An ideal for which I am prepared to die - Nelson Mandela

Yesterday, 5/12/13 Nelson Mandela has died.
He made this statement from the dock at the opening of his trial on charges of sabotage, Supreme court of South Africa, Pretoria, April 20 1964.

I know, it's long, but it deserves to be read.

I am the first accused. I hold a bachelor's degree in arts and practised as an attorney in Johannesburg for a number of years in partnership with Oliver Tambo. I am a convicted prisoner serving five years for leaving the country without a permit and for inciting people to go on strike at the end of May 1961.

At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion that the struggle in South Africa is under the influence of foreigners or communists is wholly incorrect. I have done whatever I did because of my experience in South Africa and my own proudly felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said. In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defence of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle.

Some of the things so far told to the court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the whites.

I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. I deny that Umkhonto was responsible for a number of acts which clearly fell outside the policy of the organisation, and which have been charged in the indictment against us. I, and the others who started the organisation, felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the government. We chose to defy the law.

We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.

The African National Congress was formed in 1912 to defend the rights of the African people, which had been seriously curtailed. For 37 years - that is, until 1949 - it adhered strictly to a constitutional struggle. But white governments remained unmoved, and the rights of Africans became less instead of becoming greater. Even after 1949, the ANC remained determined to avoid violence. At this time, however, the decision was taken to protest against apartheid by peaceful, but unlawful, demonstrations. More than 8,500 people went to jail. Yet there was not a single instance of violence. I and 19 colleagues were convicted for organising the campaign, but our sentences were suspended mainly because the judge found that discipline and non-violence had been stressed throughout.

During the defiance campaign, the Public Safety Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act were passed. These provided harsher penalties for protests against [the] laws. Despite this, the protests continued and the ANC adhered to its policy of non-violence. In 1956, 156 leading members of the Congress Alliance, including myself, were arrested. The non-violent policy of the ANC was put in issue by the state, but when the court gave judgment some five years later, it found that the ANC did not have a policy of violence.

In 1960 there was the shooting at Sharpeville, which resulted in the declaration of the ANC as an unlawful organisation. My colleagues man and I, after careful consideration, decided that we would not obey this decree. The African people were not part of the government and did not make the laws by which they were governed. We believed in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that "the will of the people shall be the basis of authority of the government", and for us to accept the banning was equivalent to accepting the silencing of the Africans for all time. The ANC refused to dissolve, but instead went underground.

In 1960 the government held a referendum which led to the establishment of the republic. Africans, who constituted approximately 70% of the population, were not entitled to vote, and were not even consulted. I undertook to be responsible for organising the national stay-at-home called to coincide with the declaration of the republic. As all strikes by Africans are illegal, the person organising such a strike must avoid arrest. I had to leave my home and family and my practice and go into hiding to avoid arrest. The stay-at-home was to be a peaceful demonstration. Careful instructions were given to avoid any recourse to violence.

The government's answer was to introduce new and harsher laws, to mobilise its armed forces, and to send Saracens, armed vehicles, and soldiers into the townships in a massive show of force designed to intimidate the people. The government had decided to rule by force alone, and this decision was a milestone on the road to Umkhonto. What were we, the leaders of our people, to do? We had no doubt that we had to continue the fight. Anything else would have been abject surrender. Our problem was not whether to fight, but was how to continue the fight.

We of the ANC had always stood for a non-racial democracy, and we shrank from any action which might drive the races further apart. But the hard facts were that 50 years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights. By this time violence had, in fact, become a feature of the South African political scene.

There had been violence in 1957 when the women of Zeerust were ordered to carry passes; there was violence in 1958 with the enforcement of cattle culling in Sekhukhuneland; there was violence in 1959 when the people of Cato Manor protested against pass raids; there was violence in 1960 when the government attempted to impose Bantu authorities in Pondoland. Each disturbance pointed to the inevitable growth among Africans of the belief that violence was the only way out - it showed that a government which uses force to maintain its rule teaches the oppressed to use force to oppose it.

I came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic to continue preaching peace and non-violence. This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle. I can only say that I felt morally obliged to do what I did.

Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. The initial plan was based on a careful analysis of the political and economic situation of our country. We believed that South Africa depended to a large extent on foreign capital. We felt that planned destruction of power plants, and interference with rail and telephone communications, would scare away capital from the country, thus compelling the voters of the country to reconsider their position. Umkhonto had its first operation on December 16 1961, when government buildings in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban were attacked. The selection of targets is proof of the policy to which I have referred. Had we intended to attack life we would have selected targets where people congregated and not empty buildings and power stations.

The whites failed to respond by suggesting change; they responded to our call by suggesting the laager. In contrast, the response of the Africans was one of encouragement. Suddenly there was hope again. People began to speculate on how soon freedom would be obtained.

But we in Umkhonto weighed up the white response with anxiety. The lines were being drawn. The whites and blacks were moving into separate camps, and the prospects of avoiding a civil war were made less. The white newspapers carried reports that sabotage would be punished by death. If this was so, how could we continue to keep Africans away from terrorism?

