DOCSLIB.ORG

Life-Cycle Water Impacts of U.S. Transportation Fuels by Corinne

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Life-Cycle Water Impacts of U.S. Transportation Fuels by Corinne Life-Cycle Water Impacts of U.S. Transportation Fuels By Corinne Donahue Scown A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering – Civil and Environmental Engineering in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Arpad Horvath, Chair Professor Iris Tommelein Professor Daniel Kammen Professor Thomas McKone Fall 2010 Life-Cycle Water Impacts of U.S. Transportation Fuels 2010 By Corinne Donahue Scown Abstract Life-Cycle Water Impacts of U.S. Transportation Fuels by Corinne Donahue Scown Doctor of Philosophy in Engineering – Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Berkeley Professor Arpad Horvath, Chair The connection between energy use and water scarcity is not well understood. The production of energy requires water and the supply of water requires energy. Water already plays a major role in stationary energy production; thermoelectric power generation is responsible for nearly half of total freshwater withdrawals in the United States. Current transportation fuels, which account for approximately one-third of U.S. energy consumption, are not nearly as reliant on freshwater given that petroleum fuel production makes up just a few percent of U.S. water use. If transportation were to become more reliant on water-intensive sectors such as power generation and agriculture, there would be major implications for water availability in the United States. As electricity and biofuels gain a larger share of the market, this is exactly the transition that is taking place. Inconsistent water use metrics, inappropriate impact allocation practices, limited system boundaries due to lack the necessary tools and data, and the failure to quantify water resource availability and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts are common pitfalls of existing assessments of transportation energy-related water use. To fill the knowledge gaps, this dissertation proposes a comprehensive life-cycle framework for assessing the water withdrawals and consumption of current and near-future U.S. transportation fuels — including gasoline, bio-based ethanol, and electricity. With this proposed framework for performing a life-cycle inventory and impact assessment, the following three questions are answered: 1. What is the life-cycle water footprint of current and near-future transportation fuel production in the United States? 1 2. How might U.S. transportation fuel production pathways impact freshwater availability in the future? 3. What is the greenhouse gas-intensity of the water required for transportation fuel production, and how do these emissions impact the overall transportation fuel greenhouse gas footprints? Understanding the impacts of water use on freshwater resources and GHG emissions requires knowledge of not only the fuel production pathways, but also how these pathways interact with other sectors in the economy. As new transportation fuels emerge, demand for some goods and services will increase while for others it will decrease, and each change has an effect on overall water demand. Quantifying the net system-wide impact of producing these new fuels is key to understanding the water implications of transportation energy-related policy decisions. Furthermore, by geospatially disaggregating predicted water requirements for transportation fuel production pathways at the U.S. county-level, locations within the United States can be identified as vulnerable to local surface and groundwater shortages. These shortages may result in high water prices and the need for energy-intensive water supply methods such as desalination, importation, or wastewater recycling. Identifying regions with vulnerable water resources allows decision makers in industry and the public sector to guide burgeoning transportation fuel markets in ways that maximize their contributions to energy independence and greenhouse gas emissions reductions while avoiding negative impacts on water availability. Results from the U.S. analysis show that indirect water use has a significant impact on total water use, particularly for withdrawals. In no other pathway is this as pronounced as it is for cellulosic ethanol production (in this case, corn stover and Miscanthus to ethanol). By using system expansion to account for the electricity generation displaced by cellulosic biorefineries’ exports to the grid, total water consumption for those pathways drops considerably and total withdrawals actually becomes a net negative number. When the inventory is geospatially disaggregated and