Oil Explorers Beware: Hackers Are Eyeing What You Know

Oil Explorers Beware: Hackers Are Eyeing What You Know While most would think that the risks junior oil and gas companies are taking in exploring new frontiers as far away as the remote reaches of Africa are related to government instability and conflict, another risk they face is right at home and lies right beyond their network firewalls. Cyber security breaches are becoming more common place as the ranks of junior companies swell and take on new exploration venues with a great deal of energy. But at home their firewalls are not safe and hackers are being paid to find out what juicy exploration news is being discussed in their boardrooms. In Canada—home of some of the most tenacious of these exploration juniors—local media reported late last year that the internal firewall of Telvent Canada Ltd. had been breached by foreign hackers. These hackers can represent anyone from a competitor to an organized crime group to political and environmental activists. And the information they want can be anything from preliminary exploration results, merger and acquisition talks and expansion plans to geological data and technological information. All of it is valuable. All of it is sellable. According to Ernst & Young, most oil and gas companies don't have high enough network security standards. This is demonstrated by the rising incidents of external cyber attacks. Some companies in the industry don't even have a formal security framework in place. Everything changes with everything else, and while exploration is getting both smaller and bigger at the same time, cyber attacks are being more targeted, taking advantage of individuals who use their own electronic devices to connect to their company's network. This is where the biggest weaknesses emerge. There is an accelerating trend for oil and gas companies to require their employees to use their own mobile devices for work. It's such a trend, in fact, that it even has its own acronym: BYOD, or bring your own device. But because of the security implications this entails, analysts predict that 65% of enterprises will adopt a mobile device management solution in the next five years. What this means is that they will need a more secure way to handle sensitive information if their employees are using their own devices, storing company information on those devices and linking up to company networks. Lines between personal and corporate data can be very blurry and this is exactly what cyber attackers are targeting. There are other weak links, too. Smaller oil and gas exploration and production companies often require external assistance to identify opportunities in foreign countries, to network with the right people and to navigate government figures and regulations. The help they enlist creates another chink in the armor as important data is sent back and forth. Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Explorers-Beware-Hackers-Are-Eyeing-What-You-Know.html By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

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

Cyprus is preparing for total financial collapse as the European Central Bank turns its back on the island after its parliament rejected a scheme to make Cypriot citizens pay a levy on savings deposits in return for a share in potential gas futures to fund a bailout. On Wednesday, the Greek-Cypriot government voted against asking its citizens to bank on the future of gas exports by paying a 3-15% levy on bank deposits in return for a stake in potential gas sales. The scheme would have partly funded a $13 billion EU bailout. It would have been a major gamble that had Cypriots asking how much gas the island actually has and whether it will prove commercially viable any time soon. In the end, not even the parliament was willing to take the gamble, forcing Cypriots to look elsewhere for cash, hitting up Russia in desperate talks this week, but to no avail. The bank deposit levy would not have gone down well in Russia, whose citizens use Cypriot banks to store their “offshore” cash. Some of the largest accounts belong to Russians and other foreigners, and the levy scheme would have targeted accounts with over 20,000 euros. So it made sense that Cyprus would then turn to Russia for help, but so far Moscow hasn't put any concrete offers on the table. Plan A (the levy scheme) has been rejected. Plan B (Russia) has been ineffective. Plan C has yet to reveal itself. And without a Plan C, the banks can't reopen. The minute they open their doors there will be a withdrawal rush that will force their collapse. In the meantime, cashing in on the island's major gas potential is more urgent than ever—but these are still very early days. In the end, it's all about gas and the race to the finish line to develop massive Mediterranean discoveries. Cyprus has found itself right in the middle of this geopolitical game in which its gas potential is a tool in a showdown between Russia and the European Union. The EU favored the Cypriot bank deposit levy but it would have hit at the massive accounts of Russian oligarchs. Without the promise of Levant Basin gas, the EU wouldn't have had the bravado for such a move because Russia holds too much power over Europe's gas supply. Cypriot Gas Potential The Greek Cypriot government believes it is sitting on an amazing 60 trillion cubic feet of gas, but these are early days—these aren't proven reserves and commercial viability could be years away. In the best-case scenario, production could feasibly begin in five years. Exports are even further afield, with some analysts suggesting 2020 as a start date. In 2011, the first (and only) gas was discovered