Potentially powerful pipeline precedents

Radical Greens have given citizens the tools to stop destructive wind and solar projects

Craig Rucker

Fracking (horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing) has unleashed bounties of US oil and natural gas, dramatically reduced energy prices from their historic 2008 peak, saved families and industries billions of dollars annually, helped create and sustain millions of American jobs, made the United States stronger militarily and turned it into a net energy exporter.

Red faucet with steel pipe in natural gas treatment plant in bright sunny summer day

Those fixated on alleged climate dangers from fossil fuels don’t care. In fact, they are aghast and angry about this oil and gas renaissance. Unable to stop all production, they have focused on blocking pipelines. If companies can’t get oil and gas to markets, they reason production will dwindle, companies will go bankrupt, and the case for supposedly renewable energy will grow stronger.

Acceding to their demands, tunnel-visioned federal judges recently blocked the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, told operators to shut down and drain the fully operational Dakota Access Pipeline, and mandated still more studies for Keystone XL and 75 other pipelines.

The judges issued these decisions in the name of preserving wetlands, preventing stream siltation, protecting endangered species, safeguarding scenic views, stopping greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting other environmental values.

They effectively deemed it irrelevant that fossil fuels still provide over 80% of all the energy that powers American industries, homes and living standards, and that virtually invisible underground pipelines replace much more dangerous alternatives.

The Dakota Access Pipeline alone replaces some 255,000 oil tanker railcars going through our towns and cities, or 730,000 semi-trailer tanker trucks on our highways, every year!

The activists and judges said even short-term scenic, stream sedimentation and ecological impacts during pipeline construction are unacceptable.

Even after a US Supreme Court decision reversed the ACP decision, the company sponsors cancelled the project anyway, due to threats of more costly lawsuits and delays ad infinitum.

Even more extreme, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want no fossil fuels, and net-zero carbon dioxide emissions, by 2050. They claim this will lead the world in eliminating climate and environmental catastrophes. In reality, the impacts on US and global environments would be monumental.

In 2018, coal and natural gas generated 2.6 billion megawatt-hours of America’s electricity. Natural gas also provided the equivalent of 2.7 billion MWh of fuel for factories, businesses and homes. Internal combustion vehicles used over 2.0 billion MWh equivalent of gasoline and diesel.

Under the Biden-AOC Green New Deal, all those 7.3 billion megawatt-hours of electricity would come from “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” sources. Wind and sunshine certainly fit that description.

However, harnessing this intermittent power definitely does not. That would require unimaginable numbers of wind turbines and solar panels, and warehouses of huge batteries to provide backup power for just week of windless, sunless days – especially since the more wind and solar we demand, the more we must put turbines and panels in low quality locations. Without them, we would be hit by hundreds of rolling blackouts every year, like the ones that have been clobbering California.

A recent analysis concludes that generating all that electricity would require some 17 billion sun-tracking solar panels; or 25 billion fixed thin-film panels; or 3.5 million 1.8-MW onshore wind turbines; or 260,000 monstrous 10-MW offshore turbines; or some combination of those facilities. We’d also need nearly 2 billion half-ton Tesla battery modules, and thousands of miles of new transmission lines across America.

Building and installing these massive facilities would require tens of billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, aluminum, cobalt, rare earth elements, fiberglass composites and dozens of other materials.

Getting those raw materials would require mining, processing and smelting hundreds of billions of tons of ore, from all around the world, but mostly from companies owned or controlled by China – almost all with fossil fuels; without regard for US pollution control, wildlife protection or workplace safety laws; and all too often using child and near-slave labor.

The turbines and panels would sprawl across hundreds of millions of acres of crop, scenic and habitat lands. Construction would scar landscapes, remove mountaintops, rip through forests, destroy scenic vistas, obliterate wildlife habitats, fill streams with sediment during construction, and displace or kill endangered plants, animals and birds.

Dominion Energy alone plans to construct solar panels in rural Virginia on lands totaling eight times Washington, DC, to serve a small fraction of the state’s electricity needs. Multiply that times 50 states and thousands of communities in a 100% electric economy, and you can begin to envision the ecological devastation from this “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” energy.

The 600- to 850-foot-tall wind turbines would slaughter millions of raptors, other birds and bats annually, completely eradicating them in many areas. Residential, business, hospital and school electricity rates would skyrocket. America’s economy and job market would never recover from Covid.

