David Cameron's Dodgy Government Serves Corporations Instead of Constituents

An inconvenient truth? UK government censors state-sanctioned report on fracking Published time: August 11, 2014 13:05 Edited time: August 11, 2014 22:48 The British government’s decision to censor an official state report on the impact of fracking on UK property prices and regional services has roused sharp criticism from MPs and campaigners. As the government maintains its refusal to offer compensation to homeowners situated near proposed shale gas drilling sites, concerned citizens and campaigners are demanding the release of the full, unabridged study. Following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request tendered to the government, a draft of ‘Shale Gas: Rural Economy Impacts’ was recently published with extensive sections of the text missing. One particular section of the report, which examines the impact of fracking on house prices, has three entire segments missing. [...] Number of redactions comical’ Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne say shale gas extraction harbors the potential to enrich the UK’s economy and decrease energy bills. But many MPs contest this view, expressing deep concerns that fracking will reap environmental damage, disfigure the landscape, and decrease the value of home prices in their local constituencies. [...] Widespread calls for compensation Labour MP for Worsely and Eccles South, Barbara Keeley, has joined the chorus of campaigners, politicians and UK citizens calling for compensation for those whose houses may depreciate in value as a result of fracking. Concerns regarding the government’s strategic suppression of vital information relating to this report are followed by the release of a recent poll, which claims 57 percent of UK citizens are in favor of fracking. But Greenpeace emphasizes that the research, financed by energy firm UK Onshore Oil and Gas, lacks independence and is a skewered portrayal of British public opinion on the issue. http://rt.com/uk/179472-uk-report-censored-fracking/

The government's at it again.
Lying to the public.
Serving corporations.

There's no such thing as 'democracy'.  It's a lie.
Governments serve corporate interests and the people don't matter.

Research financed by an energy firm?

Unbelievable.

USA - OIL SURGE - 'HOTBED FOR SHALE OIL'

Permian’s Oil Surge Creates Need for Pipelines By Matthew Rocco Published August 07, 2014 FOXBusiness With crude gushing from the Permian Basin, companies are ramping up efforts to build pipelines and better capitalize on the production surge. Drillers have been producing oil in the Permian for some eight decades. But in recent years, the Texas formation’s central region, which consists of the Delaware and Midland basins, became a hotbed for shale oil. The Permian is now the top oil-producing area in the U.S., accounting for 18% of the nation’s total output in 2013. Based on data from the Energy Information Administration, the Permian recorded production of 1.35 million barrels per day last year. The region hit a low mark of 850,000 bbl/d in 2007. EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2014/08/07/permians-oil-surge-creates-need-for-pipelines/

Ooh, look ... more shale!

USA - $500M Shale Gas Pipeline

Former Chesapeake chief's company joins in pipeline venture By Collin Eaton August 7, 2014 A $500 million pipeline planned for next year could carry natural gas from Aubrey McClendon's growing web of gas wells in Ohio to the Gulf Coast, Colorado and several Southern states. [...] The pipeline would start in the Utica Shale, where American Energy has spent $3.5 billion amassing more than 260,000 net acres over shale gas deposits. The company plans to drill 1,600 net wells there in coming years as McClendon, one of the first wildcatters to pounce on U.S. shale gas plays, builds a new company after his departure last year from Chesapeake Energy. He has concentrated his efforts in the southeastern corner of the Utica, where high reservoir pressures have made reaching gas more affordable. Recent research by Houston energy consultant Wood Mackenzie shows that certain zones in the Utica rival wells in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale in terms of profitability. EXTRACTS ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Former-Chesapeake-chief-s-company-joins-in-5675875.php

The specifics don't interest me.  It's just interesting that it's booming. 

Gulf Coast is also interesting, because that's where export shipments would leave, I guess.

US - UNPRECEDENTED REVIVAL OF US OIL PRODUCTION - CRUDE OIL EXPORTS SURGED JUNE, TOPPING 1957 SUEZ CRISIS EXPORTS - THANKS SHALE OIL DRILLING TECHNOLOGY

