5 Natural Gas Transportation Stocks For 2013: May Update [View article]
Good article, as usual, Michael. For the life me, however, I do not understand why XOM is in your 'natural gas transportation portfolio'. Sure, XOM is the largest domestic natgas producer but they have publicly stated they are against natgas transportation and plan to use their natgas reserves for electric power, industrial/chemical uses, and now to export as LNG. XOM is a hindrance to natgas transportation so why put them in the portfolio? Other names to consider are CLNE, GTLS and CBI--all of these are heavily involved in the LNG/CNG infrastructure development that will be needed for natgas transportation here or abroad.
I also don't know why GE didn't buy GTLS or WPRT instead of Lufkin. Each would be a great fit in the GE portfolio. Perhaps they might do so in the future, but doing so now would help them accelerate their natgas transportation industry footprint. GE appears too scattered and unfocused as a conglomerate to generate meaningful natgas transportation returns. One or both of those acquisitions would bring strong focus to their effort and make them a more meaningful player in that space.
2012 Reserve Replacement Ratios For Top Bakken Producers [View article]
I like your articles, Michael. This one is interesting but could be misleading. First of all, using market cap to compare companies is not useful due to differing levels of debt and cash each company possesses. Two firms with the same market cap can have drastically different amounts of net debt. One could have levered up and expanded reserves, so that firm would show a much higher reserves-to-market cap ratio. Concluding that one has a 'better' valuation than the other might be a mistake. For this reason, one should use total enterprise value (TEV) instead of market cap for calculating various metrics.
Also, 'proved reserves' in your presentation doesn't split out natgas, NGLs and oil. Neither does reserve replacement or reserve life. Since these are priced very differently, the valuation metrics will be drastically different.
Using the PV-10 metric is a step in the right direction, but it also has flaws. PV-10 does not include 2P and 3P reserves. For some firms, these are much more likely to be converted economically to 'proved' status than others. Furthermore, 2P and 3P reserves need to be broken out into natgas, NGLs and oil. Finally, all reserves can be dramatically changed with technological advances as the OOIP expands and the 'recoverability' of reserves improves. This will have a greater impact on some than others--depending on the basin/play involved.
The names cited in this article have very different levels of their total assets invested in the Bakken. Moreover, each has different proportions of those Bakken holdings in core vs peripheral Bakken productive zones (eg ND vs Montana). Some zones are more prospective for multiple benches of production than others. Also, some have already 'drilled out' proportionately more of their most productive leaseholds, whereas others have a much bigger future runway for drilling in the more productive zones.
There are many other factors involved in the valuation of a stock and comparisons can be challenging. I applaud your attempts to simplify the process, but in doing so one must keep in mind that one can easily draw questionable conclusions because important details that can have a meaningful impact on valuation may be left out.
Energy Investors Have Been Drilled: One Way To Reposition [View article]
Good list of names and the thesis appears right. For GPOR, production is guided to grow over 180% in 3013, but the street projects revenue growth of only 70% and earnings growth less than 18%. Part of this might be timing of production hookups, with a big chunk of production growth occurring later in the year. And much of this big production growth will come from the Utica, which has a high natgas and NGL content. Still, the earnings numbers appear light when compared to both revenues and production. If GPOR can deliver on their production guidance, earnings should come in higher than street estimates.
My Favorite MLPs Based On The New Tax Rules [View article]
For retirement accounts, don't use MLPs. These are excellent alternatives for retirement accounts if you want exposure to this space: KMI, OKE, WMB, LNCO. Each is a corporation with a dividend and each holds the GP interest for related MLPs (except LNCO, which has no GP).
The Natural Gas Export Issue: Rumblings In Washington [View article]
XOM has publicly stated it is against natural gas transportation. Odd, isn't it, with so much domestic natural gas assets. XOM now wants to export their natural gas. So they want to find a market for their natural gas but they do not want that market to be transportation. The internal conflicts within XOM must be intense at times, as the E&P side battles against the refining and marketing side. Notably, MRO and COP have split up their companies due to such conflicts, which allows each to pursue their own best interests. XOM is a major barrier to natural gas transportation, as the refining and marketing arm for their oil business is too profitable for them to sacrifice by allowing competition from cheap, clean natural gas. If anyone thinks this is a 'myth' or 'conspiracy' they really should check it out and become informed.
