Relaxnews
Monday, 20 June 2011
A new environmentally educational board game called Ethica lets players assume the role of an investment banker or venture capitalist and see how well their green intentions stand up in the world of international finance. The game represents part of the developing trend of environmental education through play.
Ethica is designed to be played by between six and 27 players. Each player assumes the role of a family or banker with money to invest. Players take turns to visit banks where they have to choose a share investment, cooperative investment or a savings account, each investment gives the player either a positive or negative financial, social or environmental score. The winner of the game is the player with the lowest score after three rounds.
The game's developers state that it is based upon the principles behind the collaborative ethical investment group Reseau Financement Alternatif. According to a June 15 statement to Relaxnews by a spokesman for the company, the game will be available at the end of August and will be distributed throughout the UK, France, Switzerland, Poland and Spain.
The game is part of the developing trend of environmental education through play. Other environmentally and ethically themed board games include Bioviva, a question-and-answer-themed game, Earthopoly, a green version of Monopoly, The Green Game and Environchallenge, all of which are available to buy at amazon.com and other retailers.
A range of environmentally educational games are also available online. Perhaps the most successful is Fate of the World, which won "best artistic response" at the 2011 Climate Week Awards and was nominated at the eighth annual Games for Change awards. Players of Fate of the World take charge of an international organization which must make choices on energy usage and emissions while continuing to ensure the stability of the Earth's growing population; the game can be downloaded for $9.95 (roughly €7).
Ethica - http://www.ethica.co/index_en.html
Fate of the World - http://fateoftheworld.net/
Monday, 20 June 2011
Energy Firms Seek IPO Fuel
From Shale to Biomass, Energy on the Agenda .
By LYNN COWAN
Two ends of the energy-industry spectrum will be represented in the U.S. IPO market this week: field-equipment company Stewart & Stevenson Inc. and renewable-fuel maker KiOr Inc.
Houston-based Stewart & Stevenson, a century-old company that specializes in equipment and services used to extract oil and gas from unconventional deposits such as shale, is aiming to raise as much as $256 million through a listing on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SNS. KiOR, which has developed a technology that can convert wood chips into crude oil, is seeking $210 million with a Nasdaq listing under KIOR.
As different as the two companies' businesses are, both listings carry an element of risk at a time when broad market volatility is stifling investors' appetites for many non-Internet IPOs.
The biggest risk for Stewart & Stevenson is another economic downturn or a drop in energy prices. Its sales rose 25% to $861 million in its fiscal year that ended Jan. 31, but still haven't recovered to levels before the last global economic downturn, when it booked $1.2 billion of sales in the year ended Jan. 31, 2009. But they appear to be picking up more speed; sales were up 68% to $271 million in the three months that ended April 30, compared to the same period a year earlier.
Although the company produced an operating profit of $10.6 million in its last fiscal year, interest payments dragged its bottom line into the red, and it reported a net loss of $10 million, down from $24 million a year earlier. In the first quarter of the current fiscal year, it had net income of $13.8 million compared to a net loss of $4.7 million a year earlier.
Stewart & Stevenson has a healthy backlog of orders: $412 million, as of April 30, compared to $260 million on May 1, 2010. However, the company warns that its customers have tended to delay capital equipment projects, including maintenance and upgrades, during industry downturns. Another economic downturn or any decline in oil and gas prices could hurt its business, it says in its prospectus.
KiOR's business is innovative, but carries a high level of risk. It's developed a way to make crude oil out of biomass like wood chips, and the resulting product can be processed on standard refinery equipment, then transported using existing infrastructure such as pipelines. Unlike many alternative fuels, its end products are gas and diesel blendstocks rather than alcohols, ethanol or biodiesel. That means the energy density of one gallon of its product equates to 1.7 gallons of ethanol.
But KiOr, a four-year old company based in Pasadena, Texas, is still considered a development-stage firm and doesn't intend to launch commercial production of its fuel until the second half of 2012. It is still performing motor-vehicle fuel tests as it looks toward registering its products with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and plans to seek certification for use in jet fuel. So far, it hasn't generated any revenue and has never been profitable.
