E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSOnly a few years ago people in the city of Fall River and surrounding towns in Massachusetts were fighting to block the Hess Corporation from building a terminal for importing liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Among their concerns: the risk of an explosion that might endanger them, depress property values, and deter development of Fall River’s waterfront. In a sign of the demand for imported natural gas, five LNG import terminals were built across the United States from 2005 to 2010.
But today, thanks to the shale gas boom in Pennsylvania and other states, the political struggle is over LNG exports, not imports.
A liquefied-natural-gas (LNG) tanker, leaves a berth in Yokohama City, Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan.
This is not the flashy politics of campaign ads, veep selection, and opinion polls, but the less theatrical inside-Washington politics of regulation.
Recommended: White House on Harry Reid: He speaks for himself
A bipartisan group of 44 House members from Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Arkansas sent a letter Tuesday to Energy Secretary Steven Chu urging him to speed up approval of LNG exports.
In a dramatic reversal from 2006, when natural gas supplies in the U.S. were tight, prices were high, and LNG imports were economically sensible, today there’s so much domestically produced natural gas that prices are low.
“This surplus of natural gas has produced very low prices for producers and an absence of market opportunities for natural gas, leading to many well just being shut in," said Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, and Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., in a letter joined by 42 other House members. They said the Energy Department’s approval process for more LNG exports “does not seem to have a set timeline for decisions or a sense of urgency.”
Among the reasons they cited for federal regulators to allow more LNG terminals to be built: job creation and the fact that exporting LNG would reduce the U.S. trade deficit as consumers abroad paid for U.S.-produced energy.
Under federal law, export of LNG and construction of LNG terminals require authorization from the Department of Energy and from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Related: State finances recovering, but new fiscal year brings big tests
As of now, there’s only one U.S. terminal exporting LNG, in Nikiski, Alaska.
The Energy Department and FERC have given their approval to a new LNG terminal in Sabine Pass, La. But other proposed projects are in limbo while the department awaits a macroeconomic study being done by an outside contractor.
“As part of the Department’s statutory responsibility to determine whether natural gas exports are in the public interest, the Energy Department is assessing the economic impacts of increased natural gas exports,” said Jen Stutsman, spokesperson for the Energy Department. “This includes a two-part study analyzing the macroeconomic impacts of proposed U.S. LNG exports on the U.S. economy. When completed, the study will help inform the Department in its review of the pending applications.”
Bill Cooper, president of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, a trade association of LNG producers, shippers, and terminal operators, said his group thinks “the regulatory framework that’s already in place is proper for a judicious decision” on pending applications that will “not only advance the economic interests of the country but will protect consumers as well.”
He added “We don’t like to see a moratorium in place, which is what we have now, a de facto moratorium, while everybody waits for this macroeconomic study.”
Cooper said the Energy Department gave the Sabine Pass facility its OK in less than nine months, so he said, regarding the current pause in LNG approvals, “there must be other factors at work beyond the regulatory process.”
One pending project is Dominion Energy’s Cove Point site at Lusby, Md., on the Chesapeake Bay. The firm is seeking to make the site capable of handling both LNG imports (as it now is) and LNG exports. The Cove Point facility could draw on Marcellus Shale gas supplies from Pennsylvania and other states.
In a conference call for industry analysts last week, Dominion Resources chairman and CEO Thomas Farrell said “All the signals that have been coming out of the administration indicate that they do not intend to stand in the way of exporting this product (LNG). We should have some indication hopefully by the end of the summer from some of these outside studies that have been done. And I expect that DOE will move forward fairly rapidly with its permitting as soon as those are issued.”
But some in the gas industry say the Energy Department is slowing the process until after the Nov. 6 election due to concerns from the Sierra Club and other environmentalists that more U.S. gas production will lead to more hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” which some think leads to water contamination.
Obama administration officials "want to wait until after the elections because a decision to export LNG … will enrage an already disenchanted Left Wing of the Democratic Party," analyst Zach Allen told the industry newsletter SNL Daily Gas Report in June.
The Sierra Club has opposed the Sabine Pass project as well as the Cove Point facility and another proposed LNG terminal in Oregon.
In a report last year the Congressional Research Service said, “Within the next five years, the United States may become a large exporter of natural gas for the first time in decades.”
Recommended: Missouri senator to get her GOP challenger
If all the proposed U.S. LNG export projects were now operating, the United States would rank second behind Qatar in global LNG export capacity, the CRS report said. “However, U.S. LNG exports will face competition in the global LNG market. Global liquefaction capacity is projected to almost double by 2020, with many projects much further along than the U.S. projects.”
The CRS study noted that natural gas consumers argue that “higher natural gas prices abroad could eventually lead to higher prices in the United States, and possible supply shortages, as producers seek to maximize profits by diverting more and more U.S. natural gas to overseas markets.”
But Cooper said there is “overwhelming evidence that we have an abundant supply of natural gas that will more than meet domestic growth needs well into the future and still allow for exports to happen at some small scale.”
Leave a Comment:
Off-topic, and pasting an article from one of the most dishonest right-wing blogs in existence.
Was the ad alot of gas or was it liquified?
MNPat,
Yes, very off-topic, but the truth remains that under Obamacare the lady would probably still be alive.
Romneys defense was that had she lived in MA, she would have received care under Romneycare!! In a fox interview!! Good luck with that guys!
BREITBART ??
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!
What's next, Wing Nut Daily ??
