Frack You … I’m Alright Jack

MP Peter Lilley has received more than $400,000

in oil company share options

Analysis shows full extent of climate sceptic’s financial interests in oil industry and places committee role under further scrutiny

But first let’s watch Vanessa Vine of  Bitain and Ireland Frack Free, tell Peter Lilley on national TV that, without a doubt he is a liar.

And now from The Guardian

The Conservative MP Peter Lilley, one of only three MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act, has received share options worth at least $400,000 from an oil company, Guardian analysis has revealed.

Lilley’s links to the oil industry have long been declared by the former cabinet member. But the revelation about the full extent of his financial interests will place him under further scrutiny in his new role as a member of the Commons select committee on energy and climate change, which will be quizzing the energy and climate secretary, Ed Davey, about the energy bill on Tuesday.

Since 2006, Lilley has been a non-executive board member of Tethys Petroleum, a Cayman Islands-based oil and gas company with drilling operations in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. In the register of MPs’ financial interests, Lilley has routinely declared that he receives a quarterly payment from Tethys for “attending meetings and advising on business developments”. The latest quarterly payment registered by Lilley on 1 October was £11,750 for 30 hours’ work, meaning he has received £47,000 over the past year.

But the Guardian has discovered Lilley has also been granted share options valued by the company at the time they were granted at $428,399, in addition to other share options that have not been given a clear financial valuation. Under parliament’s code of conduct, he is not required to disclose details about the precise value or volume of any shareholding.

Tethys’ financial public filing reports show that Lilley was granted $107,290 worth of share options in 2011, $194,350 in 2010, $57,040 in 2009, and $69,719 in 2008. In 2007, Lilley was granted 150,000 share options, but a financial valuation was not expressed in the documents.

Tethys is currently publicly listed on stock exchanges in Toronto, London and Kazakhstan. Its share price in London has fallen sharply since recording a record high in March. Tethys reported last week that it had “seen a substantial increase in oil production and revenue from the Doris oil field in Kazakhstan” in 2012, and that overall the company had seen a “46% increase in production revenues over the third quarter of last year”.

Lilley did not respond to the Guardian’s invitation to comment. A Tethys spokeswoman said: “We have no comment except that all of the options are currently out of the money and none have been exercised to date.” The term “out of the money” means the company’s stock price is currently lower than the share option’s “strike price” and would, therefore, result in a loss if exercised now.

As a new member of the Commons energy and climate change select committee, Lilley is expected to declare any relevant interests to the committee’s clerk upon his first appearance, which took place last week. Next Tuesday, the committee will recommence its inquiry into shale gas. The minutes of any interests or information declared by Lilley to the clerk is not expected to be published for at least a month, but the Guardian understands that, as a committee member, he is not obliged to declare anything beyond that required in the MPs’ register of financial interests.

When Lilley was appointed to the committee last month, Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP, said: “That Conservative MPs have voted Lilley, a senior oil industry figure and well-known climate sceptic, to serve on the parliamentary committee tasked with scrutinising the UK’s climate and energy policy is a clear sign that anti-green, anti-science forces are gaining ground.”

She added: “Lilley’s position as an oil executive means that he is likely to be far more concerned with the short-term profits of the dinosaur polluting fossil fuel barons than tackling the huge threat posed by climate change – or recognising the opportunities of switching to a green economy.”

Lilley recently wrote a report – which failed to declare his oil industry interests – for Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, in which he criticised the “failings” of the influential Stern review of the economics of climate change published in 2006. In September, Lilley wrote to the BBC’s director of editorial policy and standards to complain about the broadcaster’s “systemic bias” in its climate change reporting.

Last week, a covert Greenpeace video was released showing Lilley calling Greg Barker, the Conservative energy minister and an enthusiastic backer of renewable energy, a “complete nutter”.

In the video, Lilley said that the chancellor, George Osborne, “wanted to get people into key [government] positions who could begin to get the government off the hook from the [climate] commitments it made very foolishly.” He added: “We could well see certainly amendments to the Climate Change Act, cease to make it legally binding, make it advisory.”

Lilley described the covert recording as “deplorable”. He added: “I would happily have given an interview making the same points if they had approached me honestly … I have never discussed climate policy with the chancellor or anyone speaking for him.”

