Obama Seen Ruling on LNG Export This Year

[boutons_deux]

The Obama administration probably will decide by year-end whether to let additional terminals export liquefied natural gas, Barclays Bank Plc said, citing a meeting with a top White House energy official.

The U.S. suspended issuing permits for exports of gas in liquid form after some fuel users and Democrats in Congress said sales abroad might increase domestic prices. Cheniere Energy Inc. (LNG) is the only company so far to win approval to ship gas from a Louisiana terminal.

Heather Zichal, President Barack Obama’s deputy assistant for energy and climate change, told Barclays yesterday that while some companies will get clearance, others will be rejected because of lack of funding or legal problems, according to a note the company sent to clients today.

“She expects decisions on additional applications before year-end and, overall, Zichal thinks roughly six terminals might get funded over the next decade,”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-22/obama-seen-ruling-on-lng-export-permits-this-year-barclays-says

This is the "solution" to the NG glut in USA that has caused prices to crash. US consumers will be put in buyers competition with international consumer who are paying a lot more for LNG.

Having invested $100Bs in gas drilling, I'm sure the gascos will export as much as they can as fast as they can for the highest price.

[CosmicCowboy]

Having invested $100Bs in gas drilling, I'm sure the gascos will export as much as they can as fast as they can for the highest price.

You act like this is a bad thing.

[Drachen]

I am for this, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

You act like this is a bad thing.

When the US runs out of NG, you'll wish the gascos had sold so much of it abroad, and you'll wish much sooner that your gas-fired electricity bills and other gas-dependent items were much lower.

And do you really think the gasco export profits will trickle down to you? those profits and taxes on them won't ever touch the USA.

[Drachen]

When the US runs out of NG, you'll wish the gascos had sold so much of it abroad, and you'll wish much sooner that your gas-fired electricity bills and other gas-dependent items were much lower.

And do you really think the gasco export profits will trickle down to you? those profits and taxes on them won't ever touch the USA.

selling NG abroad = lower trade deficit and money coming INTO our economy.

Higher NG prices locally = more support for renewable energy.

[CosmicCowboy]

When the US runs out of NG, you'll wish the gascos had sold so much of it abroad, and you'll wish much sooner that your gas-fired electricity bills and other gas-dependent items were much lower.

And do you really think the gasco export profits will trickle down to you? those profits and taxes on them won't ever touch the USA.

:lmao

South Texas and the San Antonio area are booming because of oil and natural gas.

[TeyshaBlue]

selling NG abroad = lower trade deficit and money coming INTO our economy.

Higher NG prices locally = more support for renewable energy.

Indeed.:toast

[boutons_deux]

:lmao

South Texas and the San Antonio area are booming because of oil and natural gas.

the NG hasn't been exported, so domestic NG prices are way below world prices.

you'll laugh your ass off when US NG prices reach world prices

[CosmicCowboy]

$2 gas is unsustainable and a complete aberration dumbass. They are capping "dry" gas wells down south because they aren't economical to produce.

[TeyshaBlue]

Rising prices drive the oil and gas industry. Rising oil and gas prices drive oil and gas employment. No, we'll be very happy to see NG prices normalize. Lots of new oil and gas jobs. This will not be a problem.

[Drachen]

Rising prices drive the oil and gas industry. Rising oil and gas prices drive oil and gas employment. No, we'll be very happy to see NG prices normalize. Lots of new oil and gas jobs. This will not be a problem.

I am not sure who your previous avatar was, but he seemed familiar.


Now, everytime I read your posts I keep thinking it ends with "Mr. Anderson"

Your avatars fuck me up.

[TeyshaBlue]

I am not sure who your previous avatar was, but he seemed familiar.


Now, everytime I read your posts I keep thinking it ends with "Mr. Anderson"

Your avatars fuck me up.

lol. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Bush_Mission_Accomplished_Banner_Ja.jpg

http://www.movievillains.com/archives/2003/11/jame_gumb.html

[Drachen]

lol. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Bush_Mission_Accomplished_Banner_Ja.jpg

http://www.movievillains.com/archives/2003/11/jame_gumb.html

awesome.

