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=

Green jobs, green energy, greening communities.

Forget Nigel Lawson and his struggle to keep the British energy system in the privatised 1980s by denying the realities of Climate Change.

The lords (and sadly, some of the ladies) of this land want to stay rich from their shares in fossil fuels and mining. They’ll say anything to protect the value of their holdings.

But where’s your new North Sea Oil and Gas, Nigel ? Do you want to bankrupt this country by forcing us to ramp up our imports of energy as the North Sea production falls away ?

The chief executives of the “traditional” energy companies of these islands are just trying to keep themselves in a job when they decry wind power, biogas, marine energy projects.

No, Vincent de Rivaz of EdF, we don’t want expensive, inflexible and toxic Nuclear Power. No, Dorothy Thompson of Drax, we don’t want dirty coal continuing to heat up the world, poison fish and raise coughing kids. No, Rupert Soames of Aggreko, we must maintain the Renewable Energy obligations we have agreed at the European level, and raise the bar even higher, to protect the economy going into an uncertain future, by having homegrown energy.

We need an energy evolution in this country.

And so, what is needed is a social movement – involving ordinary, working people, unions, communities, academics, trained professionals from the engineering trades, local political activists and faith communities.

This is the emergence of Green Power.

Modern civilisation has brought us electricity, electronic games, electronic music and the future looks very bright with solar electricity.

Look how far we’ve come !

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/05/first-large-scale-solar-energy-plants-public-lands

“The White House Blog : The First Large-Scale Solar Energy Plants on Public Lands : Posted by Secretary Ken Salazar on October 05, 2010 : Today, we took a big step on our nation’s path to clean energy future with the approval of the first large-scale solar energy plants ever to be built on public lands. The Tessera Solar Imperial Valley Solar Project and the Chevron Energy Solutions Lucerne Valley Solar Project will both be built in the sunny California desert. Together, the projects could produce up to 754 megawatts of renewable energy, power 226,000 – 566,000 American homes, and support almost 1,000 new jobs. These two projects reflect the priority President Obama has placed on growing America’s clean energy economy. From spurring the deployment of energy-saving windows and advanced batteries for cars to installing solar panels on the White House roof, the Administration is incentivizing and promoting clean energy technology on a historic scale. At the Department of the Interior, we have a special responsibility to help lead this effort. As stewards of our nation’s public lands, we oversee deserts, plains, and oceans that can make significant contributions to our nation’s renewable energy portfolio…”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iMUnrmqM-z3tMC3a3JZRFIqrJKHQD9ILFH9G1?docId=D9ILFH9G1

“Here comes the sun: White House to go solar : By DINA CAPPIELLO : 05 October 2010 : WASHINGTON — Solar power is coming to President Barack Obama’s house. : The most famous residence in America, which has already boosted its green credentials by planting a garden, plans to install solar panels atop the White House’s living quarters. The solar panels are to be installed by spring 2011, and will heat water for the first family and supply some electricity. The plans will be formally announced later Tuesday by White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairwoman Nancy Sutley and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush both tapped the sun during their days in the White House. Carter in the late 1970s spent $30,000 on a solar water-heating system for West Wing offices. Bush’s solar systems powered a maintenance building and some of the mansion, and heated water for the pool. Obama, who has championed renewable energy, has been under increasing pressure to lead by example by installing solar at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, something White House officials said has been under consideration since he first took office. The decision perhaps has more import now after legislation to reduce global warming pollution died in the Senate, despite the White House’s support. Obama has vowed to try again on a smaller scale…”

http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/Solar-System-tops-off-efficient-NREL-building-584926

“Solar System tops off efficient NREL building : October 4, 2010 – Solar panels are being installed on roof of Research Support Facility to help building generate as much electricity as it uses. While RSF adds 222,000 square feet of office space to NREL campus, building’s energy use only increases NREL’s overall consumption by 6%. The 1.6 MW photovoltaic system comprises more than 1,800 panels soaking in 240 W of sun each. Additional PV will be installed on RSF expansion and on nearby garage and parking lot to help zero out energy equation.”

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/10/white-house-solar-panels/1

“Obama will soon put solar panels atop the White House”

http://www.solarpowerinternational.com/sepa2010/public/Content.aspx?ID=603&sortMenu=104000&MainMenuID=603

“SOLAR POWER INTERNATIONAL, 12 – 14 October 2010, Los Angeles, California, USA”

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/10/germany-adds-nearly-1-of-electricity-supply-with-solar-in-eight-months

“Germany Adds Nearly 1% of Electricity Supply with Solar in Eight Months : by Paul Gipe, Contributor : Published: 04 October 2010…”

http://power-shift.org/solar-panel-mirror-booster-30-increase-in-power-output-with-mirrors
http://www.solarbuzz.com/fastfactsindustry.htm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b47242b4-bc71-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html

“Solar power: Photovoltaic panels make strides in the drive for a sunnier future : By Sarah Murray : Published: September 12 2010 : Germany is hardly the world’s sunniest country. Yet for the past decade, its homeowners have put so many photovoltaic panels on their roofs, that last year they accounted for more than half of installations worldwide. The German example demonstrates the power of policy, since a range of generous subsidies has driven the market. However, other factors lie behind the rise of solar power as a competitive form of energy. First, the cost of the technology has fallen, partly because of increased production in China, where the price of photovoltaic equipment has dropped sharply. But in addition, manufacturing techniques have improved and volumes have increased to meet growing demand, with European companies establishing large facilities in Singapore and Malaysia. “Once prices go down, they stick,” says Jonathan Johns, director of Climate Change Matters. “And it’s easier technologically to reduce prices in solar than in other technologies. With wind, you have more conventional mechanical moving parts, as well as steel and other inputs.” Solar power’s advantage is not limited to the cost of the equipment, however. The localised nature of solar power generation – on rooftops and in back yards – allows for the use of net metering, a system that lets consumers feed excess energy back into the electricity grid. Innovative payment mechanisms have also helped increase the uptake of solar power by the commercial sector. In the US, this has been facilitated by the power purchase agreement model developed by SunEdison, an energy services company…Mr Resch cites the US example as demonstrating the power of policy to drive markets. Following an uncertain regime of tax credits for many years, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act guaranteed a federal tax credit for solar power until 2016. “That resulted in an increase of more than 100 per cent in the residential solar market in 2009 despite the recession,” he says. Given the power of policy, the question for governments is how and when to reduce subsidies, which are costly. Spain’s reduction of its solar power subsidy in 2008 dented the industry. And the crisis in public finances has prompted renewed discussions of a reduction. Meanwhile, Germany has made subsidy cuts for solar power, albeit smaller ones than originally proposed. “The challenge for regulators will be managing the transition,” says Mr Johns. But while experts and analysts acknowledge the importance of policy decisions on energy, most agree that solar power is likely to continue to increase its market share. The International Energy Agency estimates solar electricity could represent 20 to 25 per cent of global electricity production by 2050.”

Image Credit : Cape Cod Living

James Delingpole follows in a long line of commentators with zero engineering experience in pouring scorn on a technology that could quite possibly save our skins :-

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056158/wind-farms-yet-another-brewing-disaster/

I don’t know what he harbours in his heart against wonderful wind turbines, but he seems to be part of a movement who delight in their failure. Just ask the Internet to show you “exploding wind turbines”.

For example :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKkTUY2slYQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkGXoE3RFZ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo

Clearly, you need to be in full protective fatigues when battling this kind of bad press…in fact “fatigue” is exactly the right word to come back at Mr Delingpole’s cracked warning (of cracks in wind turbine bases).

Any engineer worth their sprocket set will be able to tell you that materials “fatigue”, that over time, in working machines, things wear out, metal bends and cracks as the internal structure is pulled out of shape by external stress, things that get hot and cold regularly contort, anything that turns needs lubricating or it will wear down.

Over time, cement and concrete crumble, stone erodes in the elements, wood splits or rots in inclement conditions, brakes wear down, pathway stones smooth with the treads of thousands of feet, sheds collapse in the wind…and so we get back to wind.

Wind Turbine masts bend in the wind, and so it’s easy to imagine that the concrete base of a wind turbine might be under stress from repeated bending of the mast. Plus, there’s the forces generated by the turning of the wind turbine blades, that add a pull, moving the mast slightly in one direction or other.

It’s all entirely predictable, and can be calculated. And mast turbine bases can be built to withstand these kinds of stress – if they’re built well. There are heaps of guidelines, for example :-

http://www.risoe.dk/vea/recoff/Documents/Sec_5/RECOFFdoc050.pdf
http://ecocem.ie/downloads/Offshore_Wind_Farms.pdf
http://www.ecocem.ie/index.php?p=technical&q=wind_farms

And naturally, once machines are in the field, lessons can be learned from real-life running :-

http://www.middelgrunden.dk

Nick Balmer of the Claverton Energy Research Group wrote recently,

“…Middelgrunden…This pioneering offshore windfarm used concrete gravity foundations and grouted sockets. In a well recorded incident the concrete sockets were found to have developed micro-cracking. It was a major media event and lots of people used it to hit back at wind turbines. In the event it was fixed very quickly…”

All engineering carries a risk of mechanical failure, but what would you personally prefer in terms of risk : a wind turbine falling over in a remote area, or into the sea, from time to time; or a nuclear reactor cracking and sending radioactive gas over the whole of North Wales and the Irish Sea ? Just asking. These technologies both rely on concrete, after all.

Wind Farm projects built for the big energy companies are under the usual contracts. As one contact has pointed out, “The proof of the pudding will be in the Technology and Construction court – if bases are cracking, then owners will start to seek redress.”

Engineering is not a perfect art. There are known unknowns. Time will tell if one design works better than another, or one location or type of location works better than another.

