Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JHH on December 5, 2012 at 13:26

It was an encouraging report... but there's a lot of political/environmental opposition to exports of domestic natural gas.  I suspect the report/study will do little to improve opportunities... especially when the DOE won't decide to move forward until public comments are taken... and then reviewed... and then studied again... and that usually means the kiss of death.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 5, 2012 at 16:34

The NY Times and the Wall St. Journal both think this is a game changer and will open the way to big time growth for exporting natural gas.

Basically, the report says the benefits to exporting natgas are "significantly greater" than the risks of fracking or raising prices too much on consumers. We have that much gas and can get it safely enough. It's very good news for the future. Now, if we can get the teachers to start doing their lesson plans around natural gas and inspire a new generation of engineers and designers for natural gas ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/business/energy-environment/gover...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578161461770...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on December 6, 2012 at 2:03

I'm sorry to be so negative.  But i don't believe one thing from a bureaucrat or a politician.  Especially when those in power find ONE thing in a study backing their views.  I read an article that the organization conducting the study was being challenged.   That company is NERA Economic Consulting, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C., firm that is part of Marsh & McLennan Cos.

In addition to the environmental opposition and what we get this from influential politicians.. as seen in this quote from the WSJ:  Rep. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), a critic of both fracking and gas exports, said large-scale exports would lead to a "massive wealth transfer from working Americans to oil and gas companies."

and here's the kiss of death... again from the WSJ

The Department of Energy said on Wednesday that it would review the economic impact study as well as public comments "prior to making final determinations" on approving LNG-export applications. It said it would study each application on a case-by-case basis.

So, despite all the encouraging news from the study... the opposition is growing and a delayed decision to permit more exports will be based on continued "PUBLIC COMMENT" and an "ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY".  Who knows when that will be complete and how long it will take to make a decision.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ALongview on December 6, 2012 at 6:34

 "PUBLIC COMMENT" and an "ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY" are standard procedure on deals like this.  They did the same thing on the Sabine Pass facility that was approved.  It does put hurdles in place but u;timately it is a big win.  Could you imagine the uphill battle had the study gone the other way?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on December 6, 2012 at 8:58

Yes.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by cocodrie man on December 6, 2012 at 1:01

I think too little is made of the apparent reduction in carbon emissions caused in large part by the shift from coal to natural gas in the generation of electricity.  It is reported that CO2 emissions in the U.S. are lowered by some 400 to 500 million tons which is more than the entire impact of the EU and Kyoto Protocol of around 250 million tons.  Many care about the supposed impact on the atmosphere caused by CO2 emissions and I think this good news, if indeed accurate, could be a strong selling point for the development of our industry, including the export of LNG.  In this case, it may well be that what is good for the US is good for the world, as concerns CO2 emissions. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on December 6, 2012 at 7:28

Exactly!  Anyone concerned about global warming has to favor natgas and anyone who wants to follow what the science says has to favor natgas.

I think I read that natgas has already brought a 15% reduction in our emissions from the coal in electrical production.  That is huge and it lowered cost to manufacturers so that jobs were created.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on December 6, 2012 at 8:55

Agreed!  Our air is so much cleaner... we're getting more sunburn! Dang... just can't win.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by cocodrie man on December 7, 2012 at 1:54

When crossing the new Audubon Bridge spanning the Mississippi it is interesting to glance at the barge dock for the Big Cajun electrical generating plant.  It is where they unload coal to fuel the generators.  With the low river levels, the dock appears high and dry.  I do not know why Big Cajun burns coal when it sits upon huge gas reserves in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.  When I inquired of a long time resident about this, he replied, "the peanut farmer."  I suppose he implied some reference to Jimmy Carter.  Bottom line is that if coal is coming to Big Cajun via rail, that must drive generating costs up.  It is time convert that rascal to Nat Gas. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 6, 2012 at 15:38

How will exporting LNG help royalty owners...the exporter will buy the gas from the US market (cheap) and be selling it to the world market...(big bucks)

Think...A company having a product made in china (cheap) then selling it here for American retail....sure the the Chinese get to have jobs but what did they get paid?

• ▶ Reply