“Bolle” e Siria: bad and good news per lo shale-gas

di Marco Campagna

Eccoci di nuovo a parlare di “shale-gas con le bolle” come lo chiamai qualche tempo fa.

Nel mio articolo precedente parlavo del fatto che, secondo alcuni esperti (Andy Hall, guru del trading, in primis), negli anni passati ci sia stata fin troppa fiducia  sui rendimenti attesi dei pozzi di shale gas e shale oil americani, e che questa sovrastima (stimata dal Post Carbon Institute tra il 100% e il 500% della produzione realmente registrata) abbia portato alla formazione di una “bolla” non troppo dissimile dall’altra ben più famosa bolla dei sub-prime. Infatti, secondo Hall ma anche per il Fondo Monetario Internazionale, il repentino declino della produzione dei pozzi avrebbe potuto generare la necessità di aumentare la trivellazione di pozzi fino ad un livello insostenibile economicamente, generando inoltre la diffusione di prodotti finanziari di copertura che, se nelle mani sbagliate, avrebbero potuto fare qualche danno inaspettato. Fatto il “riassunto della puntata precedente”, che può essere letta integralmente qui, passiamo alle novità degli ultimi giorni.

Da una recente analisi targata Bloomberg, nei primi sei mesi del 2013 il mercato nordamericano degli asset oil & gas si è dimezzato rispetto allo stesso periodo dell'anno scorso, passando da 54 a 26 miliardi di dollari. Compagnie importanti come BHP e Shell hanno drasticamente ridimensionato i loro investimenti in shale gas e shale oil. Sembra che la corsa a questi “fossili non convenzionali” negli USA inizi a rallentare, e qualcuno inizia a chiedersi se gas e petrolio da scisti siano veramente in grado di mantenere le promesse di prosperità di poco tempo fa.

Anche evitando inutili catastrofismi, è però innegabile che, un po’ per il fatto che i prezzi del gas negli Usa siano scesi nel 2012 a causa (o grazie a, dipende dai punti di vista) dell'oversupply, e un po’ perché in effetti alcuni pozzi stiano rendendo meno del previsto, si è verificata una contrazione di investimenti, facendo così calare il valore degli asset. Dopo i record degli ultimi tre anni il volume degli asset energetici scambiati sul mercato nordamericano ha toccato il minimo dal 2004.

Le aziende si stanno concentrando sullo sfruttamento dei progetti già operativi e si sono praticamente fermate sul fronte nuove acquisizioni: oltre al fatto che, a mio avviso, ci sia una  normale fase di assestamento successiva ad un boom iniziale, secondo gli analisti il motivo di questo slowdown è dovuto alla difficoltà di giustificare nuovi investimenti, dato che i giacimenti ottenuti nella corsa avvenuta dal 2009 al 2012 attualmente come valore sono ben al di sotto del prezzo cui sono stati acquistati. Insomma, dopo il boom del 2008-2012, per la prima volta da quando si sono diffuse le tecniche di trivellazione che permettono di ottenere gas e petrolio dagli scisti, gli investimenti in shale gas sono calati.

Questo rallentamento, osserva Bloomberg, potrebbe durare per anni e minaccia di ostacolare la crescita della produzione di gas e petrolio. Le aziende che hanno investito nello shale nel rush degli ultimi 3 anni, ora con gli asset che valgono meno di quanto si prevedeva, si trovano a corto di risorse per finanziare nuove trivellazioni. Più i produttori sono indebitati e costretti a vendere asset per finanziarsi, più il valore di questi calerà.

Il tutto fa quindi tornare in mente le previsioni di Andy Hall e del FMI di qualche tempo fa, ovvero che forse si stava riponendo fin troppa fiducia nel petrolio e gas da scisti, gonfiando così una nuova bolla finanziaria.

Fin qui le “cattive notizie” per lo shale-gas e oil, ma, facendo un “volo pindarico” fino alla crisi siriana, c’è invece chi vede good news all’orizzonte.