U.S. oil exports reach milestone: June shipments highest since 1957 By Reuters Media on Aug 7, 2014 at 11:47 p.m. NEW YORK — News this week that U.S. crude oil exports had surged in June to reach the highest since 1957 raised a question not often asked: Why did U.S. exports suddenly surge, then just as quickly drop, nearly six decades ago? In March 1957, the United States exported a record 455,000 bpd of crude, up from just 40,000 bpd in the same month a year earlier, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed. A year later, exports were back to just 27,000 bpd. Unlike the current export boom, fueled by new shale oil drilling technology that has unleashed an unprecedented revival in U.S. production, the abrupt rise and fall in the 1950s was the result of political turmoil in the Middle East. In July 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, the waterway constructed some 90 years earlier connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. The 101-mile seaway was a crucial link between big oil producers and European refiners, ferrying some 1.2 million bpd to Western Europe, particularly to Britain and France. The move was seen as punishment for the United States and Britain withdrawing funding for the Aswan High Dam, but it also stung European nations who were losing sway over former colonies and led to a global struggle known as the Suez Crisis. Israel, France and Britain moved troops into the region to assert their control, bringing commercial oil flows through the canal to a halt — with dire consequences for Europe. Alternative routes were far too long to compensate. “(The oil) could go around the Cape Horn, but that was difficult and there was limited shipping capacity,” said Dr. Philip K. Verleger Jr., president of consultancy PKVerleger LLC and a former advisor to President Carter. At the time of the nationalization, Britain had around six weeks’ worth of supply of oil on hand, and France had only slightly more, according to Rose McDermott’s book Risk Tasking in International Politics. Amid pressure from Washington and growing economic strain, oil-starved nations in Europe removed their troops from territory and the United States started pushing crude oil across the Atlantic. By November 1956, oil exports jumped to 285,000 bpd from 47,000 bpd a month prior, according to the EIA data. The Canal reopened in April 1957, allowing Europe to resume direct shipments and bringing a quick halt to U.S. exports.  ... The current rise in exports has been more measured and is likely to be much longer-lasting. Shipments from U.S. shores in June rose to 389,000 bpd, a 35 percent increase from May, with most of that oil going to Canada. But while the exports have recently reached modern-day highs, they are still a much smaller fraction of U.S. supply. “Back then, a couple thousand barrels a day would be a big deal. But now, we’ve got a story of the North Dakota and Texas boom and a production figure of some 8.5 million barrels a day.” http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/content/us-oil-exports-reach-milestone-june-shipments-highest-1957

Yellow is current market.
Pink is some interesting history re Suez Canal Crisis and small peak in US oil export.

Current news:  US crude oil export SURGED ... and here's why:

current export boom, fueled by new shale oil drilling technology that has unleashed an unprecedented revival in U.S. production,

I'm new to looking at this stuff and thought that shale was only connected with gas/LNG.

I'm unclear how crude oil and shale drilling are connected.

Is crude oil the same as 'shale oil'?   No idea.  Random site has this to say about 'oil shale':

Oil shale is unevenly distributed around the world.  The United States possesses roughly 70% of world oil shale deposits, with the vast majority located in the Green River shale regions in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 

Fears over domestic energy supplies sparked small oil shale booms in the 1950’s due to Cold War energy concerns, and again in the 1970’s as a result of the Arab oil embargo.  But by 1980, the federal government had assembled a pot of subsidies, price supports, loans, and other incentives luring major oil companies to make substantial investments in the Piceance Basin area of western Colorado.  This boom would be short lived.  On May 2, 1982 -- “Black Sunday” -- ExxonMobil pulled out of oil shale due to falling oil prices and vanishing federal subsidies.  The economy of western Colorado collapsed and the entire state of Colorado entered an economic slump as a result.
Reemergence of oil shale

Oil shale has returned to the world stage due to rising oil prices and concerns about national energy independence.  What has not changed is the lack of a technology capable of turning oil shale rocks into transportation fuels in a commercially viable manner.    [SOURCE]

Not sure about that last point.  Couldn't see a date on the page, so I don't know how current the info is.

As I understand there's a shale boom, so the 'lack of technology' part doesn't sound right.

There's three types of shale energy deposits - here - Liquid (shale oil), Gas (shale gas) and Solid (oil shale).  The first two are good; the solid form is crap commercially because it's not easy to break down for fuel. 

I think I need to go to shale school, because I'm still not really clear on how 'crude oil' relates to shale.

Anyway, thanks to current technology, there's a boom in crude oil production and export in USA!!!

HELLO, EUROPE!!!

