Securing Nuclear Waste

July 10th, 2009

image from http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/serbia/facility/vinca-rb.jpg

Mohammed ElBaradei and Serbian Science Minister Božidar Đelić today signed an additional protocol on cooperation between Belgrade and the IAEA, after visiting the Vinča Nuclear Science Institute yesterday.  ElBaradei warned that Serbia needed to dispose of its remaining supplies of atomic fuel to prevent any possible incidents.

Once the additional protocol is ratified in parliament, the IAEA, as it does in the majority of countries, will begin conducting comprehensive and detailed inspections, which, thus far, have only been successfully carried out at the Vinča Institute, said the minister.   Thorough and all-encompassing inspections would, he said, be conducted throughout the country.

The outgoing IAEA director visited both the nuclear reactor in Vinča that was shut down 24 years ago, as well as a radioactive waste depot.   He warned of the danger posed by the remaining unused nuclear waste lying in the reactor, adding that the agency and the government were working on transporting it from Vinča to Russia.

The unused nuclear waste has begun to rust and we have to move it as soon as possible. The situation is under control for now, but if we let the matter fester, it could be very dangerous from a security point of view. In any case, I’m satisfied with how the situation is developing. We’re working closely with the Serbian government and our goals are identical. We must ensure that there are no security risks either here in Vinča or elsewhere in Serbia,” said ElBaradei.

The IAEA director brought good tidings too, said Đelić. He said that besides the money earmarked by the EU and the Czech government, further funds for removing the waste would be coming from the agency itself, Russia and the U.S.   “We’re very close to closing the financial construction of USD 25mn, which I hope will enable us to sign a financial agreement at the IAEA’s next annual assembly in October of this year. That way the money will be paid in next March, and the job can be wrapped up in autumn 2010,” said the minister.

Warehouses for depositing the radioactive waste are in very poor condition, and much has been said in recent years of the potential dangers. Experts from Vinča have insisted that the danger is minimal, as all the waste has been sealed in containers.   Nonetheless, construction of a new storage depot is close to completion. This should resolve the issue of radioactive, medicinal and industrial waste for the long term.  

IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem, B92, July 3, 2009

Buying all that Oil: China

July 9th, 2009

sinopec-refiney-in-zhejiang-province-photo-china-daily

Most firms making an acquisition want, at the very least, to buy assets protected by strong legal systems in stable countries. But when it comes to buying natural resources, China’s large state-controlled enterprises have found themselves blocked in whole or part from countries offering precisely those virtues because of concerns about their own operating practices. As a result, China’s desperate hunt for energy to feed its vast industrial economy is focusing on trickier locations. On June 24th a subsidiary of the China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (Sinopec) announced plans to buy Addax Petroleum, a Swiss company which has listings in Toronto and London and drilling rights in Iraq, Gabon and Nigeria.The deal is worth $9 billion including the assumption of debt. If it succeeds (it has already been accepted by Addax’s management), it will be the biggest takeover of a foreign firm by a Chinese one. Sinopec calls it “transformational”, but in reality it is merely the latest and largest of many similar deals. In December, for example, another Sinopec subsidiary spent $2 billion to acquire Tanganyika Oil, which, like Addax, trades on the Toronto Exchange. Tanganyika produces 23,000 barrels a day, one-sixth of Addax’s current production.

Before the Addax deal closes, Sinopec will need the approval of China’s government (almost certain, given its clout) and of Addax’s shareholders who, based on the large premium it offered to the share price, have little to complain about. Potentially more troublesome are the approvals that may be required in the various countries where Addax operates, and protests from human-rights activists, who have targeted Chinese firms working in Sudan and other unstable places.

Many of Addax’s projects are controversial. Some of its drilling rights in Nigeria, for example, are in dispute. Its contracts in Iraq are with the government of the autonomous Kurdish area, and have been denounced by the oil minister in Baghdad. So the takeover may complicate Sinopec’s efforts to win access to oil elsewhere in Iraq. The only certainty is that the deal will not quench the thirst of Sinopec and its fellow state-controlled oil firms, PetroChina and CNOOC, for foreign oil, whatever the risks

Sinopec buys Addax: Bottom of the Barrel, Economist, Jun 25, 2009

North Korea’s Cyberattacks on July 4th weekend?

