PLAINSBORO -- There is a logical connection between the advent of electric cars and the re-emergence of nuclear energy as a national power source -- at least in David Crane's mind.
Crane, CEO of Princeton-based NRG Energy, Inc., sees the market for electric cars as a tipping point for the nuclear power industry as the cleanest, greenest source of electricity for the future, he told members of the Princeton Regional Chamber of Commerce at their monthly luncheon yesterday.
"The advent of electric cars is going to cause a huge, disruptive technology change, one that will throw off all sorts of business opportunities locally and elsewhere," Crane told an audience of nearly 170 professionals.
"There is a symbiotic connection between this vehicle and nuclear power plants. There would be a nuclear renaissance. We would like to see that," said Crane.
While there is relatively little activity in the commercial electric car market right now, Crane estimates there will be 10 wholly electric cars on the market by the end of 2011. He does not see electric cars supplanting gas-powered cars completely, but they will be a force as second vehicles for families, he said. Since more than 60 million Americans have more than one car, there is a huge potential market for them.
When it blossoms, NRG will be waiting.
Simply put, the peak demand for electricity currently occurs through the use of air conditioning during the day, said Crane. Even then, most power grids operate at just 42 percent of capacity. At night, that rate dips lower still.
Electric cars would result in a greater demand for power at night, when cars would theoretically be plugged in for regeneration after use, Crane said. Electric cars would consequently "flatten out" the demand for electricity across a 24-hour cycle. And nuclear power plants could meet that demand -- with "zero-carbon emissions," Crane said.
"You want to turn nuclear power plants on and keep them running at full load all of the time," something that doesn't work quite as seamlessly with the nation's current electric-supply grid, he said.
NRG Energy, a Fortune 500 company, owns and operates one of the country's largest power generation portfolios, including natural gas, coal, thermal, solar and offshore wind assets that in total supply some 24,000 megawatts of electrical power -- enough to power 20 million homes.
The company, which was founded in Minnesota in 1989, moved to its base off Route 1 in 2003. Its business predominantly serves North America but it has capacity in both Europe and Australia as well.
NRG is one of the leading finalists for a $7 billion governmental loan to build a new, zero-emission nuclear power source. More at:
http://www.nj.com/business/times/index.ssf?/base/business-5/1288935912221870.xml&coll=5
Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire - Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry. Nuclear Activities
Monday, November 8, 2010
Energy Policy Explored As Cap-And-Trade Dies
President Obama's push for the cap-and-trade program died this week with the Republicans taking over the House of Representatives. The day after the elections, Obama announced a shift in his energy policy when he told a news conference: "Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat. It was a means not an end, and I am going to be looking for other means to address this problem." To find out what other means the president may use, Robert Siegel talks with Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and author of The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You about Global Warming.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131104674
Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics
AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF EXPERTS TO DISCUSS NUCLEAR ENERGY ISSUES Leading Industry Professionals Available to Share Knowledge and Expertise Concerning Nuclear Issues of Importance to Vermont
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASECONTACT:
November 8, 2010Jackie Clark, 301-987-7113, 301-641-3750 cell
Fritz Schneider: (301) 728-4811
AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY
ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF EXPERTS TO DISCUSS
NUCLEAR ENERGY ISSUES
Leading Industry Professionals Available to Share Knowledge and Expertise
Concerning Nuclear Issues of Importance to Vermont
WHAT:Nuclear industry experts to inform audiences about scientific and regulatory issues
WHEN:Available Now!
WHO:Edward L. Quinn:
Former American Nuclear Society (ANS) President
ANS member for more than 25 years
Candace Davison:
Master’s Degree in Environmental Engineering
ANS member for more than 15 years
Chairperson of American Nuclear Society Public Information Committee
Senior Reactor Operator
Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar
ANS member for more than 20 years
Incoming Chairperson of the Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Division of ANS Nuclear Engineer
Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Some Topics Include:
Licensing Transfer – What steps and what regulations must be observed to transfer a license for an operating nuclear power plant
Workforce Continuity – If an operating plant’s ownership is transferred, how will the public be assured that a trained workforce will be in place to assure continuity of operations
Radiation and Relative Risk – how a transatlantic flight or eating a banana is a radiation event
These uniquely experienced and knowledgeable individuals can help navigate complex questions of science and public policy on issues of importance to citizens of Vermont.
They will provide solid science, unemotionally and understandably, so that decisions about Vermont’s energy future can be made on facts, not myth.
For more information about the conference please visit www.ans.org.
Established in 1954, ANS is a professional organization of engineers and scientists devoted to the peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology. Its 11,000 members come from diverse technical backgrounds covering the full range of engineering disciplines as well as the physical and biological sciences.
November 8, 2010Jackie Clark, 301-987-7113, 301-641-3750 cell
Fritz Schneider: (301) 728-4811
AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY
ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF EXPERTS TO DISCUSS
NUCLEAR ENERGY ISSUES
Leading Industry Professionals Available to Share Knowledge and Expertise
Concerning Nuclear Issues of Importance to Vermont
WHAT:Nuclear industry experts to inform audiences about scientific and regulatory issues
WHEN:Available Now!
WHO:Edward L. Quinn:
Former American Nuclear Society (ANS) President
ANS member for more than 25 years
Candace Davison:
Master’s Degree in Environmental Engineering
ANS member for more than 15 years
Chairperson of American Nuclear Society Public Information Committee
Senior Reactor Operator
Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar
ANS member for more than 20 years
Incoming Chairperson of the Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Division of ANS Nuclear Engineer
Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Some Topics Include:
Licensing Transfer – What steps and what regulations must be observed to transfer a license for an operating nuclear power plant
Workforce Continuity – If an operating plant’s ownership is transferred, how will the public be assured that a trained workforce will be in place to assure continuity of operations
Radiation and Relative Risk – how a transatlantic flight or eating a banana is a radiation event
These uniquely experienced and knowledgeable individuals can help navigate complex questions of science and public policy on issues of importance to citizens of Vermont.
They will provide solid science, unemotionally and understandably, so that decisions about Vermont’s energy future can be made on facts, not myth.
For more information about the conference please visit www.ans.org.
Established in 1954, ANS is a professional organization of engineers and scientists devoted to the peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology. Its 11,000 members come from diverse technical backgrounds covering the full range of engineering disciplines as well as the physical and biological sciences.
Obamas Visit to India to Benefit Westinghouse and General Electric for New Nuclear Power Plants
- Edited By Tom Lamar -
President Barack Obama’s visit to India has heightened expectations of Indian power and engineering companies who plan to participate in India’s nuclear growth story.
Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Tata Power, Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) and Bharat Heavy Electricals (Bhel) are confident that the visit would pave way for an early agreement on fixing the compensation for civil nuclear incidents and other issues, which would allow private sector companies to progress on the memorandum of agreements signed after the India-US civil nuclear deal.
L&T, which signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Westinghouse Electric and General Electric, hopes the nuclear liability agreement would get ratified soon and help the company forge its capabilities in complete construction of nuclear power plants. MV Kotwal, head of defense and aerospace division at L&T said, “We think that Obama’s visit will help expedite the process of addressing the issues in due course.” However, he feels that US firms would have to compete with others worldwide for a share of this business.
L&T’s MOU with Westinghouse would involve work related to engineering, procurement, construction and manufacturing activities for the AP1000 modular nuclear reactors. It has another MOU with GE Hitachi for cooperation on developing components for advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) nuclear power plants.