Also, who was your last avatar?

[TeyshaBlue]

http://www.movievillains.com/archives/2003/11/jame_gumb.html

[Drachen]

http://www.movievillains.com/archives/2003/11/jame_gumb.html

I knew I recognized him.

[boutons_deux]

Natural gas: Why are export terminal permits necessary? ConclusionSo – while companies require a permit to export natural gas, coal was never considered for such regulation because it is not a ‘natural monopoly.’ On the contrary, coal companies in the 19th Century suffered from the monopolistic tendencies of the railroad companies, one of the major factors leading to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Interstate+Commerce+Commission) (ICC) in 1887, and the ensuing ‘Trust Busting’ progressive era, led by Teddy Roosevelt (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/Theodore+Roosevelt).


It is interesting that a legislative history regarding monopoly power has created very different regulatory regimes for the exports of coal and natural gas. Each deserves government scrutiny to determine what is in the national interest, but current law only gives an opportunity for such scrutiny to gas exports, giving a regulatory boost to coal exports over gas. My preference would be to give gas exports a priority over coal, but current law leaves it with gas.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1114/Natural-gas-Why-are-export-terminal-permits-necessary?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcsm+%28Christian+Scie nce+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[boutons_deux]

Report Bolsters the Case for Large U.S. Natural Gas Exports

a government study released on Wednesday concluded that the national economic benefits of significant natural gas exports far outweighed the potential for higher energy prices for consumers and industrial users of the fuel.

The study prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Energy Department, said that domestic prices would not rise sharply as a result of exports and that export revenue would generally help most Americans.

Energy companies have proposed more than a dozen projects to export gas in liquefied form to Europe and Asia, where the fuel is typically three to four times more expensive than in the United States. The Obama administration has been cautious on whether to embrace large exports of gas out of concern that consumers who rely on gas for heating and cooking could see their utility prices rise. Higher exports could also raise costs to manufacturers that now benefit from the nation's glut of cheap gas, like chemical and fertilizer manufacturers.

But the huge gas export terminals, which cost billions of dollars to set up, would also generate thousands of construction jobs, spur further development of natural gas fields and generate lucrative export earnings.
The administration has only approved one export terminal so far, by Cheniere Energy in Louisiana, saying it was waiting for the results of the economic study before making decisions on the rest of the projects.

Now that the report has been finished, most observers expect more projects to get the green light.

The report found that higher exports would actually generate more economic benefits. Noting that gas exports could produce up to $47 billion in new economic activity in 2020, when many new terminals would be up and running, it said, "Welfare improvement is highest under the high export volume scenarios because U.S. consumers benefit from an increase in wealth transfer and export revenues."

The Energy Department report noted that large exports of gas would raise prices slightly and have a negative impact on electric utilities, energy-intensive manufacturers and producers of chemicals and fertilizers.

It acknowledged that natural gas prices could jump by over a dollar per thousand cubic feet, or more than 25 percent, over five years if there are significantly more exports. That would still be well below the average natural gas price before the 2008 economic downturn.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/business/energy-environment/government-report-bolsters-the-case-for-large-us-natural-gas-exports.xml?f=23

yep, exporting a limited natural resource will make $Ts for the gas companies 1) from the exports and 1) from the higher domestic prices, as domestic market is pitted against world market, just as with the domestic vs world oil market.

[CosmicCowboy]

$1 more per MCF still puts natural gas at historic lows.

[Th'Pusher]

I thought we wanted to become energy indipendent? Shouldn't we be hoarding our natural resources instead of selling them to the highest bidder?

[CosmicCowboy]

Look at it as a 50 billion dollar a year stimulus program.

[boutons_deux]

the exported LNG money goes to the gasco's, not to citizens or country in general.

When the natgas runs down and the nation has to pay extremely high prices, then the exported LNG will be seen to be strategically stupid, short-sighted, but of course extremely lucrative for natgas companies and their wealthy shareholders.

[CosmicCowboy]

the exported LNG money goes to the gasco's, not to citizens or country in general.

When the natgas runs down and the nation has to pay extremely high prices, then the exported LNG will be seen to be strategically stupid, short-sighted, but of course extremely lucrative for natgas companies and their wealthy shareholders.

