Gas Shortages Give New York an Early Taste of the Green New Deal

From The GWPF

Date: 2/16/19

The state is dependent on imports even though it sits atop the abundant Marcellus Shale.

The combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling—sometimes known as the “shale revolution”—has enabled Texas, Pennsylvania and other states to produce record quantities of natural gas, some of which is being frozen, loaded onto giant ships, and transported to customers in places like Chile, China and India. Thanks to the environmental policies of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York has missed out on this windfall.

Now, in a preview of what life might be like under the Democrats’ proposed Green New Deal, some New Yorkers are about to face a natural-gas shortage. Consolidated Edison , an energy utility that provides gas and power to the New York City area, announced last month that beginning in mid-March it would “no longer be accepting applications for natural gas connections from new customers in most of our Westchester County service area.” The reason for the shortage is obvious: The Cuomo administration has repeatedly blocked or delayed new pipeline projects. As a Con Ed spokesman put it, there is a “lot of natural gas around the country, but getting it to New York has been the strain.”

New York policy makers have also killed the state’s natural-gas-drilling business. In 2008 New York drillers produced about 150 million cubic feet of natural gas a day—not enough to meet all the state’s needs, but still a substantial amount. That same year legislators in Albany passed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, the process used to wring oil and gas out of underground rock formations. In 2015 the Cuomo administration made the moratorium permanent. By 2018 New York’s gas production had declined so much that the Energy Information Administration quit publishing numbers on it.

New York now imports nearly all of its gas even though part of the Marcellus Shale, one of the biggest and most prolific sources of natural gas in the country, extends into the state’s Southern Tier region. To get an idea of how much gas the state might have been able to produce from the Marcellus, New Yorkers can look across the state line to Pennsylvania, which now supplies about two-thirds of the gas consumed in New York. At the end of 2018, Pennsylvania drillers were producing about 18 billion cubic feet of gas a day. That’s more gas than Canada now produces.

By keeping its natural gas in the ground, New York has lost out on jobs and tax revenue. By 2015, some 106,000 people were directly employed by Pennsylvania’s oil and gas industry, making it a bigger employer than the state’s famous steel sector. This year Pennsylvania’s state government is expected to take in some $247 million in gas-related fees.

New York’s government-imposed gas shortage will likely get worse. In April 2020, Entergy, the utility that owns Westchester’s Indian Point Energy Center, will permanently shutter one of the two reactors at the 2,069-megawatt nuclear facility. It will shut down the other reactor in April 2021. The closures are the result of low electricity prices and years of costly legal battles with environmental groups and state regulators. Indian Point supplies about 25% of the electricity consumed in New York City.

Read the full post here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
139 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
n.n
February 16, 2019 6:07 pm

The Grey New Deal same as the original.

beng135
Reply to  n.n
February 17, 2019 5:08 am

Meet the New Deal-boss, same as the old Deal-boss.

ht The Who

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  beng135
February 17, 2019 1:06 pm

Jim
Reply to  n.n
February 17, 2019 10:40 am

New York would have at least the same number of jobs as Amazon would have created without losing a single cent of tax revenue while enriching many thousands of basically poor rural upstate landowners and their tens of thousands of grandkids. And unlike Amazon, the majority of these jobs would have employed working class people who have high school diplomas or diplomas plus two.

secryn
Reply to  Jim
February 19, 2019 12:45 pm

Based on the author’s number of 18 billion CFD, and using a price of $4 per thousand CF, and the typical one-sixth (16.67%) production royalty, that would be about $12 million dollars per day to the PA land/mineral owners. Mostly farmers who can really use it. Thanks, New York!

Sweet Old Bob
February 16, 2019 6:07 pm

Too bad they can’t burn “stupid ” …..they would never run out of fuel .

Lance
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 16, 2019 6:18 pm

Can’t fix Stupid!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Lance
February 16, 2019 8:59 pm

Mores the point, you can’t tax stupid.

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 16, 2019 9:50 pm

I thought the lottery was for that?

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 17, 2019 7:05 am

It will probably turn out that by time some semblance of sanity returns to NY policy makers and they start tapping into the resource, NG will be back to $10/mcf by increased demand from electricity and LNG exports.

Serendipitously stupid.

John Endicott
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 18, 2019 6:05 am

Mores the point, you can’t tax stupid.

You can: the lottery and Cigarette taxes as taxes the stupid come to mind.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Lance
February 17, 2019 3:53 am

There is no need to fix it, the supply is unending. The AOCene has begin.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 17, 2019 2:07 pm

The Plasticine did not last long.

DeeDub
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 16, 2019 6:55 pm

Nice one, SOB (my kind, for sure), made me laugh out loud.

Robert in Busan
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 16, 2019 7:34 pm

“Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.” Dean Wormer. Seems as if Gov. Cuomo has completed one-third of the equation.

Sara
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 17, 2019 4:49 am

So I guess NYC and its environs will return to horse-drawn transportation, oil lamps (perish the thought!) for lighting, and no snow plowing in the streets? This should awesome!

R. Groven
Reply to  Sara
February 17, 2019 6:57 am

Nope. Horses produce methane, same as cows. Just gonna have to hike.

Sara
Reply to  Sara
February 17, 2019 8:43 am

Yeah, I can really see New Yawkers doing that!! Seriously!

H.R.
Reply to  Sara
February 17, 2019 1:53 pm

Whale oil lamps, Sara. It’s renewable. Maybe some go-getter will jump-start whale farming.

Oh, and you don’t have to kill the whales. Just bring ’em in from time to time for liposuction, then turn ’em back out onto the farm.

(Doh! I shouldn’t have written that. There are enough stupid ideas out there as it is.)

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  H.R.
February 18, 2019 12:58 pm

Whale farming in the Great Lakes! Renewable resource meets tourist attraction – what could go wrong…

secryn
Reply to  H.R.
February 19, 2019 12:47 pm

Too late. Sixteen federal grants to study this have just been approved.

philinwetcalifornia
February 16, 2019 6:11 pm

They’re lucky it doesn’t get cold in NYC.

….. oh, hold on a sec.

Reply to  philinwetcalifornia
February 17, 2019 12:23 pm

I wonder if some upstate New Yorkers would be interested in making their
own state like the Jefferson folks in California. Then they could drill baby drill.

Tommyboy
February 16, 2019 6:13 pm

I live in the mountains of Colorado. My utility, Xcel energy, supplies both my natural gas and electricity and recently announced a green energy initiative. 80% carbon free by 2030, 100% carbon free by 2050. Up until this point Xcel has been very reliable and reasonably priced. Now they are virtue signaling and I have to worry about freezing.

R Shearer
Reply to  Tommyboy
February 16, 2019 6:37 pm
MarkW
Reply to  R Shearer
February 16, 2019 9:51 pm

Better be a big stream. The mountains of CO get cold in the winter.

R Shearer
Reply to  MarkW
February 17, 2019 2:02 pm

The key is continuous flow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3pS_RVqVi8

michael hart
February 16, 2019 6:16 pm

I knew there was something good about being born in Pennsylvania.

yarpos
Reply to  michael hart
February 16, 2019 8:56 pm

I went to Wilkes Barre for a week one day

I am sure there are lovely parts of Pennsylvania. I just didnt get to see them.

Reply to  yarpos
February 17, 2019 7:20 am

Pennsylvania is a very large state. It has just about every kind of living environment that exists. Ever hear of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water – the most famous house of the 20th century? Well, it sits in a beautiful location in Pennsylvania.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  michael hart
February 16, 2019 9:48 pm

Michael,
How old are you?
“. . . something good about being born in Pennsylvania.”

The opportunity to leave. I did in 1965.
Now our house is 100% electric via dams on the Great Columbia River.

Darrin
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
February 19, 2019 7:16 am

Except the greenies want to rip those dams out…I’m tempted to agree with them, washing Portland down to the pacific with a big flood would solve a lot of the states issues. Oops, never mind. I forgot that the survivors would insist the rest of us Oregonians rebuild Portland bigger and better and what Portland wants, Portland gets no matter how much it hurts the rest of the state.

markl
February 16, 2019 6:19 pm

So NY has doubled down on “lets see how much we can hurt our constituents and not only make it look like it’s someone else’s fault but claim to be the solution”.

Henry chance
February 16, 2019 6:22 pm

Just about every source of energy faces adversarial litigation even sustainable energy. I suspect NY fights against pipelines.

I am sure AOC is working on solutions.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Henry chance
February 16, 2019 9:51 pm

Henry,
Search with: New York Gov. Cuomo Rejects pipelines

Alan Robertson
February 16, 2019 6:26 pm

We learn from our suffering.

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 16, 2019 6:32 pm

So THAT’S why I’m so smart! Thanks.

mwhite
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 17, 2019 1:06 am

You’d like to think so, but they don’t seem to have put 2 and 2 together in Australia yet.

James Fosser
Reply to  mwhite
February 17, 2019 12:29 pm

Keep watching . Shortly we are going to have a Labor government (Democrats to you). Already hundreds of people smugglers are readying to bring thousands of economic illegals (with embedded terrorists) to Australia as Labor has already given them the green light (And these illegals will all vote for Labor).

secryn
Reply to  James Fosser
February 19, 2019 12:50 pm

You mean the current AU government is your version of a CONSERVATIVE administration? Yikes!

Barbara
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 17, 2019 10:07 am

I’d rather learn from THEIR suffering, Alan.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Barbara
February 19, 2019 8:01 am

As my daddy used to say, “Learn from OTHER people’s mistakes. It costs less and doesn’t hurt near as much”. I am most frequently reminded of his advice when I fail to follow it. 😀

John Endicott
Reply to  Alan Robertson
February 18, 2019 6:27 am

We (the sane non-lefties) do, lefties not so much (just look at all the failed socialist/communist states and then look at how the lefties still keep pushing the proven failed ideology of socialism/communism)

Enginer01
February 16, 2019 6:31 pm

Not Off Topic—-
Climate Conference in Poland…
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2017-11-13-the-10-science-must-knows-on-climate-change.html
As a Registered Profession Chemical Engineer, this is fascinating – particularly the references to LENR

R Shearer
Reply to  Enginer01
February 16, 2019 6:43 pm

10 out of 10 on the B.S. scale.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  R Shearer
February 16, 2019 7:55 pm

You’re right, it’s complete nonsense with zero science.
Some thing never change.

