This article is meant to highlight the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in encouraging Bulgaria, a model of government switching from communism to parliamentary democracy, to allow fracking by California-based Chevron company as a diversification of energy production. Diversification of energy sources will allow independence from any one source.
Energy independence from Middle East Oil, or any type of finite fuel source, is important, not for political reasons, but for environmental, ecological and humanitarian reasons. And the transition could be made smoother if only there weren't so many opposing forces and interests wanting to "be right" instead of "do right".
My problem with "Fracking" is not based on politics or lobbyists or polls. It's based on the ecological damage that is a byproduct of current "Fracking" methods. The government knows this, since the EPA is a branch of the government. However, they choose to "politicize" the issue by tying it to national security.
Well, my question is this? Why would Secretary of State travel to Bulgaria to convince that government to allow "Fracking" by Chevron, a US multinational corporation whose birth can be traced back to 1879 as the Pacific Coast Oil Company? They are currently headquartered in San Ramon, CA.
Why would she try to convince another country to allow a foreign oil company to use "Fracking" on their land if it is such a contentious issue?
- It can't be to encourage job growth in the US because all the jobs would be outsourced to Bulgarians except for oversight and management.
- It can't be to save the US economy, as the only beneficiary would be Chevron. That won't put a tank of gas in my car.
- It cannot be in Bulgaria's interests, since the citizens have taken to the street to protest "Fracking" in their country and the government has listened to their people. They currently have a moratorium on all "Fracking" in the country.
So what could be the reason? As I once learned, the most relevant question needed to answer motive is who benefits? (thanks "Law & Order"). Right now the only answer I see is Chevron, but if I dig deeper, I see that allowing Bulgaria to set a precedent might cause a domino-effect in the fight against hydraulic fracturing. In turn, Romania may decide to follow suit. Then Turkey, Greece, Serbia etc;
Bulgaria is a small country as far as size goes, and it's not a major source of natural fuel sources; gas, oil or coal. It has a very diverse geography and over 500 rivers.
But what it does right is renewable energy sources, with 40% of the country's electricity coming from nuclear power plants. More importantly, Bulgaria's expertise in production, exportation and distribution of energy and electricity makes it a MAJOR player in the Balkans.
Thru this small country passes a huge amount of oil and natural gas from Russia to the rest of Western Europe. Due to their geographic location it has been a major hub for distribution of electricity for a long time.
One more note of interest. To improve the corporate management and supervision of the energy sector, on 13 February 2008 the Government of Bulgaria decided to set up a state-owned energy holding company Bulgarian Energy Holding EAD
This means that the controls of the energy grid of the entire country is used for the benefits of all it's citizens, not individual multi-national corporations. At least, that's the way it sounds. Not a bad plan if energy is your country's strong suit.
As of now, major pipeline projects are underway, similiar to our Keystone XL Pipeline, that will cross thru this little country. They are becoming the nexus, as in times past, of the Balkans and Western Europe.
Bulgaria has no need to institute "Fracking", since it will not benefit the country in the least, and quite possibly damage the ecology of this small country, which is six times smaller in square miles than Texas.
No, what I would like to see is the US learn thru Bulgaria's example of cooperation and energy independence. It's not perfect, but it's better than current standards.
Imagine if instead of competition between countries we cooperated. Do you know how much Natural Gas Russia could provide the USA if allowed to do so? Do you know how cheap Middle East Oil would become if there were more global cooperation in the energy market? All global markets and borders would be open to bids and offers from any other country with the means, not based on race, ideology, beliefs or religion.
Cooperation, not competition is the future of humanity, I just wish we could start today.
No comments:
Post a Comment