• This article originally said “the term “out of the money” means the company’s stock price is currently higher than the share option’s “strike price””. Higher has been corrected to lower.

Advertisements
Fuck You and Fuck Your Mother Too (Not My Words!!!!)

Fuck You and Fuck Your Mother Too (Not My Words!!!!)

Nick Grealy Tells Those Opposed to Fracking ... Fuck You and Fuck Your Mother Too !!!!

Nick Grealy Tells Those Opposed to Fracking … Fuck You and Fuck Your Mother Too !!!!

Shale gas ‘expert’ Nick Grealy is invited to take the microphone at the protest against fracking outside Winter Gardens, Blackpool. He approaches a woman, asking if she is ‘Ewa Jasiewicz’. She says ‘no’ and he appears to be somewhat disgruntled by his mistake. When it is pointed out to him that he is wrong, responds with ‘fuck your shit’. He is then asked by a member of the public ‘why did you want to kn-‘ but interrupts and tells the public to ‘fuck off’ before heading back inside.

As he makes his way back, he is offered the chance to take the microphone and responds with ‘fuck you and fuck your mother too.’ When challenged about his outrageous and insulting language almost immediately afterwards via Twitter, he admits his disgusting comments and unbelievably tweets: ‘you missed the part where I said…and your father too.’

It is evident that this man seems unable to rein in his vile tirades against the public. He had an opportunity to take the microphone and tell people why he thinks anti-frackers are wrong. Instead, by insulting the public with his disgusting comments, he does nothing but prove his contempt for them and his inability to engage in any form of discussion without descending into vile insults.

Video and Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEh3rHfj6H8&feature=share

Ex Mobil Oil Exec Confirms Fracking Technology is Dangerous and Untested.

 Former Oil Exec Says Fracking is Not Safe,  Retired Mobil VP confirms technology is dangerous and untested.

Former Oil Exec Says Fracking is Not Safe, Retired Mobil VP confirms technology is dangerous and untested.

In a message “straight from the horse’s mouth,” a former oil executive on Tuesday urged New York state to pass a ban on the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, saying, ‘it is not safe.’

“Making fracking safe is simply not possible, not with the current technology, or with the inadequate regulations being proposed,” Louis Allstadt, former executive vice president of Mobil Oil, said during a news conference in Albany called by the anti-fracking group Elected Officials to Protect New York.

Up until his retirement in 2000, Allstadt spent 31 years at Mobil, running its marketing and refining division in Japan and managing Mobil’s worldwide supply, trading and transportation operations. After retiring to Cooperstown, NY, Allstadt said he began studying fracking after friends asked him if he thought it would be safe to have gas wells drilled by nearby Lake Otsego, where Allstadt has a home. Since that time, he’s become a vocal opponent of the shale oil and gas drilling technique.

“Now the industry will tell you that fracking has been around a long time. While that is true, the magnitude of the modern technique is very new,” Allstadt said, adding that a fracked well can require 50 to 100 times the water and chemicals compared to non-fracked wells.

He also noted that methane, up to 30 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, is found to be leaking from fracked wells “at far greater rates than were previously estimated.”

In response to Allstadt’s statement, the environmental group Food & Water Watch tweeted:

Elected Officials to Protect New York held the news conference to promote local initiatives to ban the practice in the state and to call on officials to push for more renewable energy sources. Protesters in New York have been pressuring Governor Andrew Cuomo not to lift the state moratorium on fracking, a move he said he would consider by Election Day 2014.

_____________________

Share this article!

Desmond Tutu calls for anti-apartheid style boycott of fossil fuel industry

Desmond Tutu: 'We have allowed the interests of capital to outweigh the interests of human beings and our Earth.' Photograph: -/AFP/Getty Images

Desmond Tutu: ‘We have allowed the interests of capital to outweigh the interests of human beings and our Earth.’ Photograph: -/AFP/Getty Images

Nobel peace prize winner calls for organisations to cut ties with industry and for investors to dump fossil fuel stocks

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for an anti-apartheid-style boycott and disinvestment campaign against the fossil fuel industry for driving global warming, just days ahead of a landmark UN report on how carbon emissions can be slashed.

In an article for the Guardian, the archbishop writes: “We live in a world dominated by greed. We have allowed the interests of capital to outweigh the interests of human beings and our Earth. It is clear [the companies] are not simply going to give up; they stand to make too much money.”