Malcolm Carter
Reply to  Enginer01
February 16, 2019 7:00 pm

Looks like they got 0 out of 10.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Malcolm Carter
February 16, 2019 11:15 pm

Not bad for a university (Stockholm). They did indeed get 0 out of 10.

Unfortunately they didn’t date their blog post, and the download “statement” is also undated. Even
Johan​ ​Rockström and Amy​​ Luers’s document is undated. They do quote the IPCC 2017.

Why can’t people date their documents? Are they afraid they might come back to haunt them?

Reply to  Enginer01
February 17, 2019 4:27 am

As a chemical engineer you should know every point of the 10 is rubbish. These people have no understanding of the engineering subjects which they regard as science. They have no understanding of Heat &Mass transfer, Thermodynamics, Fluid Dynamics, Reaction Kinetics, Process control, Instruments and Measurements, Statistics, Dimensional Analysis, Cost Estimation, Present Worth etc. Also, unlike registered Professional Engineers they do not have a code of Ethics which requires them to not provide a service outside their area of qualification, experience and knowledge. As they have no knowledge they should keep their thoughts and actions to themselves.

Sara
Reply to  cementafriend
February 17, 2019 4:55 am

Oh, but Virtue Signaling!!! Gotta have that at all costs!!! Think they’ll enjoy it when their indoor temps drop to the low 40s (F, not C)??

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Enginer01
February 17, 2019 7:44 am

Was that satire ?

1. Much evidence suggests that the planet has entered a new geologic epoch—called the Anthropocene. The rate of change of the Earth system is accelerating as a result of humans’ impact on the planet’s biology, chemistry, and physics. Earth’s climate has been remarkably stable since before the dawn of civilization. This stability is at risk.

2. Earth is approaching critical “tipping points”. By crossing these thresholds, the planet may see abrupt, and possibly irreversible, shifts in the workings of the Arctic, Amazon, and other parts of the globe.

3. The record-breaking 2017 Atlantic hurricane season provides a glimpse at the increased risks of extreme weather events that the planet may experience in the future. These events include severe flooding, heat waves and droughts.

4. Changes are occurring quickly in the ocean, with accelerating sea-level rise and ocean acidification.

5. The economic costs of climate change are already being felt, and some of the world’s poorest nations are bearing the heaviest burden.

6. Climate change will have a profound impact on human health by placing new pressures on the food and water security in nations around the world.

7. Climate change is likely to exacerbate migration, civil unrest and even conflict. In 2015, more than 19 million people globally were displaced by natural disasters and extreme weather events, and climate change will likely cause that number to grow.

8. The world needs to act fast: If humans continue to emit greenhouse gases at current rates, the remaining carbon budget to reduce risk of exceeding the 2 degrees Celsius target will be exhausted in around 20 years. Emissions should peak by 2020 and approach zero by around 2050 if the world is serious about reducing risk. As a simple rule of thumb, this means halving global emissions every decade.

9. A fossil-fuel free society is economically attractive: renewable energy sources increasingly compete with fossil fuels, even when these are priced at historic lows. Moreover, the estimated costs of inaction range from 2-10% of GDP by 2100 by some estimates, to a fall in projected global output by 23% in 2100 in others.

10. Even if the world meets the Paris Agreement targets, communities across the globe will still need to build resilience and adapt to the changes already under way.

John G
Reply to  Gary Ashe
February 17, 2019 11:07 am

Much evidence suggest that the world is colder now than anytime since (and including) the time of the dinosaurs. Here is a chart that plots the CO2 levels and the temperature since the dinosaurs:

comment image

Notice that the CO2 is very low now (compared to that whole stretch of time) so that even the largest imagined increase in CO2 could not replicate the temperatures back when the CO2 was much higher and the temperature was much hotter even if the theory was completely correct. The laws of chemistry and physics haven’t changed in those 65 million years so it’s ridiculous to assume the world will die of heat exhaustion from these (relatively) recent minuscule changes in atmospheric CO2 content. In fact the chart pretty much proves that CO2 and atmospheric temperature are not related.

William
Reply to  Gary Ashe
February 17, 2019 3:19 pm

The world was MUCH warmer in the past 100000 years without triggering the positive feedback of tropspheric heating from water vapor required by catastrophic global warming. The positive feedback loop therefore does not exist. You have been duped.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Enginer01
February 17, 2019 7:59 am

I love this statement “Earth’s climate has been remarkably stable since before the dawn of civilization. This stability is at risk.”

We are now being told that the ice ages were mythical.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
February 17, 2019 8:40 am

Ice Ages? What Ice Ages? Do you have pictures? Were you there to see this alleged “ice age”?

