Source: Reuters // Reuters
* TransCanada offers $100 mln bond, other protections
* Measures in response to concerns raised at meeting
* Pipeline would cross aquifer in north central Nebraska (Adds details, TransCanada comments, background)
OMAHA, Nebraska, Oct 18 (Reuters) - TransCanada Corp
State lawmakers want TransCanada to move the pipeline route from Nebraska's Sandhills region, which sits atop a massive aquifer from which a large portion of the agriculture-heavy central United States gets its water.
In a letter to the speaker of the legislature on Tuesday, TransCanada executive Alex Pourbaix said the company cannot make changes to the right-of-way so late in the review process, but is prepared to offer a host of other protections for the environmentally sensitive area.
TransCanada would put up a $100 million performance bond it would make available to the state if the company does not clean up a spill in the Sandhills area.
Among other measures, it would build a concrete containment structure at a pump station to stop any oil from mixing with surface water in the event of a spill, as well as install a pipe coating made of concrete or other materials in areas where the water table is close to the surface.
"I believe they should help alleviate any remaining concerns about the safety of the approved route of the pipeline," Pourbaix wrote in the letter to the speaker, Senator Mike Flood.
The company has yet to receive a response, TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said.
The risk of oil spills in the area of the aquifer, called the Ogallala, is one of several points of opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, which would move up to 700,000 barrels a day of oil sands-derived crude to Texas from northern Alberta, Canada.
The U.S. State Department is expected to rule by the end of this year on whether TransCanada can build the controversial line, which the company has said will create U.S. jobs and improve energy security.
Howard said the concessions are in response to concerns raised at a meeting with Nebraska lawmakers last week.
"We had made a commitment to the speaker and some of the state senators that were involved that we would consider some of the requests they made and see what we may be able to do to further enhance the safety of the pipeline, especially in the Sandhills region," Howard said.
"We spent the last week having a look at this and this is what we were able to commit to in terms of enhancements that are above and beyond what we've already done and agreed to."
TransCanada has said the pipeline would be the most advanced and safest ever built.
Still, in the letter, Pourbaix offered to conduct water well testing for landowners within 300 feet of the proposed right-of-way in the Sandhills region and locate oil spill equipment and personnel there as well. (Writing by Jeffrey Jones; Editing by David Gregorio and Bob Burgdorfer)
=====
Alberta: EU oil sands ranking a threat to trade
21 Oct 2011 12:53
Source: Reuters // Reuters
* Letter coincides with trade talks between Canada, EU
* EU committee on Tuesday to debate EU fuels ranking
* EU sources deny Canadian oil sands are being singled out (Adds detail, reaction)
By Charlie Dunmore and Barbara Lewis
BRUSSELS, Oct 21 (Reuters) - The government of Alberta, home to the bulk of Canada's oil sands, has written to EU experts voicing "grave concerns" that the bloc's plans to rank unconventional oil as a highly polluting fuel are unfair and a potential threat to trade ties.
"The proposed measure has been deliberately crafted in such a way as to discriminate specifically and uniquely against oil sands derived fuels," said a copy of the letter seen by Reuters.
"Alberta believes that the fuel quality directive implementing measure as it currently stands would be incompatible with the EU's international trade obligations."
The letter came ahead of a meeting scheduled for Tuesday of a committee of EU government experts. They plan to debate a proposed green ranking of fuels, which is designed to enable fuel suppliers to identify the most carbon-intensive options.
The proposed ranking assigns tar sands a default greenhouse gas value of 107 grams of carbon per megajoule, making it clear to buyers that it has a greater climate impact than conventional crude oil, whose value is 87.5 grams, an EU source said.
The letter on behalf of the Alberta government -- signed by its United Kingdom office and sent to all 27 members of the expert committee -- argues there is no scientific reason to differentiate between Canada's oil sands and other crude sources.
EU Commission sources have said the measures do not label only Canadian oil sands as carbon intensive, but also those from Venezuela. They have said the measures take account of carbon emitted across the entire life-cycle of a fuel.
If any oil sand-derived product can demonstrate that over its life-cycle its emissions are less than 107 grams per megajoule, only its actual emissions will be taken into account.
Two of the other unconventional fuel sources have higher values than oil sands. They are oil shale at 131.3 and coal-to-liquid at 172.
EXTENSIVE RESEARCH
Environmental groups have strongly backed the Commission stand-point. They say it is supported by extensive research.
"It's not true that oil sands are unfairly singled out," said Nusa Urbancic, fuels campaigner at green transport lobby group T&E.
"The Commission has spent a year reviewing all the available science, including that provided by the oil sands industry and the conclusion is unequivocal that oil sands are more carbon intensive."
The EU green fuel ranking represents the final plank of legislation introduced in 2008, when the EU agreed to reduce the carbon intensity of its transport fuels by 6 percent by 2020.
That is part of a wider target to reduce EU carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020.
A decision on whether to include tar sands in the ranking was delayed after Canada previously said the EU's standards to promote greener fuels would harm the market for its oil sands.
An EU source said Tuesday's committee meeting would probably not get as far as a vote and would instead meet again for further discussion and a vote at some stage.
Once the expert committee approves the measures, the European Parliament has three months to pass or reject them. If rejected, the Commission can submit a revised proposal. If there is no vote, the committee will meet for further debate.
Oil companies active in Canada include Royal Dutch Shell
The oil sands debate coincides with difficult talks between Canada and the European Union on a proposed free trade deal. The two sides have yet to agree on a range of issues, including intellectual property and market access for agricultural products.
Canadian energy minister Joe Oliver suggested earlier this month Ottawa could take the EU to the World Trade Organization if the Europeans adopted the fuel quality directive, although a spokesman for the Canadian trade minister said last week the free trade discussions were a separate issue.
