The referendum is something so strange – for – mere mortals that every time he holds one is not even possible to know What you are voting for. It is the fault not only of those who want the referendum fails or is not a quorum. The responsibilities of bad information on the referendums are generally equally shared between the organizing committee and the front of the no / abstention. The referendum of April 17 on the drilling rigs and drilling does not, of course, exceptions.
No , is not a referendum to stop the drills
the history of this referendum is very similar to how you’re unraveling what was said at the time of the so-called public referendum on water. Referendum that has never challenged the privatization of water (which was and still is a public good) but how to allocate the service and possibly privatization (full or in part) of the companies run the service. The first discordant note has issued the NO TRIV Committee which immediately publicized the referendum explaining that going to vote Yes we eliminated the drills by Italian seas. Hooray! But it is not so, for two reasons enclosed – watch yourself coincidences – in the text of the referendum question, which is as follows:
Do you wish to be repealed l ‘ art. 6, paragraph 17, the third period, the legislative decree of 3 April 2006, n. 152, “Environmental Regulations”, as substituted by paragraph of Article 239. 1 of the Law of 28 December 2015, n. 208 “Provisions for the preparation of the annual and multiannual budget of the State (Law established ’2016)”, in the following words: “for the term of the useful life of the oil field, in compliance with safety standards and environmental protection?
the referendum question does not propose to ban drilling in the ocean off our coasts but only regards the renewal of concessions mode within the 12-mile limit. This means that already in Italy it is forbidden to drill new wells within the territorial waters limit. In fact, therefore the drills – strictly speaking – are already frozen since 2011, it is instead allowed to continue exploiting those fields on which insists a platform for the mining operation. New licenses will in any case be assigned outside the limit of territorial waters, but not limited to: all those platforms which, although within the limit of 12 miles from the coast, have applied for renewal by December 2015. What c ‘I am so dance? Substantially, and it is enough to read the text of the referendum question, this is to repeal the passage of the law that currently allows the extension sine die for the extraction of existing hydrocarbons within the limit of twelve miles from the coast . It is with the law 208 of 28 December 2015 (ie from the 2016 Stability Law) which has replaced an article in the Consolidated Environment, the then made the referendum asked to intervene to change a paragraph of a law 2006 transposing the provisions of law No. 9 of 9 January 1991 (in particular articles 4, 6, and 9). But what are the facilities that could be affected by the outcome of the referendum if he wins the yes? He tells us this infographic of the Corriere della Sera
Referendum 17 April: where are the drills (15 April 2016)
the plants for drilling at sea are 69 throughout Italy of which 25 will function even in case of victory of the yes and 44 are affected by the referendum. of these 69 total, eight in Veneto are suspended, the 31 in Emilia Romagna are running 28, 14 of the Marches are productive in nine, five in Abruzzo are productive in four, followed by Molise and Apulia, where there is one which is productive (but in Puglia, attention, the production is beyond the 12-mile and is therefore not subject to referendum); close the Calabria (five installed, three production) and Sicily (four installed, three production). We so of drills that they will not be closed because the referendum does not apply to plants beyond 12 miles. Finally, there are those within Italian territorial waters, for some of them the referendum will have no effect, these are the ones for which the dealers have already applied for renewal of the license according to the law that would change (and not repeal). And the others?
source: Il Sole 24 Ore via Twitter.com
If the Yes wins there will be waves of layoffs?
Trying to figure out what will be the fate of drills within 12 miles, in case of victory Yes, that’s it then arrives to one of the hoaxes of the supporters of the no and abstention. First of all there is to detect what he wrote Michele Emiliano on Facebook a few weeks ago: “ If returned to the old rules (law 9/91) that does not never determined layoffs, permit extraction of hydrocarbons would last for 30 years, extendable for 10 years and then indefinitely 5 years in 5 years without any interruption of the mining activity “. This statement shows essentially one thing, namely that the referendum against the drills not only does not affect all drilling activities – as well as those beyond 12 miles of the concessions within the territorial waters of the December 31, 2015 have applied for renewal will not touch on the outcome of the referendum if he wins the Yes – but neither will be closed immediately because the law cited by Emiliano expected to
in order to complete the exploitation of the oil field, elapsed “seven years since the release of the ten-year extension”, the dealer may be granted, in addition to the extension provided for in Article 29 of the law of 21 July 1967 n. 613, one or more extensions of five years each if performed the cultivation and research programs, and it has fulfilled all the obligations arising from the grant or the extension.
