Factbox: China's energy intensity by province in 2009

July 15, 2010

Reuters

Following is a table showing the energy

intensity of China's provinces in 2009, in terms of energy consumption per unit

of GDP and per unit of industrial added value, and power consumption per unit of

GDP.

The figures were issued on Thursday by China's National Bureau of

Statistics. Percentage changes are comparisons with 2008.

The original table in Chinese is available at

here

Energy

Energy consumption/

consumption/ unit of industrial Power

unit of GDP added value consumption/

(Tonnes of (Tonnes of unit of GDP

standard coal Pct standard coal Pct (KWh/ Pct

/1,000 yuan) change /1,000 yuan) change 1,000 yuan) change

Beijing 0.0606 -5.76 0.0909 -12.30 68.185 -2.74

Tianjin 0.0836 -6.03 0.0911 -13.54 78.288 -8.49

Hebei 0.1640 -5.02 0.2999 -9.54 144.994 -2.52

Shanxi 0.2364 -5.73 0.4550 -8.81 192.193 -8.50

Inner Mongolia 0.2009 -6.91 0.3557 -15.10 168.672 -9.73

Liaoning 0.1439 -5.08 0.2257 -6.95 111.999 -6.82

Jilin 0.1209 -6.19 0.1621 -8.19 80.913 -8.64

Heilongjiang 0.1214 -5.85 0.1382 -9.64 79.867 -7.72

Shanghai 0.0727 -6.17 0.0957 -5.00 80.849 -6.39

Jiangsu 0.0761 -5.17 0.1107 -10.17 106.425 -5.50

Zhejiang 0.0741 -5.41 0.1123 -4.96 117.650 -2.33

Anhui 0.1017 -5.39 0.2100 -11.13 108.876 -1.83

Fujian 0.0811 -3.81 0.1150 -2.70 103.205 -5.87

Jiangxi 0.0880 -4.54 0.1674 -10.13 92.246 -1.52

Shandong 0.1072 -5.46 0.1543 -9.20 97.249 -3.86

Henan 0.1156 -6.16 0.2708 -11.56 121.836 -4.79

Hubei 0.1230 -5.97 0.2350 -12.27 101.845 -5.52

Hunan 0.1202 -5.10 0.1570 -13.68 91.100 -3.05

Guangdong 0.0684 -4.27 0.0809 -6.94 100.209 -6.13

Guangxi 0.1057 -4.43 0.2235 -6.68 127.987 -2.00

Hainan 0.0850 -2.81 0.2613 -4.53 92.289 -2.61

Chongqing 0.1181 -5.50 0.1854 -11.95 89.427 -4.69

Sichuan 0.1338 -5.83 0.2249 -9.18 108.591 -4.66

Guizhou 0.2348 -4.12 0.4320 -0.03 232.802 -0.83

Yunnan 0.1495 -4.60 0.2739 -3.78 159.110 -4.16

Shaanxi 0.1172 -4.56 0.1367 -5.82 107.851 -7.98

Gansu 0.1864 -6.97 0.3530 -12.84 239.881 -5.55

Qinghai 0.2689 -6.46 0.2936 -9.46 386.212 -2.24

Ningxia 0.3454 -6.26 0.6509 -8.71 472.074 -5.90

Xinjiang 0.1934 -1.53 0.3095 -1.72 140.820 5.73

(Editing by Chris Lewis)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E4XL20100715

Factbox: The costs of Afghan war to U.S. taxpayers

July 18, 2010

Reuters

Obama has asked for $33 billion more to help fund 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers being sent to Afghanistan this year. He wants $4.5 billion more for beefed-up foreign aid and civilian operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year; about $2 billion of that amount is dedicated to Afghanistan.

The House of Representatives approved the funding last month and added billions of dollars in non-military spending, meaning the measure must return to the Senate for final approval.

Lawmakers are expected to pass the funds, but are also demanding assurances that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai tackles corruption to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted.

Following are the costs to U.S. taxpayers so far, as well as some of the future funding needed.

COSTS SO FAR

Congress has approved $345 billion so far for the war in Afghanistan, which the United States invaded to fight al Qaeda and topple the Taliban after the September 11, 2001 attacks. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which produced the figure, said about $22 billion has gone for Afghan-war-related activities in other countries.

