Story first appeared on Forbes.com.
The most dangerous thing about Volkswagen’s XL1 is how it affects people outside the car.
They take cellphone photos and gesture frantically at highway speeds, looking across the steering wheel at a 90-degree angle from the road in front of them. They jump out in traffic directly in front of the vehicle, motioning for you to slow down so they can examine it closely. They yell out of open windows across traffic lights and multi-lane streets, asking how much it costs, how fast it’ll go and where they can buy one.
Thing is, they can’t. It’s not actually legal to drive in the United States.
“It was never designed for the U.S. market,” Mark Gillies, a VW spokesman, told me. “Things like, you have to have rearview mirrors for U.S. regulations.”
So was it technically illegal for me to be driving that thing around midtown last week?
“I suppose in theory, yeah,” he said, with a chuckle. “But you can bring prototypes into the states.”
Whew.
Not that we were too concerned. The car doesn’t move very quickly (0-60 in more than 12 seconds) or fast (top speed is 99mph). Its rear-situated 47hp two-cylinder turbo-diesel engine and 27hp electric motor gets just 68 horsepower.
But you won’t know that from looking at the top-opening scissor doors, the tightly drawn rear end, or the futuristic disc-shaped rims engineered to create shields that block wind in the wheel wells. The car looks fast.
It won’t break any speed records, but it can go 261 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. That’s like driving from New York City to Washington, D.C., for less than $5.
The head of VW Group himself, Ferdinand Piëch, commissioned XL1 with that goal—to get at least 100 miles in a production vehicle on 1 litre of gasoline. His engineering team accomplished it by making XL1 lightweight (1,753 pounds of carbon fiber in the chassis and body panels) and slim (the two seats inside are offset so that the passenger sits slightly behind the driver, which allows the car to be narrower). Inside, for additional weight-shaving, the dashboard is made of wood and the interior sacrifices most creature comforts like power steering and a proper sound system. The rear of the car is narrow through the trunk, and the roofline and clearance sit low to the ground. Its 5-kWh lithium-ion battery and a 2.6-gallon fuel tank sit nestled between the powertrain and passenger side of the car–a position also strategized to conserve space.
Did I mention the XL1 has no rear window or side mirrors? Instead, video cameras feed two small screens in the inner door panels. It’s all extremely compact.
Headroom, though, is adequate, as is leg room. And driving it feels like commanding a small hovercraft. It’s virtually silent except when you accelerate quickly and the diesel engine kicks in with a whirr. The steering is easy, the regenerative brakes adequate but abrupt.
Gillies says “relatively wealthy” Europe-based buyers who “want a really efficient commuter car” will be able to get the XL1 for 111,000 Euros ($145,000 USD) later this year. VW will make 250 of them, all at a factory in Germany.
Unfortunately for us, it’s clear that the cost of altering XL1 to be street-legal here far outweighs the foreseen benefit to bring it over. But it does seem a shame that Volkswagen couldn’t send at least a handful to our shores. Based on the popularity of cars like the Tesla Roadster and Model S alone—and the admittedly anecdotal but enthusiastic reactions from consumers here who loved the car on spec—it seems reasonable to believe VW wouldn’t have any problem selling 500 or 1,000 of them stateside.
Then again, maybe it’s just as well. There are enough cellphone-related fender benders around here anyway.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
MOST HEATING BILLS TO RISE THIS WINTER
Story first appeared in USA TODAY.
The government forecast Tuesday that most households will pay more for heat this winter. Heating oil users will catch a slight break, but still pay near-record prices to keep warm.
Prices for natural gas, electricity and propane should be higher, the primary reason that more than 90% of homes will incur higher heating expenses.
Homes using natural gas for heat will pay about $679. That is about 13% higher than a year ago but still 4% below the average for the previous five winters. Homes relying on electricity for heat, about 38% of the U.S., will likely pay about 2% more for heat compared with last year.
For heating oil customers, there is good news and bad news in the Energy Department's annual outlook for heating costs. Their average bill should drop 2%, to $2,046. But that's still the second highest average on record, behind last year's $2,092.
Some analysts are concerned about a spike in heating oil prices. That's because the fuels that refiners make alongside heating oil, including diesel and jet fuel, are in high demand around the world and inventories are low.
"If there's one type of product that could catch fire and go higher, it's heating oil," says Tom Kloza, Chief Oil Analyst at the Oil Price Information Service and GasBuddy.com.
Natural gas should average $11 per thousand cubic feet, the government said. That's the highest price since the fuel averaged nearly $13 per thousand cubic feet in the winter of 2008-2009, but 4% below the five-year average.
Just over half of U.S. households use natural gas for heating. Only 6% use heating oil, but those homes tend to be in New England and New York, where winter heating needs are high. Many of the 38% of U.S. households that use electric heat live in warm regions where heating demand is not high.
Mark Wolfe, Executive Director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which advocates for heating assistance for low income families, worries that high heating oil prices, colder weather, and cuts in federal heating assistance will leave more families vulnerable.
"Two years ago we could help close to 2 million more families than we can now," Wolfe says.
In 2010, Congress set aside $5.1 billion for heating assistance. This year, Wolfe is expecting $3 billion. "There's no ability to respond to spikes in prices," he says. "If this winter is really cold, it won't be adequate."
The Energy Department expects temperatures in the Northeast to be about 3% colder than a year ago, resulting in a 3% increase in consumption of heating oil. Bills will be lower, however, because the average price for heating oil will drop to $3.68 a gallon from $3.87.
But the government cautions that if temperatures are about 10% below expectations nationally, heating oil costs could rise around 9 percent from a year ago. That would mean an average bill of $2.280, a record.
The government forecast Tuesday that most households will pay more for heat this winter. Heating oil users will catch a slight break, but still pay near-record prices to keep warm.
Prices for natural gas, electricity and propane should be higher, the primary reason that more than 90% of homes will incur higher heating expenses.
Homes using natural gas for heat will pay about $679. That is about 13% higher than a year ago but still 4% below the average for the previous five winters. Homes relying on electricity for heat, about 38% of the U.S., will likely pay about 2% more for heat compared with last year.
For heating oil customers, there is good news and bad news in the Energy Department's annual outlook for heating costs. Their average bill should drop 2%, to $2,046. But that's still the second highest average on record, behind last year's $2,092.
Some analysts are concerned about a spike in heating oil prices. That's because the fuels that refiners make alongside heating oil, including diesel and jet fuel, are in high demand around the world and inventories are low.
"If there's one type of product that could catch fire and go higher, it's heating oil," says Tom Kloza, Chief Oil Analyst at the Oil Price Information Service and GasBuddy.com.
Natural gas should average $11 per thousand cubic feet, the government said. That's the highest price since the fuel averaged nearly $13 per thousand cubic feet in the winter of 2008-2009, but 4% below the five-year average.
Just over half of U.S. households use natural gas for heating. Only 6% use heating oil, but those homes tend to be in New England and New York, where winter heating needs are high. Many of the 38% of U.S. households that use electric heat live in warm regions where heating demand is not high.
Mark Wolfe, Executive Director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which advocates for heating assistance for low income families, worries that high heating oil prices, colder weather, and cuts in federal heating assistance will leave more families vulnerable.
"Two years ago we could help close to 2 million more families than we can now," Wolfe says.
In 2010, Congress set aside $5.1 billion for heating assistance. This year, Wolfe is expecting $3 billion. "There's no ability to respond to spikes in prices," he says. "If this winter is really cold, it won't be adequate."
The Energy Department expects temperatures in the Northeast to be about 3% colder than a year ago, resulting in a 3% increase in consumption of heating oil. Bills will be lower, however, because the average price for heating oil will drop to $3.68 a gallon from $3.87.
But the government cautions that if temperatures are about 10% below expectations nationally, heating oil costs could rise around 9 percent from a year ago. That would mean an average bill of $2.280, a record.
Monday, October 7, 2013
SOME ANTI-DRILLING ACTIVISTS CHANGE TACTICS, TONE
Story first appeared on ABC News.
For years, activists have warned that fracking can have disastrous consequences — ruined water and air, sickened people and animals, a ceaseless parade of truck traffic.
Now some critics are doing what was once unthinkable: working with the industry. Some are even signing lucrative gas leases and speaking about the environmental benefits of gas.
In one northeastern Pennsylvania village that became a global flashpoint in the debate over fracking, the switch has raised more than a few eyebrows.
A few weeks ago, Victoria Switzer and other activists from Dimock endorsed a candidate for governor who supports natural gas production from gigantic reserves like the Marcellus Shale, albeit with more regulation and new taxes. Dimock was the centerpiece of "Gasland," a documentary that galvanized opposition to fracking, and Switzer was also featured in this summer's "Gasland Part II," which aired on HBO.
"We had to work with the industry. There is no magic wand to make this go away," said Switzer, who recently formed a group that seeks to work with drillers on improved air quality standards. "Tunnel vision isn't good. Realism is good."
For Switzer, the endorsement was a nod to reality; for some of her onetime allies, a betrayal. Either way, it was a sign that anti-drilling activism is evolving, with some opponents shifting tactics to reflect that shale gas is likely here to stay.
Plenty of anti-drilling activists still want nothing to do with the industry and continue to call for a ban on fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, the technique that drillers use to siphon gas from shale deposits more than a mile underground. In New York state, opponents have so far succeeded in blocking natural-gas development in the Marcellus Shale.
But Pennsylvania residents concerned about drilling no longer have the luxury of simply calling for a ban, Switzer said. Not with the Pennsylvania and West Virginia portions of the Marcellus already yielding more than $10 billion worth of gas annually, making it the nation's most prolific gas field.
