The project was conceived by Raphaël Domjan of Switzerland as a method of demonstrating the possibilities that current solar technology holds for clean transportation. The yacht carries a huge rack of Lithium-Ion batteries capable of storing up to three days’ worth of sailing power, easily enough to allow transit to continue throughout the night, or during overcast skies. Never once in thousands of miles has the boat had to turn on its diesel back up, in fact the diesel is only on board is to satisfy the insurance companies.

Whilst the Turanor has sailed around the world it has generated lots of media attention and public interest which has helped to boost recognition of the solar industry and the potential there within. At a price of $20 million the boat will not itself be available to everyone, but the investors are already experiencing ROI from the concepts that it has proven and the other ideas it has tested. One useful technology that could be put into the general market is the software created by Planet Solar which uses weather data to steer the boat into the sunniest areas, a very useful tool for future solar transport. The mammoth trip also demonstrated that neither the solar panels nor batteries suffered significant wear from salt or water, another important discovery for future solar powered boats.

Solar transport still faces many obstacles before it can be mass produced for sale to the general public at reasonable prices, it is more likely that the first solar powered yachts will be available for luxury cruisers. Still, it is obvious that the basic concepts of clean transportation are tenable, now we just need to be patient and wait.

By. James Burgess of Oilprice.com

Source: http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Solar-Yacht-Sails-Around-the-World-Powered-by-Nothing-More-than-the-Sun.html

Now, again during times of high oil prices, alternative energy sources are back with vengeance. All options are being considered and one of them is OTEC. Luckily the concept is reasonably simple. A fluid with a low boiling point, such as ammonium, is vaporised in a heat exchanger using surface water from the sea with an average temperature of about 25°C. The resulting gas has a sufficient pressure to drive a turbine and create electricity. The gas is then cooled using seawater pumped up from a depth of about one kilometre and with an average temperature of about 5°C. The liquid ammonia can then be reheated and the whole process started again. Theoretically this means that OTEC plants can be built anywhere with a surface water temperature of 25°C and a depth of at least one kilometre.

One company pursuing OTEC technology is Lockhead Martin, which is collaborating with a smaller firm called Makai Ocean Engineering to build a 10 megawatt plant in Hawaii that is projected to open in 2015. Then if this plant is successful the idea is to construct a 100 megawatt plant by 2020.

Most of the technology necessary can be taken from existing areas of engineering, such as deepwater oil drilling, where the heat exchangers and pipework required to make a 10MW plant already exist. The 100MW facility however will need a pipe that is not only 1km long but also ten metres in diameter, in order to supply the necessary amount of water. It must also be strong enough to resist waves and ocean climates for decades. Kerry Kehoe, the current head of OTEC activities at NOAA, estimates such a facility could cost $1 billion.

Are you interested in learning to trade crude oil and other commodities? Take a trial of our live trading chat room

By. James Burgess of Oilprice.com

At the best of times, the U.S. government is regarded as somewhat out of touch with what’s happening in the American “heartland,” much less the world at large, so much so that the phrase “inside the Beltway” was coined to define the syndrome.

But every now and again, an incident occurs that so perfectly encapsulates Washington’s self-absorbed navel gazing that little further comment is needed.

On 9 January U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland provided such a “Kodak moment” to the Washington press corps.

The object of her concern? Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s visit to Latin America, where he is touring Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua.

Nuland said that, because of its civilian nuclear energy program, which both Washington and Tel Aviv believe masks a covert nuclear program despite persistent denials by Tehran, Iran should have no friends and that “We are making absolutely clear to countries around the world that now is not the time to be deepening ties, not security ties, not economic ties, with Iran.”

During a regularly scheduled State Department press briefing Nuland gravely observed that Iran had “obviously carefully” chosen the four countries but “We are, meanwhile, calling on all of these countries to do what they can to impress upon the Iranian regime that the course that it’s on in its nuclear dialogue with the international community is the wrong one. And, frankly, we think it’s in the interest of all countries, including the countries that he (Ahmadinejad) is visiting in Latin America, that Iran proves the peaceful intent of its nuclear program to the world.”

The view from Caracas?