COMPARISON WITH IRAQ

Some $708 billion has gone to the Iraq war so far, CBO says. But Afghanistan is becoming the more expensive battleground, as the pace of U.S. military operations slows in Iraq and quickens in Afghanistan.

The current fiscal year, which ends September 30, is the first in which more money has been allocated to Afghanistan ($72.3 billion) than Iraq ($64.5 billion), according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan budget research group that examines congressional appropriations.

MONEY FOR AFGHANISTAN'S MILITARY AND POLICE FORCES

Included in the money spent on Afghanistan is more than $25 billion for training and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces -- the army and police, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Obama wants another $14.2 billion for this purpose for the rest of this year and next; the idea is to leave behind security forces that can take on the responsibility of fighting the Taliban as U.S. forces start to leave.

FUTURE MILITARY COSTS

Future expenses are a question mark, partly because troop levels are uncertain. Obama says he wants to start withdrawing forces from Afghanistan in mid-2011, but that will depend on conditions on the ground. No departure deadline has been set.

Estimates of the cost per troop per year in Afghanistan vary from $500,000 to $1 million depending on whether expenditures on housing and equipment are included along with pay, food and fuel. Medical costs and veterans' compensation balloon as time goes on.

FOREIGN AID AND CIVILIAN SURGE

Foreign aid, including food and development assistance, to Afghanistan has totaled some $17 billion since 2002, according to Department of State and Congressional Research Service documents.

Future expenses are unknown and there is growing concern among lawmakers over corruption in Karzai's government.

Rep. Nita Lowey, a Democrat who heads the House appropriations subcommittee on foreign aid, last month froze about $3.9 billion in civilian aid to Afghanistan pending hearings on how Afghanistan and its U.S. partners intend to handle corruption.

The State Department is seeking more money to help fund a "civilian stabilization strategy" to deliver more economic assistance to Afghanistan, especially its agricultural sector. Part of the idea is to create jobs that will draw insurgents off the battlefield in Afghanistan.

(By susan cornwellEditing by Alan Elsner)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66H17I20100718

Iran fuel imports nosedive as sanctions bite: source

July 26, 2010

Reuters

Only three cargoes of gasoline have so far reached Iran in July, according to a shipping document seen by Reuters, much less than the seasonal norm, as new sanctions cause ships carrying fuel to be diverted.

A series of new sanctions agreed since June specifically targets Iran's oil trade and industry, making it even harder to do business with the Islamic Republic. The EU adopted formally its latest measures on Monday.

Iran is the world's fifth largest crude exporter, but has to import around 40 percent of its gasoline needs because domestic refining capacity is inadequate.

Traditionally during the summer holiday driving season, Iran needs 11-13 cargoes a month, a Dubai-based trader told Reuters.

The document seen by Reuters showed only three cargoes of gasoline had arrived this month and were supplied by Turkish refiner Tupras and Unipec, the trading arm of China's Sinopec.

The companies were not immediately available to comment.

Another cargo is expected to arrive from Venezuela at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, two Gulf-based traders said.

They were not aware any other cargoes were heading to Iran.

"The new rounds of sanctions are making things hard right now, and many ships are being diverted, so Iran is only getting a fraction of its actual summer demand," said a trader.

Earlier this month the owner of a gasoline tanker refused to allow the vessel to sail to Iran from Turkey.

"Owners of ships are really worried right now about sending shipments toIran and that's why Iran is looking for alternative companies and countries to import from," said a Gulf-based trader.

As the pressure has mounted on Iran, the insurance market Lloyd's of London said it would not insure or reinsure petroleum shipments going into Iran.

Lloyd's, which has 15 to 20 percent of the global marine insurance sector, is seen as a major influence on other insurance markets with more players pulling back from offering cover to Iran.

Major shipping associations have also created clauses in contracts that enable ship owners to refuse to deliver refined petroleum cargoes to Iran.

ADAPTING TO CHANGE

Industry sources and analysts have anticipated some of Iran's traditional suppliers, such as China and Turkey, would stay loyal.

Venezuela, although very distant, making shipments costly, is also regarded as natural ally.

