http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-08/u-s-should-export-natural-...

US and LNG exports

Illustration by Bloomberg View

U.S. Should Export Natural Gas, Not Coal

President Barack Obama’s suggestion last weekend that he may favor greater U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas is a welcome sign. More exports would spur more domestic production and help balance U.S. trade.

LNG exports could also help counter the unsettling increase in American exports of coal to Europe. In 2012, the U.S. sent about 66.4 million short tons (60.2 million metric tons) of coal across the Atlantic, 23 percent more than the year before. Exporting coal works against the progress the U.S. has made in lowering its own greenhouse-gas emissions by replacing coal power with cleaner-burning natural gas.

In Europe and Asia, where natural gas sells for $10 to $16 per million British thermal units -- three to four times the U.S. price -- demand is high. Imports from the U.S. could also give European countries greater power to bargain on prices with Russia’s OAO Gazprom, now a dominant supplier of natural gas. All that’s missing are the U.S. facilities to liquefy gas for export.

Opposition to building these terminals comes mainly from U.S. manufacturing companies that don’t want to see domestic natural-gas prices go up as some of the supply is sold overseas. Dow Chemical Co., Alcoa Inc. and other industrial-energy users argue that by raising domestic prices, exports would slow the U.S. manufacturing renaissance and hobble economic growth. Paul Cicio, president of the Washington-based trade group Industrial Energy Consumers of America, has called for delaying approvals for some new export terminals to avoid a domestic price shock.

Individual consumers, too, have reason to wince at the prospect of electricity and natural-gas bills going up because of greater exports.

More Production

Yet any increase in prices would be temporary if gas production rises, too. The low U.S. prices of the past year and a half (last June, they were less than $2.50 per million Btu, and have since risen to about $4) led many energy companies to stop drilling. With more demand from exports, more production is to be expected. As much as 80 percent of foreign demand for American natural gas could be met by new drilling, studies suggest.

In a December report for the U.S. Energy Department, NERA Economic Consulting found -- as other researchers have before -- that exports would bring a net economic benefit by helping to balance U.S. trade. The increase in gross domestic product may amount to $20 billion, or possibly as much as $47 billion if very large amounts of LNG -- 12 billion cubic feet per day -- are exported, the NERA study found.

Delaying or restricting export terminal permits would not only negate that benefit. It would also put the U.S. in a new trade quandary: Because there is no national-security reason to limit exports of the U.S.’s new surplus of natural gas, doing so would amount to unfair competition. As Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations has pointed out, the World Trade Organization might see limits on U.S. natural-gas exports as no less unfair than are China’s restrictions on exports of rare-earth elements.

The U.S., with its $38.8 billion trade deficit, shouldn’t see its booming oil and gas production as a reason to secede from global energy markets.

Obama seems to agree; in Costa Rica on May 4, he said he envisions the U.S. becoming a net natural-gas exporter by 2020. If so, he has some work to do converting words into action.

Last year, the Energy Department gave a permit to one facility in Louisiana to sell LNG to countries without trade agreements with the U.S. -- including sales to Japan and European nations. Nineteen more applications are pending. Given the expense and time involved in building these plants -- several billion dollars each and at least four years -- only a few can be expected to come to fruition.

A recent Moody’s Investors Service report predicted that if three more plants -- in Texas, Maryland and Louisiana -- are soon approved, as expected, it will still take until 2020 for the U.S. to export significant quantities of natural gas.

On May 4, Obama said, “I’ve got to make an executive decision broadly about whether or not we export liquefied natural gas at all.” Though the decision has yet to be made, the right one is clear, and the approvals of the new plants should be made without delay.

Views: 782

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I wish we would focus on using our NG here and reducing energy imports.

I do believe our primary emphasis should be to use the NG domestically first and foremost.  

Secondly, the LNG export supply replacement issue, IMO, U.S. has a number of resources that can fill that void to minimize the demand/price cycle you are rightly concerned with.  
Yes, the NOC's are there, at some point the cycle will reach equilibrium with ample supply.  Assuming our reserves remain plentiful, and the cyclical (free trade) market does not interfere with our future NG domestic price such that our conversion incentives are negated, the US has a chance for a manufacturing rebound and take steps towards energy independence.  

2014 or 2015 may not be the time to start exporting, however the decision to export LNG at some modest level must be made sooner rather than later.  If we wait until 2015 or later to make the call, IMO, we likely miss the opportunity.  

There is very little Canadian gas moving South of the border, the Gulf supplies are waning as well.   

Another opportunity to become a world energy supplier may not happen again for a very long time, if ever.

Something you mentioned in a previous post.  The application of horizontal drilling & multi-stage fracing in the traditional reservoirs.... some believe that $4.50 to $5 gas would really help independents undertake the acceleration of that experiment just begging for traction.

I am an optimist, I see a growing domestic supply on the upside more so than any other time in the last 40 -50 years.  

If a NOC wants to break their country at great cost, we can look forward to some very cheap energy in the U.S.   I really believe this can be avoided if a measured way forward.

The problem is that there is no realistic approach to evaluating technically recoverable supply vs. economically recoverable supply.  That uncertainty makes me cautious. 

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service