Market Currents
The IEA consulted Saudi Arabia, China and India before it approved the release of 60M barrels of...
-
Sunday, June 26, 2011, 5:45 AM ETThe IEA consulted Saudi Arabia, China and India before it approved the release of 60M barrels of its emergency reserves, the agency's executive director says. Nobuo Tanaka adds that the release is meant to fill the gap in supply until higher crude volumes from Saudi Arabia reach the market.
Other date
Latest Energy & Materials Articles
This news story has 34 comments:
But read the last line of the article and this insider trading is clearly going to be blown off by the CFTC.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Many do not realize how much oil is consumed (wasted?) in developing nations running generators for electricity. Small low cost and safe nuclear plants (yes, they can be safe) would be a blessing for developing nation infrastructure and reduce CO2 at the same time. This would lift much of the demand load off producers.
The entire country of Nigeria, for example, generates only enough electricity for supply a moderate sized city. Most get by with intermittent or no electricity and a generator. MTN, a telephone network, has to provide a backup generator at every tower in the country along with a guard to watch it !
It's a pity the hysteria over nuclear has been re-fueled by Japan's experience with ancient and poorly designed systems. Nuclear has an almost unblemished safety record while fossil fuels, particularly coal, kill so many yearly and contribute to what may be catastrophic climate change.
"The entire country of Nigeria, for example, generates only enough electricity for supply a moderate sized city. Most get by with intermittent or no electricity and a generator. MTN, a telephone network, has to provide a backup generator at every tower in the country along with a guard to watch it !"
And since you don't seem to mind links take a look here:
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2...
The rising costs of silver are reported to be causing stress in the industry although substitutes will likely be found.
I work in Africa, and have solar, and am aware of the effort and time required to keep panels clean and theft proof. It's much easier flicking a switch, believe me.
Nuclear is far too easily demonized. I leave the arguments to others but again point out, actual deaths from nuclear are very few and far between. Even the famed green advocate, author of Gaia, now swears by it as the only way to save the planet from catastrophic pollution from fossils.
And, for years I lived within walking distance of a nuclear plant, still operating, and used to enjoy swimming in the warm waters of the cooling system during winters.
And, from my experience with solar and developing nations but never being in Bangladesh I'd still bet most of those customers mentioned in your link are on a tiny panel and a flickering, temperamental Chinese lightbulb with which they fiddle a lot.
Demand would outpace supply in July, right when the IEA comes with this reserve drawdown....
Live in Denial, if you want:
www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/...
The other side of the coin? With the cost of constructing, running, managing, and disposing of waste what it is, you could blanket the entire country with PE Cells (perhaps an exaggeration) and they wouldn't be able to hurt themselves or anyone else. Additionally they are geographically located for just such an approach.
Vuke - "Nuclear is far too easily demonized."
The reason nuclear is so easily demonized is it simply isn't safe enough yet. And it simply isn't economical enough when other options are explored and all cost factors taken into account. Additionally, neither the industry nor government regulate and inspect plants satisfactorily. Three Mile Island scared the crap out of us, Chernobyl contaminated parts of Europe, and we don't even know how bad Japan is yet. Suffice it to say, it's BADDDDD. 60 years of Nuclear power and we still don't have adequate means of storage for nuclear waste and probably won't for a long time. Currently waste is stored within the reactors like in Japan and it provides excellent fuel and contaminants when a reactor melts down.
Having said all of that, I am not opposed to nuclear power. It should be implemented on a limited basis, and a lot of money should be put into basic research into ways of making it safer and more cost effective. We're just not at a point for massive implementation.
To be frank, I'm not sure how our Naval nuclear fleet is managed. I can tell you that there is no profit motive involved and virtually unlimited resources for designing, managing, running, inspecting and maintaining these complex systems. Something the private sector can't and will never do without the resources of the federal government behind them. And we all know that we don't want big government in our business now do we?????
There are thousands of solutions to any real or imagined energy crisis nuclear is hardly one of them.
That said, i suspect dealing with finicky power is better than having none at all, much like my internet service in certain areas....
Read what some very knowledgeable people have say and consider.
www.ecolo.org/media/ar...
And, Archaean plutons have not moved in a billion+ years. Drop your nuclear waste in a shaft drilled in one of these.
If you do a little reading on the subject you'll discover 3rd and 4th generation plants that are small and virtually terrorist proof. And, there are reactors in Africa that have been running, quite capably, for years. Do you have any idea how many panels, working perfectly, and batteries are required to run a single A/C in real heat?
Well, that country is now experiencing a fiscal crisis, the gov't has jacked up taxes on all energy, and the vuys with the solar systems are sitting pretty.
Please don't walk down Self Righteous ave and ask me to grab a coffee at Info-bucks, cause I been in town for a while now, thanks.
Africa isn't hitting the per capita kwhour usage Americans do anytime soon, and it makes no sense subjecting them to the errors of our pasr.
Solar works on a small scale but is not practical for serious industrialization. Think of the batteries produced and exhausted. What to do with them?
And, when the rainy season hits in Africa, turn off the power for a day or two? You need consistent and reliable energy to build industry, air condition homes and offices in horrendus climates and, hopefully, some day power autos about town.
It's not righteousness that drives the argument. It's a conviction, developed through experience and a study of nuclear physics that convinced me to adopt an unpopular concept. That, and seeing children die from lack of clean water that could be pumped were electricity available. How do you think Floridians would live if cheap electricity were not available?
Not to labor a point but read on the new, compact and safe reactors and imagine how they could transform life for hundreds of millions, reduce oil consumption and help clean the planet's air and watercourses. Don't put them in range of tsunami's or earthquake zones however, even though we're now assured fail safe mechanisms exist for even that. And, consider Lovelocke's warnings seriously. There may not be time for alternatives.
By the way i live near a nuclear plant expected to be decomissioned and in the tradition of the US w/ no viable backup plan for replacing its power. Do I want to see it decommissioned? No, of course not, it would be silly to expect alternatives to cover that in such a short time span, but for developing nations, for the future? Why not.
That's the nub of it. Developing nations are ready NOW and don't want to wait 30 years for new technology to emerge. They desperately need electricity for hospitals, clean water, lighting and improved infrastructure. Death rates, particularly among children, are startling. Would you, living under such circumstances, be happy being told their is no hope for you and your children for a better life for at least a generation or two?
Electicity will bring more development, industry, jobs and tourism and, of course, stability, to many of these countries. Small and safely designed reactors are now being readied for this very eager market.
And, perhaps most compelling, if the west doesn't do it, the east will. Check out pebble bed reactors in China, (not fully proved as yet) and the small container reactors (non weaponizable) being developed in the U.S. The east may not be so concerned with safety issues.
There is phenomenal work being done not just in nuclear, but everywhere else at the same time. For every breakthrough in nuclear I'd propose there are equivalent ones in other technologies.
I think your position is fair and informed, I just don't agree with it.
blogs.forbes.com/tonys.../
inhabitat.com/aquamari.../
cleantechnica.com/2011.../
----------------------...
why would anybody be against USA release of oil
why Saudi Arabia
----------------------...
reserve releases is a temp. inconvenience for them,
while strategic reserve depleted is their future opportunity
US release of oil wasn't as important as the release in Europe. Brent is where the supply issues are. The $20 spread between WTI and Brent tells you that. Unfortunately gasoline prices in US are affected more by Brent than WTI. Does no good to lower oil prices without lowering gasoline prices. I was wondering what Obama could do (since he had talked about going after the specs a few months ago) - because he can't touch Brent. Guess IEA did it for him