During a meeting with Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez tartly accused the U.S. and its European allies of demonizing Iran and using false claims about the nuclear issue “like they used the excuse of weapons of mass destruction to do what they did in Iraq. They (the U.S.) accuse us of being warmongers. They’re the threat,” adding that Ahmadinejad is traveling through “the axis of evil of Latin America.”

Driving the point home, Ahmadinejad commented, “They say we’re making a bomb. Fortunately, the majority of Latin American countries are aware. Everyone knows that those words… are a joke. It’s something to laugh at. It’s clear they’re afraid of our development.”

What is Venezuela getting out of its dalliance with charter “axis of evil” Iran?

According to Chavez, Iran has helped his country build 14,000 homes as well as factories that produce food, tractors and vehicles. During Ahmadinejad’s visit, Iranian and Venezuelan government officials signed two agreements promoting industrial cooperation and worker training.

Why might Venezuela take such an uppity stance against Washington’s wishes? Well, for a start the U.S. government was deeply implicated in a failed 2002 military coup against Chavez. And last year, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Venezuelan state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA for delivering at least two cargoes of refined oil products to Iran.

From Venezuela, on 10 January Ahmadinejad flew to Nicaragua to attend the inauguration of President Daniel Ortega, elected to a third term last November.

And why might Nicaragua be disinclined to heed Washington’s advice? Perhaps the fact that President Ortega was one of the Sandinista leader who in 1979 overthrew the corrupt presidency of Anatasio Somoza, only to find itself under attack by U.S. armed and funded “Contra” insurgents operating out of neighboring Honduras in an eight-year campaign.

And, in one of those piquant ironies of history, the Reagan administration, in order to support the Contras after Congress blocked funding, in 1986-1987 covertly sold weapons for cash to… Iran, leading to the notorious “Iran-Contra” affair.

And Cuba? Well, since the U.S. has blockaded the country with economic sanctions since 1960 and currently has no direct diplomatic relations, perhaps Nuland’s entreaties will receive less consideration in Havana than they might.

Which leaves Ecuador, whose president, Rafael Vicente Correa, an economist by training educated in Belgium and the United States, took office in January 2007.

And what has President Correa done to antagonize the U.S.?

In December 2008, he declared Ecuador’s national debt illegitimate, arguing that it had been contracted by previous despotic regimes, pledging to fight creditors in international courts of jurisdiction. Even worse, Correa in June 2009 brought Ecuador into the Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra America (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas, or ALBA) founded by Chavez in alliance with Cuba in 2004.

The biggest story overlooked by the Washington press corps over the past decade, fixated as it was on the Bush administration’s “global war on terror” (GWOT) was Latin America’s increasing assertiveness and independence from America’s dictates, whose policies towards its southern neighbors even the august Council on Foreign Relations labeled “hegemony.” It apparently has yet to occur to either Ms. Nuland or her superiors that countries south of the Rio Grande regard the Monroe Doctrine as a dead letter.

But Ahmedinejad’s biggest secret diplomatic weapon is treating his Latin American hosts with respect, as equals. Until those “inside the Beltway” learn that simple lesson and that it’s no longer 1823, the year the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed, it would seem that the Washington press corps is bound to endure further briefings from Ms. Nuland.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/International/Ahmedinejad-Visits-Latin-America-Washington-Implores-and-Seethes.html

By. John C.K. Daly of oilprice.com

Since 24 December the Iranian Navy has been holding its ten-day Velayat 90 naval
exercises, covering an area in the Arabian Sea stretching from east of the Strait
of Hormuz entrance to the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden.

The day the maneuvers opened Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari told a press conference that the exercises were intended to show “Iran’s military prowess and defense capabilities in international waters, convey a message of peace and friendship to regional countries, and test the newest military equipment.” The exercise is Iran’s first naval training drill since May 2010, when the country held its Velayat 89 naval maneuvers in the same area. Velayat 90 is the largest naval exercise the country has ever held.