offshore Cyprus, in Block 12, which is licensed to Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. (NBL). The block holds an estimated 8 trillion cubic feet of gas. To date, the Greek Cypriots have awarded licenses for six offshore exploration blocks that could contain up to 40 trillion cubic feet of gas. Aside from Noble, these licenses have gone to Total SA of France and a joint venture between Eni SpA (ENI) of Italy and Korea Gas Corp. But the process of exploring, developing, extracting, processing and getting gas to market is a long one. Getting the gas extracted offshore and then pumped onshore could take at least five years and some very expensive infrastructure that does not presently exist. The gas would have to be liquefied so it could be transported by seaborne tankers. The potential is there: Cyprus' gas discoveries adjoin Israeli territorial waters where the discovery of the massive Leviathan gasfield (425 billion cubic meters or 16 trillion cubic feet) and smaller Tamar gasfield (250 billion cubic meters or 9 trillion cubic feet) have foreign companies in a rush to cash in on this. There are myriad problems to extracting Cypriot gas—not the least of which is the fact that some of this offshore exploration territory is disputed by Turkey, which has controlled part of the island since 1974. Gas exploration has taken this dispute to a new level, with Turkey sending in warships to halt drilling in 2011, and threatening to bar foreign companies exploring in Cyprus from any license opportunities in Turkey. The situation is likely to intensify as Noble prepares to begin exploratory drilling later this year in Block 12. In the meantime, there is no shortage of competition on this arena. Cyprus will have to vie with Israel, Lebanon and Syria—all of which have made offshore gas discoveries of late in the Mediterranean's Levant Basin, which has an estimated total of 122 trillion cubic feet of gas and 1.7 billion barrels of oil. Blackmailing Cyprus? While Greek Cypriot citizens are not willing to gamble away their savings on gas futures, Russia and the European Union are certainly less hesitant. This is both a negotiating point for Cyprus and a convenient tool of blackmail for Russia and the EU. Essentially, the bailout is the prop on a stage that will determine who gets control of these assets. Theoretically, Cyprus could guarantee Russia exploration rights in return for assistance. As much as this is possible, the EU could ease its bailout negotiations if it becomes clear that a Russian bailout of sorts is imminent. Gas finds in the Mediterranean and particularly across the Levant Basin—home to Israel's Leviathan and Tamar fields—could be the answer to Russian gas hegemony in Europe. The question is: How much does Cyprus count in this equation? A lot. Though only half of the estimated resources in the Levant Basin, Cyprus' potential 60 trillion cubic feet of gas could equal 40% of the EU's gas supplies and be worth a whopping $400 billion if commercial viability is proven. Russia is keen to keep Cyprus and Israel from cooperating too much toward the goal of loosening Russia's grip on Europe before Moscow manages to gain a greater share of the Asian market. Russia is also not keen on Israel's plan to lay an undersea natural gas pipeline to Turkey's south coast to sell its gas from the Leviathan field to Europe. Turkey hasn't agreed to this deal yet, but it is certainly considering it. This is fraught with all kinds of political problems at home, so for now Ankara is keeping it as low profile as possible. With all of this in mind, Russia is doing its best to get in on the Levant largesse itself. While it's also courting Lebanon and Syria, dating Israel is already in full force. Gazprom has signed a deal with Israel that would give it control of Tamar's gas and access to the Asian market for its liquefied natural gas (LNG). Tamar will probably begin producing already in April at a 1 billion cubic feet/day capacity. In accordance with this deal, which Israel has yet to approve, Gazprom will provide financial support for the development of the Tamar Floating LNG Project. In return, Gazprom will get exclusive rights to purchase and export Tamar LNG. It is also significant because Tamar is a US-Israeli joint venture—so essentially the plan is to help Russia diversify from the European market. What does this mean for Cyprus? The chess pieces are still being put on the board, and both fortunately and unfortunately, Cyprus' gas potential will be intricately linked to its bailout potential. Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Cypriot-Bailout-Linked-to-Gas-Potential.html By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

Forget Renewables, We Need Cheap Oil

Forget Renewables, We Need Cheap Oil - An Interview with Gail Tverberg What does our world's energy future look like? Does renewable energy feature as much in the energy production mix as many hope it will? Will natural gas and fracking help reduce our dependence upon oil and how will the world economy and trade fare as supplies of cheap oil continue to dwindle? To help us take a look at this future scenario we had a chance to chat with Gail Tverberg – a well known commentator on energy issues and author of the popular blog, Our Finite World In the interview Gail talks about: • Why natural gas is not the energy savior we were hoping for • Why renewable energy will not live up to the hype • Why we shouldn't write off nuclear energy • Why oil prices could fall in the future • Why our energy future looks fairly bleak • Why the government should be investing less in renewable energy • Why constant economic growth is not a realistic goal Gail Tverberg