Uhoh:Californiasolarplantfriesthousandsof

Uh oh: California solar plant fries thousands of birds in mid-flight

posted at 10:01 pm on August 18, 2014 by Mary Katharine Ham

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Oh, dear. They even have a name for them:

Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streamers,” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair.

Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one “streamer” every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator’s application to build a still-bigger version.

The investigators want the halt until the full extent of the deaths can be assessed. Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group.

Trade-offs, people. Always trade-offs.

Jon Gabriel on the history of this plant with environmentalists and regulators:

The facility has concerned environmentalists in the past, as its construction bladed over 3,500 acres of virgin desert. Being California, the state government required BrightSource to relocate a bunch of desert gopher tortoises to the tune of $22 million. The installation also endangers pilots flying the busy Los Angeles–Las Vegas corridor; they can be dazzled by the intense light.

It remains to be seen if regulators will stop the plant’s operation, but at least the world’s largest bug zapper should educate environmentalists and green energy boosters.

For too long, the public has been told that energy production is less a matter of physics than one of morality. Renewable energy like solar and wind are sold as “good” while reliable energy sources like oil and coal are “evil.” Methods like hydroelectric, nuclear and natural gas all were initially sold as clean and green, but became demonized the instant they turned a profit or revealed unintended consequences.

Between this and slaying bald eagles with impunity, green energy is literally killin’ it lately.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: bald eagle, bird deaths, green energy, natural gas, oil, solar, wind

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

IsMoscow“secretlyworkingwithenvironmentaliststooppose

Is Moscow “secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking” in Europe?

posted at 1:21 pm on June 23, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

That’s what the chief of NATO suggested at a conference last week, and frankly, I wouldn’t put it past the Kremlin. Via the Guardian:

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), and former premier of Denmark, told the Chatham House thinktank in London on Thursday that Vladimir Putin’s government was behind attempts to discredit fracking, according to reports.

Rasmussen said: “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

He declined to give details of those operations, saying: “That is my interpretation.” …

A Nato official told the Guardian that Russia’s influence on energy supplies was causing problems for Europe. The official said: “We don’t go into the details of discussions among allied leaders, but Russia has been using a mix of hard and soft power in its attempt to recreate a sphere of influence, including through a campaign of disinformation on many issues, including energy. …”

I doubt many of these groups of usefully idiotic eco-crusaders really need any outside prodding to fuel their campaign to thwart Europe’s exploration and fracking of its own potential shale deposits (and, incidentally, Europe’s best practical hope for cleaner-burning emissions at the moment as well as economic growth, good grief), but Russia most definitely does not want that fracking to happen. Russia’s revenue and economy are largely dependent on energy exports, and because Putin’s government wants to keep the Europeans dependent on their gas shipments, Russian officials have been publicly critical of fracking — even as they themselves try to entice Western companies to share their fracking know-how to further unlock more of Russia’s reserves. As Keith Johnson at Foreign Policy notes, you expect the usual environmentalist opposition in places like Britain and Germany, but in other areas in Europe, the sudden rise of outright opposition is  a little more oddly conspicuous:

“It’s very concrete; it relates to both opposition to shale and also trying to block any alternative pipelines with environmental challenges,” said Brenda Shaffer, an energy expert at Georgetown University.

“There is a lot of evidence here; countries like Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine being at the vanguard of the environmental movement is enough for it to be conspicuous,” she said.

Bulgaria’s anti-shale movement is particularly telling. The country initially embraced fracking as a way to develop its own energy resources and reduce reliance on Russia, even signing an exploration deal with Chevron in 2011. But then came an eruption of seemingly grassroots environmental protests and a televised blitz against fracking. In early 2012, the government reversed course and banned the practice.

