Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
87. It's like a book.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:13 PM
Mar 2016
"They're desperate," says Antoine Simon of Friends of the Earth Europe. "It's the last push to continue their fossil fuel development."




How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.


—By Mariah Blake
MotherJones | September/October 2014 Issue

EXCERPT...

As part of its expanded energy mandate, the State Department hosted conferences on fracking from Thailand to Botswana. It sent US experts to work alongside foreign officials as they developed shale gas programs. And it arranged for dozens of foreign delegations to visit the United States to attend workshops and meet with industry consultants—as well as with environmental groups, in some cases.

US oil giants, meanwhile, were snapping up natural gas leases in far-flung places. By 2012, Chevron had large shale concessions in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, and South Africa, as well as in Eastern Europe, which was in the midst of a claim-staking spree; Poland alone had granted more than 100 shale concessions covering nearly a third of its territory. When the nation lit its first shale gas flare atop a Halliburton-drilled well that fall, the state-owned gas company ran full-page ads in the country's largest newspapers showing a spindly rig rising above the hills in the tiny village of Lubocino, alongside the tagline: "Don't put out the flame of hope." Politicians promised that Poland would soon break free of its nemesis, Russia, which supplies the lion's share of its gas. "After years of dependence on our large neighbor, today we can say that my generation will see the day when we will be independent in the area of natural gas," Prime Minister Donald Tusk declared. "And we will be setting terms."

But shale was not the godsend that industry leaders and foreign governments had hoped it would be. For one, new research from the US Geological Survey suggested that the EIA assessments had grossly overestimated shale deposits: The recoverable shale gas estimate for Poland shrank from 187 trillion cubic feet to 1.3 trillion cubic feet, a 99 percent drop. Geological conditions and other factors in Europe and Asia also made fracking more arduous and expensive; one industry study estimated that drilling shale gas in Poland would cost three times what it does in the United States.

By 2013, US oil giants were abandoning their Polish shale plays. "The expectations for global shale gas were extremely high," says the State Department's Hueper. "But the geological limitations and aboveground challenges are immense. A handful of countries have the potential for a boom, but there may never be a global shale gas revolution."

The politics of fracking overseas were also fraught. According to Susan Sakmar, a visiting law professor at the University of Houston who has studied fracking regulation, the United States is one of the only nations where individual landowners own the mineral rights. "In most, perhaps all, other countries of the world, the underground resources belong to the crown or the government," she explains. The fact that property owners didn't stand to profit from drilling on their land ignited public outrage in some parts of the world, especially Eastern Europe. US officials speculate that Russia also had a hand in fomenting protests there. "The perception among diplomats in the region was that Russia was protecting its interests," says Mark Gitenstein, the former US ambassador to Romania. "It didn't want shale gas for obvious reasons."

CONTINUED KISSINGER...

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron?page=2

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Of course she would. seaotter Mar 2016 #1
You're assuming that such a thing exists! scscholar Mar 2016 #62
I'll give you an A for effort. vdogg Mar 2016 #2
Come on. She's not THAT much of a DINO. KamaAina Mar 2016 #3
Jill Stein and the Greens looking better every day TheUndecider Mar 2016 #64
+1. /nt RiverLover Mar 2016 #85
She will pick... Mike Nelson Mar 2016 #4
Well, it would be nice to have one Democrat on the ticket I suppose Matt_in_STL Mar 2016 #42
Thank you for saying this. Chan790 Mar 2016 #57
Don't say that. They'll alert on you for wishing her dead Heddi Mar 2016 #66
I could mean that she had been a two-term President. Chan790 Mar 2016 #69
I have been on at least 2 juries, sometimes 3, a day for the last several months Heddi Mar 2016 #70
Thankfully, I'm jury-ineligible. Chan790 Mar 2016 #72
no no, I mean the alert messages that some use Heddi Mar 2016 #73
I don't think she SHOULD, but I absolutely think she WOULD if she thought it politically expedient. Svafa Mar 2016 #5
No. She will tap an Hispanic. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #6
a Hispanic Bucky Mar 2016 #33
+1 karadax Mar 2016 #40
I live in Texas. My beloved homeland is at least 20 years, more likely 30, from flipping Bucky Mar 2016 #41
Well, that and we've been gerrymandered to within an inch if our lives. chalky Mar 2016 #59
a hispanic running mate is now some sort of gimmick? dlwickham Mar 2016 #65
Yes. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2016 #45
The two things are not mutually exclusive as demonstrated by the OP's offer of Sandoval..... Bluenorthwest Mar 2016 #43
Would she take someone more liberal than she is? eom/ Bad Thoughts Mar 2016 #7
'If we are going to nominate someone who 50% of our people can't stand, elleng Mar 2016 #8
Hillary would not do that. I saw her asked about who are applegrove Mar 2016 #9
A Clinton/Trump ticket. They are friends. Downwinder Mar 2016 #10
She should run with Hubert Humphrey and invade Vietnam leveymg Mar 2016 #11
It's like a book. Octafish Mar 2016 #87
Birds of a feather flock together. nt TBF Mar 2016 #12
Why not just run with Rubio Depaysement Mar 2016 #13
It's a moo point. Even if she did consider such a thing, no Republican would dare accept it. Tommy_Carcetti Mar 2016 #14
Yes, it's udderly ridiculous to suggest she even ruminate on such a suggestion Bucky Mar 2016 #35
Clever DawgHouse Mar 2016 #54
You're going to milk this for all it's worth, aren't you? hatrack Mar 2016 #84
She could tap Rush Limbaugh for VP and Republicans still would not vote for her. If she's the GoneFishin Mar 2016 #15
Any GOPer who WOULD vote for her -- Hell Hath No Fury Mar 2016 #16
Correct marions ghost Mar 2016 #25
Owl bet this isn't a serious question. hifiguy Mar 2016 #17
Someone that far left of herself? Bold! Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #18
no - she will need someone to her left SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2016 #19
fuck that... lame54 Mar 2016 #20
Nope, and she won't pick an Independent either ... LannyDeVaney Mar 2016 #21
Two center-right candidates on the same ticket? Broward Mar 2016 #22
No, I don't. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2016 #23
O'Malley? greymattermom Mar 2016 #24
Nice try. BlueMTexpat Mar 2016 #26
Fuck no. seaotter Mar 2016 #27
LOL KentuckyWoman Mar 2016 #28
Horrible idea. Selecting a truly Progressive VP would convince more people to stay... highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #29
Well Jeb! is sort of at loose ends tularetom Mar 2016 #30
I think that would be a terrible idea. I think she needs to pick a young minority. Rex Mar 2016 #31
I like Clinton/Castro! ananda Mar 2016 #32
That would be a great ticket imo! Rex Mar 2016 #38
Abraham Lincoln tried that jeepers Mar 2016 #34
Kerry wanted McCain as his running-mate in 2004 and Biden endorsed the idea. Nye Bevan Mar 2016 #36
No...oh wait... zappaman Mar 2016 #37
It would be nice if she did -- then we'd have someone more liberal than she is. nt nichomachus Mar 2016 #39
Someone younger who is not a Washington insider. Ex: Zuckerberg. Albertoo Mar 2016 #44
Fuck no. N/T easttexaslefty Mar 2016 #46
No. Just no. n/t Yo_Mama Mar 2016 #47
Then there would be a moderate republican at the top and bottom of the ticket. nt Joe the Revelator Mar 2016 #48
Good God........NO cry baby Mar 2016 #49
~facepalm~ Marrah_G Mar 2016 #50
Complete utter bullshit SCantiGOP Mar 2016 #51
I'm going to put this as nicely as I can. Chan790 Mar 2016 #52
Doesn't she already have a moderate republican on her ticket? revbones Mar 2016 #53
Birds of a feather flock together mindem Mar 2016 #55
No, don't be ridiculous emulatorloo Mar 2016 #56
Not enough head-banging-wall emoticons in the world... -eom gcomeau Mar 2016 #58
I read between your lines olddots Mar 2016 #60
Why would we want two Republicans on the Democratic ticket? truebluegreen Mar 2016 #61
No Vogon_Glory Mar 2016 #63
This election isn't going to be about R vs D. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2016 #67
There is no such thing as a moderate republican. donna123 Mar 2016 #68
Are we pretending she didn't have a front row seat to Gore/Lieberman? FSogol Mar 2016 #71
She is a moderate Republican. I smell a disaster coming. JEB Mar 2016 #74
No. N/t gollygee Mar 2016 #75
Absolutely! Is Joe Lieberman available, ya think?? n/t Peregrine Took Mar 2016 #76
Goddess NO! nt OhZone Mar 2016 #77
HellNO n/t malaise Mar 2016 #78
It would be fitting. I think she's probably ready to change parties anyway. Doctor_J Mar 2016 #79
HELL NO! F-NO! NEVER! ARE YOU NUTS? NT napi21 Mar 2016 #80
Of course she should! And she should announce that choice immediately! Kip Humphrey Mar 2016 #81
dumb-ass post. Give me a break. HERVEPA Mar 2016 #82
Sarah Palin is available. JEB Mar 2016 #83
I Thought Hillary RobinA Mar 2016 #86
lol, beat me to it Demonaut Mar 2016 #88
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...»Reply #87