compared to drought and groundwater vulnerability data, the results show that biofuel production concentrated in the Midwest puts pressure on the already-overpumped High Plains Aquifer. Petroleum fuel production pathways result in water use concentrated in locations that are predicted to experience long-term drought, specifically California, Texas, and Wyoming. Electricity, in contrast, is more widely distributed throughout the U.S., but the high surface water consumption rates in the western half of the country may exacerbate future surface water shortages in those regions. Gaining a better knowledge of how the production and consumption of fuels impacts freshwater resources is absolutely critical as humans attempt to transition into a more sustainable energy future. By making contributions to the methodologies required to assess the environmental impacts of water use, as well as knowledge about the potential water impacts of current and near-future U.S. transportation fuels, this dissertation provides U.S. decision makers with information necessary to create the most economical and sustainable 2 transportation energy future possible while also providing future researchers with the tools to answer questions that have yet to be asked. 3 Table of Contents List of Figures ........................................................................................................................iv List of Tables .........................................................................................................................vi List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................... x 1. Introduction and Problem Statement ................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 1.2 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................2 2. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Defining Water Use Metrics ......................................................................................................6 2.1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Framework for Quantifying Water Use ......................................................................... 7 2.2 Life-Cycle Assessment ............................................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 Process-Based Life-Cycle Assessment .......................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Economic Input-Output Analysis-Based Life-Cycle Assessment .................................. 13 2.2.3 Hybrid Life-Cycle Assessment ...................................................................................... 15 2.2.4 Consequential versus Attributional LCA ...................................................................... 16 2.2.5 Direct versus Indirect Economic Impacts..................................................................... 18 2.3 Impact Allocation ................................................................................................................... 19 2.3.1 Allocation from the Perspective of Consequential and Attributional LCA .................. 20 2.3.2 Multi-Output Production Systems ............................................................................... 20 2.3.3 Open-Loop Recycling ................................................................................................... 32 2.3.4 Allocation Applications for Transportation Fuels ........................................................ 35 2.4 Water Resource and Climate Impact Assessment .................................................................... 42 2.4.1 GHG-Intensity of Freshwater Supply ........................................................................... 43 2.4.2 Surface Water Impacts................................................................................................. 44 2.4.3 Groundwater Impacts .................................................................................................. 45 3. Life-Cycle Water Footprint of U.S. Transportation Fuels ................................................... 47 3.1 Goal and Scope....................................................................................................................... 47 3.1.1 Importance of Transportation Fuels ............................................................................ 47 3.1.2 Water Use Metrics ....................................................................................................... 50 3.2 Literature Review ..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2533 4Th Ave Los Angeles. CA 90018 Hm 323-402-0840 Cell 323-333-1238 [email protected] March 11, 2016
