From: jo abbess
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, BP
Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your time on the phone earlier this week.

Last year in February, I was part of a small group of students that were grateful to have the benefit of an interview with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX at BP, then XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

I am taking my research into the energy sector further for my MSc dissertation, and I would be grateful if I could have an interview with somebody in an engineering department who has an overview of the energy sector.

It doesn’t need to be a face to face interview, as I am quite willing to telephone people. It only needs to be 20 minutes in duration.

I have prepared a short list of open questions that I am considering would be suitable for my enquiry into the future of energy resources and technologies (see below).

I hope that you can point me in the direction of somebody within BP who would like to offer their thoughts.

Thank you.

…

Questions with a UK focus

1. What do you think have been the best developments in the energy sector in the last 20 years ?

(What do you think are the most significant developments in the energy sector in the last 20 years ?)

2. What positive or negative changes in energy production and supply will take place over the next 2 decades ?

(What do you think will be the most important developments in the energy sector in the next 20 years ?)

3. Which energy resources and technologies look the most troubled ?

4. Which energy resources and technologies look the most promising ?

5. Does the UK face an energy supply gap ? Can we keep the lights on ?

From: jo abbess
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Hi XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,

Thank you for your helpful reply.

What I am trying to achieve is a real conversation with somebody within BP who has a general overview of the energy industry – sadly, the annual Statistical Review and company report do not answer the scoping questions I have.

I am offering an opportunity for BP to voice a vision, on record, of how the company intend to navigate future change, using parameters that are not generally the basis of shareholder reports.

I am sure that somebody in the organisation has a view on the onset of Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas – from conventional resources, and that there must be aims and objectives for BP to manage this issue.

I am convinced that BP has planned for a range of policy scenarios concerning climate change – both mitigation and adaptation measures.

I am also sure that somebody in BP has a plan for navigating political problems, such as the probability of continued unrest in the Middle East, with the accompanying likelihood of compromised oil and gas production.

In addition, I am sure that somebody from BP can speak on the company’s behalf about how it will deal with the threats of economic turbulence and still be able to meet the needs of shareholders.

Some sample questions that could take in part of this landscape :-

1. Do you think that we are heading for a period of global energy insecurity ? What are the factors that could cause this ? What are the timelines ? Who are the key players ?

2. What is aiding or blocking the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy ? What technologies look promising ? What technologies are stuck in the lab ?

3.. How do you think we will manage the transition to clean energy ? How will the economic actors be able to diversify out of fossil fuels and still retain balance in the world markets – and not disappoint their investors ?

4. Do you think that people generally are aware of the issues of energy security ?

It would be excellent if you could find somebody to speak to these or similar questions in a short interview with me. I can do interviews by telephone at very low cost, and I would e-mail the transcript for verification before using in my research report.

My central question is “are we ready for energy change ?” – major transition in the resourcing and use of energy – and I am seeking a full range of opinion on that question.

If you could point me towards somebody who is willing and able to speak for 20 minutes on the phone on energy security issues, I would be highly grateful.

Thank you.

…

See the rest of Gaddafi’s speech to the United Nations here

When did Colonel Muammar Gaddafi learn of threats from the world’s major oil consumer countries against his rule ? Was it in early 2011 ? Or was it several years earlier ? On the public stage, he has been deliberately reduced to a figure of fun, and his message advising non-aggression and protection from aggression is being lost. He is now a desperate man :-

http://www.youtube.com/?v=DTjpdUiILDw

Like me, you may have noticed that what Gaddafi is currently saying is not reported in the world’s media. Why is that ? We hear enough from the United States of America, the United Kingdom and key members of the United Nations Security Council and NATO. Why don’t we hear the voice of the leader of Libya ? What does Gaddafi want ? What does he think of the situation ? Is his message so diametrically different to the narrative of the warmongers of the West that it cannot be relayed, or we would all collapse down the rabbit hole of cognitive dissonance ?

And why am I writing about this ? What has the fate of Gaddafi and Gaddafi’s version of Libyan governance got to do with energy ? It’s quite straight-forward really. It has come to light that the United Kingdom, my own country, was engaged in “grasping diplomacy” on behalf of privatised energy company BP in the run up to the 2003 Iraq War. Essentially, the invasion of Iraq was treated as a foregone conclusion, months before the big public outcry against it. And energy companies were already vying for a slice of the action in post-war Iraq, even before the public relations case for war was being made :-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html

“Five months before the March 2003 invasion [of Iraq], Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq’s enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair’s military commitment to US plans for regime change. The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP’s behalf because the oil giant feared it was being “locked out” of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms. Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: “Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis.” The minister then promised to “report back to the companies before Christmas” on her lobbying efforts. The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq “post regime change”. Its minutes state: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity.” After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office’s Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: “Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future… We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq.” Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had “no strategic interest” in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was “more important than anything we’ve seen for a long time”. BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf’s existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world’s leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take “big risks” to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world. Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002. The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq’s reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.”

