Ralph Winnie Jr. with the Mongolian President
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
In Uzbekistan
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Five big takeaways from the World Russia Forum
Five big takeaways from the World Russia Forum
"Ralph Winnie, Jr. of the Eurasia Center described the potential to create a Russian “shale gas revolution” that would dwarf the size of the American shale gas revolution, while others talked up the prospects for Arctic oil and gas exploration."
"Ralph Winnie, Jr. of the Eurasia Center described the potential to create a Russian “shale gas revolution” that would dwarf the size of the American shale gas revolution, while others talked up the prospects for Arctic oil and gas exploration."
Russia's Shale Gas Revolution (July 17th, 2014)
Shale oil production in the United States has soared, reversing a decades old decline in America’s crude output. One of the principal reasons is because of fields like North Dakota’s Bakken shale which could yield 24 billion barrels of oil in the decades to come. The Bakken is a huge boon both to the economic health of the Northern Plains states, but also to the petroleum balance of the USA> From just 60,000 barrels per day five years ago, the Bakken is now giving up 500,000 barrels per day with 210,000 barrels per day coming in just the past year.
However, as great as the Bakken is there is another oil shale play called the Bazhenov which is significant. The Bazhenov is in Western Siberia and while the Bakken is big, the Bazhenov covers 2.3 million square kilometers or 570 million acres which is the size of Texas and the Gulf of Mexico combined-80 times bigger than the Bakken.
Getting access to the Bazhenov is the focus of a new joint venture by both Exxon Mobil and Statoil with the Russian Federation’s Rosneft to jointly develop light oil production techniques in Western Siberia. The exploration work will take years to establish if the reserves are commercially viable. According to analysts, it won’t be hard for companies like Exxon and Statoil to export their shale fracking techniques to Siberia if Russia is able to deploy 30 drilling rigs to the area and then the Bazhenov could be producing one million barrels per day by 2020. The Russian Federation already produces about 10 million barrels of oil per day, putting it about a million barrels a day ahead of Saudi Arabia, the largest producer in the Middle East. Given the fact that Putin recently announced tax incentives for exploration of shale oil in Western Siberia and is forecasting production of 2 million barrels per day by 2020, the potential for profit from Russia’s shale gas boom is enormous. This is quite evident now that Russian oil companies such as Gazprom Neft, Rosneft and Lukoil have teamed up with such international players like Exxon Mobil, Total, Statoil and Royal Dutch Shell to share costs and obtain the technology needed to explore for unconventional oil.
Lukoil’s Andrei Kuzyaev estimated that the cost of one horizontal well in Russia is $15-20 million compared to around $3.5 million in the United States-a figure which dropped from around $8million recently due to the highly competitive environment among drilling companies. Consequently, while Alexander Dyukov, CEO of Gazprom Neft, Russia’s fourth largest oil producer, acknowledged that Moscow is 5-7 years behind the United States in terms of technology needed to drill for unconventional oil, the gap is narrowing and with the help of their technology partners, Russian oil companies will eventually achieve the requisite knowledge.
The United States Energy Information Administration estimates that Russian recoverable shale oil reserves at 75 billion barrels, more than the 58 billion barrels held by the United States which is now the leader in shale oil production. Furthermore, Dyukov told reporters that Russia may look to domestic suppliers or those in Asia for drilling rigs which may allow the pumping of another 1 million barrels per day by 2020-2022 from the Bazhenov formation alone. To extract these volumes, Russia needs an additional 250-300 heavy drilling rigs, either domestic or Asian, most notably Chinese drilling rigs to facilitate Russia’s shale gas revolution.
However, Russia’s shale gas revolution could be hampered by Western sanctions which are limited for now, but already preventing some companies from making new investments in Russia which needs advanced technology to explore for unconventional oil. In fact, the United States and the European Union could ban exports of modern technology and application for use in the Russian oil sector which would affect further oil production. While this measure is only a possible option, according to a recent statement by Alfa Bank, it could affect primarily Artic shelf projects as well as hard to recover oil projects where foreign technology is required the most.