NPCIL has already started work on two short-listed sites with an aggregate capacity of 10,000 mw. The reactors for the proposed plants in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh have been reserved for supply by US companies, said a senior NPCIL official.
“We have already started work on two units of total six reactors to be supplied by Westinghouse and GE Hitachi over a period of time. We need around 600 hectares of land and the process of land acquisition has already started,” the NPCIL official said.
Tata Power that plans to have direct ownership of nuclear power plants believes that full private ownership may take time. Banmali Agrawala, executive director (corporate strategy) of Tata Power, said, “The nuclear liability issue once resolved would pave the way for Indian companies to tap the American market for technology and wider access to equipment. However, till that happens everything is tied to liability being fixed, as financing and funding would all have a direct recourse to the companies balance sheet,” said Agrawala.
India’s Parliament on August 25 passed the civil nuclear liability bill, fixing the compensation to be paid by the operators in case of any damage. However, the issues related to sovereign guarantee for liability of private US companies and the substitution of a governmental guarantee with that of a third party insurance company overseas, are still pending and are being discussed by the American government.
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/11/08/obamas-visit-to-india-to-benefit-westinghouse-and-general-electric-for-new-nuclear-power-plants-110804.aspx
President Barack Obama’s visit to India has heightened expectations of Indian power and engineering companies who plan to participate in India’s nuclear growth story.
Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Tata Power, Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) and Bharat Heavy Electricals (Bhel) are confident that the visit would pave way for an early agreement on fixing the compensation for civil nuclear incidents and other issues, which would allow private sector companies to progress on the memorandum of agreements signed after the India-US civil nuclear deal.
L&T, which signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Westinghouse Electric and General Electric, hopes the nuclear liability agreement would get ratified soon and help the company forge its capabilities in complete construction of nuclear power plants. MV Kotwal, head of defense and aerospace division at L&T said, “We think that Obama’s visit will help expedite the process of addressing the issues in due course.” However, he feels that US firms would have to compete with others worldwide for a share of this business.
L&T’s MOU with Westinghouse would involve work related to engineering, procurement, construction and manufacturing activities for the AP1000 modular nuclear reactors. It has another MOU with GE Hitachi for cooperation on developing components for advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) nuclear power plants.
NPCIL has already started work on two short-listed sites with an aggregate capacity of 10,000 mw. The reactors for the proposed plants in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh have been reserved for supply by US companies, said a senior NPCIL official.
“We have already started work on two units of total six reactors to be supplied by Westinghouse and GE Hitachi over a period of time. We need around 600 hectares of land and the process of land acquisition has already started,” the NPCIL official said.
Tata Power that plans to have direct ownership of nuclear power plants believes that full private ownership may take time. Banmali Agrawala, executive director (corporate strategy) of Tata Power, said, “The nuclear liability issue once resolved would pave the way for Indian companies to tap the American market for technology and wider access to equipment. However, till that happens everything is tied to liability being fixed, as financing and funding would all have a direct recourse to the companies balance sheet,” said Agrawala.
India’s Parliament on August 25 passed the civil nuclear liability bill, fixing the compensation to be paid by the operators in case of any damage. However, the issues related to sovereign guarantee for liability of private US companies and the substitution of a governmental guarantee with that of a third party insurance company overseas, are still pending and are being discussed by the American government.
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/11/08/obamas-visit-to-india-to-benefit-westinghouse-and-general-electric-for-new-nuclear-power-plants-110804.aspx
Japan, U.S. to Promote Nuclear Security from GSN Daily News
Japan and the United States plan to organize a bilateral working group to help prevent an act of nuclear terrorism, Kyodo News reported Saturday (see GSN, Nov. 3).
This would be the allies first group on nuclear security. It is expected to be formalized Friday during a visit to Japan by President Obama.
Japan possesses the most sophisticated antiproliferation technology on earth, according to Kyodo News. Its involvement on the issue would strengthen efforts to prepare a worldwide nuclear security posture leading to the follow-up to the April nuclear security summit in Washington. That event is now set for 2012 in South Korea, sources said.
The working group would be assigned to identify and export operational means for preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials that could be used in weapons, Kyodo reported. It would also work to boost collaboration on nuclear forensics (see GSN, Aug. 10).
Working group participants would include high-level officials from the Japanese Science and Foreign ministries and the U.S. Homeland Security, Energy and State departments, along with other agencies (Kyodo News/Breitbart.com, Nov. 6).
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20101108_9136.php
This would be the allies first group on nuclear security. It is expected to be formalized Friday during a visit to Japan by President Obama.
Japan possesses the most sophisticated antiproliferation technology on earth, according to Kyodo News. Its involvement on the issue would strengthen efforts to prepare a worldwide nuclear security posture leading to the follow-up to the April nuclear security summit in Washington. That event is now set for 2012 in South Korea, sources said.
The working group would be assigned to identify and export operational means for preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear materials that could be used in weapons, Kyodo reported. It would also work to boost collaboration on nuclear forensics (see GSN, Aug. 10).
Working group participants would include high-level officials from the Japanese Science and Foreign ministries and the U.S. Homeland Security, Energy and State departments, along with other agencies (Kyodo News/Breitbart.com, Nov. 6).
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20101108_9136.php
Russia, Qatar Sign Memorandum Of Cooperation On Peaceful Nuclear Use
 Qatar, which has the third largest natural gas reserves in the world, behind Russia and Iran, moved to develop peaceful nuclear energy in cooperation with other Arab countries in 2006, which was supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). |
The signing of the agreement comes as Moscow is preparing for a three-day visit by Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani due to begin later in the day.
After the signing ceremony, Spasski said the memorandum contained a "roadmap for further moves" in the two countries' nuclear cooperation and is to be followed by an intergovernmental agreement on the issue.
Russia and Qatar already have active energy contracts, including through OPEC and the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).
No signs of N.Korea nuclear processing: US envoy
 |
Tokyo (AFP) Nov 6, 2010 There are no signs North Korea has resumed nuclear activity at the site where it previously produced weapons-grade plutonium, a former US envoy was quoted as saying Saturday after a trip to the country. Charles Pritchard, former top negotiator with North Korea, was quoted as saying that the Yongbyon complex -- where the isolated state processed plutonium for past nuclear tests -- did not appear to be in operation.
"My reaction is that the reactor, the 5-megawatt reactor, remains shut down, the cooling tower is still destroyed," Pritchard told reporters after a five-day trip to North Korea, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported.
"So at this point, I don't believe there is any additional reprocessing or anything going on" at the reactor, the former top US negotiator with Pyongyang said at a Beijing airport, according to Kyodo.
Iran ready to hold nuclear talks in Turkey
Iran ready to hold nuclear talks in Turkey
by Staff Writers Tehran (AFP) Nov 7, 2010 Iran said on Sunday it was ready to hold talks in Turkey with the six world powers on its controversial nuclear programme following a one-year break, turning to a neighbour seen as an ally. The European Union's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, representing the world powers in the negotiations, said she was awaiting official word from Tehran on a specific time and venue.
A response would follow after consultations with the major powers, her office said in Brussels.
Ashton proposed last month to hold the talks in Vienna -- headquarters of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency -- starting from November 15.
"In the last two or three days, we informed our Turkish friends that we agree to hold negotiations in Turkey," Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters in Tehran.
Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili informed Ashton in October that his country was prepared to resume nuclear talks after November 10 at a time and place agreed by both sides.
