What is your definition of Energy Independence

Yet here you are basically saying that... Originally Posted by WTF

Are you truly this dense? Or are you just trolling and pretending to be stupid again? I stated the obvious. You fabricated something nobody said. Now you are trying to stir up shit by conflating the two.

I'll dumb it down for you one more time... if the US had banned fracking back in 2007, and were today producing a mere 5 million bpd of oil instead of 12 million bpd and tapping none of the massive pools of shale gas found in those deep sedimentary rock formations, would we be in a BETTER OR WORSE position to respond to Putin's war crimes?

Same question applies to Europe - are the countries that banned fracking and allowed themselves to become dependent on Putin for a disproportionate percentage of their energy needs (like Germany) in a BETTER OR WORSE position to respond compared to those (like Poland) who pursued an "all of the above" strategy for meeting their energy needs?

The answers to both questions are so obvious that even an 8 year old gets it. But you just want to keep stirring up shit. If you're genuinely confused about it, maybe you can ask your hero Putin why has he been shoveling millions of dollars into the coffers of anti-fracking extremists in the West? Maybe you can assure him it wouldn't diminish his diplomatic leverage one bit if nobody needed to buy Russian oil or gas anymore.

According to Daniel Yergin, whose credentials on global energy are infinitely more compelling than yours, it's a rather touchy subject for your hero Putin. This is the third time I'm quoting Yergin. Try to pay attention this time. Take a Q-tip and wipe the shit out of your ears. Then don't let Yergin's words go in one ear and out the other:

"Today there is no doubting the geopolitical importance of America’s new oil-and-gas position. The Ukraine crisis and Europe’s energy crisis shine a light on the global impact of U.S. oil-and-gas production.

Some saw this significance much sooner than others. At the 2013 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Vladimir Putin was on stage with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in front of several thousand people. I asked Mr. Putin how Russia planned to diversify its economy from its dependence on oil and gas export revenues. In the course of asking my question, I mentioned the word “shale.” Before I finished, Mr. Putin reacted sharply, denouncing shale gas as a grave threat that should be stopped.

Reflecting afterward, I realized he had two strong reasons to oppose U.S. shale gas. First, it would compete with Russian gas in Europe. Second, shale gas and oil would enhance America’s global strategic position. Given how events are unfolding in Europe today, one would have to say he was prescient."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/america...is-11644872477

Look sonny boy...I know you do not see the hypocrisy in amplifying Putin's meddling in our oil policy while downplaying Putin's role in electing politicians like Trump ... Originally Posted by WTF

Tell us about this Russian collusion of which you speak of. Is it in the room with us now? Did Heir Mueller find any of it at all after 2 1/2 years and $40M tax payer dollars? Imma say nope. Only one colluding with the Ruskies was Hilarious "Cunt" Clintoon. Give it the F up dumb-bunny. That part of the show is over. Your ridiculous bullshit lost, which is what losers do.

I'll dumb it down for you one more time... if the US had banned fracking back in 2007, and were today producing a mere 5 million bpd of oil instead of 12 million bpd and tapping none of the massive pools of shale gas found in those deep sedimentary rock formations, would we be in a BETTER OR WORSE position to respond to Putin's war crimes?
"[/I] Originally Posted by lustylad

Let me dumb it down for you. First we didn't ban fracking like Trump banned drilling off the Florida coast.

I deal in Realpolitik.

You're mixing up two things...three really...

Energy Independence

Our production is more market oriented. Not "We need to produce more oil to become energy independent "

We are responding to Putin because of the high price of gasoline. Just listen to your fellow Trump lovers in this forum...they say Ukraine is on their own. In fact we are less likely to respond to Putin because we are not running all over the world securing energy sources.

So me personally, it is great we have massive amounts of oil and gas reserves...but it isn't that great for folks NOT invesed in this sector when the price is high.

Yada, yada, yada... Originally Posted by WTF

So you can't even answer a dumbed-down question that an 8 year old would understand.

Give it up, Putin lover.

Yada, yada, yada...

Give it up, Putin lover.

Originally Posted by lustylad

I started a thread that flushed out all the Putin lovers for you to bash....I've noticed you've steered clear of that. Is it because it is chocked full of Trump lovers
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2836733

Could you tell me again when we banned fracking in this country? How about where the government sets production quotas? I musta missed that one too.

So no fracking ban and no government quotas....so tell me again how energy independence, for now, is more market dependent.

So your and Tiny's obsession with it seems misplaced. Play the market on energy stocks and make a few bucks.

...energy independence... your and Tiny's obsession with it seems misplaced. Originally Posted by WTF

YOU are the fool who is obsessed with it. You started this thread asking what it is. Then as usual you flew off on dozens of tangents nobody can make sense of.

Here we are, 275 comments later, and you still haven't nailed down a simple definition. You just want everyone to know you're an expert on the subject, even though you can't define it. Plus you like to tell everyone who makes a comment they don't know what they're talking about and need to stfu. Stay classy.

I started a thread that flushed out all the poofters from my bum . Originally Posted by WTF

Let me dumb it down for me.

. Originally Posted by WTF

ftfy

my glory hole is next to lustylads.

Cum one,cum all

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

What?

I'll dumb it down for you one more time... if the US had banned fracking back in 2007, and were today producing a mere 5 million bpd of oil instead of 12 million bpd and tapping none of the massive pools of shale gas found in those deep sedimentary rock formations, would we be in a BETTER OR WORSE position to respond to Putin's war crimes? Originally Posted by lustylad

Let me dumb it down for you. First we didn't ban fracking like Trump banned drilling off the Florida coast.

I deal in Realpolitik.

You're mixing up two things...three really...

Energy Independence

Our production is more market oriented. Not "We need to produce more oil to become energy independent "

We are responding to Putin because of the high price of gasoline. Just listen to your fellow Trump lovers in this forum...they say Ukraine is on their own. In fact we are less likely to respond to Putin because we are not running all over the world securing energy sources.

So me personally, it is great we have massive amounts of oil and gas reserves...but it isn't that great for folks NOT invesed in this sector when the price is high. Originally Posted by WTF

LustyLad, I can answer your question better than WTF. If we were producing only 5 million barrels a day right now because politicians had banned fracking we'd be fucked. And yeah, if countries in Western Europe had exploited their unconventional gas resources they wouldn't be as fucked.

WTF, I don't know why you keep mentioning Florida. There's been no leasing offshore Florida for many years. Why was Trump supposed to change that? If the people of Florida don't want drilling more power too them. Who cares. The production would be very small compared to what we get from other areas anyway. What pisses me off is when people like Biden want to shut down the industry on federal leases in places like Wyoming, where people people overwhelmingly support the oil and gas industry and where many work in the oil patch. And when the Progressives want to shut down drilling everywhere.

Putin’s War Revives Calls for Investigation into Russia’s Support of Green Groups Battling U.S. Oil Production

MARCH 13, 2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked renewed concerns that Russia may be providing financial support for U.S. anti-domestic energy activists trying to stop the U.S. from producing oil, particularly through the process of fracking.

Russia, a leading supplier of oil on the world market, has leverage over other countries that are opposed to the invasion of Ukraine, but are dependent on Russian oil. Thus, Russia has both political and financial incentive to undermine U.S. domestic oil production – a long-standing concern, which has garnered renewed attention in light of the invasion of Ukraine.

“Investigate Russia’s covert funding of US anti-fossil fuel groups,” Merrill Matthews, resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, urges in a March 1, 2022 commentary in The Hill.

In the past, “media and Democrats mostly shrugged their collective shoulders” at concerns that Russia may be aiding environmental groups attempting to prevent the U.S. from producing oil,” Matthews writes. “Maybe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will force those naysayers to reconsider the accusations and evidence and begin new investigations.”

Of particular concern is that Russia may be responsible for the success environment groups have had in preventing oil production via the process of fracking, Matthews writes:

“Clearly, environmental groups have had some success with their anti-fracking efforts. New York, Washington and Maryland have banned fracking. California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order last year banning fracking in the state by 2024.”

