News Feeds

Dear friends,

With the conclusion of the 2026 legislative session on August 31, 2026, we are excited to share the many wins you all made possible through your constant engagement over the past several months, including two bills passing to the Governor’s desk and two bad bills defeated. 

This year, AB 2026 and AB 2215 were successfully killed, and SB 872 and AB 2218 successfully passed out of the legislature to the Governor’s desk.

Read more about each bill and how you can help ensure the Governor signs SB 872 and AB 2218 into law!

Help Support SB 872: The Delta Levees and Canal Subsidence Fund

SB 872, a bill designed to safeguard California’s water supply for decades to come, has been unanimously approved by the Legislature. 

The bill brings together Northern and Southern California legislators, environmental groups including Restore the Delta, and water interests to protect the state’s primary water source.

If signed into law by Governor Newsom, SB 872 would address two major threats to California’s water supply: aging levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and sinking canals in the State Water Project (SWP). Many Delta levees are at risk of failure, raising the threat of catastrophic flooding and ecosystem damage, while sinking land is jeopardizing SWP canals and reliable water deliveries.

Now that SB 872 has moved to the Governor’s desk for signature, we need your help to sign this bill into law!

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action:

1. Call the Governor at (916) 445-2841, urging his signature on SB 872.

When calling the Governor’s Office, please tell them: 

• As a constituent, I urge you to sign SB 872 into law.
• You support advancing legislation that prioritizes safeguarding California’s water supplies, protecting critical infrastructure, and preparing the state’s water system for future challenges.

2. Alternatively, you can also write to the Governor’s Office, asking for their support on SB 872. 

• Click this link to send a comment urging the Governor’s Signature on SB 872.

Support AB 2218

Help Support AB 2218: Water policy: California Native American tribes

On February 19, 2026, Assemblymember Kalra introduced AB 2218, the Indigenous Water Rights Bill sponsored by the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and the Karuk Tribe. 

AB 2218 would establish a clear statewide policy directive acknowledging and seeking to remedy the inequities inflicted upon Tribes in California through historical state-sanctioned acts of termination, removal, and forced assimilation.

The bill directs relevant state agencies, including the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Board, to incorporate this policy into water rights decisions, regulatory actions, permitting, and grantmaking to address identified inequities. Recognizing historic harms and directing state agencies to center Tribal equity in water policy is not simply a symbolic act; it is a pathway toward stronger relationships, more inclusive decision-making, and better outcomes for the ecosystems we all depend on.

Now that AB 2218 has moved to the Governor’s desk for signature, we need your help to sign this bill into law!

Two Easy Ways You Can Take Action:

1. Call the Governor at (916) 445-2841 urging his signature on AB 2218.

When calling the Governor’s Office, please tell them: 

• As a constituent, I urge you to sign AB 2218 into law.
• AB 2218 supports the State’s progress towards equitable water management.
• AB 2218 is an important step toward addressing inequities affecting California Native American Tribes in state water policy and ensuring Tribal interests are meaningfully considered in decisions affecting water.

2. Alternatively, you can also write to the Governor’s Office, asking for their support on AB 2218. 

• Click this link to send a comment urging the Governor’s Signature on AB 2218.

Update on AB 2026: Water diversion: groundwater recharge: permit

AB 2026, a bill that would have created broad new pathways to divert already over-allocated surface water and weakened public and environmental review, was held in Senate Appropriations, effectively killing the bill. 

Restore the Delta supports responsible groundwater recharge, but AB 2026 is the wrong approach. We will continue to advocate for groundwater recharge policies guided by science and administered through the State Water Board’s established regulatory framework, not broad statutory shortcuts that bypass water-rights, fish and wildlife protections, and the public interest.

Update on AB 2215: Water rights: permits: State Water Project

AB 2215, a bill that would have circumvented existing State Water Board Processes for the benefit of the Delta Conveyance Project, was pulled before being heard in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. 

AB 2215 was an attempt by the State Water Contractors as a legislative solution to DWR’s expired water rights for the State Water Project and the DCP, rather than through proper procedure at the State Water Board. The Delta is a severely over-allocated system. Any new water infrastructure proposing to increase diversions must go through the regulatory process to protect Delta communities, ecosystem, and local fishing and recreation economies.

Campaigners gathered outside the Horndean B oil site in Hampshire yesterday (6 September 2026) to launch a fundraiser for a legal challenge over methane pollution from onshore oil and gas sites in the UK.

Campaign launch outside the Horndean B oil site in Hampmshire. Photo: Weald Action Group

The Horndean site, operated by Star Energy, is at the centre of the latest legal campaign by the Weald Action Group (WAG), the network fighting expansion of oil and gas operations in southern England for more than a decade.

WAG is now focussing on how methane emissions from oil and gas sites are regulated.

It said it would use a combination of legal action, investigations, technical research and field data to expose regulatory gaps and systematic failures that allow unchecked methane emissions.

In 2024, WAG secured a landmark victory at the UK Supreme Court with the Finch Judgment, which changed the legal landscape for fossil fuel planning decisions by requiring the assessment of downstream emissions from the use of oil and gas.

Methane, regarded as a super climate pollutant, is more than 80 times more potent for global warming than carbon dioxide (CO2) over 20 years.

Unlike CO2, methane breaks down in the atmosphere within a decade. Urgent action has a real chance of slowing warming in our lifetimes.

WAG said the focus of its climate litigation was to help secure faster and more effective action on reducing methane emissions across the UK.

If successful, the group said cases could limit methane emissions in Environment Agency permits issued to oil and gas sites in the UK and to ensure that the UK onshore industry was held accountable.

WAG’s Lorraine Inglis:

“This summer we’ve experienced severe drought and wildfires in communities across the UK, a stark reminder that climate breakdown isn’t a distant threat, it’s happening here and now. Every site like Horndean that continues to emit methane makes the crisis worse, and fixing the leaks is one of the fastest, cheapest wins we have in this crisis.”

