Did Putin plot with eco-warriors to halt UK fracking
By Paul Homewood
Of all the environmental campaigns mounted in this country, few have been more fervent, vociferous – and indeed effective – than the protests against fracking.
Over the past decade, groups such as Frack Off have successfully swung public opinion against what was once considered the answer to Britain’s energy needs.
In North America, where fracking – properly known as hydraulic fracturing, and by which water is pumped into beds of shale at high pressure to release gas – has been widely adopted, the process has helped to not only reduce energy prices, but is also reckoned to have given the US and Canada energy security for about a century.
Whereas here, in November 2019, the British Government announced a moratorium on fracking, stating it would ‘take a presumption against issuing any further Hydraulic Fracturing Consents’ in England. Similar suspensions were also announced in Scotland and Wales.
There is no doubt that if fracking were widely adopted throughout the UK and continental Europe, it would severely dent the demand for gas from Russia, and thereby lose Putin the billions he requires to prop up his regime and to prosecute his evil wars….
The timing could not be more acute, as this Tuesday – March 15 – the energy firm Cuadrilla has to concrete over its fracking wells in Lancashire on the orders of the Oil and Gas Authority.
The one man who will, of course, be delighted to see all that concrete being poured will be Vladimir Putin.
For the Russian President and his oligarchs, the ending of fracking in the UK and elsewhere will represent the cessation of a campaign secretly waged by the Russians to demonise fracking in the eyes of Western public opinion.
Before this can be dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theory, one only has to take the words of none other than the former secretary-general of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
He said in a speech in London in June 2014: ‘I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.’
According to a former US Director of National Intelligence, RT’s stance reflects economic self-interest and a fear of ‘the impact of fracking and US national gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to [Russian gas giant] Gazprom’s profitability’.
In Britain, we have seen a similar eruption of anti-fracking groups, although they are less militant. The website of Frack Off features hundreds of such groups from all around the British Isles, each with a Facebook page and often a dedicated website.
Unsurprisingly, the finances of all these anti-fracking groups are opaque, and as they are not registered charities, they are not obliged to reveal the sources of their donations.
Even if a group such as Frack Off were to be completely transparent about the source of its funds, it is likely that even the organisation’s members would be in the dark as to where all the funding ultimately came from.
There is no doubt that if fracking were widely adopted throughout the UK and continental Europe, it would severely dent the demand for gas from Russia, and thereby lose Putin the billions he requires to prop up his regime and to prosecute his evil wars (File image)
You have to look to the US for evidence of how these Russian operations work, and how – in all likelihood – the Russians have mounted their fracking disinformation campaigns in Britain and the rest of Europe.
As with so many murky and clandestine operations, it all starts with an offshore company. In this instance, the company was called Klein Limited, and it was based in Bermuda. The role of Klein Limited was ostensibly to give money to charitable causes.
In 2011 and 2012, it gave a total of $23 million to the Sea Change Foundation, which in turn made donations to various anti-fracking and environmental lobbying groups in the US, including the Sierra Club Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
With funds from the mysterious Klein, the Sierra Club launched its ‘Beyond Natural Gas’ campaign in 2013, which vigorously and publicly campaigned against fracking.
What greatly disturbed American lawmakers was the source of Klein’s millions. ‘None of this foreign corporation’s funding is disclosed in any way,’ the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee noted in 2016.
Unsurprisingly, the finances of all these anti-fracking groups are opaque, and as they are not registered charities, they are not obliged to reveal the sources of their donations
‘This is clearly a deceitful way to hide the source of millions of dollars that are active in our system, attempting to effect political change.’
There can be very little doubt that the ultimate source has to be Russia. In 2017, the US Congress Committee on Science, Space and Technology wrote: ‘Although the source of Klein’s capital has not been documented… deep connections to the Russian government and energy sector strongly suggest it is the source of Klein’s capital.’
It is now time for Britain’s anti-fracking and other environmental lobbying groups to be transparent about the sources of their income. The words of the former secretary-general of Nato and those of American lawmakers simply can no longer be ignored.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Plot with? No. Fund? Yes.
How do these “eco warriors” now feel about the availability and price of the fuels for transportation that they have so vigorously protested against?
They’re sufficiently well-off that they suffer little ill effect from them.