We felt it our duty to make preparations to use force in order to defend ourselves against force. We decided, therefore to make provision for the possibility of guerrilla warfare. All whites undergo compulsory military training, but no such training was given to Africans. It was in our view essential to build up a nucleus of trained men who would be able to provide the leadership which would be required if guerrilla warfare started.

At this stage it was decided that I should attend the Conference of the Pan-African Freedom Movement which was to be held early in 1962 in Addis Ababa, and after the conference, I would undertake a tour of the African states with a view to obtaining facilities for the training of soldiers. My tour was a success. Wherever I went I met sympathy for our cause and promises of help. All Africa was united against the stand of white South Africa, and even in London I was received with great sympathy by political leaders, such as Mr Gaitskell and Mr Grimond.

I started to make a study of the art of war and revolution and, whilst abroad, underwent a course in military training. If there was to be guerrilla warfare, I wanted to be able to stand and fight with my people and to share the hazards of war with them.

On my return I found that there had been little alteration in the political scene save, that the threat of a death penalty for sabotage had now become a fact.

Another of the allegations made by the state is that the aims and objects of the ANC and the Communist party are the same. The creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of African nationalism. It is not the concept of African nationalism expressed in the cry, "Drive the white man into the sea." The African nationalism for which the ANC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfilment for the African people in their own land. The most important political document ever adopted by the ANC is the "freedom charter". It is by no means a blueprint for a socialist state. It calls for redistribution, but not nationalisation, of land; it provides for nationalisation of mines, banks, and monopoly industry, because big monopolies are owned by one race only, and without such nationalisation racial domination would be perpetuated despite the spread of political power. Under the freedom charter, nationalisation would take place in an economy based on private enterprise.

As far as the Communist party is concerned, and if I understand its policy correctly, it stands for the establishment of a state based on the principles of Marxism. The Communist party sought to emphasise class distinctions whilst the ANC seeks to harmonise them. This is a vital distinction.

It is true that there has often been close cooperation between the ANC and the Communist party. But cooperation is merely proof of a common goal - in this case the removal of white supremacy - and is not proof of a complete community of interests. The history of the world is full of similar examples. Perhaps the most striking is the cooperation between Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union in the fight against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to suggest that such cooperation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into communists. Theoretical differences amongst those fighting against oppression is a luxury we cannot afford at this stage.

What is more, for many decades communists were the only political group in South Africa prepared to treat Africans as human beings and their equals; who were prepared to eat with us; talk with us, live with us, and work with us. They were the only group which was prepared to work with the Africans for the attainment of political rights and a stake in society. Because of this, there are many Africans who, today, tend to equate freedom with communism. They are supported in this belief by a legislature which brands all exponents of democratic government and African freedom as communists and bans many of them (who are not communists) under the Suppression of Communism Act. Although I have never been a member of the Communist party, I myself have been imprisoned under that act.

I have always regarded myself, in the first place, as an African patriot. Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society, an attraction which springs in part from Marxist reading and, in part, from my admiration of the structure of early African societies. The land belonged to the tribe. There were no rich or poor and there was no exploitation. We all accept the need for some form of socialism to enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of this world and to overcome their legacy of extreme poverty. But this does not mean we are Marxists.

I have gained the impression that communists regard the parliamentary system of the west as reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an admirer. The Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights are documents held in veneration by democrats throughout the world. I have great respect for British institutions, and for the country's system of justice. I regard the British parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the impartiality of its judiciary never fails to arouse my admiration. The American Congress, that country's separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouses in me similar sentiments.

I have been influenced in my thinking by both west and east. I should tie myself to no particular system of society other than of socialism. I must leave myself free to borrow the best from the west and from the east.

Our fight is against real, and not imaginary, hardships or, to use the language of the state prosecutor, "so-called hardships". Basically, we fight against two features which are the hallmarks of African life in South Africa and which are entrenched by legislation. These features are poverty and lack of human dignity, and we do not need communists or so-called "agitators" to teach us about these things. South Africa is the richest country in Africa, and could be one of the richest countries in the world. But it is a land of remarkable contrasts. The whites enjoy what may be the highest standard of living in the world, whilst Africans live in poverty and misery. Poverty goes hand in hand with malnutrition and disease. Tuberculosis, pellagra and scurvy bring death and destruction of health.

The complaint of Africans, however, is not only that they are poor and the whites are rich, but that the laws which are made by the whites are designed to preserve this situation. There are two ways to break out of poverty. The first is by formal education, and the second is by the worker acquiring a greater skill at his work and thus higher wages. As far as Africans are concerned, both these avenues of advancement are deliberately curtailed by legislation.

The government has always sought to hamper Africans in their search for education. There is compulsory education for all white children at virtually no cost to their parents, be they rich or poor. African children, however, generally have to pay more for their schooling than whites.

Approximately 40% of African children in the age group seven to 14 do not attend school. For those who do, the standards are vastly different from those afforded to white children. Only 5,660 African children in the whole of South Africa passed their junior certificate in 1962, and only 362 passed matric.

This is presumably consistent with the policy of Bantu education about which the present prime minister said: "When I have control of native education I will reform it so that natives will be taught from childhood to realise that equality with Europeans is not for them. People who believe in equality are not desirable teachers for natives. When my department controls native education it will know for what class of higher education a native is fitted, and whether he will have a chance in life to use his knowledge."

The other main obstacle to the advancement of the African is the industrial colour-bar under which all the better jobs of industry are reserved for whites only. Moreover, Africans who do obtain employment in the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations open to them are not allowed to form trade unions which have recognition. This means that they are denied the right of collective bargaining, which is permitted to the better-paid white workers.

The government answers its critics by saying that Africans in South Africa are better off than the inhabitants of the other countries in Africa. I do not know whether this statement is true. But even if it is true, as far as the African people are concerned it is irrelevant.

Our complaint is not that we are poor by comparison with people in other countries, but that we are poor by comparison with the white people in our own country, and that we are prevented by legislation from altering this imbalance.

The lack of human dignity experienced by Africans is the direct result of the policy of white supremacy. White supremacy implies black inferiority. Legislation designed to preserve white supremacy entrenches this notion. Menial tasks in South Africa are invariably performed by Africans.

When anything has to be carried or cleaned the white man will look around for an African to do it for him, whether the African is employed by him or not. Because of this sort of attitude, whites tend to regard Africans as a separate breed. They do not look upon them as people with families of their own; they do not realise that they have emotions - that they fall in love like white people do; that they want to be with their wives and children like white people want to be with theirs; that they want to earn enough money to support their families properly, to feed and clothe them and send them to school. And what "house-boy" or "garden-boy" or labourer can ever hope to do this?

Pass laws render any African liable to police surveillance at any time. I doubt whether there is a single African male in South Africa who has not had a brush with the police over his pass. Hundreds and thousands of Africans are thrown into jail each year under pass laws.

Even worse is the fact that pass laws keep husband and wife apart and lead to the breakdown of family life. Poverty and the breakdown of family have secondary effects. Children wander the streets because they have no schools to go to, or no money to enable them to go, or no parents at home to see that they go, because both parents (if there be two) have to work to keep the family alive. This leads to a breakdown in moral standards, to an alarming rise in illegitimacy, and to violence, which erupts not only politically, but everywhere. Life in the townships is dangerous. Not a day goes by without somebody being stabbed or assaulted. And violence is carried out of the townships [into] the white living areas. People are afraid to walk the streets after dark. Housebreakings and robberies are increasing, despite the fact that the death sentence can now be imposed for such offences. Death sentences cannot cure the festering sore.

Africans want to be paid a living wage. Africans want to perform work which they are capable of doing, and not work which the government declares them to be capable of. Africans want to be allowed to live where they obtain work, and not be endorsed out of an area because they were not born there. Africans want to be allowed to own land in places where they work, and not to be obliged to live in rented houses which they can never call their own. Africans want to be part of the general population, and not confined to living in their own ghettoes.

African men want to have their wives and children to live with them where they work, and not be forced into an unnatural existence in men's hostels. African women want to be with their menfolk and not be left permanently widowed in the reserves. Africans want to be allowed out after 11 o'clock at night and not to be confined to their rooms like little children. Africans want to be allowed to travel in their own country and to seek work where they want to and not where the labour bureau tells them to. Africans want a just share in the whole of South Africa; they want security and a stake in society.

Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy. But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all. It is not true that the enfranchisement of all will result in racial domination. Political division, based on colour, is entirely artificial and, when it disappears, so will the domination of one colour group by another. The ANC has spent half a century fighting against racialism. When it triumphs it will not change that policy.

This then is what the ANC is fighting. Their struggle is a truly national one. It is a struggle of the African people, inspired by their own suffering and their own experience. It is a struggle for the right to live. During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

Ukraine and the EU - The Economist

Political brutal pressure made in Russia.

One can always count on Ukrainian governments to renege and surprise.

And so it did this time. On November 21st, one week before the European Union summit in Vilnius during which Ukraine was supposed to sign an association agreement, its government suspended talks with the EU. 

The suspense and excitement were replaced by deep disappointment. As one Ukrainian paper put it the government managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (again). A character in Maxim Gorky’s play “On the Lower Depth” says about a mate who strangles himself: “What a song he’d spoiled”. This was the closest Ukraine had ever come to crossing the border between Russia and the West. 

The official version of Ukraine’s turn around is that it could not withstand Russia’s pressure. The government cited the “benefit of Ukraine’s national security” as the reason for “resuming active dialogue with Russia and other countries of the customs union of Belarus and Kazakhstan…. aimed at restoring the lost production output and trade and economic relations.” Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister and the co-author of the whole project, tweeted upon learning the news: “Ukraine government suddenly bows deeply to the Kremlin. Politics of brutal pressure evidently works”. 

Disappointed as they were with Viktor Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine, the EU accepted his version of events. 

After all, Russia’s restrictions have already reduced Ukrainian trade by 25% and more was in store. Mr Yanukovych estimated the potential economic loss from Russian sanctions to be in the order of $15 billion. This is at a time when the Ukrainian economy is already shrinking, and its budget hole is growing with no access to international capital markets. Ukraine is broke and beggars can’t be choosers. Unless, of course, the beggar is Ukraine.

It was not new that Ukraine was under economic pressure from Russia. The Kremlin first imposed sanctions against Ukraine back in August, but this only consolidated the Ukrainian pro-EU front and even its oligarchs, who stood to lose most from the sanctions. Yet, they pushed Mr Yanukovich to sign the agreement with the EU, which they saw, not least, as an insurance policy against his insatiable business appetite. So the question is what swayed Mr Yanukovych’s decision towards Russia at the last minute? Or did he ever intend signing an agreement with the EU? 

Mr Yanukovych, who was a pariah for the West back in 2004 when he tried to rig presidential elections, never saw the EU as his natural habitat. Ukraine’s convergence with Brussels was not a strategic choice based on the long-term interests of his country, but one based on mercurial and short-term interests of Mr Yanukovych and his family, which, unlike Ukraine’s economy, seems to go from strength to strength. Everything that Mr Yanukovych does is guided by the presidential election in March 2015. His rating has been going down steadily and to stay in power, he either needs to rig and repress (which is difficult to do if Ukraine is associated with Europe) or to bribe voters with cash, which he does not have. 

His favourite option would have been to get money from Russia as a price for putting EU integration on hold. On November 9th, Mr Yanukovych flew secretly to Moscow for a four-hour meeting with Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, trying to persuade him to do just that. Yet, Mr Putin does not care much for Mr Yanukovych, whom he mistrusts and treats with contempt. What he does care about is not losing Ukraine to Europe. So he purportedly offered Mr Yanukovych an alternative deal: in exchange of money and cheaper gas, he promised to turn a blind eye to any election rigging and to refrain from supporting an alternative candidate at the next election.

There was only one condition: Mr Yanukovych should sign on the dotted line of the customs union, wrecking an agreement with the EU permanently. Mr Yanukovych resisted. In the past ten days he continued to negotiate with the EU until November 21st, already dubbed in Ukraine as “Black Thursday”. It is still not clear what happened and who blinked first: did Mr Yanukovych 13realise that he had no option but to go along with the customs union, or did Mr Putin realise that the game was getting too risky and dropped his demand for the customs union and settled for Ukraine simply turning away from the EU? 

Mr Yanukovych’s turnaround may not be all bad news for the EU or such good news for Russia or Mr Yanukovych himself. Several months of intense negotiations and extreme goodwill on the part of the EU, have created strong expectations from the Ukrainian public, the vast majority of which supports closer links with the EU and only 15% of which supports a union with Russia. Those hopes, at least for now, are bashed. Mr Yanukovych, who only a few days ago was seen as a man who could take Ukraine into Europe, is now seen as a thug who robbed his country of a historic chance. 

Given the structural weakness of the Ukrainian economy as well as Russia’s own economic stagnation, a short-term injection of cash will not solve Ukraine’s problems. Economically and politically things are likely to get worse not better. But now, this will be blamed on Russia and Mr Yanukovych. Ukraine’s opposition have just received the perfect platform for attacking the president. Arseniy Yatseniuk, one of the opposition leaders, is already saying that Mr Yanukovych’s betrayal of national interests is sufficient ground for impeachment. 

Ordinary Ukrainians have already come out on Maidan, Kiev’s main square and the stage of the 2004 revolution, to protest against Mr Yanukovych’s decision. The fact that this is happening on the eve of the 9th anniversary of the Orange Revolution (in which Mr Yanukovych played the main villain) only makes it more poignant.

Nine years ago, the Orange Revolution swept Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yushchenko to power. At the time it was seen as Ukraine’s break-away from the Russian sphere of influence and a decisive move towards Europe. Jubilant crowds waved orange and EU flags together. The promise of that revolution was spectacularly squandered by Viktor Yushchenko, who is now advising Mr Yanukovich to keep Yulia Tymoshenko in jail, and by Ms Tymoshenko herself. 

The orange flags are gone, but the European and national Ukrainian flags are once again flying together. Maidan has already been renamed EuroMaidan. Mr Yanukovych’s turn towards Russia seems to distance Ukraine from Europe, but it could, in fact, achieve the opposite. If all else fails, one can always count on Ukrainian politicians to renege and surprise.

"Sete di energia" o "Energia che ha sete"?

Acqua.

Uno dei miei temi preferiti. 

Qualche giorno fa è uscito un interessante rapporto di Wood Mackenzie riguardante i rischi che l'industria energetica mondiale potrebbe dover affrontare a causa della scarsità di risorse idriche.

Già nel suo World Energy Outlook 2012, l'International Energy Agency aveva riservato, per la prima volta, un capitolo apposito su questa tematica, dal titolo "Water for Energy".

Oggi questo rapporto di WM conferma alcune delle considerazioni esposte nel WEO, aggiungendo un pò di ottimismo (non che il WEO fosse allarmista, intendiamoci) riguardo il rischio idrico legato alle tecnologie per lo sfruttamento delle risorse non convenzionali (fracking): alcune società si stanno attrezzando per implementare tecniche di risparmio e riutilizzo, e inoltre il rapporto fa notare che il fracking permette anche l'utilizzo di acque saline, evitando il consumo delle più preziose acque dolci.

L'articolo che propongo è tratto dalla Staffetta Quotidiana.

