USA: Angola and Rawanda

Whenever I see that people have checked out the blog I get really anxious, because I'm aware that among my posts there's most likely a fair bit of crap conclusions I've drawn, particularly when I first began the blog ... with the zeal of a thousand manic bloggers. Seriously, I knew next to nothing about politics and I was forever confusing Libya and Syria.  The knowledge I have remains limited.  I know trivia from all over, but I don't have a good, solid understanding of any one country.  Feel a bit guilty about my not so pleasant posts about political figures (kind of like I do whenever I'm not nice on twitter), but I'm going to let things stand as they are rather than edit, even though I'll sound like a dick. Seem to be going nowhere with the posting.  Get some draft form thing happening, but I like to 'work' in one hit (it's never the same going back).  But as I leave the drafting until I'm just about ready to drop, there's not much drive left in me and it all sort of gets set aside for editing that somehow doesn't eventuate. Also, some things that I feel really strongly about at the time aren't that big a deal down the track.  Which is just as well. Spent the night fiddling with something , even though I was mean to get some zzz's.  Why is there never enough time in the day?  It is such a horrible feeling to feel time racing and slipping away like it seems to, while you remain at a sort of standstill feeling like you're striving for something -- but never getting anywhere. What's even worse than that?  Knowing it's a crazy-lady pursuit. Addiction to news information is a weird addition to have. What news did I find interesting? ANGOLA | RAWANDA #Angola Foreign Minister saw John Kerry to discuss Syria, Israel, Palestine, #Ukraine& 'challenges'  Angola to face as new member #UNSC. #Angola appears to have some role in peacemaking re 'Great Lakes crisis'/ Kerry brings up #Congo violence against women. Shared obligations. #Angola #Congo Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) - No. 1 threat to stability in region [Kerry] - http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/464957.html #Rawanda US supports ending threat of the FDLR, incl "demobilization & robust military efforts" [John Kerry] - http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/464957.html Demobilisation =  process of standing down nation's armed forces from combat-ready status by (1) peaceful resolution OR  (2) victory in war. Democratic Forces for the Liberation of #Rwanda = has 6 months to surrender gracefully - expires January 2nd, 2015 #Rawanda If FDLR do not surrender 2/1/15: DRC military (ie Congo) & #UN 'peacekeeping' mission must act to end FDLR threat once & for all. #Angola - #USA "On issue after issue, our interests are aligning like never before" [John Kerry] - http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/464957.html #Angola & #USA collaboration: >maritime security >combating piracy >combating illegal fishing >discussion: human trafficking [newsroomamerica] #Angola To join Chemical Weapons Convention, a 'treaty of conscience'; duration 100 years. [John Kerry] Kerry brings up #Syria & removal of 'chemical weapons' from Syria. Mentions Daesh. Removal ' providential choice'. MIRACLE! #Angola US investments improving business climate & integration AND "leveraging Angola’s leadership" [John Kerry] http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/464957.html Port of Luanda energy companies are presumably responsible for this 'leveraging' LOL ... Kerry mentions visit to execs. #USA African Growth & Opportunity Act /AGOA = trade preferences 4 quota & duty-free entry to US Criticism: dominated by oil & raw materials #Angola US sphere via AGOA (raw materials to US, primarily OIL) & TIFA (pre Free Trade Agreement) - http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/464957.html 2013 #Angola produced 1.8 million barrels per day Total, Chevron, ExxonMobil & BP - deepwater fields http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ao #Angola - economy dependent on oil production. Oil revenue accounted for almost 80% of total govt revenue 2011. [IMF] #Angola High dependence oil revenue (2011 @ 80%, IMF) = vulnerable to oil price volatility. Oil export revenues = $68 billion (2012) #Angola #Lucapa Interest = Chevron Chevron (& oil industry generally ) 'leveraging' Angola regional leadership. -- http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=ao What I see here is a state that is very much dependent on oil companies and appears close to USA, who seems to be (along with oil companies, most likely), promoting Angola as a regional leader. What has Angola got to do with Ukraine?  Nothing, aside from Angola being a member of the UNSC.  Hey, that's in favour of the US.  Angola can vote how the US votes and everybody's happy.  Well, US energy is. Chemical weapons and Syria got a mention, just to reinforce the US narrative.  Otherwise, it would have been enough to merely state that Angola's coming the Chemical Weapons Convention party. Sounds like there's a declaration of war against Rawanda.  Democratic Forces for the Liberation has until 2 January to disarm, or else.  Kerry says: 'peacekeeping' mission must act to end FDLR threat once & for all. So that sounds like an or 'else threat' to me and the 'once and for all' sounds ominous. This is the laziest blogging ever.  Really, should check to see who the group is that's being targeted.  It may not necessarily be a war on the country; it could just be a group of insurgents. No sleep and ready to drop, so I'm over look-ups.  It was just something I thought I'd quickly share.  Big day ahead of me, with no sleep.  Uh-oh.  This could turn out badly. ----------------------------------------------- ADDENDUM Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda Rwandan Hutu rebel group in east of Congo. aka FDLR after its original French name: Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda. [Source:  Wikipedia]