"While we disagree with this draft directive, this matter is not linked to our commitment to productive free trade discussions with the European Union," the spokesman said. (Additional reporting by David Ljunggren in Ottawa; diting by Rex Merrifield and Sebastian Moffett)
=====
Green groups sue US over Keystone pipeline project
25 Oct 2011 21:12
Source: Reuters // Reuters
* Groups say spills would hurt whooping crane
* State Dept hopes to decide on permit by year's end
Oct 25 (Reuters) - Three environmental groups sued the U.S. government on Tuesday, challenging claims in a State Department report that said a proposed Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline poses little risk to endangered species because spills on the line were unlikely.
The Center for Biological Diversity, the Western Nebraska Resources Council and Friends of the Earth filed a suit in federal court in Nebraska, challenging an appendix in the State Department's final environmental impact statement that said spills are unlikely to occur.
The groups said that statement was contradicted in the State Department's environmental assessment, which said TransCanada Corp's
"We're asking either the agencies or the government to set aside the conclusion that the pipeline is not likely to result in spills," said Amy Atwood, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity.
She said potential spills near Nebraska's Sand Hills region could harm whooping cranes and that the endangered birds could also collide with power transmission lines that are required by the project.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Nebraska. It can be seen here: http://link.reuters.com/juq64s .
With Tuesday's litigation, the environmental groups expanded their original case filed earlier this month that seeks to stop the government and TransCanada from doing preliminary work on the line in Nebraska. [ID:nN1E7940Q2]
The project could face many legal and regulatory hurdles that could delay it. Approval for it has been pending since late 2008.
Opponents of the pipeline say oil sands production releases large amounts of greenhouse gases and that the fuel is potentially corrosive to to pipelines.
Supporters say the pipeline would create thousands of jobs and boost imports from a close ally.
A spokeswoman for the State Department said it had no comment on the litigation.
TransCanada spokesman Shawn Howard said there is nothing new in this amended complaint, "and we continue to believe it is without merit."
TransCanada hopes the $7 billion pipeline will be built by 2013. The State Department hopes to decide whether it should give TransCanada a final permit for the line before the end of the year. (Reporting by Timothy Gardner; editing by Andrea Evans)
===============
Protesters circle White House in oil pipeline row
06 Nov 2011 23:41
Source: Reuters // Reuters
* Protesters press President Obama to nix pipeline
* Company says the project would create jobs
* Obama at golf game while protesters gathered
By Jeff Mason and Patrick Temple-West
WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - Thousands of protesters opposed to a new oil pipeline from Canada to the United States circled the White House grounds on Sunday to press President Barack Obama to reject the project on environmental grounds.
Opponents to TransCanada Corp's
On Sunday thousands of men and women, many of them wearing orange vests with "Stop the pipeline" printed on them, lined up around the White House grounds, which include the presidential mansion, the U.S. Treasury department and a sprawling executive office building.
Carrying signs that matched Obama's campaign colors of blue and red, some protesters chanted "Hey Obama, we don't want no climate drama" and "Stop the pipeline, yes we can," copying phrases connected to Obama's successful 2008 election effort.
The pipeline controversy threatens to loom over the 2012 presidential race. Obama faces political pitfalls whether his administration approves or rejects the project.
A decision in favor would support Obama's goal of creating jobs and diversifying U.S. energy sources, but it would alienate core Democratic supporters who are already disappointed by his progress in fighting climate change.
"We have to leave the tar sands oil in the ground. That's the only solution if we're going to save the planet," said Martin Springhetti, 63, a Democrat and retired teacher from Pennsylvania, who said his active support for Obama next year would depend on the pipeline decision.
"I certainly won't work for him, but I won't vote for him if he doesn't ... say no to the pipeline," said actress Margot Kidder, 63, who campaigned for Obama in 2008 in Montana and was arrested at a similar pipeline protest earlier this year.
JOBS AND OIL
The State Department is running the review process for the decision, though Obama has made clear he will influence the final call.
"As the president has made clear, he recognizes that there are a number of critical issues involved in this decision, including climate change and impacts on public health and natural resources," said White House spokesman Clark Stevens.
"These issues, along with American energy security and economic factors, will be considered in the State Department's ongoing assessment."
TransCanada said the protesters were ignoring out-of-work Americans who could benefit from the jobs the pipeline would create.
"What these millionaire actors and professional activists don't seem to understand is that saying no to Keystone means saying yes to more conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela filling American gas tanks," said company spokesman James Millar.
"Our opponents can trivialize the jobs the largest energy infrastructure on the books right now in the U.S. will create, but we know the 20,000 Americans we will put to work constructing and manufacturing the parts needed to build Keystone XL feel differently."
Opponents dispute the jobs figures that TransCanada projects. The Sierra Club, a prominent environmental group and one of the organizers of Sunday's demonstration, said the protest was about more than the pipeline itself.
"(It) is really about a larger issue, which is getting off oil altogether," said Michael Brune, the group's executive director.
Obama was not at the White House when the protest took place. As he often does on the weekends, the president was playing golf. (Editing by Anthony Boadle)
========================
ANALYSIS-"Blood oath" on CO2 laws to haunt Australia's Abbott
07 Nov 2011 04:13
Source: Reuters // Reuters
* Abbott pledge to scrap CO2 laws after 2013 a step too far
* Pressure from business, voter apathy could trigger rethink
* Complex parliamentary process could also scuttle repeal vow
By David Fogarty and Rob Taylor
SINGAPORE/CANBERRA, Nov 7 (Reuters) - Australia's Senate is set to pass laws on Tuesday putting a national price on carbon emissions, one of the country's most sweeping and divisive economic reforms that have been a decade in the making.
Opposition leader Tony Abbott has run a two-year campaign to wreck the scheme, seizing on voter fears of higher costs and job losses and driving support for Prime Minister Julia Gillard to all-time lows. Upping the ante further, he made a "blood oath" last month to repeal the laws if he wins power in 2013.
It's a vow he could regret.
A combination of pressure from business demanding certainty for investment, voter fatigue and the constitutionally tortuous process of repealing laws will likely force Abbott to back down, analysts say. If an Abbott-led government presses ahead with the repeal threat, it risks damage to the economy, legal action and high costs for industries, they say.
The scheme begins in July and businesses from liquefied natural gas (LNG) producers to power generators simply want to move on and comply. The government and Greens have a majority in the upper house Senate, ensuring it will pass.
"He's said it's written in blood, but you can promise to defy gravity and you're not going to do it," said Norman Abjorensen, a political analyst at the Australian National University.
Voters and business may well find the scheme is not as costly as portrayed by Abbott. A government compensation package will defray the cost for more than 90 percent of households, while some industries will get substantial sweeteners.
"I think when the positive side starts to kick in, and the huge relief package, and people see the dollars on the other side of it, it will dissipate the anger," Abjorensen told Reuters.
TOP POLLUTER
Internationally, there is much focus on what Australia is doing as part of the fight against climate change.
Competitors such as China and South Korea are already working on emissions trading schemes, California's starts in 2013, while Europe and New Zealand already have trading programmes.
Australia's scheme covers the top 500 carbon polluters. It imposes a cost on every tonne of emissions from power stations, steel mills, LNG producers, coal miners and cement plants, will affect power and fuel prices and help drive investment towards less polluting gas-fired power plants.
Without the programme and a goal to cut emissions by 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, the government says Australia's emissions will soar over the coming decade, driven by a resources boom and population growth.
Australia is the developed world's top per-capita carbon emitter, in large part because about 75 percent of power is generated from coal.
The programme starts with a three-year fixed price phase beginning at A$23 per tonne in July before switching to emissions trading in mid-2015, with the aim to link to carbon markets overseas.
Abbott's attempts to sow more political uncertainty in the coming months could well backfire.
"It's hard to see business would be prepared to put up with another 5-year period of significant uncertainty, almost no matter what their persuasion," said Lane Crockett, general manager, Australia, for Pacific Hydro, a large wind farm and hydro power developer.
For Australia's rapidly growing LNG sector, which fought the scheme saying cleaner gas shouldn't be taxed, it was time to move on.
"I'm not sure that anyone would waste too much time trying to change people's minds on something that's already gone through the House of Representatives (parliament's lower house) ... (it's) not a live issue," said Michael Bradley of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association.
Power generators, clamouring for investment certainty, want clarity on long-term carbon pricing after more than a decade of work by various Australian governments on designing a scheme.
Abbott's threat means that
generators and large electricity users wanting to lock in forward carbon prices will pay more to achieve certainty, pushing up their costs, said Tim Jordan, carbon analyst at Deutsche Bank in Sydney.he said.
"It also means that the market will make sub-optimal choices about what generation plant to build, which leads directly to higher electricity prices,"
Generators such as Origin Energy and TRUenergy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hong Kong's CLP Holdings , will need long-term certainty on carbon and gas prices before opting to build more expensive, and less polluting, combined-cycle gas turbine power plants.
SCRUTINY
Abbott's repeal campaign would also prompt demands for more clarity on his party's plans to cut carbon emissions.
"If the opposition continues to talk about repealing it, there will be far more focus then on what they are going to do in its place and they will come under more pressure to explain what their alternative policies are," said Martijn Wilder, global head of Baker & McKenzie's environmental markets and climate change practice.
The complex and politically risky process of repealing laws may also force Abbott to row back.
The Greens, who support Gillard's Labor Party, hold the balance of power in the Senate and polls suggest the Greens could pick up more seats in the next election.
A future Labor opposition and Greens bloc in the Senate would not agree to abolish a carbon tax for which they have fought so hard for more than a decade, even if the conservatives claimed a public mandate from an election win.
That means Abbott could need to resort to a so-called double dissolution election, which would take place after two successive Senate rejections of repeal laws three months apart.
"This process cannot be rushed. The High Court has said that the Senate is entitled 'to have a proper opportunity for debate'. A determined Senate could string this out for many months and it might take Abbott a year or more to secure a double dissolution trigger," said constitutional law expert George Williams.
Williams, writing on the National Times website (www.nationaltimes.com.au), said it would likely be mid-2015 before Abbott could hold a double dissolution election, and then months more before a joint sitting of the parliament could be arranged to repeal the tax.
"By this time, the carbon scheme will have operated for more than three years. Ending it will impose enormous compliance costs on business and destabilise several industries and markets," he said.
Major legal obstacles could render Abbott's already Herculean task impossible to fulfil, Williams said.
Stephen Bartos, an expert on Australian public sector governance and risk from the consulting firm Sapere Research Group, said Abbott's repeal promise could also hit the national budget hard, hobbling another Abbott promise to manage the A$1.3 trillion economy better than Gillard's Labor.
"If a future government faced a risk, even a small risk, of needing to pay compensation of the size implied by the carbon tax costs, it would need to make provision for that," he said. (Additional reporting by Rebekah Kebede in PERTH and Sonali Paul in MELBOURNE; Editing by Paul Tait)
=================
FACTBOX-Australia's plan to price carbon emissions
08 Nov 2011 02:04
Source: Reuters // Reuters
CANBERRA, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Australia's parliament passed laws that impose a price on carbon emissions on Tuesday, giving new impetus to December's global climate talks in South Africa.
The carbon laws will force the top 500 polluting companies to pay a A$24 ($22.90) a tonne price for carbon emissions from mid 2012 in an effort to fight climate change.
Australia accounts for 1.5 percent of global emissions, but is the developed world's highest emitter per capita due to a reliance on fossil-fuel coal to generate electricity.
Australia joins the European Union and New Zealand with an economy-wide price on emissions. Smaller regional programmes operate in the United States and Japan, while China and South Korea are working on carbon trading schemes.
Following are details of Australia's programme:
CARBON SCHEME ARCHITECTURE
* Carbon tax to be at A$23 a tonne in 2012-13 (July-June), A$24.15 in 2013-14 and A$25.40 in 2014-15. No international carbon credits may be imported during this period.
* Carbon trading begins 2015-16, subject to three-year price ceiling of A$20 above international price for 2015-16, rising by 5 percent in real terms for the next two years. There will be a price floor of A$15, rising by 4 percent per annum.
* In 2014, the government will set national emissions caps stretching out five years, consistent with a minimum overall reduction target of 5 percent by 2020.
* International credits will be recognised from the start of trading in mid-2015, although their import will be limited to the equivalent of half of national emissions.
* About 60 percent of national emissions to be covered, excluding farming and land sectors
INDUSTRY COMPENSATION
* Emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries, such as aluminium and zinc refiners and steel makers, will be given free permits covering 94.5 percent of average industry emissions for the first three years, decreasing by 1.3 percent a year. Moderate emitters will receive free permits covering 66 percent of average emissions, reducing at the same level.
* Steel makers also receive assistance worth A$300 million over four years to encourage investment and innovation.
* The liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry's supplementary permits to have 50 percent effective assistance.
* Government to negotiate shut-down or part-closure of the most emissions-intensive power generators before 2020, removing up to 2,000 megawatts of capacity. The government aims to replace older coal-fired power stations with cleaner generators.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
* Treasury said the carbon tax would boost the consumer price index by 0.7 percent in 2012-13, then 0.2 percent in 2015-16, but the economy would continue to grow strongly through the tax and later carbon-trading mechanism.
* Treasury said GDP would rise from A$1.3 trillion now to more than A$1.7 trillion in 2020. Employment would grow by 1.6 million jobs by 2020, with or without a carbon price.
* Power prices to rise an estimated 10 percent in 2012-13.
* The transformation of the energy sector is forecast to drive around A$100 billion in investment in the renewables sector over the period to 2050.
* The government has set up a Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest A$10 billion into the commercialisation of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.
(Reporting by James Grubel and Rob Taylor; Editing by Michael Perry)
===================
CORRECTION-ANALYSIS-Australia's green power drive could worry wind investors
08 Nov 2011 06:07
Source: Reuters // Reuters
(Corrects paragraph 3 to make clear Senate has yet to vote on both green energy bodies)
* Future bright for large solar power in Australia
* $13 billion schemes to leverage((The use of credit or borrowed funds to improve one's speculative capacity and increase the rate of return from an investment, as in buying securities on margin.)) private investment
* Worries remain over design, threat to wind farm developers
By David Fogarty
SINGAPORE, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Australia is set to unlock more than A$13 billion in government funds for clean energy that could boost investments for large solar power stations, but wind farm developers are at risk if the money disrupts an existing green scheme.
The Senate on Tuesday passed laws supporting renewables and a national carbon price to accelerate investment in cleaner energy.
Geothermal, wave power and energy efficiency projects are also likely to benefit from two independent bodies to be approved by the Senate, the A$10 billion dollars ($10.3 billion) Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) and A$3.2 billion Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
Wind farms and household solar are unlikely to get access to the cash because the technologies are more mature, cheaper than other renewables and less in need of support.
But getting the design right for the CEFC in particular will be crucial, energy policy analysts say, or the risk is undermining an existing scheme that has driven major investment in wind farms.
"Not only does the CEFC stimulate certain technologies but it also acts against other technologies, so the wind industry might come out really loudly against the CEFC," said Tony Wood, director of the energy programme at the Grattan Institute in Melbourne, an independent think tank.
Australia is blessed with vast potential to generate renewable energy from the sun, wind, geothermal, wave as well as hydro power. While government programmes have tried to support green energy, about 90 percent of the country's power comes from coal and gas.
With energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions rising, the government is trying to change this.
The CEFC starts in 2013 and runs for 5 years, with half the money set aside for renewable energy and the remainder to support lower-emissions technologies and energy efficiency. It aims to commercialise green energy power generation that needs additional financial help to make it viable.
It potentially represents the most important programme to ramp up green investment since the government overhauled and expanded a market-based scheme that mandates a national target of 20 percent renewable energy by 2020.
REVIEW
That scheme, the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, has led to a dramatic rise in wind farm investment, with more than 2,000 megawatts of capacity now installed and about another 9,000 MW of projects proposed.
The projects earn renewable energy certificates, currently trading at about A$40 per megawatt/hour, that retailers and some generators have to buy to meet green energy targets.
The government is reviewing the design of the CEFC, with wind farm developers fearing a major scaling up of rival renewable energy technologies that would also earn renewable energy certificates could distort the market.
"The CEFC needs to have the right principles around it to make sure that it doesn't create a market distortion under the renewable energy target and that's what we will be advocating for strongly," said Lane Crockett, managing director, Australia, of Pacific Hydro, a large wind farm developer.
"If there was a market distortion, it could threaten wind assets," he said, adding the A$5 billion under the finance corporation should deploy renewable energy investment for assets or generation above and beyond the 20 percent renewable energy target, and focus on less mature technologies.
Questions remain over the level of risk CEFC is willing to take and the type of financial support for projects.
"The CEFC, being a government-owned body, wouldn't be expected to give the rate of return that banks or others would, so people talk about it that would be just above the bond rate," said Paul Curnow, who advises on carbon, renewable energy and environmental markets for law firm Baker & McKenzie in Sydney.
"It could be loan guarantees, early stage equity, concessional loans," he said, steps that would help bridge the price gap in servicing debt costs and the money a project earns from selling power and earning renewable energy certificates.
A major issue for many large renewable energy projects is the high initial capital cost and debt repayments. Depending on the technology, the long-term power purchase agreement as well as money from renewable energy certificates might not cover the debt servicing costs. Sweeteners become essential.
The smaller Australian Renewable Energy Agency, set to start next year and run for nine years, will focus on grants to emerging green energy technologies to help with research and development and bringing them up to commercial scale.
WAVE AND GEOTHERMAL
The agency will repackage existing programmes, with additional support for large-scale solar expected, along with money for geothermal and wave power developers.
Beneficiaries could include Carnegie Wave Energy Ltd and Oceanlinx and geothermal companies Geodynamics Ltd , Green Rock Energy Ltd and Pacific Hydro.
"In Australia, local banks will often only lend for 5 to 8 years, so if the CEFC is able to take a long-term view, able to invest 10 to 15 years, then the returns on areas such as solar and geothermal start to make more sense as the returns on investment kick in with higher energy and carbon pricing over this longer period," said Curnow.
