Авторизация
Меню

Календарь
 Июнь 
Пн
Вт
Ср
Чт
Пт
Сб
Вс
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30


Presidential Candidates, Do Not Get Dirty with Shale Gas! Address of the ecologist Valeriy Lovchinovskiy.
Green Video | 2014-09-05 11:47:15
Сообщение прочтено 58 раз

Presidential Candidates, Do Not Get Dirty with Shale Gas!
Address of the ecologist Valeriy Lovchinovskiy
 
The 5th of April, 2014
Izium district, Kharkiv region
 
Today I want to help the people, including some politicians, to dot all the I's in the matters of shale gas rhetoric.
 
Neither in the Ukrainian Internet space, nor in the information space in general there is any computation proving that the energy independence of Ukraine is connected with the extraction of shale gas.
 
This is so, firstly, due to the volume factor. In particular, at Yuzovskiy site, it was planned to produce no more than ten billion cubic meters even at the peak of production.
 
Ten billion cubic meters can not influence energy independence in any way. Considering the fact that this year we bought 30 billion cubic meters of gas from Russia, ten billion cubic metres would in no way allow our country to become energy independent even at the maximum production level.
 
Moreover, 65 per cent of this volume would belong to "Shell", which would use it as they see fit, including selling the product at world-wide prices, including, perhaps selling it abroad (which is allowed by the Agreement). So, there are no significant volumes to talk about.
 
Then there’s the issue of price. Obviously, shale gas under the conditions of our production will be much more expensive than gas of traditional gas fields of central basin type.
 
The only economic forecast, which was given by the so-called “great economist”, Mr Azarov, is supposedly $ 150 per thousand cubic meters.
 
This figure is absolutely unsubstantiated, because even in the US - with all their economic conditions, all their hedging issues, long term contracts, governmental support – even then the cost is around 200 dollars.
 
We do not take into account the market which is there now. We're talking about the real cost of production which is around $ 200.
 
You can accept it or argue it, but the Ukrainian production of tight gas in terms of our depth, geology, population level - it's a certain number of European characteristics - we would receive the price higher than the Gasprom’s price even now. Therefore, we cannot talk about energy independence.
 
I would also like to say a couple of words about buying gas from Gasprom. It is the fact that Gasprom has a huge margin in terms of gas prices decrease. And not because Gasprom wants to do it, but because market conditions would make Gasprom do it.
 
Because, on the one hand, there is a decrease in gas consumption in Europe, on the other hand, the Europeans desire to diversify supplies.
 
Moreover, natural gas liquefaction technology makes the world market combined, the Pacific, the American and European regions gather in one.
Therefore, there will be a world-wide price, and everyone will pay the world-wide price regardless of the factors which form this price.
 
Let’s discuss the issue of energy independence. It differs significantly when it is discussed by pseudo-economists such as Gonchar or pseudo-ecologists such as Eugen Ryabtsev and when serious politicians talk about it and make official statements - that's quite another matter.
 
We must understand that the aim of Ukraine is to buy gas as well as all European countries do, to have the same regulatory base and to develop successfully, because we have a certain amount of this resource.
 
The world should forget about energy independence or any other independence in any other natural resources because, firstly, they are exhausted, and, secondly, they are unevenly spread.
 
Someone has black soil, someone has ore, someone has banana plantations, someone has rubber. So all this should be properly obtained, produced, rationally used and probably sold at world-wide prices, and other resources should be bought at world-wide prices.
 
Let's imagine a country as an enterprise. No enterprise is able to produce all the resources which it requires. The aim of the enterprise is to operate under the conditions of a country, to buy the materials at fair prices, like others do, to pay the same taxes as everyone else does.
 
And so, the enterprise will develop. The same situation is with a country, which should be in a family of countries, in particular a European family.
We should buy gas at the prices at which it is bought by the Europeans.
 
And it is surprising when Ukraine is somehow trying to discuss the issue of energy independence, discussing supplies of reverse gas through the Czech Republic.
 
It is the same gas that comes from Germany via the North Stream-1, it is the same Russian gas. It is quite surprising that Germany sells Russian gas to us, and our politicians cannot agree on the price.
 
As an ecologist I know for sure that the world's natural resources are distributed unevenly. And in the future they will be distributed even more unevenly, because they disappear, the deficiency of them is created at the regional level and at the planetary level.
 
