The Marcellus formation lies under more than 60 percent of the state of Pennsylvania alone. Some geologists and petroleum engineers believe that the massive shale formation may hold as much as 500 to 700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This amount of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale could supply the entire east coast for the next 50 years according to some geologists.

Larry Behrens writes at Real Clear Energy Fetterman and Cuomo: A Midterm Election Energy Lesson.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

With energy dominating the national discussion, look no further than Pennsylvania and New York as examples of failure and fortune. The Empire State might be looking to make a U-turn after a years-long trip into failed energy policy, while the Keystone State must decide if they will adopt the “America Last” energy policy currently favored in Washington, D.C.

The two states share a border of 225 miles, but when it comes to energy,
they might as well be on different planets.

It’s clear energy is on the ballot this midterm season. That’s bad news for fracking foes like Pennsylvania Senate Candidate John Fetterman. While he may be struggling to articulate his position du jour on fracking, it’s clear he’s borrowing from the Joe Biden play book: play a moderate in the campaign, return to radical roots once elected.

In 2014, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo imposed an outright ban on fracking in his state. The decision cost a loss of 400 jobs per year in some of the state’s counties and resulted in a “statically significant increase in unemployment.” By declaring a war on pipelines, some utilities in New York stopped “new residential, and commercial and industrial customer gas service connections.” New Yorkers are paying the 10th highest electric rates in the nation, and nearly 30 percent higher than their neighbors in Pennsylvania.

With no fracking ban in their state, Pennsylvanians are much better off. Today, the Commonwealth is second only to Texas when it comes to production of shale gas and in 2021 the state received over $235 million in impact fees from drillers. One university study found communities in Pennsylvania suffering from long-term economic stagnation are the beneficiaries of American energy development in their area.

Two different states, two very different outcomes. Enter the 2022 midterm election.

Source of Primary Energy Consumption Data:  EIA   Notice that California and New York are top consumers of FF energy, principally oil and natural gas, but neither is a top producer, despite accessible resources.  Florida, Ohio and Illinois also share that predicament.

New York’s race for Governor is turning into a nail-biter, as residents of the state consider hiring the first Republican for the job in 16 years. Appointed Governor Kathy Hochul would continue Cuomo’s failed anti-fracking policy while Republican Lee Zeldin supports energy development in New York. The result? A Republican is surging in a massively blue state where people say their top issue is the economy. New Yorkers are suffering under the consequences of failed-fracking policy. Meanwhile in Pennsylvania, they have a radical in moderate’s clothing that thinks the New York failure is just fine.

The stakes are as high as they are clear: John Fetterman wants to end fracking and if elected, he’ll do all he can to do it. Sure, we all witnessed his bumbling response where he pinky-swears he now likes fracking, but he can’t bumble over the truth. He once referred to the industry as a “stain” on the state he is seeking to represent. Don’t forget that Joe Biden also did the fracking flip-flop as a candidate, only to take office and impose an “America Last” energy policy that’s delivered record gas prices, massive inflation and a weaker country on the world stage. Apparently, John Fetterman and Joe Biden view the disaster in New York as a winning game plan.

It failed for Andrew Cuomo, it’s failing for Joe Biden and if he’s elected, it will fail for John Fetterman, too. You might say that just like Communism, banning fracking has failed everywhere it’s been tried.

Vote accordingly.

See also New England Energy Inflation Self-Imposed

Project abandoned in 2017 after New York blocked planning and permit processes.

Fred Laza writes at Financial Post Climate fantasies hit brick wall of U.S. politics.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The reality of the energy transition could be ugly for politicians

The Biden administration’s attempt to lower gasoline prices before the November mid-terms has been both amusing and disappointing. First the president attributed the run-up in oil and gas prices to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Then his government drained about a million barrels a day from the strategic oil reserve. After six months of that and with gasoline prices creeping up again, Mr. Biden went to Saudi Arabia to ask Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for his help in keeping oil prices from rising at least through to the mid-term elections.