EV Energy Partners: Utica Shale For A 50% Discount [View article]
GPOR bought their partner's interest in land they already owned an interest in for $10k/acre. Based on GPOR drilling results, it is likely that this land--which is well known to GPOR--is in the sweet spot of the Utica. EVEP land encompasses some of it, but not all of EVEP land is in the sweet spot. I would be surprised if they get more than $10k per acre and would not be surprised if it were less. $7k/acre might be the low end and the ORRI is worth something, so EVEP has some value here--but it is unlikely to reach the lofty targets some have set for it. EVEP is thinly traded so there could be some sell-the-news reaction from disappointed holders who wanted more.
One caveat is if EVEP gets producing assets in exchange instead of cash. The tax savings and acquisition cost savings is also worth something, so a good asset trade would bring even better value to EVEP compared to a cash sale.
The Natural Gas Export Issue: Rumblings In Washington [View article]
You obviously missed the point. 'They' are the ones who have nothing to do with finding and developing oil and natural gas. 'They' are the ones who are preventing the Natural Gas Act from being enacted that would accelerate use of our abundant natural gas in the transportation sector and bring abundant benefits to an oil addicted nation. 'They' are the extremist environmentalists, the petrochemical companies and oil refiners who want to protect their own shareholder interests rather than allow a competitive fuel to take away market share or increase their input cost, even if it is in the broader national interest to do so.
As far as doing something, I have along with many others--by supporting the Natural Gas Act and educating the public about the many advantages of using natural gas in the transportation market. I also take the time share my viewpoints to this forum in order to contribute to an ongoing dialog on this subject in a polite manner. I was not questioning the patriotism or benefits these enterprises offer to the marketplace, just observing that shareholder interests come first. This includes protecting their market interests from competition by influencing legislation and regulation. Why is that a myth or a conspiracy?
The Natural Gas Export Issue: Rumblings In Washington [View article]
Here is the problem with "letting the market work it out": The 'market' is dominated and controlled by highly funded interests that want to keep us addicted to oil. It benefits them and their profit interests. They are not looking out for the good of the nation. This is where the government needs to step in to put national interests ahead of special interests. The national interests of changing our technology to use natural gas for transportation instead of oil have been well-defined, especially for diesel-consuming and fleet vehicles. There is no debate about that. The issue is to defeat the naive notion that we have 'free' markets and take action to move the nation to this 'transitional' technology for powering transportation. This requires leadership and legislation to accelerate the process and incentivize participants to invest the capital to make the transition. Think of it as a 'Marshall Plan' to transform our economy. The conversion from gasoline to diesel for the trucking industry took less than 5 years to accomplish. Converting from diesel to natural gas trucking should take no more time with incentives in place. Forget about LNG for exports and focus on LNG/CNG for transportation. This is what will transform the economy.
The Natural Gas Export Issue: Rumblings In Washington [View article]
Natural gas imports will slow, exports will grow and the trade will balance without building any LNG terminals. As pipelines are built to supply the east coast with Marcellus Shale gas, LNG imports for heating and power will drop. Heating oil use will drop as well. Plans are developing now to export prolific Utica Shale natural gas to Ontario and Quebec. The combination of above will balance the natural gas trade deficit without need to export LNG.
I agree with others that domestic natural gas should be used domestically and not exported via LNG. Pipelining gas to Canada and Mexico would be the only exports I would condone. The transportation, industrial, heating and electricity sectors are where natural gas market expansion should be targeted for massive expansion. With smart incentives to rapidly expand natural gas use in these markets the US could quickly eliminate all oil imports from sources outside of North America. All of this would be fantastic for US economic prosperity, employment, environment, trade balances and national security. I makes too much sense not to do. The only thing stopping this from happening are the special interests with big influence in DC who don't want it to happen. These are the oil refiners, who stand to lose domestic market share in the heating and transportation sectors, and the industrial/petrochemical firms who don't want to see the massive transportation market develop for natural gas since it would likely raise prices for their primary input. Seems like a deal could be made to trade LNG export opportunity elimination for massive natural gas transportation development. That would be a wise use of US natural gas resources.