They’re the same comfortably off middle class superannuated student radicals that used to go on all the CND Aldermaston marches, besiege the US Embassy, camp out at Molesworth and whatnot back in the 1960s and 1970s, still indulging in a bit more virtue signalling and recreational outrage.
Spot-on, CW!👍
Lucas the Green was still prattling on about windfarms at lunchtime on Radio Doom.The other lady was spot on in terms of exploiting Nuclear and Fracking/North sea oil etc.Lucas is on another planet called nett zero at any cost ..
In Canada the Climate eco industry (Greed Peace; WWF; Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation) which is against development of natural resources is principally funded by US so called philanthropist’s who are darlings of The Davos crowd of globalists and the WEF. They have done great damage to the economies and standards of living of all Westerners.
All groups with an EX in their name are funded by people who use these useful idiots for their anti-common good programs. Governments should not allow foreign money to disrupt their economies of democratic functions. In the UK the number of so-called society elites who have sold out to foreign entities such as CCP is disgusting. The same goes for Unis accepting money bribes and students from China,
Lucas would be shot to pieces on any balanced radio station i.e confronted with an eco scientist.. I have been on a platform with her.. She shuts up pretty quickly if confronted but lets rip on her own.
The late Peter Sissons once did an interview with Caroline Lucas while he was working for the BBC, and decided he would give her a somewhat harder time than she usually got from the BBC. He recalls the incident in a book that was published in 2011 following his retirement. Some extracts from the book were published in the Daily Mail, including this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html
“The sense of entitlement with which green groups regard the BBC was brought home to me when what was billed as a major climate change rally was held in London on a miserable, wintry, wet day.
I was on duty on News 24 and it had been arranged for me to interview the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas. She clearly expected, as do most environmental activists, what I call a ‘free hit’ — to be allowed to say her piece without challenge.
I began, good naturedly, by observing that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment, and that we were having a particularly cold winter while carbon emissions were powering ahead.
Miss Lucas reacted as if I’d physically molested her. She was outraged. It was no job of the BBC — the BBC! — to ask questions like that. Didn’t I realise that there could be no argument over the science?
I persisted with a few simple observations of fact, such as there appeared to have been no warming for ten years, in contradiction of all the alarmist computer models.
A listener from one of the sceptical climate-change websites noted that ‘Lucas was virtually apoplectic and demanding to know how the BBC could be making such comments. Sissons came back that his role as a journalist was always to review all sides. Lucas finished with a veiled warning, to which Sissons replied with an “Ooh!”’
A week after this interview, I went into work and picked up my mail from my pigeon hole. Among the envelopes was a small Jiffy Bag, which I opened. It contained a substantial amount of faeces wrapped in several sheets of toilet paper.”
Would you believe the eco loons (XR) were demonstrating here in Newcastle yesterday at Inland Revenue’s mammoth site, all because HMRC use Barclays bank and Barclays is supporting the fossil fuel industry with finance. Pleasingly there were only about 9 sitting in the road, so not well supported. However XR are planning a big rally in Hyde Park on April 9th against fossil fuels (it was planned before Putin’s invasion) and intend bringing London to a halt, it is the start of Easter Holiday for all the wasters that attend these events. I was rather hoping that we could arrest them for sedition, as there is a war going on, but it was abolished as an offence in 2010. I wonder what the response will be from the MET, now that Cressida is working her notice and of course the general public should be a lot less tolerant. Roll on the instant ungluing of demonstrators, skin will eventually heal.
Flammenwerfers!
Obviously if these anti-fracking people are taking money, either paid or donated, from Putin’s cronies they should remember it might be their elderly relatives who suffer if gas heating becomes near unaffordable.
If Martin Lewis was right and energy prices could rise to over £3000 a year in the autumn then over half of U.K. households ( median income £29.500} will fall within the governments own definition of fuel poverty.
Great piece also by Matt Ridley:-
Matt Ridley: How lying Putin spent millions spreading fake news about fracking
The Sun, 15 March 2022
See link on Net Zero Watch.
Note that Hillary Clinton (NOT an enemy of the Net Zero Lunatic scam) herself, when Secretary of State, clearly stated that Russian money was going into the pipelines and fracking protests.
I know that RT (the Russian one, not the BBC’s propaganda outlet) was heavily pushing anti-fracking on its Max Keiser financial show around 8 years ago. Come to think it, the other RT has probably always been anti-fracking.