Researchers who’ve worked on the ground in Central and Eastern Europe say there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, if no smoking guns, of Russian financial support for some environmental groups that have recently mobilized opposition to shale gas development.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: environmentalism, Europe, fracking, NATO, natural gas, Russia

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

RussiajustcutoffUkraine’snaturalgassupplies

Russia just cut off Ukraine’s natural gas supplies

posted at 6:41 pm on June 17, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Even amid the escalating tension, officials from Russia, Ukraine, and the European Union were all huddled together as of Sunday evening still trying to work out some kind of last-minute deal to dissuade Russia from cutting off Ukraine’s gas supplies for the third time since 2006 — but nothing doing. As Keith Johnson at Foreign Policy reported:

Monday morning, Gazprom, the big Russian gas firm, said it halted gas flows to Ukraine and that it won’t ship any more until Kiev pays its hefty arrears and then prepays thereafter.

Gazprom said that Ukraine was guilty of “persistent nonpayment,” and said Kiev owes it about $4.5 billion. Russian officials said they would only be willing to go back to negotiations if Ukraine settles its outstanding debt. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev blamed Ukraine for the crisis after it rejected “very beneficial, very preferential proposals” from Gazprom.

Ukrainian leaders sounded a defiant note after the shut-off, saying the energy fight was part of a broader offensive by Moscow against the beleaguered country.

“This is not about gas. This is part of the general plan of Russia to destroy Ukraine,” said Arseniy Yatseniuk, Ukraine’s prime minister, according to the Financial Times. “Ukrainians will not pull $5 billion out of their pockets a year so that Russia can use this money to buy arms, tanks and planes and bomb Ukrainian territory.”

Ukraine can live off of its stored gas supplies for now, particularly as the northern hemisphere enters the summer months, but if this keeps up through next winter, Ukraine could be in big trouble. In the meantime, Russian gas shipments to Europe — which make up thirty percent of Europe’s total gas supplies, half of which are shipped via pipeline through Ukraine — are supposed to continue uninterrupted, but again, if push comes to shove, there may come a point when Ukraine starts siphoning off some of those pipeline shipments for its own use.

During a cutoff in Ukraine’s gas supply in 2009, exports to Europe also took a hit, with Gazprom saying that Ukraine had siphoned off deliveries destined for the EU. It then decided to halt all supplies through Ukraine.

This time, Ukrainian officials said they had adequate inventories and other supply sources to meet domestic needs at least until the end of the year.

“The Ukrainian side has prepared for this eventuality and we are ensuring reliable transit as well as supplies to domestic consumers,” Yuri Prodan, Ukraine’s energy minister, said, according to the Interfax news agency.

The EU urged Kiev not to deplete its natural-gas storage facilities, worried that both Ukraine and Europe could otherwise face shortages. The 28-country bloc relies on Gazprom for over a third of its gas imports, with some countries 100% dependent on Russian gas.

Still, Russia has a lot to lose by barging intransigently ahead, too; even if Russia can follow through with its threat to bring alternate non-Ukrainian pipeline routes online, this is an excellent reminder for European Union members of how unreliable a partner Russia is and will only reinforce their current push to look for more diversified energy sources to cut down on their Russian energy dependency — an eventual fate of which Russia is not at all a fan. Even with the new energy deal Russia just inked with China, Europe is still a major energy market that Russia and its energy-export-reliant economy cannot afford to lose.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: energy, European Union, fracking, natural gas, Russia, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

The United States produced enough energy to suppy 84 percent of its needs in 2013

TheUnitedStatesproducedenoughenergytosuppy

IsGermanyfinallyreadytokeepthegreen

Is Germany finally ready to keep the green dream alive by fracking?

posted at 8:01 pm on June 5, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Germany’s once promising Energiewende ambitions, which included virtually ridding the country of nuclear power while heavily subsidizing wind and solar with the eventual goal of transitioning electricity production to 60 percent renewables by 2050, hasn’t worked out too well. The country’s rising energy prices have hurt consumers and ruined their manufacturing competitiveness, while the costliness and unreliability of wind and solar has prompted energy producers to turn back to the coal-powered plants in droves — resulting in a net increase in carbon emissions.