Tutu, one of the most revered figures of South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle and a key backer of the economic and moral campaigns that helped end the system, says: “People of conscience need to break their ties with corporations financing the injustice of climate change. We can, for instance, boycott events, sports teams and media programming sponsored by fossil-fuel energy companies.”

The Nobel peace prize winner also called for investors to dump their fossil fuel stocks: “It makes no sense to invest in companies that undermine our future. Already some colleges and pension funds have declared that they want their investments congruent with their beliefs.”

The archbishop’s intervention, just before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, due out on Sunday, is the strongest yet in a rapidly growing global campaign against oil, gas and coal firms that is uniting anti-global warming activists with financial institutions who want to avoid a trillion-dollar crash in fossil fuel stocks.

A leaked draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that, to avoid dangerous levels of warming, investment in fossil fuels must start falling by tens of billions a year.

The draft says emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses grew nearly twice as fast over the last decade as in the previous 30 years. Emissions grew 2.2% a year on average from 2000-2010, compared to 1.3% a year over the period from 1970-2010. In 2010-2011, global emissions from burning fossil fuels grew 3%.

The good news, says Tutu, is that a divestment campaign has begun, started 18 months ago in the US. And it has grown faster than campaigns that targeted apartheid, tobacco and arms manufacturers, according to Oxford University research.

The research has shown that past divestment campaigns succeeded by stigmatising their targets – using “moral pressure” according to Tutu – and exerting financial pressure.

In the UK campaigners are targeting the £5bn of fossil fuels stocks owned by UK universities and, last month, the country’s top doctors called for urgent divestment.

“Those who profess to care for the health of people perhaps have the greatest responsibility to act,” wrote Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, president of the British Medical Association, and Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the British Medical Journal. “Firstly, we should push our own organisations – universities, hospitals, primary care providers, drug and device companies – to divest from fossil fuel industries completely and as quickly as possible and reinvest in renewable energy sources.”

Tim Ratcliffe, European divestment coordinator for the campaign group 350.org, said: “It was a turning point when physicians spoke out against investments in the tobacco industry. This should serve as a wake-up call to investors to pull their money out of high-carbon assets.”

Fossil fuel firms are also facing escalating pressure from investors, with some large pension funds having already divested. The world’s biggest sovereign wealth fund, itself built on oil and gas revenues, is nowformally considering dumping its fossil fuel stocks.

The Norwegian finance ministry, which manages the $850bn fund, said: “An expert group will evaluate whether the exclusion of coal and petroleum companies is a more effective strategy for addressing climate issues and promoting future change than the exercise of ownership and exertion of influence.”

Other investors, including the Ceres coalition which manages $3tn collectively, have demanded fossil fuel companies confront openly the risk of a “carbon bubble”, by either diverting their investment to clean energy or giving the money back to shareholders.

The bubble risk exists because only a third of the reserves currently on the books of fossil fuel companies can be burned if the world is to have a good chance of restricting climate change to 2C, a goal to which the world’s governments are already committed. If global action is taken to slash carbon emissions those reserves become worthless, or “stranded assets”.

However, fossil fuel firms still spend huge sums – about $650bn in 2013 – exploring for new oil, gas and coal to add to the stockpile, despitedeclining profits.

Citi bank, HSBC, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs, as well as ratings agencies Standard and Poor’s and Moodys, are among the big financial players who have already warned investors of the carbon bubble risk.

The leaked IPCC draft, seen by the Guardian, says this trend of rising investment in fossil fuel extraction and power plants needs to switch into reverse, falling by $30bn a year until 2030, if carbon emissions are to be cut sufficiently to have a good chance of limiting climate change to 2C.

At the same time investment in low-carbon electricity supplies, such as renewables and nuclear, will have to rise by $147bn a year, while investment in energy efficiency in transport, buildings and industry will have to increase by several hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

The IPCC report also warns that cutting carbon emissions may devalue fossil fuel assets, especially coal. Stocks in most companies mining for coal, the dirtiest fuel of all, have already plunged steeply since 2012.

China, the biggest importer of coal, is taking action to curb its use in the face of appalling air pollution, and new research concludes that two in every five coal-fired power stations could become stranded assets in next 40 years.