A few landowners – and a lot of utility company officers and investors – would get rich. But other people would suffer from infrasound and light flicker, watch their beautiful landscapes disappear forever, and get no compensation whatsoever.

The turbines, panels and batteries have short life spans, and are generally non-recyclable. Most would end up in enormous landfills. Vast rural areas would be turned into energy and trash colonies for politically powerful urban centers.

But on one positive note, years of pipeline lawsuits, human rights campaigns, and battles over mining and US and global air and water pollution have set powerful legal precedents.

Landowners, citizen groups, human rights defenders and environmentalists not fixated on climate change will be able to use them to delay, block, bankrupt and scuttle many or most of these destructive pseudo-renewable energy projects. They will also demand that wind, solar, battery and electric vehicle metals, minerals and components be responsibly sourced – in accordance with all US laws and ethics.

Utilities think they hit a buzz saw over pipelines. Radical greens think they won this war. It could be a Pyrrhic victory if those laws, regulations, EIS rules and judicial decisions are applied to wind and solar. In fact, they are potentially powerful pipeline precedents.

And if regulators, politicians and courts apply double standards – one for fossil fuels and one for pseudo-renewables, akin to one for rioters and another for churchgoers – the situation could become extremely troublesome, to say the least. It could turn into real resistance, rebellion and conflict.

It’s time for civilized debates, with no cancel-culture interference, on all these issues, before that happens.

Craig Rucker is president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), a public policy education organization devoted to both people and planet.

47 thoughts on “Potentially powerful pipeline precedents

    • Old dogs are smarter than Joe.

      Got some time? Listen to Tom. T. Hall — old dogs and children and watermelon wine

    • That is an insult to all dogs, Tisdale.
      Woof Woof
      Warning — Joe Biden has left his basement. He is not sure what state he is in now, but he told a reporter that a president does not have to be an expert on geography.

  1. Good report, Craig. As a natural resource specialist I have seen greenie/environmentalist wacko nonsense run wild, starting with Jimmy Carter and the Roadless Area Initiative (don’t allow rural roads to be repaired then declare the area to be roadless). The craziest nonsense I ever saw was a cluster of houses at an old gold minesite in Arizona NW of Kingman. The houses were torn down and removed with only some foundations left. The reason? They were in the Lake Mead viewshed! Sure, 12 miles away and only visible with binoculars, but you know, could spoil some wacko’s view? By the way, the government paid for the houses with your tax dollars. Pipelines are safe except for two things: extra care is needed in earthquake prone areas, and there is always the risk of environmental activists destruction.

  2. ‘That would require unimaginable numbers of wind turbines and solar panels, and warehouses of huge batteries to provide backup power for just week of windless, sunless days – especially since the more wind and solar we demand, the more we must put turbines and panels in low quality locations. Without them, we would be hit by hundreds of rolling blackouts every year, like the ones that have been clobbering California.’

    Over emotional nonsense.

    You get some solar energy any time it is light. There are very seldom weeks of gloom and no wind. Batteries aren’t the only storage solution. Power demand is lower for most of the night. You can put solar on pretty much any roof -and these days it could look just like regular roof tiles. Or over parking lots, on reservoirs, and you can still use the farmland solar panels are on. The USA have thousands of miles where you could put offshore wind turbines out of sight. Developed countries with 40% or 50% renewables don’t have power outages. That’s just the US.

    • I know of no country running off 40-50%
      intermittent power. It seems logically impossible.

      Perhaps you are cheating and counting hydro as ‘renewable’? In which case only countries with Scandinavian geography could do it….

      • In griff’s world, getting 40% for a couple of minutes once a year, is the same as getting it all the time for the whole year.

        • “In griff’s world, getting 40% for a couple of minutes once a year, is the same as getting it all the time for the whole year.”

          Come on, now, let’s not be disrespectful. Even I wouldn’t stoop so low as to bring griff’s sex life into this. Be courteous, please.

        • Counting hydro as renewable in CA and they would be on track to meet their renewables target … and would not have to do anything else now. So they decided hydro was not renewable to force more building of solar and wind farms. That’s how leftists think.

      • “I know of no country running off 40-50%
        intermittent power.”

        South Australia. It has regular power outages, but we don’t call them that anymore. We call it “load shedding”.