Part of the IPO proceeds will help finance the building of a standard commercial production facility in Newton, Miss. Hunt Refining Co., Catchlight Energy LLC and a unit of FedEx Inc. recently agreed to purchase blendstocks from that plant, and KiOr is in negotiations with them and other potential customers for future purchases of its fuel.
Write to Lynn Cowan at lynn.cowan@dowjones.com
By LYNN COWAN
Two ends of the energy-industry spectrum will be represented in the U.S. IPO market this week: field-equipment company Stewart & Stevenson Inc. and renewable-fuel maker KiOr Inc.
Houston-based Stewart & Stevenson, a century-old company that specializes in equipment and services used to extract oil and gas from unconventional deposits such as shale, is aiming to raise as much as $256 million through a listing on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SNS. KiOR, which has developed a technology that can convert wood chips into crude oil, is seeking $210 million with a Nasdaq listing under KIOR.
As different as the two companies' businesses are, both listings carry an element of risk at a time when broad market volatility is stifling investors' appetites for many non-Internet IPOs.
The biggest risk for Stewart & Stevenson is another economic downturn or a drop in energy prices. Its sales rose 25% to $861 million in its fiscal year that ended Jan. 31, but still haven't recovered to levels before the last global economic downturn, when it booked $1.2 billion of sales in the year ended Jan. 31, 2009. But they appear to be picking up more speed; sales were up 68% to $271 million in the three months that ended April 30, compared to the same period a year earlier.
Although the company produced an operating profit of $10.6 million in its last fiscal year, interest payments dragged its bottom line into the red, and it reported a net loss of $10 million, down from $24 million a year earlier. In the first quarter of the current fiscal year, it had net income of $13.8 million compared to a net loss of $4.7 million a year earlier.
Stewart & Stevenson has a healthy backlog of orders: $412 million, as of April 30, compared to $260 million on May 1, 2010. However, the company warns that its customers have tended to delay capital equipment projects, including maintenance and upgrades, during industry downturns. Another economic downturn or any decline in oil and gas prices could hurt its business, it says in its prospectus.
KiOR's business is innovative, but carries a high level of risk. It's developed a way to make crude oil out of biomass like wood chips, and the resulting product can be processed on standard refinery equipment, then transported using existing infrastructure such as pipelines. Unlike many alternative fuels, its end products are gas and diesel blendstocks rather than alcohols, ethanol or biodiesel. That means the energy density of one gallon of its product equates to 1.7 gallons of ethanol.
But KiOr, a four-year old company based in Pasadena, Texas, is still considered a development-stage firm and doesn't intend to launch commercial production of its fuel until the second half of 2012. It is still performing motor-vehicle fuel tests as it looks toward registering its products with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and plans to seek certification for use in jet fuel. So far, it hasn't generated any revenue and has never been profitable.
Part of the IPO proceeds will help finance the building of a standard commercial production facility in Newton, Miss. Hunt Refining Co., Catchlight Energy LLC and a unit of FedEx Inc. recently agreed to purchase blendstocks from that plant, and KiOr is in negotiations with them and other potential customers for future purchases of its fuel.
Write to Lynn Cowan at lynn.cowan@dowjones.com
Head of IEA pleads with Russia: join us to help solve energy price crisis
Director of oil consumers' organisation makes bold invitation to major producer in bid to settle dispute over responsibility for high fuel prices
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 18 June 2011 15.19 BST
Energy consumer organisation the International Energy Agency (IEA) has invited Russia and the Opec oil producers to join it, in a desperate bid to broker a peace between buyers and sellers over soaring crude prices.
The olive branch was extended today by the IEA's executive director, Nobuo Tanaka, to Russia's deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin, but has already run into powerful opposition from the country's state-owned gas group, Gazprom.