In the US, five coal mining companies, equal to $4bn in assets, have filed for bankruptcy since 2007, while from 2011-2013 coal stocks in the US fell 60%. However, the shale gas boom in the US has been a significant factor in making coal uneconomic.

The world’s biggest oil company, ExxonMobil, was forced last month to publish a report explaining how it was going to adapt its business to a world in which emissions were limited. But while the shareholders that demanded the move welcomed the new transparency, ExxonMobil concluded it was “highly unlikely” that global governments would cut carbon sufficiently to keep climate change under the internationally agreed 2C limit.

“Investors now know that ExxonMobil is not considering a low-carbon scenario in its planning, which places shareowner capital at risk,” said Natasha Lamb, director of equity research and shareholder engagement at Arjuna Capital, which helped force the disclosure. “We want to engage the companies head-on so there is not a calamity, as we got with the tech bubble, the financial services bubble and the housing bubble. But if Big Oil can’t redirect capital to low-carbon energy alternatives, investors will [by divesting].”

BP, Shell and Total are all discussing the carbon bubble risk publicly to some extent but Chevron has refused to do.

“We have now called the bluff of the oil companies to indicate what carbon trajectory they are betting on,” said James Leaton, research director at the analysts Carbon Tracker, which has pioneered the financial analysis of the carbon bubble. “Now it is up to the investors to act on that.”

Carbon Tracker research suggests carbon capture and storage – which would clean up fossil fuel burning by burying its emissions – will be able to deal with just 4% of total global reserves.

“There is a momentum gathering,” Leaton said. “Whether it is investors in Australia or Norway, people have seen there is less upside to coal and the amount of capital expenditure going into coal seems to have peaked. We’re really pleased that there is now a recognition that doing nothing and hoping it will be all right is not an option.”

Source The Guardian

 

FURY AS SALFORD MAYOR REFUSES FRACKING DEBATE

From The Salford Star

SALFORD MAYOR `HIDES BEHIND PROCESSES’ TO AVOID FRACKING ISSUE

“Ian Stewart is a joke, a jellyfish…he’s got no backbone” Steph, Ordsall

“Democracy? They don’t know the meaning of the word” Jean, Irlam

Salford City Mayor, Ian Stewart and his Cabinet this morning refused to debate the issue of fracking, after a petition with three thousand signatures was handed over condemning the controversial gas extraction process.

After a five minute speech by the petitioner, Stewart said there would be“no further debate”. It left campaigners – half of whom weren’t allowed into the meeting – horrified… “I get the feeling that they are hiding behind processes” said petitioner Ali Abbas from Manchester Friends of the Earth.

SALFORD MAYOR `HIDES BEHIND PROCESSES' TO AVOID FRACKING ISSUE "Ian Stewart is a joke, a jellyfish…he's got no backbone" Steph, Ordsall "Democracy? They don't know the meaning of the word" Jean, Irlam

SALFORD MAYOR `HIDES BEHIND PROCESSES’ TO AVOID FRACKING ISSUE
“Ian Stewart is a joke, a jellyfish…he’s got no backbone” Steph, Ordsall
“Democracy? They don’t know the meaning of the word” Jean, Irlam

“Your rights were taken away, you weren’t allowed to speak, it was a case of just sitting there for five minutes. There was no engagement with the Mayor or anyone, it was ridiculous.” Kevin, Irlam

Around fifty anti-fracking campaigners protested outside Salford Civic Centre this morning, surrounded by Salford Council’s over-indulgent security measures.

Police kept a watchful eye from inside and outside the building as mothers holding babies and pensioners sang anti-fracking songs, while a memo had gone around to all staff telling them that `additional security will be in place’ and asking them to `remain vigilant at this time’

When the Council Cabinet meeting got underway at 10am, less than half the campaigners who had stood outside the Civic Centre for almost an hour were allowed in, the Salford Mayor, Ian Stewart, citing `health and safety reasons’.

Campaigners had hoped that the Council would be forced, at last, to hold an open discussion on fracking, triggered by over three thousand people signing a petitionopposing the controversial shale gas extraction process. Instead, what they got was yet more silence.

Ali Abbas, on behalf of Manchester Friends of the Earth, which had launched the petition, was allowed to address councillors for five minutes – but Stewart made it clear before the meeting started that “no member of the public will be allowed to speak, apart from the petitioner”.

