Ed Morrisey thinks that the failed Solyndra solar power company could become a major scandal for the Obama administration:
The Obama administration chose Solyndra as its poster child for this effort. The White House fast-tracked approval for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. The company received $535 million from the Treasury's Federal Financing Bank to build a new manufacturing facility. Obama himself appeared at Solyndra touting his green-jobs initiative, while Solyndra insisted as late as this summer that their financial status was strong.
Suddenly, though, Solyndra collapsed, seemingly without warning. Its employees — more than a thousand of them — showed up to work on the last day of August to discover that the company had shut its doors. And just as suddenly, we began to find out that the collapse was not unforeseen after all. Despite the assurances of Solyndra executives to members of Congress, the company's stock price had fallen drastically over the past two years as questions arose about Solyndra's competitiveness and financial strength. And its taxpayer-backed expansion didn't create many new jobs, as Congress noticed in February.
Here it gets interesting:
Solyndra has connections all the way to Obama himself. When Solyndra initially applied for taxpayer subsidies, auditors at the Department of Energy questioned Solyndra's stability. So why did the Obama administration fast-track Solyndra's application? One reason might be that one of the chief investors in Solyndra is George Kaiser — who also was one of Obama's campaign bundlers in 2008, raising more than $50,000. Solyndra executives made more than 20 visits to the White House between March 2009 and April 2011. Was it a coincidence that Solyndra ended up with an interest rate from the feds at one-fourth the going rate for green-jobs projects?
Read the entire article here
PS
As we all know by now, fraud and other irregularities have been thriving in the "green jobs" business in Europe for several years now. Why indeed should the situation be different in the US?
Wednesday, 14 September 2011
Latest warmist scare: Cholera!
Another day, another global warming scare. The latest scare is about sea bacteria putting millions of swimmers and sailers at risk: Cholera!
A new European report says the warming oceans caused by climate change are leading to the spread of dangerous bacteria in the sea.
The report to be presented Wednesday at a two-day global warming conference in Brussels predicts that millions of people may be exposed to contaminated food and water. They also could become sick by swimming and sailing in the dirty seas.
The study by 17 European marine institutes says the warming is leading to a proliferation of the Vibrio bacteria, which has been linked to such diseases as cholera and gastroenteritis.
The report also says the Earth's oceans are heating up at a rate faster than previously thought, causing ice sheets to melt and putting some island nations and coastal regions in peril.
Read the entire article here
PS
The only thing that surprises is that it took so long for the warmists at the 17 marine institutes to link cholera to global warming. Their land based "colleagues" linked Bubonic plague to global warming already in 2006!
And for Californians the cholera scare probably does not matter that much, because they will anyway soon have to adapt to a life without beaches - if one is to believe a fresh study.
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
The hubris of an Australian warmist professor: "We put the physics in and then the answer pops out"
The Australian global warming lobby is desperately trying to convince an increasingly sceptical audience about the blessings of their climate models Dr. Dave Griggs, from the Monash Sustainability Institute and Dr. John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research made the following claims at an online briefing organised by the Australian Science Media Centre:
models were getting more accurate as scientists incorporated data from more areas.
Scientists were often surprised by their results because the climate system was so complicated, Prof Griggs said.
"We don't tune these models to get the answer we want.
"We put the physics in and then the answer pops out - so yes, you can be surprised."
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research's John Church says virtually all climate data is shared among scientists worldwide.
While there is a variety of models in his study area of sea levels all show the same trend
Read the entire article here
Reality check:
There is a multitude of evidence about the total failure of the warmist climate change models. The fact is that the warmists are doing exactly what Dr. Griggs says they are not doing. Warren Myer, writing in Forbes magazine, summarizes what´s wrong with the models:
a lot climate experimentation occurs within computers, rather than via direct observation of natural phenomena. For example, in the last IPCC report, their conclusion that most of the recent warming had probably been man-made was based mainly on computer study of the period between 1978 and 1998. They ran their models for this period both with and without manmade CO2, and determined that they could only replicate the temperature rise in this period with by including manmade CO2 in their models.