 Turkey ready to host Iran nuclear talks: reportAnkara (AFP) Nov 7, 2010 - Turkey is ready to host talks between Iran and six world powers over its disputed nuclear programme after a receiving a request from Tehran, the Anatolia news agency reported on Sunday. "Turkey has made lots of efforts since the start of the process for a diplomatic solution to be found," the news agency quoted a diplomatic source as saying. "We are ready to do whatever is in our power," the source said. The date and location of the talks is still to be determined, the report added. An Iranian conservative newspaper, Vatan Emrouz, on Sunday reported that the negotiations would be held by the end of November, without quoting a source. At the same time, the European Union's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, representing the world powers in the Iran negotiations, said Sunday that she was still waiting for official word from Tehran. "We have taken note of these reports. But we have not yet received an official proposal from Iran in this regard," a spokesman for her office said. The spokesman said the EU would respond once it had received an official proposal including a specific time and place to meet. The nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers -- Britain, China, France, Russia, Germany and the United States -- have been deadlocked since October 2009 when the two sides met in Geneva. |
A response would follow after consultations with the major powers, her office said in Brussels.
Ashton proposed last month to hold the talks in Vienna -- headquarters of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency -- starting from November 15.
"In the last two or three days, we informed our Turkish friends that we agree to hold negotiations in Turkey," Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters in Tehran.
Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili informed Ashton in October that his country was prepared to resume nuclear talks after November 10 at a time and place agreed by both sides.
NATO Defense Shield In Turkey May Threaten Iran, Russia
|
NATO to keep nuclear weapons
 |
Halifax, Canada (AFP) Nov 6, 2010 NATO leaders are unlikely to agree to reduce the defense organization's tactical nuclear stockpiles when they meet later this month, defense officials said Saturday. The leaders are to meet in Lisbon on November 19-20 to map out the future of the 61-year-old alliance. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will also attend the talks expected to touch on missile defense.
The nuclear arsenal across Europe remains a source of friction with Russia and within NATO -- with Germany, Poland and Sweden calling for a greater NATO commitment to nuclear disarmament resisted by France and the United States.
But a revised mission statement is not likely to address US nuclear weapons in Europe originally meant to deter a Russian invasion, according to defense officials.
"As long as the world is nuclear, the (NATO) alliance has to keep nuclear weapons," Stephane Abrial, Supreme Allied Commander for NATO transformation told a security conference in Halifax, Canada. More at:http://www.spacewar.com/reports/NATO_to_keep_nuclear_weapons_999.html
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Scientists, politicians take the threat of an electromagnetic pulse very seriously
Image via WikipediaScientists, politicians take the threat of an electromagnetic pulse very seriously The sky erupts. Cities darken, food spoils and homes fall silent. Civilization collapses. End-of-the-world novel? A video game? Or could such a scenario loom in America's future? There is talk of catastrophe ahead, depending on whom you believe, because of the threat of an electromagnetic pulse triggered by either a supersized solar storm or terrorist A-bomb, both capable of disabling the electric grid that powers modern life.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-scientists-politicians-threat-electromagnetic-pulse.html
EPA Recognizes Top Green Power Purchasers
EPA Recognizes Top Green Power Purchasers
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing its list of the top 50 organizations using the most renewable electricity. The Green Power Partnership’s top purchasers use more than 12 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green power annually, equivalent to avoiding the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the electricity use of more than 1 million average American homes. Green power is generated from renewable resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, and low-impact hydropower.
The Intel Corporation tops the list as the Partnership’s largest single purchaser of green power and was recently honored with a 2010 EPA Green Power Leadership Award for green power purchasing. The company uses more than 1.4 billion kWh annually, equivalent to avoiding the CO2 emissions from the electricity use of nearly 125,000 average American homes. Both Kohl’s Department Stores and Whole Foods Market received the 2010 EPA Green Power Partner of the Year Awards, and came in as second and third this quarter in purchasing green power. Reaching the top five for the first time, Starbucks (No. 4) more than doubled its annual green power purchase to more than 573 million kWh of green power equivalent to avoiding the CO2 emissions from the electricity use of nearly 50,000 average American homes annually. Also in the top five is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which increased its green power purchase to 500 million kWh of green power annually. Rounding out the top 10 are the City of Houston, Dell Inc., Johnson & Johnson, the U.S. Air Force, and the City of Dallas.
EPA’s Green Power Partnership works with nearly 1,300 partner organizations to voluntarily purchase green power to reduce the environmental impacts of conventional electricity use. Overall, EPA’s Green Power Partners are using nearly 18 billion kWh of green power annually, equivalent to avoiding the CO2 emissions from the electricity use of more than 1.5 million average American homes.
Green power resources produce electricity with an environmental profile superior to conventional power technologies and produce no net increase to greenhouse gas emissions. Purchases of green power also help accelerate the development of new renewable energy capacity nationwide.
More information on the top 50 list:
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/
More information on EPA’s Green Power Partnership:
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing its list of the top 50 organizations using the most renewable electricity. The Green Power Partnership’s top purchasers use more than 12 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green power annually, equivalent to avoiding the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the electricity use of more than 1 million average American homes. Green power is generated from renewable resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, and low-impact hydropower.
The Intel Corporation tops the list as the Partnership’s largest single purchaser of green power and was recently honored with a 2010 EPA Green Power Leadership Award for green power purchasing. The company uses more than 1.4 billion kWh annually, equivalent to avoiding the CO2 emissions from the electricity use of nearly 125,000 average American homes. Both Kohl’s Department Stores and Whole Foods Market received the 2010 EPA Green Power Partner of the Year Awards, and came in as second and third this quarter in purchasing green power. Reaching the top five for the first time, Starbucks (No. 4) more than doubled its annual green power purchase to more than 573 million kWh of green power equivalent to avoiding the CO2 emissions from the electricity use of nearly 50,000 average American homes annually. Also in the top five is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which increased its green power purchase to 500 million kWh of green power annually. Rounding out the top 10 are the City of Houston, Dell Inc., Johnson & Johnson, the U.S. Air Force, and the City of Dallas.
EPA’s Green Power Partnership works with nearly 1,300 partner organizations to voluntarily purchase green power to reduce the environmental impacts of conventional electricity use. Overall, EPA’s Green Power Partners are using nearly 18 billion kWh of green power annually, equivalent to avoiding the CO2 emissions from the electricity use of more than 1.5 million average American homes.
Green power resources produce electricity with an environmental profile superior to conventional power technologies and produce no net increase to greenhouse gas emissions. Purchases of green power also help accelerate the development of new renewable energy capacity nationwide.
More information on the top 50 list:
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/
More information on EPA’s Green Power Partnership:
http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/
Russia Energy Profile: Surpassed Saudi Arabia In 2009
Russia is a major exporter of oil and natural gas and its economic growth over the past decade has been driven primarily by energy exports, given the increase in Russian oil production and relatively high world oil prices during the period. Internally, Russia gets over half of its domestic energy needs from natural gas.
Oil
According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Russia’s proven oil reserves were 60 billion barrels as of the beginning of 2010. Most of Russia’s resources are located in Western Siberia, between the Ural Mountains and the Central Siberian Plateau. Eastern Siberia holds some reserves, but the region has had little exploration.
In 2009 Russia produced an estimated 9.9 million bbl/d of oil, and consumed roughly 2.9 million bbl/d. Russia exported around 7 million bbl/d in 2009 including roughly 4.0 million bbl/d of crude oil and the remainder in products. Russia’s oil exports fall under the jurisdiction of the state-owned pipeline monopoly, Transneft.