Germany has already started to back down from the ideological precipice onto which it hoisted itself in all of its noble eagerness to serve as the world’s environmentalist pioneer in energy-sector central planning, and in perhaps an even bigger acknowledgement that it’s time to step away from that ledge, Angela Merkel’s government looks like it’s finally ready to give shale drilling its due. Via the Financial Times:

Germany is set to lift its ban on fracking as early as next year, after caving in to business demands that it should reduce its dependency on Russian energy and boost competitiveness with US manufacturers.

Applications to carry out the controversial process for extracting the country’s estimated 2.3tn cubic metres shale gas reserves will be subject to an environmental impact assessment under new legislation to be discussed by the cabinet before the summer recess. …

Details of the new regulations emerged in a letter from Sigmar Gabriel, German economy minister, to the head of the Bundestag’s budget committee. In the letter, Mr Gabriel wrote that permission to carry out fracking would be subject to approval from regional water authorities and that “further requirements for the fracking permit process are still being considered”. …

Germany’s estimated reserves of shale gas are significantly smaller than those of Poland and France, which have the biggest recoverable reserves in Europe. However, German shale gas, which is concentrated in its northern states, still has the potential to provide a long-term domestic supply.

Bowing to environmentalist demands, Germany has had an unofficial moratorium on fracking, a.k.a. the innovative technologies that have unlocked the United States’ shale reserves, for the past couple of years. The resulting upswing in cleaner-burning natural gas here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. has provided an incredible boom to our economy while reducing our carbon emissions at the same time — and with Russia having lately exploded Europe’s concept of energy security, it looks like Germany is finally ready to get on board.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: coal, emissions, fracking, Germany, green energy, natural gas, shale

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Europe:Sorrywerejectedyou,Canada;wereally

Europe: Sorry we rejected you, Canada; we really want your oil sands after all

posted at 4:41 pm on June 5, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

One of the reasons eco-radicals harbor such strong distaste for the Keystone XL pipeline is because they believe that Canada should quixotically eschew the economic opportunities in their oil sands and instead leave those natural resources in the ground. Their quest to kill the pipeline has therefore always been epically illogical, since Canada will and has found a way to get their oil to market, either to our Gulf refineries via rail transport or else by building their own domestic pipelines out to the coasts for shipment by sea.

These Keystone XL-hatin’ eco-radicals almost had a helpful partner in the European Union, which — heeding the complaint that oil sands are somewhat more carbon-intensive than conventional crude — was all ready with legislation meant to encourage the use of cleaner transport fuels by slapping heavy and deliberately discriminatory penalties on imports of Canada’s oil sands. Canada was all ready to get to work and trade with Asian countries anyway, but all the better if they can open up the European market, too — and Europe’s newfound skittishness about energy security and eagerness to reduce dependence on Russia has the bloc looking to diversify its supplies.

I mentioned last month that the EU was rethinking its high-minded pooh-poohing of the oil sands, and it looks like Canada may actually get its wish in the form of a major reversal on those forthcoming EU regulations that will instead allow Canada’s oil sands to do steady business there, via the Financial Times:

Canada today exports little crude to Europe, but it has plans to increase those exports if new pipelines are built linking the oil sands to ports, such as TransCanada’s proposed Energy East project to take oil from Alberta to the east coast. …

Chris Davies, a European parliamentarian on the environment committee, said that Connie Hedegaard, the EU climate commissioner, had lost out to stronger voices in the commission with industrial and trade portfolios. “She got beat,” Mr Davies said. …

The latest draft of the EU legislation is a reversal from earlier versions of the plan, which would have required fuel suppliers to disclose the carbon footprint of the original crude oil that was used to make their products, and stay below maximum limits for associated emissions. …

Under the new methodology, companies will only have to make their emission cuts based on EU averages for the “output” fuels – the petrol or diesel – regardless of whether it was originally made from heavy crude or not.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Canada, energy, Europe, natural gas, oil, pipeline, Russia

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

So. Russia and China just signed a major natural-gas deal.

So.RussiaandChinajustsignedamajor

IrantoEU:Hey,we’dbehappyto

Iran to EU: Hey, we’d be happy to supply you with your natural gas needs…

posted at 1:21 pm on May 19, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

•  Share on Facebook

Iran has the fourth-largest proven oil reserves in the world along with the second-largest proven natural gas reserves, and the international sanctions that have been crippling their energy-reliant revenue stream and economic growth (at least, they were until the Obama administration started lifting them in exchange for diddly squat, that is) have proven to be quite a nuisance — which is precisely why Iran has lately been taking the opportunity afforded by Russia’s aggression with Ukraine to remind the European Union that they have a whole bunch of ready reserves just waiting to be tapped. Europe gets about a third of its natural-gas supplies from Russia, a lot of which currently flows through pipelines in Ukraine; Europeans are starting to consider building up their import infrastructure and even doing their own fracking, but in the meantime, the threat of future supply disruption still looms as a possibility as the EU tries to work with Russia to settle on a deal. Iran is hoping that this newfound focus on diversified supply sources to enhance energy security will create a new willingness in the EU to perhaps cut them some more slack on the sanctions:

Amid rising tensions between the European Union and Moscow over Ukraine, Iranian oil officials have repeatedly said Tehran is ready to supply natural gas to Europe, which currently gets 30 percent of its gas imports from Russia. …

But Iran may hope the energy offer will add incentives for lifting the international sanctions as Tehran and world powers hold talks in Vienna this week aimed at solving the nuclear crisis.

Ghoncheh Tazimi, a scholar at SOAS in London, says “Iran’s case has been somewhat strengthened with the Ukraine crisis” because Tehran is “able to shape the future energy market” and help Europe diversify away from Russia. …

Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zangeneh said May 3 that “as a country that has the capacity to supply gas in large volumes, Iran is always willing to export natural gas to Europe via pipeline or in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG).”

On May 14, Iranian Deputy Oil Minister for International and Trade Affairs Ali Majedi suggested Europe could import Iranian gas by pipeline through Turkey and that the level of exports could range from 4 million cubic meters per day to 50.

The one major, glaring caveat to Iran’s pointed suggestions is that Iran actually isn’t technically “ready” to supply natural gas to Europe. Iran has been closed off over the years from a lot of the type of foreign investments that would allow it to update and expand its currently underdeveloped energy production to the necessary degree. Even if every economic sanction was lifted tomorrow, the capital, infrastructure, and technology they would need to start exporting natural gas to Europe could take just as long if not longer than the investments Europe needs to make to frack their own shale reserves and to import from the United States, Australia, and others — but Europe does want to diversify its supplies, and Iran definitely wants the cash.

•  Share on Facebook

Tags: energy, Europe, Iran, natural gas, Russia, sanctions, security, Ukraine

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Colorado’ssenatorsareprobablygoingtobeclutch

Colorado’s senators are probably going to be clutch in this Keystone XL vote

posted at 2:31 pm on May 3, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Whether Harry Reid will actually put their legislation to a vote or not is still up in the air, but Republican John Hoeven and hyper-vulnerable red-state Democrat Mary Landrieu made a hard push this week to rally support for their jointly proposed measure to immediately greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline. All of the Senate’s Republicans as well as eleven Democrats are already officially on board, which means they’re only a handful of “yeas” away from the 60 votes they would need to clear any procedural hurdles (although getting the 66 votes they would need to overcome the presidential veto threat the White House will likely issue is probably another matter entirely).

Conspicuously absent from that list of at least eleven Democrats so far, however, are the two senators from Colorado, via the WSJ:

Senators from both parties who are pushing the bill are eyeing the Democrats from Colorado as potential yes votes on the bill.

Mr. Bennet voted yes on a nonbinding measure last year supporting the project, and Mr. Udall has voted against it in the past.

Mr. Udall, first elected to the Senate in 2008, is running for re-election against GOP Rep. Cory Gardner of Colorado. Representing a major oil-and-gas producing state, Mr. Udall has faced increasing pressure to take clearer positions on energy issues like Keystone ever since Mr. Gardner entered the race a couple of months ago.