Think of that when you consider the belligerent tone being used in connection with Libya. Why does the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 only get interpreted in warmongering terms ? Where are the options besides military options ? Where’s the diplomacy ?

The mainstream media are engaged in the propagation of military aggression, without analysing why war is in the UK’s national energy interest, or rather, in the interest of BP and other energy companies whose interests intersect with those of the British Government :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13112559

It is natural to ask the obvious question…if oil and gas companies were collaborating with the UK Government prior to the Unjustified Military Aggression on Iraq (commonly known as the “Iraq War”), what are they doing in regards to Libya ?

Libya was planning to re-nationalise its energy resources, and I mean nationalise – apparently Gaddafi was planning for a redistribution of wealth exercise :-

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/25-03-2011/117336-reason_for_war_oil-0/

“On February 16, 2009, Gaddafi took a step further and called on Libyans to back his proposal to dismantle the government and to distribute the oil wealth directly to the 5 million inhabitants of the country.”

And the oil and gas companies were fearful of what this could mean for their future business profits :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67d1d02a-5314-11e0-86e6-00144feab49a.html#axzz1JxjVwP40

“Oil companies fear nationalisation in Libya : By Sylvia Pfeifer and Javier Blas in London : Published: March 20 2011 22:22 : Western oil companies operating in Libya have privately warned that their operations in the country may be nationalised if Colonel Muammer Gaddafi’s regime prevails. Executives, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the rapidly moving situation, believe their companies could be targeted, especially if their home countries are taking part in air strikes against Mr Gaddafi. Allied forces from France, the UK and the US on Saturday unleashed a series of strikes against military targets in Libya. “It is certainly a concern. There are good reserves there,” said one executive at a western oil company with operations in Libya. “We have lost some of our production [because all operations have stopped] but our bigger concern is what will happen to the exploratory work as that gives you a future rather than the immediate impact,” he added…”

Don’t tell me this issue wasn’t considered well before Spring 2011 :-

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/events/view/-/id/1555/

“Libya’s Energy Future : Tuesday 20 July 2010 : Location : Chatham House, London : To mark the publication of African Energy’s newly updated report Libya’s Energy Future and associated The Libya Oil and Gas Handbook, publisher Cross-border Information Ltd (CbI) and Chatham House’s Middle East and North Africa Programme (MENAP) are jointly holding this seminar to discuss the issues raised by the report. Topics to be covered in the seminar will include: Qadhafi family politics, reform or reaction, key institutions, finance and investment, energy policy, local content and Qadhafi and the world…”

http://www.businessinsider.com/libya-courts-oil-and-gas-investors-but-faces-a-tough-sell-following-recent-government-fiascos-2010-2

“More than two-dozen companies from around the world are betting on Libya these days, said Ronald Bruce St John, an analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, a Washington-based think tank. He has served on the international advisory board of the Journal of Libyan Studies and the Atlantic Council Working Group on Libya. The government of Muammar Gaddafi has relied on foreigners to scout for new wells and bolster current production, “if they’re ever going to come close” to a target of three million barrels a day, he explained. The burning question, though, is “how profitable would it be” for an overseas oil concern to forge ahead in the country’s hit-or-miss exploration climate, a situation made even more dicey by Tripoli’s erratic policy moves, St John told OilPrice.com. Libya’s national oil company chief has talked about the need for foreign investment over the last few years, he noted, but this time Ghanem’s words follow months of government bungling and less-than-stunning results in the oil and gas fields. One of last year’s biggest shocks was Gaddafi’s suggestion to nationalize the country’s oil and gas interests, a consideration that seemed to echo the early days of the Libyan revolution when the industry was partially nationalized. These words set the stage for the National Oil Corp. to renegotiate long-term contracts in Libya’s favor with major oil companies operating in the country, such as Italy’s ENI, the United States’ Occidental, PetroCanada, France’s Total and Spain’s Repsol, St John added. International investors were also a little unnerved by the Verenex Energy Inc. fiasco, St John added. He said the small Canadian oil exploration player was the only company to make a sizeable discovery – more than two billion barrels of oil – under strict EPSA, phase four, contracts awarded after 2005. But Libya’s interference in negotiations between Verenex and the China National Petroleum Co. over the sale of the Canadian firm’s exploration contract drove down Verenex’s share price by 30 percent and forced it to sell the contract to Libya at 70 percent of the original offer to China, he said…”

In the last couple of years, seismic and other surveys of Libyan oil and gas fields, both on- and offshore have led to high hopes for the country’s future production capability. Where the fossil fuels are, there the industrial vultures gather :-

http://www.offshore-technology.com/news/news110888.html
http://www.energy-pedia.com/article.aspx?articleid=144591
http://www.narg.org.uk/exploration/news/#aeromag
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9020830&contentId=7038591
“Libya : A Commanding Presence on the World Stage” (download)

My conclusion is that the international oil companies – including BP – are attempting to wrest ownership of Libyan oil and gas resources for the future of their business profitability. They could only do this if they were in cahoots with the governments of the industrialised countries of the world, who they have such a symbiotic relationship with, and who they can offer energy security to, in exchange for the spoils of war in Libya.

