Daily Archives: May 6, 2017

French presidential front-runner Emmanuel Macron has accused websites linked to the Kremlin of attempting to undermine his campaign by spreading fake news and lies about alleged offshore accounts in the Caribbean. Macron isnt just sounding off the pro-EU candidatefiled a lawsuitThursday against those spreading the misinformation.

Macron filed a complaint with prosecutors in Paris thataccused unknown actors of spreading false information in an attempt to influence the outcome of the election. While his opponent Marine Le Pen isnt mentioned by name, the lawsuit was filed a day after the far-right candidate accused Macron of having a secret bank account in the Bahamas during a live TV debatein advance of the Sunday election. Macron calledthe allegation as defamation.

Speaking on French radio Thursday, Macron called the allegations fake news and lies, and claimed that some of the sites repeating them were linked to Russian interests. Authorities in France and across Europe have repeatedly warned of disinformation campaigns directed by the Kremlin hitting key elections on the continent this year.

The fact that Le Pen is not named means that the lawsuit Macron filed will act as a warning to anyone thinking about repeating the rumor online, showing that the centrist candidate is willing to take anyone to court who spreads the story.

In an interview with BFM TV on Thursday, Le Pen backed away from the claims she made during the debate, saying she had no proof of the secret account, and if she had, she would have raised them with the court.

Macron extends lead

Despite Le Pens allegation made during a debate watched by 16.5 million people an opinion poll published Friday showed that Macron had extended his lead as the candidates entered the final day of campaigning ahead of a quiet day on Saturday.

The poll, conducted immediately after the debate, showed Macron on 62 percent compared to Le Pens 38 percent. Macron had slumped slightly to 59 percent in a previous poll, his lowest ranking in three months.

Another survey suggested that many French voters were disillusioned with both candidates. This poll, carried out by the Odoxa Institute for France Info, says Sundays vote will have the lowest turnout of any second-round presidential election since 1969. Far-left voters particularly those who voted for Jean-Luc Mlenchon in the first round were particularly unlikely to vote.

Following the debate, both candidates received hostile receptions from the electorate, with Le Pen pelted with eggs as she visited a town in the western region of Brittany. Macron on the other hand was booed when he met with trade union members at a glassworks in Albi as a result of his plans to liberalise labor laws.

Russian influence

This is not the first time Russia has been accused of interfering with Macrons campaign. Back in February, French authorities warned Russia not to interfere with the election after alleging that cyberattacks against Macrons website were carried out by hackers linked to the Kremlin.

This form of interference in French democratic life is unacceptable and I denounce it, Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said at the time.

According to researchers monitoring the activity of pro-Kremlin accounts and blogs, the disinformation campaign in France didnt kick into gear until January, when Francois Fillons campaign stumbled as a result of a corruption scandal and Macron surged in the polls. The resulting efforts however were somewhat ham-fisted. The disinformation machine tried to go from a car being in neutral to a car being in sixth gear, and it kind of stalled, Ben Nimmo, senior fellow at the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab, told VICE News.

Cover: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Continued here:

Macron files lawsuit over offshore rumors spread by websites linked to Russia - VICE News

In some versions of a story May 3 about a lawsuit seeking to maintain a drilling ban in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, The Associated Press reported erroneously the name of one plaintiff. It is the Center for Biological Diversity, not the Center for Biological Development.

A corrected version of the story is below:

Groups sue to stop Trump from renewing offshore drilling

Environmental and Alaska Native groups are suing to maintain a U.S. ban on oil and gas exploration in most of the Arctic Ocean and select areas of the Atlantic after President Donald Trump took steps to put the waters back in play for offshore drilling

By DAN JOLING

Associated Press

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) Environmental and Alaska Native groups sued Wednesday to maintain a U.S. ban on oil and gas exploration in most of the Arctic Ocean and select areas of the Atlantic after President Donald Trump took steps to put the waters back in play for offshore drilling.

The drilling ban was a key part of former President Barack Obama's environmental legacy, aimed at protecting polar bears, walrus, ice seals and Native villages that depend on the animals from industrialization and oil spills. Waters of the Atlantic continental shelf also support whales, swordfish, bluefin tuna, sea turtles and businesses heavily dependent on the health of the ocean ecosystem, according to the lawsuit.

In an executive order Friday, Trump ordered Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review the ban with the goal of opening offshore areas to job-creating energy exploration.

"With one careless stroke of his pen, Trump ignored the law and put our oceans at new risk of a devastating oil spill," said Kristen Monsell, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit in Anchorage.

White House spokeswoman Kelly Love said by email that the administration is confident Trump's commonsense decision to boost the country's energy sector will be vindicated by the courts.

The federal lawsuit claims Trump exceeded his constitutional authority and violated federal law.

