Category: Uncategorized

Energy Recovery, a provider of pressure energy technology for industrial fluid flows, has secured a total award of $1.4m for the supply of its turbocharger technology for desalination projects in Saudi Arabia.

The company will ship these orders in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Energy Recovery will deliver its LPT & AT Turbocharger devices for the Saudi plants. These facilities will daily generate a total of up to 64,000m3 of water.

According to Energy Recovery, the turbocharger devices will cut down the plants’ power consumption for all projects by 2.3MW, which will inturn annually save more than 20.1 GWh of energy and annually reduce over 12,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions.

Energy Recovery president and CEO Joel Gay said: “These orders further solidify our position as a market leader in the Middle East desalination market, more specifically in Saudi Arabia, and confirm that we provide unparalleled quality beyond our flagship PX technology and into our centrifugal and turbocharger product lines.

“We have recently introduced an enhanced AT Turbocharger design with increased resiliency which should further reduce failures, thereby helping plants minimize costs. We remain laser-focused on providing best-in-class products across the spectrum of our technology to desalination customers seeking optimized plant savings and efficient operations.”

Based in California, Energy Recovery also has offices in Shanghai, and Dubai. Its solutions recycle and convert wasted pressure energy into a usable asset.

This article originally appeared on Water Technology website.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County in the US have inaugurated a water recycling programme.

By helping refill groundwater basins across Southern California, the programme is expected to provide water to several homes in the country.

The agencies broke ground on a 500,000-gallon-per-day, $17m demonstration advanced purification facility that would generate information needed for the potential future construction of a full-scale recycled water plant.

The facility is set to cost about $2.7bn to build and $129m to operate annually.

At present, the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant of the Sanitation Districts in Carson treats and cleans wastewater discharged from homes and businesses.

As part of the new water programme, Metropolitan will use various advanced processes to purify treated wastewater and produce a quality water source that is expected to help replenish groundwater basins in Los Angeles and Orange counties.

Sanitation Districts chief engineer and general manager Grace Hyde said: “Now, we’re thrilled about the possibility of cost-effectively recycling the water at our last untapped source, which would let us play a bigger role in helping the region’s communities reliably meet their future water needs.”

Operating for at least one year, the demonstration facility will produce data for a potential full-scale plant and will help refine the treatment process.

The programme is expected to produce up to 150 million gallons of purified water per day.

This article originally appeared on Water Technology website.

Westwood Global Energy Group, energy market research consultancy, has published a new market outlook for the U.S. drilling and completion market for the period from 2018 to 2022.

The report is the result of a collaboration between Westwood’s expert oilfield services team and its most recent acquisition, U.S. energy market research company, Energent. Using Energent’s multi-million-well U.S. onshore database, the report details activity and associated expenditure forecasts for six unconventional oil and gas play: DJ-Niobrara, Eagle Ford, Haynesville, MidCon, Permian, and Williston.

The report presents a detailed outlook for expected expenditure 2018-2022 across 17 key service and equipment lines such as tubing & casing, frac sand, and pressure pumping. Importantly for oilfield services companies, it sees future expenditure weighted heavily towards equipment and services at the complete end of the market. For instance, in the DJ-Niobrara the average lateral length has increased 31% to 8,114 ft from 2014 to 2017. Meanwhile, completion expenditure will account for 64% of overall Permian spending in 2017, up from 42% in 2014.

All figures are based on an assessment of future oil prices that sees a gradual upwards increase within the $50-60/bbl range through to the end of the decade, before climbing to $68/bbl in 2022.

The report acknowledges that the market saw a particularly challenging period between 2014 and 2016 with a 79% fall in drilling expenditure over the same period.

Looking forward, it projects a significant and strong period of growth and expenditure for the U.S. onshore market between 2018-2022. Over the period, it expects a 9% annual growth rate in rig counts. And, of a total predicted expenditure of $554 billion, the report expects 66% of it to be spent on completions (53% in 2014) and 34% on drilling (47% in 2014).

Of the basics covered, it expects the Permian (in Western Texas and South East New Mexico) to account for 42% of total forecast drilling and completions spend.

Steve Robertson, head of oilfield services research at Westwood Global Energy Group comments, “It’s time to re-think how we measure OFS industry activity in North America. This report shows that the rig count is becoming less relevant and where we should focus our attention is well completions.”

This article originally appeared on Oil and Gas People website.

A very different approach is emerging between Australia and China’s treatment of jobs and industries providing goods and services for environmental protection.

In Australia, major investors are reported to be planning for the impact if the Coalition wins power, axes the carbon price and dismantles the clean energy finance system. They expect private funding would be directed away from large-scale renewable power – starving the sector of capital – due to regulatory uncertainty and a lack of solid returns.

In stark contrast, China recently announced it will elevate environmental protection to a “pillar industry” that would receive government support in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to tackle dire pollution. There are staggering amounts of money involved.

China has vowed to raise the total output of environmental protection industries to 4.5 trillion yuan (US$730 billion) by 2015, an average annual increase of 15%. To put that in some sort of perspective, that is equivalent to nearly 9% of China’s GDP in 2012. It is equivalent to nearly 50% of Australia’s GDP in 2012.

On improving air quality alone, China says it will spend US$275 billion over the next five years. That’s roughly twice the size of its annual defense budget. The Economist points out that even by Chinese standards this is an enormous sum.

A missing pillar in election policies

Coincidentally, economic pillars are the “it” metaphor in Australian politics. In this election both the Coalition and Labor have built their economic policies around pillars. The Coalition has five and the Labor Party has seven.

As the Coalition looks likely to form the next government, let’s concentrate on the five economic pillars in its policy platform. They are manufacturing, advanced services, agriculture exports, education and research, and mining.

You won’t find any direct reference to the environmental protection industry in the economic pillars of the Coalition policy.

It might be hiding in “advanced services” but the Coalition’s policy does not mention it. Advanced services is referred to as a “highly diversified sector” and particular mention is made of financial services, health services, engineering and architectural services.

The 19th of 21 policy themes in the Coalition’s policies is “delivering a cleaner and more sustainable environment”. This emphasizes the benefits of direct action on climate change rather than the carbon tax, a Green Army, and creating a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals.

Strewn throughout the Coalition’s policies are calls to reduce regulation and constraints on business, particularly the carbon tax and the mining tax.

Overall, the clear impression is that the Coalition views environmental protection as a constraint on an industry that should be minimised – like trips to the dentist – rather than a business opportunity in its own right.

A pillar or the whole foundation?

Thinking of environmental protection as an industry in its own right is innovative but perhaps it misses the bigger point that the whole economy depends upon it.

As the late US senator, Gaylord Nelson famously said, “The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.”

 

Rather than think of environmental protection as an industry competing with other industry sectors and other social goals, we should think of it as the foundation of all of our economic and social goals.

When speaking as a teacher to classes on environmental law, a metaphor that I like to use is of a tree where social and economic goals like jobs and housing are the fruit we aim for and education, good governance and justice, and a healthy environment are the roots that sustain the tree.

 

When we think of environmental protection as the foundation or root sustaining social and economic goals such as jobs, housing, peace and security, and public health, we avoid the common and arid dichotomy of jobs versus the environment.

Still, the Chinese approach of recognizing environmental protection as an industry has the benefit of saying clearly that there are jobs in it. Can we learn from that? Can we make the environmental protection industry a major job creator and export earner?

The easiest way for the Coalition to incorporate this approach within its existing policy framework would be for it to expressly recognize Australia’s environmental protection industry within its economic pillar of “advanced services”.

An incoming Coalition government could promote trade with China in the environmental protection industry to build Australia’s exports into the massive business opportunity that China’s new policy represents.

Linking “environmental protection” and “industry” is an idea that is likely to win support across the political spectrum.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation website. By Chris McGrath

This week I saw a continuation of a couple of trends: courting investor interest and retailer/manufacturer sustainability initiatives.

Of course, retailers and manufacturers are always trumpeting their sustainability initiatives, especially because Millennials – the largest generation in US history and one whose buying power will soon surpass that of the generations before them – are particularly responsive to products that tell an environmentally-friendly story, and are willing to pay more for them. But this week, it struck me as particularly interesting, with two major -and competing – retailers coming out with big sustainability initiatives: Walmart is working with suppliers to move perishables through the supply chain more quickly, which will reduce spoilage and food waste while building trust with customers by ensuring better quality. And Target has vowed to source 100% sustainable cotton by 2020.

Others giants tooting their own sustainability horns this week included P&G, which announced a new product from its Beach Plastics program, and McCormick and Company, which announced its commitment to 100% sustainable sourcing of its spices and seasonings ingredients by 2025.

But another, perhaps more interesting, trend that has popped up several times in recent weeks is that of incorporating and exploring environmental risks and opportunities in order to attract investors. We’ve covered several reports on the topic in recent weeks (see here and here, for example) including two more this week.

The first, a report from S&P Global, found that nearly all (95%) of respondents plan to engage with companies they invest in about issues related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Investors say their assessment of a company’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) profiles have evolved from a simple measure of corporate responsibility to a key driver of an investor’s decision-making.

Another report, this one from CDP, found that as investors increasingly encourage companies to provide information on environmental risk, the number of companies that are doing so is rising. In fact, almost 1,400 major multinational companies are using some kind of carbon price assumption to inform business decisions based on climate risk, compared to just 150 companies in 2014. That’s an eight-fold leap in just four years, according to CDP’s new research.

What does this mean? Well, it sounds to me like investors are saying, “There’s a lot of risk coming from climate change and environmental issues, and you need to be prepared.” And consumer-facing companies are yawning and saying, “Yes, yes, we know, and here’s what we’re doing about it. For us, it’s business as usual.”

So keep up the great “business as usual” sustainability issues, keep those investors informed – and keep me in the loop. As always, I want to know everything you’re doing in the sustainability/environmental management world, how it’s working, what isn’t working, and how you’re overcoming your challenges. Can’t wait to hear from you.