An interesting point to note is that despite the push by Western governments to isolate Moscow because of the situation in Ukraine, energy giants are deepening their relationships with Russian oil and gas companies by investing more money into the country. Exxon Mobil’s Exploration Chief, Neil Duffin, recently signed an agreement with Igor Sechin, head of Rosneft, to expand its joint ventures to drill offshore in the Artic Ocean, to explore for shale oil in Siberia and to cooperate on a liquefied natural gas plant in Vladivostok. This deal came just weeks after the United States imposed sanctions on the personal dealings, though not the corporate activities, of Sechin who is a longtime aide to President Vladimir Putin. Along with Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum and Total of France also signed contracts at the recent Russian business forum in St. Petersburg to explore for shale oil. Furthermore, Exxon Mobil plans to drill its first exploratory well offshore in the Russian sector of the Artic Ocean this summer. Statoil of Norway is in talks for another shale joint venture, Shell’s CEO, Ben van Beurden, met with Putin in April and said to him, “Now is the time to expand”, referring to a liquefied natural gas plant project.
It is acknowledged by many CEO’s who represent global oil and gas companies that they are taking a calculated risk, given the threat of further sanctions, but they also want to protect their long-term interests in Russia, the world’s largest energy exporting nation. According to David Goldwyn, who served as the State Department’s special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs during President Obama’s firs term, “They are likely to continue to engage until there is a clear policy signal that they should stop. It is not rational to think they would act in any other way. If the government wants them to stop, it needs to say louder that they should stop.”
So far, the United States and the European Union have imposed only limited sanctions aimed at individual Russians and a handful of companies. The existing sanctions don’t explicitly bar the energy giants from operating in Russia. Though President Barack Obama authorized an executive order on March 20th, 2014 that could outlaw such deals, it has not yet been put into effect by the Treasury Department.
The risk for energy companies is that the next stage of sanctions will be broader, cutting off dealings with major sectors of the economy like finance, metals and energy. The United States and its allies proposed these kinds of sanctions at a Group of Sevens summit to be carried out if the violence in Ukraine did not subside (one month time frame).
The energy companies are walking a fine geopolitical line and are betting that the Russian oil and gas industry won’t be hit by direct sanctions. The energy industry provides financing for the Russian government and its military, making sanctions a threat to action in Ukraine, but the United States and Europe should tread cautiously given the industry’s strong role in affecting world markets. In short, most analysts and corporate CEO’s believe that Russian energy companies like Rosneft are too big to punish.
With Russian-West tensions at an all-time high, Moscow has started to look closer to home for partnerships and recently secured a 400 billion contract to supply natural gas to China. Furthermore, Gennady Timchenko, President Vladimir Putin’s key person for developing ties with China, stated publically that Russia could also import technology from China that would be very beneficial to Russia’s oil and gas industry.
Over the course of 30 years, the 400 million deal will involve piping natural gas from Russia’s Far East to China starting in 2018. There was initial skepticism that the deal would come to fruition because for almost two decades China and Russia slowly moved along the path of energy politics, attempting to carve out their respective roles. Russia wants to sell, the “voracious” Chinese market needs to be satisfied as millions of Chinese are moved out of poverty and into the middle class. Between 2006-2013 Chinese gas demand tripled from 56 billion cubic meters to 169 billion cubic meters, China is set to receive 38 billion cubic meters of gas under the deal over a 30 year arrangement starting in 2018. Such a deal reflects Putin’s assessment that “our Chinese friends drive a hard bargain” but “we managed to settle on contract terms that are not just acceptable conditions, but actually satisfy both sides.” All I will say to Putin is be careful that the Chinese do not try and re-negotiate the deal at a later point in time.