Exploration and Production
Most of Russia’s oil production comes from Western Siberia, more specifically from Priobskoye, Prirazlomnoye, Mamontovskoye, Malobalykskoye, and Surgut group of fields. The Sakhalin group of fields in the Far East is expected to contribute to most of Russia’s oil production in the near term. In the longer-term, untapped oil reserves in Eastern Siberia, the Caspian Sea, and Sahkalin are expected to play a larger role and several international oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP are actively working in this area.
Sector Organization
Most of Russia’s production remains dominated by domestic firms. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia undertook privatization of the oil industry, however the consolidation that followed transformed the sector into one dominated by a few privately-owned companies that drove the growth in the sector starting in the late 1990s. In 2003, BP invested in TNK, forming TNK-BP, one of country’s major oil producers. This was followed by the entrance of ConocoPhillips into the Russian oil exploration and production. Subsequent attempts by foreign firms to increase their investment in Russia were unsuccessful. The state-run Rosneft acquired most or the Yukos assets, and became the largest oil producer in Russia. While foreign companies can invest in Russia, this is generally done with a Russian company, usually Rosneft.
Refinery Sector
Russia has 40 oil refineries with a total crude oil processing capacity of 5.4 million bbl/d, according to OGJ. Rosneft, the largest refinery operator controls 1.3 million bbl/d and operates Russia’s largest refinery, the 385,176-bbl/d Angarsk facility. Other companies with sizeable refining capacity in Russia include Lukoil (975,860 bbl/d), and TNK-BP (690,000 bbl/d).
Oil Exports
During 2009, Russia exported 7 million bbl/d of oil. The majority of Russian exports (80 percent) are destined for European markets, particularly Germany and Netherlands. Around 12 percent of Russia’s oil exports go to Asia, while 6 percent are exported to North and South America, with the majority of those exports going to the United States (5 percent of total exports).
Pipelines
Russia has an extensive domestic distribution and export pipeline network. Russia’s entire pipeline network is dominated by the state-run Transneft, which transports 90 percent of all oil produced in Russia, according to IHS Global Insight. These include a number of domestic pipeline networks, pipelines that transport oil to export terminals such as Novorossiisk on the Black Sea and Primorsk on the Baltic Sea, as well as a number of export pipelines that deliver oil to western European markets. Russian export pipelines include Druzhba, Baltic Pipeline System, North-Western Pipeline System, Tengiz-Novorossiisk, and Baku-Novorossiisk. All of these pipelines with the exception of the Tengiz-Novorossiisk are Transneft-controlled pipelines. Druzhba is Russia’s largest pipeline, transporting oil to European markets on two routes, (1) northern via Belarus, Poland, and Germany, and (2) southern via Belarus, Ukraine, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Hungary. Druzhba is more than 2,300 miles long and has the capacity to carry up to 1.4 million bbl/d of oil.
Proposed Oil Pipeline Routes and Pipeline Expansion Projects
Tengiz to Novorossiisk Expansion: The Tengiz to Novorossiisk pipeline, operated by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), was commissioned in November 2001. This pipeline transports crude oil from the western Kazakh oilfield Tengiz to the Russian Black Sea port Novorossiisk. CPC shareholders in late 2008 approved an expansion of the pipeline, which would increase its peak design throughput to 1.34 million bbl/d by 2013. The pipeline’s current capacity is 565,000 bbl/d.
Eastern Siberia-PacificOcean (ESPO): Taishet - Skovorodino - KozminoBay: Transneft is building the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline in two stages, with the first phase (1,491-mile, 600,000 bbl/d) completed in September 2010. The pipeline crude, called ESPO blend, is expected to start flowing by January 2011. ESPO blend is a high-quality light (34.8 API) and sweet (0.54 percent sulphur) mix of crude oil from 22 different Russian oilfields. Eventually this pipeline will deliver crude oil from Eastern Siberia to Russia’s Pacific Coast, giving Russia’s crude oil easier access to Asia-Pacific markets. Once completed, this pipeline will be able to transport 1.6 million bb/d of crude oil and it will be approximately 2,610 miles long.
Kharyaga-Indiga Pipeline: Transneft’s proposed Kharyaga-Indiga pipeline would serve as an export line for crude oil produced in the Timan-Pechora region and oilfields in northern Russia. If built, the 267-mile pipeline is expected to transport 240,000 bbl/d. No timeline has been set for construction. Oil from Timan-Pechora has a lower sulfur content and is lighter than the rest of the Urals blend.
Ports
There are eight ports in Russia serving as export outlets for Russian oil to various markets, including Europe, North and South America, as well as Asia. The largest Russian port is Primorsk with a capacity of 1.5 million bbl/d. Other ports include DeKastri, Kozmino Bay, and Prigorodnoye (located in the Far East), as well as Novorossiysk, Yuzhny, and Tuapse (Black Sea).
Currently, there are a few proposals for expansions and new terminal constructions in Russia. These include the proposed expansion to Primorsk, where throughput capacity has steadily increased, with additional capacity being added once the Baltic Pipeline System II (BPS-II) comes online. The construction on BPS-II began in June 2009.
An export terminal in the Gulf of Finland, Ust-Luga, is also under construction. Once completed, the terminal will be mainly served by rail and will have the capacity to export up to 500,000 bbl/d.
Rail Export Routes
Rail exports comprise roughly 5 percent of Russian oil exports. Rail is generally used as an alternative to Transneft’s pipeline network, although rail shipments generally are costlier than pipeline exports. Russia exports crude oil and petroleum products by rail through Estonia and Latvia. Additionally, crude oil is transported to China via rail to the northeast cities of Harbin and Daqing and to central China via Mongolia. In 2009, Russia exported an average of 306,000 bbl/d to China via rail, however Russia plans on increasing exports to China significantly in the future. The planned ESPO pipeline will stretch from Eastern Siberia to the Pacific Ocean, with a planned spur allowing significant increase in export volumes to China.
Natural Gas
According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Russia holds the world’s largest natural gas reserves, with 1,680 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), and Russia’s reserves account for about a quarter of the world’s total proven reserves. The majority of these reserves are located in Siberia, with the Yamburg, Urengoy, and Medvezh’ye fields alone accounting for about 45 percent of Russia’s total reserves. More than half of all reserves are located in Siberia. Significant reserves are also located in northern Russia.
Exploration and Production
In 2009 Russia was the world’s second-largest natural gas producer (19.3 Tcf), second only to the United States (21Tcf), however, Russia was the world’s largest exporter (7.3 Tcf). Russia’s production decreased in 2009, falling by more than 4 Tcf or 17 percent year over year. The decrease in production led to a lower natural gas exports during the year, as well. At 19.3 Tcf, Russia’s production reached the lowest level since 1992.
The largest concentration of production is located in Siberia, where about 95 percent of Russia’s natural gas is produced. Some of the most prolific fields in this area include Yamburg, Urengoy, and Medvezh’ye, all of which are licensed to Gazprom, Russia’s state-run natural gas exploration and production company. These three fields have seen output declines in recent years. In response, the company launched the Yamal Megaproject in late 2008. Additionally, the Zapolyarnoye field, commissioned in 2001, is expected to offset some of the declines of Gazprom’s big three fields.
Gas Flaring
Natural gas associated with oil production is often flared. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Russia flared an estimated 1,432 Bcf of natural gas in 2008, the highest of any country in the world. The Russian government has taken steps to reduce natural gas flaring and setting a target of 95 percent utilization or associated gas by 2012.