That gas doesn't jump out of the ground and liquify itself, dumbass.

[boutons_deux]

the gasco's aren't doing AMERICA any favors, dumbass.

that natgas is a critical NATIONAL resource

[CosmicCowboy]

the gasco's aren't doing AMERICA any favors, dumbass.

that natgas is a critical NATIONAL resource

For the most part that nat gas is a private resource

[boutons_deux]

yep, the UCA can fuck over American strategically for UCA's profits, and leave the 99% eventually fucked. the "patriotic" "free market" "capitalism" at work in full glory.

[CosmicCowboy]

fucking commie

[boutons_deux]

fucking sociopathic 1%er

[TeyshaBlue]

the exported LNG money goes to the gasco's, not to citizens or country in general.



you've been proven to be demonstrably wrong time and time again with this tired talking point. Yet you continue to parrot it like a good little sheep.

[ElNono]

Ehhh... I wouldn't mind some trading of excess capacity, but you definitely want to make sure you don't place exports in the long run over internal demand... this isn't the government exporting the gas, so this whole "stimulus" angle is somewhat baloney... what's likelier to happen is companies stashing the earnings offshore anyways. Call me a cynic, but this happens all the time.

[TeyshaBlue]

Ehhh... I wouldn't mind some trading of excess capacity, but you definitely want to make sure you don't place exports in the long run over internal demand... this isn't the government exporting the gas, so this whole "stimulus" angle is somewhat baloney... what's likelier to happen is companies stashing the earnings offshore anyways. Call me a cynic, but this happens all the time.

When there's an oil boom, you can bet your ass the citizens in the areas affected see it as a stimulus.

[boutons_deux]

When there's an oil boom, you can bet your ass the citizens in the areas affected see it as a stimulus.

where's there's an oil/gas boom, you can bet your ass the citizens will pocket a tiny fraction of the benefits.

Also, I see where infrastructure destruction/insufficiency and lenders who know how booms go bust are reluctant to lend for contruction because they figure the loans will go bad in the bust.

[ElNono]

When there's an oil boom, you can bet your ass the citizens in the areas affected see it as a stimulus.

I don't disagree you could see a boost in jobs in that certain area, but if the tradeoff is raising gas prices for *everyone*, I'm not sure it's a wise tradeoff.

[TeyshaBlue]

where's there's an oil/gas boom, you can bet your ass the citizens will pocket a tiny fraction of the benefits.

Also, I see where infrastructure destruction/insufficiency and lenders who know how booms go bust are reluctant to lend for contruction because they figure the loans will go bad in the bust.

I've already disproven this asinine narrative of yours as I've given multiple instances of how the tax revenues from drilling and producing benefit the communities involved.
Also, you apparently know nothing about lending in a petroleum environment. Those loans are out there right now. https://www.wnbonline.com/Energy-Banking
I know these guys. They're killing it.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't disagree you could see a boost in jobs in that certain area, but if the tradeoff is raising gas prices for *everyone*, I'm not sure it's a wise tradeoff.


Yeah, commodities often behave like that. I don't like paying more for things down here than in other parts of the country. However, I'm fortunate enough to live where the oil is. The trade off, as you put it, also involves less public assistance spending since more roughnecks are making bank rather than lining up for food stamps and assistance. Trade offs go both ways and you've yet to make the case for rising gas prices unless you are assuming a normalization of artificially low nat gas prices. Probably need to quantify that before you pull the trigger on a conclusion.

[CosmicCowboy]

Boo is just a know nothing socialist luddite.

[coyotes_geek]

Look at it as a 50 billion dollar a year stimulus program.

Can't be. Jobs only get created when it's the gubment spending money. :dizzy

[boutons_deux]

Boo is just a know nothing socialist luddite.

Right!

Any 99%er wanting the nation's wealth shared more equitably is slandered as a communist, socialism!, etc, etc.

The same slanderers fully support the unlimited confiscation/redistribution/concentration of wealth from the 99% to the 1%.

[TeyshaBlue]

Right!

Any 99%er wanting the nation's wealth shared more equitably is slandered as a communist, socialism!, etc, etc.

The same slanderers fully support the unlimited confiscation/redistribution/concentration of wealth from the 99% to the 1%.

lol strawmen
lol simpleton

[ElNono]

Yeah, commodities often behave like that. I don't like paying more for things down here than in other parts of the country. However, I'm fortunate enough to live where the oil is. The trade off, as you put it, also involves less public assistance spending since more roughnecks are making bank rather than lining up for food stamps and assistance. Trade offs go both ways and you've yet to make the case for rising gas prices unless you are assuming a normalization of artificially low nat gas prices. Probably need to quantify that before you pull the trigger on a conclusion.

I think the energy market in general, because of how many things it affects, is one where you have to be very careful where you draw the line between allowing maximizing profits for individual companies vs the ripple effect of those decisions.

Which is the reason most every oil producing country subcontract private companies to do the work, but retain the decision-making...

[TeyshaBlue]

I think the energy market in general, because of how many things it affects, is one where you have to be very careful where you draw the line between allowing maximizing profits for individual companies vs the ripple effect of those decisions.

Which is the reason most every oil producing country subcontract private companies to do the work, but retain the decision-making...

The implication you've made is that the latter method is the best way to handle this? If so, why is that way demonstrably better?
If I were to hazard a guess, I suppose it might be lower domestic fuel prices.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm liking this. They are starting to drill on my fishing buddies ranch and he is trading in his little boat for a bigger boat we can all sleep on when we take it to the Bahamas.

This is the little boat we have been fishing on:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5908/007nok.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/22/007nok.jpg/)

[Wild Cobra]

I'm liking this. They are starting to drill on my fishing buddies ranch and he is trading in his little boat for a bigger boat we can all sleep on when we take it to the Bahamas.

This is the little boat we have been fishing on:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5908/007nok.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/22/007nok.jpg/)
Cool.

He may have to hire a staff to run his new boat.

More jobs!

[CosmicCowboy]

Cool.

He may have to hire a staff to run his new boat.

More jobs!

He already hires 2 to run this one.

[ElNono]

The implication you've made is that the latter method is the best way to handle this? If so, why is that way demonstrably better?
If I were to hazard a guess, I suppose it might be lower domestic fuel prices.

Right, and thus drive competitiveness, since fuel prices are an important factor in any modern economy, even more so when it's a seemingly scarce resource.

"better" is a relative term. "better" for the businessman is selling to the highest bidder, which doesn't necessarily aligns with what's "better" for the nation.

[ElNono]

I'm liking this. They are starting to drill on my fishing buddies ranch and he is trading in his little boat for a bigger boat we can all sleep on when we take it to the Bahamas.

Looks like the "fiscal cliff" won't be a problem for him. Glad to see the economy is going well for at least some under socialist Barry...

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like the "fiscal cliff" won't be a problem for him. Glad to see the economy is going well for at least some under socialist Barry...
But will he buy the boat in the US with those extra taxes he would have to pay, or will he buy from a different country?

[ElNono]

But will he buy the boat in the US with those extra taxes he would have to pay, or will he buy from a different country?

You're asking the wrong person

[Wild Cobra]

You're asking the wrong person
I don't expect you to have the answer, but what would you do? Pay the extra "luxury taxes" you have to pay to buy a nice boat here, or buy it from a different country?

You know, years ago, when that tax was implemented, it really hurt the US boat industry. All in the name of taxing the rich more.

[ElNono]

I don't expect you to have the answer, but what would you do? Pay the extra "luxury taxes" you have to pay to buy a nice boat here, or buy it from a different country?

You know, years ago, when that tax was implemented, it really hurt the US boat industry. All in the name of taxing the rich more.

Not into sailing, so I wouldn't have that problem...

[Wild Cobra]

Not into sailing, so I wouldn't have that problem...
OK, consider it a hypothetical question. Would you buy US and pay the extra taxes, or by from somewhere else?

[ElNono]

OK, consider it a hypothetical question. Would you buy US and pay the extra taxes, or by from somewhere else?

Well, seeing that specific tax was repealed back in 1993, I don't think it really matters at this point...

It also depends how much money I have... 25K in taxes (for a 250K boat) can either be chump change (if I have a billion bucks) or not (if I have, say a million).

[Wild Cobra]

Well, seeing that specific tax was repealed back in 1993, I don't think it really matters at this point...

It also depends how much money I have... 25K in taxes (for a 250K boat) can either be chump change (if I have a billion bucks) or not (if I have, say a million).
OK, I didn't know that. I will assume you are correct. I haven't checked, and it isn't that important.

[boutons_deux]

Get Ready for Higher Prices and Less Energy Security: Our Natural Gas Reserves Are Being Plundered For Export

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/shutterstock_34040773.jpg

Unlimited export of U.S. natural gas would have enormous implications on the future of the nation's economy, environment and domestic energy choices. Yet a burgeoning chorus in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is calling for the swift approval of 19 liquid natural gas (LNG) export permits.

The acceptance of these permits would unleash an unprecedented frenzy of domestic high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, just to meet daily production rates under decades-long contractual obligations. If accepted, the total (http://files.alternet.org/uploads/pdfs/summary_lng_applications.pdf) of the permits currently under review by the Department of Energy for LNG export would be equal to 28.54 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day, approximately 45 percent of what the U.S. is projected to consume daily in 2013, according to the U.S. Energy Administration (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/%20natgas.cfm).
Congressional supporters of unlimited exports argue that turning the U.S. into a major net exporter of LNG would not only boost our economy and create jobs, but also -- seeming to defy the basic tenets of supply and demand -- sustain low domestic natural gas prices, increase our energy security and propel us to energy independence. Some have even contended that such exports would smooth out boom-and-bust cycles and stabilize the price of natural gas.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) :lol :lol :lol argued (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkIYXbiJOgw), "What could be inconsistent with this for the public interest? This is something that would be cheaper gas for us and give us total independence in a matter of weeks." :lol :lol :lol :lol

http://www.alternet.org/fracking/get-ready-higher-prices-and-less-energy-security-our-natural-gas-reserves-are-being?paging=off

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Now One Step Closer To Being Net Natural Gas Exporter (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/17/2026961/us-now-one-step-closer-to-being-net-natural-gas-exporter/)

This afternoon, the Department of Energy approved the second application for a facility to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) worldwide. Today’s approval to export up to 1.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day goes to Freeport LNG Expansion (http://www.freeportlng.com/Liquefaction_Project.asp), on Quintana Island in Texas, for 25 years. The approval process now moves to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions (FERC), so the company is not in the clear yet.

Several companies have received nearly two dozen permits from DoE to export LNG to countries with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement (FTA), but the approval process has been much slower for permits to export to non-FTA countries. 19 facilities (http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/reports/summary_lng_applications.pdf) that want to export LNG to non-FTA countries are still under review by the Energy Department — including a joint project (http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Deal-opens-way-for-Sabine-Pass-area-LNG-export-4507386.php) between ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum.

The natural gas industry is booming in the United States, largely due to the practice of fracking, which opened up large parts of the country to extraction previously thought uneconomical to drill. Natural gas can be transported via pipeline across land, but when companies want to export the fuel overseas, they have to use ships. Since natural gas (mostly methane) in gas form would require a large ship to transport, it must be cooled and liquefied before it can be exported across an ocean.

In the last decade, companies built facilities to import natural gas because the U.S. expected lower production than what fracking actually allowed. Once the shale gas boom sharply increased domestic production, they have tried to turn those import terminals into export terminals. Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass terminal, the first facility (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/04/17/first-mover-how-cheniere-energy-is-leading-americas-lng-revolution/) to receive DoE approval to export to non-FTA countries, is one example of this.

The reason for the delay of such applications is due to opposition largely from the chemical industry, which fears that exports will lead to an increase in the price of natural gas (which it uses for industrial purposes), and those who care about carbon emissions and the environment, who point out that the U.S. still does not know the consequences (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/08/1983781/liquefied-natural-gas-lng-exports-friend-or-foe/) that exports will have on carbon emissions.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/17/2026961/us-now-one-step-closer-to-being-net-natural-gas-exporter

There will come a day when the domestic NG production dwindles to nothing after the LNG exporting companies pocket $Ts while having paid Human-Americans pitiful extraction royalties and while Human-Americans pay $Ts more in NG prices as the NG industry makes them compete in the much more expensive world NG market.