UKRAINE - Ukraine's US Ambassador intent on genocide of the East Ukrainians

More Russia Sanctions Are Needed, Ukraine Ambassador Says By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan Aug 20, 2014 2:00 PM ET Tougher U.S. and European sanctions on finance, military sales and energy are needed to stop Russia arming and supporting separatists and end the conflict in Ukraine, the country’s ambassador to the U.S. said. At a Bloomberg Government lunch yesterday in Washington, Olexander Motsyk ruled out a unilateral cease-fire by Ukrainian forces and questioned a purported humanitarian aid convoy from Russia. He said stronger sanctions are needed, even if that would restrict the energy exports on which Ukraine and other European countries depend. “Yes, there is some level of sacrifice, but it is sacrifice in the name of the peace and stability in Europe,” Motsyk said. While the sanctions already imposed on dozens of companies and scores of individuals linked to efforts to divide Ukraine send a message that “a state that violates international law has to be held accountable,” they have “not changed Russia’s actions yet,” he said. More sanctions on vital sectors are needed to force Russia to back down and return Crimea to Ukraine, he said. [Too bad this call comes from a regime that's shelling civilians with ballistic missiles.] U.S. non-lethal assistance such as body armor, bulletproof helmets, communications equipment and meals are bolstering the Ukrainian military, Motsyk said. Government forces have reversed their losses in the last several weeks, recapturing three-quarters of the territory that had been seized by pro-Russian fighters, he added. The U.S. and other NATO members are working with Ukraine, Motsyk said, though he declined to specify whether the assistance includes military training, intelligence or logistics. “Some things we already got, some things we hope to get as soon as possible,” he said. “Step by step, we’ve improved our logistics and chain of command.” Military Momentum The Ukrainian envoy said that his military’s momentum recapturing cities in the country’s east from pro-Russian militants brings with it the risks of urban warfare. Many of the militants, he said, are Russian citizens armed by the Russian military, an assertion backed by U.S. intelligence reports. “If Russia would close the border to heavy armaments, we would solve the problem,” he said. “The problem is that Russia continues to send across arms and assistance.” Motsyk said Ukraine is prepared as part of any resolution of the conflict to “provide a corridor” for pro-Russian militants to leave Ukraine for Russia. While he said Ukraine will “never, ever recognize the annexation of Crimea” by Russia, the government in Kiev is prepared to provide more autonomy and financial and taxation authority to local regions.  [So he wants the population of East Ukraine to just disappear over the border?  How convenient.  If not, his NAZI regime will continue their murder campaign.  And nobody in the west has a problem with this.] Asked about OAO Gazprom (GAZP), the Russian energy company that supplies about 30 percent of Europe’s gas imports, and which cut off supplies to Ukraine two months ago in a payment dispute, Motsyk said his government still hopes a resolution can be reached. Seeking Alternatives In the meantime, Ukraine is boosting its gas production; cutting consumption; seeking alternate sources such as coal, oil and nuclear power; and buying gas from Poland, Slovakia and other neighbors, he said. The showdown over Gazprom and possible cutoff of Russian gas during winter is not a “life-or-death” crisis, he insisted. “Yes, we’re dependent” on Russian gas, “but at the end of the day, we will find a way, maybe even to agree with Russia,” he said. “It’s in the interest of Russia to resume negotiations, as well.” Russian Gas Motsyk dismissed concerns that Russia might try to bar other customers from selling gas to Ukraine. “It’s a market: we can sell and we can buy,” and Russia has no right to tell other countries that they can’t resell Russian gas to Ukraine, he said. [It's in their contracts, from what I understand, so they *do* have that right.] Last week, Ukraine’s parliament approved a law allowing U.S. and EU investors to buy up to 49 percent of NAK Naftogaz Ukrainy, which operates pipelines that are used to transport gas for domestic use and half of the Russian gas that Europe imports. Motsyk said U.S. and European companies have expressed interest in bidding for transportation, storage and operations. He cited Chevron Corp. (CVX) based in San Ramon, California, as among the U.S. companies most involved in Ukraine’s energy industry. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-20/more-russia-sanctions-are-needed-ukraine-ambassador-says.html

Ukraine's US ambassador plainly states that there will be no ceasefire - so the Ukraine fascist junta is intent on slaughter.

The US, the EU and NATO support this (and NATO even participates in aiding and abetting this) - for PROFIT.

This is one of the most disgusting news items I've ever come across.

While that pig slurps his soup in the US, he's intent on committing genocide for his imperialist hosts -- and the EU and NATO are just fine with this because there's profits to be had.

US - OFF-SHORE DEEP-WATER FRACKING - BRAZIL, AFRICA, GULF OF MEXICO

Fracking’s next frontier: Energy giants seek bigger offshore payoffs with deep-water fracking fleets David Wethe, Bloomberg News | August 7, 2014 | Last Updated: Aug 7 2:59 PM ET Energy companies are taking their controversial fracking operations from the land to the sea — to deep waters off the U.S., South American and African coasts. Cracking rocks underground to allow oil and gas to flow more freely into wells has grown into one of the most lucrative industry practices of the past century. The technique is also widely condemned as a source of groundwater contamination. The question now is how will that debate play out as the equipment moves out into the deep blue. For now, caution from all sides is the operative word. Offshore fracking is a part of a broader industrywide strategy to make billion-dollar deep-sea developments pay off. The practice has been around for two decades yet only in the past few years have advances in technology and vast offshore discoveries combined to make large scale fracking feasible. While fracking is also moving off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, the big play is in the Gulf of Mexico, where wells more than 100 miles from the coastline must traverse water depths of a mile or more and can cost almost US$100 million to drill. Those expensive drilling projects are a boon for oil service providers such as Halliburton, Baker Hughes Inc. and Superior Energy Services Inc. Schlumberger Ltd., which provides offshore fracking gear for markets outside the U.S. Gulf, also stands to get new work. And producers such as Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc may reap billions of dollars in extra revenue over time as fracking helps boost crude output. Fracking in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to grow by more than 10% over a two year period ending in 2015, said Douglas Stephens, president of pressure pumping at Baker Hughes, which operates about a third of the world’s offshore fracking fleet. [...] Pancaked Layers Deep-water wells cut through multiple pancaked layers of oil-soaked rock, and each layer must be fracked to get the most oil out — a task that can take a full day to get to the bottom of the well. Halliburton and others have figured out a way to save time and money by fracking all those layers in one trip down the well, instead of doing each layer separately. The more intense fracking means larger volumes of water, sand and equipment are needed to coax more oil out — and bigger boats to carry it all. “It’s getting more sophisticated,” James Wicklund, an analyst at Credit Suisse in Dallas, said in a phone interview. “The volumes needed, especially for these lower tertiary fracks, are huge.” http://business.financialpost.com/2014/08/07/frackings-next-frontier-energy-giants-seek-bigger-offshore-payoffs-with-deep-water-fracking-fleets/?__lsa=730c-e6c4

Just imagine what these corporations are doing to the environment:

Cuprits:

• CHEVRON
• SHELL
• BP

UKRAINE AND OBAMA'S FAT-CAT FRIENDS

 Article -

Washington Pushing Ukraine to the Brink
Politics / Ukraine Civil War Jul 13, 2014 - 06:03 PM GMT

By: Mike_Whitney

Politics

What does a pipeline in Afghanistan have to do with the crisis in Ukraine?

Everything. It reveals the commercial interests that drive US policy. Just as the War in Afghanistan was largely fought to facilitate the transfer of natural gas from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea, so too, Washington engineered the bloody coup in Kiev to cut off energy supplies from Russia to Europe to facilitate the US pivot to Asia.

This is why policymakers in Washington are reasonably satisfied with the outcome of the war in Afghanistan despite the fact that none of the stated goals were achieved. Afghanistan is not a functioning democracy with a strong central government, drug trafficking has not been eradicated, women haven’t been liberated, and the infrastructure and school systems are worse than they were before the war. By every objective standard the war was a failure. But, of course, the stated goals were just public relations blather anyway. They don’t mean anything. What matters is gas, namely the vast untapped reserves in Turkmenistan that could be extracted by privately-owned US corporations who would use their authority to control the growth of US competitors or would-be rivals like China. That’s what the war was all about. The gas is going to be transported via a pipeline from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to the Arabian sea, eschewing Russian and Iranian territory. The completion of the so called TAPI pipeline will undermine the development of an Iranian pipeline, thus sabotaging the efforts of a US adversary.

The TAPI pipeline illustrates how Washington is aggressively securing the assets it needs to maintain its dominance ...

    “The US is pushing the four countries to grant the lucrative pipeline contract to its energy giants. Two US firms – Chevron and ExxonMobil – are in the race to become consortium leaders, win the project and finance the laying of the pipeline,” a senior government official said while talking to The Express Tribune.

    Washington has been lobbying for the gas supply project, called Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (Tapi) pipeline, terming it an ideal scheme to tackle energy shortages in Pakistan. On the other side, it pressed Islamabad to shelve the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline because of a nuclear standoff with Tehran…
...
This is why political leaders in Europe are so worried, because they don’t like the idea of sharing a border with Somalia, which is exactly what Ukraine is going to look like when the US is done with it.

In Ukraine, the US is using a divide and conquer strategy to pit the EU against trading partner Moscow. The State Department and CIA helped to topple Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych and install a US stooge in Kiev who was ordered to cut off the flow of Russian gas to the EU and lure Putin into a protracted guerilla war in Ukraine. The bigwigs in Washington figured that, with some provocation, Putin would react the same way he did when Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2006. But, so far, Putin has resisted the temptation to get involved which is why new puppet president Petro Poroshenko has gone all “Jackie Chan” and stepped up the provocations by pummeling east Ukraine mercilessly. It’s just a way of goading Putin into sending in the tanks. [LOL! JACKIE CHAN!]

But here’s the odd part: Washington doesn’t have a back-up plan. It’s obvious by the way Poroshenko keeps doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. That demonstrates that there’s no Plan B. Either Poroshenko lures Putin across the border and into the conflict, or the neocon plan falls apart, which it will if they can’t demonize Putin as a “dangerous aggressor” who can’t be trusted as a business partner.

So all Putin has to do is sit-tight and he wins, mainly because the EU needs Moscow’s gas. If energy supplies are terminated or drastically reduced, prices will rise, the EU will slide back into recession, and Washington will take the blame. So Washington has a very small window to draw Putin into the fray, which is why we should expect another false flag incident on a much larger scale than the fire in Odessa. Washington is going to have to do something really big and make it look like it was Moscow’s doing. Otherwise, their pivot plan is going to hit a brick wall. Here’s a tidbit readers might have missed in the Sofia News Agency’s novinite site:

    “Ukraine’s Parliament adopted .. a bill under which up to 49% of the country’s gas pipeline network could be sold to foreign investors. This could pave the way for US or EU companies, which have eyed Ukrainian gas transportation system over the last months.

