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

[krsna]

javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2005/09/23/magazine/20050925_CARS_SLIDESHOW_index.html',%20'750_630',%20'width=750,height=630,location=no,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,resizable=yes')

[krsna]

 

in.rediff.com

 

AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND, October 7, 2005: It might sound nuts, but two engineering students in New Zealand claim that coconut oil can be used as an alternative to diesel, providing a possible answer to rising fuel cost woes. Samoan Dominic Schwalger and Penaia Rogoiumari from Fiji, both students at Auckland University in northern New Zealand, demonstrated on Friday how a diesel engine can run on a blend of diesel and coconut oil, or on pure coconut oil alone. "What we have shown is that without any modification to either the pure oil or the engine you can use it as an alternative fuel,'' they said in a statement released by the university. The budding engineers said they have analyzed engine performance and exhaust emissions as part of their research. Their findings could help reduce fuel prices, especially in southern Asia and the Pacific Islands where coconuts are cheaply grown and plentiful. Schwalger said producing coconut oil for use in standard diesel engines is a simple process, unlike some bio-diesels, which require complex equipment and chemical reactions. "The combination of a ready supply of coconuts, rising fuel prices and ease of manufacture makes this a real option for villagers who need to run equipment like generators or boat engines,'' Rogoiumari said. At that point, it is ready for use and is utilized already in various ways such as cooking oil and suntan lotions,'' he said, adding that experiments involving coconut oil as a fuel substitute have been carried out in Asia and the Pacific Islands in the past two years.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I would absolutly agree on these findings. I wish United States Researchers would be vey interested if this project is already be proved by these young men. With all the related problems that the American gas been raised to $3.00 per gallon. It is very frustrating because, if gas is produce this way by using our own productive coconuts were being saved.. Why spent a lot of money buying Oil from other countries when you actually grow the product.

 

Student of Leone Midkiff School

Imelda Luisa Aiono...

[Guest guest]

bikes are the transport used world wide

better to bike than b-tch about oil dependancy

you can ride a bike anywhere accept for in like the songs

or, you can rollerskate .....even in a buffalo herd

[Guest guest]

7 time Tour de France winner and cancer survivor

pretty heady stuff - you go L

should get people off their duffs and out on a bike for health and economic benifits

[Guest guest]

can you chant hare krsna on bike rides

[krsna]

 

by Diamond Organics

 

Posted November 10, 2005

 

MARSHALL, CA - Completing a 5 year process, Straus Family Creamery, California's cutting-edge organic dairy, created electricity today from its new methane digester. The digester captures naturally occurring gas from manure and converts it into electricity.

 

With this new system, Straus is expected to generate up to 600,000 kWh per year, saving about 6,000 dollars in monthly energy costs. This process will also eliminate methane, a natural by-product of manure. According to the 2003 U.S. Department of Energy Report on Greenhouse Gases, agricultural sources, primarily animal waste, account for approximately 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Funded by California's SB5X alternative energy grant program, this is the first system to take advantage of regulations of net metering law which effectively allows the entire Straus operation to run meters in reverse as excess electricity is sent back into the grid.

 

Managing manure in a way that protects the environment has always been a goal of Albert Straus, farmer and owner of Straus Family Creamery. A cow can generate 120 lbs of waste per day, which translates to 40,000 lbs. per year per animal. While all waste at Straus dairy is composted and reused as fertilizer, this system provides additional and far-reaching benefits.

 

The project was funded in part with grants from California's Energy Commission (CEC), Marin County Resource Conservation District (RCD), California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. EPA and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Other support came from Sustainable Conservation, a non-profit environmental group, which was instrumental in helping farmers get credit for the electricity they send to the grid. Western United Resource Development helped make the grant money available to buy the generator. Williams Engineering Associates designed and managed the project.

 

"This is one more step towards my goal of having our farm become completely self-sufficient in energy, with minimal environmental impact," Albert Straus stated.

 

*This methane digester is a model solution for one of the greater challenges of the dairy industry. *

 

"The Straus Dairy has again demonstrated leadership to the rest of the dairy community by adopting one of the most environmentally beneficial renewable energy technologies," according Allen Dusault of Sustainable Conservation. "It provides a triple win producing cleaner air and water and a new source of renewable energy."