Why does Apple (AAPL) have a forward P/E of 10 while Amazon (AMZN) has a forward P/E of 100? The reason, as Barron'spoints out, is "the perception of absolute control at Amazon." Amazon is a company that could generate billions more in annual profits if it didn't invest at a breakneck pace on new warehouses, streaming rights, subsidized hardware, and much else. Thus, Amazon bulls are content to focus on its share gains and healthy gross margin. But if Jeff Bezos plans to put a lid on spending, he isn't tipping his hand. [View news story]
If state sales taxes on Amazon purchases ramps nationally, it will take away an important competitive price advantage. Another growth-slowing consideration that could affect revenues and the P/E multiple in the future.
Natural Gas: Clear Skies For The Moment, Clouds On The Horizon [View article]
Always risky to prognosticate, especially on the volatile price of natgas. Boone Pickens sees natgas prices at $4 by year-end. I'm not so confident about that, unless cold weather comes on strong later this fall. Heating demand can overwhelm natgas-to-coal switching. So given current trends and mild temperatures into year-end I think natgas has reached close to the upper limit of the trading range I expect--maybe .20--.30 more as prices often over-shoot. Boone could be right if cold weather shows up this fall. From my perch, natgas pricing will be heavily dependent on the weather as we go into year-end. Another warm winter like last year and we could test the lows of this spring by next spring. My perception is that traders expect a cooler winter and will keep a floor under natgas above those low levels until proven otherwise. But any increases in natgas prices from here are likely to be halting, with pull-backs that will be bought.
As for coal, the cheapest coal is indeed out west in the Powder River Basin. That would benefit producers with strong positions there, like CLD, ACI and BTU. CLD is the purest play, but it has not fallen as much as the others.
Natural Gas: Clear Skies For The Moment, Clouds On The Horizon [View article]
Another good article. I enjoy reading your articles. They are well researched and relevant to investor needs.
Some comments. Natgas production (supply) remains stubbornly high (as you point out) and will likely continue this way. You point out several good reasons: Low-cost natgas producers can make profits in this pricing environment and will keep producing, significant associated gas production from still growing liquids drilling, reduced decline curves due to smaller chokes and other production enhancements on existing wells, drilled wells awaiting hookups (including natgas capture at liquids wells that are flared), etc. These factors have offset import reductions and production shut-ins from major producers like CHK, XOM, ECA, etc. The production (supply) picture is not bullish for domestic natgas prices. Great for US economics, but challenging for natgas producers.
Yet natgas prices are rising. Natgas pricing is now all about demand dynamics. Industrial demand is slowly increasing. But the main reason for natgas demand pick-up is electric power switching from coal. The EPA is helping, with virtually no new-build coal plants on the horizon in favor of natgas. This is a long-term benefit to natgas demand. But in the short-run, dispatch switching is the key metric for natgas electricity demand. As natgas prices rise, power plants at the margin will increasing opt to use coal for electricity. This will reduce natgas demand and, hence, natgas prices--until they are again low enough to induce switching back from coal to natgas. This suggests a trading range for natgas prices has developed, the parameters of which are now being explored.
Due to the long-term supply abundance, bulls on natgas price need to see growing long-term natgas demand materialize. While industrial demand and new-build power plants offer long-term support, the demand build from these two factors will be painfully slow. Dispatch switching capability, while currently bullish for natgas demand, is bearish for long-term natgas price rises as switching back to coal escalates. Low-cost thermal coal producers will benefit from this.
Natgas bulls need (want) more market share gains in other areas to be successful. They are looking at two new potential game-changing markets: LNG exports and natgas transportation. Both have the capability to boost natgas prices significantly from here and both have significant political opposition. So neither is a given. Both are likely to happen at a very slow pace, frustrating natgas bulls. In particular, natgas transportation has such appeal that it could transform the US economy and international politics. It could take off on it's own and has the potential to really snowball into a big industry, but without more political support for incentives it is likely to move slowly with only marginal impact. LNG exports are now being debated and politicians will likely approve marginal exports in a slow-moving fashion to gauge the impact on US industry and consumer costs. Neither of these scenarios is going to please the natgas bulls unless a very long-term investment horizon is in full view.
Why Oil Is So High When The World Economy Is So Low [View article]
With respect to the 'coal lobby' and their 'opposition' to natgas transport, I have a different take. Coal doesn't compete in the transport market. Coal interests are mainly about the power generation market. Coal is depressed due to low natgas prices (and EPA restrictions). The interest of the coal lobby is to get coal prices higher by increasing domestic demand for coal. That won't happen with low natgas prices, so the real interest of the 'coal lobby' is to get natgas prices to climb by increasing demand for natgas in areas where coal does not compete. If you have followed the logic this far, we can readily see that it is clearly in the coal lobby's interest to support natgas transport and exportation. It will raise natgas prices due to heavy natgas demand increases and make coal much more competitive in the power generation market, which is their bread and butter. So I would not conclude that the 'coal lobby' is against natgas transport. Just the opposite because it is in their self interest to support it!
