Seeking Alpha

The Obama administration on Monday again delayed release of a report on expanding liquefied...

The Obama administration on Monday again delayed release of a report on expanding liquefied natural gas exports, likely pushing beyond the presidential election a decision on sending U.S. gas abroad. The report initially was expected in March. Natural gas exports to all but a handful of countries with Free Trade Agreements require approval from the U.S. Department of Energy.
Comments (20)
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (4222) | Send Message
     
    Not sure what the hold up is, is there downside to exporting LNG?
    18 Sep 2012, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • johnybutts
    , contributor
    Comments (64) | Send Message
     
    Cheap gas/energy for the US gives us an economic/manufacturing advantage. Exporting it brings $s in but not jobs.
    18 Sep 2012, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (4222) | Send Message
     
    We don't manufacture much here and we have cheap NG now? Not sure it's having that much of an effect,
    18 Sep 2012, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4401) | Send Message
     
    Henry Hub NG is currently priced based on supply demand dynamics inside the US since it tends to be piped directly to customers/consumers.

     

    Exporting it will bring in pricing pressure from overseas.

     

    That would be good for producers, but bad for consumers.

     

    Consider for example if Japan is willing to pay $13 for something you currently pay $3. Pricing pressure would be inevitable.

     

    Whether this is good or bad depends on who you are and where you sit.
    18 Sep 2012, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • warrd 008
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    sure pisses off the greens ...all about votes
    18 Sep 2012, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • Big Bad Bulls
    , contributor
    Comments (182) | Send Message
     
    I totally agree but we can get a far bigger advantage if we would start promoting it for public and commercial transportation. Slowly but surely it is happening but it would happen a whole lot quicker if we had some leadership.

     

    Again, nat gas is 1/2 the cost of gasoline, burns cleaner, creates many, many American jobs and keeps our funds here in the US. I can see why the administration wouldn't like it.
    18 Sep 2012, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    so does gas..we just need to allow for more drilling to create those many, many American jobs....look at North Dakota..all on private land...no Fed permits because they do not want it....
    18 Sep 2012, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1621) | Send Message
     
    "We don't manufacture much here"? Depending on how you measure, the US still has the #1 or #2 largest manufacturing output in the world. We do manufacture a lot. Several associations have come out against exporting LNG, fearing higher prices. NG is still stranded here but an inexpensive, secure, domestically produced source of energy that is not susecptible to problems in the middle east is a big plus when a company considers where to locate a facility. Export limits make sense politically and economically. Members of both parties will be lobbied on both sides of this question.
    18 Sep 2012, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • amphion
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    There is a scaling issue of switching/building manufacturing machines which primarily run on LNG rather than oil. America, even with cheap LNG, simply can't become a huge manufacturing hub over night - it takes time to convince companies of the strategic advantage and to have them move their workers back home.
    18 Sep 2012, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    The price of energy is just one input in why you would want to manufacture here in the USA...trial lawyers, regulations, codes, taxes, health care, ....many other line items are much worse here..much worse
    19 Sep 2012, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    CanĀ“t let work get in the way of Electioneering...I vote Present
    18 Sep 2012, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2480) | Send Message
     
    Our fearless leader has voted "Present" for the last 4 years. America is the first leaderless country in history.
    18 Sep 2012, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • wapiti
    , contributor
    Comments (711) | Send Message
     
    Why would we as Americans expect any less from the MOST ANTI BUSINESS President ever??? He could care less about jobs! Only care about votes and keeping people on the plantation so he can count on those votes...Sad state of affairs for this country-especially those working to support the deadbeats
    18 Sep 2012, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    I guess the US could follow the path of Argentina, limit exports to keep the price of NG down for political reasons...

     

    Exporting energy and energy products (distillates, NGLs, coal, LNG) helps the trade balance and produces jobs that average 2x the average salary in the US.
    Every dollar of trade deficit is a direct deduction to GDP. Energy (eliminating imports, increasing exports) could add over 5% to GDP by 2020. Shouldn't be that hard a decision.
    18 Sep 2012, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4401) | Send Message
     
    The US hasn't pursued a policy of intentionally limiting exports - yet.

     

    The NG 'boom' which has been an important factor creating the possibility of NG exports, is, for one, recent, and for another, the current pricing advantages NG has are also recent and it is debatable just how long the rather insane disparity between NG and diesel (on a BTU basis) can last.

     

    (I am of the opinion that coal and diesel must drop significantly to match NG and not that NG will rise to match coal/diesel, and that when it happens, the viability of NG exports will change and so will many other dynamics)

     

    LNG tankers are also less common and shipping NG on them is more costly than for crude and the fleet simply isn't as large as the crude fleet.

     

    There are a lot of reasons why we are where we are, contemplating NG exports, but it isn't because of policy.

     

    I don't know where exactly I sit yet. As a consumer, I do of course want lower prices, and I don't disagree with the view above stated by johnnybutts that cheaper energy provides us an economic advantage, but I also don't necessarily disagree that we should be working on increasing exports. I'd also say I'm not sure that exporting our NG when we have yet to achieve energy independence is the best idea either.
    18 Sep 2012, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    "I am of the opinion that coal and diesel must drop significantly to match NG and not that NG will rise to match coal/diesel"

     

    Coal and NG are at parity now, and diesel is priced off of oil, so oil would need to get down to under 30 to produce parity.

     

    Because producing and shipping LNG will cost $4+ per mBtu, contracts have to be signed before construction begins on a plant. India, Japan, Europe, etc, have no problem signing 20 year contracts. There are at least 6 proposed sites waiting for approval or in the process of applying. That's a lot of export revenue waiting in the wings.
    18 Sep 2012, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4401) | Send Message
     
    "so oil would need to get down to under 30 to produce parity"
    No, I'm theoretically talking about ~$50. But it's more complicated than that...

     

    "Coal and NG are at parity now"
    On a BTU basis? I'm curious as to how you figure that.

     

    "There are at least 6 proposed sites "
    There are also a lot of pending orders for LNG tankers. Both of these events are outside my scope of trading, as they are too far out to have any effect on pricing right now.

     

    A lot of traders want to see $4 NG, and seem to be trying to get it there by sheer force of will, I don't understand why, but the market will dictate...
    18 Sep 2012, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • Alex_G
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    "Coal and NG are at parity now"
    On a BTU basis? I'm curious as to how you figure that.

     

    one ton of PRB coal has the btu's of 20 mmbtu of NG. 60 bucks of NG = 1 ton of PRB coal. $11 bucks a ton plus shipping.

     

    one ton of bituminous coal has the btu's of 28 mmbtu of NG. 84 bucks of NG = 1 ton of PRB coal. $55 bucks a ton plus shipping.
    18 Sep 2012, 04:54 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1621) | Send Message
     
    There are big risks in piling into LNG exporting. Cheniere was originally set up to import the stuff. Globally there are a lot of LNG operations being planned. The big risk would be a global glut of NG. Russia is now getting a lot of pushback on prices. Some Australian operators have complained that it is too expensive. There is a lot of NG in the South China Sea, maybe the North Sea, certainly in Canada, now the Falklands, offshore Israel and who knows where else.
    18 Sep 2012, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • gdonelson
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    Risks like unsustainable decline curves of shale gas (Barnett was a huge loss of capital), pricing to provide return on drilling risk, and the fracking issue is long from settled yet.
    18 Sep 2012, 06:26 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
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