July 8th, 2009

image from wikipedia

 

South  Korean intelligence officials believe North Korea or pro-Pyongyang forces committed cyber attacks that paralyzed major South Korean and U.S. government Web sites, aides to two lawmakers said Wednesday.The sites of 11 South Korean organizations, including the presidential Blue House and the Defense Ministry, went down or had access problems since late Tuesday, according to the state-run Korea Information Security Agency. Agency spokeswoman Ahn Jeong-eun said 11 U.S. sites suffered similar problems. She said the agency is investigating the case with police and prosecutors.

In the U.S., the Treasury Department, Secret Service, Federal Trade Commission and Transportation Department Web sites were all down at varying points over the July 4 holiday weekend and into this week, according to American officials inside and outside the government.

Others familiar with the U.S. outage, which is called a denial of service attack, said that the fact that the government Web sites were still being affected three days after it began signaled an unusually lengthy and sophisticated attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter.

The Korea Information Security Agency also attributed the attacks to denial of service.  Yang Moo-jin, a professor at Seoul’s University of North Korean Studies, said he doubts whether the impoverished North has the capability to knock down the Web sites.  But Hong Hyun-ik, an analyst at the Sejong Institute think tank, said the attack could have been done by either North Korea or China, saying he “heard North Korea has been working hard to hack into” South Korean networks.

On Wednesday, the National Intelligence Service told a group of South Korean lawmakers it believes that North Korea or North Korean sympathizers “were behind” the attacks, according to an aide to one of lawmakers who was briefed on the information.  An aide to another lawmaker who was briefed also said the NIS suspects North Korea or its followers were responsible.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity and refused to allow the names of the lawmakers they work for to be published, citing the classified nature of the information.  Both aides said the information was delivered in writing to lawmakers who serve on the National Assembly’s intelligence committee.

The National Intelligence Service - South Korea’s main spy agency - declined to confirm the information.  South Korea’s Yonhap news agency said military intelligence officers were looking at the possibility that the attack may have been committed by North Korean hackers and pro-North Korea forces in South Korea. South Korea’s Defense Ministry said it could not confirm the report.

Earlier Wednesday, the NIS said in a statement that 12,000 computers in South Korea and 8,000 computers overseas had been infected and used for the cyber attack.  The agency said it believed the attack was “thoroughly” prepared and committed by hackers “at the level of a certain organization or state.” It said it was cooperating with the American investigators to examine the case.  South Korean media reported in May that North Korea was running a cyber warfare unit that tries to hack into U.S. and South Korean military networks to gather confidential information and disrupt service.

An initial investigation in South Korea found that many personal computers were infected with a virus program ordering them to visit major official Web sites in South Korea and the U.S. at the same time, Korean information agency official Shin Hwa-su said. There has been no immediate reports of similar cyber attack in other Asian countries.  Yonhap said that prosecutors have found some of the cyber attacks on the South Korean sites were accessed from overseas. Yonhap, citing an unnamed prosecution official, said the cyber attack used a method common to Chinese hackers.

Prosecutors were not immediately available for comment.  Shin, the Information Security Agency official, said the initial probe had not yet uncovered evidence about where the cyber outages originated. Police also said they had not discovered where the outages originated. Police officer Jeong Seok-hwa said that could take several days.

Some of the South Korean sites remained unstable or inaccessible Wednesday. The site of the presidential Blue House could be accessed, but those for the Defense Ministry, the ruling Grand National Party and the National Assembly could not.   Ahn said there were no immediate reports of financial damage or leaking of confidential national information. The alleged attacks appeared aimed only at paralyzing Web sites, she said.  South Korea’s Defense Ministry and Blue House said that there has been no leak of any documents.

Hyung-jin Kim, Officials: N. Korea believed behind cyber attacks, Associated Press, July 8, 2009

Drilling the Amazon

July 8th, 2009

Amazon, Peru, photo from http://www.theargentimes.com

“Now the fish are going to disappear,” said Luis Umpunchi, an Awajún Indian, one of about 20 people gathered around a broken oil pipeline in the Jayais community, in the northern Peruvian province of Amazonas.Everyone was looking at the oil spill with concern. Some touched the black liquid, which had mixed with the mud resulting from a recent rainfall.

“That oil will reach the Marañón River, where our crops grow along the banks,” added Antonio Chu Pumpunchig, who was harvesting plantains when he heard about the leak along the Norperuano pipeline, run by the government-owned Petroperú company, which has several pumping stations in Amazonas.

Station Number 6 in particular was taken over in May by indigenous groups near the town of Bagua as part of protests against decrees that opened up their land to mining, oil and logging companies.  When the police were sent in to break up a roadblock outside of Bagua on Jun. 5, 24 police and at least 10 civilians were killed, although the protesters say the number of demonstrators shot in the crackdown was much higher. Two of the controversial decrees have since been overturned, as demanded by the native groups.