The participating Iranian forces have been divided into two groups, blue and orange, with the blue group representing Iranian forces and orange the enemy. Velayat 90 is involving the full panoply of Iranian naval force, with destroyers, missile boats, logistical support ships, hovercraft, aircraft, drones and advanced coastal missiles and torpedoes all being deployed. Tactics include mine-laying exercises and preparations for chemical attack. Iranian naval commandos, marines and divers are also participating.
The exercises have put Iranian warships in close proximity to vessels of the United States Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, which patrols some of the same waters, including the Strait of Hormuz, a 21 mile-wide waterway at its narrowest point. Roughly 40 percent of the world’s oil tanker shipments transit the strait daily, carrying 15.5 million barrels of Saudi, Iraqi, Iranian, Kuwaiti, Bahraini, Qatari and United Arab Emirates crude oil, leading the United States Energy Information Administration to label the Strait of Hormuz “the world’s most important oil chokepoint.”

In light of Iran’s recent capture of an advanced CIA RQ-170 Sentinel drone earlier this month, Iranian Navy Rear Admiral Seyed Mahmoud Moussavi noted that the Iranian Velayat 90 forces also conducted electronic warfare tests, using modern Iranian-made
electronic jamming equipment to disrupt enemy radar and contact systems. Further tweaking Uncle Sam’s nose, Moussavi added that Iranian Navy drones involved in Velayat 90 conducted successful patrolling and surveillance operations.
Thousands of miles to the west, adding oil to the fire, President Obama is preparing to sign legislation that, if fully enforced, could impose harsh penalties on all customers for Iranian oil, with the explicit aim of severely impeding Iran’s ability to sell it.

How serious are the Iranians about the proposed sanctions and possible attack over its civilian nuclear program and what can they deploy if push comes to shove? According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ The Military Balance 2011, Iran has 23 submarines, 100+ “coastal and combat” patrol craft, 5 mine warfare and anti-mine craft, 13 amphibious landing vessels and 26 “logistics and support” ships. Add to that the fact that Iran has emphasized that it has developed indigenous ”asymmetrical warfare” naval doctrines, and it is anything but clear what form Iran’s naval response to sanctions or attack could take. The only certainty is that it is unlikely to resemble anything taught at the U.S. Naval Academy.
The proposed Obama administration energy sanctions heighten the risk of confrontation and carry the possibility of immense economic disruption from soaring oil prices, given the unpredictability of the Iranian response.  Addressing the possibility of tightened oil sanctions Iran’s first vice president Mohammad-Reza Rahimi on 27 December said, “If they impose sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the Strait of Hormuz.”

Iran has earlier warned that if either the U.S. or Israel attack, it will target 32 American bases in the Middle East and close the Strait of Hormuz. On 28 December Iranian Navy commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari observed, “Closing the Strait of Hormuz for the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran is very easy. It is a capability that has been built from the outset into our naval forces’ abilities.

“But adding an apparent olive branch Sayyari added, “But today we are not in the Hormuz Strait. We are in the Sea of Oman and we do not need to close the Hormuz Strait. Today we are just dealing with the Sea of Oman. Therefore, we can control it from right here and this is one of our prime abilities for such vital straits and our abilities are far, far more than they think.”
There are dim lights at the end of the seemingly darker and darker tunnel. The proposed sanctions legislation allows Obama to waive sanctions if they cause the price of oil to rise or threaten national security.

Furthermore, there is the wild card of Iran’s oil customers, the most prominent of which is China, which would hardly be inclined to go along with increased sanctions.

But one thing should be clear in Washington – however odious the U.S. government might find Iran’s mullahcracy, it is most unlikely to cave in to either economic or military intimidation that would threaten the nation’s existence, and if backed up against the wall with no way out, would just as likely go for broke and use every weapon at its disposal to defend itself. Given their evident cyber abilities in hacking the RQ-170 Sentinel drone and their announcement of an indigenous naval doctrine, a “cakewalk” victory with “mission accomplished” declared within a few short weeks seems anything but assured, particularly as it would extend the military arc of crisis from Iraq through Iran to Afghanistan, a potential shambolic military quagmire beyond Washington’s, NATO’s and Tel Aviv’s resources to quell.

It is worth remembering that chess was played in Sassanid Iran 1,400 years ago, where it was known as “chatrang.” What is occurring now off the Persian Gulf is a diplomatic and military game of chess, with global implications.

