Why Does Boston Buy Natural Gas from Russia

My latest op-ed appeared in American Greatness while I was on vacation, and I missed it, here is a quote and the link. A photo of an LNG tanker carrying Russian natural gas arriving in Boston Harbor 4 years ago can be seen here.

“Europe is vulnerable and needs our natural gas; prices are absurdly high and going higher. Yet, everyone in the oil and gas industry is afraid to invest any money, even if they have financing available. Who wants to start a 10- to 20-year natural gas project, whether it’s a gas field, pipeline, or LNG (liquified natural gas) terminal, when the current administration is saying it will shut you down in 10 years?

“You’ve got six years, eight years, no more than 10 years or so,” says climate envoy John Kerry. “No one should make it easy for the [natural] gas interests to be building out 30- or 40-year infrastructure.”

In the meantime, India has relaxed its environmental regulations and plans to double its use of coal. China has cut coal import tariffs to zero to ensure energy security and lower costs.”

American Greatness

Read more here.

5 22 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Old Retired Guy
June 20, 2022 6:12 pm

Simple solution. Every O&G CEO says to FJB I want a guaranteed return for every dollar we invest. Otherwise FUJB. And as a shareholder, I don’t see how they agree to anything less.

Reply to  Old Retired Guy
June 20, 2022 7:44 pm

Search for Scott Sheffield. Arguably the most capable CONUS E&P CEO. Read his reasons for not overspending on CAPEX. Look for “gubmint”. Biden, whatever. Let me know what you find….

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 21, 2022 3:19 am

Oh dear Word Salad Bob you are clueless. Have some ESG and Government market interference for your breakfast 😉

Ron Long
Reply to  bigoilbob
June 21, 2022 3:47 am

OK, bigoilbob, I searched for Scott Sheffield, and found he is the CEO of Pioneer Natural Resources Company, the largest producer in the Permian Basin. He states that Pioneer is in great shape to their 5-year projected economic future date (to 2026) and expects good free cash flow and therefore dividends to stockholders. I cannot find any reference to not overspending on CAPEX, so could you please steer me to the statement?

Reply to  Ron Long
June 21, 2022 5:33 am

Sheffield said that Pioneer’s growth strategy wasn’t going to be dictated by oil prices.

“Whether it’s $150 oil, $200 oil, or $100 oil, we’re not going to change our growth plans,” Pioneer Natural Resources’ chief executive Scott Sheffield told Bloomberg Television in an interview.


This is the Brandon lie about what Sheffield said:

One CEO even acknowledged that they don’t care if the price of a barrel of oil goes to $200 a barrel. They’re not going to step up the production.


Mr. Sheffield said that Pioneer was not going to significantly change their growth plans in response to short term swings in oil prices. He stressed that shale producers are actually unable to grow production at a significantly faster rate. Three major, nongovernmental, factors are inhibiting growth: 1) labor shortages, 2) material shortages and 3) shareholder demands for greater returns on investment. Biden may not understand this, but the shareholders own the companies, he doesn’t. Shareholders and financial institutions are demanding that greater returns on investment take priority over the sort of rapid growth that occurred from 2008-2014. Back then the “shale” players responded to >$100/bbl oil by growing production at a much faster rate, only to see their legs cut out from under them when OPEC flooded the market in late 2014.

No oil company has a dial they can just turn the production volume up and down in response to changes in oil prices. In order to increase production, oil companies have to drill more wells. This requires increased capital expenditures. Pioneer and most other oil companies are reacting to the higher price environment by slowly increasing capital spending; which is increasing production in a sustainable manner.

Brandon has done everything in his power to impede exploration, leasing, drilling, production and transportation of oil & gas. He is demanding that the industry be phased out over the next 10-20 years… While, at the same time, demanding that oil & gas companies ramp up CapEx. This is as retarded as seizing all of the flour from bakeries, watching the price of bread skyrocket and then demanding that the bakeries bake more bread.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 21, 2022 6:59 am

Thanks for confirming that Mr. Sheffield is basing his business plan on boring old geology and petroleum engineering/economics. Other than your whiny diatribe, you were unable to find any evidence that Mr. Sheffield attributes any of his current actions to POTUS.

