July 30th, 2010

NWF Attack Oil Industry’s “Assault on America”

Layout 1Yesterday Shell waded into the Deepwater fall-out by defending deep-water drilling.

Peter Voser, Shell chief executive, argued that deep-water drilling still had an important role to play in global energy supply. “We have got growth potential there”.

But what cost is this growth?

Even the industry’s own trade magazines are questioning the business as usual scenario. One such magazine, Petroleum Economist, recently warned that the “majors’ search for oil increasingly requires Olympian efforts: deeper, trickier, pricier.”

The Deepwater disaster was evidence of when this effort went badly wrong. “Oil is ravaging the coastline of history’s most flagrant oil addict, a country whose craving for cheap petroleum has dominated its foreign policy and encouraged the risk and adventurism of its companies.”

The magazine warned that that “The symbolism of the oil spill in the Gulf could do more than anything else to accelerate the West’s approach to a post-oil world. “

And this is just what is now happening. Those regulators weighing up whether to let full-scale drilling resume in the Gulf or move to a post-oil world, might want to read the National Wildlife Federation’s new report “Assault on America: A Decade of Petroleum Company Disaster, Pollution, and Profit”.

The report alleges that “The oil industry is running ads asserting that this is an exceptional ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ event for an otherwise safe and responsible industry. But this is the fourth major oil spill in 33 years in North America”.

But, as the NWF point out, “major oil spills are really only a small part of the real story. From 2000 to 2010, the oil and gas industry accounted for hundreds of deaths, explosions, fires, seeps, and spills as well as habitat and wildlife destruction in the United States. These disasters demonstrate a pattern of feeding America’s addiction to oil, leaving in their wake sacrifice zones that affect communities, local economies, and our landscapes.”

The report provides a sampling of the oil and gas industry’s performance over the past 10 years, and it is pretty damning stuff:

  • Offshore: The U.S. Mineral Management Service (now Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement) determined that 1,443 incidents occurred in the Outer Continental Shelf waters from 2001 – 2007. Of these incidents, 41 fatalities, 302 injuries, 476fires, and 356 pollution events were reported.
  • Onshore: From 2000 – 2009, pipeline accidents accounted for 2,554 significant incidents, 161 fatalities, and 576 injuries in the United States.

We have been here before, after the Exxon Valdez spill, the industry promised to clean up its act. As the NWF point out: “We were told that spill prevention plans, better safety  procedures, and improved technology, would help eliminate spills, fires, explosions, leaks and seeps.”

Int continued: “Yes, this was supposed to be the era of no more leaky river barges, no more oil refinery smog, no more worker deaths and injuries, no more well blow-outs, and no more underground tank farm plumes or gas station oil seepage into groundwater or beneath neighboring communities.”

The NWF alleges that its report shows that “This industry continues to knowingly endanger its own workers, the environment, wildlife, and our communities in states across the nation. The total cost of the status quo —– in lives lost and health risks as well as social and environmental degradation —– is far too high.”

It argues that the legacy of the Deepwater disaster is that, we need to take a much “closer and more comprehensive look at the full and continuing costs that the oil and gas industry continues to impose on society with its pollution, environmental degradation, habitat destruction, wildlife loss, worker and community endangerment, health effects consequences, and loss of life.”

They conclude:  “Now is the time to enact laws that favor and encourage safe and clean energy development and remove federal subsidies and tax advantages for oil and gas development”.

They are arguing for the beginning of the post-oil world.

Oil Change

July 29th, 2010

Is this capitalism?

The US subsidiary of Iberdrola has received 0 million in renewable energy stimulus funds (grants) for the start-up of the Cayuga Ridge wind farm. 
This is the largest amount of aid ever given to a company to develop a renewable energy project. To date, Iberdrola has received 7 million of this type of cash incentive, offered by the US Treasury Department as part of the government’s stimulus package for renewable energies to encourage companies to invest in the country.

Source: Iberdrola press release

I wonder what these single minded grants are supposed to be good for other than destroying jobs. I will explain my reasoning by example of the aircraft industry.

Scenario:
Airbus increased its share of the world’s jumbo jet aircraft market and became the second largest manufacturer in 1993, only Boeing was larger.

How? Heavily aided by government subsidies.

Results:
The upsurge of Airbus, coupled with other market forces, drove the U.S. firm, Lockheed, out of the commercial aircraft market. The two remaining U.S. firms, Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas, felt the warm air of competitive pressure.

Sidenote: The World Trade Organization found last month that Airbus received billions of dollars in illegal subsidies from European governments over the past four decades.

Analysis:
Too bad that this finding does not help the thousands of people who lost their jobs in the competing companies and their suppliers due to these “job creation measures” over the decades. Since 2007, the U.S has shed 16% of its manufacturing jobs. Only 11.7M Americans work in manufacturing today, the fewest since the beginning of WWII. Don’ t get me wrong, this is not about a Spanish company taking in U.S. tax payers’ money. Many U.S. companies have foreign HQs, in fact 5.5M Americans have a job thanks to multinationals.

However, I am concerned about how governments keep picking winners and penalize all other market players. A subsidy always has two effects – a) on the company receiving the subsidy, and b) on the rest on the economy. In the aircraft manufacturing industry, the subsidies helped Airbus to develop commercial aircraft. Obviously the company had a competitive advantage by being able to use the government’s cash that other competitors had been deprived of. Lockhead and its consortium of bundled suppliers went out of business.

Now back to our energy topic – the U.S. government, still in stimulus mode, thinks it is following a positive strategic (energy) trade policy by throwing money at single companies. It is not. In order to create the desired industry boom for clean energy technologies (put your buck on smart grid investment portfolio companies) the U.S. administration should do two things:

  1. Frame the market with needed and reasonable policies that give long term security, such as a mix of U.S. subsidies for whole industries as a national level playing field, tax credits, loan guarantees, procedural simplifications and institutional support on a large scale. It needs to cut back on the plethora of state, county, municipal and town legislation that has emerged lately in order to strive for investment jobs.
  2.  Show support for investors and industry by assigning a department to direct investment and energy deals. Right now, too many players are involved on the government level creating too much confusion, especially in the middle market.

Conclusion:

If you are into writing research papers I have an idea for you – it would be interesting to see how one man’s fortune can become another man’s downfall in the energy market. Look at the markets in Germany (solar industry) and compare to China (solar industry) and do a slight outbreak to the ramifications in the U.S. market (with the hypothesis that it is going to stall on the manufacturer level, but raise on the developer level) and construct the decisive factors of the energy industry in the global realm.

If you subsidize something – not only will you get more of what you are incentivizing, but the money has to come from somewhere. That means it is taking away from another part of the economy, often within the same industry.

Picture: FreeFoto.com

Renewable Energy in the U.S. at 5:39 AM