Market Currents
The loss of Japan's nuclear power plants is luring buyers eager for cheap U.S. shale gas,...
-
Thursday, May 24, 2012, 6:35 PM ETThe loss of Japan's nuclear power plants is luring buyers eager for cheap U.S. shale gas, potentially enriching U.S. companies such as Sempra Energy (SRE) and Dominion Resources (D). But companies hoping to export LNG don't yet have permission from the Department of Energy to ship to countries such as Japan that lack free-trade agreements with the U.S.
Other date
Latest Energy & Materials Articles
This news story has 15 comments:
http://trade.gov/fta
A look at the list of countries with a USFTA so far does not look promising for the potential of needing natural gas imports. It would be damaging to the economy to restrict LNG shipments to those countries on the USFTA list.
http://1.usa.gov/LwzGX3
The Kenai plant is dated and uneconomical The glut is in the lower 48, while the small Kenai plant's supply is limited and declining. But more to the point, we see utter hostility by the govt. toward energy exportation. We know from experience the anti-energy Dems will demagogue any company seeking to export energy, so those dynamics have to be considered going forward. COP and others very much look to export from AK. Your point in specious.
Good comment from the pro-energy Dem AK senator: "Yet again, Rep. Markey is trying to shut down any Alaska development. I find it laughable that after 30 years of blocking the development of Alaska’s oil and gas resource for American manufacturers, farmers and families he is now demanding we supply them. I eagerly await his sponsorship of bills to support development of ANWR and the Arctic OCS to address his newfound concern for American consumers.”
Right, that's why the administration approved the first-ever LNG export facility in the lower 48 and pre-approved three LNG import facilities for export. Something that no prior administration has done.
Besides, there has never been such a surplus of production spurring general exportation. Previous projects were geographical and political. It's not logical to grant credit for an accident of history. Nor is it proof of ideological favor, for the law doesn't disallow such. That's the very point we're arguing about: ie, what should the law be. Your argument is circular.
We see the forces aligned against exportation now, when realization of the enormity of the potential industry is clear. From the Sierra Club to the progressive caucus in Congress, to Markey's bill, to the spirit of the Obama admin. I define that spirit as the anti-energy, anti-production, anti-industrial collection of his political appointees. I'll be incredulous if you don't see that.
From The Sierra Club, one of the pre-eminent mainstream conservation groups in the nation and world, representing a core Democrat constituency, the party of government after all:
“As we push to retire coal plants, we’re going to work to make sure we’re not simultaneously switching to natural-gas infrastructure...” “And we’re going to be preventing new gas plants from being built wherever we can.”
"That's the very point we're arguing about: ie, what should the law be. Your argument is circular."
No it's not. The President doesn't make up the laws as s/he goes along, so that can't possibly be the point. The President administers the laws, including the 1938 Natural Gas Act.
Your use of a quote from someone completely unconnected to the Administration only proves that you're going to lengths to deceitfully pin things on Obama. What you're doing is no different from someone taking the most embarrassing of Palin's or Trump's or Limbaugh's comments and asserting that that comment represents Romney's stated position.
As for the quote, I cited. The Sierra Club, the Dem senator from AK, etc. The forces of govt, be they agencies or NGA's, are aligned against exportation. We luckily are a nation of laws and not fiat, and exportation will continue- Sierra Club, Obama, and the Progressive Caucus be damned. I'm not trying to mislead or misquote. I'm giving my opinion and citing. My guess is that the admin will focus on bogus fracking issues or the safety of terminals to stall and delay progress.
The previous lower 48 export terminal was in Lake Charles in the 50's.
You exhibited the same shameful behavior in the debate over coal plants, where my contentions have now been utterly vindicated by the auction rates we're now seeing for wholesale electricity in the near future. Meanwhile your fantasy land notions of commerce drive our nation to poverty.
http://bit.ly/JwSB0l
Cheniere (LNG) could benefit from a shift on LNG export permits, just for example, yet most of their cargoes would head towards Europe. That route would be more profitable than running towards Japan, for nearly the same payout rates.
There was a permit applied for recently, for an LNG terminal in Oregon. I think if you want to play American politics with this issue, you should complain more about that facility being denied. I don't base my investment decisions on politics, but I do base them upon profit potentials of the companies involved in the industry. Exporting LNG to Europe makes better sense for the companies involved in that potential market. The only factor politics should have in that is delaying an investment decision in Cheniere (LNG) or the few other companies wanting those export permits.