is an independent researcher who examines questions related to oil supply, substitutes, and their impact on the economy. Her background is as a casualty actuary, making financial projections within the insurance industry. She became interested in the question of oil shortages in 2005, and has written and spoken about the expected impact of limited oil supply since then to a variety of audiences: insurance, academic, "peak oil", and more general audiences. Her work can be found on her website, Our Finite World. Interview conducted by. James Stafford of Oilprice.com James Stafford: Do you believe that shale gas is the energy savior we have been hoping for and can deliver all that has been promised? Or have we been oversold on its potential? Gail Tverberg: I am doubtful that shale gas will be the energy savior that we have been hoping for. There are several issues: (a) It is hard for US natural gas prices to rise to the point where shale gas extraction will truly be profitable, because of competition with coal in electricity generation. (b) While natural gas can be used for transportation, it takes time, investment, and guaranteed long-term supply for it really to happen. This will be a long, slow process, if it occurs. (c) People won't stand for "fracking" next door, if the end result is LNG for Europe or Japan. We have otherwise "stranded" non-shale gas in Alaska that would be a better option to develop and sell abroad. If shale gas does come into widespread use, it will take many years. The quantity will be helpful, but not huge. Furthermore, it will still be natural gas, rather than the fuel we really need, which is cheap oil. James Stafford: The old dream of US energy independence has been finding its way into the headlines again as a combination of resurgent domestic oil production, improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and the shale boom have led many experts to predict that although it is unlikely, it's no longer the fantasy it once was. What are your thoughts on US energy independence? Gail Tverberg: I think that the direction in years ahead will be toward reduced trade of all sorts. By definition, every country will become "more independent," including more "energy independent". Whether or not current lifestyles are supportable with lower trade is another question. James Stafford: Japan recently made the announcement that they aim to phase out nuclear power by 2040. What is your opinion on this decision and on nuclear energy in general? Can the world live without it? Gail Tverberg: The decision by Japan is worrisome, because there aren't many good replacement options available. Japan has volcanoes, so it may have an option to use geothermal as an option. Also, 2040 is far enough away that other options may become available. Phasing out nuclear in other countries is likely to be difficult. In most countries, this will likely mean "less electricity" or "more coal." It may also mean higher electricity cost, and lower competitiveness for manufacturers. Germany has already started the process of phasing out nuclear. It will be interesting to see how this works out. In general, I think we should be taking a closer look at nuclear, because we have so few other low-carbon options. There is considerable dispute about the extent to which radiation from nuclear is a problem. This question needs to be examined more closely. To use nuclear long-term, we need to find ways to do it cheaply and without a huge amount of hot fuel that needs to be kept away from people indefinitely. James Stafford: Renewable energy continues to be a favorite amongst many politicians – yet advances are slow and expensive. Do you see renewables making a meaningful contribution to global energy production? And if so over what time period? Gail Tverberg: I have a hard time seeing that intermittent renewables (wind and solar photovoltaics) will play a big role in maintaining grid electricity, because of the stress they place on the grid, and the high cost of needed grid upgrades to handle them. Renewables from wood and biomass are hard to scale up, because wood supply is limited and because biomass use tends to compete with food production. Renewables from waste (left over cooking oil, for example) are not something we can count on for the long term, as people stay at home more, and dispose of less waste. Related Articles: Which Biofuels Hold the Most Promise for the Future - Interview with Jim Lane All renewables depend heavily on our fossil fuel system. For example, it takes fossil fuels to make new wind turbines and solar panels, to maintain the electrical grid, and to repair roads needed for maintaining the grid system. Biofuels depend on our fossil fuel based agricultural system. I expect that the contribution renewables make will occur primarily during the next 10 or 20 years, and will decline over time, because of their fossil fuel dependence. Quite a few individuals living off-grid would like to guarantee themselves long-term electricity supply through a few solar panels. This is really a separate application of renewables. It will work as long as the solar-panels work, and there are still the required peripherals (batteries, light bulbs, etc.) available—perhaps 30 years. James Stafford: Are there any renewable energy technologies you are optimistic about and can see breaking away from the pack to help us extend the fossil fuel age? Gail Tverberg: The technology that is probably best is solar thermal. It works like heating a hot water bottle in the sun. This is especially good for reducing the need to use fossil fuels to heat hot water in warm climates. But even this is not going to do a huge amount to fix our problems, especially