WAG organised ”Cake at the Gate” at the Horndean site to mark the launch of the fundraiser. This repeated a popular event at previous protest campaigns at Horse Hill in Surrey and Broadford Bridge in West Sussex.

WAG campaigner Emily Mott said:

“It was a joy to catch up with climate campaigners from across the South East, all working toward the same goal: averting the worst of global warming.

“Every tonne of methane kept out of the atmosphere makes a difference, and the onshore oil and gas industry has a real opportunity to act. Weald Action Group’s Clean Air Clear Future campaign is calling for an end to routine venting and flaring, and faster, more frequent leak detection and repair.

“We are also calling on the government to include emissions from the onshore sector in their Methane Action Plan. “

A fundraiser is live now. Link here

Petir, mahkota emas, batu permata, serta sosok Zeus masih memiliki tempat khusus di tengah munculnya ratusan konsep permainan baru. Royalgacor memperlihatkan bagaimana tema klasik tersebut belum kehilangan identitas. Salah satu nama paling mudah dikenali datang dari Gates of Olympus, permainan berlatar mitologi Yunani dengan pendekatan modern.

Popularitas konsep dewa Yunani tidak hanya bertumpu pada karakter terkenal. Ada perpaduan antara simbol, atmosfer, efek suara, mekanisme, serta tampilan antarmuka. Kombinasi tersebut membuat tema mitologi terasa relevan meski industri terus menghadirkan gaya baru.

Mitologi Royalgacor Masih Kuat di Tengah Tema Modern

Tema modern kini semakin luas. Ada permainan bernuansa anime, budaya pop, futuristik, makanan, sampai dunia urban. Meski demikian, kategori mitologi tetap mempunyai ciri visual sulit tertukar.

Pengguna dapat mengenalinya melalui kuil, awan, petir, artefak kuno, patung, atau figur dewa. Elemen tersebut menciptakan konteks sejak layar pertama muncul. Royalgacor dapat memanfaatkan karakter kuat semacam ini untuk membedakan kategori permainan tanpa membutuhkan deskripsi terlalu panjang.

Mitologi Royalgacor masih kuat bukan semata karena tampil megah. Cerita legendaris mempunyai referensi budaya luas sehingga lebih cepat dipahami oleh audiens. Zeus, misalnya, identik dengan petir serta kekuasaan. Identitas tersebut langsung membangun ekspektasi terhadap suasana permainan.

Gates of Olympus Membawa Zeus Sebagai Pusat Identitas

Lihat peran Gates of Olympus dari karakter utamanya. Zeus tidak ditempatkan sebagai dekorasi kecil di sudut layar. Figur tersebut menjadi pusat komunikasi visual sekaligus pengikat tema.

Latar langit, pilar bergaya Yunani, warna emas, batu permata, serta efek petir memperkuat konsep Olympus. Hasilnya adalah identitas permainan konsisten dari satu elemen menuju elemen berikutnya.

Royalgacor melalui permainan semacam ini dapat menunjukkan perbedaan antara tema tempelan dengan tema terintegrasi. Gates of Olympus memakai mitologi sebagai fondasi presentasi, bukan sekadar nama.

Mengapa Gates of Olympus Mudah Dikenali?

Brand recall dalam permainan digital sering muncul dari elemen sederhana. Karakter utama, palet warna, simbol khas, serta animasi tertentu dapat membuat satu judul lebih cepat dikenali di antara banyak thumbnail.

Gates of Olympus mempunyai beberapa penanda tersebut sekaligus. Sosok Zeus berambut putih menjadi identitas utama, sementara ornamen emas serta atmosfer langit membangun karakter pendukung.

ElemenPeran dalam Gates of OlympusDampak terhadap Identitas TemaZeusKarakter sentralMemperkuat referensi mitologi YunaniPetirEfek visual khasMemberi kesan energi dan kekuatanOlympusLatar utamaMenegaskan dunia para dewaWarna emasAksen dominanMembentuk atmosfer megahBatu permataSimbol permainanMemberikan kontras pada area utamaPilar klasikDetail lingkunganMenghubungkan visual dengan Yunani kuno

Susunan tersebut membuat identitas Gates of Olympus tidak bergantung pada satu komponen. Setiap bagian mempunyai fungsi berbeda, tetapi tetap mengarah pada konsep serupa.

Peran Gates of Olympus Tidak Berhenti pada Visual

Tema kuat akan kehilangan daya tarik apabila mekanisme terasa terpisah dari presentasinya. Gates of Olympus mencoba menghubungkan keduanya melalui efek karakter, perubahan visual, simbol pengali, serta respons animasi ketika fitur tertentu muncul.

Koneksi ini penting karena pengguna tidak hanya melihat gambar statis. Mereka membaca perubahan layar sebagai informasi mengenai apa sedang terjadi.

Animasi Membantu Membentuk Ritme Permainan

Efek petir atau gerakan Zeus memberikan penekanan terhadap momen tertentu. Dari perspektif desain antarmuka, animasi tersebut berfungsi sebagai feedback visual.

Namun efek dramatis bukan bukti hasil tertentu akan muncul. Animasi tetap perlu dibedakan dari mekanisme matematis permainan. Tampilan dapat memperkuat pengalaman, tetapi tidak menjadi dasar akurat untuk memprediksi hasil putaran berikutnya.

Pemisahan ini membuat pembahasan Royalgacor lebih informatif. Pengguna dapat memahami estetika tanpa mencampurkannya dengan anggapan mengenai pola kemenangan.

Gates of Olympus Menunjukkan Cara Tema Lama Tetap Relevan

Kekuatan mitologi justru terletak pada kemampuannya beradaptasi. Cerita berusia ribuan tahun dapat dikemas melalui ilustrasi digital, efek suara modern, animasi responsif, serta mekanisme kontemporer.

