Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter
The Department of Energy (DOE) touted a report on Wednesday which states that America broke records in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.
The U.S. became the first country to export over 10 million metric tonnes of LNG in one month in October, Reuters reported on Monday, citing preliminary data from the financial firm LSEG. The DOE posted on X on Wednesday that “there are big opportunities ahead for U.S. natural gas” and has consistently championed LNG in a sharp departure from former President Joe Biden’s crackdown on the resource.
“The fact that America’s oil and gas industry was able to pass this stunning milestone is impressive considering all the roadblocks to progress which were thrown up by the Biden administration,” David Blackmon, an energy and policy writer who spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It is a testament to both the resilience and innovative mindset of the industry and to the phenomenal wealth of America’s natural gas resource.” (RELATED: Trump Admin Barreling Forward With Oil And Gas Permits Through Government Shut Down)
🗣️RECORD BREAKING: For the first time, U.S. LNG exports are projected to surpass 10 million metric tons in a single month. There are big opportunities ahead for U.S. natural gas!
— U.S. Department of Energy (@ENERGY) November 5, 2025
Two facilities in Louisiana and Texas are responsible for the LNG export surge, according to Reuters. The U.S. LNG industry emerged as an energy sector giant in recent decades, with America now leading the world in LNG exports after being projected to be a net importer as late as 2010, according to S&P Global.
The Biden administration enacted a freeze on new LNG export permits and “intentionally buried a lot of data and released a skewed study to discredit the benefits of American LNG,” the DCNF previously reported. The environmental lobby applauded Biden’s January 2024 freeze on new LNG export terminals, though critics argued that the policy stalled investment, would not reduce emissions and undermined America’s global strategic interests.
In contrast, President Donald Trump sought opportunities to bolster LNG and reversed the new permit pause through a day-one executive order. Some energy policy experts told the DCNF that the reported milestone highlights the resiliency of the industry and the benefit of Trump’s “American energy dominance” agenda.
“By expediting LNG terminal expansion and signing off on export agreements, the Trump administration is rapidly powering the world while simultaneously keeping his commitment for U.S. energy dominance,” Sterling Burnett, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute, told the DCNF. “The world wants U.S. gas, and under Trump they are getting it, in the process showing the world what a market economy can do when unfettered by unnecessary, duplicative, regulations that stifle growth.”
“The only thing that has held the U.S. economy and our energy independence and dominance back over the decades is Democratic administration’s pushing inane, futile, climate policies, restricting fossil fuel use,” Burnett continued. “New LNG export data shows those days are over and what America can accomplish for itself and the world, when a President puts America first.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
“By expediting LNG terminal expansion and signing off on export agreements, the Trump administration is rapidly powering the world”
Very noble. Here goes the US residential gas price:
Somebody will make money from it.
Nick, there is a maxim that people who work in productive enterprises live by –
“nothing successful happens unless someone makes a profitable sale”.
The free world thrives only when free-will market transactions are encouraged and well patronized.
Sorry but we don’t live in the ‘free market’ world. That is just a smokescreen to hide the contours of the corporate raider maffia class. You know, the ones you saw at the inauguration..
You can’t have a free market with so much lobbyism,
as lobbyism is eventually about manipulating the market in your favor.
The massive manipulation in precious metals,
the fact that Opec even exists,subsidies,QE,
the plunge protection team show how free the market is.
The only real free market left is to buy as many politicans as you can afford.
And how free is a market with sanctions everywhere and sabotaging piplines and refineries – and this drives prices up.
Indeed.
Sanctions and damaged pipelines have NOT raised prices. Currently, gasoline in America is cheaper than in the past several years. Saudi Arabia and other nations are pumping oil as fast as possible. Trump just promised to sell Saudi Arabia hundreds of F35 fighters and other military. Good for American military industries and we’ll have plenty of oil on the world market.
I agree that we don’t live in a free market world, it’s because the dead hand of government has been inserted into every transaction.
..
.
This corporate mafia class exists only in the fevered imaginations of those who actually think that government cares for them and is better at running the lives of the masses.
There is nothing a socialist hates more than someone who has been successful.
Those super rich- all have lots of people working for them and most are very well paid. The smart thing for the critics of the super rich is to get hired by them! 🙂
👍
IMO it’s the government raider class (UN, WEF, EU, globalists et al) who pose the biggest threats to humanity.
