Climate Madness: Democrats Forcing US Dependence on Russian Gas Because they Hate Trump Fossil Fuel Projects

Portrait of Vladimir Putin, Source kremlin.ru,
Author Russian Presidential Press and Information Office

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chief of Staff Anthony Pugliese has accused Democrat states of undermining National Security, by scoring political points for deliberately blocking desperately needed Trump fossil fuel energy infrastructure projects.

The Democrat scorched earth strategy of obstructing vital infrastructure is forcing at least one gas company import liquid natural gas supplies from Russia, to keep US homes warm in winter.

Exclusive – Senior Energy Official: Local Dem-Controlled Gov’ts Block Infrastructure Projects to Resist Trump

Sean Moran
11 Jul 2018

Democratic-controlled state governments are blocking federal energy infrastructure projects supported by the Trump Administration “for the sole reason of politics,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chief of Staff Anthony Pugliese told Breitbart News Sunday.

During Trump’s presidency, though, “some parts of the country that are controlled by members of the Democratic party and others … are determined to ensure that no infrastructure goes through their state and are determined to say no just because the Trump Administration is supporting it … for the sole reason of politics,” Pugliese told Breitbart News Sunday host Amanda House.

“They are putting politics above the best interests of not only the consumers in their state but also national security.”

To illustrate his point, Pugliese explained the consequences of playing party politics: “My favorite example of this is during this last cold snap…. the New England Independent System Operator had to import LNG [Liquified Natural Gas] from Russia because we didn’t have infrastructure going through places like New York that would have provided American energy to support a reliable and resilient grid.”

Read more: https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/11/exclusive-senior-energy-official-local-dem-controlled-govts-block-infrastructure-projects-to-resist-trump/

What explanation will Democrats offer, if next year or the year after there is a major flareup of tensions between the US and Russia, say over renewed military action in Europe, and Putin retaliates by shutting off the supply of heating gas to large numbers of US homes? I wonder how much Russia values this stranglehold over the wellbeing of millions of Americans?

Advertisements

90 thoughts on “Climate Madness: Democrats Forcing US Dependence on Russian Gas Because they Hate Trump Fossil Fuel Projects

  1. The left seem increasingly desperate to start a war between America and Russia, for no reason that makes any sense to the sane. I presume it’s part of their depopulation strategy, but quite an extreme one: a nuclear war would definitely reduce the human population, but wouldn’t be very nice for ‘the environment’ either.

    • I’m being sarcastic . Nuclear war would be “good” for the “environment” because there would be less carbon dioxide (no fossil fuel use, fewer animals and humans, less aerobic metabolism, less anaerobic metabolism (CO2 and also CH4), lower quantities of volatile organic carbons (pheromones and other smells from animals, plants, and bacterial action), less overpopulation by people, animals, and plants, and introduction of species to new areas where they take over. The “environment” would become “wonderful”.

    • “The left seem increasingly desperate to start a war between America and Russia” I think they’re itching for civil war as well.

      • It’s odd, the side that breaks out in hives at the mere sight of a gun, wants to start a civil war.

    • These Dimocrats haven’t yet realised that Russia is now a RIVAL, not an ENEMY! And I think that this is the way that Trump is treating the ‘relationship’.

    • Answer — the lefties are not just irrational, they’re suicidal, but want to take everybody else with them.

    • Don’t forget, they’re happy to instigate a crisis to take advantage of… and MORE than happy to create a crisis and then blame it on Trump.

    • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/03/can-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-save-the-world-from-climate-change/#comment-2395900

      A warning to the USA on the 4th of July:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/27/100-renewables-by-2035-surprise-new-york-primary-winner-takes-on-democrat-climate-moderates/#comment-2391692

      [excerpt]

      In the USA, the leftist infection is much more prevalent than a just few paid violent protesters. About half the population in the USA is effectively on the dole, since they consume more than they contribute – these people will usually vote for anyone who promises them more free stuff, like Ms Ocasio-Cortez. She knows what she is doing – it is the standard Marxist formula that has dragged down so many countries in the world.

