Tag Archives: fuel

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026





The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

 


 

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

 




388811

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026





The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

 


 

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

 




388811

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026





The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

 


 

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

 




388811

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026





The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

 


 

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

 




388811

UK’s soaraway financial support to foreign fossil fuels Updated for 2026





The UK government financial support to fossil fuel industries abroad has soared to over £1 billion a year under the Coalition, according to an analysis by Greenpeace Energydesk.

The total support for fossil fuel industries amounts to £1.76bn-worth of Export Credit Guarantees between 2010-2014, underwritten by taxpayer’s money.

And of that, almost £1.1bn was handed out in the last financial year, 2013 / 2014, more than ten times up on two years previously.

This is despite PM David Cameron recently publicly decrying fossil fuel subsidies, and the financial backing breaks a promise set out in the coalition government’s manifesto.

David Cameron denounced “economically and environmentally perverse fossil fuel subsidies which distort free markets and rip off taxpayers” at the Ban Ki Moon climate summit in September.

The coalition manifesto stated the new government would use Export Credit Guarantees for “innovative and green technologies, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production.”

UKEF’s fossil fuel support hits new heights

UK Export Finance Agency (UKEF) is authorised by the government to decide what to financially back and their main instrument is the Export Credit Guarantee. These are designed to minimise the risk of making deals abroad for UK exporters.

In practice this means UKEF can work with banks to partially underwrite bonds that are a sort of insurance policy on the contract – and expected by the overseas buyer to be provided by the exporter. This supports the deal by releasing the working capital paid by the overseas buyer to the exporter, which can be used instead of placing it with the bank.

UKEF also provides insurance for UK exporters to protect against non-payment or other issues that commercial insurance won’t provide, as well as sometimes lending money to the buyer of the UK export so that they can pay them directly.

In the four years since the coalition government came into power in 2010, UKEF has announced significant support for a range of overseas fossil fuel projects – from backing for coal mining in Russia to oil and gas exploration in Brazil.

Last financial year was a particularly big one in terms of financial backing for fossil fuel projects, with over £380 million going to Brazilian state-controlled energy giant Petrobras – which also happens to be embroiled in an ongoing corruption scandal.

This was as part of a US$1 billion – around £660 million at current rates – line of credit signed with the firm in 2012. The deal involves UK drilling services for oil and gas exploration in Brazil, and presumably offshore exploration, too, since one of the UK firms specialises in subsea engineering.

There was also what UKEF called its “largest limited recourse project financing” that it has ever supported – around £475 million so going to support the build of petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia by a UK construction firm.

UKEF’s big favourite: Russian coal

Since 2010 there has been six instances of financial support pledged to Russia by UKEF, totalling around £430 million. This includes hefty support for Russian coal projects, financial backing for state-owned gas giant Gazprom to receive engineering equipment from Rolls-Royce Power Engineering, and expertise and software to other fossil fuels projects.

Around £67 million of the UKEF backing for Russian fossil fuel developments has even gone to US-based Joy Mining, which has a manufacturing arm in the UK. The money has supported the export of mining equipment to Siberian Coal & Energy Co (known as SUEK) and Southern Kuzbass Coal Co OAO.

SUEK is the largest coal producing company in Russia and is one of the companies that the UK imports its coal from – roughly 30% of Russian coal imports to the UK. A Greenpeace investigation found the UK spends nearly a billion pounds each year importing coal from Russia.

SUEK’s chairman Andrew Melnichenko has connections to the the UK government, the investigation found. His long-standing advisor George Cardona, is a former special advisor to Geoffrey Howe.

The Energydesk analysis comes after reports that the German government will give financial support for the export of coal-fired power-plants by the country’s manufacturers. Late last year French President Francois Hollande announced that France will stop public export credits for coal projects in developing countries.

A recent report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) revealed that the UK was still giving close to £1.2 billion annually to support exploration for oil, coal and gas. That includes both national subsidies (including tax breaks for North Sea oil exploration), and some $663 million (£425m) per year in public finance for overseas exploration including in Siberia in Russia, Brazil, India, and Indonesia.

But as reported in The Ecologist, those figures related to 2012. The new figures for UKEF support for fossil fuels in 2013 / 2014 are certain to push that total to a new record.

 


 

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace Energydesk blog. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.

 




388811

FBI harassing fossil fuel activists in the Pacific northwest Updated for 2026





In August 2014, two activists with the environmentalist group Rising Tide spent a week riding the backwoods highways of Idaho monitoring a megaload.

That’s big rig hauling equipment for processing tar sands oil that’s wide enough to take up two lanes of road, too high to fit under a freeway overpass, can be longer than a football field, and can weigh up to 1,000,000 pounds.

They had no idea that they would soon be wrapped up in a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe that encompassed three states and several environmentalist groups.

Helen Yost of Moscow, Idaho, and Herb Goodwin of Bellingham, Washington, have spent years travelling through area the bioregion of Cascadia to halt megaloads, from Washington and Oregon to Idaho and up through Montana.

They are used to harassment from law enforcement. That week, Goodwin said, the two were stopped on average twice a night, by law-enforcement agencies ranging from state troopers to local police in Sandpoint and Moscow.

Usually carrying equipment to upgrade and expand tar sands mining in Alberta, Canada, megaloads make a tortuous crawl along rural roads at night to avoid traffic, questions, and complaints.

Organizing resistance – too successful to ignore

But activists like Goodwin and Yost have been remarkably successful at organizing the people in mountain country. In August 2013, more than a hundred people in Idaho participated in a four-day mobile blockade of a megaload on US 12 headed for the Nez Perce reservation.

The Nez Perce Nation said the megaloads threatened treaty-reserved resources, historic and cultural resources, and “tribal member health and welfare.” Tribal chair Silas Whitman was one of the blockaders arrested, while activists from Wild Idaho Rising Tide (WIRT), the group Yost helped form, played important support roles.

Rising Tide North America’s network, spun out of the Earth First! grassroots environmentalist movement in 2005, now spans the Cascadia bioregion, with chapters in Seattle, Spokane, Olympia, Bellingham, and Vancouver, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Moscow, Idaho; Missoula, Montana; and Vancouver, B.C.

In the last six months, they have collaborated on an average of a blockade per month, and have helped to spearhead the movement against fossil fuel exports through the Pacific Northwest.

The network has worked in solidarity with indigenous peoples to halt megaloads, has marched in pickets with unions to shut down ports, and has aided community groups to stop permits for coal, oil, and gas terminals on the Pacific Coast.

The FBI steps in

On Oct. 9, Herb Goodwin was approached at his home in Bellingham by two FBI agents asking about a group called Deep Green Resistance (DGR).

The FBI and Joint Terrorism Taskforce had previously contacted several members of DGR and their families both by phone and through home visits in places as dispersed as Georgia, New York and Seattle.

Goodwin was alarmed but not surprised when the lead agent “flashed a badge and claimed to be from the FBI.” Refusing to tell him anything beyond her first name, ‘Brenda’, she provided a sloppy excuse for not presenting a business card.

The other person identified himself as ‘Al Jensen’, and his card identified him as a member of the Criminal Intelligence Unit of the Bellingham Police Department.

“Jensen jocularly mentioned that we knew each other from the Occupy movement / camp and train blockade, attempting to coax up conversation”, Goodwin said in an e-mail. “I did not take the bait.”

The Occupy encampment in Bellingham lasted for two months in the winter of 2011-12. Goodwin was one of four people arrested during the eviction, which came about two weeks after the mass blockade of a coal train Jensen mentioned. He says he recognized the detective’s face, but didn’t know his name:

“I think he was one of the undercover guys who was shifting in and out of our camp for the couple of months we had the camp up. I got a lot more surveillance after the Bellingham coal train blockade. I had people scoping out my apartment off and on for a couple months after that … I could see people scoping me from cars with binoculars.”

Goodwin says he is not a member of DGR, but suggests that it has drawn the interest of the FBI for advocating an ‘underground’ strategy to dismantle industrial civilization. At the same time, he adds,

“all the people remotely connected with DGR call themselves ‘aboveground,’ and they say that they’re going to be involved in the same kind of aboveground actions that other activist groups are, but as far as I know they haven’t really done anything.”

There is no love lost between DGR and Rising Tide. In February 2014, Rising Tide North America signed a letter along with some 40 other groups, such as Greenpeace, the National Lawyers Guild, and Tar Sands Blockade, petitioning the University of Oregon to cancel a keynote address by one of DGR’s leaders at an environmental-law conference on the grounds that the group’s transphobic beliefs promote “exclusionary hate that breeds an environment of hostility and violence.”

Questioning a Rising Tide activist about DGR seemed to blur some important differences between the groups, but activists still saw between the lines. The FBI inquisition was an obvious campaign to silence dissent, Yost says: “When Herb got visited we knew it wouldn’t be long before they came around to someone from Idaho.”

Habeas corpus battle in rural Idaho

On 9th October, the same day Goodwin was visited by the FBI, an activist named Alma Hasse attended a public meeting of the Payette County Planning and Zoning Commission to testify against the expansion of a gas-processing facility in the area, along the Oregon border northwest of Boise.

She recommended that the five Commission members recuse themselves from the permitting process on the grounds that they had signed oil and gas leases with Alta Mesa, the company seeking approval. (All three of the county commissioners have signed oil and gas leases as well.)

An associate of Yost and Goodwin, Hasse has worked in rural Idaho for years, agitating and organizing against fracking and oil trains. Cofounder of Idaho Residents Against Gas Extraction (IRAGE), which works with WIRT, she regularly attends Payette County government public meetings and brings up problems with their processes.

This time, something was different. The Commission members closed the meeting to the public, brusquely challenging Hasse’s testimony, and ordering her to leave or face arrest. After insisting on her right to participate in the public meeting, she was arrested and kept in jail for a week without being charged or even processed.

In protest against her mistreatment by the Commission, Hasse refused to give her name. Though the police knew her, and called her ‘Alma’ when they talked about her, they refused her requests for a telephone call until she obtained a PIN number, which she could only get after being processed.

Police refused to process Hasse until she volunteered her name. Instead of booking her as ‘Jane Doe’ (a formality, since they already knew her name), they kept her in a cell by herself.