Sector Organization
The state-run Gazprom dominates Russia’s upstream, with 90 percent of the total natural gas output produced by Gazprom. Gazprom also controls most of the Russian gas reserves, with more than 65 percent of proven reserves being directly controlled by the company, with additional reserves being controlled by Gazprom in joint ventures with other companies.
While independent producers have gained importance, with producers such as Novatek and LUKoil contributing increasing volumes to Russia’s production in recent years, the upstream remains fairly limited to independent producers and other companies, including Russian oil majors. Gazprom’s position is further cemented by its legal monopoly on Russian gas exports.
Natural Gas Exports
Russia exports significant amounts of natural gas to customers in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In addition, Gazprom (through its subsidiary Gazexport) has shifted much of its natural gas exports to serve the rising demand in countries of the EU, as well as Turkey, Japan, and other Asian countries.
According to Eastern Bloc Research data, Russia exported more than 6.5 Tcf of natural gas in 2009, which includes 4.5 Tcf to Eastern and Western Europe and 2.2 Tcf to CIS countries. Included in Russian export estimates are volumes mixed with Central Asian gas exports.
Export Disputes
Russia’s natural gas exports to Eastern and Western Europe shipped on pipelines traversing Ukraine and Belarus have in the past been affected by political and economic disputes between Russia and these natural gas hubs. The disputes with Ukraine and Belarus were centered around natural gas prices in 2006 and 2007, respectively. Disputes between Russia and its immediate neighbors resulted in natural gas being cut off to much of Europe. European countries are seeking out alternate sources of natural gas and alternate pipeline routes to ensure security of natural gas supplies.
Pipelines
In addition to dominating the upstream, Gazprom dominates Russia’s natural gas pipeline system as well. There are currently nine major pipelines in Russia, seven of which are export pipelines. The Yamal-Europe I, Northern Lights, Soyuz, and Bratrstvo pipelines all carry Russian gas to Eastern and Western European markets via Ukraine and/or Belarus. These four pipelines have a combined capacity of 4 Tcf. Three other pipelines, Blue Stream, North Caucasus, and Mozdok-Gazi-Magomed connect Russia’s production areas to consumers in Turkey and FSU republics in the east.
Proposed Natural Gas Pipelines
Yamal-Europe II: The Yamal-Europe I pipeline (1 Tcf), which carries natural gas from Russia to Poland and Germany via Belarus, would be expanded another 1 Tcf under this proposal. Gazprom and Poland currently disagree on the exact route of the second branch as it travels through Poland. Gazprom is seeking a route via southeastern Poland to Slovakia and on to Central Europe, while Poland wants the branch to travel through its own country and then on to Germany.
South Stream: The first component of the South Stream project plans to send natural gas from the same starting point as the Blue Stream pipeline at Beregovaya for 560 miles under the Black Sea, achieving a maximum water depth of over 6,500 feet. The second, onshore component will cross Bulgaria with two alternatives: one directed towards the northwest, crossing Serbia and Hungary and linking with existing gas pipelines from Russia; and the other directed to the southwest through Greece and Albania, linking directly to the Italian network. As a result of the Russia-Ukraine disputes, the pipeline will be constructed through Turkey’s waters, avoiding Ukraine’s territory altogether. Gazprom expects the pipeline to be completed by 2015.
Nord Stream Pipeline: A northern pipeline extending over 2,000 miles from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea, was initially approved in 2005. Once completed, the pipeline will be the longest sub-sea pipeline, with a capacity to transport 1.9 Tcf of natural gas. Environmental concerns have resulted in delays, and the expected completion date has been moved to 2013 from its original start-up date of 2010.
Oil
According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Russia’s proven oil reserves were 60 billion barrels as of the beginning of 2010. Most of Russia’s resources are located in Western Siberia, between the Ural Mountains and the Central Siberian Plateau. Eastern Siberia holds some reserves, but the region has had little exploration.
In 2009 Russia produced an estimated 9.9 million bbl/d of oil, and consumed roughly 2.9 million bbl/d. Russia exported around 7 million bbl/d in 2009 including roughly 4.0 million bbl/d of crude oil and the remainder in products. Russia’s oil exports fall under the jurisdiction of the state-owned pipeline monopoly, Transneft.
Exploration and Production
Most of Russia’s oil production comes from Western Siberia, more specifically from Priobskoye, Prirazlomnoye, Mamontovskoye, Malobalykskoye, and Surgut group of fields. The Sakhalin group of fields in the Far East is expected to contribute to most of Russia’s oil production in the near term. In the longer-term, untapped oil reserves in Eastern Siberia, the Caspian Sea, and Sahkalin are expected to play a larger role and several international oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP are actively working in this area.
Sector Organization
Most of Russia’s production remains dominated by domestic firms. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia undertook privatization of the oil industry, however the consolidation that followed transformed the sector into one dominated by a few privately-owned companies that drove the growth in the sector starting in the late 1990s. In 2003, BP invested in TNK, forming TNK-BP, one of country’s major oil producers. This was followed by the entrance of ConocoPhillips into the Russian oil exploration and production. Subsequent attempts by foreign firms to increase their investment in Russia were unsuccessful. The state-run Rosneft acquired most or the Yukos assets, and became the largest oil producer in Russia. While foreign companies can invest in Russia, this is generally done with a Russian company, usually Rosneft.
Refinery Sector
Russia has 40 oil refineries with a total crude oil processing capacity of 5.4 million bbl/d, according to OGJ. Rosneft, the largest refinery operator controls 1.3 million bbl/d and operates Russia’s largest refinery, the 385,176-bbl/d Angarsk facility. Other companies with sizeable refining capacity in Russia include Lukoil (975,860 bbl/d), and TNK-BP (690,000 bbl/d).
Oil Exports
During 2009, Russia exported 7 million bbl/d of oil. The majority of Russian exports (80 percent) are destined for European markets, particularly Germany and Netherlands. Around 12 percent of Russia’s oil exports go to Asia, while 6 percent are exported to North and South America, with the majority of those exports going to the United States (5 percent of total exports).
Pipelines
Russia has an extensive domestic distribution and export pipeline network. Russia’s entire pipeline network is dominated by the state-run Transneft, which transports 90 percent of all oil produced in Russia, according to IHS Global Insight. These include a number of domestic pipeline networks, pipelines that transport oil to export terminals such as Novorossiisk on the Black Sea and Primorsk on the Baltic Sea, as well as a number of export pipelines that deliver oil to western European markets. Russian export pipelines include Druzhba, Baltic Pipeline System, North-Western Pipeline System, Tengiz-Novorossiisk, and Baku-Novorossiisk. All of these pipelines with the exception of the Tengiz-Novorossiisk are Transneft-controlled pipelines. Druzhba is Russia’s largest pipeline, transporting oil to European markets on two routes, (1) northern via Belarus, Poland, and Germany, and (2) southern via Belarus, Ukraine, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Hungary. Druzhba is more than 2,300 miles long and has the capacity to carry up to 1.4 million bbl/d of oil.
Proposed Oil Pipeline Routes and Pipeline Expansion Projects
Tengiz to Novorossiisk Expansion: The Tengiz to Novorossiisk pipeline, operated by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), was commissioned in November 2001. This pipeline transports crude oil from the western Kazakh oilfield Tengiz to the Russian Black Sea port Novorossiisk. CPC shareholders in late 2008 approved an expansion of the pipeline, which would increase its peak design throughput to 1.34 million bbl/d by 2013. The pipeline’s current capacity is 565,000 bbl/d.