“I think there is a reasonable argument that the pipeline is in the national interest. I also think there are serious questions about air quality, water quality and land-use effects on the pipeline,” Mr. Udall said in an interview in Denver on Saturday. “Am I frustrated it’s taken this long? Yes, but the important goal is to get it right.”

Sen. Bennet has reaffirmed his general support for the pipeline pretty recently, although he has yet to add his name to Landrieu’s coveted legislation — but he’s not the one up for imminent reelection here. Colorado is the country’s fourth-largest natural gas producer and sits atop some major oil fields, and relatively speaking, energy issues are enormously important; since Sen. Udall and Rep. Cory Gardner are birds of a feather when it comes to certain other aspects of the energy debate…

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said late Thursday that he is replacing his proposal to expedite liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports with a bill sponsored by Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who is challenging Udall for his seat.

“Colorado’s natural gas resources have a central role to play in creating jobs and promoting global stability,” Udall said in a statement. “This effort to expedite natural gas exports to our allies and trading partners abroad is far too important to get bogged down over technical differences between the two chambers.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed Gardner’s bill Wednesday. When he first proposed the measure, it sought to force the Department of Energy (DOE) to quickly approve all LNG export applications for countries in the World Trade Organization (WTO). But the bill that passed the committee was watered down and instead set a timeline for DOE to consider applications.

Udall’s bill similarly would have opened LNG exports to WTO countries.

…and seeing as how their race is locked in a dead heat, I doubt Gardner is going to allow Udall to get away with anything less than a hard stance on the pipeline for long without making it a huge headache for him. Outside groups certainly aren’t — especially since Udall, for his part, has recently been spotted mingling with avidly anti-Keystone eco-radical progressive billionaire Tom Steyer at one of his mega-money San Francisco fundraisers. Awkward.

Tags: Colorado, Cory Gardner, energy, Keystone XL Pipeline, Mark Udall, natural gas, Tom Steyer

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

TheEPAconfirms:GHGemissionsaredown,largely

The EPA confirms: GHG emissions are down, largely thanks to…

posted at 8:41 pm on April 17, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

This little nugget of knowledge has been circulating for months on months by now, but once the Environmental Protection Agency has it on their books, you know there’s no way of getting around it (not that the Obama administration really wants to; as much as they are still on the prowl for reasons to further regulate natural gas and the extraction thereof, they’re happy to sing its praises as a “bridge” fuel to see us through toward their more heavily renewable future). The agency released its Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks this week, and you’ll never guess which energy source was the most successful player in bringing about “green” policy goals:

In 2012, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,525.6 Tg or million metric tons CO2 Eq. Total U.S. emissions have increased by 4.7 percent from 1990 to 2012, and emissions decreased from 2011 to 2012 b 3.4 percent (227.4 Tg CO2 Eq.). The decrease from 2011 to 2012 was due to a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed to generate electricity due to a decrease in coal consumption, with increased natural gas consumption. Additionally, relatively mild winter conditions, especially in regions of the United States where electricity is an important heating fuel, resulted in an overall decrease in electricity demand in most sectors. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.2 percent.

Boom. As any eco-radical will be quick to tell you, it already looks like the emissions for 2013 probably ticked back up again, but isn’t it funny that a specific fuel so often derided by self-titled environmentalists — because of the hydraulic fracturing it usually requires — has had the greatest success at reducing emissions? Unlike in, say, Germany, which — in a fit of aggressive green whimsy a few years ago — decided to tamp down on hydraulic fracturing, do away with nuclear, and heavily subsidize renewables in one fell swoop? And is now seeing increased coal usage and higher emissions as a result? Maybe the Obama administration should reconsider natural gas’s status as a mere “bridge fuel,” perhaps? Just sayin.’

