Tag Archives: gas

Residents protested low to non-existent gas pressure but could not complain | Instant News

KARACHI: Karachi residents are feeling the burden of institutional neglect as their gas supply is being hampered by an unprecedented severity, while this got worse on Saturday as the utility supplier’s online system collapsed, ARY News reported.

Similar to adding insult to injury, residents cannot file complaints or know the status of restoring their gas supply because the Sui South Gas Company has recorded its system down and the complaint center damaged.

Our online systems are likely to recover by 7 p.m., the complaint center said today, while people staged protests in different parts of the city for prolonged blackouts in winter as supply disruptions got in the way of their routines: cooking, heating, etc. .

Angry residents in the New Karachi area have taken to the streets to express their frustration over the blackout while those from the Taman area, Kharadar, Bazar Army, Nishter Street have also reported the worst gas outages.

READ: The Sindh gas crisis has escalated with the arrival of winter: Imtiaz Shaikh

Part of Gulshan e Maymar, Kota Tua area, Orangi town, Landhi also reported low gas pressure.

On the other hand, SSGC, Karachi’s only gas utility supplier, claims there are no gas outages anywhere in the port city. It said if there is a low pressure complaint in any part of the city, people should register their complaint regarding it.

We try ensure The gas supply is smooth to both domestic and commercial consumers, SSGC said today while denying the protested unloading claims in the city.




image source

Vacation Travel Through Waco A Mystery As Thanksgiving Approaches Local News | Instant News

The Sam’s Club on East Waco Drive was asking for $ 1.56. Support local journalism Your subscription makes our reporting possible. {{feature_button_text}} GasBuddy.com reported that 46% of participants in its annual Thanksgiving Travel Survey said their travel plans were affected by COVID-19. When asked how their plans had been changed, 71% said they were staying home this year and 5% said they were not celebrating Thanksgiving because of the coronavirus. Another 20% celebrate Thanksgiving at a different location this year, and 11% drive instead of taking other transportation to their destination, according to a press release. “Gasoline demand continued to struggle as the coronavirus kept Americans in their key homes out of their cars, work and e-learning from home,” GasBuddy analyst Patrick DeHaan said in the statement. hurry. “But with the positive results of two vaccine trials, we are starting to see a return of optimism.” Gasoline prices are rising in some places, he said. “However, the survey results show continued anxiety on the part of motorists, even with the lowest Thanksgiving gasoline prices in years, highlighting the challenges we face in this pandemic,” he said. writes DeHaan. “Any projection of a vacation trip through Waco this year would be an educated guess at best,” said Chris Evilia, director of the Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization.

image source

The gas will not fuel Australia’s recovery or reduce emissions. This is a mirage. | Greg Jericho | Business | Instant News

A A new report by the Grattan Institute undermines the government’s argument that Australia needs a “gas fueled recovery”. Not only does gas add to our emissions, the report finds that far from being cheap, gas is set to be an “increasingly expensive energy source”.

Let’s pause to note that the first 10 months of the year recorded the highest average global surface temperature, which means, depending on the temperatures for November and December, 2020 will be either the warmest year on record or the second warmest.

Graphics don’t appear? Look here

To make matters worse, the hottest year now, 2016, occurred during an El Niño event; this year we experienced La Niña. When you are still breaking records for La Niña, it’s a sign that the climate is being damaged in a big way.

And, of course, damaged by the emission of greenhouse gases.

Which brings us to gas.

It is now more than six years since I first wrote about gas. Back in 2014, I wrote down that mining more gas will not lead to lower gas prices, and so it happened.

Grattan Institute Report, Flame Out: the future of natural gas, released on Monday, shows that although energy recovered from Victoria’s oil and gas fields has shifted heavily towards gas (up from 30% in 2000 to 75% in 2018), gas prices have also risen:

Graphics don’t appear? Look here

The reason is, while gas production is soaring, supply to Australian consumers is not – because increased production is all about exports after the Gladstone LNG port facility opened in 2015:

Graphics don’t appear? Look here

But the government still wants us to believe that cheap gas is on its way, and is also necessary for our economy.

It is not that.

The energy minister, Angus Taylor, stepped in parliament in August argued that “the truth of the matter is, if you want a job in manufacturing in this country, you need gas and electricity that are reliable and affordable. That’s the key. We know that there are great opportunities to create jobs in manufacturing in the country, but gas is one of the important raw materials for doing so. “

That may be the case but it’s not true.

The Grattan Institute report notes that, across the manufacturing industry, gas accounts for only 1% of total input costs and for more than half of that sector accounts for less than 0.2%:

Graphics don’t appear? Look here

The reality is that for some highly gas-intensive industries such as plastics, fertilizer manufacturing and alumina, gas becomes important. However, they only account for 2.4% of all manufacturing activity (only 0.1% of Australian GDP) and only 1.3% of all manufacturing employment.

The report notes that even if the east coast market “operates perfectly, it will not be enough to reduce gas prices to provide a meaningful boost to manufacturing” and that the benefits of government policies such as guaranteeing new gas pipelines or gas production will “be very narrow, and too small to materially help the economic recovery after the Covid recession ”.

We have known for a long time that energy is renewable cheaper than coal and gas and the Grattan report found that over the past year the reason for the decline in energy prices was not because of the increase in gas, but rather the shift from brown coal to black coal and, importantly, to renewable energy:

Graphics don’t appear? Look here

Gas of course it will continue to play a role, but that role will dwindle. As the report notes, gas will have the role of “supporting reliability and moderating price spikes, but cannot materially lower prices” because it actually costs too much to produce energy.

Okay, so forget about the economy. How about the environment?

The prime minister, Scott Morrison, in August told that parliament “What we do know is: gas is an essential transitional fuel for the country’s changing future energy needs.”

Again, this is wrong.

The report found that, in South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, choosing to install gas instead of electric heating and cooking in a new home will increase your emissions because electricity generation in the state as a whole is already less emissions intensive.

Even in Victoria, which relies heavily on dirtier brown coal for electricity, it would be better to switch from gas by the middle of the next decade.

And the report also found that each gas fired power plant would be dirtier than the average energy produced for the national energy grid in 15 years – well before the end of its use:

Graphics don’t appear? Look here

The reality is that gas is neither a major driver of economic growth nor a reduction in emissions. For nearly a decade now, such reports have made this point clear.

For too long, gas has been used by climate change deniers as a lie to take no concrete action. But now, not only is the environmental justification completely bogus, so too, as the Grattan Institute has pointed out, is an economic problem.


image source

The Australia-China Dispute Threatens the LNG Deal | Instant News

A sharply deteriorating relationship between Australia and China could threaten a deal that would see Woodside Petroleum sell a stake in the natural gas field for $ 16 billion. Scarborough liquefied natural gas project.

Woodside chief executive, Peter Coleman, was told Reuters in an interview that talks for a stock sale had been suspended several months ago, adding that he still hoped the talks would resume after the diplomatic row was resolved.

The row erupted as Australia insisted on an international investigation into the origins of the coronavirus that first emerged in China, signaling the start of a trade war that has affected more Australian industry.

According to the Financial Times, the dispute occurred threatened as much as $ 4.6 billion in Australian exports to China. The latter is Australia’s biggest trading partner, giving Beijing considerable leverage. So far, the country has imposed tariffs on some Australian export products, restrained others, and has now expanded to LNG.

“The Chinese are one of the potential buyers of upstream equity in Scarborough and they come back to us and say at the moment they cannot participate in the equity sale process,” Woodside’s Coleman. was told The Australian Financial Review, added that Chinese negotiators were “worried about a number of issues, including the FIRB [Foreign Investment Review Board] agreement, and you see that with a number of Chinese investors coming to Australia and we are not unique in that situation “.

“China has upheld a pragmatic stance to actively pursue economic and trade relations with all trading partners,” assistant trade minister Li Chenggang told media this week. “Everyone knows that both parties need to overcome and push for a healthy relationship. Regarding Australian behavior, Australia should know more clearly than we do. [what it needs to do], “he added as quoted by the South China Morning Post.