Yes, POTUS is a strong man made climate change advocate, and makes statements supporting the need to get to net zero. And his public statements on oil and gas profitability and increasing activity are silly. But substantively, the only action of his that could have significantly impeded oil and gas production is a return to diligent enforcement of ES&H regs. Lease activity, in particular, is a particularly whiny claim. Current leases are replete with overdue drilling obligations, and the new lease acreage is even more goat pasturey. As I said before, do wish that more of them would open up. But on condition that they would be surrendered upon first overdue drilling obligation, that only E&P’s current on funding and execution of their actual asset retirement obligations, everywhere, need apply, and that adequate cash in fist be set back for the new asset retirement obligations, as they occur.

Interesting dichotomy. An oil and gas advocate (like me) and a climate “skeptic” who nevertheless pimps for a firm that, after having financially failed at E&P, is trying to rebrand as a farm the gubmint, trickle up, CCS advocate. Actually rational, if hypocritical. The money’s there for the aksing, so apparently it’s just it’s just another case of cognitively dissonant “Get the gubmint out of my damn Medicare!” partitioned thinking….

Ron Long
Reply to  David Middleton
June 21, 2022 7:19 am

Thanks, David. It certainly is inadvisable to change plans regarding production in this intentionally risky environment, where risk is now part of the “price is controlled by supply and demand” theme.

Greg Bacon
Reply to  David Middleton
June 21, 2022 8:48 am

“No oil company has a dial they can just turn the production volume up and down in response to changes in oil prices.”
Saudi Aramco can.

Reply to  Greg Bacon
June 21, 2022 9:46 am

Not materially…

OPEC production of crude oil and other liquids is about 34-35 million barrels per day (mmbd), of which Saudi output is about 10 mmbd, out of global production of around 100 mmbd. OPEC surplus production capacity is about 3 mmbd, of which the Saudi share is about 1 mmbd.


Suppose that Mr. Biden convinces the Gulf producers to increase output by 1 mmbd — that is not going to happen — immediately and permanently; and assume that there is no production cut as a response by other producers internationally. That would represent a global production increase (crude oil and other liquids) of about 1 percent. Under a very conservative assumption about market demand conditions — a demand “elasticity” (that is, “responsiveness”) of 0.1, crude oil prices would fall by about 10 percent, or around $12 per barrel. The effect on gasoline prices assuming no change in refining and distribution costs, taxes, and other relevant parameters: about 20 cents per gallon, an effect not trivial, but obviously insufficient to change the underlying economics and politics of high gasoline prices in the U.S.  


Even then, it’s not a matter of Aramco just opening up the chokes on wells.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Greg Bacon
June 21, 2022 12:46 pm

No, even the Saudis have to pay attention to water cut if they want to maximize the life-time productivity of their reservoirs.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 21, 2022 1:23 pm

They also maintain some spare capacity to support price stability:

Only two or three countries in OPEC have spare capacity, he said.

Saudi Arabia, the kingpin in OPEC and the world’s second-largest oil producer, has about a million barrels per day of extra production capacity, but doesn’t want to use all of it, said Sankey.

“Saudi has to make a choice — do we let the price go higher while maintaining a super emergency, super crisis level of spare capacity?” he asked. “Or do we add oil into the market and go to effectively almost zero spare capacity, and then what happens if Libya goes down?”


It’s their equivalent to our SPR. Prices would actually go much higher, if Saudi Aramco maxed out their production and some other producer went down… because there would be no spare capacity. Unlike Brandon, the Saudis are smart enough not tap their “SPR” in a futile effort to boost their poll numbers.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  David Middleton
June 21, 2022 4:01 pm

‘Prices would actually go much higher, if Saudi Aramco maxed out their production and some other producer went down…’

No doubt. Can you imagine what the futures / financial markets would do if tomorrow’s headlines read something along the line of ‘Saudii Oil Production Tapped Out’?

Reply to  Andy May
June 21, 2022 9:47 am

I borrowed it from Andrew Wilkow.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 22, 2022 5:11 am

David, you’re essays are great, but the FJB and Brandon stuff reduces your audience. I can’t share your post with the people who need to read them the most. Can you clean them up, make them more professional for a broader audience?



Reply to  Ron Long
June 21, 2022 7:03 am

Overspending on CAPEX is, in this case, my term. It refers to mid teen spending rates using OPM. These campaigns were money losers, which is why the E&P’s who executed them lost so much market cap. Mr. Sheffield is on the vanguard of shale CEO’s who finally wised up. I will give them the credit, even though in many cases the “capital discipline” was imposed on them by that “Fool me a dozen times, shame on you” OPM providers.