Tags: emissions, Environmental Protection Agency, natural gas

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

HouseDemocratstoEPA:Thatfrackingregulationthat

House Democrats to EPA: That fracking regulation that you left to the states? Big mistake.

posted at 1:21 pm on April 4, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The rapidly rising fortunes of shale gas via the hydraulic fracturing boom have been a rather irritating inconvenience for progressive eco-radicals and their extreme anti-fossil fuel goals. Natural gas has proven to be a more cleanly-burning alternative to coal, releasing far fewer carbon emissions in the process, and the stuff is going to be plentifully available and economically profitable for both domestic consumption and exports for decades and decades to come — which means that the green lobby’s willfully-self-impoverishing, all-renewables-or-bust agenda doesn’t have quite the weighty urgency that they claimed it did even just a few years ago, and they find themselves having to turn to other methods to try and throw wrenches into the works of the oil-and-gas industry. Wrenches, like, say, relentlessly pressuring the Obama administration toward an ultimately fruitless disavowal of the Keystone XL pipeline, or trying to get the Environmental Protection Agency to re-up studies that they hope will lead to more prohibitively top-down federal drilling regulations, via The Hill:

Eight Democrats in the House have asked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reopen its investigations into water contamination incidents in Wyoming, Pennsylvania and Texas that they say may have been connected to natural gas drilling, including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. …

“While we appreciate that states act as the major source of regulation for unconventional drilling operations, we believe the Environmental Protection Agency has a key role to play in oil and gas development,” the Democrats wrote.

“We are writing to urge you to take any and all steps within your power to help these communities,” the said. …

The letter was signed Reps. Matt Cartwright (Pa.), Alan Lowenthal (Calif.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), Keith Ellison (Minn.), David Scott (Ga.), Mark Pocan (Wis.) and Rush Holt (N.J.).

Do you appreciate that the states, who obviously have their own best interests in mind, can act as the major source of regulation for fracking, though? Because it kind of sounds like you don’t.

The EPA has investigated the environmentalist Left’s persistent and wildly exaggerated claims of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing on several occasions through the past few years; then, last year, they dropped one case and decided to leave two others to the regulatory auspices of the states in which the investigations were taking place. The Obama administration might not sincerely love natural gas, but they’ve apparently decided not to hinder it too much for now, touting its status as a “bridge fuel” in their “all of the above” energy plan — and, well, state-level regulation that can less ideologically take into account both environmental and economic impacts of its decisions? The eco-radicals just aren’t big fans of that at all.

Tags: Environmental Protection Agency, environmentalism, fossil fuels, fracking, natural gas, progressives

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Domesticnaturalgasproduction:boomorbust?

Domestic natural gas production: boom or bust?

posted at 6:01 pm on March 31, 2014 by Bruce McQuain

All the indicators are it should be a big “boom” for the US, providing both jobs and investment:

Companies will need to invest $641 billion over the next two decades in pipelines, pumps and other infrastructure to keep up with the gas, crude oil and natural gas liquids flowing from U.S. fields, according to a study released Tuesday.

The analysis, prepared by ICF International for two natural gas advocacy groups, predicts that $30 billion worth of new midstream infrastructure will be needed each year through 2035 — essentially triple the $10 billion in average annual investments over the past decade.

“We’re in a heavy growth period right now, said Kevin Petak, an economist with ICF who authored the study. “The next six years appears to be a pretty heavy period for expenditure and investment.”

Almost half of the projected spending — $14.2 billion per year — will be needed to accommodate new gas supplies and connect new shale plays with existing infrastructure and yet-to-be-built facilities, according to the report. Some 35,000 miles of new transmission pipelines will be needed, along with 303,000 miles of gas gathering lines, the study found.

“Significant development of natural gas infrastructure (is projected) to accommodate the rapidly growing gas supplies from shale,” the report said. “Much new gas gathering and pipeline infrastructure will be needed well into the future.”

Of course this is all dependent on the usual approvals in the face of a determined “green” minority who was for natural gas before they were against it.  A good indicator of what we’re likely to see in the next few years is found in the “green” opposition to the expansion of the Cove Point LNG terminal:

Cove Point is emerging as a major test of environmentalists’ ability to block — or seriously slow — midstream energy infrastructure projects in a bid to stop the oil and gas production happening upstream as well as the burning of those fossil fuels downstream.

