Hijacked Ship Holds $100 Million in Oil

By BARBARA SURK, AP

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Nov. 18) - The owner of a Saudi oil supertanker hijacked by Somali pirates over the weekend said the company is working to win the release of the crew and vessel, which is carrying about $100 million in cargo.

Dubai-based Vela International Marine Ltd., a subsidiary of Saudi oil company Aramco, said in a statement Monday that company response teams have been created. The MV Sirius Star is the largest ship ever taken by Somali pirates, according to the U.S. Navy.

Dangerous Waters ? …. and How Many Boing 747 Can Feed This Ship? Then How Many Fish Can Kill This Ship?

Sirius Star: Somali pirates hijacked the oil tanker, here in an undated photo, about 450 nautical miles off the Kenyan coast Nov. 15. It is the farthest from shore Somali pirates have struck and is thought to be the largest ship ever hijacked. The aircraft-carrier-sized tanker, owned by Saudi oil company Aramco, was carrying crude oil. It can carry about 2 million barrels.

The statement gave no further details. Employees who answered the phone said no one was immediately available to comment and that Vela executives were meeting to discuss the situation. They declined to give their names.
The Navy said the brand-new MV Sirius Star, with a crew of 25, was seized far off the coast of Kenya on Saturday and the bandits were taking the ship to a Somali port known as a hub of pirate activity. It announced the hijacking on Monday when it first received the information.

The statement posted on Vela’s Web site late Monday said the ship was hijacked Sunday. The discrepancy could not immediately be explained.
Attacks by Somali pirates have surged this year as bandits have become bolder, better armed and capable of operating hundreds of miles from shore.

A coalition of warships from eight nations and from NATO and the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is patrolling a critical zone in the Gulf of Aden leading to and from the Suez Canal. The gulf is where most of the more than 80 attacks this year have taken place.

The Saudi tanker, however, was seized far to the south of the patrolled zone, about 450 nautical miles southeast of Mombasa, Kenya, according to the U.S. Navy.

Maritime security experts said they have tracked a southward spread in piracy over the last several weeks into a vast area of the Indian Ocean, noting with alarm that the area would be almost impossible to patrol.
The U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet said Tuesday it was monitoring the situation but did not expect to send warships to surround the vessel as it has done with a Ukrainian ship loaded with tanks and other weaponry the was seized off the Somali coast on Sept. 25 and remains in pirate hands.

“I don’t anticipate any U.S. ships on station,” said Lt. Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the 5th Fleet, speaking from its headquarters in Bahrain. He would not elaborate on how the Navy was watching the hijacked tanker.
“We remain deeply concerned because this attack represents a fundamental change in pirates’ ability to hijack bigger vessels farther out at sea,” he said.
The Sirius Star is the “largest pirated vessel in the region” to date, Christensen said.
At 1,080 feet, the Sirius Star is the length of an aircraft carrier and can carry about 2 million barrels of oil.
“We are very concerned that a (ship) of this size has been hijacked. We have safety concerns, security concerns, environmental concerns,” said Noel Choong, the head of the International Maritime Bureau’s regional piracy center in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

“Of course, as long as there is no firm deterrent, pirates will continue to attack. The risk is low and returns are extremely high. You will see more and more of such attacks,” he told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
Somali fishermen and witnesses on shore said the pirates apparently anchored the ship last night in Harardhere, a pirate stronghold some 265 miles by land from Eyl.

The Saudi tanker was just a few miles from shore Tuesday morning, said Abdinur Haji, a fisherman.
“As usual, I woke up at 3 a.m. and headed for the sea to fish, but I saw a very, very large ship anchored less than three miles off the shore,” he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
He said two small boats floated out to the ship and 18 men — presumably other pirates — climbed aboard with ropes woven into a ladder.

“I have been fishing here for three decades, but I have never seen a ship as big as this one,” he said. “There are dozens of spectators on shore trying to catch a glimpse of the large ship, which they can see with their naked eyes.”
Vela, the ship’s owner and operator, says it is one of the largest crude oil tanker companies in the world.

Including the Sirius Star, Vela owns and operates a fleet of 19 vessels classed as Very Large Crude Oil Carriers and five product tankers of various sizes. It transports supplies primarily between the Middle East, Europe and the U.S. Gulf Coast, according to the company’s Web site.

The Sirius Star was sailing under a Liberian flag and its crew includes citizens of Croatia, Britain, the Philippines, Poland and Saudi Arabia. A British Foreign Office spokesman said there were at least two British nationals on board.
Associated Press Writer Mohamed Olad Hassan contributed to this report from Mogadishu, Somalia.

Hijacked Ship Holds $100 Million in Oil

————–

The UN sensation  of the day as per Title of UN Wire:

From:        un.wire at smartbrief.com
Subject:       Pirates seize Saudi oil supertanker; Court to hear Croatia’s genocide case against Serbia
Date:       November 18, 2008

Pirates seize Saudi supertanker
Los Angeles Times (11/18)

Piracy abates in Southeast Asia
Piratical activity has dropped along the Asian coasts where it once proliferated, falling 11% from last year and 32% from 2006. Many of those attacks off Indonesia and throughout Southeast Asia were low-level attacks against small ships or incidents of petty theft of cargo. Naval patrols along the “littoral states” of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are credited for the sharp decline. The New York Times (11/18)

Uri Avnery
Tel Aviv, 20.09.08

Fly, Tzipora, fly!

