As Shell prepares to drill for oil in the Arctic this summer, a third party safety audit ordered by the US government to ensure there was no repeat of the company’s disastrous drilling operation in 2012 remains hidden from the public.

Shell contractor Noble pleaded guilty to eight environmental and maritime crimes after their last their last attempt to drill in the Arctic nearly caused a major environmental disaster. A heavy storm caused the 28,000 ton Kulluk rig to run aground.

As a result, the Obama administration stated the company would face unprecedented hurdles before it could drill again. The Interior Department made a third party safety audit a key recommendation of its report looking at the 2012 operation.

It has since emerged that Shell both hand-picked and paid for the auditor to conduct the third party report ordered by the US government, as confirmed by Gregory Julian of the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).

Energydesk has also seen documents which suggest that the BSEE had the audit in their possession from November 2014, but failed to publish it.

Notes from a meeting between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Shell on November 20th state: “BSEE advised that Shell has provided the SEMS II Audit Report”. The notes, obtained under the Freedom of Information, also reveal that the report was not provided to BSEE or BOEM for several months despite apparently being ‘done’.

The audit itself – which comes in two phases, with the first already complete and the second taking place in the field after Shell’s equipment arrives in the region – is yet to be made public, despite the US government recently granting permission for Shell to drill this year.

To date, the Dutch oil giant has spent more than $6 billion on its oil exploration programme in the Arctic.

Lack of transparency

A lengthy Freedom of Information (FOI) battle led by the Greenpeace US office calling for the first phase of the audit to be published has failed to yield results.

Shell’s spokesman Curtis Smith said the company had met the Obama administration’s criteria to drill in the Arctic: “We are pleased to pass along that the independent audit found no issues of significance and we look forward to the next phase during actual operations.”

But with the first phase of the audit still under wraps, Smith’s claims have not been independently verified – through the US government has said Shell has met its regulatory requirements in response to fierce opposition.

The Interior Department has warned of expect further delays on the release of the audit. The administration will make the final call on how much of the audit to reveal, but Shell will be able to propose redacting information it views as confidential, according to correspondence between the Interior FOIA officer and Greenpeace US seen by Energydesk.

Shell would also have the opportunity to “file a court action” to stop the information’s release, even after it has been approved by the White House.

Doubts over oil spill cleanup plan

Last year, a US government-commissioned report raised doubts about Shell’s ability to clean up a major oil spill in the Arctic. The research by independent institution Nuka found that even in ideal circumstances, traditional oil spill response tactics would not be possible in Arctic conditions.

Shell seems to disagree, stating: “a very unlikely spill in the Arctic would not be financially material to the company given the precautions we have taken to prevent and respond to a worst case scenario.”

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over the period of the leases held by Shell in the Arctic, according to the latest environmental impact report.

Obama defends Arctic drilling – despite climate push

President Obama’s decision to allow Shell to drill in the Arctic comes at a time when his administration has been making otherwise bold moves on climate change. In March, he pledged to reduce US carbon emissions by 28% from 2005 levels over the next 10 years, to signing historic climate deals with China.

In an unusual intervention, the Obama administration put out a statement about Arctic drilling following mass protests in Seattle harbour:

“Obama says he is committed to reducing carbon emissions. But he says consumers will still need fossil fuels during a transition to other energy sources. He says he would rather rely on oil and gas extracted in the U.S. under federal regulations than from foreign sources.”

It is estimated there could be as many as 22 billion barrels of oil and 93 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the area Shell intends to explore.

Burning Arctic oil would undermine international efforts to prevent global temperatures increasing beyond the mark of 2 degrees – the internationally-agreed threshold beyond which catastrophic consequences of climate change are expected, according to recent research by University College London (UCL).

Joe Sandler Clarke is a journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Guardian and other media outlets.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

First they came for them …
Then they came for me …
Will they now come for you?

Given far far too little publicity and critique, this is what David Cameron said after being elected about the ‘Extremism’ legislation, which was outlined in yesterday’s legislative programme:

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone’. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.”

What the hell does this mean?!! Even if we obey the law, if the police or the government or the Daily Mail or Rupert Murdoch decide that they do not like us, they will still not let us alone?!!

It is, simply, one of the most chilling statements by a British Prime Minister in my entire life – and surely the most fundamental attack on our freedom in a liberal democracy.

Don’t mention the war – the one against us!

Was there any mention of this proposal in the BBC’s coverage yesterday? On the One O’Clock news they interviewed children about seeing the Queen’s gilded coach and a long ten minute interview with Arsene Wenger about the “aesthetics” of soccer – but no mention of this fundamental attack on our freedom.

Here’s what the Queen announced: “Measures will also be brought forward to promote social cohesion and protect people by tackling extremism. New legislation will modernise the law on communications data, improve the law on policing and criminal justice … My Government will work to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons, cyber attacks and terrorism.”

Note the insidious change and abuse of language as it has developed over the years. Until recently, all the language after the illegal Iraq invasion understandably radicalised some young Muslims, was about tackling ‘Islamic terrorism’.