“There clearly is a view from certain people that increased U.S. energy production is not a good thing and … there’s only so much carbon we can put in the atmosphere,” said Jason Bordoff, a former White House adviser who now heads Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “The lesson they take from that is we have to do everything we can to keep fossil fuels in the ground.”

Cove Point is “the Keystone fight of the east”, one activist claimed, referring to the attempts to stop the Keystone XL pipeline.  If so, and if indicative of the future, then a huge and promising economic boom will be all but still born.  And, as long as this administration is in power, you can expect it to be complicit in that still birth.

~McQ

 

 

Tags: activists, economy, investment, jobs, natural gas

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tensions with Russia proving unhelpful for Germany’s green-energy transition

TensionswithRussiaprovingunhelpfulforGermany’sgreen-energy

Obamaadministrationignoreseco-radicals,approvesanothernaturalgas

Obama administration ignores eco-radicals, approves another natural gas export terminal

posted at 4:41 pm on March 24, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Before today, the Obama administration had only approved six of the more than two dozen pending permit applications for natural gas export terminals for countries with which we do not already have free-trade agreements. In just the past few months, however, the Obama administration has tentatively signaled that they are finally ready to really recognize the boon the recent shale gas bonanza has been for boosting the economy as well as consider the potentially helpful long-term geopolitical benefits that could be reaped from allowing our domestically produced oil-and-gas to flow more freely into the world market — and even of the face of some very vocal opposition last week from united green groups lobbying for an export ban in the hopes of keeping more of America’s oil and gas permanently in the ground, the Obama administration went ahead and announced another approval on Monday. It isn’t enough to quite call it a definitive trend, but their lately accelerated pace of approvals could mean that they’re ready to talk the talk and walk the walk, via The Hill:

The Energy Department said Monday it has “conditionally” authorized the planned Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal to export natural gas to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement.

The Jordan Cove project in Coos Bay, Ore., is the seventh natural gas export terminal to get conditional Department of Energy (DOE) approval. Only one project has final approval from the federal government, and it will not start exporting natural gas until late 2015. …

“The Energy Department conducted an extensive, careful review of the application to export LNG from the Jordan Cove LNG Terminal,” the agency said in a statement. “Among other factors, the department considered the economic, energy security, and environmental impacts,” it added, saying that approval of the terminal “was not inconsistent with the public interest.” …

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, welcomed the department’s decision.

“Given the situation in Ukraine, this license sends a positive signal to our allies and to energy markets that the United States is ready to join the growing global gas trade,” Murkowski said in a statement. “While this license moves us in the right direction, I would be strongly opposed to any ‘pause for further study,’ as some have proposed.”

Of course, the Obama administration is still calling natural gas a “bridge fuel” so as to at least appear sensitive to green groups’ quixotic and self-impoverishing ambitions to quickly transition all of humanity to an all-renewable energy scheme, and they have plenty of heavy-handed regulatory schemes in the works that are working against the grain of economic growth in the energy sector, but the eco-radicals are getting less and less patient with what they feel has been the Obama administration’s mealy-mouthedness on climate change. A.k.a., their at least semi-acknowledgement of reality that doing away with fossil fuels just because you feel lie it… is just not gonna’ happen.

Tags: Department of Energy, economy, energy, exports, free trade, natural gas, Obama administration, Ukraine

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Moniz:Yeah,Iguessweshouldfactorgeopolitics

Moniz: Yeah, I guess we should factor geopolitics into our natural gas deliberations a little more

posted at 4:01 pm on March 21, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The Obama administration has never really been anti-natural gas, per se — they have publicly embraced it as a “bridge fuel” as part of their supposed “all of the above” energy strategy, and even the White House recognizes how much their policies have benefited from the giant economic windfall that is the shale boom — but there is a lot more the administration could be doing to land definitively in the “pro” category. As even super-liberal special Obama adviser John Podesta put it earlier this week, these green groups’ relentless campaigns to do whatever they can to forcefully keep more fossil fuels in the ground and defy all economic reason are just not practical. The administration has signaled that they are willing to consider the wisdom of both the crude-oil export ban and the pace at which they have been approving the liquified natural gas export terminals that would allow us to engage in more global trade, and the Ukrainian crisis especially has led to a major push for the administration to get moving. In the short term, there isn’t much our abundant gas supplies can do to directly help mitigate Russia’ energy-sector death grip, but as Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz just acknowledged, it’s probably a good idea to consider the long-term geopolitical implications of freer global markets as a part of their calculus:

The Obama administration will consider the turmoil in Ukraine as it weighs whether to approve additional exports of natural gas to blunt Russia’s dominance as an energy supplier.

Geopolitics and the effect on global markets are issues the department considers in reviewing applications from companies to build natural gas export terminals, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said today.

“Maybe we will give some additional weight to the geopolitical criterion going forward,” Moniz said at a Bloomberg Government breakfast with reporters and editors in Washington. “But we will never eliminate for sure the issue of implications for the domestic market.”

And of course, we absolutely shouldn’t eliminate for sure the issue of implications for the domestic market. It should indeed be our main consideration — but since that issue has long since been solved, not only as a general free-trade principle but by a major study commissioned by Moniz’s own department — I’m still not getting what the hold-up is other than pressure from radical greens and special chemical and manufacturing interests. President Obama constantly includes increasing exports as part of his personal economic agenda, and trying to pretend that those same free-trade benefits don’t apply when it comes to the energy sector is getting really old.

Tags: Department of Energy, Ernest Moniz, foreign policy, natural gas, Obama administration

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Podestarespondstothegreenlobby’snatural-gascomplaints:

Podesta responds to the green lobby’s natural-gas complaints: Be cool, guys

posted at 8:01 pm on March 20, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

As the New York Times rather aptly put it last December when the White House announced that John Podesta, erstwhile Clinton White House chief of staff and former president of the uber-liberal Center for American Progress, would be returning to the White House for a stint as special adviser to Obama:

Many were delighted by John Podesta’s decision last week to join President Obama’s White House staff, none more so than the environmental community and the people in charge of the federal agencies that are most responsible for the environment. As counselor to the president, Mr. Podesta, who served as White House chief of staff during President Clinton’s last three years, will have a broad portfolio touching on the economy and congressional relations. But his biggest contribution will be to bring his passion on environmental and energy issues to a president who has to be constantly reminded of their importance.

Mr. Podesta’s appointment should further elevate the issue of climate change in the White House. That is something he cares deeply about.

Funnily enough, after several amassed green groups sent a frantically-worded letter to the president urging him to resist the recent calls to allow for more exports of natural gas to eventually blunt Russia’ energy dominance in Europe (in which they comically pretended that they give a hoot about the bogus issue of rising gas prices in order to soften their real concern about paving the way for more hydraulic fracturing), it was Podesta who had to tell them to calm down and listen to the words coming out of their own mouths.

White House adviser John Podesta took aim Wednesday at environmentalists who have criticized the Obama administration’s support for natural gas.

“If you oppose all fossil fuels and you want to turn that switch off tomorrow, that is a completely impractical way of moving toward a clean-energy future,” Podesta told reporters during a roundtable discussion at the White House.

“With all due respect to my friends in the environmental community, if they expect us to turn off the lights and go home, that’s sort of an impractical suggestion,” he added.

Podesta’s comments were in line with the administration’s long-running talking points, but they‘re likely to anger many in the liberal wing of the environmental movement, which has launched increasingly aggressive attacks against fracking and liquefied natural gas exports.

And they signal that the former president of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress isn’t afraid to part ways his his former compatriots to make the case for the president’s climate agenda, a topic he said he spends about half his time working on.

I’d wager that Podesta, too, would eventually love to see fossil fuels all but eliminated, and perhaps he’s just keeping mum so as not to show any fissures in White House policy, but at least he can publicly recognize the ridiculous impracticality of these green groups’ energy-policy extremism and constant hyperventilation about imminent catastrophe that never quite seems to happen. It’s a great way to get people to not take you seriously, you know?

Tags: environmentalism, fracking, green energy, John Podesta, natural gas, Obama administration

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair