CULTURE CHANGE MEDIA INTERNATIONAL EDITOR
Baltimore, MD - October 13, 2004

The IPIECA Climate Change  Workshop October 12-13, 2004,
Baltimore Maryland, USA

IPIECA is the London headquartered International Petroleum Industry vironmental Conservation Association.  It was founded in 1974 following the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in order to provide, as stated,  the oil and gas industry with a channel of communication with UNEP on key global social and environmental issues - including oil spills, global climate change, health, fuel quality, biodiversity, and social responsibility.  

IPIECA organizes all inclusive industry seminars and workshops, and in 1988 created its CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP (CCWG) that “monitors, analyses and informs the membership of key developments in the issues, especially those taking place at the UN Framework Convention On Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the International Partnership on Climate Change (IPCC)”.  This in order to: “help develop policy options that strike a balance between the projected consequences of potential climate change and the estimated costs of response options to mitigate or adapt to climate change”.  IPIECA then provides the industry with a series of helpful documents.  

The Baltimore meeting was the third meeting held in the Washington DC region by the petroleum industry, within the time span of less then one month - following the Hart World Fuels Conference and the API/US Department of Energy  Voluntary Actions conference.  All three meetings were covered by me in the present Culture Change media series.  

The IPIECA meeting, though with about 90 registered participants, was nevertheless the most wide open of the three meetings - it ranged from Kuwait Petroleum Company to Norsk Hydro.  It included Academics, the United Nations, oil companies, and US Government, and even some advocates of alternatives to Petroleum.  The hope is thus that what was said will be written up in the final document, and the presentations made will be enhanced by the interventions from the floor in order to present a fuller view to the industry.  

To get a better context to the meeting let me see what the Wall Street Journal, the bastion of oil industry supremacy on the economy, was saying those days:   

On October 12, 2004 - “No Petroleum Needed - One Word Of Advice: Now It’s Corn. Plastics Manufactured From the Plant Grow More Appealing Amid Soaring Oil Price”. (Do you still remember Dustin Hoffman in “The Graduate” - the movie?)  

On October 13, 2004 - “Hybrid Cars Drive a Company, and Its Stock”. (Re: Energy Conversion Devices Inc. that developed the batteries for Toyota).  Also, A note about “EU Panel Rejects Second Commission Nominee”.  While the first rejection by the European Parliament of a Commissioner, submitted unfortunately by the EC President designate, was that of an Italian conservative Catholic for the post overseeing women’s and gay rights, was seen quite logical by everyone, the second rejection was less clear.  This case involved Laszlo Kovacs, a former Hungarian foreign minister who was suggested to serve as energy commissioner.  The parliament’s industry, research and energy committee unanimously withheld its blessing for Mr. Kovacs. “His professional knowledge and grasp of issues in energy matters were assessed as insufficient,” said German Green member Rebecca Harms.  

This opens the question - is it a must to have an energy background to deal with present day energy matters that have long stepped out from being the domain of old, or even new, energy professionals?  Who can speak on energy now - could we dare to entrust this paramount area to an honest novice?  I know nothing about Mr. Kovacs but can easily see that both sides of the issue may have serious bones to contend with. Was Mr. Kovacs also an ideological plant?  

On October 14, 2004 - “Not Just Tilting Anymore - Higher Fuel Costs, Tax Credits, Better Technology Whip Up Hopes for Wind Power Again”.  Also, “Plans for Huge Wind Turbines Jolt Kansans”.  Also, Europe’s Car Makers Face Turmoil As Japanese Gain in Market Share”.  

With this reality in the background, I feel compelled to start with a value statement.  The presentations at the IPIECA meeting were excellent, but many presentations had one clear problem. The presenters had no subject memory.  What I mean is that the presenters approached the problems as if these were new problems, that popped into sight just now, and the industry was called to answer these problems just now, for the first time, coming up with possible solutions that will take long time to be put in practice.  

The reality is that the effect of emissions into the atmosphere on possible climate change  was already pointed out over a hundred years ago by Arrhenius, but the impact of the price of oil on the economy was pointed out only after the first so called modern energy crisis of 1973.  That may date me, but many things did happen in the 1970-1980s. Technologies were tried out, policies were proposed and undermined by the oil industry that now is being pushed to innovate. The public in Europe pushes the governments in Europe to create new energy industries.  The effect of the price of oil in the market place creates opportunities.  Had we had the foresight to increase prices by taxation, we could have developed the alternatives already then - in the 1970-1980s and have avoided by the way also the plague of terrorism, which is really our own creation, because of our insistence of having our economies dependent on cheap oil.  

Perhaps the most informative presentation was the Brazilian biofuels policy paper by Suzana Khan Ribeiro, who for the n-th time told the Brazilian success story, but I had the feeling that some of the oil industry people present heard this for the first time.   The success of South Africa’s SASOL, building on German war technologies using coal, was known to the technical people here, but there was no mention in the presentations, and I am sure that this had to do nothing with the politics of South Africa of that time. Further, the story of New Zealand, that lost its chance at a natural gas based energy independence, but that thanks to clear bamboozle that originated with the Mobil Oil Company of the 1970’s, made the terrible blunder of producing synthetic gasoline instead. That story was not even known to the technical people present.  When mentioned, it was vehemently objected by the representative of the Brussels based European oil industry center for Conservation of Clean Air, Water and the Environment (CONCAWE) who really had no information on that, international oil industry imposed, New Zealand national policy disaster.  

Having gotten above of my chest, let me say that much positive information to the industry, was presented for activities that should be going on now. 

In the opening statement, IPIECA CCWG Chair, Richard Sykes, from Shell Oil Co., stated that “Climate Change is one of the most important issues that will change our lifestyles”, followed by speakers from the International Energy Agency of the OECD, and from the Austria based Institute for International Systems Analysi, making forecasts for the transportation sector.  This was followed by speakers from China and India.  Then the subject moved to Air and Marine transportation followed by Road transportation.  I walked away from this first day with the notion of a possible second niche market for biofuels.  

After years of fight, it is clear now that ethanol should be viewed as the only available octane boosting additive to gasoline. It also replaces more crude then pointed out by the amount of gasoline that its percentage value in the resulting mixture. 

Also, possible now that vegetal oils could find a niche market as preferred jet fuels.  This came about after some questions about the sulfur content of jet fuel and the effect of sulfur at high altitudes.  As vegetal oils have no sulfur this seems to be an ideal niche market.  Obviously, the inevitable - no! - was heard from the industry, and I can see that rather then investigating the opportunity, members of the industry will do their best to keep this from happening for many years to come.  

The speaker from India made it clear that the Indian priority will be mobility and not the problems of climate change.  China was more forthcoming.  

The second day dealt with the motor vehicles and ended in a panel discussion on Transportation and Climate Change without questions from the floor. 

The speaker from CONCAWE, employee of Shell Oil Co. mentioned Dimethyl Ether (DME) as a new synthetic diesel fuel.  Prof. C.F. Edwards from Stanford presented a study of the efficiency limits of vehicles and showed how these changed with time.  Prof. J.L.Sweeney from Stanford spoke of Hydrogen, and I noted an aside - “tax the gasoline and subsidize the hydrogen” - now - that is a start!  

Mr. L.I. Dale from General Motors, presented the World Business Council for Sustainable Development Report on Mobility and H. Diaz-Bone from UNFCCC an D. Sperling from UofC-Davis  dealt with  emissions from transportation north and south.  

JoAnn Milliken, from US D.O.E., speaking on President Bush Administration’s “US Climate Change Technology program and the Hydrogen Initiative”, told the audience that the President’s $1,7 billion accelerated 2003-2008 program has received so far requests for $228 million and approved so far $159 million.  The barriers to a hydrogen economy were talked about and the question about the hydrogen source was raised.  Considering that initially hydrogen will be made from coal and natural gas, it is clear that hydrogen can not contribute to a solution of the CO2 problem unless coupled with a CO2 sequestration technology - so a hydrogen solution for the global warming problem is yet very far in our future, the spending for research is also slow.

(This article was first posted on CultureChange.org)