The evidence reported by The Independent newspaper confirms that there is an ongoing hidden alliance between the energy companies and the UK Government.

The way it seems to me, the international oil and gas companies have used the excuse of civil disruption as a cover to pull out of the country in an attempt to blackmail Libya over fossil fuel resource contracts :-

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/us-bp-libya-idUSTRE71K1CG20110221

Who cares about a short stoppage of oil and gas from Libya while the regime is “cured” of its current leadership incumbent ? The downturn in supplies from Libya were partly compensated for by extra production from Saudi Arabia :-

(although Saudi Arabia cannot keep up higher levels of production forever).

The long game is control over Libya’s oil and gas supplies to the benefit of the rich, industrialised nations, and the deprivation of the economies of Africa.

The future could be so much better. We can get energy from Libyan desert solar power, we don’t need to destroy the country for the last drops of global oil and gas.

Give peace a chance.

I met several people in the finance-with-conscience crowd the other week, when I went for a spot of champers and Marmite soldiers at the House of Commons for National Ethical Investment Week.

I learned about various views on social and positive impact investment, and about elements of the Coalition Government’s “Big Society” and the proposed Green Investment Bank.

Ethical Investment appears to have come a long way since I put some money into a Fair Trade company many moons ago, where I knew I would never see a dividend, or even be able to sell the shares at some point.

Grown up people in sharp suits and big name frocks now do moral banking, and often reap a healthy return on their investment – “doing well” as well as “doing good”, as Adam Ognall of UK Sustainable Investment and Finance says.

I was challenged to think about what faith communities do with their money around a month ago, all precipitated by a conversation I had with Martin Palmer of the Alliance of Conservation and Religions, and then I heard something at a recent meeting that caused me to investigate a little…

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Adam Ognall, UK Sustainable Investment and Finance (UKSIF)
date: 19 November 2010
subject: When can this rumour be confirmed or denied ?

Dear Adam,

Good to meet you again at the ECCR [Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility] meeting this afternoon.

I overheard something interesting, and I would like your advice about when and where and by whom this rumour could be confirmed or denied.

Somebody who shall remain nameless was talking to somebody else I shall not name, and I overheard the first person claim something that the second person appeared unaware of : that the Church of England have been compelled to review their policies on fiduciary duty as regards the management of the Church’s investment portfolio, and that this would be happening in the very near future.

If the Church of England Commissioners will be obliged to consider a different screening process on their holdings than they have up until now, this would be a very big deal indeed, and highly newsworthy.

So, who do you think could be approached to confirm or deny this rumour, in your expert opinion ?

Many thanks,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Adam Ognall, UKSIF
to: Jo Abbess
date: 19 November 2010
subject: Re: When can this rumour be confirmed or denied ?

Jo

Good to see you last night. This I not something I am aware of. Can I suggest you contact Edward Mason who is Secretary to the church’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group. He is based in Church House. If there is such a discussion Edward will be aware.

Adam

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Edard Mason
date: 19 November 2010
subject: Question regarding the Church of England’s investment portfolio

Dear Edward,

Adam Ognall has offered me your name and e-mail address, to contact you regarding the Church of England’s investment portfolio.

The central question surrounds sustainability screening.

I have been attempting to understand the dichotomy displayed by, on the one hand, the Anglican Communion undertaking a commitment to environmental protection with the Fifth Mark of Mission, and yet, on the other hand, the Church Commissioners maintaining an investment portfolio that includes holdings in energy and mining companies.

There are two angles to sustainability – the sustainability of the environment and the sustainability of the business model for each company.

As an example of the latter, as my fellow students and I attempted to research at the beginning of this year, BP shows a reticence to admit areas of stress in its engineering programme, and projects the end of the “Oil Era” to be several decades into the future, and cannot seem to face the possibility that this might be brought forward by several factors, including potentially emerging global policies on Carbon pricing.

The question is : does it make investment sense to hold BP stock, given that the company appears to be in denial about its long-term survivability ?

Naturally, one would expect investment fund managers to have reached behind the glossy corporate presentations to pick out the risks, but it seems that many “ethical” investment funds are not including business survival risks in their screening.

Does the Church of England intend to alter its guidance on fiduciary duty for the work of the Church Commissioners to embed all issues of sustainability into their remit and directive ?

Is there a timetable for reform of the screening that is applied to Church of England investments ? How are holdings included or barred ? And will this be reviewed ?

Some in [my Christian organisation] are mulling advice to be offered to our members on the subject of ethical investment, and how our members could bring the subject up in their local and national church structures. It would be of great interest to hear of any suggestions of change in the stance that the Church of England takes towards balancing environmental sustainability and business sustainability in their investment.

