New Report: Germany Caved To France On Copyright In A Deal For Russian Gas

from the horse-trading:-the-public-internet-for-russian-gas dept

In the hours leading up to the vote in the EU Parliament on the EU Copyright Directive, the German publication FAZ (which has been generally supportive of the Directive) has released quite a bombshell (in German), suggesting that the reason Germany caved to France on its terrible demands concerning copyright was in order to get France's approval of the controversial Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia.

If you don't recall, the German delegation had actually pushed back on the more extreme versions of Article 13 -- and, in particular, had demanded that a final version have a clear carve-out for smaller companies, so as not to have them forced out of business by the onerous demands of the law. However, after some back and forth, Germany caved in to France's demands, with many left scratching their heads as to why. However, some noted the "coincidence" in timing, that right after this, France also withdrew its objections to the pipeline which is very controversial in the EU (and the US, which is threatening sanctions).

FAZ notes that there were whispered rumors about Germany and France basically trading these two proposals, with Germany effectively selling out the open public internet in exchange for easier access to Russian gas. However, it has now seen documents that support this claim. Germany's economic minister, Peter Altmaier apparently promised startups that Germany would not cave on its promise to create a carve-out for all companies with less than 20 million euros in revenue per year -- only to drop that demand the very next day.

According to FAZ, the French delegation directly suggested the idea of France backing away from its opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Germany backed away from its concerns about Article 13. And, voila, within days, Germany gave up on its demands regarding Article 13 and, a few days later, France switched sides and agreed to support the pipeline. So, as the German MEPs go to the polls tomorrow, we'll see if they think it was a fair deal to sell out the public internet in exchange for some Russian gas.

Filed Under: article 13, copyright, eu copyright directive, france, germany, internet, nord stream 2, oil, pipelines, russia

DailyDirt: Oil And Water Aren't Supposed To Mix...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

We've previously mentioned an Xprize winner that came up with a better way to clean up an oil spill after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. We've also seen some patented but somewhat impractical oil-eating bacteria approaches to cleaning up oil spills. If you've ever wondered, why don't they just use magnets? Here you go, three different ways that could help recover oil from a spill on water.

• So far, there have been 13 large-scale oil spill disasters across the globe, and clean up technology hasn't improved that much over the years. Adding magnetic particles (magnetite) to oil spills might help efforts to reclaim the oil and minimize the environmental impact. [url]
• Magnetized oil for easier spill clean up has been done by academic researchers at MIT, too. It's nice to be able to separate oil and water more quickly, but we still haven't quite found a complete solution for cleaning up wide areas of choppy waters contaminated with varying kinds of hydrocarbons. [url]
• Nanosponge materials could help soak up oils in water -- and they're also magnetic. Rice University researchers made these carbon nanotube based materials and tested them under lab conditions, but scaling up the fabrication of these sponges that could work in oceans or other waterways needs more development. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: bp deepwater horizon disaster, carbon nanotube, magnet, magnetite, nanosponge, nanotech, oil, oil spill, pollution

DailyDirt: Who Doesn't Like Cheap Oil?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

For a pretty good stretch, the price of a barrel of oil was about $90-$100, but now the price is around $35 or so. That's a good bargain for some consumers, but on the other hand, thousands of oil workers aren't working and plenty of companies that bet on oil prices staying high are going out of business. The simplified explanation is that the current oil supply exceeds the demand for it -- and it takes some time/politics for oil production to adapt. Oil prices might start to go back up significantly in 2017, but in the meantime, there are about 68 oil projects around the world worth about $380 billion that are on hold for a while.