One moment, but this means that a Yes victory will not prevent the renewal of the existing concessions ? Exact. The point of those who are in favor of Yes (beyond the environmentalist rhetoric of NO TRIV at all costs does not make sense to exist here and now) is that it is preferable to conduct a review every five years that grant an extension for an indefinite period – life natural during the field – after a single procedure of Environmental Impact Assessment. It does not seem so realistic that – because of the Yes victory – those who work on the platforms within 12 miles will be summarily dismissed because the dealers will in any case apply for a renewal of the license every five years after the expiry of the second extension (if the have already required).
Vote Yes will force the government to invest in renewable?
it is not true, and not just because the referendum does not concern at all renewable but also because the share of production that eventually may be lost (if they are not renewed concessions) is irrelevant from the point of view of supply of fossil fuels as part of our country. Therefore it is incorrect to say, although it’s fun to make jokes on Facebook, that those who vote Yes is against oil and should do without using the car petrol (or methane). We therefore view the number of licenses which may be affected: it is 17 concessions for the extraction of natural gas activities (four of which are allowed to extract oil too). Within the limit of 12 miles there are also 9 other concessions for which, however, is already an extension sought, and therefore are “prejudice”. Those 17 concessions “at risk” weigh now – explains Dario Faccini of ASPO Italy – for about 17.6% of gas and approximately 9% of oil products. It is therefore not true that if he wins the Yes lose 60-70% of the domestic production of natural gas, because the bulk of mining takes place on the ground (34%) or beyond the limit of territorial waters ( 36%). Then there are those who say that in the end the referendum is unnecessary because the oil companies will be enough to apply for a new license “just outside the 12-mile”, something like 12.5 miles (or 12.000001 miles). The point is that open a new facility, ask for a new license and restart the production is a particularly expensive, it really makes sense to do it when the level of production of natural gas in those concessions is going down for several years? Taking into account the current situation in crude oil prices (at historic lows) the answer is probably not . But so renounce our energy independence and we should buy more oil and gas, say some, well, let’s start from the fact that already we import 90% of the demand for fossil fuels, the closure of those wells (if you will) result in the loss 2.1% of the natural gas needs and 0.8% of that oil as written always Faccini.
If the Yes wins Italy says goodbye to the money of the concessions?
the argument of some optimists and rationale is that the extraction of oil and gas is a source of wealth for our country and especially for the regions in whose territories insist exploitation activities. the oil companies, they explain, must pay a fee per cubic meter / ton of gas or oil extracted in the sea. but things are not really so. the starting point are the royalties, ie the percentage that oil companies must pay to the State. For Italy we at a rate of 7% for oil extraction at sea and 10% for the extraction of gas but these are often paid only if the annual production exceeds 50,000 tons for oil and 80,000 cubic meters for gas. Thanks these plants deductibles “unproductive” become affordable because then the manufacturing company can sell the product “at full price” in this way, reports the Press , “in 2015 on a total of 26 production concessions only 5 of those in 4 gas and oil, they have paid royalties. All other mined such volumes as to remain under the deductible and therefore not pay the fee to the state, regions and Towns. “ Any royalties income (here the revenue for 2015) are as follows and make us understand how the claim of the Regions to have a say is not entirely unfounded, because the Unlock Italy provides that the regions that authorize research and extraction of hydrocarbons are in partly exempted from the stability Pact. As explained Enrico Vega Econopoly of “force” the oil companies face a renewal procedure within a relatively short time may encourage them to extract resources more quickly and thus to “stay within” the roof of the franchise:
by voting Yes to the referendum Italians would get time limits for defined concessions (in a few years). So, trivially, energy companies should (supposedly) to extract the most possible product on time. Breaking through the excess shares and then paying more royalties. All for the benefit of the local and national community.
This process is not, however, be taken for granted nor automatic, but the fact that companies may be forced, in a relatively short time, to dismantle platforms it could discourage future private investment in the field of fossil fuels. There is also to consider that sooner or later these deposits will end, until now the oil companies, while keeping a low level of the quantity extracted, also have avoided the need to address the decommissioning of plants from the point of view of the redeployment of workers.
About invites abstention breaks the law?
a large slice of the Democratic Party (say excluding the eight presidents of the Region who proposed the referendum) and the Chairman of Matteo Renzi Council have indicated that the party’s position is abstention. Yesterday, former President of the Republic Giorgio Napolitano has come out in favor of abstention, sparking the ire of opposition that has returned to talk about the President of the Republic colluded with Renzi and saying that it is a scandal that the (former) more highest office of State calls to boycott the polls. But there are some details to be done. Abstentions shall, in view of the referendum institution functioning, perfectly legitimate. In fact, the quorum threshold (fixed at the rate of 50 + 1 of those eligible) has its own way to differentiate the referendum from normal voting (who do not have a quorum). The ability to abstain is therefore one of the three who were conceived at the time of creating the referendum institution in Italy. But it is right that Renzi and Napolitano invite abstention? Remember that Napolitano is currently a senator for life, and that when he was President had expressed differently about abstention, it is not because it is desirable (but is not even illegal) that anyone who holds a constitutional position (for example to Chairman of the Board) invites citizens to publicly not to vote. From “simple senator” instead Napolitano can do it.
