Novedades de Petroleo y Algo mas :: March

March 2007
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Feb		Apr »
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Une cause réunit quatre candidats à l’élection présidentielle : l’opposition au nouveau réacteur nucléaire EPR. Olivier Besancenot (LCR), José Bové, Corinne Lepage (Cap 21) et Dominique Voynet (Verts) ont tenu ensemble une conférence de presse, jeudi matin, pour dénoncer l’éventuelle autorisation de l’EPR, à Flamanville, dans la Manche. Réunis par le Réseau Sortir du nucléaire, plusieurs associations environnementales et Attac, ils devaient protester contre l’absence de débat public sur le lancement de cette nouvelle génération de centrales atomiques et appeler à manifester contre l’EPR le 17 mars.

L’EPR a une histoire mouvementée. Recalé sous Lionel Jospin, son lancement a été préparé par les gouvernements Raffarin et Villepin, au prix de quelques accommodements avec les procédures : son lancement a été décidé lors du débat parlementaire sur l’énergie de 2004 – mais le gouvernement avait veillé à ce que les députés ignorent l’analyse technique critique de la direction de la sûreté des installations nucléaires – tandis que sa construction a été annoncée avant la conclusion du débat public à son propos, en 2005.

"UNE MISE À PLAT"

Deux enquêtes d’utilité publique menées à l’été 2006 ont abouti à un permis de travaux préliminaires le 1er août. Juridiquement, l’EPR pourrait voir son décret d’autorisation de création signé avant la présidentielle. C’est ce que craignent les candidats réunis à Paris. Ils dénoncent l’absence de débat sur la politique énergétique française et affirment que le renouvellement du parc nucléaire se fait sans que les données économiques soient précisément connues.

Ils viennent appuyer Ségolène Royal, qui a plaidé, le 22 février, pour "une mise à plat" du dossier. La socialiste se demande si les sommes consacrées à l’EPR ne pourraient pas être investies plus judicieusement dans un réacteur de quatrième génération ou dans les énergies renouvelables, où la France accuse du retard. L’EPR devient la première source de conflit écologique de la campagne. M. Sarkozy soutient sa construction, tandis que François Bayrou a regretté "les conditions non satisfaisantes du débat public", sans prendre position sur le fond.

Source: Le Monde

Non solo pannelli solari. Nel pacchetto di agevolazioni per chi sceglie il risparmio energetico con le fonti rinnovabili, il governo ha inserito nuovi incentivi per chi preferisce il fotovoltaico, ossia l’impianto in grado di produrre anche energia elettrica. Le novità sono contenute in uno dei decreti della "lenzuolata energetica", pubblicato sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale e in vigore dal 24 febbraio. Grazie al nuovo sistema, saranno garantiti incentivi a tutti gli impianti che entreranno in funzione entro 14 mesi a partire dal prossimo mese di maggio, senza la necessità di graduatorie e numero chiuso. Il rimborso per le spese di produzione va da un minimo di 40 centesimi per kilowatt prodotto dagli impianti con i pannelli a terra, fino ai 49 centesimi per quelli integrati negli edifici. Gli incentivi sono erogati per 20 anni, sono indicizzati all’inflazione, ma questa agevolazione non è comulabile con altre detrazioni. In compenso è previsto un premio con un aumento dell’incentivo fino al 30% per chi diventa totalmente autosufficiente o risparmia di più. A chi spettano gli incentivi – Il rimborso spese per la produzione di energia riguarda sia i singoli impianti realizzati a livello personale, che quelli condominiali. Non si fa distinzione sul tipo di fabbricato, ma i moduli fotovoltaici installati su tetti piani e terrazze di edifici e fabbricati non devono superare l’altezza della balaustra. Un valore indicativo di occupazione di superficie è di circa 8 ~~10 mq per kW di potenza nominale installata.~~