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 21, 2022 9:23 am

Funny, BigOilyBoob, Sheffield just spent $10B acquiring two oil exploration companies, including $4B to acquire his son’s company. Lots of capital expenditure if there’s no more oil to find, wouldn’t you agree?

Reply to  Meab
June 21, 2022 6:23 pm

Like for like acquisitions are different than spending on development CAPEX. Mr. Sheffield realizes that, as the smartest player, he can harvest those buys better. But he is still not spending enough in 2022 to replace the reserves that PXD is now depleting. And he is probably doing better than his peers. Conoco, with 2 big Permian buys last year, is also not spending enough to replace reserves. Both are smart enough to deplete their PDP*, give the cash away in dividends, buy up more of the same, and buy back stock. Then, when asset retirement time comes, pull rabbit ears….


Reply to  bigoilbob
June 22, 2022 8:34 am

Blather, Bigoilyboob. Written at the level of a fourth grader at that.

Reply to  Meab
June 22, 2022 8:38 am

I wrote down for my reader. I tried to avoid big words. I even defined a common industry term for you.

Reply to  Old Retired Guy
June 20, 2022 10:51 pm

China and India are not stupid … Biden is.

June 21, 2022 1:33 am

Biden, like most politicians, is just a puppet.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Robertvd
June 21, 2022 4:39 am

A sockpuppet at that, just so you know where Obama’s hand is.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Doug Huffman
June 21, 2022 7:41 am

Perhaps there is more than one puppeteer and that is why Biden gets his lines crossed?

Reply to  Doug Huffman
June 21, 2022 11:02 am

Obama is not that smart.

Don Perry
Reply to  Derg
June 21, 2022 5:48 pm

That’s why he has Biden saying dumb things.

June 21, 2022 4:32 am

Biden is the laziest occupant of the oval office ever! He is also the most intellectually challenged and probably one of the most corrupt.

Ron Long
Reply to  Mac
June 21, 2022 7:16 am

He also is the only oval office occupant to flunk the 3rd grade (or any other grade), which probably means your “intellectually challenged” comment is right on the money.

Reply to  Mac
June 21, 2022 8:50 am


willem post
Reply to  Old Retired Guy
June 21, 2022 1:12 pm

The socialistic governments of New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts have an RE bug up their a…s, by refusing to approve increased pipeline and storage systems to bring more of ABUNDANT, DOMESTIC, LOW-COST natural gas from nearby Pennsylvania.

During the cold winter, natural gas is usually diverted from power plants to households, etc.
The Russian LNG is VERY EXPENSIVELY making up the shortage, that could have been supplied by Pennsylvania.

The governors of the three states are just as stupid as EU Brussels bureaucrats refusing to sign long-term natural gas contracts with Russia, because, “it looks bad for the EU global warming fighting message.”

Reply to  Old Retired Guy
June 22, 2022 9:13 am

The oil industry covers a wide range of players. PXD does not, as far as I can determine, engage in oil or gas EXPLORATION. It adds wells in proven deposits, and buys other producing assets. Their strategy is to milk the existing sites, pay off all debt, buy back shares, and pay out the rest in dividends. They drill new wells, but only in proven sites. That makes the dividend huge when oil is at the $110/bbl level.

The long-term US problem is the lack of oil and gas exploration to replace diminishing production of existing sites. Who wants to invest in an already risky investment when the US government’s policy is to destroy the industry?

June 20, 2022 6:17 pm

“Why Does Boston Buy Natural Gas from Russia”
It doesn’t. The US has not imported LNG from Russia since 2019

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 6:36 pm

The article about the boat is from 2018.

Reply to  rd50
June 20, 2022 6:45 pm

I quoted the headline question and answered it.

In fact the boat that arrived in Boston in 2018 had a chequered history. The cargo was in violation of US sanctions dating from 2014. It had arrived in UK, but was not allowed to land. It went to France, but was not landed there,. Along the way there were changes of ownership, and it France, of the ship. The gas eventually arrived in Boston under French ownership in a French ship (Gaselys), and, in Trump’s USA, that was apparently good enough. The only place the cargo could evade US sanctions was the USA.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 7:09 pm

So Nick, not that we have any conceivable reason to believe anything you claim, but in your fevered TDS rant, you seem to hold the French blameless in that episode, wonder why?

