Industrialization, Coal plant. Refinery

Ubongo

Village Elder
#1
KENYA National Environment Tribunal cancels environment license for planned Amu Power coal power plant, blaming developers for not consulting the local community
Back to the drawing board , activists have won the court battle throwing the coal plant in jeopardy. Industrial power will remain expensive pushing the cost of production to the struggling customers.

Meanwhile
Kenya signs deal with Tullow to build oil refinery in Turkana

https://kenyanwallstreet.com/kenya-govt-signs-deal-to-develop-crude-oil-refinery-in-turkana/
So building a refinery at Turkana was possible ,what change of mind? Do we have enough capacity for the refinery.?
If it is possible, this is one area the government needs to move with speed and save on importation so as to save money and channel it to other deserving areas
 

Micymas

Village Elder
#3
If the amu people fell the plant is bad, it is time the company left and all the compensation money already paid returned. Na hiyo story iishe. Sio poa kuforce watu wakubali porject. It is a tiny col plant. Not even 10% as large as some of the average sized coal plants in the world. Honestly anyone still sinking their money in that shit is demented or insane
 

Mediocre

Village Elder
#4
And when you ask the activists about the electricity bill and lack of jobs for youth due to delayed industrialization wanakuambia hiyo ni shida ya gava while they enjoy kickbacks from foreign NGOs who have their energy policies figured out.
 

gashwin

Village Chief
#6
The environmental terrorists, Greenpeace, even bought the largest newspaper in east and central africa to influence today's tribunal ruling.

POLITICS & POLICY
In a ‘Post-Truth’ Era, Greenpeace Lies to Raise Money
By AMY PAYNE
January 24, 2017 9:00 AM
  • Greenpeace logo at a “Bridges Not Walls” protest in Brussels, January 20, 2017. (Photo: Bombeart/Dreamstime)The organization uses false accusations to support its environmentalist stunts.
Free speech is one thing. It’s another to lie about a company just because you don’t like it. And environmental organizations like Greenpeace go even further — they try to raise money through pitches based on lies.
Green groups say they have been fundraising like crazy since the election. It’s going to take commitment to defeat their smear campaigns, which threaten jobs and communities. In this fight, Americans can learn a lot from our northern neighbors in Canada’s boreal forest, who are refusing to take the abuse.
Union workers and government officials in the forest region have risen up against Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and other organizations that are making wild claims. For several years, activists have relentlessly attacked paper company Resolute Forest Products and its customers, claiming that it is destroying the forest. The people directly affected by these false accusations are speaking up in droves.
“We will not sit idly by while self-interested pressure groups try to malign the diligent and careful work that our members do for a living,” union leaders recently told the NRDC.
Roger Sigouin, the mayor of Hearst, Ontario, told Greenpeace that if its misinformation campaign is successful, “the aftermath will be whole communities dying and I can tell you right now, that’s irresponsible and we will not stand for that.”
Refreshing, eh? It’s not just a corporation-vs.-environmentalists battle; union workers, the company that provides their livelihood, and local governments are all on the same side.
The media aren’t supporting the false attacks, either. In 2016, Canada’s media ombudsman found that Greenpeace was misleading the public. Greenpeace showed photos of a devastated forest, insinuating that the damage was done by Resolute, when in fact the forest had been destroyed by fire. Journalists got to the bottom of the story.
Greenpeace has used photos to mislead people before. It has been caught twice using photos that it claimed were proof of coal-induced damage to the Great Barrier Reef — photos that actually came from another location. Australia’s Courier Mail reported last year that the group “was accused of false advertising to drive donations with emotive but erroneous adverts on the London Underground, claiming coal companies would be allowed to dredge in the Reef.”
Greenpeace has been caught twice using photos that it claimed were proof of coal-induced damage to the Great Barrier Reef — photos that actually came from another location.​
Getting caught hasn’t fazed Greenpeace, which is benefiting from the modern “post-truth” era. When Oxford Dictionaries declared “post-truth” its Word of the Year for 2016, the definition was: “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
For environmental groups, shaping public opinion is everything. So when Resolute Forest Products sued Greenpeace, calling it a “global fraud” that has “duped” donors with “materially false and misleading claims,” Greenpeace reacted not with facts but with an appeal to emotion. It warned other activist organizations that they, too, could be sued — claiming that the only thing at issue was “free speech.” In November, Greenpeace put out a petition against Resolute, complete with a full-page ad in the New York Times signed by 80 organizations. The ad’s text: “Free speech is not a crime.”
In America, the First Amendment protects free speech, but not libel or slander. And the real kicker for Greenpeace is that Resolute’s lawsuit takes the group to task for fundraising off false claims. The lawsuit is based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, something that Greenpeace itself has used and encouraged in the past.
Greenpeace publicly shamed Resolute and harassed its customers, claiming the company was logging in areas that were off limits and was displacing endangered animals. These accusations were false. Yet it continues to warn that the boreal forest is being destroyed, asking for donations to its “Forest Defense Fund.”
COMMENTS
Did you know that the Canadian government won’t recognize Greenpeace as a tax-exempt charitable organization? It has said Greenpeace’s activities “have no public benefit.” That’s an understatement. Instead, the group causes harm. Greenpeace and others like it should be held accountable for the ways they lie to supporters and hurt communities.
— Amy Payne is a media and think-tank survivor who writes about policy shenanigans
 
