Sun Apr 13, 2014, 04:55 PM
TBF (31,869 posts)
US fracking companies & UkraineWhy US fracking companies are licking their lips over Ukraine From climate change to Crimea, the natural gas industry is supreme at exploiting crisis for private gain – what I call the shock doctrine Naomi Klein The Guardian, Thursday 10 April 2014 14.12 EDT The way to beat Vladimir Putin is to flood the European market with fracked-in-the-USA natural gas, or so the industry would have us believe. As part of escalating anti-Russian hysteria, two bills have been introduced into the US Congress – one in the House of Representatives (H.R. 6), one in the Senate (S. 2083) – that attempt to fast-track liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, all in the name of helping Europe to wean itself from Putin's fossil fuels, and enhancing US national security. According to Cory Gardner, the Republican congressman who introduced the House bill, "opposing this legislation is like hanging up on a 911 call from our friends and allies". And that might be true – as long as your friends and allies work at Chevron and Shell, and the emergency is the need to keep profits up amid dwindling supplies of conventional oil and gas. <snip> Or the fact that for years the industry has been selling the message that Americans must accept the risks to their land, water and air that come with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in order to help their country achieve "energy independence". And now, suddenly and slyly, the goal has been switched to "energy security", which apparently means selling a temporary glut of fracked gas on the world market, thereby creating energy dependencies abroad ... Much more here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/10/us-fracking-companies-climate-change-crisis-shock-doctrine
|
6 replies, 951 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
TBF | Apr 2014 | OP |
dipsydoodle | Apr 2014 | #1 | |
TBF | Apr 2014 | #2 | |
dipsydoodle | Apr 2014 | #3 | |
TBF | Apr 2014 | #4 | |
dipsydoodle | Apr 2014 | #5 | |
ctsnowman | Apr 2014 | #6 |
Response to TBF (Original post)
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:18 PM
dipsydoodle (42,239 posts)
1. Totally impractical.
.
|
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #1)
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:22 PM
TBF (31,869 posts)
2. You're going to have to be more specific. nt
Response to TBF (Reply #2)
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 05:30 PM
dipsydoodle (42,239 posts)
3. In a nutshell
One supertanker emits in a year the equivalent of 50,000,000 cars, would require 400 or so supertankers most of which would need to be built because they don't currently exist and literally millions of Atlantic crossings. Aside from the US is not capable of producing that volume of LPG.
Last but not least do you really believe the Europe would simple exchange reliance on Russia for reliance on the USA. |
Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #3)
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 06:54 PM
TBF (31,869 posts)
4. Did you read the article?
Naomi is arguing that the republicans introducing this bill are out of their minds.
|
Response to TBF (Reply #4)
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 07:10 PM
dipsydoodle (42,239 posts)
5. I read it the day it was published here in the UK.
.
|