Russia, Ukraine and Marcellus

russian ships blocking access to ukrainian ports

The simmering dispute over waterway rights between Ukraine and Russia broke into armed conflict this week. Its implications are enormous both for the energy world as a whole and especially for us in the Marcellus Shale region. But some background is required to appreciate the connection.

Briefly, when Vladimir Putin seized the Crimea in 2014 he gained control of the Kerch Strait, which cuts off the sea lanes from Southeastern Ukraine between the Azov Sea and the Black Sea. Until 2014, Russia had controlled the eastern shore of the Kerch Strait but Ukraine had controlled the west. The two countries had reached an agreement in 2003 allowing for shared access of the Kerch Strait and the Azov Sea. However, Russia’s military and political moves in Crimea in 2014 changed that.

Eager to connect the Crimea to the Russian mainland, Putin ordered the building of a 12 mile bridge over the Kerch Strait after the annexation, which he formally opened himself this year in May by driving a truck across it. Russia then placed more armed vessels in the waters around the bridge. The Russians claimed they needed better security. In practice, the extra traffic increased delays to ships trying to access and use the Ukrainian ports on the Azov Sea, increasing the costs of doing business there and undermining the utility of these ports in international trade.

Ukraine responded with a military show of force, but this was overwhelmed by Russian naval power. Russia then used the supports of the bridge, which had been built at a strategic distance, to permit its own warships to blockade the Ukrainian ports. Weaker militarily, Ukraine has few cards left to play and access to its Azov Sea ports is now very much under Russian de facto control.

As I noted in July during the controversy over the Nord Stream II pipeline that Germany is building with Russia and which will bypass Ukraine and Poland, Ukraine currently gets over 2% of its GDP from transfer payments for the trans-shipments of Russian gas and oil to Western Europe. Thanks to Angela Merkel, that transport route may become irrelevant. Nord Stream II brings Putin’s dreams of Russia once again dominating Eastern Europe one step closer. However, more than just Ukraine’s loss of access to its ports and its lost revenue from diverted oil and gas trans-shipments, thanks to this new pipeline Russia can cut off energy supplies to Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States any time it wishes, without worrying that Western Europe will react harshly as their supplies are also cut off. While economically in the short term this direct pipeline access to Russian gas and oil may be better for Germany, Nord Stream II is a geo-political disaster due to its implications for further expansion of Russian power and influence over former Soviet states, if not more globally.

For these reasons, President Trump was right in calling the Germans out on the new pipeline at the NATO summit in July. However, the President has not been forthcoming with an appropriate condemnation of Russia’s actions, leaving our allies confused and leaving UN Secretary Nikki Haley to act as the lone Voice of America while the President – inexplicably but not unexpectedly – dithers on calling Putin out for what is obviously going on.

Meanwhile, with Putin again showing his aggressive nature, the rest of the West is scrambling.  Cyprus, Israel, Greece and Italy agreed this week to build a $7B pipeline for the Eastern Mediterranean from the Leviathan Field in the Mediterranean Sea. Germany, perhaps belatedly realizing the folly of putting all of its energy eggs in Putin’s basket, now is partnering with Dow Chemical also to build a liquefied natural gas import facility in the German city of Strade, near Hamburg.

Who will supply the gas to feed Western Europe should Russia turn out to be unreliable or if Nord Stream II becomes another pawn on Putin’s chess board to regained Soviet dominance? It could and should be us from right here in the Marcellus. By building out our pipeline system in the US, we can supply Strade and other future European gas import terminals, thereby helping thwart Putin’s aggression, and projecting American “soft power” – which is what critics of an aggressive American foreign policy often demand. At the very least, this will help keep American troops out of harm’s way, but it could also serve as a geopolitical foil to Russia’s attempts to use its energy largesse for political, military, and evident expansion purposes.

Will we have the political will to do it?

In order to do so, the natural gas industry in this country must first recognize the strategic reasons why this is important which, in turn, requires understanding the interconnections between domestic energy policy, international trade, and political, military, and diplomatic events in far away places. Few Americans presently understand how Russian moves in the Azov Sea could eventually end up causing young men and women in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and elsewhere to be sent overseas in military uniforms. Fewer still comprehend how the pipeline build out and export terminals in this country can help (1) secure our future militarily while simultaneously (2) creating good jobs for people in our region and (3) decreasing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. None will understand if they are not told.

Tom Wolf just won reelection handily as Governor of Pennsylvania. He is no friend of the natural gas industry. Unlike his counterparts in New York and Maryland, however, he hasn’t moved to try to shut it down. There will be more pressure on him to do so now that the National Climate Assessment has been released.