Lihat peran Gates of Olympus dalam konteks tersebut. Permainan ini mengambil Zeus dan Olympus sebagai fondasi lama, kemudian membungkusnya memakai bahasa visual lebih sesuai dengan layar digital.

Pendekatan serupa menjelaskan alasan Mitologi Royalgacor masih kuat meski tren desain terus berubah. Tema tidak perlu selalu baru untuk terasa relevan. Cara penyajian justru memegang peran besar.

Royalgacor Melihat Mitologi Sebagai Identitas, Bukan Hiasan

Gates of Olympus memperlihatkan satu prinsip penting dalam pengembangan tema permainan: karakter kuat harus terhubung dengan lingkungan, simbol, animasi, serta mekanisme presentasi. Jika hubungan tersebut konsisten, sebuah judul lebih mudah memiliki identitas sendiri.

Royalgacor dapat menempatkan permainan mitologi sebagai kategori dengan karakter jelas di tengah katalog modern. Pengguna tidak hanya menemukan Zeus atau kuil Yunani, tetapi juga melihat bagaimana cerita klasik diterjemahkan menjadi pengalaman digital.

Pada akhirnya, Mitologi Royalgacor masih kuat karena tema tersebut menawarkan sesuatu melampaui dekorasi. Gates of Olympus menjadi contoh bagaimana legenda lama dapat memperoleh wajah baru tanpa kehilangan ciri dasarnya. Di tengah persaingan tema semakin ramai, identitas semacam itulah yang membuat sebuah permainan tetap mudah dikenali.

In this conversation, Nate sits down with permaculture educator Andrew Millison to discuss the Great Green Wall project, a massive ecological initiative aimed at combating desertification in the Sahel region of Africa.

Two ways we can honor unions at this time of trial are to ask others to join union picket lines and to learn from their innovations and successes for whatever campaigns we are committed to today.

To rebuild the trade union movement, to meaningfully defend the right to strike, and to begin a serious fightback against the imposition of the costs of capitalism’s crisis on the working class, we need to put our energy into workplace and community organising

State and federal planning permits sought for what could be the biggest battery project in Australia, built next to one of its major transmission links.

The post Biggest ever battery project – up to 4,800 megawatt hours – seeks federal and state planning approvals appeared first on Renew Economy.

The debate over carbon credits and its impact on native logging has divided the Greens. Some even compare the issue to the party's rejection of Rudd's CPRS.

The post Decade-long tiff over using carbon credits brings Greens to debate the “Greater Glider in the room” appeared first on Renew Economy.

AFSA is set to open its Continental Convening on Strengthening African Civil Society Climate Action on Food Systems and Agriculture Towards COP31 and COP32, bringing farmers, pastoralists, government officials and policymakers from across the continent together in Addis Ababa

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA — September 7, 2026 — The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), the continent’s largest civil society movement working on food systems, food sovereignty and agroecology, is set to open today its Continental Convening on Strengthening African Civil Society Climate Action on Food Systems and Agriculture Towards COP31 and COP32. Organised by AFSA in collaboration with the Ethiopian Ministry of Planning and Development, the three-day gathering runs from September 7 to 9, 2026, at the Inter Luxury Hotel in Addis Ababa, and is shaping up to be one of the continent’s most significant climate convenings this year, bringing together farmers, pastoralists, fisherfolk, indigenous communities, youth and women’s networks, researchers, negotiators, government officials and policymakers from across Africa.

Government officials and policymakers are integral participants in the Convening, not merely guests at its opening. The programme’s official opening features H.E. Dr. Fitsum Assefa, Ethiopia’s Minister for Planning and Development, delivering the official opening address, alongside remarks from H.E. Demeke Mekonnen, Nutrition Ambassador and former Deputy Prime Minister of Ethiopia. A keynote address will be delivered by Dr. Antwi-Boasiako Amoah, Chair of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN). Government representatives continue to participate alongside civil society throughout the three days, including a dedicated Day Two panel with government representatives on national priorities for COP31 and COP32.

Addis Ababa carries particular weight for this gathering: the city is set to host COP32, bringing the United Nations Climate Change Conference back to African soil once again. This Convening marks the formal start of AFSA’s process to build a unified African position, bringing civil society and government together, ahead of COP31 and laying the groundwork for COP32, developed by the communities already living the climate crisis and advancing the solutions.

Over three days, delegates, government representatives and policymakers will address the issues shaping Africa’s climate future together: adaptation and the Global Goal on Adaptation, climate finance, a Just Transition for the continent, and agriculture’s place within the UNFCCC process. Agroecology will sit at the center of the discussions, reflecting a decade of evidence from across Africa that farmer-led, ecologically grounded food systems are not a fallback option but a credible pathway to cooling the planet, restoring degraded land, and feeding communities with dignity. The Convening builds on AFSA’s Agroecology4Climate Action campaign, running continentally since 2019 under AFSA’s Climate Change and Agroecology Working Group.

“For too long, Africa’s response to the climate crisis has been shaped far from the communities who live it every day. This Convening is Africa defining its own terms of engagement, grounded in the knowledge of the farmers, pastoralists and indigenous communities who are already building the solutions. Agroecology is not a fallback; it is Africa’s most credible pathway to a just and livable future, and it will be at the center of what we carry from Addis Ababa to COP32.”

— Dr. Million Belay, AFSA General Coordinator

“Africa cannot afford another climate process where our voices arrive only after the decisions have been made. Over these three days, we are building a unified continental position, rooted in agroecology and in the lived realities of the people who feed this continent, so that our negotiators walk into COP 31 AND COP32 carrying the mandate of Africa’s own communities.”