Also on March 1 of this year, The Federalist published a piece by former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official Samantha Dravis titled, “Stop Letting Environmental Groups Funded By Russia Dictate America’s Energy Policy.”

“Indeed, it is an open secret that Russians have funded anti-fracking and anti-natural gas propaganda in America for decades, as environmental groups funded the campaigns of Democrats and pressured them to ban fossil fuels,” Dravis writes, also noting the environmental left’s success:

“After spending millions to elect Biden, the environmental left got its wish: Biden canceled America’s Keystone XL pipeline, blocking the safe transport of oil from one of our closest allies and killing thousands of jobs. At the same time, Biden removed President Trump’s sanctions on the Russian NordStream2 pipeline, giving Putin the green light to move forward.

“Biden canceled oil and gas leasing on 2.46 billion acres of federal on and off-shore lands, effectively crushing American energy supplies.”

“The result is that Russia got exactly what it wanted: Europe and America have become more dependent on Russian gas,” Dravis concludes. “It is time for Biden and Democrats to wake up and stop their blind allegiance to environmental groups who attack American energy and have links to foreign countries.”

An award-winning MRCTV documentary, “Killing Keystone: How Biden & The Left Destroyed American Energy Independence,” (See video below) examines the timeline of the Keystone XL project and how American energy independence has been lost under Joe Biden and the policies of the left.

On March 7 of this year, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) sent a letter to the chairs of the House committees on Energy and Commerce, Oversight and Reform, Science Space and Technology, and the Select Climate Committee asking that they reopen and “build on” the investigation conducted by the House Science, Space and Technology Committee in 2018.

Also on March 7, in a self-published piece on Substack, Author Michael Shellenberger accused Russia of funding anti-fracking activists.

“Europe reduced its natural gas production, including from fracking, under pressure from climate activists. It now turns out that some of those anti-fracking activists were funded by Putin.” Shellenberger says, linking to his February 24 tweet, citing the Centre for European Studies.

While accusations of Russia supporting anti-oil environmental groups have been made for years, they are predominantly predicated on four sources:

A 2017 letter from Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Randy Weber (R-Texas) to then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin,
A 2017 report by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI),
2016 comments by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attributed to a speech to a private audience, and
A 2014 remark by then-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
A 2018 United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology majority report summarizes the NATO, Clinton and DNI findings and incorporates information from Rep. Smith’s letter to Mnuchin:

“Secretary General of NATO, told reporters in 2014, ‘Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas.’”

“Former Secretary of State and then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, with access to intelligence reports, made a private speech in 2014, according to documents from WikiLeaks, which included statements about the struggles of dealing with Russian-backed environmental groups. According to a media report, Secretary Clinton said the following: ‘We [the State Department and the U.S.] were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.”

“In January 2017, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report that contained “clear evidence that the Kremlin is financing and choreographing anti-fracking propaganda in the United States.” The report found that the Russian-sponsored news agency RT (formerly Russian Today) “r[an] anti-fracking programing, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health,” which “is likely reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and the U.S. natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to [Russian energy companies’] profitability,” such as state-controlled Russian energy giant Gazprom. A Republican staff report by the Senate suggests that Russian funds have been funneled through off-shore corporations and passed on to U.S.-based environmental activist organizations with the intent to effect political change.”

“The Committee began investigating Russian attempts to influence U.S. energy markets in the summer of 2017 when Chairman Smith wrote the Secretary of Treasury regarding Russia’s intricate money-laundering scheme. Russian-sponsored agents funneled money to U.S. environmental organizations in an attempt to portray energy companies in a negative way and disrupt domestic energy markets.”

https://thespectator.info/2022/03/13...il-production/ Originally Posted by lustylad

Russian-linked groups donated to anti-frakking Green
groups because they love the planet right?

Who were those Useful Idiots…

Strategically, Russia would be crazy if it weren’t funding Green Groups to scare the West out of using its own resources and hobbling its own energy grid.

Russia has the motive, the means and the opportunity. Ask not whether Russia was funding some Greens, but whether Putin would not be.

