Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by adubu on August 18, 2012 at 1:16

APGA just wants to maintain cheap gas supply but the demand for the ample supply has not balanced yet in the USA and would be years before that happen.  We have ample surplus of Nat Gas to allow export of LNG and this would maintain thousands of jobs in drilling plus jobs that are required to support drilling and transportation of the gas to market.  If application denied that would increase job loses and hurt our enconomy. We need to stop the talk about using our nat gas for vehicles fuel and multiple other usage that would increase the demand and just DO IT, ENOUGH OF THE TALK!!! The US is producing about 2.5 BCF day excess today and could produce more if necessary with all the shale locations that have been ID to drill. Plus US is still importing about 400 BCF year of LNG through old contracts obligations. So we have about 4 BCF day excess. The USA needs to export the gas for our economy and the world needs it. This would stablize profits for oil & gas companies and benefit all royalty owners.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LP on August 18, 2012 at 5:15

Ditto adubu ! We need to sell our product. Someday in the future when our economy is healthier and our surplus of natural gas is not so extreme, then we can afford to be selective and require the customers wear shirts and shoes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on August 18, 2012 at 6:25

Now there is an idea - how about giving long term approval for a modest volume, and short term (say 5 year) approval for additional volumes - basically give enough of a volume guarantee to get the projects built, but not so much of a guarantee to get them "over built".  Not sure how that would work in practice, but lets not approve, then pull the rug out from under folks in 7 years.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on August 18, 2012 at 10:02

Dbob---- ideal sounds good BUT I do not like the federal government to controll prices by controll of volumes . Allowable production regulation for a field ok because it is calculated by engineers to result in maximumizes the EUR of field and wells. I think FREE market will balance supply/demand over time. Just like operates lay rigs down when supply drops prices and rig up when demand is there to improves prices enough for profit to drill. Prices controll simply do not work as confirm on several occasions by government in the 1960s . The recent permits has max gas export within the approved permits which is not ideal . This is simply IMO

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on September 7, 2012 at 8:56

dbob:  won't work that way.  In order to invest the $10B it takes to build this, a company must have a permit for longer than 5 years.  They need at least 10 to break even and more like 20 to make a decent (8-10%) return.  You just can't get your money back in 5!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on September 7, 2012 at 8:59

How about we convince a few Congressmen that we need to be paid to NOT PRODUCE our product!  That's what the farmers did.  They get paid to not grow a crop, thus keeping the price artifically high!!  What APGA wants is a government regulation that artificially keeps prices low by illegally restricting the ability to export.  I believe there is a reasonable chance that this kind of regulation could be attacked in the courts as a violation of free trade.  But it will have to come once we clean out the current leaders in DC.  Those there now are only interested in paying off voters with free stuff so that they keep getting voted into office so they can keep giving away free stuff to those who vote for them. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on September 7, 2012 at 16:27

Part of the tension on exporting LNG is raising prices here at home, e.g. on electricity, manufacturing, etc.  Agreed that the infrastructure costs require long term approval for export.  So do you approve only some of the export licenses to limit the outflow?  Or approve them all, then have to later reverse some of the approvals?

Maybe seasonal approval so that we don't export in the peak withdrawal season?

There is obviously a need for west coast export, both in Alaska and in the lower.  some should be for domestic use in Hawaii and US controlled territories in the Pacific.  

There is need for gulf region export to supply southern waters, and potentially some capacity through the panama canal.  

There ought to be some east coast capacity to be able to send gas to England/Europe.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on September 14, 2012 at 14:14

In most cases, those that have been formally proposed should have some press releases - that may be easier than searching the FERC dockets.  FERC dockets should have a description of any of the proposed sites.  

I'm not sure if there is anyway to find out more about the "potential" sites other than troll press releases  

• ▶ Reply