LNG export critics say government should reassess economic risks

With the Obama administration approving a fourth company’s plans to export natural gas, some lawmakers and manufacturers say it’s time for the government to reassess the economic risks of the approvals.

The export authorization for 6.37B cf/day of liquefied natural gas, including foreign sales from Dominion’s (D) Cove Point facility in Maryland, passes a 5B cf/day threshold at which some manufacturers say LNG domestic prices could be pushed upward.

A coalition of large industrial users of natural gas, including Dow Chemical (DOW), Celanese (CE) and Nucor (NUE), say the Energy Department should tread more carefully, given the cumulative exports it has already authorized.

The National Association of Manufacturers applauds the Cove Point decision, saying swift export approvals put the market and not the government in charge of deciding which projects survive or fail.

From other sites
Comments (8)
  • Energysystems
    , contributor
    Comments (2078) | Send Message
    "We want cheap energy to boost our bottom lines"


    American manufacturers and industry had their chance and didn't adopt, invest, or push for it. Sorry, Charlie.
    12 Sep 2013, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1752) | Send Message
    Maybe we should reassess why DOW doesn't pass the cheaper NG feedstock prices through in pricing their products.
    12 Sep 2013, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (2429) | Send Message
    @Energysystems and @Hendershott -- exactly.


    It continues to make me snicker that Dow (et al) are looking to the government to artificially lower their input costs (at the expense of natgas providers) because "it will hurt American jobs".


    No doubt, they will then willingly hold down their own selling prices well below the market rate, so that they don't "hurt American jobs" at their customers? Darn nice of them.
    12 Sep 2013, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2862) | Send Message
    DOW and CE do billions of dollars of business a year overseas, I'd be very careful if I was those companies trying to encourage protectionist behavior and barriers to free trade.
    12 Sep 2013, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • toomuchgas
    , contributor
    Comments (996) | Send Message
    D's exports will be a drop in the bucket compared to reserves.
    12 Sep 2013, 08:43 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2862) | Send Message
    That export terminal alone would be close to 10% of daily production if it opened today.
    12 Sep 2013, 10:16 PM Reply Like
  • Factzplz
    , contributor
    Comments (306) | Send Message
    1) When nat gas fell below $2 in April '12, PGE said it was NOT hedging nat gas for its California electric plants because it might go lower. They could have locked in all of its needs for the next 5-10 years, but stupid greed got the best of them. PGE was not the only one, as stupidity runs rampant in corporate America.


    But worst yet, US drillers thru flaring, burning gas off at the well head, waste as much gas up the stack as we use in the nation. Converted to oil BTUs, that is $480 billion of oil we burn off. To me this is morally reprehensible... which leads to...


    Republicans have blocked the no-taxpayer subsidized Nat Gas Act six (6) times -- the last time on 2-14-13, that had 48 Dems and 6 Republicans, but Republican demands for 60 votes caused it to fail, again.


    Romney said in the debate passing this would create 4 million jobs - except his party voted it down. It would create roughly 3 million jobs, and though the US is now virtually energy independent (our largest energy export is gasoline, diesel, and other refined products), REDUCE the deficit by $250-$400 billion per year, create $1.5 trillion of economic activity, as the U.S. will NOT be sending $1 million per minute to OPEC -- a mere $525 billion, that would create jobs, etc. Our oil imports would be gone, done, non-existent. Wow, what a horrible thing to vote for.


    Most importantly, nat gas does not have to go up in price as the squandered gas is pumped instead of burned.


    Of course, what is more important - helping America, or trying to make Obama look bad?
    12 Sep 2013, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (1561) | Send Message
    "and though the US is now virtually energy independent" - that's just not true.
    12 Sep 2013, 11:49 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs