Why US fracking companies are licking their lips over Ukraine

[Judi Lynn]

Why 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.

For this ploy to work, it's important not to look too closely at details. Like the fact that much of the gas probably won't make it to Europe – because what the bills allow is for gas to be sold on the world market to any country belonging to the World Trade Organisation.

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.

More:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/10/us-fracking-companies-climate-change-crisis-shock-doctrine

[The Magistrate]

1. It Is Certainly No Solution To the Present Problem With Russian Actions In Ukraine, Ma'am

As she notes here:

"And most of all, it's important not to notice that building the infrastructure necessary to export gas on this scale would take many years in permitting and construction – a single LNG terminal can carry a $7bn price tag, must be fed by a massive, interlocking web of pipelines and compressor stations, and requires its own power plant just to generate energy sufficient to liquefy the gas through super-cooling."

Even if one thought it a good idea, the infrastructure to do it is not there, and the money to make that infrastructure is not really there, either. This is one of those that, if it made real economic sense to do, would have already been underway....

"There is a class of idea which, in the moment it is heard, sounds great, but which, after a moment's reflection, is obviously awful."

[joshcryer]

5. The US has fracking IP rights.

No other country has put so much money into developing it. I think the reason it "hasn't happened yet" is the US is keeping the IP close at hand.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Even the thought of the US shipping Europe's requirements is sheer farce.

One large tanker creates the equivalent emissions of 50 million cars across a year's use. Doing the rest of the maths in relation to Europe's annual usage would help some realise what a tragic idea that would be given the environmental damage.

Aside from that its anticipated Europe couldn't switch fully from current supplies until 2030.

The thought of fracking Europe's requirements are equally farcical especially given our environmental / safety laws on drinking water supplies.

There is also a loose association between the prices of oil and LPG. If OPEC broke that relationship it is anticipated the price of LPG would crash. That being so the economics of fracking would be become suspect.

I also noticed yesterday that protests have recommenced in Rumania :

Chevron to Start Exploration for Shale Gas in Romania.

US multinational Chevron has announced it will begin in weeks its search for shale gas near the village of Pungesti in Eastern Romania, a day after mass environmental protests.

Drilling for gas will last 90 days, company officials were quoted by BalkanInsight as saying.

Romania's Agerpres reported that the Agency for Environment Protection in Vaslui County, where Pungesti lies, had earlier given go-ahead to Chevron, as well as for three other locations within the country.

Chevron officials were pelted with stones and eggs during an anti-shale gas demonstration on Monday, but vowed to go on with plans for drilling.

Last year mass protests of environmental groups and their supporters across Romania led Chevron to halt the search for shale gas deposits in Pungesti.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=159686#sthash.kQrrwTHm.dpuf

[cprise]

4. In actuality its more likely they'll frack Ukraine.

But announcing such a thing on the heels of a coup over there would look bad.

Having the "US frack for Ukraine" instead puts a different spin on their business, increasing domestic acceptance in the US.

[arcane1]

3. Naomi Klein has a tendancy to nail it.

She hath nailed it yet again.