According to analysts, the Chinese-Russian 400 billion energy deal has made it imperative for European countries to diversify their gas imports away from Russia. Gazprom has kept an eye on Europe in terms of their desire to find other markets and the Chinese arrangement in that sense works out perfectly as it provides Russia’s energy industry an outlet to sidestep any kind of dependency and offers options for developing the Russian Far East which is a much neglected part of the Russian Federation. A huge investment will be required, but it is a gamble Putin is willing to take. From the Chinese perspective, natural gas is seen as vital to curbing China’s pollution problem which has caused many affluent Chinese to leave the country and settle elsewhere. This issue will continue to be on the reform agenda for some time given that Premier Li Keqiang has called for a “war on pollution.”
The other side of the deal is what it will do to other exporters. The United States is pertinent in this regard. The shale gas revolution not only weaned the United States off of any pending sense of energy dependence, but allowed the United States to turn its eye towards becoming a key supplier of natural gas to the East Asian region and Europe. In fact, in 2012 Barack Obama claimed that the United States was becoming “the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.”
The Russian-Chinese energy pact is Moscow’s statement to Washington that it too has an interest in the Far East and Asian markets. Some analysts allege and try to identify a Cold War Mentality in the deal, indicating the pedigree of Gazprom’s managers and the alleged shadow of the KGB. They allege that the “New Cold War is in part a struggle for market share.” Russia is building its clout as an energy supplier while diversifying its customer base.
While the Obama administration has tried to curb Chinese ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region with its statement of a “pivot” to the region, the Russians are exerting a tremendous amount of patience and resourcefulness in an effort to forge alliances and potential new energy markets. It can be inferred that other deals are bound to follow in an effort to exert energy independence and identify new sources of energy markets with countries such as India, Japan and South Korea, Furthermore, the 400 billion deal between China and Russia to supply 38bcm of natural gas a year has been widely interpreted as setting a new bench mark for what the Asian market can pay for gas. While the price was not disclosed, sources have put the price around $10 per million British thermal units which is close to what Russia receives for supplies sent to Europe. An improving Russian economy will allow its limitless resources to enable the country to emerge as a major gas supplier to the Asia Pacific as well.
Finally, some Russian analysts have criticized the China-Russia deal believing that the deal was rushed through to neutralize worries of political isolation and to convey the impression that Russia can easily switch sales to the East. Mr. Putin’s arch critic Boris Nemtsov said that the terms, to the extent that they are known, amount to “total loss and robbery” leaving Russia to foot the bill for $55 billion of investment needed to find the gas and build the pipeline infrastructure.
It will be 4-6 years before any gas is shipped to China. The Kremlin said that China may advance up to 25 billion to help defray the costs, but has conceded that this is not a fixed obligation, a point that has been widely discussed on Russian blogs, The haggling on terms has been contentious because, according to Putin, “Our Chinese friends are difficult, hard negotiators.”
In the Russian Federation, people have been funneling their money into usable assets like fridges, computers or cars. This effect has kept the country afloat for now and should prevent contradiction of GDP this year. The IMF expects growth in Russia to be .2pc this year, but figures could be worse if major sanctions go into effect. Therefore, Russia’s shale gas revolution presents many opportunities and challenges for the nation as it seeks to expand its role as a global energy superpower and create viable economic and political relationships.
However, as great as the Bakken is there is another oil shale play called the Bazhenov which is significant. The Bazhenov is in Western Siberia and while the Bakken is big, the Bazhenov covers 2.3 million square kilometers or 570 million acres which is the size of Texas and the Gulf of Mexico combined-80 times bigger than the Bakken.
Getting access to the Bazhenov is the focus of a new joint venture by both Exxon Mobil and Statoil with the Russian Federation’s Rosneft to jointly develop light oil production techniques in Western Siberia. The exploration work will take years to establish if the reserves are commercially viable. According to analysts, it won’t be hard for companies like Exxon and Statoil to export their shale fracking techniques to Siberia if Russia is able to deploy 30 drilling rigs to the area and then the Bazhenov could be producing one million barrels per day by 2020. The Russian Federation already produces about 10 million barrels of oil per day, putting it about a million barrels a day ahead of Saudi Arabia, the largest producer in the Middle East. Given the fact that Putin recently announced tax incentives for exploration of shale oil in Western Siberia and is forecasting production of 2 million barrels per day by 2020, the potential for profit from Russia’s shale gas boom is enormous. This is quite evident now that Russian oil companies such as Gazprom Neft, Rosneft and Lukoil have teamed up with such international players like Exxon Mobil, Total, Statoil and Royal Dutch Shell to share costs and obtain the technology needed to explore for unconventional oil.
