We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics of Energy

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Brumar89 who wrote (82733)11/28/2019 6:31:58 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83349
Tourism Is Forcing Mexico To Build Another Natural Gas PipelineBy Tsvetana Paraskova - Nov 27, 2019, 5:30 PM CST
Mexico plans to shortly launch a tender for the construction of a natural gas pipeline between the Tuxpan port on the eastern coast to Cancun and Merida on the Yucatan peninsula, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said at his regular news conference on Wednesday.

The new natural gas pipeline is aimed at improving electricity generation in the popular tourist cities in the area, including Cancun, according to Mexico’s president.

Mexico’s natural gas demand rises with more natural gas-fired power plants, but the country’s gas production cannot keep up with growing demand. Mexico imports a lot of natural gas from the United States, with American natural gas exports to Mexico at a record high.

The U.S.-Mexico natural gas trade is dominated by pipeline shipments from the United States and Mexico. U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico totaled 2,090 billion cubic feet (Bcf) last year, of which 90 percent was sent through pipelines south of the border, according to EIA estimates. Mexico was also the second-largest destination for U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) last year, second only to South Korea.

Leftist Mexican president López Obrador aims to reduce the country’s dependence on imports. But according to analysts, Mexico will still need a lot of natural gas imports, especially in light of the president’s pivot to give state oil firm Pemex more control over oil and gas production, while slamming the energy reforms of his predecessor Enrique Peña Nieto, who had opened in 2013 the sector to private investment for the first time in seven decades.

In August, Mexico and several private energy infrastructure companies reached an agreement to resolve a dispute over contracts for natural gas pipelines that the previous Mexican administration had signed.

In June, López Obrador said that the natural gas pipeline contracts that the previous administration had signed were ‘abusive’ and ‘unfair’ to the Mexican state, raising additional concerns as to whether the new administration would respect previously signed energy deals.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82734)11/28/2019 6:34:07 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83349
Iran Could Have A Nuclear Bomb Within MonthsBy ZeroHedge - Nov 27, 2019, 12:30 PM CST
The Iranian government is shortening its nuclear breakout time -- the amount of time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear weapon. Tehran has accomplished this through several steps in the last few months.

Iran's government first increased its enriched uranium stockpile beyond the 300 kilogram limit; it enriched uranium to levels beyond the cap of 3.67 percent, and then activated 20 IR-4 and 20 IR-6 advanced centrifuges. The Iranian leaders even boasted that their government is now exploring new uranium enrichment programs and producing centrifuges.

Most recently, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, declared that Iran has an adequate supply of 20% enriched uranium., "Right now we have enough 20% uranium," he told the Iranian Students News Agency, ISNA, "but we can produce more as needed". He added that the country is resuming uranium enrichment at a far higher level at the Fordow nuclear facility -- an underground uranium enrichment facility which is reportedly located on one of bases of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC­­) -- injecting uranium gas into centrifuges, and operating 60 IR-6 advanced centrifuges.

This marks a dangerous phase in Iran's nuclear defiance. Tehran is now using a kind of prototype centrifuge that enriches uranium almost 50 times faster.

Iran's nuclear breakout time in 2015 was estimated at less than one year. Tehran has advanced its nuclear program since then. In an interview with Iran's state-owned Channel 2, Salehi admitted that the " nuclear deal" initiated by then-US President Barack Obama not only failed to restrict Iran's nuclear program; it actually helped Iran to advance its nuclear program through the flow of funds thanks to the lifting of sanctions. "If we have to go back and withdraw from the nuclear deal," he stated, "we certainly do not go back to where we were before ... We will be standing in a much, much higher position."

Although Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it refuses to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its sites. The IAEA is also not allowed to inspect or monitor Iran's military sites, where nuclear activities are most likely being carried out.

Among the many concessions that the Obama administration granted to the Iranian government, one was accepting the Iranian leaders' demand that military sites would be out of the IAEA's reach. Because of this surrender, at various high-profile sites such as the Parchin military complex, located southeast of Tehran, the regime has been free to engage in nuclear activities without the risk of inspection.

The Iranian leaders keep claiming that their nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes. This claim is bogus. If the Islamic Republic is advancing its nuclear program for peaceful purposes, why has Tehran repeatedly failed to report its nuclear facilities, including those at Natanz and Arak, to the IAEA?

Also, why does the Iranian government keep refusing to answer the IAEA's questions regarding a secret nuclear facility, reportedly located in the suburbs of Tehran? Two nonpartisan organizations based in Washington -- the Institute for Science and International Security and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -- last year released a detailed report on Iran's clandestine nuclear activities at this site.