Washington’s concept of squeezing a country’s government by interfering with its energy policies has a dolorous history seven decades old.

When Japan invaded Vichy French-ruled southern Indo-China in July 1941 the U.S. demanded Japan withdraw. In addition, on 1 August the U.S., Japan’s biggest oil supplier at the time, imposed an oil embargo on the country. Pearl Harbor occurred less than four months later.

Interested in learning how to trade crude oil and other commodities? Take a trial here

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/War-Imminent-in-Straits-of-Hormuz-$200-a-Barrel-Oil.html
[http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/War-Imminent-in-Straits-of-Hormuz-$200-a-Barrel-Oil.html]

By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com [http://oilprice.com]

In September prices rallied to a high of $1,923.70 and it is now closing the year at its lowest point since mid-July at $1,564.80. That is a drop of more 18% in just under four months.

The reason we have been bearish on gold is because it has broken its long-term uptrend. Looking at a long-term chart we can see that the 200-day moving average as created a fairly strong uptrend. On Dec. 14 that trend was broken when the price closed below $1,600.

On Dec. 30 the price managed to hold support at $1,550 but because of the holiday trading season, we can’t take this movement too literally, however we don’t want to rule out another drop.

One of the reasons why gold prices have been dropping is because long-term investors are starting to take their profits. There are probably a lot of investors who are kicking themselves for not getting out at $1,900 and are now not taking any risks as the trend loses momentum.

Although we are expecting more declines in the precious metal, we can’t rule a sudden reversal, especially if the support holds around $1,500. According to a recent Bloomberg article, despite the massive selloff gold is ending its 11 year of positives gains and is showing year over year gains of slightly more than 8%; the yellow metal has out-performed equity markets and other commodities.

A break below $1,500 would be a strong bearish move. I recently read one quote that does a good job summing up the sentiment in the marketplace.

“Just weeks ago, some were willing to bet their life’s savings on the belief that gold would not reach such a number-certainly not before printing a $2K record into the logbooks. Today the precious metal came to within $22 of touching that “Unholy Grail.” Oops. If and when $1,500 happens, we might suggest making a donation to charity, as a nice gesture of contrition,” wrote Jon Nadler, senior metals analyst at Kitco Metals.

One of the reasons why gold has managed to do so well in 2011 is because it was considered a safe-haven bid. The inverse correlation between gold and equities has weakened in the last few months but some analysts are expecting it to strengthen once again.

There is still a lot of market turmoil and if inflation heats up, investors will once again jump back into precious metals to protect their capital.

“Gold, which is a traditional safe-haven asset, is also very likely to get tangled in a broad commodity market correction, as investors build liquidity buffers against tail risk,” wrote analysts from TD Securities. “In sharp contrast, the latter part of 2012 looks much more robust for commodities and gold than the early part of the year, with prices moving sharply higher into Q3-2012.”

For now we will continue to watch the marketplace and watch; however, if prices do start to move up, they will move up quickly. As much as investors are kicking themselves for not selling at $1,900 more are even kicking themselves for not buying at $1,400 before the uptrend.

In 2011 traders had to digest a lot of bad news, which included: problems with the U.S. debt ceiling, threats that Greece would default on its debt and the overall European debit crisis.

In May, the S&P 500 managed to hit a high of 1,370, which was its highest point since the financial crisis started in 2008. Since then, prices have been stagnating and have been unable to break resistance at 1,300.

Looking at a long-term chart, there is a risk that we are entering another short-term downtrend; however, most analysts are expecting to see a modestst rally in equity markets in 2012. Nomura analysts are probably the most succinct when it comes to forecasting the upcoming trading season. The Japanese bank expects the S&P to push back towards last year’s highs and could hit a high 1,400.

“Putting things bluntly, either we have another very serious credit event with consequences at least as severe as the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, or stocks are probably a buy,” they wrote in their 2012 Global Strategy Outlook.

With so much uncertainty in the marketplace, the bank does mention that it extremely difficult to predict long-term trends.  In the near-term, the market appears to be under some modest pressure. There appears to be some initial support at 1,120; however, a break below this area could lead to a test of 1,050.

Nomura is one of the most optimistic as they point out that the recent price movements is an indication that many investors have already priced in a lot of bad news. The fact that the S&P is managing to attract buyers above 1,000 is a good indication that there is growing confidence in equities.

It would take a very nasty surprise to shake investors again. Some of the biggest hurdles like a Greek default have already been dealt with. Although investors have to take a 50% haircut on Greek bonds, it is better than taking a completely loss and is helping to create some stability.

Possibly the biggest problem investors will face in 2012 could be sovereign debt problems in Italy. The country’s debt is over €1.9 trillion and it has the third largest economy within the euro zone. Its GDP is about 5 times the size of Greece and most analysts think that it is too big to bailout if they are unable to get their finances under control.

Even this could end up being a non-event as investors regain some of their lost confidence. Although markets have been relatively volatile in 2011, the VIX index, which measures volatility, has been well below its peak of 89.53 in 2008. Fear in the marketplace was at its highest in August as investors worried about the implication of the U.S. defaulting on their debts obligations. However, the VIX only managed to reach a high of 48.00.

“…current implied volatility is not as it was back then. Therefore, it seems to us as if the market is already priced for a ‘tail risk’ event of some magnitude, close, but not quite as severe as the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy,” said the analysts in their 2012 outlook report.

It will be important to watch the VIX index in 2012 as there is an inverse correlation with the S&P 500. The higher the VIX spikes the sharper the selloff. If the VIX drops back below 20.00 we would expect to see a modest rally in equity markets.

Looking at the long-term chart, a break above initial resistance at 1,300 could lead to a test of 1,350 and eventually the 2011 highs.

The combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has already transformed North America’s natural gas market in less than half a decade. In 2000 shale gas was 1 percent of America’s gas supplies; today it is 25 percent. While U.S. energy companies began fracking for gas in the late 1990s, there was a dramatic increase in 2005 after the administration of President George W. Bush exempted fracking from regulations under the U.S. Clean Water Act. According to Washington’s energy Information Agency, shale gas production has grown 48 percent annually.

But there still some snakes to be chased from the industry’s campaign to convince the electorate that natgas produced by fracking is safe, as on 8 December the Environmental Protection Agency said for the first time it found chemicals used in fracking in a drinking-water aquifer in west-central Wyoming.

Soothing the electorate, the industry group Energy in Depth reported, “The history of fracturing technology’s safe use in America extends all the way back to the Truman administration, with more than 1.2 million wells completed via the process since 1947.”

And the feds are backing fracking as well, as a new estimate from the U.S. Department of Energy, estimates that the national gas resource can be sustained for 110 years at current consumption rates.

Numbers?

In 2009 an industry-financed study reported that 622,000 people are directly involved in the discovery, extraction and distribution of U.S. natural gas.

As for “insider” influence, in 2005 former Vice President Dick Cheney, in partnership with the energy industry and drilling companies such as his former employer, Halliburton Corp., successfully pressured Congress to exempt fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws.

Even worse, a report released the following month by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research noted that switching from coal to natural gas as an energy source could result in increased global warming, mainly due to the methane leakage problem, which is common but unregulated.

In a further potential federal sandbagging of the natgas industry, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which studied fracking and deemed it safe in 2004, is taking another, broader look at the practice and may end up taking a more active role, with a broader study expected to be finished next year.

Maalox moments all – but now fracking is being charged with contributing to global warming by releasing substantial amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas 20-100 times more potent than carbon dioxide. According to Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, “Each methane molecule is about 70 times more potent in terms of trapping heat than a molecule of carbon dioxide.”

Professor Robert Howarth, Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology and director of Cornell’s agriculture, energy and environment program has noted that his research shows that one well-pad fracking shale gas would emit more greenhouse gases than a community of 100,000 people in a year. Methane already accounts for a sixth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GGEs). In addressing earlier concerns about the pollution impact of fracking Dr. Howarth wrote in Boston University’s Comment 14 September article, “Should Fracking Stop?,” “Many fracking additives are toxic, carcinogenic or mutagenic. Many are kept secret.