In the meantime, have a great weekend.

This article originally appeared on Environmental Leader website. By Jennifer Hermes

The extreme weather events witnessed this summer in North America, in which Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria devastated areas of the Caribbean and Southeastern US in the span of just one month, are a clear indication that companies should take a closer look at climate change-related risk management – that is, reassessing their approach to managing climate change risks and their consequences.

Severe storms that once were considered 500-year events are now occurring more frequently and with more devastating effects. Before the first of this summer’s major hurricanes, Hurricane Harvey made landfall near Houston, Texas in August, the last major storm to strike the United States was Hurricane Wilma 12 years ago. The torrential rains produced by Hurricane Harvey, more than 40 inches in many areas over a 4-day period, resulted in catastrophic flooding and an associated price tag for rebuilding amounting to $100 billion by some estimates.

Companies in the path of these storms need to be prepared for interruptions of operations, disruptions to supply chains, extended power outages and damage to infrastructure to occur much more frequently. Those in the heavy manufacturing sectors, including chemical, petrochemical, and oil and production, also need to anticipate the increased potential for storm-related consequences that could impact ecosystems and communities surrounding these facilities, which would worsen the already devastating effects of these weather events.

Dimensions of Climate Change Risk Management

When thinking about climate change, companies typically face two dimensions of risk: Risk due to adaptation needs and risk due to mitigation policies. (See Figure 1) Risk due to adaptation needs refers to a company’s ability to withstand the effects of severe weather events, including their impact on facilities and assets, deterioration of materials and goods, etc. Risk due to mitigation policies refers to a company’s response to government policies that are intended to address climate change, including global agreements, federal and state regulations, and local ordinances. Companies with high adaptation risks and high mitigation risks are particularly exposed to climate change-related incidents and developments.

Most companies have developed systems and plans to address many climate change mitigation policy risks, particularly compliance with regulations and agreements, because company leaders see the value in reducing greenhouse gas emissions due to the associated cost-savings and reputational benefits. However, the same attention is rarely given to addressing adaptation risks.

This could possibly be because climate change adaptation risk management inherently involves anticipating risks that could occur in the long term, as opposed to the urgency associated with managing risks that could occur on any given day in a facility. Also, the analysis of the likelihood of incidents occurring or reoccurring, which is a critical exercise necessary to prioritize where to make investments to mitigate risk, often does not take into consideration changing weather patterns as an effect of climate change. Finally, certain adaptation risks are often downplayed or assessed based on old data that is not consistently updated.

Despite these justifications, the potentially catastrophic consequences of an extreme weather event (including the potential loss of life) should by themselves justify adequate planning and investment to mitigate the impacts that could result to a company’s facilities and operations.

Mitigation Efforts

 

Recognizing potential risks requires an understanding of how they impact assets and operations. This risk determination provides a fundamental basis to differentiate potential risks by level of severity and by likelihood of occurrence, and then allocate resources accordingly based on these two factors. If the risk is higher, then there is an obvious need to have more layers of protection and detailed plans in place with the corresponding allocation of time, money and resources. Once a system of controls is developed and in place, risks should be continually reassessed based on updated data and changing perceptions.

But sustaining these climate change risk mitigation systems across a company is no easy task. Companies need to adopt an integrated approach (see Figure 3) to their business processes to effectively and efficiently implement these risk mitigation activities on a consistent basis. An integrated approach links critical elements, including:

• Process management (establishing the right strategy, governance, and key performance indicators, developing an organizational structure to support processes, and monitoring performance to be more resilient to climate change developments);
• The technical model (the specific tools and procedures to better understand, review and update climate change-related risks to the company);
• A capabilities engine (the training and coaching necessary to provide employees the right skills and collaborative mindset to implement the best solutions);
  Mindsets and behaviors (motivating employees, changing behaviors and encouraging individual ownership of results through the active participation of corporate leadership, from C-suite executives to the critical level of first-line management, to reduce climate change-related impacts).

Like it or not, climate change is emerging as a risk that corporate leaders would be wise to take seriously. As we have seen, policies relating to climate change are not necessarily fixed in stone and can vary as politicians come and go, which makes it even more important for companies to assess and re-evaluate their response to these policies. And as significant weather events occur more frequently and with more severity, companies face an increased likelihood of disruptions to their operations. Those organizations that make climate change risk management a priority will be more resilient and better able to withstand its effects.

Michele Villa is Director, Global Practices Leader and Australia & New Zealand Regional Leader for DuPont Sustainable Solutions. DuPont Sustainable Solutions is a leading provider of world-class operations consulting services to help organizations transform and optimize their processes, technologies, and capabilities. DuPont Sustainable Solutions is committed to improving the safety, productivity and environmental sustainability or organizations around the world. Learn more about DuPont Sustainable Solutions at www.sustainablesolutions.dupont.com.

This article originally appeared on Environmental Leader website. By Michele Villa, Director, and Global Practices Leader, DuPont Sustainable Solutions