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 20, 2022 7:17 pm

Actually, I got one thing wrong there – the ship did not actually go to France. The cargo was sold to Petronas, and then to Engie (French firm) but the transfer to Gaselys happened in the UK.

Reply to  Rich Davis
June 20, 2022 7:54 pm

So Nick, not that we have any conceivable reason to believe anything you claim,”

How about his unmatched record of accuracy? Even his dissers retreat into “Oh, you’re nitpicking!” territory when unsuccessfully trying to rebut his claims. FYI, those “nitpicks”, when pursued to ground, usually sillify the entire post.

It’s no accident that a search for Nick stokes Watts Up results in a majority of hits with no actual Nick Stokes comment. Rather, a commenter aksing Nick to comment. Nick, it must be nice to be able to live rent free in heads the world over…

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 20, 2022 8:53 pm

“How about his unmatched record of accuracy?”

ROFL oh boy best laugh ever … you forgot the sarc tag.

The only way Nick gets anything right is by redifining the hell out of everything … ask him about Amazon vs Amazonia etc.

The only real valid description of Nick is a sophist.
He even has his own cartoon he does it so often

Bryan A
Reply to  LdB
June 20, 2022 10:08 pm

For just a second I thought you we’re going to say
The only way Nick gets anything right is by redifining the hell out of “Wrong”

Reply to  Bryan A
June 20, 2022 10:31 pm

Bostons Mystic River LNG import facility has been operating since 1971

Steve E.
Reply to  Andy May
June 21, 2022 4:11 am

“…and the only reason was a lack of pipeline”

Don’t forget US law that says US gas can only be shipped in US flagged tankers, of which their were a total of ZERO during the time period in question.

Reply to  Andy May
June 21, 2022 4:17 am

 Boston clearly bought a tanker of LNG from Russia in 2018, and the only reason was a lack of pipeline capacity”
Andy, it seems you just can’t get simple facts right. They bought a cargo of LNG from Engie, a French firm. It arrived in a French tanker. It’s true that the gas originated in Russia, and so should have been subject to US sanctions. That is why it made such a convoluted journey. As to why Boston bought it, well, if you can land a sanctioned cargo, it will probably be cheap.

But this was one tanker load, in 2018. It doesn’t mean that Boston is now importing gas from Russia. It isn’t.

AS to why Boston can’t buy some of the US LNG that is streaming past on the way to Europe, well, you have correctly identified that as the Jones Act. Greens are not responsible for that.

Reply to  Andy May
June 21, 2022 5:47 am

The problem with a flippant, humorous headline is that some OCD commenter will almost always latch onto it.

The broader question is, “Why does Massachusetts import LNG from anywhere?” The Everett LNG terminal, near Boston, is essentially the only (99%) US terminal importing LNG.

comment image

The source of the imports isn’t nearly as significant is the fact that New England has to import LNG because those states and New York have blocked takeaway pipeline capacity from the Marcellus/Utica in Pennsylvania, Ohio & West Virginia… As you pointed out in your excellent editorial.

Reply to  Andy May
June 21, 2022 6:19 am

I also have a long track record of pointless arguments with OCD commenters regarding flippant, humorous headlines & phrases.

But, I still employ lots of sarcasm and flippant, humorous phrases because: 1)Whack-a-Troll is fun and 2) It provides feeble-minded people an entry point into the discussion

comment image

Gunga Din
Reply to  David Middleton
June 21, 2022 2:43 pm

2) It provides feeble-minded people an entry point into the discussion

Hmmm … not sure if I should feel insulted or not. 😎

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 21, 2022 3:21 am

Word salad Bob to the rescue. You love your high priced gas.

Reply to  bigoilbob
June 21, 2022 10:03 am

Agreeing with you is not evidence of accuracy.
It’s actually the opposite.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 10:03 pm

I quoted the headline question and answered it.

Thereby succesfully distracting everyone from the substance of the post and dragging the entire discussion off thread which was clearly your intent.

Does Europe desperately need LNG? Yes.
Does John Kerry insist that no one should make it easy for energy projects that will last more than 10 years? Yes.
Are India and China going the oppsosite direction on coal? Yes.

How about you address the substance of the article?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  davidmhoffer
June 21, 2022 3:42 am

He can’t address it. It would require admitting the truth.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2022 3:20 am

Ahh maybe you believe in Russia colluuuusion 😉

Ron Long
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2022 3:51 am

Nick, you can’t rob a bank and change your name and make everything OK. Cargo in violation of sanctions is forever contaminated, unless released by a World Court agreement.

Captain climate
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2022 5:53 am

We buy LNG. Who cares what country it’s from? If we had expanded the pipelines Massachusetts and much of New England could have much cheaper power.

Reply to  Captain climate
June 21, 2022 7:58 am

And since NY and Mass are leftist hell holes, and they are blocking the pipelines, they deserve higher prices.

The problem, of course, is that the poorest suffer the most.

BUT in this case, they, through the voting booth, have brought it upon themselves.

June 20, 2022 6:52 pm

A photo of a Russian LNG tanker arriving in Boston Harbor 4 years ago”
It is actually a French tanker, the Gaselys, as you can read on the side. And the cargo was owned by a French firm after passing through several hands. The cargo had been to UK and France, tagged by US sanctions (Obama 2014). But yes, it did eventually find a home in Boston. A murky story.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 7:12 pm

Those wascally French, tricking Boston into evading sanctions. Where’s your outrage, Nick? There must have been evil profits involved.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 20, 2022 9:29 pm

How are those sanctions going?
The Ruble is doing OK reaching a seven year high to the US dollar.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 21, 2022 3:25 am

When are we going to realize the sanctions won’t work and Biden will not end the proxy war which he needs as a distraction?

Reply to  Chris Hanley
June 21, 2022 4:40 am

Although the sanctions haven’t seemed to us to have hurt Russia the war started by Putin has harmed the Russian people. My ex wife is in Tula Russia and I speak to her often. Prices for all goods have increased considerably since the invasion. The average Russian does not live as well as the average citizen in the US.

Reply to  Mac
June 21, 2022 9:24 am

Wait are you telling me Russia is having inflation?

Well I am shocked. I guess more sanctions will help 😉

Reply to  Andy May
June 21, 2022 4:42 am

The point is that the paper says the ship was Russian and it wasn’t and still isn’t.

If you get one obvious fact wrong the whole paper then becomes suspect. The paper should have said ” A photo of a ship carrying Russian LPG etc.”

Reply to  Andy May
June 21, 2022 5:55 am

I thought that the vessel was/is French and chartered by Nippon Yushen Kaisha, which certainly used to be a Japanese company, although who knows who owns what these days.

Reply to  Andy May
June 21, 2022 7:46 am

The vessel is owned by NYK Armateur SA from an office in Marseilles, is managed by Gazocean in Marseilles, is registered there and flies the French flag, which makes her French, but I expect it would take more time than any of us have to work out how a Japanese company thinks it is a good idea to own / run a French subsidiary.

Reply to  Oldseadog
June 21, 2022 7:48 am

And I know that it is not now woke to refer to a ship as “she” or “her” but I don’t subscribe to that notion.

Reply to  Oldseadog
June 21, 2022 9:26 am

We should allow the ship to choose 😉

Reply to  Derg
June 21, 2022 10:42 am

She would probably keep changing her mind.

Reply to  Oldseadog
June 21, 2022 11:07 am


Gunga Din
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 21, 2022 2:48 pm

At least it wasn’t a photo-shopped penguin or polar bear on ice or an edited video of walruses “giving up all hope” and diving off a cliff.

June 20, 2022 7:19 pm

The ridiculous “Jones Act” should have been rescinded decades ago. Its what keeps US LNG out of Boston harbor.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Marc
June 20, 2022 8:16 pm

The President has authority to waive certain provisions of the Jones Act temporarily. This was done to facility aid shipments to Puerto Rico in 2017 after Hurricane Harvey and New York City after Superstorm Sandy in 2012. That is very unlikely to happen under President Biden.

But your point is correct; the act was intended to promote the US shipbuilding industry and the US Merchant Marine. Over the past 100 years it has done exactly the opposite.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
June 21, 2022 12:37 am

It was the government being helpful. Remember that story?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Marc
June 21, 2022 4:14 am

According to this, Presidential authority to waive Jones Act provisions was curtailed by a 2021 bill. Apparently President Trump was considering a long-term waiver in 2019 specifically for LNG tankers and that threatened some interest groups.