    • Weak solar energy isn’t enough to run an economy on.
      Power demand might be lower, in the summer, but so what?
      Not only is solar non-existent during the night, but wind is lower as well.

      I see that griff can’t help but repeat the lies it’s paid to repeat.
      Germany got 40% for 5 minutes, once during the year. That is not the same as getting 40 to 50% all the time.
      Secondly, Germany doesn’t have blackouts because it’s connected to France that has lots of nuclear and Norway that has lots of hydro. Isolate the German grid from reliable power sources, and it would go down within 24 hours.

      • If it were night and the wind wasn’t blowing, it wouldn’t even last 2.4 seconds before it tripped off for under voltage and under frequency. The insanity of Griff’s comments is so difficult to comprehend, it makes one wonder how he could even write that since it is nonsensical.

      • Why does that remind me of Beetlejuice listing his qualifications? “I’ve seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT!”

        I thought it was a stupid idea the first time I heard it, and it keeps on sounding even stupider every time I hear it.

    • Assertion: You get some solar energy any time it is light.
      Response: Yes, but often (here in Europe) not enough to make the PV panels pay their way without subsidies.
      Assertion: There are very seldom weeks of gloom and no wind.
      Response: European winters often have multi-day overcast and calm periods.
      Assertion: Batteries aren’t the only storage solution.
      Response: Please explain the physics engineering and economics of the alternatives.
      Assertion: Power demand is lower for most of the night.
      Response: Try looking at Gridwatch. At the moment UK night-time demand is about 60% of daytime, definitely not zero. Plenty of factories and other workplaces work 24/7. Would these have to shut down at night ?
      Assertion: You can put solar on pretty much any roof -and these days it could look just like regular roof tiles.
      Response: Utter garbage. Panels have to be at the right angle to the sun, so with flat a roof anywhere northerly, they have to be stood up on a framework. In a windy environment you are just creating a rigid sail that will get torn off in a gale.
      Assertion: Or over parking lots, on reservoirs, and you can still use the farmland solar panels are on.
      Response: Last time I checked combine harvesters don’t like trying to deal with solar panels.
      Assertion: The USA have thousands of miles where you could put offshore wind turbines out of sight.
      Response: Then they’re in the way of fisheries, shipping etc.. Offshore wind economics is blighted by high wear rates in a hostile environment.
      Assertion: Developed countries with 40% or 50% renewables don’t have power outages.
      Response: Which ones ? Do you mean nameplate capacity or percentage of annual energy supply? Don’t mention Norway as that’s not a useful model for the rest of the world.
      Note that Germany is having to consider legislating to remove the energy companies’ 24/7 supply obligation, precisely because of high percentage of unreliable ‘renewable’ supply in their grid. They’re currently at 27%, and have one of the most expensive domestic energy tariffs.

      Griff, please go back to school.

      CO2 is plant food.
      Coal is biomass.

      • Assertion: Or over parking lots, on reservoirs, and you can still use the farmland solar panels are on.
        Response: Last time I checked combine harvesters don’t like trying to deal with solar panels.

        Additional Response: Last time I checked, plants need sunlight to grow. Covering farms with solar panels makes them useless as farms.

    • While reading this post I was wondering just how any sane, thinking person – or idiotic greenie Democrats – could possibly come up with a sensible rebuttal to it and justify their desire to impoverish the USA and its peoples. Then Griff sticks his four-pennorth – or two cents’ worth – in and shows himself up for the idiot he is truly considered to be by many on this blog. I bet he believes in the nonsense that the wind is always blowing somewhere and the sun hardly setting on the continent – all you need to do is connect it all together!
      Well, here’s a thing: Griff, if you believe so passionately that you are right I suggest you go off grid completely and see if you can survive. Don’t forget, your OG-living would need to be able to handle some kind of industry/business that would make you financially self-sufficient as well – for example, I don’t think you’d manage to run a farm OG let alone without diesel tractors and other machinery.

      • Not too long ago I had a lengthy conversation with a dude about farm equipment being battery powered. He had no idea what modern equipment requires for horsepower. I mean who needs a four-wheel drive tractor with 200 hp, right? Never a thought about the horsepower a combine needs to process the residue produced while harvesting corn.

        When you start adding up the weight of batteries, like the Tesla high wattage one, to run all day it becomes a joke. You’ll need a diesel tractor of the same size just to pull the battery wagon! Farm productivity would plummet.