The real adversaries of natgas transport are the heavy natgas consumers (petrochemical/industrial complex) who want natgas prices low, and the oil refiners who want to protect their margins and market share in the transportation fuel markets. These are powerful, wealthy interests who control key Republican legislators. There is also opposition from environmentalists who don't like any carbon-based fuels and are strongly opposed to fraccing. These lobbyists control key Democratic legislators. Combined, the opposition has been too great to overcome so we have no supportive natgas transport legislation. Consequently, the dependency on OPEC and the largest wealth transfer in the world's history continues--to the severe detriment of US prosperity and economic health.
Why Oil Is So High When The World Economy Is So Low [View article]
Thanks for the comment. I wonder if COP is against natgas transport now, since they have spun off their refining and petrochemical business. They have a large domestic natgas production investment to develop with no competing refinery business. The spinoff, PSX, may well be opposed for obvious reasons. MRO is another company that no longer owns refineries. Both COP and MRO saw the conflicts of interest and wanted to separate themselves from the refining business. Now that they have done so, it would make sense for them to support natgas transport.
Yeah Exxon is a big barrier, despite the fact that they invested $35 billion in XTO to get large in domestic natgas and claim they are now 'losing their shirts' on domestic natgas. They have big internal conflicts of interest between their upstream and downstream businesses. But in the end, the downstream is more profitable domestically and wins out. Now they are looking to export LNG. They would rather spend billions to develop the LNG export infrastructure than develop the natgas distribution network for natgas transport.
The natgas producers (ex-integrateds) need to get unified in their effort to influence DC and/or to fund the development of domestic natgas transport distribution infrastructure. "If you build it, they will come."
Why Oil Is So High When The World Economy Is So Low [View article]
With respect to the opposition to natgas transportation, some clarification is needed. The oil industry is not opposed. Most of the oil industry is composed of independent E&P producers that have a mix of oil and natgas production. The independent E&Ps would love to develop natural gas resources, so they are clearly not opposed to natgas transport. The oil refiners are clearly opposed to it since using natgas for transport fuel would be direct competition. Refiners include both independents like Valero and the integrated majors like Exxon. In fact Exxon has publicly stated its lack of support for natgas transport--they have profitable refineries and marketing assets to protect. So it would be more correct to say that the refiners and integrated oil companies are opposed to natgas transport, not the oil industry.
Also, you did not mention another powerful adversary to natgas transport: the industrial/petrochemical complex. This is a huge industry with major influence in DC. These are heavy consumers of natgas and NGLs to make chemicals, plastics, steel, aluminum, etc, etc. In fact, this complex is now set to grow significantly in the US as cheap natgas and NGLs are in abundance in here. They do not want natgas prices to climb because it will cut their profit margins. So they are opposed to natgas exports and natgas transport.
Since coal does not compete as a transport fuel, the rail companies are not directly opposed to natgas transport. In fact, according to Westport Innovations, the rail companies are investigating the use of natgas to power locomotive engines! Coal shipments are being affected by the shift to natgas as a source fuel for electricity. The rail companies know that they will still have a good long-term coal shipment business--as exporters of coal. They are also major beneficiaries of the lack of pipeline capacity from the shale oil producing basins.
Traditionally, the oil & gas and petrochemical industries have enjoyed strong Republican support and Democratic opposition in DC. What is interesting is that the Republicans stopped the passing of the Natgas Act. From the above it is easy to see why. The independent E&Ps don't have the size of capital to compete with the integrated majors, refiners and chemical companies for the Republican vote in DC. Proponents of the Natgas Act would do well to court the Democrats and 'independent' Republicans if they hope to pass their legislation. Neither presidential candidate is leading the charge for this plan either, which is unfortunate. IMHO, this is a lost opportunity for them and the country.