THE POLLS were wrong, as usual. And in a big way. As usual.

Instead of winning by a huge margin, as predicted until the very last moment by all the polls, she just squeaked through. Of the 72 thousand or so registered Kadima members, only 39,331 troubled themselves to go to the polls, and among these she defeated Shaul Mofaz by just 431 votes.

But a majority is a majority. Tzipi Livni was duly installed as Kadima chairperson.

What does that say about the Israeli public?

FIRST OF ALL: this is the victory of a person without a military background over someone with almost nothing apart from a military background.

On the advice of his right-wing American political strategist, Stanley Greenberg, Mofaz emphasized the word “security” on every occasion, almost in every sentence. A popular talk-show turned this into a parody: Security, security, security, security.

Well, it did not work. T-h-e general, the chief of Staff, the Defense Minister, was beaten by a mere woman devoid of any military experience (even if she did serve for 15 years in the Mossad.)

That does not mean that Tzipi Livni may not turn out to be a warmonger, like Elisabeth I, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. But fact is fact: the Kadima voters have preferred a non-general to a general.

MOREOVER, KADIMA is a party of the center. The very center of the center. Its members are not fervent about anything, neither on the right or the left, they have no strong convictions of any kind. So their decision can be regarded as a reflection of the general mood.

Mofaz presented himself not only as Mr. Security, but also as a genuine right-winger, a man who opposes both peace with Syria and peace with the Palestinians, a leader prepared to set up a coalition with the Right, even with the extreme Right. He was the declared exponent of open-ended-war.

Tzipi Livni presented herself as the personification of the peace effort, the woman who conducts the negotiations with the Palestinians, who prefers diplomacy to war, who points the way to the end of the conflict. All this may be sleight of hand, pure deceit. Perhaps there is no difference at all between the two. But even if this is so, that is not the most important aspect. The important fact is that the Kadima voters, the most representative group in the country, accorded victory - well, a tiny victory - to the candidate who at least pretended to favor peace.

In his “The Second Coming”, the Irish poet W. B. Yeats describes utter chaos: “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold”. The metaphor is taken from military history: in bygone days, armies drew up for battle with the main force in the center, and lighter forces defending the two flanks. As long as the center held, everything was fine.

In Israel today, the center is holding. The centrist party voted for the woman of the center.

***

It can also be described otherwise: in Israel, 2008, the forces are divided equally between the “Right” and the “Left”, and the “Left” won this time by the smallest possible margin.

I REMEMBER the elections nine years ago. In May 1999, Ehud Barak won a decisive victory over the incumbent, Binyamin Netanyahu: 56.08% against 43.92%, a difference of 388,546 votes. The public was just fed up with Netanyahu.

The response was overwhelming. The general feeling in the peace camp was of a release from servitude to freedom, from an era of failure and corruption into an era of peace and well-being. Without any proclamations, without anybody planning it, masses of people streamed into Tel-Aviv’s Rabin Square, the place where a Prime Minister had been assassinated four years earlier. I was among them.

In the square, the atmosphere was intoxicating. Delirious people danced, embraced each other, kissed. Tel Aviv had not seen anything like it since November 1947, when the United Nations General Assembly decided to establish a Jewish (and an Arab) state. I experienced a similar scene in April 1948, when I was part of the force that brought a huge relief convoy into beleaguered and starving West Jerusalem. A similar atmosphere was captured by film of Charles de Gaulle entering liberated Paris.

Barak promised to be a second Rabin, only more so. He promised to make peace with the Palestinians within months. A rosy future was warming the horizon, “the dawn of a new day”.

A year and a half later, nothing of all this remained. Ehud Barak, the hero of peace, brought on us the greatest disaster in the annals of the struggle for peace. He came back from the Camp David conference, which had taken place on his express demand, with a declaration that was to become a mantra: “I have turned every stone on the way to peace / I have offered the Palestinians unprecedented generous terms / Arafat has rejected everything / We have no partner for peace.”

With 20 Hebrew words Barak destroyed the peace camp and brought about a public mood which even Netanyahu could not create: that there is no chance for peace, that we are condemned to live with an everlasting conflict.

Therefore, no one got excited about Tzipi Livni’s victory. The masses did not stream into the square, did not dance and did not embrace - and not only because this was just a party-internal election. The general reaction was a sigh of relief and a shrug of the shoulder. So Kadima has voted. So it has a new chairperson. So there will be a new Prime Minister. Let’s wait and see.

***
SO WHAT to expect, after all?

There are already jokes circulating about “Tzipi and the Tzipiot” (a Hebrew word-play, “tzipiot” meaning expectations), a new rock-band which is about to take to the road. Nobody really knows what kind of a Prime Minister she will be. Strong or weak. Determined or open to pressures. Tough or compromising. Warmonger or peace-seeker.

One can only point at her background, as I hinted last week, and perhaps go into some detail.

On the eve of the elections, in one of those vapid questionnaires the media are so fond of, she was asked who was her hero. Her answer: Jabotinsky.

That was the most predictable answer there could be. Tzipi Livni grew up in a Revisionist household. She is a Revisionist, model 2008. What does that mean?