    LETTER to DIRECTOR of PLANNING 3/11/16 (typos corrected from original) 2533 4th Ave Los Angeles. CA 90018 Hm 323-402-0840 Cell 323-333-1238 [email protected] March 11, 2016 Director Vincent P. Bertoni Los Angeles City Department of Planning 200 N Spring St Los Angeles, CA 90012 Sent by fax without attachments and by e-mail with attached documentation Dear Director Bertoni, I am writing to request that you please immediately begin steps to initiate Nuisance Abatement proceedings under the authority granted by LAMC 12.27.1 to consider the revocation of all conditional use approvals for the 4th Ave Drill Site and all wells and petroleum production at that site. Recent events at the 4th Ave Drill Site have flouted the requirements of LAMC 13.01.I that requires ZA approval (and CEQA clearance and a public hearing) before initiating the conversion of wells from injection to production. Furthermore, the specific work that was done - converting all injection wells at the site into production wells and then purportedly activating them, with produced water sent (or to be sent) to another drill site to be injected in wells that bottom in other drilling districts not approved in connection with the 4th Ave Drill site - makes a hash out of the 71 year old system of Oil Drilling Districts and Controlled Drill Sites. Last, the 4th Ave Drill Site has been idle for more than 5 years and much evidence, including the unprecedented and illegal conversion of all injection wells at the site to production wells, confirms that the site will continue to be non-productive.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK ______: in Re : Chapter 7 : SABA ENTERPRISES, INC., : Case No
    09-01001-ajg Doc 39 Filed 09/18/09 Entered 09/18/09 12:57:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 48 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ : In re : Chapter 7 : SABA ENTERPRISES, INC., : Case No. 05-B-60144 (AJG) : Debtor. : : __________________________________________: : JOHN S. PEREIRA, AS CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE : OF SABA ENTERPRISES, INC., : : Trustee, : : v. : Adv. Pro. No. 09-1001 : GRECOGAS LIMITED, GREKA ENERGY : INTERNATIONAL BV, RINCON ISLAND : LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, GREKA OIL & : GAS, INC., GREKA INVESTMENTS, INC. : F/K/A GREKA, CA, INC., SANTA MARIA : REFINING COMPANY, GREKA : INTEGRATED, INC., GREWAL INVESTMENTS,: INC., GREWAL (ROYALTY) LLC, ALEXI : HOLDINGS LIMITED, ALEXI REALTY, INC., : ALL ROUND MANAGEMENT LIMITED, and : RANDEEP S. GREWAL, : : Defendants. : __________________________________________: OPINION CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT A P P E A R A N C E S JONES & SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 384 Carle Place, New York 11514 Attorneys for the Trustee 09-01001-ajg Doc 39 Filed 09/18/09 Entered 09/18/09 12:57:23 Main Document Pg 2 of 48 Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Esq. Of Counsel BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP 1225 17th Street, Suite 2300 Denver, Colorado 80202 Attorneys for Defendants Greka Oil & Gas, Inc., Greka Integrated, Inc., Greka Investments, Inc. f/k/a Greka, CA, Inc., Rincon Island Limited Partnership, Santa Maria Refining Company, and Alexi Realty, Inc. Carl A. Eklund, Esq. Of Counsel STEVENS & LEE, P.C. 485 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10022 Attorney for Defendants Greka China Limited f/k/a Grecogas Limited and Greka Energy (International) B.V.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Propane Consumed in California
    ANL-20/73 Sources of Propane Consumed in California Energy Systems Division About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by U Chicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Online Access: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991 and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available free at OSTI.GOV (http://www.osti.gov/), a service of the US Dept. of Energy’s Office of Scientific and Technical Information. Reports not in digital format may be purchased by the public from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS): U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd Alexandria, VA 22312 www.ntis.gov Phone: (800) 553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 Fax: (703) 605-6900 Email: [email protected] Reports not in digital format are available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI): U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P. O. B o x 6 2 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 www.osti.gov Phone: (865) 576-8401 Fax: (865) 576-5728 Email: [email protected] Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Western Propane Gas Association. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor U Chicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