“I felt like it was a game”, Hasse says. “They had my name. I had to sign in to testify at the public hearing, so both my name and my address were on the sign-in sheet.” She also had been granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon by the county sheriff’s office, so they had her Social Security number, date of birth, and fingerprints.

When police asked for her name, Hasse would tell them that they already knew her name, and that she wanted to talk to her attorney. They refused, which she insists was a violation of her civil rights and right of habeas corpus.

Only after she drew attention to her incarceration by going on a hunger strike, supported by a media campaign led by her husband and civil disobedience spearheaded by her daughter and WIRT, was she allowed to go free.

“I felt like I had to stand on principle”, Hasse says. “At some point, we as citizens have to stand up and assert our rights, because if we don’t, we’re just going to be steamrolled.”

When the FBI sends texts

On 10th December, Helen Yost of WIRT received three phone calls from an unfamiliar number in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Thinking they were from a telemarketer, she did not answer them. But nine days later, she awoke to another call from the same number. She had anticipated the text message that followed for years.

“Helen, I am trying to get a hold of you to speak with you. An issue has come up, and I need to speak with you. Please give me a call. I am an FBI agent. SA Travis Thiede.”

Yost responded within ten minutes: “NO!”

Agent Thiede’s reply came four minutes later: “OK, I understand, just wanted to have a conversation with you. Thanks.”

According to his LinkedIn profile, Thiede joined the FBI in 1997 after serving in the Army and as a police officer in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He was involved in the providing security at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and the investigation of a power-station bombing on the games’ last day.

Yost believes that the agent’s calls were related to her role as an organizer with WIRT. On 10th December, the day the first ones were placed, she had just returned to Moscow from a road trip organizing for the third annual Stand Up! Fight Back! Against Fossil Fuels in the Northwest!

She’d been in Sandpoint on 8th December and in Spokane, about 35 miles from the FBI office in Coeur d’Alene, on 9th December.

Continuing harassment

After years of dedicated activism, Hasse and Yost were not surprised. Groups like IRAGE and Rising Tide have felt the presence of the FBI for years.

The intensity of repression depends on the success of their campaigns, and not since the late 1990s has the Pacific Northwest seen so much mass action for environmental causes. During that period, the FBI inaugurated a broad strategy of repression, known by activists as the Green Scare, to track down suspects implicated in actions deemed ‘eco-terrorist’.

According to leaked documents, its surveillance net was so large that officers even tailed random Subaru-driving patrons of a farmers’ market. Earth Liberation Front spokesperson Craig Rosebraugh was subpoenaed eight times to testify before grand juries.

The FBI’s Operation Backfire led to 13 people being indicted and nine convicted on various charges, including arson. Of the other four, one committed suicide in jail, two are still fugitives, and one escaped prison time by turning snitch, but was later jailed on heroin charges.

That era is said to have ended in 2006, but the bureau is still using agent provocateurs to infiltrate environmental and social-justice movements. (One was recently arrested for failing to register as a sex offender and for credit-card fraud.)

In 2008, a young man named Eric McDavid was sentenced to more than 19 years in prison, after an agent provocateur who called herself ‘Anna’ seduced him into talking about committing acts of sabotage at a cabin in Northern California the FBI had rented and wired for her.

Repressive ‘ag-gag’ laws against fossil fuel activists

Legislation such as the 2006 federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, largely drafted by the far-right corporate American Legislative Exchange Council, has expanded the criminalization of advocacy for the environment and animal rights.

Because of Idaho’s new ‘ag-gag’ law – enacted in February after animal rights activists released videos of dairy workers abusing cows, it outlaws filming or recording agricultural operations without permission – activists in Payette County are afraid to take photographs of new fossil fuel wells and processing plants.

The surveillance has continued apace, as well. In 2011, activists with WIRT heard from an arrested megaload blockader that the local police were communicating with the FBI. They wrangled two meetings with the police and sheriff, but did not get any substantial information regarding the extent of federal involvement.

That fall, minutes after Yost received a call from an activist telling her that a protest was about to begin, police showed up and shined flashlights into people’s cars. She believes they learned the protest’s location by tapping her phone.

The local sheriff also approached associates of a professor at a university in Spokane and asked them about why he ‘Liked’ WIRT’s Facebook page.

In June 2013, the FBI called the parents of an activist with Portland Rising Tide, and six other activists who have worked with Rising Tide Seattle were visited by FBI terrorism expert Matthew Acker and forensics leader Kera O’Reilly. There was also a third agent, who did not give his information.

The agents asked about the movement against tar-sands and fossil-fuel shipments. It was apparent immediately that the target was the Summer Heat action scheduled for that July 27, a joint effort with 350.org that would send a hundred or more kayaks and boats into the Columbia River for a symbolic blockade on to protest coal barges, oil-by-rail, and gas pipelines.

“My [attorney] was not able to find out what or why they were bothering my sweet folks, but I will tell you why”, one activist whose parents were visited wrote.