Her father, Eitan, who was born in Grodno (a town that has belonged variously to Lithuania, Poland, Russia and now Belarus), came to this country at the age of 6 and joined the Irgun underground in 1938 (the same year as I did), when he was 19 years old. He lived all his life under the influence of Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky and his teachings.

Eitan Livni, as I knew him, was not a brilliant or exceptional person, but rather solid, loyal, as his name suggests. (In Hebrew, “eitan” means strong, steadfast). A person one could rely on. He served in the Irgun as an operational officer, and among other operations he took part in the daring break-out from Acre prison, where he was being held. As a Knesset member for the Herut Party, the predecessor of today’s Likud, he was rather inconspicuous and supported Menachem Begin through thick and thin.

In order to understand Tzipi, one has to go back to Jabotinsky. His many enemies have often called him a Fascist, but that is inaccurate. He was born in the 19th century, and was a nationalist in the 19th century mold. Born in Odessa, he lived for some years as a young man in Italy, and his heroes were the leaders of contemporary Italian nationalism: the ideologue Giuseppe Mazzini and the fighter Giuseppe Garibaldi.

Jabotinsky wanted, of course, all of Palestine to become a Jewish state. When he founded his party in the 1920s, he named it according to this vision: the demand was for a “revision” of the British decision to separate the land west of the Jordan river from the land east of the river, today’s Kingdom of Jordan, then called Transjordan. In her youth, Tzipi sang Jabotinsky’s most famous song: “Two banks has the Jordan - this one belongs to us and that one, too.”

But Jabotinsky was also a real liberal, and a real democrat. He entered the political arena for the first time when he formulated the “Helsingfors (Helsinki) Plan”, which demanded human and national rights for the Jews and the other minorities in Czarist Russia.

A PERSON educated according to these values is faced today with a tough dilemma.

***

Years ago, the Revisionists used to tell this joke: rewarding David Ben-Gurion for founding the state, God promised to grant him one wish. Ben-Gurion asked that every Israeli should be honest, wise and a Labor Party member. “That’s too much even for me to grant,” God replied, “but every Israeli can choose two of the three.” So a Labor member can be wise but not honest, a Labor member can be honest but not wise, and somebody who is wise and honest cannot be a Labor member.

Something like this is now happening to the Revisionists themselves. They ask for three things: a Jewish State, a state that encompasses all of historic Palestine and a democratic state. That is too much even for God. So a Revisionist must choose two of the three: a Jewish and democratic state in only a part of the country, a Jewish state in all the country that will not be democratic, or a democratic state in all the country that will not be Jewish. This dilemma has not changed over the last 41 years.

Tzipi Livni, an honest to goodness Revisionist, has announced her choice: a Jewish and democratic state that will not encompass the whole of the country. (We leave open here the question of whether a “Jewish” state can be democratic.)

***

In up-to-date Hebrew, we differentiate between “national” and “nationalistic” attitudes. A national view recognizes the importance of the national dimension in today’s human society, and therefore respects and recognizes the nationalism of other peoples, too. A nationalistic view says “we and no others”, my nation ueber alles.

It seems that Tzipi, like her hero Jabotinsky, adheres to the national view. Hence her emphasis on “two nation-states for two peoples”. She speaks about a Jewish nation-state and is ready to sacrifice Greater Israel on this altar.

That may not be an ideal basis for peace (what would be the status of Israel’s Arab citizens in this Jewish nation-state?) but it is realistic. If she has the power to implement her ideas, she can make peace. If.

REACTING TO the election results, Gideon Levy wrote that the heart wants to hope, but the brain cannot. That is an understandable reaction.

Since Tzipi, short for Tzipora, means bird, one wants to cry out: Fly, Tzipora, fly! Fly to heaven! After your election as Prime Minister, lose no time! Set up a government coalition with the peace forces, use the first few months of your term to achieve peace with the Palestinians, call new elections and submit yourself and the peace agreement to the public test! As Livni herself phrased it in her direct way: “There is no time for bullshitting!”

That is what Ehud Barak should have done in 2000. He did not take the chance, and therefore he lost.

Will Tzipora the bird reach these heights? The heart hopes. The brain has its doubts.

————-

Collected articles      http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/chan…

permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/chan…

 gush-shalom.org

————-

Middle East peace talks =Palestinians lose faith in two-state solution:
Study group calls for new form of resistance to Israeli occupation with goal of single, bi-national state.
Rory McCarthy from Jerusalem, for the guardian.co.uk,
Thursday September 04, 2008.

A group of prominent Palestinian figures has proposed a radical change in strategy to demand a single, bi-national state if the current round of Middle East peace talks fails.

The Palestinian Strategy Study Group, an EU-funded project written by 27 leading Palestinian figures from across the political spectrum, argued that the current two-state framework for peace talks is failing to bring the promised independent state. Instead, it suggested ending the negotiation process that has gone on now for nearly 20 years, reconstituting the Palestinian Authority into what might become a “Palestinian Resistance Authority”, and developing a form of “smart” resistance.

“The central aim will be to maximise the cost of continuing occupation for Israel, and to make the whole prospect of unilateral separation unworkable,” it said. The final, and most striking proposal, is to shift to a “single state outcome” as the Palestinians’ preferred goal. This, it said, would regain the strategic initiative for the Palestinians.