Nick Butler, del Financial Times, espone la possibilità che la bollente situazione in Siria possa rafforzare la “causa” degli idrocarburi non-convenzionali. Butler parte dal fatto che, già in questi giorni, l’effetto Siria si sia fatto sentire sui mercati del petrolio, facendo arrivare il Brent a 115$/b: il motivo è ovviamente che i mercati temono l’eventualità che USA ed Europa non riescano a fermarsi ad un mero “bombarda e fuggi”, ma che invece accendano ancor di più il conflitto sunniti-sciiti (con asse Arabia Saudita-Iran), rimanendovi impantanati. In effetti, che l’intervento in Siria sia tutt’altro che ben pianificato e con chiari obbiettivi, è piuttosto lapalissiano.

Tornando al ragionamento di Butler, viene giustamente fatto notare che questa febbre siriana, come tante altre, passerà velocemente e che inoltre la Siria è un attore nettamente minore nello scenario dei produttori di petrolio e gas medio-orientali: infatti l’Europa (primo importatore di greggio siriano) ne ha fatto facilmente a meno.  Dal punto di vista globale, con la crescita della Cina in fase di rallentamento, l’India che non sembra ancora avere quella struttura istituzionale necessaria per attrarre gli investimenti nelle infrastrutture necessarie a spingerne lo sviluppo, l’Europa in netto calo dei consumi e gli USA alle prese con il famoso boom degli idrocarburi non convenzionali, il reale rischio per uno shortage di olio o gas sul mercato è ancora decisamente basso.

Ma ecco la considerazione finale di Butler: il più grande impatto della situazione siriana, egiziana, libica e della meno nota situazione irachena, è che il "mondo che consuma" si stancherà del Medio Oriente e dei suoi conflitti infiniti, vista l’importanza primaria della sicurezza degli approvvigionamenti. Per questo gli eventi in Siria danno un nuovo incentivo allo sviluppo di rifornimenti energetici indigeni e low-cost, rendendo così Bashar Al-Assad il miglior sponsor per l’industria dello shale-gas.

Fracking: Dash for Cash, by Economist

Why in USA, though anti-fracking-protests exist, many locals populations allowed the execution of hydrofracking drilling for shale gas and oil, and, contrarily, in UK the protest is becoming a national and irremovable  issue? The American answer is easy:

Stuff their mouths with cash.

“THERE are many, many more of us than there are of you,” shouted protesters in Balcombe, a village in southern England with an exploratory drilling rig and a population swollen by eco-warriors, to the police and the frackers. Sadly, they are right. Britons are broadly opposed to hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, or “fracking”—at least if it might happen anywhere near their homes. Cuadrilla, an energy firm, has already been spooked into shutting down its rig.

Fracking has transformed America’s energy market and helped the country out of recession. It can create jobs, lower bills and reduce dependence on unreliable, autocratic oil- and gas-producing countries. Once a well is drilled—something that can be done increasingly speedily—it is scarcely more of a blot on the landscape than a garden shed. Nobody knows whether the earth under Britain can be pummelled into giving up much oil and gas, although the latest estimates suggest there is a lot of the stuff. Why not start looking?

For two broad reasons, say the protesters. The first objection to fracking, favoured by Greenpeace and smaller green groups like No Dash for Gas, is environmental. Hydrocarbons, say the campaigners, are bad; the methane occasionally emitted from wells is a greenhouse gas; fracking can pollute water. The second objection, voiced more often by locals carrying “Frack off” signs, is to the lorries and disruption that come along with mining: pure NIMBYism.

The environmental objections are weak. Natural gas is far cleaner than coal. America’s many wells have produced little pollution—and the danger could be reduced by decent regulation. Technology is making it possible to drill many wells from a single pad and to reuse the water that is pumped in.

Oddly, the NIMBYs have a stronger case. Fracking is indeed a nuisance, particularly while wells are being drilled. Lorries clog the roads. Workers spend money locally—but they also get drunk and fight locally. In western Wyoming, rising crime strikingly tracked an increase in drilling.

Stuff their mouths with cash

Fracking has boomed in America partly because local people have been paid off handsomely. Landowners can sell the rights to the hydrocarbons under their fields. States tax extracted oil and gas, and redistribute much of the revenue to the affected counties, which spend it on glorious schools and fire stations. America has NIMBYs too—and some states have banned fracking outright—but money has proved a powerful salve.