Believe it or not, that is the main evidence that global warming catastrophism is based on. Yes, I am sure you can raise all the concerns I have — what if the computer models don’t adequately model the climate? What if they leave out key factors or over-emphasize certain dynamics? Drawing firm conclusions from these models is like assuming you can be a rock star after winning a game of Guitar Hero.
But it is when these models are used to project catastrophic outcomes in the future that they are perhaps the most suspect. Scientists often act as if the projected warming from various CO2 forecasts is just an output of the models — in other words, “we built in a sophisticated understanding of how the climate works and out pops a lot of warming.” (exactly what Dr. Griggs is doing! NNoN) And in the details this is true. The timing and regional distribution of the warming tends to be a fairly unpredictable product of the model. But the approximate magnitude of the warming is virtually pre-determined. It turns out that climate sensitivity, the overall amount of warming we can expect from a certain rise in CO2 concentrations, is really an input to most models.
This means that the inputs of the model are set such that a climate sensitivity of, say, 4 degrees per doubling is inevitable. The model might come up with 4.1 or 3.9, but one could have performed a quick calculation on the inputs and found that, even without the model, the answer was already programmed to be close to 4. Rather than real science, the climate models are in some sense an elaborate methodology for disguising our uncertainty. They take guesses at the front-end and spit them out at the back-end with three-decimal precision. In this sense, the models are closer in function to the light and sound show the Wizard of Oz uses to make himself seem more impressive, and that he uses to hide from the audience his shortcomings.
And if you want the opinion of a real scientific heavyweight, here is what Dr. Freeman Dyson thinks about the climate models:
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...
Read the entire article here
John Church is partially right when he claims that virtually all climate data is shared among scientists worldwide. The truth is, of course, that all the warmists share the same false data (obtained from the false models) worldwide.
It may very well be true that all the warmist sea level models show the same trend , as Church claims, but studies based on real observations tell another story:
Reality check:
AGAINST all the odds, a number of shape-shifting islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are standing up to the effects of climate change.
For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet - island states that barely rise out of the ocean - face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown.
Paul Kench at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Arthur Webb at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji used historical aerial photos and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land surface of 27 Pacific islands over the last 60 years. During that time, local sea levels have risen by 120 millimetres, or 2 millimetres per year on ...
Read the entire article here
Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project:
It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero. This is illustrated in Fig 3.
--
In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future.
There are more urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.
Read the entire memorandum here
PS
It is not surprising that Dave Griggs and John Church are so busy promoting climate alarmism, when one considers their background:
in 1996 he was appointed Head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific assessment unit. IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. In 2001 he became Deputy Chief Scientist and Director of the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, widely acknowledged as the world's leading centre for climate change research. After a brief spell as Met Office Director of Government Business, in September 2007 he moved to Australia to become Director of the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI). Dave is also CEO of ClimateWorks Australia.
dave.griggs@monash.edu
Dr Church has recently accepted a position as coordinating lead author of the Sea Level Change chapter for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, to be completed in 2013.
He was co-convening lead author for the Chapter on Sea Level in the IPCC Third Assessment Report.
models were getting more accurate as scientists incorporated data from more areas.
Scientists were often surprised by their results because the climate system was so complicated, Prof Griggs said.
"We don't tune these models to get the answer we want.
"We put the physics in and then the answer pops out - so yes, you can be surprised."
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research's John Church says virtually all climate data is shared among scientists worldwide.
While there is a variety of models in his study area of sea levels all show the same trend
Read the entire article here
Reality check:
There is a multitude of evidence about the total failure of the warmist climate change models. The fact is that the warmists are doing exactly what Dr. Griggs says they are not doing. Warren Myer, writing in Forbes magazine, summarizes what´s wrong with the models:
a lot climate experimentation occurs within computers, rather than via direct observation of natural phenomena. For example, in the last IPCC report, their conclusion that most of the recent warming had probably been man-made was based mainly on computer study of the period between 1978 and 1998. They ran their models for this period both with and without manmade CO2, and determined that they could only replicate the temperature rise in this period with by including manmade CO2 in their models.
Believe it or not, that is the main evidence that global warming catastrophism is based on. Yes, I am sure you can raise all the concerns I have — what if the computer models don’t adequately model the climate? What if they leave out key factors or over-emphasize certain dynamics? Drawing firm conclusions from these models is like assuming you can be a rock star after winning a game of Guitar Hero.
But it is when these models are used to project catastrophic outcomes in the future that they are perhaps the most suspect. Scientists often act as if the projected warming from various CO2 forecasts is just an output of the models — in other words, “we built in a sophisticated understanding of how the climate works and out pops a lot of warming.” (exactly what Dr. Griggs is doing! NNoN) And in the details this is true. The timing and regional distribution of the warming tends to be a fairly unpredictable product of the model. But the approximate magnitude of the warming is virtually pre-determined. It turns out that climate sensitivity, the overall amount of warming we can expect from a certain rise in CO2 concentrations, is really an input to most models.
This means that the inputs of the model are set such that a climate sensitivity of, say, 4 degrees per doubling is inevitable. The model might come up with 4.1 or 3.9, but one could have performed a quick calculation on the inputs and found that, even without the model, the answer was already programmed to be close to 4. Rather than real science, the climate models are in some sense an elaborate methodology for disguising our uncertainty. They take guesses at the front-end and spit them out at the back-end with three-decimal precision. In this sense, the models are closer in function to the light and sound show the Wizard of Oz uses to make himself seem more impressive, and that he uses to hide from the audience his shortcomings.
And if you want the opinion of a real scientific heavyweight, here is what Dr. Freeman Dyson thinks about the climate models:
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...
Read the entire article here
John Church is partially right when he claims that virtually all climate data is shared among scientists worldwide. The truth is, of course, that all the warmists share the same false data (obtained from the false models) worldwide.
It may very well be true that all the warmist sea level models show the same trend , as Church claims, but studies based on real observations tell another story:
Reality check:
AGAINST all the odds, a number of shape-shifting islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are standing up to the effects of climate change.
For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet - island states that barely rise out of the ocean - face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown.
Paul Kench at the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Arthur Webb at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission in Fiji used historical aerial photos and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land surface of 27 Pacific islands over the last 60 years. During that time, local sea levels have risen by 120 millimetres, or 2 millimetres per year on ...
Read the entire article here
Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project:
It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero. This is illustrated in Fig 3.
--
In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future.
There are more urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.
Read the entire memorandum here
PS
It is not surprising that Dave Griggs and John Church are so busy promoting climate alarmism, when one considers their background:
in 1996 he was appointed Head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific assessment unit. IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. In 2001 he became Deputy Chief Scientist and Director of the Hadley Centre for Climate Change, widely acknowledged as the world's leading centre for climate change research. After a brief spell as Met Office Director of Government Business, in September 2007 he moved to Australia to become Director of the Monash Sustainability Institute (MSI). Dave is also CEO of ClimateWorks Australia.
dave.griggs@monash.edu
Dr Church has recently accepted a position as coordinating lead author of the Sea Level Change chapter for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, to be completed in 2013.
He was co-convening lead author for the Chapter on Sea Level in the IPCC Third Assessment Report.
Monday, 12 September 2011
"Useful idiot" David Cameron meets a thug in Moscow
A useful idiot meeting a thug in Moscow
David Cameron has today met with a thug - Vladimir Putin - in Moscow. Simon Tisdall´s column in the Guardian is very much to the point:
Cameron's role, in Putin's eyes, as modern-day useful idiot may be further enhanced by the former's cautiously oblique references to bilateral concerns including corruption, legal swindles encountered by British businesses and human rights issues. In Putin-land, where "democracy" is clumsily stage-managed, theft is institutionalised, free speech is largely illusory and the whole concept of civil liberties is viewed as suspect and potentially subversive. The mention of such matters by a visiting national leader who plainly has other, more pressing, priorities means they may more easily be discounted and pushed aside.
The de facto, unthinking legitimisation of Putinism, if this were indeed the result of Cameron's foray, would be unfortunate in the extreme. It hardly seems worth the £215m in trade deals and 500 British jobs that Downing Street reckons it may get out of it. For the Litvinenko affair is but the tip of a rather large Arctic iceberg whose full, submerged extent is not widely appreciated in Britain or in other EU states, notably Germany, blinded by energy dependency and other unlovely manifestations of "realpolitik".
