So? I coulda told the tranny that.
Wonder why Trump is expanding fracking. I thought he was in Putin's pocket.
The world is so confusing. I'm glad we have a British lesbian to explain it all to us.
In other news, Trump to Open More Than 1 Million Acres of California Land for Fracking
[sounds of liberal head scratching]
We have suspected for years that the anti-fracking mantra came from Russia and the Middle East.
Oh, wait. That was Obama...
And we all know which political party want to restrict or completely eliminate fracking in the United States.
Hint: it is not the Republican party.
Ef Putin.
So? I coulda told the tranny that.
Wonder why Trump is expanding fracking. I thought he was in Putin's pocket.
The world is so confusing. I'm glad we have a British lesbian to explain it all to us.
I’ve never heard Putin say anything, but I could have guessed that with about a hundred percent certainty.
Just common sense of course, but that is anything but common.
Watts Up with That
Research & Commentary by Tim Benson
A new report prepared by Kleinhenz & Associates for the Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program shows increased oil and natural gas production from hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) has saved American consumers $1.1 trillion in the decade from 2008 to 2018. This breaks down to more than $900 in annual savings to each American family, or $9,000 in cumulative savings.
These savings come from the lower cost of natural gas due to increased production. According to the report, “natural gas as measured using the average Henry Hub price has declined from a 2008 high of $8.86 to an estimated 2018 price of $3.16.” For households in the lowest economic quintile, the bottom 20 percent, the lower price for natural gas amounts to a savings of 2.7 percent of their annual income. “This is equivalent to a raise of 2.7% for the poorest households,” the report states.
The paper singles out the states of the “Shale Crescent”—Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia—noting they are “responsible for 85 percent of the net growth in natural gas daily production over the past ten years and now [account] for nearly one-third of U.S. natural gas annual production.”
In these states, total savings since 2009 amount to almost $93 billion ($45 billion in Ohio, $43 billion in Pennsylvania, and $3 billion in West Virginia). For industrial and manufacturing end users in the region, savings were more than $25 billion ($13.9 billion in Ohio, $9.5 billion in Pennsylvania, $1.3 billion in West Virginia).
These findings are backed up by a series of reports from the Consumer Energy Alliance. The trade group found lower natural gas prices due to increased shale development led to more than $40 billion in savings for Ohio residents from 2006 to 2016. In Pennsylvania, savings were more than $30 billion. West Virginia residents experienced savings of more than $4 billion.
It should come as no surprise that shale development is spurring economic growth across the “Shale Crescent” and the United States as a whole. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, the shale industry alone drove 10 percent of U.S. GDP from 2010 to 2015. In 2018, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, oil and gas extraction accounted for $218 billion of U.S. economic output.
Hydraulic fracturing activity delivers $1,300 to $1,900 in annual benefits to local households, including “a 7 percent increase in average income, driven by rises in wages and royalty payments, a 10 percent increase in employment, and a 6 percent increase in housing prices,” according to a December 2016 study conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago, Princeton University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Another study published in the American Economic Review in April 2017 found “each million dollars of new [oil and gas] production produces $80,000 in wage income and $132,000 in royalty and business income within a county. Within 100 miles, one million dollars of new production generates $257,000 in wages and $286,000 in royalty and business income.”
Hydraulic fracturing enables the cost-effective extraction of once-inaccessible oil and natural gas deposits. These energy sources are abundant, inexpensive, environmentally safe, and can ensure the United States remains a leading energy producer far into the future. Therefore, policymakers in the “Shale Crescent” should refrain from placing unnecessary burdens on the natural gas and oil industries, which are safe and positively impact their states’ economies.
Well Putin was right. I don’t know why this was mentioned in today’s hearing, but Ms. Hill did ask nicely “And if I may add?”.
Don’t worry....Here in NY, we’ve outlawed it.
Glad you saw that my CSPAN cut out and said I needed to subscribe to it crazy.Thought it was deliberate lost audio when it was over and our side was going to speak.
I don’t believe her. I don’t believe she kept her mouth SHUT long enough to HEAR anything
When I first heard people pushing the Russian collusion narrative, including some in my own family, I always responded,
“Russia’s economy is based energy exports and weapons sales. Why the hell would Putin help the candidate who wants to make America energy independent and strengthen our military? That makes no sense at all.”
No one I’ve spoken to could answer that question. Yet it didn’t seem to phase anyone that this made no sense. I couldn’t believe it blew up into a three year investigation. These people are delusional.
The media always misspells it. It is “fracing”, not fracking. Short for fracturing. They want it to have a sort of Frankenstein look. Pretty much just sand, water, detergent, and horsepower.
So if fracking (and larger American oil output in general) are a threat to Russia (and it is, to their economy, as it keeps a lid on the price of the oil and gas that Russia desperately needs to export), then ...
... why on Earth would Putin have wanted Trump to win in 2016?
After all, Trump said that he was going to unleash the oil companies, whereas Clinton was going to keep following Obama’s lead in shackling our energy producers (all the better to enrich her Mideast-based Clinton Foundation “donors”). Besides, Trump also promised a big arms build-up, Clinton said nothing about it. These are a replay of the twin pillars of the Reagan action that buried the Soviet Union (which Puting thinks is the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century). Finally, Trump also couldn’t be blackmailed over the Uranium One fiasco, and Clinton could.
Can ANYONE with a shred of logic explain why Putin would have wanted Trump to win, if it would have been devastating for Russia vs. a Clinton Presidency? Every time I mention this to a Russia, Russia, Russia conspiracy theorist, I’m greeted with either crickets, or with “well, that doesn’t matter, Putin just wanted Trump because reasons.” IOW, these people are just nuts. Putin is a patriot, and a ruthless and analytical man, and he would never have wanted Trump to win.
Fiona looks like one of the British exclamation Wallace and Grommit characters...flatline mouth.
Trouble with her and others overhearing things, allegedly-—
Putin may have said “I’m just fed up this whole f—ing policy” and Hill thought he said the whole fracking policy.