US - SHALE GAS - JAPANESE and CHINESE MARKETS

Why Japan Will Drive Global LNG Growth There is little reason to expect Japan’s reactors will offset its voracious new appetite for LNG. By Clint Richards August 08, 2014 ... A look at Japan’s LNG consumption since 2011 ... Japanese use of LNG has increased by almost 20 million metric tons, or about 8 percent of global demand in 2013. The Wall Street Journal writes that this increased demand has led to more than 50 LNG export terminal proposals worldwide. However, despite surging demand for LNG in Japan (and China) recently, there are reasons to temper expectations. The Wall Street Journal speculates that a possible Japanese return to nuclear power and China’s staggeringly large new deal with Russia to import regular, piped natural gas should cause LNG speculators to hedge their bets somewhat.  [Yeah, hedge those bets in Europe.] While the question of China’s future LNG consumption may not be clear, demand will surely rise over the short to medium-term, even if that growth ends up being less pronounced than the increase in natural gas demand. Even with the prospect of a slowdown in China’s economy, it is simply too large not to diversify and increase the weighting of LNG in its energy mix, especially as the environmental impact of coal becomes much more problematic in its mega-cities. Japan’s future demand for LNG may also be difficult to gauge, but there are indicators as to what direction the industry in Japan will take. First of all, there are the $10 billion in loans put together by major private banks like Sumitomo Mitsui Banking and Mizuho Bank, along with the government’s Japan Bank for International Cooperation, to fund LNG projects in North America slated for delivery between 2017 and 2018. Additionally, by 2020 Japan is expected to order roughly 90 LNG ships worth $19.3 billion. However, the location of the investments is important, as that will signal the long-term viability of LNG imports for Japan. Overall Japanese investment in North America has increased substantially since 2011, going from roughly $15 billion to more than $45 billion in 2013. A significant portion of that investment is being funneled into the emerging shale natural gas industry in both the U.S. and Mexico. Once U.S. shale gas is online, it is expected to be 20 to 30 percent cheaper than Japan’s other suppliers. EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/why-japan-will-drive-global-lng-growth/

That's just the Japanese / Chinese market.

* China will be largely natural gas reliant (Russian deal) ... but some diversity expected.

* Japan is a big market ... but they *could* revert to nuclear, so market not assured?

Don't forget Europe needs energy, too.  Hello Europe.

UKRAINE - US & CO - GRAB FOR OIL, GAS & COAL and PIPELINES

Naked Goals of Ukrainian Genocide – Part I  ... What does it all this have to do with Ukraine, Novorossia and the re-shaping of the world? Just look at the picture and try to imagine that all the US senators and congressmen, Obama and Merkel, and others all over the world are doing the same. And it is not important how accurate the picture is — those people will be making decisions with this picture in mind. The picture is clear: it’s essential to grab the sources of oil, gas, coal immediately (before 2030), as well as the ways and means to transport them (specifically gas and oil pipelines). And the one who succeeds in taking possession of as much as possible is sure to become a leader and ride the tide of the energy crisis expected in 2030. That is just some 15–16 years off. It has long been said, you should never boast about your gas and oil, or you’ll call a democracy down upon your head. They were warned but didn’t hear; better to just thumb one’s nose at Moscow. And now let’s read carefully how the Yuzivska shale gas field (southern Kharkov and northern Donetsk region) shows up in terms of statistics: estimated deposits, 4 trillion m3; planned production capacity (so far), 10 billion m3 a year; and, planned investments in the development of the Yuzivska and Odessa (whoa!) gas fields in the 30 years to come – on the order of 50-70 billion dollars. That’s assuming the price of gas in Europe remains the same – $400 for 100 m3. After a simple calculation we see that the bowels of the earth at Donetsk and Kharkov contain an estimated 4 x $400 billion = $1600 trillion. Annual income at current prices may reach, at a minimum, 10 x 400 million = $4 billion. Let me ask you, what might one do to Ukraine in order to get 1.5-2 trillion bucks? Anything one chooses, in the most perverted fashion. And this is the Yuzivska field only! http://slavyangrad.org/2014/08/05/naked-goals-of-ukrainian-genocide-part-i/

Check out this guy's article.


Had no idea there was so much at stake!

Bloomberg - Anti-Russian Sanctions Overview

Bloomberg Businessweek Article

As Ukraine Heats Up, Exxon to Airbus Eye Growing Risks

By Matthew Campbell July 16, 2014 

As the U.S. and Europe escalate sanctions against Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis, companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM:US), Airbus Group NV (AIR) and Daimler AG (DAI) are facing a threat to their multibillion-dollar businesses in the country. 

“We have enjoyed good relationships with Russian partners,” Airbus Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders said on the sidelines of the Farnborough Air Show near London. “I would only express my hope that these relationships and partnerships will survive the current political tensions.” 

In contrast to sanctions targets Iran and North Korea, Russia’s $2 trillion economy -- about the size of Italy’s -- is closely linked to global business as multinationals have piled into a promising consumer market and resource producer. That highlights the difficulty the U.S. and Europe face in trying to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin. 
 ...
The action blocks the assets of eight state-owned defense firms, including weapons-maker Kalashnikov Concern, which manufactures its namesake assault rifle. The penalties will prohibit any new financing of debt with a maturity of more than 90 days from U.S. sources.

EU Measures

European Union leaders are considering measures that would cut off some public financing of infrastructure projects in the country. Sanctions so far have primarily focused on asset freezes and visa bans for small numbers of political and military figures close to Putin. 