The populations most affected by the oil spill live in the Cenapa and Nieva river valleys. But indigenous communities closer to towns like Bagua also fear that their rivers will be polluted, as occurred with the Achuar Indians. The Achuar live along the Corrientes River in the neighbouring province of Loreto, in the country’s far northeast, where the Argentine oil company Pluspetrol operates.   Petroperú workers who arrived in Jayais to clean up the spill refused to talk about the cause of the break in the pipeline, which stretched across a ravine.

Native families in the Amazon jungle make their living from fishing, hunting, and growing plantains, maize and cocoa along the rivers and manioc in the hills. Along the roads, merchants buy plantains from them, and sell the product at market at four times the price.

“We are not protesting because we are ‘savages,’ but because we need these resources to survive. The earth is our mother, and the forest is the pantry for feeding our families,” said Umpunchi.  Part of the spilled crude is likely to reach the Chiriaco River, subsequently ending up in the Marañón River, he said.

More than 70 percent of Peru’s Amazon rainforest was divided into concessions for oil and natural gas investment between 2003 and 2008, according to a March report by the local non-governmental organisation Law, Environment and Natural Resources (known by its Spanish acronym DAR), which was based on official data.  To promote private investment in the jungle areas, the administration of President Alan García passed a dozen decrees under the argument that they were needed to facilitate implementation of the free trade agreement with the United States, triggering indigenous protests in 2008, which have continued off and on until now.

The Awajún and Wampí peoples, in Amazonas province, feel threatened by the mining and oil drilling activities, which are going ahead in ecologically vulnerable protected areas, and have led to disputes between the companies and local residents over water and land.  “This is my home. This is where my grandparents lived and I want my children to inherit it,” said Julia Esamat, 53, a member of the Awajún community from the village of Wawas, in the Chiriaco district.

“We have moved forward ourselves, without the government,” she told this reporter. “The authorities can’t come now and take from us what is ours.”  Nearly 60 petroleum concessions were granted, 15 of which were approved in processes marred by irregularities, overlapping 12 protected areas in 10 of the country’s provinces. Among them is the Santiago Comaina preserve in Amazonas, according to the DAR report.

The French firm Maurel & Prom holds a permit for exploration in lot 116 in Santiago Comaina. To gain access to the area, the company signed an agreement with the heads of the indigenous federations of Condorcanqui province. But because the native leaders did not consult the communities, they were removed from their posts, according to a May 2008 report in La República newspaper.  Furthermore, gold and uranium exploration projects have been authorised in Amazonas, in the Cóndor mountain range, bordering Ecuador. But native groups in the Cenepa river valley say the concessions were transferred in an irregular manner from the Dorato Peru company, a subsidiary of the Canada-based Dorato Resources.

In a November 2008 communiqué, Dorato Resources said it had acquired all shares of the Peruvian mining company Afrodita.  But according to Marco Huaco, a lawyer with Racimos de Ungurahui, a local NGO, the transaction was carried out by means of front organisations.  Huaco said the initiative violates Article 71 of the constitution because in order to authorise foreign investment in a border area, the executive branch has to issue a supreme decree declaring it a “public necessity,” which did not occur.

In addition, it violated International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169, a 1989 agreement that requires prior consultation with local indigenous communities about economic activities that affect their land or means of livelihood.  The Development Organisation of Cenepa Border Communities (ODECOFROC), one of the four indigenous associations in Amazonas province, filed three complaints in April about the case to the government Office on Mining Concessions.

The authorities replied that they were not aware of the Canadian company’s participation, that the concessions were granted to Peruvian entities, and that they would investigate the claims, said Huaco, an advisor to ODECOFROC.  The group also brought the Cóndor mountains case before the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples, James Anaya, who visited Bagua on Jun. 18.

The document presented to Anaya, to which this reporter had access, states that the project affects 9,636 indigenous people in Cenepa because it is situated at the head of the main tributaries to the Marañón River, and crosses the protected Ichigkat Muja National Park, which the government has recognised as “highly vulnerable” in ecological and human terms.  In several statements on rights to land title issued in favour of mining companies, the National Institute of Natural Resources says mining activities cannot be carried out in Awajún territory, according to the text presented to Anaya.