      The solution is to get the unemployed back to work, which Trump is doing – and a key component is keeping energy costs low, so the USA can compete with China and other low-labour-cost countries. Trump is on the right track to saving the USA, and the Marxists cannot stand it.

      When Marxists want to sabotage a country, they increase energy costs unnecessarily, which cripples the economy. That is the left’s strategy, and it is working, except in the USA, China and a few other countries.

      A key leftist strategy is to cripple the energy industry – examples are endless regulatory snarls and successful anti-pipeline movements – these have cost Canada $120 billion in lost revenues – a huge amount of money that should have been available for industrial re-investment, job creation, health, education, etc.

      The leftists were the scourge of the 20th Century – Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed a total of about 200 million people. Almost 200 countries that once had viable economies are on a downward spiral – Zimbabwe and Venezuela lead the way, but many others follow. That is the Marxist agenda, and it is working.

      Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
      _____________________

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/03/can-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-save-the-world-from-climate-change/#comment-2395902

      Marxism made simple:

      The Groucho Marxists are the leaders – they want power for its own sake at any cost, and typically are sociopaths or psychopaths. The great killers of recent history, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. etc. were of this odious ilk – first they get power, then they implement their crazy schemes that do not work and too often kill everyone who opposes them.

      The Harpo Marxists are the followers – the “sheeple” – these are people of less-than-average intelligence who are easily duped and follow the Groucho’s until it is too late, their rights are lost and their society destroyed. They are attracted to simplistic concepts that “feel good” but rarely “do good”.

      George Carlin said it best: “Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”

      One can easily identify many members of these two groups in the global warming debate – and none of them are ”climate skeptics”.

      Need more evidence? Read the quotations at http://www.green-agenda.com

      Just a few examples:

      “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
      which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
      – David Brower,
      founder of Friends of the Earth
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
      saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
      an ecologically sound society under socialism.
      I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
      – Judi Bari,
      principal organiser of Earth First!
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      • Or Che Guevara: “If a country is not ripe for socialist revolution it is the duty of every good socialists to help make it so.”

          • Honest, heck dumdums working for Obama were wearing them the night of the Iowa Caucuses. They had Che posters on the wall. It briefly made national news when they announced Obama had won. Next day they were gone.

          • A lot of them aren’t idiots. They know exactly what Che did and want to duplicate it here in the US.

      • “A key leftist strategy is to cripple the energy industry – examples are endless regulatory snarls and successful anti-pipeline movements – these have cost Canada $120 billion in lost revenues – a huge amount of money that should have been available for industrial re-investment, job creation, health, education, etc.”

        Absolutely correct.

        On the other hand, the National Post documented that much of the “endless regulatory snarls and successful anti-pipeline movements” were funded by American corporate groups and foundations (= right-wing) who wanted to keep Canadian oil from reaching market and competing with their high USA prices. It was easy to fund both environmental and First Nation anti-pipeline groups against Kinder-Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline.

        Someone even convinced OPEC to flood the world market with oil ~2014, which cut prices, making Canadian tar sands oil less competitive and forced a wave of corporate buyouts, amalgamations and withdrawals. Perhaps some of these were done by high-value corporations to obtain tar sands companies for a song? With the current 2018 economic recovery (assuming that Trump’s trade war policies don’t knee-cap it), OPEC has again driven prices up to U$~70, so that the new owners of tar sands companies can profit.
        (Hmmm. Conspiracy theory?)

        BC has as much right to protect its industries dependent on a clean environment as does Québec. Environmental concerns for the Ottawa and St Lawrence Rivers were equally well used in Québec to stop the Energy East pipeline from Alberta through Montréal to St John NB where oil would have been refined by Canadian workers to ship to both USA and Europe. (They might have even re-opened some refineries in Montréal.) Brilliant tactics, eh?