Some mechanical failures are to be expected in developing any technology, but over-protective construction seems to be a theme, as Nick Balmer points out :-

“…As somebody who has priced installing wind turbine bases, I am aware that most are built to some extremely conservative designs used for many years in Germany…[criticisms] of the turbine manufacturers designs have been that generally they are over designed for the purpose. They would say that for the savings in a few cubic metres of concrete at say £70/m3 and say 50kg of steel it is just not worth skimping on materials and design. If the worst came to the worst it is not a big job to repair the turbine bases…”

And what about safety in general ? They might have to re-write the old proverb to read “as safe as wind turbines” :-

http://www.whywind.org/pb/wp_a1b4e1bf/wp_a1b4e1bf.html

“…Odds of Death Due to Injury, United States, 2003 : The odds of anyone being killed in a wind turbine related accident in the U.S. over his/her lifetime was 1 in 3,777,272. This compares to a 1 in 84 risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident, a 1 in 1,134 risk of drowning, and a 1 in 56,789 risk of dying from a hornet, wasp or bee sting…”

“…A Summary of Fatal Accidents in Wind Energy by Paul Gipe details the worldwide accidents in wind energy : Over the course of past 35 years their have been 20 fatal accidents in wind energy worldwide. Falling from the tower is the single most apparent occupational hazard of working with wind energy. Most accidents are due to the same common sense fatal mistake, where people did not use any form of fall protection…”

So, wind turbines are less dangerous than cars, and even bees.

And as for that other common accusation – that wind turbines are inefficient, let’s look at some data shall we ? Actually, let’s look at some data from an anti-wind farm organisation.

The group CLOWD, the Campaign to Limit Onshore Wind Development, according to data collected from Ofgem on 18th June 2010, relating to the period April 2009 to March 2010, Scottish wind power as a whole was running at 54.45% capacity – in other words, producing over half its rated power. The rated power is the figure given for the amount the turbine would produce it the wind was blowing at the right speed all the time. And for England, the same figure was 34.95% of capacity. Since Scotland has twice the wind profile on average to England, that seems like a reasonable result.

Non-expert commentators use this kind of information to talk about the “efficiency” of wind turbines, and berate the low figures. But, when thinking about efficiency and wind turbines, it is necessary to compare wind power to other forms of electricity production.

For example, in the use of Fossil Fuels to deliver electricity to our homes and offices in the UK, a large proportion of the energy from the Natural Gas and Coal used is wasted :-

When gas and coal are wasted, that’s real expense.

By contrast, when a wind turbine fails to capture some wind, that’s no cost at all.

If you’re going to argue against Wind Power, you need some arguments that have solid, uncracked foundations.

And you don’t have any, do you James ? Tilting at windmills is a complete waste of your time.

I don’t know about you, but I’m missing David Miliband from the political fish-eat-fish top table already.

If he were to ask me, which he won’t, but anyway, if he did, I would recommend that he starts reading up about Energy production and supply, over the next 18 months or so before he gets invited, acceptingly, back into the Shadow Cabinet of the UK Government.

If he were to spend his time on the train between South Shields and Westminster looking into energy security matters, into crustal petrogeology, the Middle East oil fields, Wind Power, solar and marine options, he could make a strong comeback into the limelight – as opposed to the “lemon” light he’s been cast into, thrust into, so far.

If he becomes acquainted with the ways and wiles of engineering and fossil fuels over the next few years, the viability of Renewable Energy solutions, the transport explosion phenomenon and how to control it, then he will be able to offer solid assistance to his younger brother Teddy – who appears to be mistakenly sold on the idea of new nuclear power.

And if Ed Miliband were to ask, (again, which he won’t), I’d say – atomic energy cannot save us; carbon capture technology cannot save us; algae biodiesel can only trickle, even Frankenstein GM algae biodiesel; Peak Oil is almost definitely here; efficiency of use alone cannot save us. We have to go right out for a non-combustion, Renewable Energy future.

September 2010 is turning out to be a veritable over-stuffed cornucopia of Climate Change- and Energy-related events.

This week, 15th September 2010 breaks the record for the number of useful things I could be doing. I am effectively quintuple-booked, and something’s got to go (well, nearly all of them, actually).

Sadly, I’m going to have to blow off Forum for the Future :-

http://gatecrashenergy2.eventbrite.com/

“Gatecrashing the energy sector : Forum for the Future are running an experimental project inviting people to gatecrash the UK energy system. We believe we need a radical shift in the way we generate, distribute, store and use energy and we are not convinced this change is going to come from within the current energy sector. We think that disruption generally comes from the fringes or even outside the current system and this is where we are looking for ideas. Join us for an evening of networking and ideas generation and be part of a project that will demonstrate there is huge appetite for alternatives to the current system…”

Hub Kings Cross, 34B York Way, London N1 9AB
6.30-9.30pm

I’m also going to have to say bye-bye-miss-you to the Agrofuels protest and public meeting from BiofuelWatch and Campaign against Climate Change :-

http://www.campaigncc.org/node/421

“Stop subsidising agrofuels and deforestation”
Demonstration
5.00pm – 6.30pm
DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change), 3 Whitehall Place, London.

“Demonstrate outside DECC against the subsidising of agrofuels through ROCs (“Renewable Obligations Certificates”). A chance to take the message direct to government.”

“How we can stop ‘Agrofuels’ undermining the fight against climate change”
Public Meeting
7.00pm Wedesday 15th September
SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies), Thornhaugh Street, off Russell Square (Russell Square tube), London.

“Speakers will include Andrew Butler from “NOPE” (“No Palm Oil Energy”) the local campaign group on the Isle of Portland where we will be holding our upcoming “National Demonstration against Agrofuels” on the 25th, and Kenneth Richter from Friends of the Earth, who will be just back from talking to anti-agrofuel campaigners in Ghana.”

“”Agro-fuels” are “bio-fuels” produced through intensive agriculture. They have been hailed as a solution to climate change but cannot be produced without using large areas of land… putting more pressure on land has a variety of adverse environmental impacts, including competition with foodcrops, deforestation and increased destruction of biodiverse habitats – and as a result accelerated climate change. Come to the meeting to learn how fighting climate change means not only piling on the pressure for action but making sure we have real solutions not false solutions.”

“Meanwhile Andrew Butler will be coming up from Portland where our upcoming demo against a proposed palm oil burning agrofuel power station will be held. This is just one of a wave of proposed agrofuel power stations around the country. Come to the meeting to find out how we can organise to stop this madness.”

Much as I’m loathe to, I’m also going to have to evict from my diary the Green Alliance invitation to “Europe: looking ahead on climate change : The path to 2020 and 2050″ :-

Wednesday 15 September 2010, 09.00 – 17.30
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, One Birdcage Walk, London SW1H 9JJ

“Including keynote speeches by: The Rt Hon Chris Huhne MP, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Janez Potocnik, European Commissioner for the Environment”

“Also featuring: Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute for Climate Change; Jules Kortenhorst, chief executive, European Climate Foundation; Nick Mabey, chief executive, E3G; Professor Goran Strbac, chair in electrical energy systems, Imperial College London; Dr Keith Allott, head of climate change, WWF-UK; Jeremy Oppenheim, director, McKinsey & Company [to be confirmed]; Further senior speakers from industry and government to be confirmed”

“This whole-day conference will see the UK launch of the European Climate Foundation Roadmap 2050 report, a ground-breaking analysis undertaken by McKinsey & Company, KEMA, The Energy Futures Lab at Imperial College London, Oxford Economics, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, Office for Metropolitan Architecture, E3G and the Regulatory Assistance Project.”

“Participants will discuss the implications for UK climate and energy policy of the Roadmap 2050 analysis, considering the opportunities and challenges of an interconnected Europe. Keynote speakers will give their perspectives on how to secure accelerated European action on climate change in this new decade, discussing the EU’s carbon emissions reduction targets for 2020 and the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.”

“To register for this event visit http://www.green-alliance-event.org.uk/ or phone 020 7630 4515. Attendance is free but places are limited. Conference location and agenda will be confirmed in early September.”

“This conference is organised by Green Alliance and the European Commission Representation in the UK as part of the series Climate Change: EU Opportunities, in association with the European Climate Foundation and Transform UK”

Talking of interesting meetings, since I’m talking of interesting meetings, I might be able to make it to this conference, on 11th October :-

“Alliances for a Green Recovery: A TUC one-day conference”

http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-18363-f0.cfm

11 October 2010, Congress House
With Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

“This year’s TUC conference on climate change necessarily links the drive for a low carbon economy with pathways out of the recession. Alliances for a Green Recovery will highlight the respective roles of government, business, trade unions, community and finance organisations in accelerating the transition to a low carbon future, and what we can do better together. Your contribution in this conference at this crucial time in Government policymaking will be very welcome.”

“Paul Noon, General Secretary of Prospect, will chair the conference for the TUC. Environment Secretary Chris Huhne will make an opening keynote speech on the Coalition’s strategy for sustainable growth, with Frances O’Grady responding on behalf of the TUC. David Kennedy, CEO, Committee on Climate Change, will then outline the climate change challenge the UK faces, and the CCC’s advice on an energy and industrial strategy to meet these targets. Delegates are then offered a choice of two from nine expert-led Response Workshops before and after the lunch break. They tackle key themes including building local green alliances, green skills, low carbon transport, the Green Investment Bank, green energy, energy efficiency, reforming our energy market, securing energy intensive industries, and building alliances for a global climate change agreement. A leading economics’ journalist will chair the Green Policy Panel in the afternoon. Our closing speaker will provide an Opposition view on building a green recovery.”