And talking about a country which can set itself a goal to be self-sufficient in natural resources - it is a utopia. And it discredits certain politicians.
 
Our country has never specialized solely in agriculture, and we have to export high-tech products based on energy-saving technologies. This way, the state will be competitive. This is the direction we should be moving in.
 
I would like to say a few words about our gas production industry. Only now we have realized that we have no army, and began trying to raise it somehow in accelerated pace, being united in front of joint threat.
 
But we understand that in our country, which has natural resources that can be mined, oil and gas, state-owned enterprises in fact do not have the opportunities to finance the projects to develop conventional gas production.
 
Why? Because our enterprises have always sold gas at the net cost to a network of intermediaries.
 
I want to say that in the time of Yushchenko gas was sold for $ 50, at the time of Yanukovych – for $ 100, but, nevertheless, it was going through intermediaries, and as a result the price for consumers grew.
 
And when Ukraine buys gas from Russia at 400 or 300 dollars, we are subsidizing their market, but we ruin ours because enterprises should not only be paid for the cost of production, but also have profit.
 
The situation is that gas from Ukrainian enterprises is supplied via the system of intermediaries and becomes more expensive, in fact its cost becomes nearly the same as import price.
 
Therefore, it is necessary to urgently raise the price of the gas for gas production enterprises of Ukraine, at least up to 200 dollars.
 
This way, Ukrainian companies would receive the ability of financing, getting loans, and we would stop the destruction of specialized enterprises. I mean "Poltava-geology", where there was unique experience, and saving the rest of these professionals and enterprises is an urgent issue. So, that’s why the issue of raising the price is mandatory.
 
Maybe it is even necessary to decrease the price for enterprises of extractive industries of all forms of ownership in Ukraine. Thus, it would, at least, reduce the final price.
 
It was the same with electricity in Poland, where prices have been decreased. But most importantly, such actions would develop our domestic production of natural gas and oil production. And, perhaps, the issue of energy security of the country would be understood in a completely new way.
 
I would like to say more about this important issue. Many officials say that the struggle against shale gas in Ukraine is financed by Gasprom. Well, to be honest, it is absolutely absurd for one simple reason, or rather not even for one reason, but for several reasons.
 
First of all, Russia demonstrates a complete disregard of environmental issues, in particular the ones concerning shale gas.
 
The only thing that one can gather from their rhetoric is that shale gas is expensive for Russia at the moment, but, nevertheless, an area for testing the technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has already been set aside in Tatarstan.
 
In terms of production of shale oil Russia has already had a significant technological progress. They drill up to one kilometer through the horizon to the layer about 4 meters thick. This is a major achievement of technology.
 
Therefore, only Russia can say that they do not need shale gas by now as it is really expensive. Well, in general, it is the way it is for Russia, which has certain amounts of conventional gas. So, Russia cannot be an example of rejection of technology of hydraulic fracturing or shale gas or shale oil production.
 
Let’s proceed to the next point: financing the campaign against shale gas. The key point, which I try to show with all my speech, is that, first of all, in Ukraine there is a problem with the plans for shale gas production. And this is definitely a problem which is used by the enemies of our country.
 
What do I mean by ‘the enemies of the state’? Well, let's firstly make a short characteristic of the communists. In terms of recent events the situation can be described by the fact that the representatives of the communists in Kharkiv have been collecting signatures for banning the demolition of Lenin monument since the 23rd of February.
 
And then the communists took this package of documents to the Russian consulate on Olminskogo street and solemnly handed it to the consul, under the cameras of Russian channels.
 
And the document appeared to be a request to Vladimir Putin to send troops to the territory of Ukraine to protect the Russian-speaking population. Here, in general, we can see the actions of the communists in the situation that has now developed in Ukraine.
 
Of course, the communists, and not only them, would use the problems of our country in their own interests. Well, I'll just mention very shortly the issue of federalism, the issue of illegal annexation of Crimea, arranging pseudo-elections there.
 
I will give a simple example concerning Russia. After 2004, being very frightened with Ukrainian revolution, Russia had practically destroyed the autonomous regions on its territory. They became districts of relevant administrative centers.
 