        No pipelines means that oil must be shipped by rail, specifically the BNSF corporate railway giant. Now think of the Lac Mégantic disaster with its expected final settlement of Cdn$500M. A similar accident happened in Billings MT, but on an out-of-town siding, where the railway and oil cargo was damaged, not the town.

        Pipelines are definitely the safest solution, but corporate giants have learned to manipulate the democratic process to prevent them, in their own interest.

        We should fear Both left and right, who seem to have little interest in the public good, just their own. This fits the sociology of established groups protecting and competing for their own interests, even as technology, economics and markets change.
        Hmmm. Wasn’t that self-interest thing one of Marx’ principles?
        Funny how it’s used by capitalists too.

        • Lorne White: I dispute some of your allegations.

          The USA money that opposed Canadian pipelines was funneled through the leftist Tides Foundation. No surprise there!

          Here is just one reference – there are many more:
          https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/vivian-krause-the-cash-pipeline-opposing-canadian-oil-pipelines

          The environmental argument is a false front for deliberate leftist sabotage of the Canadian economy.

          Pipelines are vastly safer in terms of physical risk and oil spills than rail. The disaster at Lac Megantic Quebec, where ~47 people were incinerated when an oil train derailed, is ultimately the responsibility of these leftists and their financial backers.

          Due to the lack of export pipelines, “landlocked” Canadian oil is slave to the USA market, and has typically been sold for about 2/3 of world price – hence the loss of $120 billion in revenue to Canada.

          The major beneficiary of this oil-price-reduction was USA consumers. US refining corporations probably also benefited to a lesser extent.

          Canada is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the USA.

          The $120 billion squandered due to these “bought” anti-pipeline protests can never be recovered – money that was vital to the Canadian economy. The leftist extremists responsible for this economic fiasco belong in jail.

  2. Why are they invoking national security? Simple. National Security is grounds for President Trump to issue a Presidential Directive. That means he can act quickly without consulting congress.

    An example of the above was invoking national security to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. link

      • Just remember one thing before you wet yourself with glee – Presidential directives are dangerous things at best because it is not in what it says, it is how those that choose to use it interpret it. You can interpret a directive about “assault weapons,” as an example, to mean anything that you can be used as a weapon to assault someone with, including a golf club, or a bra if being used to strangle someone with.

    • In order to avoid eminent domain issues the Pennsylvania Legislators considered installing pipelines in Turnpike and Interstate ROWs. Don’t know the status of the process. Since the Feds funded and constructed the Interstate System I believe they still have the authority to construct the pipelines in the ROW where possible. Perhaps on a National Security Basis I-81 & I-84 could be used as a corridor for Marcellus Shale gas pipelines without New York State/ Cuomo approval??

  3. Unfortunately, some folks are going to have to learn their lessons through hardship, before they will #WalkAway from the socialist democrats and their irrational, regressive energy policies.

    • As long as it is other people who are doing the suffering, they will never abandon their “ideals”.

      • You’re correct, and your observation suggests a clear plan of action for our side, doesn’t it?

  4. in the 1970’s to 1980’s, before it was Russia, it was the USSR’s KGB that secretly channeled funds to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the UK to create resistance to NATO’s defense strategy against a numerically superior Warsaw Pact ground forces. The KGB secretly funded the Red Brigade and GreenPeace in attacks and protests (respectively) in West Germany, at US and UK military bases there.

    Nothing in the 21st Century is different except Russia’s named targets. The US Left and Europe’s Leftists get some funding from Russia (maybe unintentionally) to push policies to weaken the West’s energy independence, to buy and become dependent on Putin’s Gazprom piped-in natural gas. And that Dependency creates slaves that Putin wants. Putin is a master at the game which he intends to win. But he is in a strategically weak position that can only succeed through the West’s own self-doubt and weakness. Thus he plays the energy subterfuge at every opportunity to undermine the US and Europe.

    The thing that can stop Putin is $60 USD/bbl oil and abundant LNG from the US delivered to Europe to eliminate Putin’s Gazprom extortion as Merkel’s EnergieWinde program unravels under high costs and low reliability.