June 20, 2022 8:49 pm

Russia has no problem selling it gas. This happens everyday. Greek shippers are masters at off loading and changing flags and paperwork then charging more for the product as it changes hands. The gas still sings Mother Russia it just costs the consumer 2 or 3 times as much as it goes through many hands.

Reply to  Ktarpley
June 20, 2022 8:58 pm

The Greeks are also selling the Russian oil to India where it is refined and then shiped around the world as an Indian product. There are so many holes in the sanctions that every country in the world is receiving different kinds of hydrocarbons from Russia. When there is demand it is filled.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Ktarpley
June 20, 2022 9:24 pm
June 20, 2022 9:55 pm

Was there at the time. Data points for reference:
1) NG fired power plant built, Bellingham, MA. ~1995.
Franklin, MA next door was first choice, politically driven negotiations were in bad faith on the part of the town, making a deal impossible.
2) Second NG power plant is proposed, again Franklin selected. Again political bad faith negotiations fail. Bellingham offer to host second plant. Offer accepted.
2a) Franklin sues to recover taxes they would have received had they made a deal. Franklin gets laughed out of court. Judge says “Do not come back”.
3) A NG pipeline is spotted crossing the property of Hopkinton Sportsman’s Association. Inquiry reveals that the pipeline has been sitting there quietly minding it’s own business for as long as anybody remembers.
4) a coal fired electric generation plant to the SW of Boston is demolished. The plant was clearly visible from the Southwest Expressway {Southwest distressway} headed into Boston, in spite of it’s diminutive size. Without knowing, you would never guess what that tiny building was. No provision is made for replacing the electric power it produced.
5) The two iconic NG storage tanks SW of Boston are dismantled, along with the NG terminal which supplied them.
6a) A replacement terminal is proposed. Numerous sites proposals are made. All proposals are rejected.
6b) An alternate proposed site is made in Maine. Maine goes berserk, not willing to host an industrial complex MA is capable of hosting for itself.
6c) A site in Narraganset Bay RI is proposed. Also shot down by that state.
7) ~2012 A new pipeline is proposed for eastern MA. Protests are HUGE. Protest marches occur all along the proposed route. In Walpole, I see a protest march. I have an opportunity to engage with several of the marchers. Every person is singularly convinced that the state can do just fine without a new NG pipeline. Eventually the protests are successful. The pipeline is cancelled.
8) 2010 to present. The whole state of MA suffers near the top for both electric rates and NG rates. The supply of NG is chronically tight, with sometimes winters getting downright scary.
On a couple of occasions the state barely avoids rationing.
9) Protesters are convinced that it was nothing they did. Things like pipelines and import/storage facilities are simply not needed. Magic!
10) A ship from Russia shows up in Boston.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  TonyL
June 21, 2022 4:18 am

I especially like your point 2A. There must have been much snickering in legal circles.

Reply to  TonyL
June 21, 2022 3:06 pm

Instead of NG, order propane. Very low cost, easily available, delivery available online. See here.

Reply to  TonyL
June 21, 2022 5:56 pm

the very description of a cluster fluk…. unbelievable

June 21, 2022 1:31 am

Why ? For the same reason that those who tell you you should not drive your car or eat meat are flying around in their private jet and drink the best wine. 
It is all a big game where they win and we the little people lose. Do we really believe that these people think the climate has a problem? Do we really believe these people have nightmares because millions die in wars they provoke? Do we really think puppet politicians like Biden have any power ?
Remember we are just cannon fodder and guinea pigs in a make believe world.

Reply to  Andy May
June 21, 2022 5:59 am

Another question is, “Would Red China have already moved on Taiwan, if the Ukrainians weren’t kicking the schist out of the Russians?”


John Garrett
June 21, 2022 3:22 am

I well remember the occasion of that LNG tanker’s arrival at the Everett LNG terminal.

It was in the depth of an absolutely brutal New England winter cold snap and there were legitimate, widespread concerns about power outages in Boston and New England. There were media reports about the possibility of deaths due to a lack of energy for heating. That ship’s arrival was greeted by numerous sighs of relief.

There are commenters above who are demonstrating a serious loss of memory.