Where are all the Facebook and twitter fact checks and bans for these ‘NGO’s’ and green organisations spreading misinformation about fracking?
The “Fact Checkers” in fact are insisting that all opposition to the Green lunacy comes from the evil Climate Deniers!
Much though I despise Vlad the Bad, I don’t believe he ever needed to fund the anti-fracking lobby: it was already part of the massive fake-news group that control UK media.
Exactly.! Too much news from your U K newspapers against Russia. I always ask ‘Who owns this site” now RT is banished from Australia, at least it was the last time I looked. It is back in New Zealand . Otago Daily Times seems to have decided to play down the anti Russian rhetoric. It may not be governments you have to contend with newsmedia owners and internet providers may be at fault. BTW Mr Putin is doing what he said he would and advancing slowly… Remembering McCarthyism. Well goodluck with Net Zero
It is curious, isn’t it, that Greenpeace have, to the best of my knowledge only ever taken their “direct action” against Russia on two occasions. Most famously on 24 August 2012 by “Arctic Sunrise” attacking Gazprom’s Prirazlomnaya drilling rig in Russian waters. Five boats with 30 ‘protesters’ went to board the rig, having got on deck unfurled banners etc. Apparently a previous attempt in 2011 was carried out, but passed off peacefully.
In 2013, the ship (registered in the Netherlands) was siezed and the activists initially charged with piracy. As the rig isn’t a ship this wouldn’t stick legally and they were then charged with “aggrevated hooliganism” (which, on the face looks about right. The health and safety issues of this kind of escapade by untrained strangers on an oil platform are genuine and extreme.)
After being held for around six months, they were released. Needless to say Greenpeace and their admirers sobbed a little ocean of tears over their heroes’ allegedly mean treatment by Russia).
Subsequent action by the Netherlands against Russia (which they didn’t attend or contest) and concerning the “Arctic Sunrise” led to an award against Russia of several Million Euros. This was rejected by Russia but eventually they paid ‘an undisclosed sum’ to the Netherlands (reported as €2.7M or otherwise €6M) in 2019.
You will be shocked to know that all Google’s search results seem unanimously in favour of Heroic Greenpeace.
A seemingly decent examination of the legal aspects is at
https://www.marsafelawjournal.org/contributions/the-arctic-sunrise-arbitration-and-acts-of-protest-at-sea/
But what tickles my curiosity is, why did the Russians release the activists after six months?
I’m certain they could have found a reason to hold them for much longer. Why have the Activists not returned? Is Greenpeace now content that Russian oil drilling isn’t a problem?
Cynically, I suspect that a deal was done. I think that the bank accounts of both Greenpeace and the Activists (and indeed the Netherlands Court) might be full of interest.
“The oil market, and by extension the entire global commodities market, is the insurance policy of the status of the dollar as reserve currency,” said economist Gal Luft, co-director of the Washington-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security who co-wrote a book about de-dollarization. “If that block is taken out of the wall, the wall will begin to collapse.”
“And so the pieces of the endgame are falling into place: Russia starving the western world of much-needed resources, sending commodity prices ever higher, while its silent partner China quietly picks up the monetary pieces and takes advantage of the Western scramble to secure resources at all costs, and approach all those other “non-western” former petrodollar clients – who are also rich in other resources – to offer them a new product, the yuan, which Beijing is now actively and aggressively pushing to dethrone the dollar as a global reserve currency” source – oil price .
Paul, A forensic destruction of Boris’s piece in today’s Telegraph is much needed. So much ignorance and so many lies piled upon each other it is difficult to know where to start. The tone is set by his assertion that our problems are all Putin’s fault because he “created an addiction” [to his oil and gas.] The words lunatics and asylum are evident every which way you look these days.
His answers are for us to greatly reduce our usage (the Great Reset agenda of course) and ruinables which, he says, “are the quickest and cheapest route to greater energy independence.” And his piece de resistance: “there is nothing [Putin] can do to stop North Sea wind.” Infantile illogic.
Yes, but the Russians were not the only ones that were worried about fracking. The problem was that fracking in the US was a free-for-all with a large number of small companies involved. Since the output of the wells was not regulated there was significant overproduction, which brought the oil price down to a level that the majors had problems with.