if they are primarily financial in nature. James Stafford: Renewable energy innovation has been coming under fire lately, with the Solyndra scandal and now Tesla motors are looking to be in trouble - both of whom were backed by government loan guarantees. Do you believe the government should be investing more or less in renewable energy companies? Gail Tverberg: Less. I think we should be looking for inexpensive solutions. Anything that is high-priced starts with two strikes against it. Also, I think if the true picture is considered, the amount of environmental benefits of renewables is very low, or perhaps negative. Their higher cost tends to make countries using them less competitive, sending production to China or other Asian countries where coal is the primary fuel. This may raise world carbon dioxide emissions. Since 2000, world carbon dioxide emissions have increased far more than would have been expected based on prior patterns. A major cause seems to be the shift in industry to Asian countries, as countries attempted to reduce their own carbon footprint. James Stafford: In a recent article you mentioned that the world economy is currently suffering from high-priced fuel syndrome. Would you be able to let our readers know a little more about this? And also if there is anything that can be done economically to help move beyond this syndrome? Gail Tverberg: High priced fuel syndrome is primarily (but not entirely) a problem of fuel importers. It has symptoms such as the following: • Slow economic growth or contraction • People in discretionary industries laid off from work • High unemployment rates • Governments in increasingly poor financial situation • Declining home and property values • Rising food prices Part of the problem seems to occur when fuel prices rise, and people cut back on discretionary spending. The result is layoffs. Fewer people pay taxes, and more collect unemployment benefits, causing financial problems for governments. The other part of the problem seems to be lack of competitiveness with countries (such as China and India) that use a cheaper fuel mix. While oil is the fuel with the big price-problem in the US, high-priced natural gas contributes to the problem in Europe and Japan. High-priced renewables also contribute to the problem. To keep costs down, we really need to consider cost first when considering alternatives to oil. Alternatives that need subsidies or mandates are likely to be a problem. Thus, in the US, natural gas right now might "work" as a substitute, but not offshore wind. Regarding the competitiveness aspect, tariffs on international trade might help, but would reduce world output. Related Article: Can Syria's Rebels Overthrow Assad? An Interview with Jellyfish Operations James Stafford: What is your position on peak oil? Have we already reached the peak in oil production? Or do you side with Daniel Yergin in saying we have decades more of production growth? Gail Tverberg: I think the peak in oil production will be determined based on financial considerations. Such a peak is probably not very far away, because we are already experiencing lower economic growth and the governments of several countries are in dire financial straits. As the oil price gets too high (or already is too high), governments of oil importing nations will be increasingly stressed by high unemployment and low revenue. Any way of fixing this problem (higher taxes, government layoffs, or reduced programs like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance) is likely to lead to lower disposable income and less "demand" for (that is, ability to pay for) products using oil. With lower ability to pay for products using oil, the price of oil will drop. Fewer producers will be able to extract oil at this lower price, and the supply of oil will decrease. James Stafford: What is your view on our energy future? Is it as bleak as some commentators point out – or is there a ray of hope for us? Gail Tverberg: I see the future as fairly bleak. The big issue is the way high oil prices affect the economy, leading to recession, joblessness, and huge government deficits. The issue is really a lack of cheap oil. This is an issue that can't be expected to go away, even with new (high priced) oil supply in the US, or with the possibility of more natural gas supply. We are right now experiencing adverse financial impacts from high oil prices, but these impacts are being disguised by artificially low interest rates and huge amounts of deficit spending. I find it hard to see much of a ray of hope for avoiding some kind of discontinuity, because the problem seems to be already at hand. For example, I see Europe's current financial problems and the US's fiscal cliff as being a direct result of lower energy affordability, especially oil, in recent years. James Stafford: We recently published a news piece on a broker who in a drunken stupor managed to move the oil markets. What do you believe moves oil prices – is it supply and demand or energy market traders – or a bit of both? Gail Tverberg: I think that over the long run it is mostly supply and demand that moves prices. (Of course, demand has to be read as "affordability". People who are paying higher taxes can afford less oil products, so "demand" less.) There may be some short-term impact of energy market traders, but it is likely quite small as a percentage of the total. James Stafford: If oil prices continue to rise do you see Americans changing their driving and energy consumption habits? Gail Tverberg: I think some changes will take place, but they will not be as fast as many would like. New car buyers are likely to be unwilling to pay large upfront costs for fuel-saving