    • joelobryan

      I can’t help but wonder if Trumps current war of words with Germany over NATO contributions and their reliance on Russian gas conceals a, perhaps, unintentional consequence, to force Germany abandon their EnergieWinde program altogether.

      In the face of rising emissions and energy costs, it’s surely only going to take a small political push to send them over the edge.

      It would seem a far cheaper option in the long run, for Germany to resurrect it’s own energy provision and cease reliance on Russian gas, than shutting Trump up by paying their fair share of NATO contributions.

      When that’s achieved, Germany can’t hold itself up as the poster boy of European environmentalism and renewable energy. That alone will have the rest of the EU examining their own energy policies and perhaps even examining AGW critically to justify the necessary use of fossil fuels.

  5. The New England states have fought tooth and nail against every NG pipeline proposal *and* every NG import facility proposal. Meanwhile, they proceed to shut down coal and nuclear plants.
    New York blockading any and all pipelines from Pennsylvania to New England is a huge problem, but it is hardly the only huge problem.
    As a side note:
    The New England states along with New York (and others, perhaps) are part of RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. If you can not guess what RGGI is all about, you probably have not been paying attention.

      • ‘Atomic’ Rod Adams analyzed New England performance data during the cold spell last year and found that for a time it was ‘poised’ close to disaster. As yet the effects observed were mainly economic. But there was also serious gas volatility and oil depletion beyond what was normal or expected. Rod highlights testimony of Mr. Gordon van Weile, the president and CEO of ISO-NE. These folks usually speak in measured tongues, but THIS seems to be a chilling statement,

        While we weathered a stretch of extremely cold weather and a blizzard, we remain concerned about resupply of these resources during the remainder of the winter season and are in close coordination with state and federal officials about the challenges of ensuring adequate oil supplies to the region. Finally, given the fuel constraints, the rapid depletion of the oil inventory, and the reality that resupply was several days away during the peak of the cold weather period, our biggest operating concern was that we would experience a large, multi-day system contingency during this period or that oil-fired generators would run out of fuel before they could be resupplied.

        Only when you toss in the SCRAM of Pilgrim nuclear (due to loss of one of two grid connections during a storm, a voluntary shutdown reason Adams does not entirely support) and the (as yet) untested scenario of whether gas companies are willing or able to shunt gas from customers to electric plants… witness Nigeria’s recent gas interruption… MAYBE it was close.

        Maybe this Winter, closer still. “Offshore wind will save us!”

  6. Madness! — Several Tankers unloaded LNG in Mass and New England last winter.

    Below is one story.

    Tanker carrying liquefied natural gas from Russia’s Arctic arrives in Boston

    By Steven Mufson
    January 28
    Email the author
    A tanker carrying liquefied natural gas from a sanctioned project in Russia’s Arctic has arrived in Boston Harbor, where it will be offloaded for American users.

    The giant tanker is carrying the first LNG exported by the Yamal facility, a $27 billion project whose majority owner is the Russian company Novatek. As of Sunday evening, the tanker was in the Mystic River at an LNG terminal, where the liquefied cargo will be turned back into gas form and distributed to gas companies and electric power utilities.

    The Treasury Department issued sanctions aimed at weakening Russia’s energy sector in July 2014, after Russia annexed Crimea and backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. The sanctions forbid any financing for projects belonging to Novatek, Russia’s largest independent producer of natural gas.

    But the Treasury sanctions do not prohibit the purchase of natural gas that originated from Yamal, according to experts on U.S. sanctions who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak for the U.S. government.

    A recent cold snap in New England and the shortage of pipeline capacity from gas-rich Pennsylvania have created an appetite for natural gas imports even as the United States has begun exporting LNG from other terminals on the Gulf Coast. Earlier this month, some utilities resorted to burning relatively costly oil to meet demand.

    The LNG terminal, owned by the giant French multinational Engie, has been in operation for more than 40 years and meets about 20 percent of the market demand for gas supplies in New England and the Northeast.

