bringing out the newsletter is to provide a platform for focused debate on We look forward to receiving your patronage and support. ORF Centre for Resources Management |
ORF ENERGY NEWS MONITOR Subscription Form Please fill in BLOCK LETTERS |
Subscription rate slabs for Commercial entries, Research Institutes, Academics and Individuals will be provided on request. The subscription can be made for soft copy or for hard copy or for both. Selected ORF publications as well as advertising space in one issue of the ORF Energy News Monitor are offered as introductory free gifts for Commercial Sector only. |
Yes! I/we would like to receive copies of the weekly ORF Energy News Monitor for a period of ______year(s). I/we shall be entitled to one hard copy along with the option of soft copies to a list of e-mail addresses provided by me/us for the period of subscription. I/we also note that I/we shall get select ORF publications brought out during the period of subscription free. Name……………………………Address…………….………………………Telephone……………………Fax………………….E-mail………………… Please find enclosed cheque/Bank Draft No.........................dated …………………drawn at Please fill in this form and mail it with your remittance to ORF Centre for Resources Management OBSERVER RESEARCH FOUNDATION 20 Rouse Avenue New Delhi - 110 002 Phone +91.11.4352 0020 extn 2120 (Vinod Tomar) Fax: +91.11.4352 0003 E-mail: [email protected] |
Registered with the Registrar of News Paper for
Published on behalf of Observer Research Foundation,
Disclaimer: Information in this newsletter is for educational purposes only and has been compiled, adapted and edited from reliable sources. ORF does not accept any liability for errors therein. News material belongs to respective owners and is provided here for wider dissemination only. Sources will be provided on request.
Publisher:
Production team:
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.