Obviously, a failed energy company would not be able to offer any return on investment. However the rates of return that an emerging energy company can offer will still be some years off. Investment always implies a fallow period in “payback” times, yet the long-term prospects in cleantech and clean energy are looking more in focus and solid as time passes. The general economy is in the doldrums, so it will be hard to make lasting returns from any sector currently. While there is general lowered expectation, it would seem a good time to divest from fossil fuels and minerals mining into start up “ambient” clean energy companies, pending the economic recovery. In fact, this move could precipitate recovery by itself.

Thank you for any and every opinion on this matter.

Regards,

Jo Abbess

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Edward Mason
to: Jo Abbess
date: 24 November 2010
subject: RE: Question regarding the Church of England’s investment portfolio

Dear Jo

Thank you for your e-mail.

At the moment the Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) is reviewing its long-standing ethical investment exclusions relating to military products and services (now completed), pornography, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, human embryonic cloning and doorstep lending. There is no current intention to introduce other kinds of screening, although the EIAG may recommend disinvestment from individual companies that are not responding to engagement on serious ethical concerns – hence the Vedanta Resources disinvestment earlier this year.

The EIAG does not take the view that investing in oil companies is unethical. When the EIAG has reflected on the oil industry we have come to the view that it would be very damaging to the billions of people who rely on fossil fuels for energy and the functioning of the economy precipitously to starve the oil industry of investment. Declining oil production now would impact us all and would have the biggest impact on poorer people in developing countries.

The EIAG only advises the investing bodies on ethical issues rather than fiduciary issues, although the investing bodies are naturally very sensitive to their fiduciary responsibilities, short term (pensions and support for the Church have to be paid now) and long term (the Commissioners’ endowment is for perpetuity).

The EIAG and investing bodies are very much involved in the process of transition to a low carbon economy. All the national investing bodies are members of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC). This is a group of investors taking a lead on integrating climate change considerations into investments. We lobby for appropriate public policy, share good practice, and complete an annual questionnaire process. See http://www.iigcc.org/ and, for the IIGCC Investor Statement of which all the national investing bodies are signatories, http://www.iigcc.org/iigcc-investor-statement.

In its engagement activities on behalf of the investing bodies, the EIAG asks oil companies to prepare for and contribute to the transition to a low carbon economy including through investment in renewable energy. We also discuss sustainability with a wide range of companies including supermarkets and consumer products manufacturers.

In their diversified portfolios, the investing bodies hold investments in renewable energy – see for example Impax Environmental Markets which is held by the Church Commissioners (http://www.impax.co.uk/funds/listed-equity-funds/impax-environmental-markets-plc). The Commissioners also invest with Generation Investment Management, the investment fund co-founded by Al Gore to invest in only the most sustainable companies (http://www.generationim.com/).

In case you have not seen the ethical investment policies on the environment and climate change, they can be found on the following links:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/policystatements/environment.pdf

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/policystatements/policyclimatechange.pdf

The investing bodies are also members of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment which is about the integration environmental, social and governance issues into investment practice – http://www.unpri.org/.

I hope this is helpful.

Best regards

Edward

Edward Mason
Secretary to the Church of England Ethical Investment Advisory Group
Web: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: 24 November 2010
date: 24 November 2010

Dear Edward,

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply in detail to my questions.

The information was very helpful.

May I be permitted to share your words with my colleagues, some of whom are in the energy industry ?

Our conversation is currently centring on the recent International Energy Agency 2010 World Energy Outlook and the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, both of which indicate that oil and gas companies have a business model that is at risk from resource depletion, and therefore highly unsustainable :-

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
http://peakoiltaskforce.net/

It may not yet be considered “unethical” by the EIAG to invest in potentially collapsing energy companies, but it could become considered unsustainable, and a risk to future returns on investment. I suppose this will not become generally accepted until the next oil shock, but I suspect that within a few years the question will be well-established.

It is interesting to me that the EIAG considers disinvestment from the oil and gas majors as being a social development risk. It is true that there is high dependency on fossil fuels in the global economy, but if depletion is going to cause serious issues of scarcity and high prices in the next decade, as the IEA and others consider is possible, it would surely be better to switch horses to ambient energy sooner rather than later, for the good of all. Investment in a full range of renewable energy technologies, at all scales, can be appropriate for any economy, at whatever stage of development and of whatever wealth levels.

The oil and gas companies are not showing signs of planning to make major shifts to renewable energy, despite a few percent here and there for wind power, solar power and green diesel (wherever that is these days). It is therefore highly likely that they will be tied to their heavy carbon liabilities, which will weigh them down, and they will become progressively submerged. Even higher prices for liquid fossil fuels will probably not be high enough to justify large numbers of drilling platforms in the Arctic Ocean; and making liquid fuels from gas or coal is energy and carbon inefficient, and besides, natural gas also has depletion issues, that are particularly sharp in the shale gas provinces.There is likely to be a global convention on stabilising the price of fossil fuels, as both buyers and sellers have an interest in keeping prices manageable. However, if there are standard prices for fossil fuels, further exploration will be ruled out, as this is becoming progressively more expensive. High prices will create general inflation because of high economy dependency, and thereby rule out exploration. Low prices will rule out exploration. Either way, in a scenario of depletion, if you consider this a valid scenario, new fossil fuel resources are unlikely to be added to reserves. The oil and gas companies operate on rather slim margins – if they cannot pass on costs, they will not develop their reserves. To me this indicates that the future of oil and gas companies is poor, and that investing in them holds risks.

The decline in oil resources that you mention is coming regardless of whether funds invest in oil and gas companies, it seems, so those at the “bottom of the pyramid”, the poorer people of the world are bound to suffer anyway, particularly if they are encouraged to take up the use of fossil fuels, even as the scenario of depletion looms.

I congratulate the EIAG for your wisdom, foresight and ethics for the exclusions that are in place, and for the counsel on divestment from Vedanta. I understand that issues of child labour may have also been discussed, and Chinese working conditions.

I applaud the EIAG involvement in the IIGC and UNPRI processes and Generation.

It is to be hoped that increasing levels of investment into clean energy become a priority for the Church of England, not just on our own church roofs as in the case of St Silas and others, but also in our funds grown for the future.

I note with irony a conversation I had with a churchman (naming no names) in late Spring, who I had met through a Diocesan Environmental Group. Even though he was very much involved in local environmental matters, he regretted to admit that he had lost a lot of his retirement fund from having held shares in BP. I trust that the Church of England as a whole stays aware of the risks of continued high levels of investment in oil, gas, coal and uranium.

Best wishes,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Edward Mason
to: Jo Abbess
date: 25 November 2010

Dear Jo

Do feel free to share my e-mail with colleagues.

Thank you also for elaborating your views further. We could clearly debate these issues for some time! However the key question you raise about the risk/return profile of oil companies is an investment issue and beyond the remit of the EIAG. All I can say is that from my knowledge of the national investing bodies, future energy issues are discussed by trustees, including peak oil.

I’d be happy to meet if you are ever in or near Church House.

Best wishes

Edward

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Edward Mason
date: 25 November 2010

Dear Edward,

Thank you for your summary.

I suppose, from my point of view, investment issues are ethical issues, as every financial transaction has the potential to do good or harm, cause growth or damage. For example, Fair Trade is good, but the degrading exploitation of labour and resources is not. Where the rate of return on investment is high, but environments and peoples are left poorer, that is an ethical question; but so also is the risk of the collapse of the very engines of trade. If, as the former chief of BP, Tony Hayward, said, we have four more decades of good oil and gas, at which point can we expect the economic edifice built on hydrocarbons to begin to crumble ? Is it ethical to continue to make investments into combustion energies when they cannot sustain the future ?

As you say, we could continue to discuss this at length, but I think your summary indicates that you believe that a programme of divestment out of carbon liabilities is SEP – somebody else’s problem. For me, there are ethical dimensions to the question of how the decarbonisation of our energy supplies gets started if, in the short-term, the fossil fuel sector continues to be attractive to investment. As depletion begins to be more noticeable, however, and prices start to rise, as production costs start to rise, and returns start to fall, the risk/return equation will tip towards liability, I’m sure, and it could be rapid, and many could suffer extensive losses. The instability that would bring, I believe, is a scenario that contains a moral imperative to address beforehand, in a preventative fashion.

Thank you for your invitation to meet at Church House.

Blessings and abundance,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Edward Mason
to: Jo Abbess
date: Fri, Nov 26, 2010

Thanks Jo

I think it would be best to discuss face to face! It is neither my nor the EIAG’s – nor the investing bodies’ – position that the low carbon transition is someone else’s problem, just that the integration of changing energy futures into ethical investment and investment generally is not a big bang. Do let me know when you want to meet.

Best wishes

Edward

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Edward Mason
date: 2 December 2010

Dear Edward,

Thanks for your suggestion of a meeting.

I am conducting a piece of research and it could be useful to take a sounding from you as part of my study, if you could spare the time to answer 20 minutes of questions.

This would have to be in the New Year.

I would contend that “…the integration of changing energy futures into ethical investment and investment generally is not a big bang…yet.”

How exactly is human civilisation going to go cold turkey on our fossil fuel addiction when major investment continues to support itself on oil and gas platforms ?

How will major investors react, and what will happen to the economy, when the G20 gets serious about abolishing global fossil fuel (and maybe nuclear power) subsidies ?

The deliberations at Cancun this month are chasing a few percentage points of real change without firm commitments to emissions reductions by industrialised countries and the emerging economies.

Firm commitments to emissions reductions would necessarily involve major change for the energy companies. Will they comply ?

To take just one oil and gas major example – BP boasts it has shaved emissions from its production facilities and business processes – but not in the products that it sells, which is where the significant changes could come from.