... [CORPORATE INTERESTS ...]

Exxon has bet heavily on its relationship with Rosneft, the state energy producer that’s led by Putin confidant -- and U.S. sanctions target -- Igor Sechin. Next month Exxon expects to begin drilling an Arctic well with Rosneft that will cost as much as $700 million, the most expensive such project ever in Russia. It’s also working on a $300 million shale well project in Siberia.

In a sign of the importance of its Rosneft ties, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson rebuffed U.S. government appeals to skip an energy forum in Putin’s hometown of St. Petersburg in May, and appeared with Sechin in Moscow last month. An Exxon spokesman said the company’s Russia plans remain unchanged.
Providers of oilfield services have found a juicy potential market in Russia, which needs the latest technology to maintain production from declining Cold War-era fields.

U.S. energy service providers Halliburton Co. ... Schlumberger Ltd. ...and National Oilwell Varco Inc. ... all have significant operations in Russia. 

...Halliburton has worked closely with Gazprom ... Houston-based company, which signed a technology-sharing accord with Gazprom’s oil arm last year, “is certainly trying to make a bigger play” in Russia ...  Halliburton and Varco declined to comment. 

At Canadian airplane manufacturer Bombardier Inc. (BBD/B), “there’s been a little bit more apprehension from our Russian customers to get into big transactions, not just with us,” said Guy Hachey, president of the company’s aerospace business. Along with Airbus, Bombardier has sought to build manufacturing capacity in Russia to meet demand from local airlines.  
...

[Russia's] ... finance ministry predicts economic growth will drop to about 0.5 percent this year ... measures would pile onto existing concerns about corruption, shoddy infrastructure, and stagnant population growth. 

... automaker Daimler AG has backed away from increasing its stake in OAO KamAZ, Russia’s largest producer of heavy trucks. ...

Automakers that are strengthening their ties to Russia ...Renault SA (RNO) and Nissan Motor Co. ... last month completed a 2012 plan to tighten control of OAO AvtoVAZ, Russia’s biggest carmaker. Renault and Nissan, which gained majority control of AvtoVAZ, once described the deal as a critical bridgehead into a key emerging market. Yet when the transaction was sealed June 18, the companies didn’t even put out a press release. Renault and Nissan declined to comment. 

EXTRACTS
FULL ARTICLE - SOURCE - Bloomberg Businessweek - here.
---------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

Obviously a lot of foreign investment in Russia.
Don't know what to make of it other than that.

SHALE REVOLUTION - FRACKING - US Winning Hand in Geopolitical Long Game

[From Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article - here]

The geopolitical consequences of the shale revolution transcend periodic, regionally specific crises such as Ukraine or Iran (where U.S. sanctions have been able to bite exactly because of growing North American oil and gas supplies entering world markets).

Aside from physical exports, U.S. shale expertise may well help Europe diversify its energy sources away from Russia, too. There’s talk of exploiting significant shale basins in Britain, France, Germany, Poland and, yes, Ukraine. According to NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen, Russian intelligence has sought ways to co-opt European environmental NGOs that oppose hydraulic fracturing.

Ever since the early 1970s, the dominant motif has posited “energy needs” with “energy vulnerability,” as the United States became the major global oil importer. This vulnerability has rested heavily on our thinking about security, itself a legacy of oil embargoes from that era. Today, the shale revolution is changing that calculus.

New trends, such as the revival of energy-intensive U.S. industries and a distinct improvement in our terms of trade, reflect the still-surprising energy abundance accelerating since 2005. Future natural gas exports and high-value North American shale expertise will play an ever larger part of the geopolitical long game. This new game has only started and, for a change, we seem to have a winning hand.

James Clad, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia, consults for energy and investment firms and is senior adviser at the Center for Naval Analyses and at Jane’s Defence and Cambridge Energy Research Associates.


FULL - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - here.

-------------------------------------------
COMMENT

It's cute when he gets all coy with the "... and, yes, Ukraine".
That's how I picture it.  LOL.

If I'm reading that right, Russia stands accused of co-opting European tree-huggers?
Take it that's what the NGO's are.

That's hilarious.
Were it a fact, isn't that like a counter 'colour revolution' type of thingy?

Again, I'm new to this so please bear with me if my grasp isn't all it should be.

--------------

Scan of wiki re NGOs ...
Putin doesn't sound too keen on NGOs:

"Another criticism of NGOs is that they are being designed and used as extensions of the normal foreign-policy instruments of certain Western countries and groups of countries.  

 Russian President Vladimir Putin made this accusation at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy in 2007, concluding that these NGOs "are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control. [wikipedia]"