These dark money trails across international borders are almost impossible to pin down, but there are clues, leaks and links suggesting Russia was sending hundreds of millions of dollars to support anti-fossil-fuel Green environmentalists.

Yesterday Russian troops did a hostile takeover of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. So in that spirit it’s time to ask Was Russia preparing for War or just worried about polar bears and walruses?

Would Good Global Citizen Russia say No Thanks to a chance to gain dominant control of a key strategic market?

The Wall Street Journal / The Australian

A mere 15 years ago, countries in the EU produced more gas than Russia exported. Yet European production has plunged by more than half during the past decade. Putin has happily filled the supply gap.

In 2020 Russia exported nearly three times more gas than Europe produced. What’s amazing is that Europe increased its reliance on Russian gas even after Gazprom repeatedly suspended pipeline exports to Ukraine.

Europe still had the gas, it just needed to be convinced not to use it:

Europe had an estimated 966 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable wet natural gas resources as of 2013, about enough to supply the EU for 60 years. Much of this is located in eastern Europe, including Ukraine, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. But France, Britain, The Netherlands and Germany are also sitting on shale deposits.

In 2014, a NATO bigwig and former Prime Minister of Denmark claimed the Russians were fuelling the opposition to frakking.

Former NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen blamed Russia for fuelling the fracking opposition. “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 dependence on imported Russian gas,” he noted in 2014.

“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 organizations working against shale gas — to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas,” said Rasmussen…

According to DeSmog (remember them?) this was revealed at a London’s Chatham House event in 2014 and was not supposed to be leaked (or maybe it was?). DeSmog’s entire ammunition against this quote is that Rassmussen later said “it was my interpretation”, which confirms that he said it.

Four years later US congressmen were releasing reports describing potential funding chains from Russia to non-profit environmental groups.

Kevin Mooney, Washington Examiner, June 14, 2018

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who chairs the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, released a report in March that explores Russia’s motives for disrupting America’s energy sector.

“Russia benefits from stirring up controversy about U.S. energy production,” Smith said in a press release. “U.S. energy exports to European countries are increasing, which means they will have less reason to rely upon Russia for their energy needs. This, in turn, will reduce Russia’s influence on Europe to Russia’s detriment and Europe’s benefit. That’s why Russian agents attempted to manipulate Americans’ opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change. The American people deserve to know if what they see on social media is the creation of a foreign power seeking to undermine our domestic energy policy.”

Smith’s report describes the Russian scheme to use nonprofit entities to influence and sway U.S. public policy and public opinion against fracking. The evidence in the report shows that Russia has been using U.S. environmental groups to spread what Smith aptly describes as “propaganda” to undermine America’s natural gas revolution.

National Guard of Russia
Росгвардия

The SeaChange Foundation, in San Francisco has apparently given out “about $400 million” between 2007 and 2015 to “environmental groups that have worked to block fracking and pipeline construction that make natural gas development and distribution possible.” Downstream recipients include the Tides Foundation, which received $8 million, and the U.S. Climate Action Network ( $7.3 million). SeaChange also gave $30 million to the Energy Foundation which then funded the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

A 29-year CIA veteran Kenneth L. Stiles analyzed the links, and followed the money, as much as anyone could. The dollars track back from local Virginia green groups right through one or two layers of NGO’s and back to opaque Foundations in Bermuda which were set up by people who also used to work with a Russian Minister and friend of Putin.

Could be a coincidence…

Kevin Mooney, Aug 25, 2017, TheDailySignal

Two of these local environmental groups “are, without a doubt, agents of influence to Moscow through [a] networking system of shell companies and foundations,” Stiles said.

The Russians “executed a political agenda with little or no paper trail,” the letter explains, by using a Bermuda-based shell company, Klein Ltd., “to funnel tens of millions of dollars” to a San Francisco-based nonprofit called the Sea Change Foundation that focuses on climate change.

The Sea Change Foundation then moves the money in the form of grants to other nonprofit environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund.

