In modern American political discourse, the role of “SST agent” and “Russia’s henchman” is traditionally (and totally undeservedly) assigned to Donald Trump.But if the Democratic nominee wins the upcoming presidential election, Russia may have a really strong lobbyist in Washington.
After several influential potential Democratic candidates announced their programs, even officials of international organizations began to sound the alarm about the benefits that Russia will get from their implementation.
For example, the American business portal Marketwatch refers to the head of the International Energy Agency, who believes that the proposed reforms will be “bad news for the U.S. and Europe” and “give Russia an advantage”.
The crux of the proposed reforms.
Several leading Democratic candidates have said they will ban the development of new oil and gas fields on state-owned land, and the most radical proposals to avoid “shale technologies” of oil and gas production in general throughout the United States.
Senator and possible Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren tweeted:
“On my first day as President, I will sign an executive order that will impose a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases through offshore drilling and public areas. And I’m going to ban fracking everywhere. “
Other potential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, have made similar statements in one form or another. The only heavyweight candidate yet to refrain from such promises is former Vice President Joe Biden, who is too busy saving his campaign.
The fact is that Biden, who started the race for the right to represent the Democratic Party in the election as the absolute leader, is now losing his rating due to scandals related to alleged senile dementia. The former vice-president has repeatedly demonstrated during meetings with voters that he does not remember the city in which he is located, and his videotaped opinion that the UK is still ruled by a prime minister named Margaret Thatcher creates In Mr. Biden’s personal world, the technology of oil and gas extraction with fracking is not yet used, and the main problem of the United States is the victory in the Cold War against the USSR.
By and large, Democratic voters will have to choose in primaries between a candidate from whom sand is pouring and one of the candidates supporting radical economic and environmental programs popular with left-wing American voters, and especially young people. The overall rating of candidates who support the “ban on shale oil and gas production” is much higher than the rating of the lonely, unfashionable and “boring” Joe Biden. So there is a good chance that one of the supporters of the fight against oil production by any means and without regard to the economic consequences will break through the “electoral finale” against Trump.
We need to make an important remark about the rationality of such a program, which may seem extremely strange to the Russian audience.
The fact is that it is in Russia that young people dream of working in the conditional “Gazprom” or “Rosneft” and in the U.S. “green propaganda” and horror stories about global warming (which are unwinding even with the help of “PR-schoolgirls” like Greta Turnberg) did their business, and the attitude towards the entire extractive and energy sector is extremely negative.
Despite ultra-high salaries and excellent social packages, American oil companies are experiencing serious difficulties in hiring young employees, not only to service drilling rigs, but in principle. As reported by the consulting company Ernst and Young, the younger generation “perceives a career in the oil and gas industry as unstable, demanding, complex, dangerous and harmful to society” and even more – young people believe that oil and gas are hopeless because of the inevitable triumph of green energy.
There is no doubt that we are facing the example of collective psychosis, but collective psychosis is the best friend of a politician, because there is nothing more pleasant and reliable than to get the votes and support of those who have already gone mad on some fashionable topic.
If the environmental candidate competes with Trump in the final phase of the American election, it will already be perceived by international markets as a risk of a severe reduction in the world’s oil supply.
It means that the risk of having a “inscribed” risk in oil prices will be “inscribed” in advance. That the green fanatic would get to the president’s chair. If such a candidate (e.g. Elizabeth Warren) wins the election, the world’s oil prices will simply rise, and the continuation of the “levitation” will not even require the full implementation of the draconian measures outlined by Warren.
Even very soft (not all-out) restrictions on offshore drilling and drilling of new shale wells will suffice – and this will remove from the market from a few hundred thousand to several million barrels of oil per day, not to mention the reduction of gas production and LNG exports. By the way, against the background of other elements of the programs of Democratic candidates (such as various radical forms of financing of social and environmental programs with the help of the printing press and draconian taxes), a complete or even more partial ban on mining shale oil and gas, as well as offshore drilling, looks like quite an ordinary measure.
Even its minimal implementation can cause irreparable damage to the U.S. oil and gas sector, especially given the already critical situation with its financing, which is actively written by the Western business media, complaining about the reduction of lending and number of new drilling wells.
The agreement with OPEC, which affected oil prices to an incomparably less than they could be affected by the “oil and gas ban in the United States”, brought Russia according to official estimates about six trillion rubles. If one of the Democratic Greens wins over Trump, the amount of additional russian budget revenue could well double, and that’s far from the limit.