    [Show full text]
  • KWP China Gas 2004 Final
    THE IMPLICATIONS OF CHINA’S GAS EXPANSION TOWARDS THE NATURAL GAS MARKET IN ASIA A CHATHAM HOUSE REPORT FOR JAPAN BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION February 2004 Dr Keun-Wook Paik, Associate Fellow Sustainable Development Programme Chatham House 10 St James’s Square London SW1Y 4LE www.chathamhouse.org.uk © The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2004. This material is offered free of charge for personal and non -commercial use, provided the source is acknowledged. For commercial or any other use, prior written permission must be obtained from the Royal Institute of International Affairs. In no case may this material be altered, sold or rented. The Implications of China’s Gas Expansion towards Natural Gas Market in Asia. Chatham House Report for JBIC, February 2004 Table of Contents 1. China’s Natural Gas Industry ...................................................................................... 1 1.1. A Brief Review on the Natural Gas Industry............................................................ 1 1.1.1. The Role of Natural Gas in China’s Energy Balance....................................... 1 Year .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1.2. Resources.......................................................................................................... 2 1.1.3. Governing bodies and Industry Players ............................................................ 5 1.1.4. Exploration and Production .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Case 14-12308-KJC Doc 368 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1
    Case 14-12308-KJC Doc 368 Filed 01/20/15 Page 1 of 32 Case 14-12308-KJC Doc 368 Filed 01/20/15 Page 2 of 32 Case 14-12308-KJC Doc 368 Filed 01/20/15 Page 3 of 32 Case 14-12308-KJC Doc 368 Filed 01/20/15 Page 4 of 32 Case 14-12308-KJC Doc 368 Filed 01/20/15 Page 5 of 32 Case 14-12308-KJC Doc 368 Filed 01/20/15 Page 6 of 32 Case 14-12308-KJC Doc 368 Filed 01/20/15 Page 7 of 32 Schedule A Case 14-12308-KJC Doc 368 Filed 01/20/15 Page 8 of 32 Debtors’ List of Potential Parties-in-Interest Debtors (including trade names and aliases (up to 8 years) (a/k/a, f/k/a, d/b/a ) Endeavour Operating Corporation (DE) Endeavour International Corporation (NV) Endeavour Colorado Corporation (DE) END Management Company (DE) Endeavour Energy New Ventures, Inc. (DE) Endeavour Energy Luxembourg S.a.r.l (Luxembourg) Non-Debtor Subsidiaries and Affiliates (including trade names and aliases (up to 8 years) (a/k/a, f/k/a, d/b/a) Endeavour Energy U.K. Limited (English/Welsh) Endeavour North Sea Ltd. (English/Welsh) Endeavour Energy North Sea L.P. (DE) Endeavour Energy North Sea LLC (DE) END Finco, LLC (DE) Endeavour International Holding B.V. (Netherlands) Endeavour Energy Netherlands, B.V. (Netherlands) Trade Names and Aliases (up to 8 years) (a/k/a, f/k/a, d/b/a ) CSOR Acquisition Corporation Curtis S.a r.l.
    [Show full text]
  • AFPM 2019 Refining Capacity Report
    American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers afpm.org AFPM United States Refining and Storage Capacity Report January 1, 2019 Published August 2019 Refining Capacity Report January 1, 2019 Locations of U.S. Refineries 2019 PADD V PADD IV PADD II PADD I PADD III Large: Over 75,000 bbl/cd Small: Under 75,000 bbl/cd AFPM: We Make Progress Refining Capacity Report January 1, 2019 AFPM United States Refining and Storage Capacity Report The enclosed statistics provide U.S. refining and storage The following table lists the total U.S. refining capacity for the capacity data as reported by the DOE Energy Information past five years: Administration in their 2019 Refinery Capacity Report. These data, along with other DOE statistics, are also available January 1 Total Capacity in electronically. (See the note at the bottom for details). This report Thousands of Barrels Per Calendar Day is also available on the AFPM website (www.afpm.org) located within the Data & Reports dropdown menu at the top of the 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 webpage by clicking the Data & Statistics link. U.S. Capacity 17,967 18,317 18,617 18,598 18,802 On January 1, 2019, there were 135a operable refineries in the United States with total crude distillation capacity of about 18.80 million barrels per calendar day (bbl/cd) and 19.96 Percentage Change in U.S. Capacity from million barrels per stream day (bbl/sd). Of these, 132 refineries Previous Year were operating on January 1, 2019, with operating capacity listed at 18.69 million bbl/cd and 19.83 million bbl/sd.