5 Natural Gas Transportation Stocks For 2013: May Update [View article]
I also don't know why GE didn't buy GTLS or WPRT instead of Lufkin. Each would be a great fit in the GE portfolio. Perhaps they might do so in the future, but doing so now would help them accelerate their natgas transportation industry footprint. GE appears too scattered and unfocused as a conglomerate to generate meaningful natgas transportation returns. One or both of those acquisitions would bring strong focus to their effort and make them a more meaningful player in that space.
2012 Reserve Replacement Ratios For Top Bakken Producers [View article]
Also, 'proved reserves' in your presentation doesn't split out natgas, NGLs and oil. Neither does reserve replacement or reserve life. Since these are priced very differently, the valuation metrics will be drastically different.
Using the PV-10 metric is a step in the right direction, but it also has flaws. PV-10 does not include 2P and 3P reserves. For some firms, these are much more likely to be converted economically to 'proved' status than others. Furthermore, 2P and 3P reserves need to be broken out into natgas, NGLs and oil. Finally, all reserves can be dramatically changed with technological advances as the OOIP expands and the 'recoverability' of reserves improves. This will have a greater impact on some than others--depending on the basin/play involved.
The names cited in this article have very different levels of their total assets invested in the Bakken. Moreover, each has different proportions of those Bakken holdings in core vs peripheral Bakken productive zones (eg ND vs Montana). Some zones are more prospective for multiple benches of production than others. Also, some have already 'drilled out' proportionately more of their most productive leaseholds, whereas others have a much bigger future runway for drilling in the more productive zones.
There are many other factors involved in the valuation of a stock and comparisons can be challenging. I applaud your attempts to simplify the process, but in doing so one must keep in mind that one can easily draw questionable conclusions because important details that can have a meaningful impact on valuation may be left out.
Energy Investors Have Been Drilled: One Way To Reposition [View article]
My Favorite MLPs Based On The New Tax Rules [View article]
The Natural Gas Export Issue: Rumblings In Washington [View article]
EV Energy Partners: Utica Shale For A 50% Discount [View article]
One caveat is if EVEP gets producing assets in exchange instead of cash. The tax savings and acquisition cost savings is also worth something, so a good asset trade would bring even better value to EVEP compared to a cash sale.
The Natural Gas Export Issue: Rumblings In Washington [View article]
As far as doing something, I have along with many others--by supporting the Natural Gas Act and educating the public about the many advantages of using natural gas in the transportation market. I also take the time share my viewpoints to this forum in order to contribute to an ongoing dialog on this subject in a polite manner. I was not questioning the patriotism or benefits these enterprises offer to the marketplace, just observing that shareholder interests come first. This includes protecting their market interests from competition by influencing legislation and regulation. Why is that a myth or a conspiracy?
The Natural Gas Export Issue: Rumblings In Washington [View article]
The Natural Gas Export Issue: Rumblings In Washington [View article]
I agree with others that domestic natural gas should be used domestically and not exported via LNG. Pipelining gas to Canada and Mexico would be the only exports I would condone. The transportation, industrial, heating and electricity sectors are where natural gas market expansion should be targeted for massive expansion. With smart incentives to rapidly expand natural gas use in these markets the US could quickly eliminate all oil imports from sources outside of North America. All of this would be fantastic for US economic prosperity, employment, environment, trade balances and national security. I makes too much sense not to do. The only thing stopping this from happening are the special interests with big influence in DC who don't want it to happen. These are the oil refiners, who stand to lose domestic market share in the heating and transportation sectors, and the industrial/petrochemical firms who don't want to see the massive transportation market develop for natural gas since it would likely raise prices for their primary input. Seems like a deal could be made to trade LNG export opportunity elimination for massive natural gas transportation development. That would be a wise use of US natural gas resources.
Why does Apple (AAPL) have a forward P/E of 10 while Amazon (AMZN) has a forward P/E of 100? The reason, as Barron's points out, is "the perception of absolute control at Amazon." Amazon is a company that could generate billions more in annual profits if it didn't invest at a breakneck pace on new warehouses, streaming rights, subsidized hardware, and much else. Thus, Amazon bulls are content to focus on its share gains and healthy gross margin. But if Jeff Bezos plans to put a lid on spending, he isn't tipping his hand. [View news story]
Natural Gas: Clear Skies For The Moment, Clouds On The Horizon [View article]
As for coal, the cheapest coal is indeed out west in the Powder River Basin. That would benefit producers with strong positions there, like CLD, ACI and BTU. CLD is the purest play, but it has not fallen as much as the others.
