Reply With Quote
OK, I didn't know that. I will assume you are correct. I haven't checked, and it isn't that important.
Well, seeing that specific tax was repealed back in 1993, I don't think it really matters at this point...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.
Get Ready for Higher Prices and Less Energy Security: Our Natural Gas Reserves Are Being Plundered For Export
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 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.
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)
http://www.alternet.org/fracking/get...ing?paging=off
U.S. 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, 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 that want to export LNG to non-FTA countries are still under review by the Energy Department — including a joint project 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 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 that exports will have on carbon emissions.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...l-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.
completely ignoring, as BigOilGas would, any environmental degradation from fracking
externalities. the little guy pays. energy companies are banking on that.
til the lawsuits come.
it's short sighted as a tactic, but profitable while it lasts.
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 ed, always.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-15-2013 at 05:49 PM.
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 compe ion with the world market. The world price is 3x or 4x the US domestic price.
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.
https://www.farmanddairy.com/news/us...18/397242.html“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)”
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.
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.
It would be a pretty unique situation to tax exports. Not sure it's ever been done.
Same thing as a sales tax essentially.
Can't Trump just tax abortions or something
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
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.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