    The LNG cargo in Boston Harbor did not come directly from Yamal, but rather through a chain of companies and locations.

    The blue-hulled tanker in Boston Harbor is owned by Engie. The cargo was picked up three weeks ago at a storage terminal in Britain called Grain, according to the industry newsletter LNG World News.

    In Britain, the cargo was the subject of controversy. When the LNG was on its way to Britain, the Russian Embassy in London tweeted: “Feeling cold? Help is on the way — first shipment of LNG from Russia arrives in UK today!” It showed a photo of the tanker that had picked up the cargo in Russia.

    But the owner of the Grain terminal, National Grid, tried to dampen outcry there by saying that the LNG was not needed and would not be used in the United Kingdom but would be reexported.

    The LNG was delivered to Britain by the LNG tanker Christophe de Margerie, whose namesake was the late chief executive of Total, a French company that owns 20 percent of the Yamal project. Total was allowed to finish the project, which was underway when sanctions were imposed. China National Petroleum owns 20 percent of the project.

    Other projects have been put on ice as a result of international sanctions. ExxonMobil dropped plans to team up with Russian oil company Rosneft to spend up to $550 million in the Arctic. And Royal Dutch Shell has suspended a prospecting project with Gazprom in a large Russian shale-oil field. Oil services giant Schlumberger has had trouble completing the purchase of a controlling stake in the Russian exploration company Eurasia Drilling.

    The Christophe de Margerie is among a fleet of 15 ice-breaking tankers needed to reach the Yamal project. It is in a remote region that is frozen for seven to nine months a year and where winter temperatures can drop to minus-50 degrees Celsius.

    Along the way to Boston, the LNG changed hands another time. At one point, it was sold to Petronas LNG UK, a British-based unit of the Malaysian energy giant Petronas, according to LNG World News. That could further blur the lines of Treasury sanctions.

    Most of the exports from the Yamal LNG project are expected to go to Asia.

    Both China and Japan are willing to help Novatek with its next big Arctic projects, undercutting U.S. efforts to hurt Russia’s energy sector. World Maritime News reported that during a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Novatek signed memoranda of understanding with Mitsui, Mitsubishi and Marubeni to help finance further LNG expansion in Russia’s Yamal region.

    For the completed Yamal project, Chinese banks provided $12 billion in loans and the state-sponsored China Silk Road Fund bought a 9.9 percent stake after U.S. sanctions were imposed.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/tanker-carrying-liquefied-natural-gas-from-russias-arctic-arrives-in-boston/2018/01/28/08d3894c-0497-11e8-8777-2a059f168dd2_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.90833ba84eda

    Cuomo refuses to allow pipes from the Marcellus Shale in PA into or through NY to supply New England.

    • “Along the way to Boston, the LNG changed hands another time. At one point, it was sold to Petronas LNG UK, a British-based unit of the Malaysian energy giant Petronas, according to LNG World News. That could further blur the lines of Treasury sanctions.”

      It does sound as if sanctions could be the explanation of why someone found it cheaper to buy a cargo that has been through this devious process rather than just shipping US LNG from Texas.

  7. “forcing at least one gas company import liquid natural gas supplies from Russia, to keep US homes warm in winter”
    Forcing? The US in fact exports large amounts of natural gas to Europe. Surely they can get a tanker to go to New England.

      • You might ass well ask how come the undersea cable between Britain and France is often booked to carry flows in both directions simultaneously. (It can in fact be making a profit from carrying no physical electricity at all if it has a contract to say carry a GW in each direction).

        The short answer is price arbitrage,availability of physical infrastructure and forward contracts.

        LNG could have been bough cheaply on a forward contract some months in advance, and put on a ship.

        Meanwhile its becomes cheaper to get it from a neighbouring state, but no pipeline exists to it, whereas there is a port.

        For bulk deliveries of gas only pipelines and ships really work. Costs will depend as much on the proximity to one of those as to the original gas price ‘free on board’ so to speak.