In centralised Britain, by contrast, almost all the proceeds from fracking that do not flow to miners would end up in the Treasury’s coffers. Oil and gas rights are held in effect by the crown, not landowners. George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, sets the tax on shale-gas production: it is 30%, much lower than taxes on North Sea fields. Mining firms pledge to pay £100,000 per well and 1% of revenues to local communities (not yet defined). As a result of a broad reform to business rates, local authorities may also be able to keep a share of the rates paid by energy firms, subject to complex calculations. This is simply too small and too vague a lure.

The ideal solution would be to radically decentralise the tax system and allow local authorities greater freedom to set extraction taxes—which would encourage miners to go where they are least disliked. Unfortunately, the government is unlikely to loosen its grip over taxation. But one simple change would help. Following long protests against wind farms, in April the rules were changed to allow local authorities to keep all the business rates paid by turbine installers. Do the same for fracking.

No middle ground in fracking debate, by Guy Chazan (FT)

A useful and clear Q&A article to help everyone wants to know more about hydraulic fracking and shale gas. Financial Times (here with Guy Chazan) is trying to consider pros and cons of fracking, presenting both sides of the same coin in a hard-to-find impartial manner.

Enjoy your read.

Balcombe, the leafy West Sussex village where UK shale pioneer Cuadrilla is drilling for oil, is ground zero in an increasingly fiery national debate about fracking, the controversial extraction technique.

On one side is David Cameron, prime minister, who says exploiting the UK’s shale gas reserves will drive down energy bills and make Britain more competitive. On the other are environmentalists who say fracking poisons water supplies, pollutes the atmosphere and triggers earthquakes. Attitudes are hardening, as the two sides dig in. “The problem is there’s no middle ground any more,” says Joseph Dutton of Leicester University’s Global Gas Security Project. “We need an informed, rational debate, not the highly emotional discourse we have right now.”

Exhibit A is Gasland, a 2010 documentary that shows a Colorado man setting his kitchen tap water on fire with a cigarette lighter. Regulators said that was in fact caused by “biogenic” gas that has been detected in local groundwater for years, and had nothing to do with fracking. “There are a lot of misconceptions,” says Susan Brantley, professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. But they have proved enduring, and are even influencing policy, as well as public opinion. France and Bulgaria have banned fracking outright, and green campaigners say the UK should do the same. The FT considers the process and its pros and cons.

What is shale?

Shales are the most abundant form of sedimentary rock. They also serve as the “source rock” for oil and gas that migrates over time into conventional reservoirs, where it can easily be extracted. A lot of hydrocarbons are still in shale, but for decades, geologists could not figure out a way to access them, stymied by the low permeability of the rock. In recent years, that has changed. Oil companies in the US worked out a way of using techniques such as horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, and 3D seismic imaging to unlock North America’s vast shale resources.

What is fracking?

Fracking involves pumping fluid into a shale formation at high pressure to create cracks in the rock. The fluid contains a “proppant” such as sand which “props” open the fractures: the oil and gas then flows through these pathways towards the well. The fracking fluid is mainly made up of water, but also contains chemical additives such as polymers to reduce friction and allow the water to be pumped at lower pressures.

Is fracking new?

About a million wells have been fracked in the US since the 1940s, when the technique was first used, although pressures used in the process have increased vastly since then. The big change happened in the 1990s when fracking was applied to shale and, combined with horizontal drilling, released enormous quantities of gas that had previously been impossible to extract economically.

What has been the effect?

Shale gas production has soared in the US, providing a wave of cheap and abundant energy. In 2000, shale represented just two per cent of US natural gas supply. By 2012 it was 37 per cent. Last year, the surge in output pushed the US gas price to 10-year lows.

Can it happen here?

The government and Cuadrilla say yes. Latest estimates suggest there are about 1,300tn cubic feet of shale gas in the northwest of England alone. Even if only a tenth of that can be extracted, it is still the equivalent of 51 years’ supply. The government says developing this resource will create jobs, bring down fuel bills and reduce dependence on imported gas. Even the Church of England says fracking could help tackle fuel poverty: “blanket opposition . . . fails to take into account those who suffer most when resources are scarce”, it says.

What are the environmental concerns?

One of the most common objections is that the process can contaminate groundwater. Environmentalists say that methane can leak into aquifers in areas where shale gas drilling has taken place – a fact confirmed in a 2011 study by Duke University. But the industry argues that fractures usually remain separated from groundwater aquifers by thousands of feet of rock, and there is next to no risk of leakage, especially if well casings are structurally sound.