• The price of oil has dropped dramatically over the last year or so, and for certain low-grade crude oil, the price can be as low as negative $0.50 per barrel. Take away this toxic waste that could also be turned into fuel, please.... [url]
• The Kashagan oil field has sucked in about $50 billion (and counting) from companies trying to tap into this enormous reservoir of oil (estimates say 16 billion barrels). However, some folks refer to it as "cash all gone" because after a couple decades of work, there have been a few major setbacks and engineering challenges -- and there's a chance that the oil might start pumping regularly in 2017. [url]
• The US spent about half a billion dollars in Afghanistan to develop oil, gas and minerals industries, but there's not much to show for it. Drilling and mining ain't easy, but it's even harder when armed militias are actively trying to destroy everything. Still, a hydrocarbon industry worth many billions (even with low oil prices) could potentially exist -- but there are just a few enormous problems to overcome first. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: crude oil, energy, fossil fuels, hydrocarbon fuel, kashagan oil field, oil, oil prices

DailyDirt: What, Me Worry?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The price of oil is surprisingly low -- dipping below $30 a barrel recently. That's not a bad thing for consumers who like to drive and have warm homes in the winter and for the prices of a whole lot of other things. But let's not get too comfortable with hydrocarbon-based fuels for too long. There are a few concerning things about burning fossil fuels -- even if we're not worried about carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. However, the alternatives might not be that great, either.

• A massive methane leak in southern California has been spewing over 100,000 pounds per hour of natural gas into the atmosphere for months now. Several attempts to plug the leak have failed, possibly making the problem worse each time, and it could be sometime in March before the leak is under some control. [url]
• BP spent over $14 billion on cleanup efforts after the Deepwater Horizon accident in 2010. The environmental damage is still being assessed, and all kinds of marine wildlife from around the world might be affected (e.g., turtles). It's estimated that 4.9 million barrels of oil were released, and a sizable amount of that oil is unaccounted for -- though Mother Nature may have biodegraded some of it. [url]
• Satellite imagery from 2003-2009 detected a mysterious methane hotspot near the Four Corners intersection of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. This leak poured about 590,000 tons of methane into the air for each year it was seen, and no one has quite pinpointed its source(s) yet. For reference, this methane hotspot emits more than natural leaks from the ocean floor. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: carbon dioxide, climate change, deepwater horizon, environmental damage, fossil fuels, methane, oil, pollution

DailyDirt: The Curse Of Oil

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Having huge oil reserves can be an economic curse for a developing country. The natural-resource curse often produces oil-rich nations that are ruled by dictators and are so reliant on petroleum that its economic growth is hindered because all other industries are neglected. The prediction of the end of fossil fuels will come true someday, but the exact time of death isn't easy to forecast because improving technology seems to keep extending the useful lifetime of oil. Here are a few links on the topic of planning for a post-oil economy.

• Saudi Arabia discovered its oil reserves in 1938, and now oil accounts for 90% of the country's exports and about half of its GDP. By 2030, those oil reserves could start drying up, so the country is starting to look at ways to diversify its economy and create a culture of innovation. Changing an entire country's mindset about work and entrepreneurship isn't exactly a simple task, however. [url]
• A recent report predicts that at the current rate of development, global oil will be depleted about 90 years before its replacement technologies are ready. This prediction is based on stock market data, not on any single expert's opinion on the state of alternative energy projects. So will we see the end of oil coming -- and not change our behavior in time? [url]
• Norway is one of the few examples of a country that has managed its oil reserves to avoid the natural-resource curse. After Norway discovered it was sitting on about half a trillion dollars worth of black gold, it didn't allow drilling projects to commence at full-speed. By strictly regulating its oil drilling operations, Norway has been able to prevent oil money from destroying its existing industries and economic health. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: energy, fossil fuel, natural resource curse, oil, peak oil, petroleum, predictions

DailyDirt: Better Biofuels To Save The Day

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Weaning ourselves off of a hydrocarbon-powered economy is not going to be easy. The infrastructure to distribute and use petroleum distillates is ubiquitous, so biofuels that can easily use the same equipment could be a convenient way to start replacing fossil fuels. Using more and more biofuels sounds like an easy solution, but the real trick is scaling up the processes in an economical way. Here are just a few biofuel projects that might be worth keeping an eye on.