Eastern Siberia-PacificOcean (ESPO): Taishet - Skovorodino - KozminoBay: Transneft is building the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline in two stages, with the first phase (1,491-mile, 600,000 bbl/d) completed in September 2010. The pipeline crude, called ESPO blend, is expected to start flowing by January 2011. ESPO blend is a high-quality light (34.8 API) and sweet (0.54 percent sulphur) mix of crude oil from 22 different Russian oilfields. Eventually this pipeline will deliver crude oil from Eastern Siberia to Russia’s Pacific Coast, giving Russia’s crude oil easier access to Asia-Pacific markets. Once completed, this pipeline will be able to transport 1.6 million bb/d of crude oil and it will be approximately 2,610 miles long.
Kharyaga-Indiga Pipeline: Transneft’s proposed Kharyaga-Indiga pipeline would serve as an export line for crude oil produced in the Timan-Pechora region and oilfields in northern Russia. If built, the 267-mile pipeline is expected to transport 240,000 bbl/d. No timeline has been set for construction. Oil from Timan-Pechora has a lower sulfur content and is lighter than the rest of the Urals blend.
Ports
There are eight ports in Russia serving as export outlets for Russian oil to various markets, including Europe, North and South America, as well as Asia. The largest Russian port is Primorsk with a capacity of 1.5 million bbl/d. Other ports include DeKastri, Kozmino Bay, and Prigorodnoye (located in the Far East), as well as Novorossiysk, Yuzhny, and Tuapse (Black Sea).
Currently, there are a few proposals for expansions and new terminal constructions in Russia. These include the proposed expansion to Primorsk, where throughput capacity has steadily increased, with additional capacity being added once the Baltic Pipeline System II (BPS-II) comes online. The construction on BPS-II began in June 2009.
An export terminal in the Gulf of Finland, Ust-Luga, is also under construction. Once completed, the terminal will be mainly served by rail and will have the capacity to export up to 500,000 bbl/d.
Rail Export Routes
Rail exports comprise roughly 5 percent of Russian oil exports. Rail is generally used as an alternative to Transneft’s pipeline network, although rail shipments generally are costlier than pipeline exports. Russia exports crude oil and petroleum products by rail through Estonia and Latvia. Additionally, crude oil is transported to China via rail to the northeast cities of Harbin and Daqing and to central China via Mongolia. In 2009, Russia exported an average of 306,000 bbl/d to China via rail, however Russia plans on increasing exports to China significantly in the future. The planned ESPO pipeline will stretch from Eastern Siberia to the Pacific Ocean, with a planned spur allowing significant increase in export volumes to China.
Natural Gas
According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Russia holds the world’s largest natural gas reserves, with 1,680 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), and Russia’s reserves account for about a quarter of the world’s total proven reserves. The majority of these reserves are located in Siberia, with the Yamburg, Urengoy, and Medvezh’ye fields alone accounting for about 45 percent of Russia’s total reserves. More than half of all reserves are located in Siberia. Significant reserves are also located in northern Russia.
Exploration and Production
In 2009 Russia was the world’s second-largest natural gas producer (19.3 Tcf), second only to the United States (21Tcf), however, Russia was the world’s largest exporter (7.3 Tcf). Russia’s production decreased in 2009, falling by more than 4 Tcf or 17 percent year over year. The decrease in production led to a lower natural gas exports during the year, as well. At 19.3 Tcf, Russia’s production reached the lowest level since 1992.
The largest concentration of production is located in Siberia, where about 95 percent of Russia’s natural gas is produced. Some of the most prolific fields in this area include Yamburg, Urengoy, and Medvezh’ye, all of which are licensed to Gazprom, Russia’s state-run natural gas exploration and production company. These three fields have seen output declines in recent years. In response, the company launched the Yamal Megaproject in late 2008. Additionally, the Zapolyarnoye field, commissioned in 2001, is expected to offset some of the declines of Gazprom’s big three fields.
Gas Flaring
Natural gas associated with oil production is often flared. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Russia flared an estimated 1,432 Bcf of natural gas in 2008, the highest of any country in the world. The Russian government has taken steps to reduce natural gas flaring and setting a target of 95 percent utilization or associated gas by 2012.
Sector Organization
The state-run Gazprom dominates Russia’s upstream, with 90 percent of the total natural gas output produced by Gazprom. Gazprom also controls most of the Russian gas reserves, with more than 65 percent of proven reserves being directly controlled by the company, with additional reserves being controlled by Gazprom in joint ventures with other companies.
While independent producers have gained importance, with producers such as Novatek and LUKoil contributing increasing volumes to Russia’s production in recent years, the upstream remains fairly limited to independent producers and other companies, including Russian oil majors. Gazprom’s position is further cemented by its legal monopoly on Russian gas exports.
Natural Gas Exports
Russia exports significant amounts of natural gas to customers in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In addition, Gazprom (through its subsidiary Gazexport) has shifted much of its natural gas exports to serve the rising demand in countries of the EU, as well as Turkey, Japan, and other Asian countries.
According to Eastern Bloc Research data, Russia exported more than 6.5 Tcf of natural gas in 2009, which includes 4.5 Tcf to Eastern and Western Europe and 2.2 Tcf to CIS countries. Included in Russian export estimates are volumes mixed with Central Asian gas exports.
Export Disputes
Russia’s natural gas exports to Eastern and Western Europe shipped on pipelines traversing Ukraine and Belarus have in the past been affected by political and economic disputes between Russia and these natural gas hubs. The disputes with Ukraine and Belarus were centered around natural gas prices in 2006 and 2007, respectively. Disputes between Russia and its immediate neighbors resulted in natural gas being cut off to much of Europe. European countries are seeking out alternate sources of natural gas and alternate pipeline routes to ensure security of natural gas supplies.
Pipelines
In addition to dominating the upstream, Gazprom dominates Russia’s natural gas pipeline system as well. There are currently nine major pipelines in Russia, seven of which are export pipelines. The Yamal-Europe I, Northern Lights, Soyuz, and Bratrstvo pipelines all carry Russian gas to Eastern and Western European markets via Ukraine and/or Belarus. These four pipelines have a combined capacity of 4 Tcf. Three other pipelines, Blue Stream, North Caucasus, and Mozdok-Gazi-Magomed connect Russia’s production areas to consumers in Turkey and FSU republics in the east.
Proposed Natural Gas Pipelines
Yamal-Europe II: The Yamal-Europe I pipeline (1 Tcf), which carries natural gas from Russia to Poland and Germany via Belarus, would be expanded another 1 Tcf under this proposal. Gazprom and Poland currently disagree on the exact route of the second branch as it travels through Poland. Gazprom is seeking a route via southeastern Poland to Slovakia and on to Central Europe, while Poland wants the branch to travel through its own country and then on to Germany.
South Stream: The first component of the South Stream project plans to send natural gas from the same starting point as the Blue Stream pipeline at Beregovaya for 560 miles under the Black Sea, achieving a maximum water depth of over 6,500 feet. The second, onshore component will cross Bulgaria with two alternatives: one directed towards the northwest, crossing Serbia and Hungary and linking with existing gas pipelines from Russia; and the other directed to the southwest through Greece and Albania, linking directly to the Italian network. As a result of the Russia-Ukraine disputes, the pipeline will be constructed through Turkey’s waters, avoiding Ukraine’s territory altogether. Gazprom expects the pipeline to be completed by 2015.