Congress has the power to regulate federal land under the Constitution. Lawmakers have authorized presidents to halt drilling in unleased lands of the outer continental shelf but did not allow them to reopen areas, according the lawsuit.

Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton made permanent or time-limited withdrawals from drilling under the Outer Continental Shelf Land Act.

"It says nothing about the authority to undo those withdrawals," said attorney Erik Grafe of Earthjustice, one of two law firms representing the 10 groups. "No president has reversed a withdrawal in the past except for ones that have express end dates. President Obama's withdrawals were permanent."

In 2015, Obama halted exploration in coastal areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and the Hanna Shoal, an important area for walrus. On Dec. 20, he withdrew most other potential Arctic Ocean lease areas about 98 percent of the Arctic outer continental shelf.

Abigail Hopper, Obama's director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said at the time that oil and gas activity in the harsh and undeveloped Arctic was not worth the risks when the nation had ample energy near existing infrastructure.

Josh Kindred, environmental counsel for the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, said Trump's executive order has been portrayed as dramatic when it merely reverts to policy in place for most of the Obama administration.

"It brings us back to the status quo of where we were four months ago," Kindred said.

Obama spent a lot of time developing a five-year Arctic leasing plan, then he halted drilling in Arctic waters without consulting with the state of Alaska and coastal villages, Kindred said.

"It seemed to be a hard-right turn," he said.

In the Atlantic, Obama banned exploration in 5,937 square miles (15,377 square kilometers) of underwater canyon complexes, citing their importance for marine mammals, deep-water corals, valuable fish populations and migratory whales, according to the lawsuit.

Trump's executive order encourages seismic surveys, mandates expedited seismic permitting and directs a reconsideration of offshore safety and pollution control regulations. It calls for development of a new five-year leasing program in the Arctic and Atlantic.

Industry officials have expressed interest in moving into areas now banned, according to the lawsuit.

"We're suing to preserve the protections that were put in place before oil companies rush in," Grafe said.

The rest is here:

Correction: Trump-Offshore Drilling story - ABC News

Lawmakers, pushed by Gov. Paul LePage, made the horrible decision in 2013 to push a potential $70 million worth of potential investment in clean energy away from Maine. The current Legislature should not make an even worse mistake this year.

A bill under consideration by the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee would require that an offshore wind test project be moved away from Monhegan Island. This would undo years worth of research, jeopardize $40 million in federal funding that is headed to Maine and, once again, prove that the state is not an honest partner in business dealings.

LD 1262 would kill a decades-long University of Maine energy research and development project by disallowing its use of a state-designated test area off Monhegan Island to test two full-scale wind energy-generating turbines. It would be the first test of floating turbines in North America. There are numerous wind farms in Europe, but they use turbines that are fixed to the seafloor. This limits their placement to near shore, where the wind is less powerful.

If the Maine test, which will use a university-patented technology, is successful, it could propel the state to a leadership role in offshore wind energy, which could mean more investment and much-needed jobs.

Three test areas off the Maine coast were designated by the state in 2009, after a lengthy review process that included 25 meetings with local officials, commercial fishermen and others in communities along the coast. There were also five public hearings. The Monhegan site, about 2 miles off the Lincoln County island, was designated for use by the University of Maine System for testing of prototype and full-scale wind energy generation facilities.

Voters, in 2010, approved a $26.5 million bond that included money for an offshore wind demonstration site.

In 2014, the Maine Public Utilities Commission approved an agreement between Central Maine Power Co. and the Maine Aqua Ventus project, the name of the University of Maine test project, under which CMP would buy power generated by the project for 20 years.

Last year, the U.S. Department of Energy picked the UMaine project as one of two out of 70 slated to receive $40 million in federal funding if they clear several hurdles by early next year. The university is continuing to conduct environmental impact studies and working toward obtaining state and federal permits.

Now, this is all in jeopardy.

The bills only sponsor, Republican Sen. Dana Dow of Waldoboro, said the turbines must be moved to protect the scenic beauty that draws visitors to Monhegan and to preserve the islands culture.

That culture includes some of the highest electricity bills in the state. Monhegan residents now pay about 70 cents per kilowatt hour for power, which comes from a diesel generator on the island. Under the terms of the PUC order, during the test phase, which lasts for 20 years, island residents will receive free electricity from the project or another benefit the community choses.

Longer-term, Aqua Ventus hopes to lower the price of electricity from its project to 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour, making offshore wind power a viable source of electricity to power vehicles and to heat homes.

The two turbines will be visible from three houses on Monhegan. The owners, including famed painter Jamie Wyeth, are supportive of the UMaine project. So is the Monhegan Fishermens Alliance, which represents the islands lobstermen.

