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:
A poor man like me can shut up a crown of rich people quick how can that be??
we have plenty of natural gas..now lets get rid of it to other nations..in one year we are running out due to speculators...suckers ..that's the tea party's plan.get rich quick..Enron all over again
Don't hold your breath. This administration has shown NO signs of wanting to do anything to help this country in producing energy or exports of any type or creating jobs. One term and out for this administration of misfits.
The tea party mojo..remember hannity lets put hay in the ocean..to clean up the oil spill...have you seen the price of hay folks..the tea party never thinks about feediing horses cows so on..they think about the hay only...doo doo brains
Remember this the NEXT time you vote, the next time you are TEMPTED to vote for the same imbecile you voted in for the last five terms......can you not see the stupidity....they are ALL OWNED BY CORPORATE AMERICA!!!
As long a Big Oil makes its profit 'm sure our elected officials wil go along with it.The money for the SuperPacs have o come from somwwhere
I do not see one comment about the central issue on exporting NG: property rights. The NG is private property. Almost every poster seems to think that NG is publically owned. When you produce a legal good or service, you have the right to sell it both locally and internationally. NG is subject to many regulations about its development but after satisfying these regulations the NG owners have the right to sell their product.
The attempt to restrict exports of NG is just another attack on private property rights. Almost every poster wrongly assumes collective ownership of NG. The NG owners invested large amounts risking their investments to bring a vital product to the marketplace.
Restrictions on private property rights including NG exports are immoral and lead to economic decline. If property rights of NG owners are stolen, production of NG will decrease as owners realize that external forces are preventing them from earning a return on their investment. The economic activity of reduced production and investment in exporting capacity will reduce jobs and tax revenue. Exports of products and services bolster the value of the dollar. New investment in NG production will also be reduced as investors decide to invest in other countries without the immoral restrictions here on exports.
we are forced to buy the crap in the winter???so yes it does matter..the price
@ ConservativeProf: All the lands are public land held in TRUST to BLM(Bureau of Land Management) but are leased to big oil for cheap per Obama. Once again we are sold out by our governments(Dems own the HOUSE)!
When 23 Million Unemployed people cant find jobs I'm sure they will feel comforted in knowing the reason is because "We just want to keep companies from making a profit".
new energy we can do...lets create new things..for a change??
I'm not sure if I have this right. The U. S. has an an energy crisis. Big oil and gas are daily disparaging President Obama for his lack of results for this crisis. What's their answer? Export energy! How American. This is the typical Romney, Republican plan for everything. When it comes to making a profit, sorry America - you lose. But not to worry. They will be standing in the front of the line, shouting out their patriotism and proudly sticking out their chests and showing their lapel flags when they expect young Americans to die in a far-off land so that they can defend Big Oil's right to steal someone else's oil.
The more natural gas onthe market the lower the price is for all of us. Basic supply and demand.
This article points out what should be clear to everyone by now. Mr. Obama and his administration are the real impediments to getting things done in a timely and bipartisan fashion. Get rid of him in Nov and things will get done.
by "bipartisanship" what you and every republican really mean is "capitulation"
Obama is the real impediment when it comes to most things in Washington. Obama twists things along with his "dog robber" Harry Reid and the press reports it to with the liberal bias and it appears, too many voters believe what the liberal press puts out.
Who own the House? Dems!
"Who own the House? Dems!"
Um, no. The House is made up of 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats.
Export "Our" Natural Gas while importing "Their" Oil?
Here's just one more reason come November Do Not Re-Elect ANYBODY for none of these Corrupt Politicians work for US!
If the Incumbent is a Republican Vote Democratic.....If the Incumbent is a Democrat Vote Republican!
The Transnational Bankster Controlled Main Stream Media may be able to control our only Two Choices (really just one) but we DO NOT have to reward their favorite "Criminals" with Seniority!
Remember Elect Don't Re-Elect!
Steven Chou doesn't know anymore about what he is doing than Obama
why are we even talking about this ?
we need jobs....and we wont get them from obama or democrats in the senate.
americans have only one choice if they want prosperity, they have to get rid of all the liberal democrats that stand in the way of american jobs.
americans will do the right thing and fire that idiot obama and every other stupid liberal that votes against american jobs.
this is what happens when you elect stupid people to office.
What about the fact that the Obama administration has created 4.5 million private sector jobs over 29 consecutive months, more than Bush created in eight entire years?
And the fact that Romney wants to return to the failed Bush policies? Any comment?
yeah...uh. according to the labor dept we have lost 4 million american jobs since 2009.
since 2009 we have created just 1 million jobs under the obama administration.
americans lose 360,000 jobs a month, every month for the last 3.5 years.
what ever obama is doing is not working for the american people.
we need jobs...and obama is against jobs for some reason.
If they want to do something FOR America instead of TO America, they'll instead come up with a plan to use CNG to fuel our autos instead of exporting it.
Once USA export LNG, domestic prices will increase due to all kinds of artificially generated shortages just like yearly shut down of gasoline refinaries just before driving/holiday seasons! But in LNG exports, it will be export pricing that will hurt and bring up prices for USA consumers! This look like our elected officials is once again selling us out AGAIN!
I VOTE NO!
FRACKING KILLS-I guess until your kids gets cancer it's money money me-I feel sorry for the future of our kids in the USA -
Earthquakes in Eastern Texas, caused by wastewater disposal from "fracking" into the "earth".
The XL Pipeline would just make it more popular to frack! Obama has stalled the pipeline, for various reasons. One is the fact that the Canadians refuse to drop off any of the Shale Tar to US based refineries in our interior. Canada wants only to ship it across our states, give us no benefits as it reaches the tax-free refineries in the gulf, and sell it on the World Market. And Republicans are mad about that! D'oh!