Ali made a passionate speech, challenging claims made by the fracking industry that shale gas would bring down prices, create jobs, tackle climate change and help national security.

He added that IGas – the company doing the exploratory drilling at Barton Moss – had originally explicitly stated that it was looking for coal bed methane gas when its intention, now admitted, was to look for shale gas…

“If you can’t trust IGas in the exploratory phase then how can you trust them in the future?” he asked, calling on Salford Council to pass a motion against shale gas exploration.

Ali handed over the petition to Assistant Mayor for Planning, Derek Antrobus, and then Ian Stewart closed that section of the meeting.

`Aren’t you going to respond?’ shouted someone from the public seating… “We are governed by the formal rules of the Council – there will be no debate” said Stewart “We will be called to make a decision and would exclude ourselves from being involved”. He then asked people to leave, much to the fury of those present.

“They’re useless. Democracy? They don’t know the meaning of the word” said Jean Caruthers from Irlam.

“At least fifty of us have come down today to hear the Council debate fracking, hear their answers and hear where they are up to with it…because since Barton Moss started not one of Salford councillor has been down there or spoken out” said Darren Nesbitt “Instead, we’ve heard a statement being read out and then asked to leave with no discussion whatsoever.

“How is the public being involved?” he asked “The Mayor said that the Council is governed by its rules. No! The Council should be governed by the people.”

And Kevin Done from Irlam added “It was pointless coming down, your rights were taken away, you weren’t allowed to speak, it was a case of just sitting there for five minutes. There was no engagement with the Mayor or anyone, it was ridiculous.”

Steph, from Ordsall, helped to get people to sign the petition, spending many hours in the street collecting signatures…

“All the time and effort we went to, explaining to people what fracking is all about, and now it’s just been chucked in the recycle bin” she fumed “It’s an absolute joke. I’m furious with this Council. If this is democracy I don’t want it. I don’t think it is democracy, it’s their version of democracy, and I just want them out. Ian Stewart is a joke, a jellyfish, he’s got no backbone.”

Others were convinced that the Mayor and his Assistant Mayors were using procedures to avoid discussing the fracking issue…

“It’s using procedural technicalities to avoid debate just before an election” said Martin Burke, a Green Party election candidate “Not all members of the Labour party are subject to the legal constraints of Labour councillors who might sit on the planning committee. Someone from that party could engage in the debate but they are avoiding it because it would be very unpopular just before the election.”

And Colin Gong, from the Barton Moss Community Protection Camp added… “We need to check that they are following due process because I was under the very clear understanding that we would get to hear an hour long debate by the Council on fracking. Instead we got a pre-prepared statement from our side and zero, silence from the Council…”

Ali Abbas, who handed over the petition, was equally seething…

“It was really important that we got a chance to address councillors…what was disappointing was that we didn’t get a chance to have a debate on the issue and that’s got to happen” he said “People expect councillors to come out and say very clearly where they stand on fracking. They have the power to put in place a motion which presumes against development of shale gas extraction in the Barton Moss area and in Salford as a whole. So, from that point of view this is the start of the process.

“I get the feeling that they are hiding behind processes” he concluded “It’s all very well having processes like that, but what you want is a forum for debate. We need to have a forum, have that debate and come up with solutions that are right for Salford.”

This afternoon, a press release from Manchester Friends of the Earth, included a statement from actress and Salford resident Maxine Peake calling for Salford Council to get off its fracking knees…

“It is of utmost importance that we prevent fracking from becoming a reality in this country” she said “We must stop the Goverment’s bribing of local authorities into participating in this disastrous exercise. No to Fracking! Stand up Salford before it’s too late…”

 

The Fracking Industry’s Contempt for the Public

Phrases like, “natural gas,” “cleaner than coal,” “energy independence,” and “radical environmentalists” were deployed to create a popular mandate for shale gas development, and to discount fracking critics. While it seems likely that gas-industry spin doctors honed these deft marketing terms prior to the nationwide explosion in fracking, neither reporters nor the public have been privy to the behind-the-scenes machinations, until now.

This past week a leak, a report and a lawsuit have given a rare glimpse of what the gas industry really thinks about the public (easily manipulated), environmentalists (extremely effective) and fracking (not in my backyard).

Read Full Article Here