Many people have joined 10:10 this year and pledged to cut back on emissions. What will the net result be, given that the commitment has not been universal in society ?

At the moment “sustainability” is merely a mass exercise in tinkering, it seems to me, unless we substitute the resources that we use for our energy.

When I say “we”, I mean the large energy supply and production companies, of course, as the lowly end consumer of energy bears no responsibility.

I would expect the eurocent to drop within the next five years, as it becomes clear that the trade in Carbon is not working, that green taxes are not stimulating change, and that the climate is continuing to worsen.

What could then ensue would rock the economic system, and cause major financial and political fallout. If sustained social stability is an ethical objective, maybe chaos prevention is better than cure ?

These are questions of right and wrong, to my mind. The climate doesn’t do compromise.

Regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.desmogblog.com/astro-turf-wars-uncovered-new-undercover-documentary

If you, dear Reader, are a Republican American, and you are demographically “middle class”, and you support the Tea Party movement, you are likely to have been seriously deceived – by Big Energy. Or Big Mining.

Who are these “Big Diggers”, propagandising the naive, well-intentioned, right-wing citizens of the United States of America, so they don’t realise they’re thinking somebody else’s thoughts, shouting somebody else’s slogans, riding somebody else’s train ?

One of the key players is a company whose environmental record is exemplary, whose commitment to the rules of the EPA is legendary :-

http://www.kochind.com/newsroom/KochandtheEnvironment.aspx

They cannot be faulted.

It may be useful to do some reading…

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-called-superb-book-former-time-editor

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/exxon-continued-to-fund-climate-denial-in-200/blog/26100

Don’t believe that it’s fair to support your fellow citizens who get ill ? You’ve probably been listening to the words of the health insurance firms who want to carry on creaming off a profit from your medical care.

Don’t believe that Climate Change is real and dangerous and happening now, and that we must inevitably change the sources of the energy we are using ? You’ve probably been listening to the words of one of the big oil, gas or mining companies who want to say in business in fossil fuels and petrochemicals.

You might have joined a group fighting for small government, against so-called “red tape”. You might have a pathological aversion to community-backed health insurance. You might believe that free enterprise needs to have less regulation, less legislation, so it can create more (part-time, low-paid, insecure) employment. You might believe that the rich need to pay less taxes. You might believe you have the right to keep your uninsulated home heated to 24 degrees in winter, and drive an SUV. You might think that petroleum gasoline still flows from Iraq by the forces of the free market (we won’t mention the other “forces”). You might think that Canada’s a big enough place to cope with the tailing ponds from mining Tar Sands. You may have heard that some poor people in farming counties have received lots of cash for gas locked up in the rocks under their wells. You may think that economic “recovery” is just a new credit card away. You may even think that coal-fired electricity generation is “clean”.

But why do you believe these things ?

Grassroots campaigning ? Who’s paying for it ?

You have been suckered.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gt9FazoUMIDxODUKwX2TF5LxndsQ

“Protesters condemn ‘dirty oil’ at World Energy Congress : (AFP) : 14 September 2010 : MONTREAL — Hundreds of protesters demonstrated in the streets of Montreal Sunday, calling for an end to “dirty, risky” oil exploration, ahead of a global gathering of energy experts. A dozen protesters covered in molasses staged a “Black Tide Beach Party,” while dozens of others carried banners that read “Too dirty, too risky, go beyond oil.” A blond baby boy smeared in brown sticky molasses wailed in his activist father’s arms, while protesters used megaphones to slam the provincial Quebec government of Jean Charest for inviting oil companies to the five-day World Energy Congress at the sprawling Palais de Congres. Some 5,000 participants from industry, government and academia, were expected to attend the conference, slated to officially open Sunday evening. The event is expected to tackle global energy issues, such as improving access to energy in the world’s poorer regions and the role of new technologies in ensuring a sustainable energy future. Many protesters directed their anger at BP over a devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year. But Julien Vincent, a campaigner for Greenpeace International, said BP was only part of the problem. “British Petroleum is one part of a big industry that’s got an abysmal safety record and an abysmal record in terms of its obligations toward protecting communities,” he told AFP. “You also have oil from Shell dripping out over Nigeria right now. You have oil spills that have taken place in China that have flooded ports,” he added. “The entire industry needs to be told to sit back and listen up.” …”

http://www.wecmontreal2010.ca/en.html

http://www.gobeyondoil.org/about.php

“About Go Beyond Oil : Go Beyond Oil is a call to action. It’s a response to the BP oil spill and the prospect of rising global temperatures. It’s also necessary, if we want to have healthy lives and a healthy planet we’ve got to get ourselves off oil. It’s a journey that’s already started, but we need you to join us if we are going to get the world off oil. The BP spill in the Gulf was a wake up call for many people, now we must take this opportunity to put an end to our oil addiction which is poisoning our oceans, our lands, the air we breathe as well as destroying our climate. This is a massive challenge. Oil is a part of all our lives and the oil industry makes huge profits from our dependency on it. Oil companies are going to extremes and taking ever greater risks to squeeze the planet of its oil all the while they’re blocking the solutions that would free us from fossil fuels. The technologies already exist to wean the world off oil and we all deserve a future free of pollution – it s our choice and we can move beyond oil if we want to. It won’t be easy, but we know what needs to be done – we need to stop risky oil exploration, end subsidies for the oil industry and invest in clean energy. There will be many trials along the way as we remove the barriers to clean energy – that’s why we need your help…”

Got oil in your pension? from Greenpeace UK on Vimeo.

http://www.youandifilms.com/2010/09/crude-2010-oil-painting-protest-over-bp-sponsorship-in-tate-modern-turbine-hall-liberate-tate-calls-for-footprint-of-art-museum-to-be-free-from-big-oil/

http://twitter.com/liberatetate

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B2JesScn-l6lM2E2OTU2MGEtZmEzYy00NDZmLWE0YWMtYzY4Zjg5YmUxZTVi&sort=name&layout=list&num=50&pli=1

I rubbed my eyes, but the logo didn’t disappear. The Independent newspaper article had a graphic explaining that the article was “in association with Shell” :-

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/newenergyfuture/a-climate-for-european-action-2068570.html

Further clue : the author was Tom Burke, “Mr Clean Coal” to those of us that know of him.

The article was great, up until the paragraph :-

“Without deploying carbon capture and storage technologies for coal and gas, Europe has no workable climate policy…”

Well, we knew Tom Burke was going to say that, didn’t we ?

But why was the article “in association with Shell” ? Is this the start of advertising masquerading as opinion articles ?

What could possibly link Royal Dutch Shell to Carbon Capture and Storage ? The “Enhanced Oil Recovery” (EOR) angle, possibly – Shell offering to pump Carbon Dioxide down into its depleting oil and gas wells in an attempt to raise the pressure on the remaining hydrocarbon, to squeeze it out.

Also – if Shell are going to diversify out of Petroleum and Natural Gas, they need to be doing something to do with Energy – how about offering to pump Carbon Dioxide underground on behalf of the Coal-burning power plant companies, as Coal will be the only fuel left in North-West Europe after the North Sea is significantly depleted of Oil and Gas… ?

Are you beginning to get with the programme here ? This article is ostensibly about the transition to the Low Carbon Economy – but is really all about selling the idea that Royal Dutch Shell should be paid to pump Greenhouse Gas underground – “The EU has already committed several billion euros to meeting this challenge…” as the article points out.

So…is Carbon Capture and Storage actually an excuse for the failing oil and gas companies to beg for public money for “green stimulus” ?

Is CCS just a springboard for a massive bailout of Shell, BP and ExxonMobil ?

Carbon Capture and Storage is always going to be expensive – capturing and pumping Carbon Dioxide underground will take make the plants burn more Coal fuel – and although there are a number of small-scale projects around the world, CCS may never make the jump to being a widely-used technology.

However, I’m sure BP, Shell and ExxonMobil would love to have government and EU money thrown at them to dig big holes and build big pumps and pipelines – that’s their current bread-and-butter in engineering.

When Tom Burke writes, “Only when the ratio of low carbon to high carbon energy investments is clearly changing in Europe and the United States will the rest of the world take our talk of climate change seriously”, although that’s a good piece of logic, underneath it all, what he’s really urging is public money budgets being poured into the new energy systems that the industrialised countries needs.

But, where’s the capital ? Surely BP, Shell and ExxonMobil, who have been making packets of varying sizes in the last decade, can put some of their own money into New Energy ?

It can’t be that all the Oil and Gas institutional pension fund shareholders are going to pull all their funds out tomorrow ? I doubt it.

A recession is a great time to start a new phase of investment, while shareholders are not expecting huge returns on prior holdings, as the general market is depressed.

We don’t need Carbon Capture and Storage, as other solutions to avoid Carbon Dioxide emissions to air will be much more efficient :-

http://rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2010/September/DoWeReallyNeedCarbonCaptureStorage.asp

Carbon Capture and Storage applied to the tailpipes of coal-burning power plants is simply going to eat more Coal fuel, and there are signs that the supply of good quality Coal is stressed – so CCS could get progressively more expensive.

Plus, mining dirtier and dirtier Coal to feed into power plants fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage facilities will create increasing local environmental pollution.

Al Gore has been telling all the young people, and well, all of us, really, to protest, in public, to make a downright law-unabiding nuisance of ourselves :-

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/114717-al-gore-calls-for-us-protests-on-climate-change-inaction

“Gore calls for major protests on government’s climate change inaction…In a post on his personal blog headlined “The Movement We Need”…”

Well, it won’t work to call people out onto the street. Most people are too busy credit-crunching, wage-slaving or favour-scraping to be able to commit to a short-term, potentially self-defeating public display of annoyance, frustration and shrill demands.

And if people do come out to the big protests, it won’t achieve much. News reports can be swept into the trash. Activists can be swept into holding facilities. Politicians can conveniently ignore anything that isn’t violent.

Drop the loud-hailers and home-made placards, I say, and do something more…focussed.

The Climate Camp want to target the Royal Bank of Scotland for financing Coal power plants and Tar Sands oil projects, which are very bad things to be doing, and smacks of huge corporate irresponsibility, considering the bank is largely owned by the British taxpayer, and I say, if you can’t make the camp (and I can’t for reasons which I shall not go into just now), do something about money in other ways instead.

What’s your money doing ? Which oppressive regimes in oil-rich countries is it supporting ? Which Fossil Fuel companies trashing your Environment do your bank support ? Why not switch your money to an ethical financial organisation ? Why don’t we all try to do this at the same time ? “Crowd-banking” could have an impact, you never know until you try.

Let’s pick, say, Monday 23rd August 2010. And let’s all spend our way out of Climageddon together on that day. Transfer your money to an ethical bank, or pledge to do so. Phone your bank and tell them you’re leaving for a sustainable bank.

Other actions possibly useful :-

1. Refuse to buy Fossil Fuels for a day.

2. Refuse to use any hot water for one day (most hot water is produced by burning Fossil Fuels). It’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere – come on – a cool shower won’t hurt you.

3. Don’t spend any money on anything that had Petroleum-based plastic or Natural Gas-based chemicals in its production – which would rule out 85% of non-food purchases, I reckon.

4. If you’re working for a company or an organisation who have anything to do with the Energy industry, make a point of asking your boss, or their boss, or the Chief Executive or something what the company/organisation intends to do about moving the whole business to Renewable Energy.

5. One short telephone call could have you moving from burning Coal for your home electricity to a Green Energy account.

This is not a riot – but it is an emergency, and the response should match the scale of the problem.

Our Climate – Not for Sale.

Bloody Oil from Felix Gonzales on Vimeo.

Advertising imitating Life…but just which photograph is the fashion shoot ?

One of the worst ideas that anybody has ever had is to pull heaps of toxic chemicals out of the ground and spread them over the surface of one of the few countries that will remain habitable after the onset of deep Climate Change.

If the Global Warming doesn’t get you, then the mercury from the Tars Sands tailing ponds sure will !

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/oil-sands-toxins-growing-rapidly/article1667306/

“Oil sands toxins growing rapidly : Nathan VanderKlippe : Published on Monday, Aug. 09, 2010 : Canada’s oil sands mining operations produce vast and fast-growing quantities of deadly substances, including mercury, heavy metals and arsenic, new data released by Environment Canada shows. The information on pollutants sheds new light on the environmental toll exacted by Canada’s bid to extract oil from bitumen, showing in stark relief how many nasty substances are being laid on the northern Alberta landscape in the process – and how quickly those are growing. In the past four years, the volume of arsenic and lead produced and deposited in tailings ponds by the country’s bitumen mines – run by Syncrude Canada Ltd., Suncor Energy Inc., Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC – has increased by 26 per cent. Quantities of some other substances have increased at even faster rates. The companies also released huge amounts of pollutants into the air last year, including 70,658 tonnes of volatile organic compounds, which can damage the function of human organs and nervous systems, and 111,661 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, a key contributor to acid rain…The numbers “are just ridiculously huge,” said Justin Duncan, a staff lawyer with Ecojustice…”

Unconventional fossil fuels are just such a liability – using up precious freshwater resources and depositing toxic waste just about everywhere.

Shale Gas (or Gas Shale) operations are reported to be polluting underground water tables. Now, that’s a clever thing !

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HGMIPG0.htm

“EPA moves NY drilling hearing, expecting crowds : By MARY ESCH : ALBANY, N.Y. : In anticipation of as many as 8,000 people at a public hearing on natural gas drilling, the Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that it was moving it from Binghamton University to a Syracuse convention center 65 miles north. The hearing is the fourth and last by the EPA around the country to get public comment on its study of hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells. Critics say the technology, which blasts chemical-laced water into the earth, could poison water supplies. The industry says it’s been used safely for decades. The EPA said 300 people have signed up to speak at Thursday’s sessions and 1,200 are expected to attend…Advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, significantly increased yield from shale gas wells and led to the current natural gas boom, starting with the Barnett Shale in Texas. The technology has drawn intense scrutiny since the focus of gas drilling companies has shifted in recent years to the Marcellus Shale, a massive rock formation underlying New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Environmental groups, residents and civic leaders fear potential contamination of watersheds in the densely populated region if fracking isn’t more tightly regulated. Fracking was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005 after an earlier EPA study declared fracking wasn’t a threat to water supplies. That study has since been criticized as flawed. The new EPA study, to be completed in 2013, could lead to new federal regulations. However, the industry says state regulation is sufficient and has worked well…”