Boom in Energy Spurs Industry in the Rust Belt

This article was submitted by Ted Flint, a radio commentator with significant experience in state legislative affairs

“A Real Game Changer,” read the headlines in a recent edition of the New York Times. A dramatic surge in domestic oil production is transforming the economies of many states across the country. This seismic shift in the fortunes of these once decaying states is directly attributed to hydraulic fracturing: horizontally drilling thousands of feet below the earth’s surface to extract natural gas deposits trapped in shale.

35 states allow ‘fracking’ and the economic turnaround in many of these states has been significant. Pennsylvania, Ohio, the Virginias and more than 30 others are reaping the benefits of the boom.

Why do some states refrain from taking advantage of this bonanza? Consider a prime example: New York.

Active TB in many methods affects the sexual life of husband and buying viagra in india wife. The best part about kamagra tadalafil 20mg price is that it goes hand in hand with sports psychology. Environmental Factors Floors should be buying cheap cialis dry and not slippery. All areas undergoing the generic cialis online assessment will be identified and prevented. NY’s Governor Cuomo is afraid of the political fallout from the environmental Left. Although he alleges that “science” will decide the issue, the practical effect of Mr. Cuomo and others opposed to natural gas drilling is to limit Americans’ access to a plentiful and economical source of fuel. According to a new report cited by the American Petroleum Institute, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing were responsible for 48 percent of U.S. oil production and trimmed up to $0.94 per gallon from fuel prices in 2013. And despite the Left’s animus toward big oil, the industry supports 9.8 million jobs and is responsible for eight percent of the U.S. economy.

Opponents of ‘fracking’ have conveyed the demonstrably incorrect belief that the process contaminates ground water and exposes residents to air pollution. There is a growing body of evidence that debunks this assertion. According to a recent column by Chris Faulkner, CEO of Breitling Energy Corp., and author of “The Fracking Truth,” Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection monitored numerous fracking sites across the state and found that nearby levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and other key pollutants did not exceed federal air quality standards. Similar studies were done in Texas and West Virginia and they reached the same conclusion: oil and gas operations do not endanger air quality.

The issue for the Left has never been about fear of groundwater contamination, because there has never been one incident when that has happened, it’s all about reducing consumption in order to “save the planet.” If gas prices were under two dollars a gallon (where they were when George W. Bush left office) Americans would have more disposable income and could spend their hard-earned dollars on things other than transportation.

The scientifically wrong position taken by environmental extremist’s is harming not only the American consumer, but Europeans as well. Due to the limited supply from the U.S., Moscow, with its abundant resources, has been able to blackmail European nations who require Russian energy for their economic survival.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.