Seeking Alpha

A U.S. government decision to subsidize steel, chemical and other manufacturers by restricting...

A U.S. government decision to subsidize steel, chemical and other manufacturers by restricting exports of liquefied natural gas would violate global trade rules and damage U.S. credibility after years of challenging exports curbs by China and others, experts warn. Price concerns raised by industrial users such as Dow (DOW) and Nucor (NUE) are "contrary to what the U.S. has been arguing against other countries."
From other sites
Comments (20)
  • HoldAndBuyInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (146) | Send Message
     
    How many more illegal, unconstitutional things Obama admin would prefer to do.
    31 Jan 2013, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • RSRinehart
    , contributor
    Comments (505) | Send Message
     
    There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional (stupid comment) about it, it's just not a good idea based on past arguments. Get a grip.
    1 Feb 2013, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2811) | Send Message
     
    It would also be a huge hindrance for an industry that is creating jobs.
    31 Jan 2013, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • rnhuch
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    There are also a lot of industries - I should even say the whole economy - that is benefiting from low NG price. If the US starts to export LNG as the energy industry wants, it will be a new ballgame. We need to do what is best for most of the country, not what is best for one sector of the economy.
    31 Jan 2013, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • HoldAndBuyInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (146) | Send Message
     
    Until all NG companies goes bankrupt.
    31 Jan 2013, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • Tplayer
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like Carl Marx
    5 Feb 2013, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • jpmj4847
    , contributor
    Comments (546) | Send Message
     
    The Nat Gas Bill..Sitting unsigned on O Who-dat's deck..American now...... any LNG left...ship to highest bidder.jpmj4847
    1 Feb 2013, 12:10 AM Reply Like
  • HoldAndBuyInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (146) | Send Message
     
    Well said.
    1 Feb 2013, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • MexCom
    , contributor
    Comments (3064) | Send Message
     
    Nat. gas used to be mostly a bi-product of oil production and flared off - wasted. Making it an economic good requires infrastructure to pipe it to an economical use. Keeping the price low provides little incentive to invest in the pipelines. Utility companies are starting to use more nat. gas. There is more in the ground. The fear that the cost to consumers will increase anytime in the near future is unfounded. Exports would stimulate more construction to get it to markets and overall lower its cost in the long run.
    1 Feb 2013, 06:12 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4526) | Send Message
     
    "Keeping the price low provides little incentive to invest in the pipelines."

     

    Please qualify that statement. It has no bearing in today's reality.

     

    I should also point out that every study on exports has indicated that a domestic rise in prices will result, and that cheap domestic energy stimulates the economy far more effectively than sending gas at a US-resident subsidized price to overseas competitors.

     

    I'll also point out that the reason Cheniere is ahead of the pack is because it started its process in '08 setting up as an IMPORT facility, and that in switched its application by '10 to be an EXPORT facility. The timeframe involved for other companies to set up exports is approximately the same as that needed to finish setting up pipelines already in advanced stages, opening up vast new demand in the domestic economy.

     

    The timeframe involved will also be preceded by the erection of a dozen major LNG projects around the world.

     

    I'm getting really annoyed at a handful of investors in producers repeatedly claiming that expensive energy is good for the domestic economy. The case is so weak they are now getting so-called 'experts' to attempt to threaten 'violation of global trade rules'. Hah, I call BS.
    1 Feb 2013, 07:11 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2811) | Send Message
     
    Actually the report from the Energy Department said that exporting natural gas would be a positive event for the economy vs not exporting. Economic theory states that since the US is a low cost producer, the economy benefits from trade. That is in addition to the construction for converting import terminals to export terminals, and laying new pipeline. The government does a terrible job picking winners and losers, so why should it be different this time with this resource?
    1 Feb 2013, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4526) | Send Message
     
    " that exporting natural gas would be a positive event for the economy vs not exporting."

     

    The same report stated explicitly that one of the effects would be a rise in the domestic price of NG, while dismissing its impact on the economy at large. A point I will readily dispute and argue against.

     

    The "government picking winners" argument is a rhetorical device meant to leverage 'conventional wisdom' without addressing the issues at all. It is also interesting that one one hand you suggest the government as a policy maker has no investment skill but readily accept conclusions from a government funded and originated study that provides the government with guidance on investment... I link the study here: http://1.usa.gov/WjZ8pb

     

    The point I am making is that demand exists within the domestic economy to easily consume all the current production but is crimped by an infrastructure issue which is being addressed along the same timeline as LNG exports. From a policy perspective, supporting a weak domestic economy with cheap fuel while expanding domestic infrastructure (and creating jobs as a result) is smarter than exporting cheap fuel to competitors enabling them to lower their cost of production and be more competitive against an already weak economy.

     

    From a policy perspective, policy should be supportive of the domestic economy and those who contribute to it and benefit from it. It makes simple sense.