Off topic because the liberal Obama loving crowd doesn't want to talk about it. The President would head up a KKK meeting if he could secure some additional votes. The man is a nice guy but out of his league. As for Obama care saving that lady....bullsh&t. She had insurance at her job after he left his job and Romney was long gone but she still croaked as she had terminal cancer.
After you have that rectal-cranium extraction surgery let us know OK? You might be worth talking to by then. :)
.
elliot.... the truth can not be tolerated by the not-Sober ,do not want to be obama supporters!!!
obma is crooked and corrupt from top to bottom -side to side...MOBpoliticis..
he can not run on his own record so he lies,&lies and whines when caught!!
Well, I think it is a stretch by the right to say that the ad claims "Romney killed his wife".
Soptic says that he doesn't think Romney realizes how he impacted peoples lives and doesn't care. That's an opinion and it seems valid.
The Romney campaign says it's BS because 5 or 6 years passed before his wife died. So does that mean that if she died within a year or two, they would accept responsibility for her death?
I am sure that personally, Soptic does hold Romney at some level of responsibility for his wife's death, but he never says that. His point was really more about the lack of concern for employees' lives when Bain made decisions like in his case, that were about Bain making profit. He is saying that they simply didn't care what happened to the employees. No doubt that Soptic suggests that his wife's death is associated with how his life changed after Bain shutdown his plant. He believes that his wife was probably beginning to become affected by cancer somewhere around the time his job was eliminated. Maybe true, maybe not. I'm not sure the exact timeline really makes so much difference.
The real point of this ad is to point out Romney's track record of making profit motivated decisions with little regard to the consequences of those impacted by his decisions. That issue right there is something important to take into account when choosing a President. We want the President to consider all those involved and fully understand the consequences of his decisions.
All that said, it is a Super Pac ad and not something concocted by the Obama Campaign. It may be a slight misrepresentation of all the facts as are most political ads, particularly the PAC ads. The core issue though about Romney's lack of concern for consequences is a very valid issue.
In contrast a Romney approved ad by his campaign just released about welfare is indeed a baldfaced lie. It can not even be described as stretching the truth or misrepresenting selected facts. It is an outright fallacy and it isn't from a Super Pac, it is from Romney himself. We're talking apples and watermelons here. Not even in the same league.
Frankly, the Obama campaign could do a better job about commenting on the ad. For the most part they avoided comment. Instead they should come out and say exactly what I have just said. That they do not claim Romeny is responsible for this woman's death, but that the issue of Romney's lack of concern for consequences is very real and has a long track record of demonstrating as much. The point is that Romney can not relate to and has little concern for average folks. That's a valid issue.
Enough said on an off topic post.
Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on losers like Solyindra the current Administration could put thousands of people to work and generate a huge tax influx by approving these LNG export projects.
The good thing is it wouldn't cost the tax payers anything as these are private companies but then that wouldn't play into Obama's idiotic theory that the government has to be involved and tax money has to be wasted.
It's funny the DOE can approve loans for companies that were already failing but can't get around to allowing these private companies to put people to work.
By the way Obama's people came up with the ad about Soptic months ago. They knew about his BS when he said it and they knew about the timeline. The head of the SuperPAC that came up with it is/was one of Obama's bigtime campaigners. Also if you look you will find that Obama's people lied over and over about the ad and then retracted their statements so who is the bald faced liar in that bunch.
One last thing, One poster said that if Obama care was in place the lady would still be alive...... That just shows the ignorance of many of you that post on here and believe everything you read from the lib press. Mrs. Soptic found out she had extremely aggressive cancer after a dr. visit in 2006. She died 22 days later, so regardless of what kind of medical plans were in place this lady would have died no matter what.
Pull your collective heads out of your 4th points of contact and do a little research instead of sucking down the liberal kool-aid.
A baldfaced lie is a baldfaced lie whether Obama says it or one of his super-pacs.
so "drill, baby drill" was going to solve the US of A's energy shortage. how's that gonna work for ya' when Big (Gas and) Oil turns around and sells our oil and gas reserves overseas?
They are wanting to sell the gas overseas because Congress is too dimwitted to encourage the use of Nat Gas in electricity production, and in large trucks and fleet vehicles. Thsi conversion will happen eventually anyway, but Congress could speed it up quite a bit.
It is stupid to see it go overseas, but if they arent going to help switch some coal use, and gasoline use to Nat Gas, things wont get better.
Meantime Congress mandates the use of corn ethenol, while there is a corn shortage, pushing up the price of beef, and corn.
They also promote the sales of electric cars, which since 55% of electricity is produced by coal, are really coal powered cars, hardly polution free as some people would believe.
How dose one sell revenues?
For the last 20 years people have been trying to get more drilling; every time they are countered with "it will take 3-5 years to get a single drop from a new well."
20 years ago!!!!!!!!!! We could have had a lot of drops of oil from new wells built in the last 20 years by now.
Please let me know when the government is no longer making more money off a gallon of gas than an oil company, mmkay.
Smoke and Mirrors, claim that the President is not doing enough to make the USA energy independent and what is really being done is selling our energy resources to the highest bidder.
Capitalism at its best. Get as much as you can get today and heck with the country's future.
If they are allowed to export gas they will use exports to create shortages and prop up current prices, or worse increase our cost for the gas.
They need to stop fracking is the bigger point in the article. Fracking pumps millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the ground and contaminates ground water that we use to survive in areas not near the coast. We need to quit F'n around with our water supplies and stop fracking. To hell with exporting it.
For the last 20 years people have been trying to get more drilling; every time they are countered with "it will take 3-5 years to get a single drop from a new well."
*********************************************
Under Obama oil and gas production in the US has gone up around 60%
SO WHATS YOUR POINT????
The Dept of Energy views natural gas as an alternate fuel source for vehicles. However, only fleet vehicles are able to be converted to use it. Such as buses at airports. There are no provisions allowing any normal American to convert their vehicle to use it as well. It's not like it cannot be done, Honda actually built a car that runs on it. Our leadership is full of it...the garbage coming out of their mouthes smells worse than the mercapten pumped into the gas lines. Modifications can be made to ANY VEHICLE to accomodate natural gas but is not made available to Americans...WHY?...Why can't Americans take the first step in being green by converting their vehicles rathing than buying a new car that will just provide another bill to pay. Ask your Congressmen or President why Honda can use it but we cannot. Natural gas burns cleaner and better for the environment than other currently used fuel sources. So ask yourself WHY, then ask the President...Considering he is pushing for alternatives to oil, I'd be interested to hear what he says.
Under Obama oil and gas production in the US has gone up around 60%
SO WHATS YOUR POINT????
to ctdad: BUll-Phuquen-Crahp! all you sierra club tree huggen bas-terds are pa-phuquen-thetic!
It generally takes at least 3 to 5 years to see results once the approval process is finished. So, the increased oil and gas production we see today is mostly due to approvals done during the Bush years.
Now, if the production rates increase again in the next few years, I'll give Obama credit at that time. As of now, the only credit I'll give him is he didn't stop all new fossil-fuel based projects.
basedrum777 you have no idea what you're talking about. Hydraulic fracturing has been around for decades and the technology has greatly improved. It also occurs THOUSANDS OF FEET BELOW THE SURFACE, sometimes several miles below the surface. Table water, you know, the stuff people drink and bathe in, is found within a few hundred feet of the surface. Also, since hydrofracking is done in areas containing shale bedrock, that allows the gas to move from side to side, not up and down, therefore it can't contaminate aquifiers or table water unless there is some sort of existing hole in the shale (like a previous bore hole) that allows the gas to move upward. Given the advances we have made in geologic survey technology, it's really easy for gas companies to figure out if there's a pre-existing hole that will allow the gas to escape into the ground water.
It's called research. You might try doing it rather than listening to all the anti-hydrofracking propaganda out there, which is, incidentally, paid for by the oil companies. You like being a shill for BP and Exxon Mobil?
THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE FOR US TO SELL LNG TO OVERSEAS BUYERS! The oil and gas industry is contributing to the eventual pollution of this country's water aquifers by FRACKING shale deposits and they have the gaul to want to sell it to the highest bidder, NOT OUR CITIZENS. They want to INCREASE our cost and send gas to whoever will pay the highest price. They will provide jobs, a few construction jobs and VERY FEW PERMANENT JOBS because most of those will be to monitor the plant. They will use the "carrot" of high paying jobs, but then buy the materials made in overseas industry's and ship them here on foreign vessels, assembled by our iron workers supervised by foreigners and then run by whoever they can get to do it for nothing (no Union labor). All to INCREASE OUR COST AND POLLUTE OUR WATER SUPPLIES. Do not be fooled by their "pie in the sky" PR advertising, because there can be NO ADVANTAGE FOR OUR CITIZENS BY ALLOWING PERMITS FOR THESE LNG PLANTS. I worked in the oil industry for 23 years and in all that time there NEVER WAS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT, ONLY PROFIT!!!!!!!!!
A bunch of years ago,in the late '70s a few guys were running a '67 Camaro Drag car retro-fitted with a type of carburator/injector made up of readily available LNG furnace parts.....The car ran 9.50's on race gas,and 9.75's on LNG...so there wasn't alot of difference in performance,and it didn't require alot of changes to the motor setup.....of course,on today's cars and trucks with computers and sensors all over,it might take alot more doing....It had almost no smell when running,plugs didn't foul,pistons didn't burn,and the valves stayed cleaner,and compared to Cam2 race gas at the time,($5.39 per gal. in 1973)..hell,Sunoco 260 was .77 cents a gallon after the '73 oil embargo...and we bitched about that....it was cheaper to run LNG,even back then,,, The only drawback was the weight of all the components required,because at that time a system like that was a complete unknown,and they used what was available...So it probably IS do-able for retro-fitting cars,and trucks for LNG,but probably not at home in the garage anymore........U.S.Army Disabled Veteran
As for the proponents of fracking I would like to ask you a few questions. Do you know what "shale" is? Have you ever "broken shale with a hammer? CAN YOU PREDICT EXACTLY WHERE EVERY FRACTURE WILL OCCUR? You can probably answer the first two, BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE THIRD QUESTION. When shale fractures "it explodes" in all directions. When the fracking explosion cracks the shale some of those fracture lines can "run" for miles. We have fracked wells for the past 30 years "successfully" until the directional horizontal drilling technique was perfected. Fracking was NEVER USED IN LOOSE FORMATIONS, ONLY IN VERY HARD TIGHT FORMATIONS. Shale can "run" (crack) for miles when various conditions are prevalent. Previous fault cracks also allow migration from different zones which in turn contaminate the zone of lower pressure. Water, and salt water are lighter than "pressurized" oil formations so the fluid from the oil formation migrates into the water formation. THIS IS HOW IT WORKS, do not be fooled by assumptions spread by people interested in turning a profit off of your misery. MISERY IS WHAT YOU WILL REALIZE WHEN YOU LIGHT YOUR KITCHEN SINK ON FIRE, OR TAKE A BATH IN BENZENE LACED WATER FROM YOUR TOWN'S WATER WELL. I am not an alarmist, I am a realist AND I KNOW ABOUT THIS, FRACKING CAN BE A USEFUL TOOL IN THE PRODUCTION OF OUR ENERGY SUPPLY, but it should NEVER be used in shale deposits.
