Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/23/2025 4:15:55 AM PDT by MtnClimber
After four years of energy chaos, President Trump is rebuilding America’s strength by unleashing domestic production and reversing Biden’s global strategic blunders.
When Donald J. Trump returned to the White House on January 20, 2025, he inherited a shattered energy policy—and a nation paying the price for four years of willful decline.
The American energy sector, which had once been the envy of the world, was left throttled by bureaucracy, sabotaged by ideology, and entangled in a geopolitical trap of our own making.
The good news? The war on American energy is over.
The bad news? The damage is already global.
Even worse? American citizens—particularly working-class families and those on fixed incomes—were the immediate victims of President Biden’s failed energy strategies, if you can call them strategies at all.
No decision better captures the recklessness of the Biden presidency than the now-infamous LNG export freeze. This move did more to finance Vladimir Putin’s war machine than a year of Siberian oil exports—by halting new LNG terminal approvals, Biden handed Moscow an open lane to energy ascendancy.
In December 2023, over 87% of U.S. LNG exports were directed to the European Union, United Kingdom, and Asian markets, pivotal in reducing European natural gas prices by more than 83% from their 2022 peaks following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
During the Russo-Ukrainian war, the former administration's indefinite pause disrupted global energy markets and bewildered America’s European allies striving to eliminate their dependence on Russian natural gas.
European nations—desperate for stable gas supplies, particularly in the depths of winter—were forced to fall back on Russian fuel.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
The harm caused by the Biden administration has to have been intentional.
One thing I respectfully disagree with in the article: “ The Biden Years: Ideology Over Strategy”. Biden had a strategy: satisfying his sugar daddies. The people who paid him were against American strength.
Yes, Biden follower the Jimmy Carter strategy of giving our power away to please his major donors and as a way of virtue signalling.
I wish President Trump had ordered the construction of Keystone XL. I don’t care if it has to be done at taxpayer expense. I don’t care if it doesn’t make economic sense anymore. I just want to shove it right down the Gaia worshiper’s throats and make them choke on it.
Side note: Not only is energy vital in reducing direct costs for consumers, not only is energy a vital input into everything else and a key strategic advantage in bringing manufacturing back to America, it is also vital in the race to develop AI data centers which numerous people have said is critical to the future for economic and defense reasons. AI data centers require huge amounts of energy. We want as much of that Albertan oil flowing south as possible.
Or at the very least willfully reckless.
Demonically indifferent to the eminently predictable negative consequences.
The article is largely silliness.
Us nat gas production versus US nat gas consumption is an excess of about 100 billion cubic meters per year.
That does get exported as LNG. There are pre-existing customers, prior to Europe’s desperation since they refused to import Russian natural gas and indeed blow up a pipeline pair that does that.
An examination of Europe’s natural gas consumption shows that they did not replace what they lost when those pipelines were blown up. Their consumption outright declined.
Nobody burns nat gas for fun. Europe needs that to stay warm, to fuel industry, and even the fuel transport. When their consumption declines it means fewer buildings are heated, factories shut down, people stay warm because those other nodes of consumption shut off. GDP growth in the large natural gas consuming countries has been smashed.
The US did want to export LNG to Europe but the quantities available to do so or minuscule in comparison to the European requirement. Pounding out text in the article about how this backstabs them so that they have to consume Russian gas it’s just silly. You could have had every LNG terminal proposed and double or triple those and still not have had available the natural gas to convert to LNG to send to Europe.
The really bad news is US natural gas consumption continues to rise and US natural gas reserves do not.
‘Green Energy’ Is Quietly Polluting A Landfill Near You
In my neck of the woods they know and just don't give a damn.
When I started out in the energy industry about 50 years ago, I worked as a service engineer in industrial and utility power plants. I burned everything and anything that could burn to make steam. I became convinced that the national should match the value of the fuel to the value of the application. Natural gas was the highest value fuel and should be prioritized for home and commercial heating, and as a chemical.feedstock. It was a grave strategic error to make electricity from gas when power could be made cleanly from coal and nuclear. But the “gas bubble” hit, gas prices went way down, and large aeroderivative gas turbines were developed to make even cleaner power, combined cycle plants hit very high efficiencies and gas suddenly became the “best” fuel for power generation (for a couple decades until the CO2 insanity went off the charts).
I still hate to see all that very precious and limited gas being burned to make power when we have abundant coal and uranium.
Nat gas is often a byproduct of oil fracking. The whole flaring controversy in NoDak derived from it. Then the issue of wet gas vs dry gas would often decide if a gas well should be drilled and fracked. Natural Gas Liquids funded the effort because the gas didn’t have the price necessary to pay the bills.
Regardless, we consume well over 1 trillion cubic meters/yr in the US, that is growing, and reserves are way below 20 trillion cubic meters.
The ugliest part of this is notoriously, production cannot maintain a rate as “empty” approaches. All wells output rate declines as the pressures below diminish. It’s not 100% empty. It doesn’t have to be for pressures to die.
Progress is being made on flaring at the wellhead. In 2023, the United States vented or flared 324 billion cubic feet of NG at oil and gas wellheads. That is 0.5% of the total U.S. NG gross withdrawals and was the lowest flaring rate in 18 years. Flaring and venting volumes dropping from 1.5 BCF/day in 2019 to 0.9 BCF/day in 2023, despite record natural gas production of 125 BCF/day.
There are a number of reasons for the decrease: increased pipeline and gathering system capacity (particularly in major basins like the Permian). New pipelines in Texas helped lower flaring from 2.3% of produced gas in June 2019 to 0.65% by May 2021.
Stricter state regulations and enforcement. Rules required operators to capture more gas or face production curtailments incentivized compliance.
Economic Incentives: Higher NG prices, especially post-2020, made capturing and selling gas more profitable than flaring. Operators invested in technologies like gas capture systems and on-site power generation to monetize gas previously flared.
Technological Advancements: Improved well completion techniques and monitoring systems, including satellite-based flare detection, allowed operators to optimize production and minimize waste. Companies adopted real-time data to reduce unnecessary flaring during operations.
Environmental and Social Pressure: Growing scrutiny from investors, environmental groups, and the public pushed operators to adopt flaring reduction commitments. Initiatives like the World Bank’s Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 encouraged voluntary reductions.
The economics of reduced flaring in the U.S. oil and gas industry generally favor gas capture over flaring, with positive ROI in many cases. Economic outcomes depend on gas prices, infrastructure costs, and operational specifics. The economics can look very good. In 2023, U.S. natural gas prices averaged around $2.54 per thousand cubic feet at Henry Hub. Capturing 1 BCF of gas at $2.50/MCF (MCF = thousands of CF) yields $2.5 M in revenue. In high-production areas like the Permian, where flaring peaked at 0.7 BCF/day in 2019, capturing even a fraction of this volume can be lucrative when prices are favorable.
Very good, sir.
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Stricter state regulations and enforcement. Rules required operators to capture more gas or face production curtailments incentivized compliance.
Economic Incentives: Higher NG prices, especially post-2020, made capturing and selling gas more profitable than flaring. Operators invested in technologies like gas capture systems and on-site power generation to monetize gas previously flared.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
This happened in NoDak. It was not like Permian, where oil production had been huge for decades. NoDak fracking was new territory so pipeline networks just were not yet there. Hence, flaring.
NoDak govt put the hammer down. Capture or we will impose 100% tax on progressively increasing amounts of oil from that well. (haha they did not stop them from producing, they just took all the proceeds). Anyway, flaring soon stopped.
It’s not a big %, but as empty gets closer, those small %s you just mentioned start to look important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.