For example, after the revolution of 2004 in Ukraine the Evenkiyskiy Autonomous Region of Russia was turned into Evenkiyskiy District of Krasnoyarsk Region through a certain procedure. Therefore, Russia as an example of developed federalization - well, it's, to be honest, just a shame, a blasphemy.
 
Realizing the fact that people are dissatisfied with the new government as it began to support the shale gas extraction, the enemies of our country will play on this issue. But this does not mean that this issue is somehow funded by Gasprom or the Russian side.
 
Again, I would of course like to say, that if we talk about the enemies, who have been already formed, such as the communists, of course, we cannot exclude the assumption that they get money for protest actions, including those against shale gas. They may put up their flags and sign their petitions. It is quite obvious.
 
And the Russian channels - they see the problem, they see that we had a government which created the corrupt Agreement, they see that we received the new government which continues the same actions.
 
They see the people's dissatisfaction, they will use any discontent. Especially taking into account the fact that this discontent is aimed directly at the new authorities.
 
 Mr. Taruta, the new governor of Donetsk region, said’the campaign against shale gas is financed by Gasprom’.What does this statement mean exactly? By the way, we will mention Mr. Taruta many more times. So what do his words mean? Does this mean that the environmentalists who are struggling against shale gas are paid by Gasprom?
 
Environmentalists have been fighting against this, so to say, avalanche of dirt, that will soon engulf the regions of both Donbass and the West (Olesskiy site), since 2011.
 
So we can state that the environmentalists have seen this problem for a long time. They are now struggling against it. Respected organizations take part in this struggle.
 
And when, for example, some official says that the campaign is financed by Gasprom, it is an accusation in venality of environmentalists. With such logic, all the environmentalists can simply say that those officials, who lobby Shell’s interests, receive bribes from Shell.
 
In particular, this can be assumed about the governor of Donetsk region, who lobbies the interests of "Shell".
 
Even in the times of Yanukovych it was obvious that this Agreement was not in the interests of Ukraine due to many points. And the fact that some politicians now want to exclude "SPK-Geoservice" from the agreement to exclude the corruption component - it does not change its essence.
 
The agreement with Shell is absurd, including the points about 65 percent of compensatory production given to "Shell", and the fact that "Nadra Yuzovskiy" is the investor like Shell is, in particular for Yuzovskiy site.
 
Then a lot of questions arise. Originally, officials from the Party of Regions in the days of Yanukovych stated that Ukraine would not invest a single euro in the project.
 
But if "Nadra Yuzovskiy " is the same investor as "Shell", well, then, a question arises- will Ukraine have to pay? We do not even mention the problem that someone takes our resources, they are taken for a certain price, and it is unclear how they are distributed.
 
There is also another question.  The Agreement between the company "Shell", "Nadra Yuzovskiy" and Ukraine is a secret one. Has Taruta, the governor of the Donetsk region, seen the Agreement?
 
If he did, he has the right to speak about any economic benefit. He talks about the economic benefit of 200 million dollars. This figure is questionable, but this figure has been repeatedly stated by Graham Tiley.
 
He stated it in the Kharkiv region, saying that the Kharkiv region would receive around 200 million dollars. Probably, he could announce the same figure to Taruta. And Taruta speaks about the benefit of Ukraine, or the benefit of Donetsk region, based on a figure of 200 million dollars.
 
Then, there is a statement of Eugen Yakovlev, who said, that in order to get this volume of gas, we would need to drill 140,000 wells. Well, let's take 200 million dollars, 140 thousand wells, billions of cubic meters of waste substances, which no one knows how to deal with.
 
The fluid volume is still unclear because by now there is no calculation for the number of wells, multiplied by drilling depth, to know at least the volume needed for water penetration, we do not even mention hundreds of thousands of hydraulic fracturing operations.
 
I do not understand how an intelligent wealthy person can claim that 200 million dollars earned from Yuzovskiy site would make this project worthy for Ukraine.
 
I do not want to accuse the governor of Donetsk region of ​​accepting bribes, but we can see a kind of shortsightedness, economic and ecological illiteracy and, so to say, supporting the interests of foreign companies. The appropriate regulatory authorities have to deal with this issue.
 
Returning to the Agreement with "Shell", I can say that by now the only correct and very balanced statement that I have heard was the statement of the governor of the Kharkiv region Igor Baluta.
 
After the meeting with Graham Tiley he said that we would do everything to help within the framework of the current legislation. He was right to say that the company "Shell" does not differ from other companies.
 
Of course, the government should create equal conditions. And as to the Agreement – it is not an issue of the regional level. The agreement was signed at the level of the Cabinet of Ministers, so no regional official could influence it anyhow, he could only get it, read it and be responsible for its implementation on the terms of equal conditions for any investment activity.
 
And again I would like to address Mr. Taruta,  the governor of the Donetsk region, and to say that his assaults on environmentalists are just humiliating for one simple reason.
 
Ecologists are those people, who do not have to fight, they are those people, who identify problems, who may know how to solve them, and the authorities should solve these problems, listening to ecologists.
 
And those economists who believe that they can take and calculate and predict everything - it has nothing to do with solving problems and qualified monitoring.
 
Many of the problems are known to ecologists. Some of the problems disappear, some become burning issues. Some problems are transformed into ecological disasters and only then media and authorities start discussing them.
 
For example the sumps such as Kalush near Lviv where the problem is simply unsolvable,  and unfortunately people leave.
 
I will give a simple example. We are now talking with you on the banks of the Severskiy Donets river.
 
This place is called Pogoreloye and it is near the village of Studenok. During the second World War the battle front had been here for 8 months. This place is all furrowed with trenches of both parties; here it is all watered with blood, filled up with bones.
 
Even now before making this speech here I found, just here, I found a shell. This is a wartime shell, a German one. We can assume that someone was killed.
 
5 km from here this river Severskiy Donets crosses the boundary of Donetsk region. Here, three or five years ago, there were crayfish, seven years ago, there were pike-perch, and now you can find neither crayfish nor the pike-perch.
 
This means that we have a steady worsening of the quality of water here, and this water is used in Donetsk region, including for drinking water supply. Ask an economist to calculate how much it would cost to return crayfish to the river. I do not mean to put them to the river, or to put their spawn - no. I mean how much it would cost to turn the water into that state of cleanness as it was three, five, twenty years ago.
 
And when we talk about the self-sufficient officials, who came to power, in particular in Donetsk region, let them try to resolve this issue, to improve the quality of water to the level as it was several years ago. It's impossible, it's impossible. It is possible under certain long-term government programs at a very huge investment, and I think now our state simply cannot afford it.
 
Now I would like to appeal again to the governor of the Donetsk region, who, in my opinion, does not see environmental problems connected with the extraction of shale gas. But he will certainly see them. And when we talk about shale gas, we must understand that the populism, that officials sometimes allow themselves, will eventually turn into a tragedy for the people who live in the territory. They will have to continue consuming the natural resources, which are fundamental for their lives, but those resources would be of worse quality.
 
Therefore, the aim now is to stop the decline in water quality. Just stop. And the issue of shale gas, it just does not fit into this program. In no way. It is connected with additional risks. And we are not talking simply about the risk of worsening the situation, but the risk of disaster.
 
I beg for balanced approach to the Agreement with "Shell", because here is the river that flows through the Donetsk region, it can not only become  unsuitable for life of crayfish, fish, some water insects or organisms, this water may simply become unsuitable for anything.
 
Be responsible and wise. Try to restore its cleanness. But don’t spoil it, please. The officials swear their allegiance to people and desire to gain people’s trust. The goal of the officials is to protect those people and so to leave great memory of themselves.
 
It is clear that "Shell" acts in a hurry. And let’s see why this company is now in a hurry. We understand that the corrupt Agreement was signed with the regime of Yanukovych, but let's understand the participants. On the one hand it was the Yanukovych regime represented by "Nadra Yusivskiy", the internal company "SPK-Geoservice" and the government of Ukraine.
 
It was Yanukovych’s regime, too. On the other hand there was a company "Shell". And now, when the process of lustration of power takes place, certainly, there are expectations to reconsider the relationships that Yanukovych regime built with "Shell". They should be reconsidered in terms of clearness of legal procedure, compliance with environmental standards, and certainly from the standpoint of benefits for Ukraine.
 
And when there are new acting ministers who have not yet had time to have a closer look at their workplaces, Graham Tiley started to visit their cabinets and offer some minor changes in the agreement, for example, to exclude "SPK-Geoservice" from "Nadra Yusivskiy".
 