— Karen Nekesa, AFSA Climate Change and Agroecology Working Group Chair

The Convening will close with a unified African civil society position and a coordinated roadmap toward COP32. AFSA is inviting media, partners and the public to follow proceedings live across its Social Media Channelschannels on LinkedIn, X, Facebook and YouTube, and to join the conversation using #Agroecology4Climate, #AfricaClimateConvening, #COP31 and #COP32.

About AFSA

The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) is the largest civil society organisation network on the continent, representing major social movements working on food sovereignty, agroecology and climate justice across Africa. AFSA advocates for agroecology as a viable pathway for climate adaptation, mitigation and a just climate transition for the continent.

Media Contact

Kirubel Tadele, Communications Coordinator, AFSA 
kirubel.tadele@afsafrica.org

Money does grow instead of trees Channel News brendan 7th September 2026 Teaser Media

Tim Ryan argues Australia is trying to build a 21st-century, consumer-led electricity system while preserving retailers as compulsory ‘middlemen.’ But retailers are businesses that have little incentive to help households use less electricity or pay less for it.

The post SwitchedOn Podcast: How retailers are standing in the way of cheaper power appeared first on Renew Economy.

Slot Maxwin kini tampil dengan wajah baru yang jauh lebih dinamis, mengedepankan visual sinematik dan antarmuka yang responsif terhadap setiap momen permainan. Transformasi ini bukan sekadar perubahan estetika, melainkan evolusi desain yang menjadikan tampilan sebagai bagian integral dari mekanisme permainan itu sendiri.

Wajah Baru Slot Maxwin: Dari Dekorasi ke Sistem Umpan Balik Visual

Perubahan paling mencolok pada SLOT MAXWIN modern terletak pada fungsi visual. Dulu, grafis hanya berperan sebagai hiasan statis di belakang gulungan. Kini, setiap elemen layar mulai dari latar belakang, karakter, hingga ikon antarmuka bereaksi terhadap peristiwa dalam permainan.

Sebagai ilustrasi, edisi terbaru dari permainan klasik seperti Fruit Shop menunjukkan pergeseran drastis: dari grafis 2D datar tahun 2011 menjadi presentasi sinematik dengan pencahayaan dramatis, efek partikel, dan animasi yang terikat pada setiap fitur bonus. Layar tidak lagi pasif; ia menjadi sistem umpan balik hidup yang mengkomunikasikan progres, memicu ketegangan, dan memperkuat momen kemenangan besar.

Konsep Baru Slot Maxwin: Narasi Visual dan Identitas Artistik Kuat

Konsep desain SLOT MAXWIN kini dibangun di atas narasi visual yang koheren dan identitas artistik yang khas. Pengembang tidak lagi hanya menggambar simbol; mereka menciptakan dunia mini dengan karakter, alur, dan suasana yang konsisten.

Salah satu tren menonjol adalah penggunaan animasi bergaya kartun yang ekspresif. Gaya ini memungkinkan penciptaan kepribadian kuat pada setiap karakter, simbol yang mudah dibaca, serta adegan pendek yang membantu pemain memahami peristiwa permainan tanpa kebingungan. Bahkan, beberapa judul terbaru menyematkan nama seniman di layar utama seperti Yokai yang sepenuhnya dibangun dari karya seniman jalanan Portugis, Gonçalo MAR menandai era di mana seni visual menjadi daya tarik utama.

Pendekatan ini mengubah SLOT MAXWIN dari sekadar mesin taruhan menjadi pengalaman hiburan yang memiliki identitas visual tak terlupakan.

Perubahan Tampilan Game Slot Maxwin: Antarmuka Adaptif dan Fitur Interaktif

Perubahan tampilan pada SLOT MAXWIN juga mencakup revolusi pada antarmuka pengguna (UI) dan pengalaman pemain (UX). Platform modern kini menerapkan sistem navigasi berbasis hover multi-level, di mana submenu muncul secara kontekstual saat kursor melayang atau layar disentuh. Fitur ini mempercepat akses ke pengaturan, informasi pembayaran, atau mode bonus tanpa mengacaukan tampilan utama.

Selain itu, elemen interaktif semakin dominan. Karakter dapat melangkah ke depan layar saat fitur bonus aktif, soundtrack berubah mengikuti intensitas permainan, dan lingkungan virtual bergeser seiring progres putaran. Dalam Hercules Abyssways, papan permainan bahkan bergerak vertikal, mengubah tata letak simbol secara dinamis. Sementara Treats of Terror menggunakan efek layar berkedip dan tiga tahap fitur Free Spins dengan presentasi visual berbeda di setiap fase.

Perubahan ini menjadikan setiap sesi bermain terasa unik dan penuh kejutan, sekaligus memperkuat keterikatan emosional pemain terhadap permainan.

Teknologi di Balik Transformasi Visual SLOT MAXWIN

Dibalik wajah baru SLOT MAXWIN, terdapat kemajuan teknologi grafis dan pemrograman yang memungkinkan detail visual tinggi, animasi responsif, serta fitur interaktif kompleks. Teknologi ini memungkinkan pengembang menciptakan:

• Latar belakang bergerak dengan efek pencahayaan real-time.
• Simbol dengan beberapa state animasi (diam, menang, bonus, koleksi).
• Sistem audio adaptif yang berubah sesuai fase permainan.
• Antarmuka mobile-first dengan waktu muat cepat dan navigasi intuitif.

Hasilnya, permainan slot modern tidak hanya terlihat lebih menarik, tetapi juga lebih mudah dipahami dan dinikmati di berbagai perangkat, dari desktop hingga ponsel.

Implikasi bagi Pemain: Menikmati Visual Tanpa Terlena

Meskipun tampilan SLOT MAXWIN semakin memukau, penting bagi pemain untuk tetap fokus pada informasi kunci: saldo, riwayat putaran, dan batas waktu bermain. Animasi yang berlebihan dapat memicu kelelahan visual atau keputusan impulsif jika tidak dikelola dengan bijak.