Lukoil’s Andrei Kuzyaev estimated that the cost of one horizontal well in Russia is $15-20 million compared to around $3.5 million in the United States-a figure which dropped from around $8million recently due to the highly competitive environment among drilling companies. Consequently, while Alexander Dyukov, CEO of Gazprom Neft, Russia’s fourth largest oil producer, acknowledged that Moscow is 5-7 years behind the United States in terms of technology needed to drill for unconventional oil, the gap is narrowing and with the help of their technology partners, Russian oil companies will eventually achieve the requisite knowledge.
The United States Energy Information Administration estimates that Russian recoverable shale oil reserves at 75 billion barrels, more than the 58 billion barrels held by the United States which is now the leader in shale oil production. Furthermore, Dyukov told reporters that Russia may look to domestic suppliers or those in Asia for drilling rigs which may allow the pumping of another 1 million barrels per day by 2020-2022 from the Bazhenov formation alone. To extract these volumes, Russia needs an additional 250-300 heavy drilling rigs, either domestic or Asian, most notably Chinese drilling rigs to facilitate Russia’s shale gas revolution.
However, Russia’s shale gas revolution could be hampered by Western sanctions which are limited for now, but already preventing some companies from making new investments in Russia which needs advanced technology to explore for unconventional oil. In fact, the United States and the European Union could ban exports of modern technology and application for use in the Russian oil sector which would affect further oil production. While this measure is only a possible option, according to a recent statement by Alfa Bank, it could affect primarily Artic shelf projects as well as hard to recover oil projects where foreign technology is required the most.
An interesting point to note is that despite the push by Western governments to isolate Moscow because of the situation in Ukraine, energy giants are deepening their relationships with Russian oil and gas companies by investing more money into the country. Exxon Mobil’s Exploration Chief, Neil Duffin, recently signed an agreement with Igor Sechin, head of Rosneft, to expand its joint ventures to drill offshore in the Artic Ocean, to explore for shale oil in Siberia and to cooperate on a liquefied natural gas plant in Vladivostok. This deal came just weeks after the United States imposed sanctions on the personal dealings, though not the corporate activities, of Sechin who is a longtime aide to President Vladimir Putin. Along with Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum and Total of France also signed contracts at the recent Russian business forum in St. Petersburg to explore for shale oil. Furthermore, Exxon Mobil plans to drill its first exploratory well offshore in the Russian sector of the Artic Ocean this summer. Statoil of Norway is in talks for another shale joint venture, Shell’s CEO, Ben van Beurden, met with Putin in April and said to him, “Now is the time to expand”, referring to a liquefied natural gas plant project.
It is acknowledged by many CEO’s who represent global oil and gas companies that they are taking a calculated risk, given the threat of further sanctions, but they also want to protect their long-term interests in Russia, the world’s largest energy exporting nation. According to David Goldwyn, who served as the State Department’s special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs during President Obama’s firs term, “They are likely to continue to engage until there is a clear policy signal that they should stop. It is not rational to think they would act in any other way. If the government wants them to stop, it needs to say louder that they should stop.”
So far, the United States and the European Union have imposed only limited sanctions aimed at individual Russians and a handful of companies. The existing sanctions don’t explicitly bar the energy giants from operating in Russia. Though President Barack Obama authorized an executive order on March 20th, 2014 that could outlaw such deals, it has not yet been put into effect by the Treasury Department.
The risk for energy companies is that the next stage of sanctions will be broader, cutting off dealings with major sectors of the economy like finance, metals and energy. The United States and its allies proposed these kinds of sanctions at a Group of Sevens summit to be carried out if the violence in Ukraine did not subside (one month time frame).