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
February 17, 2019 4:07 pm

human civilization has only existed since the last ice age receded … but the climate HAS NOT been remarkably stable in the time … it has moved in fits and starts from an ice age towards not an ice age (the only 2 global climates) …

TwoLetterIdentifier
Reply to  Enginer01
February 17, 2019 3:12 pm

I love their 10 ‘science’ “must knows”, all of which are blatantly false.

Enginer01
February 16, 2019 6:34 pm

background of Polish Conference reference

Now Time to Bring LENR Energy Into the Climate Change Debate
Posted on February 17, 2019 • 2 Comments
The following post was originally published here on this new website — https://lenr-energy.info — , and is reposted here by permission.

Recently took place the 24th UNF Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland and after difficult negotiations, a long list of new decisions was finally adopted.

see https://e-catworld.com/2019/02/17/now-time-to-bring-lenr-energy-into-the-climate-change-debate/

R Shearer
Reply to  Enginer01
February 16, 2019 6:47 pm

E-scamworld is not a reliable source. As a CH E you should be able to see through it.

Enginer01
Reply to  R Shearer
February 16, 2019 7:02 pm

The coulomb barrier is “apparently” overcome by plasmas in the context of certain LENR chemistries. It will be interesting to watch…

JEHill
Reply to  Enginer01
February 16, 2019 7:59 pm

The coulomb barrier can only be over come with brute force. There are no tricks. It takes MeV’s to overcome. The more massive the nucleus the more MeV’s you need.

Plasmas generally are exited electrons in a gas matrix, not nearly massive enough, perhaps in keV range. And if you are igniting your plasma with protons that is one helluva an upkeep and startup cost.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  JEHill
February 17, 2019 12:15 am

Your info is way off. It only requires about 10keV of electrostatic acceleration to overcome the barrier between D-D and allow fusion.

The really difficult way to do this is by heating, since the equivalent temperature to 10keV of kinetic energy is in the silly figures range where the sun looks like a real cool place by comparison. Yet, this is the way usually attempted, with predictable lack of success.

Anyway, this is hot fusion. LENR may involve a totally different mechanism.

Besides, while there may be LENR scams around, that does not invalidate the science, which has been tested thoroughly enough to prove that the effect exists. -Does the fact that magnet motors are a scam, mean that we shouldn’t use magnets in motors?

Reply to  R Shearer
February 17, 2019 4:47 am

Agree- todate Rossi has proved nothing, Anyway if a plasma is involved it is not low energy. There have been some MHD generators see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_generator
(note that is Chemical engineering)

Enginer01
Reply to  cementafriend
February 18, 2019 6:42 am

I’ve noted before the Electric Sun concept (eg The Saffire Project) see https://www.electricuniverse.info/safire-project/

The people developing this have gone silent, after major discoveries. Seems like a project devoted to separating the concept of a fusion Sun from a plasma Sun may have morphed into “Holly Cow! We may have something commercial here!” Not LENR nor fusion, more like energy-releasing transmutations. Makes you winch at $$$ spent on Tokamaks

R Shearer
Reply to  Enginer01
February 16, 2019 7:01 pm
M__ S__
February 16, 2019 6:35 pm

It’s the nature of hair shirts to give discomfort. At least those in NY will receive what they want.

lord garth
February 16, 2019 6:39 pm

call it the Green Leap Forward

that annoys the lefties a lot

Gary from Chicagoland
February 16, 2019 6:42 pm

Politics change through time, so wait long enough and fracking will occur in NY.

Bill
February 16, 2019 6:56 pm

I’m sure you are aware of this Ronnie classic…: The most terrifying words you can hear…”We are from the Government and we are here to help.” The idiots in the socialist Govs move heaven and earth to fix non-existent problems and wont move a finger to fix impending disasters. See brush clearing to prevent forest fires and the border wall just to name a couple of obvious recent issues.
This is because they are insane…we have the same vermin in Australia believe me, same shit, different ass-holes.

John W. Garrett
February 16, 2019 6:57 pm

Good.

Sooner or later, New York is going to learn a very hard lesson— the sooner the better.

jtom
February 16, 2019 7:01 pm

They aren’t worried. They fully expect to have the climate of Miami Beach by 2021. SMH.

They will learn that ignorance, too, can be a dish served cold.

Gordon Dressler
February 16, 2019 7:08 pm

From the article: “By keeping its natural gas in the ground, New York has . . .”

Well, depending on the average porosity of the Marcellus Shale formation, that natural gas underneath the state of New York might just be flowing into the neighboring state of Pennsylvania where is it being extracted, thus creating an underground pressure differential.

I’m sure the citizens of Pennsylvania appreciate the gift.

Jeff L
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 16, 2019 8:02 pm

By definition , shale is very low permeability …. there isn’t any NY gas going to Penn, except maybe within a few 1000 ft of the border

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 18, 2019 1:09 pm

I think the relevant question is to what distance can you horizontally drill? Early slant drilling could tap your neighbor’s pool of oil. Could horizontal drilling snake all New York’s gas? Inquiring Pennsylvania neighbors want to know!

steve case
February 16, 2019 7:23 pm

The combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling—sometimes known as the “shale revolution”—has enabled Texas, Pennsylvania and other states to produce record quantities of natural gas, some of which is being frozen, loaded onto giant ships, and transported to customers in places like Chile, China and India.