Bot
This is a commodity with too many players to count, involved in supply and demand decisions that affect prices. If you believe that only a few players are acting like the mafia with respect to oil and gas you are incredibly naive.
A free market is where a willing buyer transacts with a willing seller for goods or services the buyer consciously needs / wants, at acceptable pricing, and the seller readily provides at terms & pricing adequate for their sought profit.
If either party is being pressured, cajoled or forced by 3rd party intervenors, it’s not a “free-will market” as I alluded to.
For Nick and many others- profit is a dirty word.
Also remember president JFK’s commitment that “we choose to go to the Moon” etc would not have happened if the numerous space tech and components suppliers weren’t able to financially sustain their enterprises (I.e. – “make some money” as you so naively put it).
This is not a moon shot.
It is the diversion of US gas from locals to Europe etc.
Actually, no. It is increased production and selling surplus to the world.
It is not a simple control knob type of cause and effect.
Avoid the complexities if that make you sleep better.
The oil/gas companies paid to find and develop those resources. They belong to the oil companies. Why shouldn’t they sell them to whomever is willing to pay the most?
By your logic, nothing could be made or sold without getting the permission of government first.
America has a huge balance of trade deficit. We must sell whatever to whoever, other than Russia.
We are covering the balance of trade by selling government bonds.
When we buy more than we sell, a supply of US dollars builds up overseas. As this supply of dollars gets larger, the value of dollars goes down. This causes foreigners to demand more dollars before they sell to us. Balance of trade issues are self correcting.
The US has solved this problem by running a deficit in Congress. Instead of buying US goods, foreigners buy US debt.
Basically, the US trade deficit is caused by the US budget deficit. The first will not be solved until after the second is solved.
You are looking at just a small section of the supply/demand curve. Kinda like what doomists are doing with temperature.
Higher prices eventually mean increased supply. Increased supply lowers prices due to competition.
You sound like a politician looking for campaign issues in an election a few months away.
In many blue states- such as NY and MA, the far left governments are preventing expansion of local gas supplies. It has nothing to do with exports.
Hi Nick.
Were you still at the CSIRO when that new CEO was appointed and proceeded to insist that the organization had to start selling some profitable shit to start paying its own way?
And the inmates there
went full pearls-clutching and needed smelling salts at the very idea?
(Now that I think about it, maybe the contemporary CSIRO should go into the smelling salts business, and make a motza, mostly off sales to their own supporters, just like the Chinese do with their solar panels?)
No it’s not. You and all lefties think that for one to succeed another must fail. What a gloomy world you live in.
Red herring much? Nobody said anything about “noble”. The way the despicable Climate Crusade has denigrated and sandbagged fossil fuels at every turn makes this turnaround all the more impressive. Indeed, fossil fuels, which provide nothing but a huge benefit to all mankind could be called “the comeback kid”.
Besides that, selling stuff is how the US earns the money needed to pay for all of our imports.
Beyond that, I find it funny how the guy who wants the sale of natural gas to be banned altogether, is complaining about the price of natural gas.
Mr. W: His tender concern for US consumers paying more for NG is touching. He assumes his CliSci friends would run things better, with more nobility. Just like Australia.
So, would the effect of the recent increases in output have an immediate effect? I think not. I think you have merely highlighted the increase in price that Biden created.
Nice try, though. Better than your usual misdirection.
In fact, Nick could do everyone a favor by inserting a little arrow signifying when the Inflation Reduction Act passed. It was August, 2022 when our noble democrats reduced inflation by increasing inflation.
reduced inflation by increasing inflation.
Newspeak 101
Nick, where do you get your free lunches from?
I think we should be told your secret….
Looks like the price of natural gas responds to inflation like everything else. I like the superior performance and affordability of my natural gas powered furnace, water heater and range.
One of my previous homes had a gas furnace. Never had to clean it- like my oil furnace which I have cleaned and tuned up every year, and getting service is not cheap either. Unfortunately, I don’t live where I can get that fine street gas.
Mine has a sealed combustion chamber with forced air and electronic ignition. Every few years I clean out the blower. Then there is a filter in the duct system (common with AC) that needs regular replacement.
The graph shows two increases. The first occurred under Obama and the second under Biden. Trump’s energy policies are sure to bring the price down again, but it will take time. The mad, destructive energy policies of Obama and Biden will take time to undo.
Remember: before being elected Obama said something like:”Under my policies the cost of energy will necessarily sky-rocket”. What could be clearer?
“The first occurred under Obama and the second under Biden.”
Really?
The increase “under Biden” was the growing effect of the LNG export facility.
Right. Ok, so where is the decline when Biden restricted exports?
LNG was in the works well before Biden. Marcellus shale play led to this. This was always the plan. GTL in the U.S. and LNG in Europe. Prices in Europe supported this investment.
Nick,
You’re right, the first increase happened under Bush. But my point was that it will take time before Trump’s policies will bear fruit.
Mr. Stokes: The graph you post is a work of fiction, as is your habit. I don’t need to research my memory to recall the price of NG dropped from about 10 units to about 2, a 75-80% drop, during the Bush years into Obama’s first two years, sparing the US from Obama’s intended skyrocket for electricity. My NG and elec bills dropped, yet your chart shows the price staying over ten, rising to twenty before a price drop Obama tried to prevent. Fictional source for numbers, again.
The graph from the eia that Nick provided is for dollars per 1000 cu ft delivered to US Residential Consumers. I live in northern Michigan and my natural gas is delivered by DTE. All residential NG pricing is regulated in Michigan. I pay around $1 per 100 cu ft (actual total amount, NG, delivery, taxes, fees, etc)…which would be $10 per 1000 cu ft. This price includes the price of NG AND the delivery charges. I checked the EIA sources for NG prices in Michigan. The EIA uses information from EIA Form 910 :”The survey collects monthly price and volume data on natural gas sold by all marketers in the selected states”.(including Michigan). I looked at 910 to see what DTE would be expected to report: Monthly sales volume of NG and Monthtly gross revenues from the sales of that NG, which does NOT include delivery. The actual price of NG is about $0.40 per 100 cuft…or $4 per 1000 cuft…a very, very long way from the average us price of around $25 per 1000 cuft. Here is a graph of the actual price of NG charged by DTE for the past year:
https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mpsc/consumer/nat-gas/comparemigas/DTE_Historical_Chart.pdf
Note that the price has been basically flat for the past year. Something is not right. The EIA data would suggest that the average NG price has sharply increased in the past year…yet actual data from Michigan shows a flat price. I am trying to figure out the huge descrepancy. Any WUWT commenters have any insight into this issue? Its one thing to debate energy policy…but if the underlying data is not accurate…then the debate is mute.
According to UK energy company CEO’s…
“energy bosses warned that net zero levies were becoming so expensive that they threatened to push household bills higher, even if gas and power prices fell dramatically. – Telegraph
So did Trump introduce a big Net Zero levy?
According to UK energy company CEO’s…
Just like the Antarctic doesn’t get Hurricanes, Nick….
“I am trying to figure out the huge descrepancy.”
It’s right there in the writing on the graph:
“These rates are regulated…”
That causes a delay.
You failed to address such a delay in your original post.
“That causes a delay”…not sure what that means. The price I pay for NG has been pretty stable for at least two years. I also checked Consumers NG prices…pretty flat. Between the two companies, thats perhaps most of the NG bought by consumers. The information provided by the EIA doesnt add up. The form used by the companies to report to the EIA requires them to report total NG volume sold, and the gross revenue generated from that. The graph I presented is the actual price I pay per the Michigan Public Service Commission. I am simply pointing out a large descrepancy between what the EIA is reporting and what I am actually paying. Until that is resolved, there is no point in debating NG prices….
So the “That causes a delay” doesnt add up…form 910 is a real time price/volume report, so it would reflect they actual revenue for the NG, which is set by the MPSC. When you look at the EIA data just for Michigan, is reflects the sharp rise from your original graph. Something is not right, the actual price paid by most consumers in Michigan over the past 2 years is pretty flat..and certainly no where near the $25/30 /1000 cuft reported by the EIA, which doesnt include delivery. In Michigan, I pay about $0.40 /100 cuft just for the gas, then about $0.60 /100 cuft for delivery, taxes, fees, etc. By the EIA data, it would infer that I pay over $2/100 cuft just for the gas. I dont pretend to know what the issue is…I am simply pointing out that the data doesnt match.
See this graph…it is the “citygate” price of NG from 1973 to 2025…it is pretty flat…and is much more reflective of the trend of what I actually pay…it hovers around $0.40 /100 cuft. I think the EIA consumer gas price is just wrong, not sure why, but all the other NG prices, citygate, idustrial, commercial, etc all reflect a pretty benign trend in NG prices…certainly nothing like the EIA consumer gas price chart…So, no Nick, after looking at all of the NG data, I don’t see any big jump due to exports. EIA just has a reporting problem as far as I can tell. But, that’s why I am asking folks at WUWT….what the heck is with the EIA graph?
Oh dear. What a tangled web you do weave, Nick! First you claim an immediate effect of Trump’s policies are causing an increase, and then you claim that regulation of rates causes a delay.
Oooops! As I said before, nice try compared to your usual misdirection, but it’s not washing.
The profit rates are regulated.
The current market cost of gas is passed straight through to consumers.
Northern Michigan might be anomaly. The Michigan Basin is rich in NG yet I am not certain if the infrastructure exists to move it outside of Michigan so international pricing may not have the effect it does on Marcellus, which has considerable infrastructure built for the sole purpose of exporting, primarily to Europe. I know the engineer that built the Saginaw Bay line back in the very early ‘90s but I don’t recall if it provided much access to places outside of the Midwest. Also, shale gas requires considerable activity to keep the pressure up. I don’t believe that’s the case with the Michigan Basin so you won’t have the supply swings you do with shale due to the rapid pressure loss.
In spite of folks making money off the price of Natural Gas, in Colorado, I still pas less than you do for electricity and heating.
Guess I’m fine with folks providing a service and getting paid for it.
Supply and demand.
Winter versus summer.
And there we have it. The biggest sin is the fact that somebody is going to make money off of these exports.
Not quite. The biggest sin is the “wrong” people are going to make money.
The minimum price increased from about $4 to about $12 from 1980 to 2025, a factor of 3. Inflation during that time increased by just under a factor of 3, consistent with the minimum price increase of gas during that time. Why did the price start to fluctuate strongly about 2009 when Obama took office, held steady (as did the fluctuations) during President Trump’s first term, and made a big step up when Biden took office. It seems from thinking a bit about the chart you show, that the price of gas has little or nothing to do with export policies of different administrations. Your a smart guy Nick, so think about the data a bit more and explain why the strong fluctuations and the high prices began at the beginning of the Obama administration.
I think these swings are the result of the nature of fracking. Always in the well due to rapid pressure loss. This has to create supply swings greater than you would see with conventional methods. With shale gas taking a larger share of the mix since about 2000-2004 it should create the swings you’re seeing. Maybe…
Supply and demand! It’s what makes the world go around.
You need to explain how supply control decreases price in the long run.
The same people who’ll have to pay more for their LNG- also love to purchase products that are imported. One way or the other, America needs to balance its trade- or at least improve on the balance. So, America should export whatever it can- and it now has an abundance of gas.
Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It took a year for Joe to get the price to spike. Thanks for pointing this out. 🙂
So the way forward for the USA is to stop all exports of all goods and services so that prices come down at home. Yes, that should work.
So US producers should not be allowed to export in order to reduce domestic consumer prices? Great, but reduction of global supply availability will increase prices and profits for other suppliers like Russia and OPEC. That will also make gas even more expensive for those countries that lack domestic supply or foolishly refuse to develop their own resources. NG is a globally traded commodity and the prices are set mostly by supply and demand. That’s why your chart shows such a consistent swing in price between summer and winter in the Northern hemisphere. But governments can’t resist regulating and taxing that distorts the market. In addition the retail price includes a number of charges and fees added on the the wholesale price to cover distribution costs equipment and, of course, utility profit.
If you don’t chase the best price you can get then investment stops and production slows, which increases prices here in the near future. This is particularly important in the Marcellus shale play where much of the LNG is coming from.
Fracking is a busy activity. This adds to employment and profit increases tax revenues. NY would be wise to tap into this shale formation as well and ditch their silliness around fracking. Marcellus in NY is just as rich as PA and OH.
Besides, wind is so cheap now it will lower your utility bills soon…maybe…sometime in the near future…or the future…or 500 years from now when oil and gas run out…maybe….
Somebody will make money from it.
Hey Nick,
You get a paycheck, right? So you are making money from whatever your company does.
Just keep on closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears Nick as your lithium battery fix for your fickles fantasy gets up close and personal-
Screams, smoke: Man catches fire, forcing Qantas business lounge evacuation
The brains trust don’t want to set Standards/import restrictions for your pals at China Inc with the little batteries because it draws attention to their much larger problem with the biguns. No matter the insurance underwriters will sort it out with their terms conditions and specific cover and exclusions so pay close attention in future to your insurance PDS Nick.
Better the punters catch fire in the terminal than the overhead lockers in flight you reckon?
Nah it’s all about them thar dangerous ‘modifiers’ so as you were folks-
E-bike ban on NSW trains and Metro takes effect tomorrow | Transport for NSW
“your lithium battery fix for your fickles fantasy”
It’s actually about someone charging his phone.
Record-Shattering Energy Report Despite Biden-Era Crackdown
Which is in sharp contrast to the narrative. Christina Figueres was on the radio – BBC R4, naturally – claiming CO2 emissions were plateauing out. Did the natural world get the memo? And there was no challenge at all to the statement. It was accepted as gospel. So, what’s on at the CoP?
“Figueres and many of more than three dozen experts interviewed by The Associated Press said negotiators have already pinned down the goal. What’s needed now is more money “ – AP News
And to back it up Ms Otto, her trusty crew and the results of their attribution magic have been splashed across all the media. Hurricanes that go up to 11…
‘New reality’: Hurricane Melissa strength multiplied by climate crisis, study says
Every aspect of Hurricane Melissa, the most powerful storm ever to hit Jamaica, was worsened by the climate crisis, a team of scientists has found.
…
Climate change increased Melissa’s maximum wind speeds by 7% and extreme rainfall by 16%, the team at World Weather Attribution, a consortium of 20 researchers from the US, UK, Sweden, Dominican Republic, Netherlands, Jamaica and Cuba, found.
…
“What we see with Hurricane Melissa and other recent monster storms is that they are becoming so intense that they will soon push millions of people beyond the limits of adaptation,” said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London and one of the authors of the study.
“Unless we stop burning coal, oil and gas, we will see more and more countries reaching these limits.” – The Guardian (and many others).
Import volume of liquefied natural gas to the United Kingdom 2024
#1. US – 75,701 Gigawatt hours.
#2. Qatar 8,580 Gigawatt hours.
#3. Trinidad and Tobago 7,356 Gigawatt hours. – Statista
We are going to need a lot more where that came from – and our lot much prefer other people to get their hands dirty. Helps with the virtue signalling, you see.
Well, naturally the goal was always more money. Now that they’ve pinned down the goal, they just have to try and reach it!
And my government will be only too happy to chip in.
How can emissions be plateauing, when the consumption of oil, gas and coal are all still increasing? Not that this increase is a bad thing.
She didn’t say.
The ‘only’ thing? Is that what caused the humungous debt and corporate mafia structure? And labor moving to Asia?
Your mind must be totally corrupted if you think that ending the Green Agenda will mean wonderful american progress. It is as daft as the Green ideology.
But hey, that is what Trump promised, right? And people believe(d) him.
The Populist Delusion.
And before you jam the keyboard: i am fully on board w Trump’s anti Green Agenda measures.
“mind must be totally corrupted”
We need a name for this utter lunacy: EMS – Ed Miliband Syndrome or just Miliband Syndrome
A condition/affliction whereby the sufferer wholly believes in the green utopian dream and that it is worth any cost or detriment to society in order to achieve it.
Surge in rooftop blazes sparks concern over Miliband’s solar panel boom
Fires have risen at a faster pace than installations, analysis finds – Telegraph
Appears to be a contemporary example of something that is “safe and effective.”
And, er, does not pollute…
“Mostly safe…”
Who dumped salt in your Cheerios? Geez. Maybe not “the only thing”, but surely a huge part of it. Rhetorical license.
Sorry but no, ‘rhetorical license’ are nice words but is a salespitch for ‘anything goes’.
Well, not for me.
I see you disfavor the simple “control knob” conjecture applied to just about everything.
Most people do not wish to deal with nuanced complexities.
The progress comes in steps. First stem the hemorrhaging, then apply the bandage, then perform reparative surgery.
I believe you missed madmally’s point. In his view, stopping the green agenda will make no difference. Not so long as most of America remains committed to capitalism. Only when we all adopt socialism and live our lives according to the diktats of the socialists, can true freedom and happiness be achieved.
I was trying to be nice.
It seemed the thing to do at the time.
Obviously it had no effect and I wasted my electrons.
That is a nice trajectory but only if other things support its path.
The way i see it, and i think America First as well is: A: take care of your own energy supply and work together w affiliates to open trade. B: Stop spending money on trying to police the world. C: stop aggravating other Big Power Players and trying to strongarm them in compliance. D: stop terrorist activities or support for parties involved. Have your own sphere of influence and respect others ( basically the UN Charter, as pointed out by Russia and China).
NONE of that has ever happened.
That is why Trump is a prime example of the Populist Delusion. Snakeoil salesman.
The US geopolitical Agenda continues.
So much for giving a mote or credibility.
He’s as impervious to any fact that doesn’t fit into his preferred narrative as any warmunist.
First snake oil salesman ever to end eight wars in 10 months. As it turns out a LOT of countries want to do business in the USA.
In the world of the rabid socialist there is no evil greater than someone else making money.
And of course, every evil in the world is caused by American capitalists.
Off topic – Yet more trouble with Auntie… What isn’t mis/disinformation?
…
The fact-checking ‘specialists’ at BBC Verify were forced to delete a “thoroughly wrong” article accusing car insurance companies of racism.
…
Michael Prescott, former independent adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board, wrote in his internal memo:
Prescott found the story “so unlikely” he demanded an internal review, which exposed “multiple serious editorial problems“. When the BBC top brass were informed of all this, only the direct references to a phantom “ethnic penalty” were cut. Eventually, it was determined the whole article was so bogus it was quietly removed. No one was disciplined.
This is the handy work of a team which, when not ‘fact checking’ the existence of dancers in bikinis, is busy congratulating itself on social media for exposing fake news and preaching about how “the truth matters”… Guido Fawkes
Amazingly the BBC is ignoring it all: pre election Trump-edits, the Arabic service, the LGBTQ etc desk and of course the climate, although climate hasn’t yet hit the headlines like the other biases have.
There is no change in the rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide accumulation. The Keeling curve has shown a slight steepening in recent decades which might be human produced. COVID deindustrialisation not a peep. Huge CO2 efflux in WW2, burning cities, vast industry worldwide followed by 30 years of cooling to the Great Ice Scare. Eh? Eh? So what are COPs for?
The world might want US LNG but only when other sources are blocked. And the US, including Trump tries (and succeeds) to block any alternative source standing in the way and make others depend on them.
Blowing up pipelines, putting up sanctions, strongarming ( and attacking) countries.
The US is the world’s enemy. The major terrorist state.
Let’s face it: a lot of americans,( including some on this platform) seem fine with that. They call it:’ defending Democracy’..
The Hegemon Monster…but it is dying.
Don’t sugar coat it like that.
Tell us how you really FEEL.
There is no evidence that the US blew up any pipelines. Russia had as much reason to blow up the pipeline as did the US. Probably more, since the pipeline wasn’t in use and there was no chance that it would be put into us for years, if not decades.
These would be the sanctions that Russia largely ignored?
Yea we get it, the only reason why any country would ever do the same thing as the US is because they are being strong armed. The idea that they may come to the same conclusion as to what there interests are as does the US, is never permitted to cross your mind.
As to your termination rant, it fits. Your hatred of the US is so intense that you can’t even permit yourself to entertain the notion that other people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. No, the only possible explanation is that everyone who disagrees with you is evil.
The pipelines were not blown up. A hole was blown into one section of the pipeline. Patch the hole, pump out the water, and the pipeline is back in service.
The usual suspects try to make the damage seem much greater than it actually is.
On the other hand, Russia has gotten millions in propaganda value as the usual US haters immediately assumed that the US must of been responsible and promptly ramped up their hate.
Ok Hamas
More good news.
It is not in the interest of the USA to pander to the EU senseless energy policy. Freezing a season or two will change the governments responsible for moronic energy policy.