    • Western Australia has just put the breaks on Solar Energy the grid has become to unstable at the current rate of solar power addition we would have the Californian problem in 3 years.
      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-01/rise-of-rooftop-solar-power-jeopardising-wa-energy-grid/11731452

      They have changed the tarrif structure to encourage the installation of batteries if you are going to install solar.

      It’s likely a couple of the big co-gen mining companies power stations will be asked if they could put forward submissions for increasing baseload.

    • Griff –> “Power demand is lower for most of the night. ” This is only true until there are massive amounts of new electric transportation vehicles plugged in to charge at night. Think semi-trailer tractors, refrigerated transport, farm implements, auto’s, freight trains, buses, . All large power hungry vehicles mainly charged at night.

      “You can put solar on pretty much any roof … Or over parking lots, on reservoirs, and you can still use the farmland solar panels are on. ” Are you joking!

      Reservoirs – solar panels means no sunlight hitting the water. Water temps will fall. Fewer fish will hatch. Certainly recreation will suffer mightily. Where do migratory waterfowl land during their fall and spring trips?

      Farmland – You are very obviously city born and bred. Go put tarps over your grass, flowers, trees, vegetables, etc. and then tell how well they grow while in the shade. Remember, you are going to need to capture a lot of sunlight with the panels. Every photon that goes into a panel won’t go into photosynthesis!

      Lastly, if you think that wind turbines won’t be environmentally harmful to migratory birds such as songbirds, ducks, mourning doves, geese, whooping cranes, etc. then you are being willfully ignorant of the facts.

    • So what Griff? None of the carp that you spout on here will have any measurable effect on the Keeling Curve, and you know it, despite your, shall we say limited ability with mathematics. Therefore, no measurable effect on the climate either. In other words a nothingburger squared.

      People get emotional because the money and votes stolen could be used to better effect, with one example being real protection of the environment, not the bogus environmentalism you have been duped into.

    • Griffy-poo:

      A brief glance at the U.S. Energy Information Agency website linked below shows us that solar energy only provided 1.8% of all U.S. electricity production as of the end of 2019. Wind was 7.3%. I have been monitoring this web page for a number of years now, and I have yet to see solar get above 2% and wind get above (or much above) 8%.

      https://tinyurl.com/y3h6j9vr.

      Solar panels have been around for 66 years and wind turbines since God-knows-when. The physics, engineering, and economic issues with wind and solar have been well-documented here at WUWT, and those problems preclude wind and solar from replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power on a large scale.

      Your ignorance of the physics and engineering issues with wind and solar is quite profound from the looks of it, and your misleading and highly dubious statements (which you usually don’t provide evidence to back up) won’t make them go away. Do yourself a huge favor and try to learn the difference between secular religions on one hand and science and engineering on the other.

      I won’t even go into the issues of toxic waste that solar panels leave behind during the mining and manufacturing stages of their lives. Nor will I a lot of time talking about the dumping of turbine blades in landfill sites:
      https://tinyurl.com/y3r36tok.
      https://tinyurl.com/y3uw2q7c.

      You just cling tenaciously to your wind and solar faith Griffy-poo. Don’t let anyone talk you out of it because be de-programmed from a cult can be just too psychologically and emotionally difficult.

    • “You can put solar on pretty much any roof -and these days it could look just like regular roof tiles. Or over parking lots, on reservoirs, and you can still use the farmland solar panels are on.”

      Here in TINY Massachusetts (almost too small to see on a map of the US- over 8,000 acres of forest have been utterly destroyed in the past 5 years by converting that land to solar “farms”. I see many houses in Mass. installing solar on the roofs but I also see solar “farms” popping up like mushrooms because they are heavily subsidized – destroying more fields and forests. Very few if any solar “farms” are being used for agriculture because it’s not economic when you only have strips of grass between the rows of panels. I once found a photo in Germany where a guy in liederhosen was walking his sheep between rows of a solar farm, but you won’t see that here in the US. An 18 acre solar “farm” was built behind my working class neighborhood in north central Mass.- which broke many environmental laws- built next to a river and next to several vernal pools, on land with rare and endangered species- and right next to homes- lowering our property values. For most of us- our homes are our only assets. This acreage had been brutally exploited for gravel. It was done long enough ago that it was “grandfathered” and though no longer exploited for that purpose- it didn’t have to be restored. All the topsoil had been removed down to pure sand (on an outwash plain). The local planning board, conservation commission and state laws did not require soil restoration. While it was being built I filmed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYVZKgusU4

      • Thanks for the video Joseph.
        It is sadly the wrong sensation, 179 views in over two years, that the Greens will skip.
        You know it is all for our grand children.
        Liked the finals with snow on the panels. I see that a lot here in Sweden two, and when I ask the owners why they don’t remove the snow, they explain it is too dangerous and not worth the effort.