[Winehole23]

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Shell-and-GE-Team-Up-for-Age-of-Gas.html

[Winehole23]

aside: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-12/mexico-lower-house-passes-oil-overhaul-to-break-state-monopoly.html

[Winehole23]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/natural-gas-to-overtake-coal-says-exxonmobil.aspx?pageID=238&nID=59478&NewsCatID=348

[boutons_deux]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/natural-gas-to-overtake-coal-says-exxonmobil.aspx?pageID=238&nID=59478&NewsCatID=348

completely ignoring, as BigOilGas would, any environmental degradation from fracking

[Winehole23]

externalities. the little guy pays. energy companies are banking on that.

til the lawsuits come.

[Winehole23]

it's short sighted as a tactic, but profitable while it lasts.

[boutons_deux]

externalities. the little guy pays. energy companies are banking on that.

til the lawsuits come.

It'll be like Chevron in Paraguay, where Chevron said it was their subcontractors who horribly polluted the land, not Chevron.

The BigOilGas companies will claim in their defense that the fracking damage is not their responsibility, but the responsibility of sub-contracted much smaller drilling companies that won't have enough $Bs to pay the damages, if they even exist by the time the suits come. Then there is the technicality of whose well caused which damage.

If environmental remediation is even possible, it will be taxpayers (SuperFund!) paying, if the Repugs don't defund the Superfund, killing remediation.

And like Exxon Valdez, it will take 20 - 25 years of venal lawyering and corrupt judging.

iow, Sky People win, Na'vi people fucked, always.

[Wild Cobra]

At least we have something to export, and reduce our trade imbalance.

[boutons_deux]

At least we have something to export, and reduce our trade imbalance.

When BigGas gets their LNG onto the world market, they'll increase domestic NG prices to the same level, putting US consumers in competition with the world market. The world price is 3x or 4x the US domestic price.

[Wild Cobra]

LNG prices will increase anyway, like anything with supply and demand.

Tell you what. Get California to dismantle the DC Pacific Intertie, and I'll help you with your fight against LNG exports.

[Winehole23]

“The United States is expected to become a net exporter of natural gas on an average annual basis by 2018, according to a recently released Annual Energy Outlook update from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The transition to net exporter is driven by declining pipeline imports, growing pipeline exports, and increasing exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG)”https://www.farmanddairy.com/news/us-may-be-net-exporter-of-natural-gas-by-2018/397242.html

[CosmicCowboy]

When BigGas gets their LNG onto the world market, they'll increase domestic NG prices to the same level, putting US consumers in competition with the world market. The world price is 3x or 4x the US domestic price.

That's boutons level stupid.

LNG is in a glut worldwide.

It takes approximately $3 per mcf to liquefy the gas. Companies have to buy the gas in the pipeline at the going rate, liquefy it and then transport it.

We will never be paying end user LNG rates when we can buy gas directly from the pipeline.

[CosmicCowboy]

The big new user of US gas will be Mexico if Trump doesn't screw it up. When the new pipeline from eagle ford to Brownsville is complete in 2018 we will be sending up to 2.6 billion cf south every day.

[tlongII]

The big new user of US gas will be Mexico if Trump doesn't screw it up. When the new pipeline from eagle ford to Brownsville is complete in 2018 we will be sending up to 2.6 billion cf south every day.

With a tax to help pay for the wall I hope.

[CosmicCowboy]

With a tax to help pay for the wall I hope.

It would be a pretty unique situation to tax exports. Not sure it's ever been done.

[tlongII]

It would be a pretty unique situation to tax exports. Not sure it's ever been done.

Same thing as a sales tax essentially.

[baseline bum]

Can't Trump just tax abortions or something

[tlongII]

Can't Trump just tax abortions or something

It wouldn't make sense to use that revenue to pay for the wall though.