Last edited:
#7
I think this is just a small hurdle. The company can just go back to consulting the local community. Kama NEMA imepeana license na the county government has no challenges, kitu imebaki ni kidogo.
 

spear

Village Sponsor
#10
KENYA National Environment Tribunal cancels environment license for planned Amu Power coal power plant, blaming developers for not consulting the local community
Back to the drawing board , activists have won the court battle throwing the coal plant in jeopardy. Industrial power will remain expensive pushing the cost of production to the struggling customers.

Meanwhile
Kenya signs deal with Tullow to build oil refinery in Turkana

https://kenyanwallstreet.com/kenya-govt-signs-deal-to-develop-crude-oil-refinery-in-turkana/
So building a refinery at Turkana was possible ,what change of mind? Do we have enough capacity for the refinery.?
If it is possible, this is one area the government needs to move with speed and save on importation so as to save money and channel it to other deserving areas
That article on the contract between Ministry of petroleum and Tullow/Africa oil/Total is wrong. It doesn't mention an refinery. Its a central processing unit.

That's not a refinery. It will need at least 200000 barrels a day to make it viable and a production period of at least 30 years and above. However the 60000-80000 daily barrels is the initial first oil projection. They will drill 300 production wells in those 2 areas they discovered oil. During that process its not surprising they encounter more oil reserves than anticipated. Today's agreement is just a stepping stone that allows Tullow/Africa oil/Total to have a legal binding agreement to enable them secure funds from their financiers for this project I.e company revenues, loans or shareholders cash. It also gives a legal binding window for the oil companies/government to conduct exclusive formal negotiations on upstream and downstream agreement to allow the project to start. To simplify it, the agreement just says this are now the people we have formally agreed to do this project with and now its publicly signed for all parties to know. We now go aside to trash out how much they will pay for various taxes, licences and revenues. Meanwhile FEEDs study which they are funding will be rushed for completion as its will confirm final numbers not the projected numbers used so far. Its estimated the pipeline will cost $2 billion which the oil companies have offered to build themselves. Ug-Tz eat your heart out, we are not even looking for financier in this case. The oil extraction and production facilities is estimated to cost $3 billion. If you look at their map the 60000-80000 barrels a day is from Amosing, ngamia fields only. In the second stage it be expanded to include others areas they have struck oil like Erut, Etom, Twiga, Agete and Ekales. The numbers will go up definitely and that's when I hope a refinery can be justifiable. Most important is that we progress from exploration (where they drilled 50 wells) to production. Tullow doesn't have more funds for exploration exclusively. However at production stage they will drill 300 wells and there will be many good surprises at this stage.
Kenya development.PNG
images (7).jpeg ob-kenya-blocks-july-2017.jpg

 
Last edited:
#14
KENYA National Environment Tribunal cancels environment license for planned Amu Power coal power plant, blaming developers for not consulting the local community
Back to the drawing board , activists have won the court battle throwing the coal plant in jeopardy. Industrial power will remain expensive pushing the cost of production to the struggling customers.

Meanwhile
Kenya signs deal with Tullow to build oil refinery in Turkana

https://kenyanwallstreet.com/kenya-govt-signs-deal-to-develop-crude-oil-refinery-in-turkana/
So building a refinery at Turkana was possible ,what change of mind? Do we have enough capacity for the refinery.?
If it is possible, this is one area the government needs to move with speed and save on importation so as to save money and channel it to other deserving areas
A crude processing plant is not a refinery. It is a facility that prepares crude oil for pumping, essential given the waxy nature of our crude. Whoever who wrote that article is deluded.
 

gashwin

Village Chief
#16
Whoever who wrote that article is deluded.
He is not deluded but uninformed. That is not an excuse for him not to have sought clarification so he writes a better article. It is unfortunate that as a result of that some of us have rushed to write opinions based on the wrong info.
 
#17
It is terrifying that the government does not think about ordinary people at all. About how this refinery affects their health !! Because of such projects, our planet is polluted daily with tons of carbon dioxide. It seems that everyone forgot about the environment .. Now very few people really worry about our planet. A striking example is the guys from carbon click. They are trying to save our planet. I believe that they show us exemplary behavior that even the presidents of various states should be aligned with!
 
Last edited:

Top