Le caratteristiche dell’impianto – Avranno diritto al finanziamento tutti gli impianti fotovoltaici che diverranno operativi dopo che l’Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas avrà aggiornato le modalità tecniche per l’erogazione degli incentivi. Le norme sono previste entro maggio. In ogni caso, la potenza nominale degli impianti non deve essere inferiore a 1 kW e gli impianti devono essere realizzati con componenti di nuova costruzione o comunque non già impiegati in altre strutture. No ai pannelli usati, dunque, ma in compenso non ci sono altre restrizioni al tipo di impianto. Infatti hanno diritto alle agevolazioni sia quelli con i moduli al suolo, sia quelli collocati sui tetti o sui terrazzi. In ogni caso devono essere collegati alla rete elettrica o a piccole reti isolate, e ogni singolo impianto deve essere caratterizzato da un unico punto di connessione alla rete elettrica, non condiviso con altri. Per realizzare gli impianti è sufficiente una DIA, ossia la Dichiarazione di inizio attività da presentare in Comune. Per questa occorre la firma di un tecnico (architetto, ingegnere, geometra). I costi – Per avere un’idea dei costi, progetto a parte, occorre considerare che un impianto base parte da un minimo di 7.000 euro per kW per quelli taglia fino a 10 kW, mentre per quelli di maggior grandezza il costo parte dai 5.000 euro per kW. A questa spesa si aggiunge un costo annuo di manutenzione di circa l’1% del valore dell’impianto. La durata dei moduli, che rappresentano i componenti economicamente più costosi, è garantita dai produttori fino a 25 anni. Tutto l’impianto dovrà essere realizzato in conformità alla normativa comunitaria e alle altre disposizioni contenute nel decreto per quel che riguarda standard e rendimenti, e possedere un apposito certificato di collaudo finale. Per ottenere l’incentivo occorre, infatti, allegare una serie di documenti sulla base dei quali saranno effettuate le verifiche per il calcolo e il pagamento. Ovviamente al vantaggio dell’incentivo va aggiunto il risparmio sulla bolletta.

La procedura – Chi intende realizzare un impianto fotovoltaico e accedere alle tariffe incentivanti, deve dunque presentare al gestore di rete Gestore dei servizi elettrici, GSE, il progetto preliminare dell’impianto e richiedere la connessione alla rete. A impianto ultimato occorre trasmettere la comunicazione di fine lavori e la relativa documentazione, e poi si può chiedere l’incentivo. Entro sessanta giorni il GSE comunica la tariffa riconosciuta. Questa, infatti, varia a seconda dell’impianto e delle sue capacità produttive. La tariffa più alta è prevista per gli impianti integrati, ossia quelli installati sui tetti degli edifici. L’ncentivo è riconosciuto per un periodo di venti anni a decorrere dalla data di entrata in esercizio dell’impianto ed è aggiornato all’inflazione.

Source: Repubblica

The Need for a New Perspective
by Bassam Fattouh

1. INTRODUCTION
Since the 1973 oil price shock, the history and behaviour of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) have received considerable attention both in the academic literature and in the media.1 Many conflicting theoretical and empirical interpretations about the nature of OPEC and its influence on world oil markets have been proposed. The debate is not centred on whether OPEC restricts output, but the reasons behind these restrictions. Some studies emphasize that production decisions are made with reference to budgetary needs which in turn depend on the absorptive capacity of the domestic economies (Teece, 1982). Others explain production cuts in the 1970s in terms of the transfer of property rights from international oil companies to governments which tend to have lower discount rates (Johany, 1980; Mead, 1979).

Others explain output restrictions in terms of coordinated actions of OPEC members. Within the literature, OPEC behaviour ranges from classic textbook cartel to two-block cartel (Hnyilicza and Pindyck, 1976), to clumsy cartel (Adelman, 1980), to dominant firm (Salant, 1976; Mabro, 1991), to loosely co-operating oligopoly, to residual firm monopolist (Adelman, 1982) and most recently to bureaucratic cartel (Smith, 2005). Others have suggested that OPEC oscillates between various positions but always acts as a vacillating federation of producers (see for instance Adelman, 1982; Smith, 2005). The existing empirical evidence has not helped narrow these different views. Griffin’s (1985) observation in the mid-1980s that the empirical studies tend to “reach onto the shelf of economic models to select one, to validate its
choice by pointing to selected events not inconsistent with model’s prediction” still dominates the empirical approach to studying OPEC behaviour and its pricing power.2 In this paper, we examine OPEC’s ability to influence oil prices. As in any other issue related to OPEC, there are divergent views regarding its pricing power.