While I can see that Gazprom could encourage greenie protests, I suspect that oil industry reps with access to ministers were more persuasive. I really can’t see that Macron would totally ban fracking in France to please the Russians
It’s all too convenient, we know its been bash the Russians month.
I’ve read speculation that involved in the anti fracking campaign all sorts of leftist groups, antifa being one the swampies always were.
Union involvement, unite in anti ‘capitalist’ fossil fuels.
The Hungarian exile doesn’t wish for cheap and plentiful fossil fuels available for all to prosper.
Gulf interests are heavily linked to anti frack tools.
Not to forget, also a certain eu anti frack dedicated to ‘not the UK’.
Finally, dead set against fracking the nuclear industry across the ditch and the wef.
I really don’t know how Vlad’s lads got a look in.
Never mind the Russkies, wasn’t it Chinese funded Ed Davey who, when in power, set the seismic fracking limit so low (0.5ml) that he single handedly crippled our fracking potential at birth. A fact that he has since bragged about repeatedly. Ching ching Ed!
Thank you. 🙂
You have confirmed my suspicions.
Frack-ON
‘Alexander ‘; McLintock’ on Tony Heller’s page ?…..You wouldn’t be related to a certain ‘fund-raiser ‘ would you ?
“Who funds you ?” is a bit of a fallacy
Cos it doesn’t matter who funds a debater
it’s the debate argument that counts.
Anti-green orgs have to have anonymous funding
cos otherwise Greenpeace eco-thugs will go round people’s houses/friends
and try to intimidate donors.
What is important is fair debate
but greens try to avoid that,
And often by get media orgs to ban people who will speak up against bad-green dogma.
The UK government demolished the power stations, Nicola Sturgeon actually appeared on a photo opp pressing the button to blow up the last power station in Scotland
Our elected representatives cheered all this through with little thought of the consequences.
We voted for this net zero policy, to try to blame others for the resulting mess is not correct.
Well, I didn’t vote for it and nor, I suspect, did you.
“We voted for this net zero policy, to try to blame others for the resulting mess is not correct.”
That is hardly true when all the legacy parties supported it; when it’s not allowed to be discussed on the compulsory financed TV channels; and when there are other, more pressing, policies to consider. If you wanted to argue that NET Zero policy was a disaster, you had to admit that the Climate Emergency was real, just to appear on TV, and then you were lucky if you got the chance to explain the deficiencies of NET Zero policies.
That was the problem with the EU: in order to get a vital policy through, vital to us, we had to vote for a bundle policies that included some that were obviously detrimental to us: that was not a vote of confidence, it was just horse trading.
Yes, you did vote for it if you voted Tory as the response to Dr North’s petition for a referendum on the government site was that it was in the Troy manifesto. It is correct that voting Labour or LimpDumb would get you NetZero as well but with added wokeness.
Disappointing article: no evidence, just hearsay.
George, with respect, that is a silly comment.
What “evidence” would meet your demanding standards?
A signed and witnessed confession by Putin?
Russian cheque stubs and a copy of “Frack Off’s” bank account?
The indisputable fact that RT ran an extensive anti-fracking campaign is a useful clue.
Do I think that Putin ‘owns’ “Frack Off” and that all the UK and US and EU Gang Green nutters and Ruinable Energy crooks were together stood to one side with their caps in their hands? Obviously, not in the least.
But it would be surprising, to say the least, if Putin wasn’t funding people who were boosting Russia’s economy and damaging ours. I wish our own Beloved Leaders had the common sense, patriotism and acumen to do something similar.
But just consider, how much “evidence” is there (rather than “hearsay”) that fracking is a problem? (1,600,000 successful wells, apparently, in USA.)
How much “evidence” is there that CO2 controls the climate?
“How much “evidence” is there that CO2 controls the climate?”
And how much evidence that shows that the evidence of Climate Change needs improving. 🙂
Just ask Tony Heller.
A lot of hot air, little or nothing of substance. – It is quite possible to be sceptical of global warming and tired of the current constant Russia-bashing.
The ban was implemented by Johnson, it was obvious at the time in 2019 that he was doing his Russian mates and Putin a big favour. Whether it was deliberate or just his normal laziness we can only guess, but it would be surprising if the Intelligence Services were not aware, so I lean towards deliberate.