.. Texas, Pennsylvania and other states … That means other countries too. So nice business while Chile, China, India and ….. are willing to buy it rather than frack for it. And I doubt that the the Green Mafia has much clout in China and India.

yarpos
Reply to  steve case
February 16, 2019 8:59 pm

you get to run out of gas first, just like Australia

massive reserves all sold overseas

jac roonco
Reply to  steve case
February 16, 2019 9:06 pm

For low permeability shale fracking to be economic, a very narrow range of shale characteristics must exist. There may be a lot of shale formations in the world, but only a few are economic for gas production via extended reach drilling and massive well bore fracking. Because of the infrastructure required to support extended reach drilled and fracked wells, the USA is the world leader for many years to come.

Editor
Reply to  jac roonco
February 16, 2019 9:20 pm

The American experience with shale gas is mostly because much of the developed land is private, and the owners of the surface rights get royalties. This encouraged rapid development, and this resulted in more innovation and infrastructure.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Les Johnson
February 17, 2019 4:18 am

The American shale gas revolution is what the free market will do for you.

Who in the world could seriously argue against a free market? Deluded Socialsts, that’s who.

ResourceGuy
February 16, 2019 7:24 pm

Can’t wait.

clipe
February 16, 2019 7:49 pm
Gary Pearse
February 16, 2019 8:04 pm

Maybe New York can do a deal on an extension of the Russian Nordstream-2 pipeline to Germany. How do these bozos running New York show virtue by burning outsourced gas instead of their own. Out of ‘site’ out of mind, particularly ‘out of mind’ I would say. There must be something in the water in New York.

Gee folks, the party you vote for is not the one you think it is, even though the name is unchanged. They’ve out sourced their constituency, too. You vote for them and they fund a Eurocentric global marxy-sparxy governance. People used to reject a bad government but today, governments are rejecting their people (idea better expressed by Mark Steyn- anyone got the quote?).

John Pickens
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 16, 2019 8:48 pm

Already happening, due to New York state blocking gas pipelines from Pennsylvania and South, New England is now importing Russian LNG (liquified natural gas).

From the Washington Post:

By Steven Mufson January 28, 2018
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.

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.

From the

Krudd Gillard of
Reply to  John Pickens
February 16, 2019 9:41 pm

Absolutely hilarious. They sold the uranium to the Russians, now they buy Russian gas.

What can you say?

Phil.
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of
February 17, 2019 8:49 am

A Canadian company that owned mines in Kazakhstan was sold to a Russian company, Kazakhstan produces about 40% of the world’s uranium. Who’s the ‘they’ you speak of?

MarkW
Reply to  Phil.
February 17, 2019 2:11 pm

The they are the Clintons, and the Uranium was American.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Phil.
February 17, 2019 2:20 pm

1) No American uranium was sold to Russia
2) The Clintons didn’t sell anything.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Phil.
February 17, 2019 4:26 pm

As secretary of state, Clinton did serve on a government board that ultimately approved a transfer of uranium to Russian Rosatom via the sale of Uranium One, which had roughly 20% of the US production capacity of uranium at the time (i.e., sale of American uranium). And the Clinton Foundation did receive $145 million from nine individuals involved in the transaction. Leading up to that approval, the US gov’t had gathered substantial evidence that Rosatom had been using bribery, extortion, kickbacks, and money laundering with the intent of growing Russian atomic energy business within the US.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Phil.
February 17, 2019 4:47 pm

Michael, the CFIUS was an advisory board only, it’s decision was not binding, nor could it veto the decision. The decision rested solely with the POTUS. In addition to Clintion there were eight other members who held cabinet level postions in the administration. All nine agencies gave their approval. The CFIUS did NOT approve of the transfer of any uranium to Russia. Only the NRC can do that by issuing an export license. The CFIUS ruled on the investment in company only.
..
Now the $131 million of your $145 million came from Frank Giustra who sold off his stake in Uranium One three years before the transaction and a year and a half before Hilary became SOS.

Again, no uranium was transferred from the USA to Russia.

Facts are facts.

WXcycles
Reply to  John Pickens
February 17, 2019 1:40 am

The exchange rate makes it cheaper to source

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  John Pickens
February 18, 2019 1:13 pm

This New York “blockade” drove Maine Governor LePage crazy. He tried for years to get a pipeline built to get Penn gas up here.

Louisa
February 16, 2019 8:14 pm

The Democrat Party is the Voyager – it left the solar system.

Dems will find out in 2020 what the USA outside of New Rochelle thinks of them. I’m so glad I moved out of that dump, New York State, years ago.

BobBuchanan
February 16, 2019 8:21 pm

Not frozen, but liquified.

Len Jay
February 16, 2019 8:31 pm

New York, New York, it’s a wonderful town!

First you allow the murder of newborn babies.
Next you discourage Amazon from bringing in jobs and prosperity.
Now it’s importing natural gas amidst plenty of your own.

