Nigeria Oil, Gas and Energy

There is a worldwide demand for energy because of hike in the prices of traditional resources such as coal, fossil fuels and other environmental situations. All these factors together have triggered investing in energy a worldwide phenomenon. This sector is expanding at a rapid speed that the new investor becomes overwhelmed at the multiple opportunities that are available. This article guides you through the investing process.

Educate yourself on the energy industry

There are varieties of new methods introduced as an alternate energy source for the traditional energy resources like oil, coal and hydroelectric power since facing several problems. You need to understand the political and economic changes happening around the globe. These issues along with the fresh technology keeps changing and therefore it is essential that you keep phase with the growing energy sources such as wind power and solar systems in order to be wise while investing in energy.

Learn about the advantages through mutual funds

Before investing in energy you should research and evaluate the benefits that you will be enjoying, from the specialized mutual funds such as ‘Green funds’ that offers the investors an opportunity to explore through every company and its positive factors. Compare it with the other funds and learn about its over-all performance which will give you a clear view about investing in energy that is profitable. Examine carefully the performance of the funds in the last few years and invest in a proper manner to succeed.

Make the right decision

Both the older traditional energy resources and the new alternate energy technologies have its own advantages and disadvantages, which needs to be considered with care. Investing in energy that is old such as hydroelectric power and coal are well established but they have the risk of being stagnant without much growth. New alternate energy sectors are fast growing. Therefore consider the best among the various energy sector funds before investing and chose the best source that will provide good return at minimum risk.

Invest wisely in power producing companies

With the alarming global warming the natural source of energy is being decreased day by day. In the future year the people should find alternative source to produce energy. It is wise to invest in the energy because it can promise a good return on investment. Many natural source of energy is getting depleted every day so it is the right time to identify the right source to invest in the energy. Since energy is available plenty, people are not aware of the importance of energy, and they end up wasting them. Some of the natural sources of energy are wood, coal water and wind.

Save the natural resources

With the vast changes in the earth atmosphere and other global changes some of the natural resources are fading away. People should find alternative solutions to find other ways to produce the energy. Investing in energy is a wise idea, because it can get you more returns within a less span of time. There are many companies that deals with energy production, and one should find the right source for investment. The oil companies are a good option for investing in energy, because oil is the most demanded product in the world. Oil has a good market value, and it is the main energy resource.

It is very expensive to produce the energy; the power producing companies invites investment option from the public to produce more energy to sustain. For every simple aspect in life we need energy, and it needs to be abundance. Every individual should be aware of the importance of energy and they should be careful in using the energy. Some of the natural resources need to be protected so that the world does not face any power problems. Next time if you are wasting the energy, you should think of protecting it for the future.

It has always surprised me how much some environmental groups go on about mercury in fish – often to the detriment of talking about the sustainability of fish themselves.  It is undoubtedly true that mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive metal on Earth and the contamination of fish is to be deplored.  Health advice on both sides of the Atlantic is virtually identical: women of child-bearing age are advised not to eat large predatory fish such as sharks and swordfish because of the high level of mercury they accumulate from eating other fish.  Yet the number of headlines in North America about mercury in fish is far greater than the number in Europe. Perhaps the idea that “my body’s a temple” is stronger over there. Either way, it seems curious that if the Americans are so worried about it, they should have missed until now what I wrote up in the Sunday Times at the weekend, which is that the amount of mercury accumulated and emitted into the air and water by the global oil and gas industry has been totally overlooked.

The NGOs that are fondest of campaigning about mercury tell us that the biggest sources of mercury in fish, apart from the natural seams which lie under the sea in certain parts of the world, are coal fired power stations and chlorine plants.  Coal-fired power stations collectively emit an estimated  2000 tons of mercury a year.  That’s a lot, when you consider that a gram of mercury in a ten acre lake is enough to have a health advisory issued about its fish in the US.  Why is it then that no one seems to have considered or properly inventoried the amount of mercury emitted by the other forms of fossil fuel, oil and gas?  Figures I have seen show that the amount of mercury collected by oil and gas rigs in South East Asia, where natural mercury levels are high and where consumers are aware of the problem of mercury and do not want it in their fuel, can be as much as ten tons per rig per year.  More typically, oil and gas rigs produce around 1.5 to 2 tons of mercury per year. So it is not inconceivable that the amount of mercury produced by the hundreds of oil and gas rigs at sea exceeds the amount produced by what was thought to be the largest producer, the world’s coal-fired power stations.