Then it became tackling ‘terrorism’. But very recently it has extended to tackling ‘domestic extremists’, ‘extremism’ and those who threaten ‘British values, tolerance and our concept of democracy.’

The law will allow the police to require those citizens it deems ‘extremist’ to submit all their Facebook postings or Tweets to the police for approval. Remember we do not need to have been found guilty of a crime before they can demand this of us.

Who are the real extremists?

They are giving Ofcom powers to tackle any broadcaster who interviews someone they decide is an ‘extremist’. So who and what is an ‘extremist’?

• Republicans?
• Animal rights protectors?
• Fracking protesters?
• Occupy?
• Anti-roads campaigners?
• Council Housing demolition protesters?
• GM crop direct action advocates?
• Tories?!!!
• Civil disobedience promoters?
• Trade unionists?
• NHS defenders?
• Greenpeace?
• Campaigners against the UK’s nuclear weapons of mass destruction?
• People who oppose the UK’s and NATO’s reckless and murderous military adventurism in faraway lands?
• Anyone who doubts the legitimacy of a government voted for by under a quarter of the electorate, yet claims a ‘mandate’ to impose deep, far reaching, dangerous and deeply divisive changes on our country?
• Journalists, editors and photographers in the alternative media – like The Ecologist – or who simply express ideas or publish articles that dissent from the mainstream?
• Me – for writing this article?

Does this mean that all hunt saboteurs will be banned from being interviewed? Does it mean anti-fur campaigners will have to submit all their Facebook comments to the police for vetting before being allowed to post?

Does it mean that they will close down UK operations of TV stations like RT and Al Jazeera if they interview a Muslim imam who has not committed any crime but who has views the state has arbitrarily decided are ‘extremist’? Is this not the end of free speech?

A blank cheque for the suppresion of civil iberties

The wording is so vague and all-encompassing, that it gives the police a blank cheque to make criminals of all of us, without any of us even committing a crime. Is it not the ultimate in thought crime?

And of course the government also wants to repeal the Human Rights Act, pass a new ‘British Bill of Rights’, and declare its immunity from the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – something it would surely have to do to impose its ‘thought crime law’.

We already have one indication of how the law may be used – and that the media are very much in the sights of the police. In 2013 six journalists found that the Metropolitan Police had entered them onto their Domestic Extremism Database – among them Adrian Arbib, who wrote about his experience for The Ecologist.

As Arbib warned, “to judge by its shabby record, the British state is all too ready to abuse its powers by turning them against people in ways that were never envisaged or intended by legislators, including legitimate and peaceful campaigners, protestors, dissidents of various stripes – and the media.

“The last thing we should allow is for the state to take on yet greater powers, only for them to turn against us when it suits them, and further restrict the freedom of the media that holds an essential role in any free and democratic nation.”

The pic above was taken during my arrest whilst chanting in a tiny pop-up tent, at the foot of Mahatma Gandhi’s feet, in a protest calling for the criminalisation of fossil fuel exploration. My initial court hearing for this ‘crime’ will be on Monday morning.

Will I now have to submit all of my Facebook postings / comments to the police before writing future postings? Will you? Will our Muslim friends?

This ‘thought crime law’ has no place in a liberal democracy. It turns us into a de facto Murdocracy. It must be stopped.

The Prostitute State is now running rampant!!

Donnachadh McCarthy is a member of Occupy Democracy, co-organiser for Occupy Rupert Murdoch Week, a former Deputy Chair of the Liberal Democrats, and author of “The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought”. He can be reached via his website 3acorns. Follow on Facebook.

Petition: ‘Save the Human Rights Act‘ (38 Degrees).

Copies of ‘The Prostitute State – How Britain’s Democracy Has Been Bought‘ are available from theprostitutestate.co.uk. E-book version available from Lulu.com.

Please share!!

As Shell prepares to drill for oil in the Arctic this summer, a third party safety audit ordered by the US government to ensure there was no repeat of the company’s disastrous drilling operation in 2012 remains hidden from the public.

Shell contractor Noble pleaded guilty to eight environmental and maritime crimes after their last their last attempt to drill in the Arctic nearly caused a major environmental disaster. A heavy storm caused the 28,000 ton Kulluk rig to run aground.

As a result, the Obama administration stated the company would face unprecedented hurdles before it could drill again. The Interior Department made a third party safety audit a key recommendation of its report looking at the 2012 operation.

It has since emerged that Shell both hand-picked and paid for the auditor to conduct the third party report ordered by the US government, as confirmed by Gregory Julian of the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).

Energydesk has also seen documents which suggest that the BSEE had the audit in their possession from November 2014, but failed to publish it.

Notes from a meeting between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Shell on November 20th state: “BSEE advised that Shell has provided the SEMS II Audit Report”. The notes, obtained under the Freedom of Information, also reveal that the report was not provided to BSEE or BOEM for several months despite apparently being ‘done’.

The audit itself – which comes in two phases, with the first already complete and the second taking place in the field after Shell’s equipment arrives in the region – is yet to be made public, despite the US government recently granting permission for Shell to drill this year.

To date, the Dutch oil giant has spent more than $6 billion on its oil exploration programme in the Arctic.

Lack of transparency

A lengthy Freedom of Information (FOI) battle led by the Greenpeace US office calling for the first phase of the audit to be published has failed to yield results.

Shell’s spokesman Curtis Smith said the company had met the Obama administration’s criteria to drill in the Arctic: “We are pleased to pass along that the independent audit found no issues of significance and we look forward to the next phase during actual operations.”

But with the first phase of the audit still under wraps, Smith’s claims have not been independently verified – through the US government has said Shell has met its regulatory requirements in response to fierce opposition.

The Interior Department has warned of expect further delays on the release of the audit. The administration will make the final call on how much of the audit to reveal, but Shell will be able to propose redacting information it views as confidential, according to correspondence between the Interior FOIA officer and Greenpeace US seen by Energydesk.

Shell would also have the opportunity to “file a court action” to stop the information’s release, even after it has been approved by the White House.

Doubts over oil spill cleanup plan

Last year, a US government-commissioned report raised doubts about Shell’s ability to clean up a major oil spill in the Arctic. The research by independent institution Nuka found that even in ideal circumstances, traditional oil spill response tactics would not be possible in Arctic conditions.

Shell seems to disagree, stating: “a very unlikely spill in the Arctic would not be financially material to the company given the precautions we have taken to prevent and respond to a worst case scenario.”

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over the period of the leases held by Shell in the Arctic, according to the latest environmental impact report.

Obama defends Arctic drilling – despite climate push

President Obama’s decision to allow Shell to drill in the Arctic comes at a time when his administration has been making otherwise bold moves on climate change. In March, he pledged to reduce US carbon emissions by 28% from 2005 levels over the next 10 years, to signing historic climate deals with China.

In an unusual intervention, the Obama administration put out a statement about Arctic drilling following mass protests in Seattle harbour:

“Obama says he is committed to reducing carbon emissions. But he says consumers will still need fossil fuels during a transition to other energy sources. He says he would rather rely on oil and gas extracted in the U.S. under federal regulations than from foreign sources.”

It is estimated there could be as many as 22 billion barrels of oil and 93 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the area Shell intends to explore.

Burning Arctic oil would undermine international efforts to prevent global temperatures increasing beyond the mark of 2 degrees – the internationally-agreed threshold beyond which catastrophic consequences of climate change are expected, according to recent research by University College London (UCL).

Joe Sandler Clarke is a journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Guardian and other media outlets.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

As Shell prepares to drill for oil in the Arctic this summer, a third party safety audit ordered by the US government to ensure there was no repeat of the company’s disastrous drilling operation in 2012 remains hidden from the public.

Shell contractor Noble pleaded guilty to eight environmental and maritime crimes after their last their last attempt to drill in the Arctic nearly caused a major environmental disaster. A heavy storm caused the 28,000 ton Kulluk rig to run aground.

As a result, the Obama administration stated the company would face unprecedented hurdles before it could drill again. The Interior Department made a third party safety audit a key recommendation of its report looking at the 2012 operation.

It has since emerged that Shell both hand-picked and paid for the auditor to conduct the third party report ordered by the US government, as confirmed by Gregory Julian of the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).

Energydesk has also seen documents which suggest that the BSEE had the audit in their possession from November 2014, but failed to publish it.

Notes from a meeting between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Shell on November 20th state: “BSEE advised that Shell has provided the SEMS II Audit Report”. The notes, obtained under the Freedom of Information, also reveal that the report was not provided to BSEE or BOEM for several months despite apparently being ‘done’.

The audit itself – which comes in two phases, with the first already complete and the second taking place in the field after Shell’s equipment arrives in the region – is yet to be made public, despite the US government recently granting permission for Shell to drill this year.

To date, the Dutch oil giant has spent more than $6 billion on its oil exploration programme in the Arctic.

Lack of transparency

A lengthy Freedom of Information (FOI) battle led by the Greenpeace US office calling for the first phase of the audit to be published has failed to yield results.

Shell’s spokesman Curtis Smith said the company had met the Obama administration’s criteria to drill in the Arctic: “We are pleased to pass along that the independent audit found no issues of significance and we look forward to the next phase during actual operations.”

But with the first phase of the audit still under wraps, Smith’s claims have not been independently verified – through the US government has said Shell has met its regulatory requirements in response to fierce opposition.

The Interior Department has warned of expect further delays on the release of the audit. The administration will make the final call on how much of the audit to reveal, but Shell will be able to propose redacting information it views as confidential, according to correspondence between the Interior FOIA officer and Greenpeace US seen by Energydesk.

Shell would also have the opportunity to “file a court action” to stop the information’s release, even after it has been approved by the White House.

Doubts over oil spill cleanup plan

Last year, a US government-commissioned report raised doubts about Shell’s ability to clean up a major oil spill in the Arctic. The research by independent institution Nuka found that even in ideal circumstances, traditional oil spill response tactics would not be possible in Arctic conditions.

Shell seems to disagree, stating: “a very unlikely spill in the Arctic would not be financially material to the company given the precautions we have taken to prevent and respond to a worst case scenario.”

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over the period of the leases held by Shell in the Arctic, according to the latest environmental impact report.

Obama defends Arctic drilling – despite climate push

President Obama’s decision to allow Shell to drill in the Arctic comes at a time when his administration has been making otherwise bold moves on climate change. In March, he pledged to reduce US carbon emissions by 28% from 2005 levels over the next 10 years, to signing historic climate deals with China.

In an unusual intervention, the Obama administration put out a statement about Arctic drilling following mass protests in Seattle harbour:

“Obama says he is committed to reducing carbon emissions. But he says consumers will still need fossil fuels during a transition to other energy sources. He says he would rather rely on oil and gas extracted in the U.S. under federal regulations than from foreign sources.”

It is estimated there could be as many as 22 billion barrels of oil and 93 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the area Shell intends to explore.

Burning Arctic oil would undermine international efforts to prevent global temperatures increasing beyond the mark of 2 degrees – the internationally-agreed threshold beyond which catastrophic consequences of climate change are expected, according to recent research by University College London (UCL).

Joe Sandler Clarke is a journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Guardian and other media outlets.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

As Shell prepares to drill for oil in the Arctic this summer, a third party safety audit ordered by the US government to ensure there was no repeat of the company’s disastrous drilling operation in 2012 remains hidden from the public.

Shell contractor Noble pleaded guilty to eight environmental and maritime crimes after their last their last attempt to drill in the Arctic nearly caused a major environmental disaster. A heavy storm caused the 28,000 ton Kulluk rig to run aground.

As a result, the Obama administration stated the company would face unprecedented hurdles before it could drill again. The Interior Department made a third party safety audit a key recommendation of its report looking at the 2012 operation.

It has since emerged that Shell both hand-picked and paid for the auditor to conduct the third party report ordered by the US government, as confirmed by Gregory Julian of the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).

Energydesk has also seen documents which suggest that the BSEE had the audit in their possession from November 2014, but failed to publish it.

Notes from a meeting between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Shell on November 20th state: “BSEE advised that Shell has provided the SEMS II Audit Report”. The notes, obtained under the Freedom of Information, also reveal that the report was not provided to BSEE or BOEM for several months despite apparently being ‘done’.

The audit itself – which comes in two phases, with the first already complete and the second taking place in the field after Shell’s equipment arrives in the region – is yet to be made public, despite the US government recently granting permission for Shell to drill this year.

To date, the Dutch oil giant has spent more than $6 billion on its oil exploration programme in the Arctic.

Lack of transparency

A lengthy Freedom of Information (FOI) battle led by the Greenpeace US office calling for the first phase of the audit to be published has failed to yield results.

Shell’s spokesman Curtis Smith said the company had met the Obama administration’s criteria to drill in the Arctic: “We are pleased to pass along that the independent audit found no issues of significance and we look forward to the next phase during actual operations.”

But with the first phase of the audit still under wraps, Smith’s claims have not been independently verified – through the US government has said Shell has met its regulatory requirements in response to fierce opposition.

The Interior Department has warned of expect further delays on the release of the audit. The administration will make the final call on how much of the audit to reveal, but Shell will be able to propose redacting information it views as confidential, according to correspondence between the Interior FOIA officer and Greenpeace US seen by Energydesk.

Shell would also have the opportunity to “file a court action” to stop the information’s release, even after it has been approved by the White House.

Doubts over oil spill cleanup plan

Last year, a US government-commissioned report raised doubts about Shell’s ability to clean up a major oil spill in the Arctic. The research by independent institution Nuka found that even in ideal circumstances, traditional oil spill response tactics would not be possible in Arctic conditions.

Shell seems to disagree, stating: “a very unlikely spill in the Arctic would not be financially material to the company given the precautions we have taken to prevent and respond to a worst case scenario.”

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over the period of the leases held by Shell in the Arctic, according to the latest environmental impact report.

Obama defends Arctic drilling – despite climate push

President Obama’s decision to allow Shell to drill in the Arctic comes at a time when his administration has been making otherwise bold moves on climate change. In March, he pledged to reduce US carbon emissions by 28% from 2005 levels over the next 10 years, to signing historic climate deals with China.

In an unusual intervention, the Obama administration put out a statement about Arctic drilling following mass protests in Seattle harbour:

“Obama says he is committed to reducing carbon emissions. But he says consumers will still need fossil fuels during a transition to other energy sources. He says he would rather rely on oil and gas extracted in the U.S. under federal regulations than from foreign sources.”

It is estimated there could be as many as 22 billion barrels of oil and 93 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the area Shell intends to explore.

Burning Arctic oil would undermine international efforts to prevent global temperatures increasing beyond the mark of 2 degrees – the internationally-agreed threshold beyond which catastrophic consequences of climate change are expected, according to recent research by University College London (UCL).