“If mining is carried out in that area, it would mean the partial extinction of this Amazonian native group,” said Huaco.  The indigenous leaders will bring the case before the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the U.N. Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Milagros Salazar, Peru: Petroleum Sullies the Amazon, Inter Press Service, July 3, 2009

Think the Impossible: Oil can wait..just save the Amazon

July 7th, 2009

ecuador-map

Though half of Ecuador lies in the Amazon basin, its rainforest is shrinking faster than in neighbouring countries (by 1.67% a year). It has been ravaged by logging, poachers and oil extraction. Settlers have streamed in to carve out a precarious life. Over the past decade they have been joined by thousands of refugees fleeing violence in Colombia, as well as guerrillas and drug traffickers who inflict it. Native tribes have been uprooted, forced deeper into the forest or have disappeared.The government of President Rafael Correa now wants help to keep pristine one of Ecuador’s most important remaining jungle areas, in the Yasuní national park. In a corner of the park known as ITT (after the Ishpingo, Tambococha and Tiputini rivers) lies an oilfield which preliminary seismic studies show holds almost 846m barrels of oil, or around 20% of Ecuador’s reserves. The ITT area is unusually biodiverse. It is thought to be home to several hundred tribesmen who shun the modern world and whose way of life is protected under a new constitution promoted by Mr Correa.

Oil companies, including Spain’s Repsol and Chinese-owned Andes Petroleum, are already extracting about 59,000 barrels a day elsewhere in the Yasuní park. Repsol tightly controls access to its field, keeping out would-be colonists. Further east, Petroecuador, the state oil company and the country’s worst polluter, is developing a block adjacent to ITT.

In 2007 when Mr Correa first mooted the idea that the world should pay Ecuador not to exploit the ITT oil this was widely dismissed as half-baked. Under the influence of a group of politicians from across the spectrum and environmentalists the idea is gaining flesh and credibility.   It now centres on issuing bonds for the value of the carbon emissions avoided by not burning the oil and by preserving the forest. These would be worth up to $5.2 billion at the current carbon price in the European emissions’ market. The money would be lodged in a trust fund managed by international bodies such as the Inter-American Development Bank, and spent on alternative-energy projects in Ecuador. Bondholders would have a say in how the money is spent.

Last year Germany agreed to give €300,000 ($425,000) for feasibility studies, and last month reiterated its support. The scheme will go ahead once the first $350m is raised, says Roque Sevilla, a former mayor of Quito who is promoting it. The hope is that most of this money will come from European governments. If a future government in Ecuador opted to exploit the oil, it would have to repay the bondholders with interest, says Francisco Carrión, a former foreign minister who is another of the promoters.

He accepts that the main obstacle is Ecuador’s poor reputation. In December the government defaulted on $3.2 billion in bonds-the third default in as many decades. As a result of Mr Correa’s expansionist fiscal policy, Ecuador risks running out of foreign-exchange reserves, increasing the temptation to tap the oil. Nevertheless, the Yasuní-ITT initiative, as it is called, is now worth a closer look.
Conservation in Ecuador: Trees or oil, Economist, July 2, 2009

Eco-Migration

July 6th, 2009

http://update.unu.edu/images/40desertification.jpg

“In Search of Shelter”-by the United Nations University, the charity CARE and Columbia University in New York lists the eco-migration “hot spots”: dry bits of Africa; river systems in Asia; the interior and coast of Mexico and the Caribbean; and low islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.A one-metre rise in sea levels could displace 24m people along the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Yellow rivers-which together support a quarter of humanity. A two-metre rise could uproot 14m people on the Mekong alone and swamp much of its farmland. Meanwhile, the melting of the Himalayan glacier will cause floods and erosion upstream, boosting the price of rice and other staples. And many regional conflicts could be exacerbated.

The scale of the likely population shift raises big questions. Will climate-change migrants be recognised? The classic definition of refugees-tossed between states by war or tyranny-is outdated. Eco-migrants will be paperless paupers, whose multiple woes are hard to disentangle.

Poverty campaigners want a revised legal regime to protect the new migrants. However, this looks tricky. America resists calling them “environmental refugees”: the word “refugee” implies guarantees that cannot realistically be given to the coming torrent of migrants. As American diplomats quietly admit, their rich country is still reeling from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which killed 1,800 people and displaced hundreds of thousands.

Can the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) expand to cope with eco-migrants? It has already struggled to widen its remit to include the internally displaced (26m at the end of 2008) as well as strictly-defined refugees (10m, excluding the Palestinians who come under another agency). A tenfold surge in the numbers within its orbit would push the agency out of control, says James Milner, a professor at Ottawa’s Carleton University. Meanwhile some aid workers see signs of a competition between institutions to take ownership of the eco-migration issue, perhaps by oversimplifying it.