In addition, why did the Iranian government place an S-300 anti-aircraft missile system at the Fordow underground nuclear site after the 2015 nuclear agreement? Finally, why does the Iranian regime never adequately address reports about its efforts to obtain illegal nuclear technology and equipment? Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, revealed in its annual report for 2016 that the Iranian government had pursued a "clandestine" path to obtain illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies "at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level."

The truth is that, from the perspective of the ruling clerics of Iran, obtaining nuclear weapons is a must to help Tehran advance its hegemonic ambitions to dominate the region. Also, by having nuclear weapons, the Iranian government can more powerfully support terror groups and proxies to destabilize the region without being concerned that the West might strike Iranian military targets.

Most of all, in the view of the ruling clerics, having nuclear weapons can ensure the survival of their theocratic, anti-American and anti-Semitic establishment.

That is why, before it is too late, which it is fast becoming, it is incumbent on the US and the international community to take seriously Iran's nuclear advances and urgently address its rush to obtain nuclear weapons.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Brumar8911/29/2019 6:54:27 AM
   of 83349
Our Greening Planet… German Science Magazine: Satellite Imagery Proves “World’s Vegetation Expanding Since Decades”By P Gosselin on 28. November 2019

An “unusual greening of the planet,” reports German science magazine Wissenschaft. “A paradox.”
Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne

Has been greening for 3 decades

While it is widely reported how the world’s rainforests are being chopped down, Wissenschaft reports, “Vegetation on earth has been expanding for decades, satellite data show.”

Yes, the planet is in fact greening, and this is embarrassing climate alarmists, who over the years managed to mislead much of the media and public into believing the planet has been “browning” and thirsting to death.

Confirmed by IPCC

“The opposite is the case: according to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, satellite observations show a greening of vegetation over the past three decades in parts of Asia, Europe, South America, Central North America and Southeast Australia,” reports Wissenschaft magazine. “Although there are regions that would become browner, the bottom line is that there is a larger area on our planet that is greened than browned.”

Thanks to CO2 fertilization

For the welcome trend, scientists attribute the surprising development on “a mixture of factors”, foremost the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, which plants thrive on and humans have been mislead into believing is a “pollutant”.

“It is often forgotten that CO2 is not only a ‘problem’, but also a plant nutrient” that forms a crucial part of the “basis of the food chain,” reported Wissenschaft. In short: More atmospheric CO2 means more plant growth, and thus more food for more life.”

That has become an inconvenient fact for alarmists and climate activists, who insist life on the planet is dying.

Rainforests still threatened

Other suspected contributing factors include: nitrogen deposition, land-use changes and reforestation projects. But Wissenschaft warns that man-made greenery through agriculture and reforestation falls far short in terms of biotope quality, and so destruction of virgin rainforests remains a huge problem that requires real action.

Wissenschaft summarizes: “The bottom line, most experts say, is that from an ecological point of view the phenomenon of greening cannot replace the losses.”

CO2 lending a huge hand of support

The good thing: More CO2 in the atmosphere will certainly make the job of protecting vegetation and life far easier.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82736)11/30/2019 6:32:55 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83349
BY ELIZABETH CALDWELL JUN. 10, 2019 Leave a Comment

The United States – currently the third largest exporter of liquefied natural gas – will surpass Australia and Qatar to become the world’s largest exporter of LNG within five years, according to a recent International Energy Agency report.

The United States Will Continue to Rapidly Grow Its LNG Exports.

The United States exported nearly 1.6 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas in 2013. By 2018, that number had more than doubled to 3.6 tcf, with LNG representing nearly one-third of total U.S. natural gas exports, thanks to record-breaking U.S. shale production.

IEA predicts that by 2024 U.S. LNG exports will grow by more than 3.5 percent to reach a whopping 113 billion cubic meters, or nearly 4 tcf, overtaking Qatar and Australia as the largest LNG supplier.

The United States’ Natural Gas Transformation

The United States’ transformation into an LNG superpower is even more incredible considering that it wasn’t so long ago that the country was in the middle of a natural gas shortage. In 2003, Time ran an article with the headline “Why U.S. Is Running Out of Gas,” that explained:

“This comes at a time when Americans are heading into their first big energy squeeze since the 1970s: a shortage of natural gas, the invisible resource used to heat homes, fuel kitchen appliances, generate electricity and manufacture many of the chemicals we use.”

In 2003, U.S. natural gas production represented about 85 percent and natural gas imports nearly 18 percent of the total natural gas consumed in the country, according to the Energy Information Administration. But the ability to produce natural gas from shale has transformed the United States from a position of energy scarcity to one that enables it to not only meet its own demand, but supply the world with this important resource as well.

The United States experienced a 59 percent growth in natural gas production since 2003 – U.S. production in 2018 outpaced consumption by about two percent and natural gas imports fell roughly 26 percent over this time period.

This trend is expected to continue with IEA predicting that by 2024 the United States will represent more than one-third (35 percent) of global natural gas production growth.

The Incredible Growth of U.S. LNG

The first shipment of U.S. LNG from the lower 48 states was exported in February 2016, and it has been full-speed ahead ever since. As Reuters reported shortly before the shipment left Louisiana:

“Expected to become an importer of LNG just a decade ago, the shale gas revolution in the United States that unlocked cheap, abundant supplies has wreaked havoc on global gas markets as LNG meant for the country was redirected around the world.”

U.S. LNG exports more than quintupled from 2016 to 2018, with the United States exporting a record nearly 1.1 tcf of LNG in 2018. That’s about 189 billion cubic feet (bcf) more than 2016 and 2017 combined.

And as the IEA report explains, there are no signs of this growth slowing down. At the end of May, the Department of Energy announced the Freeport LNG terminal in Texas was approved to export additional domestically produced natural gas. As U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes explained:

“Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy. Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe. There’s no doubt today’s announcement furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting energy security and diversity worldwide.”

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Neil Chatterjee also lauded the recent DOE announcement via tweet, pointing out increasing European imports of U.S. LNG.

Neil Chatterjee


Facts are facts. @ENERGY is right - it is #FreedomGas! #LNG is good for the American people, our allies abroad & for U.S. geopolitical interests. #FreedomMolecules #Energytwitter #FERC

Europe is taking a larger share of U.S. natural gas exportsThe trend helps lessen Europe's reliance on Russian energy.


12:13 PM - May 30, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

59 people are talking about this

EIA reported that in March and April of this year, U.S. LNG exports to Europe averaged 1.7 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d), ten times higher than in the same months in 2018. While touring an LNG export facility in the U.S., European Union Commission Vice President Maroš Šefcovic told Axios:

“We are at the stage when these facilities become commercially very important. We have demand. We have infrastructure in place. The U.S. now has the export capacity.”

As the IEA report explains:

“While European gas consumption is set to remain almost flat in the coming years, domestic production is set to fall at an average rate of 3.5% per year, primarily driven by the Groningen phase-out in the Netherlands and declining production in the North Sea.

This structural decline in domestic production, combined with the expiry of several long term pipeline contracts, opens opportunities for new sources of supply, including LNG.” (emphasis added)

Worldwide Natural Gas Demand Projected to Grow

The increased supply of LNG is being fueled by not only an increased U.S. supply, but growing global natural gas demand. According to IEA, worldwide demand grew by 4.6 percent in 2018 and will continue to increase through 2024:

“Gas demand in the coming five years is set to be driven by Asia Pacific, forecast to account for almost 60 percent of the total consumption increase to 2024. China will be the main driver for gas demand growth, though slower than in the recent past as economic growth slows, but still accounting for about 40 percent of total gas demand increase to 2024.”


The growth of U.S. natural gas production – led by increased shale production – has been transformative, not only domestically but globally. And it’s only the beginning. As IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol recently said:

“The second wave of the U.S. shale revolution is coming. It will see the United States account for 70 percent of the rise in global oil production and some 75 percent of the expansion in LNG trade over the next five years. This will shake up international oil and gas trade flows, with profound implications for the geopolitics of energy.”

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Brumar8912/1/2019 7:52:38 AM
   of 83349
Wind Power Is No Use Today
NOVEMBER 30, 2019

tags: Electricity

By Paul Homewood

We are now entering a few days of cold, anti-cyclonic weather. According to the forecasts, it could be Thursday before wind conditions return.

Currently wind power is contributing little more than 4% of UK power, with fossil fuels supplying more than half.

It will be interesting to see how things progress in the next few days.

Heaven knows what we are all supposed to do when they have taken away out gas boilers!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82738)12/1/2019 9:03:51 PM
From: Brumar89
   of 83349
Why “green” energy is a terrible idea

There are lots of reasons, actually, but Charles Rotter of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) does a good job of explaining some of them:

Ask them for details, and their responses range from evasive to delusional, disingenuous – and outrage that you would dare ask. The truth is, they don’t have a clue. They’ve never really thought about it. It’s never occurred to them that these technologies require raw materials that have to be dug out of the ground, which means mining, which they vigorously oppose (except by dictators in faraway countries).
Using wind power to replace the 3.9 billion megawatt-hours that Americans consumed in 2018, coal and gas-fired backup power plants, natural gas for home heating, coal and gas for factories, and gasoline for vehicles – while generating enough extra electricity every windy day to charge batteries for just seven straight windless days – would require some 14 million 1.8-MW wind turbines.