But we should understand that the "SPK-Geoservice" is 10% in the company, which claims less than 20% of the hydrocarbons. It is only 10% out of 20%. It does not matter for the distribution of hydrocarbons or for solving any other matters. Yes, these steps may be important in terms of the concept of transparency and anti corruption, but the problems are more serious. The Agreement is classified and the people who are interested cannot get acquainted with it.
 
There was a moment when Graham Tiley and other representatives of Shell said that the Agreement was classified due to the fact that it had not been signed with Chevron. But by now the Agreement with Chevron has been already signed, so we can certainly see that the secrecy of Shell’s Agreement has another purpose. Has Mr. Taruta seen this Agreement? Can he answer some fundamental questions?
 
I would also like to state what the production of shale gas is, in a very easy form, or rather what the intentions for its extraction are. Let's take a simple idea. Let's build a nuclear reactor in the center of Kiev.
 
Is it a good idea? A lot of emotions arise immediately. But I can certainly state, that from the point of view of those who claim to be caring for our energy independence, well, this idea has a lot of advantages. Firstly, there is water for cooling, the water storage pond.
 
Secondly, the object would be located in the center of Ukraine and the delivery cost would be minimum. Thirdly, the region may receive taxation benefits for electricity, thus begin to develop. Here you can feel the similar rhetoric as in the discussions concerning shale gas.
 
On the other hand, there would be a lot of people who would ask a series of questions that need to be answered and this would be right. Why? What would be the consequences? Which technology would be used? What kind of nuclear reactor? Is the technology safe? Are there guarantees of safety?
 
I remind you that "Shell" declares a number of layers of protection. Chevron does the same. But we also remember the words of Yurіy Tunitsa, Professor and Academician of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine, who said that Chernobyl nuclear power station had also had 4 layers of protection.
 
So, the question would certainly arise whether we need to build nuclear reactors for our energy independence in the center of Kiev or not. And normal debates would state a number of questions. Maybe it is better to build not in Kiev? Any other place? Or maybe it is better to build not a nuclear reactor? Or maybe nuclear, but what kind?
 
The same questions arise in the situation with the safety of shale gas production. Donbass is now the most densely populated region, and the technology that is now being imposed there can make the territory uninhabitable in the long-term perspective.
 
Therefore, this issue must be discussed from all the standpoints in all the possible ways in an open discussion, which is impossible now with Shell. Not a single document has been published, the local communities are actually misled by PR managers, and we see that even the officials inexplicably take the position that is unacceptable for the local people.
 
Once again I would like to return to the words of some officials. I have already said that the statement of an official of any level that the campaign against shale gas is financed by Gasprom, and the accusation of environmentalists of getting this money and being dishonest, - such statements do not show an official in good light. But I would like to draw your attention not only to these statements, but mostly to their underlying reasons.
 
An important thing that I would like to say to Mr. Taruta is that in the Netherlands there is now a moratorium on shale gas, particularly on the technology of hydraulic fracturing, for 18 months because of the impact on the environment. I’d also like to remind him that the company "Royal Dutch Shell" is under the Dutch jurisdiction. It is therefore surprising that some company tries to persuade Ukrainian partners and the local communities that the technology is safe, when in the country this company originated from the technology is banned because of the impact on the environment.
 
In order to understand whether Ukrainian officials are honest in the issues of shale gas, I sent a series of letters to the Prosecutor General and the Security Service and to those officials in particular to find out what basis they have for their statements.
 
We can trust them only if, indeed, they show the documents received from the company "Shell", showing that, for example, some institute made some appropriate research and proved that this technology would be safe, they take into account Donbass geology, karst formations, the mines, where mining is conducted using mining methods.
 
If the optimistic speeches about shale gas are just based on the charm of Graham Tiley, if Graham Tiley met the officials and persuaded them not to believe the Ukrainian scientists but to believe him that shale gas would mean happiness for Ukraine and only Gasprom would be against it, then of course it is the game that can’t be lost by the foreign company we are talking about.
 
We understand that according to the Agreement "Shell" and Ukraine are on different sides. And, of course, in this situation, an official who makes such statements and who has no documents proving the safety of the technology, he/she definitely not only slanders the environmentalists and those communities which do not support shale gas production, but he/she really plays on the side of "Shell".
 
What do we have now? We now have a very difficult political situation in our country, an extremely difficult one. And I had already said that the ministers have not yet even got acquainted with the team which they would be working with, and of course the old team had not been fully changed yet.
 
What does this mean? This means that now if our Yatsenuk’s government prolongs this Agreement with Shell, there will be a simple situation, as there has already been with Yanukovych and gas agreements with Russia. What do I mean? When Yulia Tymoshenko signed an agreement that was not satisfying for Ukraine because of the price, this agreement was then prolonged and put at the interstate level exactly by Yanukovich in Kharkiv (the so-called Kharkiv agreements).
 
At that moment Yanukovych had just become the President, he had no time to realize that Kremlin called him to Kharkiv in order to have him sign something that, I am sure, he did not understand completely.
 
The same thing is now happening with "Shell". Before the new team somehow started solving practical issues for which people stood on the Maidan, the company "Shell" had come and required actions.
 
I would like to say that those people who can now sign or prolong the Agreement, they represent a certain political force. And then I would like to remind you, that now there are presidential elections in our country, and so, it would be right if all the candidates somehow showed their position in such an important issue as extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons on Yuzivskiy and Olesskiy sites. And so they would get more supporters or lose them.
 
In two months Ukraine will not solve the problem of energy independence. These actions only benefit the company "Shell". We do not understand, but we prolong. Thus, the new President would become a hostage because if the agreement now gets verified thus getting a go-ahead, it means that it will be possible to terminate it only through the courts, and not through the Ukrainian courts.
 
And I very much doubt that it will be practically possible, knowing that Shell’s contracts usually include immunity from changes in legislation. Therefore, if the Agreement that Yanukovych signed with the company "Shell" starts, it will be in force for 50 years.
 
So, here’s my suggestion. In 2 months we will not solve the problem of energy independence. The only thing that could happen in 2 months may be the juridical start of this Agreement, and probably one-third of some one more well may be drilled, for example in Krasnolimanskiy district.
 
Therefore, I invite all political forces to show their position in this matter and put this question aside before the presidential elections. And then, after the elections, it would be appropriate to start solving this issue.
 
For example, we have a candidate from the Party of Regions. It is Mikhail Dobkin. Party of Regions in the times of Yanukovych, this political force did not criticize Shell, but nearly prayed for this company. We can recall the statement of Sapronov at the committee hearings on the 15th of May, 2013.
 
It is perfectly normal for Mikhail Dobkin to continue to gain support among his electorate and say how good the company "Shell" is, and that all the other issues would be solved. This is normal. He can go ahead and pursue these ideas.
 
Yulia Tymoshenko, Yatsenyuk. All of them had stated support for this course of action. At National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy" Yatsenyuk said that it had been Yulia Tymoshenko’s party who helped to push this issue through the Ivano-Frankivsk and Lviv regional councils. This statement concerned Olesskiy area and contract with the company "Chevron".
 
Well, if Arseniy Yatsenyuk is such a good economist, it would be great if he took all this economic knowledge and started proving people why it is beneficial from the standpoint of economics. He can come to the local communities and explain that 10 billion cubic meters are extracted, 65% of this is compensation production, which will be sold by Shell, the remainder is divided among three partners, and then Ukraine will sell our part in case everything happens as planned. And he can also show the plan of economic development in the regions, where there would be no water. Let the voters listen, believe, understand. People have become quite educated when it concerns such issues.
 
As for Mr. Tyagnibok’s ‘Svoboda’ party, they have to say that they are for production of any mineral resources, but under certain conditions. The basic condition is the permission of local community, and then it is the compliance with all the ecological standards. This is an absolutely normal position. Moreover, it is, in general, a consistent one.
 
Well, Mr. Tigipko can continue to play the role of Korolevskaya: merging with the Party of Regions, changing position to and fro, leaving them, then kind of not completely leaving them. He should certainly join the opinion that every project started by Yanukovych was good. Because it was the Party of Regions who gave political birth to Yanukovych, and they cannot disown this fact. Tigipko was a person who spoke to the people the same way as the representatives of the Party of Regions do. So there are no alternatives here.
 
But now the prolongation of the Agreement with «Shell» needs to be stopped before the presidential elections. And then let the President take all the responsibility. I really do not recommend those who are now acting officials to start the process with shale gas and take the responsibility.
 
The seeming inactivity of people who are against shale gas production is being used to ‘Shell’s’ advantage. The reason why these people do not start  protest actions is because they do not want their voices to be joined to separatism or some Russian, pro-Russian movement. But they do not want shale gas. And these people, this protest can be compared to a loaded gun – at one point it will fire.
 
And, of course, the enemies of the state can use it in any direction. And our politicians should solve this problem. Because there are problems that have been created over the years, due to the different mentality of the west and east of Ukraine, a certain way of teaching history, Soviet propaganda, but there is a problem that has been created by "Shell" and Yanukovych’s regime. This problem is fresh. Graham Tiley raises it and believes that our country has to move in this direction.
 
Communists and different kinds of reformed representatives of the Party of Regions haven’t gone anywhere – many of them still hold their positions in the government offices and committees. Their consciousness has not changed completely. And they have not turned closer to facing the people. They will also use this issue against the government. So please, postpone it until we get the results of the presidential elections.
 
Let Graham Tiley wait two months, because if he does not wait everything will be completely different. There are a lot of people who do not want shale gas. They will eventually come and stop the Shell’s machines or put fences, they will not allow Shell to work. It will be a resonance, it will be the same problem but in a very different way.
 
We should understand that by now the Agreement with Shell has not yet started to act. This means that now there is no necessity to struggle against it in court. It is just needed to postpone its prolongation. Because all the documents that had been signed by Yanukovych need to be reconsidered in terms of questions how the golden lavatory bowls, Stavickiy’s gold and all this lifestyle appeared.
 
So now Graham Tiley needs to be informed in an official letter that the consideration of the 50-year agreement with “Shell” would be transferred to the new Cabinet, which would appear after the presidential elections. This is what needs to be done.
 
This information cannot be absolutely reliable, but I know that "Shell" has already unofficially started acting and financing these projects. And we know that financing the projects that may harm the environment without having a positive assessment can cause certain financial sanctions, revocation, penalties and fines.
 
I think, first of all, in order to understand whom we work with, it is necessary to study the history of this company. I recommend Ian Cummins' book “Shell shocks the world" to everyone.  This is really a book that has won the global audience. It was published four years ago.
 
This book describes immense environmental pollution that could be observed in areas where "Shell" worked, not necessarily the sites where oil was being extracted, but also the processing plants.
 
This book describes the situation in Nigeria, where there was a real genocide, a genocide against the local people. All this for super profits. We can learn from the experience of Nigeria. This country is one of the world leaders in exported energy resources, but there is not just poverty there, there is an endless civil war, which is supported and financed.
 
Therefore, as we build relationships with such a giant as "Shell", we should make every effort to protect the interests of Ukraine, to develop mechanisms for protection and rational use of the resources that we have. And, of course, to extract them without harm to the environment, to extract them for the benefit of local communities and in the interests of our country in general.
 
And once again I appeal to all the candidates running for presidency. Be environmentally literate and environmentally responsible. Trust less if you deal with such companies as "Shell". Check more times, believe your voters, stay on the side of Ukraine.
 
And in any case do not continue any deal, started by Mr. Yanukovych. He couldn’t have done anything that would suit Ukraine’s interests. The same goes for his team. All their projects require additional checks, additional examination and analysis.
 
Now any official who would sign this Agreement or any ratification, or some partial ratification, they actually become associates in the case of Mr. Stavitskiy. It was found out that he owned gold, and it is not clear where it came from. It is clear that he earned it with the help of some transactions similar to those which I talked about today.
 
I wish everyone to win. First of all, to win over your own destructive ambitions, as environmental slogans, environmental themes are very unpopular. Nevertheless, those politicians who take on the task to solve environmental problems will be the ones to really win.
 
Thank you. I believe that you would take rational ideas out of my speech and that your approach towards this issue would be governmentally wise and careful. Thank you very much.
 
Green Video®
MBGV 0492-1GV (EN)


Категории: Ukraine  | nature  | Shell  | Green Video  | Chevron  | No Fracking  | shale gas  | Lovchinovsky  | Yanukovych  | corruption  | Mode  | Hughes  | treatment  | ecologist  | Government  | hydraulicfracturing  | fordrinkingwater  | thenaturalenvironment  | Lovchinovsky Valery  | Presidential  | Candidates