“Although many Palestinians may still prefer a genuine negotiated two-state solution, a failure of the present Annapolis initiative will greatly strengthen those who argue against this,” the report said. “Most Palestinians are then likely to be convinced that a negotiated agreement is no longer possible.”

———–

It is not the first time a bi-national state has been proposed as a Palestinian goal, but the new report signals a marked shift in Palestinian thinking at a time when the latest peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians are yet again struggling to make any headway. Questions are now being asked on both sides about the future of the two-state solution that for so long has been the framework of Middle East peacemaking.

The greatest disquiet is on the Palestinian side, where even moderates are now beginning to sense the two-state formula is moving out of reach.

“I feel that a two-state solution is losing currency amongst both our peoples and with the world community beyond,” said Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian prime minister and former World Bank and IMF economist, in a speech he wrote for a meeting of former Israeli diplomats yesterday and which was delivered by Riad Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister.

Malki himself admitted that, despite 10 months of talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, which began in Annapolis, in the United States, not a single word of agreement had been put on paper. The Annapolis process, the first such peace talks in seven years, were supposed to produce a peace agreement by the end of this year - a goal that has proved wildly unrealistic.

***
Another group, the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information, published a policy document this week with proposals for the Palestinians to change the status quo. Among the options it said were available were dissolving the Palestinian Authority, calling for a one-state solution and making a Kosovo-style unilateral declaration of independence.

However, it noted that the chief risk of calling for a single, bi-national state was that nothing would change and the status quo would simply worsen given how deeply unpopular the idea is among Israelis. “With so little support from the more powerful neighbour, it seems unlikely that the Palestinian call for unity will bring many positive results in the near term,” it said. Instead, it concluded: “We feel that a tightly coordinated non-violent campaign toward statehood is the best option.”

One of the key obstacles on the Palestinian side now is the bitter infighting between the two leading factions, Fatah and Hamas. Since last year, Hamas, the Islamist group that won elections in 2006, has been in full control of Gaza and daily seems to be dividing ever further from its rival Fatah, which effectively controls the West Bank. Even if a peace agreement was reached this year, it is hard to see how it might be implemented in Gaza without reconciliation between the rival factions, and for now that seems out of their grasp.

Hamas has long argued against negotiations with Israel. “We don’t see any fruits from the political negotiations,” Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas advisor said in a recent interview in Gaza. “So we have to make an evaluation for the whole Palestinian national project. Since Madrid in 1991 until now it’s been 17 years but we’ve seen nothing on the ground. How can I convince people that we are going in the right direction?”

On the Israeli side, opinion is more mixed. In general the two-state solution is still broadly regarded as a reasonable goal, although there are many on the rightwing who say Israel should not give up the land it captured in 1967 or who say Israelis have a Biblical right to settle in the West Bank that cannot be negotiated away.

***

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister who will step down later this month, has pursued negotiations, arguing that a two-state solution is attainable. On Sunday he will discuss with the cabinet a plan to pay compensation to encourage some of the more distant settlers in the West Bank to move either to Israel or to settlements within the West Bank barrier.

Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister who is likely to replace him as head of the ruling Kadima party, also argues in favour of negotiations and has been deeply involved in the latest talks, although she has said she would resist pressure to hurry the negotiations. Ehud Barak, the defence minister, suggested yesterday that some of the Palestinian areas of Jerusalem might become the future capital of a Palestinian state, an idea which has not always been palatable to Israelis.

***

Yet there are others beginning to voice different ideas. In a newspaper column in the Yedioth Ahronoth this week, Giora Eiland, a former head of the National Security Council and former national security adviser under Ariel Sharon, said the gap between Israel and the Palestinians was “enormous” and growing.

“The maximum that the Israeli government [any government] will be able to offer the Palestinians [and survive politically] falls short of the minimum that the Palestinian government [any government] can agree to accept [and survive politically],” he wrote. Eiland argued that a final status peace deal “will not be achievable in the foreseeable future” and that new ideas should be considered. He suggested returning control of the West Bank to Jordan, who controlled it before the 1967 war.

—————–

At www.SustainabiliTank.info, we go even further - we are advocating a Three State Solution.  That is sort of a Hamasstan in the Gaza Strip - to be started under the supervision of Egypt, and a Palestine-West-Bank State that will start out with organized help led by Jordan. The aim of the two “supervising states” will have o be well defined in advance - not as annexation - but as a management for obtaining future total independence. If in the end this leads to some sort of confederation that involves also Israel, so much the better. But without first preparing the ground for some sort of clearly defined Palestinian economies (and I mean two of them in parallel) there is no future for any sort of solution.       A united -one-Palestinian entity is not in the cards, so a two State solution is also very difficult.

