Reply With Quote
You act like this is a bad thing.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.
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/201...-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 compe ion 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.
You act like this is a bad thing.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.
I am for this, tbh.
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.
South Texas and the San Antonio area are booming because of oil and natural gas.
Indeed.
the NG hasn't been exported, so domestic NG prices are way below world prices.
South Texas and the San Antonio area are booming because of oil and natural gas.
you'll laugh your ass off when US NG prices reach world prices
$2 gas is unsustainable and a complete aberration dumbass. They are capping "dry" gas wells down south because they aren't economical to produce.
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 me up.
awesome.
Also, who was your last avatar?
I knew I recognized him.
Natural gas: Why are export terminal permits necessary?
Conclusion
So – 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 (ICC) in 1887, and the ensuing ‘Trust Busting’ progressive era, led by Teddy 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...=Google+Reader
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...ports.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.
$1 more per MCF still puts natural gas at historic lows.
I thought we wanted to become energy indipendent? Shouldn't we be hoarding our natural resources instead of selling them to the highest bidder?
Look at it as a 50 billion dollar a year stimulus program.
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.
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
yep, the UCA can over American strategically for UCA's profits, and leave the 99% eventually ed. the "patriotic" "free market" "capitalism" at work in full glory.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