“Its because Portland Rising Tide is outreaching, training, and organizing hundreds of Pacific NWers of all age groups to engage in a level of civil disobedience not seen in decades. We are going to do it to save our neighborhoods, our communities, our salmon, and our climate. And that scares the shit out of the powers that be.”

 


 

Alexander Reid Ross is a contributing moderator of the Earth First! Newswire and works for Bark. He is the editor of Grabbing Back: Essays Against the Global Land Grab (AK Press 2014) and a contributor to Life During Wartime (AK Press 2013).

This article originally appeared at DefendingDissent.org.

 

 




388642

Reclaim the power! It’s time to deprivatise Britain’s energy Updated for 2026





What must it be like to manage an oil company? To become the chief executive of an energy corporation and to earn millions a year doing so?

Iain Conn, ex-managing director at BP, knows. He is about to take up the position of CEO at Centrica (which owns one of the ‘Big Six’ energy suppliers, British Gas) in January.

The aptly named Conn will be paid in the region of £2m with added extras expected to raise this to around £3.7 million. One thing’s for sure; he won’t have trouble paying his fuel bill this winter.

The rest of us, however, might struggle. With fuel prices that have risen eight times faster than average incomes, more than one in ten households in England are now living in fuel poverty. Last month the Office for National Statistics released the number of people who died of cold last winter as 18,200.

The World Health Organisation attributes 30% to 50% of these deaths to cold homes. The energy companies would have us believe that there’s nothing they can do about prices but the reality is that they’re pocketing huge profits while failing to pass on lower wholesale prices.

Vast profits on the backs of people, and planet

Collectively, the Big Six made £2.8 billion in 2013, with profits from domestic customers a staggering five times higher than in 2009.

Companies such as Centrica are also reinforcing our addiction to dirty energy, which we still rely on for the vast majority our electricity generation. Centrica owns a 25% stake in Cuadrilla – the first – and one of the largest – companies’ fracking in the UK.

There is something clearly wrong with our current energy system. A utility which used to be publicly owned in this country is making millions keeping people in fuel poverty and deepening our addiction to carbon intensive fuels.

All over the world the story is similar. From the tar sands in Canada and Madagascar, to coal mines in Colombia and Mongolia, fossil fuel extraction is scarring the landscape, displacing communities and contributing to catastrophic climate change.

Yet this is doing nothing to get energy to the people who need it. One in five people globally live without electricity because they are unable to access it and many more go without because they can’t afford it. In Africa only 10% of those living in rural areas have access to electricity.

Although it is the model that is pushed throughout the world by institutions like the World Bank, privatised energy is not helping extend grids to people who lack access to energy or making energy affordable to the poor. The problem is corporate control – energy resources being used to make huge profits while steamrolling over people’s needs.

If we want more communities to be able to access and afford energy within the confines of a carbon constrained world, our current corporate-controlled privatised energy system is failing us. It’s painfully obvious that we need to look at the alternatives. The good news is that there are plenty!

Nationalised

Before Thatcher, the UK had a state run energy system and there are plenty of examples of countries around the world which still have them, such as Uruguay. In other places, privatisation has been such a disaster that energy systems have been taken back into public ownership.

The advantages of publicly owned energy systems are that they tend to have more public accountability and aren’t obliged to siphon off juicy profits for their shareholders.

Municipalised

In Germany there has been a huge move towards local authority run energy schemes as part of the country’s Energiewende, or energy transition.

In Germany this shift, known as municipalisation, has often come as a result of local referenda. In Hamburg, local people voted in September 2013 for their council to buy back the energy grid from multinational corporations E.ON and Vattenfall after campaigners successfully argued that the companies were not acting in the public interest and were delaying the transition to renewable energy.

The city of Boulder in America has also had success in municipalising its energy.

Co-operative

In parts of the world there is a long history of energy systems being run using co-operative models of control and ownership. For instance in Nepal and the Philippines micro-hydro co-operatives supply rural communities with reliable access to energy.

Here communities have collective control over a renewable energy source which could also make use of wind or biomass. A co-operative model more easily enables a project to be run by a community for the community.

Small scale co-operatives can provide an invaluable solution when prospects for grid connection are remote or would cause damage. In developed countries, small-scale cooperatives can also be a democratic way of communities gaining control over energy generation, even when they are connected to regional or national grids.

In Spain, Som Energia (‘We are Energy’ in Catalan) co-operative, was set up in 2011 in response to the lack of green energy options and the high bills of the large energy companies, of which the largest two account for 80% of the Spanish energy market.

Four years after being established, it has set up eight solar roof installations and a biogas plant and is in the process of building Spain’s first community wind turbine. It has 16,000 members who purchase electricity from the co-operative.

Scaled up

There are questions about the speed at which small scale projects can give communities the energy they need. Larger scale on-grid solutions have the potential to connect more households.

Large scale co-operatives have been very effective in America where they date back to the New Deal, and where 13% of the population use them – the co-ops are united by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA).

In Bolivia, the Cooperativa Rural de Electrificacion (CRE) is the biggest in the world with 276,000 users. Set up in the 1970s it was a small group of community leaders frustrated by the lack of municipal, state and private company willingness to provide services that got it off the ground.

Costa Rica also has large and long-established energy co-operatives that are run by the communities they serve and which function alongside the state energy company.