Not to mention the fact that Shale Tars are heavier than water and sink to the bottom of streambeds, not on the surface of water, ruining river basins and lakes, while the Oil industry still has no real way to stop it, while not repairing pipelines that have been reported for having cracks in them for up to ten years, and finally burst, before they think of fixing them.
So much for Oil Companies promises for protecting our environment! No more pipelines without inspections, resulting in repairs, and no more drilling until serious changes to oil clean-up is delivered! I think that is more than fair! Until then, we'll have to make do with less poluting substances and corn, and should begin farming hemp for oil, too. Doesn't that wind energy sound better all the time? Or do you prefer to light your faucet with a match or an expensive lighter?
we have a real loser for pres
It's the not the president, it's the congress.
I completely hate that. We should not be exporting or natural gas reserves. Let them slow down production or go to storage instead. We have been trying for ages to create a more stable domestic energy supply and now that we have, they want to export it.
I think we should outlaw the export of energy instead and promote cleaner natural gas vehicles for fleets.
Next quarter's money is not everything, and this is a bad decision for the nation.
Third Way right on!!!!!!
If done correctly, the excess of natural gas could be put to good use right here in the USA. Fuel Cells can be run on natural gas and the only waste by-product is pure H2O! Plus, when the heat generated by the chemical reaction is utilized, a fuel cell is somewhere around 98% efficient!
Look at it! We get clean energy powered by an inexpensive product produced here at home. If the government would get behind the development of fuel cells instead of wind mills and other non-viable energy sources look at the good we could do for ourselves!
Fuel cell work. They have been powering our space vehicles for decades. The only detriment to them right now is they are expensive to make. But so were cars when they first came out! Remember only the rich could afford a car until Henry Ford came up with the assembly line!
Would electing a do something Congress help, or is Congress always going to be a waste of more and more time?
There was a time in this country (2010 and earlier) when the biggest problem was importing liquid fuels for energy of all sorts. Now the rush is to export it as quickly as possible.
Anyone else fail to see the logic of exporting a finite resource at the expense of our future? I have also been doing that with our finite supplies of helium, iron, cooper, wheat and timber.
Timber and food products wouldn't be a finite material if we were good stewards of the supply we do have. The national forests were created to protect our forestry resources but the movement the last 30 years has been to export it to other countries for BIG BUSINESS corporate profits instead of protecting it for our own use. Instead, we import all sorts of building material trash from Asia to cut costs. This is insanity at is worst.
As for the food supply, we now import more food than we produce, yet work hard at exporting as much as we can regardless of the needs at home. More insanity, from the same mindless source.
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!
The key is how much each person gave BEFORE they had presidential aspirations. Of course Obama would give more once he was elected to look respectable. I'm curious how much he gave before 2010. I have a feeling not much. After all, he is a liberal.
Road Warrior,
Look at his last 12 years!!! They are on the record. It is your guy that probably donated more the last two years to look better!!
Conservatives give more to church organizations, liberals go straight to the source of need and donate.
I'm not sure donating 2mil to have a new church built is the same as 2mil given to the hungry. Sure that church may give some of it to charity. I personally donate to direct help organizations, rather than middleman churches that will only give a fraction of that out and spend the rest trying to gather more followers.
On a side note, I don't think trying to buy your way into the afterlife is truly donating.
According to the Huffington Post, the biggest charity donations Obama made before 2008 were to his church. He must have liked the Jeremiah Wright sermons. He has since stopped giving to the church.
At least the President released his tax returns, and the Mitter has just shown 1.
Obama 2012
@ ConservativeProf: All these PRIVATE lands are public land in trust to BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) but are leased to big oil for cheap, once again we are sold out by our governments!
The only reality show I am interested in seeing is liberals and conservatives being fed to the lions so the rest of us can try to make society work and be left alone. If conservatism worked then people would have been dancing on the streets intead of jumping out of buildings to get to it in 1927. We had no unions, no government regulations and no real taxes. If liberalism worked Russia would be the world leader. Boy, does the crap get tiring.
Truthfully, they balance each other in good times. Debating and compromise makes us stronger. No one is always right. When a party decries compromise and says we need to take our country back, that is when things really start to get messed up. Also big money, which is beholden to no philosophy, but that of the mighty greenback, has more say than any other part of our country.
Or did Romney have sex with his mother and Obama have sex with his father? Why don't we know these things? The press must be hiding the information.
From the article:
"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".
Since it involves job creation and deficit reduction, we KNOW Obama won't sign it.
Where do you get your thoughts? WOW
Ever see an LNG tanker of that size blow up? That's the reason for caution on new terminals.
You haven't seen it either and your point is nonsensical.
Sell natural gas at the lowest price to then buy oil at a higher price. It is called "destructive capitalism" and delays the day of reckoning when we have to face a energy shortage the hard way, and by shear neglect. Destroy the one asset you have for energy independence and make sure the over all market price in the future is rising. Greed trumps planning.
What it boils down to is that it will raise prices in the US and lower those of our competition. China which has been having energy issues, and can't build as cheap as the last decade will see a new wave of cheap products that they can sell to us. This in the long run will hurt of trade deficit, and raise the cost of energy in the US.
Common sense; but but... if we sell it, we make money right... Here is a novel idea, try using intelligence with common sense, then the world will start coming together for you.
jeff, I saw a port in Japan, believe me the ports are very fragile and the tankers are very vulnerable. Go easy and do it right.
Obama 2012