     

    The argument in favor of promoting what is effectively more expensive energy for the domestic economy to the detriment of every single person and productive entity outside, mayyyyyyybe the producers (who would benefit from higher prices) and their investors makes no sense at all.
    1 Feb 2013, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4526) | Send Message
     
    Market current from today:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    "Nucor's (NUE) Louisiana plant shows how the abundance of natural gas has made some manufacturing processes, recently seen as uneconomical, feasible. When complete, the plant will process 2.5M tons/year of direct-reduced iron pellets; at current gas prices, DRI can generate iron pellets at $260-$280/ton, while scrap steel trades at ~$390/ton. U.S. Steel (X) also says it is studying options for building a DRI plant."
    2 Feb 2013, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2811) | Send Message
     
    So why dont we make it harder to export iron ore, steel, chemicals, lumber, corn, cattle, soybeans, coal and everything else that the nation exports and also consumes? Arguing against trade is arguing against economic progress.

     

    The EIA is, in my experience with it, both informative and non-political, and since it is full of experts, and not elected officials like Congressmen, I take their reports as a good source of information. The report re-stated what every single macroeconomics text book will tell you: low cost producing nations benefit from trade. Those text books will also tell you that the smaller economies will get the most benefits from trade, so I would not be completely against only allowing exports to the large economies in the world (EU, China, Japan, S. Korea). Either way, if the US government does not allow exports, in the long run the market will correct, and prices will rise. It will take another 2-3 years before the chemical plants that are being built come online, and big projects like converting most of the buildings in NYC from fuel oil to nat gas are complete, so demand should increase meaningfully in the next few years. Let the companies start building export terminals, they'll be built with private funds, create jobs, and allow the US to improve its infrastructure. I have no idea what NG prices are going to be in 3-5 years, but I do know the country needs the jobs now.
    3 Feb 2013, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • HoldAndBuyInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (146) | Send Message
     
    Mike, do you want to know how political EPA and EIA are ?

     

    Just do some google search to see how many times EIA was correct and what all it had predicted.

     

    I wonder why EPA is not doing anything for tobacco companies. Thousands of people are dying from it. Reason is close connection to donations to democrats by tobacco companies and solid investment from democrats in many tobacco companies.
    3 Feb 2013, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2811) | Send Message
     
    Predictions and forecasts are only part of what the EIA does, they also provide both actual and historical data. I don't really care about the EPA, and dont see how its relevant to this conversation, but I agree that the EPA has a left leaning agenda.

     

    You're right, how did I miss that there are no restrictions on Tobacco companies because of all the contributions from tobacco companies to Democrats?!?! That $200 billion over 25 years they pay after the MSA was signed in 1988 must not count.

     

    http://bit.ly/WiSCxl

     

    http://1.usa.gov/WQF4KG
    3 Feb 2013, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4526) | Send Message
     
    " and big projects like converting most of the buildings in NYC from fuel oil to nat gas are complete,"

     

    Comments like these lead me to believe you are misinformed. For one, this is not true, the initiative is still ongoing (there is a 3 year transition period that ends in 2015. More info here http://on.nyc.gov/VEvRHx). For another, NYC area properties are crimped by low NG pipeline capacity which means even those connected on NG are usually participating in 'dual fuel' programs where during high demand the local utility requires them to switch off NG to oil.

     

    Until pipeline capacity is increased, this will remain the case. That's the 'domestic demand case'.
    4 Feb 2013, 06:43 AM Reply Like
  • Mike Maher
    , contributor
    Comments (2811) | Send Message
     
    My whole comment says it will be 2-3 years before things like chemical plants are built and projects like that one are complete. Spectra's pipeline into Manhattan is scheduled to be complete by the end of this year.
    4 Feb 2013, 08:21 AM Reply Like
  • jpmj4847
    , contributor
    Comments (546) | Send Message
     
    kmi , pipelines make their money, big big money...investors too...regardless of low or high cost......ask SunCo ( no heip from the courts)...bad management.jpmj4847
    2 Feb 2013, 01:38 AM Reply Like
  • Alex10652
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    This is not a WTO issue at all. There is no restriction in exports of NG by the US government. No one is violating the trade rules, no one is stopping the exporting of NG because the infrastructure doesn't exist to ship it, and building it would pose significant environmental risk. The terminals, requiring significant dredging to accommodate the huge deepwater LNG tankers, would decimate estuaries and fisheries. The highly flammable LNG stored on the tankers and “regasified” at the terminals would expose the surrounding communities to the risks of catastrophic explosions.
    Having said that, it would be foolish to give up the chance to regain cost advantages for our steel, fertilizer, paper and chemical industries by not retaining control of the NG and consuming it domestically. There will be sufficient domestic use to allow for NG prices to increase and for producers to get a favorable return on their investment. Domestic industrial demand and commercial and residential heating demand will more than balance the growth in supply.
    Why not limit the number of export terminals, and rebuild our basic industries, put our people to work, export added value products, and also protect our environment?
    3 Feb 2013, 12:55 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