Geodynamics says it aims to complete a 25 MW plant by Dec 2013 and is targeting production of more than 500 MW by 2018.
Large-scale solar is set to benefit from both funding bodies. This includes utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants and solar thermal, which focuses the sun's energy to drive steam turbines to generate power.
These can use large numbers of parabolic troughs to heat fluids to drive the turbine, or use acres of mirrors to focus sunlight to a point on top of a tower.
Leading power generation equipment maker Alstom is confident it will benefit since its turbines can be used for both types of solar thermal technology. Alstom also has a stake in U.S. solar tower firm BrightSource.
"We haven't secured deals with anybody at this point," said Gwen Andrews, vice-president Asia and Oceania for environmental policies and global advocacy at Alstom.
"But with the new funding announcements coming out, we are very hopeful of the future for solar thermal in Australia."
The government earlier this year announced it would partially fund the country's two largest solar power stations with total capacity of 400 MW. Investors include French nuclear firm Areva , BP Solar and Pacific Hydro.
Curnow said it was too early to judge how successful the CEFC would be. If the aim was to solely support the target of 20 percent renewable energy, then the body might not be able to spend the full A$10 billion because there were already sizeable green energy investments in the pipeline.
"If you just need a 20 percent target, then assuming all of those projects going forward need some support from the CEFC, you have to question whether they could spend that money, since the aim is to leverage private investments," he said.
"So it does imply that we are going to see more renewables than the 20 percent." (Editing by Clarence Fernandez)
($1 = 0.967 Australian Dollars)
============================================
State Dept IG reviewing Keystone XL assessment
07 Nov 2011 18:06
Source: Reuters // Reuters
WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - The State Department's Inspector General is initiating a "special review" of the agency's environmental assessment of the $7 billion Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, a source at the office of Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, said.
The State Department has said it hopes to decide by the end of the year whether TransCanada Corp's
=============
ANALYSTS' VIEW 7-Australia passes carbon reduction laws
08 Nov 2011 06:36
Source: Reuters // Reuters
Nov 8 (Reuters) - Australia's parliament passed laws that impose a price on carbon emissions on Tuesday in one of the biggest economic reforms in a decade, giving new impetus to December's global climate talks in South Africa.
For a story on the tax, click:
KEY POINTS
- Tax to take effect mid-2012 before moving to a carbon-trading scheme in mid 2015
- Price initially set at A$23 per tonne
- Aims to cut carbon pollution by 159 million tonnes by 2020 or by 5 percent based on year 2000 levels
- To spend A$9.2 billion to help heavy polluting industries like steel and aluminium, and close dirtiest power stations
COMMENTARY
ENERGY SECTOR
LANE CROCKETT, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AUSTRALIA, PACIFIC HYDRO
"We're hoping the passage of the legislation should provide the certainty for us to invest in the long term. We think it's the first step towards providing a level playing for the first in this country and that it will provide both a trigger for investment to go towards clean energy rather than staying the way we used to be.
It's an historic moment for this country, for our economy, and for this company.
GREG EVERETT, CEO, DELTA ELECTRICITY (on A$23 price):
"It does give you a level of certainty, I'll acknowledge that. Realistically, no one's going to run out and invest on the basis of A$23. So if it's above the international price, I think it's just a cost that we are bearing.
A$23 is not representative necessarily of the future. You could make investments and find that it's stranded. So people will not invest (based) on the A$23 fixed price now.
They'll wait and see where the market starts to trend in the future. The fixed price now is not going to support any immediate investment in large generation."
ANALYSTS
DI BROOKMAN, OIL & GAS ANALYST, CLSA IN SYDNEY
"There's just so many other issues now, I think everyone knew that was going to come in, there was no standing in front of that train," said.
"If I had to say, I'm kind of surprised that it's gone so smoothly getting through the Senate, but it has. If there was a surprise, that would be it. But in terms of the market, I think the market's not that surprised with it."
PETER KOPETZ, RESOURCES ANALYST, STOCK ANALYSIS IN PERTH (on LNG)
"Costs, managing the business will go up, anything to do with trying to offset this carbon tax. They will have to put it somewhere, they are not going to just wear it. There are going to be cost increases across the board, and of course the consumer at the end of the day will somehow have to pay for it...I don't think margins will decrease,"
GEOFF ROUSEL, GLOBAL HEAD OF COMMODITIES, CARBON AND ENERGY, WESTPAC INSTITUTIONAL BANK, SYDNEY
"It is the single most important policy mechanism that Australia has had and as result it will increase certainty for participants. Certainty on a price on carbon, albeit one that fluctuates in a market, the certainty of that signal being there makes the decision to proceed with a project easier across all sorts of spectrums.
"This is about re-incentivising investment in technology across a number of industries, sectors. That includes electricity. Having a very broad-based carbon price will give more certainty for people and as a result they can make business decisions in a more structured fashion.
"In terms of trading, the passing of the legislation is a significant step in increasing certainty for people who are looking to plan their response to their liabilities and also those who are looking to use the forward price as an investment signal to make a decision to go with energy efficiency or renewable energy."
TIM JORDAN, CARBON ANALYST, DEUTSCHE BANK, SYDNEY
"Today's vote ends a five-year debate on the detail of carbon pricing in Australia. It's a significant change for energy markets and carbon-intensive firms, but for most people the change will be barely noticeable.
This is a very positive step for the global effort on climate change. It shows that the world's most emissions-intensive advanced economy is prepared to use a market mechanism to cut carbon emissions in a low-cost way."
EMISSIONS TRADING
DANIEL CRAWFORD, CARBON TRADER, OM FINANCIAL NEW ZEALAND
"In the medium term the emergence of the Australian market will have a positive impact."
"We will need markets to sell our (carbon offset) units into and vice versa. Ultimately we will need to be able to purchase and get credits from international markets. New Zealand units, in the long term, won't have enough supply to satisfy the demand, so Australia will be very significant in that regard.
"I don't think the price at this stage will impact New Zealand because there are cheaper units offshore."
NICK ARMSTRONG, CEO, EMISSIONS TRADING FIRM COzero
"We hope the global market can follow and that people can take note of this and see the importance of international linkages.
We hope the pre-compliance market starts trading because otherwise we need to take a short holiday since the fixed-price period really doesn't give an opportunity for us to trade.
Having said that, if the liable parties, or polluters, take some certainty from this, we think the pre-compliance market will start trading, potentially in the next six months. That's what we're excited about. It's really the opportunity to start that forward carbon price curve and to start trading contracts."
SCIENTISTS
JOHN QUIGGIN, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND AND HINKLEY PROFESSOR AT JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
"This is a big achievement, coming at an opportune time. With South Korea planning to follow suit, momentum towards carbon emission reductions in the Asia Pacific is starting to build."
"Although this is not the most efficient way to reduce emissions, the fact that it is being undertaken by the world's largest emitter means that we still have a chance to reverse the growth in global emissions before it is too late."
SNOW BARLOW, PROFESSOR OF HORTICULTURE AND VITICULTURE, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY
"The passage of this legislation will provide clear direction and certainty for business and the community to plan the future of the Australian economy, contrary to much of the rhetoric that has accompanied the debate around these bills."
PROFESSOR KEVIN PARTON, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY
"Australia joins the league of carbon pricing nations. With the passage of the carbon tax legislation through the Senate, Australia has become the 33rd country to introduce a price on carbon. In addition to the 32 other fully operational schemes, Japan and Korea have an emissions trading scheme under development, as do major cities in China, and two groups of states and provinces in the United States and Canada."
OTHERS
STEVE SARGENT, CEO, GE AUSTRALIA (on whether it can be repealed)
"I think it's unlikely they're going to be able to unwind this....Once you've put A$1,000 in a bunch of people's pockets to help them with higher energy prices, boy, it's hard to take that out. I just don't know how you do that and get the messages right."
MARTIJN WILDER, GLOBAL HEAD, BAKER & McKENZIE'S CLIMATE CHANGE PRACTICE
"It is highly significant policy reform that should not only reduce national levels of greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels but one that now presents the platform for real innovation across industry and an opportunity to develop alongside our existing resources sector a vibrant and more efficient manufacturing and energy sector.
The passage comes at a time when carbon markets face challenging times. Europe is in financial crisis, U.S. federal action on climate change has all but evaporated and the escalating trade war over the EU ETS applying to airlines may bring about potential trade wars.
In addition, many countries strongly oppose
=======================
EXCLUSIVE-US estimates 75-250 miles Keystone route may change
10 Nov 2011 19:26
Source: Reuters // Reuters
WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (Reuters) - U.S. officials said on Thursday U.S. domestic politics played no role in their decision to study an alternate route for TransCanada Corp's
The officials, who spoke to Reuters on condition they not be identified, said they estimated that the portion of the route that might have to be changed to avoid environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska ranged from about 75 to 250 miles (120 to 400 km).
============================
Inspector review may delay Canada-U.S. oil pipeline
07 Nov 2011 22:48
Source: Reuters // Reuters
* Opponents: green review had conflicts of interest
* Lawmakers had asked Obama to delay decision on Keystone
* Congress aide says review could lead to major delay (Adds TransCanada CEO on extended delay, State Dept saying review is not an investigation, paragraphs 9, 17, 18)
By Timothy Gardner and Ayesha Rascoe
WASHINGTON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department's inspector general has opened a "special review" of the department's handling of permitting for the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, which could delay the final decision on the line into 2012 or later.
Howard Geisel, the State Department's inspector general, said in a memo sent to Senator Bernie Sanders that the review will determine to what extent the department and all other parties involved complied with federal laws and regulations relating to the permitting process on TransCanada Corp's
"The review will include interviews of appropriate officials and an assessment of pertinent documents," said the memo.
Sanders, one of the Senate's most liberal members, and 13 Democratic lawmakers late last month asked President Barack Obama in a letter to delay a decision on the pipeline until State's inspector general investigated alleged conflicts of interest over the project.
The State Department has the power to issue the permit for the line because it crosses the national border, but Obama said last week he would have heavy influence on the final decision.
The pipeline has been a headache for Obama ahead of next year's election, and the inspector general's announcement came a day after thousands of the pipeline's opponents formed a ring around the White House in a protest.
Environmentalists, who are part of Obama's voter base, say oil sands petroleum releases large amounts of carbon dioxide and the line could leak into a crucial central U.S. aquifer.
On the other hand, the pipeline could create thousands of temporary jobs, and a decision to approve the line could support Obama's goal of boosting employment and diversifying energy sources.
The inspector general's office refused to estimate how long the review would take. "We do appreciate the urgency of the matter," said Doug Welty, public affairs officer for the department's inspector general officer, who added that the review is not an investigation.
While the review does not halt the permitting process, the department could decide to hold off on making a decision until the inspector general's office is finished.
The review, to be conducted at three or more State Department offices, will look at the agency's environmental review of the project issued in August and its ongoing examination of whether the pipeline is in the national interest.
The State Department has said it hopes to decide by the end of the year whether the project can go forward. But late last month it opened the door to missing that target citing the need for a thorough review.
<^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ FACTBOX-Keystone and US energy agenda [ID:nN1E7A01Z4] US may miss year-end goal for Keystone [ID:nN1E79O20K] Obama advisers fret over pipeline risks [ID:nN1E7A22AJ] Pipe lobbyist, State Dept seen too close [ID:nN1E79101Y] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>
DECISION SEEN IN 2012 OR LATER
Sanders and other opponents of the pipeline have expressed concern that Cardno Entrix, a company the State Department hired to conduct environmental impact statements on the pipeline, had financial ties to TransCanada.
Environmentalists have also complained that Paul Elliott, a lobbyist for TransCanada, is too close to the State Department, a charge the agency has rejected. Elliott served as the national deputy campaign manager for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her 2008 run for president.