Nord Stream Pipeline: A northern pipeline extending over 2,000 miles from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea, was initially approved in 2005. Once completed, the pipeline will be the longest sub-sea pipeline, with a capacity to transport 1.9 Tcf of natural gas. Environmental concerns have resulted in delays, and the expected completion date has been moved to 2013 from its original start-up date of 2010.
Shortcomings in U.S. firm's reactor design may delay deal conclusion
Even as representatives from the U. S. nuclear power companies, Westinghouse Electric Co. and GE Energy, are currently continuing their company-to-company negotiations with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) for building American-made nuclear reactors in India following the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, significant cost overruns in the nuclear plants being built by the Westinghouse in China have come to light.
As has been reported earlier (The Hindu, April 3), shortcomings in the design of the Westinghouse's advanced technology reactor AP1000 — which is what India plans to buy from the company — are likely to delay the conclusion of the commercial agreement with the NPCIL by at least a year. The report in The Hindu also stated that the NPCIL officials were aware of these safety concerns in the AP1000 reactors.
These shortcomings, which have to do with inadequate containment features in the design and consequent safety concerns, had been raised by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in its report in October 2009. More at:
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=247854211242866212
As has been reported earlier (The Hindu, April 3), shortcomings in the design of the Westinghouse's advanced technology reactor AP1000 — which is what India plans to buy from the company — are likely to delay the conclusion of the commercial agreement with the NPCIL by at least a year. The report in The Hindu also stated that the NPCIL officials were aware of these safety concerns in the AP1000 reactors.
These shortcomings, which have to do with inadequate containment features in the design and consequent safety concerns, had been raised by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in its report in October 2009. More at:
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=247854211242866212
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Future For “New START” Murky After Election -- Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration appears to face an even more daunting challenge in convincing the Senate to ratify a U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control treaty in the wake of this week's election results. How GOP gains in the chamber will impact the pact's chances, though, might not be known for weeks or months (see GSN, Nov. 4).
Proponents of "New START" urged the Senate to quickly bring the treaty to a vote, while skeptics argued for caution and more deliberation.
Read more ....
More News On Calls To Ratify The New Start Treaty
With Republicans gaining Senate seats, arms control advocates worried about nuclear weapons treaty -- CTNow
White House Pushes START Ratification Before New Congress Arrives -- Radio Free Europe
Obama urges Congress to vote on new START treaty by year end -- Xinhuanet
Obama hopes START treaty will pass Congress soon -- AFP
Obama: Hopes Russia arms pact ratified this year -- Reuters
Midterms 2010: Hillary Clinton wants 'lame-duck’ Congress to pass Start treaty -- The Telegraph
Kerry urges START ratification by end of year -- Politico
Russia Fears ‘Reset’ of Relations With U.S. -- Wall Street Journal
Abroad, Fear That Midterm Result May Turn U.S. Inward -- New York Times
National Review: Off To A Lame START -- NPR
An Uncertain Nuclear Countdown By MATTHEW L. WALD
An Uncertain Nuclear Countdown
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Associated Press The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant in Vernon, Vt., on the banks of the Connecticut River.
As I write in Friday’s Times, Entergy, which bought the plant in 2002, is looking for a buyer because the state Legislature has refused to give the company permission to run it after Vermont Yankee’s initial 40-year license expires in March 2012. (What is more, one of its top opponents in the Legislature was elected governor on Tuesday.)
But if the Legislature does not relent, it may not last even that long.
Obama Must Acknowledge Iran's Right to Enrich
Robert Dreyfuss | November 4, 2010
I'm reprinting here my op-ed column that originally appeared in The Diplomat [1], a current affairs journal focusing on the Asia-Pacific region, based in Tokyo.
Sometime in mid-November, it’s likely that the Iran and the United States, along with the rest of the P5+1 world powers, will sit down in either Geneva or Vienna in an effort to restart talks over Iran’s nuclear programme. Unfortunately, it appears that Barack Obama’s administration will go into such talks with a strategy almost guaranteed to fail.
Unless the United States is willing to acknowledge that Iran, a signatory to the Non-proliferation Treaty, has the right to enrich uranium on its own soil, there’s no chance that the negotiations will work. Years of behind-the-scenes Track II, off-the-record discussions between senior Iranian officials and a number of retired US diplomats of the highest rank have shown that only a win-win outcome can resolve the crisis. The ‘win’ that Iran needs is recognition that it has the right to enrich, while the ‘win’ that the United States, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency needs is Iran’s agreement to abide by iron-clad oversight of its work by IAEA inspectors under strict, intrusive new protocols.
Despite his outreach to Iran since taking office in January, 2009, Obama has never once declared that Iran has the right to carry out an enrichment programme. Last June, Senator John Kerry—who is close to the president and who’s advised him since Obama was first elected to the Senate in 2004—told the Financial Times that Iran does indeed have that right. In his laudable Cairo speech that same month, in which the president outlined his vision of better relations between the United States and the Muslim world, Obama said that Iran retained the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy.
At the time, I was in Teheran, meeting with Ali Akbar Rezaie, the director general for North and Central Americas at the Iranian foreign ministry, who’d read the Cairo speech very carefully. ‘President Obama didn't say that we have the right to enrich uranium. But he also didn't say that we do not have that right. It’s not clear to us whether he omitted that point intentionally or not,’ Rezaie told me. ‘We don’t know what’s in his mind.’
Sometimes, in diplomacy, creative ambiguity can be helpful. But, in the looming showdown over the Iranian nuclear programme, it’s time for some plain speaking.
Last autumn, in the first meeting between the United States and Iran in three decades, the P5+1 and Iran reached a deal to transfer about two-thirds of Iran’s low-enriched uranium (LEU)—about 1200 kilograms of the approximately 1800 kilos it had then—to Russia and France, where it would be further enriched and processed into fuel rods at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). That deal, intended to serve as a confidence-building measure, had the added benefit of leaving Iran without enough LEU to allow it to build even a single bomb, if it were further enriched to weapons-grade. It could also be argued that the October 2009 accord tacitly accepted Iran’s enrichment programme, since, under its terms, Iran didn’t have to shut it down.
But the deal was vague enough that no one was happy, and it fell victim to Iran’s opaque internal politics, opposed by ultra-hardliners, by the opposition Green Movement and finally by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader. Efforts to revive it last spring, in a notably creative diplomatic manoeuvre by Turkey and Brazil, died, too, in part because the United States rejected the Turkey-Brazil proposal in its infancy.
Since then, Iran has continued to stockpile LEU, and it now has more than 3100 kilos. And, apparently convinced that tightened international sanctions will compel Iran to accept a deal even less attractive than the one it ultimately abandoned a year ago, the United States intends to propose that Iran transfer between 1800 and 2000 kilograms of its LEU stockpile out of the country—about 50 percent more than proposed last year.
According to weapons experts, it requires about 1000 kilograms of LEU, if refined to weapons grade, for one bomb. That means that the new proposal is muddled at best, since it still leaves Iran with more than enough enriched uranium for a bomb, if it so chooses to go down that route, yet it offers Iran no improvement on the deal it accepted and then rejected a year ago. Meanwhile, it still remains a confidence-building measure only, leaving the hard work of actually dealing with the core of the problem to future negotiations.
Yet by putting all of his cards on the table—i.e., by telling Iran that it can maintain its programme in exchange for inspections that can guarantee it isn’t seeking a nuclear weapon—Obama could once and for all test Iran’s willingness to reach a fair settlement to end the stalemate.