Beberapa tips untuk menikmati wajah baru SLOT MAXWIN secara sehat:

• Aktifkan mode turbo atau minimal mode jika ingin mengurangi distraksi visual.
• Ambil jeda setiap 20–30 menit untuk menghindari kelelahan mata.
• Prioritaskan permainan dengan antarmuka jelas dan hierarki visual yang mudah dibaca.

Penutup: SLOT MAXWIN sebagai Hiburan Visual Premium

Wajah baru SLOT MAXWIN mencerminkan evolusi industri dari sekadar permainan keberuntungan menjadi bentuk hiburan digital premium. Dengan visual sinematik, narasi artistik kuat, dan antarmuka adaptif, setiap putaran kini terasa seperti adegan dalam produksi hiburan mini.

Bagi pemain, ini berarti pengalaman yang lebih kaya dan menghibur. Bagi pengembang, ini adalah strategi fidelisasi di pasar yang semakin kompetitif. Di era di mana batas antara game konsol dan slot semakin tipis, SLOT MAXWIN dengan wajah barunya bukan hanya mencuri sorotan ia menetapkan standar baru untuk masa depan permainan digital.

The delayed Waratah Super Battery may finally be ready to reach full capacity following arrival and energisation of new transformer, after "catastrophic" failure last year.

The post Australia’s most powerful battery finally poised to reach full capacity as replacement transformer energised appeared first on Renew Economy.

A 350 MW Victorian wind project is seeking approval for fewer but taller turbines, with shorter blades and greater ground clearance designed to reduce risks to threatened bats and other wildlife.

The post CIS-winning wind project seeks approval for fewer but taller turbines, and shorter blades, to protect bats appeared first on Renew Economy.

Energy trader moves from small scale installations to land its first big battery as competition makes picking the perfect dispatch window more critical than ever.

The post Energy trader lands first big battery contract, just as competition really starts to bite appeared first on Renew Economy.

99.9 per cent of the materials from Scotland’s first commercial wind farm have been successfully recycled and reused following decommissioning.

The post “A great result:” 26 turbines from first commercial wind farm almost completely recycled and reused appeared first on Renew Economy.

Tom Geiser from Good Heat on the technologies to provide carbon-free industrial heat. Plus: LNP's diesel delusions, One Nation's burning effigies, and the biggest CIS wind project to reach FiD.

The post Zero carbon heat, Australia’s next big challenge | Energy Insiders appeared first on Renew Economy.

Dolly Parton passed away last week. She’s remembered as a legendary singer-songwriter, country superstar, LGBQT icon and champion for kids literacy, but she was also very important in telling the…

Last month, visiting projects Audubon and our partners have built over the past five years, I realized that the biggest result isn’t any single conservation success. It’s the landscape itself...

 

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 6 SEPTEMBER 2026 SLF-2007-049 The Sakhalin Papers XXXIX: The Survey Before the Platform — WGWAP Helps Sakhalin Energy Search for PA-C While Refusing to Endorse It Before Sakhalin Energy could decide whether to build a third offshore platform, it first had to establish where that platform might safely stand. That meant another seismic operation beside the Western Gray Whale feeding grounds. The resulting episode exposed one of the most difficult questions in the entire WGWAP experiment: could independent scientists help Shell’s Sakhalin venture conduct the survey more safely without becoming part of the machinery advancing the very development they had warned should not yet proceed?

Archive reference: SLF-2007-049
Collection: The Sakhalin Papers
Principal scientific records: Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel, Report of the Eleventh Meeting, February 2012; WGWAP Noise Task Force records, November 2011; Report of the Twelfth Meeting, November 2012
Contemporaneous reporting: WWF campaign material, February 2012; AFP, 9 February 2012
Later scientific record: IUCN, “Keeping whales safe in sound”, January 2014
Evidence standard: The South Piltun/PA-C development remained under study during the principal period examined. WGWAP was an independent scientific advisory body, not a regulator. Its participation in survey design and mitigation is not characterised as approval of the proposed platform. WWF statements concerning extinction risk and lender responsibility are identified as campaign positions.

Introduction

Before a third platform could be built, Sakhalin Energy had to determine exactly where it might stand.

That required another seismic operation.

The South Piltun high-resolution 2-D site survey was originally planned for summer 2011.

It did not happen on schedule.

Russian approvals delayed the work into 2012. The WGWAP Noise Task Force recorded that the postponement resulted from delays in obtaining Russian Federation approval for the geophysical component of the operation. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

When the plan returned, the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel faced an uncomfortable dilemma.

Should independent whale scientists help Sakhalin Energy design a safer seismic survey when that survey existed to advance a platform development about which they had already expressed serious reservations?

The Panel’s answer was yes.

But with a warning attached.

Its cooperation on survey monitoring and mitigation was not approval of PA-C.

That distinction would become one of the defining features of this stage of the Sakhalin story.

1. PA-C had moved from concept to seabed investigation

The previous Shell Leaks Files instalment examined the emergence of South Piltun and PA-C.

Sakhalin Energy had concluded that hydrocarbons lying between the existing PA-A and PA-B platforms could not readily be recovered using the drilling reach available from those structures.

A third platform increasingly appeared to the company to be the practical solution.

But a platform cannot simply be placed at a convenient point on a map.

The seabed and shallow geology have to be understood.

The planned site survey was intended to investigate matters including shallow gas, seabed hazards and the geological and geotechnical conditions at possible platform locations.

The WGWAP record shows that the survey was therefore not exploratory seismic work in the conventional sense of looking broadly for an unknown petroleum accumulation.

The hydrocarbon development was already known.

This survey was about the physical location and engineering feasibility of the infrastructure required to exploit it. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

That made its environmental significance unusually clear.

The survey was not PA-C.

But it was a necessary step towards PA-C.