Reply to  John Garrett
June 21, 2022 5:56 am

Very true… But the bigger point is that the only reason Everett still imports LNG is the region’s resistance to pipeline construction, which would enable the reliable delivery of much less expensive natural gas from the Marcellus/Utica.

John Garrett
Reply to  David Middleton
June 21, 2022 8:10 am

Of course.

It’s idiotic to be importing LNG when the damn Marcellus/Utica is literally right next door.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  David Middleton
June 21, 2022 1:12 pm

Aside from the resistance / stupidity of the locals, I’m thinking it would also be a very expensive undertaking to cut a ditch through some pretty serious rock.

Bruce Cobb
June 21, 2022 4:55 am

Kinder Morgan did begin a pipeline project, called the Northeast Energy Direct project, but it was canceled in 2016. It appears to have been partly due to opposition from enviros, who teamed up with the anti-carbon mob, and according to company officials, an apparent lack of a big enough demand. My guess is that much of this “lack of demand” was due to the push for more “renewable energy” and anti-carbon sentiment. What a shame. Every winter, the grid in the entire region is at risk of failure if there is an extended or back-to-back cold snap. And yes, it has certainly caused electricity prices to spike.

Captain climate
June 21, 2022 5:36 am

Massachusetts is at the mercy of climate hysterics in our state and in every other state that a pipeline has to go through to bring Shale gas here. God forbid some podunk town in the Berkshires should have a pipeline going through it to cut the fuel bills in half for the poor. The Republicans need to campaign on defending the little guy: NIMBYism and environmental hysterics make the poor poorer, period. Embrace the working man’s job of providing for his family and point out how much higher his gas and electricity bill is because of climate hysteria and NIMBYism.

Reply to  Captain climate
June 21, 2022 2:56 pm

My natural gas bill in suburban Boston has jumped from an average of $160/mo to $265/mo just in the past six months. I would like Stokes and the other Green Weenies to tell me why that is a good thing, or what he proposes be done to bring it back down.

Also, he can ‘splain to me why very high priced electricity from wind and solar are viable alternative energy sources for the average family.

He might also tell us why Americans should NOT revolt at the ballot box this November over “green” policies that clearly have the effect of impoverishing them, and why the government is empowered to REDUCE our standard of living and at the same time “Provide for the General Welfare”.

Finally, why not tell us how “global warming” is reduced by shutting down American oil and gas production—leaving it in the ground, effectively—but asking the Saudis to bring theirs up to sell it to us.

Give it a shot, Nick!!

June 21, 2022 7:34 am

Somebody has to fuel the Obama Kerry estates.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
June 21, 2022 3:15 pm
June 21, 2022 11:34 am

When countries are openly passing laws to ban ICE cars by certain dates oil companies would be foolish to invest billions.

Reply to  Stevek
June 21, 2022 9:20 pm

Politicians believed that environmental concern on the part of voters would get them elected…and it often has…however when they see high gasoline and home heating costs are going to get them unelected, they will quietly turn to economics instead of ecomania…we’re just not quite there yet…

June 21, 2022 6:28 pm

From early 2018:

Russia campaigning against Hillary Clinton is like Br’er Rabbit begging not to be thrown in the briar patch. To believe Russia preferred Trump over Hillary, that his interests were more conflicted than hers, is incredulous. You have to throw out hundreds of years of history and everything we know about what Russia’s interests are and what we know about how they operate to believe this. Russia’s primary method of influence is class division and class warfare. After that, it’s romantic environmentalism and using that to prevent competition in the energy industry by constraining growth and productivity in foreign energy interests. This has been the case since before the Soviet Union existed. The government is primarily concerned with political power, military, and energy. Its economy is over 20% energy and over 50% of government revenue is from energy, largely oil and natural gas. The HC campaign pledged to stop fracing and curtail natural gas production. At the same time, she told voters she would aggressively push for a massive wind and solar power expansion which would in turn require massive amounts of natural gas to manage variability. Anti-fracking sentiment has already caused problems on the east coast. Despite a glut in natural gas supplies, they have not updated and expanded pipelines to make use of domestic supplies, resulting in actually importing gas from Russia despite sanctions last winter. Hillary basically had the perfect platform, had she been campaigning for US president in Russia.

Ty ty
June 22, 2022 11:51 pm

Why does wind blow?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights