SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
US Legislators: To Punish Putin, Frack More
Some legislators are pushing for LNG exports to weaken Russia's energy grip on Ukraine
Mar 06, 2014
As the crisis in Ukraine continues, some U.S. legislators have pushed for exporting the nation's natural gas to be used as a "weapon" or leverage point to weaken Russia and President Vladimir Putin's influence on the region.
Yet others charge that this is an idea "untethered from reality."
Ukraine is heavily dependent for natural gas on Russia's state-owned Gazprom, though it has cut off that supply at times, most recently in 2009, while the fracking boom has made the U.S. the biggest natural gas producer.
Some on The Hill are saying that the U.S. should send off all this fracked gas via liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to loosen Russia's grip, and that the Department of Energy should expedite approval of pending permits for LNG exports.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, said that exporting more natural gas could "strengthen our economy here and our security here and abroad," and that the "the only thing standing in the way are the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy."
"Expediting approval of natural gas exports is one clear step the U.S. can take to stand by our allies and stand up to Russian aggression, while creating American jobs at the same time," Boehner also said.
Democratic Colorado Sen. Mark Udall added, "The situation in Ukraine shows the urgent need for Colorado and the nation to export more natural gas," and urged quick approval of pending liquefied natural gas terminals, introducing legislation on Wednesday to make that happen.
Republican Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) introduced similar legislation on Wednesday as well.
But exporting LNG is expensive, and, as Politico reported:
Even if the pressure from Congress prods the Energy Department to move faster, the practical effect anytime soon would be nil. The U.S. has no currently operating plants that could ship liquefied natural gas overseas, and probably won't until late 2015 at the earliest. And Ukraine has no plants that could convert the liquid fuel back into gas for use in furnaces or power plants.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz stressed this point, telling Politico. "The fact is [that pouring U.S. gas into Europe] is just physically not going to happen."
On All In on Wednesday, Chris Hayes and his guests radio host Sam Seder and Dan Dicker, CEO of wealth management group MercBloc, take apart this push for LNG exports as means to neutralize Russian power over Ukraine as well. Aside from climate impacts from increased fracking, it is unrealistic, they say, to think that pushing for more LNG exports would have any effect on the current crisis at all:
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
As the crisis in Ukraine continues, some U.S. legislators have pushed for exporting the nation's natural gas to be used as a "weapon" or leverage point to weaken Russia and President Vladimir Putin's influence on the region.
Yet others charge that this is an idea "untethered from reality."
Ukraine is heavily dependent for natural gas on Russia's state-owned Gazprom, though it has cut off that supply at times, most recently in 2009, while the fracking boom has made the U.S. the biggest natural gas producer.
Some on The Hill are saying that the U.S. should send off all this fracked gas via liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to loosen Russia's grip, and that the Department of Energy should expedite approval of pending permits for LNG exports.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, said that exporting more natural gas could "strengthen our economy here and our security here and abroad," and that the "the only thing standing in the way are the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy."
"Expediting approval of natural gas exports is one clear step the U.S. can take to stand by our allies and stand up to Russian aggression, while creating American jobs at the same time," Boehner also said.
Democratic Colorado Sen. Mark Udall added, "The situation in Ukraine shows the urgent need for Colorado and the nation to export more natural gas," and urged quick approval of pending liquefied natural gas terminals, introducing legislation on Wednesday to make that happen.
Republican Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) introduced similar legislation on Wednesday as well.
But exporting LNG is expensive, and, as Politico reported:
Even if the pressure from Congress prods the Energy Department to move faster, the practical effect anytime soon would be nil. The U.S. has no currently operating plants that could ship liquefied natural gas overseas, and probably won't until late 2015 at the earliest. And Ukraine has no plants that could convert the liquid fuel back into gas for use in furnaces or power plants.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz stressed this point, telling Politico. "The fact is [that pouring U.S. gas into Europe] is just physically not going to happen."
On All In on Wednesday, Chris Hayes and his guests radio host Sam Seder and Dan Dicker, CEO of wealth management group MercBloc, take apart this push for LNG exports as means to neutralize Russian power over Ukraine as well. Aside from climate impacts from increased fracking, it is unrealistic, they say, to think that pushing for more LNG exports would have any effect on the current crisis at all:
_____________________
As the crisis in Ukraine continues, some U.S. legislators have pushed for exporting the nation's natural gas to be used as a "weapon" or leverage point to weaken Russia and President Vladimir Putin's influence on the region.
Yet others charge that this is an idea "untethered from reality."
Ukraine is heavily dependent for natural gas on Russia's state-owned Gazprom, though it has cut off that supply at times, most recently in 2009, while the fracking boom has made the U.S. the biggest natural gas producer.
Some on The Hill are saying that the U.S. should send off all this fracked gas via liquified natural gas (LNG) exports to loosen Russia's grip, and that the Department of Energy should expedite approval of pending permits for LNG exports.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, said that exporting more natural gas could "strengthen our economy here and our security here and abroad," and that the "the only thing standing in the way are the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy."
"Expediting approval of natural gas exports is one clear step the U.S. can take to stand by our allies and stand up to Russian aggression, while creating American jobs at the same time," Boehner also said.
Democratic Colorado Sen. Mark Udall added, "The situation in Ukraine shows the urgent need for Colorado and the nation to export more natural gas," and urged quick approval of pending liquefied natural gas terminals, introducing legislation on Wednesday to make that happen.
Republican Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) introduced similar legislation on Wednesday as well.
But exporting LNG is expensive, and, as Politico reported:
Even if the pressure from Congress prods the Energy Department to move faster, the practical effect anytime soon would be nil. The U.S. has no currently operating plants that could ship liquefied natural gas overseas, and probably won't until late 2015 at the earliest. And Ukraine has no plants that could convert the liquid fuel back into gas for use in furnaces or power plants.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz stressed this point, telling Politico. "The fact is [that pouring U.S. gas into Europe] is just physically not going to happen."
On All In on Wednesday, Chris Hayes and his guests radio host Sam Seder and Dan Dicker, CEO of wealth management group MercBloc, take apart this push for LNG exports as means to neutralize Russian power over Ukraine as well. Aside from climate impacts from increased fracking, it is unrealistic, they say, to think that pushing for more LNG exports would have any effect on the current crisis at all:
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.