Where does all this mercury go?  Well, I wish I knew and so do officials from the United Nations Environment Programme who have been trying to draw up an inventory of mercury emissions.  Even in rigs where the mercury is painstakingly collected, because it can interfere with aluminium in refinery pipes, it is estimated that up to 80 per cent of it can escape as gas.  We do not have good figures on where the mercury goes and the oil industry doesn’t seem particularly interested in producing them.  There are several ironies here. One is that we are told that we in Europe and the US have such high
environmental standards, yet it is in South East Asia that they actually fit mercury scrubbers to remove the heavy metal from fuel, whereas I am aware of only one British rig with mercury scrubbing technology in the North Sea and none in US waters. Now you may say naturally-occurring mercury levels are higher in South East Asia than in some other parts of the world.  Well, they are, but what of the rigs in areas where the levels are lower but still significant?  What is the reason they are not fitting mercury abatement technology?  Is it because the levels are vanishingly low (unlikely) or because of
cost?  And why is it that the oil and gas industry is the only industry which is not part of the forthcoming global treaty to reduce mercury emissions?  The US Environmental Protection Agency pointed out the lack of data on mercury emissions from oil and gas installations in 2001.  You would have thought something might have happened by then, a comprehensive assessment or report to make good the deficiency of our knowledge, perhaps.  But no.  Nothing.  Could that possibly be because one of the most flagrantly pro-oil and gas Administrations, the Bush Administration, was in power for most of the time since then?

The little powerhouses known as fuel cells have been receiving much attention lately in the United Kingdom. Constructed of a reactive material sandwiched between an anode and cathode, fuel cells could reduce our dependency on batteries, thereby reducing the amount of acidic and harmful waste produced by the batteries upon disposal. It is possible, with additional development, to power vehicles with fuel cells as well. Furthermore, most current fuel cells create power using hydrogen and oxygen, leaving water as its only emission. Not only do these devices utilize renewable energy in power generation, they give off renewable energy in the form of water.

Worldwide, many critics claim that fuel cell technology requires too much money to make it commercially viable. Some firms in the United Kingdom, however, are taking the matter into their own hands and raising funds for research and development, quieting some of the naysayers. Intelligent Energy, a fuel cell developer based in Loughborough, England, raised $13.6 million in 2008 to further fuel cell technology. Last year, the firm raised an additional $30 million. To date, Intelligent Energy has raised $130 million in its effort to bring the renewable energy of fuel cells to the commercial stage.

Another United Kingdom-based body promoting a low carbon environment through fuel cell usage is the Carbon Trust. This non-profit trust’s goal is to work with and support businesses and private citizens in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions. According to their research, the UK has great potential to develop fuel cell technology at an affordable rate, bringing commercialization of this renewable energy that much closer. Carbon Trust put forth what they term the Polymer Fuel Cells Challenge to leading businesses in the renewable energy field. Interested developers sent letters of interest to Carbon Trust and select associations were chosen to submit proposals for new and affordable fuel cell technology by April of 2010. Carbon Trust is willing to supply up to £8 million to provide for the program’s success.

While these initiatives demonstrate that fuel cell usage in the United Kingdom still has plenty of room to grow, it should not be assumed that the renewable energy source is not already in place. In fact, more than 14,000 cells have been sold internationally in the transportation market, powering specialized vehicles such as forklifts. 75% of such cells produced between 2008 and 2009 were assembled in Europe, including the United Kingdom.

With an already strong foundation and millions of dollars being poured into the technology, the United Kingdom is becoming a leader in fuel cell and renewable energy technology.

There are a wide range of fuel cell manufactures and fuel cell istributors located in the United Kingdom, so start making use of renewable energy now!

First off, I really want to give big props for the celebrities and the many car insurance companies involved in this fundraising event. I love to hear about celebrities with lots of money sharing their wealth for people who need it the most. Those are just many blessings waiting to be received. I am even more proud to hear that the money is going to a cancer foundation.

I can’t believe how much money these celebrities are raising just by coming out and supporting these races. It is all about being involved and making a big difference in someone else’s life. I am glad to hear that some celebrities, unlike all, really do have a heart. If I had as much money as some of these big time celebrities have today, I would be out there raising money for kids and people who need it the most. The people who are suffering and dieing and who do not have anything. Those are the ones who deserve our money.

Many big ups to the celebrities that take part in this famous event everytime it comes around. Charley Boorman who had cancer and knows what it feels like to suffer from something that can end deadly, is just one of the most kind hearted people to be apart of such a heart felt even as this. Sometimes it takes someone to be in other people’s shoes, or to have gone through such a horrific experience to open up their hearts to others. Even though most of the time it should be both ways around, I’m happy to know that there are people out there who truly do care about the lives of others.