More importantly, there seem to be switches in perceptions shifting from one end where OPEC is perceived to play no role or a very limited role to the other where it is perceived to be a price-setter. These switches in perception became very apparent in the events that surrounded the oil price collapse in 1998 3 and the oil price hike in 2004. In 1998, when the Dubai price approached $10 per barrel, many observers claimed that OPEC had lost its ability to defend oil prices with many observers predicting its demise.

This view of an ineffective OPEC was however reversed only a few months later with many observers in the media considering the events of 1997 as inducing great cooperation among members and ushering in a new era.4 During March 1998 and March 1999, OPEC embarked on two production cuts in an attempt to put an end to the slide in oil prices. These production cuts were implemented with a high level of cohesiveness among members, contradicting the view that OPEC is not able to implement cuts.5 In the high oil price environment of 2004, there was another switch in perception were doubts re-emerged about OPEC’s pricing power. But unlike ….

FULL REPORT

Poland has bought a few wells in Norway, which gas is expected to narrow the country’s dependency on energy supplies from Russia. Diversifying energy deliveries is one of priorities of the cabinet, Poland’s PM Jaroslav Kaczyński said, Radio Liberty reported.

Poland’s state-run oil and gas corporation has decided to invest roughly $350 million in buying the fields and $200 million in their development. The matter at stake is a gas pipeline running via the territory of Denmark and which project involves experts of Poland and Norway. The enterprise bought out 15 percent of the wells on the BP-controlled territory. The gas reserves are estimated at 36 billion cu meters.

In an effort to diversify energy sources, Poland is willing to launch negotiations with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. President Lech Kaczyński will visit these states late March to go through the energy supplies. Moreover, Poland is currently in energy talks with Ukraine, discussing deliveries from the Caspian region via Odessa-Brody pipeline.

All those events coupled with Warsaw agreement to host the U.S. interceptors are clouding the country’s relatins with Russia.

Kommersant

The Federal Anti-Monopoly Service is most likely to ask Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov to examine Gazprom’s upcoming takeover of Russia’s largest coal company. The competition watchdog suspects that the deal will limit competition on the fuel market. Gazprom, meanwhile, sounds confident of the government’s succor.

The agency’s director for the fuel and energy industry Alexander Pirozhenko on Thursday supported Anti-Monopoly Service Head Igor Artemyev in his harsh criticism of the upcoming deal between Gazpom and the SUEK coal produer. If the examination of the market situation shows that “the merger of Gazprom and SUEK will limit competition, the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service will present this opinion to the prime minister,” Mr. Pirozhenko told Kommersant.

The competition watchdog has powers to block the merge. The deal to create a joint venture of Gazprom and SUEK will also have to win the agency’s go-ahead. SUEK plans to put all its coal assets in the company.

In the meantime, another top official have come up to question the merger. Vyacheslav Kravchenko, head of the Industry and Energy Ministry’s tariff policy, said that Russia “must not concentrate everything – from football to a fuel company in one place”.

Neither the gas monopolist nor the coal companies gave official comment on the news. But a high-placed source of Kommersant in Gazprom said the company had secured succor in the government. At any rate, First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev will surely not try to oppose the idea, continuing to sit on Gazprom’s board of directors.

Kommersant

The Russian Finance Ministry has suggested cutting profits tax instead of VAT with raising gas extraction tax. The measure, which will not affect the federal budget, will only boost the economy, the ministry says. The Russian president’s administration reports, though, that the decision to cut VAT will be taken in any case.

Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin said mid-February that the ministry may agree to lower VAT from 18 to 15 percent in exchange for an equivalent rise in mining operations tax for the gas industry.

Deputy Finance Minister Sergey Shatalov on Thursday expressed the ministry’s reviewed position. Gas production tax should be raised in any case, he said. But if the government wants to use the revenues from it to lower other taxes, it should choose profits tax, Sergey Shatalov said, adding that the ministry is considering a cut in profits tax from 24 to 20 percent. The step will be more effective for business, the official told Kommersant.

Businessmen, however, said they are not considering lower profits tax as an alternative for lower VAT rates. Anton Danilov-Danilyan, head of the expert council at the Delovaya Rossiya business association, says his organization thinks current rate for profits tax is quite reasonable.

Russian regions are also likely to be dissatisfied with the Financial Ministry’s idea as gas production tax revenues go to the federal budget and only three-fourths from profit tax collection is left in regions.

The Russian president’s administration sees no point in lowering profits tax, according to a Kommersant source. What is more, the Kremlin may take a political decision to cut VAT before the end of the year, despite the Finance Ministry’s opposition. A source in the administration says the issue may be included in the president’s budget address.

Kommersant

Two of the three major energy indexes fell Thursday, erasing slim gains late in the session as broader market concerns continued to override bullish commodity indicators that pushed oil prices higher.

The Amex Oil Index (XOI : 1,141.74, ~~1.68~~, 0.1% ) fell 0.2% to 1,141.74 points as crude for April delivery rose 21 cents to $62 a barrel. The Amex Natural Gas Index (XNG : 453.98, ~~1.44~~, 0.3% ) slipped 0.3% to 453.98 points as natural gas fell 0.2% to $7.28 per million British thermal units. The Philadelphia Oil Service Index ($OSX : 0.00, 0.00, 0.0% ) was the sole bright spot, rising 0.7% to 198.34 points.

Oil finished higher for the seventh consecutive session, propped by falling U.S. oil-product inventories and a climb in the nation’s manufacturing activity. See Futures Movers.

Since this week’s sharp sell-off, triggered Tuesday by a steep decline in China’s Shanghai stock market, energy shares have increasingly tracked broader market movements than commodity prices.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA : , , ) was down 0.3% to 12,234.34 points. The market rebounded somewhat after news that the nation’s manufacturers increased production in February, against expectations for further contraction in the manufacturing sector. See Market Snapshot.

Stocks had opened sharply lower as jitters about Asian markets, distressed money lenders and growth concerns returned to haunt the market, only two days after stocks suffered their worst 1-day performance since 2001.

On the oil index, losses among the major oil companies, or those most with the most international exposure, continued to lead the decline.

Chevron Corp. (CVX : 67.60, ~~0.92~~, 1.3% ) fell 1.3% to $67.60. European refiners BP (BP :61.06, ~~0.48~~, 0.8% ) and Total (TOT : 66.32, ~~1.00~~, 1.5% ) were off 0.8% and 1.5%, respectively. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM :70.99, ~~0.69~~, 1.0% ) , the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, fell 1% to $70.99 and has lost almost 6% since the start of the week.

MarketWatch

Novedades de Petroleo y Algo mas

Blogroll

Data Warehouse

March 2, 2007

FRANCE: Des candidats s’unissent contre le nouveau réacteur nucléaire EPR | # | P&E — MaT @ 3:29 pm

Italia: Fotovoltaico, in vigore il decreto con i nuovi incentivi | # | P&E — MaT @ 3:23 pm

OPEC Pricing Power | # | P&E — MaT @ 2:25 pm

POLAND Casts Off Gas Yoke of Russia | # | P&E — MaT @ 11:52 am

RUSSIA ’s Competition Watchdog Questions the Merger of Coal and Gas | # | P&E — MaT @ 11:43 am

RUSSIA : Trading Gas for Profits | # | P&E — MaT @ 11:32 am

eNergy Stocks: Broader market concerns override higher oil prices | # | P&E — MaT @ 5:44 am