Gaining democratic control of energy resources is a fundamental part of ensuring our energy system provides for those that need it most and moves away from its destructive addiction to fossil fuels.

While there is no ‘one size fits all’ answer to these issues, approaches that give genuine control and ownership of those that they serve have a more likely chance of survival and of remaining truly democratic.

The solutions for reclaiming energy are here. Let’s take power out of private hands.

 


 

Petition: Re-nationalise the UK energy sector and end fuel poverty (38 Degrees).

Facebook: Fuel Poverty – Nationalise Gas, Electricity & Water Companies.

Sam Lund-Harket is an activist working with the World Development Movement (soon to be Global Justice Now) campaigning to end corporate control of the energy sector.

This article was originally published by openDemocracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

 

 




388252

The Ecologist places leaked Sellafield fuel pond photos in public domain Updated for 2026





The original photos are accessible by clicking on any of the thumbnail images (below right).

We claim no proprietary rights over the photos, however attribution of source is always appreciated.

For further information see:

 




386207

Leaked Sellafield photos reveal ‘massive radioactive release’ threat Updated for 2026





The Ecologist has received a shocking set of leaked images showing decrepit and grossly inadequate storage facilities for high level nuclear waste at the Sellafield nuclear plant.

The images (right), from an anonymous source, show the state of spent nuclear fuel storage ponds that were commissioned in 1952, and used until the mid-1970’s as short term storage for spent fuel until it could be re-processed, producing plutonium for military use. However they were completely abandoned in the mid-1970s and have been left derelict for almost 40 years.

The photographs show cracked concrete tanks holding water contaminated with high levels of radiation, seagulls bathing on the water, broken equipment, a dangerous mess of discarded items on elevated walkways, and weeds growing around the tanks.

The fuel storage ponds, the largest measuring 20m wide, 150m long and 6m deep, are now completely packed with spent fuel in disastrously poor condition.

If the ponds drain, the spent fuel may spontaneously ignite

The ponds are now undergoing decommissioning in order to restore them to safe condition. But the process is fraught with danger – and nuclear expert John Large warns that massive and uncontrolled radioactive releases to the environment could occur.

“This pond is build above ground”, he said. “It’s like an concrete dock full of water. But the concrete is in dreadful condition, degraded and fractured, and if the ponds drain, the Magnox fuel will ignite and that would lead to a massive release of radioactive material.

“Looking at the photos I am very disturbed at the degraded and run down condition of the structures and support services. In my opinion there is a significant risk that the system could fail.”

“If you got a breach of the wall by accident or by terrorist attack, the Magnox fuel would burn. I would say there’s many hundreds of tonnes in there. It could give rise to a very big radioactive release. It’s not for me to make comparisons with Chernobyl or Fukushima, but it could certainly cause serious contamination over a wide area and for a very long time.”

State of fuel is ‘very unstable’

The ponds were abandoned after they were overwhelmed with spent fuel in 1974. This was the time of Prime Minster Edward Heath’s ‘three-day week’ when coal miners were on strike, causing fuel shortages in Britain’s power stations.

In order the ‘keep the lights on’, the UK’s fleet of nuclear power stations were run at full tilt, producing high volumes of spent fuel that the Sellafield re-processing facilities were unable to keep up with.

“During the three-day week they powered up the Magnox reactors to maximum, and so much fuel was coming into Sellafield that it overwhelmed the line, and stayed in the pool too long”, says Large.

“The magesium fuel rod coverings corroded due to the acidity in the ponds, and began to degrade and expose the nuclear fuel itself to the water, so they just lost control of the reprocessing line at a time when the ponds were crammed with intensely radioactive nuclear fuel.”

“This left the fuel in a very unstable condition, with actual nuclear fuel complete with uranium 238, 235 and all the fission products, in contact with water. The problem then is that you get corrosion with the formation of hydride salts which leads to swelling, outside cracks, and metal-air reactions”, said Large – who gave evidence on the topic to the House of Commons Environment Comittee in 1986.

The whole fuel ponds began to look like milk of magnesia, and what with the poor inventories that had been kept, no one even knew what was in there any more. Even the Euratom nuclear proliferation inspectors complained about it as there was by some estimates over a tonne of plutonium sitting there in the fuel rods and as sludge that was never properly accounded for.”

All part of Britain’s nuclear WMD programme

The two adjacent fuel storage ponds, which lie between the old Windscale nuclear piles, were part of the military plutonium production line using the Windscale spent fuel until the Windscale diasaster in 1957.

With the Windscale piles out of commission, they were then adapted to receive nuclear waste from civilian power stations such as Calder Hall and Hinkley Point.

The first pond in the plutonium production line is B30, which is open to the elements. From there underwater tunnels were used to convey the fuel-bearing skips to other ponds and silos within the adjacent building, where the fuel rods were ‘decanned’ from their cladding.

The fuel was then dissolved in concentrated acids in the B203 reprocessing plant, where the plutonium for Britain’s nuclear weapons programme was chemically separated using the PUREX process. Both ponds contain a mix of fuel, sludge, and other miscellaneous nuclear wastes.