Charles Ehrhart of CARE thinks UNHCR will remain central, but wonders how it or anybody can now distinguish between “forced” and “voluntary” migration. He says climate change may cut agricultural output by half in lowland Africa by 2020. “In such a context, does migration constitute a choice or a necessity?”

Migrants’ rights may be easy to assert for islanders whose homes are drowned-but hard in the case of big, messy movements across Africa and Asia. Most of the displaced will drift to the next-most-liveable place, as the poor do anyway.

“Many states are already overwhelmed by internally displaced populations,” says Mr Ehrhart. “Will they be able to support even more people on the move? If not, whose duty is it to make up the difference?”. At the least, the gap between carbon usage and climate change’s effects portends angry North-South rows.

Meles Zenawi, who as Ethiopia’s prime minister will speak for Africa at several global gatherings this year, predicts that some parts of the continent will become uninhabitable and “those who did the damage will have to pay.” At the December summit on climate change in Copenhagen, he hopes that Africa will “aggressively” demand compensation for environmental damage as well as help with migrants and the mitigation of climate change: in his view a demand of $40 billion would be reasonable.

Many agree that more research is needed to pinpoint the reasons why migrants pick up sticks. People concur that climate change fuels conflict in Darfur, but nobody knows how big a factor it is. Drought helped jihadist fighters seize bits of south Somalia, but was it the main reason?

Gloom abounds. James Lovelock, an environmental guru, posits a collapse in human population, in part related to migration, with a few “lifeboat” regions surviving. Then there is the pace of social change. The number of “megacities”-with populations in the tens of millions-may grow to several hundred by the middle of the 21st century. Most are poorly planned.

Would a migrant from a collapsed city receive aid? “We’ve not experienced anything of this kind, where whole regions, whole countries, may well become unviable,” says Jeffrey Sachs, head of Columbia University’s Earth Institute.

No wonder strategists see vast new security risks, and a big expansion in the world’s “ungoverned spaces”. But much can be done before the exodus turns biblical. In West Africa subsistence farming is badly irrigated. Improve that, throw in some seeds and fertiliser, scrap tariffs, build warehouses and roads, and the region may beat the worst of climate change.

Geographers at UN Habitat, a city-planning agency, say conurbations must adapt to the needs of climate-change migrants. “You can’t just stockpile people,” says Alex de Sherbinin of Columbia University. The pressure is tangible in Addis Ababa, which already has teeming slums. The price of teff, a staple, has surged after a famine that is still pushing people to the city. Mr Meles is not alone in his wrath.

A new (under) class of travellers, Economist, June 25, 2009

Eluding Disarmament: Modernizing the Nuclear Bomb

July 3rd, 2009

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/W-88_warhead_detail.png/700px-W-88_warhead_detail.png

A U.S. nuclear official last week called for a three-pronged strategy to maintain the nation’s strategic arsenal.   “We can best manage risk if given the opportunity to apply a spectrum of options: warhead refurbishment, warhead component reuse and warhead replacement to our life extension strategy,” John Harvey, the U.S. National Nuclear Safety Administration’s policy planning director, said Friday during a breakfast discussion on Capitol Hill.”Technically, I think it makes sense for the country to have that spectrum of options approach, but politically we have to consider those issues as well,” he said.  The three-part “spectrum” approach was detailed in the final report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. The report, released in May, endorsed using alternatives to refurbishment on a case by case basis, including the redesign of an existing weapon. “Such redesign can be done without introducing new military characteristics while improving safety and security, etc.,” the commission’s report states.  The last effort to replace portions of the U.S. nuclear-weapon stockpile came in the form of the controversial Reliable Replacement Warhead.  The Bush-era program was intended to create new nuclear-warhead designs that were more secure, more dependable and cheaper to maintain than existing weapons. Critics said the initiative undermined U.S. efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation at the global level. Congress gave the effort no funding in the last two budgets.

Harvey on Friday never mentioned the seemingly scrapped program. He also did not offer details on a possible warhead redesign program or how such a program would influence the agency’s Stockpile Stewardship Program. That effort is aimed at extending a warhead’s service life in the absence of underground explosive testing.