The energy companies are walking a fine geopolitical line and are betting that the Russian oil and gas industry won’t be hit by direct sanctions. The energy industry provides financing for the Russian government and its military, making sanctions a threat to action in Ukraine, but the United States and Europe should tread cautiously given the industry’s strong role in affecting world markets. In short, most analysts and corporate CEO’s believe that Russian energy companies like Rosneft are too big to punish.
With Russian-West tensions at an all-time high, Moscow has started to look closer to home for partnerships and recently secured a 400 billion contract to supply natural gas to China. Furthermore, Gennady Timchenko, President Vladimir Putin’s key person for developing ties with China, stated publically that Russia could also import technology from China that would be very beneficial to Russia’s oil and gas industry.
Over the course of 30 years, the 400 million deal will involve piping natural gas from Russia’s Far East to China starting in 2018. There was initial skepticism that the deal would come to fruition because for almost two decades China and Russia slowly moved along the path of energy politics, attempting to carve out their respective roles. Russia wants to sell, the “voracious” Chinese market needs to be satisfied as millions of Chinese are moved out of poverty and into the middle class. Between 2006-2013 Chinese gas demand tripled from 56 billion cubic meters to 169 billion cubic meters, China is set to receive 38 billion cubic meters of gas under the deal over a 30 year arrangement starting in 2018. Such a deal reflects Putin’s assessment that “our Chinese friends drive a hard bargain” but “we managed to settle on contract terms that are not just acceptable conditions, but actually satisfy both sides.” All I will say to Putin is be careful that the Chinese do not try and re-negotiate the deal at a later point in time.
According to analysts, the Chinese-Russian 400 billion energy deal has made it imperative for European countries to diversify their gas imports away from Russia. Gazprom has kept an eye on Europe in terms of their desire to find other markets and the Chinese arrangement in that sense works out perfectly as it provides Russia’s energy industry an outlet to sidestep any kind of dependency and offers options for developing the Russian Far East which is a much neglected part of the Russian Federation. A huge investment will be required, but it is a gamble Putin is willing to take. From the Chinese perspective, natural gas is seen as vital to curbing China’s pollution problem which has caused many affluent Chinese to leave the country and settle elsewhere. This issue will continue to be on the reform agenda for some time given that Premier Li Keqiang has called for a “war on pollution.”
The other side of the deal is what it will do to other exporters. The United States is pertinent in this regard. The shale gas revolution not only weaned the United States off of any pending sense of energy dependence, but allowed the United States to turn its eye towards becoming a key supplier of natural gas to the East Asian region and Europe. In fact, in 2012 Barack Obama claimed that the United States was becoming “the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.”
The Russian-Chinese energy pact is Moscow’s statement to Washington that it too has an interest in the Far East and Asian markets. Some analysts allege and try to identify a Cold War Mentality in the deal, indicating the pedigree of Gazprom’s managers and the alleged shadow of the KGB. They allege that the “New Cold War is in part a struggle for market share.” Russia is building its clout as an energy supplier while diversifying its customer base.
While the Obama administration has tried to curb Chinese ambitions in the Asia-Pacific region with its statement of a “pivot” to the region, the Russians are exerting a tremendous amount of patience and resourcefulness in an effort to forge alliances and potential new energy markets. It can be inferred that other deals are bound to follow in an effort to exert energy independence and identify new sources of energy markets with countries such as India, Japan and South Korea, Furthermore, the 400 billion deal between China and Russia to supply 38bcm of natural gas a year has been widely interpreted as setting a new bench mark for what the Asian market can pay for gas. While the price was not disclosed, sources have put the price around $10 per million British thermal units which is close to what Russia receives for supplies sent to Europe. An improving Russian economy will allow its limitless resources to enable the country to emerge as a major gas supplier to the Asia Pacific as well.
Finally, some Russian analysts have criticized the China-Russia deal believing that the deal was rushed through to neutralize worries of political isolation and to convey the impression that Russia can easily switch sales to the East. Mr. Putin’s arch critic Boris Nemtsov said that the terms, to the extent that they are known, amount to “total loss and robbery” leaving Russia to foot the bill for $55 billion of investment needed to find the gas and build the pipeline infrastructure.
It will be 4-6 years before any gas is shipped to China. The Kremlin said that China may advance up to 25 billion to help defray the costs, but has conceded that this is not a fixed obligation, a point that has been widely discussed on Russian blogs, The haggling on terms has been contentious because, according to Putin, “Our Chinese friends are difficult, hard negotiators.”
In the Russian Federation, people have been funneling their money into usable assets like fridges, computers or cars. This effect has kept the country afloat for now and should prevent contradiction of GDP this year. The IMF expects growth in Russia to be .2pc this year, but figures could be worse if major sanctions go into effect. Therefore, Russia’s shale gas revolution presents many opportunities and challenges for the nation as it seeks to expand its role as a global energy superpower and create viable economic and political relationships.
US Agricultural Technologies and its Benefits for Uzbek Farmers (June 6th, 2014)
Agriculture has been a vital source of wealth for Uzbekistan for centuries. The country of nearly 30 million people is situated between two major rivers, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, making the land between them fertile for agriculture. Since Uzbekistan’s independence in 1991, the country has relied on agriculture to meet nutritional and income generation needs of its people, and nearly one third of Uzbeks are employed in the agricultural sector in some capacity. The industry contributes to about 70% of internal trade in Uzbekistan and 20-30% of GDP.
Wheat and cotton are two of the most widely planted crops in Uzbekistan, both of which rely on irrigated land to grow successfully. The most common irrigation system in Uzbekistan is the furrow and flood method, which is highly water intensive. Unfortunately, this use of water is causing a deficit in the Aral Sea and the major rivers flowing from it, the Amy Darya and the Syr Darya. Insufficient water flows to the deltas of these rivers causes nutrient depletion in soils, soil salinization, loss of agricultural land and poor water quality. All of these problems caused by excessive water use will have a negative effect on the livelihoods of those living in rural communities, lead to environmental degradation, and undermine Uzbekistan’s agricultural industry-and thereby the country’s economy-in the long-term.
Fortunately, US agricultural technology engineers developed more efficient irrigation systems for American farmers who were facing similar problems. Farmers in the United States used contour furrowing from the 1930s until the 1970s as the primary system of irrigation. A study found, however, that contour furrowing and similar systems were not always beneficial to crop growth, especially in arid climates. By 1978, 35% of farms had introduced sprinkler irrigation systems, which needed less water than the traditional furrow irrigation systems that had been used for decades. Like the American Southwest, Uzbekistan has an arid climate, and can benefit from adopting sprinkler irrigation technologies which were found to be better suited to arid climates and to use less water than furrow and flood methods.
Since 1978, engineers in the United States have developed even more advanced irrigation methods that lead to higher crop yields and use even less water than do sprinkler systems. Drip and subsurface irrigation systems, in addition to sprinkler systems, all lead to higher crop yields than does the traditional furrow method. In addition, these newer systems are more efficient because they apply water to only a precise area surrounding the plant root, thereby conserving water. Micro sprinklers were found to operate at 95% efficiency, compared to the 60% efficiency of furrow and flood irrigation.
Although U.S. high efficiency systems were developed for large-scale farms, development organizations have been reinventing this technology to make it suitable and economically accessible for smallholding farmers in developing countries. For example, a drip irrigation kit of a style from the 1990s was available to farmers in India for approximately $32. New and improved models are even cheaper, at $14.5 per unit. The net return after installation of the newer drip system was $32, amortizing the investment in just one harvest.
In addition to transitioning to more efficient irrigation systems, water management and delivery systems can be improved to reduce water usage. The United States is moving toward small-scale, localized water facilities from large, central facilities that are expensive and often fail to accurately estimate future needs. This decentralized approach in combinations with more efficient irrigation systems previously discussed will allow farmers to produce higher yield crops using less water.
The establishment of bio-energy crops in marginal or degraded land may offer enhanced environmental benefits for countries such as Uzbekistan, including protection from soil erosion and nutrient leaching and improvement of soil properties. Of particular interest is the use of bio-energy crops as a vegetative filter to purify wastewater effluents applied to the soil. This practice is known as land treatment systems (LTS) or slow rate systems (RSRS) and meets both environmental and renewable bio-energy goals in the United States. Effluent can supply bio-energy crops with considerable amounts of water and nutrients which stimulate plant growth and yield. In addition, effluent application can reduce the competition between bio-energy crops and traditional crops with respect to the use of fresh water and it can also decrease production costs due to substitution of water and fertilizers. The effects of plan species such as castor bean v. sunflower and irrigation on soil properties and on seed and biodiesel yield were studied in a 3 year trial in the United States. As castor bean achieved greater seed yield that sunflower, the findings of the study suggested that wastewater effluent can constitute an important source of irrigation, water and nutrients for bio-energy crop cultivation with very minor adverse impacts on soil properties and seed yield.
Ethanol is another kind of technology that provides a vital value added market for corn and other commodities in rural America. Demand created by ethanol production increases the price a farmer receives for grain. Because growers are getting more output per acre than ever before, less land is needed to satisfy demand for food, feed and fuel. One third of every bushel of grain processed into ethanol is enhanced and returned to the animal feed market in the form of distillers grains, corn gluten feed or corn gluten meal. Ethanol production does not reduce the amount of food available for human consumption. An increasing amount of ethanol is produced from non-traditional feed stocks such as waster products from the beverage, food and forestry industries. In the very near future, expect to see ethanol produced from agricultural residues such as rice, straw, sugar cane bagasse and corn stover, municipal solid waste and energy crops such as switch grass. Finally, by increasing the demand for corn and raising corn prices, ethanol has helped to lower federal farm program costs in the United States.
Another new technology to consider involves bio-solids. Bio-solids are nutrient rich organic materials resulting from the treatment of sewage sludge which is the name for solid, semi-solid or liquid untreated residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment facility. When treated and processed, sewage sludge becomes bio-solids which can be safely recycled and applied as fertilizer to sustainably improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth. In the United States, only bio-solids that meet the most stringent standards spelled out in the Federal and State rules can be approved for use as a fertilizer. Today in the United States, because, of improved wastewater treatment, our waterways have been cleaned up and made safer for recreation and seafood harvest.
Lime effectively treats sewage bio-solids as well as industrial sludges and petroleum wastes. Treatment of biological wastes with lime is based on several chemical reactions. Calcium hydroxide is an alkaline component that can create PH levels as high as 12.4. At PH levels greater than 12 and increased temperatures, cell membranes of harmful pathogens are destroyed. The high PH also provides a vector attraction barrier preventing flies and other insects from infecting treated biological waste. Because lime has low solubility in water, lime molecules persist in bio-solids to prevent re-growth of pathogens. When quick lime is used with water, an exothermic reaction occurs. As heat is released, the temperature of the biological waste can increase to 70 degrees Celsius which provides effective pasteurization. The high PH also will precipitate most metals present in the waste and reduce solubility and mobility. Lime will also react with phosphorus compounds to prevent eutrophication. In general, lime stabilization is a non-proprietary process although patented processes are available.
This leads to my final point that there must be strong emphasis placed on protection of intellectual property regarding agricultural technologies to ensure that companies who wish to share their technology with Uzbek companies feel confident that their technology will not be reverse engineered in the mistaken belief that what is being done is innovation. I was pleased at the response that I received from Director Salikhov, during my meeting at the Ministry of Agriculture, as he and the Government of Uzbekistan appear to recognize the importance of this issue which is key to promoting successful business partnerships between Uzbek and American companies in promoting innovative technologies in the fields of agriculture.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)