John Kerry said this about the Keystone pipeline:
I am not at liberty to go into my thinking at this point—it is just not appropriate—except to say I am approaching this tabula rasa.
And he was serious.
John Kerry said this about the Keystone pipeline:
I am not at liberty to go into my thinking at this point—it is just not appropriate—except to say I am approaching this tabula rasa.
And he was serious.
It turns out that all Crimean fresh water, 75% of its electricity, and—wait for it—a third of its natural gas run through the Ukrainian province of Kherson, which sits just on the mainland side of the peninsula that connects Crimea with the mainland.
Last week, Kherson’s regional legislature overwhelmingly passed a motion supporting the preservation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Kherson’s leadership also said they’ll shut everything off if the referendum on joining Russia goes forward this weekend.
Hmm….
Russian energy exports. Ukraine, for instance, gets some 40%-50% of its natural gas from Russia, and Europe gets roughly 30% its natural gas from Russia. Recall, just a few short years ago, too, the Russian extortion of cutting off those gas flows—in the middle of winter—over an alleged bill-paying (or not) scandal: it wasn’t those who supposedly weren’t paying the country’s gas bill who were harmed, though, it was the citizenry threatened with freezing temperatures in their own homes. And as part of the Russian extortion, they cut off gas flows to Europe, too.
Now comes the Obama administration, with its control over our own ability to export natural gas to various places—for instance, to Europe and to Ukraine—or to the world generally. The one export targets would directly break Russia’s hold over Ukraine and Europe, while the other would, at the least, drive down the price of natural gas, making it easier for those two to find and import other sources. Yet this is the claim of Bill Gibbons, spokesman for President Barack Obama’s Energy Department:
Regarding specific Energy Department actions on LNG exports, the Department remains committed to an expeditious and responsible process. We continue to make public interest determinations on a case-by-case basis, carefully considering economic, energy security, environmental and geopolitical impacts, among other factors.
Surely, breaking Ukraine’s and Europe’s dependence on Russian energy sources is a matter of geopolitical impact, especially with Russia having invaded Ukraine. Yet the Energy Secretary, who under DoE’s permitting process can deny applications to countries that don’t have a free trade agreement with us, has approved all of six applications in the last three plus years to such countries, and he has some 24 more applications sitting on his desk with no action in the offing. Certainly, all of those predate the present Russian assault, but acting on those export applications, rather than dissembling about them, would have an immediate favorable impact on Ukraine and Europe, if only through natural gas pricing on the world market—which would help these while harming Russia.
This administration automatically foot drags, even in an on-going crisis, on any matter pertaining to international affairs. It has no understanding of foreign affairs, and so it’s wholly incapable of anticipating and planning for global events; this lack underlies its foot-dragging.
It’s no wonder our enemies have such contempt for us—and Ukraine is in the strait it’s in.
Here are two Congressmen who oppose building this pipeline.
Crony capitalism, indeed.
It seems that fracking, that heinous technology used for getting hard-to-reach natural gas and oil out of the very deep underground, far from polluting our water, saves it, especially where natural gas-based electricity generating plants are concerned. According to a University of Texas study published in Environmental Research Letters,
Even though exploration for natural gas through hydraulic fracturing requires significant water consumption in Texas, the new consumption is easily offset by the overall water efficiencies of shifting electricity generation from coal to natural gas. The researchers estimate that water saved by shifting a power plant from coal to natural gas is 25 to 50 times as great as the amount of water used in hydraulic fracturing to extract the natural gas.
Natural gas-fired power plants use about two-thirds less water than coal-fired plants to cool the generators. The switch to natural gas-based electricity generation, made commercially feasible by fracking, thus reduces water use by the plants significantly. Aside from reducing water consumption in and of itself, and reducing costs for producers and consumers of electricity, this yields another, longer-term outcome. Senior Research Scientist at UT’s Bureau of Economic Geology, said,
The bottom line is that hydraulic fracturing, by boosting natural gas production and moving the state from water-intensive coal technologies, makes our electric power system more drought resilient.
Bad fracking. Bad.