Joe Sandler Clarke is a journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Guardian and other media outlets.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

As Shell prepares to drill for oil in the Arctic this summer, a third party safety audit ordered by the US government to ensure there was no repeat of the company’s disastrous drilling operation in 2012 remains hidden from the public.

Shell contractor Noble pleaded guilty to eight environmental and maritime crimes after their last their last attempt to drill in the Arctic nearly caused a major environmental disaster. A heavy storm caused the 28,000 ton Kulluk rig to run aground.

As a result, the Obama administration stated the company would face unprecedented hurdles before it could drill again. The Interior Department made a third party safety audit a key recommendation of its report looking at the 2012 operation.

It has since emerged that Shell both hand-picked and paid for the auditor to conduct the third party report ordered by the US government, as confirmed by Gregory Julian of the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).

Energydesk has also seen documents which suggest that the BSEE had the audit in their possession from November 2014, but failed to publish it.

Notes from a meeting between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Shell on November 20th state: “BSEE advised that Shell has provided the SEMS II Audit Report”. The notes, obtained under the Freedom of Information, also reveal that the report was not provided to BSEE or BOEM for several months despite apparently being ‘done’.

The audit itself – which comes in two phases, with the first already complete and the second taking place in the field after Shell’s equipment arrives in the region – is yet to be made public, despite the US government recently granting permission for Shell to drill this year.

To date, the Dutch oil giant has spent more than $6 billion on its oil exploration programme in the Arctic.

Lack of transparency

A lengthy Freedom of Information (FOI) battle led by the Greenpeace US office calling for the first phase of the audit to be published has failed to yield results.

Shell’s spokesman Curtis Smith said the company had met the Obama administration’s criteria to drill in the Arctic: “We are pleased to pass along that the independent audit found no issues of significance and we look forward to the next phase during actual operations.”

But with the first phase of the audit still under wraps, Smith’s claims have not been independently verified – through the US government has said Shell has met its regulatory requirements in response to fierce opposition.

The Interior Department has warned of expect further delays on the release of the audit. The administration will make the final call on how much of the audit to reveal, but Shell will be able to propose redacting information it views as confidential, according to correspondence between the Interior FOIA officer and Greenpeace US seen by Energydesk.

Shell would also have the opportunity to “file a court action” to stop the information’s release, even after it has been approved by the White House.

Doubts over oil spill cleanup plan

Last year, a US government-commissioned report raised doubts about Shell’s ability to clean up a major oil spill in the Arctic. The research by independent institution Nuka found that even in ideal circumstances, traditional oil spill response tactics would not be possible in Arctic conditions.

Shell seems to disagree, stating: “a very unlikely spill in the Arctic would not be financially material to the company given the precautions we have taken to prevent and respond to a worst case scenario.”

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over the period of the leases held by Shell in the Arctic, according to the latest environmental impact report.

Obama defends Arctic drilling – despite climate push

President Obama’s decision to allow Shell to drill in the Arctic comes at a time when his administration has been making otherwise bold moves on climate change. In March, he pledged to reduce US carbon emissions by 28% from 2005 levels over the next 10 years, to signing historic climate deals with China.

In an unusual intervention, the Obama administration put out a statement about Arctic drilling following mass protests in Seattle harbour:

“Obama says he is committed to reducing carbon emissions. But he says consumers will still need fossil fuels during a transition to other energy sources. He says he would rather rely on oil and gas extracted in the U.S. under federal regulations than from foreign sources.”

It is estimated there could be as many as 22 billion barrels of oil and 93 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the area Shell intends to explore.

Burning Arctic oil would undermine international efforts to prevent global temperatures increasing beyond the mark of 2 degrees – the internationally-agreed threshold beyond which catastrophic consequences of climate change are expected, according to recent research by University College London (UCL).

Joe Sandler Clarke is a journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Guardian and other media outlets.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

Parents throughout history have used the bogeyman to try to scare children into good behaviour.

Shale gas supporters have seized on Vladimir Putin as their bogeyman, frightening the British public with stories of him cutting off our gas so we’ll all be freezing in the dark.

The rhetoric has been cranked up since the start of the Ukraine conflict, and David Cameron has said it’s “our duty“ to embrace fracking. Put alongside instability in the Middle East, the fracking lobby see an unanswerable case for UK shale gas as a guarantee of our energy security.

With North Sea gas production falling, unless we get fracking, we will become more dependent on unpalatable regimes and unstable parts of the world for our gas.

But there are two things they’re not telling you. One – even if the UK succeeded in going all out for shale, it wouldn’t reduce our reliance on foreign gas, in part because of the decline in production of gas from the North Sea.

Two – there is a much better way to reduce the amount of foreign gas we import. Use less of it.

Erm … ever heard of energy efficiency, Mr Cameron?

Friends of the Earth’s new report shows that introducing policies to reduce gas use through energy efficiency would succeed in lowering gas imports over the next 15 years. That’s something no other avenue can deliver.

The potential is huge, equivalent to more than double the amount of shale gas we could get out of the ground by 2030. The problem is that the Government is starting with the wrong question – asking ‘how we can get more gas?’ rather than ‘how much gas do we really need?’