    …Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk was earlier quoted as saying that the bill would allow Kiev to “attract European and American partners to the exploitation and modernization of Ukraine’s gas transportation,” in a situation on Ukraine’s energy market he described as “super-critical”. Critics of the bill have repeatedly pointed the West has long been interest in Ukraine’s pipelines, with some seeing in the Ukrainian revolution a means to get access to the system. (Ukraine allowed to sell up to 49% of gas pipeline system, novinite.com)

Boy, you got to hand it to the Obama throng. They really know how to pick their coup-leaders, don’t they? These puppets have only been in office for a couple months and they’re already giving away the farm.

And, such a deal! US corporations will be able to buy up nearly half of a pipeline that moves 60 percent of the gas that flows from Russia to Europe. That’s what you call a tollbooth, my friend; and US companies will be in just the right spot to gouge Moscow for every drop of natural gas that transits those pipelines. And gouge they will too, you can bet on it.

Is that why the State Department cooked up this loony putsch, so their fatcat, freeloading friends could rake in more dough?

This also explains why the Obama crowd is trying to torpedo Russia’s other big pipeline project called Southstream. Southstream is a good deal for Europe and Russia. On the one hand, it would greatly enhance the EU’s energy security, and on the other, it will provide needed revenues for Russia so they can continue to modernize, upgrade their dilapidated infrastructure, and improve standards of living. But “the proposed pipeline (which) would snake about 2,400 kilometers, or roughly 1,500 miles, from southern Russia via the Black Sea to Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and ultimately Austria. (and) could handle about 60 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year, enough to allow Russian exports to Europe to largely bypass Ukraine” (New York Times) The proposed pipeline further undermines Washington’s pivot strategy, so Obama, the State Department and powerful US senators (Ron Johnson, John McCain, and Chris Murphy) are doing everything in their power to torpedo the project.

“What gives Vladimir Putin his power and control is his oil and gas reserves and West and Eastern Europe’s dependence on them,” Senator Johnson said in an interview. “We need to break up his stranglehold on energy supplies. We need to bust up that monopoly.” (New York Times)

What a bunch of baloney. Putin doesn’t have a monopoly on gas. Russia only provides 30 percent of the gas the EU uses every year. And Putin isn’t blackmailing anyone either. Countries in the EU can either buy Russian gas or not buy it. It’s up to them. No one has a gun to their heads. And Gazprom’s prices are competitive too, sometimes well-below market rates which has been the case for Ukraine for years, until crackpot politicians started sticking their thumb in Putin’s eye at every opportunity; until they decided that that they didn’t have to pay their bills anymore because, well, because Washington told them not to pay their bills. That’s why.

Ukraine is in the mess it’s in today for one reason, because they decided to follow Washington’s advice and shoot themselves in both feet. Their leaders thought that was a good idea. So now the country is broken, penniless and riven by social unrest. Regrettably, there’s no cure for stupidity.

The neocon geniuses apparently believe that if they sabotage Southstream and nail down 49 percent ownership of Ukraine’s pipeline infrastructure, then the vast majority of Russian gas will have to flow through Ukrainian pipelines. They think that this will give them greater control over Moscow. But there’s a glitch to this plan which analyst Jeffrey Mankoff pointed out in an article titled “Can Ukraine Use Its Gas Pipelines to Threaten Russia?”. Here’s what he said:

    “The biggest problem with this approach is a cut in gas supplies creates real risks for the European economy… In fact, Kyiv’s efforts to siphon off Russian gas destined to Europe to offset the impact of a Russian cutoff in January 2009 provide a window onto why manipulating gas supplies is a risky strategy for Ukraine. Moscow responded to the siphoning by halting all gas sales through Ukraine for a couple of weeks, leaving much of eastern and southern Europe literally out in the cold. European leaders reacted angrily, blaming both Moscow and Kyiv for the disruption and demanding that they sort out their problems. While the EU response would likely be somewhat more sympathetic to Ukraine today, Kyiv’s very vulnerability and need for outside financial support makes incurring European anger by manipulating gas supplies very risky.” (Can Ukraine Use Its Gas Pipelines to Threaten Russia, two paragraphs)

The funny thing about gas is that, when you stop paying the bills, they turn the heat off. Is that hard to understand?

So, yes, the State Department crystal-gazers and their corporate-racketeer friends might think they have Putin by the shorthairs by buying up Ukraine’s pipelines, but the guy who owns the gas (Gazprom) is still in the drivers seat. And he’s going to do what’s in the best interests of himself and his shareholders. Someone should explain to John Kerry that that’s just how capitalism works.

Washington’s policy in Ukraine is such a mess, it really makes one wonder about the competence of the people who come up with these wacko ideas. Did the brainiacs who concocted this plan really think they’d be able to set up camp between two major trading partners, turn off the gas, reduce a vital transit country into an Iraq-type basketcase, and start calling the shots for everyone in the region?

It’s crazy.

Europe and Russia are a perfect fit. Europe needs gas to heat its homes and run its machinery. Russia has gas to sell and needs the money to strengthen its economy. It’s a win-win situation. What Europe and Russia don’t need is the United States. In fact, the US is the problem. As long as US meddling persists, there’s going to be social unrest, division, and war. It’s that simple. So the goal should be to undermine Washington’s ability to conduct these destabilizing operations and force US policymakers to mind their own freaking business. That means there should be a concerted effort to abandon the dollar, ditch US Treasuries, jettison the petrodollar system, and force the US to become a responsible citizen that complies with International law.

It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen, mainly because everyone is sick and tired of all the troublemaking.

Extract - Full article @ - SOURCE - MARKETABLE ORACLE - here.

--------------------------------------------------
COMMENT

So glad I stumbled on this article!

I'm not the only one that thinks the US is full of it and that it's all about corporate greed and lies.

Sorry I've included so much of it here.  Very hard to break it up because the entire thing is such a wonderful explanation of what's going on.

See, I'm not wearing tin foil!  LOL

What is happening is deliberate and very chilling, when you consider the $$billions the US & UK are now putting towards their NATO war chest -- and they're going to hit up their lesser NATO parters for more $$$.

Scary. 

UKRAINE: THIRD-LARGEST SHALE GAS RESERVES - GEOPOLITICAL COMPETITION

Kiev promises 'restraint' as army nears rebels in Donetsk

By AFP | 10 Jul, 2014

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/38118747.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppstJAMES CLAD

Shale oil and gas gives the U.S. more leverage around the world
Having the U.S. turn from energy importer to energy exporter changes geopolitics

July 10, 2014 12:00 AM

Since midpoint in the last decade, America’s shale-energy balance sheet has grown ever more positive. The abundance today of shale-enabled oil and natural gas defines many places where investment and economic activity had once been scarce. Just look at Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Texas and many other states.

But there’s another benefit — albeit one which few Americans easily discern: The shale revolution is generating national security and geopolitical assets, real-world consequences moving more sharply into focus in recent weeks.

Just the potential for sizable U.S. energy exports gives pause to petro-dictators and expansionist bullies, forcing Russian President Vladimir Putin, for example, to downscale his ambitions.

Central Europe’s game of power poker these days rests not on tanks and missiles but on Russia’s gas-supply monopoly. Natural gas reaches West European buyers via pipelines crossing Ukraine. In earlier years, Russian behavior had sparked some periodic heartache about this monopoly but, in recent months, the angst has congealed into a determination to weaken Russia’s grip.

...

FULL Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article - here.

Kiev promises 'restraint' as army nears rebels in Donetsk

By AFP | 10 Jul, 2014

Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/38118747.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

--------------------------------------

COMMENT

See also: 

Beneath the Ukraine Crisis: Shale Gas

By Nat Parry
Global Research, April 25, 2014
Consortiumnews 24 April 2014

Behind the geopolitics pitting Russia against the West – and the ethnic tensions tearing Ukraine east and west – another backdrop for understanding this deepening conflict is the big-money competition for Ukraine’s oil and natural gas.

The crisis gripping Ukraine has plunged transatlantic relations to their lowest point since the Cold War and threatens to send Ukraine into an armed conflict with potentially dire consequences for the country and the wider region.
...
Ukraine has Europe’s third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. While for years U.S. oil companies have been pressing for shale gas development in countries such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria only to be rebuffed by significant opposition ...
...
Global Research article - here.

Good read.