When Fracking causes water tables to become flammable and resulted in 11 earthquakes in Northeast Texas in 40 days?
@Concerned Citizen...In your own words so you can clearly understand..
Go-phuquen-yourself!
@Concerned Citizen
Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:30pm BST
HEY, YOU WERE SAYING?????????
I love GOP sheeple, a simple google search and its right there in writing....
Ron-1861300
It generally takes at least 3 to 5 years to see results once the approval process is finished. So, the increased oil and gas production we see today is mostly due to approvals done during the Bush years.
Now, if the production rates increase again in the next few years, I'll give Obama credit at that time. As of now, the only credit I'll give him is he didn't stop all new fossil-fuel based projects.
*************************************************
I realized that this is beyond your scope of comprehension, but here goes anyway...
It is the GOP contension that Obama has stopped, or held up drilling/production in this country since coming into office....
Well as usual that is pure unadulterated BS....
If that were the case, then how could production be up 60%?
THAT IS THE POINT
YOU were saying?
Allowing American companies to make more money, which creates some jobs, increases tax revenues and reduces our net trade deficit. Wow, that's such a terrible thing!
I think extracting and processing raw American natural gas on American soil helps create vastly more jobs than exporting raw American natural gas, helping our economy. Three steps should happen before export.
First, create jobs drilling, processing, storing, and distributing American natural gas. Second, create jobs burning American natural gas to manufacture American products in American factories located on American soil. Third, create jobs wholeselling and retailing American products that have been made from American natural gas to American consumers.
Excess inventory can be exported as a fourth step.
America should not be used as a "colony" where raw products are extracted for use by foreign manufacturing giants like China, for instance, for the profit of a few individuals.
Okay. I'll ask the question. I'll ask the question that will not make me any friends with the democrats or the republicans (I am independent and my question will probably not make me any friends with the independents either). So, here goes (take a deep breath): Would it not be better if we just socialized energy extraction within the United States?
Don't scream at me yet. Just think, other countries have done this to varying degrees, and some have become rich and turned their economies around, with all the money enabling huge infrastructure investment. Why should we allow corporations (which have no allegiance to our country) to poison our water while removing our riches? Even if they do not poison our water, they are still removing our riches.
If we really did this we could make certain that unscrupulous speculators would not destroy our country just to fill their pockets with money. Sure, some international companies would not make as much money off of us, but with all that energy controlled by us -- the American people -- we could have energy security and perhaps pay off our debt. Do you really think that energy companies give a flying ***** about us or our struggles? Why should we not control what is in the ground beneath our feet?
Of the people, by the people, and for the people.
There. I have asked the question. Now everybody (democrats, republicans, and independents) can scream at me.
@Ron-186130
Not sure if you realize this, but Obama's been in officer for nearly 4 years now. So, rather than posting up a figure that makes no sense given the current President has been in officer for 2 of the years you mention. Why not do a bit of research to show what legislation Bush pushed through in his final year in office.
And maybe even go the extra mile of comparing and contrasting to any/all (or none) of the legislation Obama proposed/pushed through. Because really, as it stands now, the odds are greater that Obama did something in his first 2 years, than Bush did in his final year when he was 'on the ropes' so to speak.
Just a thought.
@B Murphy: Most of the nat gas and oil that is being recovered is on private land. As far as public land, Ron is correct.
I would prefer a transition from gasoline and diesel vehicles to LNG/CNG. But, if we are not going to use it, we don't have the capacity to store it, so, we might as well export it. The benefit is increased federal tax revenues, more jobs and a lower trade deficits.
Gee, for a while they they almost had me believing that all this "Drill Baby Drill" stuff was about oil and gas for OUR consumption, to make US more energy independent, to make OUR country less dependent on foreign energy sources and I just read where our coal exports reached a record level of over 101 million tons last year too.
They just about had me believing it...well actually I wasn't about to swallow that BS in a million years!
Don't export the LNG. Develop the resource more slowly and carefully. That will keep the price at a reasonable level, and it will bw able to power America for a lot longer that if it is exported. Business may want to get it out of the groung as quickly as possible to maximize quarterly profits, but that is not in the national interest. It does not pay, nationally, to be shortsighted about this.
Folks,,the advantage of selling that gas over in other country's is easy to see if if you really looking..its profits...and profits only. My thoughts would be this..what will selling that gas as an export do to the cost of that same gas here ? Will it go up or down.? If down,,,fine..but for some reason I doubt it. As for our members of congress pushing this item over everything else they should be doing..it is still about profits. How many of these politicans are getting lobbyist money or have stock in these companies ? And this includes both parties.
Besides keeping gas prices high, it is all about campaign contributions and who owns your congressman.
It there is an over abundance of natural gas in America, why all the focus on electric powered vehicles, solar and ethanol? Gasoline powered engines can easily be converted to natural gas which is a hundred times cleaner than gasoline
Not many people have clue that posted dissenting opinions here. First off is trade good or bad? Are exports good or bad? Well for one thing if you have active trade across the spectrum of essential products like food or energy, then you are protected in the event of a disaster. What if the US was totally dependent on itself for food and a drought hit? What if the US was totally dependent on itself for oil and a hurricane shut down the refinery's? Trade prevents a disaster from becoming a crisis.
But you also have to consider the fact that energy is a global commodity. The more abundance of energy and energy options, the more stable the market. With the world so dependent on oil, even a ripple in the process can have a major impact on prices. The constant and wide ranging fluctuations in energy does have an affect on almost every other segment of society. Natural gas is the cleanest burning energy available, and its use needs to be expanded both here and abroad. Increased demand will mean jobs, and the US is well positioned for an expanding natural gas market.
No man...I'm with you. As far as I'm concerned the natural resources of this country belong to "We the People"
Rick-3416939
Not many people have clue that posted dissenting opinions here. First off is trade good or bad? Are exports good or bad? Well for one thing if you have active trade across the spectrum of essential products like food or energy, then you are protected in the event of a disaster. What if the US was totally dependent on itself for food and a drought hit? What if the US was totally dependent on itself for oil and a hurricane shut down the refinery's? Trade prevents a disaster from becoming a crisis.
***********************************
Absolute BULL puckey.....
Do you remember when we were a nation that needed nobody else????
I DO......AND we still dont....
SO WHAT we cant have certain fruits and veggies all year round...I remember when you couldnt get a watermelon all year...I remember when you couldnt get many of these things all year...
we didnt NEED anybody else, JUST LIKE NOW....
I also remember a few years ago when Russia held Europe hostage withholding natural gas IN THE WINTER over how much Europe was willing to pay for it...
MILLIONS of people were left without heat...
THATS WHAT IMPORTING/EXPORTING does, it makes you DEPENDANT on somebody NOT looking out for you, but for profit ONLY....
You couldnt be MORE WRONG
Exporting raw resources creates the minimum possible jobs.
This would mean higher domestic prices. Depletion of the resource that should be conserved, to last America for a long time, until alternate sources can be developed. The gas companies are only thinking about the next quarter's profit. Governments are supposed to have a long term view, to protect the viability of the nation. Say no to exporting natural gas.
COinFL,
You are correct and it really makes the most sense. These resources, oil, gas, coal, whatever, belong to all of us. A few years ago, this resource was not even being exploited for our own use and now that it is, the want to sell it off to other countries just to make more profit. We all know that natural resources are not something that routinely gets replenished over time. They have limited reserves. And when we are talking about an energy source, particularly one that is relatively the cleanest of fossil fuel sources, why would we be so anxious to deplete it?
When it comes to energy sources, these are things with strategic implications. The decisions ought to be based on country wide strategic benefits and not just some company looking to maximize profit potential. Energy sources are really too critical to be left in the hands of the free market. Now maybe, once we fully understand all the implications, just maybe there would be some strategic advantage to exporting some of this to particular allies or countries we are trying to influence. But these are the kind of decisions that shouldn't be made in some corporate board room.
The problem as I see it is that we are one of the few modern countries that doesn't even have a strategic energy policy. To many other countries it just makes far too much sense to look at it from the bigger picture. But not us, instead we let the free market make these decisions for us. But as much as it may make sense to nationalize energy production and distribution, it simply won't happen because the corporate interests simply won't allow it.
But maybe we can find a middle ground that creates a partnership between energy corporations and the government. The government needs to set the strategy and this needs to be done in a very public venue and not in secret meetings with corporate executives. In reality maybe Congress needs to authorize a special large agency to manage energy and design it such that it is composed of elected officers from across the US. Yes, this would be bigger government. But maybe in the 21st century, we really need it. I would like to be able to cast a vote for someone who is focused on national energy policy and has no say so or influence on issues like abortion, gay marriage, or taxes. We need these to be elected officials and not appointed officials. This group would be given its mission by Congress, but would function in an independent fashion. Maybe the executive branch could have an appointee or two and maybe Congress gets some level of oversight, but we the people should get to select those who make up this agency.
Part of many of our problems today stem from too few people in Congress having far to much infulence on virtually every issue. We citizens tend to make voting choices often on just one or two obscure issues that these people have control of. We are a country of about 310,000,000 people with an economy close to $15,000,000,000,000. And we let a mere group of 535 people decide virtually every thing we do. Using pure math, one Congressman represents about 600,000 people. But in reality, it is far worse than that when you consider the two houses of Congress. On a purely mathematical basis, one Congressman "controls" $28 billion worth of our economy, and again, in reality it is far worse than that.
When one considers just how much power a Congressman actually holds, it is pretty scary. It shouldn't come as a surprise that with the money involved, that some of these Congressman could possibly be compromised at least to some degree. But we don't vote with the thought of how much power we are handing to these people. Instead many of us vote based on one or two little obscure issues. In many respects our country has outgrown its government.
Energy is a huge concern that should be right up there with national defense, but we don't treat it that way. We feel very comfortable that national defense belongs in the hands of a central government and not the free market, yet we look at energy and we want government to stay out of it? This is asinine and defies logic. Maybe Nationalization isn't the answer but something needs to be done to better develop strategic energy policy and control. We'd all be far better off for it. We already have a Department of Energy, but their role is pretty limited. Maybe this needs to be revamped. But most importantly, we as citizens need to realize just how important energy is to us and see that we need some centrlaized control and take many decisions out free market hands who are simply driven by short term profits.
Bipartisan? That must mean this policy really sucks for us citizens.
"One pending project is Dominion Energy’s Cove Point site at Lusby, Md."
"The Sierra Club has opposed the Sabine Pass project as well as the Cove Point facility and another proposed LNG terminal in Oregon."
When did Maryland and Oregon become the Deep South and far right areas?
Hmm, saying those places oppose it, means they are not for it!! Reading Comprehension 101 man.
The Sierra Club is just one Radial Left wing organization that is opposed to anything that would hurt a tree or a shrub.
I didn't ask whether Oregon or Maryland were opposed to LNG I asked when did they become the Deep South and far right areas.
Reading Comprehension 101.
Dear David, when YOU move your family to one of the proposed sites, and enjoy the noise and air pollution MAY BE THEN YOU WILL SUPPORT THE "TREE HUGGERS" and our desire to save some of our environment from the PROFIT TAKERS. I guess it is to much to ask from people intent on immediate self gratification.
We have an over abundance of Natural Gas in the United States. That means the big rich companies can't keep the price high enough to increase our home heating bills. If they can do the same thing our oil drillers do, I. E. ship more OIL OVERSEAS than we import, they can increase a shortage locally and therefore INCREASE the home heating bill. Typical Republican thinking.
Not only does this sucks for US consumers. It gives them another excuse to raise consumer prices here.
Natual gas can be converted to gasoline and deisel for trucks. There is a natural gas refinery doing just that in the mid-west. I know as I went past it a few years back and asked a gas station clerk about it.
So now they want to export the gas instead of turning it into fuel for our cars and trucks.
And Both the Democrats and Republicans are all on board for it.Shows you can't trust either party.
turns out that energy independence is not attainable. There will always be somewhere to export to, to gain more profit.
Are you speaking for us here in Oregon? Just curious because I'm not sure you know much about Oregonians. We're not so concerned about harming a tree or shrub (we have lots of them), however, we're not big on risking the destruction of the rest of a relatively diverse local economy in order to enrich the likes of Charles Koch. You're talking about transit through Oregon's main inland waterway (and seasonal salmon transit) and cross country transit over some of the most futile farm and dairy land in Oregon. I'm sure that means little to you and Charles...but it does mean something to us.
Recently, the Senatorial Tea Party candidate in Indiana who defeated the long time great Senator Lugar, described bi-partisan as Democrats coming around to his way of thinking. He has stated that if he can't achieve his definition of bi-partisan politics, it is his job to block anything the Democrats propose.
The point being made by Daryl and Ray was that just because some Blue Dog Democrats support it doesn't really make it bi-partisan. The reality is that in many ways, the Blue Dogs are more like a third party than Democrats.
A Blue Dog is a "Democrat" who is very conservative and very frequently votes with Republicans. Whereas a Rino is a Republican who once or twice in his career has either voted with or even just agreed with or worked with Democrats.
Technically, bi-partisan support. Just like the Affordable Health Care Act was also bi-partisan. Like a lot of Republican policy positions, this would be good for the corporations but bad for the citizens with the exception of a small bit of trickle-down that will be offset by higher energy prices.
rlr and matt did you even think for a moment that maybe creating jobs here in America and exporting our products is better than importing other Countries products and creating jobs there?
We need to create jobs here in America. Here's a chance to create Jobs in America and your against it?
Exactly!
Obama doesn't like this idea, yet. Wait until after the elections, then he'll piss of his base. What a pathetic leader he is. How could anyone vote for him again?
Within weeks of the completion of the Alaskan oil pipeline the Senate passed a bill allowing the oil to be exported, even though the original agreement was to keep Alaskan in the USA, for domestic use. Let's find a way to keep this natural gas here, for domestic use.
If we export this energy, we will have to import other energy! It is really only so they can unload it on the international field so prices can go up. That means Americans will have to pay more for energy which means slowing economical growth in other areas which would mean less jobs!!
I would be against adding 10,000 jobs to build those site at the cost of 100's of thousands of job in the future, so they can get higher prices for their products. At least while we are in a slow recovery. More information is required. How much will the price of gas go up for us as the consumers?
I'm pretty sure Alaska is still in the U.S..
Do have evidence to substantiate your claim?
You're not Harry Reid.
I left out the word "oil" after Alaskan. The original intent when the pipeline was built was to keep the Alaskan oil in our country. It only took a few weeks for Congress to allow for its export.
As for evidence - just "google" Alaskan oil pipeline. The facts are there. Currently, due to the reduction in oil production in Alaska, only a small percentage of Alaskan crude is exported. The fact remains that it's up to the oil companies where they ship this oil, because they did successfully lobby for a law changing the original agreement to keep it all for domestic use.
I asked for more information on what the real cost to America would be. What is wrong with that?
Also, I would ask Romney for his returns. If he thinks he is paying to much as a "job creator" then what is to much? Prove he is paying to much, then we can talk about the only policy he hasn't flipped on, cutting taxes for his income bracket.
I keep reading this defense of Romney that he is such a good man because he contributes MORE to Charity than anyone else.
Okay, so…
I went to the web site where you (and everyone else) can see Mitt Romney's two tax returns, as well as President Obama's 12 tax returns.
I copied the information from Romney's and Obama's Form 1040, for their AGI (Adjusted Gross Income or Taxable Income), and also the Schedule A, Line 19, for the amount of their Gifts To Charity.
After doing a little calculating, this is what I discovered.
In terms of ACTUAL DOLLARS given to Charity
Obviously Mitt Romney does give more actual dollars to Charity than President Obama. That's only logical, because Romney is wealthier and has a lot more dollars than Obama does.
However, in terms of PERCENTAGE OF TAXABLE INCOME...
It is extremely clear, without any doubt, that
If you don't trust my numbers, go to this site and check it out for yourself! Like President Obama, I have nothing to hide. (Too bad Mitt can't say that!)
