The article says it's from USA, and that it's likely from "fracking" which is really bad for the environment.
If the alternative to fracking is less energy consumption, then of course fracking is bad. But in the short run that means lowering the standard of living and politically that is a non-starter.
If the alternative to fracking is wind+solar+nuclear, then yes fracking is probably worse. But it will take years, if not decades, to build up the green power generation capacity to replace fossil fuels. We're on our way and we should be doing more of this, but we're not there yet.
In the current environment, Germany is reverting much of its energy generation from gas back to brown coal. This has far worse emissions than gas. As far as fracking goes, I'll happily accept a few earthquakes in the Dakotas over the ecological disaster that is coal.
All of the choices here are bad. We still need to pick the least bad one.
If you include fugitive methane from fracking it's almost a wash. It really is that awful,
(In West Texas, at least; I don't know enough about the oil industry in the rest of the country to comment about it.)
I've been to small events in my local area where fracking has been damages water catchment areas. A professor from a nearby university came to give a talk on the damage it's going, why and how on earth would he be sponsored by Russians?
He showed us evidence, photo, statistical evidence which we could verify ourselves just by going for a short hike on the damage it was doing.
So honestly, I think you're wrong.
It’s Putin’s, and a small group around him.