The prince said no, which was totally predictable. It appears none of the foreign policy experts advising the president understands basic human relations, let alone Arab culture. You can’t call someone a murderer and then expect him to turn the other cheek and meekly accede to your request for a big personal favour.

The substantial long-term damage to the important relationship between Arab countries and the U.S. has been driven entirely by short-term political expediency. This greenest administration in history at first seemed very committed to dealing with climate change and accelerating the timeline to achieve net-zero carbon emissions for the U.S. as a whole. A key driver for this goal is higher oil and gas prices. Economics 101 teaches that sharply higher prices for carbon fuels will reduce demand for them and promote the shift to alternative sources of energy, primarily renewables.

Well, Putin’s war on Ukraine and Biden’s war on fossil fuels have been very effective in delivering skyrocketing oil and gas prices. But now it seems another key driver of climate policy has been discovered: that a Democratic administration remain in office, a necessity that has run into the reality that people do not seem willing to pay the price, at least not right now, for the transition from carbon to non-carbon sources of energy.

Ardent supporters of the energy transition keep suggesting it will lead to the creation of millions of new jobs. (“There is no trade-off between the economy and the environment.”) There are at least two problems with this argument. First, it ignores the euphemistically named “adjustment process.” As the economy moves away from fossil fuels, many millions of people will lose their jobs and not “transition” easily and smoothly to the new jobs that might eventually be created. As with all dramatic policy changes, there will be winners and losers, and the losers likely won’t be fully compensated by the winners — or happy about that. That reality could be ugly for politicians.

As for the claim that the transition will eventually produce millions of net new jobs,
there is good reason for doubt.

Consumer-oriented industries, with the possible exceptions of food and shelter, will have to make drastic changes in their business models. The carbon footprints resulting from the continual introduction of marginally better products are substantial, which means the regular introduction of new products or of varieties of existing products will have to end. Think of the effects in automobiles, iPhones, clothing, furniture, cosmetics, detergents and so on. Further, until most electricity worldwide is derived from renewables or nuclear, the growth of the Internet will have to be curtailed. The millions of servers that are its backbone require large amounts of electricity for cooling and power. Will users willingly limit their reliance on social media and streaming services? Imagine the implications for business and commerce if they are required to.

If our production of carbon is to be reduced as much as the most insistent environmentalists want, market economies will have to move to much lower levels of production and employment. The yellow brick road to Green Oz does not run smooth. It might never actually reach Green Oz, and even if it does, there is no assurance that either the trip or the destination will be pleasant for everyone.

Until very recently, this political reality seems to have been forgotten. Politicians need to be careful in what they ask for and much more honest with the people whose votes they seek.

Fred Lazar is an associate professor of economics in the Schulich School of Business at York University.

Footnote Q & A:

Q:  What is the difference between Golf and Government?

A:  In Government you can always improve your lie.

–Anonymous Source

Marlo Thomas explains in his Real Clear Energy article Expensive Energy Is a Core Feature, Not a Bug, of Biden’s Climate Agenda.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was being generous by describing interventionism’s nasty side-effects as “unintended.” Some younger interventionists are naïve, and know not what they do, but the older, street-smart captains of progressive politics understand the harms their policies entail. For them, the adverse consequences are features, not bugs.

The only downside is the risk of political retribution at the polls.

That’s the predicament in which the Biden administration now finds itself. It is also the theme of “Energy Inflation Was by Design,” a new report by supply-chain consultant Joseph Toomey.
[Synopsis is in previous post Energy Inflation Playbook]

President Biden and congressional Democrats want to replace fossil fuels with a “zero-carbon” energy system. Their biggest win to date is the comically mistitled Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). A Penn-Wharton analysis estimated that the IRA would increase federal climate and energy spending by $369 billion over ten years. A recent article in The Atlantic touts a Credit Suisse estimate that actual climate-related federal support could reach $800 billion. That’s because the incentives for electric vehicles and renewable energy are “uncapped tax credits.” Moreover, since federal spending leverages private-sector investment, total economy-wide green-tech spending could increase by as much as $1.7 trillion.

Nor is that all. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the IRA has increased its loan program authorities by up to $350 billion.