As of January 2009, the U.S. arsenal stood at 5,200 nuclear warheads, of which no more than 2,200 strategic warheads can be deployed under the mandate of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.  The present refurbishment strategy involves replacing aging warhead components with nearly identical parts to keep the weapon from degrading. “It’s like the tuneup of a car,” said Harvey, who has led the agency’s policy planning staff since 2001. While refurbishment has “worked reasonably well so far” it cannot provide the “sole, long term” basis for ensuring the stockpile remains a functioning deterrent, he told the audience.

In previous decades, nuclear weapons would be detonated to ensure they were in working order. The United States has not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty but has voluntarily suspended underground nuclear blasts.  Incremental changes to the warheads through refurbishment take them “farther from the underground nuclear test base from which they were originally certified” for deployment, the policy chief said. To combat the aging process and manage risk involved in working with older technology, the United States should also apply warhead replacement and reuse to its nuclear-weapon life extension strategy, he argued.

In warhead replacement, nuclear components would be swapped with “modern designs that are more easily manufactured; provide increased performance margins; forgo no longer available or hazardous materials; improve safety security and control of warheads; and offer the potential for further overall stockpile reductions,” according to Harvey.

Warhead reuse refers to the use of existing surplus nuclear components from other warheads and, in certain cases, could involve manufacturing new parts, he said.   Each approach would require initial warhead certification and annual assessments of safety and reliability that would be carried out “without underground nuclear tests,” according to Harvey.  He said modernization of the nuclear stockpile and its supporting infrastructure is consistent with the nonproliferation agenda Obama laid out in his April 5 speech in Prague. More reliable weapons would enable reductions in the number of operationally deployed warheads as the country would not require a large reserve, he said.

Modernization would be consistent with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and a potential fissile material cutoff pact, as upgraded warheads would reduce the need for test blasts and would not require additional weapon-grade substances, Harvey said. The program would also conform to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty because a “credible” U.S. deterrent would reduce incentives for allies to acquire their own arsenals, he added.  In addition, it would provide the potential for further reductions beyond the follow-on agreement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty being hammered out by Washington and Moscow, he said.

An ability to rebuild a nuclear arsenal, if needed, is the “ultimate hedge” to mitigate the security risk if the United States eliminates its nuclear weapons stockpile and discovers other countries have not, according to Harvey.  Veteran nuclear physicist Richard Garwin said he agrees with the strategic commission’s recommendation that there be a case by case consideration of the three warhead life-extension options. However, he argued that advances in computer modeling mean that refurbishment remains a viable option for sustaining the arsenal.   “I think that a properly conducted [life extension program] results in a nuclear weapon that is at least as good as new, and that should be good for another 30 years or more,” Garwin wrote in an e-mail message to Global Security Newswire.
Martin Matishak, NNSA Policy Chief Says Replacement Should be Part of Warhead Life Extension Strategy, Global Security Newswire, June 24, 2009

Satellite Supremacy

July 2nd, 2009

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/SBIRS-GEO.jpg
Lockheed Martin Corp has reestablished its dominance of the military satellite market and looks set to maintain that leading role given a dearth of big new programs for several years.Boeing Co  had threatened to eclipse Lockheed at the start of the decade after winning a huge order for the new Future Imagery Architecture satellites, but massive cost overruns and technical issues cost it that program, and it also lost several other big orders to Lockheed.

Now Lockheed has also won the nod to build two new imagery satellites, according to two sources familiar with the decision who could not be quoted because the program is classified.  Some analysts estimate the deal is worth about $10 billion, a nice revenue stream for Lockheed at a time when the Pentagon has canceled work on a next-generation military communications program, the Transformational Satellite, known as TSAT, to save money.

“There has been a complete reversal of fortunes in the military space business in which Lockheed has reestablished its dominance at the expense of Boeing and other defense companies,” said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.  Both companies expect to sell more of their existing communications satellites after the TSAT decision, but that will fall short of the kind of revenues that would have been involved in a new development program.

Boeing is also pursuing a rare protest against NASA’s decision to re-award a $1.1 billion contract for four GOES-R weather satellites to Lockheed, an issue to be decided by the Government Accountability Office in August.  Joanne Maguire, who heads Lockheed’s space business, told Reuters in an interview last week that her company is committed to the sector, even if it is not generating the kind of buzz associated with unmanned vehicles or cybersecurity ventures.   “The next years will be relatively stable without dramatic growth. But I don’t think there’s going to be major hardship for the shareholders,” she said, adding that her bosses realized space was on a longer cycle than other sectors.

Maguire said Lockheed was continuing to make good progress on its Space-based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) program after initial issues, with two highly elliptical orbit payloads in space and in operational testing, and a geostationary orbit satellite preparing for a launch in the middle of 2010.