"It's in full swing, and it's simplistic to think you could just tell them all to stop," said Rebecca Roter, another Pennsylvania activist.
The enormous volume of gas flowing from the Marcellus and other U.S. shale formations has turned energy markets upside-down and led to wholesale prices that are about one-third of what customers in Europe or Asia pay. That's led to lower costs for consumers and industry.
And that, in turn, got the attention of Vermont's anti-fracking governor.
It was Gov. Peter Shumlin who, in early 2012, signed the nation's first statewide fracking ban. But now he's promoting the economic benefits of natural gas. Last month, Shumlin spoke out in favor of a $90 million expansion of the state's natural gas pipeline system — which will transport fracked gas — saying the project was critical to industry, the environment and people who are struggling to pay energy bills.
Some drilling critics, meanwhile, have become reluctant partners with an industry they dislike.
Robert Donnan had been an outspoken critic of drilling in general and Range Resources, the company that sunk the first Marcellus well in 2004, in particular. In February, he leased his land to Range, according to public documents obtained by The Associated Press.
Donnan didn't respond to requests for comment, nor did members of the group to which he belongs, Marcellus Protest, whose stated goal is to "stop the destruction of our environment and communities caused by Marcellus drilling."
But one of Donnan's cousins said family members felt they had little real choice, considering their 296-acre property southwest of Pittsburgh is already surrounded by drilling.
"The choice is either sign the lease and have some control, or don't sign and have no control" over what happens in the area, said Geoffrey Smith, adding the family will still keep an eye on everything the drillers do.
"We're watching for any spills, any violation of the lease, for any hanky-panky with the money," said Smith, who praised his cousin for keeping the industry's "feet to the fire" on environmental issues.
Donnan is still speaking out, too. In the spring, he published a letter to the editor saying "gas production is filthy business." He also denounced drilling at a public forum in Pittsburgh — though without telling the audience he had signed a lease.
Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said the company views Donnan's decision to sign a lease after years of criticizing the industry "as an endorsement" of drilling, since he's clearly aware of the risks involved.
Some environmental groups are seeking to partner with the industry in a different way.
In southwestern Pennsylvania, environmentalists recently joined charitable foundations and major oil and gas companies to form the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, which aims to protect air and water from pollution in the Appalachian region. And in Illinois, industry and environmental groups worked together to support a bill on fracking that both sides could support.
That's similar to what Switzer is trying to accomplish in Dimock, the tiny crossroads where pro- and anti-drilling forces descended after state regulators held a gas driller responsible for contaminating residential water supplies with methane.
More than a year after Switzer and other residents settled their lawsuit against Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., the rancor has mostly subsided. And Switzer settled on a new approach to the industry that she calls her "landlord."
"You have to sit down and not be the enemy," she said.
This year, Switzer and Roter co-founded Breathe Easy Susquehanna County, an organization that seeks to persuade companies to use advanced technologies to limit emissions. The group has won plaudits for its non-confrontational style.
It's a small, quiet effort to set aside philosophical differences over the wisdom of natural gas production and focus on how the negative impacts can be minimized. The group has even attracted pro-drilling residents who had clashed with Switzer and others who spoke out against the industry.
Switzer and Roter said it's time to move past the pro-gas, anti-gas dichotomy. The reality, they point out, is that thousands of wells have already been drilled, new compressor stations are going up and pipelines are being laid.
At Breathe Easy, Roter said, "we decided our first goal was to make concern about air quality mainstream as mainstream as going to church in this rural county."
For years, activists have warned that fracking can have disastrous consequences — ruined water and air, sickened people and animals, a ceaseless parade of truck traffic.
Now some critics are doing what was once unthinkable: working with the industry. Some are even signing lucrative gas leases and speaking about the environmental benefits of gas.
In one northeastern Pennsylvania village that became a global flashpoint in the debate over fracking, the switch has raised more than a few eyebrows.
A few weeks ago, Victoria Switzer and other activists from Dimock endorsed a candidate for governor who supports natural gas production from gigantic reserves like the Marcellus Shale, albeit with more regulation and new taxes. Dimock was the centerpiece of "Gasland," a documentary that galvanized opposition to fracking, and Switzer was also featured in this summer's "Gasland Part II," which aired on HBO.
"We had to work with the industry. There is no magic wand to make this go away," said Switzer, who recently formed a group that seeks to work with drillers on improved air quality standards. "Tunnel vision isn't good. Realism is good."
For Switzer, the endorsement was a nod to reality; for some of her onetime allies, a betrayal. Either way, it was a sign that anti-drilling activism is evolving, with some opponents shifting tactics to reflect that shale gas is likely here to stay.
Plenty of anti-drilling activists still want nothing to do with the industry and continue to call for a ban on fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, the technique that drillers use to siphon gas from shale deposits more than a mile underground. In New York state, opponents have so far succeeded in blocking natural-gas development in the Marcellus Shale.
But Pennsylvania residents concerned about drilling no longer have the luxury of simply calling for a ban, Switzer said. Not with the Pennsylvania and West Virginia portions of the Marcellus already yielding more than $10 billion worth of gas annually, making it the nation's most prolific gas field.
"It's in full swing, and it's simplistic to think you could just tell them all to stop," said Rebecca Roter, another Pennsylvania activist.
The enormous volume of gas flowing from the Marcellus and other U.S. shale formations has turned energy markets upside-down and led to wholesale prices that are about one-third of what customers in Europe or Asia pay. That's led to lower costs for consumers and industry.
And that, in turn, got the attention of Vermont's anti-fracking governor.
It was Gov. Peter Shumlin who, in early 2012, signed the nation's first statewide fracking ban. But now he's promoting the economic benefits of natural gas. Last month, Shumlin spoke out in favor of a $90 million expansion of the state's natural gas pipeline system — which will transport fracked gas — saying the project was critical to industry, the environment and people who are struggling to pay energy bills.
Some drilling critics, meanwhile, have become reluctant partners with an industry they dislike.
Robert Donnan had been an outspoken critic of drilling in general and Range Resources, the company that sunk the first Marcellus well in 2004, in particular. In February, he leased his land to Range, according to public documents obtained by The Associated Press.
Donnan didn't respond to requests for comment, nor did members of the group to which he belongs, Marcellus Protest, whose stated goal is to "stop the destruction of our environment and communities caused by Marcellus drilling."
But one of Donnan's cousins said family members felt they had little real choice, considering their 296-acre property southwest of Pittsburgh is already surrounded by drilling.
"The choice is either sign the lease and have some control, or don't sign and have no control" over what happens in the area, said Geoffrey Smith, adding the family will still keep an eye on everything the drillers do.
"We're watching for any spills, any violation of the lease, for any hanky-panky with the money," said Smith, who praised his cousin for keeping the industry's "feet to the fire" on environmental issues.
Donnan is still speaking out, too. In the spring, he published a letter to the editor saying "gas production is filthy business." He also denounced drilling at a public forum in Pittsburgh — though without telling the audience he had signed a lease.
Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said the company views Donnan's decision to sign a lease after years of criticizing the industry "as an endorsement" of drilling, since he's clearly aware of the risks involved.
Some environmental groups are seeking to partner with the industry in a different way.
In southwestern Pennsylvania, environmentalists recently joined charitable foundations and major oil and gas companies to form the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, which aims to protect air and water from pollution in the Appalachian region. And in Illinois, industry and environmental groups worked together to support a bill on fracking that both sides could support.
That's similar to what Switzer is trying to accomplish in Dimock, the tiny crossroads where pro- and anti-drilling forces descended after state regulators held a gas driller responsible for contaminating residential water supplies with methane.
More than a year after Switzer and other residents settled their lawsuit against Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., the rancor has mostly subsided. And Switzer settled on a new approach to the industry that she calls her "landlord."
"You have to sit down and not be the enemy," she said.
This year, Switzer and Roter co-founded Breathe Easy Susquehanna County, an organization that seeks to persuade companies to use advanced technologies to limit emissions. The group has won plaudits for its non-confrontational style.
It's a small, quiet effort to set aside philosophical differences over the wisdom of natural gas production and focus on how the negative impacts can be minimized. The group has even attracted pro-drilling residents who had clashed with Switzer and others who spoke out against the industry.
Switzer and Roter said it's time to move past the pro-gas, anti-gas dichotomy. The reality, they point out, is that thousands of wells have already been drilled, new compressor stations are going up and pipelines are being laid.
At Breathe Easy, Roter said, "we decided our first goal was to make concern about air quality mainstream as mainstream as going to church in this rural county."
Monday, September 23, 2013
Power Plants Issued New EPA Regulations on Emissions
Story first appeared in USA TODAY.
Lawsuits are expected to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal Friday to limit emissions from new power plants, and the main reason is cutting-edge, anti-pollution technology.
The EPA announced Friday morning its proposal to cap the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Coal-fired plants -- unlike most natural gas facilities -- won't meet the standard without costly technology to capture and store carbon emissions.
There's the rub. No commercial, coal-fired plant worldwide has yet to use this technology, but at least two are now under construction — one in Canada's Saskatchewan Province, and the other in Mississippi's Kemper County, which is scheduled to open in May. Three other U.S. coal plants are planned, two in Texas and one in Illinois.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Americans have a "moral obligation to the next generation" to protect the environment, and its proposal, updated from an initial one last year, is a "necessary step to address a public health challenge."
Rather than killing the U.S. coal industry, "it sets out a path forward" for it, McCarthy said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.,, adding the standard relies on "home-grown technologies" and is both achievable and flexible.
Critics, including the coal industry, disagree and say it's not legal to require a technology that's not yet proved itself commercially. Supporters, including environmental groups, say the standard will create demand for the technology and spur industry cleanup.
"There's no demand for the technology now," but an EPA rule will change that, says Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress, a research group that supports the limits. He says there are enough demonstration projects to prove that the technology, often called CCS (carbon capture and sequestration), works.
Not so, says Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm who was a senior EPA official under President George W. Bush. "CCS has not been adequately demonstrated," says Holmstead, who represents coal-fired plants. "It's not met the standard EPA has used for the last 40 years" that requires new technology also be cost-effective.
"It's a gray area," says Howard Herzog of MIT's Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies program, begun in 1989. "All the components are commercial. What's not is having a business model where they all work together," he says, citing the lack of a "turn-key" system.
"If you had to do it, you could,' he says, but it would be expensive. He say it's costly, because it's new technology, and there's no federal policy requiring it. He says it's simply cheaper now for power plants to release greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.
Herzog says power plants can capture up to 90% of their carbon emissions with CCS. The process typically has three phases. Carbon is captured and compressed, then transported (usually by pipeline) to a site where it's stored in deep underground rock formations.
In the Kemper County plant, it works a bit differently. After the carbon is captured, it will be sold to companies for enhanced oil recovery, says Amoi Geter, spokeswoman for Gulfport-based Mississippi Power, which is building the plant. Geter says about 65% of carbon emissions will be captured.
Coal-fired power plants are the single-largest source of U.S. electricity, providing 37% of the total last year. They also emit a disproportionately large share of greenhouse gases — far more that natural gas counterparts. While they provided 18% of all energy consumed nationwide in 2012, they accounted for 31% of energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The EPA's proposal, which addresses only new power plants, is a dress rehearsal for a much larger one next year that will limit emissions from existing power plants. President Obama has directed the agency to propose a standard for existing plants by June and finalize it in 2015.
For new coal-fired plants, the EPA proposal caps emissions at 1,100 pounds of carbon-dioxide per megawatt-hour of power produced. A typical new plant, without CCS technology, emits about 1,800 pounds. In the initial 2012 proposal, the agency proposed a limit of 1,000 pounds.
The agency's updated proposal also sets a 1,100-pound standard for small natural gas plants that produce 850 megawatts or less of electricity and a 1,000-pound limit for larger units. Most natural gas plants would meet these caps without CCS technology.
Holmstead says the EPA's carbon rule, which won't be finalized until next year, is "effectively a ban" on new coal-fired power plants. "I'm quite confident there will be a legal challenge," he says. "There's a good chance it will be overturned in court, but that's a few years away."
Weiss agrees lawsuits will "absolutely" ensue, but he says the EPA gives plants time to adjust. The proposal allows plants to average emissions over a seven-year period if they meet a slightly tighter limit of between 1,000 and 1,050 pounds.
The coal industry says the EPA's proposed rule, if enacted, will lead to more coal plant closures and higher electric bills. It "would cause consumers' power bills to skyrocket over time and cause more pain at the plug than Americans have experienced at the pump," St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, the world's largest private-sector coal company, said in a statement.
Geter says Mississippi Power has raised rates 15% this year and plans an additional 3% increase next year to help pay for the new Kemper County plant, whose price tag has risen from an initial $2.4 billion to $3.8 billion, of which at least $270 million is federal funding.
Obama administration officials say greenhouse gas emissions have high hidden costs. They say coal emits not only carbon dioxide, which raises Earth's temperature, but also sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and heavy metals (such as mercury and arsenic) and acid gases (such as hydrogen chloride), which have been linked to acid rain, smog and health issues.
"The industry wants to be able to blame EPA" for its economic troubles, says David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. But he says low prices for natural gas, even wind, are bigger factors in coal's current and future prospects than EPA's proposed rule.
Environmentalists say the rule, though, is a major step toward cleaner air. Julian Boggs of Environment America, an advocacy group, says: "We can kiss goodbye any more dirty power plants."
Lawsuits are expected to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal Friday to limit emissions from new power plants, and the main reason is cutting-edge, anti-pollution technology.
The EPA announced Friday morning its proposal to cap the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Coal-fired plants -- unlike most natural gas facilities -- won't meet the standard without costly technology to capture and store carbon emissions.
There's the rub. No commercial, coal-fired plant worldwide has yet to use this technology, but at least two are now under construction — one in Canada's Saskatchewan Province, and the other in Mississippi's Kemper County, which is scheduled to open in May. Three other U.S. coal plants are planned, two in Texas and one in Illinois.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Americans have a "moral obligation to the next generation" to protect the environment, and its proposal, updated from an initial one last year, is a "necessary step to address a public health challenge."
Rather than killing the U.S. coal industry, "it sets out a path forward" for it, McCarthy said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.,, adding the standard relies on "home-grown technologies" and is both achievable and flexible.
Critics, including the coal industry, disagree and say it's not legal to require a technology that's not yet proved itself commercially. Supporters, including environmental groups, say the standard will create demand for the technology and spur industry cleanup.
"There's no demand for the technology now," but an EPA rule will change that, says Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress, a research group that supports the limits. He says there are enough demonstration projects to prove that the technology, often called CCS (carbon capture and sequestration), works.
Not so, says Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm who was a senior EPA official under President George W. Bush. "CCS has not been adequately demonstrated," says Holmstead, who represents coal-fired plants. "It's not met the standard EPA has used for the last 40 years" that requires new technology also be cost-effective.
"It's a gray area," says Howard Herzog of MIT's Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies program, begun in 1989. "All the components are commercial. What's not is having a business model where they all work together," he says, citing the lack of a "turn-key" system.
"If you had to do it, you could,' he says, but it would be expensive. He say it's costly, because it's new technology, and there's no federal policy requiring it. He says it's simply cheaper now for power plants to release greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.
Herzog says power plants can capture up to 90% of their carbon emissions with CCS. The process typically has three phases. Carbon is captured and compressed, then transported (usually by pipeline) to a site where it's stored in deep underground rock formations.
In the Kemper County plant, it works a bit differently. After the carbon is captured, it will be sold to companies for enhanced oil recovery, says Amoi Geter, spokeswoman for Gulfport-based Mississippi Power, which is building the plant. Geter says about 65% of carbon emissions will be captured.
Coal-fired power plants are the single-largest source of U.S. electricity, providing 37% of the total last year. They also emit a disproportionately large share of greenhouse gases — far more that natural gas counterparts. While they provided 18% of all energy consumed nationwide in 2012, they accounted for 31% of energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The EPA's proposal, which addresses only new power plants, is a dress rehearsal for a much larger one next year that will limit emissions from existing power plants. President Obama has directed the agency to propose a standard for existing plants by June and finalize it in 2015.
For new coal-fired plants, the EPA proposal caps emissions at 1,100 pounds of carbon-dioxide per megawatt-hour of power produced. A typical new plant, without CCS technology, emits about 1,800 pounds. In the initial 2012 proposal, the agency proposed a limit of 1,000 pounds.
The agency's updated proposal also sets a 1,100-pound standard for small natural gas plants that produce 850 megawatts or less of electricity and a 1,000-pound limit for larger units. Most natural gas plants would meet these caps without CCS technology.
Holmstead says the EPA's carbon rule, which won't be finalized until next year, is "effectively a ban" on new coal-fired power plants. "I'm quite confident there will be a legal challenge," he says. "There's a good chance it will be overturned in court, but that's a few years away."
Weiss agrees lawsuits will "absolutely" ensue, but he says the EPA gives plants time to adjust. The proposal allows plants to average emissions over a seven-year period if they meet a slightly tighter limit of between 1,000 and 1,050 pounds.
The coal industry says the EPA's proposed rule, if enacted, will lead to more coal plant closures and higher electric bills. It "would cause consumers' power bills to skyrocket over time and cause more pain at the plug than Americans have experienced at the pump," St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, the world's largest private-sector coal company, said in a statement.
Geter says Mississippi Power has raised rates 15% this year and plans an additional 3% increase next year to help pay for the new Kemper County plant, whose price tag has risen from an initial $2.4 billion to $3.8 billion, of which at least $270 million is federal funding.
Obama administration officials say greenhouse gas emissions have high hidden costs. They say coal emits not only carbon dioxide, which raises Earth's temperature, but also sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and heavy metals (such as mercury and arsenic) and acid gases (such as hydrogen chloride), which have been linked to acid rain, smog and health issues.
"The industry wants to be able to blame EPA" for its economic troubles, says David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. But he says low prices for natural gas, even wind, are bigger factors in coal's current and future prospects than EPA's proposed rule.
Environmentalists say the rule, though, is a major step toward cleaner air. Julian Boggs of Environment America, an advocacy group, says: "We can kiss goodbye any more dirty power plants."
Monday, September 16, 2013
U.S. energy lifting economy more than expected
Story originally appeared on USA Today.
Rising U.S. oil and natural gas production is having a bigger impact on the U.S. economy than estimated a couple years ago, according to a leading economic consulting firm.
Newly found sources of domestic oil and natural gas are having an even bigger impact on the economy than first projected, adding more than $1,200 last year to the discretionary income of the average U.S. family, a new study says.
The explosion in domestic energy production now supports 1.2 million jobs, directly or indirectly, says consulting firm IHS, in a study released Wednesday. That number will grow to 3.3 million by 2020, and new energy's contribution to U.S. families' disposable incomes will hit $2,000 per household per year by 2015, said IHS.
IHS' numbers are larger than findings by other economists, which also point to a major impact from shale oil and gas. The introduction of technologies like hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, which made it practical to recover previously unused oil reserves, has helped drive a 58% increase in natural gas reserves since 2007, cut the price of natural gas by nearly three-fourths, and sparked more than $120 billion in U.S.-based investment last year, IHS said. Its study was partly financed by a number of energy and manufacturing industry groups.
"Anyone who doubts the reality of this is not paying attention,'' said John Larson, vice president of IHS and co-leader of a team of 13 contributors from the firm's energy, economics and manufacturing-industry consulting groups. "You're seeing the production numbers in both gas and oil to support it.''
The biggest impact on many U.S. households is lower electricity and heating bills, accounting for about 75% of the average household's gains, Larson said. About $800 of that represents lower prices for natural gas-fueled heat and cooking, and $100 to $150 is from electricity rates lower than they otherwise would be, he said.
Government data back up most of this analysis. Residential natural-gas prices, which vary widely by state, have fallen between 12% and 32% since 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Electricity prices, however, have risen slightly on average. IHS' numbers were based on assumptions about what households would have spent if U.S. natural gas prices stayed near 2008 levels, Larson said.
Natural gas prices in much of Europe are three times U.S. levels, and Asian prices are even higher, reflecting the lack of new supplies there, he said.
Cheaper electricity also shows up in the price of other manufactured goods, and some families get a paycheck from producing oil and gas, or working for companies that ship petroleum or make supplies for drilling and pipelines, he said.
Earlier, IHS had only estimated the impact of new gas supplies, without attempting to quantify the effects of new oil supplies pouring out of places such as North Dakota and the Eagle Ford shale in Texas. In December 2011, it had said the shale gas industry was supporting 600,000 jobs by 2010.
Moody's Analytics, another leading economics consulting firm, estimates that 1 million of the 2.7 million jobs gained in the U.S. between 2002 and 2012 were related to shale oil and gas drilling, Moody's economist Chris Lafakis said.
Growth in shale-related employment since 2008 was almost four times as much as Moody's forecast in 2009, and is growing twice as fast as the overall economy despite a hiring lull caused by lower natural gas prices, Lafakis said.
'It's difficult to overstate the shale revolution's profound contributions to the US. economy,'' Lafakis said.
More domestic production is also slashing crude oil imports, which fell 19% in the first half of this year, according to the Census Bureau. That shaved $31.6 billion off the nation's trade deficit.
In 2011, U.S. oil and gas companies added almost 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil and related reserves, an increase of 15%, the biggest jump since the U.S. Energy Information Administration began publishing proved reserves estimates in 1977, the government said last month.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Japanese agency labels radioactive leak 'serious'
Story originally appeared on USA Today.
TOKYO (AP) — Japan's nuclear regulator on Wednesday upgraded the rating of a leak of radiation-contaminated water from a tank at its tsunami-wrecked nuclear plant to a "serious incident" on an international scale, and it castigated the plant operator for failing to catch the problem earlier.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority's latest criticism of Tokyo Electric Power Co. came a day after the operator of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant acknowledged that the 300-ton leak probably began nearly a month and a half before it was discovered Aug. 19.
In a meeting with agency officials and experts Tuesday night, TEPCO said radioactivity near the leaky tank and exposure levels among patrolling staff started to increase in early July. There is no sign that anyone tried to find the source of that radioactivity before the leak was discovered.
On Wednesday, regulatory officials said TEPCO has repeatedly ignored their instructions to improve their patrolling procedures to reduce the risk of overlooking leakages. They said TEPCO lacked expertise and also underestimated potential impact of the leak because underground water is shallower around the tank than the company initially told regulators.
"Their instructions, written or verbal, have never been observed," Toyoshi Fuketa, a regulatory commissioner, said at the agency's weekly meeting Wednesday.
TEPCO acknowledged recently that only two workers were assigned to check all 1,000 storage tanks at the plant during their twice-daily, two-hour walk without carrying dosimeters, and their inspection results were not adequately recorded. TEPCO said it will increase patrolling staff to 50 from the current eight.
Earlier this week, Japan's industry minister, Toshimitsu Motegi, said the government will take over cleanup efforts and allocate funding for long-term contaminated water management projects.
The nuclear authority originally gave a Level 1 preliminary rating — an "anomaly," to the tank leak. Last week the authority proposed raising that to Level 3 — a "serious incident" — and it made that change after consulting with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The IAEA's ratings are designed to inform the international community, and changing them does not affect efforts to clean up the leak by the government and TEPCO. The 2011 Fukushima disaster itself was rated the maximum of 7 on the scale, the same as the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
"What's important is not the number itself but to give a basic idea about the extent of the problem," authority chairman Shunichi Tanaka said at a news conference after the agency's meeting. "I've seen reports that this is a dire situation but that's not true."
Tanaka said there is a much larger ongoing problem at the plant: massive amounts of contaminated ground water reaching the sea. But that problem cannot even be rated under the IAEA's International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale because it is unknown exactly how much ground water is escaping, how contaminated it is and what effect it is having on the sea and marine products.
Tanaka said TEPCO's handling of the water leaks was slow, illogical and lacked risk management. TEPCO has yet to determine the cause of the latest leak.
"I'm baffled," he said. "It may take time to stabilize the plant but we must put it on a right track."
TEPCO has recovered some of the water that leaked from the tank but says some of it may have reached the sea through a rainwater gutter. It says most of the leakage is believed to have seeped into the soil, triggering fresh concern of further contamination of underground water downstream.
TEPCO has built hundreds of tanks to hold radioactive water, some of which is ground water that made its way to the plant, but hundreds more tons of contaminated water are believed to be entering the sea each day.
The plant suffered triple meltdowns after the massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. TEPCO is putting tons of water into its reactors to cool them and is struggling to contain the resulting waste water.
TOKYO (AP) — Japan's nuclear regulator on Wednesday upgraded the rating of a leak of radiation-contaminated water from a tank at its tsunami-wrecked nuclear plant to a "serious incident" on an international scale, and it castigated the plant operator for failing to catch the problem earlier.
The Nuclear Regulation Authority's latest criticism of Tokyo Electric Power Co. came a day after the operator of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant acknowledged that the 300-ton leak probably began nearly a month and a half before it was discovered Aug. 19.
In a meeting with agency officials and experts Tuesday night, TEPCO said radioactivity near the leaky tank and exposure levels among patrolling staff started to increase in early July. There is no sign that anyone tried to find the source of that radioactivity before the leak was discovered.
On Wednesday, regulatory officials said TEPCO has repeatedly ignored their instructions to improve their patrolling procedures to reduce the risk of overlooking leakages. They said TEPCO lacked expertise and also underestimated potential impact of the leak because underground water is shallower around the tank than the company initially told regulators.
"Their instructions, written or verbal, have never been observed," Toyoshi Fuketa, a regulatory commissioner, said at the agency's weekly meeting Wednesday.
TEPCO acknowledged recently that only two workers were assigned to check all 1,000 storage tanks at the plant during their twice-daily, two-hour walk without carrying dosimeters, and their inspection results were not adequately recorded. TEPCO said it will increase patrolling staff to 50 from the current eight.
Earlier this week, Japan's industry minister, Toshimitsu Motegi, said the government will take over cleanup efforts and allocate funding for long-term contaminated water management projects.
The nuclear authority originally gave a Level 1 preliminary rating — an "anomaly," to the tank leak. Last week the authority proposed raising that to Level 3 — a "serious incident" — and it made that change after consulting with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The IAEA's ratings are designed to inform the international community, and changing them does not affect efforts to clean up the leak by the government and TEPCO. The 2011 Fukushima disaster itself was rated the maximum of 7 on the scale, the same as the 1986 Chernobyl accident.
"What's important is not the number itself but to give a basic idea about the extent of the problem," authority chairman Shunichi Tanaka said at a news conference after the agency's meeting. "I've seen reports that this is a dire situation but that's not true."
Tanaka said there is a much larger ongoing problem at the plant: massive amounts of contaminated ground water reaching the sea. But that problem cannot even be rated under the IAEA's International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale because it is unknown exactly how much ground water is escaping, how contaminated it is and what effect it is having on the sea and marine products.
Tanaka said TEPCO's handling of the water leaks was slow, illogical and lacked risk management. TEPCO has yet to determine the cause of the latest leak.
"I'm baffled," he said. "It may take time to stabilize the plant but we must put it on a right track."
TEPCO has recovered some of the water that leaked from the tank but says some of it may have reached the sea through a rainwater gutter. It says most of the leakage is believed to have seeped into the soil, triggering fresh concern of further contamination of underground water downstream.
TEPCO has built hundreds of tanks to hold radioactive water, some of which is ground water that made its way to the plant, but hundreds more tons of contaminated water are believed to be entering the sea each day.
The plant suffered triple meltdowns after the massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. TEPCO is putting tons of water into its reactors to cool them and is struggling to contain the resulting waste water.
What is a haboob?
Story originally appeared on USA Today.
A wall of dust hundreds of feet high rolled into the Phoenix area.
A wall of dust, hundreds of feet high, rolled into the Phoenix area with gusts of wind up to 62 mph on Monday evening.
Haboobs, as the dust-walls are known, only happen in Arizona, the Sahara desert and parts of the Middle East because of dry conditions and large amounts of sand, weather officials say.
The storms are known to halt airline flights, knock out power and turn swimming pools into mud pits.
Monday's haboob was part of a massive monsoon storm that downed trees and power lines, flooded roadways and left nearly 14,000 customers without power.
With a little over a month left before the official end of Arizona's monsoon season, storms like Monday's aren't unusual, but this one was much more widespread than others this summer, according to an official with the National Weather Service in Phoenix.
Arizona dust storms were called haboobs as far back as the October 1972 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The article, An American Haboob, written by Sherwood Idso of Tempe, examined a July 16, 1971, Valley dust storm that had the same characteristics as the ones in the Sudan.
The name comes from the Arabic word habb, meaning, "wind." It has many spellings, including: bub, habub, haboub, hubbob, and hubbub.
A wall of dust hundreds of feet high rolled into the Phoenix area.
A wall of dust, hundreds of feet high, rolled into the Phoenix area with gusts of wind up to 62 mph on Monday evening.
Haboobs, as the dust-walls are known, only happen in Arizona, the Sahara desert and parts of the Middle East because of dry conditions and large amounts of sand, weather officials say.
The storms are known to halt airline flights, knock out power and turn swimming pools into mud pits.
Monday's haboob was part of a massive monsoon storm that downed trees and power lines, flooded roadways and left nearly 14,000 customers without power.
With a little over a month left before the official end of Arizona's monsoon season, storms like Monday's aren't unusual, but this one was much more widespread than others this summer, according to an official with the National Weather Service in Phoenix.
Arizona dust storms were called haboobs as far back as the October 1972 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The article, An American Haboob, written by Sherwood Idso of Tempe, examined a July 16, 1971, Valley dust storm that had the same characteristics as the ones in the Sudan.
The name comes from the Arabic word habb, meaning, "wind." It has many spellings, including: bub, habub, haboub, hubbob, and hubbub.
Huge California wildfire reverberates in 2 states
Story originally appeared on the Detroit News.
Fresno, Calif. — After burning for nearly a week on the edges of California’s Yosemite National Park, a massive wildfire of nearly 200 square miles has now crossed into it, and firefighters have barely begun to contain it.
The Yosemite Valley, the part of the park frequented by tourists and known around the world for such iconic sights as the Half Dome and El Capitan rock formations and Yosemite falls, remained open, clear of smoke and free from other signs of the fire that remained about 20 miles away.
But the blaze was reverberating around the region. It brought a governor’s declaration of emergency late Friday for San Francisco 150 miles away because of the threat the fire posed to utility transmission to the city, and caused smoke warnings and event cancellations in Nevada as smoke blew over the Sierra Nevada and across state lines.
And the fire had established at least a foothold in Yosemite, with at least 17 of its 196 square miles burning inside the park’s broad borders, in a remote area near Lake Eleanor where backpackers seek summer solace.
Park spokeswoman Kari Cobb said that the park had stopped issuing backcountry permits to backpackers and had warned those who already had them to stay out of the area.
She emphasized that the skies over Yosemite Valley were “crystal clear,” however.
“Right now there are no closures, and no visitor services are being affected in the park,” Cobb said. “We just have to take one day at a time.”
The blaze did, however, pose a threat to the lines and stations that pipe power to the city of San Francisco, so Gov. Jerry Brown, who had declared an emergency for the fire area earlier in the week, made the unusual move of doing the same for the city across the state.
San Francisco gets 85 percent of its water from the Yosemite-area Hetch Hetchy reservoir that is about 4 miles from the fire, though that had yet to be affected. But it was forced to shut down two of its three hydroelectric power stations in the area.
The city has so far been able to buy power on the open market and use existing supplies, but further disruptions or damage could have an effect, according to city power officials and the governor’s statement.
The declaration frees funding and resources to help the city and makes it eligible for more federal funds to help with power shortages and outages or water problems.
The 196-square-mile blaze was 5 percent contained and more than 2,000 firefighters were on the lines.
It continued to grow in several directions, although “most of the fire activity is pushing to the east right into Yosemite,” said Daniel Berlant, spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
In Nevada, the smoke forced officials in several counties to cancel outdoor school activities and issue health advisories, especially for people with respiratory problems.
The fire was threatening about 5,500 residences, according to the U.S. Forest Service. The blaze has destroyed four homes and 12 outbuildings in several different areas.
It closed a 4-mile stretch of State Route 120, one of three entrances into Yosemite on the west side. Two other western routes and an eastern route were open.
Officials issued voluntary evacuation advisories for two new towns — Tuolumne City, population 1,800, and Ponderosa Hills, a community of several hundred — which are about five miles from the fire line, Forest Service spokesman Jerry Snyder said.
A mandatory evacuation order remained in effect for part of Pine Mountain Lake, a summer gated community a few miles from the fire.
“It feels a little bit like a war zone, with helicopters flying overhead, bombers dropping retardant and 10 engine companies stationed on our street,” said Ken Codeglia, a retired Pine Mountain Lake resident who decided to stay to protect his house with his own hoses and fire retardant system. “But if the fire gets very hot and firefighters evacuate, I will run with them.”
Officials previously advised voluntary evacuations of more than a thousand other homes, several organized camps and at least two campgrounds in the area outside the park’s boundary.
More homes, businesses and hotels are threatened in nearby Groveland, a community of 600 about 5 miles from the fire and 25 miles from the entrance of Yosemite.
Usually filled with tourists, the streets are now swarming with firefighters, evacuees and news crews, said Doug Edwards, owner of Hotel Charlotte on Main Street.
“We usually book out six months solid with no vacancies and turn away 30-40 people a night. That’s all changed,” Edwards said. “All we’re getting for the next three weeks is cancellations. It’s a huge impact on the community in terms of revenue dollars.”
The fire is raging in the same region where a 1987 blaze killed a firefighter, burned hundreds of thousands of acres and forced several thousand people out of their homes.
Fresno, Calif. — After burning for nearly a week on the edges of California’s Yosemite National Park, a massive wildfire of nearly 200 square miles has now crossed into it, and firefighters have barely begun to contain it.
The Yosemite Valley, the part of the park frequented by tourists and known around the world for such iconic sights as the Half Dome and El Capitan rock formations and Yosemite falls, remained open, clear of smoke and free from other signs of the fire that remained about 20 miles away.
But the blaze was reverberating around the region. It brought a governor’s declaration of emergency late Friday for San Francisco 150 miles away because of the threat the fire posed to utility transmission to the city, and caused smoke warnings and event cancellations in Nevada as smoke blew over the Sierra Nevada and across state lines.
And the fire had established at least a foothold in Yosemite, with at least 17 of its 196 square miles burning inside the park’s broad borders, in a remote area near Lake Eleanor where backpackers seek summer solace.
Park spokeswoman Kari Cobb said that the park had stopped issuing backcountry permits to backpackers and had warned those who already had them to stay out of the area.
She emphasized that the skies over Yosemite Valley were “crystal clear,” however.
“Right now there are no closures, and no visitor services are being affected in the park,” Cobb said. “We just have to take one day at a time.”
The blaze did, however, pose a threat to the lines and stations that pipe power to the city of San Francisco, so Gov. Jerry Brown, who had declared an emergency for the fire area earlier in the week, made the unusual move of doing the same for the city across the state.
San Francisco gets 85 percent of its water from the Yosemite-area Hetch Hetchy reservoir that is about 4 miles from the fire, though that had yet to be affected. But it was forced to shut down two of its three hydroelectric power stations in the area.
The city has so far been able to buy power on the open market and use existing supplies, but further disruptions or damage could have an effect, according to city power officials and the governor’s statement.
The declaration frees funding and resources to help the city and makes it eligible for more federal funds to help with power shortages and outages or water problems.
The 196-square-mile blaze was 5 percent contained and more than 2,000 firefighters were on the lines.
It continued to grow in several directions, although “most of the fire activity is pushing to the east right into Yosemite,” said Daniel Berlant, spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
In Nevada, the smoke forced officials in several counties to cancel outdoor school activities and issue health advisories, especially for people with respiratory problems.
The fire was threatening about 5,500 residences, according to the U.S. Forest Service. The blaze has destroyed four homes and 12 outbuildings in several different areas.
It closed a 4-mile stretch of State Route 120, one of three entrances into Yosemite on the west side. Two other western routes and an eastern route were open.
Officials issued voluntary evacuation advisories for two new towns — Tuolumne City, population 1,800, and Ponderosa Hills, a community of several hundred — which are about five miles from the fire line, Forest Service spokesman Jerry Snyder said.
A mandatory evacuation order remained in effect for part of Pine Mountain Lake, a summer gated community a few miles from the fire.
“It feels a little bit like a war zone, with helicopters flying overhead, bombers dropping retardant and 10 engine companies stationed on our street,” said Ken Codeglia, a retired Pine Mountain Lake resident who decided to stay to protect his house with his own hoses and fire retardant system. “But if the fire gets very hot and firefighters evacuate, I will run with them.”
Officials previously advised voluntary evacuations of more than a thousand other homes, several organized camps and at least two campgrounds in the area outside the park’s boundary.
More homes, businesses and hotels are threatened in nearby Groveland, a community of 600 about 5 miles from the fire and 25 miles from the entrance of Yosemite.
Usually filled with tourists, the streets are now swarming with firefighters, evacuees and news crews, said Doug Edwards, owner of Hotel Charlotte on Main Street.
“We usually book out six months solid with no vacancies and turn away 30-40 people a night. That’s all changed,” Edwards said. “All we’re getting for the next three weeks is cancellations. It’s a huge impact on the community in terms of revenue dollars.”
The fire is raging in the same region where a 1987 blaze killed a firefighter, burned hundreds of thousands of acres and forced several thousand people out of their homes.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Limit urged for cancer-causing chromium in California drinking water
Story originally appeared on LA Times.
State public health officials Thursday proposed the nation's first drinking-water standard for the carcinogen hexavalent chromium, at a level that elicited sighs of relief from municipal water managers and criticism from environmentalists.
At 10 parts per billion, the standard is 500 times greater than the non-enforceable public health goal set two years ago by the state Environmental Protection Agency.
The Department of Public Health described the proposed limit as a balance of public health, cost and treatment technology, but the agency acknowledged that economics were a key consideration.
Mark Starr, deputy director of the Center for Environmental Health, said the state's aim was to determine the lowest possible limit for the toxic heavy metal "given the technology available and the cost in order to protect public health."
Environmentalists said the 10 parts per billion standard — the equivalent of about 10 drops in an Olympic-sized pool — was far too high. "Five hundred times higher than safe levels is not protective of public health," said Avinash Kar, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sued the state to issue the long-delayed standard.
Los Angeles, Burbank and Glendale already treat San Fernando Valley groundwater supplies contaminated by aerospace manufacturing to reduce hexavalent chromium levels to 5 parts per billion. That means the proposed new standard would not require them to adopt more intensive — and expensive — methods.
"We're happy and pleasantly surprised," said Ramon Abueg, a chief assistant general manager for Glendale Water and Power, which is treating about 15% of its water supply for the pollutant, also known as chromium 6.
"We took the most conservative approach until a standard could be set," he said. But Abueg added that the city, which has a sophisticated treatment system in place, would continue to adhere to its more stringent practice.
Chromium 6 occurs naturally but is also an industrial contaminant that gained a high profile after the 2000 movie "Erin Brockovich" related how the desert town of Hinkley's water supply was fouled by mid-century releases from a nearby utility operation.
The chemical has been found in 51 of California's 58 counties, including Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino, according to the Department of Public Health. State officials said about 128 water systems would be required to treat their supplies under the new standard, at a total annual cost of $156 million.
Current state and federal standards do not distinguish between hexavalent chromium and trivalent chromium, an essential nutrient found naturally in foods. Instead, they combine the harmful and benign forms into a limit on total chromium, which the state puts at 50 parts per billion and the federal government at 100 parts per billion.
Although Los Angeles has been treating valley groundwater supplies and blending them with imported water to reduce chromium 6 levels to a lower level than the standard would require, Pankaj Parekh of the Department of Water and Power said the new standard was reasonable in light of scientific disagreement over what levels of the contaminant are harmful.
"What they've come out with soon might be a little conservative," he said, adding that the city wants to expand treatment of polluted groundwater to increase local water supplies.
Bill Mace, an assistant general manager at Burbank Water and Power, said his utility probably would consider adopting the less stringent standard proposed Thursday. "If we went to 10 [parts per billion], it would require us to blend less" with expensive treated water, cutting costs, he said.
State public health officials Thursday proposed the nation's first drinking-water standard for the carcinogen hexavalent chromium, at a level that elicited sighs of relief from municipal water managers and criticism from environmentalists.
At 10 parts per billion, the standard is 500 times greater than the non-enforceable public health goal set two years ago by the state Environmental Protection Agency.
The Department of Public Health described the proposed limit as a balance of public health, cost and treatment technology, but the agency acknowledged that economics were a key consideration.
Mark Starr, deputy director of the Center for Environmental Health, said the state's aim was to determine the lowest possible limit for the toxic heavy metal "given the technology available and the cost in order to protect public health."
Environmentalists said the 10 parts per billion standard — the equivalent of about 10 drops in an Olympic-sized pool — was far too high. "Five hundred times higher than safe levels is not protective of public health," said Avinash Kar, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sued the state to issue the long-delayed standard.
Los Angeles, Burbank and Glendale already treat San Fernando Valley groundwater supplies contaminated by aerospace manufacturing to reduce hexavalent chromium levels to 5 parts per billion. That means the proposed new standard would not require them to adopt more intensive — and expensive — methods.
"We're happy and pleasantly surprised," said Ramon Abueg, a chief assistant general manager for Glendale Water and Power, which is treating about 15% of its water supply for the pollutant, also known as chromium 6.
"We took the most conservative approach until a standard could be set," he said. But Abueg added that the city, which has a sophisticated treatment system in place, would continue to adhere to its more stringent practice.
Chromium 6 occurs naturally but is also an industrial contaminant that gained a high profile after the 2000 movie "Erin Brockovich" related how the desert town of Hinkley's water supply was fouled by mid-century releases from a nearby utility operation.
The chemical has been found in 51 of California's 58 counties, including Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino, according to the Department of Public Health. State officials said about 128 water systems would be required to treat their supplies under the new standard, at a total annual cost of $156 million.
Current state and federal standards do not distinguish between hexavalent chromium and trivalent chromium, an essential nutrient found naturally in foods. Instead, they combine the harmful and benign forms into a limit on total chromium, which the state puts at 50 parts per billion and the federal government at 100 parts per billion.
Although Los Angeles has been treating valley groundwater supplies and blending them with imported water to reduce chromium 6 levels to a lower level than the standard would require, Pankaj Parekh of the Department of Water and Power said the new standard was reasonable in light of scientific disagreement over what levels of the contaminant are harmful.
"What they've come out with soon might be a little conservative," he said, adding that the city wants to expand treatment of polluted groundwater to increase local water supplies.
Bill Mace, an assistant general manager at Burbank Water and Power, said his utility probably would consider adopting the less stringent standard proposed Thursday. "If we went to 10 [parts per billion], it would require us to blend less" with expensive treated water, cutting costs, he said.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Fire breaks out on evacuated Gulf gas well
Story Originally Appeared in Seattle Pi
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — An out-of-control natural gas well off the Louisiana coast caught fire late Tuesday, hours after 44 workers were safely evacuated from the drilling rig following a mid-morning blowout, a federal agency confirmed.
No injuries were reported as a result of the fire, Eileen Angelico, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, told The Associated Press.
She said it wasn't known what caused the gas to ignite. It also wasn't clear early Wednesday how and when crews would attempt to extinguish the blaze. BSEE said earlier Tuesday that a firefighting vessel with water and foam capabilities had been dispatched to the scene.
Wild Well Control Inc. was hired to try to bring the well under control. Angelico said Wild Well personnel approached the well earlier Tuesday night, before the fire, but they determined it was unsafe to get closer when they were about 200 feet away from it.
The gas blowout was reported Tuesday morning.
The Coast Guard kept nautical traffic out of an area within 500 meters of the site throughout the day. The Federal Aviation Administration restricted aircraft up to 2,000 feet above the area.
BSEE said inspectors flying over the site soon after the blowout saw a light sheen covering an area about a half-mile by 50 feet. However, it was dissipating quickly.
Earlier this month, a gas well off the Louisiana coast flowed for several days before being sealed.
Officials stressed that Tuesday's blowout wouldn't be close to as damaging as the BP oil spill of 2010, in which an oil rig, the Deepwater Horizon, exploded off the Louisiana coast, killing 11 workers and eventually spewing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf. It was the worst offshore environmental disaster in U.S. history.
Chris Roberts, a member of the Jefferson Parish Council in south Louisiana, said the travel restrictions might pose an inconvenience for participants in an upcoming deep sea fishing tournament.
"It could change some plans as to where some people plan to fish," he said.
Tuesday's blowout occurred near an unmanned offshore gas platform that was not currently producing natural gas, said Angelico. The workers were aboard a portable drilling rig known as a jackup rig, owned by Hercules Offshore Inc., which was a contractor for exploration and production company Walter Oil & Gas Corp.
Walter Oil & Gas reported to the BSEE that the rig was completing a "sidetrack well" — a means of re-entering the original well bore, Angelico said.
The purpose of the sidetrack well in this instance was not immediately clear. A spokesman for the corporation didn't have the information Tuesday night. Industry websites say sidetrack wells are sometimes drilled to remedy a problem with the existing well bore.
"It's a way to overcome an engineering problem with the original well," Ken Medlock, an energy expert at Rice University's Baker Institute said. "They're not drilled all the time, but it's not new."
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — An out-of-control natural gas well off the Louisiana coast caught fire late Tuesday, hours after 44 workers were safely evacuated from the drilling rig following a mid-morning blowout, a federal agency confirmed.
No injuries were reported as a result of the fire, Eileen Angelico, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, told The Associated Press.
She said it wasn't known what caused the gas to ignite. It also wasn't clear early Wednesday how and when crews would attempt to extinguish the blaze. BSEE said earlier Tuesday that a firefighting vessel with water and foam capabilities had been dispatched to the scene.
Wild Well Control Inc. was hired to try to bring the well under control. Angelico said Wild Well personnel approached the well earlier Tuesday night, before the fire, but they determined it was unsafe to get closer when they were about 200 feet away from it.
The gas blowout was reported Tuesday morning.
The Coast Guard kept nautical traffic out of an area within 500 meters of the site throughout the day. The Federal Aviation Administration restricted aircraft up to 2,000 feet above the area.
BSEE said inspectors flying over the site soon after the blowout saw a light sheen covering an area about a half-mile by 50 feet. However, it was dissipating quickly.
Earlier this month, a gas well off the Louisiana coast flowed for several days before being sealed.
Officials stressed that Tuesday's blowout wouldn't be close to as damaging as the BP oil spill of 2010, in which an oil rig, the Deepwater Horizon, exploded off the Louisiana coast, killing 11 workers and eventually spewing millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf. It was the worst offshore environmental disaster in U.S. history.
Chris Roberts, a member of the Jefferson Parish Council in south Louisiana, said the travel restrictions might pose an inconvenience for participants in an upcoming deep sea fishing tournament.
"It could change some plans as to where some people plan to fish," he said.
Tuesday's blowout occurred near an unmanned offshore gas platform that was not currently producing natural gas, said Angelico. The workers were aboard a portable drilling rig known as a jackup rig, owned by Hercules Offshore Inc., which was a contractor for exploration and production company Walter Oil & Gas Corp.
Walter Oil & Gas reported to the BSEE that the rig was completing a "sidetrack well" — a means of re-entering the original well bore, Angelico said.
The purpose of the sidetrack well in this instance was not immediately clear. A spokesman for the corporation didn't have the information Tuesday night. Industry websites say sidetrack wells are sometimes drilled to remedy a problem with the existing well bore.
"It's a way to overcome an engineering problem with the original well," Ken Medlock, an energy expert at Rice University's Baker Institute said. "They're not drilled all the time, but it's not new."
Monday, July 22, 2013
Newark Revival Wears Orange Along the Rive
Originally Appeared in the New York Times
NEWARK — Perhaps few places in America represent the urban trauma of the 1960s more than this city. Deindustrialization, corruption, suburban flight and calamitous planning gutted its core, tore up neighborhoods and helped fuel rebellion in the streets. The whole toxic environment was encapsulated in the desecration of the Passaic River, which borders Newark. It became a dumping ground for dioxin from the defunct Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company, which manufactured Agent Orange.
But a quiet upheaval is turning that river, polluted as it may be, into a front line of reclamation. It’s a common approach these days, from Seoul to Madrid to San Francisco: upgrading cities by revamping ravaged waterfronts. Urban renewal strategies from decades past, which did so much to destroy places like Newark, are being turned on their heads. The idea here is to make the Passaic a point of pride. You can see the sign of change in a new stretch of fluorescent orange boardwalk along the riverfront, an eye catcher for passengers on trains rumbling over the bridge into Newark Penn Station.
Phase 1 of Riverfront Park, as it is called, was completed last summer: a $15 million complex of playing fields on formerly derelict land, a couple of miles north of a giant sewage treatment plant, in the Ironbound district. This traditionally Portuguese working-class neighborhood avoided urban renewal 50 years ago and has thrived, partly as a consequence.
The Ironbound also sidestepped the redevelopment movement of the 1980s, which produced alien, corporate sites like Battery Park City. Residents and vigorous neighborhood groups like the Ironbound Community Corporation welcomed the new fields, which, since opening, have become a citywide attraction.
Phase 2 is set to open on Aug. 3, just upriver from the fields: the 800-foot-long, $9.3 million orange boardwalk, designed by the veteran landscape architect Lee Weintraub, in collaboration with the city’s planning office.
In this cash-starved city, nearly half the money has come from the state, the rest from federal and county sources, along with private contributions solicited by the mayor, Cory A. Booker, and the nonprofit Trust for Public Land.
The ultimate goal, said Damon Rich, Newark’s planning director, is to create more than three miles of greenway, a riverfront ribbon with bike and walking paths stretching all the way through downtown to residential neighborhoods in the north.
Accomplishing that will require decades of political perseverance. “It doesn’t get more challenging than a waterfront park on a brownfield next to a Superfund site,” as Adrian Benepe, the director of City Park Development at the Trust for Public Land, and a former commissioner for New York City parks, put it. This is an especially tall order in a poor city notorious for unreliable governance. A timely coalition of environmental groups, Essex County leaders and Mr. Booker came together to complete the first phases. The mayor is now running for United States Senate. Whether early successes with the park will propel the project onward, whoever ends up in charge, is an obvious question.
Another is whether big change can happen here without gentrification driving out the very people the plan tries to help. The city administration says it wants to avoid exactly that. Many residents, accustomed to broken promises and fearful of investments that only produce quarantined office parks, are already wary.
“When the city center was destroyed by urban renewal, it became a place to avoid, a place to pass through,” said Mindy Fullilove, a professor at Columbia University and a New Jersey native who writes on urban affairs. “Now the riverfront can become an urban edge shared by everyone — a point from which to build the city back. The problem of urban renewal has been that when we’ve had an idea, it usually isn’t a good one, and when we have a good one, we don’t put money into it. The hope this time is that things will be different.”
These are changing times. Cities, which banked so much on fancy buildings, are increasingly finding new life and a fresh identity in public spaces that connect neighborhoods and communities. Planning gurus for years preached that waterfronts were no more than working ports and dumping grounds for industrial waste and the poor. Canals were paved with concrete and riverbanks lined with highways, factories, housing projects and railroads. According to this gospel, cars and freeways were good for failing cities, and urban density was bad.
The notion that industry might someday dry up, that economic development and public health would depend on clean, leisure-oriented waterfronts seemed almost inconceivable not even half a century ago. But environmental concerns and digital revolutions have reversed thinking. The proof is on the streets. Downtowns are coming back where residents and cities are stressing public transit over cars, density over sprawl, diversity over suburban flight.
In Newark’s case, repairing the damage will not be easy. Mr. Rich, the planning director, led the way on foot the other morning from the train station to the new boardwalk. The trip required crisscrossing streets with meager accommodation for pedestrians, clambering up the exit ramp of an old bridge and hugging the gutter of a four-lane boulevard that lacks traffic lights allowing people to cross into the park. Along the way, he pointed out a riverside brownfield, the former Market Street Gas Works, now a cleanup project for PSE&G, the utility company. Next door, a grim mirrored-glass office building, headquarters for New Jersey Transit and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, squatted atop a multistory garage.
It’s hard to envision how Riverfront Park will get around those obstacles.
And then there is the river. A state court ruled two years ago that Occidental Chemical Corporation, the successor to Diamond Shamrock, was principally liable for the costs (from $1 billion to $4 billion) of cleaning up the Passaic, but the company has contested the ruling. The next phase of Riverfront Park, to be completed in the spring, envisions the boardwalk stretching toward Penn Station. Restoring parts of the riverfront in the ethnic and racial mix of northern neighborhoods, for equity’s sake, will present a whole fresh set of hurdles.
Still, what has been built so far goes a long way. If a single downtown building like the Blue Cross Blue Shield headquarters separates the city from its river, a modest stretch of boardwalk knits them back together. At a ball field across the boulevard from the new park, Marcelino Arce, a youth baseball coach, described how some children in the Ironbound neighborhood had no idea the river was even there. Now, they must dodge traffic on the boulevard; but once across, he told me, it’s “a whole new world.”
That world includes a few zigzagging walking paths, with signs, by MTWTF, a graphic design firm, recounting the history of the river and its industries. There is an osprey rookery built into a copse of trees at an overlook onto the river. The city still needs to install those traffic lights and the park needs more seating.
As for the boardwalk, made of recycled plastic, its bright orange can summon up what Christo and Jeanne-Claude called “saffron” to describe the color of their “Gates” in Central Park. But police cones may leap to mind. Or Agent Orange. For his part, Mr. Weintraub said the orange was picked after eliminating various gang-related colors. Whatever. It is not ideal.
Newark deserves an elegant waterfront. That said, the orange boardwalk also acts like a giant highlighter, drawing attention to the park — as the project hopes to draw people from all over the city back to the Passaic, one patch of recuperated riverfront at a time.
NEWARK — Perhaps few places in America represent the urban trauma of the 1960s more than this city. Deindustrialization, corruption, suburban flight and calamitous planning gutted its core, tore up neighborhoods and helped fuel rebellion in the streets. The whole toxic environment was encapsulated in the desecration of the Passaic River, which borders Newark. It became a dumping ground for dioxin from the defunct Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Company, which manufactured Agent Orange.
But a quiet upheaval is turning that river, polluted as it may be, into a front line of reclamation. It’s a common approach these days, from Seoul to Madrid to San Francisco: upgrading cities by revamping ravaged waterfronts. Urban renewal strategies from decades past, which did so much to destroy places like Newark, are being turned on their heads. The idea here is to make the Passaic a point of pride. You can see the sign of change in a new stretch of fluorescent orange boardwalk along the riverfront, an eye catcher for passengers on trains rumbling over the bridge into Newark Penn Station.
Phase 1 of Riverfront Park, as it is called, was completed last summer: a $15 million complex of playing fields on formerly derelict land, a couple of miles north of a giant sewage treatment plant, in the Ironbound district. This traditionally Portuguese working-class neighborhood avoided urban renewal 50 years ago and has thrived, partly as a consequence.
The Ironbound also sidestepped the redevelopment movement of the 1980s, which produced alien, corporate sites like Battery Park City. Residents and vigorous neighborhood groups like the Ironbound Community Corporation welcomed the new fields, which, since opening, have become a citywide attraction.
Phase 2 is set to open on Aug. 3, just upriver from the fields: the 800-foot-long, $9.3 million orange boardwalk, designed by the veteran landscape architect Lee Weintraub, in collaboration with the city’s planning office.
In this cash-starved city, nearly half the money has come from the state, the rest from federal and county sources, along with private contributions solicited by the mayor, Cory A. Booker, and the nonprofit Trust for Public Land.
The ultimate goal, said Damon Rich, Newark’s planning director, is to create more than three miles of greenway, a riverfront ribbon with bike and walking paths stretching all the way through downtown to residential neighborhoods in the north.
Accomplishing that will require decades of political perseverance. “It doesn’t get more challenging than a waterfront park on a brownfield next to a Superfund site,” as Adrian Benepe, the director of City Park Development at the Trust for Public Land, and a former commissioner for New York City parks, put it. This is an especially tall order in a poor city notorious for unreliable governance. A timely coalition of environmental groups, Essex County leaders and Mr. Booker came together to complete the first phases. The mayor is now running for United States Senate. Whether early successes with the park will propel the project onward, whoever ends up in charge, is an obvious question.