Change is hard to accept when one loves a place and has known it for a long time. But we can no longer think of ourselves only, Robin McCoy, a seasonal Monhegan resident and granddaughter of painter N.C. Wyeth, told committee members on Tuesday.

She warned lawmakers that if they pass LD 1262, they will not only force UMaine to lose $40 million, they will end Maines bid for leadership in an industry that is already becoming competitive as a clean alternative to coal and natural gas.

The Monhegan Island saga is reminiscent of the backroom dealing in 2013 that lead Statoil, which has proposed a wind energy project off the coast of Boothbay, to abandon Maine. It has since built offshore energy-generation facilities in Scotland and may soon do so in other states.

Even though the PUC approved a contract with Statoil, LePage convinced lawmakers to renege on the deal in favor of supporting the UMaine project. Now, he is also in favor of pulling the rug out from under that project as well.

Lawmakers must reject LD 1262 or risk reminding the world that Maine is not serious about reducing energy prices and is not a place with consistent rules for doing business.

Go here to read the rest:

Maine can't afford a second colossal mistake on offshore wind energy - Bangor Daily News

E&P

OTC EXTRA: UPS Systems Safeguard Power Supplies On Offshore Rigs E&P When it comes to power on an offshore oil rig, there is no on/off switch for crew shift changes. For safety as well as operational and productivity reasons, the flow of energy must be 24/7 and completely protected from possible blackouts and ... and more »

Go here to see the original:

OTC EXTRA: UPS Systems Safeguard Power Supplies On Offshore Rigs - E&P

ISLAMABAD: It feels like 'moving' in full circle. A few months ago, lawyers representing Imran Khan pleaded for conviction of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif because his children allegedly had piles of ill-gotten money in their offshore accounts overseas.

On Wednesday, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chairman faced almost similar charges in the same courtroom. The only difference was that Mr Khan was not present to see Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz's attorneys putting forward their arguments.

The issue of offshore accounts abroad came full circle in the Courtroom No1 when Akram Sheikh, counsel for PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi, pleaded for Imran Khans disqualification alleging that he has concealed facts in documents submitted to the Election Commission of Pakistan and the Federal Board of Revenue.

Perhaps it was a tough day for PTI's third-tier leadership in the court as judges looked keener to hear arguments of the petitioner's lawyer who kept focus on Article 62 (1) F and Article 63 (1) P. Sheikh argued that Mr Khan is not sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, pleading the court that the PTI chief be disqualified from being member of the Majlis-i-Shura for the time being.

The atmosphere in the court was as energetic as the audience witnessed from January 3 to February 23 in this very courtbut this time only in PML-N camp.

Top leadership of PTI and PML-N could not be seen inside or outside the countrys top court. This correspondent also did not see unusual security arrangements as was witnessed during the Panama Papers case hearing.

During the course of proceeding many senior lawyers were heard whispering that first Sharifs lawyers were arguing on technical grounds now the respondents counsels are seeking dismissal of the petition on same technical grounds.

Naeem Bokhari, counsel for Imran Khan, and Hanif Abbasi sat together for around 100 minutesoverall time for Wednesday's hearing. A thoughtful Naeem-ul-Haq could be seen sitting next to them.

When Chief Justice Saqib Nisar questioned Akram Sheikh under which laws his client sought disqualification of PTI Chairman Imran Khan and PTI General Secretary Jehangir Tareen, Sheikh in a calling-a-spade-a spade manner cited Articles 62 and 63 of the 1973 Constitution.

The courtroom almost filled up before the proceedings started at 11:30AM. Akram Sheikh took the rostrum where he focused on three important points of this case. Key striking point included foreign funding to PTI.

Under Article 17 (3) foreign funding to a political party is illegal, argued Sheikh. Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Umar Atta Bandial were also part of this three-member bench in the court where lawyers and journalists were amused to hear that PTI took foreign funds worth millions of dollars. Mr Khans loyalty to Pakistan is questionable after he received $2.3 million in foreign funding using PTIs name. This is prohibited under the Political Parties Order 2002 and Article 17 of the constitution, Sheikh told the bench of the apex court.

PML-N leader Daniyal Aziz and Hanif Abbasi were in constant communication over whether to talk to media after the proceedings or not as the petitioners counsel, as the judges had warned that parties should avoid media talk on this case in the courts premises.

As the apex court adjourned hearing of the case till Friday (today), lawyers and PTI leaders Arif Alvi and Naeem-ul-Haq rushed to the Courtroom No2 where the decision on the formation of Joint Investigation Team (JIT) was being given. The JIT that would probe the prime minister and his two sons who are facing similar charges of holding offshore accounts, property and business abroad.

Read more:

Live from courtroom: Offshore accounts issue comes full circle in Imran disqualification case - Geo News, Pakistan