Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday December 06 2014, @06:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the claims-but-no-evidence dept.

Andrew Higgins reports in the NYT that Romanian officials including the prime minister point to a mysteriously well-financed and well-organized campaign of protests over fracking in Europe and are pointing their fingers at Russia's Gazprom, a state-controlled energy giant, that has a clear interest in preventing countries dependent on Russian natural gas from developing their own alternative supplies of energy and preserving a lucrative market for itself — and a potent foreign policy tool for the Kremlin.

“Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas,” says NATO’s former secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

A wave of protest against fracking began three years ago in Bulgaria, a country highly dependent on Russian energy. Faced with a sudden surge of street protests by activists, many of whom had previously shown little interest in environmental issues, the Bulgarian government in 2012 banned fracking and canceled a shale gas license issued earlier to Chevron.

Russia itself has generally shown scant concern for environmental protection and has a long record of harassing and even jailing environmentalists who stage protests. On fracking, however, Russian authorities have turned enthusiastically green, with Putin declaring last year that fracking “poses a huge environmental problem.” Places that have allowed it, he said, “no longer have water coming out of their taps but a blackish slime.” For their part Green groups have been swift to attack Rasmussen’s views, saying that they were not involved in any alleged Russian attempts to discredit the technology, and were instead opposed to it on the grounds of environmental sustainability. “The idea we’re puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they’re smoking over at Nato HQ,” says Greenpeace, which has a history of antagonism with the Russian government, which arrested several of its activists on a protest in the Arctic last year.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by dlb on Saturday December 06 2014, @11:12PM

    by dlb (4790) on Saturday December 06 2014, @11:12PM (#123318)
    Careful with those studies. I didn't look at the rest, but the University of Colorado study was done in a lab that Agilent Technologies, Inc. gave to them. Agilent has a history of donating to energy-friendly (read gas and oil friendly) institutions.

    The study found that

    ...oil and gas companies also add a variety of other chemicals [to fracking fluids], including anti-bacterial agents, corrosion inhibitors and surfactants

    The authors of the study compared fracking fluids to "substances commonly found in homes" such as "toothpaste to laxatives to detergent to ice cream", suggesting that it's fine to drink.
    Yet the authors go on to state that not all fracking fluids were tested. Just some. And that not all fracking fluids are alike:

    Individual well operators use unique fracking fluid mixtures that may be modified depending on the underlying geology.

    And they admit

    ...antimicrobial biocides used in fracking fluids are [still] important to investigate and ameliorate.

    We're left wondering whether antimicrobial biocides are all we need to "ameliorate":

    because oil and gas companies have been reluctant to share exactly what’s in their proprietary fluid mixtures, citing stiff competition within the industry.

    The kicker for me is that the study stated

    But water pollution from surfactants in fracking fluid may not be as big a concern as previously thought.

    Meaning that up until their "study" nobody really knew. And even at that, notice the word "may" in the above quote?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Underrated=1, Total=1

    Total Score:   2