Another is whether big change can happen here without gentrification driving out the very people the plan tries to help. The city administration says it wants to avoid exactly that. Many residents, accustomed to broken promises and fearful of investments that only produce quarantined office parks, are already wary.
“When the city center was destroyed by urban renewal, it became a place to avoid, a place to pass through,” said Mindy Fullilove, a professor at Columbia University and a New Jersey native who writes on urban affairs. “Now the riverfront can become an urban edge shared by everyone — a point from which to build the city back. The problem of urban renewal has been that when we’ve had an idea, it usually isn’t a good one, and when we have a good one, we don’t put money into it. The hope this time is that things will be different.”
These are changing times. Cities, which banked so much on fancy buildings, are increasingly finding new life and a fresh identity in public spaces that connect neighborhoods and communities. Planning gurus for years preached that waterfronts were no more than working ports and dumping grounds for industrial waste and the poor. Canals were paved with concrete and riverbanks lined with highways, factories, housing projects and railroads. According to this gospel, cars and freeways were good for failing cities, and urban density was bad.
The notion that industry might someday dry up, that economic development and public health would depend on clean, leisure-oriented waterfronts seemed almost inconceivable not even half a century ago. But environmental concerns and digital revolutions have reversed thinking. The proof is on the streets. Downtowns are coming back where residents and cities are stressing public transit over cars, density over sprawl, diversity over suburban flight.
In Newark’s case, repairing the damage will not be easy. Mr. Rich, the planning director, led the way on foot the other morning from the train station to the new boardwalk. The trip required crisscrossing streets with meager accommodation for pedestrians, clambering up the exit ramp of an old bridge and hugging the gutter of a four-lane boulevard that lacks traffic lights allowing people to cross into the park. Along the way, he pointed out a riverside brownfield, the former Market Street Gas Works, now a cleanup project for PSE&G, the utility company. Next door, a grim mirrored-glass office building, headquarters for New Jersey Transit and Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, squatted atop a multistory garage.
It’s hard to envision how Riverfront Park will get around those obstacles.
And then there is the river. A state court ruled two years ago that Occidental Chemical Corporation, the successor to Diamond Shamrock, was principally liable for the costs (from $1 billion to $4 billion) of cleaning up the Passaic, but the company has contested the ruling. The next phase of Riverfront Park, to be completed in the spring, envisions the boardwalk stretching toward Penn Station. Restoring parts of the riverfront in the ethnic and racial mix of northern neighborhoods, for equity’s sake, will present a whole fresh set of hurdles.
Still, what has been built so far goes a long way. If a single downtown building like the Blue Cross Blue Shield headquarters separates the city from its river, a modest stretch of boardwalk knits them back together. At a ball field across the boulevard from the new park, Marcelino Arce, a youth baseball coach, described how some children in the Ironbound neighborhood had no idea the river was even there. Now, they must dodge traffic on the boulevard; but once across, he told me, it’s “a whole new world.”
That world includes a few zigzagging walking paths, with signs, by MTWTF, a graphic design firm, recounting the history of the river and its industries. There is an osprey rookery built into a copse of trees at an overlook onto the river. The city still needs to install those traffic lights and the park needs more seating.
As for the boardwalk, made of recycled plastic, its bright orange can summon up what Christo and Jeanne-Claude called “saffron” to describe the color of their “Gates” in Central Park. But police cones may leap to mind. Or Agent Orange. For his part, Mr. Weintraub said the orange was picked after eliminating various gang-related colors. Whatever. It is not ideal.
Newark deserves an elegant waterfront. That said, the orange boardwalk also acts like a giant highlighter, drawing attention to the park — as the project hopes to draw people from all over the city back to the Passaic, one patch of recuperated riverfront at a time.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Shell Picks New Chief Executive
Story Originally Appeared in The New York Times
LONDON — Royal Dutch Shell, Europe’s largest oil company, surprised markets on Tuesday by naming Ben van Beurden to succeed Peter Voser as chief executive on Jan. 1.
Mr. van Beurden, a Dutch national who is 55, has headed Shell’s large marketing and refining business since January and has been a key player in its liquefied natural gas business, in which Shell is the world leader among publicly traded oil companies.
He was chosen by Shell’s board over better-known candidates including Andrew Brown, head of exploration and production; Marvin Odum, head of the company’s Americas business; and Simon Henry, the chief financial officer, well-known to investors.
“This will be something of a surprise to analysts who widely expected” Mr. Henry to be chosen, said Peter Hutton, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in London. “However, it was always clear that Shell would appoint the person it felt had the best combination of skills for the job, not necessarily the best known to the external community.”
Shell shares rose Tuesday in London..
Mr. Voser had said in May that he would step down next year after less than five years in the top job, news that also surprised the markets. He said he wanted to spend more time with his family, which had remained in his native Switzerland while he worked at Shell headquarters in London.
Previously chief financial officer, Mr. Voser had helped stabilize Shell after a scandal over misstating oil and gas reserves. While uncomfortable in the limelight, he is thought to have improved the implementation of big projects like the $20 billion Pearl gas-to-liquids plant in Qatar that have come to distinguish Shell.
The standard spot for chief executives-in-waiting at major oil companies is the exploration and production division, which is usually the big profit earner.
Shell differs from other major oil major companies like BP by stressing big long-term projects that lack the tremendous potential financial rewards of oil exploration but produce steady returns with lower risk.
Liquefied natural gas tends to earn returns in the relatively modest 10 percent to 15 percent range, analysts say, but it produces steady cash flows for decades with little additional capital expenditure.
Shell has invested around $40 billion in the business in recent years. It hopes to cash in on growing use of gas in China and other developing countries.
It is also one of the few companies that is investing large sums in gas-to-liquids plants, the monster installations required to transform natural gas into fuels like diesel. And it is the leader in the still-unproven technology of building gigantic floating vessels to process liquefied natural gas in remote locations.
Mr. van Beurden was involved in the floating vessels at the early stages and is also credited by some with turning around the now-profitable chemicals business when he headed it from 2006 to 2012. He reconfigured Shell’s American chemical plants to use low-priced gas feedstock rather than oil.
In an industry where access to oil and gas is increasingly competitive, Shell hopes a demonstrated ability to design and manage megaprojects will give it a competitive advantage.
Mr. van Beurden’s experience appears tailored to Shell’s strategy. For instance, he has 10 years in Shell’s liquefied natural gas business. That business, along with gas-to-liquids, earned Shell $9.4 billion of its $25.1 billion in profit last year.
“Ben will continue to drive and further develop the strategic agenda that we have set out, to generate competitive returns for our shareholders,” Shell’s chairman, Jorma Ollila, said in a statement Tuesday.
LONDON — Royal Dutch Shell, Europe’s largest oil company, surprised markets on Tuesday by naming Ben van Beurden to succeed Peter Voser as chief executive on Jan. 1.
Mr. van Beurden, a Dutch national who is 55, has headed Shell’s large marketing and refining business since January and has been a key player in its liquefied natural gas business, in which Shell is the world leader among publicly traded oil companies.
He was chosen by Shell’s board over better-known candidates including Andrew Brown, head of exploration and production; Marvin Odum, head of the company’s Americas business; and Simon Henry, the chief financial officer, well-known to investors.
“This will be something of a surprise to analysts who widely expected” Mr. Henry to be chosen, said Peter Hutton, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets in London. “However, it was always clear that Shell would appoint the person it felt had the best combination of skills for the job, not necessarily the best known to the external community.”
Shell shares rose Tuesday in London..
Mr. Voser had said in May that he would step down next year after less than five years in the top job, news that also surprised the markets. He said he wanted to spend more time with his family, which had remained in his native Switzerland while he worked at Shell headquarters in London.
Previously chief financial officer, Mr. Voser had helped stabilize Shell after a scandal over misstating oil and gas reserves. While uncomfortable in the limelight, he is thought to have improved the implementation of big projects like the $20 billion Pearl gas-to-liquids plant in Qatar that have come to distinguish Shell.
The standard spot for chief executives-in-waiting at major oil companies is the exploration and production division, which is usually the big profit earner.
Shell differs from other major oil major companies like BP by stressing big long-term projects that lack the tremendous potential financial rewards of oil exploration but produce steady returns with lower risk.
Liquefied natural gas tends to earn returns in the relatively modest 10 percent to 15 percent range, analysts say, but it produces steady cash flows for decades with little additional capital expenditure.
Shell has invested around $40 billion in the business in recent years. It hopes to cash in on growing use of gas in China and other developing countries.
It is also one of the few companies that is investing large sums in gas-to-liquids plants, the monster installations required to transform natural gas into fuels like diesel. And it is the leader in the still-unproven technology of building gigantic floating vessels to process liquefied natural gas in remote locations.
Mr. van Beurden was involved in the floating vessels at the early stages and is also credited by some with turning around the now-profitable chemicals business when he headed it from 2006 to 2012. He reconfigured Shell’s American chemical plants to use low-priced gas feedstock rather than oil.
In an industry where access to oil and gas is increasingly competitive, Shell hopes a demonstrated ability to design and manage megaprojects will give it a competitive advantage.
Mr. van Beurden’s experience appears tailored to Shell’s strategy. For instance, he has 10 years in Shell’s liquefied natural gas business. That business, along with gas-to-liquids, earned Shell $9.4 billion of its $25.1 billion in profit last year.
“Ben will continue to drive and further develop the strategic agenda that we have set out, to generate competitive returns for our shareholders,” Shell’s chairman, Jorma Ollila, said in a statement Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)