SeaChange Logo

Klein Ltd, the shell company that supplies the money operates out of Bermuda and isn’t required to disclose the identity of donors. Klein itself was formed by a law firm in Bermuda called Wakefield Quin. The top administrators of that, in turn, apparently have also held top positions in investment groups owned by a Russian Minister and friend of Putin:

The Russian connection with Klein, and from there to Virginia, comes in the form of Bermuda-based law firm Wakefield Quin, which was instrumental in Klein’s formation in March 2011. The law firm shares the same address with Klein and 20 other companies, congressional investigators determined.

Wakefield Quin’s top lawyers and administrators have held what the lawmakers’ letter to the treasury secretary describes as “directorship positions” with an investment group owned by Leonid Reiman, “a Russian minister of telecommunications and a longtime friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

Having friends of Putin helping you save your environment takes on a whole new flavour now.


https://iowaclimate.org/2022/03/04/r...-planet-right/ Originally Posted by lustylad

Damn. I'm just getting around to reading this. It looks like the left is every bit as susceptible to Russian propaganda and misinformation as those who've been hoodwinked into believing Russia had every right to invade Ukraine. It's interesting the main stream media isn't covering this.

Damn.

It's interesting the main stream media isn't covering this. Originally Posted by Tiny

They're still "covering" masks.

Beginning today they will be "covering" Racial Judge Selection.

Are you truly this dense? Or are you just trolling and pretending to be stupid again? Originally Posted by lustylad

There are several problems with the two introductory questions above, but the primary issues are "density" is usually associated with depth and "pretending" is usually associated with the existence of a condition for which it is being hidden by "pretending" and "stupid" in that context implies the existence of cognitive intelligence, which is sought to be "hidden" by "pretending" to be "stupid."

With respect to the posts of the poster you are discussing this is his "Bible" for at least evaluating criminal jury trials ....



...for some wearing a helmet is self-protection, which indicates "His Bible" is a useful research tool for evaluating other topics frequently posted in this forum and particularly in this thread.

I have reason to believe he's NEVER set foot on a rig location or processing plant, negotiated pipeline easements, conducted title research to prepare a title opinion on O&G ownership, litigated before a jury with respect to "investor" ownership and/or fraudulent inducement to sell royalty interests, examined title records to determine whether a "junior" interest in a O&G lease is not primary, right-of-way rights and obligations for tank trucks to ingress and egress the temporary production tanks for marketing, examine petroleum engineers to determine the validity of their "reserve" estimates for investment &/or lending, and examined 100's of 1,000 of financial and production documents generated in the exploration, drilling, and development of productive wells for O&G for the purpose of determining relative liability and responsibility for owners vs drilling companies for losses and earnings along with the local taxing of the property and production.

But neither has the current POTUS or Kackles for whom the OP voted.

LustyLad, I can answer your question better than WTF. If we were producing only 5 million barrels a day right now because politicians had banned fracking we'd be fucked. And yeah, if countries in Western Europe had exploited their unconventional gas resources they wouldn't be as fucked.

. Originally Posted by Tiny

Jesus, you two are pretending like this country can only survive if it is energy independent.

Have you forgotten the 1990's? Were we energy independent then? Were we fucked? How about the 80's? Were we fuc'd back then too?

Clearly it is better for any country if they have MORE resources within their borders. And it is especially better for me because instead of running around like Chicken Littles, I actually invested in our oil industry.

Have you forgotten the 1990's? Were we energy independent then? Were we fucked? How about the 80's? Were we fuc'd back then too? Originally Posted by WTF

Enjoy paying $6.00 a gallon. There's zero reason to be paying Russia, Iran, or anyone else to produce that which we possess.

Damn. I'm just getting around to reading this. It looks like the left is every bit as susceptible to Russian propaganda and misinformation as those who've been hoodwinked into believing Russia had every right to invade Ukraine. It's interesting the main stream media isn't covering this. Originally Posted by Tiny

Oh thems fighting words there...our Trump lovers here in this forum are big Putin apologist. Speaking of Trump...besides calling Putins invasion genius, where does he stand?

Maybe LexusLover can use his legalese to defend Trumps position.