Wolf, though, lives in the real world. He must perform for Pennsylvanians. Strange as it sounds, the Governor and the industry need each other. The gas industry has to provide him with the explanation as to why working with the it not only is in Wolf’s own best interests politically but is also in the best interests of all Pennsylvanians, and indeed all Americans. Somehow this message has not gotten through as forcefully as it should.

Further, our newly elected representatives from the Marcellus States in their state legislatures and in the United States Congress must understand – and not be hesitant to educate the public about – the international dynamic. Some, like Chrissy Houlahan of my home district in Southeastern Pennsylvania, are military veterans who have dealt with the intricacies of international relations. Others are untested. It will be up to all of them to work to keep American men and women safe. It will be up to all of us involved with the industry to explain how it can be instrumental – indeed, strategically essential – in doing so.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin will be watching, waiting, and planning his next chess move.

Questions? Let Dan know.

Daniel Markind of Flaster Greenberg

Daniel Markind is a shareholder at Flaster Greenberg PC with over 35 years of experience as a real estate and corporate transactional attorney. He has represented individuals and companies in the energy industry for over 20 years. Dan is a frequent lecturer on Marcellus Shale and other mineral extraction issues and is regularly asked to speak at conferences, in the media and at other venues regarding energy issues and their legal and political implications.

Natural Gas’s Dilemma – How to Respond to the National Climate Assessment?

The day the world changed concept

On Black Friday, the Trump Administration released Volume II of the National Climate Assessment. Running 1,600 pages, the report is the second volume of the fourth National Climate Assessment, which was mandated by Congress in the late 1980’s and is required to be prepared every four years by scientists from 13 designated government agencies. It is being referred to as NCA4 Vol. II.

According to initial press headlines, the warnings contained in NCA4 Vol. II are dire. They include:

  • The “earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.”
  • Average sea levels along the United States coast have increased by about 10 inches since the early 20th century as the oceans have warmed and land ice has melted.
  • More than 100 million people in the United States live in places with poor air quality – and climate change will “worsen existing air pollution levels.”
  • Climate change will “disrupt many areas of life” by affecting trade and exacerbating overseas conflicts.

It is conceivable that the initial press reports will turn out to be exaggerated and that the actual language in NCA4 Vol. II is more nuanced than what has been reported. This Update specifically is being written before full examination of the 1,600 pages can be made, although we will certainly correct any errors or omissions in what the press has written about the Assessment as soon as a more fulsome review of the report is possible.

However, for most members of the public, the press reports may be the only information that they will ever receive about the Assessment because it is unlikely that most people will take the time to pore over 1,600 pages of dense text. They will only remember headlines like those listed above. Whether fair or not, this is the environment that the natural gas industry finds itself in during 2018. It must adapt to that reality. While the industry can, and should, pick apart reports and assessments, including NCA4 Vol. II, to the extent that they contain erroneous data or jump to conclusions unwarranted by the evidence, the industry must realize the impact that the overall public mindset has on national, state, and local energy policy and initiatives.

To that end, the industry needs to recalibrate its message. For too long, what little public relations the industry as a whole has engaged in has concentrated almost only on the economic benefits of natural gas to consumers. While certainly not inaccurate, that overly simple message no longer will carry the day. The economic argument now is framed as: “We all can spend $X for energy which will destroy our planet, or we can spend $X time Y and save our planet. Nobody likes paying higher costs for anything, but if it will save our children’s futures, why shouldn’t we do it?”

It is imperative for the industry now to do two things. First, it must concentrate on the environmental case for natural gas, both over other fossil fuels and until so-called renewable energy becomes more universally available. The natural gas industry has a terrific story to tell, but it needs to tell it. The public does not know what the industry has not told it. America leads the world in greenhouse gas reductions since the fracking revolution. We’re producing massive new quantities of oil and gas, yet our greenhouse gas emissions have dropped over 10% to levels not seen since the 1980’s.

There is no harm in admitting that natural gas may not be the be all and end all of energy use to save the planet, but as a bridge fuel it is unsurpassed. If, as NCA4 Vol II states, we must do something positive fast for the environment to lessen any climate change impacts, there is no better way than to build out the natural gas pipeline infrastructure. This will allow the massive switch from coal to natural gas to occur as quickly as possible.