Iran can also adapt by upgrading its refining capacity, although this requires time and investment. For the shorter term, Iran can reduce the quotas of gasoline available at fully subsidized prices to curb demand.

The Iranian oil ministry has already said demand is on a falling trend. In June, it said average consumption since March had been 63.1 million liters, down 2.7 percent year-on-year.

Its website also said total daily production was 45 million liters, meaning about 18 million liters needed to be imported each day.

Standard gasoline cargoes are 33,000 tonnes or around 45 million liters, traders said, so one would provide around 2-1/2 days of import needs.

Other strategies for plugging the gap include smuggling refined products by land.

Trucks filled with fuel have managed to find a way into Iran despite a pledge by Iraqi Kurdistan to crack down on smuggling activities.

Asked about gasoline imports, an official from the National Iranian Oil Co. said on Monday there was "no sign of difficulties."

He also said crude exports were continuing to China and Europe.

For FACTBOX on Tactics adopted by Iran to overcome sanctions, please click on

(By Amena Bakr and Luke Pachymuthu Additional reporting by Barbara Lewis in Dubai, Robin Pomeroy in Tehran, Orhan Coskun Ankara and David Sheppard in London; editing by Keiron Henderson)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66P2X620100726

spy chief-nominee warns of more N.Korean attacks

July 20, 2010

Reuters

North Korea's alleged sinking of a South Korean warship earlier this year may have marked the start of a "dangerous new period" of direct attacks by Pyongyang on the South, the retired general nominated to be President Barack Obama's intelligence chief said on Tuesday.

"The most important lesson for all of us in the intelligence community from this year's provocations by Pyongyang is to realise that we may be entering a dangerous new period when North Korea will once again attempt to advance its internal and external political goals through direct attacks on our allies in the Republic of Korea," James Clapper, nominated as director of national intelligence, said in a written response to questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"Coupled with this is a renewed realization that North Korea's military forces still pose a threat that cannot be taken lightly," Clapper added in his response to the questions, released by the committee at the start of his Senate confirmation hearing.

(Reporting by Adam Entous; Editing by Sandra Maler)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66J5KX20100720

U.S. and South Korea to stage military drills after ship sunk

July 14, 2010

Retures

The United States and South Korea are expected to soon approve a series of joint military exercises that aim to deter the North from any future attack following the sinking of a South Korean warship, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.

The naval and air exercises in the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan, likely to be finalized during high-level talks next week in Seoul, go beyond those previously announced following the March attack that killed 46 sailors.North Korea has denied responsibility but is widely blamed for sinking the warship.

"All of these exercises are defensive in nature but will send a clear message of deterrence to North Korea and demonstrate our steadfast commitment to the defense of South Korea," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said.

He declined to offer details but said the exercises "will involve a wide range of assets and are expected to be initiated in the near future."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates will likely approve the plans when they meet their counterparts in Seoul on July 21, he said.

China, North Korea's only real ally and benefactor, has closely followed the possibility of U.S. military exercises in the Yellow Sea. It has voiced concern about reports that a U.S. aircraft carrier may be involved.

Morrell said Beijing had no say about the drills, however.

"Obviously (the Chinese) are a regional power and a country ... whose opinion we respect and consider," Morrell said.

"But this is a matter of our ability to exercise in open seas, in international waters. Those determinations are made by us and us alone."

The United States has about 28,000 forces in South Korea, which remains technically at war with the North nearly six decades after the end of the 1950-1953 Korean War.

The U.S. military had long planned to hand over potential wartime operational control of South Korean forces by 2012, should conflict break out on the Korean Peninsula again.

But President Barack Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak agreed last month to push back that date until the second half of 2015.

The delay was meant to send a clear message about U.S. staying power in the region and had been under discussion months before warship's sinking, U.S. officials have said.

Morrell said the delay would allow a broader transfer of responsibilities, including off the ground operations command.

"This will allow us to make sure we are all synched up and ultimately be stronger as an alliance for having taken the time to do so," he told reporters at the Pentagon.

(By Phil Stewart Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66D47V20100714

Iran says sanctions might slow nuclear programme

July 7, 2010

Reuters

Sanctions against Iran could slow down its nuclear progress, a senior government official said on Wednesday, the first time Tehran has acknowledged the measures might have some bite.