Buona lettura.

I problemi legati all'acqua pongono una serie di rischi per l'industria energetica e potrebbero avere un ruolo significativo nel forgiare il futuro scenario del mix di fonti energetiche cui attingerà la popolazione mondiale: è quanto sostiene una nuova ricerca Wood Mackenzie , “Troubled Waters Ahead? Rising Water Risks for Energy”, realizzata sulla base dei dati e delle mappe sul rischio idrico del Water Resources Institute.

Quasi tutte le forme di produzione di energia e di generazione di elettricità, infatti, dipendono in qualche modo dall'acqua. Sebbene sia l'agricoltura il settore idrovoro per eccellenza, utilizzando circa due terzi delle provviste d'acqua dolce mondiali, quello dell'energia è il comparto che consuma la maggior quantità d'acqua all'interno del settore industriale (15% della risorsa disponibile a livello globale) e la cui domanda d'acqua e in continua crescita. Con le previsioni Onu che indicano un deficit idrico del 40% entro il 2013, l'utilizzo di acqua nel settore energetico è una preoccupazione centrale dei governi. Secondo lo studio, i maggiori impatti che il rischio idrico potrebbe produrre riguardano in primis la produzione di shale gas, in particolare negli Stati Uniti; a seguire, il settore petrolifero mediorientale e, infine, quello minerario carbonifero e termoelettrico a carbone della Cina.

Le aree a rischio identificate sono quelle in cui è più probabile un elevato livello di concorrenza tra gli utilizzatori d'acqua locali, un maggiore consumo della risorsa nel tempo e un elevato livello di contaminazione delle riserve idriche. “I principali rischi legati all'acqua per l'industria energetica – spiega Tara Schmidt, analista di Wood Mackenzie – includono la limitata accessibilità a nuove fonti di approvvigionamento, i ritardi nello sviluppo dei progetti, l'incremento dei costi e l'inattività degli asset”. I rischi variano molto in base alla fonte energetica e alla localizzazione degli assset. “L'acqua rappresenta un rischio per l'industria energetica. Il progresso apportato da tecnologie innovative, pratiche avanzate di gestione dell'acqua e da specifiche politiche pubbliche può mettere il settore nelle condizioni di affrontare la sfida di ridurre i rischi generati dalla questione idrica”, osserva Paul Reig del World Resources Institute. “Alcune delle soluzioni per ridurre tali rischi – aggiunge – sono l'implementazione di nuove tecnologie per migliorare le performance operative ambientali e, soprattutto, un pronto coinvolgimento dei portatori d'interesse a livello di bacino, insieme ai governo, per identificare le opportunità di azioni collettive finalizzate alla riduzione del rischio idrico”.

Primo comparto a rischio, come già accennato, è quello dello shale gas: se questo settore dovesse davvero decollare a livello globale, sarà senz'altro necessario affrontare i problemi di utilizzo e di contaminazione dell'acqua che può suscitare. “La ricerca mostra che più di metà delle riserve di shale e tight gas negli Stati Uniti, così come negli altri 10 paesi con le maggiori riserve del mondo, si trovano in aree a stress idrico da medio a estremo, dove la concorrenza con gli altri utilizzatori locali della risorsa è alta ed esistono preoccupazioni sulla qualità dell'acqua”, spiega Reid. Le società che operano in queste aree si trovano di fronte al rischio di avere limitato accesso a nuove fonti idriche e potenziali aumenti dei costi fino al 15% o anche oltre. Ciononostante, all'interno del mix globale di fonti energetiche, il gas non convenzionale fornisce una delle opportunità più promettenti di dimezzare o azzerare del tutto l'utilizzo di acqua dolce grazie al ricorso ad acque saline, al riciclo e alla ‘green completion', compensando – potenzialmente – gli incrementi di costo. Peraltro diverse società stanno iniziando ad affrontare le preoccupazioni del pubblico circa possibili contaminazioni dell'acqua, fornendo report sulla valutazione degli impatti e collaborando attivamente alla definizione degli standard per la produzione di shale gas. “Wood Mackenzie prevede che il trend verso una maggiore trasparenza e l'impegno pubblico prosegua – fa sapere Tara Schmidt – al passo con l'espansione degli operatori nei mercati internazionali, con preoccupazioni sempre più pressanti attorno alla questione idrica”.

Per quanto riguarda il petrolio mediorientale, la produzione sta già scontando l'inadeguatezza delle infrastrutture idriche sul piano dello sviluppo degli asset e la crescente domanda di petrolio per le esigenze locali di desalinazione non farà che esacerbare la situazione. “Infrastrutture idriche inadeguate contribuiscono a ritardare significativamente i progetti – afferma Schmidt – e limitano le opportunità di massimizzare la produzione nel lungo periodo potenziando il recupero avanzato di petrolio, le tecniche di completamento e l'esplorazione dello shale gas recentemente intrapresa (come nel caso dell'Arabia Saudita)”. La scarsa iniezione d'acqua in alcuni dei maggiori giacimenti dell'Iraq meridionale sta costando al maggior produttore della regione centinaia di migliaia di barili di petrolio al giorno, fa sapere Wood Mackenzie, e governo e compagnie stanno lavorando per migliorare la gestione dell'acqua nella regione, che soffre la scarsità della risorsa, con interventi sulle infrastrutture, per la conservazione della risorsa, nonché per l'utilizzo di tecnologie di desalinazione più efficienti.