    [Show full text]
  • Refinery Capacity Report
    Refinery Capacity Report June 2013 With Data as of January 1, 2013 Independent Statistics & Analysis U.S. Department of Energy www.eia.gov Washington, DC 20585 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or other Federal agencies. Table 1. Number and Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State as of January 1, 2013 Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Number of Barrels per Barrels per PAD District Operable Refineries Calendar Day Stream Day and State Total Operating Idle a Total Operating Idle b Total Operating Idle b ...............................................................................................................................................PAD District I 11 10 1 1,293,200 1,265,200 28,000 1,361,700 1,329,700 32,000 ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles Basin Section Society of Petroleum Engineers a Message
    MAY 1, 2018 LASPE NEWSLETTER Los Angeles Basin Section Society of Petroleum Engineers Recipient of the SPE President’s Section Award for Excelence & a SPE Gold Standard Section A Message from the Chair AMAZING LASPE APRIL - Successful WRM, Awards for LASPE Members, Contents Successful and fun Golf Tournament! Petroleum Technology Luncheon Tuesday May 8th, “Minimizing Lifting Costs to Maximize Economic Dear Friends and Members of SPE, E"ciencies” pages 1 & 3 Wow! What an April we had at the LASPE. It started out with our Photos of April 13th Petroleum monthly luncheon speaker Liz Percak-Dennett. Her talk on Subsurface Technology Luncheon page 4 DNA Diagnostics was absolutely fascinating. Then, the LASPE hosted the annual SPE Western Regional Meeting (WRM) at the Hyatt LAPE Members Receive Regional Awards at WRM Regency near Disneyland. It was a great event. Ted Frankiewicz and page 5 Baldev Gill chaired the meeting. Thanks to an outstanding committee, the WRM was a huge success. The 2019 SPEI President-Elect, Sami Al- SUCCESSFUL Golf Tournament Neaim, who is Manager, Petroleum Engineering Application Services at pages 6 - 7 Saudi Aramco, attended the WRM and was impressed with all the activities. MESA Report page 7 We had 3 of our fellow LASPE members receive awards at the WRM. LASPE Scholarships, Apply Brian Tran, LASPE Board Member and former ViceChair was honored Now! with the Regional Service Award. Brian has been a tremendous pages 9 - 11 contributor to the LASPE as well as the entire oil industry in Southern California. Francois Florence was chosen for the Drilling Engineer OCEC Nominations Award.
    [Show full text]
  • Stan Ych CEQA Project Manager/Consultant Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health and Safety 355 S. Gr
    Carson Gore EIR 1 PXP September 28, 2005 Stan Ych CEQA Project Manager/Consultant Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health and Safety 355 S. Grand Avenue, 15'° Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Fax: 213.633.7001 [email protected] Central R¢gion Elementary School No. 13 To Whom It May Concern: Refenmc.e is mad~;: to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ElR), Central Region, Elementary School No. 13. Please be advised that Plains Exploration &.Production Company (PXP) deems D-1 the draft E!R to ]:le deficient, as the impacts to its existing oil and natural gas facility lo.cated .at 3304 West Washingto.n Boulevard, Lo.sAngeles, CA 90018 have no.tbeen adequately addressed. The.passage AREAS OF K,.'\!OWN CONTROVERSY contained in the Executive Summary of 1 the EIR does not address the existinglocl!tion ofthe 4 h Avenue Drillsite located directly across the street from the proposed school project site. Further, the concern raiso;:d during the public D-2 comment hearing (co.ntained in the dr11ft EIR) regarding the location ofa school between an oil drilling repository and a gas station was also not addresSed. In general, the draft EIR failed to address impacts of the proposed school on StJITOtiilding existinj facilities, a._nd further, did not adequately address the impacts on the proposed school by the D-3 surrounding facilities. Backgrou11d, Curre11t «f!il Fr,~ture ()perqtf011cS: 1 PXP operates the 4 h Avenue drill site .ofLas Cienegas Oil Field. PXP purchaso;:d the field from Betttley-Simonson, Inc. on April!, 20()5, and plans to increase production of the field via the reworking of existing wells, utilizing modern, state-of-the art re-drilling and re-completion techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Activity and Its Socioeconomic Impacts: Oil and Three Coastal California Counties