Future Clean Green, Sustainable fuel: Bio-oil produced with algae mixed with carbon dioxide as an alternative to Petrol

The Project – Almost 400 of the green tubes, filled with millions of microscopic algae , cover a plain near the city of Alicante , next to a cement works from which the CO2 is captured and transported via a pipeline to the “blue petroleum” factory .
The project , which is still experimental, has been developed over the past five years by Spanish and French researchers at the small Bio Fuel Systems (BFS ) company .
At a time when companies are redoubling their efforts to find alternative energy sources, the idea is to reproduce and speedup a process which has taken millions of years and which has led to the production of fossil fuels. Scientists are trying to simulate the conditions which existed millions of years ago ,when the phytoplankton was transformed into oil to obtain oil that is the same as oil today
The other great advantage of the system is that it is a depollutant ? it absorbs the CO2 which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere .

Future Clean Green, Sustainable fuel: Stored Hydrogen as Carbon Free alternative to Petrol

A new technology that allows hydrogen to be stored in a cheap and practical way , could make its widespread use as a carbon-free alternative to petrol a reality.
The technology is based on a new way of producing nano-fibres from hydrides , materials that soak up hydrogen like a sponge , and then encapsulating them in tiny plastic beads so small they behave like a liquid . The process is being developed by Cella Energy. This technique allows hydrogen to be released at a much faster rate and at lower temperatures than before .
Hydrogen could be an economically viable alternative to fossil fuels if the gas is produced with renewable energy sources like wind or solar . It has three times moreenergy than petrol per unit of weight and could power cars , planes and other vehicles that currently usehydrocarbons .

It was a busy summer and some things, like this blog, just couldn’t keep up.  But that’s not to say I didn’t come across lots  I’d like to look back at as I try to get back in the habit of posting again.  Take the three polls I came across in early August (that’s when I came across them, not necessarily when they were made public).

Back in June, Pembina Institute released a survey of 5,000 “thought leaders” (whatever the heck a thought leader is – I’m not sure that academics and government middle managers are leading many in their thinking these days).  The survey was conducted by McAllister Opinion Research and was released in advance of the G8/G20 meetings in Huntsville and Toronto, respectively.  Needless to say, with the uproar over fake lakes, $1 billion in security costs and riots in T.O., this survey sank without a trace.

In the words of the press release ……

“The federal government is out of step with leading thinkers on issues related to sustainability, energy and climate change, according to the results of a groundbreaking survey of more than 5,000 experts and government officials  ….  These results clearly illustrate that leaders within government, academia and the private sector understand the energy and sustainability challenges Canada faces, and have a high level of agreement on how best to tackle them  ….  What Canada still lacks is the political commitment to take sufficient action.”

Whats most interesting for me is that 59% of the respondents work in government (and most are in Canada), suggesting a profound disconnect between the Harper government and its civil servants on energy policy, climate change and sustainability.

Shifting direction (but just a bit), Gibbs and Soell, a New York based public affairs firm released their 2010 Sense and Sustainability Study, looking at how 2,600 U.S. consumers and 300 Fortune 1000 executives view the corporate pursuit of sustainability.   Scepticism is the key word Gibbs and Soell use to describe their own study.

Again in the words of the press release …

Corporate America has embarked on its journey toward sustainability, but still draws public skepticism. Only 29% of executives and 16% of consumers believe that a majority of businesses (“most,” “almost all,” or “all”) are committed to “going green” – defined as “improving the health of the environment by implementing more sustainable business practices, and/or offering environmentally friendly products or services.” Many executives (54%) and consumers (48%) believe only “some” businesses are committed to “going green.”

However, I don’t know if I would really define the response as sceptical.  If anything, it may be incredibly optimistic for 29% of executives to believe that “most”, “almost all” or “all” U.S. companies are going green.  While the press release says that “Corporate America has embarked on its journey toward sustainability …“, as someone that makes a living helping companies down this particular road I would suggest that the majority of companies display the symptoms (e.g. publishing sustainability reports) but provide only tepid support beyond what the regulations require.

Finally, the last poll, conducted by Harris Poll for the Financial Times, looked at U.S. and European support for greater regulation of oil companies in the aftermath of the BP-Deepwater Horizon disaster.  The poll, released August 12^th, found that support for more regulation ranged from 73% of Britons to 91% of the French (U.S. respondents were in between with 77% of those spoken to favoring more regulatory constraints).

“The findings underline the challenge facing the industry after the accident on April 20 when the Macondo well ruptured, killing 11 workers and spewing 4.9m barrels of oil into the sea. Although the Obama Administration’s moratorium on deep-water drilling in the gulf, imposed after the spill, should be lifted earlier than it’s November 30th expiry date, the industry is already bracing itself for further regulation and higher costs“

So what does it all mean?

At a minimum, I would say there is a disconnect between industry claims to be “going green”, becoming sustainable, etc. and the public that is on the receiving end of the message.  It also shows what bad performance on the part of one or two companies can do to the whole sector, and even all industry.  Looking at Canada and the Pembina/McAllister survey that disconnect extends to include a government and the thought leaders that are in many cases employed by it.

Its been a tough summer for corporate reputations in the energy sector so it would be interesting to look at similar polls again in six months.