Second, the industry must point out, gently, that currently there is no feasible alternative. All proposals to power our economy via renewables still are speculative at best. Even if it can be done, we are decades away from a realistic plan to power the world with net neutral sources. Germany is a great example of this. In 2010 it refined its renewable energy policy to limit most, if not all, power projects not involving renewables. Despite this, over the last few ytears, German carbon emissions have increased, not decreased. Now, despreate for energy, Germany is helping the Russians build a new pipeline directly to Germany and it is involved with Dow Chemical to erect a new liquefied natural gas power plant in Strade. Good intentions are one thing. NCA4 Vol. II makes it clear they are not enough.

If the industry truly believes in itself and what it’s doing, it should take up the challenge. Engage on the playing field where the battle is taking place. Target our message to the mindset of the audience, and don’t be afraid to amid there are things we don’t know. Despite NCA4 Vol. II’s warnings, fossil fuels will be with us for decades moer, at least. Wishful thinking about promoting more renewables will not change that stark reality. Until such time as renewables can effectively and completely power our modern economy, we all will benefit from clear headed policies that encourage increased natural gas development, transportation and usage while simultaneously establishing a priority to develop and implement a nationwide renewable energy strategy. Isn’t that really what we all should want?

Questions? Let Dan know.

Daniel Markind of Flaster Greenberg

Daniel Markind is a shareholder at Flaster Greenberg PC with over 35 years of experience as a real estate and corporate transactional attorney. He has represented individuals and companies in the energy industry for over 20 years. Dan is a frequent lecturer on Marcellus Shale and other mineral extraction issues and is regularly asked to speak at conferences, in the media and at other venues regarding energy issues and their legal and political implications.

Pipelines and Politics

Marcellus Shale Update by Daniel Markind of Flaster Greenberg

The tortured story of the Mariner East 2 Pipeline construction may be coming to an end.  If so, it will end the way it began, mired in controversy and inconsistent with what had been proposed and promised by the developers.

Last Thursday, Energy Transfer Partners announced that it will start shipping natural gas liquids through the pipeline by the end of the year.  That pipeline, however, will look different from what had been expected.  The original plans called for a 16-inch pipeline (Mariner 2X) and a 20-inch pipeline (Mariner 2) that each would run along the same right-of-way as the original Mariner East Pipeline from 1931.  ETP now says it only will construct one pipeline, that will merge an existing 12-inch pipe with certain areas of 16-inch pipe and other areas of 20-inch pipe, and this will be called Mariner East 2.  ETP did not explain why its plans had changed, how much of each size pipe will be used, and why the final route through Delaware and Chester Counties in Pennsylvania will be slightly different than previously stated.

Not surprisingly, local residents and elected officials were not pleased.  Pennsylvania State Senator Andy Dinniman, who has been a longtime critic of the pipeline and has also pointed out instances of ETP’s failure to follow State regulations, released a statement that said in part “the cobbling together of new and antiquated pipelines of varying sizes appears to have the potential for even more safety risks and concerns.”

As Mariner East limps toward the finish line, natural gas prices surged this week to five-year highs.  The early storm combined with low stockpiles to produce spot market prices over $4/Mcf.  With winter still a month away, this should be a good time for the natural gas industry to redouble its efforts to convince the Northeast public about the virtues of the pipeline buildout.  The industry has an excellent case to make, both economically and ecologically.  Stories like Mariner 2 however, put the industry in a deep hole.  It’s hard to convince the public of the environmental benefits when a feature project is recycling antiquated pipe at the last minute without explanation.  If the gas industry wants to thrive in the Marcellus, it might try doing itself a favor and treating the public like the concerned residents most are.

Elsewhere, judicial and administrative rulings affected other Marcellus pipelines.  Last Wednesday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a temporary halt to a water crossing permit in West Virginia needed to build the Atlantic Coast Pipeline from West Virginia to North Carolina.  The Court ruled that two conditions required by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to protect the state’s water quality, including a requirement that the stream crossing must be completed within 72 hours, had not been met.  The three judge panel in Charleston, which in October had issued a similar stay to the Mountain Valley Pipeline, overruled an Army Corps of Engineers grant which was issued following a route change.  This should be worked out without much difficulty, but it adds to the suspicion with which pipeline projects currently are viewed.

Finally, FERC granted the Constitution Pipeline, which would run from Dimock, Pennsylvania to Schoharie County, New York, a two-year extension to complete the project.  The unanimous ruling came from two Democratic commissioners and one Republican commissioner.  The Constitution is much needed and was the source of the original power grab by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo regarding the Section 401 Clean Streams Permit, a power play that has been copied by other activist governors (and in spirit by Premier John Horgan of the Canadian Province of British Columbia).