2. The 2011 survey slipped into 2012

The work had originally been scheduled for summer 2011.

By November, WGWAP’s Noise Task Force recorded that it had been postponed until summer 2012 because Russian Federation approvals for the geophysical portion had not been obtained in time.

The revised programme was broader than South Piltun alone.

Surveys were also to cover possible relief-well locations associated with PA-A, PA-B and Lun-A. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

This enlargement reflected another major event far removed from Sakhalin:

the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

At its February 2012 meeting, WGWAP recorded Sakhalin Energy’s explanation that the scope of the seismic and acoustic survey had been modified to identify potential relief-well locations following a review of company operations prompted by Macondo and wider industry concern about blowout response. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

Thus two quite different risk regimes were now being superimposed.

One concerned whales and underwater noise.

The other concerned well control and catastrophic oil-spill preparedness.

Both influenced the same survey.

3. WGWAP was prepared to help

There would have been a simple way for WGWAP to avoid any appearance of complicity.

It could have refused to participate.

It did not.

Instead, the scientists worked with Sakhalin Energy on monitoring and mitigation arrangements intended to reduce acoustic exposure to the whales.

That decision is important because it shows what WGWAP actually was.

It was not an anti-oil campaign organisation.

Nor was it a company environmental department.

Its function was to provide independent scientific advice to reduce the risks created by Sakhalin Energy’s operations.

That sometimes meant advising against an activity.

At other times it meant accepting that an activity might occur and trying to make it less harmful.

The PA-C site survey forced those two roles into direct contact.

4. But the scientists drew a boundary

WGWAP had already anticipated the problem.

Its earlier reports expressly stated that willingness to cooperate in producing a robust monitoring and mitigation programme for the South Piltun 2-D seismic and acoustic surveys was not to be interpreted as endorsement of the overall South Piltun project.

At its February 2012 meeting it repeated the point.

The Panel also reminded Sakhalin Energy that it had already recommended against commencement of new construction until more progress had been made in understanding the effects of PA-B construction noise and cumulative effects more generally. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

That distinction deserves emphasis.

WGWAP was effectively saying:

We will help you reduce the environmental risk of finding a platform site.

That does not mean we agree that you should build the platform.

It is difficult to imagine a clearer attempt to preserve scientific independence while remaining engaged with an industrial operator.

5. Sakhalin Energy relied on that engagement too

Sakhalin Energy did not ignore WGWAP’s reservations.

According to the Panel’s February 2012 report, the company responded to the earlier recommendation by pointing to its early engagement with WGWAP on South Piltun and assuring the Panel that the eventual project Environmental Impact Assessment would address cumulative effects. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

Company officials also clarified that the environmental assessment for the 2-D seismic and acoustic site-selection surveys was separate from the future environmental assessment for the South Piltun development itself.

This was procedurally logical.

But it also illustrated precisely the fragmentation that had worried WGWAP.

The site survey could be assessed as one activity.

The platform could later be assessed as another.

Pipelines, shipping, drilling, construction noise and other consequences could each appear in their respective documents.

WGWAP’s concern was that the whales experienced the combined industrial environment, not a stack of separate environmental assessments.

6. The platform location itself was still moving

The seismic work mattered for another reason.

Sakhalin Energy had not yet fixed the location of PA-C.

Possible sites were being compared.

The technical questions included seabed conditions, shallow gas and the relationship of the platform to existing infrastructure.

That meant the survey potentially had a genuine conservation benefit.

If a technically acceptable location could be found farther from the principal feeding area, advice provided by WGWAP might materially reduce future disturbance.

This is precisely why the apparent contradiction in the Panel’s role should not be oversimplified.

Helping Sakhalin Energy choose a less damaging site could advance the project.

It could also materially improve the environmental outcome if the project eventually went ahead.

Both statements can be true.

7. February 2012: WWF takes the dispute to the banks

While the scientists wrestled with mitigation, WWF opened another front.

Finance.

In February 2012 the organisation called upon three European banks associated with Sakhalin II financing:

BNP Paribas

Credit Suisse

Standard Chartered

to oppose the proposed third platform. (Banktrack)

WWF’s argument was straightforward.

The Western Gray Whale population remained exceptionally vulnerable.

The proposed additional offshore structure would lie close to an important feeding area.

The banks financing Sakhalin II therefore had leverage and, in WWF’s view, responsibility to intervene.

AFP reported WWF saying there were fewer than about 130 Western Gray Whales and only around 26 breeding females at the time.

Those population figures and the associated extinction warning were WWF’s campaign position and should be treated as such.

But the campaign succeeded in shifting PA-C beyond the world of scientists and petroleum engineers.

The lenders were now being asked to take a position.

8. A whale appeared on the Thames

WWF chose a publicity method unlikely to be missed.

As part of its thelast130 campaign, the organisation floated a life-sized representation of a gray whale on the River Thames.

The target was not primarily Sakhalin Energy.

It was the European financial community.

Later IUCN material reviewing the history of WGWAP recorded that WWF’s 2012 campaign specifically urged European Sakhalin II lenders BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse and Standard Chartered to oppose the additional platform. (WWF International)

The symbolism was deliberate.

An obscure development proposal off the Russian Far East had been transported, visually and politically, into London.

9. The lenders were due to meet the scientists

Contemporaneous reporting said representatives of the three banks were expected to meet whale specialists and Sakhalin Energy in Geneva.

That development mattered.

The Sakhalin II financing structure had long made environmental performance more than a bilateral matter between company and regulator.

International financial institutions had imposed environmental and social requirements on the project.

The lenders therefore had an institutional route through which questions about the proposed expansion could be raised.

WWF’s strategy was to use that route.

The significance of this should not be exaggerated.

The banks were not regulators of Sakhalin Island.

Nor does the evidence examined here show that WWF possessed a contractual veto over PA-C.

But the campaign demonstrated that the financial architecture surrounding Sakhalin II had become part of its environmental governance.

10. WGWAP still had a more fundamental objection

The lender controversy did not displace the Panel’s underlying scientific concern.

At WGWAP-11 in February 2012, the scientists again addressed what they regarded as a difficult contradiction.

Sakhalin Energy was contemplating another major construction project directly offshore of Piltun Lagoon while simultaneously reducing elements of its gray-whale research and monitoring programme.

The Panel said nothing presented at that meeting caused it to change its earlier assessment.

It found it difficult to reconcile a potentially expanding industrial footprint with scaled-back general monitoring. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

That criticism went beyond PA-C.

WGWAP had repeatedly stressed that long-term monitoring was necessary to detect changes in whale abundance and distribution and, where possible, connect those changes with environmental and human influences.

The logic was uncompromising.

More industrial development required more knowledge.

Not less.

11. The site survey proceeded

The 2012 survey eventually went ahead.

And here the documentary record becomes particularly interesting.

The work comprised high-resolution and ultra-high-resolution seismic surveying, analogue seabed survey operations and geotechnical investigation.

According to Sakhalin Energy’s report to WGWAP later that year, the work was completed without a Health, Safety and Environment incident.

Seismic operations were completed before 15 July, in accordance with WGWAP’s recommendation, thereby reducing overlap with the period when greater numbers of whales were expected in the feeding area. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

This was exactly the type of mitigation WGWAP’s participation had been intended to produce.

The scientists had not stopped the survey.

They had influenced how and when it occurred.

12. And the survey changed the proposed PA-C location

The data produced a concrete result.

Sakhalin Energy told WGWAP that interpretation of the survey information confirmed the suitability of what had previously been called the “blue location.”

That site lay farther offshore than the location earlier favoured.

It consequently had two important characteristics.

It was farther from the Piltun feeding area.

And it was closer to existing pipelines.

Earlier concerns about shallow gas beneath that location were not confirmed by the survey. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

This is perhaps the strongest evidence of why WGWAP had chosen engagement rather than withdrawal.

Scientific and environmental input did not merely produce paperwork.

The proposed platform site moved farther offshore.

13. But moving PA-C was not the same as approving PA-C

The distinction established before the survey remained intact afterward.

WGWAP had helped establish mitigation measures.

The survey had been completed.

The survey had produced information favouring a location farther from the nearshore feeding area.

None of those facts converted the Panel’s cooperation into endorsement of the development.

PA-C still required further engineering, regulatory approvals, environmental assessment and an eventual investment decision.

And WGWAP’s earlier concerns about cumulative effects had not disappeared merely because the preferred location had moved.

This is the point at which the documentary record becomes more nuanced than either side’s campaigning rhetoric.

WWF wanted the banks to oppose the platform.

Sakhalin Energy was trying to establish whether and how the resource could be commercially developed.

WGWAP occupied the difficult ground between them.

It worked to make the industrial activity safer while repeatedly reserving judgment on whether the larger development should proceed.

14. The eventual seismic programme became an international case study

There is an important later postscript.

In January 2014 IUCN publicised scientific work based on the Sakhalin seismic-survey experience and described the monitoring and mitigation programme as an unusually comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of seismic operations on whales.

IUCN said the survey had been completed on schedule with its monitoring and mitigation measures successfully implemented and that subsequent analyses had not revealed significant direct impacts on the whales from the operation.

The resulting technical approach was proposed as a model that could be adapted for seismic work in other environmentally sensitive areas. (IUCN)

One of the co-authors was Koen Bröker of Shell Global Solutions, alongside WGWAP scientists and other specialists.

That later scientific outcome should neither be ignored nor overinterpreted.

It supports the proposition that cooperation between Sakhalin Energy and WGWAP produced sophisticated seismic mitigation.

It does not retrospectively establish that the PA-C development itself was environmentally acceptable.

They were different questions.

WGWAP had insisted upon that distinction from the beginning.

15. This is what genuine independent advice looks like

The South Piltun episode is useful precisely because the participants did not fit neatly into opposing camps.

WGWAP did not simply say no.

Sakhalin Energy did not simply disregard the scientists.

The Panel criticised the proposed industrial expansion.

It questioned cumulative impacts.

It objected to reductions in whale monitoring.

It recommended that new construction should not begin until important uncertainties had been addressed.

Then it helped the company design the seismic survey.

The survey subsequently helped move the potential platform farther offshore.

That is neither corporate environmental public relations nor conventional campaigning.

It is independent scientific engagement with an industrial project.

And it inevitably created tension.

The better WGWAP became at reducing the environmental consequences of each preparatory activity, the easier it could become for the wider development process to continue.

But refusing to participate might simply have meant that the activity proceeded with poorer mitigation.

There was no comfortable answer.

Documentary Findings Established

Sakhalin Energy planned a high-resolution 2-D seismic and associated site survey as part of its investigation of possible locations for the proposed South Piltun/PA-C platform.

The survey was originally intended for summer 2011 but was postponed until 2012 because of delays in obtaining Russian Federation approvals for the geophysical component. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

The scope was expanded to include relief-well location surveys after Sakhalin Energy reviewed its operations in light of the Deepwater Horizon/Macondo disaster. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

WGWAP cooperated with Sakhalin Energy in designing monitoring and mitigation measures for the seismic and acoustic work.

The Panel repeatedly stated that such cooperation was not an endorsement of the overall South Piltun development.

WGWAP continued to recommend against commencement of major new construction until more progress had been made in understanding previous construction noise and cumulative effects. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

In February 2012 WWF called upon BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse and Standard Chartered, all associated with Sakhalin II financing, to oppose the proposed additional platform. (Banktrack)

The 2012 site survey was completed, and Sakhalin Energy subsequently reported that the data supported a farther-offshore location for PA-C, the “blue location”, which was farther from the Piltun feeding area and closer to existing pipeline infrastructure. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

Sakhalin Energy’s Position

Sakhalin Energy continued to investigate South Piltun as a possible means of recovering hydrocarbons that it considered difficult or impossible to reach economically from the existing PA-A and PA-B platforms.

The company emphasised early engagement with WGWAP and said cumulative effects would be addressed in the eventual South Piltun Environmental Impact Assessment.

The site-survey environmental assessment was separate from the future EIA for the platform development itself.

The company had not yet made the final investment decision required to construct PA-C during the period principally examined here. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

WGWAP’s Position

The Panel was willing to assist Sakhalin Energy in reducing the environmental risks associated with site-selection surveys.

It explicitly refused to allow that cooperation to be construed as support for the platform itself.

It remained concerned about cumulative industrial impacts and about the inconsistency it perceived between possible major new development and reductions in the long-term whale research and monitoring programme. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

WWF’s Position

WWF opposed PA-C more categorically.

It argued that an additional offshore platform near the feeding area posed unacceptable risk to a very small and vulnerable Western Gray Whale population.

Its February 2012 campaign sought to persuade European Sakhalin II lenders to use their financial influence against the proposal. (Phys.org)

Those were advocacy positions rather than judicial or regulatory findings.

Shell’s position in the project

Shell’s role requires the same precision applied throughout this archive.

At the time, Shell held a 27.5 per cent interest in Sakhalin Energy.

Gazprom held the controlling interest.

The survey and PA-C planning were undertaken by Sakhalin Energy, not by Royal Dutch Shell plc acting independently.

But Shell was neither a detached observer nor a minor outside contractor.

It was a substantial shareholder in Sakhalin II, and Shell technical personnel participated in the scientific work that eventually emerged from the seismic mitigation programme. IUCN’s later account specifically lists Shell Global Solutions among the affiliations represented in that work. (IUCN)

The accurate formulation remains:

PA-C was a Sakhalin Energy proposal within a project in which Shell held a substantial minority economic and technical interest.

Why SLF-2007-049 matters

The importance of this file is not simply that another seismic survey occurred.

It exposes the central tension in the WGWAP model.

Independent scientists had warned that Sakhalin Energy should not begin another major construction project before unresolved environmental questions had been addressed.

Yet those same scientists helped the company take one of the preparatory steps required to advance that project.

Was that contradiction?

Or was it responsible environmental intervention?

The documentary record supports a more complicated answer.

Without WGWAP involvement, the survey might still have occurred.

With WGWAP involvement, its timing and mitigation were altered.

And the resulting data helped identify a potential platform location farther from the principal feeding area.

The scientists therefore influenced the development without endorsing it.

The distinction was not semantic.

It was the basis upon which WGWAP preserved its independence while remaining inside the decision-making process.

But by 2012 another group had concluded that mitigation was no longer enough.

WWF had gone to the banks.

The question was changing from:

How can PA-C be made less dangerous?

to:

Should the institutions financing Sakhalin II allow PA-C to proceed at all?

Source Record

The principal primary record for this instalment is the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel Report of the Eleventh Meeting, February 2012. It records the continuing South Piltun planning process, the modified seismic and acoustic survey, the link with post-Macondo relief-well planning, WGWAP’s repeated refusal to allow participation in the survey to be treated as endorsement of PA-C, and its continuing concern about reduced whale monitoring while industrial development might expand. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

The WGWAP Noise Task Force report of November 2011 confirms that the site survey originally planned for summer 2011 had been postponed to 2012 because of delay in obtaining Russian Federation approvals for the geophysical work. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

The WGWAP Report of the Twelfth Meeting, November 2012 records completion of the survey and Sakhalin Energy’s conclusion that the resulting data supported the farther-offshore “blue location” for the proposed platform. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

Contemporaneous reporting of 9 February 2012 records WWF’s call for BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse and Standard Chartered to oppose the third-platform proposal and the planned Geneva discussions involving lenders, whale specialists and Sakhalin Energy. (Phys.org)

Later IUCN material confirms both WWF’s lender campaign and the subsequent scientific significance of the Sakhalin seismic mitigation programme. (WWF International)

Archive disclaimer: PA-C remained a proposed development during the period under examination. WGWAP recommendations constituted independent scientific advice rather than legal prohibitions. Cooperation between WGWAP and Sakhalin Energy on seismic monitoring and mitigation is not represented as approval of the South Piltun development. WWF statements are attributed as advocacy positions. No finding is made here that the 2012 site survey caused population-level harm to Western Gray Whales.

Next Archive File SLF-2007-050 — The Sakhalin Papers XL: The Survey Finds a Safer Site — PA-C Moves Offshore, but the Larger Question Remains

The scientists had helped Sakhalin Energy conduct the survey.

Now the survey produced an answer.

The preferred site moved farther offshore.

Earlier fears about shallow gas beneath the alternative location were not substantiated.

For whale protection, that looked like a tangible success.

But it did not answer the larger question.

Should PA-C be built at all?

By late 2012 the project had accumulated more engineering data, a potentially less damaging location and increasingly sophisticated mitigation.

It had also accumulated more scrutiny.

The next instalment will examine what Sakhalin Energy learned from the completed survey, why the “blue location” became preferred, what WGWAP thought had been achieved — and why moving a platform farther from the whales was still not the same thing as resolving the argument over another major industrial development beside their feeding grounds. (IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group)

This restored version is suitable for publication as the 6 September instalment. I would retain SLF-2007-049 / Sakhalin Papers XXXIX exactly as shown, so tomorrow’s sequence can continue cleanly with SLF-2007-050 / Sakhalin Papers XL.

THE SHELL LEAKS FILES: 6 SEPTEMBER 2026 was first posted on September 6, 2026 at 8:12 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net