"To Understand What's Really Happening in Ukraine, Follow the Gas Lines on This Map"

[grahamhgreen]

What about America?

Washington is making moves. The U.S. doesn't export natural gas yet. But congressional Republicans especially are calling to loosen U.S. export restrictions, with the idea that if Washington puts more gas on the market, it can (economically) cut Russia down to size.

The U.S. Department of Energy is issuing permits to American corporations that will let them start exporting gas in 2015.

Fun fact: Who is now leading the U.S. State Department's new Bureau of Energy Resources? It's Carlos Pascual, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

So what about that new global order?

In recent weeks Eurasia experts and political hacks have been talking big about a new global energy order inspired by events in Ukraine.

Chaos in Ukraine, goes this logic, will threaten natural gas supplies and push Europe to look for non-Russian gas sources.

It's already happening. U.S. energy behemoth Halliburton Co. will soon start fracking in Poland. Royal Dutch Shell will start hunting for natural gas in Ukraine next year.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/84677/to-understand-what-s-really-happening-in-ukraine-follow-the-gas-lines-on-this-map

Haliburton and fracking.... what more could you want. It's just another war for oil and gas brought to you by the usual suspects.

In my view, we need to leave Ukraine alone until we fix our own problems at home - fracking being one of them!

The war for oil in Iraq cost us 3+ trillion dollars... for that kind of money we could have built a complete renewable energy infrastructure. Instead, we are destabilizing the world for big oil. Not funny. Out of the Ukraine now, before we waste another 3+ trillion and countless lives.

And another funny side note - they are now using the Ukraine situation they fostered as an excuse to export US gas to Europe.... what ever happened to energy independence that seemed to be so precious a few weeks ago?

[Lifelong Protester]

1. Your last lines are what I was thinking

What of all that talk of energy independence here?

That, and the point, that all of these wars seem to be only for the benefit of some big business.

[UTUSN]

2. R#4 & K n/t

[Kolesar]

3. Show a little skepticism

All that did not happen because the Russians invaded Crimea a few weeks ago.

[grahamhgreen]

9. The Russians invaded Crimea because we overthrew the Ukrainian Govt.

[Kolesar]

13. Pernicious Putin propaganda eom

[Wellstone ruled]

4. Part and Parcel of our economic model.

Sad to say we have a hand full(1%ers)of people controlling the world economy with nineteenth century ideals. Right is might,there will always be poverty,I got mine screw you,pretty much says it all. Afghanistan has proven to been a non starter for the oil crooks. The war on the Taliban(protecting Xexon's pipeline)is not working out so they change their focus to plan B,which has been discussed for many years as a better alternative.

As long as we have the so called MSM,people will never see the real story.

[Catherina]

7. +1. Well said n/t

[ProSense]

5. This

"And another funny side note - they are now using the Ukraine situation they fostered as an excuse to export US gas to Europe.... what ever happened to energy independence that seemed to be so precious a few weeks ago?"

...still doesn't explain the Russian invasion. I mean, yeah the Republicans are opportunist, using the situation to call for more exports. No Russian invasion and the OP point is moot. If the situation is resolved diplomatically, the OP point is moot.

March 7 Press Briefing:

<...>

Q A quick one on Ukraine again. Republicans have been pushing this plan to increase exports of natural gas. Does the administration see that as some type of realistic option when it comes to helping overseas?

MR. EARNEST: Let me start by saying this: There are six licenses that have been approved by the Department of Energy related to the export of about 8.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to a range of countries around the world. What’s important for you to understand about those licenses that have already been issued is that the projects for delivering the product would not be completed until the end of next year. So proposals to try to respond to the situation in Ukraine that are related to our policy on exporting natural gas would not have an immediate effect.

The other factor that’s important to understand about the situation is the current inventories of liquefied natural gas in Europe and in Ukraine are actually above traditional levels or above normal levels. The reason for that is, unlike North America, they’ve had a relatively mild winter in Europe and the region. So there is no indication currently that there’s much risk of a natural gas shortage in the region.

The other dynamic that factors into all this is that Russia prides itself on being a reliable supplier of natural gas to countries around the world -- I would say natural gas and other sources of energy to countries around the world. Shutting off the natural gas would threaten that reputation -- it certainly would undermine it, not just in the eyes of Ukraine and Europe but in countries around the world.

Finally, it’s also important to recognize that Russia relies on revenue from exporting natural gas and other sources of energy. Russia currently yields about $50 billion a year in revenue from exporting natural gas, so ending that kind of relationship with Europe would have significant financial consequences for Russia as well.