From:  liasieghart at hotmail.com
Subject: Yemen, cogeneration and the CDM an outline of opportunity
Date: September 4, 2008

The Clean Development Mechanism has been instrumental in the development of a number of cogeneration projects around the world, but none yet in Yemen, where the scope for projects is certainly present. Lia Carol Sieghart looks at the role that cogeneration could play as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the country. The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997, at the 3rd Conference of the Parties (COP 3) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Kyoto, Japan. This treaty significantly bolstered the Convention by committing parties from developed countries, known as Annex 1 Parties, to legally binding limits on GHG emissions. They may also acquire emission reduction credits by taking advantage of the three ‘flexibility mechanisms’ defined under the Protocol.These mechanisms are:

• International Emissions Trading (IET)
• Joint Implementation (JI)
• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The latter is the only mechanism that involves developing countries. The CDM allows Annex 1 Parties (or entities from those Parties) to invest in project activities that reduce GHG emissions and contribute to sustainable development in non-Annex 1 countries.The CDM has seen an exponential growth since the Kyoto Protocol came into effect in 2005. The end of 2007 provided a milestone with the 100-millionth certified emission reduction credit being issued. In April 2008 the 1000th project, an energy efficiency project, was registered with the Executive Board. At present there are more 3000 projects in the UNFCCC pipeline.Nevertheless, the number of host countries playing a vital role is still very limited. The geographic dispersion of registered projects remains imbalanced. So far the main share of projects is with Asia and Latin America. Most projects are registered with India as a host country, followed by China, Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia and Chile. India and China in particular have been early movers and have grasped the investment opportunities provided by the CDM. The vast majority of projects registered are in the energy sector. Taking into consideration the projects under validation and those requesting registration, it seems that this distribution pattern will not change significantly during the first commitment period.

  There are many reasons why the CDM has so far fallen short of its full potential, many of which are country-specific while others are repeatedly reported from various countries. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region 18 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but to date only 20 projects have been registered (Table 1). This amounts to ~2 % of the total of registered project activities.

  Click here to enlarge image

  The MENA Region population comprises about 6% of the total world population, almost equivalent to the population of the European Union. Most MENA countries are experiencing a rapid population growth. The region is economically diverse – the spectrum ranges from oil-rich economies to countries that are resource-scarce in relation to population.

  By 2050, the MENA countries will reach an electricity demand of the same magnitude as Europe (3500 TWh/y). In some of the countries, electricity demand is expected to triple from almost 1500 TWh/y at present to 4100 TWh/y in 2050. Correspondingly, the effects of climate change will become more severe. The fossil fuel-based power sector offers enormous potential for CO₂ emission reductions, both through energy efficiency improvements in existing applications as well as utilization of state-of-the-art technology for new capacity additions.

  Given the surging growth in energy demand, the region needs to develop sustainable energy patterns, increase energy accessibility – particularly for marginalized populations in rural areas – and encourage efficient use of energy. Countries need to embark on a less carbon-intensive development path. Utilizing the CDM can provide a vital trigger in this process.

  CHP has a clear opportunity to expand quickly. CHP installations, by combining electricity production with a heat recovery system, provide reliable and cost-effective opportunities for GHG emissions reduction and an important contribution to meeting heat and electricity demand. Cogeneration projects also have the potential to bring energy efficiency measures to large industries in the region, while the MENA oil industry and refinery capacity offers further significant cost-effective potential for heat recovery and cogeneration.

  THE REPUBLIC OF YEMEN

  The Republic of Yemen lies to the south of Saudi Arabia, bounded by the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The 2004 census recorded a population of 19.72 million, with an average annual population growth rate of 3.2 % and one of the highest birth rates in the MENA Region. Yemen remains one of the poorest countries in the world, and currently ranks 49 on the UN’s list of the 50 Least Developed Countries. Yemen’s GNI per capita is US$760, compared to, for example, US$12,510 in Saudi Arabia, US$23,990 in the United Arab Emirates and US$9070 in Oman². According to the Country Social Analysis (2006) by the World Bank the GDP growth rate has been falling steadily in recent years. Inflation has been averaging at almost 12% since 2002, rapidly increasing the cost of living.

  The country, a non-OPEC member, is the smallest oil producer in the Middle East³. Nevertheless, the economy is highly dependent on the oil sector, with the country’s oil exports accounting for approximately 85% of export revenues and 33% of gross domestic product (GDP). Yemen’s energy use relies heavily on fossil fuels. Thus, there is potential to reduce GHG emissions in the energy sector, the oil and refinery industry and in the industrial sector.

  GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN YEMEN

  The 2001 First National Communication to the UNFCCC used 1995 as a reference year for Yemen’s GHG emissions inventory due to the high uncertainty of 1994’s information as a result of the April–July 1994 civil war. The total GHG emissions (CO₂, CH⁴, N²O) of the country, in 1995, amounted to 18.7 million tonnes CO₂eq, (CO₂=11.4 million tonnes, CH⁴=128,000 and NO₂=15,000). Taking CO₂ removal into account, the total net emission of CO₂ is 845,000 tonnes. These figures are exclusive of the emission from the international bunker (114,350 tonnes CO₂) and from combustion of biomass (353,290 tonnes CO₂).

  Yemen’s emission profile by gas type for 1995 shows that CO₂ accounts for 61% of the total national GHG emissions (113,580 tonnes CO₂), N²O 25% (465,700 tonnes CO₂eq) and CH⁴ 14% (269,400 tonnes CO₂eq). Table 2 shows gas emissions by various sectors.

  Click here to enlarge image

  If we look at the industrial processes, there are many that create GHG emissions as a by-product of the process itself. Cement production generated the most emissions (99.3%). Other production processes with minor emissions are lime production, limestone use and soda use (food & beverages). The total GHG generated by these processes was estimated at 547,000 tonnes CO₂eq, which accounted for 2.92% of the country’s total GHG emissions. The production of cement in Yemen in 1995 was 1,089,000 tonnes that resulted in CO₂ emission of 543,000 tonnes CO₂eq representing 4.8% of the country’s total CO₂ emissions (energy sector, industrial processes etc), while it represents around 2.9% of the total GHGs.

  The CO₂ emission from cement production was calculated by multiplying 1995 cement production (1,089,000 tonnes) by the emission factor (0.4985 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of cement produced). The SO₂ emitted from cement production was obtained by using an emission factor of 0.3 kg SO₂/tonne cement, thus leading to 330 tonnes SO₂ in 1995.

  THE YEMENI ENERGY SECTOR

  Yemen’s 100% state-owned Public Electricity Corporation (PEC) formed in 1991, under the Ministry of Electricity, is the sole public utility with the mandate for generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in the country. The entity operates approximately 80% of the country’s generating capacity as part of the national grid. The remainder is generated by small off-grid suppliers and privately owned generators, predominantly in rural areas⁴. In urban areas diesel generators are also used as back-up systems. The efficiency of diesel generators can be up to 40%. Electricity demand amounted to 3294 GWh in 2005, an increase of 9.6% annually since 2000.

  The Yemeni population has the lowest access to electricity in the region, with only 53%⁵ of the total population having access. Of the 72% of the Yemeni population living in rural areas, only 23% have any access to electricity, which compares unfavourably with 85% of the urban population that have access to electricity. Out of this 23%, about 10%–14% is connected to the national grid system while the remainder is estimated to have some access from other sources, typically a diesel generator that operates only a few hours in the evening. Even for those connected to the grid, electricity supply is intermittent, with regular rolling blackouts in most cities.

  Click here to enlarge image

  Yemen has been experiencing a chronic power supply shortage. An estimate for the electric power deficit in 2006 was 220 MW, a figure that is expected to increase to 250 MW in 2008. With the 2005 increase in diesel prices, the cost of diesel generation has become economically unsustainable thereby significantly increasing the demand for a lower-carbon, more-efficient, lower-cost and reliable energy future.

  The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP, 2003–2005) states the following: ‘Indicators show the failure of electric power in Yemen in keeping pace with demand [is] due to the ageing of the power stations and the distribution networks, which is reflected in the high losses that are currently estimated at about 38%, well above the internationally prevailing levels. This situation prevents the full utilization of machinery and equipment in the different productive and service units, or burdens the private sector facilities with the cost of setting up their own generating plants, not to mention the inability to systematically fulfil domestic lighting requirements. This situation is expected to continue over the medium term due to the increase of demand at high rates, and thus increases the adverse aspects on investment opportunities and the growth of output, income and employment, clearly showing the importance of strategic investment by the private sector in this field.’

  In the industrial sector, power is purchased either from the national grid or off-grid from privately owned diesel generators with poor electrical efficiency ranging from 25% up to 35% especially in light industry. Heavy industry, e.g. the cement sector – the most energy intensive of any industry⁶, covers its heat needs using boilers fired either by heavy fuel oil or diesel, again with an overall poor fuel efficiency. The main electricity consuming sections in a cement plant are the mills (finish grinding and raw grinding) and the exhaust fans (kiln/raw mill and cement mill) which together account for more than 80% of the total electrical energy usage.⁷ The separate production of heat and power is an obvious waste of energy. Change is needed by using a range of existing and emerging technologies, particularly in relation to the production and consumption both of heat and electricity.

  The cement industry is considered as one of the main players in the industrial sector. Commercial production started back in 1973 with the launching of the first production line of the Bajil Cement Factory. Cement production is highly competitive, both locally and internationally, so any improvements in production efficiency can result in important increases in competitiveness.⁸

  Despite 16.9 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of proven natural gas reserves, a cleaner source of non-renewable energy, heavy fuel oil or diesel-fuelled power generation remains the energy source. Use of natural gas is hampered by the absence of a domestic natural gas infrastructure. On the downstream side there is a crude refining capacity of 130,000 barrels/day from two ageing refineries. The Aden refinery has a capacity of 90,000 to 120,000 barrels/day, while the capacity at the Marib refinery, is 10,000 barrels/day.

  So the challenge for the government is to meet the energy needs of the country in an economic and environmentally sustainable manner. To address this challenge, one approach is to integrate the use of CHP as part of a larger portfolio of low-carbon energy technology solutions. Also the First National Communication under the UNFCCC suggests CHP as a viable measure to reduce GHG emissions and to cope with climate change.

  COGENERATION – AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YEMEN

  The Yemeni electricity sector driven by fossil-fuelled power generation is characterized by a loss of waste heat and a deficient transmission and distribution system resulting in poor net generation. Energy use and efficiency are important factors for economic development and environmental integrity.

  Click here to enlarge image

  CHP applications could be viable and cost-effective in the Yemeni setting because they:

  • reduce energy-related carbon dioxide emissions
  • provide a decentralized energy source which results in reduced investment in energy system infrastructure
  • reduce transmission and distribution losses.

  Energy-intensive industrial sites such as oil refining, heavy processing (food and textiles) and the cement industry with its simultaneous demand for heat and power, could all benefit. Also the commercial and institutional/residential sectors could match their thermal and electrical needs. CHP application in the commercial/institutional sector could address light manufacturing, hotels, hospitals and large office complexes.

  Despite good potential for CHP, to date no systems are operating in Yemen. The main barriers are: technical, financial, lack of maintenance capacity and awareness, the heavy subsidy of petroleum products and the absence of a domestic natural gas infrastructure – the fuel of choice for most new industrial CHP systems. However, access to reasonably priced and reliable electricity supply systems are an obvious prerequisite for economic stability and development. The development of a strategy for CHP would assist in kick-starting the momentum in Yemen and should include the following elements:

  • identification of projects that could be initially implemented by the public sector and identify pipeline of projects that can be promoted for private sector development
  • formulation of CHP-enabling market
  • elaboration of incentives that attract private investors and lower the costs of electricity generation from CHP applications.

  Coupling GHG emissions abatement with CHP installation would help guide the country’s economic growth to a less carbon-intensive development path. The emission reduction potential makes CHP applications, in principal, eligible for the CDM. In order to qualify for Certified Emission Reductions under the CDM, one needs to address ‘additionality’, ‘permanence’, and ‘leakage’ requirements as well as satisfy sustainable development criteria defined by the country. By gaining CDM support for projects, Yemen could gain access to significant additional flows of technology and finance to assist in achieving a more sustainable, less greenhouse-intensive pathway of development. Also the National Adaptation Programme of Action⁹ is suggesting CHP systems as an efficient method of power generation and a suitable measure to reduce GHG emissions. Considering a cogeneration project as a CDM project activity would assist in generating emission credits and thereby make the project more feasible.

  RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION

  The CDM is a key model fostering broad engagement in climate change mitigation, and can be used as a means of promoting sustainable development by providing access to improved energy services. The energy sector is a major source of GHG emissions and a critical area for socio-economic development of the country. Yemen has a good potential for cogeneration projects in the industrial, commercial and institutional/residential sectors.

  In keeping with the dual aim of climate protection and sustainable development, the CDM can trigger the installation of CHP systems by removing barriers to implementation of state-of-the art technology in this area. Despite the strong potential of cogeneration for GHG reduction to date there is no installed capacity – project developers often lack the technical and financial capacity to identify projects within their operational activities. Mainstreaming carbon finance into business operations would have a catalytic impact on facilitating CDM project development and consequently assist in the feasibility of cogeneration in Yemen.

  Lia Carol Sieghart is with the Ministry of Water and Environment, DNA Secretariat, Republic of Yemen.
  e-mail: sieghart@yemen.net.ye

  References

  1. Status: 29.03.2008

  2. World Development Indicators database, World Bank, 1 July 2007

  3. Report No.: 34008-YE – Republic of Yemen – Country Social Analysis – January 11, 2006 – Water, Environment, Social and Rural Development Department, Middle East and North Africa Region

  4. Energy Information Administration  www.eia.doe.gov): Yemen – Country Analysis Brief (October 2007)

  5. World Bank and UNDP (2005): Household Energy Supply and Use in Yemen: Volume I, Main Report

  6. WADE (2007): Concrete Energy Savings – Onsite Power in the Cement Industry

  7. IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control). 2001. Reference document on best available techniques in the cement and lime manufacturing industries, European Union.

  8. WADE (2007): Concrete Energy Savings – Onsite Power in the Cement Industry

  9. 2001 First National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

  Cogeneration and On-Site Power Production July, 2008

  ---

  To access this article, go to:http://www.cospp.com/articles/article_display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=338180&p=122

  ---

  Copyright © 2008: PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, OK; All Rights Reserved.

Gulf ruler buys top club – then reveals his plan to spend, spend, spend…
Tuesday, 2 September 2008, The Independent.

The tiny Gulf state of Abu Dhabi launched an audacious raid on one of Britain’s top football clubs yesterday in a move that will transform the shape of global football.

The £210m takeover of Manchester City threatens to dethrone their closest rivals Manchester United and establish City as the biggest team in the world. The club announced that it had signed a memo of understanding with the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), a holding company set up by Middle East investors, backed by the country’s royal family. The new regime’s first move was an attempt to gazump United’s £30m signing of Tottenham Hotspur’s star striker Dimitar Berbatov with an offer of £34m. And they quickly followed that by lodging bids for Spain’s highly rated forward David Villa and Stuttgart’s Mario Gomez.

ADUG will spend the nextfew weeks examining the club’s books before taking control, and will become the first Middle East investor to be in control of a Premier League team.

The Arab group is fronted by Sulaiman Al Fahim, a multi-billionaire nicknamed the “Donald Trump of Abu Dhabi,” who has pledged to invest enough to break up the “Big Four” of Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal by next year.

It could herald a whole new era for transfer fees, as the investors’ plans could dwarf even Roman Abramovich’s outlay at Chelsea, estimated at more than £500m.

A Dubai group failed in an attempt to buy Liverpool two years ago. Dubai International Capital (DIC), held talks about a £450m takeover but lost to two US investors. It remains interested and, given the turmoil in Liverpool’s boardroom, there is a serious chance they could yet buy into the Merseyside club. Middle Eastern influence in football has grown recently, with Manchester United travelling to Saudi Arabia last year and announcing a £10m marketing deal with Saudi Telecom. Emirates, one of the largest airlines in the regions, has invested heavily in the Premier League, sponsoring Chelsea before switching allegiance to Arsenal, whose new stadium carries the Dubai-based carrier’s name.

It is the latest demonstration of the region’s financial muscle. Investors from across the region, particularly state-owned sovereign wealth funds, have grown in strength off the back of the soaring oil prices, which hit record levels just shy of $150 a barrel this summer. It comes at a time when the credit crunch has wreaked havoc across Western economies causing many to look for outside investment.

Mr Al Fahim spoke of plans to support the Manchester City manager, Mark Hughes, “by bringing in the best football players in the world” and had fans dreaming of stars including Thierry Henry, David Villa and Ronaldo lining up at Eastlands. The world record transfer fee of £46m which took Zinedine Zidane to Real Madrid in 2001, now looks under severe threat.

After the Premiership, the next step will be Europe, Mr Sulaiman said. Yet City fans will be most interested in overhauling United, their bitter rivals, who have claimed the bragging rights in Manchester for the past 30 years.

Manchester United claim the most supporters worldwide and, according to accountancy group Deloitte, are second only to Real Madrid in terms of generating cash.

This year was the first time that three clubs from one country made the top five of the revenue league table – the other two being Chelsea and Arsenal. Manchester City didn’t even make the top 20.

It is the latest twist for a club that was lifted out of mid-table and on to the front pages just over a year ago when it was bought by Thailand’s former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Mr Thaksin, affectionately dubbed “Frank” by the City faithful, brought huge investments as well as some serious issues that troubled some at the Football Association. They were crystallised this year when Thailand issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to show up in court to face corruption charges. He will become honorary chairman of City when the deal is completed, according to the new investors, but will be stripped of his power.

The Arab investors have targeted businesses that would have been off limits five years ago. Sovereign wealth funds have invested hugely in the largest financial institutions in the world, taking significant stakes in banks including Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and UBS.

In the UK, Qatar has spent about £1.8bn in becoming the largest investor in Barclays, while Dubai invested £880m in taking a stake in the London Stock Exchange, according to data from Thomson Reuters.

No brand is off limits, it seems. Although Qatar failed in a £10bn bid for Sainsbury’s last year, the market hasn’t ruled out a second attempt, and a Middle East-backed group bought the luxury car group Aston Martin for almost £500m last year. Arab investors have also built holdings in the property companies Minerva and British Land during the past few months.

WTO Talks Collapse: Was There Ever a Future for Bananas?
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations collapsed today, July 29, after nine days of intense negotiations. Trade ministers from approximately 35 countries struggled to salvage the stalled seven-year-old Doha round. Optimistic signs and compromises surfaced as a result of last weekend’s supposed breakthrough, but these were soon followed by stubborn accusations from a number of combative nations, including the United States, China, and India. Constructing a 153-country consensus now seems even more cumbersome and talks will not resume for at least two years. During this past week in Geneva, country officials worked particularly long hours in an attempt to come up with the necessary concessions, as well as extending their stay in Switzerland in hopes of returning home “successfully.” Such a dream was, unfortunately, not to be realized.

This latest round of trade talks was launched in the Qatar capital in November 2001, but has long been stalemated over issues of farm subsidies called for by the U.S., Japan and the EU, as well as tariffs on industrial goods imposed by the developing economies of Latin America and Asia. Proposed changes included EU and U.S. farm subsidy reductions of up to 80 percent. The compromise was that developing countries would open their markets to imports of manufactured goods, removing so-called “import shields.”

In the deal last weekend, Latin American banana producers and EU officials appeared to begin the process of putting to rest a quarter-century banana “war.” Many Latin American banana exporters had contended for years that the EU routinely gave preferential treatment to their former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), and had kept import tariffs artificially high on the fruit that originates on mainland Latin America.

The complaint was originally filed by the U.S. because three of the largest banana producers in Latin America are U.S. multinational corporations. COHA repeatedly has argued in the past that U.S. banana companies, and not Latin American economies, are likely to benefit from the removal of the tariffs (see “Banana Wars Continue – Chiquita Once Again Tries to Work Its Omnipotent Will, Now Under New Management: Likely Big Losers Will Be CARICOM’s Windward Islands”). In addition to this contention, many view the present Doha round as an inappropriate forum for banana talk to occur in the first place, as any new arrangement could anger some of the ACP nations and thus would endanger the future of the round. Nonetheless, it is important for the banana conflict to be resolved so that Latin America, as well as U.S. corporations and English-speaking Caribbean exporters (who in most cases depend upon such exports for their economic survival), can see the benefits from the sale of their largest cash crop. Throughout the negotiations, it can be said that the U.S. was less than sensitive to the importance of a favorable outcome to such islands as Dominica, Grenada, and St. Lucia- a matter of sheer survival.

One of the main issues of contention amongst developing countries was the possible existence of Special Safeguard Mechanisms (SSM). This provision would enable countries like China and India to raise agricultural tariffs to protect their farmers in case of a surge in imports. Latin American countries rejected the SSM proposal, saying that it would be damaging to their export interests. Venezuelan Industry and Trade Minister William Antonio Contreras said that “we are not here to block an agreement, but to defend our interests and to fulfill the command of the round that is the one of developing.” The dispute over the existence of these mechanisms, designed to help only certain nations, largely contributed to the collapse of the talks.

It now should be clearer than ever as to why WTO talks have been at a stan