"We cannot say the sanctions have no effect," the head of Iran's atomic energy agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, was quoted as saying by ISNA news agency. "Maybe they will slow down the work but they will not stop it, that's certain."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had previously said a new wave of sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the United States and the European Union would have no impact on Iran's economy or its nuclear programme.

He called the U.S. sanctions -- which President Barack Obama said were Washington's toughest ever -- "pathetic" and said the U.N. resolution was worth no more than a "used handkerchief."

Salehi, who earlier on Wednesday said Iran's Bushehr nuclear power station would come on stream by the end of the summer, said the plant would not be affected by the sanctions, but Iran's more controversial uranium enrichment programme might be.

"In the case of enrichment and for some equipment like equipment for measuring, we might have some problems," Salehi said. But he added that Iran would be able to produce that equipment itself if necessary.

Iran has said it is prepared to return to talks with world powers on its nuclear programme, to discuss a fuel swap under which it would send some of its low-enriched uranium abroad in return for purer material -- enriched to 20 percent -- that it needs for a medical research reactor.

Salehi said Iran would continue enriching uranium to 20 percent -- an activity which particularly concerns the West as it is a significant step towards making weapons-grade material. He said Iran, which says its programme is for generating electricity and rejects Western suspicions it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, had the right to enrich even further.

"We will not produce 20-percent-enriched uranium more than our needs, but we reserve the right to enrich to whatever level of enrichment for use in peaceful ways," he was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA.

Obama this month signed into law far-reaching U.S. sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's refined petroleum imports. Among other measures, the latest round of U.N. sanctions, in June, expanded an arms embargo against Tehran and called for new measures against Iranian banks with suspected connections to the country's nuclear or missile programmes.

(Writing by Robin Pomeroy, editing by Mark Trevelyan)

Source: http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFLDE6661AP20100707

Mumbai voices concerns over nuclear liability bill

July 7, 2010

Gulf News

Mumbai has voiced its concern over the proposed Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010, claiming it facilitates corporate immunity rather than protecting people's rights.

“The bill was rejected in Parliament and is now before a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology which in an advertisement on June 24 had called for wider consultations to include public opinion on the bill before being presented again,” said Professor Suresh Mane, Head, Department of Law, University of Mumbai. 

At a public consultation organized by Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), the University and Greenpeace India and attended by lawyers, experts academicians and civil society representatives, Mane said that private operators say they will invest in nuclear power plants but want guarantees from the Government of India to ensure their liabilities are fixed.

He believed that providing immunity to operators would open the floodgates of acquittal in case of a nuclear disaster. The 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy is a stark example of little responsibility being taken by multinationals.

Terming the bill as denial by law to the right to seek adequate compensation in case of a nuclear accident, it was felt there should be unlimited liability as in Canada. 

The Bill sets a cap of total compensation for each nuclear incident or accident at Rs 21 billion. However, according to the experts gathered today, a list of world industrial disasters on a similar scale suggests that this figure will not be enough.

Union Carbide, the company at fault for the Bhopal gas leak, agreed in 1999 to pay a settlement of over Rs 22 billion to cover their liability. Estimates of the cost of a nuclear reactor meltdown are much higher.

The cleanup in Belarus alone reached $14 million after the Chernobyl accident. “How the government plans to cover these costs in the case of a similar disaster in India under the proposed liability regime remains a silent point,” said Deepika D’Souza, Executive Director, HRLN.

According to Greenpeace activists, Standing Committee members visited Tarapur and Kalpakkam power plants to check on the safety measures in place at these two sites.

“What they should have also done is meet the people living in the vicinity of these plants to find out their views,” says Priya Pillai, Greenpeace Policy Analyst.

“The time and space should have been much wider than what has been offered by the Standing Committee. Fifteen days of notice is not adequate enough for all the voices to be heard", she said.

The present public consultations in Mumbai, Hyderabad and Chennai will be submitted to the Standing committee.

By Pamela Raghunath, Correspondent
Source: http://gulfnews.com/news/world/india/mumbai-voices-concerns-over-nuclear-liability-bill-1.651548