One academic review published in 2011 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that the environmental impacts of shale are “challenging but manageable”, and that properly constructed wells should pose no problem. But it did identify some risks, such as surface spills of fracking fluids, pollution from inappropriate wastewater disposal and excessive water withdrawals.

Water use is a key issue. Some 4-6m gallons of water are required to frack each well and in some parts of the US that have been hit by drought, there are concerns about how fracking can affect the availability of water for other purposes, such as agriculture.

Waste water is also a problem. After a well is fracked, some of the fluid comes back up to the surface along with “flowback”, naturally-occurring water from deep underground that can contain pollutants or even radioactivity and requires careful disposal. Regulators are now increasingly calling on companies to reduce waste by recycling more water from fracking operations.

Can fracking cause earthquakes?

Cuadrilla had to suspend operations in the northwest of England in 2011 after its fracking caused a sequence of “seismic events”. But experts say fracking-related earthquakes are relatively rare and, when they do occur, are too small to be detected on the surface. They say coal-mining is much more likely to cause tremors than fracking for gas.

A larger problem is the disposal wells where flowback water from fracking is deposited for permanent storage. A study by researchers at Columbia University says that as many as 109 tremors in Ohio in 2011 and 2012 were directly linked to a well in which wastewater from fracking in nearby Pennsylvania was being injected deep underground.

What about the impact on communities?

Some of the residents of Balcombe are neutral on the fracking process, but do not want to see a big industrial development on the edge of their village. They worry about the impact on local air quality of increased road traffic and gas flaring. That, say experts, is understandable. “You can be ‘pro’ shopping malls, but not want a shopping mall in your backyard,” says Prof Brantley.

What about climate change?

The broader objection to fracking is that the more it is done, the more natural gas is produced and burnt, and the more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, exacerbating global warming. Environmentalists say shale gas distracts attention and investment from renewables such as wind and solar that are crucial tools in fighting climate change. In the words of Caroline Lucas, the Green MP who was arrested during the Balcombe protests: “The evidence is clear that fracking undermines efforts to tackle the climate crisis.”

On the other hand, fracking’s promoters point to the fact that the increased use of gas can cut carbon emissions. Gas emits half the carbon dioxide per unit of energy of coal. As a result, US energy-related emissions of CO2 fell by 450m tonnes over the past five years as the power sector switched from coal to gas.

Yesterday's fuel

L'Economist sostiene che il picco di consumo del petrolio si stia avvicinando inesorabilmente, sottolineando una differenza sostanziale: non è l'offerta che presto potrebbe iniziare a diminuire, bensì la domanda.

Perchè?

Buona lettura

The world’s thirst for oil could be nearing a peak. That is bad news for producers, excellent for everyone else

THE dawn of the oil age was fairly recent. Although the stuff was used to waterproof boats in the Middle East 6,000 years ago, extracting it in earnest began only in 1859 after an oil strike in Pennsylvania. The first barrels of crude fetched $18 (around $450 at today’s prices). It was used to make kerosene, the main fuel for artificial lighting after overfishing led to a shortage of whale blubber. Other liquids produced in the refining process, too unstable or smoky for lamplight, were burned or dumped. But the unwanted petrol and diesel did not go to waste for long, thanks to the development of the internal-combustion engine a few years later.

Since then demand for oil has, with a couple of blips in the 1970s and 1980s, risen steadily alongside ever-increasing travel by car, plane and ship. Three-fifths of it ends up in fuel tanks. With billions of Chinese and Indians growing richer and itching to get behind the wheel of a car, the big oil companies, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and America’s Energy Information Administration all predict that demand will keep on rising. One of the oil giants, Britain’s BP, reckons it will grow from 89m b/d now to 104m b/d by 2030.

Scraping the barrel

We believe that they are wrong, and that oil is close to a peak. This is not the “peak oil” widely discussed several years ago, when several theorists, who have since gone strangely quiet, reckoned that supply would flatten and then fall. We believe that demand, not supply, could decline. In the rich world oil demand has already peaked: it has fallen since 2005. Even allowing for all those new drivers in Beijing and Delhi, two revolutions in technology will dampen the world’s thirst for the black stuff.