features, because they may not own the car for very long. Getting their money's worth will depend on getting a high resale price for the car. People in poor financial condition are more likely to make big changes. People who lose their jobs may sell their cars, and share with others. Teenagers who don't get jobs will not buy a car. People with low wages and long commutes will look for people to share rides with. James Stafford: A short while ago Forbes ran a piece on Thorium as possibly being the biggest energy breakthrough since fire and both China and India have announced their intentions to develop thorium reactors. What are your thoughts on thorium as a possible replacement for uranium? Gail Tverberg: From everything I have heard, it is still a long ways away—at least 15 years. If it would work, it would be great. James Stafford: In another article you have linked energy to employment and recession. Are you suggesting that without growth in energy production the economy will not grow, and employment levels will not rise? Gail Tverberg: It takes external energy to make anything that we make in today's economy. It takes energy to operate construction equipment, or to operate a computer, or to manufacture and transport goods. Even making "services" requires energy. So if we have a lot less energy, today's jobs are likely to be impacted. It is possible that we can create more half-time (and half-pay) jobs, but the result will still be that the world will be a lot poorer. We can still do jobs that don't require external energy (such as make a basket out of reeds, or wash clothes in a stream), but our productivity will be much lower than when electricity or oil was available to leverage our production. James Stafford: What is the most pressing matter that will affect the world in your opinion? food shortage, water shortage, energy shortage, climate change, etc? Gail Tverberg: I think the immediate problem will be financial, but caused by high-priced energy. The big concern I have is that financial problems will lead to political disruption. The natural tendency of countries with less energy supply is to break into smaller units—for example, the Soviet Union broke up into Russia and its member nations. There is now talk about whether Catalonia can become independent from the rest of Spain, and whether the Euro can hold together. If breakups become a major pattern, even spreading to the New World, it could make international trade much more difficult than today. Financial problems could also lead to debt defaults and rapidly shifting currency relationships. These, too, could lead to a reduction in international trade. Related Article: The Real Reason Behind Oil Price Rises - An Interview with James Hamilton James Stafford: Economic growth is what the public expects, anything less is treated as a recession, but is constant economic growth a realistic goal? Is it achievable? Gail Tverberg: Constant economic growth is not a realistic goal. We live in a finite world. This is obvious, if a person stops to think about it. There are only a finite number of atoms in the earth. There are interrelated biological systems on earth, and humans are one part. Humans cannot become too numerous without destroying the ecosystems that we depend on. In a finite world, it is clear that eventually extraction will become more expensive. When we first started extracting fossil fuels, we started with what was easiest (and cheapest) to obtain. As we move to more difficult locations, such as deep under water, or the Arctic, the cost becomes more expensive. It is these high costs that seem to be disturbing economies now. It appears to me that we are now hitting some version of "Limits to Growth". Most economists haven't figured out the connection between the economy and the natural world, so are oblivious to our current predicament. James Stafford: If the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is ever actually made, what do you believe will be the effect on GDP? Gail Tverberg: I don't see renewable energy as being sustainable on its own. If it were, we might expect a GDP level of perhaps 10% or 15% of today's GDP. James Stafford: Other than a severe reduction in the global population what solutions are available to humanity as it reaches the limits of the planet? Gail Tverberg: Unfortunately, solutions seem few and far between. Our biggest problem seems to be a lack of time to fix a financial problem that seems very close at hand. A partial solution for some people may be a reduced standard of living combined with local agriculture. Regardless of what happens, we do have quite a lot of "stuff" that humans have made that will cushion any down slope roads, houses, clothing, and tools, for example. Many people would like a solar panel or two for their long-term use. We also have knowledge that we did not have on the upslope. The past 10,000 years for humans has been real miracle, first with the discovery of agriculture, and later with the discovery of fossil fuels. If there is a Guiding Hand behind what is happening, there may be other miracles in store, as well. James Stafford: In your opinion, who will make the better president in terms of energy policies and saving the economy, at the upcoming elections? Gail Tverberg: The last presidential candidate that I had real enthusiasm for was Ross Perot in 1996. He would have put the United States (and the world) on much more of an isolationist path. In retrospect, this is the one thing that would have helped put off the predicament we are in today, because it would have slowed world economic growth, and with it the extraction of resources. World population would probably be lower now, too. In this