Read the entire article here
PS
Verdict: Cameron - like so many of his international colleagues - is a person without principles. Which is sad, because in these difficult and challenging times there is a desparate lack of politicians of stature.
David Cameron has today met with a thug - Vladimir Putin - in Moscow. Simon Tisdall´s column in the Guardian is very much to the point:
Cameron's role, in Putin's eyes, as modern-day useful idiot may be further enhanced by the former's cautiously oblique references to bilateral concerns including corruption, legal swindles encountered by British businesses and human rights issues. In Putin-land, where "democracy" is clumsily stage-managed, theft is institutionalised, free speech is largely illusory and the whole concept of civil liberties is viewed as suspect and potentially subversive. The mention of such matters by a visiting national leader who plainly has other, more pressing, priorities means they may more easily be discounted and pushed aside.
The de facto, unthinking legitimisation of Putinism, if this were indeed the result of Cameron's foray, would be unfortunate in the extreme. It hardly seems worth the £215m in trade deals and 500 British jobs that Downing Street reckons it may get out of it. For the Litvinenko affair is but the tip of a rather large Arctic iceberg whose full, submerged extent is not widely appreciated in Britain or in other EU states, notably Germany, blinded by energy dependency and other unlovely manifestations of "realpolitik".
It was only last Christmas, after all, that pro-democracy opposition street protests were repressed and leading campaigners such as Boris Nemtsov arrested. The crackdown followed last year's expansion of the powers of the FSB secret police and Putin's exhortation to the security apparatus to "crack heads with batons" if people protested without permission. All this against the backdrop of the show trial of former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, an arch-opponent of Putin, and other more recent abuses.
Nor is it that long since Britain was complaining about what officials called a "huge Russian intelligence operation in the UK" and the two countries were expelling each other's diplomats. Is Cameron suggesting that this espionage problem, like the Putin regime's human rights record, can now be safely ignored? Are Putin's policies in the Muslim Caucasus, where his mishandling of Chechen separatism has kindled something akin to a region-wide conflict, now a matter for British silence or, worse, indifference? And what of Russia's continuing obstructionism on Syria and its ongoing nuclear collaboration Read the entire article here
PS
Verdict: Cameron - like so many of his international colleagues - is a person without principles. Which is sad, because in these difficult and challenging times there is a desparate lack of politicians of stature.
Global warming causes armed robbery, prostitution, drug abuse and lack of quality time in Ghana
The climate change/global warming (indoctrination) programs, financed by the European Union, the United Nations and other "stakeholders" are beginning to show results in Africa. Modern Ghana reports that climate change is now creating "deviant behaviors" such as "armed robbery, prostitution, and drug abuse" among the youth in Ghana:
We observed during a tour in the community that Farm lands have been destroyed due to the main river of the community overflowing its banks. Crops such as Cassava, Yam, Cocoyam, and Plantain are unable to be harvested. Thus the youth including young women have become jobless and are forced to engage in deviant behaviors such as armed robbery, prostitution, and drug abuse as means of survival.
The disappearance of parents´ quality time with children is also blamed on climate change/global warming:
Parents no longer have quality time with their children thereby not able to inculcate in their children the necessary values and principles needed to forming the right attitude in life. When children become wayward, their actions and/or inactions may be detrimental to society. Women are tasked with the pain of walking several kilometers to access water for domestic chores. Husbands may not be willing to devote all the needed support and care that their wives deserve in the name of striving for survival.
Read the entire article here
PS
The fact that people in developing countries have learnt to blame almost all their problems on global warming/climate change - and to demand billions of dollars and euros as "compensation" - seems to be the only lasting result of the myriad of EU, UN and US climate change programs in the third world. Unfortunately, the Ghanese and other people are going to be disappointed. The leaders of the western industrialized countries are still talking "the global warming talk", but many of them already realize (in private) that the entire "project" was a huge and costly mistake, that should be buried and forgotten. Their problem now is, of course, how to deal with the situation without loosing face. That probably means that the "climate change show" will still go on for some time, but - luckily - mainly on a verbal level. Even then, the costs for ordinary taxpayers are going to be astronomical ...