This ignores the real threat – climate change. Globally, known fossil fuel reserves are already much more than we can afford to burn if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. UK shale gas would just add to this unburnable carbon.

Thankfully, our analysis shows there’s a lot we can do. Gas use in homes – for heating and cooking – accounts for about 40% of total UK gas use. A proper programme of energy efficiency, bringing every home up to a reasonable standard – starting with the homes of the fuel-poor – could cut domestic gas use by 40%. Big savings are also possible in industry, commerce and the public sector.

And shifting from fossil fuels for electricity generation, as recommended by the Government’s advisors in the Committee for Climate Change would also reduce gas use significantly.

It’s the win-win-win option. So why aren’t we getting on with it?

On the supply side, we can do much more with bioenergy, generated from sources such as municipal waste and sewage sludge. Our analysis shows that this ‘Climate Safe’ approach could cut how much gas we need to import by about a third.

And, according to figures from National Grid, we could get virtually all of that from Norway – not, nor likely to become, an unstable part of the world.

Overall, our approach means we import less gas, don’t frack the UK, and is far better for tackling climate change.

Energy security expert Professor Michael Bradshaw summed this up well in a prescient report he wrote for Friends of the Earth three years ago:

“The best way to reduce the energy security risks associated with the UK’s growing gas import dependence is to … promote renewable power generation, improve energy efficiency and reduce overall energy demand.”

So the fracking lobby’s energy security argument is just like the bogeyman – an empty threat that that doesn’t really exist.

Tony Bosworth is energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth England & Wales. He tweets @tonybosworth.

This article was originally published on FoE’s blog.

Shell’s recent AGM was tumultuous. Shareholders voted overwhelmingly for the company to report on whether its activities were compatible with promised government action on climate change.

The firm’s board faced a sometimes hostile barrage of questions about its approach to the environment.

The key question shareholders are asking is this: what if the majority of Shell’s proven fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground in order to avoid a dangerous global temperature increase of more than 2°C? Shell’s proved reserves are the company’s biggest asset against which it borrows money from banks and attracts investments from shareholders.

Most of the oil and gas majors are struggling to find enough new reserves to keep growing in the future. This is why Shell and all other major players in the industry have to go to more extreme lengths to find the fossil fuels that keep our lights on, cars on the road and their profits growing.

Controversial and environmentally very suspect investments into Arctic oil drilling, US shale gas and Canadian tar sands have already tarnished the environmental credentials of Shell.

But Shell needs to find more oil and gas to keep its asset base growing and its profit potential intact. So it agreed to buy UK-based oil and gas exploration group BG Group for a staggering £47billion.

To quote recent analysis, this “gives Shell a presence in the productive zone off the coast of Brazil, and will ensure that Shell’s own production is maintained over the medium term, taking away the requirement to make large discoveries to offset natural depletion.”

But now an entirely new threat hangs over Shell’s future viability as a leading fossil fuel company. A high-profile campaign has argued that most of the proven reserves by oil and gas majors are “stranded assets“ – something Shell has denied in the past. This would render Shell’s acquisition of BG Group and its investments in the Arctic wasted capital.

Carbon bubble? Yes, but …

The idea that fossil fuel firms’ reserves are overvalued because of looming climate legislation is often referred to as the ‘carbon bubble’. Shell’s chief executive, Ben van Beurden, was forced to admit at the recent AGM that this argument “sounds quite convincing and quite strong“.

But he is also convinced that fossil fuels are here to stay for a long time to come and that decarbonisation will take decades. Can he really have it both ways?

The campaign argues that we will never be able to burn any of the new fossil fuels we are discovering in the world from now on. At least not if we want to have a realistic chance of staying beneath a 2°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels, which politicians agreed at the Copenhagen UN climate change summit in 2009 to be “the long-term goal“.

It is that long-term goal that may stand in opposition to the long-term survival of Shell as a fossil fuel company. If the world will be prevented from burning oil and gas at increasing rates and emitting many more million tonnes of carbon gases than the biosphere can absorb, Shell’s current business model appears broken.

Indeed, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and other Shell shareholders have called on the company to reveal exactly how climate change could affect the company’s future, a motion that was carried at the recent AGM.

In its latest ‘New Lens Scenarios‘ report, Shell admits that the world is on course for a temperature rise of well above 2°C. It says this will even be the case if coal is rapidly displaced by gas (which the company is banking on with its BG Group and shale gas investments) and there is an accelerated deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which, however, has developed at a snail’s pace and requires large subsidies, making it non-competitive.

The wording of the report has led to claims by The Guardian – which has run its own high-profile ‘Keep it in the Ground’ campaign – that Shell has given up on the 2°C target and is in fact planning for a much higher threshold of 4°C or even 6°C. I think this is overstated.

But what is clear from the paper’s most recent interview with van Beurden is that Shell is banking on a very slow pace of climate change negotiations; it doesn’t feel under huge pressure to change its current business model until after 2015. Not a good omen for the forthcoming UN climate change summit in Paris.