 

The Straus dairy has been in operation since 1941. Straus Family Creamery just celebrated 10 years of processing and recently introduced their all organic ingredient Super Premium Ice Creams which are available in natural food and specialty stores throughout the western U.S.

 

[Tarun]

One SP ziSya tried chanting with beads while biking.

Having been caught within spokes:

"Beads were flying everywhere, I left without my Swami Hat"

I chant while riding my 6 wheel bike? trike? quadri-psyche? pentacycle? quintessential? hexabykle? one heck of a bike, indeed.

[JaiSacinandana]

I think some of you guys need to look at this website, it's not that simple to change, we need oil otherwise there's chaos....it's called Kali Yuga....

 

...http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/...

 

Lifes not as simple as it is made out to be on the media, just bring in hydro car's, yeh right who ya trying to kid.

 

With even a small reduction 10 to 15 percent of oil production it would have massive effect's on the stabilization of the economy, a global recession could incure. Basic principle of our modern civilization is that everything is reliant on oil, mainly being transport 2/3, energy and our ability to produce products food etc.

 

Anyway an indepth analysis by Matt Savinar is an eye opener and a must to read for anyone interested in the coming events of... Life after the oil crash.

 

A must read...http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

 

[krsna]

It's gonna happen folks: gas is going through the roof, soon gas will be sold at $500 a gallon and you'll all be sorry for being gas addicts. Shame on you!

[krsna]

Bush asks Congress to clear way for offshore oil drilling

 

<!-- google_ad_section_end --><!--endclickprintinclude--><!--startclickprintinclude-->

• GOP stands for Gas and Oil Party, Democratic congressman says
  

 

<!--endclickprintexclude--><!--startclickprintexclude--><!--endclickprintexclude-->WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush asked Congress on Wednesday to permit drilling for oil in deep water off America's coasts to combat rising oil and gas prices.

<!--startclickprintexclude--><!----><!--===========IMAGE============-->

 

 

<!--===========/IMAGE===========-->

 

<!--===========CAPTION==========-->If President Bush can persuade Congress, more oil rigs like this one off Canada could appear off U.S. shores.<!--===========/CAPTION=========-->

 

 

<!--endclickprintexclude-->"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a Rose Garden statement.

Bush also renewed his demand that Congress allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, clear the way for more refineries and encourage efforts to recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

Bush said that the basin potentially contains more than three times as much recoverable oil as Saudi Arabia's proven reserves and that the high price of oil makes it profitable to extract it.

 

"In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at home," Bush said, adding hat there is no more pressing issue for many Americans than gas prices.

 

Meanwhile, Wednesday at an energy forum in Springfield, Missouri, Sen. John McCain continued his pitch for offshore drilling.

 

"In the short term, this requires more domestic production, especially in the Outer Continental Shelf. We need to encourage production in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that permit exploration, there must be a sharing of benefits between state and federal governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, we must assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production," the presumed Republican presidential nominee said.

<!--startclickprintexclude-->Oil production cost

 

<!-- KEEP -->Here's what the price of a barrel of oil needs to be for different sources of petroleum to be profitably extracted:

- Accessible land: $19

- Shallow water: $20-60

- Deep water: $60

- Shale mining: $30-50

- Oil sands: $50-60

Current price per barrel: $134

Sources: U.S. Govt. CERA, Rand, EnCana

<!--endclickprintexclude-->The White House estimates that there are 18 billion barrels of oil offshore that have not been exploited because of state bans, 10 billion to 12 billion in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin.

 

iReport.com: Is drilling the best option?

 

However, much of the U.S. oil is difficult or impossible to extract under current law.

As for gas prices, resuming offshore exploration would not be a quick fix.

 

"If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves," said Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division.

But it almost certainly would be profitable.

Candida Scott, an oil industry researcher at Cambridge Research Associates, said oil needs to be priced at $60 a barrel or more to justify deep-shelf drilling. With oil now selling for $134 a barrel, companies are almost assured of profiting from offshore drilling, Scott said.

"For years, the president has pushed Congress to expand our domestic oil supply, but Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked such action," White House press secretary Dana Perino said before Bush spoke.

She added, "As with several existing Republican congressional proposals, he wants to work with states to determine where offshore drilling should occur, and also for the federal government to share revenues with the states. The president believes Congress shouldn't waste any more time."

 

Democrats were quick to reject Bush's proposal.