    • Idiotic response. Still use the farmland solar panels are on? Hey Griff, what don’t you understand about photosynthesis? Does it work in the shadow of a solar panel? What farming under solar panels would you suggest? Mushrooms?

    • Again a stand-up slap-stick comedy display of clueless griff fact-free fantasies….

      Very funny !

      “You get some solar energy any time it is light.”

      And absolutely NONE when its dark, or covered with snow. !

      Battery storage is basically a NON-solution.. and the manufacturing of enough batteries to keep a city going overnight would be devastating to the environments of developing countries.. (by griff doesn’t care about them)

      Doesn’t care about the damage done to sea life by off shore wind turbines., or the disposal of those old turbines in 10-20 years time.

      “Developed countries with 40% or 50% renewables don’t have power outages.”

      Germany gets its back-up from nuclear and coal in surrounding countries.

      South Australia is a basket case, on the edge of electricity supply collapse any time there is a warm day..

      When the wind drops and dusk settles, it RELIES totally on brown coal electricity from Victoria.

    • Why not support Nuclear Griff? Answer me that question please. That is the best ‘carbon’ free source of electricity there is. Just tell me why you and Big Green will not support that?

    • Griff,
      Your comment reads like some weekend science report submitted by some 7th grader. Would you mind telling me what your CV is so I can determine if any of your future comments are worth reading or a waste of my time from the onset?

      Thanks in advance.

    • Actually that’s not really true, is it? Joe Biden and Kamala Harris say that because there are people who are stupid enough to vote for them thinking it’s true. They have no idea what the Keeling Curve is, what the pathetic climate sensitivity is to CO2, if it even exists at current levels, or the ramifications of not knowing how to work a calculator. It is, of course, shame on them but, more shameful is the current crop of liars, charlatans, race-baiters and general idiots doing anything to get the stupid-vote.

    • Chaamjamal
      Kamala has called for net zero catbon dioxide emissions by 2045. I don’t know if that was her error but she has not made a correction. That makes her more radical on climate change than AOC, which is not easy to do.

  3. “It’s time for civilized debates, with no cancel-culture interference, on all these issues, before that happens.”

    The watermelons aren’t willing to, don’t want to and have completely avoided debate. As far as the leftists are concerned, there is no debate, nothing to debate. The leftists don’t want to compromise, they want to rule. They are willing to do anything to anyone to in order to get their way.

  4. “The judges issued these decisions in the name of preserving wetlands, preventing stream siltation, protecting endangered species, safeguarding scenic views, stopping greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting other environmental values.”

    It’s funny that Indians cite all these things, yet the living areas of their reservations are generally s-holes; garbage all over the place (inside and outside the homes).

  5. An interesting idea, so the following is relevant.

    Creating a More Efficient Permitting Process

    WASHINGTON (July 22, 2020) — Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule that streamlines and modernizes the review of permits by the Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) for the first time in nearly three decades. Additionally, the final rule provides more flexibility to regulated parties, states and tribes, and the public.

    _ _ _ _
    Solar and wind facilities have already faced opposition as presented in this post. Yes, more to follow.

  6. I keep reading about the need to outlaw oil but about 46% goes for use as gasoline but the rest is used for a vast array of products. Will electric cars have wooden interiors instead of plastic? Will we have wooden roads instead of asphalt? Oil also goes into cosmetics, medicine, synthetic rubber and cleaning products. Another example of greens not being able to think of the whole picture.

    • Not to mention at least 1001 other commercial and industrial uses for oil and gas that civilization relies on for the world as we know it. How can one political party get this so wrong and still have anyone thinking that this is normal thinking? How can there be so many stoopid people out there that know nothing about anything? I see these people on the news every night doing something idiotic, but they don’t propose any solutions to anything…just tear everything down.

  7. In ruling against the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in one case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals quoted “The Lorax” by Dr. Seuss as part of the justification. I am not making this up.