In an exclusive interview with the Observer, Tanaka said it was time that producers and consumers realised they were on the same side. "We all really have a common interest. You cannot take oil in isolation from gas security, energy efficiency and electricity from renewables.
"The issues of energy security and climate change need to be tackled collectively and we think Russia and other key producers can learn a lot from [the IEA's] experience."
Producers and consumers have been at war with each other over who is responsible for high oil and gas prices. The IEA has repeatedly called on Opec to increase production, while producers blame western banks and other speculators for the volatility. Russia has recently called for the establishment of a gas cartel to match the oil cartel of Opec, something the IEA wants to avoid.
The initiative from Tanaka comes as the spike in oil and gas prices continues to make life miserable for already struggling UK households, whose living standards are being eroded by inflation. On Friday the AA said it had written to the European Union's competition commissioner asking him to investigate price volatility at the pumps, as drivers were being "ripped off". In the last month the oil price has fallen back from $126 a barrel to $110, but the AA says this change has not been reflected in retail prices.
Supermarkets Sainsbury's and Tesco warned last week that higher petrol prices were having a serious impact on consumer spending, with Sainsbury's saying that its cheapest Basics brand was its fastest-growing range, signalling a move by customers to keep their costs down.
Russia, along with China and India, already has observer status at the IEA but Tanaka said it would be a good thing if they became full members. Countries such as Indonesia and Mexico already want to become members, so "why not Russia?" he said.
Tanaka has also held preliminary talks with Saudi Arabia and other Middle East oil producers about playing a role inside the Paris-based IEA. The agency was set up in the wake of the 1970s oil price shocks and has been largely regarded since then as a US-led group representing consumer nations against the power of the Opec cartel.
All the countries inside the IEA, including Britain, have been members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) but Tanaka says this should not be a hindrance for Russia because it is already moving towards joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the OECD.
Tanaka said Sechin had indicated he might come to the next ministerial meeting of the IEA in October. Alexei Miller, the chairman of Gazprom, has also been invited, but has expressed concerns about Russia joining the IEA and told Tanaka at an industry forum: "My forecast is that Russia will not join the IEA, which represents the interests of consuming nations."
The Japanese head of the IEA said he was not disappointed by Miller's remarks. "I don't know when [Russia joining] will happen. It can't be done in a day, and may take years, but Russia can benefit from our knowledge."
He believes Moscow is increasingly aware that it must preserve its hydrocarbon resources rather than burn through them in a generation, which is what is threatening to happen to the UK's North Sea reserves. But Tanaka is conscious that Gazprom and others do not like another of the IEA's goals: that all subsidies and price controls for fossil fuels should be phased out as quickly as possible.
The agency has warned that the recently announced phasing-out of nuclear plants in Japan, Germany and Italy is likely to have a dramatic impact on pollution. Tanaka now believes that CO2 emissions could rise 30% if – as looks likely – those nations and others scrap or scale back plans to build new atomic plants.
The IEA originally believed 14% of all electricity would be generated by nuclear plants by 2035. Now it believes the figure will be just 10%.
Tanaka told the Observer that 180 new atomic power plants would have to be built by 2035 just to hold the increase in carbon output down to 30%. Now even building 180 – compared with the 360 expected by the IEA a year ago – seems optimistic, Tanaka admits. So "it [the increase in global CO2 emissions] could be worse".
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 18 June 2011 15.19 BST
Energy consumer organisation the International Energy Agency (IEA) has invited Russia and the Opec oil producers to join it, in a desperate bid to broker a peace between buyers and sellers over soaring crude prices.
The olive branch was extended today by the IEA's executive director, Nobuo Tanaka, to Russia's deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin, but has already run into powerful opposition from the country's state-owned gas group, Gazprom.
In an exclusive interview with the Observer, Tanaka said it was time that producers and consumers realised they were on the same side. "We all really have a common interest. You cannot take oil in isolation from gas security, energy efficiency and electricity from renewables.
"The issues of energy security and climate change need to be tackled collectively and we think Russia and other key producers can learn a lot from [the IEA's] experience."
Producers and consumers have been at war with each other over who is responsible for high oil and gas prices. The IEA has repeatedly called on Opec to increase production, while producers blame western banks and other speculators for the volatility. Russia has recently called for the establishment of a gas cartel to match the oil cartel of Opec, something the IEA wants to avoid.
The initiative from Tanaka comes as the spike in oil and gas prices continues to make life miserable for already struggling UK households, whose living standards are being eroded by inflation. On Friday the AA said it had written to the European Union's competition commissioner asking him to investigate price volatility at the pumps, as drivers were being "ripped off". In the last month the oil price has fallen back from $126 a barrel to $110, but the AA says this change has not been reflected in retail prices.
Supermarkets Sainsbury's and Tesco warned last week that higher petrol prices were having a serious impact on consumer spending, with Sainsbury's saying that its cheapest Basics brand was its fastest-growing range, signalling a move by customers to keep their costs down.
Russia, along with China and India, already has observer status at the IEA but Tanaka said it would be a good thing if they became full members. Countries such as Indonesia and Mexico already want to become members, so "why not Russia?" he said.
Tanaka has also held preliminary talks with Saudi Arabia and other Middle East oil producers about playing a role inside the Paris-based IEA. The agency was set up in the wake of the 1970s oil price shocks and has been largely regarded since then as a US-led group representing consumer nations against the power of the Opec cartel.
All the countries inside the IEA, including Britain, have been members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) but Tanaka says this should not be a hindrance for Russia because it is already moving towards joining the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the OECD.
Tanaka said Sechin had indicated he might come to the next ministerial meeting of the IEA in October. Alexei Miller, the chairman of Gazprom, has also been invited, but has expressed concerns about Russia joining the IEA and told Tanaka at an industry forum: "My forecast is that Russia will not join the IEA, which represents the interests of consuming nations."
The Japanese head of the IEA said he was not disappointed by Miller's remarks. "I don't know when [Russia joining] will happen. It can't be done in a day, and may take years, but Russia can benefit from our knowledge."
He believes Moscow is increasingly aware that it must preserve its hydrocarbon resources rather than burn through them in a generation, which is what is threatening to happen to the UK's North Sea reserves. But Tanaka is conscious that Gazprom and others do not like another of the IEA's goals: that all subsidies and price controls for fossil fuels should be phased out as quickly as possible.
The agency has warned that the recently announced phasing-out of nuclear plants in Japan, Germany and Italy is likely to have a dramatic impact on pollution. Tanaka now believes that CO2 emissions could rise 30% if – as looks likely – those nations and others scrap or scale back plans to build new atomic plants.
The IEA originally believed 14% of all electricity would be generated by nuclear plants by 2035. Now it believes the figure will be just 10%.
Tanaka told the Observer that 180 new atomic power plants would have to be built by 2035 just to hold the increase in carbon output down to 30%. Now even building 180 – compared with the 360 expected by the IEA a year ago – seems optimistic, Tanaka admits. So "it [the increase in global CO2 emissions] could be worse".
Europe's top industrial firms have a cache of 240m pollution permits
European Commission estimates energy-intensive sector will have accumulated allowances worth €7-12bn by the end of 2012
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 19 June 2011 15.38 BST
Some of Europe's largest industrial companies gained billions of euros from the carbon emission rules they lobbied fiercely against, new analysis reveals today.
Ten steel and cement companies have amassed 240m carbon pollution permits from generous allocations, according to a report by Sandbag, the carbon trading thinktank, seen by the Guardian.
The free permits, granted to companies with a market value of €4bn (£3.5bn), can be sold or kept for future use. The European commission estimates that the entire energy-intensive sector will have accumulated allowances worth €7bn-€12bn by the end of 2012.
"More and more businesses see that Europe's future lies in a highly efficient economy with low pollution," Baroness Worthington, Sandbag's founding director, said. "But a small group of carbon fat-cat companies are trying to stop this, in spite of making billions from a windfall of free pollution permits."