Of course, it still won’t be easy to achieve a happy outcome. Both Iran and the United States are beset by hardliners who brook no compromise with the other side. Ayatollah Khamenei, as an autocrat, perhaps can more easily overcome or suppress dissenters. Obama, on the other hand, must face down a passel of neoconservatives, pro-Israel hardliners and Republicans who’d assail any deal that leaves Iran’s enrichment programme intact, even under strict supervision. And, in the wake of massive Republican gains in Tuesday’s election, Obama’s freedom of movement is now even more constrained. His conservative opposition is gearing up for a push at the beginning of next year for Obama to speak more forcefully about military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, and according to the New York Times the White House is already debating whether the president ought to start emphasizing the military option now.
The Obama administration argues that tough new sanctions are hitting Iran’s economy hard. And that’s true, as far as it goes. Internal opponents of Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, including Mir Hossein Mousavi (who ran against Ahmadinejad in 2009) and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (the wily, billionaire ex-president who was Mousavi’s ally) say that sanctions are hurting, and they blame Ahmadinejad’s ‘adventurous’ foreign policy for cutting off Iran’s economy from Western investment and technology.
But it’s extremely unlikely that sanctions, no matter how onerous, can persuade Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to surrender Iran’s nuclear programme, since they are capable of using a formidable array of police and paramilitary units to suppress political unrest, strikes and protests over unemployment and inflation.
All this means that a breakdown in the next round of talks could result in an extremely dangerous standoff. Iran, for its part, might draw increasingly into itself, demanding that its population tighten its belt and endure worsening problems in order to defend the purity of the Islamic revolution. And the United States might throw up its hands, abandon Obama’s efforts to engage Iran and start a countdown to military confrontation. That’s why it’s worrisome, indeed, that the White House hasn’t come up with anything new to offer Iran this time around.
Sometime in mid-November, it’s likely that the Iran and the United States, along with the rest of the P5+1 world powers, will sit down in either Geneva or Vienna in an effort to restart talks over Iran’s nuclear programme. Unfortunately, it appears that Barack Obama’s administration will go into such talks with a strategy almost guaranteed to fail.
Unless the United States is willing to acknowledge that Iran, a signatory to the Non-proliferation Treaty, has the right to enrich uranium on its own soil, there’s no chance that the negotiations will work. Years of behind-the-scenes Track II, off-the-record discussions between senior Iranian officials and a number of retired US diplomats of the highest rank have shown that only a win-win outcome can resolve the crisis. The ‘win’ that Iran needs is recognition that it has the right to enrich, while the ‘win’ that the United States, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency needs is Iran’s agreement to abide by iron-clad oversight of its work by IAEA inspectors under strict, intrusive new protocols.
Despite his outreach to Iran since taking office in January, 2009, Obama has never once declared that Iran has the right to carry out an enrichment programme. Last June, Senator John Kerry—who is close to the president and who’s advised him since Obama was first elected to the Senate in 2004—told the Financial Times that Iran does indeed have that right. In his laudable Cairo speech that same month, in which the president outlined his vision of better relations between the United States and the Muslim world, Obama said that Iran retained the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy.
At the time, I was in Teheran, meeting with Ali Akbar Rezaie, the director general for North and Central Americas at the Iranian foreign ministry, who’d read the Cairo speech very carefully. ‘President Obama didn't say that we have the right to enrich uranium. But he also didn't say that we do not have that right. It’s not clear to us whether he omitted that point intentionally or not,’ Rezaie told me. ‘We don’t know what’s in his mind.’
Sometimes, in diplomacy, creative ambiguity can be helpful. But, in the looming showdown over the Iranian nuclear programme, it’s time for some plain speaking.
Last autumn, in the first meeting between the United States and Iran in three decades, the P5+1 and Iran reached a deal to transfer about two-thirds of Iran’s low-enriched uranium (LEU)—about 1200 kilograms of the approximately 1800 kilos it had then—to Russia and France, where it would be further enriched and processed into fuel rods at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR). That deal, intended to serve as a confidence-building measure, had the added benefit of leaving Iran without enough LEU to allow it to build even a single bomb, if it were further enriched to weapons-grade. It could also be argued that the October 2009 accord tacitly accepted Iran’s enrichment programme, since, under its terms, Iran didn’t have to shut it down.
But the deal was vague enough that no one was happy, and it fell victim to Iran’s opaque internal politics, opposed by ultra-hardliners, by the opposition Green Movement and finally by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader. Efforts to revive it last spring, in a notably creative diplomatic manoeuvre by Turkey and Brazil, died, too, in part because the United States rejected the Turkey-Brazil proposal in its infancy.
Since then, Iran has continued to stockpile LEU, and it now has more than 3100 kilos. And, apparently convinced that tightened international sanctions will compel Iran to accept a deal even less attractive than the one it ultimately abandoned a year ago, the United States intends to propose that Iran transfer between 1800 and 2000 kilograms of its LEU stockpile out of the country—about 50 percent more than proposed last year.
According to weapons experts, it requires about 1000 kilograms of LEU, if refined to weapons grade, for one bomb. That means that the new proposal is muddled at best, since it still leaves Iran with more than enough enriched uranium for a bomb, if it so chooses to go down that route, yet it offers Iran no improvement on the deal it accepted and then rejected a year ago. Meanwhile, it still remains a confidence-building measure only, leaving the hard work of actually dealing with the core of the problem to future negotiations.
Yet by putting all of his cards on the table—i.e., by telling Iran that it can maintain its programme in exchange for inspections that can guarantee it isn’t seeking a nuclear weapon—Obama could once and for all test Iran’s willingness to reach a fair settlement to end the stalemate.
Of course, it still won’t be easy to achieve a happy outcome. Both Iran and the United States are beset by hardliners who brook no compromise with the other side. Ayatollah Khamenei, as an autocrat, perhaps can more easily overcome or suppress dissenters. Obama, on the other hand, must face down a passel of neoconservatives, pro-Israel hardliners and Republicans who’d assail any deal that leaves Iran’s enrichment programme intact, even under strict supervision. And, in the wake of massive Republican gains in Tuesday’s election, Obama’s freedom of movement is now even more constrained. His conservative opposition is gearing up for a push at the beginning of next year for Obama to speak more forcefully about military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, and according to the New York Times the White House is already debating whether the president ought to start emphasizing the military option now.
The Obama administration argues that tough new sanctions are hitting Iran’s economy hard. And that’s true, as far as it goes. Internal opponents of Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, including Mir Hossein Mousavi (who ran against Ahmadinejad in 2009) and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (the wily, billionaire ex-president who was Mousavi’s ally) say that sanctions are hurting, and they blame Ahmadinejad’s ‘adventurous’ foreign policy for cutting off Iran’s economy from Western investment and technology.
But it’s extremely unlikely that sanctions, no matter how onerous, can persuade Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to surrender Iran’s nuclear programme, since they are capable of using a formidable array of police and paramilitary units to suppress political unrest, strikes and protests over unemployment and inflation.
All this means that a breakdown in the next round of talks could result in an extremely dangerous standoff. Iran, for its part, might draw increasingly into itself, demanding that its population tighten its belt and endure worsening problems in order to defend the purity of the Islamic revolution. And the United States might throw up its hands, abandon Obama’s efforts to engage Iran and start a countdown to military confrontation. That’s why it’s worrisome, indeed, that the White House hasn’t come up with anything new to offer Iran this time around.
Links:
[1] http://the-diplomat.com/2010/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)