Bill McKibben, an environmental writer who organizes Keystone protests, said the special review will encourage people across America to step up their fight against the oil sands. "Since the State Department didn't even bother to study the global warming question, the only real answer is to send this back for a whole new review," he said.
A Congressional aide familiar with the Keystone project said the inspector's review could lead to major delays.
"The chances of them making a decision before the end of the year are pretty much impossible at this point," the aide told Reuters. "The decision is definitely going to come in 2012 if not later."
TransCanada's chief executive Russ Girling said this month an extended delay would threaten the project because it could lead oil shippers and refiners to abandon support for the line. [ID:nL4E7M12Q2]
On Monday, a TransCanada spokesman said the company would develop a response once it gets a sense of what it is dealing with. He also said the company was confident the review will reflect TransCanada acted in a fair, open, and transparent manner, and welcomed the chance for the latest claims against the project to be refuted.
The State Department's environmental assessments of the Keystone are also being challenged by another lawmaker, whose committee has oversight of such reviews. Barbara Boxer, the chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday to answer a series of questions about the environmental assessment by Nov. 14, probing whether the firm had a conflict of interest.
Boxer asked whether the Keystone decision will be delayed until the State Department knows the results of an independent engineering evaluation of spill detection measures and valves.
The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comments on that letter.
(Additional reporting Roberta Rampton and Jeffrey Jones in Calgary; Editing by Marguerita Choy and Bob Burgdorfer)
Shale gas bright spot in troubled US economy-report
06 Dec 2011 20:42
* IHS-job growth from shale gas outpaces stagnant economy
* Comes as regulators weigh new rules on gas wells
* GOP's Upton: don't slow development with new red tape
(Recasts, adds details, adds Upton quote paragraph 9)
By Roberta Rampton
WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. shale gas boom has created more than 600,000 U.S. jobs so far, a leading consultant said in a study released on Tuesday about gains made in the labor market from controversial "fracking" technology.
The study by forecaster IHS Global Insight, which was commissioned by a natural gas industry group, found that each new job directly involved in drilling supported the creation of more than three additional jobs in supplies and services.
The jobs have a multiplier effect more powerful than in finance or construction, the study said, forecasting the number of jobs could rise by another 45 percent by 2015.
In Washington, where President Barack Obama and lawmakers are fixated on job creation, the report could fuel arguments from Republicans that federal regulators should stay out of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" that has upended the industry and uncovered decades' worth of reserves.
The report focuses on the economic impacts of an industry already touted by Republicans as holding great promise, finding more than 600,000 U.S. jobs supported by shale gas since 2002. The U.S. government's establishment survey shows that the economy actually lost 2.2 million jobs since 2000, when the shale gas industry was in its infancy.
Of the 600,000 net new jobs, 148,000 are directly related to drilling, said John Larson, a vice-president at the firm, and lead author of the study.
By 2015, total shale jobs are forecast to grow to 870,000, he said. "There are not a lot of industries right now in this economy adding net new jobs," Larson said in an interview.
"It clearly does stand in stark contrast to the broader economy and this long and painful recovery," he said.
REGULATORY STATUS QUO
In shale "fracking," drillers blast gas from shale rock using sand, water and chemicals. Environmental groups worry fracking pollutes water, a charge that industry refutes.
"New extraction technologies represent exactly the kind of American ingenuity we need to revive the economy," said Fred Upton, Republican chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"We need to make sure we are developing our resources safely and without burdensome red tape that would slow the job creation and energy potential of this vast American resource."
The shale gas industry is projected to contribute $118.2 billion to the economy by 2015, up 53 percent from last year's level, the consulting firm said in the report, which was commissioned by industry group America's Natural Gas Alliance.
The results were based on independent data and analysis, Larson said.
The report comes ahead of the 2012 presidential election, where persistent unemployment is the top issue and as federal environmental regulators weigh a larger role in the industry, currently monitored mainly at the state level.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is looking at new standards for wastewater discharged from gas wells, and is finalizing rules for air pollution from the wells.
It is also studying the impact of fracking on drinking water, and wants to propose a new rule to gather data about chemicals used in fracking.
Some states have also constrained drilling. The report assumed the status quo remains in place for regulations. For example, it did not forecast any new development in New York state, which is considering whether to lift a ban on fracking.
Lower electricity prices created by the bounty of natural gas has also helped the economy, leading to another 809,000 jobs by 2015, Larson said. Eventually, the new supplies could spur growth in the U.S. chemical industry, creating even more jobs, he said.
The industry also provided $18.6 billion in tax and royalty revenues in 2010 to cash-strapped government at all levels - equivalent to what the federal government spent on the Environmental Protection Agency and National Science Foundation combined, the report said.
Early in 2012, the firm plans to release a report on the economic impact from unconventional oil, such as that coming from North Dakota's Bakken development, and another on how growth in Canadian natural gas production has benefited U.S. suppliers. (Editing by Bob Burgdorfer and Andrea Evans)
====================
US shale oil seen growing quicker than forecast
07 Dec 2011 22:19
* Shale oil seen hitting 3 mln bpd before 2035
* Saudi Arabia sees threat from shale oil
By Timothy Gardner
WASHINGTON, Dec 7 (Reuters) - The boom in North American shale oil could expand even faster than forecast if the crude is produced responsibly, energy experts said on Wednesday.
The National Petroleum Council recently forecast that some 3 million barrels per day of shale oil could be produced in North America by 2035 if regulations were favorable to the industry.
The shale oil surge in Bakken, North Dakota and other areas of the country are estimated to be about five years behind the natural gas shale boom. Rapid advancements in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and directional drilling have boosted output of both fuels.
"My personal feeling is it could be earlier than 2035 that we get to (3 million bpd) given the pace of development we are seeing in places like the Bakken and increasingly in other arenas," Andrew Slaughter, a business advisor at Shell Exploration & Production Company, told a panel at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The surge could threaten Saudi Arabia's dominant role in world oil markets, and it also eases the urgency to develop the kingdom's own reserves, its state energy company said last month.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday raised its forecast for 2012 liquid fuel output by 37 percent on faster growth from shale oil.
Bakken, which began producing in the early 2000s after being discovered in the 1950s, is yielding about 450,000 barrels per day, or about 8 percent of U.S. crude output.
Another shale oil deposit, known as Eagle Ford in Texas, is potentially even more profitable, said Danny Brown, a general manager at Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
There are also 14 or 16 other shale oil fields in North America that are in the early stages of development.
Like fracking for natural gas, shale oil has raised the hackles of environmentalists.
In the fracking process companies blast large amounts of water, mixed with chemicals and sand, deep underground to release the fuels.
Environmentalists are concerned the process uses large amounts of water and employs potentially dangerous chemicals that could contaminate the ground water. In the shale oil, they also abhor companies flaring off large amounts of natural gas in the process, leading to excess emissions.
James Sorensen, a research manager at the Energy & Environmental Research Center in North Dakota said companies could ease those concerns by recycling water and by stopping the flaring.
(Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by David Gregorio)
==================
14 December 2011 Last updated at 04:19 GMT
Payroll tax cut passes House with pipeline conditions
Republicans say raising taxes will hinder efforts to create jobs in the US economyThe US House of Representatives has passed a bill to extend payroll tax cuts by tying the measure to a much-disputed oil pipeline project.
The Republican-backed bill was voted in by 234-193, but is unlikely to pass the Senate where Democrats called it "ideological candy" for conservatives.
President Barack Obama says he will veto any bill linking the tax break to the disputed Canada-to-Texas pipeline.
Republicans oppose a Democratic-backed deal urging more taxes for the wealthy.
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner praised the bill after it passed on Tuesday, saying it could extend the payroll tax "without job-killing tax hikes".
The White House renewed its appeal that America's highest earners should "pay their fair share" to offset the estimated $180bn (£116bn) cost of the payroll tax cut, but made no mention of the pipeline clause.
Congress "cannot go on vacation before agreeing to prevent a tax hike on 160 million Americans and extending unemployment insurance", White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.
US lawmakers have been engaged in bitter partisan disputes over government spending throughout the year.
In November, the Obama administration delayed a decision to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project, which would run from the Canadian province of Alberta to refineries in Texas.
The project has met with opposition from Nebraska and environmental groups that are concerned the pipeline would pass through the Sand Hills region, which contains a major aquifer.
While Canada is behind the project, the White House has said it will reassess the pipeline route, delaying a final decision till after the 2012 presidential elections.
==================
====
At Oklahoma oil hub, Obama pledges to speed part of pipeline
Thu, Mar 22 15:38 PM EDT
image
1 of 12
By Jeff Mason
CUSHING, Oklahoma (Reuters) - Standing in front of a row of pipes, President Barack Obama pledged on Thursday to accelerate approval of the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, seeking to deflect criticism that his rejection of the full project helped create a climate for high gasoline prices.
The campaign-style stop was immediately dismissed as a stunt by Republicans, saying that Obama doesn't have the authority to really jump start the project. Analysts say it won't likely be finished until 2014 at the earliest.
Rising fuel costs are threatening to derail Obama's hopes of winning re-election in November, and Republicans have honed in on his decision to block TransCanada Corp's Canada-to-Texas pipeline as a sign that his energy priorities were hurting America.
U.S. gasoline prices have jumped nearly 30 cents in the past month, pushing the national average to $3.87 a gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Obama's trip to Cushing, Oklahoma, the starting site of the southern leg of the controversial project, was designed to show his "all of the above" energy strategy included room for oil and gas development in addition to support for renewable fuels.
"Today I'm directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority," Obama said, standing without a tie at a podium that was surrounded by rows of green- and copper-colored piping segments.
The White House relished the setting and clearly wanted the photo-op. Bad weather nearly forced Obama to deliver his remarks in an Oklahoma City hotel instead.
It is unclear whether Obama's call would actually speed up the approval process. The Army Corps of Engineers, one of the agencies that is likely to be involved, said on Wednesday it could not estimate how long approval would take since it had not yet seen an application from the company.
"Even with President Obama speeding up the process, we only expect Keystone XL to be operational in 2014 at the earliest," investment house Barclays said in a research note Thursday.
Republicans dismissed Obama's move as a publicity stunt that made little difference to the timeline of the southern project or the problem of U.S. energy security. "He's taking credit for going forward on the only portion of the pipeline that he doesn't need to approve," said Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota at a press conference. "This is literally straddling both sides of the issue."
Obama rejected the full Keystone XL pipeline earlier this year, blaming Republicans in Congress for forcing his hand with a mandatory deadline that did not give the State Department enough time to study its environmental and safety implications. Hoeven has led the charge in the Senate to pass legislation that would bypass the administration and approve the full pipeline.
DRAINING GLUT
"Despite numerous attempts by Republicans to compel the president to approve the Keystone permit, Americans are still left with a 1,179-mile (1,897-km) gap between the oil resources and this southern portion of the pipeline," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, referring to the full Keystone XL project.
A new Gallup poll conducted earlier in March showed 57 percent of Americans thought the government should approve the building of the entire Keystone XL pipeline. Among Democrats, 44 percent supported the pipeline, with 38 percent opposed.
The southern portion of the pipeline would drain a glut of crude in Cushing, the storage hub for U.S. crude oil traded on the futures market, easing deliveries to refineries along the Gulf Coast.
Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich have made criticism of the decision a key part of their respective platforms to win their party's nomination and the right to take on Obama in the November 6 election.
Though Obama's original decision to block the pipeline cheered environmentalists, who make up an important part of his political base, those same supporters expressed dismay at his statement on Thursday.
"President Obama has taken a dangerous wrong turn on energy," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.
"Rushing pipelines and drill rigs for rich oil executives will only delay the investments we need in renewable energy and create long-lasting damage to our waters and lands."
(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner and Ayesha Rascoe in Washington; Editing by Russell Blinch and Cynthia Osterman)