The ruling may be prophetic.  Just one week after winning reelection, Cuomo is in serious political trouble.  Details of the extraordinary giveaways New York State made to the richest man in the world, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, so that Amazon would locate one of its new headquarters in Long Island City have put Governor Cuomo squarely on the defensive.  From an Upstate New York perspective, Amazon is another case of Upstaters getting taxed heavily and having their industry stymied so that New York State Government literally can give their money away to a multi-billionaire for the benefit of Downstaters.

New York’s natural prices already are rising.  A difficult winter possibly is approaching and New York needs gas, which it may have to import again from Vladimir Putin.  None of this looks good for Governor Cuomo, especially with the 2020 Presidential Election season approaching.  It is possible that the Governor may have to do something that actually helps the Southern Tier and build the pipeline.  This will begin to unlock the Marcellus potential for the benefit of New York, New England and the entire United States.  If so, it means we could be less dependent on the Russian dictator for our energy.  That should strike all of us as a good thing.

Questions? Let Dan know.

Daniel Markind of Flaster Greenberg

Daniel Markind is a shareholder at Flaster Greenberg PC with over 35 years of experience as a real estate and corporate transactional attorney. He has represented individuals and companies in the energy industry for over 20 years. Dan is a frequent lecturer on Marcellus Shale and other mineral extraction issues and is regularly asked to speak at conferences, in the media and at other venues regarding energy issues and their legal and political implications.

Pre-Election Update

Marcellus Shale UpdateSeptember 11, 2018 (8)

Just a day before one of the most consequential elections in a generation, there are fewer major races and ballot initiatives pertaining to shale and hydraulic fracturing than in recent years.

Here in Pennsylvania, Democratic Governor Tom Wolf is cruising to reelection.  The most recent polls have him up double digits.  In the 2014 gubernatorial election, then little-known State Treasurer Tom Wolf shot to prominence by running ads focusing on Pennsylvania’s lack of a mineral extraction tax (while ignoring the local impact fee structure) and positioning himself as a foe of the gas industry.  In return, the industry has matched that opposition, and so far has beaten back all attempts to enact an extraction tax, in addition to the local impact fee.

Effective Tuesday, it appears both sides will have four more years to work together and try to figure this out, or not to work together and continue to serve no one’s interest.  They came very close to a resolution in 2017 during the eternal budget negotiations of that year but were ultimately not successful.  Now with Wolf freed from reelection constraints, expect the extraction tax to come back with a vengeance.  Once again, we shall see if the industry considers its most important legislative priority in Pennsylvania to oppose the tax, or whether it decides there are other issues in which it can deal with the Governor that will work better for the industry, the Governor and all Pennsylvanians.

Just north, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo also is way ahead in his reelection bid.  Cuomo, who banned hydraulic fracturing by gubernatorial edict, can rely on the immense power of the downstate environmental lobby without worrying about its effect on the southern tier, where all the gas is and where struggling family farms also are.  However, if there is another severe winter, the failure of Governor Cuomo to address the pipeline issue may cause him trouble.  In order to grow, New York needs gas.  Cuomo has made that very difficult, if not impossible.

He has wanted it both ways.  He can play to his environmental base without having to worry about the economic effect to the State as a whole.  That will cease soon.  As the State, and especially New York City, try to keep growing, they’ll need power.  They’ve closed their nuclear reactors, the hydro from Quebec has not been sufficient, and they’re ideologically opposed to coal.  What’s left?  There is no real plan for renewables and how they’d power New York’s economy.  Could it be that statewide groups like “Chefs Against Fracking” may get their wish, and have to live with the consequences?

The most important ballot initiative is in Colorado.  Proposition 112 would mandate a state setback of 2,500 feet on any drilling operations from most inhabited buildings.  It is five times larger than previous and from the standard nearly everywhere else in the country.  Even in rural areas, plotting 2,500 feet setbacks from any inhabited building would make it very difficult to engage in any drilling activities.

As usual, the industry has spoken with many voices.  Just last week, an internal paper was leaked suggesting the increased setback actually would have little impact on the gas and oil that could be extracted in Colorado.  That was heatedly rebutted with another study – again “leaked” to the press – which stated the original paper was misrepresented.

Despite almost no support from the political establishment on both sides of the aisle, Proposition 112 is leading coming up to election day.  If it passes, expect similar pressure in other states, even in ones with entirely different geography.  Yet, some of the companies, including ones headquartered in Colorado, have been slow to make their case.  This is no surprise given the history of energy company public relations and the industry’s lack of understanding of where its long-term damage may be coming from.