Non sembra più fortunata la Cina, dove l'industria mineraria e gli impianti termoelettrici alimentati a carbone potrebbero ritrovarsi a forte rischio in futuro: secondo l'atlante del rischio idrico Aqueduct, oltre il 70% della capacità di generazione elettrica da carbone della Cina si trova in aree a stress idrico da medio a estremamente alto e le attività del settore si stanno espandendo sempre più nelle assetate province settentrionali e occidentali del paese. Per la produzione di carbone in queste aree è attesa una crescita del 50% entro il 2030, mentre l'output elettrico dovrebbe addirittura raddoppiare. “Con la grande maggioranza delle risorse idriche cinesi concentrate nel Sud del paese – spiega Paul Reig – e la grande maggioranza della nuova produzione di carbone proveniente dal Nord, lo Stato asiatico rischia una forte carenza idrica e importanti conflitti d'interesse tra la popolazione e l'industria”. Di conseguenza, i costi dell'industria mineraria e delle utility elettriche potrebbero diventare sempre più pressanti in risposta agli sforzi del governo di minimizzare l'utilizzo dell'acqua, con la necessità di affrontare modifiche della regolazione e difficoltà di accesso alla risorsa, nonché di mitigare il rischio potenziali interruzioni delle operazioni. A tali problematiche le società coinvolte stanno già cercando di trovare soluzione, cominciando a investire nel riciclo dell'acqua e in tecnologie più efficienti, nonché collaborando con altri utilizzatori della risorsa per individuare possibili soluzioni collettive. Alcune utility stanno anche provvedendo a installare sistemi di raffreddamento ad aria, che potrebbero permettere di ridurre l'uso dell'acqua fino a circa due terzi, mentre alcuni produttori di carbone puntano al riuso delle acque reflue.

Infine, le soluzioni indicate dagli analisti di Wood Mackenzie risiedono principalmente nell'innovazione tecnologica, nella trasparenza e nell'impegno a minimizzare i rischi per tutte le fonti energetiche. Sta alle società comprendere le esigenze e i rischi delle proprie attività sul piano idrico, sviluppare strategie chiare e disponibili al pubblico per affrontarli e tenersi pronti agli sviluppi futuri per non mettere a repentaglio la propria crescita e la fornitura di energia nell'avvenire.

Cina-Russia: un'alleanza che va oltre l'energia - Repubblica Affari&Finanza

Propongo oggi un'interessante analisi di Giampaolo Visetti (Repubblica) riguardante il recente accordo Cina-Russia per la fornitura di greggio e gas naturale.

Ancora una volta l'articolo fa capire quanto l'energia sia un settore di altissimo valore strategico, e da qualche parte, come in Russia e in Cina, l'hanno capito molto bene.

Buona lettura.

Le prime due economie emergenti, alleate storiche per una parte del Novecento, uniscono le forze per ricostruire il blocco travolto dall'implosione dell'Urss

Cina e Russia hanno raggiunto l'accordo che consentirà, nei prossimi dieci anni, di continuare a crescere sia al primo consumatore che al primo produttore di energia al mondo. A firmare il contratto record, a Pechino, il premier cinese Li Keqiang e quello russo Dmitry Medvedev. L'intesa prevede che Mosca fornisca, in un decennio, altri 100 milioni di tonnellate di petrolio, in cambio di 85 miliardi di dollari. Quasi chiuso anche il patto sul gas. Gazprom invierà in Cina 38 miliardi di metri cubi di gas naturale, volume che consentirà alla seconda economia mondiale di diminuire la dipendenza dal carbone, che la sta soffocando. Dal 2018 le forniture saliranno a 60 miliardi di metri cubi. Cina e Russia, grazie al via libera sul patto energetico, hanno firmato anche altri 21 accordi di cooperazione bilaterale, che potrebbero consentire ai due Paesi di varcare entro il 2015 la soglia dei 100 miliardi di dollari di interscambio. L'intesa trasforma Pechino e Mosca, reciprocamente, nei primi due partner commerciali. A partire dal 2005 la Cina ha investito ogni anno in Russia una cifra tra i 300 e i 600 milioni di dollari, mentre Mosca non ha mai superato i 30. Il salto di qualità è evidente. Nel 2012 Pechino ha importato dalla Russia 276 milioni di tonnellate e l'ex Urss è stata solo il suo quarto fornitore di greggio. Se l'intesa sul petrolio è conclusa, resta da definire il prezzo per il gas. «Ma la cooperazione energetica tra Cina e Russia - ha rassicurato Medvedev - è il passaggio fondamentale nell'alleanza tra i Paesi in crescita e a beneficiarne sarà l'intera ripresa economica mondiale». Anche il presidente cinese Xi Jinping ha confermato che un accordo sul prezzo del gas è solo questione di dettagli. «Ormai - ha detto il neo-leader cinese - Cina e Russia sono partner strategici di nome e di fatto». Enormi le conseguenze per il mercato petrolifero. La russa Rosneft, gigante dell'energia siberiana, nei prossimi dieci anni invierà in Cina circa 70 milioni di barili di greggio all'anno. Incasserà una montagna di denaro, che potrà investire nel restauro delle vecchie condotte, oltre che in nuovi oleodotti. Forte dell'accordo con la Cina, sarà anche nelle condizioni di trattare prezzi più vantaggiosi con gli altri clienti stranieri, a partire da quelli della zona euro. I mercati hanno subito compreso che il rinnovato asse Mosca-Pechino supera ampiamente gli interessi energetici. Pechino e Mosca hanno firmato un documento politico in base al quale «entrambi i Paesi continueranno a migliorare il coordinamento strategico, per mantenere la loro autorità nelle Nazioni Unite e nel consiglio di sicurezza, in modo da promuovere congiuntamente la pace, la stabilità e lo sviluppo nel mondo». Ciò significa che l'alleanza su petrolio e gas rafforza lo storico blocco comunista sui più scottanti dossier internazionali, dalla Siria alla Corea del Nord, riducendo fortemente i margini di manovra degli Stati Uniti, in difficoltà sia in Africa che in Asia. Tra Pechino e Mosca l'intesa è oggi evidente. Valdimir Putin e Xi Jiping, in un anno si sono incontrati cinque volte: il presidente cinese ha visto Barack Obama solo una volta, per un weekend in maniche di camicia in un ranch privato, snobbato in extremis da Michelle, che ha rinunciato a conoscere la collega first lady. Pechino riempirà dunque i forzieri del Cremlino, consolidando l'impero di Putin. I russi, rendendo possibile la lotta cinese all'inquinamento, contribuiranno invece in misura decisiva alla stabilità interna della nuova leadership cinese.