The need for political action

At least since 2009, the world’s governments have failed to come up with credible plans for radically reducing carbon emissions. The worldwide scientific community agrees this needs to happen if we want to avoid dangerous effects of climate change.

There has been far too much focus on listening to industry lobbyists protecting corporate interests, their current and future assets as well as millions of associate jobs in the oil and gas industry. Instead we need a clear-headed admittance that the business model of major fossil fuel companies needs to radically change if we don’t just want to adapt to climate change but have a last-ditch attempt of mitigating it.

Shell’s CEO van Beurden seems to agree with this, but doesn’t see this radical change coming until post-2050. Most experts agree, however, that we cannot leave it until then: it’s too risky.

Global, powerful corporations, such as Shell, are often targeted by environmental activists in their attempt to hold them to account. Rightly so. But they are simply money making machines. Investing into fossil fuels is still very profitable, and shareholders demand high returns on their investments.

Only politicians can change the logic of energy investments, and they will have to do exactly that when they will sit around the negotiating table in Paris in December this year.

If we want to have a chance to keep within a 2°C temperature rise, politicians have to realise that current investment practices in the oil and gas industry are not sustainable and even, in the words of Al Gore, “absurd“.

Steffen Böhm is Professor in Management and Sustainability, and Director, Essex Sustainability Institute at University of Essex.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

As Shell prepares to drill for oil in the Arctic this summer, a third party safety audit ordered by the US government to ensure there was no repeat of the company’s disastrous drilling operation in 2012 remains hidden from the public.

Shell contractor Noble pleaded guilty to eight environmental and maritime crimes after their last their last attempt to drill in the Arctic nearly caused a major environmental disaster. A heavy storm caused the 28,000 ton Kulluk rig to run aground.

As a result, the Obama administration stated the company would face unprecedented hurdles before it could drill again. The Interior Department made a third party safety audit a key recommendation of its report looking at the 2012 operation.

It has since emerged that Shell both hand-picked and paid for the auditor to conduct the third party report ordered by the US government, as confirmed by Gregory Julian of the US Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).

Energydesk has also seen documents which suggest that the BSEE had the audit in their possession from November 2014, but failed to publish it.

Notes from a meeting between the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Shell on November 20th state: “BSEE advised that Shell has provided the SEMS II Audit Report”. The notes, obtained under the Freedom of Information, also reveal that the report was not provided to BSEE or BOEM for several months despite apparently being ‘done’.

The audit itself – which comes in two phases, with the first already complete and the second taking place in the field after Shell’s equipment arrives in the region – is yet to be made public, despite the US government recently granting permission for Shell to drill this year.

To date, the Dutch oil giant has spent more than $6 billion on its oil exploration programme in the Arctic.

Lack of transparency

A lengthy Freedom of Information (FOI) battle led by the Greenpeace US office calling for the first phase of the audit to be published has failed to yield results.

Shell’s spokesman Curtis Smith said the company had met the Obama administration’s criteria to drill in the Arctic: “We are pleased to pass along that the independent audit found no issues of significance and we look forward to the next phase during actual operations.”

But with the first phase of the audit still under wraps, Smith’s claims have not been independently verified – through the US government has said Shell has met its regulatory requirements in response to fierce opposition.

The Interior Department has warned of expect further delays on the release of the audit. The administration will make the final call on how much of the audit to reveal, but Shell will be able to propose redacting information it views as confidential, according to correspondence between the Interior FOIA officer and Greenpeace US seen by Energydesk.

Shell would also have the opportunity to “file a court action” to stop the information’s release, even after it has been approved by the White House.

Doubts over oil spill cleanup plan

Last year, a US government-commissioned report raised doubts about Shell’s ability to clean up a major oil spill in the Arctic. The research by independent institution Nuka found that even in ideal circumstances, traditional oil spill response tactics would not be possible in Arctic conditions.

Shell seems to disagree, stating: “a very unlikely spill in the Arctic would not be financially material to the company given the precautions we have taken to prevent and respond to a worst case scenario.”

There is at least a 75% chance of at least one large spill releasing over 1,000 barrels of oil over the period of the leases held by Shell in the Arctic, according to the latest environmental impact report.

Obama defends Arctic drilling – despite climate push

President Obama’s decision to allow Shell to drill in the Arctic comes at a time when his administration has been making otherwise bold moves on climate change. In March, he pledged to reduce US carbon emissions by 28% from 2005 levels over the next 10 years, to signing historic climate deals with China.

In an unusual intervention, the Obama administration put out a statement about Arctic drilling following mass protests in Seattle harbour:

“Obama says he is committed to reducing carbon emissions. But he says consumers will still need fossil fuels during a transition to other energy sources. He says he would rather rely on oil and gas extracted in the U.S. under federal regulations than from foreign sources.”

It is estimated there could be as many as 22 billion barrels of oil and 93 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the area Shell intends to explore.

Burning Arctic oil would undermine international efforts to prevent global temperatures increasing beyond the mark of 2 degrees – the internationally-agreed threshold beyond which catastrophic consequences of climate change are expected, according to recent research by University College London (UCL).

Joe Sandler Clarke is a journalist writing for Greenpeace Energydesk, the Guardian and other media outlets.

This article was originally published on Greenpeace Energydesk.

Shell’s recent AGM was tumultuous. Shareholders voted overwhelmingly for the company to report on whether its activities were compatible with promised government action on climate change.

The firm’s board faced a sometimes hostile barrage of questions about its approach to the environment.

The key question shareholders are asking is this: what if the majority of Shell’s proven fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground in order to avoid a dangerous global temperature increase of more than 2°C? Shell’s proved reserves are the company’s biggest asset against which it borrows money from banks and attracts investments from shareholders.

Most of the oil and gas majors are struggling to find enough new reserves to keep growing in the future. This is why Shell and all other major players in the industry have to go to more extreme lengths to find the fossil fuels that keep our lights on, cars on the road and their profits growing.

Controversial and environmentally very suspect investments into Arctic oil drilling, US shale gas and Canadian tar sands have already tarnished the environmental credentials of Shell.

But Shell needs to find more oil and gas to keep its asset base growing and its profit potential intact. So it agreed to buy UK-based oil and gas exploration group BG Group for a staggering £47billion.

To quote recent analysis, this “gives Shell a presence in the productive zone off the coast of Brazil, and will ensure that Shell’s own production is maintained over the medium term, taking away the requirement to make large discoveries to offset natural depletion.”

But now an entirely new threat hangs over Shell’s future viability as a leading fossil fuel company. A high-profile campaign has argued that most of the proven reserves by oil and gas majors are “stranded assets“ – something Shell has denied in the past. This would render Shell’s acquisition of BG Group and its investments in the Arctic wasted capital.

Carbon bubble? Yes, but …

The idea that fossil fuel firms’ reserves are overvalued because of looming climate legislation is often referred to as the ‘carbon bubble’. Shell’s chief executive, Ben van Beurden, was forced to admit at the recent AGM that this argument “sounds quite convincing and quite strong“.

But he is also convinced that fossil fuels are here to stay for a long time to come and that decarbonisation will take decades. Can he really have it both ways?

The campaign argues that we will never be able to burn any of the new fossil fuels we are discovering in the world from now on. At least not if we want to have a realistic chance of staying beneath a 2°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels, which politicians agreed at the Copenhagen UN climate change summit in 2009 to be “the long-term goal“.

It is that long-term goal that may stand in opposition to the long-term survival of Shell as a fossil fuel company. If the world will be prevented from burning oil and gas at increasing rates and emitting many more million tonnes of carbon gases than the biosphere can absorb, Shell’s current business model appears broken.

Indeed, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and other Shell shareholders have called on the company to reveal exactly how climate change could affect the company’s future, a motion that was carried at the recent AGM.

In its latest ‘New Lens Scenarios‘ report, Shell admits that the world is on course for a temperature rise of well above 2°C. It says this will even be the case if coal is rapidly displaced by gas (which the company is banking on with its BG Group and shale gas investments) and there is an accelerated deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which, however, has developed at a snail’s pace and requires large subsidies, making it non-competitive.

The wording of the report has led to claims by The Guardian – which has run its own high-profile ‘Keep it in the Ground’ campaign – that Shell has given up on the 2°C target and is in fact planning for a much higher threshold of 4°C or even 6°C. I think this is overstated.

But what is clear from the paper’s most recent interview with van Beurden is that Shell is banking on a very slow pace of climate change negotiations; it doesn’t feel under huge pressure to change its current business model until after 2015. Not a good omen for the forthcoming UN climate change summit in Paris.

The need for political action

At least since 2009, the world’s governments have failed to come up with credible plans for radically reducing carbon emissions. The worldwide scientific community agrees this needs to happen if we want to avoid dangerous effects of climate change.

There has been far too much focus on listening to industry lobbyists protecting corporate interests, their current and future assets as well as millions of associate jobs in the oil and gas industry. Instead we need a clear-headed admittance that the business model of major fossil fuel companies needs to radically change if we don’t just want to adapt to climate change but have a last-ditch attempt of mitigating it.

Shell’s CEO van Beurden seems to agree with this, but doesn’t see this radical change coming until post-2050. Most experts agree, however, that we cannot leave it until then: it’s too risky.

Global, powerful corporations, such as Shell, are often targeted by environmental activists in their attempt to hold them to account. Rightly so. But they are simply money making machines. Investing into fossil fuels is still very profitable, and shareholders demand high returns on their investments.

Only politicians can change the logic of energy investments, and they will have to do exactly that when they will sit around the negotiating table in Paris in December this year.

If we want to have a chance to keep within a 2°C temperature rise, politicians have to realise that current investment practices in the oil and gas industry are not sustainable and even, in the words of Al Gore, “absurd“.

Steffen Böhm is Professor in Management and Sustainability, and Director, Essex Sustainability Institute at University of Essex.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.