Maguire said the Pentagon, and especially the director of the Missile Defense Agency, General Patrick O’Reilly, were very interested in exploring ways to fully exploit the new satellite system and better leverage information from its sensors and others more fully for early missile warning.  Lockheed was also moving ahead with its Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellites, The Pentagon plans to buy two more AEHF satellites as a result of its decision to cancel the TSAT program, Maguire said, but no contracts have yet been signed.

Lockheed is also exploring possible spin-offs from its space business for the environmental sector, including new uses for solar panels used to power satellites.  Boeing says it is in the space business to stay, despite contract losses and a slump in revenues.  Jim Albaugh, head of Boeing’s defense business, said in an interview last week that Boeing’s leadership was convinced that the company needed to remain in the space business because it has become so central to U.S. military operations in general.

“You cannot be in this business as a complex large scale systems integrator if you don’t understand space because it spans so many of the capability requirements your customer has,” he said, citing the importance of space to the military’s ability to communicate and command troops, as well as intelligence and targeting.  “We’re going to be in the business for a long time,” he said, citing Boeing’s work on the Wideband Global SATCOM, Space Surveillance Satellite System, and GPS satellite programs.

For now, neither company is feeling too threatened — or too enticed by the Pentagon’s fledgling Operationally Responsive Space effort, which is exploring ways to substitute smaller, cheaper satellites to fill immediate military needs.  Maguire said the big companies are waiting to see the Pentagon’s business case for the shift to smaller satellites before plowing money into the emerging area.

Given their high overhead costs, satellites that cost millions of dollars are just not attractive investment areas at the moment, said Michael French, analyst with Morgan Joseph.  The new program has a budget of just over $140 million, a mere fraction of the budget for programs like AEHF.  “The ORS concept has some promise, but it has some challenges also,” said Maguire, noting that big satellite makers needed to see a plan for how many satellites would be built over what period of time, to make a business case for investment in developing the new technologies.  Investing in the new smaller satellites only made sense if the projects helped to move along a critical technology, or opened a new mission space, she said.

Andrea Shalal-Esa, Lockheed reasserts military satellite dominance, Reuters, Jun 26, 2009

Climate Change at the World Bank

July 1st, 2009

extreme weather events/ world bank website

If anynone suggested the World Bank did not take global warming seriously, its bosses would bristle: only last October, they would point out, the institution issued a “strategic framework” laying out its thinking on development and climate change. This promised more emphasis on noble things like energy efficiency and renewable power; and more bank support for “sustainable forest management, including reduced deforestation.”Those words intrigued green campaigners, who were up in arms over a $90m loan by the bank’s private-sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), to the Bertin group, Brazil’s leading beef exporter. As the greens observed, cattle farming is widely seen as the biggest threat to the Amazon’s trees. Doubts about the loan were not confined to angry tree-huggers. In a paper that was initially confidential but leaked on the internet, the bank’s own Independent Evaluation Group (IEG)-which is supposed to watch the secondary effects of the agency’s work-had argued that the credit posed “a grave risk to the environment”.

The IFC overruled this advice, saying in January 2008 that its loan to Bertin would help the firm “in establishing sustainable operations throughout its supply chain, especially with its cattle suppliers in the Amazon region.” But on June 12th there was a change of heart. The bank said it was pulling out of the Bertin project: it was no longer satisfied that its concerns over sustainability were being met.

There were yelps of glee from greens-along with harder questions about how possible it really is for the world’s leading development agency to promote growth, satisfy its member governments and protect the planet all at the same time. Defenders of the bank say that its concerns over climate change are more than verbiage: of the $7.5 billion it lent for energy projects in 2008, a respectable $2.7 billion went to efforts aimed at saving energy or boosting renewable power. This was twice as much as it had lent for such projects in 2007. Admittedly, the bank does also fund coal-fired projects, but it insists that wherever possible, it will opt for greener forms of power.

Earlier this year, a (public) report by the IEG said the bank could congratulate itself on promoting energy efficiency. But as it recognised, this success did not mean everyone’s heart had turned green: rising fuel prices had made energy saving an easy sell in many countries. And this benign atmosphere may not last. There are poor countries that see environmentalism as a luxury that hurts their immediate growth prospects. On June 22nd Ethiopia blamed power cuts on the World Bank’s refusal to fund a 60MW diesel generator.