So this is a complicated situation. For a more detailed explanation of this complicated dynamic, I’d refer you to the Department of Energy. But in terms of the top lines, the United States has a long relationship with Ukraine and has actually been talking about these energy issues for some time. Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine in 2009, and one of the items at the top of the agenda was efforts by the United States to work with Ukraine to help them reduce their dependence on Russian sources of energy, to help them reform their energy sector, to improve efficiency, to improve energy security in Ukraine. So this is a complicated issue, one that we’ve been coordinating with the Ukrainians on for quite some time.

So I think that mostly answers your question, but for a more detailed answer, I’d refer you to the Department of Energy.

Q Just related to that, did this come up in the call last night with the Prime Minister? Because I know that it’s been really important for Japan to build a strong relationship with Russia for natural gas. Was the President able to give any assurances to the Prime Minister about this?

MR. EARNEST: I don’t want to get into a more detailed readout beyond what we issued last night and early this morning. But I will say that the executive order that the President issued yesterday put in place a structure where sanctions could be implemented. As Jay discussed during the briefing, no specific organizations have been targeted at this point, but that process is underway. So there’s no immediate impact from the sanctions that the President has considered in terms of interrupting anybody’s access to Russian sources of energy.

What sanctions we’ll be focused on are individuals and entities that have interfered with or played a prominent role in interfering with the sovereignty of Ukraine. And those are the individuals and entities that will be targeted. And when we have additional announcements on that, we will. Let me just end this answer by saying that, as I mentioned in my previous answer, that Prime Minister Abe is committed, or voiced to the President his commitment to closely coordinating with the international community and with the other countries in the G7 in standing up for the principle of respecting state sovereignty and the territorial integrity of independent nations.

- more -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/07/press-gaggle-principal-deputy-press-secretary-josh-earnest-en-route-flor

[grahamhgreen]

8. It's pretty simple. Big oil installs our puppet in the Ukraine, then chokes off the Russian gas. It

Last edited Wed Mar 12, 2014, 04:17 PM - Edit history (2)

costs the American taxpayers hundreds of billions (or trillions). Haliburton and big oil make out like bandits, on both ends; from the gas itself, and from the war /security state profiteering.

Then, big oil buys or makes a deal to control the pipelines. Any revenues currently going to the Ukrainian people form the pipelines currently owned by the people of Ukraine is rechanneled to big oil. Eventually big oil allows the Russians to use the pipelines again, at a profit to big oil.

Similar to the war for oil in Iraq. They seized all of the socialized oil in Iraq and stole the profits for the oil and war profiteers.

Why did Russia invade? Why did we foster a 'revolution'?

Money, gas, oil, sickness and excesses of the hoarding classes.

So if it's our oligarchs vs the russian oligarchs, I have to choose the side that is less costly to me, personally.

I say walk away. This will mean less of my tax dollars going into this debacle that could lead to WWIII. And it will mean less money going to big oil, who is currently an enemy of the American constitution and people. We are far better off using our dollars to build out our unlimited energy resources like wind, and solar, and throwing big oil under their own bus.

At least, that's how I see it!

[ProSense]

10. That

"It's pretty simple. Big oil installs our puppet in the Ukraine, then chokes off the Russian gas."

...doesn't address the point I made. Your comment is simply justification for your theory.

It doesn't explain the Russian invasion. Like I said, no Russian invasion and the OP point is moot. If the situation is resolved diplomatically, the OP point is moot.

[grahamhgreen]

11. In my view, the Russians are re-taking Crimea as a step to protect their interests in the region.

The reverse of OUR soft invasion.

[ProSense]

12. That's claiming we made them do it. n/t

[Catherina]

6. I suppose next we'll approve the XL pipeline so we can pollute the Ogallala Aquifer

Last edited Wed Mar 12, 2014, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I suppose next we'll approve the XL pipeline so we can pollute the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest freshwater aquifer in the world? Makes perfect sense - if your goal is to screw the environment and the American people.

Nothing like FRACKING up the environment with sludge and pollute the water table so we can sell American natural gas to the highest bidder.

I like your incredible fun fact, "Who is now leading the U.S. State Department's new Bureau of Energy Resources? It's Carlos Pascual, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine "

And Halliburton! How Special when we NOW have Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, former Advisor to Halliburton Lord Dick Cheney, and wife of Robert Kagan, PNAC's co-founder, nvolved up to her neck in the putsch in Ukraine.

Everybody wins! Except the taxpayer who will be subsidizing this for corporations that barely pay any taxes, our environment and Ukraine which will be stuck with polluted water supplies and occasional earthquakes.

Say it all ain't so!

[Kolesar]

15. It aint so

[rhett o rick]

14. k&r thanks for posting. nm