In the United States, such secrecy has been abetted by the 2005 ‘Halliburton loophole,’ which exempts fracking from many of the nation’s major federal environmental-protection laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act… Fracking extracts natural salts, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and radioactive materials from the shale, posing risks to ecosystems and public health when these return to the surface…

Because shale-gas development is so new, scientific information on the environmental costs is scarce. Only this year have studies begun to appear in peer-reviewed journals, and these give reason for pause.”

Even worse, during the UN climate change conference in Durban last week, Dominic Frongillo, a town councillor from Caroline, New York, which is atop the Marcellus Shale seam, estimated to contain 489 trillion cubic feet of extractable natural gas noted that “Before I left for Durban, Professor Howarth told me that “preventing unconventional gas extraction could be the number one thing we could do in the short term to control growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.”

According to Professor Howarth, “Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas… Our research indicates that methane makes up more than 40 percent of the entire greenhouse gas inventory for the U.S. … We really need to get this methane leakage under control, if we are to seriously address global warming.” His paper, “Methane and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations,” written with Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell concluded that shale gas is more polluting than oil and conventional natural gas, noting, “The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20 percent greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon.”

The pushback has already started, with a number of his Cornell colleagues questioning Dr. Howarth’s research methodology. See Lawrence M Cathles III, Larry Brown, Milton Taam and Andrew Hunter, “A Commentary on “The Greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations” by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea” @ http://cce.cornell.edu/.

What is clear is that while Cornell’s faculty is divided over the consequences of fracking, the industry has impacted the university’s Board of Trustees, which among other things oversees the university’s $5.28 billion endowment fund. According to the 16 February 2010 edition of the “Cornell Sun,” “Chairman of the Board of Trustees Peter Meinig ’61 is one of the most powerful decision-makers at Cornell. But as the University begins a long process to consider whether it should lease its land in the Marcellus Shale to gas drilling companies, Meinig’s former ties to the natural gas industry has raised some eyebrows in the Cornell community and beyond. From 1993 to 2001, Meinig served on the board of directors of Williams Companies, Inc, one of the nation’s largest natural gas companies. A Fortune 200 company that generated $1.42 billion in profits in 2009, Williams transports about 12 percent of the natural gas consumed in America everyday and has interests in the Marcellus Shale basin, according to the company’s website.”

What is clear is that the impact of natural gas hydraulic fracturing at Cornell has turned into a mounting academic storm with passionate advocates on both sides of the fence. It is notable that Cathles’, Brown’s, Taam’s and Hunter’s critique features prominently on the website of America’s Natural Gas Alliance,” (ANGA) a pro-industry advocacy group.

Let the games begin!

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Earthquakes-Water-Pollution-and-Increased-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-Fracking-Strike-Number-Three.html

By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com

International condemnation was swift.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said at a news briefing, “It is regrettable and flies in the face of the efforts of the international community for Canada to leave the Kyoto Protocol at a time when the Durban meeting, as everyone knows, made important progress by securing a second phase of commitment to the Protocol. We also hope that Canada will face up to its due responsibilities and duties, and continue abiding by its commitments, and take a positive, constructive attitude towards participating in international cooperation to respond to climate change.”

Xinhua, China’s state news agency, labeled Ottawa’s decision “preposterous, an excuse to shirk responsibility” and implored the Canadian government to reverse its decision so it could help reduce global emissions of GGEs.

Beijing’s comments are significant, not least because the PRC is currently the world’s biggest producer of GGEs after the U.S., but China has stalwartly insisted that the Kyoto Protocol remain the foundation of the world’s efforts to curb GGE emissions, which scientists maintain are a significant contributor to global warming. Pleading its special status as a developing nation China at the recently concluded climate change negotiations in Durban was granted an extension of the terms of implementing the Kyoto protocol until 2017 even as it bowed to pressure to launch later talks for a new pact to succeed the Kyoto protocol that would legally oblige all the big GGE producers to act.

Japan also expressed displeasure at the Canadian decision, but in a more nuanced approach, Japanese Environment Minister Goshi Hosono urged Canada to continue to support the Kyoto agreement, which included “important elements” that could help fight climate change.

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres opined in a statement released to the press, “I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing. Whether or not Canada is a party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort.”

A spokesman for France’s Foreign Ministry called Canada’s decision “bad news for the fight against climate change.”

Even plucky Southern Pacific island nation Tuvalu weighed in with its lead negotiator Ian Fry bluntly stating in an e-mail to Reuters, “For a vulnerable country like Tuvalu, it’s an act of sabotage on our future. Withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol is a reckless and totally irresponsible act.”

The silence from Washington on the issue was significant, as the United States Bush administration refused to sign the protocol, arguing instead that China and other big emerging emitters should come under a legally binding framework that does away with the either-or distinction between advanced and developing countries.

Toughing it out, Canadian Minister of the Environment Peter Kent stated that the protocol “does not represent a way forward,” adding that meeting Canada’s obligations under the Kyoto convention would cost $13.6 billion, asserting, “That’s $1,546 from every Canadian family – that’s the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent Liberal government.”

Canada’s decision nevertheless has garnered a few supporters. Australian Minister of Climate Change Greg Combet has defended Canada’s decision, remarking, “The Canadian decision to withdraw from the protocol should not be used to suggest Canada does not intend to play its part in global efforts to tackle climate change.” One might note here that coal is Australia’s third largest export.

So, why the abrupt Canadian volte-face? Canada has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels and is the largest supplier of oil and natural gas to the U.S.

The answer may lie in Canada’s far north, in Alberta’s massive bitumen tar sands deposits, a resource that Ottawa has been desperate to develop. Since 1997 some of the world’s biggest energy producers have spent $120 billion in developing Canada’s oil tar sands, which would be at risk if Ottawa went green in sporting the Kyoto accords.

According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, more than 170 billion barrels of oil sands reserves now are considered economically viable for recovery using current technology. Current Canadian daily oil sands production is 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd), but Canadian boosters are optimistic that production can be ramped up to 3.7 million bpd by 2025.

So, what’s the problem?

Extracting oil from tar sands is an environmentally dirty process and the resultant fuel has a larger carbon footprint than petroleum derived from traditional fossil fuels, producing from 8 to 14 percent more CO2 emissions, depending on which scientific study you read.

So, Canada acceding to the Kyoto Treaty terms would effectively kill the burgeoning Canadian tar sands extraction industry. The Canadian tar sands already suffered a massive setback earlier this year when the Obama administration effectively sidelined the Keystone XL pipeline, which was due to transports tar oil production across the U.S. to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

So, Ottawa on the Kyoto convention has effectively drawn its line in the sand(s.)

Where things go from here is anyone’s guess.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Environment/Global-Warming/Startling-the-Global-Community-Canada-Withdraws-from-the-Kyoto-Convention.html

By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com

After leaving rates unchanged on Tuesday, the FOMC released their statement saying that although the economy has been expanding, “strains in global financial markets continue to pose significant downside risks to the economic outlook.”

This slightly negative outlook was enough to send traders looking for cover and as the U.S. dollar and U.S. treasury markets surged, commodity dropped sharply.

Oil prices took the biggest on Wednesday and dropped more than 5% during the session. The sell-off on Wednesday was kind of the perfect storm; according to some analysts, the fact that OPEC raised oil output to 30 million barrels per day, in the face of another recession, increases the risk of oversupply in the marketplace.

Oil wasn’t the only commodity to take a major hit. Since the start of the week both gold and silver prices have been steadily selling off. On Monday the yellow metal broke below the 50-day moving average and then on Wednesday dropped decisively through the 200-day moving average and closed at $1,579.70. The strong selling pressure on Wednesday caused gold to break its long-term uptrend and the close below strong support at $1,600 highlights the risk of a continued sell-off.

Silver was just as weak and on Wednesday dropped well below support at $30 an ounce and ended the day at $29.02.

We could see some modest covering in the next few days as investor take some profits off the table; however it is hard to ignore the shift in the marketplace. As we pointed out last week, volume is relatively low during December. Wednesday’s volume was the strongest it has been since late September.

Looking at gold prices there is now a real risk that prices test $1,500 in the near to medium-term. Looking at oil prices, there appears to be some initial support at 92.50 but the strong test will come at $90.

There is a real risk that silver could end up testing support around $25 in the short to medium term.

Because the sell-off in commodities was so broad, investors will also have to closely monitor their positions in other markets and especially currencies. We all know that the U.S. dollar is the only “safe-haven,” so it is not surprising that in these conditions that U.S. dollar futures broke above 80.00 on Wednesday.

Although the euro is going to continue to take a hit the really market that is worth watching is the commodity currencies like the Canadian dollar and the Australian dollar. These are probably the two biggest commodity currencies and because of the sell-off, we would expect to see some follow through after Wednesday action.

Canadian dollar futures have been under pressure since Monday. Although there was some neutral price action on Wednesday, most analysts are expecting to see price break below initial support at $0.95 and could touch the next support level around $0.935.

There is similar price action for Australian and analysts are expecting prices to test support at $0.96.

According to government officials, the reason for moving the date forward is plummeting tariffs in the latest solar development projects, a trend that they believe is likely to continue.

Ministry of New and Renewable Energy Joint Secretary Tarun Kapoor said, “The prices will come down further next year and will continue to fall. Earlier, our aim was that solar power will achieve grid-parity by 2022, but looking at the upbeat response from the industry, we have now reduced our target to 2017. Some big names from India have proved that a large investment will soon be possible in solar projects, as huge as 2,000 megawatts. There are other reasons as well. Internationally, the price of solar cells has come down and with improved technology, the cost of operation as a whole has been reduced, thereby increasing the efficiency.”

All is not yet completely sunny for India’s solar energy drive, however. Kapoor noted that several solar projects benefiting under a state program offering favorable tariffs to build 20,000 megawatts of capacity have already been delayed, adding that developers may lose contracts if deadlines are missed, commenting, “Two of the projects are behind schedule. In a few months, we should have a clear picture.”

The pair of miscreants are Entegra Ltd., whose majority shareholder is MW Corp Pvt., which has yet to begin building a 10 megawatt solar-thermal plant in Rajasthan and Enterprise Business Solutions, cited for delays in an October deadline to build a 5 megawatt photovoltaic plant in Punjab.

Entegra Ltd. is disputing New Delhi’s claims of sluggish performance, with its Chairman Mukul S. Kasliwal commenting that his firm faced problems raising financing for its $38 million development but that the company expects to complete the Rajasthan facility plant by its 2013 deadline. Shifting responsibility for delays to the Indian government, Kasliwal commented in an interview, “We haven’t started because we’re not going to do something that doesn’t make sense financially. Had we been allowed to function as an SPV (special purpose vehicle), then we would’ve finished financing long ago.”

Despite the travails of Entegra Ltd and Enterprise Business Solutions, other members of India’s burgeoning solar energy community are optimistic about the government’s latest pronouncements. Azure Power CEO Inderpreet Wadhwa, whose company has secured government contracts to establish solar projects to generate up to 35 megawatts said, “Solar has the same potential as personal computers had in 1970′s. Technology innovations and improvements in manufacturing would drive down costs further.”

Support for India’s solar ambitions comes from some heavyweight fiscal analytical groups. Ernest and Young partner Sanjay Chakrabarti observed, “The extent of price reduction since 2008 has been very sharp. Although solar prices will continue to drop the fall in future may not be so sharp.”

Kapoor is under no illusions however as to why foreign companies are closely following India’s interest in solar energy, noting wryly, “The only reason is that India is an emerging market and one of the few countries where solar energy is encouraged at such a massive level.”

And that emerging market is potentially lucrative indeed, as last year the Indian government launched its “National Solar Mission,” whose objective is to establish India as a global leader in solar energy, by creating the policy conditions for its diffusion across the country as quickly as possible.

The program’s goals are nothing if not ambitious, as the government had initially hoped to boost the nation’s solar capacity by the equivalent of about 18 nuclear power plants by 2022, at date that’s now been brought forward by five years.

Investors, anyone?

Source: http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/India-Embraces-Solar-Power-Says-Price-Will-Equal-Thermal-Power-in-Five-Years.html

By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com