Can’t wait for what’s next!

February 16, 2019 9:27 pm

Re. Enginer. ” After difficult negotiations””. So what were the difficulties, was it the 3rd World countries still trying to get more money from the previously rich Western nations. ?

MJE

Toto
February 16, 2019 10:50 pm

Freeze in the dark. Or start a Climate Change migration to somewhere warm.

February 16, 2019 11:14 pm

You get what you deserve. If you vote for idiot politicians, you expect to get idiotic policies.

Tom Abbott
February 17, 2019 4:35 am

Governor Cuomo was complaining the other day about how Rep. Ocasio had run Amazon out of New York and caused the loss of 25,000 high-paying jobs.

I’ll bet Cuomo’s ban on fracking and pipelines has cost New York a lot more than 25,000 jobs.

Both Ocasio and Cuomo think they are doing the right thing. How scary is that.

The Western world has a big problem: A large number of the politicians running Western countries are completely out of touch with reality.

Fortunately, for the United States, *and* the Western world in general, we have a leader who is anchored in reality and sees the world situation clearly. Trump is showing us the way.

Trump has a few counterparts in the rest of the Western world, and those counterparts seem to be gaining traction with their publics because people are starting to see the failure that socialism really is, even in the European countries.

It’s a race: Will enough people wake up and vote right, or will they leave the socialists in power to continue their destruction of our societies.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 17, 2019 8:19 am

Will enough people wake up and vote right, or will they leave the socialists in power to continue their destruction of our societies.

The majority of the under-40 residents will leave the local and state socialists in power simply because they are “living the good life” and have yet to feel the “pain” of their socialist beliefs and actions.

And like the citizens of Venezuela, ….. by the time they start feeling the “pain” ….. it will be too late to do anything about.

Like most “know-it-all” children, ….. if they don’t listen, then they have to feel.

Yirgach
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 17, 2019 10:41 am

The upcoming lack of energy in NYC was probably one of the major reasons Amazon pulled out. Of course, Amazon couldn’t say that as it would cost them a good portion of their customer base. So the fickle finger of blame was leveled on the airhead politicos who were responsible for the mess.

secryn
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 19, 2019 1:28 pm

It’s not looking good. In Poland recently, VP Pence got crickets for touting Trump’s policies. But they cheered that fool Biden like a rock star.

WTF
February 17, 2019 4:53 am

Apparently New York has a plan.

https://energyplan.ny.gov

I am not saying it is a good plan but they have a plan.

They looked at reliability too.

It is 3 years into a 5 year plan. We’ll find out how much they lied in 2 years and 2 months or less.

OweninGA
Reply to  WTF
February 17, 2019 6:00 am

5 year plan? Why does that sound so familiar. Let me think…right, the Soviets ruled their place with a never ending series of 5 year plans. That explains the results perfectly.

Alan Tomalty
February 17, 2019 5:24 am

Absolute madness

Mike
February 17, 2019 5:53 am

We have a saying down here in the South about how stupid Northerners are about fossil fuels, about how they regulate against the use of fossil fuels, pipelines, constantly demonizing what otherwise many people of the world would be jealous to have, etc.. etc…

“Let the Yankee bastards freeze in the dark”.

Phil.
Reply to  Mike
February 17, 2019 5:37 pm

Yes but you still want them to bail you out via the federal budget!

Reply to  Phil.
February 18, 2019 9:07 am

Nonsense. Red states residents receive just $1,879 in intergovernmental spending vs. blue states’ $2,124 per resident.

Blue staters are mooching off hard working red staters.

AARGH63
February 17, 2019 6:15 am

Stupidity thy name is democrat.

Rich Davis
Reply to  AARGH63
February 17, 2019 10:20 am

Yes, but it’s the voters who are stupid. The politicians have a brilliantly sustainable scheme in place.

You might think of it as a leveraged voter buy-out. It would be impossibly expensive to actually implement their promises, but the simple trick is this: you don’t need to deliver.

You don’t need to actually pay a “living wage” for “people unwilling to work”. It is totally sufficient to be the one who “fights for” this. Your enemies will block this and so you not only get credit for caring, but also avoid blame for the effects of actual implementation.

You don’t need to actually power an industrial economy with unreliable unicorn flatulence. It is totally sufficient to set a goal and signal your virtue. It won’t be reality intruding to prevent the realization of the goals, it will be the evil fossil fuel industry abetted by the evil Republicans. Just need to demonize them a bit more and collect more campaign contributions.

You don’t need to have 51% of the population totally dependent on government hand-outs. You just need to have 51% marginally interested in one or more minor government programs, so that they vote for you to protect their self-interest.

How are Republicans supposed to compete? They offer hard work and no give-aways. They suggest taking care of your health rather than free healthcare for those who neglect their health. They suggest that you should not go into debt for a transgender queer native American person of color studies degree but maybe try learning engineering or a useful trade.

Btw plenty of Republican politicians have similar games that they play. They can promise to repeal Obamacare for a decade or build a wall, or restrict abortion, etc., etc., and always need more campaign contributions but never quite seem able to deliver.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 18, 2019 4:14 am

Good comment, Rich.

secryn
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 19, 2019 1:31 pm

True. Wear the ribbon, signal your virtue. Presto, you are immunized.

rah
February 17, 2019 7:03 am

So less NG and more Fuel Oil in New York’s future? https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NY

This truck driver sometimes drives the southern tier taking I-86 and I-88 instead of the I-90 toll road. Driving that road in the winter in those rural areas the sight and smell of wood smoke is common, Wonder when the state government is going to stop the burning of wood for home heating?

Reply to  rah
February 17, 2019 8:38 am

I think some states have been trying to stop the burning of wood for home heating by enacting stiff Rules and Regulations limiting/prohibiting “burning biomass smoke pollution” …… as well as greatly increasing the Premiums on homeowners/rental insurance policies when/where “woodburning” stoves are in use.

The state can‘t make it illegal, …… but it can make it COSTLY. (aka: cigarettes)

rah
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
February 17, 2019 10:26 am

San Francisco outlawed wood burning out right a few years ago.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  rah
February 17, 2019 6:02 pm

Didn’t help Paradise any, did it?

Reply to  rah
February 18, 2019 3:01 am

Yup, and they also legalized defecating on the streets …… and then hired a “poop control” to follow the “poopers” around and clean up after the made their smelly deposits.

February 17, 2019 7:46 am

Let’s count the ways a govt can be braindead :
1) Shutting down the main source of carbon-free power (the nuclear reactors) , whose prices are higher than that of current natural gas makes zero sense when one will shut down the nat gas generators. Far, far cheaper to subsidize a generation technology that is reliable than to spend tons more in subsidies for renewable generators that aren’t. Uncontrollable power has little value.
2) An ignorant and nearsighted view of future power technologies – molten salt nuclear reactors are the obvious future of energy – Bill Gates knows it, the Chinese know it, the Indians know it (both are pushing hard to get one to market). Only the Western govts, with their inexplicable, illogical fear of anything containing the word nuclear are pushing 17th century technologies like wind and solar.
A note about the cost of wind – The vast majority of expense in errecting a wind turbine is the wiring to connect it to the grid, which can be very substantial for a wind farm out in the middle of nowhere that is spread over thousands of square miles, the cost of acuring/renting the land, the cost of the turbines and the cost of pouring a huge concrete base to sit it on, and the maintenance and repair cosats over the lifespan of the turbine. And the substantial side effect costs due to the fact that one cannot replace reliable generation technology with unreliable technologies, such as wind. One must maintain duplicative generation capacity. That costs a lot, even when the backup power is seldom used – only fuel is saved by accepting wind power over gaas fired power, but the gas generators normally has to use fuel even while idling and the cost of the fuel is often the smallest component of a generator’s cost (personnel, maintenance, etc). BUT, the main information that
will be used to determine the cost of wind power is how long the turbine lasts and what is its output is, Recent studies have shown that the lifespans of (especially) the largest turbines are about half that promised, and the output capacity declines with age, resulting in the cost of turbines’ power being twice that claimed by its proponents.
profile.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  kent beuchert
February 17, 2019 8:24 am

Kent,
Last year I searched for data on the actual lifetimes of wind farms and mills (turbines). There should be copious data available on the MTBF, operating lifetimes, annual maintenance costs and other parameters which impact the total cost of ownership. I had a difficult time finding data. I concluded that the cost of ownership must be higher than the numbers hyped by the renewables industry.

Could you please provide some links to studies on the lifetimes of turbines?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Brooks Hurd
February 17, 2019 10:13 am

BH, look up my guest post ‘True Cost of Wind’ some years ago (2015) over at Climate Etc. It contains the reliability and lifetime data you seek—and more. The larger the turbine, the shorter the actual life, because the main failure mode is the axial bearing.
Bottom line after correcting many EIA ‘errors’:
CCGT LCOE about $57/MWh.
On shore wind about $146/MWh. The lifetime differences alone mount to about $30 of this difference. Other big factors include capital cost, capacity factor, subsidies, intermittency backup, and transmission lines.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 17, 2019 10:40 am

There is not enough operational experience to quantify either lifetime or reliability for wind turbines. Please don’t mistake “infant mortality” and/or poor engineering for axial bearing failure(s).

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
February 18, 2019 8:49 am

Keith,

There is more than enough operational data on wind farms to create good statistics on lifetime, MTBF and maintenance costs. Please see the following references.

Cowley Ridge Wind Farm, Canada’s oldest windfarm, was decommissioned in 2017 after more than 22 years of operation. https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/decommissioning-canadas-oldest-wind-farm/

“Daniel Halladay and John Burnham start the U.S. Wind Engine Company” in 1850. https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/history-us-wind-energy

There is a mid-17th Century windmill on Route 6 in Eastham, MA. When I was a child, this mill would be set up an run for demonstrations during the summer.

“62 wind farms in England, Wales and Scotland are aged 15 and over and 22 of these are more than 20 years old.” https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/repowering-the-uks-oldest-wind-farms-could-boost-energy-generation-by-171/

In 2015 “On May 30, the world’s oldest operating wind turbine will turn 40 years old. ” https://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/21/oldest-operating-wind-turbine-world-turning-40/

“The San Gorgonio Pass wind farm is a wind farm located on the eastern slope of the San Gorgonio Pass in Riverside County, just east of White Water, California, United States. Developed beginning in the 1980s” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Gorgonio_Pass_wind_farm

“The first wind turbines were placed on the Altamont in the early 1980s ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass_wind_farm

“Wind development in the Tehachapi Pass began in the early 1980s” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehachapi_Pass_wind_farm

Infant mortality is certainly an engineering issue if it continues to happen. Axial bearing failure is either an engineering problem or an installation problem. Large axial bearings are not limited to the wind power industry and there is extensive engineering data on them.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 17, 2019 10:50 am

You also have to factor in the “learning curve” to operation and maintenance of these things: https://windpower.sandia.gov/other/080983.pdf

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 17, 2019 2:14 pm

Wind turbines are an old technology. All they have done is supersize them.

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 17, 2019 4:32 pm

Thank you, Rud

I found your post.

John Endicott
Reply to  kent beuchert
February 18, 2019 6:13 am

molten salt nuclear reactors are the obvious future of energy

when you get one (just one) up and fully running commercially, then you can start making grandiose claims about it being the “obvious future”. Until then you are hawking vaporware. Despite the knowledge of MSR being around decades, there has yet to be any in fully functional commercial operation, and none on the foreseeable horizon.

As I’ve said on many of the numerous occasions you’ve made your grandiose proclamations about the vaporware known as MSR – I’d love to see it live up to the hype, but it hasn’t happened yet and doesn’t appear to be happening any time soon.

Walter Sobchak
February 17, 2019 10:31 am

The article above ignores the Utica Shale, which was named after Utica NY. This formation, more than a mile underneath the Marcellus, but far more extensive in New York State, was drilled for gas about 10 years ago. That project was one of the drilling projects shut down by the Cuomo gang.

Read it and weep, New Yorkers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utica_Shale
your problems are self inflicted.

jimmww
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 17, 2019 10:31 pm

Relax. New York will have gas when everyone else has run out.

jimmww
Reply to  jimmww
February 17, 2019 10:33 pm

Unless those bastards in Pennsylvania use horizontal drilling to get theirs!

Brooks Hurd
Reply to  jimmww
February 18, 2019 9:01 am

I was working in upstate New York when Cuomo went full bore virtue signally and banned fracking. I remember that there were numerous state agency reports concluding that fracking in the Southern Tier did not pose problems, but Cuomo was undeterred.

Virtue signally is always more important than facts, jobs in the Southern Tier and affordable heating for New Yorkers.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
February 19, 2019 2:54 am

Utica (and the Mohawk Valley) was a thriving, bustling manufacturing area up thru the mid 1970’s, ….. and then the EXODUS began, …… first as a “dribble” and then a “flash flood”, ……. and by the mid 1990’s the economy had deteriorated to where most everything was dependent on state and federal money. After Univac moved their manufacturing to Tennessee, others followed suite, some moving, some just closing their doors.

February 17, 2019 11:29 am

My own line on the Left’s political frenzy
Nihilism will be imposed until it is seen not to work.
🙂

Stevek
February 17, 2019 12:00 pm

Not sure about Nee York, but in many places it is much cheaper to heat a home with natural gas vs electricity.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Stevek
February 17, 2019 12:58 pm

When we lived in a high rise in Manhattan, it was heated with low grade fuel oil that ran big steam boilers in the basement. There was gas available for cooking. The fuel oil produced lots of soot and foul odors. I don’t think they have switched to gas for heat, although they should because it is a lot cleaner.

jimmww
February 17, 2019 10:23 pm

I couldn’t be more pleased.
New York is absolutely correct to keep its gas in the ground, preserved for our children, while using gas produced by more profligate states and nations. Of course, rationally, they should promote pipelines. And it might be wise to not close nuclear plants, just in case.
But hey, it’s an experiment, right? Can stupid decisions turn out to be profitable? We see that in the stock market and the lottery all the time. Right?

John Endicott
Reply to  jimmww
February 18, 2019 6:06 am

But hey, it’s an experiment, right? Can stupid decisions turn out to be profitable?

once you add in the lost opportunity costs, the answer is no.

Bruce Cobb
February 18, 2019 1:58 pm

Anti-fracking “concerns” are so yesterday. The anti-fossil fuel, anti-democracy-anti-US and anti-human Climate Cabal want to shut down NG pipelines for the following circular reasoning: that 1) Due to climate concerns, we shouldn’t be investing in fossil fuel infrastructure guaranteeing the near-impossibility of reducing CO2 emissions and 2) Demand for NG is not increasing, and is expected to decrease because of 1). It’s a classic Catch-22, and they know it. Without access to NG, obviously you can’t have demand for it.

Johann Wundersamer
February 18, 2019 2:02 pm
%d bloggers like this: