Slashdot Mirror


Romanian Officials Say Russia Finances European Fracking Protests

HughPickens.com writes 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 nongovernmental organizations — 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.

10 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. One should be careful on the logic here by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep in mind that just because Russia/Putin doesn't want fracking, it isn't a reason by itself to think tha fracking is a good thing.

    1. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Saudis are heavily involved in anti fracking propaganda in the US as well.

      Everyone paying attention knows what is going on. This more about money and less about the environment.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, the seismic activity might be a good thing.

      The link is basically that the fracking is weakening some structures that then drop below the strength needed to keep a quake from happening at current pressure. This causes a small quake. The alternative is to let the pressure build until it exceeds what the current structures down there can handle, this would cause a single large quake.

      I'm not pro-fracking (I think the ground water contamination is bad), plus the cheap gas slows movement away from fossil fuels, but the increase is small quakes shouldn't be thought of as bad IMO.

  2. Bullshit by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am european, and anti-fracking, and I have yet to receive my fat cheque from dear old Vlado.

    1. Re:Bullshit by SargentDU · · Score: 4, Informative

      He only has to convince the people you would follow in protests, not the minions like you or me.

  3. Thee not me by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Already seeing some quasi-defenses of this here. Guess the "get the money out of politics" folks actually mean "get YOUR money out of politics, ours is fine."

  4. it has a name... by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...in the US we call it "lobbying and advertising" and corporations of course spend billions trying to influence people to engage in behaviors that increase the profitability and public image of their business.

    so it's in Russia's interest to prevent fracking...ok well they spend money to sway public opinion...sounds like SOP to me.

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  5. Just some bits of info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm Romanian, and there is some information missing from this "news". First of all, the Russian company Gazprom has been given a lot of exploration/exploitaition licences in Romania, including the rights for prospecting for shale gas. They operate through a Serbian subsidiary called Nis, and they have already started prospections in the Western area of the country. Therefore, I really doubt Russia finances the civic campaigns against fracking. Then, the Romanian officials quoted include a very controversial mayor of the village where Chevron first started to look for shale gas. That mayor happened to buy the field where the prospections were to be started just before Chevron came. He made a nice profit in the meanwhile, and the non-governmental organizations have acused him from the start of being - possibly - "persuaded" financially by Chevron itself. So these officials are far from being unbiased on the matter.

    The other thing the story fails to tell about is that the movement against dangerous mining operations (not only fracking) is very strong in Romania for several years now, we had massive demostrations, with tens of thousands of protesters gathering in major cities each time such a danger was percieved. And they are the same protesters that actively despise Russia and its influence in the region. Because, unlike Hungary, Serbia and other neighbours, Romania has managed to keep the political Russian influence away -- we've had enough of their bright ideas when they imposed communism on us, and we do not forget that easily.

    All in all, this looks like a manipulative story, possibly put forward by those who would have something to gain from fracking in a country where the population density/distribution makes this method dangerous if not criminal -- and this includes Russians. They won't succeed, of course, they keep underestimating our resolve/intelligence.

  6. Re:Maybe Putin could help by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Faults build up stress until they break. The longer the stress builds, the bigger the earthquake. If fracking promotes earthquakes, that means they'll be more frequent, less damaging, and less deadly. I'd rather experience a Richter 4 daily than a Richter 7 every 20 years.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  7. Fracking, not what you think it is. by ajlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do realize that fracking has been done commercially since 1949 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... ), right? What environmentalist are really concerned with is called horizontal completions, but that just doesn't have the insidious ring to it that "fracking" does. If we called it by it's real name, it would be much harder to scare those of us driven by emotion instead of reason.

    Let's not forget there are some benefits to horizontal completions. Thanks to horizontal completions petroleum products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, plastics and on and on and on) prices are plummeting. Thanks to horizontal completions, natural gas is now cheaper the coal in the US and coal power plants are being converted to natural gas which is all around cleaner, safer, and produces half the CO2 of coal. Thanks to horizontal completions, OPEC's 40 year cartel appears to be at an end, and horizontal completions dropping the price of oil has been the most effective "sanction" by far on Russia, putting more pressure on Putin and the ruble then all the heads of state combined.