Concrete is riddled with cracks

But in the 40 years since the ponds were abandoned, the entire system has broken down. Locks, gantries, lifts and valves are all broken, missing or seized up.

The concrete is riddled with cracks – including not just the ones that you can see, but also those out of sight in the connecting tunnels. The entire environment is far too radioactive for anyone to be able to enter.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has now started work on the ponds, but reassuring statements have been shown to be over-optimistic. “It’s very disturbing”, says Large. “They have been saying it was all under control, and they thought well cleared out. Now we know it’s not.”

However an important first stage has been completed – the ‘de-flocculation’ of the water so that it’s finally possible to see what’s there. This had previously been impossible due to particulate suspension and algal growth.

“For the first time in decades we can see down into the pond and see the contents, and it’s breathtaking!” comments Large. “It’s all thanks to the whistle blower that I’m looking at them. If the Euratom inspectors could see what we can see now, my there would have been a row! Maybe we should invite them back right now!”

A particlar problem arises from the sludge that has accummulated at the bottom of both ponds and skips, which requires especially careful handling. The sludge has to be kept under water in order to prevent its spontaneous ignition.

But it’s also essential to keep it undisturbed as if the sludges are resuspended into the main body of water, a part of the sludge will add into the surface ‘oil’ of fine particulates which can be released to the atmosphere with any surface water disturbance – giving rise to high radiation levels above the water.

This seriously complicates both the removal and packaging of the sludge itself, and of the fuel-containing skips.

Office of Nuclear Regulation response

Several days prior to publication The Ecologist contacted the Office of Nuclear Regulation, the statutory nuclear safety regulator, with pressing questions about the safety of the site, safety plans in the event of water loss or radioactive release, and whether anyone will be prosecuted over the abandonment of the ponds in this highly dangerous condition.

We have now received their replies:

ONR: “Sellafield is ONR’s highest regulatory priority and receives a significantly enhanced level of regulatory attention. It is also a recognised national priority to reduce the hazard and risk at Sellafield in a safe and timely manner.

“We are focusing significant regulatory attention on retrieval of legacy material from the legacy ponds as we recognise the high hazard and risk that these facilities present.”

TE: Are you satisfied that these nuclear installation are safe and ‘fit for purpose’?

ONR: “The legacy facilities at Sellafield were built in the 1950s and 1960s and therefore don’t meet modern engineering standards. Additionally, the legacy facilities were not designed with retrievals of material or decommissioning in mind.

“This does not mean that operations and activities on these facilities are unsafe, but it highlights the need for Sellafield Ltd to retrieve the legacy material in a safe manner as quickly as reasonably possible.

“Our new regulatory approach is aimed at encouraging and facilitating this objective.  We are working collaboratively with other key stakeholders to focus priorities and help drive improvements at Sellafield.

“The new strategy and collaborative working approach is having a positive impact on hazard and risk reduction, particularly in relation to the Pile Fuel Storage Pond where we have enabled the acceleration of removal of legacy canned fuel by four months. We expect this approach to enable Sellafield Ltd to retrieve further legacy material from these facilities ahead of schedule.”

TE: Given that the operator essentially abandoned these ponds around 1974, is any person (real or corporate) to be prosecuted?

ONR: “ONR is not considering enforcement action in relation to the complex historical chain of events leading to the current situation at Sellafield but instead is focusing, together with other key stakeholders, on accelerating the reduction of hazard and risk on site, and how we can do that quickly and safely.

“The ONR’s top priority is ensuring that Sellafield Ltd maintains or improves upon its delivery programme for the remediation and decommissioning of the legacy facilities so that materials are removed  as quickly and safely as possible”

TE: Do these ponds satisfy Safety Assessment Principles for new nuclear plant?

ONR: “The legacy ponds at Sellafield are old and as a result, do not meet the high engineering standards that would be required for modern nuclear facilities. These legacy ponds bring significant challenge, but we must focus our attention on improving the current situation.

“This does not mean that operations and activities on those facilities are unsafe, and ONR has in place a robust inspection regime to ensure that the licensee is doing all that is reasonably practicable to ensure that operations continue to remain safe.” 

TE: Has ONR put in place any special measures under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2000?

ONR: “The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001, (REPPIR) require operators to assess the hazards on site and submit a report of this assessment to ONR.  As the operator, Sellafield Ltd are required to do this.

“This information, along with any additional information ONR may request, is used to determine the need for, and the extent of, the area requiring the local authority to produce an off-site emergency plan to protect the public in the unlikely event of a radiation emergency.”

TE: Has the operator given ONR a hazard report relating to B29 and B30?

ONR: “ONR is fully aware of the hazard and risk associated with all facilities at the Sellafield site, and has an on-going programme of inspections.  These ensure that Sellafield Ltd is complying with its statutory obligations to protect the public and workers from the hazards on  the site.

TE: Have risks associated with these buildings been incorporated into ONR report and placed in the public domain?

ONR: “ONR aims to be open and transparent in publishing our regulatory findings, and we routinely publish our regulatory decisions through project assessment reports and intervention records written by inspectors following site inspections.