"After eight years, President Bush and [Vice President] Dick Cheney have turned the GOP into the Gas and Oil Party. That's the legacy that they are going to leave," said Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

 

"The White House has become a ventriloquist for the oil and gas industry, repeating the requests of the oil and gas industry: that they be allowed to destroy the most pristine areas of our country," Markey added.

 

Congressional Democrats introduced a bill last week to compel oil companies to begin utilizing federal land they already lease.

 

<!--endclickprintexclude-->"Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres they have already leased from the American people for the purpose of oil and natural gas production," said Sen. Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey.

 

"It is about time they use these resources already at their disposal instead of waiting for more federal handouts and pushing to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or up and down our coasts," he added.

Bush's request came a day after McCain issued the same call at a campaign event in Houston, Texas.

"We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States," he said. "But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use."

 

He said that lifting the ban could be done "in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection."

Opponents of offshore drilling say it would harm aquatic ecosystems by eroding wetlands, contaminating the water with chemicals, polluting the air, killing fish and dumping waste.

McCain made clear that he favors continuing the ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"Quite rightly, I believe, we confer a special status on some areas of our country that are best left undisturbed. When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a 'refuge' for a reason," he said.

McCain's plan would let individual states decide whether to explore drilling possibilities.

According to his campaign, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama wants to invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to establish a green energy sector, create a national low-carbon fuel standard to ensure that the fuel is more efficient, and invest in clean energies like solar, wind and biodiesel.

<!--startclickprintexclude-->

 

 

 

 

 

 

<!--endclickprintexclude-->New drilling already could be in the works 50 miles off the Florida coast -- by Cubans, not Americans, with help from China and other allies. A rich undersea oil field stretches into Cuban waters near the Florida Keys.

"The people I represent can't understand how we can possibly let China end up with rights to our oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico because we say we're not going to do it and they say, 'OK, we'll do it, and we'll work with Cuba, if we have to, to do it,' " said U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tennessee. "That's really asinine."

[krsna]

<TABLE class=storycontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Gore challenges US to ditch oil

 

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storybody><!-- S BO --><!-- Inline Embbeded Media --><!-- This is the embedded player component -->

<!-- caption -->Al Gore sets his oil challenge to Americans

 

<!-- END - caption -->

<!-- end of the embedded player component --><!-- END of Inline Embedded Media --><!-- S SF -->

The Nobel laureate and former US vice- president, Al Gore, has urged Americans to abandon electricity generated by fossil fuels within a decade.

 

Mr Gore compared the scale of the challenge to that of putting a man on the moon in the 1960s.

 

He said it did not make sense that the US was borrowing money from China to burn oil from the Middle East which then contributed to climate change.

Critics say weaning the US off fossil fuels is not possible within a decade.

<!-- E SF -->

Mr Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year for his work on climate change, insists his goal is achievable and affordable.

<!-- S IBOX --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=231 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=5></TD><TD class=sibtbg> We have a hundred years of infrastructure with trillions of dollars of investment that is not simply going to be made obsolete

 

Robby Diamond,

Securing America's Future Energy

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IBOX -->

"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels," he said in a speech in Washington.

 

"When you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices."

 

To secure this green revolution, Mr Gore said the single most important policy change would be to "tax what we burn - not what we earn".

 

Green campaign?

Mr Gore's speech elicited huge cheers from a packed conference hall near the White House, but whether his message is taken up in the presidential election campaign depends on how much the electorate warms to his vision, says the BBC's Warren Bull.

 

Mr Gore said US presidential contenders Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain were way ahead of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

They appear to agree on the need for progress on green issues, says our correspondent.

President George W Bush has often been criticised for not doing enough to tackle climate change.

At the recent G8 summit of developed nations in Japan, he did move the US closer to a consensus on climate change, by agreeing to language which makes achieving 50% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 a G8 "vision".

Cold turkey

Electricity generated from non-fossil sources amounted to almost 28% of the total in 2007, according to US government figures, with most of that coming from nuclear power.

Hydro-electric stations generated nearly 6% of US electricity needs and other renewable sources such as wind, solar and wood accounted for 2.5%.

Burning coal provided almost half of US electricity last year.

Mr Gore's ambitious plan would still rely on nuclear energy for a fifth of America's energy needs. Many see the goal as unachievable.