• Companies making biofuels from plant waste -- avoiding corn as a feedstock -- are starting to ramp up production, with capacities to make millions of gallons of cellulosic ethanol in a year. A few million gallons of alcohol isn't that much compared to the hundred of billions (with a b) of gallons of petroleum distillates that the US uses as fuel, but these biofuel technologies could become price competitive with corn-based ethanol in a few years. [url]
• Enzymes from the wood-eating gribble could help turn cellulosic waste into biofuels. Not to be confused with the furry creatures hated by Klingons, the gribble produces this robust catalyst that breaks down a variety of polysaccharides into simple sugars -- potentially creating a key step in a process that would make sustainable liquid biofuels. [url]
• A genetically modified strain of Pyrococcus furiosus might be useful for converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into chemicals and fuels. This microorganism usually lives near geothermal vents in ocean water, but an engineered colony of P furiosus could live in less extreme conditions and be fed a diet of hydrogen and carbon dioxide in order to skip the somewhat inefficient use of plant biomass to produce biofuels. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: biofuel, biomass, carbon dioxide, carbon fixation, cellulose, energy, enzymes, ethanol, fuel, gribble, oil, petroleum, pyrococcus furiosus, sugar

Pixar Trademark Lawyers Being Kept Busy: Fighting Pixar Petroleum, While Being Fought By The Atlanta Braves Over 'Brave'

from the brave-pixar dept

It appears that Disney's Pixar division is engaged in two separate, but interesting, trademark battles (though the two are quite different). The first involves a Canadian oil company that decided to call its new division Pixar Petroleum. Turns out that Pixar isn't happy about that and is taking legal action. One of the points raised is that Pixar chief John Lasseter is a big proponent of alternative fuels and may not like any association with an oil company. Of course, that alone doesn't make for a reasonable trademark claim. In fact, I'm wondering if there is a reasonable trademark claim here at all. Trademarks cover the specific industries in which you use the mark in commerce, and despite movies like Cars, it seems like a pretty big reach to suggest that digital animation studio Pixar is in the same industry as oil producing Pixar. While it might cause a doubletake, I'm not sure that any of your traditional morons in a hurry would actually think that the characters from Toys were setting up oil refineries in Canada.

In this second dispute, Pixar finds itself on the other side of the coin. The major league baseball team, the Atlanta Braves, are apparently trying to dispute Pixar's attempt to register Brave as a trademark. Pixar wants the name because it's releasing a movie with that name. Of course, the baseball team doesn't actually hold a registered trademark on just "Brave." Instead its registered marks are on the plural version. This doesn't entirely exclude their protest, as they can argue a common law trademark or a likelihood of confusion.

Either way, I'm at a loss as to where the confusion would be here as well. I don't see anyone going to see the Pixar movie and then being disappointed that it wasn't a baseball game.

Filed Under: baseball, movies, oil, trademark
Companies: atlanta braves, disney, pixar, pixar petroleum

DailyDirt: Placing Bets On Alternative Energy Technologies...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

As oil prices fluctuate, so do the opinions of what to do about shifting away from fossil fuels. Gas prices seem to be going up, and that has boosted the calls for investment in alternative energy projects. Unfortunately, there's no clearly superior technology that's poised to take over. But there are plenty of opinions being thrown around -- here are just a few.

• Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to put huge solar power plants in the Mojave Desert to help reduce America's dependence on oil. But isn't there a nuclear battery in his chest (from a Skynet-dominated future...) that we can reverse engineer? [url]
• Critics of wind and wave energy say that the environmental impact of these sources could be harmful -- if they were actually used to produce significant amounts of energy. Ah, the good old truckload of vegetables tactic arises, again. [url]
• Bill Gates says nuclear power is the best energy solution -- and that other alternative energy technologies are merely cute. Bill Gates is right, though, nuclear power is definitely not cute. [url]
• To discover more stuff on alternative energy, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

As always, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: nuclear, oil, solar, truckload of vegetables, wave, wind