The steelmaker ArcelorMittal leads the list of companies in the report, with a current surplus valued at €1.7bn, followed by Lafarge, the cement group.
Tata Steel, in third place with a surplus valued at €393m, last month announced 1,500 job losses at its plants in Lincolnshire and Teesside, blaming emissions regulations as well as the economic downturn. Karl-Ulrich Köhler, chief executive of Tata Steel Europe, said at the time: "EU carbon legislation threatens to impose huge additional costs on the steel industry." Tata Steel declined to comment on the report.
The European Union emissions trading scheme (ETS) puts a cap on the carbon pollution emitted by energy and industrial companies. Those reducing their emissions can sell their spare permits to those who do not. But a combination of initial over-allocation by national governments and the economic decline has left the steel, cement, chemical, ceramic and paper sectors with many more permits than they need. The industries have lobbied hard against calls from governments including the UK for the tightening of the ETS and other emissions targets.
Eurofer, the lobby group representing all of Europe's steelmakers, said last month: "To remain competitive in the free, global steel markets, European steel needs … legislation that does not harm its competitiveness. But we are gravely concerned that EU climate change policy will do precisely that."
Cembureau, which lobbies for the cement industry, takes a similar line, stating: "It would be irresponsible to shift the [emissions] goalposts."
In the UK, the government has proposed incentivising low-carbon innovation by setting a British floor price for carbon from 2013. But this is opposed by the CBI. John Cridland, the director general of the employers' group, said: "It risks tipping energy-intensive industries over the edge."
The government has made some concessions, promising to produce plans later in 2011 to compensate businesses for any competitive disadvantage.
However, independent analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that the carbon permits held by the steel industry would cover its emissions for the next 12 years. "If the steel sector [on aggregate] did not sell any of its surplus, it would not have a need to purchase emissions until 2023," said Guy Turner at Bloomberg NEF.
The Sandbag report, based on public data, also found that nine of the 10 "carbon fat cats" bought between them 24.4m permits from the cheaper international market, mainly from companies in China and India. These can be used within the EU's trading scheme, enabling companies to retain the more valuable European ETS permits. Furthermore, despite the European companies claiming that tougher emissions rules would drive business overseas, some were paying overseas steel and cement companies for their international carbon permits.
"Purchasing carbon offsets from foreign competitors would not seem to be the actions of businesses genuinely concerned that the ETS will drive business abroad," said Worthington.
Not all companies are resisting the tightening of the European ETS. Five major energy groups, including Britain's Scottish and Southern Energy, last week called for spare permits to be withdrawn, a proposal supported by Sandbag.
"Failure to do so could severely hamper business incentives to invest in low-carbon technologies, as the price signal will be skewed in favour of fossil-based solutions," their statement said.
The Guardian contacted all the companies named by Sandbag. Those who responded argued that the surplus permits arose from decreased production and might be needed when the economy recovered. They said that without protection, steel and cement making would be driven to countries with less CO2-efficient manufacturing practices. Many called for global regulation of emissions
A spokesperson for ArcelorMittal said: "As part of our corporate responsibility strategy, we have decided that any sale of such surplus allowances will be reinvested into projects aimed at the improvement of our energy efficiency footprint, as this will help to reduce our overall CO2 emissions."
Erwin Schneider, at the steelmaker ThyssenKrupp, said: "Companies make decisions based on expected future developments. Any earnings from the past will either have been reinvested already or paid out to shareholders. Therefore it seems to be very misleading to use historic numbers to address our future position."
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 19 June 2011 15.38 BST
Some of Europe's largest industrial companies gained billions of euros from the carbon emission rules they lobbied fiercely against, new analysis reveals today.
Ten steel and cement companies have amassed 240m carbon pollution permits from generous allocations, according to a report by Sandbag, the carbon trading thinktank, seen by the Guardian.
The free permits, granted to companies with a market value of €4bn (£3.5bn), can be sold or kept for future use. The European commission estimates that the entire energy-intensive sector will have accumulated allowances worth €7bn-€12bn by the end of 2012.
"More and more businesses see that Europe's future lies in a highly efficient economy with low pollution," Baroness Worthington, Sandbag's founding director, said. "But a small group of carbon fat-cat companies are trying to stop this, in spite of making billions from a windfall of free pollution permits."
The steelmaker ArcelorMittal leads the list of companies in the report, with a current surplus valued at €1.7bn, followed by Lafarge, the cement group.
Tata Steel, in third place with a surplus valued at €393m, last month announced 1,500 job losses at its plants in Lincolnshire and Teesside, blaming emissions regulations as well as the economic downturn. Karl-Ulrich Köhler, chief executive of Tata Steel Europe, said at the time: "EU carbon legislation threatens to impose huge additional costs on the steel industry." Tata Steel declined to comment on the report.
The European Union emissions trading scheme (ETS) puts a cap on the carbon pollution emitted by energy and industrial companies. Those reducing their emissions can sell their spare permits to those who do not. But a combination of initial over-allocation by national governments and the economic decline has left the steel, cement, chemical, ceramic and paper sectors with many more permits than they need. The industries have lobbied hard against calls from governments including the UK for the tightening of the ETS and other emissions targets.
Eurofer, the lobby group representing all of Europe's steelmakers, said last month: "To remain competitive in the free, global steel markets, European steel needs … legislation that does not harm its competitiveness. But we are gravely concerned that EU climate change policy will do precisely that."
Cembureau, which lobbies for the cement industry, takes a similar line, stating: "It would be irresponsible to shift the [emissions] goalposts."
In the UK, the government has proposed incentivising low-carbon innovation by setting a British floor price for carbon from 2013. But this is opposed by the CBI. John Cridland, the director general of the employers' group, said: "It risks tipping energy-intensive industries over the edge."
The government has made some concessions, promising to produce plans later in 2011 to compensate businesses for any competitive disadvantage.
However, independent analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that the carbon permits held by the steel industry would cover its emissions for the next 12 years. "If the steel sector [on aggregate] did not sell any of its surplus, it would not have a need to purchase emissions until 2023," said Guy Turner at Bloomberg NEF.
The Sandbag report, based on public data, also found that nine of the 10 "carbon fat cats" bought between them 24.4m permits from the cheaper international market, mainly from companies in China and India. These can be used within the EU's trading scheme, enabling companies to retain the more valuable European ETS permits. Furthermore, despite the European companies claiming that tougher emissions rules would drive business overseas, some were paying overseas steel and cement companies for their international carbon permits.
"Purchasing carbon offsets from foreign competitors would not seem to be the actions of businesses genuinely concerned that the ETS will drive business abroad," said Worthington.
Not all companies are resisting the tightening of the European ETS. Five major energy groups, including Britain's Scottish and Southern Energy, last week called for spare permits to be withdrawn, a proposal supported by Sandbag.
"Failure to do so could severely hamper business incentives to invest in low-carbon technologies, as the price signal will be skewed in favour of fossil-based solutions," their statement said.
The Guardian contacted all the companies named by Sandbag. Those who responded argued that the surplus permits arose from decreased production and might be needed when the economy recovered. They said that without protection, steel and cement making would be driven to countries with less CO2-efficient manufacturing practices. Many called for global regulation of emissions
A spokesperson for ArcelorMittal said: "As part of our corporate responsibility strategy, we have decided that any sale of such surplus allowances will be reinvested into projects aimed at the improvement of our energy efficiency footprint, as this will help to reduce our overall CO2 emissions."
Erwin Schneider, at the steelmaker ThyssenKrupp, said: "Companies make decisions based on expected future developments. Any earnings from the past will either have been reinvested already or paid out to shareholders. Therefore it seems to be very misleading to use historic numbers to address our future position."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