“We also produce a quarterly report for the West Cumbria Site Stakeholder Group, which summarises our regulatory activity at Sellafield. There may be instances where it is not appropriate for us to publish certain reports, primarily as they may contain sensitive security information.”

TE: Does Cumbria’s offsite emergency plan address the risks posed by B29 and B30?

ONR: “Under REPPIR, Sellafield Ltd are required to assess the hazards on site and submit a report of this assessment to ONR. This covers the whole site.”

TE: It is reported that the ponds are leaking. Can you confirm this, and can you reveal where any leakage is going?

ONR: “ONR is not aware of any leaks from the ponds.”

 

 



 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




385924

Leaked Sellafield photos reveal ‘massive radioactive release’ threat Updated for 2026





The Ecologist has received a shocking set of leaked images showing decrepit and grossly inadequate storage facilities for high level nuclear waste at the Sellafield nuclear plant.

The images (right), from an anonymous source, show the state of spent nuclear fuel storage ponds that were commissioned in 1952, and used until the mid-1970’s as short term storage for spent fuel until it could be re-processed, producing plutonium for military use. However they were completely abandoned in the mid-1970s and have been left derelict for almost 40 years.

The photographs show cracked concrete tanks holding water contaminated with high levels of radiation, seagulls bathing on the water, broken equipment, a dangerous mess of discarded items on elevated walkways, and weeds growing around the tanks.

The fuel storage ponds, the largest measuring 20m wide, 150m long and 6m deep, are now completely packed with spent fuel in disastrously poor condition.

If the ponds drain, the spent fuel may spontaneously ignite

The ponds are now undergoing decommissioning in order to restore them to safe condition. But the process is fraught with danger – and nuclear expert John Large warns that massive and uncontrolled radioactive releases to the environment could occur.

“This pond is build above ground”, he said. “It’s like an concrete dock full of water. But the concrete is in dreadful condition, degraded and fractured, and if the ponds drain, the Magnox fuel will ignite and that would lead to a massive release of radioactive material.

“Looking at the photos I am very disturbed at the degraded and run down condition of the structures and support services. In my opinion there is a significant risk that the system could fail.”

“If you got a breach of the wall by accident or by terrorist attack, the Magnox fuel would burn. I would say there’s many hundreds of tonnes in there. It could give rise to a very big radioactive release. It’s not for me to make comparisons with Chernobyl or Fukushima, but it could certainly cause serious contamination over a wide area and for a very long time.”

State of fuel is ‘very unstable’

The ponds were abandoned after they were overwhelmed with spent fuel in 1974. This was the time of Prime Minster Edward Heath’s ‘three-day week’ when coal miners were on strike, causing fuel shortages in Britain’s power stations.

In order the ‘keep the lights on’, the UK’s fleet of nuclear power stations were run at full tilt, producing high volumes of spent fuel that the Sellafield re-processing facilities were unable to keep up with.

“During the three-day week they powered up the Magnox reactors to maximum, and so much fuel was coming into Sellafield that it overwhelmed the line, and stayed in the pool too long”, says Large.

“The magesium fuel rod coverings corroded due to the acidity in the ponds, and began to degrade and expose the nuclear fuel itself to the water, so they just lost control of the reprocessing line at a time when the ponds were crammed with intensely radioactive nuclear fuel.”

“This left the fuel in a very unstable condition, with actual nuclear fuel complete with uranium 238, 235 and all the fission products, in contact with water. The problem then is that you get corrosion with the formation of hydride salts which leads to swelling, outside cracks, and metal-air reactions”, said Large – who gave evidence on the topic to the House of Commons Environment Comittee in 1986.

The whole fuel ponds began to look like milk of magnesia, and what with the poor inventories that had been kept, no one even knew what was in there any more. Even the Euratom nuclear proliferation inspectors complained about it as there was by some estimates over a tonne of plutonium sitting there in the fuel rods and as sludge that was never properly accounded for.”

All part of Britain’s nuclear WMD programme

The two adjacent fuel storage ponds, which lie between the old Windscale nuclear piles, were part of the military plutonium production line using the Windscale spent fuel until the Windscale diasaster in 1957.

With the Windscale piles out of commission, they were then adapted to receive nuclear waste from civilian power stations such as Calder Hall and Hinkley Point.

The first pond in the plutonium production line is B30, which is open to the elements. From there underwater tunnels were used to convey the fuel-bearing skips to other ponds and silos within the adjacent building, where the fuel rods were ‘decanned’ from their cladding.

The fuel was then dissolved in concentrated acids in the B203 reprocessing plant, where the plutonium for Britain’s nuclear weapons programme was chemically separated using the PUREX process. Both ponds contain a mix of fuel, sludge, and other miscellaneous nuclear wastes.

Concrete is riddled with cracks

But in the 40 years since the ponds were abandoned, the entire system has broken down. Locks, gantries, lifts and valves are all broken, missing or seized up.

The concrete is riddled with cracks – including not just the ones that you can see, but also those out of sight in the connecting tunnels. The entire environment is far too radioactive for anyone to be able to enter.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has now started work on the ponds, but reassuring statements have been shown to be over-optimistic. “It’s very disturbing”, says Large. “They have been saying it was all under control, and they thought well cleared out. Now we know it’s not.”

However an important first stage has been completed – the ‘de-flocculation’ of the water so that it’s finally possible to see what’s there. This had previously been impossible due to particulate suspension and algal growth.

“For the first time in decades we can see down into the pond and see the contents, and it’s breathtaking!” comments Large. “It’s all thanks to the whistle blower that I’m looking at them. If the Euratom inspectors could see what we can see now, my there would have been a row! Maybe we should invite them back right now!”

A particlar problem arises from the sludge that has accummulated at the bottom of both ponds and skips, which requires especially careful handling. The sludge has to be kept under water in order to prevent its spontaneous ignition.

But it’s also essential to keep it undisturbed as if the sludges are resuspended into the main body of water, a part of the sludge will add into the surface ‘oil’ of fine particulates which can be released to the atmosphere with any surface water disturbance – giving rise to high radiation levels above the water.

This seriously complicates both the removal and packaging of the sludge itself, and of the fuel-containing skips.

Office of Nuclear Regulation response

Several days prior to publication The Ecologist contacted the Office of Nuclear Regulation, the statutory nuclear safety regulator, with pressing questions about the safety of the site, safety plans in the event of water loss or radioactive release, and whether anyone will be prosecuted over the abandonment of the ponds in this highly dangerous condition.

We have now received their replies:

ONR: “Sellafield is ONR’s highest regulatory priority and receives a significantly enhanced level of regulatory attention. It is also a recognised national priority to reduce the hazard and risk at Sellafield in a safe and timely manner.

“We are focusing significant regulatory attention on retrieval of legacy material from the legacy ponds as we recognise the high hazard and risk that these facilities present.”

TE: Are you satisfied that these nuclear installation are safe and ‘fit for purpose’?

“The legacy facilities at Sellafield were built in the 1950s and 1960s and therefore don’t meet modern engineering standards. Additionally, the legacy facilities were not designed with retrievals of material or decommissioning in mind.

“This does not mean that operations and activities on these facilities are unsafe, but it highlights the need for Sellafield Ltd to retrieve the legacy material in a safe manner as quickly as reasonably possible.

“Our new regulatory approach is aimed at encouraging and facilitating this objective.  We are working collaboratively with other key stakeholders to focus priorities and help drive improvements at Sellafield.

“The new strategy and collaborative working approach is having a positive impact on hazard and risk reduction, particularly in relation to the Pile Fuel Storage Pond where we have enabled the acceleration of removal of legacy canned fuel by four months. We expect this approach to enable Sellafield Ltd to retrieve further legacy material from these facilities ahead of schedule.”

Given that the operator essentially abandoned these ponds around 1974, is any person (real or corporate) to be prosecuted?

“ONR is not considering enforcement action in relation to the complex historical chain of events leading to the current situation at Sellafield but instead is focusing, together with other key stakeholders, on accelerating the reduction of hazard and risk on site, and how we can do that quickly and safely.

“The ONR’s top priority is ensuring that Sellafield Ltd maintains or improves upon its delivery programme for the remediation and decommissioning of the legacy facilities so that materials are removed  as quickly and safely as possible”

Do these ponds satisfy Safety Assessment Principles for new nuclear plant?

“The legacy ponds at Sellafield are old and as a result, do not meet the high engineering standards that would be required for modern nuclear facilities. These legacy ponds bring significant challenge, but we must focus our attention on improving the current situation.

“This does not mean that operations and activities on those facilities are unsafe, and ONR has in place a robust inspection regime to ensure that the licensee is doing all that is reasonably practicable to ensure that operations continue to remain safe.” 

Has ONR put in place any special measures under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2000?

“The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001, (REPPIR) require operators to assess the hazards on site and submit a report of this assessment to ONR.  As the operator, Sellafield Ltd are required to do this.

“This information, along with any additional information ONR may request, is used to determine the need for, and the extent of, the area requiring the local authority to produce an off-site emergency plan to protect the public in the unlikely event of a radiation emergency.”

Has the operator given ONR a hazard report relating to B29 and B30?

“ONR is fully aware of the hazard and risk associated with all facilities at the Sellafield site, and has an on-going programme of inspections.  These ensure that Sellafield Ltd is complying with its statutory obligations to protect the public and workers from the hazards on  the site.

Have risks associated with these buildings been incorporated into ONR report and placed in the public domain?

“ONR aims to be open and transparent in publishing our regulatory findings, and we routinely publish our regulatory decisions through project assessment reports and intervention records written by inspectors following site inspections.

“We also produce a quarterly report for the West Cumbria Site Stakeholder Group, which summarises our regulatory activity at Sellafield. There may be instances where it is not appropriate for us to publish certain reports, primarily as they may contain sensitive security information.”

Does Cumbria’s offsite emergency plan address the risks posed by B29 and B30?

“Under REPPIR, Sellafield Ltd are required to assess the hazards on site and submit a report of this assessment to ONR. This covers the whole site.”

It is reported that the ponds are leaking. Can you confirm this, and can you reveal where any leakage is going?

“ONR is not aware of any leaks from the ponds.”

 



Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 

 




385924