Back to consideration of this Wednesday, 15th September 2010 – I’m even going to have to act slack in putting in an appearance at “Green Drinks”, a networking event held on the 1st and 15th of every month at the newly refurbished Rose & Crown in Walthamstow, London E17 :-

http://www.greendrinks.org/London/Waltham%20Forest

I wouldn’t have thought it possible, but I’ve got something more important to do…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWsQscb6lfM

http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/application/pdf/100806_speaking_notes.pdf

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has just held its regular half yearly conference to further the working parties of the Kyoto Protocol :-

http://unfccc.int
http://unfccc.int/2860.php

A number of Press commentators have been critical of proceedings, indicating that there has not been much progress at Bonn, and in fact the conference could show some ground having been lost :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9213b40-a180-11df-9656-00144feabdc0.html

“Hopes of early global warming deal cool : By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent : Published: August 6 2010 : Hopes that international climate change negotiations would produce a deal this year have been dashed as progress made at last year’s Copenhagen summit appeared to be reversed in the latest talks. Negotiations on a global warming treaty ended on Friday night amid acrimony and accusations of backsliding. Jonathan Pershing, US deputy special envoy for climate change, told reporters: “I came to Bonn hopeful of a deal in Cancún [where governments will hold a meeting in December], but at this point I am very concerned, as I have seen some countries walking back from progress made in Copenhagen.” Other people involved in the talks also spoke of their frustration that principles established at the Copenhagen summit – which failed to produce a full agreement but resulted in a partial accord accepted by the vast majority of governments – were reneged upon. The Copenhagen Accord marked the first time that both developed and big developing countries agreed to place limits on their greenhouse gas emissions. Developed countries committed themselves to absolute reductions by 2020, while developing nations including China, India and Brazil agreed to slow the rate of growth of their emissions. At the weeklong Bonn talks, some developing countries wanted to water down this agreement, by making industrialised countries’ obligations binding while the commitments of developing countries would be voluntary. That arrangement is not acceptable to many rich nations, which point out that the world’s main emerging economies are responsible for nearly 40 per cent of global emissions. China is the world’s biggest emitter, while India is rising up the table fast…”

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/338343,cancun-deal-no-closer.html

“Third round of climate change talks brings Cancun deal no closer : Posted : Fri, 06 Aug 2010 : By : dpa : Bonn – A third round of climate change talks in Bonn has brought little prospect of reaching a new deal at a UN summit in Mexico later this year, as a week of discussions ended on Friday without progress. The UN’s new climate change chief, Christiana Figueres, urged governments to “agree to further compromises” in the coming months in order to “deliver clear and unmistakeable progress” in the city of Cancun…Delegates in Bonn worked on new proposals for partial agreements to be reached in Cancun, but made no progress on binding targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, or on the shape of a future deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires 2012. “It’s hard to cook a meal without a pot, and governments are much closer now to actually making the pot,” Figueres said optimistically. “However governments also need to decide what exactly they are going to cook in the pot,” Figueres added. “To receive the desired outcome in Cancun they must radically narrow down the choices that are now on the table.” Individual agreements reached in Cancun could include issues such as forest protection, financial aid to help developing nations adapt and mitigate the effects of climate change as well as the delivery of low-carbon technologies to such countries. However, an overarching agreement would still be necessary to implement any decisions reached in Cancun. Such a deal is looking unlikely to emerge before the 2012 UN climate change summit in South Africa. Developing countries said a lack of transparency regarding the disbursement of emergency funds by rich countries, as agreed in Copenhagen, made it hard for them compromise on any future deals. US climate change legislation has stalled in the Senate, where it has met with fierce opposition, making it unclear to other states to what extent they can expect the US to cooperate on any new pledges…”

http://www.aolnews.com/story/climate-talks-appear-to-slip-backward/1192598?cid=7

“Climate talks appear to slip backward : By ARTHUR MAX : 6 August 2010 : BONN, Germany -Global climate talks appeared to have slipped backward after five days of negotiations in Bonn, with rich and poor countries exchanging charges of reneging on agreements they made last year to contain greenhouse gases. Delegates complained that reversals in the talks put negotiations back by a year, even before minimal gains were scored at the Copenhagen summit last December. “It’s a little bit like a broken record,” said European Union negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger. “It’s like a flashback,” agreed Raman Mehta, of the Action Aid environment group. “The discourse is the same level” as before Copenhagen. The sharp divide between rich and poor nations over how best to fight climate change — a clash that crippled the Copenhagen summit — remains, and bodes ill for any deal at the next climate convention in Cancun, Mexico, which begins in November…Dessima Williams of Granada, who speaks for island states, charged that rich countries were “backsliding” on pledges of help to the poorest countries. Devastating floods in Pakistan, deadly fires and drought in Russia, a food crisis in West Africa — and reports that the first decade of this century was the hottest on record — provided a stark backdrop to the talks. “The situation in all of our countries is worsening,” Williams said. In Bonn, negotiating text doubled in length over the last week as countries put forward claims that had been deleted last year and delegations jockeyed for last-minute advantage before heading into the final stage of negotiations before Cancun…”

You have to remember that items “deleted” in Copenhagen were not agreed by all States. The so-called “Copenhagen Accord” which was only negotiated and “accorded to” by a small number of countries did not fully represent the Copenhagen 2009 conference positions of all the parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

The seesaw politicking between industrialised and developing countries will continue unless they can agree a “no regrets” shape of the “cooking pot” that Christiana Figueres metaphors.

What are the key issues ?

1. Poorer countries want richer countries to finance their Adaptation to Climate Change. Adaptation will include assistance with improving defences against rising instances of Climate Change-aggravated natural disasters such as floods and droughts. They don’t want aid. They want trade. They want the richer countries to accept their historic responsiblity for Climate Change, and pay their ecological debts.

2. Poorer countries want richer countries to finance their Mitigation strategy. Mitigation will include transfer of Green Energy, Renewable Energy technologies so that poorer countries can skirt High Carbon development paths, avoiding the history of High Emissions of richer countries. They don’t want aid. They want trade. They want the richer countries to accept that the poorer countries have spare, unused Carbon Rights that can be sold to the richer countries to offset the richer countries’ high emissions.

3. Poorer countries want richer countries to permit the poorer countries to continue Economic Development. They want such things as the clean water, electric light, good health services, education, industrial production and transportation that richer countries take for granted. They don’t want aid. They want trade. The poorer countries want the richer countries to fairly open up their markets to poorer country products – but currently the poorer country exports to richer countries are undervalued, for a variety of reasons.

4. Poorer countries want richer countries to make firm commitments to reducing richer country Greenhouse Gas Emissions. They don’t want aid. They want trade, but it won’t be physically possible to grow enough new or replacement forest in the poorer countries to permit the richer countries to carry on burning at such high rates.

Currently, the UNFCCC has passed around the hat for “donations” – pledges from the richer countries to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The sum of the collected reductions pledged does not add up to what the Science demonstrates is needed.

Under the policy of “I won’t if you won’t”, China is not prepared to commit to a legally binding emissions reduction trajectory if the United States of America does to commit to a legally binding emissions reduction trajectory. Token gestures will be offered, but no firm progress can be made.

The missing saucepan is Contraction and Convergence, the proposal from Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute. If the world could agree to move towards equal per person Greenhouse Gas Emissions rights under a Global Carbon Budget as determined by the Science, in an agreed period of Convergence, then the responsibilities of each country, richer or poorer, could become clear.

Under the Contraction and Convergence framework, everybody would have to do some work, but nobody would risk losing out, have to skim billions from their own Economy to send abroad in the form of Adaptation Aid, or re-assign billions in their domestic budgets to pay for Carbon Credits.

Moving money around, as currently proposed in the multi-billion dollar Mitigation and Adaptation Fund plans, would not necessarily solve any problems. We have numerous examples of money becoming worse than useless in this way – just look back over the history of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Some milestones are inevitable. The world has to spend a large amount of money in the next few decades on re-vitalising energy, regardless of any emissions commitments. It would take similar sums of money to revive the energy sector in a Low Carbon form, creating new opportunities for companies, community projects and engineers.

The world has to increase its “Carbon Sinks” rapidly over the next few decades – principally by stopping deforestation and forest degradation – and conversely reforesting and afforesting new areas. This will take monetary investment, but also reap wide economic paybacks, just like the Green Energy sector.

In order to shore up the global economy, and protect numerous sources of cheap raw resources, money needs to be spent on avoiding devastation from increasingly violent and frequent natural disasters associated with extreme weather. People who cannot farm cannot trade and cannot eat. People who are forced to migrate cannot farm reliably. People who lose crops due to wild weather cannot farm reliably. People in stressed environments cannot afford agrochemicals, so will need to farm organically, and harvest rainwater more efficiently.

Decarbonisation is urgent, and the High Emissions countries have to commit to it, deliberately and effectively. Carbon Trading cannot provide the richer countries with sufficient leeway in “offsets” to carry on emitting at the same rates as today.

If the richer countries start major decarbonisation now, it won’t cost them as much as it will do in a decade’s time.

It’s time to stop haggling and horsetrading over economic development and Carbon Finance, and who is a “developing country” and who isn’t, and get on with emissions reductions in the countries of major emissions origin – the industrialised/industrialising nations – the “major emitters” :-

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Major_Economies_Forum_on_Energy_and_Climate

“The 17 countries participating in the forum account for approximately 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINzvWrtjYI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyutuErxPo8

Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the United States of America, has been all over the Media, announcing the policy to “kill kill kill this” BP nightmare story, telling the world that a turning milestone point has been reached :-

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/OilBudget_description_%2083final.pdf

Have they decided that BP have been punished enough now for the Gulf of Mexico oil gusher, and the reputation of the company needs to be rehabilitated sharply in order to protect the Economy ?

I made the mistake of taking in a BBC TV news bulletin on the matter. I heard several talking heads say it’s “good news” that roughly three quarters of the accountable oil from the spill has “disappeared” :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10870159

Breaking this story is “good news” for the stability of pension funds, maybe. But what is the real extent of the real damage to the real world, the world of oceans and fish and plankton ? Will the world be watching as the researchers scavenge data and clues to the marine ecotastrophe that is still unfolding ?

Barack Obama hopes there’s nothing left to see of this car crash, and that we can all move along. It leaves a number of unanswered questions. Pre-eminent in my mind is the question “how likely is it that another deepwater drilling oil spill could happen ?”

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/BP-Oil-Spill-US-President-Barack-Obama-Says-Gulf-Of-Mexico-Battle-Finally-Coming-To-An-End/Article/201008115676765

I bet Barack Obama is slightly regretting announcing more “unconventional” oil drilling in March, and he’s attempting to patch up his own reputation, possibly why he’s pushing so hard to get this “good news” out now about BP’s clean-up operation :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOMoS0s7xI

Of course the White House want to clear the trouble from peoples’ minds and move on to other matters because the administration of the United States of America is peppered with oil-made men (and women). Plus, there’s heaps of fossil fuel lobbyists on every carpet, in every corridor, in every chat, in every consultation :-

At some point this difficult question will have to be answered : if oil spills and other hydrocarbon problems are going to become more frequent in future, as exploration, discovery and production become more and more “unconventional”, how is this going to impact on the profitability of oil and gas companies ?

Will there come a time when “growth” is no longer possible in fossil fuels, as the profit margin between production costs and sales revenues tightens to a thin wafer ?

Who is paying for the BP spill clean-up, by the way ? The American Government are all over it. Has the work been partly paid for by the taxpayers ?

Video Credit : PressTV : January 2009

Timeline in the last week :-

1. Something happens to provoke some persons as yet unidentified in Gaza.
2. Some persons as yet unidentified may or may not have fired a Grad missile from the Gaza Strip towards the Israeli town of Sderot.
3. The Israeli Defense Force act “in retaliation” and bomb three locations in Gaza, killing at least one person and wounding eight.
4. Some persons as yet unidentified may or may not have fired a Qassam rocket from the Gaza Strip towards Ashkelon.

You may be forgiven for thinking this is all about simple tactical weaponry exchange, embedded cultural or religious hatred, or revenge attacks.

But you’d be wrong.

This escalation in violence is merely part of what looks very strongly like an ongoing strategy to keep Gaza from economic development, by preventing them from exploiting their largest natural resource – offshore sub-marine Natural Gas.

I am going to give you my first attempt at some history on this matter. I make any and every apology if I have got something wrong. Please correct me by comments below the post.

I have not even started to attempt to address the hypocrisy of the United Kingdom and the United States of America effectively giving weapons to Israel via a system of direct and indirect aid. All that is brilliantly covered by Robert Fisk, so I don’t need to :-

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-israel-has-crept-into-the-eu-without-anyone-noticing-2040066.html

Gaza is being locked down under a “resource curse” – the Gazans are being forcefully detained in an open air concentration camp with scant resources, when all the time, just off-shore are enough hydrocarbons to make them all very wealthy. Many Gazans are succumbing to starvation of the body and mind, and many are unwell and have to endure appalling deprivation.

I should expect that the “final solution”, whatever that will be, will be announced by Israel in the next few years, unless the international community wakes up to the obvious risks that Gaza faces, and does something decisive about it.

Gaza Marine Timeline

1948 to 1973
Egypt and Israel fight four wars.

1973 to 1982
United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes conditions for Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), allowing control of all seabed assets out to 200 nautical miles from the shore, with adjustments for overlap between neighbouring nations.

1978
17 September 1978
Camp David Accords signed between Egypt and Israel.

1979
26 March 1979
Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed between Israel and Egypt.

1993
20 January 1993
Oslo Peace Negotiations begin.

13 September 1993
Signing of the Oslo Accords.

1994
4 May 1994
Signing of post-Oslo Gaza-Jericho Agreement, permitting Gazan fishermen to use Maritime Acitivity Zone extending 20 nautical miles out from Gaza shore.

1995
24 September 1995 and 28 September 1995
The signed Oslo II Accord “Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip” establishes the right of the Palestinian Authority to explore and drill for natural gas, fuel and petroleum within its territory and territorial waters.

1996
BG Group (formerly part of British Gas) commence activities offshore to Gaza and Israel.

1998
Noble Energy, (formerly Samedan), based in Houston, begin explorations for Natural Gas off the Israeli-Gaza coast in conjunction with Israeli partners Avner Oil and Delek Drilling (of the Delek Group) in the Yam Thetis (or Tethys) partnership. [ Note : In later reports, the consortium is reported to also include Isramco Negev 2, Dor Gas Exploration, Delek Investment and Razio. ]

1999
Noble Energy drill successfully in the Noa prospect in the East Mediterranean, straddling the maritime border between Israel and Gaza. The Noa South field is almost entirely in the Gaza Maritime Zone.

August 1999
BG Group first strike Natural Gas in the Gaza Marine maritime territory with its Gaza Marine 1 well. “The discovered gas field off Gaza, entitled Marine 1, is of top quality, as it contains 99.4 percent of methane and is free of sulfur pollutants that are harmful to the marine life,” Palestinian energy minister Azzam al Shawwa would later say.

8 November 1999
In London, Yasser Arafat for the Palestinian Authority signs a 25 year oil and gas exploration rights agreement for the Gazan prospects, eventually giving BG Group 60% development interest, 30% to a Palestinian infrastructure company Consolidated Contractors Company (CCC), an Athens-based entity owned by Lebanon’s Hasib Sabbagh and Said Khoury families. The Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak relinquished Israeli claims to the field, allowing the Palestinian Authority to hold 10% of the ownership rights to the Natural Gas resource, through ex-World Bank Salam Fayyad’s Palestine Investment Fund.

2000

In 2000, the BG-Isramco group announced that it had discovered a large gas field 12 miles offshore of Israel at its Nir 1 well.

March 2000
Noble Energy announces discovery of the Mari-B Natural Gas deposit, located approximately 15 miles offshore Israel and very close to the Gaza Marine Zone, west of Ashqelon (Ashkelon). At about the same time, following extensive seismic surveys, BG Group announces discoveries of Natural Gas within Gaza’s Maritime Activity Zone, about 15 miles off the coast, drilling wells named Gaza Marine 1 and Gaza Marine 2. The Gaza Marine 1 is located within a few miles of the Yam Thetis (or Tethys) and BG-Isramco discoveries. BG Group plans an underwater pipeline 20 nautical miles from Gaza Marine directly to the Gaza coast. [ Note : this plan was to be abandoned when Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister in February 2001 and announced that the Israelis would never buy the gas directly from the Palestinians. ]

July 2000
Negotiations for a final settlement at Camp David in the USA, in July, 2000 ended in deadlock. Both sides agreed on Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

25 July 2000
Yasser Arafat walks out on the Camp David meeting.

27 September 2000
Yasser Arafat travels 19 miles off the Gaza coast to light the first flare stack flowing up from the Natural Gas deposit. The project had been held up by a legal challenge from an Israeli Oil consortium that had contested the Palestinian rights to the Natural Gas discovery but this was overturned in the Israeli Supreme Court.

28 September 2000
Ariel Sharon’s fateful visit to Temple Mount, the site of the Al-Aqsa mosque, holy to Muslims. Second Intifada begins. After the outbreak of the Second Intifada the Israelis begins an ever-tightening blockade of Gaza with decreasing road freight and no foreign boats allowed to enter.

October 2000
The US called a summit conference in Sharm-El Sheikh. All sides agree truce. Mitchell Report into the violence is commissioned. Shortly thereafter, Yasser Arafat takes part in Arab League Summit in Cairo, which calls for international investigative commission instead. Two weeks later, a suicide bombing in Jerusalem puts an end to the truce.

10 October 2000
Isramco, Incorporated presents the reports from the Med Ashdod license to a meeting of its partners, showing estimates of the total gas reserves in place in the Nir 1 discovery.

late 2000
Attacks by Israeli military patrol boats against Gazan fishing boats begin, initiating a campaign of daily intimidation and harassment against vessels that venture near or beyond a 6 nautical mile limit.

27 December 2000
Peace negotiations in Washington fail to produce an agreement.

2001

In 2001, a BG Group technical review recommended a sub-sea development and pipeline to an onshore processing terminal.

21 – 27 January 2001
Last minute peace negotiations in Taba, under European and Egyptian patronage, the sides failed to reach a settlement despite further Israeli concessions.

28 January 2001
Ehud Barak breaks off negotiations, suspending them until after the elections.

February 2001
Ariel Sharon is elected Prime Minister for Israel. He reaffirms that Israel would never buy gas from the Palestinians. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court.

October 2001
Following the “9/11″ 11 September 2001 attacks the US State Department declare Hamas and Hezbollah (Hizbollah) as terrorist organisations.

2002

In 2002, an outline Development Plan from BG Group was approved by the Palestinian Authority.

3 January 2002
Interception of “Karine A”, a boat containing illegal weapons.

3 January 2002
Visit of US envoy Anthony Zinni.

12 March 2002
UN Security Council passes Resolution 1397, calling on the sides to stop the violence once again, mentioning the Saudi Peace Proposal of Crown Prince Abdullah, and for the first time since 1947 calling for creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

late March 2002
US Envoy General Zinni visits once more. Almost daily suicide bomber attacks.

27 March 2002
Hotel bombing in Netanya.

29 March 2002
Start of the Israeli Defense Force’s “Operation Defensive Shield” in Palestinian West Bank. Yasser Arafat’s compound in Ramallah (where he was confined) raided and sieged.

30 March 2002
UN Resolution 1402 calls upon Israel to withdraw troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; and calls upon the parties to “cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni and others…for implementation of the Mitchell Committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement.”

1 April 2002
IDF invade Tulkarm and Qalqiliya.

2 April 2002
IDF invade Bethlehem.

3 April 2002
IDF invade Jenin and Nablus.

3 – 21 April 2002
Strict curfew imposed by Israel in West Bank.

8 April 2002
US Envoy Anthony Zinni meets Ariel Sharon.

12 April 2002
Women and children of Jenin refugee camp publish a letter in al-Quds newspaper inviting US Secretary of State Colin Powell to visit them. By the time Powell had left the region, Israel had withdrawn from some towns, but Yasser Arafat was still imprisoned in Ramallah, and the Israelis were besieging the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where armed Palestinians had sought refuge from the IDF.

during April 2002
The US government initiated a series of consultations with a group of diplomats that became known as the “Quartet.” The quartet evolved a roadmap for a settlement, including Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories and establishment of a Palestinian state.

May 2002
News of a suicide bombing committed by the Hamas comes while US President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are meeting, causing the Israeli PM to cut the visit short and return to Israel.

May 2002
The sieges of Muqata and Church of Nativity are resolved. Militants in the Church of Nativity are exiled to Cyprus and Europe.

29 or 30 May 2002
Yasser Arafat signs transitional constitution of Palestinian Authority. Palestinian law will be based on the principles of Islamic law (Shari’a or Sha’ariyeh).

5 June 2002
Megiddo Junction bus bombing – one of 46 bombings that year.

18 June 2002
Israel start to build the “separation fence” security wall between Israel and the West Bank.

22 July 2002
IDF airstrike on residential area in Gaza City.

August 2002
Start of major offensive by IDF into Gaza.

5 August 2002
Israel launches helicopter airstrikes.

August 2002
In response to a request from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the Secretary General of the United Nations appoints Ms. Catherine Bertini as his Personal Humanitarian Envoy to assess humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. At the end of her visit to the area she makes numerous recommendations including one that deals with the fishing boats. In her report she included a list of “Previous Commitments Made by Israel”. Item 2 states: “The fishing zone for Palestinian fishing boats off the Gaza coast is 12 nautical miles. This policy needs to be fully implemented.”

2003

5 March 2003
Haifa bus bombing.

8 or 9 March 2003
Senior Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Maqadma (Ibrahim Al-Makadma) assassinated in Gaza City from IDF helicopter.

20 March 2003
US, British and Australian military forces invade Iraq.

29 April 2003
Mahmud (Mahmoud) Abbas (Abu Mazen) elected Palestinian Prime Minister.

29 April 2003
Two Britons conduct suicide bombing for Fateh and Hamas in Tel Aviv.

29 or 30 April 2003
IDF conduct extensive raids in Gaza on military targets.

30 April 2003
President George W. Bush presents roadmap to the Quartet group.
US released updated road map on April 30 immediately after the election of Abu Mazen (Mahmud (Mahmoud) Abbas).

28 May 2003
Ibrahim Abu Habla shot in the eye by IDF at Tulkarm.

early June 2003
Israeli military crackdown at Balata refugee camp and Nablus.

4 June 2003
At the Aqaba Summit, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu-Mazen) pledge to fulfill the conditions of the road map and shook hands in the presence of US President George Bush. Abu Mazen called for an end to violence.

4 June 2003
Palestininan Red Crescent Society ambulance stopped from rescuing injured from Balata refugee camp.

5 June 2003
Ibrahim Abu Habla dies.

4 or 5 June 2003
IDF incursion into Deir al Balah in the Gaza Strip.

5 or 6 June 2003
IDF ambush at Tulkarm.

8 June 2003
Joint Palestinian fighters attack Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and in Gaza. Up to ten casulaties on both sides.

9 June 2003
Israeli army begin to dismantle illegal outposts of Jewish settlers in the West Bank as part of the “roadmap” from the Quartet.

18 August 2003
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon vetoes the BG Group deal to supply Israel with Natural Gas from the Gaza fields. BG Group’s plan was to pipe it directly ashore at Ashqelon (Ashkelon) for the use of Israeli power stations. Mr Sharon is reported to prefer to buy gas from Egypt, which already sells Israel oil from its Sinai fields, although BG Group stands ready to re-open discussions if a Cairo deal cannot be sealed. The Israeli Prime Minister is reluctant to put money into the Palestinian treasury without knowing what it would be used for. The Palestinians had agreed that it would be paid into a central account audited by the international community. National Infrastructure Minister, Yosef Paritsky is enthusiastic for the Gaza option, and the Finance Ministry advocates buying Natural Gas from both Palestine and Egypt in order to create competition.

December 2003
The Mari B platform comes on line, delivering around 100 million cubic feet per day of Natural Gas to Israel by pipeline. The Noa field, which sits further out to the West of the Mari B) is scheduled to be brought on line at a later date through a “sub-sea tieback” to the Mari-B platform. Accusations of slant drilling into the Gaza Marine from the Mari-B platform are made. [ Note : In 2004 Mari-B production increased significantly. ]

2004

22 March 2004
Israeli intelligence service Mossad ascertained that Ahmed Yassin, founder and leader of the Hamas Islamist movement, had gone to prayers without his wife and children, and the green light was given to assassinate him.

17 April 2004
The IAF (Israeli Air Force) kill newly elected Hamas leader Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantissi. Dr. Mahmoud Zahar was apparently elected in his place, but no official announcement was made for fear of Israeli retaliation. Zahar is reportedly the last of the seven founders of the Hamas still alive. The others were all assassinated by Israel.

9 July 2004
The International Court of Justice delivered its advisory opinion on the Israeli security barrier. The court ruled that the barrier violates human rights and that Israel must dismantle it. Israel announced that it would not abide by the court decision, but it did plan changes in the route of the barrier to satisfy requirements of the Israeli High Court.

31 August 2004
Hamas perpetrated a double suicide attack in Beersheba, in revenge for the killings of their leaders. The attackers came from the area south of Hebron in the West Bank, where no fence had been built. The attack accelerated construction of the barrier, and Israel took bloody revenge by bombing a Hamas training camp in Gaza. In October of 2004 Israel conducted operation Days of Repentance to overcome Palestinian rocket fire on Israeli towns. The operation killed many civilians and left many others homeless.

11 November 2004
Palestinian Authority Chairman and long-time leader Yasser Arafat dies, leaving an uncertain future. Some signs indicated that the death of Arafat had opened up new possibilities for peace, as well as for reform and democracy in the Palestinian authority.

late 2004
It is reported that “An agreement between Israel Electric [Corporation] and the Egyptian company EMB was under negotiation late in 2004″.

mid-December 2004
In mid-December, Egypt, Israel and the US signed a Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ) treaty that would give Egypt trade advantages in the USA for cooperative ventures with Israeli participation. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman visited Jerusalem. The agreement permits Egyptian companies using Israeli agricultural products tax-free exports to the United States.

2005

In early 2005, British Gas, after failing over a period of several years to interest other international oil and gas companies to participate in the project, returned almost all its Israeli fossil fuel license rights to the Israeli government for a combination of geo-political and commercial reasons while retaining its Palestinian and Egyptian interests.

9 January 2005
Mahmoud Abbas elected President of the Palestine National Authority.

8 February 2005
At the Sharm El Sheikh conference, attended by Jordan’s King Abdullah and Egyptian President Mubarak as well as the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, both sides announced an end to the violence. Israel would be releasing over 900 Palestinian prisoners and gradually withdrawing from Palestinian cities according to newspaper reports

20 February 2005
Israeli Knesset approves the disengagement plant, calling for unilateral evacuation of 21 settlements in Gaza and 4 in the West Bank by the summer of 2005.

March 2005
The Israeli Government accepts a report on illegal outposts (built without proper permits and government authorisation in the West Bank since March of 2001) prepared at the request of the government by Talia Sasson.

April and May 2005
Ariel Sharon and Mahmud Abbas visited with the President of the United States. Symbolically, this visit was very important, because it signaled that the US was ending the isolation of the Palestinian Authority.

21 June 2005
On June 21, 2005, Sharon and Abbas met in a long-awaited summit, but nothing at all appeared to result from the meeting, other than an announcement by Ariel Sharon that he had attained Palestinian consent to coordination of the Gaza pullout. As violence flared following the summit, Israel launched air attacks against rocket launchers in Gaza, killed several Islamic Jihad terrorists and also announced it was resuming its policy of targeted killings of Islamic Jihad terrorists.

29 June 2005
The Palestinian Authority (PA), BG Group and the Egyptian government sign an agreement that gives the PA access to Egypt’s gas pipeline network at El-Arish, to transport and market the Gaza Natural Gas via sales to Egypt, and the possibility of international exports of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). This plan would allow the gas to be piped to Israel, but avoid Israel having to deal directly with the Palestinians. Palestinian energy minister Azzam Shawwa says there is a possibility of a swap deal with Israel, involving the supply of Gaza gas in return for electricity, preventing the exchange of money, which Israel fears could be used to bankroll terrorism.

30 June 2005 or 1 July 2005
Egypt agrees to provide Israel with a constant stream of Natural Gas at a fixed price, the 15 year “Gas Agreement”, a contract between the Egyptian East Mediterranean Gas Company (EMG) and Israel Electric Company (IEC), with power plants in Tel Aviv and Ashdod. Under the agreement, a maritime pipeline will transport Egyptian gas to Israel’s Mediterranean port of Ashkelon. Although gas from Gaza is the most cost-effective alternative, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is opposed to it for political reasons.

13 July 2005
After agressive protests by Israeli settlers (Yesha) against the disengagement plan, and violence against Palestinians, the Israeli Government close the Gaza Strip to Israeli citizens.

22 or 23 July 2005
Four car bombs exploded July 22 in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh and nearby Naama Bay hotels. Egyptian police report that one car bomb exploded at Sharm el-Sheikh bazaar while three other car bombs exploded – at a tourist bazaar, the Ghazala Hotel and the Moevenpick Hotel – in Naama Bay.

15 – 24 August 2005
Israeli evacuation of Gaza settlements and four West Bank settlements.

September 2005
BG said it also plans to begin test drills in September at the Noa Darom field near the Israel-Gaza offshore border while looking to use the $120 million Yam Thetis pipeline to transport gas to the Palestinian power plant in Gaza, replacing the energy supplied by an Israeli electric company.

11 September 2005
Last Israeli soldiers leave Gaza.

12 September 2005
The settlements were officially handed over to the Palestinians.
Israel announced that it had ended the occupation of Gaza and withdrew its forces. But it continued to maintain control of air and sea-lanes as well as all border crossings on land. The amount of vehicular traffic remained extremely limited and never approached a typical pre-occupation daily level. The ability for persons to enter or leave Gaza continued to be restricted. Permission or denial for passage was often arbitrary and unpredictable. The conditions of an occupation continue to prevail.

25 November 2005 – 25 June 2006
Subsequently a passage was opened between Gaza and Rafah in Egypt to ensure that Palestinians are not cut off from the world. Egyptians, Palestinians and EU representatives monitor the passage to prevent smuggling of arms, but Israelis claim that Palestinians are smuggling in substantial qualities of arms.

2006

BG Group’s original plans were to sell the Gaza’s Natural Gas to Egypt. In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.”, according to an article published in The Times of London on 23 May 2007. According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt. The company reopened earlier failed negotiations with Israel for a pipeline development that would land the gas at Ashkelon, a southern Israeli city with a petroleum refinery.

25 January 2006
Hamas freely won the legislative elections on Jan 25 2006. After a battle with Fatah elements that were supported by both Israeli and US interests Hamas took control of Gaza. Israel and the United States immediately reiterated that Hamas was a terrorist organization and that they would continue to have no public contact with it. The Quartet (the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations) threatened to cut funds to the Palestinian Authority. The restrictions at the border crossings were tightened further with even more severe limitations on the admission of produce, materials, medicines and people. Anaemia and malnutrition are widespread as a result.

After the 2006 Palestinian election results, Israel began stalling in its negotiations with BG Group. Any deal that could result in funds reaching Gaza would seriously undermine official Israeli policy toward Hamas. For its part, Hamas assured it would not interrupt development of the project, but reserved its right to restructure parts of the deal it deemed harmful to Palestinian interests. In an interview with Dow Jones Newswires, Minister of Economy Ziad Shokri (Shukri) al-Zaza reiterated Hamas opposition to any sale of fuel to Israel.

After the Hamas election victory, Israel embarked on an intense campaign to eliminate the movement as a viable political entity in Gaza while at the same time attempting to rehabilitate the defeated Fatah as the dominant political player in the West Bank. By leveraging political tensions between the two parties, arming forces loyal to Abbas and the selective resumption of financial aid, Israel and the United States effectively re-installed Fatah in the West Bank, projected the party back onto the international stage and revived the possibility of concluding the energy deal.

2 February 2006
The Palestine National Authority accuse Israel of “practicing collective punishment after it snubbed US calls to unblock funds owed to the Palestinians.”

18 February 2006
Ismail Haniya of the militant Islamic group Hamas criticised Israeli proposals to restrict the movement of money, people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under a Hamas-run Palestinian Authority.

March 2006
Hamas Government sworn in after January elections.

25 June 2006
Just as PNA announced the conclusion of an agreement on a truce with Israel, Hamas attacked an Israeli army border outpost at Kerem Shalom, killing two soldiers and capturing a third, Gilad Shalit. Hamas offered to trade the soldier for Palestinian prisoners. Israel refused to negotiate and began a siege of Gaza and later invaded in Operation “Summer Rains” in an attempt to force Palestinians to return the soldier alive and stop the rain of Qassam rockets.

28 June 2006
Following the abduction of Corporal Gilad Shalit, the Israeli Air Force attacked the only electrical power plant operating in the Gaza Strip in the early hours of the morning. Six missiles were fired at the power plant’s six transformers. Two of the missiles missed their target, so two more missiles were fired a few minutes later, destroying the remaining transformers

29 August 2006
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reports on worsening conditions in the Gaza Strip under the “Hermetic Blockade”.

12 July 2006 – 14 August 2006
The “July War” or the “Second Lebanon War”. Israel responds to a Hezbollah attack “Operation Just Reward”. During and after the Israeli offensive in Lebanon, IDF operations continued unabated in Gaza as Palestinians continued to rain down Qassam rockets on the Western Negev and the Hamas insisted solemnly that it was keeping a truce.

October and November 2006
Palestinians shoot a relentless rain of Qassam missiles on the Western Negev and in particular the town of Sderot, killing three Israelis. IDF operations in Rafah uncovered extensive tunnels used for smuggling, but IDF operations in the north of Gaza, intended to stop the firing of Qassam missiles, were terminated under increasing international pressure, as Israelis had killed over 50 Palestinians, including several civilians.

8 November 2006
Following the Israeli withdrawal, an especially heavy barrage of Qassam fire prompted an Israeli shelling response. The shells missed their target, hitting a residential neighborhood and killing about 20 Palestinian civilians.

26 November 2006
the Palestinians and Israelis announced a surprise truce that was to apply only to the Gaza strip. Despite continuation of Qassam fire by the Palestinians for several days thereafter, Israel held to the truce.

27 November 2006
On the day following the truce announcement, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert announced a new Israeli diplomatic initiative offering peace to the Palestinians and other other neighbors along the lines of the Arab Peace Initiative. This was the first time that an Israeli leader had referred to the initiative in a positive way. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas welcomed the speech. The United States, the Iraq Study Group report, which recommended active US involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, also gave rise to talk of peace negotiations.

The truce was violated repeatedly in Gaza by barrages of Qassam rockets fired at Israeli towns. The dissident Islamic Jihad claimed that it would not adhere to the truce unless it was extended to the West Bank. However, it was revealed that the Hezbolla were paying thousands of dollars for each Qassam rocket fired.

23 December 2006
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert finally met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and announced some concessions to make life easier for the Palestinians including release of tax funds frozen by Israel and removal of a number of checkpoints. A plan to release prisoners for the Eid al Adha holiday was abandoned however. Following the meeting, Israel agreed to a large transfer of weapons to the Fatah group loyal to President Abbas from Egypt. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni hinted at a new peace initiative in press interviews. These moves were seen as attempts to support President Abbas in his rivalry with the Hamas-led government of Ismail Hanniyeh.

2007

17 March 2007
Salam Fayyad was re-appointed finance minister, within the Fatah-Hamas coalition government.

by April 2007
The Israeli Cabinet had reversed an earlier decision to prohibit the purchase of natural gas from the Palestinian Authority.

early May 2007
The Israeli Cabinet approves a proposal by Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, to buy Palestinian Natural Gas. An Israeli team of negotiators is set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority. Under BG Group’s plans, gas from the field would be transported by an undersea pipeline to the seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel. The Israeli authorities are concerned that Palestinians should be paid in goods and services so that no money can go to the Hamas-controlled government.

23 May 2007
The Times of London discloses that, back in 2006, BG Group had been close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt before Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened and asked the company to give Israel a second chance.

24 May 2007
The Times of London reports Hamas vows to block the BG Group plans, as pumping gas to Israel is an “act of theft”.

7 – 15 June 2007
The Battle of Gaza takes place, a military conflict between Hamas and Fatah.

14 June 2007
Ismail Haniyeh is dismissed as Prime Minister in the Fatah-controlled West Bank by Mahmoud Abbas, and Salam Fayyad is appointed in his stead.

15 June 2007
Following the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, Salam Fayyad is appointed Prime Minister of a new “independent” government in the West Bank.

late June 2007
International sanctions against Gaza are terminated.

late June 2007
Israel reinforces the Gaza Strip Blockade. Egypt does likewise, sealing border crossings.

July 2007
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and appointed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad attend a signing ceremony between OPIC (Overseas Private Investment Corporation) and the Palestinian Investment Fund (PIF) in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The PIF, ostensibly overseen by the Palestinian Authority could generate revenue, potentially available to a Hamas-led government.

August – September 2007
Israel arrange shuttle bus services which allowed Gaza residents to travel via the Erez crossing directly to the Nitzana and Kerem Shalom border crossings between Israel and Egypt.

19 September 2007
The Gaza Strip is unanimously declared an “enemy entity” by Israel’s security cabinet. The declaration was immediately backed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and followed by a series of collective punishment measures that crippled Gaza’s already suffering economy, including halted the movement of people to and from Gaza – including those in need of urgent medical care. The “enemy entity” declaration follows months of Israeli closure of the Egyptian-Gazan border crossing at Rafah, during which thousands of Palestinians were stranded in Egypt.

6 September 2007
Israel launch “Operation Orchard”.

26 – 28 November 2007
Following the revival of support for the Arab Peace Initiative, and following a call from the Iraq Study Group Report for progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the Annapolis Conference is held. The conference provided recognition of Mahmoud Abbas as acknowledged leader of the Palestinians. Israel and the Palestinians agreed to renew negotiations for a permanent status agreement, with the hope of completing them before the end of 2008, and both sides vowed to implement the roadmap in parallel, with the US to monitor progress. No mention was made of the problem posed by Hamas control of Gaza.

December 2007
BG Group announces it is pulling the plug on negotiations with Israel due to a protracted impasse, and is again considering Egypt as a buyer of the Gaza Marine field Natural Gas.

2008

In 2008, Noble Energy commissions a permanent onshore receiving terminal in Ashdod for distribution of Natural Gas from the Mari-B field to purchasers. Israel Electric Corporation’s (IEC) Gezer power plant begins to buy Natural Gas from Noble Energy.

December 2007 – January 2008
Israel resume shuttle bus services temporarily.

9 – 11 January 2008
US President George W. Bush tours Middle East, failing to achieve support for US Middle East policy goals.

early January 2008
BG Group sells its share in Israel’s offshore Med Yavne (Yeven) Natural Gas field on the border with Offshore Gaza maritime territory. It also announces the closure of its office in Israel, and calls off negotiations with the Israeli Government for the sale of gas reserves, stating, “The price of Natural Gas doubled last year, and this cannot be ignored. Israel will have to pay much more for Natural Gas in the future, because the price keeps going up”.

15 January 2008
Nineteen people killed in Gaza, including the son of Hamas head Mahmoud al-Zahar. Several fighters were amongst them but also three farmers and a student.

17 January 2008
Following three days of Israeli raids and air strikes on Gaza that killed at least 30 people, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak orders the total closure of the Gaza Strip. Israeli officials insist “there will not be a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”

20 January 2008
Following an Israeli decision to cut fuel supplies to Gaza
the Gaza power plant, supplying abut 20% of Gaza’s electricity, is shut down by Hamas.

23 January 2008
Hamas blasts holes in the Gaza-Rafah border barrier, allowing Gazans to migrate and trade.

28 January 2008
Egyptians partially re-close the border breach.

8 February 2008
Israel starts to cut the amount of electricity it supplies to Gaza, as part of a new economic campaign targeting Hamas, as Israel seeks to “disengage” from Gaza.

27 February 2008
An Israeli missile strike kills 5 Hamas terrorists who it later claimed were plotting to carry out a large scale terror attack.

28 February 2008
Hamas respond with a barrage of 30 rockets, some of which landed as far as Ashqelon. The rockets included Iranian manufactured Grad rockets, which are a version of the Katyusha.

29 February 2008
A large scale Israeli raid began February 29 and continued for several days, killing over 100 Palestinians. Israel claimed that only ten Gaza civilians were killed, while the Hamas claimed that the raid killed mostly civilians. Ahead of a visit to the region by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the United States called for an end to the violence.

3 March 2008
The Israeli attack was ended March 3, though the IDF had planned to continue it.

5 March 2008
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas resumes direct negotiations with Israel. Hamas declares victory. Though rumors of a “truce” and truce negotiations were floated persistently in March, Palestinian rockets continued to fall on the Western Negev, and Israel continued to kill Palestinians.

6 March 2008
Israeli raids in the West Bank almost stopped, despite a terror attack March 6 on Yeshivat Merkaz Harav in Jerusalem, in which a Palestinian gunman from the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Jabel Mukaber killed eight religious seminary students. Hamas claimed the attack but later denied it was involved.

April 2008
Following urgings by Secretary of State Rice, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations resumed. According to Abbas, the sides were discussing core issues such as the future of Jerusalem, but no details were made public. Israel announced contracts to build housing for settlers in the Har Choma neighborhood of East Jerusalem and other areas in the West Bank, angering Palestinians. This announcement was followed by several contradictory announcements by Israeli government officials regarding settlement expansion policies. In April, Israel removed a number of checkpoints in the West Bank and allowed Palestinian forces to enter Jenin.

May 2008
The Natural Gas began to flow from the Mari B field onshore to Israel.

11 May 2008
It is reported that the Israel Corporation, controlled by Sami Ofer and his son Idan, is negotiating with BG Group to buy its holdings in the Gaza Marine Natural Gas field off the Gaza coast. In addition, Israel Corporation owners have been attempting to sound out government authorities as to the validity of the BG Group’s franchise for the field, which it received from the Palestinian Authority. The Israel Corporation has also been inquiring into whether the state will support such a move.

20 May 2008
Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif requests that Israel pay more for its Natural Gas. Egypt has adjusted energy contacts with other countries already, a move driven by worldwide rise in energy prices. Global prices for energy, led by oil, have soared since the Gas Agreement in 2005.

19 June 2008
A truce (“lull”) between Israel and Palestinian armed groups in Gaza comes into effect. Israeli air raids in the Gaza Strip and rocket launches into Israel continued until minutes before the ceasefire came into effect. Hamas is lead to believe that significant increase in shipments would be allowed to enter Gaza. Before the truce roughly 70 trucks were allowed to bring provisions into Gaza each day compared with some 900 permitted before the Israeli clamped down in 2000. Instead Israel allowed only an increase from the 70 to 90 trucks.

June 2008
According to military sources, reported later in the year, Ehud Barak gives orders to carry out a comprehensive intelligence-gathering drive which sought to map out Hamas’ security infrastructure, along with that of other militant organizations operating in the Strip. This was the first step towards the Israeli Air Force invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead”.

29 June 2008
On June 29, the Israel cabinet approved a deal to swap convicted terrorist Samir Kuntar and numerous Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners for what are apparently the bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, whose kidnapping sparked the Second Lebanon War.

June 2008
Israeli authorities contact BG Group, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas. Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG Group of Israel’s wish to renew the talks.

24 August 2008
Two boats, the Liberty and Free Gaza sailed into Gaza Harbor from Cyprus carrying 44 international supporters of the Palestinians. They were the first vessels to break the Israeli siege in 41 years. The venture had been organized by Free Gaza Movement.

17 September 2008
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni wins the Kadima primaries.

October 2008
Negotiations between BG Group and Israeli officials begin, presided over by Ehud Olmert.

26 October 2008
Tzipi Livni announces that since she was unable to form a coalition, new elections were set for 10 February 10 2009.

on or before 13 November 2008
Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with BG Group, on the purchase of Natural Gas from the BG Group’s offshore concession in Gaza, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

last part of 2008
Noble Energy begins prospecting at Tamar field.

Septemer / October 2008
According to the Israeli Intelligence Heritage Center one rocket had been fired from Gaza in September 2008 and two in October 2008. Israeli spokesman Mark Regev was later forced to concede that Hamas had not fired these few rockets.

4 November 2008
Israel break the 6 month truce, as the IDF launch a major incursion into Gaza to destroy a tunnel that it said Palestinians were digging from Gaza into Israel. Six Palestinians are killed. In the following days, the Hamas and others responded by launching about 35 larger (Grad) rockets into Sderot and Ashqelon, and IDF responded with an incursion into Khan Yunis. During the next five weeks 237 rockets are fired into Israel. The provoked increase in rocket fire was Israel’s public justification for launching the long planned “Cast Lead” invasion despite offers by Hamas to renew the ceasefire.

9 November 2008
A meeting of the Quartet was held in Sharm el Sheikh to reaffirm support for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the framework of the Annapolis process and the roadmap. Both sides expressed support for the process. Hamas cancelled its attendance at a Palestinian reconciliation meeting that was to have been held in Egypt this week.

18 November 2008
Israeli naval vessels attack three Palestinian fishing boats located seven miles off the coast of Deir Al Balah, clearly within the limits permitted in the 1994 Gaza-Jericho Agreement.

18 November 2008
Egyptian court ordered the government to stop shipping Natural Gas to Israel. A lawsuit followed seeking to bar delivery since the Parliament had not given its approval.

19 November 2008
Following dozens of Qassam rockets and mortar rounds which exploded on Israeli soil, the plan for “Operation Cast Lead” was brought for Barak’s final approval.

18 December 2008
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak met at IDF Kiryat headquarters in central Tel Aviv to approve the operation.

24 December 2008
Hamas bombards Israel with some 60 rockets and mortar shells.

27 December 2008
Israel begings bombing Gaza as Phase 1 of Operation “Cast Lead” (Oferet Yetzuka). The Gaza harbour is bombed during the hostilities damaging a number of the fishing boats. In the space of a few hours, Israeli Air Force (IAF) flies about 100 sorties, destroying arms caches, arms factories, smuggling tunnels, missile launching sites, and Hamas command and control centers in Gaza.

28 December 2008
The UN Security council issued a statement December 28 calling for both sides to stop the violence, but US objections prevented a binding cease fire resolution.

2009

18 January 2009
The major fighting ends, when Israel declares a unilateral cease fire. Hamas likewise declared a cease fire. Rocket launchings and retaliations continued until after Israeli elections on February 10, 2009.

18 January 2009
Noble Energy announces the discovery of a large Natural Gas field offshore from Haifa, known as Tamar 1, and claims it will be able to produce 50% more than the daily capacity of the old Mari-B site.

23 January 2009
Kelly Bornshlegel makes a Freedom of Information request to the UK’s Department for International Development, with regards to “all documents that you hold referring to BG’s Gaza Marine Field, BG’s exploration licence offshore Gaza, or sale of gas from this gas field to Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority or Hamas.” The FoI was eventually refused.

24 January 2009
A father and his daughter walking on a Gaza beach are wounded by gunfire from Israeli ships shooting at Gazan fishing boats.

February 2009
A delegation from the state-owned Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) renews negotiations in London with BG Group over the Gaza Marine field, expected to be operational by 2012.

14 February 2009
23 year-old Rafiq abu Reala is shot by Israeli naval forces whilst fishing in Gazan territorial waters, approximately two nautical miles out from the port of Gaza city. He was in a simple fishing vessel, not much larger than a rowing boat, with a small outboard engine, known locally as a ‘hassaka’. Rafiq, his brother Rajab and another friend were following the course of a shoal of fish.

30 March 2009
Noble Energy announce the discovery of Natural Gas in the Dalit field in the Michal concession, located about 30 miles off shore from Israel, considered sufficient to cover Israel’s energy needs for many years, beginning delivery in 2014 at the earliest. As a result Hezi Kugler, Director General of Israel’s national infrastructure, instructs state owned Israel Electric Corporation to renew negotiations with BG Group over the Gaza Marine field which could be operational by 2012. A delegation from IEC was in the UK in February, 2009 for talks with BG. The incentives remain for Israel to guard and control the natural gas deposits under Gazan waters.

12 April 2009
An unmanned fishing boat blows up about 300 yards off the Gaza coast. The IDF claims that it had been booby-trapped in an attempt to attack an Israeli patrol boat. They cite this account as justification for their “monitoring” of Gazan boats and for the latest restrictions that limit fishing to a zone within 2 miles of the coast. Palestinian observers on shore claim the vessel was sunk by gunfire from an IDF ship.

4 June 2009
US President Barack Obama gives an historic speech to the Muslim and Arab world, calling on Palestinians to renounce violence, calling on Arabs to recognize Israel’s right to exist, reiterating US support for a two state solution and calling for an end to settlement construction

14 June 2009
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gives an address at the Begin-Sadat Center, giving Israeli support for a two state solution, and pledging that Israel would not build new settlements or confiscate land for settlements, but would continue to build housing units for what he termed “natural growth”.

July 2009
Javier Solana offered support of the EU for unconditional acceptance of a Palestinian state as a member of the UN in two years, if negotiations fail.

24 July 2009
The Israel Electric Corp.’s board of directors has approved an agreement to purchase 5 billion cubic meters of natural gas over the next five years from the Yam Thetis consortium, the power company announced Thursday.

August 2009
The Fatah movement hold their first congress in twenty years, issuing the Fatah Foreign Policy Program that calls for a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but insisting on the right of return for Palestinian refugees and endorses “resistance,” but only “in accordance with the legitimate norms and laws,” apparently ruling out violence. The Palestinian Authority issue a plan for establishing a state unilaterally by 2011, endorsed by the European Union and claiming all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. At the end of August, the “moderate” Palestinian Authority announce that it would declare a state in two years, regardless of negotiations. Solana welcomes this as well.

24 November 2009
The Netanyahu government in Israel agrees to a ten month freeze on settlement construction – to last until September 2010.

15 December 2009
Noble Energy announces it has signed a 17-year agreement with Dalia Power Energies for the supply of Natural Gas commencing in 2013.

28 December 2009
Noble Energy signs Letter of Intent to sell Natural Gas from the Tamar field to the Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) as of 2012. IEC intend to convert to using mostly Natural Gas. In a separate Letter of Intent, Israel Electric Corporation states that they expect to purchase Natural Gas from the partner companies operating in Matan prospect licensing area, which would go to establish a strategic inventory reserve in the Mari-B field. The Mari-B partners would provide Israel Electric Corporation with injection, storage and withdrawal capabilities for this inventory under a related service agreement.

2010

late February 2010
Yam Thetis announced that the flow of gas would be halted temporarily due to the need to drill two more production wells (Mari 8B and 9B) in the Mari B licensing area, located off the coast of Ashkelon. They suggest these drillings are necessary due to the anticipated reduction in pressure over the next few years as the reserve declines.

3 or 4 March 2010
Avner Oil Exploration and Delek Drilling announce the proved preproduction reserves of natural gas in the Mari B site are higher than original estimates.

April 2010
The US Geological Survey publishes a report that estimates that the Levant Basin Province, based in the Eastern Mediterranean region, is rich with about 122 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable Natural Gas.

31 May 2010
IDF attacks Gaza Peace Aid Flotilla.

June 2010
The Press obtain an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as “economic warfare” against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory.

3 June 2010
The Yam Thetis (or Tethys) Consortium announces led by billionaire Yitzhak Tshuva announced it has struck natural gas in a field called ‘Leviathan’, in the Amit and Rachel licenses off the coast of Israel. Tshuva also says there may be an oil field beneath the gas. The consortium claims that their offshore discoveries may hold twice as much Natural Gas as the UK. “Today is a day of celebration for all of us. The State of Israel is an energy independent country,” Yitzhak Tshuva said.

14 June 2010
Hezbollah claim that offshore gas is Lebanese.

9 July 2010
Catherine Hunter, oil analyst with IHS Global Insight, says it is too early to make categorical claims about the size and ownership of the potential reservoirs, which “may well extend into Lebanese waters”. She said Leviathan is also located toward Cypriot territorial waters. Hezbollah warns that it will not allow Israel to steal Lebanese gas resources. In turn, Israel’s Minister of Infrastructure Uzi Landau cautions that Israel will not think twice about using force to safeguard investments in the gas fields.

A question forms in my mind : just why was it necessary to remove the Israeli settlers from Gaza ? The military assault on Gaza in late 2008 would never have been sanctioned by the IDF if there were still Israelis living in the Gaza Strip…

Those considered the most appropriate people were appointed to positions in the central Cabinet, people from both political parties, with the aim and ambition of working together closely and fraternally.

Back room agreements were painstakingly forged, deals were clearly made, and explained publicly in a transparent fashion. In the day-to-day operation of Government, it is made clear who is speaking on behalf of themselves, their party or the Coalition.

This is probably the best example of cooperative, progressive politics since…I don’t know when. But all Christopher Booker seems to want to do is snipe, moan and smear, and appears to throw in as many factually incorrect allegations and fake statistics about wind power as he possibly can.

I certainly wouldn’t pay him to write such divisive, unreferenced, unverified stuff. What’s he trying to do ? Split public opinion ? :-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1298176/Chris-Huhne-Has-minister-history-unfit-job.html

“Has any minister in history seemed more hopelessly unfit to do his job? : By CHRISTOPHER BOOKER : 28th July 2010 : The penny is fast dropping that by far the most disastrous appointment made by David Cameron to his Coalition Cabinet was that of the ultra-green, Lib Dem millionaire Chris Huhne as our Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Yesterday, after Mr Huhne issued his first annual statement on Britain’s energy future, it was clear that we should all be very, very concerned about the future of Britain. As was only too predictable, the overall theme of Mr Huhne’s message was that ‘climate change is the greatest global challenge we face’. We must do everything we can and more to cut down very drastically on our ‘carbon emissions’, as we are now legally committed to do by the Climate Change Act – at a cost of £18 billion a year. But in the real world, the £100 billion-plus energy question that confronts us all in Britain today is how we are going to fill that massive, fast-looming gap in our electricity supplies when the antiquated power stations which currently supply us with two-fifths of the power needed to keep our economy running are forced to close…Like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown before him, he dreams we can somehow fill that gap by erecting 6,000 wind turbines in the seas around Britain’s shores, and thousands more across many of the most beautiful parts of our countryside. What is truly terrifying about Mr Huhne as our energy minister is that he seems so astonishingly ignorant about even the most basic principles of how electricity is produced…The Huhne solution to producing Britain’s energy is naivete verging on madness. But, most disturbingly of all, Mr Huhne is so infatuated with wind power that he seems to have convinced himself that, in cash terms, it is ‘intensely competitive’ with other means of making electricity. To make such a claim makes me believe that he’s never done a moment’s homework on the actual cost of wind power…If it wasn’t for the 100 per cent subsidy we all unwittingly pay to the developers of wind turbines – through a xompulsory levy in our electricity bills – no one would dream of building these ludicrously inefficient machines at all. Yet Mr Huhne tries to kid us into thinking that they are ‘intensely competitive’…”

I don’t know what Christopher Booker thinks he can achieve by apparently attempting to smear Chris Huhne. Huhne seems to be rather Teflon-covered, so Booker would need to do better that this, anyway.

Plus, you would have thought that Christopher Booker would be happy to have a more “libertarian” “conservative”, “right-wing” party, at least partially in power at last after 13 years. He probably believes in less taxes for the wealthy and businesses, less red tape in terms of regulatory control over business and financial activities; and he probably believes that a “small government” anti-Nanny State party like the Conservative Party can deliver that for him.

To his chagrin, he might find that more regulation and State intervention are necessary in the next decade or so – to compensate for the very lack of investment in energy infrastructure and plant he is fundamentally complaining about.

If you want more energy to meet the looming 2015 or 2017 “Energy Gap”, you are going to need more governance, because the private sector have been putting profit before investment ever since Our Dearly Beloved Margaret Thatcher The Chemist, Daughter Of A Most Grantham Grocer went down the route of the privatisation (selling off cheaply) of all public assets.

Keeping the Lights On now requires bold, central moves, and involves large amounts of tax revenue to be circulated through job creation and new energy projects, stimulating the Holy Economy like no other sector possibly can.

I mean, what else is going to give the Economy emergency resuscitation ? Manufacturing is dead. The Property bubble is well and truly burst. Financial Products are down the tube. Agriculture is flat. Technology is Chinese. Toys are Chinese. IKEA is Chinese. Everything we buy is made in China, in fact. Where’s the return on investment in Europe ? Only Energy provides the possibility of an expansion, of a strong, stable Economy.

You can forget Nuclear Power. Too expensive.

Spending money on wind turbines is never wasted. The fuel to drive wind turbines is free – not like the volatile prices we have seen for Fossil Fuels in the recent years.

There is a positive, significant rate of return on investing in wind power – and it has nothing to do with Government subsidies.

Wind Power is glorious, and if the turbulence profile outside my back door weren’t so choppy, I’d like to have a turbine in my back yard. Free power would increase my property value by 200% or so.