David Wheeler, a former World Bank economist who is now at the Centre for Global Development, a think-tank, says such tensions are bound to persist. The bank’s regional units are under pressure to meet lending targets and get money out to governments. In that culture, the bank’s bureaucrats won’t work too hard on goals that hold little appeal for client countries.

Still, when countries want to act over climate change, the bank can do a lot to assist. Mexico, for example, has sought help with cutting energy use in city transport and producing cleaner power. The bank is lending it $500m in low-interest credits out of a $5.2 billion Clean Technology Fund to finance new bus networks, replacing the gas-guzzlers that clog Mexico’s roads. Vinod Thomas, the IEG’s director-general, sums up the dilemma: “Climate change threatens to derail development, while business-as-usual development threatens to destabilise the climate.”

Managing this tension will involve a lot more reflection about the trade-off between growth, the mitigation of climate change and adaptation to its effects. At the bank, some thinking does seem to be going on: that is the topic of its next World Development Report-an annual assessment of the fight against poverty.

Whatever the report says, it will be hard to convince poor countries that action over climate change is a necessity, not a luxury, and that it will not impede growth. The Bertin shambles may go down as a warning for everybody involved in a giant exercise in on-the-job learning.

The World Bank and the environment: When the learning curve is long, Economist, June 25, 2009

When Waters Turn Salty: South Australia

June 30th, 2009

Murray River australia, Image from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Murray_river_australia.jpg

Ever since they started pumping water for their vines, the winegrowers of Langhorne Creek have learnt to cope with crises. But none as grave as the one they face now. Their water source at the mouth of the Murray River, in South Australia, has turned salty. Adelaide, the state capital 55km (34 miles) away, has been told its water supply from the Murray can no longer be guaranteed. The Murray Darling Basin Authority, a new body charged with saving Australia’s biggest river system from expiring, has its work cut out.Early last month Rob Freeman, the authority’s boss, delivered grim news. The volume of water flowing into the Murray and its main tributary, the Darling, between January and March was the lowest in 117 years. The three-year volume up to March was the driest ever. Mr Freeman told Adelaide’s 1m people this meant that not enough water might be conveyed down the Murray to meet their “critical human needs” next year. Just 17 years ago, Adelaide relied on the Murray for only 10% of its water: regular rains filling dams in the city’s hills provided the rest. Now, it depends on the Murray for 90%.

Climate change and Australia’s worst drought in a century are partly to blame. But the river system that covers two-thirds of Australia’s irrigated farming land is also suffering from decades of overuse. South Australians feel this with growing bitterness. They are at the end of the line in a system that starts about 2,700km north. The more populous states of Queensland and New South Wales (NSW) comprise four-fifths of the basin’s area. Farmers, especially cotton and rice growers in those upstream states, account for 83% of the basin’s consumed water. The impact of all this has left the Murray’s mouth near Langhorne Creek close to ruin.

The wine region’s first water came from an ancient aquifer. Too much pumping forced the authorities in the early 1990s to switch water licences to the Murray, 10km away at Alexandrina, one of two lakes at the mouth facing the Southern Ocean. Plenty of water then flowed through the basin to keep the lakes fresh. Langhorne Creek’s wineries boomed. A crunch came last year. The flows stopped, and Alexandrina’s level has dropped 1.5 metres. Its water is now too saline to use.  The authorities are now pondering the harsh step of building a weir at nearby Wellington to stop the salt water moving back into the Murray itself. Experts predict this would in effect destroy the lakes and their surrounding freshwater wetlands. Penny Wong, the federal minister for climate change and water, says the “unfortunate reality” of the flow figures means the option must be kept as a “last resort”.

Growers at Langhorne Creek and nearby Currency Creek, meanwhile, have formed a company to build a pipeline to secure their water from a cleaner point on the Murray further east. They may yet survive. Australia’s interstate water-trading scheme has allowed the state to buy water from distant farmers in NSW, who have switched to less thirsty crops, and keep it in store for Adelaide. Mr Freeman’s body, launched by Canberra late last year, is the first with power to manage the entire river system, overriding rivalries between the four basin states, so that calamities such as Lake Alexandrina’s don’t happen.

Unless drought-breaking rains come, that will be a tough ask. Craig Willson, proprietor of Bremerton winery at Langhorne Creek, and a director of its pipeline company, reckons drought and loss of the lake’s water have cut the region’s productivity by almost 40% over the past two years. “Even so, we’re surprised at how well some vines survive using less water,” he says. Applied to growers of other crops, the same lesson may help save the Murray.

South Australia’s water shortage: In need of a miracle, Economist, May 9, 2009, at 56