We observed during a tour in the community that Farm lands have been destroyed due to the main river of the community overflowing its banks. Crops such as Cassava, Yam, Cocoyam, and Plantain are unable to be harvested. Thus the youth including young women have become jobless and are forced to engage in deviant behaviors such as armed robbery, prostitution, and drug abuse as means of survival.
The disappearance of parents´ quality time with children is also blamed on climate change/global warming:
Parents no longer have quality time with their children thereby not able to inculcate in their children the necessary values and principles needed to forming the right attitude in life. When children become wayward, their actions and/or inactions may be detrimental to society. Women are tasked with the pain of walking several kilometers to access water for domestic chores. Husbands may not be willing to devote all the needed support and care that their wives deserve in the name of striving for survival.
Read the entire article here
PS
The fact that people in developing countries have learnt to blame almost all their problems on global warming/climate change - and to demand billions of dollars and euros as "compensation" - seems to be the only lasting result of the myriad of EU, UN and US climate change programs in the third world. Unfortunately, the Ghanese and other people are going to be disappointed. The leaders of the western industrialized countries are still talking "the global warming talk", but many of them already realize (in private) that the entire "project" was a huge and costly mistake, that should be buried and forgotten. Their problem now is, of course, how to deal with the situation without loosing face. That probably means that the "climate change show" will still go on for some time, but - luckily - mainly on a verbal level. Even then, the costs for ordinary taxpayers are going to be astronomical ...
Former president of Ireland: Ireland is "a developing country"
The situation in Ireland must be much worse than generally thought - at least that´s the impression one gets from this interview with former Irish president Mary Robinson:
Mrs Robinson said she hoped the EU and Ireland would continue to play a constructive role in discussions on climate change, and that she hoped the EU could offer the type of leadership that the world is crying out for.
“Given our history, suffering the effects of famine ourselves, given the fact that we are a developing country, without colonial baggage … Ireland, I believe, is uniquely positioned to play a valuable role as a bridge between the EU and the developing world,” said Mrs Robinson.
Read the entire article here
Mrs Robinson said she hoped the EU and Ireland would continue to play a constructive role in discussions on climate change, and that she hoped the EU could offer the type of leadership that the world is crying out for.
“Given our history, suffering the effects of famine ourselves, given the fact that we are a developing country, without colonial baggage … Ireland, I believe, is uniquely positioned to play a valuable role as a bridge between the EU and the developing world,” said Mrs Robinson.
Read the entire article here
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Russian energy giant Gazprom scared by the shale gas revolution
The US-led shale gas revolution seems to have scared the pants off Russian energy giant Gazprom´s top leaders. The Telegraph´s Rowina Mason went to a press conference in London:
So how does Gazprom react? Under threat, it’s gone into battle against shale on all fronts – cooking up as many reasons as it can why the technology is an ugly prospect. At a press conference in London this week, a long row of impassive Gazprom executives watched as their head of export, Alexander Medvedev, sharpened his knives against shale.
It’s a danger to drinking water, he tells us. “Every American housewife is aware of shale gas, but not every housewife is aware of the environmental consequences of the use of shale gas. I don’t know who would take the risk of endangering drinking water reservoirs.”
Nice of him to show such altruistic concern for their health, but an Environmental Protection Agency report will soon demonstrate whether there are real risks of contamination.
Then there’s the question of economic viability, of course. A Gazprom official described shale’s margins as a joke, saying there was no way it would be able to match the prices of conventionally-produced gas.
Add to this Gazprom’s warning to the US that it is already beginning to redirect its affections elsewhere. The company recently signed a long-term supply contract with China, and is likely to nurture this relationship if it believes the rapidly industrialising country’s need for gas imports will be steadier in the future.
What about the possibility that Europe could head into the shale revolution? This is “almost unimaginable”, says Mr Medvedev. The cautious Europeans would never be as gung-ho as the Americans without proper evidence of shale’s commerciality.