The first revolution was led by a Texan who has just died (see article). George Mitchell championed “fracking” as a way to release huge supplies of “unconventional” gas from shale beds. This, along with vast new discoveries of conventional gas, has recently helped increase the world’s reserves from 50 to 200 years. In America, where thanks to Mr Mitchell shale gas already billows from the ground, liquefied or compressed gas is finding its way into the tanks of lorries, buses and local-delivery vehicles. Gas could also replace oil in ships, power stations, petrochemical plants and domestic and industrial heating systems, and thus displace a few million barrels of oil a day by 2020.

The other great change is in automotive technology. Rapid advances in engine and vehicle design also threaten oil’s dominance. Foremost is the efficiency of the internal-combustion engine itself. Petrol and diesel engines are becoming ever more frugal. The materials used to make cars are getting lighter and stronger. The growing popularity of electric and hybrid cars, as well as vehicles powered by natural gas or hydrogen fuel cells, will also have an effect on demand for oil. Analysts at Citi, a bank, calculate that if the fuel-efficiency of cars and trucks improves by an average of 2.5% a year it will be enough to constrain oil demand; they predict that a peak of less than 92m b/d will come in the next few years. Ricardo, a big automotive engineer, has come to a similar conclusion.

Not surprisingly, the oil “supermajors” and the IEA disagree. They point out that most of the emerging world has a long way to go before it owns as many cars, or drives as many miles per head, as America.

But it would be foolish to extrapolate from the rich world’s past to booming Asia’s future. The sort of environmental policies that are reducing the thirst for fuel in Europe and America by imposing ever-tougher fuel-efficiency standards on vehicles are also being adopted in the emerging economies. China recently introduced its own set of fuel-economy measures. If, as a result of its determination to reduce its dependence on imported oil, the regime imposes policies designed to “leapfrog” the country’s transport system to hybrids, oil demand will come under even more pressure.

A fit of peak

A couple of countervailing factors could kick in to increase consumption. First, the Saudis, who control 11% of output and have the most spare capacity, may decide to push out more, lowering prices and thus increasing demand. Then again, they might cut production to try to raise prices, thereby lowering demand further. Second, if declining demand pushes down the oil price, drivers may turn back to gas-guzzling cars, as they did when oil was cheap in the 1990s. But tightening emissions standards should make that harder in future.

If the demand for oil merely stabilises, it will have important consequences. The environment should fare a little better. Gas vehicles emit less carbon dioxide than equivalent petrol-powered ones.

The corporate pecking order will change, too. Currently, Exxon Mobil vies with Apple as the world’s biggest listed company. Yet Exxon and the other oil supermajors are more vulnerable than they look (see article). Bernstein, a research firm, reckons that new barrels of oil from the Arctic or other technologically (or politically) demanding environments now cost $100 to extract. Big Oil can still have a decent future as Big Gas, but that will not prove as profitable.

The biggest impact of declining demand could be geopolitical. Oil underpins Vladimir Putin’s kleptocracy. The Kremlin will find it more difficult to impose its will on the country if its main source of patronage is diminished. The Saudi princes have relied on a high oil price to balance their budgets while paying for lavish social programmes to placate the restless young generation that has taken to the streets elsewhere. Their huge financial reserves can plug the gap for a while; but if the oil flows into the kingdom’s coffers less readily, buying off the opposition will be harder and the chances of upheaval greater. And if America is heading towards shale-powered energy self-sufficiency, it is unlikely to be as indulgent in future towards the Arab allies it propped up in the past. In its rise, oil has fuelled many conflicts. It may continue to do so as it falls. For all that, most people will welcome the change.

La Partita della morte

"Il calcio non è questione di vita o di morte, è molto di più."

Stamattina sono capitato sul blog storiedicalcio.myblog.it, dove ho letto questa storia drammatica, che unisce calcio, coraggio e onore.

Abbiamo bisogno di storie come questa, per credere in uno sport che oggi sembra quasi dimenticare le sue origini, e per continuare a fare memoria di chi, in quegli anni, ha avuto le palle cubiche (scusate il "francesismo").

Buona lettura.

Il pomeriggio di domenica 9 agosto 1942 si disputa, allo stadio Zenit di Kiev, quella che rimarrà ricordata negli annali con il tragico nome di “partita della morte”. Il contesto, come si può facilmente intuire da luogo e data, è quello dell’Ucraina occupata dai nazisti che l’hanno invasa un anno prima nell’ambito dell’Operazione Barbarossa, uno dei momenti più crudi del secondo conflitto mondiale. Un contesto più preciso e legato all’ambito calcistico può essere definito citando l’esistenza di un torneo che ha in precedenza visto scendere in campo compagini di diversa estrazione: da gruppi di internati di varie nazionalità a selezioni tratte da reparti dell’esercito tedesco.

A distinguersi su tutti è una squadra locale, l’FC Start, composta nella sua ossatura da giocatori che militavano, prima dello scoppio della guerra, nell’allora fortissima Dinamo Kiev: Nikolai Trusevich, Mikhail Sviridovskiy, Nikolai Korotkikh, Aleksey Klimenko, Fedor Tyutchev, Mikhail Putistin, Ivan Kuzmenko e Makar Goncharenko. La formazione è completata da Vladimir Balakin, Vasiliy Sukharev, e Mikhail Melnik provenienti da un’altra squadra della capitale ucraina, la Lokomotiv. Nonostante i giocatori non si allenino da tempo a causa della guerra e siano costretti a lavorare nella bottega di un panettiere per sopravvivere, tengono alta la fama della leggendaria squadra  di cui facevano parte in precedenza e fanno già pregustare ai nazisti il vanto di sconfiggere in finale una formazione degna di così alta considerazione. La squadra allestita dall’esercito di occupazione raccoglie gli ufficiali della Luftwaffe, l’aviazione tedesca, e si presenta sotto il nome di Flakelf, il fiore all’occhiello dello “sport armato” hitleriano.

La propaganda esalta la squadra nazista tappezzando la città di manifesti che ne narrano le gesta, sorvolando sul fatto che pochi giorni prima la stessa è già stata sconfitta dall’FC Start e che il match del 9 agosto ad altro non serve se non a concedere ai giocatori ucraini la possibilità di salvarsi la vita lasciando che la squadra espressione della razza ariana dimostri la propria straordinaria superiorità. Secondo quanto riportano le discordanti fonti – che spesso è difficile capire dove abbandonino il terreno della cronaca, inoltrandosi in quello fumoso della leggenda – quel primo match si era concluso sul 5-1, con una prova di forza da parte dell’FC Start tale da ammettere poche repliche.

Prima dell’inizio dell’incontro il team ucraino riceve negli spogliatoi la poco gradita visita di un ufficiale delle SS designato per arbitrare l’incontro. Il discorso che questi fa ai giocatori va decisamente oltre le solite raccomandazioni che un arbitro rivolge agli atleti, visto che l’ufficiale nazista lascia intendere senza troppi giri di parole quello che dovrà essere il loro compito quel giorno: perdere. Al fischio d’inizio si capisce subito che quelli della Flakelf sono disposti ad ottenere ciò che vogliono con le buone, ma soprattutto con le cattive, potendo contare, ovviamente, su un trattamento di favore da parte dell’arbitro. E proprio su un’azione dalla regolarità quantomeno dubbia la compagine tedesca trova il vantaggio. Il pareggio arriva grazie ad una conclusione da lontano di Kuzmenko. Poco dopo è Goncharenko ad appoggiare in rete dopo essersi portato a spasso l’intera difesa della Flakelf; e sempre lui, prima dell’intervallo, allunga sul 3-1.

Nello spogliatoio ai giocatori dell’FC Start vengono ricordate le conseguenze di una loro mancata sconfitta contro la formazione nazista e probabilmente queste minacce riscuotono l’effetto sperato perché appena rientrati in campo la Flakelf segna due volte e pareggia. A distanza di sessantacinque anni è difficile sapere cosa possa aver spinto gli ucraini a compiere un gesto all’apparenza folle, sta di fatto che la porta degli invasori viene violata altre due volte. A questo punto, narrano alcune versioni, il difensore Klimenko, forse conscio che ormai il loro destino è segnato e che quindi tanto vale andare fino in fondo, dribbla alcuni avversari e, superato anche il portiere, invece di appoggiare nella porta sguarnita, si gira e calcia la palla verso il centro del campo, come a non voler infierire su un avversario nettamente inferiore.

A questo punto le forze d’occupazione sono assolutamente determinate a mettere in atto le minacce rivolte ai propri avversari, ma non sembra che lo facciano “a caldo”, come sostengono alcune versioni. I giocatori ucraini non devono comunque attendere molto prima di avere notizie dei nazisti. Nei giorni successivi, infatti, agenti della Gestapo fanno irruzione nella panetteria in cui lavorano i membri dell’FC Start e li arrestano, portandoli nel quartier generale della polizia segreta hitleriana a Kiev. Qui gli ufficiali nazisti sottopongono gli ucraini a tortura, con l’intento di fargli confessare crimini che non hanno commesso e poi giustiziarli. Nessuno cede, ma uno di loro, Nikolai Korotkikh, non sopravvive alle torture infertegli. I suoi compagni vengono trasferiti al campo di concentramento di Siretz, dove sono costretti a lavorare in condizioni disumane. Quando, nel 1943, i tedeschi subiscono un attacco partigiano, viene ordinata la rappresaglia nei confronti dei prigionieri del campo; in particolare, il famigerato Paul von Radomski, comandante in carica a Siretz, ordina la fucilazione di un internato ogni tre. A farne le spese sono Kuzmenko (colui che ha segnato la rete del pareggio), Trusevich (il portiere della squadra) e Klimenko (il capitano e colui che ha irriso i nazisti decidendo di non segnare a porta vuota), che vengono uccisi e gettati a Babi Yar, il dirupo situato a Kiev e tristemente noto come la sede del più ampio episodio di massacro di ebrei da parte dei nazisti (oltre 33.000 in soli due giorni), oltre ad essere il luogo in cui più di 100.000 persone vengono giustiziate nel corso dell’occupazione tedesca. Per altri tre elementi dell’FC Start – Goncharenko, Tyutchev e Sviridovsky - la sorte è più favorevole visto che sono trasferiti nella capitale con lo scopo di essere dedicati a lavori forzati in loco, ma da dove, temendo di condividere il destino dei loro compagni, riescono a trovare il coraggio per fuggire e nascondersi fino all’arrivo delle truppe dell’Armata Rossa. Non è ancora dato sapere quale fu la sorte degli altri eroi dello Start.

L’arrivo dei sovietici significa per i superstiti la fine dell’incubo nazista, ma, ben lungi dal ricevere gli onori che gli spetterebbero, sono indotti a tacere riguardo alla vicenda poiché il fatto di aver partecipato ad un torneo di calcio organizzato da nazisti può comportare un’accusa di collaborazionismo, rimettendo nuovamente a rischio la propria incolumità.

Solo dopo la caduta di Stalin Goncharenko trova il coraggio di raccontare l’accaduto, facendo finalmente entrare gli undici eroi dell’FC Start nella leggenda. Leggenda immortalata in un monumento (a destra) collocato all’esterno dello Zenit di Kiev, che dal 1981 si chiama Start Stadium.

La loro storia è stata di ispirazione per molti: il regista ungherese Zoltan Fabri ne trasse un film intitolato “Due tempi all’Inferno” (1961) e così fece il collega sovietico Evgenij Karelov (“Il terzo tempo”, 1962). Molto più noto è “Fuga per la vittoria” (1981) dell’americano John Huston, che si avvalse della recitazione di Sylvester Stallone, Bobby Moore, Michael Cane e Pelè, ma rielaboro la storia in modo decisamente libero.

Bill Shankly, leggendario allenatore del Liverpool negli anni ’60, amava ricordare: “Il calcio non è questione di vita o di morte, è molto di più”. Forse anche lui quando pronunciava queste parole aveva in mente gli undici eroi dell’FC Start.

The energy revolution "Made in America"

Ormai lo sappiamo: grazie alle nuove tecnologie di estrazione oil&gas, gli USA nell'ultimo decennio hanno diminuito le importazioni e, secondo stime che piovono da ogni dove, presto raggiungeranno la tanto agognata indipendenza energetica.

Ma in USA non tutti sono così d'accordo sull'attendibilità di queste stime, soprattutto in relazione all'ipotizzato abbandono geopolitico del Medio Oriente, che, in uno scenario di indipendenza energetica, diventerebbe meno "utile" agli interessi made in USA.

Ma siamo proprio sicuri che l'equazione sia così semplice?

Queste sono le tematiche dell'interessante articolo uscito qualche giorno fa su "Deutsche Welle", firmato da Michael Knigge.

Buona lettura.

An American dream would come true: studies show the US could become independent from energy imports by 2030. 

This forecast has lit a gold rush fever in the energy sector and sparked a geopolitical debate.

In the middle of the 1973 oil crisis, US President Richard Nixon committed the American people to the initiative "Project Independence." Ever since that speech in November 1973, energy self-sufficiency has been the political goal of all US presidents. Nixon's vision to transform the United States into a self-sufficient energy provider by 1980 failed just as all other efforts since then. But now, 40 years later, this dream could possibly become reality after all.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris predicted late last year the US was at the forefront of a shift in global energy flows. According to the IEA forecast, the United States could replace Russia as the world's largest gas producer as early as 2015, and Saudi Arabia as the largest oil producer in 2017. The IEA said the US could become a net exporter of gas beginning in 2020, and practically develop into a complete self-sufficient energy provider by 2035 - that is - become completely independent of all energy imports.

Energy independence day

The US bank Citigroup and the US government's National Intelligence Council (NIC) released similar forecasts. Citibank analysts estimate in their report "Energy 2020: Independence Day" that US independence from energy imports could even begin at the end of this decade under certain conditions. According to NIC, the US could  become a significant energy exporter from 2020 on.

A recently published survey by consultancy firm KPMG found that nearly two-thirds of all top managers in US energy companies believed the United States could become independent from energy imports by 2030.

The trend of decreasing energy imports to the US is nothing new. Due to the massive use of improved production technology, such as the controversial fracking, the US has for years produced growing amounts of its own oil and gas. At the same time, oil consumption has declined in the course of the economic crisis.

The result: since 2005, the US has successively imported less oil. Last year, the US  imported just 40 percent of its oil consumption. In 2005, this figure was still 60 percent of consumption. By 2019, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts, imports will sink to 34 percent. In comparison, Europe's largest economy Germany is practically completely dependent on energy imports. According to IEA, Germany acquires some 95 percent of its oil and 85 percent of its gas needs from abroad.

No oil from disagreeable regimes

The decreasing dependence on imported oil has geopolitical implications. The Citibank experts have predicted the end of OPEC and the bank's top analyst declared in the Wall Street Journal North America as the new Middle East. In addition to the economic expectations of decreasing energy costs, there are also political hopes behind such sentiments to no longer be dependent on disagreeable oil regimes.

"We're not going to have to buy oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, or any other place we don't want to," the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said during his campaign. Finally, Washington would no longer have to consider a region's or country's energy resources when developing its geopolitical commitments. But there are also critical voices about the US energy boom. These do not doubt the decreasing dependency on imported energy, but they do criticize the validity of the forecasts, as well as their implications.

A lacking basis

"We simply don't have any empirical basis for really going beyond 'what if's'," said Anthony Cordesman, foreign policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. "Making best case assumptions regardless of cost and the environment - based on very preliminary data - simply doesn't make any sense." As opposed to the forecasts currently being discussed, there are no official models for the future on the part of the US government which confirm these positions. In fact, US oil imports will even increase slightly to 37 percent by 2040, according to the latest EIA annual report.

A further point of criticism about the studies is their sole focus on oil supplies to the US.

"The US will want to continue to engage in the Middle East and maintain a well-functioning world oil market, in part because its European and Asian allies will continue to rely on that oil," said Jeff Colgan, an expert on the geopolitics of oil at Washington's American University.

If energy independence is only measured by direct imports, that completely ignores the fact that the US is a significant importer of finished products from Asia and Europe, notes Cordesman. So it therefore has a significant self-interest in the continued energy supply of this region, he added.

Hope for oil regimes

While oil imports from Canada and Iraq are increasing, those from Venezuela and Mexico are declining. The African nations of Nigeria and Angola have suffered even more dramatic declines. From 2011 to 2012, US oil imports from Nigeria, Africa's largest producer, decreased by half, according to EIA. The imports from Angola also gave way by more than 30 percent in the past year.

Still, despite the falling direct dependence on foreign oil supply, Washington argues the experts will not turn away from the Middle East or any other energy-rich region in the future. Even if the United States managed to become less dependent on energy imports or possibly even completely independent, secure energy flows remain essential for a functioning world economy and by extension to the US economy.