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/federal-court-cites-the-lorax-to-blast-us-forest-service-for-approving-pipeline-across

    By the way, the pipeline was going to be put UNDER the Appalachian Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway with horizontal drilling without disturbing the trees.

    This makes me think of a favorite quote from Anthony, “The stupidity, it burns.”

  8. Under the Biden-AOC Green New Deal, all those 7.3 billion megawatt-hours of electricity would come from “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” sources. Wind and sunshine certainly fit that description in their mal-educated opinions.

    Appended/fixed.

  9. These Green Democrats certainly seem to have it all nailed down. Given that they seem to be reaping a lot of green from the renewables lobby along the way it might be more accurate if they were renamed:

    Greedocrats !

    Sums ’em up!

  10. “those raw materials would require mining, processing and smelting hundreds of billions of tons of ore”

    Not noted is it takes 10yrs+ to open a new significant lithium, cobalt or any mine after time spent finding it. Exploration to quantify it takes 30 to 50km(!) of diamond drilling with 1metre assay intervals for about half of the core-length, 3-4yrs of environmental studies, 3 -4yrs of metallurgical testing, mineral processing and hydromet development, 3-4yrs engineering design, procurement, installation, commissioning and a billion + dollars each for hundreds of projects. You can’t get money from bankers without this work nor get private industry to take the risk. This is why AOC’s 10yr deadline for replacing fossil fuel is a huge joke. It is more like a100yr plan.

  11. We need to remember the Russians here:

    Some News Articles About Russia Interference

    Russian Money Suspected Behind Fracking Protests, New York Times, NOV. 30, 2014
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/russian-money-suspected-behind-fracking-protests.html

    Is Putin funding anti-fracking groups? Republicans think so — and so did Hillary Clinton
    https://www.salon.com/2017/07/16/is-putin-funding-anti-fracking-groups-republicans-think-so-and-so-did-hillary-clinton/

    These provocative images show Russian trolls sought to inflame debate over climate change, fracking and Dakota pipeline
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/03/01/congress-russians-trolls-sought-to-inflame-u-s-debate-on-climate-change-fracking-and-dakota-pipeline/

    Intelligence: Putin Is Funding the Anti-Fracking Campaign
    http://www.newsweek.com/intelligence-putin-funding-anti-fracking-campaign-547873

    Time to Shine a Light on Putin’s American Propaganda Arm
    http://www.newsweek.com/time-shine-light-putins-american-propaganda-arm-542642

    Putin Is Funding Green Groups to Discredit Natural Gas Fracking
    http://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredit-natural-gas-fracking-635052, Newsweek, 7/11/17

    ”The Sierra Club used the Chesapeake Energy money, donated mainly by the company’s chief executive from 2007 to 2010, for its Beyond Coal campaign to block new coal-fired power plants and shutter old ones..” New York Times, FEB. 13, 2012
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html

    Russia’s Quiet War Against European Fracking, Foreign Policy, June 20, 2014
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/20/russias-quiet-war-against-european-fracking/

    Gasland, Russia and Hysteria Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing, Ambassador Keith C. Smith (ret.) ,February 2014
    http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2014/0105/op/op02smith_frac.html

    Russia in secret plot against fracking, Nato chief says, Telegraph, 19 Jun 2014
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking

    Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil Company Rosneft, owned by the Russian state, is the world’s largest oil company / AP Washington Free Beacon, January 27, 2015 5:00 am
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/foreign-firm-funding-u-s-green-groups-tied-to-state-owned-russian-oil-company/

    Here’s Everything You Need To Know About Allegations US Environmentalists May Have Secretly Taken Russian Cash
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/10/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-allegations-us-environmentalists-may-have-secretly-taken-russian-cash/

    Russia in secret plot against fracking, Nato chief says–“Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Russia was mounting a sophisticated “disinformation campaign” aimed at undermining attempts to exploit alternative energy sources such as shale gas”,Telegrapph, 19 jun 2014 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/10911942/Russia-in-secret-plot-against-fracking-Nato-chief-says.html

    Saudi Billionaire Prince: Fracking Competitively Threatens ‘Any Oil Producing Country in the World’ CNS News, January 6, 2014 – 5:35 PM
    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/saudi-billionaire-prince-fracking-competitively-threatens-any-oil

Comments are closed.