Grazie all'energia, un universo che si ricompone.

Shell writedown is bad news for US shale (FT)

Over the past few years, the oil majors have been punch drunk on US shale.

Now comes the hangover.

By Guy Chazan (Financial Times)

Royal Dutch Shell surprised the market on Thursday with a $2.1bn impairment, mostly on its liquids-rich shale properties in North America.

The writedown showed that the results from Shell’s exploration drilling for oil in its US shale acreage have been much worse than it anticipated. “Shale oil bulls take note,” wrote Oswald Clint of Bernstein Research.

The news was sobering for a sector used to upbeat headlines. Production of tight oil in places such as North Dakota’s Bakken shale has increased so fast that it has reversed the decades-long decline in US oil output, reducing America’s reliance on oil imports and even fuelling talk of US energy independence.

Shell’s news shows that some of the breathless rhetoric about shale’s potential may be unwarranted – a view Peter Voser, its chief executive, appears to endorse. The idea of a shale revolution spreading from the US across the world is “a little bit overhyped,” he told reporters on Thursday.

Shale impairments are nothing new. A clutch of companies, including BHP Billiton and BG Group, wrote down their US shale gas assets last year, as the low price of American natural gas reduced the value of their reserves. But it is far less common for the oil majors to take charges on their tight oil properties.

The impairment highlights a broader problem for Shell – the weak performance of its Upstream Americas business. It incurred a loss in the second quarter, and Shell says it will probably stay in loss for the rest of the year, and possibly longer.

Analysts at Credit Suisse say Shell’s performance in its upstream – or exploration and production – division is a “real worry”.

Ever since the oil industry figured out how to use hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” and horizontal drilling to extract gas from shale formations, the US “unconventional” gas story has had an irresistible allure for the supermajors.

Shell has been more gung-ho than most. In 2008, it paid $5.7bn to buy Duvernay Oil, which held promising tight gas acreage in western Canada. Two years later, it paid $4.7bn for East Resources. which held big positions in the Marcellus Shale.

Shell says that its North American onshore gas portfolio now includes about 3.5m acres of mineral rights, with the potential to yield 40tn cubic feet of gas – the energy equivalent of nearly 7bn barrels of oil.

But some analysts have said it paid too high a price to gain entry into the sector. And such a large position proved a double-edged sword last year when the shale gas supply surge pushed gas prices to 10-year lows.

Shell said at the time that it would switch its focus from gas to more profitable “liquids-rich shales” and Simon Henry, chief financial officer, said the company would produce 250,000 barrels of oil a day from its tight oil properties in five years’ time.

But that could end up being way too optimistic. Mr Henry admitted on Thursday that the results of Shell’s exploration efforts in US tight oil had been disappointing, and “the production curve is less positive than we originally expected”. As of today, the company is only producing 50,000 b/d from these properties, he said.

Shell’s experience has been echoed by others. Oil companies who rushed to buy acreage in Ohio’s Utica shale a few years ago have discovered the rock is not as porous as in other formations such as Texas’ Eagle Ford or the Bakken, and there is less natural pressure underground to help force the oil out. Many companies are now trying to sell their holdings there.

Shell, it seems, is taking a similar tack: it has launched a strategic review of its North American shale portfolio, with the aim of halving the number of areas it operates in there. Mr Voser says the company wants to divest some small-scale properties which “are still prospective and can produce, but do not have the size we are looking for”.

And perhaps driven by the bad news from US shale, Shell says it is dropping its medium-term production target – once considered a touchstone for investors.

Analysts were unfazed. “No one [externally at least] believed it anyway,” said Neill Morton of Investec.

Financial Times: Gulf oil production hits record

"Despite the shale revolution, the Middle East is and will remain the heart of global oil industry for some time to come". I think that these words of Fatih Birol (IEA) are enough to explain the topic of the following article of Ajay Makan (Financial Times). The shale revolution is already a reality in US, but, as last data say, it's still far to seriously threat the "Gulf states supremacy".

The Gulf states are producing more oil than ever before, defying expectations that the US shale revolution would break their 40-year grip on the global oil market and diminish their importance to the world’s consuming nations. 

Surging production in North America is expected to eat into the market for oil from Opec. But the quartet of Gulf kingdoms that dominate the cartel of oil exporters have so far emerged unscathed. Instead, they have expanded their share of the world market as political and social factors have reduced production from a number other members. 

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar set aggregate production records in each of the last three months, according to fresh estimates from the International Energy Agency. In September they accounted for 18 per cent of global demand – a level only matched twice in IEA data stretching back to the 1980s.

“Despite the shale revolution, the Middle East is and will remain the heart of global oil industry for some time to come,” Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist said.

US crude oil production has increased by 50 per cent since 2008 and the country is expected to meet the lion’s share of the world’s growing demand over the next five years. But while US companies tend to maximise production to generate more profits, the Gulf states – and Saudi Arabia in particular – invest heavily to maintain spare capacity.

That has allowed them to raise production to offset a run of disruptions across the Middle East and Africa in the last two years. US-led sanctions have reduced Iranian production by 1m barrels a day since the start of last year, while civil unrest has returned this summer to Libya and crude oil theft increased in Nigeria. 

As a result Gulf states are capturing more of the fast growing Asian market. India imported 44 per cent of its crude from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE in July, up from 36 per cent in 2011, while China relies on the countries for a quarter of its imports compared to 21 per cent in 2007.

A rapid return to production among other Opec members, for example through a resolution to Iran’s nuclear standoff with the US, could yet leave the Gulf states exposed to the US shale revolution. And some analysts argue that Opec could yet need to discuss production cuts when its oil ministers next meet in Vienna in December.

The record output has provided a windfall for the oil-dependent monarchies. The 16.4m barrels a day produced by the four states during the third quarter was worth more than $150bn at today’s prices of more than $100 a barrel. 

The principal beneficiaries have been Saudi Arabia, which has increased output more than 10 per cent since the start of the year to a record of 10.19m b/d in August, and the UAE where the 2.77m b/d produced in September was a record, and 7 per cent higher than at the start of the year. Kuwait has also set a series of production records this year, but Qatar has been unable to raise production significantly. 

It also means the region remains crucial to the world’s major powers. The US continues to import almost 60m barrels a month from the Gulf, a number that has actually increased in the last three years even as US imports overall have fallen. 

Cantico delle Creature - San Francesco d'Assisi

Per uno scout nell'anima come me, il Cantico delle Creature è un po' come un manifesto.

Mi riporta alla memoria la strada, le attività con i frati francescani che ho avuto la fortuna di fare, ma soprattutto mi fa ricordare la Natura che tante volte mi sono fermato ad ammirare a bocca aperta, e tramite Lei lodare il Nostro Signore.

Buona lettura.

Altissimu, onnipotente, bon Signore,
tue so’ le laude, la gloria e l’honore et onne benedictione.

Ad te solo, Altissimo, se konfàno et nullu homo è ne dignu te mentovare.

Laudato sie, mi’ Signore, cum tucte le tue creature, spetialmente messor lo frate sole, lo qual’è iorno, et allumini noi per lui. Et ellu è bellu e radiante cum grande splendore, de te, Altissimo, porta significatione.

Laudato si’, mi’ Signore, per sora luna e le stelle, in celu l’ài formate clarite et pretiose et belle.

Laudato si’, mi’ Signore, per frate vento et per aere et nubilo et sereno et onne tempo, per lo quale a le tue creature dai sustentamento.

Laudato si’, mi’ Signore, per sor’aqua, la quale è multo utile et humile et pretiosa et casta.

Laudato si’, mi' Signore, per frate focu, per lo quale ennallumini la nocte, et ello è bello et iocundo et robustoso et forte.

Laudato si’, mi’ Signore, per sora nostra matre terra, la quale ne sustenta et governa, et produce diversi fructi con coloriti flori et herba.

Laudato si’, mi’ Signore, per quelli ke perdonano per lo tuo amore, et sostengo infirmitate et tribulatione.

Beati quelli ke 'l sosterrano in pace, ka da te, Altissimo, sirano incoronati.

Laudato si’ mi’ Signore per sora nostra morte corporale, da la quale nullu homo vivente pò skappare: guai a quelli ke morrano ne le peccata mortali; beati quelli ke trovarà ne le tue santissime voluntati, ka la morte secunda no 'l farrà male.

Laudate et benedicete mi’ Signore' et ringratiate et serviateli cum grande humilitate.