[baseline bum]

It wouldn't make sense to use that revenue to pay for the wall though.

Better than taxing food 20% like Trump was initially proposing

[Winehole23]

French regulators block a pending US LNG deal

1320402451212627968 (https://twitter.com/Sammy_Roth/status/1320402451212627968?s=20)

[Winehole23]

The French trading firm Engie had been poised to sign the$7 billion, 20-year contractto buy LNG to be delivered from NextDecade’s planned Rio Grande export facility in Brownsville, Texas, one person with knowledge of the discussions said. That deal wouldbe a boon for NextDecade,which has been trying to line upcustomers to take at least 11 million tons of LNG a year before it makes a final decision to build the plant.

The French government, which is a part owner of Engie, stepped in to tell Engie’s board of directors to delay, if not outright cancel, any dealbecause of concerns that U.S. natural gas producers emit too much methane at theWest Texas oil and gas fields that will supply gas to the NextDecade plant, said Lorette Philippot, head of private finance campaigns for French environmental group Les Amis de la Terre,a French affiliate of the green group Friends of the Earth thatmet with French government officials to oppose the deal.

“It could still be signed in the coming weeks,” Philippot said.“But what is sure is the political, reputational risk around the validation of the contracts is one of the elements there. The climate impacts played a role.”

[boutons_deux]

France used to buy lots of LNG from Libya,

"France:

France – with 4 LNG import terminals with (currently) a total capacity of 34.65 bcm/y – was Europe’s biggest importer of LNG in the first quarter of 2019.

The French wholesale market is less liquid than some of the neighbouring North West European gas markets,

but France nonetheless managed to attract some of the additional LNG volumes coming to Europe in part because of the long-term trans-shipment deals in place between Yamal LNG’s offtakers and France’s Montoir de Bretagne terminal which have resulted in LNG volumes destined for Asia actually remaining in France.

https://www.energylegalblog.com/blog/2019/09/16/lng-europe-current-trends-european-lng-landscape-and-country-focus (https://www.energylegalblog.com/blog/2019/09/16/lng-europe-current-trends-european-lng-landscape-and-country-focus)

=============

and now it looks like Libya has finally recovered from the fall of Khadhafi

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/libya/natural-gas-exports#:~:text=Libya's%20Natural%20Gas%3A%20Expor ts%20was,m%20mn%20for%20Dec%202018 (https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/libya/natural-gas-exports#:~:text=Libya's%20Natural%20Gas%3A%20Expor ts%20was,m%20mn%20for%20Dec%202018).

I think Macron was just pissing off Trash by refusing US LNG.

[Winehole23]

competition is hard

luckily, we're the USA and can "convince" other countries to buy on unfavorable terms

as one does in "the free market"



U.S. gas is in a tricky economic situation as it is. As exports have surged, the short-run marginal costs for exporting to one of its key target markets—Asia—have risen by 65 percent since this time last year, amid rising transportation and oil prices. Given how costly American LNG is relative to LNG from other providers like Qatar, it could struggle in Asia, in particular, over the next several years, regardless of what new climate rules stick.


Other projects have already been canceled. In March, Annova LNG announced (https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/032221-annova-lng-discontinuing-us-export-project-operator) that it was abandoning its proposed export facility in South Texas’s Brownsville Ship Channel, citing “changes in the Global LNG market.” “Without pressure from the administration on emerging markets to guarantee purchases of U.S. gas, exporters might have to navigate the competitive market environment at their own risk,” Sam Reynolds and Melissa Brown of International Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, or IEEFA, wrote (https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/New-Policy-and-Market-Risks-for-US-LNG-Project-Sponsors-in-Emerging-Asia_June-2021.pdf) in a recent report.
https://newrepublic.com/article/162915/lng-natural-gas-department-energy-alaska

[Winehole23]

The USA has rapidly become the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), tied with Qatar. Europe replaced Asia as the top market for US LNG in 2022, boycotting cheaper Russian energy over the proxy war in Ukraine.


https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/01/04/us-lng-exporter-europe-russia-gas/

[Winehole23]

https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/US-natural-gas-2025-03-02-exports.png