The drills kill sperm whales?
Someone pulled out the old story of sperm whales beached in Vasto because of drilling in the Adriatic, just that there is a big problem as a home to support this thesis. Or that the drilling in the Italian Adriatic Sea do not take place for years. This was stated by Assomineraria, the association of the mining and oil industry member of Confindustria. In 2011, just a few municipalities in the area resorted to the TAR against concessions to Petrolceltic Environment Ministry. The Irish company obtained a few years ago the authorization to patrol the Adriatic from Pescara to Gargano, but in 2012 everything was stopped by the Regional Administrative Court:
Thus, mayors of several coastal towns of Abruzzo and Molise were able to save the cliffs and the views of Punta Penna , seaside resort just north of Vasto, thanks to two judgments in which the president of the TAR of Lazio, Antonio Vinciguerra, has rejected the two authorizations issued in 2011 by the Environment Ministry to Petroceltic Italy, firmly intends to proceed with an operation of air gun not a real drilling itself, but a ” seismic inspection “that includes bursts of air compressed fired into the seabed in order to draw a map of the soil composition and then, if necessary, proceed with the drilling.
And then? “For years, Italian Adriatic are not carried out geophysical seismic reflection (Air Gun). The latest geophysical survey in the Croatian sea was completed in January 2014 in preparation of the tender notice that the Croatian government announced last April to allocate areas for oil exploration in the sea. Other seismic acquisitions were made by Greece and Malta at the beginning of this year. This would be enough to rule out any verification trivial correlation between such activities and the stranding of whales in Vasto, “writes Assomineraria in its press release.
« The referendum? Abstention for Regeni and the marines’
For the past let two of crap most imaginative and funny, the kind that hardly shift the balance of votes. The first is the abnormal release of Giampaolo Galli , professor, chief economist of Confindustria and now MP from the Democratic Party, which has always proved to be a serious person. But you know, politics makes it ridiculous. That is why today on Twitter Galli has felt the need to argue in this way its legitimate choice to abstain in the referendum on drilling on April 17:
the conspiracy theory about refugees in exchange for drills
the second is that of the deputy to 5 Star Mirko Bust on its Facebook page indicates an interesting conspiracy theory of Italy and Malta : according to the deputy of the Italian Republic, there are “rumors” that our government would trade the reception of refugees with the opportunity to exploit oil fields in Maltese waters:
With persistently follow each other voices, national and international, so our government would trade the welcome on Italian soil of boats that should be recovered from Malta in exchange for the possibility of exploiting the oil fields in Maltese waters.
With every emergency migrants most dramatic day such an agreement would be unheard of!
While Italy is collapsing and the immigrants in perpetual emergency reception centers in Malta, despite its location, are practically empty and their ships ferme at the port. Because? Because every boat that passes the area of interest would be recovered from the Maltese and European and Italian ships docked on our territory. Territory now unable to provide any form of welcome and appropriate assistance to an increasing number of migrants.
The same deputy noted some sources that fueled the conspiracy theory. Among these it is Zerohedge citing as source the Maltese opposition leader, Simon Busuttil of the Nationalist Party. In order:
a) The leader of the opposition in Malta’s interest to accuse the government of atrocities, which also happens in the rest of the world. It is politics, rubbish.
b) it is true that between Italy and Malta, there are discussions about the exploitation of oil fields, but date back to well before the outbreak of the crisis of Refugees
c) the news is identical to that raised in September by the Journal, bounced on the international media, and finally denied by the government of Malta:
As Stated Already, the Government of Malta would like to clarify there is no agreement, formal or informal, with the Italian government about immigration. Italy and Malta sono stati collaborating closely for the past few years to make sure That people are saved at sea.
disembarkation of migrants rescued at sea is always Conducted as per applicable international obligations to Malta, and as for Respective operational plans in case of participation in Frontex or any other operation. Malta Has Been Devoting 100% of its resources to save immigrants at sea.
There are absolutely no discussions or agreements linking migration with oil exploration.
Reports Stating the contrary are factually wrong
None of the cited report gives news of last September denied.
d) politically, as is well understood by the exploitation of the electorate of issue of refugees, ranging from Salvini & amp; Meloni until now the deputy bust, an agreement providing for the exploitation take on a political problem permanently in exchange for a deposit (hard to translate into agreement for electoral purposes) is incredible; then if the agreement was actually discovered and was really in those terms who would have signed would flee to Patagonia.
The sticker is on the cover of Junio Marcello Clerici
No comments:
Post a Comment