The effect of this offensive: it doesn’t look good for Gazprom. It may claim to be “unconcerned” about the threat of shale gas, but it has, after all, been forced to delay its Shtokman field for three years, owing to depressed demand. And by complaining so loudly, with such a variety of different objections, it simply suggests that the Russian company considers shale much more real and imminent competition than it would like to admit.
Read the entire article here
The fact that the Gazprom top leaders are engaging in this kind of cheap propaganda against shale gas exploration clearly proves that they - and their masters in the Kremlin - are deeply worried. And they should be, because soon they will not any more be able to dominate the European - and international - gas market.
Still it is surprising to see how primitively these supposedly top managers are conducting their propaganda campaign. Or maybe it is not so surprising - these are leaders who have been chosen, not by business professionals, but by the likes of Mr. Putin and his henchmen in the Kremlin.
Now it is up to the Poles (and some other European future shale gas producers) and the Americans to see to it that the Russians do not succeed in their efforts - together with the greenies - to prevent or slow down the shale gas revolution in Europe.
PS
EU energy commissioner, German Günther Oettinger a few days ago told a Polish audience about the plans to regulate shale gas exploration:
"I think we'll get a high level of acceptance when we have the same, European common standards, a high level of safety and security and quality for environmental interests," Oettinger told reporters during a visit to Wroclaw in southwest Poland.
"The best way is to Europeanise standard-efforts. We will bring some proposals to our member states maybe in the spring next year," he added.
The Poles must not let Gazprom and the greenies dictate the rules
So how does Gazprom react? Under threat, it’s gone into battle against shale on all fronts – cooking up as many reasons as it can why the technology is an ugly prospect. At a press conference in London this week, a long row of impassive Gazprom executives watched as their head of export, Alexander Medvedev, sharpened his knives against shale.
It’s a danger to drinking water, he tells us. “Every American housewife is aware of shale gas, but not every housewife is aware of the environmental consequences of the use of shale gas. I don’t know who would take the risk of endangering drinking water reservoirs.”
Nice of him to show such altruistic concern for their health, but an Environmental Protection Agency report will soon demonstrate whether there are real risks of contamination.
Then there’s the question of economic viability, of course. A Gazprom official described shale’s margins as a joke, saying there was no way it would be able to match the prices of conventionally-produced gas.
Add to this Gazprom’s warning to the US that it is already beginning to redirect its affections elsewhere. The company recently signed a long-term supply contract with China, and is likely to nurture this relationship if it believes the rapidly industrialising country’s need for gas imports will be steadier in the future.
What about the possibility that Europe could head into the shale revolution? This is “almost unimaginable”, says Mr Medvedev. The cautious Europeans would never be as gung-ho as the Americans without proper evidence of shale’s commerciality.
The effect of this offensive: it doesn’t look good for Gazprom. It may claim to be “unconcerned” about the threat of shale gas, but it has, after all, been forced to delay its Shtokman field for three years, owing to depressed demand. And by complaining so loudly, with such a variety of different objections, it simply suggests that the Russian company considers shale much more real and imminent competition than it would like to admit.
Read the entire article here
The fact that the Gazprom top leaders are engaging in this kind of cheap propaganda against shale gas exploration clearly proves that they - and their masters in the Kremlin - are deeply worried. And they should be, because soon they will not any more be able to dominate the European - and international - gas market.
Still it is surprising to see how primitively these supposedly top managers are conducting their propaganda campaign. Or maybe it is not so surprising - these are leaders who have been chosen, not by business professionals, but by the likes of Mr. Putin and his henchmen in the Kremlin.
Now it is up to the Poles (and some other European future shale gas producers) and the Americans to see to it that the Russians do not succeed in their efforts - together with the greenies - to prevent or slow down the shale gas revolution in Europe.
PS
EU energy commissioner, German Günther Oettinger a few days ago told a Polish audience about the plans to regulate shale gas exploration:
"I think we'll get a high level of acceptance when we have the same, European common standards, a high level of safety and security and quality for environmental interests," Oettinger told reporters during a visit to Wroclaw in southwest Poland.
"The best way is to Europeanise standard-efforts. We will bring some proposals to our member states maybe in the spring next year," he added.
The Poles must not let Gazprom and the greenies dictate the rules
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)