Tax History Project, Presidential Tax Returns
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/
At this site YOU can actually see President Obama's 12 years of Tax Returns and Mitt Romney's two years of partial tax returns. You can also see Tax Returns from VP Biden, as well as some Republicans who ran against Romney in the Primaries, and other presidents going back to FDR.
(even giving Romney full credit for 2 partial Tax Returns) stands at ...
President Obama has released 12 years of Tax Returns, whereas candidate Mitt Romney has released only two years (of what have been reported to be incomplete/partial) Tax Returns. Facts are Facts!
Taishmoser: what you are asking for is what the Macroeconomic study being done by the DOE is supposed to accomplish.
The natural resources of the country are owned by the US Government. Energy companies get a license to extract the gas, oil, or coal. The fee is usually a flat rate per barrel or whatever measure. The fee is built into what the developer charges to a refiner or wholesaler or retailer. The fee does NOT reflect the actual value of the product, in fact it has no relationship to the actual value.
Energy producers take the nations resources, purchase them from the US government cheaply, then sell them internationally. If all of the gas and petroleum produced in the US were restricted to US only use, there would be no dependence on foreign imports and domestic gasoline would be at $1.50 not $4.50. With the effective restriction on LNG exports, natural gas is at an very low cost. Producers are attempting to get rid of the supply in order to increase the domestic price.
IMHO, the producers should have to pay 50% of the revenue from the production to the US government. Of course, that will never happen. The energy companies own the Congress.
It isn't about increasing jobs. It is about increasing prices for American consumers.
Wait a Minute...........I thought all that drilling was suppose to be for the good old USA, you know along with the dangers of fracking, which of course they say no worries, if you get gas coming outta your faucet well look at it as a blessing, like oil being discovered on your property, now your saying they will ship this stuff overseas to make money off it...you mean they lied, I'm shocked I tell ya.
The smart thing to do would be to use the Nat Gas to replace some of our imported oil. However, that would require Congress to do something that makes sense.
Since Congress isnt going to help with the conversion of oil usage to Natural Gas, the produces want to seel it to the rest of the world.
As some have said, at least that creates jobs here.
I would be better to subsidize the conversion of diesel trucks and fleet vehicles to use Nat Gas, but Congress isnt bright enough for this.
you would run out of fuel to quick..how many time would a trucker have to fuel up on natural gas...every town
If prices go up, then you lose jobs in the rest of the economy. There needs to be a better analysis on the jobs created vs the job destroyed for raising the cost of gas in the US.
Our waste haulers have changed all their trucks to natural gas, as have many of the other garbage haulers. Not sure of whether the gas is liquified, or how often refuleing is needed, but I've seen no increase in our cost for the service.
elvis: LNG in a fuel tank delivers approx the same range as gasoline or diesel.
If this was done the price of energy would actually drop due to less imported oil. But the oil company''s will never allow their paid congressmen to allow this.
LNG DOES NOT give the same milage as gas or deisel, do some homework before you tell lies.
Here in Peru where every gas station sells LPG, the owners who drive the LPG cars laugh about the economy. Much much better mileage for the dollar. Of course, they've been paying $4.50 a gallon for gasoline for a long time.
This little rinky dink third world country saw the writing on the wall and built the infrastructure for LPG vehicles long ago. America will have to sooner or later. And the costs go up meanwhile.
Liberals have really picked the wrong side in this issue...we should be drilling, selling, exploring, and developing alternatives to fintie fossil fules but to stick your heads in the sand and say no to any energy development that doesn't involve some uneconomical alternative is silly...
By the way...where are all of those newfangled energy sources that will save us billions? The answer is none if they aren't subsidized by the rest of us...
Liberals ALWAYS pick the wrong side on issues.
Rick, only ONE of your statements is what we need to do, DEVELOP ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES, preferably energy that can be done INDIVIDUALLY AND WOULD NOT NEED TO BE BOUGHT FROM ANY SUPPLIER. That is the goal AND WE SHOULD ALL BE DOING WHATEVER IT TAKES TO ASSURE IT HAPPENS.
maybe we wil get cheaper gas bills this winter when it gets cold.........not?..like the wind turbines in west Texas..?cheaper my foot?
Drill baby drill!! Yah ,going to lower our prices here in the US. Just export it all ,so we can pay more for it.It's our natural resources.That are being used to make profit by selling on open market.Yep that works out real well for our economy.
that's there moj...when west Texas seen those wind turbines come to town people were happy oh boy cheap electric bills...corporations sold them out.
Yeah Rick sell it all so we now have nothing and can fall back on nothing. Subsidize this?
I thought Obama was all about in-sourcing and creating Jobs. Isn't he constantly talking about needing to invest in Infrastructure and getting construction workers back to work?
Isn't that what would happen if dozens of new Exporting terminals were built and importing terminals were modified?
Don't we have a $16 trillion dollar deficit to pay off?
Wouldn't it be better to have money coming into the United States from abroad and be collecting Tax Revenue and fees etc. form the sale of those products to other countries than somehow believing were going to be able to pay down that dept without exporting anything?
The Left is opposed to this why?
It's pretty obvious but seeing as how you're a shill for an energy corporation, I understand why you can't figure it out.
If prices go up on gas, and we are stuck paying more, then more jobs and revenue will be lost then gained. A better understanding of what will happen to the Economy as a whole is needed before jumping in to make a few wealth individuals even more wealthy.
This deal will certainly help China, lower there energy costs and raise ours, thats smart. It would allow china to be able to produce cheaper crap!!
be collecting Tax Revenue and fees etc. form the sale of those products to other countries. You are confused. The American companies would have off shore headquarters where the money would be sent to avoid paying as much tax as possible. They will accept the lowest bid for Chinese steel to build the pipelines, no American companies need submit a bid.
How are the national debt and export profits connected? Don't you understand that BIG OIL gets the money and pays less tax than even Reid's version of Romney!
As far as jobs, wouldn't more jobs be created to refit all our coal generating plants to nat gas than to build a few port terminals?
What about energy independence? How can we become energy independent if we allow BIG OIL to send "OUR" energy overseas. Wouldn't it make sense to forbid exports of energy until all imports are discontinued? Of course it would, but money doesn't talk sense, it talks votes - remember your congressman's main job is to get re-elected, not to take care of your needs! That too is bi-partisan.
As nearly everybody has been saying, BIG Business has bought congress and can do whatever they want to make even more obscene profit than ever - it's the American way ! ! ! (now fade to a picture of G. Wash and T. Jeff. rolling in their graves)
If Obama was doing his job there wouldn't be any delays. Then again if he was competent Progressives wouldn't support him.
Lower China's energy costs and raise ours, that sounds smart.
corporations tea party would sell there mothers if they could?
corporations tea party has America for sale...you think other nations care about our clean water and environment..tea party the sell out to other nations part..hey lets frack its clean huh tea party?
OK, let's see if I understand..........
1. LPG prices are too low because we have so much of it, so we need to send it to China so that our citizens can pay more, right?
2. This is a bi-partisan need because a bunch of republinut congressmen who haven't agreed on anything positive for the country since they bought their last election said so?
3. Selling our energy resources overseas will create lots and lots of jobs here in the USA. If you don't believe it, just ask the oil companies, speculators, and John Boehner. They'll give you the honest scoop.
4. The only reason anyone could oppose the selling of America is because they are a yellow-bellied liberal who's only mission in life is to wave the American flag, eliminate Federal oversight programs, and divert all our resources to the next war, against say Madagascar or something. (Hmmm, now I know I'm confused........)
Allrighty then, having really explored the issue I have the answer! It's all about money, and who can accumulate 98% of it.
Lower China's energy cost and raise ours!! That's smart!! Common sense at its finest!!
the tea part say why don't we do this it ..It might lower the prices of things....have you listen to the tea party...might don't mean a thing..might..means sucker's
The tea party are looking out for us...higher gas prices for the winter's ahead..
Hey but if we lower China's energy prices Walmart might drop their prices!!
Common sense at its finest!
Energy Secretary Steven Chu doesn't like LNG because it isnt his idea. CHu's idea of biofuel from algae is better says the Energy Secretary. Doing a fine job of stonewalling, Chu is. Good luck with getting this approved through Steven Chu. It will not happen. Chu wants American energy companies to fail just like Obama does thus the Solyndra fiasco!
how much will we be paying in the winter G.C..to keep warm?
Global Warming will keep you warm. See there is benefits to GW unless you live on the coast.
like i said how much will winter bill's be?
I dont know about you guys, but my bill is about to go down when the Energy companies readjust to the natural gas prices. So i'll be paying less. Though since I am already practiced at CONSERVING usage, it wont matter much over my 70 dollar a month bill for a 2 story 3 bedroom home.
Its also common sense that importing oil and gas from other countries is cheaper than holding domestic supplies. A) people here work for more money (increased price), B) you can use export prices to offset import prices thus cutting costs. And the good news is that OPEC doesnt have their little hands in natural gas. So it would actually be a win for us the consumer.
folks..gas is not cheap in the winter.Its not cheap.would you like to see one of my winter bills.if the tea party get there way..it will be like enron again..but ths time they will say frezz old lady frezz
but ths time they will say frezz old lady frezz The Paul Ryan budget already says that
have you notice the tea party news fox news always says it ..might..or may do this...in other words suckers..
and every time obama says that he will save us money...it costs the US TAXPAYER $$$$$BILLIONS!!!!
So, The reasoning behind this is that LNG is to cheap now that we have
an abundance so we must sell our over abundance instead of saving it.
So Americans will pay more later when we sell what we already have??
How about if we just save BILLIONS of taxpayers money and use what
we have instead of importing and exporting ANYTHING!!!!
I can hear the speculators next year if they do this..supply and demand is going....then..this$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
BO that is exactly the point!!!
all our cars and trucks can run on LPG now , with little cost to convert!!!Disney runs their buses on it, many cites do also...
WHY are we NOT using what we have --in the USA--instead of exporting to increase the price???
we have plenty of natural gas..lets keep it that way...its already high in the winters...we don't need it any higher like say next year oh we are running out due to supply and demand over seas?..instant double prices in the winter..this is no might..its a will do thing?..huh tea party trash...and just think I dont work at wall street
And You Tea party talk about Obama selling out..to other nations???
hey tea party I have a Idea..gas for oil..that way the prices will get lower..they have oil we have natural gas?
"But some in the gas industry say the Energy Department is slowing the process until after the Nov. 6 election"
Putting it off until after the election. I'm shocked I tell you shocked!
We wouldn't want Obama to have to decide between the Enviromaniacs and the Unions before the Election like he was forced to do with the XL Pipeline.
Wouldn't it be a shock to have an Executive officer that didn't avoid having to make decisions...
good
Have you read the "pipe line" business plan? At the moment they are not receiving as much from the midwest as the would on the open world market. Again this would lower china's energy costs and raise ours, and make a few people wealth at the expense of the rest. Plus most of that wealth would go to Canada.
taish... EXACTLY///why is the American requirement not put first!!
Export only after the USA supply is steady and the price is reasonable??