    OCS Study • MMS 2002-049 Industrial Activity and Its Socioeconomic Impacts: Oil and Three Coastal California Counties Final Technical Summary Final Study Report U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Pacific OCS Region 2 Industrial Activity and Its Socioeconomic Impacts: Oil and Three Coastal California Counties Final Technical Summary Final Study Report Authors Russell J. Schmitt Jenifer E. Dugan Principal Investigators and Michael R. Adamson Prepared under MMS Cooperative Agreement No. 14-35-01-00-CA-31063 (Task Order #17610) by Coastal Marine Institute Marine Science Institute University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Camarillo Pacific OCS Region May 2003 3 Disclaimer This report has been reviewed by the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and approved for publication. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations in this report are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Minerals Management Service. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use. This report has not been edited for conformity with Minerals Management Service editorial standards. Availability of Report Extra copies of the report may be obtained from: U.S. Dept. of the Interior Minerals Management Service Pacific OCS Region 770 Paseo Camarillo Camarillo, CA 93010 phone: 805-389-7621 A PDF file of this report is available at: http://www.coastalresearchcenter.ucsb.edu/CMI/ Suggested Citation The suggested citation for this report is: Schmitt, R. J., Dugan, J. E., and M.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 364 Refinery Fenceline and Community Air Monitoring
    SANTA BARBARA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT Proposed Staff Report for: Rule 364 Refinery Fenceline and Community Air Monitoring Date: April 17, 2020 Aeron Arlin Genet Air Pollution Control Officer Prepared By: Tim Mitro Air Quality Engineer Main Office 260 N. San Antonio Road, Suite A Santa Barbara, California 93110 Telephone (805) 961-8800 www.ourair.org North County Office 301 E Cook St, Suite L Santa Maria, CA 93454 Our Mission Our mission is to protect the people and the environment of Santa Barbara County from the effects of air pollution. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................1 2. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................2 2.1 Source Category Description 2 2.2 Santa Maria Asphalt Refinery 2 2.3 Assembly Bill 1647 2 2.4 Criteria Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants 3 2.5 Refinery-Related Pollutants of Concern 3 2.6 Existing On-site Monitoring 4 2.7 Fenceline Air Monitoring Technology 5 3. PROPOSED RULE REQUIREMENTS – Rule 364 ................................................................6 3.1 Overview of Proposed Requirements 6 3.2 Fenceline Monitoring Plan Submittal 6 3.3 Fenceline Monitoring Plan Review 7 3.4 Implementation of the Fenceline Air Monitoring System 8 3.5 Community Air Monitoring Station and Fees 8 4. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE ...............................................................................10 4.1 Emission Impacts 10 4.2 Cost-Effectiveness 10 4.3 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness 10 4.4 Socioeconomic Impacts 10 4.5 Impact to Industry 10 4.6 Impact to the District 12 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS – CEQA ............................................................................13 5.1 Environmental Impacts 13 5.2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Requirements 13 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Greka Energy Corporation Is an Independent Oil and Gas Producer with Operations in California and South Louisiana
    Equity Research March 5, 2002 Exploration & Production Greka Energy C. Van Levy (713) 650-2152 R. Michael Villarreal (713) 650-2010 Corporation Victor Ponce de Leon (713) 650-2035 Restructuring Plan Allows Charles R. Parkerson (713) 650-2155 Focus On Asphalt Plant Investment Conclusion Rating: STRONG BUY · Greka Energy announced an aggressive restructuring plan GRKA-OTC (3/4/2002): $7.04 on March 4. The company plans to sell less profitable, non- 52-week Range: $15.50-5.93 Shares Outstanding: 4.7 Million core E&P assets in Louisiana and California. The proceeds Float: 3.9 Million Shares will be used to enhance its most profitable asset, the Santa Market Capitalization: $33 Million Maria basin asphalt refinery. Dividend/Yield: Nil/Nil Fiscal Year Ends: December · To maximize profits, Greka will acquire and fill up the Book Value: $10.12 per Share plant with proximal, long-lived, crude oil reserves. In that 2001E ROE: NM vein, the first acquisition (Vintage Petroleum’s Cat Canyon LT Debt: $39 Million Preferred: Nil field) has been closed into escrow. The acquisition will Common Equity: $46 Million allow Greka to increase “equity” or company-owned throughput from 12% to 32%. Two additional properties have been identified and if consummated will increase plant Earnings per Share utilization above 80%. We maintain our Strong Buy rating 2000 ......................................................$1.77 2001E....................................................$0.51 and 12-month price target of $12 per share. 2002E....................................................$2.23 · Sale of non-core E&P assets—Greka plans to sell the 2003E....................................................$4.18 Potash and Manila Village fields in Louisiana and the P/E Ratio 2000 .......................................................4.0X Richfield East Dome Unit and PRC 91 fields in California.
    [Show full text]