Robby Diamond, president of a bipartisan think tank called Securing America's Future Energy, said weaning the nation off fossil fuels could not be done in a decade.

"The country is not going to be able to go cold turkey," he told the Associated Press. "We have a hundred years of infrastructure with trillions of dollars of investment that is not simply going to be made obsolete."

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[suchandra]

 

<table class="storycontent" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">Gore challenges US to ditch oil

 

 

</td></tr><tr><td class="storybody">

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Oil - they don't even know if oil is restocked by natural metamorphosis or if the oil stock was created once and runs out at a certain point and is gone forever.

What do they know actually? So far it seems only how to burn it.

[Samia]

algore is so full of ... well I will spare the bad words. His vision of change is simply the fat cats consuming and the little guy having even less than now. Daily more and more researchers are coming out with evidence that global warming is nothing more than a natural orbital cycle.

Thats not to say there is not a problem with sickness being caused by pollution, however the vision algore preaches to sell his companies carbon offsets is false. Hate to break it to ya but algore has no interest in real solutions just in making cash. I will give you 2 easy to figure out examples.

 

1. It is an accepted FACT that factory farming is doing real damage to the enviroment. Most experts agree that going Vegan will have a near immediate effect on the enviroment and as a side bonus it would also allow more crops to be grown and more hungry people to be fed. algore won`t give up his meat and ignores all evidence that this simple lifestyle change will have 100 times the impact all his " visions " will.

 

2. LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU

CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.

Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated

by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the

average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for

electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural

gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property

consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.

This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's

in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,

this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction

can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and

is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central

closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water

through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67

degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The

system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes

25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling

system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000

gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets

goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The

collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers

and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding

rural landscape.

 

Here is a hint one is a true conservationist the other just sees dollar signs.

[suchandra]

 

algore is so full of ... well I will spare the bad words. His vision of change is simply the fat cats consuming and the little guy having even less than now. Daily more and more researchers are coming out with evidence that global warming is nothing more than a natural orbital cycle.

Thats not to say there is not a problem with sickness being caused by pollution, however the vision algore preaches to sell his companies carbon offsets is false. Hate to break it to ya but algore has no interest in real solutions just in making cash. I will give you 2 easy to figure out examples.

 

1. It is an accepted FACT that factory farming is doing real damage to the enviroment. Most experts agree that going Vegan will have a near immediate effect on the enviroment and as a side bonus it would also allow more crops to be grown and more hungry people to be fed. algore won`t give up his meat and ignores all evidence that this simple lifestyle change will have 100 times the impact all his " visions " will.

 

2. LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU

CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

HOUSE # 1:

A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.

Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated

by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the

average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for

electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural

gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property

consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.

This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's

in the South.

HOUSE # 2:

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university,

this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction

can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and

is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central

closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water

through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67

degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The

system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes

25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling

system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000

gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets

goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The

collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers

and shrubs native to the are! a blend the property into the surrounding

rural landscape.

 

Here is a hint one is a true conservationist the other just sees dollar signs.

 

 

 

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

 

"I can pay it, but I have nothing left over to eat," says Cambero..........

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2006-04-03-arms-cover-usat_x.htm

[Samia]

 

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

 

"I can pay it, but I have nothing left over to eat," says Cambero..........

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2006-04-03-arms-cover-usat_x.htm

 

 

Well the big oil people are finally seeing the cash in wind and solar but right now most of the money is being made by buying your right to be an energy hog ( carbon credits ) and take a look at who owns most of those trading companies, the same folks spreading the misinformation.

True energy freedom will NEVER happen in America because most alternative sources are like you said too expensive for the average people to afford and most of them are really untested in large scale long term use.

The real way to change is by simply cutting back and not eating meat

[suchandra]

 

Well the big oil people are finally seeing the cash in wind and solar but right now most of the money is being made by buying your right to be an energy hog ( carbon credits ) and take a look at who owns most of those trading companies, the same folks spreading the misinformation.

True energy freedom will NEVER happen in America because most alternative sources are like you said too expensive for the average people to afford and most of them are really untested in large scale long term use.

The real way to change is by simply cutting back and not eating meat

 

Wonder why people accept all this. Biogas systems - gas produced from cow manure is in India affordable for anyone who keeps 10 cows.

In the West they installed a situation where average farmers can never pay for such a biogas system. They installed a couple of such biogas systems obviously just for fun to show people that they have the knowledge but for normal people impose conditions that make it impossible to produce biogas.

 

 

A program local farmers can take part in to build systems that convert agricultural waste into clean energy is already getting criticized.

The 9 million dollar program announced yesterday is to help farmers and rural businesses carry out feasibility studies for the installation of biogas systems.

Applicants can receive up to 40 per cent of funding needed to set up the systems, to a maximum of 400-thousand dollars.

Biogas systems are fuelled by renewable materials such as manure, crops, crop residues and food processing byproducts. The biogas can be used like natural gas to fuel electrical generators, engines, boilers and burners.

But Susan Antler, of the Composting Council, says the program lacks environmental controls.

 

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

 

photo originally uploaded by troymckaskle

 

 

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

 

In this case, cow power is good for the environment, the economy and entrepreneurs like BioEnergy's David Albers. California is home to nearly 2 million cows and more than 2,000 dairies. Unlike the coastal cows enjoying the ocean view in the photo above, most California cows live on industrial-scale dairies in the Central Valley. Those operations produce enormous quantities of manure and thus methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases. The resulting air and water pollution and other environmental impacts have resulted in stricter state regulations on dairying in recent years. Albers, who also is an attorney, has represented his fellow dairy owners in their tangles with regulators and environmentalists.

California, meanwhile, has imposed a mandate that 20 percent of electricity sold by investor-owned utilities like PG&E, Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) come from renewable energy sources by 2010. That's making cow poop look profitable as source of really natural gas. "We found the perfect storm of opportunity," Albers told Green Wombat. "It’s such a great solution on so many levels, given the air quality problems in the Central Valley and the renewable energy mandate." Albers started BioEnergy Solutions last year and began negotiating with PG&E, which had just signed a cow power deal with a company called Microgy. Like its competitor, BioEnergy Solutions will install methane digesters at dairies, where manure will be pumped into covered lagoons. As methane is released from the decomposing manure, the digester will remove the carbon dioxide and impurities before piping the gas to a PG&E plant to be burned to produce greenhouse gas-free electricity. Albers says BioEnergy will install and operate the digesters at no cost to dairy owners while giving them a share of the gas sales (he wouldn't say how much) and any renewable energy credits that result. "Even though there’s been a lot of digester technology out there, there's never been a situation where the dairyman can share in the profits," Albers says.

The first digester will be installed at Albers own 3,000-cow dairy in Fresno County this spring and he expects gas to begin flowing to a PG&E plant by summer through existing pipelines. BioEnergy will need to install between 20 and 30 digesters over the next two-and-a-half years to supply 3 billion cubic feet of methane gas annually to the utility at market rates. Albers declined to reveal BioEnergy's funding but said the company is self-financed.

There's still plenty of room on the range for prospective cow power pioneers. The BioEnergy contract will supply just 10 percent of the 30 billion cubic feet of gas typically used by a single large natural gas power plant each year, according to PG&E spokesman Keely Wachs. The big question, of course, is whether renewable energy startups will be able to step up and meet the ambitious targets set by PG&E and other utilities.

[suchandra]

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

 

From Times Online

<!-- this will be populated from CMS --><!-- BEGIN: Module - Advert:Top --><!-- For Travel Search --><!--SECTION:parameter parameter="dart.server" /--><!-- END: Module - Advert:Top -->

July 29, 2008

BP profits hit record $13.4bn on soaring oil price

 

<!-- END: Module - Main Heading --><!--CMA user Call Diffrenet Variation Of Image --><!-- BEGIN: Module - M24 Article Headline with no image (a) --><!-- getting the section url from article. This has been done so that correct url is generated if we are coming from a section or topic --><!-- Print Author name associated with the article --><!-- Print Author name from By Line associated with the article --> Robin Pagnamenta

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4420895.ece

 

BP, the British oil giant, unveiled a 23 per cent rise in profits this morning, boosted by record global crude prices.

Replacement cost profit, which strips out unrealised gains from changes in the value of fuel stocks, hit a record $13.44 billion (£6.7 billion) during the first half of the year, up from $10.93 billion a year ago.

During the second quarter to June 30 2008, profits rose from $6.48 billion to an all-time high of $6.85 billion.