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Oil is oil is oil and it is well nigh impossible to separate it once it’s in the pipeline. But that was then and this is now. Two stories I came across today suggest that there are some out there that are working hard to differentiate between oil sources, as difficult as that sounds.

First, according to the Globe & Mail, Canada’s federal government seems to be picking a fight with the European Union as the EU pushes European fuel suppliers to reduce the carbon footprint of supplied fuels over the next decade (see Oil sands row threatens EU trade deal, sources say, February 22, 2011).

“Canada has threatened to scrap a trade deal with the European Union if the EU persists with plans that would block imports of Canada’s highly polluting tar sands, according to EU documents and sources …..The Commission had initially proposed that tar sands be ascribed a greenhouse gas value of 107 grams per megajoule of fuel, making it clear to buyers that it had far greater impact than average crude oil at 87.1 grams. The latest EU research, published this month, backs that up.”

I’m not quite clear on why Canada would pick a fight over a product that the EU does not, and is unlikely to, import from Canada. However, what interested me was the “certifying” of different oil sources … an interesting precedence (and perhaps a reason for the disagreement).

Much more interesting was an article in GOOD magazine’s Issue 022, The Energy Issue. On a safari through the range of energy issues facing the U.S. today, GOOD slipped a short mention of David Poritz’s Gaia Certification Ltd. and its efforts to establish a certification standard for oil sources. According to GOOD, Poritz’s goal is “Fair Trade” in fuels, that allows consumers to pick the the level of environmental performance that they are willing to pay for. His model is the Forest Stewardship Council, which oversees standards for certifying woodlands and forest product producers. You may have noticed companies like Home Depot selling FSC lumber or Staples selling FSC paper.

A quick look at the website suggests Gaia Certification is just getting started, and choosing to do so in Ecuador (where Chevron has become embroiled in lawsuits and accusations of systemic oil spills and pollution). Drawing on participation from industry, NGO’s, government and indigenous communities, Gaia is on the verge of issuing its first set of certification standards, which will serve as the basis for rating the practices of individual countries.

A summary of what Gaia is trying to achieve:

“The mission of Gaia Certification Ltd. is to create a market-driven process that will reward and distinguish world-class oil and gas producers for outstanding social and environmental performance through the active engagement of consumers, civil society, NGOs and the oil industry.”

And Poritz is quoted by GOOD, outlining the value proposition for energy marketers as the world makes the transition to low-carbon fuels:

“There’s real market value here for energy producers, …… It takes time to move to all renewables. We’re in transition, and that transition has to feel good.”

It could be the start of something interesting – a first step towards extended product responsibility for the oil industry. Forget Regular, Premium and Super, imagine going to your local boutique gasoline bar and having a choice of Fort McMurray Mild, Colorado Medium or, for the more discriminating the really good imported stuff, Ecuadorean Dark.

The current edition of Canadian Art has an article highlighting Edward Burtynsky’s most recent photo collection, aerial photos of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  For those who remember Burtynsky’s earlier collection – Oil – released late last year, the contrast between the almost striking beauty of the photos and the shock of the situation they portray will be familiar.

While Canadian Art has included some of the photos from the collection in their article, I couldn’t resist copying some of the more interesting images in a larger format than you can get at the magazine’s website.  My respects to one of Burtynsky’s dealers, Nicholas Metevier Gallery in Toronto, for posting at least some of the images on their website.

“For 30 years, Burtynsky has made it his practice to record, in large colour prints, the human imprint on the natural world, photographing mines and quarries and railway cuts and, more recently, the impact of oil extraction and use around the world, from the freeways of Los Angeles to the shipbreaking deltas of Bangladesh and the oil fields of Alberta and Azerbaijan.”

 

“Some of Burtynsky’s pictures from this day are aesthetic marvels, and I find myself thinking about the craggy lines of Clyfford Still, or Kandinsky’s nervous whiplash gestures and lustrous chromatic variations. You can’t help it; aesthetic pleasure is impossible to forestall, the context notwithstanding.”

 

“The blue of the ocean, like Kandinsky’s, has a souped-up, unreal quality, like lapis lazuli, and a pilot would later tell us that this new colour showed up just a week ago, when the spraying of chemical dispersants, principally Corexit 9527 and 9500, commenced full-bore. The toxic qualities of Corexit has led to its banning in Britain, but here it’s full-tilt boogie. In Burtynsky’s pictures, the ocean looks like Sani-Flush.”

 

 

“How was this different from what I had imagined, watching the TV news in Toronto, researching online and flipping through magazines on the flights south? First, it was clear that the spill’s impact on shore life had not, in late June, even begun to be felt. Virtually all the oil still hung offshore. Did people understand what was coming? How could they?

Second, the dispersant seemed to have moved the oil deeper underwater, where the skimmers and booms could no longer intercept it …..”