Those turbines would sprawl across three-fourths of the Lower 48 US states – and require 15 billion tons of steel, concrete and other raw materials. They would wipe out eagles, hawks, bats and other species.

Fifteen billion tons. That’s 30 trillion pounds.

Using solar to generate just the 3.9 billion MWh would require completely blanketing an area the size of New Jersey with sunbeam-tracking Nellis Air Force Base panels – if the Sun were shining at high-noon summertime Arizona intensity 24/7/365. (That doesn’t include the extra power demands listed for wind.)

Solar uses toxic chemicals during manufacturing and in the panels: lead, cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide and many others. They could leach out into soils and waters during thunderstorms, hail storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, and when panels are dismantled and hauled off to landfills or recycling centers. Recycling panels and wind turbines presents major challenges.

Because wind turbines don’t last long–20 years–those massive disposal problems are now coming to the fore. Every wind turbine contains 45 tons (90,000 pounds) of non-recyclable plastic that must be disposed of in landfills. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to decommission each wind turbine.

Using batteries to back up sufficient power to supply U.S. electricity needs for just seven straight windless days would require more than 1 billion half-ton Tesla-style batteries. That means still more raw materials, hazardous chemicals and toxic metals.

I have never seen a coherent explanation of how batteries can be produced and deployed so as to store the vast quantities of electricity needed in the U.S. alone. It would cost a prohibitive $133 billion to buy batteries sufficient to store one state’s electricity–Minnesota’s–for 24 hours. Minnesota is an average sized state, so that corresponds to around $6.6 trillion for 24 hours storage for the U.S. That is much more than the entire budget of the U.S. government. This assumes that such batteries exist, which they don’t.

Bringing electricity from those facilities, and connecting a nationwide GND grid, would require thousands of miles of new transmission lines – onshore and underwater – and even more raw materials.

Providing those materials would result in the biggest expansion in mining the United States and world have ever seen: removing hundreds of billions of tons of overburden, and processing tens of billions of tons of ore – mostly using fossil fuels. Where we get those materials is also a major problem.

If we continue to ban mining under modern laws and regulations here in America, those materials will continue to be extracted in places like Inner Mongolia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, largely under Chinese control – under labor, wage, health, safety, environmental and reclamation standards that no Western nation tolerates today. There’ll be serious pollution, toxics, habitat losses and dead wildlife.

Even worse, just to mine cobalt for today’s cell phone, computer, Tesla and other battery requirements, over 40,000 Congolese children and their parents work at slave wages, risk cave-ins, and get covered constantly in toxic and radioactive mud , dust, water and air. Many die. The mine sites in Congo and Mongolia have become vast toxic wastelands. The ore processing facilities are just as horrific.

Meeting GND demands would multiply these horrors many times over. Will Green New Dealers require that all these metals and minerals be responsibly and sustainably sourced, at fair wages, with no child labor – as they do for T-shirts and coffee? Will they now permit exploration and mining in the USA?

“Green” energy is basically a hoax. The world runs on fossil fuels, and will continue to do so until nuclear energy is adopted on a mass scale, or another reliable, high-intensity energy source is discovered.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82680)12/1/2019 9:53:04 PM
From: TimF
1 Recommendation   of 83349
Those 100 percent renewable claims are almost all PR stunts, you could even claim borderline scams.

Georgetown or some other jurisdiction or organization, goes to a company that gets some of their power from "renewables", and then pays extra to say that they are getting that renewable energy while someone else is getting the fossil fuel based electricity. But of course its all on the same grid, no dedicated lines for solar, wind etc. so its all pretty silly.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82739)12/2/2019 6:01:49 AM
From: Brumar89
1 Recommendation   of 83349
British Yacht Skipper Flew Atlantic To Sail Greta To Madrid
DECEMBER 2, 2019

tags: greta

By Paul Homewood

These plane thingies come in handy, don’t they Greta!

A British yacht skipper’s flight to the US to help Greta Thunberg sail to Portugal has produced the same amount of carbon emissions the voyage hoped to save.

Nikki Henderson, 26, flew to the US from Britain to sail 48-foot catamaran the La Vagabonde.

The vessel is carrying Miss Thunberg and her father Svante 3,000 miles to Portugal where she will go onto attend the COP 25 climate change talks in Madrid.

The journey was meant to save approximately two or three tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

But Ms Henderson’s flight from Britain to the US likely produced the same amount of emissions the journey hoped to save, countering Ms Thunberg’s mission, The Times reports.

Ms Henderson was a skipper in three ARC Trans Atlantic races. In two of them, she was the youngest competitor.

She also skippered the Caribbean 600 and has raced in three Caribbean seasons.

Ms Henderson tweeted: ‘I decided to help @Sailing_LaVaga and support Greta because she is changing the world – simply by standing up for what she believes is right and staying true to her values.

‘I so admire that, and hope to draw strength from her.’

The 16-year-old climate activist, who became world famous for founding the ‘school strikes for the climate,’ refuses to fly in planes because of the carbon footprint.

The ship, belonging to Australian YouTubers Riley Whitelum and Elayna Carausu, left from Hampton, Virginia, last month.

The couple also have their son Lenny onboard.

It aims to reach Portugal, more than 5,500 kilometers (about 3,500 miles) away. From there Ms Thunberg will make her way to Madrid in Spain for COP 25.

The Australian couple offered to sail Miss Thunberg to Spain after she had issued a plea on social media for help getting back across the Atlantic Ocean, after the summit was moved at the last minute from Santiago in Chile to Madrid due to the protests in the South American country.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82741)12/2/2019 6:02:44 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83349
Crew of Five Are Flying To New York To Bring Greta’s Boat Back!
AUGUST 16, 2019

tags: greta

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dave Ward

Bjorn Lomborg has picked up on this story from the German news site, Taz:

This is the translation from the Taz story:

BERLIN taz | Climate activist Greta Thunberg causes more greenhouse gas emissions from her sailing trip from the United Kingdom to the United States than if she had flown. About five employees would sail the yacht back to Europe, said Andreas Kling, spokesman for Thunberg skipper Boris Herrmann, on Thursday the taz.
"Of course, they fly over there, that’s no different," says Kling. Herrmann will also take the plane for the return journey. The sailing trip triggers at least six climate-damaging air travel across the Atlantic. If Thunberg had flown with her father, only two would have been necessary to come to New York.

According to the atmosfair emissions calculator, a flight from New York to Hamburg has a climate impact of around 1,800 kilograms of carbon dioxide. That is more than three quarters of what every person is entitled to each year if global warming is to be stopped at 2 degrees.
Because flights are so damaging to the climate, Thunberg had been looking for a better way to travel to the United Nations Climate Change Summit in New York in September. On Wednesday afternoon, the 16-year-old struck aboard the high-sea yacht "Malizia II" together with the two professional sailors Herrmann and Pierre Casiraghi and their father Svante and a filmmaker in the southern English town of Plymouth. The ship is powered by the wind, electricity for navigation and communication is generated by solar cells.

The press spokesperson for the Fridays for Future activist was unable to reach an opinion on the carbon footprint of the sailing trip until the copy deadline. Skipper spokesman Kling admitted that the departure with hundreds of journalists, supporters and spectators in Plymouth had a carbon footprint. "It would have been less greenhouse gas emissions if we had not made this departure," Kling said. "Of course it would have been more environmentally friendly not to draw attention to the fact that we urgently need to do something against the climate crisis. But if nobody points out, then we do not do anything. "
When asked if it would not have been more climate-friendly if Thunberg had travelled on a container ship, Kling replied: "This is a thought that is actually being considered for the return to Europe."!5615733/

This proves that Thunberg’s decision to sail by racing yacht had nothing whatsoever to do with saving emissions, and was no more than a silly publicity stunt.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (82742)12/2/2019 6:11:41 AM
From: Brumar89
   of 83349
Fiona Hill says that she heard Putin describe American fracking as a 'great threat' to Russia

by Philip Klein
| November 21, 2019 03:52 P

M Former National Security Council official and Russia expert Fiona Hill on Thursday testified that she heard Russian President Vladimir Putin at a 2011 conference describe American fracking as a "great threat" to Russia, a position he has emphasized ever since.

The recollection came out at a point in the impeachment hearing when Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas was asking Hill about Putin's propaganda efforts in the United States, at the center of which is the television channel RT, which pushes anti-fracking messaging. Hill agreed that Russia saw the growth of U.S. fracking as a threat given that it undermines Russia's efforts to dominate the energy sector.

“In November 2011, I actually sat next to Vladimir Putin, at a conference, in which he made precisely that point," she said. "It was the first time that he had actually done so to a group of American journalists and experts that were brought to something called the Valdai Discussion Club. So he started in 2011 making it very clear that he saw American fracking as a great threat to Russian interests. We were all struck by how much he stressed this issue. And since 2011, and since that particular juncture, Putin has made a big deal of this.”

The process of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and gas has led to an energy boom in the U.S. and has helped make the U.S. the largest global producer of energy, with Russia ranking third.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10