Despite the record result, the company said that it was struggling to restore earnings from its troubled US refining division and offered little news on TNK-BP, its Russian joint venture.

 

BP is currently engaged in a row with its Russian joint-venture partners over control of TNK-BP, and last week its chief executive, Robert Dudley, fled Moscow and is running the business from a secret location.

Today's results showed that the bulk of gains were derived from BP’s exploration and production division, which benefited from “higher oil and gas realisations” during the period.

Oil prices averaged more than $120 a barrel in the second quarter, nearly twice the level during the same period of 2007. Crude touched an all-time high of $147 per barrel just a few days after the end of the quarter, on July 11.

The company also reported an improvement in throughput from its troubled refining operation but said that margins had been badly squeezed during the period, wiping out any potential financial gain.

Refinery throughputs increased to 2.239 million barrels per day, up from 2.128 million a year ago, reflecting continued efforts to resolve safety and technical problems at its facilities at Texas City and Whiting, Indiana in the US.

However, BP said replacement cost profits from refining and marketing had plunged to $539 million during the second quarter, down from $2.7 billion a year ago.

The company blamed the result on poor refining margins, which it said remained “significantly lower” than in 2007, as well as lower sales volumes resulting from “higher fuel prices and lower demand”.

Average global refining margins, at $8.19 per barrel for the quarter, were less than half the $16.66 posted a year ago, although they were an improvement on $4.57 in the first quarter of 2008.

BP acknowledged that “a number of differences” had arisen between BP and AAR, its Russian joint venture partner in TNK-BP. It said it continued to work to resolve these matters but that it was “currently not possible to predict the outcome”.

The oil giant said overall oil production levels were broadly steady at 3.83 million barrels per day.

BP shares rose 1.88 per cent to 529p in morning trade.

[suchandra]

11.15am BST update

 

Shell announces £2m an hour profits

 

<!-- end article-header -->

• Terry Macalister
  
• guardian.co.uk,
  
• Thursday July 31 2008
  
• Article history

Shell stoked the furore over high petrol and wider fuel prices today by reporting profits of nearly $8bn (£4bn) in the second quarter of the year, equivalent to £2m an hour.

The figures were boosted by earnings from the company's controversial oil sands business in North America which increased their earnings by 74% over the last three months.

But Jeroen van der Veer, the Shell chief executive, warned that talk of windfall taxes against the energy companies would be unfair and counterproductive. "Let's hope it does not happen," he said. "I don't see why it will help consumers in the long term."

Shell argues that it is investing more heavily in new oil and gas production than ever before to meet soaring demand and a windfall tax would damage its ability to provide supplies into the future. The company also says that the British government should not tax profits made in other parts of the world.

Profits in Canada - from tar sands - should be invested in Canada, said Van der Veer. "I fail to see why the UK can tax that away," he added.

Van der Veer was speaking as Shell unveiled second-quarter earnings on a current cost of supplies basis of $7.9bn as against $7.6bn for the same period of 2007. But underlying earnings were estimated by the oil company at $8.6bn, up 26% on last year.

The company declined to say how much it had earned from British motorists at its network of petrol service stations but it insisted it was "one of the cheapest" suppliers and pointed out that its overall refining and marketing business had been having a rough period with big profits coming from exploration and production.

A doubling of the oil price to $120 per barrel across the quarter drove those profits while Shell admitted that its overall oil and gas production fell slightly to 3.1m barrels of oil equivalent per day in the second quarter 2008, from 3.1m in the same quarter last year.

The company was hit by civil unrest in Nigeria and changes to its tar sands business but the carbon-intensive operation in Canada still produced earnings of $351m, up 74%. Van der Veer dismissed threats of boycotts by ethical investment funds over the tar sands operation saying they should be careful because failure to exploit unconventional sources of new oil could leave the world using more coal.

 

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

[suchandra]

Get ready for Rs2.5/litre hike on fuel every month!

2008-08-11 10:40:00

http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Get-ready-for-Rs25-litre-hike-on-fuel-every-month!-11018-3-1.html

Commodity Online

NEW DELHI: Are you ready to pay Rs 2.5 extra for every litre of petrol that you fill in your car every month? Yes, Rs2.5/litre hike on petrol and Rs0.75/litre for diesel every month may be a reality in India, if the government approves a report from an expert committee on oil pricing.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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