Of course, the major event will be what happens to the US House and Senate.  If we have divided government once again, it will fall to both private industry and local governments to chart the path forward.  For the good of the economic, ecologic, and security health of the country, let’s hope they’re up to the job.

Questions? Let Dan know.

Daniel Markind of Flaster Greenberg

Daniel Markind is a shareholder at Flaster Greenberg PC with over 35 years of experience as a real estate and corporate transactional attorney. He has represented individuals and companies in the energy industry for over 20 years. Dan is a frequent lecturer on Marcellus Shale and other mineral extraction issues and is regularly asked to speak at conferences, in the media and at other venues regarding energy issues and their legal and political implications.

Foreign Policy Realism and the Importance of Shale

Pennsylvania Shale

Just six months after the Chinese Communist leadership massacred hundreds of their own people at Tiananmen Square in 1989, President George H. W. Bush sent his envoy Brent Scowcroft on a secret mission.  When pictures of National Security Advisor Scowcroft raising glasses for a champagne toast with the Butchers of Beijing leaked out, Americans were outraged.  However, Bush and Scowcroft realized that the Chinese relationship was too important and that the Communist leaders weren’t going anywhere.

Today, critics of President Trump, especially the conservatives, wish he were surrounded by international “realists” like Mr. Scowcroft.  Instead, they see Mike Pompeo and John Bolton.  It is curious, however, that the same crew which praised the Bush/Scowcroft team for their “skillful” handling of the aftermath of Tiananmen and the fall of the Soviet Union now criticize Mr. Trump for not immediately taking steps to isolate Saudi Arabia following what appears to be the murder of a Saudi journalist inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.

For reasons ranging from oil to Iran, the US/Saudi relationship is important.  Trump has to exert a price from Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman (MbS), but he has to be careful not to risk the overall relationship.  Whatever decision the President makes will affect the energy industry.  Will the Saudis retaliate by withholding oil supplies?  Will they do the opposite?  Will increased Saudi supply of oil be part of the overall “price” that Mr. Trump extracts from MbS for this sordid affair?  We don’t know the answers yet, and we may never know.

What we do know is that the future of many Pennsylvanians will both impact and be impacted by the intrigue playing out over the Saudi journalist.  That’s a remarkable accomplishment when you think about it.  The Saudis will have to consider places like Washington County and Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania in their calculations of how to respond to American anger.  Who would have thought that ten years ago?

While the international situation plays out, elections loom in this country.  Fewer than three weeks before election day, it looks increasingly likely that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf will win a second term.  That will put both the Governor and the gas industry in a bind.  The industry has been loath to engage with the Governor after he bludgeoned them during his 2014 campaign and after they had some dealings with him in the early days of his administration that the industry felt were not up front.  The Governor is bitter that the industry fought him so hard on his extraction tax, robbing him of one of his most important campaign promises.

Both the industry and the Governor may be in a pivotal international position in a few months if things spin out of control in the Middle East or elsewhere.  Pennsylvania gas production may prove to be a critical bulwark against mass economic dislocation that would please no one as much as the Russians and the Iranians.

First comes the approaching winter.  New York and New England are more vulnerable than ever to energy shortages due to their short-sighted policies on pipeline infrastructure and their closing of their nuclear plants.  Will they have to import gas again from Russia?  If they do it will it limit the President’s ability to deal with Russian involvement in the Middle East? What if the Saudis respond to American pressure by just moving closer to Vladimir Putin?  Meanwhile, as this is happening will New Englanders be forced again to go hat in hand to Putin to save them from freezing to death this winter?  It could happen.  By making themselves vulnerable to energy shocks – especially when the answer is five hours away in Pennsylvania, the New Englanders have weakened us all.  Domestic miscalculations often have international implications.

In Pennsylvania we have a separate problem.  Pennsylvania’s shale producers are notorious for their inability to develop common positions.  This limits their effectiveness when dealing with state government.   Assuming he wins, Governor Wolf will owe the industry nothing for his reelection.  Still, the industry provides a critical service at an unsettled time.  There is a lot that can be accomplished on both sides given any willingness to engage based on the new international and electoral realities.  There’s no time like the present.

Questions? Let Dan know.

Daniel Markind of Flaster Greenberg

Daniel Markind is a shareholder at Flaster Greenberg PC with over 35 years of experience as a real estate and corporate transactional attorney. He has represented individuals and companies in the energy industry for over 20 years. Dan is a frequent lecturer on Marcellus Shale and other mineral extraction issues and is regularly asked to speak at conferences, in the media and at other venues regarding energy issues and their legal and political implications.

 

Depoliticizing Middle East Oil Dependence through Increased Production of U.S. Shale

MCU_20181012

While America was transfixed with the sordid spectacle of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the news that really can have international impact was playing out in Istanbul, Turkey.  On Thursday its ramifications began being felt in this country.  Thanks to our shale industry, however, President Trump will have many more options going forward than otherwise.

Jamal Khashoggi was a Saudi Arabian journalist who has been highly critical of the ruling House of Saud.  A columnist for the Washington Post, Khashoggi was a permanent resident of the United States.  He also has been a thorn in the side of the de facto Saudi ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.  Readers of this blog will know that I’ve written about “MbS” before.  He is part reformer (opening up new avenues for Saudi women), part irresponsibly aggressive international leader (kidnapping the Lebanese President; getting involved in a reckless war in Yemen), and part thin-skinned autocrat (ordering many of his own royal family held at a Saudi hotel on corruption charges).

Over the last several months, Khashoggi received death threats and other intimidations.  Nevertheless, Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain necessary papers for his upcoming wedding.  He hasn’t been seen since.

Turkey, which is a major Middle Eastern adversary of Saudi Arabia, claims he was murdered inside the consulate, his body later dismembered so it could be smuggled out to uncertain location.  The Saudis deny this but can’t produce him.  American intelligence intercepts seem to point the finger directly at MbS for a plot to at least detain Khashoggi, or worse.

Congress now is up in arms.  Twenty-two senators from both parties signed a letter demanding President Trump sanction Saudi Arabia, including cutting off arms shipments.  Trump is resisting the arms embargo, but it looks more likely that he will have to do something substantial.  It was, after all, an American green card holder who was detained and possibly executed in brutal fashion.

What can the President do?  Saudi Arabia is crucial to Trump’s strategy of developing a new axis of power in the Middle East featuring Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt.  It is regarded as a counterweight to the ambitions of Turkey and Iran, both of which are led by Islamic governments (as is Saudi Arabia) yet neither of which is friendly toward the West.

Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Saudi Arabia literally has held the United States over a barrel (pun intended).  Their oil weapon intimidated American presidents for 40 years; quite simply, the United States needed their product.  However, during that time, Saudi oil money – in large part coming from America – also funded Islamic schools called madrassas that indoctrinated Saudi (and in Pakistan, Taliban) youth into their radical, misogynistic form of Wahhabism Islam, sponsored terrorist camps around the world, and produced 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001.  Somehow, the Saudis always got a pass.

Now, however, the world might be different, and that difference is due in significant part to our frackers.  As out of “PC” favor as it may be, it is the shale industry that has given the President, or any president, freedom of movement in this situation.  Given the gravity of the situation, Trump will probably have to make serious moves, but he must be very careful in what he does given the complexity and volatility of the Middle East.  A military option would only be a last resort.  An economic one is far more likely but its chances for success in bringing about reform are heavily dependent on the degree of Saudi pain that it might inflict.  This is where the shale industry becomes an important factor.In response to any economic sanctions, any threat by the Saudis to use its oil weapon would have far less sting today than it did during the oil embargos of the early 1970s.  Such a move certainly would increase the price of oil and gas, but it would also give the American shale industry a huge opening to increase production, expand international market share, and actually make some money (which many of the companies really don’t do).  Environmental activists can act self-righteous all they want, but it is the frackers who provide the breathing space for the American government to use economic weapons instead of military ones – and for the economic weapons to have real effect.

Provided many scientific questions get answered (which is not a foregone conclusion), both America’s and the world’s long term future may be with “renewables.”  In the short term, however, those of us with younger children need to say a “thank you” to George Mitchell and the other pioneers of the shale industry.  Thanks to them, our sons and daughters have substantially less chance being sent overseas to fight another Middle Eastern war we don’t want among people we don’t understand.

Questions? Let Dan know.

Daniel Markind of Flaster Greenberg

Daniel Markind is a shareholder at Flaster Greenberg PC with over 35 years of experience as a real estate and corporate transactional attorney. He has represented individuals and companies in the energy industry for over 20 years. Dan is a frequent lecturer on Marcellus Shale and other mineral extraction issues and is regularly asked to speak at conferences, in the media and at other venues regarding energy issues and their legal and political implications.