    • Nick (you’re a smart guy) but it doesn’t work like that.
      My brother works for Chevron.
      You only have to look at the prime example of Gorgon (Barrow Island) in your back-yard shipping LNG worth 2 to 3 hundred million USD per week to Asia. Ok there’s a small pipeline to Perth for a token mainland supply.
      On the other hand there’s four proposed new import terminals around Australia for imports from everywhere (except Australia) and you guessed it . . . including from Russia!
      Almost all LNG is sold under long-term contract and there’s never any spare and always teetering on the brink of a shortage.
      Russia is throwing millions (through intermediaries) at green groups Worldwide to kill as many gas projects as it can. It has succeeded at killing the Santos Narrabri gas project (announcement coming soon). In this case, Russia funnelled money to Shine Lawyers and others opposed to the venture.

      • “you guessed it . . . including from Russia!”
        You say “proposed” terminals. I think they may never be built. And we certainly don’t know where the gas will come from. Even if contracting is not flexible, It can’t pay on any reasonable timeframe to have tankers bringing LNG to Australia from Vladivostok while a stream of tankers is taking LNG from Australia to Japan.

        But in any case, it is a stretch to say that Democrats are forcing US dependence on Russion gas when the US is a major exporter of gas.

        In fact, the natural gas pipeline to Perth is the largest in Australia. WA seems toi be the only part of Oz that doesn’t have a shortage, and that isn’t because of imports.

        • NSW just granted Port Kembla Gas Terminal ‘critical’ status. It will be the first.
          Crib Point in Victoria will be the second.
          The other two, not so certain.
          Russia will supply Gas to Australia.

        • Yes biggest pipeline but a token gesture.
          Negligent Gov should have specified a share of Gorgon gas adequate to supply most of Australia’s needs.

          • “Russia will supply Gas to Australia.”
            There is a report here. It’s all very recent, and if it relies on Twiggy Forrest it won’t last long.
            They say
            “It would cost up to $300 million and source gas for the east coast market from South-East Asia, the United States and other parts of Australia.”
            No mention of Russia.

            The nuttiness of the proposal is this. A large pipeline was built to bring gas from Moomba to Sydney. Then another to bring gas from Victoria. Now flows have been reversing in the Moomba pipeline. Operators can make money by taking gas from Sydney, piping it to SA desert, then to Qld, then shipping to Japan. The reason is that we still aren’t locally paying world market price. Opening an import terminal won’t help there. Why would Russian ships bring LNG to Australia, when operators here find it economic to ship gas at NSW prices to Japan?

            “Negligent Gov should have specified a share”
            Pretty socialist idea. World parity pricing was insisted on by Doug Anthony over forty years ago, and it isn’t going to change.

          • Russia will supply LNG to Australia despite anything your dud-linked report says or your various musings. Gazprom has already bid on an AGL proposal.
            Nick, Chevron are contractually obliged to supply gas to Perth.
            Nothing to do with socialism; just common sense and good for WA.
            Gov should have insisted on a national quota but did not have the will under extreme negotiating pressure ‘the donation effect’.
            Measured national interest decisions are not socialism.

          • Sorry about the broken link. It is here.

            And here is AGL on Crib point. It isn’t much of a terminal. It is a proposal to moor a ship to an existing jetty to degasify and pipe into the Vic network. The main investment seems to be a 55 km pipeline.

            In trhe background, AGL explains why Australia might need to import gas:

            “In the mid-2000s, Australian gas producers signed contracts to export gas overseas to meet growing demand in Asia. At that time, prices overseas were much higher than they could charge in Australia. When these contracts to export gas were signed, it was expected the supply of gas in Australia would continue to grow at a rate that would allow for both the domestic and overseas market needs to be met. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been the case.”

            So someone contracted to supply gas that they didn’t have. I’m pretty sure that wasn’t a Victorian supplier, though. If they choose to export rather than supply Victoria, it is because they can extract a better price from someone.

        • Yes, Perth doesn’t have a gas shortage because both main political parties agreed with the gas exporters to reserve a fixed amount of gas for domestic use. The other states could do this.

          • In other words they are forcing the companies to sell at less than market prices because they have the political power to take what they want.

          • Mark W that is the most ridiculous suggestion I’ve read at WUWT for a long time.
            Australians own the Gorgon gas and can demand whatever they like from Chevron in return for granting Chevron the right to extract and sell the Australian people’s gas for the benefit of Chevron shareholders.
            It’s up to Chevron to decide if the deal is worth it.

    • The Jones Act (circa 1920s), requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports have to be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. No LNG carriers fit this category.

      That is also why cruise ships always stop at a foreign port.

    • I remember when this was reported this winter. They had to get the LNG from a foreign source because of a law, the Jones Act, that forbids commodities from being transported between US ports in a foreign flagged ship. There are no US built LNG tankers, so they have to get it from an outside source.

    • “The U.S. has cheap and plentiful natural gas, but no Jones Act-qualified carriers – so Massachusetts imports LNG from Trinidad and Tobago, while U.S. gas is sent overseas on cheaper foreign-flag ships.”

      So it’s a barrier to trade. To protect our carriers, which of this type, we have none. A libertarian knows what to do. Not the swamp though. All this distant shipping burns fossil fuels so it is wasteful. In the name of some carriers who aren’t there in this case.

      • It’s another form of tariff, forcing all consumers to pay more so that a few politically powerful industries can make more profit.

    • It has been a while since the last time I thought about the Jones Act. Indeed it could be a problem. The last time I remember the Jones Act being “modified” was Clinton and Democrats in Congress did it for Don Tyson, Tyson Foods, so he could use foreign built factory ships to harvest North Pacific Pollock. Remember Tyson Foods at the time was in Arkansas.

      • Actually the last time any waivers were issued for the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 aka Jones Act was after Harvey as happened after Katrina.

  8. Its amazing how much Russia benefits from Climate madness and anti-nuclear politics.

    Its almost as if latter day Greenpeace, which sorta morphed out of the same mob that created CND, were acting as a marketing lobby for Gazprom. Much as CND was acting as a political lobby for the KGB.

  9. Socialists always put their brand of politics before the well-being of the citizens or of the country. They are generally evil people.

  10. What explanation will Democrats offer, if next year or the year after there is a major flareup of tensions between the US and Russia, say over renewed military action in Europe, and Putin retaliates by shutting off the supply of heating gas to large numbers of US homes?
    __________________________________________________

    Eric please explain russian interest to shorten state wide income by shutting supply of NG – instead of choosing the diplomatic ways.

    • Sorry but Putin did it in the Ukraine and threatened to cut off NG going through the Ukraine to other countries. He has threatened to do it before to eastern EU countries. While the people of Russia may be in the economic doldrums, Putin and his close friends and military are not. The USSR didn’t fall a part it got rid of troublesome states, mostly Muslim majorities. Ukraine, long a part of Russia, used the opportunity to also leave. The Soviet Union just rebranded itself. When things settled out the future head of the KGB was in charge. Putin has clearly stated that he believes one of the worst tragedies in world history was the dismantling of the USSR and he blames the West, primarily the USA for making it happen. Putin no longer calls Russia socialist or communist because that gives folks in the west a good target. He is just using the old socialists and communist connections in the West to disrupt and resist.

  11. Interesting. Pugliese accuses Democrats of politicizing the pipeline issue to hurt Trump. It is he who has politicized something that was not about Trump. What’s the word that comes to mind? Hmmm – oh yeah – hypocrite.

    Here is an article from 2016 about extensive opposition to the pipeline: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-new-gas-pipeline-battles-20160117-story.html

    Here is an article from 2014: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/12/05/face-opposition-company-reroute-pipeline/wj0k4WbfYr5FFyyHtPmFGJ/story.html

    Has Trump catalyzed additional opposition to the pipeline? Perhaps. But strong opposition existed long before Trump became President.

  12. I somewhat disagree on the politics. Andrew Cuomo was doing his dog-in-the-manger routine relative to New England during the Obama administration a well, so trying to make it about Trump seems strained. Cuomo was sucking up to, or has been a green himself, for quite a long time.
    Blocking fracking in New York, and blocking pipelines to transport Pennsylvania gas to NE, fits the green agenda.

  13. wtf? is that guy sniffing?
    usa is pushing to EXport your lng to EU to try n undercut russia..something ive been laughing over for some time as the height of stupid!
    same as shipping your wood pellets to uk for Drax sorta stupid.
    just another “russians dunnit” foaming at mouth agitprop idiot.

    hell putin/russia doesnt have to worry about bringing you down
    bushes bummer already laid the groundwork, trump might/might not?
    manage to halt the eu global crud you signed onto.
    OBOR and BRICS are cutting your lunches.
    and the clinton soros funded ngo sjw types are creating discord ,division every chance they can.
    your enemies are your own people in your own land.
    seen from an outsiders viewpoint;-)

  14. Trump at NATO. Threatening Russia’s major stream of export income by implying to Germany et al, if Putin really is the enemy and if the US is really the ally, should buy less Russian natural gas and get energy from other sources, perhaps US gas.

    Straight talking legend. No Russian collusion there.

  15. What explanation will Democrats offer, if next year or the year after there is a major flareup of tensions between the US and Russia,…”

    Oh that question is easy, the answer is always “RAYCISS!!!! RAYCISS!!! YOU HATE LGBT PEOPLE!!!”

    And if you think that doesn’t make any sense, well that’s proof that you must be rayciss yourself.

  16. The Democrats would lay waste to the Universe in order to lay a glove on Trump. Everyone knows this and hopefully it will be reflected in the November mid-terms.

  17. And the collusion was supposedly between Trump and Putin! Putin has got to be laughing. Here is Trump fussing at the Germans, who will soon receive 70% energy in the form of natural gas from Russia meanwhile Democrat Party run US states are buying LNG from Russia instead. The real “joke” is that Putin’s henchmen are probably help fund and organize the useful idiots in the “resist movement.”

  18. To be fair, our beloved guv has denied pipelines since before Trump; dimocrats have been playing this game for years

  19. Why do the liberals believe with every fiber of their body and sole that Russia has interfered with the past US election yet completely ignore and dismiss any notion or suggestion that the Russians did likewise with the green movement pushing renewables, the AGW Global warming, climate change and reduction of CO2 supporting protests against nuclear power? Al of which has doubled the cost of electrical power the highest expense in most heavy manufacturing, which has essentially disappeared from the USA.

  20. I’m just looking at that final paragraph and it’s attempted scare tactic – what if Russia denies Americans gas because of tensions between the nations during a cold snap?

    To that I would have to simply say why do you say that? Did Russia deny gas to Britain and Europe over the war tensions that have been stirred up? Did Russia deny gas to Ukraine over the issues stirred up by the coup in Kiev? I have to come to the conclusion that they would see us no differently.

    I am not saying they are “humanitarian” and do it “for the good of mankind,” because I don’t know if that is the case, but they could have cut those supplies off and let everyone “over there” freeze their butts. I will say that they are too good at doing business to let emotions and emotional issues interfere with profit that does their country good.

    Our country and government, on the other hand, can’t be that smart. We will gladly shoot ourselves in the gluts to make a stupid point about something that has no significance to us.

  21. What’s amazing to me is how a political party that is unfailingly set against the best interests of the country it supposedly represents can have any following or support at all.

  22. Masters of hypocrisy, the far left in the US acuse Trump of conspiring with Putin, when in fact it is they who seem to share Putin’s desire for a new socialist rebirth (after so many self-inflicted deaths) and who act to buttress Putin’s leadership by ensuring American dependence on Russian energy. Trump has done everything he can to make the US independent of unethical and autocratic leaders of OPEC nations – not apparently so keen on helping Putin it would seem.

Comments are closed.