election, I would probably slightly favor Romney, because he seems to have some grasp of the issues we are up against. As I look at the numbers, it is absolutely essential that we start cutting programs, if we are to balance the budget. As bad as fossil fuels may be, they provide our jobs, our food, light, and heat so we need to continue to extract them. We don't seem to have very good alternatives at this time. Even what we consider renewables depend upon fossil fuels. In the next four years, I expect we will find ourselves doing a U-turn on economic growth. I don't think either candidate (or for that matter, any leader) will be able to handle this well. Ideally, the new leader should be looking at the issue of how to deal with a low-energy future. Do we move to local agriculture, and if so, how? If rationing is done, how should it be done? If there are not enough jobs for everyone, should we go to more part-time jobs? Romney has been accused of flip-flopping, but in some ways, with such big changes coming, I think that what we need is someone who is willing to change his views with changing circumstances. We seem to be headed for truly uncharted territory. James Stafford: Gail thank you for taking the time to speak with us. Source: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Forget-Renewables-We-Need-Cheap-Oil-An-Interview-with-Gail-Tverberg.html

Money: A New (Decentralized) Shade of Green

Money: A New (Decentralized) Shade of Green As America's clean energy industry takes up position in a no-man's land between subsidies and sustainability, the idea of "Green Banks" is being touted as a life-line that will push the industry into maturity, but it's an idea that will only work on a state level and by empowering states to make their own clean energy decisions. Green Banks are essentially clean energy finance banks formed at the federal or state level that operate as public-private financing institutions with the power to raise capital to support clean energy projects through loans and loan guarantees. These banks can issue bonds and sell equity and they can often offer cheap loans. In the US, it is the state level that would likely take the lead in forming Green Banks, and the state of Connecticut has already taken the plunge with the establishment of the Clean Energy Finance and Investment Authority (CEFIA). Launched last year, CEFIA merges several clean energy funds whose revenues come from a utility system benefit fund and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, among others, with a financing authority repurposed as a clean energy investment bank. Presently, CEFIA is talking with solar photovoltaic stakeholders to boost the bundle, and according to the Brookings Institute, is close to making its first loans. In Germany and the United Kingdom, the idea of the Green Bank has also taken hold, with a clean energy development bank already boasting success in Germany, while the UK's is only just getting off the ground. The UK's version, however, is experiencing some setbacks in and a recession and deficit that is not falling as planned, the UK Green Investment Bank is behind on gaining borrowing powers. The idea is being put forward by the Brookings Institute, which issued an in-depth report on Green Banks last week as part of the Brookings-Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation. But the idea is not entirely new. In fact, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation are similar endeavors that have successfully raised capital for energy and infrastructure in the past. The difference this time around is that Green Banks would be the purview of state governments rather than the federal government. But the idea is not entirely new. In fact, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation are similar endeavors that have successfully raised capital for energy and infrastructure in the past. The difference this time around is that Green Banks would be the purview of state governments rather than the federal government. State budgets are challenged financially, so Green State Banks would be a sound solution that would allow states to leverage public money with private sector funds and, importantly, private sector experience. The overall effect will be to cut clean energy's dependence on federal subsidies and tax credits, which in turn will make them more competitive and hopefully push development into full maturity, all the while allowing states to make their own decisions. It is also much easier for states to forge public-private relations than it is for the federal government. There is no single model that could work across states, however, so it is up to each state to design their own form of green banking. There are at least three models of banks that states could choose from depending on their specific circumstances and needs. The Connecticut model is a semi-public corporation that merges funds the state already has for clean energy with private investment in the bank. They could also take an existing infrastructure bank and add on a Green Bank to its services, or transform a grant authority into a lending authority in partnership with the private sector. More to the point: How will this affect the consumer? According to Bill Ritter, Director of the Center for the New Energy Economy (CNEE) at Colorado State University, consumer purchased energy resources "have never fit well without our existing utility model" because "utilities charge consumers for energy on a monthly basis, having financed their investments over time. Yet, when a consumer purchases efficiency or generation resources, traditionally they need to make a one-time, large up-front expenditure and then see their savings accrue over time through a reduction in their utility bill." Green Banks, he argues, would give consumers more and better options. Specifically, they would allow consumers to replace a portion of their monthly utility payment with a payment for energy efficiency or solar power and thus "protect themselves against rising utility bills and increase the value of their home or business while lowering their utility costs at the same time." The bottom line is that green banking is a good idea, as long as it remains the purview of state governments rather than the federal government. At a time when clean energy is under attack and only on the cusp of maturity, state green banks could be the first feasible plan out there, and it's likely to be attractive to a host of governors. The idea will gain even more traction if Congress fails to extend the production tax credit (PTC) this year. Without green banking, the PTC is the only way the clean energy industry will survive. Green banking is a more viable alternative that extending the PTC. Source: http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Money-A-New-Decentralized-Shade-of-Green.html By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

Thousands of Bombs Dumped in Gulf of Mexico Pose Huge Threat to Oil Rigs

Thousands of Bombs Dumped in Gulf of Mexico Pose Huge Threat to Oil Rigs After World War II the US government dumped millions of kilograms of unexploded bombs into the Gulf of Mexico. This is no secret; many governments dumped their unexploded ordnance into oceans and lakes from 1946 up until the 1970s when it was made illegal under international treaty. Now that technology has advanced enough for oil companies to drill deep sea wells in the Gulf of Mexico, those forgotten payloads have become a real hazard. The US designated certain areas around its coast for the safe dumping of explosives, nerve gas, and mustard gas. The problem is that the records of where these munitions were dumped are incomplete, and many experts believe that a lot of cargo was dumped outside of the designated areas. Now, decades later, no one has any idea of where the bombs are, exactly how many were dumped, or if they still pose a threat to humans or marine life. William Bryant, a Texas A&M University professor of oceanography, summarized the situation by saying that the "bombs are a threat today and no one knows how to deal with the situation. If chemical agents are leaking from some of them, that's a real problem. If many of them are still capable of exploding, that's another big problem." In 2011 BP had to close down its Forties crude oil pipe in the North Sea, which carries 40% of the UK's oil production, after they found a four metre unexploded German mine laying just next to it. The giant mine was found during a routine inspection of the pipeline, and forced its closure for five days whilst engineers attempted to safely remove it and transport a safe distance away to be detonated. Professor Bryant remarked that he has come across 227 kg bombs off the coast of Texas and well outside the designated dumping grounds. He also said that at least one pipeline from the Gulf of Mexico had been laid across a chemical weapons dump site. Terrance Long, the founder of the underwater munitions conference, said "it makes more sense to start dealing with the munitions from a risk-mitigation standpoint to be able to conduct operations in those areas rather than trying to avoid that they are there." Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Thousands-of-Bombs-Dumped-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-Pose-Huge-Threat-to-Oil-Rigs.html By. Joao Peixe of Oilprice.com

Energy New Front in Economic Warfare

Energy New Front in Economic Warfare Opposition leaders in Canada suggested a string of cyber security threats to domestic companies might be the work of Chinese hackers. Twice last week, the Canadian government confirmed two separate companies -– both in the energy sector -- were the target of cyber-attacks. In the United States, meanwhile, the Obama administration said national security interests trumped energy concerns and blocked a Chinese company from constructing wind turbines near a Navy installation in Oregon. While the Chinese military isn't the overt threat like the Soviet Union was, Beijing's rise as an economic power has seemingly sparked a war of economies. The Canadian government last week confirmed that two energy companies were the target of a cyber-attack believed to have originated from China. Though Beijing denied it was responsible for the attacks, opposition leaders in Canada said there was cause for concern given the pending Chinese takeover of Canadian energy company Nexen. "Cyber security is something we have to pay attention to and that ... includes how deals are set up and trade deals are set up and acquisitions are made," said legislator Paul Dewar, the foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition New Democratic Party. Nexen in August backed a $15-billion takeover bid by China National Offshore Oil Corp. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has lobbied for Chinese investments in his country's vast oil and gas riches. Those ambitions could be derailed, however, given political divisions in Canada and Dewar's comments may further exacerbate tensions following a Chinese leader's statement that Beijing can't do business in Canada if deals like Nexen become politicized. Meanwhile, the U.S. government last week blocked Ralls Corp from moving forward with plans to install wind turbines near or within restricted air space at a naval weapons training facility in the western state of Oregon. President George H.W. Bush was the last U.S. president to declare such action when, in 1990, he blocked a Chinese aerospace technology company from buying out a manufacturing company in the United States. Ralls has four wind farm projects in various stages of development and said it would take the matter before the courts. Despite U.S. President Barack Obama's "all-of-the-above" domestic energy policy, the administration said the move to build wind installations so close to a military site was a threat to national security interests. Beijing on Monday celebrated the 63rd anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. An opinion piece in China's official Xinhua News Agency last week said the country is "confidently grasping opportunities" given the pace of economic growth since 1949. As economies expand, they must do so beyond their borders as domestic markets become saturated. With the Cold War over, it's unlikely the geopolitical fears that dominated the international arena in the 1940s would redevelop in the early 21st century. But as low-grade conflict becomes the norm, so too may a different kind of global warfare. U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Samuel Cox last week accusing Beijing of trying to crack into the Pentagon's computer network. "Their level of effort against the Department of Defense is constant," he said. Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Energy-New-Front-in-Economic-Warfare.html By. Daniel J. Graeber of Oilprice.com

What Impact does Oil have on the Syrian Civil War? There is a popular belief in the Middle East that Washington's foreign policy, particularly as it relates to this precarious region, is largely driven by America's dependency on, and insatiable appetite for Arab oil. One can make a good argument for that. Had Syria been a major oil producing country chances are the US would have already dispatched military forces to impose a pax Americana and to put a stop to the horrific fighting that has been slowly, but without any doubt, ripping Syria apart and dismantling the infrastructures that make the Syrian state what it is today. Even if the war was to end today it would take years for Syria to return to its pre-war position from an economic and military perspective. Some analysts believe that oil is what drove the United States to become militarily involved in Kuwait in 1990-91, in Iraq in 2003 and more recently in Libya. Asides from some stealth behind the scenes support to a few of the many rebel groups engaged in the conflict that has been forthcoming in the form of weapons (mostly light weapons) and some intelligence delivered to a handful of the multitude of forces demanding the departure of Syrian President Bashar Assad, the US-NATO-Saudi-Qatari alliance has refrained from moving to the next step; full scale military intervention. Last week the Qataris made some attempts at the UN General Assembly in New York to drum up support for an Arab military intervention in Syria but that did not seem to take any traction with other Arab countries. In the 18 months since the Syrian strife began in earnest human rights groups claim that some 30,000 people have been killed so far and some 350,000 Syrians have fled their country seeking refuge in Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. If the current pace of refugees continues – and there is nothing to indicate it will abate anytime soon -- human rights groups and the UN relief agencies anticipate that number to jump to a staggering 700,000 people by the end of this year. In a country with a total population of some 20 million, those are frightful numbers. Those are frightful numbers by any means and with winter just around the corner the fate of the refugees becomes even more concerning. While Syria may not be a major oil producer, it does however have some oil, though not abundantly, therefor placing the country in a non-strategic second-tier position, as far as the interests of the United States and its allies in the region are concerned. Nevertheless, it is Syria's geographic location on the old caravan route between Turkey and Arabia, or as it used to be known in the days of old, between Constantinople and the Hijaz -- that still holds the same strategic importance today as it did in the days of the caravan trains. The names on the maps may have changed, Constantinople becoming Istanbul and the Hijaz, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, but very little else has changed in the end game except for the caravans giving way to trade routes and oil pipelines. And unless the geography of the region can change (unlikely), Syria remains very much the pathway to the Arab hinterland. During the last several decades Lebanon and Turkey have been described as gateways to the Middle East. And indeed, they often are. However, it is important to remember that just as double security doors that one finds in many banks where customers enter the establishment through two sets of doors, where the first set needs to shut before the second set can be opened, Syria plays the same role in the region today. Lebanon and Turkey may be the "gateways" to the Levant and beyond, however in both instances the next overland point for any overland traveller or goods goes obligatory through Syria. If people have to travel through Syrian territory to get to/from points beyond these traditional "gateways," then so do goods and natural resource such as oil and natural gas pipelines. Understand that and you can begin to understand part of the on-going conflict in the Middle East today. Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/What-Impact-does-Oil-have-on-the-Syrian-Civil-War.html By. Claude Salhani for Oilprice.com