Australia is China’s largest supplier of liquefied natural gas, accounting for about 40 percent of total imports in September, according to Reuters. But China is better placed to look for alternative suppliers than Australia for alternative buyers.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Readings From Oilprice.com:


image source

G20 countries are still supporting fossil fuels through the COVID-19 response | Instant News

The major G20 economies are “moving in the wrong direction” in response to the coronavirus pandemic by using stimulus spending to support industries and companies that are heavily dependent on fossil fuels heating the planet, researchers said on Tuesday.

Despite repeated promises to end subsidies for oil, gas and coal, the G20 government continues to fund fossil fuels, with the COVID-19 crisis not changing that much, says a new report.

That points to regularly updated figures from the Energy Policy Tracker, a non-profit research project. Recent data shows that the G20 countries have committed more than $ 230 billion in COVID-19 recovery funds for gross energy so far.

In comparison, they plan to devote less than $ 150 billion to clean energy.

The report, from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Institute for Overseas Development and advocacy group Oil Change International, said the G20 recovery spending is likely to “invalidate the small progress made between 2014 and 2019.”

Angela Picciariello, a senior research officer at ODI, said the implications were “very worrying and disappointing.”

“The current direction of travel is not encouraging and needs to be reversed as soon as possible” if the world is to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, he said by email.

“To be in line with 1.5 C and avoid the worst of the climate crisis, the G20 governments must rule out sustainable fossil fuel support, in recovery spending or otherwise,” he added.

The report calls for public money earmarked for fossil fuels to help economies recover from the COVID-19 crisis so that green conditions stick. This urges the government to support more sustainable areas such as health, social support and clean energy.

The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change. Limiting these emissions is critical for controlling rising global temperatures and preventing weather disasters, say scientists.

However, more than 10 years after G20 leaders agreed to end fossil fuel subsidies – which keep fuel prices low, increase demand and cause more emissions – progress has been “very limited and certainly not sufficient to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement,” “Said Picciariello.

“There is no G20 country that appears properly. Most of the countries we assess have shown minimal progress over the past three years, “he added.

Between 2017 and 2019, the G20 governments supported fossil fuels up to $ 584 billion per year, 9% less than in the 2014-2016 period, according to the report.

Seven countries – Australia, Canada, China, France, India, Russia and South Africa – have stepped up their fossil fuel support over the years, he said.

The report ranks the G20 countries on seven indicators including transparency, public money for coal, oil and gas, fossil fuel-based power, and how support has changed over time.

Germany scored the cleanest among the G20 countries which are also part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of wealthy countries.

Brazil scored the highest for the G20 countries outside of the OECD, but new steps such as an upcoming natural gas bill that would establish tax exemptions and low interest rates for investment in gas facilities and pipelines could change that, warned Bronwen Tucker, an analyst at Oil Change International.

Britain, Turkey and Mexico are in the lowest rankings among the G20 OECD members and Saudi Arabia is last among non-OECD countries.

The report criticizes Britain for lacking transparency and says it denies providing fossil fuel subsidies “by its own narrow definition,” while still delivering $ 16.4 billion in government support on fossil fuels each year.

The support comes from previous tax revenues of $ 12.7 billion, direct budget transfers and public finances, he said.

The UK government’s definition of subsidies follows the International Energy Agency’s definition, which excludes such measures, Picciariello said.

The UK’s Department of Business, Energy & Industry Strategy did not respond to a request for comment.

Separately, on Tuesday, ministers from countries that are part of the climate alliance known as the High Ambition Coalition called for “the largest possible percentage” of recovery spending to be dedicated to green economies and low-carbon jobs.

The nine governments backing claims on a resilient recovery said they would aim to make up at least 60% of climate-friendly pandemic stimulus spending, and eliminate and avoid fossil fuel subsidies in favor of “zero carbon” alternatives.

The signatories so far are the Marshall Islands, the Netherlands, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Luxembourg, Fiji, Grenada, Belize and Bhutan.



image source