No wonder Democrats celebrated the IRA’s enactment. No bigger program to rig energy markets against fossil fuels was ever enacted.

The IRA aims to enrich thousands of enterprises, tens of thousands of employees, and millions of shareholders—all dependent on Democrats to keep the gravy train flowing. Hardly an “unintended” consequence.

But voters see and feel the downsides of Biden’s war on fossil fuels: the high costs of gasoline, electricity, and other utilities, which in turn increase the costs of food, rent, and consumer goods. Those effects, moreover, coincide with high general inflation, a cratering stock market, and negative GDP growth in two consecutive quarters. Biden tries to blame Vladimir Putin and Big Oil for America’s energy woes. That is nonsense, and the public isn’t buying it.

Toomey marshals overwhelming evidence that “energy inflation” is a core feature of the president’s climate agenda. And how could it be otherwise? A core progressive article of faith is that fossil fuels are too cheap because market prices do not reflect the “social costs” of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Accordingly, no matter how expensive or scarce fossil energy may become for other reasons, taxing or capping fossil-fuel consumption to make it even more costly is hailed as a “climate solution.” Of course, handicapping fossil fuels is also touted as a way to make renewables more “competitive.” As President Obama enthused, cap-and-trade will “finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

The public, however, has repeatedly spurned proposals to tax or cap the carbon content of fuels or emissions. So, U.S. progressives now concentrate on rigging energy markets via targeted regulations, state-level renewable-energy quotas, and subsidies. As noted, the IRA sets a new standard for anti-fossil-fuel subsidies.

President Biden seeks to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieve a zero-emission electricity sector by 2035. That means that about half of all U.S. fossil-fuel consumption must end in eight years. Few investors want to park their capital in rapidly contracting industries. So, thanks to Biden, the market forecasts that supplies of oil, gas, and coal will decline relative to demand—and prices will rise. The expectation of shrinking supplies and higher future prices puts upward pressure on energy prices today.

An irony noted by Toomey is that by endangering fossil-fuel energy supply, Biden has not only increased fossil-fuel energy prices but also boosted oil and gas company profits and stock values. The short-term enrichment of oil companies may well be an unintended consequence of a long-term agenda to put them out of business. On the other hand, Biden’s boost to oil industry profits is also the setup for further interventions popular with progressive activists and politicians—windfall profits taxes, export bans, and Federal Trade Commission investigations of “anti-consumer behavior.”

Toomey demolishes the Biden administration’s allegation that oil companies are deliberately reducing refinery utilization to constrict supplies and raise prices. In fact, refineries are running at higher utilization rates than ever (about 94 percent).

As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden promised to “get rid of fossil fuels,” assuring one activist, “I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.”

Toomey reviews several Biden initiatives that back up such threats. The major ones, besides the government-wide, IRA-funded effort to channel “the flow of capital toward climate-aligned investments and away from high-carbon investments,” include:

Cancelling the Keystone XL Pipeline on Inauguration Day;

Suspending new oil and gas leases on federal lands;

Reviving social-cost-of-carbon sophistry;

Halting petroleum-development activity in Alaska’s National Arctic Wildlife Refuge;

Rejoining the Paris Climate Accords without asking for the Senate’s advice and consent;

Considering a non-attainment designation for ozone pollution that could curb drilling in the Permian Basin, which accounts for 43 percent of U.S. oil production; and

Imposing stricter methane standards for oil and gas production.

To provide historical context for the fiscal side of Biden’s climate agenda, Toomey discusses the Obama DOE loan program established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment (“Stimulus”) Act. The best-known program beneficiary was solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2011 despite receiving $535 million in DOE loan guarantees. Some readers may also recall a list of seven such “Stimulosers.”

In short, nearly seven out of ten Obama DOE loan recipients in a $32 billion loan program went bankrupt. The total federal financial support provided by the IRA for “climate-aligned” investments is potentially 36 times larger. The stage is set for scores of Solyndras. Toomey’s labor as a chronicler of the war on fossil fuels is nowhere near done.