Natural Gas: Clear Skies For The Moment, Clouds On The Horizon [View article]
Some comments. Natgas production (supply) remains stubbornly high (as you point out) and will likely continue this way. You point out several good reasons: Low-cost natgas producers can make profits in this pricing environment and will keep producing, significant associated gas production from still growing liquids drilling, reduced decline curves due to smaller chokes and other production enhancements on existing wells, drilled wells awaiting hookups (including natgas capture at liquids wells that are flared), etc. These factors have offset import reductions and production shut-ins from major producers like CHK, XOM, ECA, etc. The production (supply) picture is not bullish for domestic natgas prices. Great for US economics, but challenging for natgas producers.
Yet natgas prices are rising. Natgas pricing is now all about demand dynamics. Industrial demand is slowly increasing. But the main reason for natgas demand pick-up is electric power switching from coal. The EPA is helping, with virtually no new-build coal plants on the horizon in favor of natgas. This is a long-term benefit to natgas demand. But in the short-run, dispatch switching is the key metric for natgas electricity demand. As natgas prices rise, power plants at the margin will increasing opt to use coal for electricity. This will reduce natgas demand and, hence, natgas prices--until they are again low enough to induce switching back from coal to natgas. This suggests a trading range for natgas prices has developed, the parameters of which are now being explored.
Due to the long-term supply abundance, bulls on natgas price need to see growing long-term natgas demand materialize. While industrial demand and new-build power plants offer long-term support, the demand build from these two factors will be painfully slow. Dispatch switching capability, while currently bullish for natgas demand, is bearish for long-term natgas price rises as switching back to coal escalates. Low-cost thermal coal producers will benefit from this.
Natgas bulls need (want) more market share gains in other areas to be successful. They are looking at two new potential game-changing markets: LNG exports and natgas transportation. Both have the capability to boost natgas prices significantly from here and both have significant political opposition. So neither is a given. Both are likely to happen at a very slow pace, frustrating natgas bulls. In particular, natgas transportation has such appeal that it could transform the US economy and international politics. It could take off on it's own and has the potential to really snowball into a big industry, but without more political support for incentives it is likely to move slowly with only marginal impact. LNG exports are now being debated and politicians will likely approve marginal exports in a slow-moving fashion to gauge the impact on US industry and consumer costs. Neither of these scenarios is going to please the natgas bulls unless a very long-term investment horizon is in full view.
Why Oil Is So High When The World Economy Is So Low [View article]
The real adversaries of natgas transport are the heavy natgas consumers (petrochemical/industrial complex) who want natgas prices low, and the oil refiners who want to protect their margins and market share in the transportation fuel markets. These are powerful, wealthy interests who control key Republican legislators. There is also opposition from environmentalists who don't like any carbon-based fuels and are strongly opposed to fraccing. These lobbyists control key Democratic legislators. Combined, the opposition has been too great to overcome so we have no supportive natgas transport legislation. Consequently, the dependency on OPEC and the largest wealth transfer in the world's history continues--to the severe detriment of US prosperity and economic health.
Why Oil Is So High When The World Economy Is So Low [View article]
Yeah Exxon is a big barrier, despite the fact that they invested $35 billion in XTO to get large in domestic natgas and claim they are now 'losing their shirts' on domestic natgas. They have big internal conflicts of interest between their upstream and downstream businesses. But in the end, the downstream is more profitable domestically and wins out. Now they are looking to export LNG. They would rather spend billions to develop the LNG export infrastructure than develop the natgas distribution network for natgas transport.
The natgas producers (ex-integrateds) need to get unified in their effort to influence DC and/or to fund the development of domestic natgas transport distribution infrastructure. "If you build it, they will come."
Why Oil Is So High When The World Economy Is So Low [View article]
Also, you did not mention another powerful adversary to natgas transport: the industrial/petrochemical complex. This is a huge industry with major influence in DC. These are heavy consumers of natgas and NGLs to make chemicals, plastics, steel, aluminum, etc, etc. In fact, this complex is now set to grow significantly in the US as cheap natgas and NGLs are in abundance in here. They do not want natgas prices to climb because it will cut their profit margins. So they are opposed to natgas exports and natgas transport.
Since coal does not compete as a transport fuel, the rail companies are not directly opposed to natgas transport. In fact, according to Westport Innovations, the rail companies are investigating the use of natgas to power locomotive engines! Coal shipments are being affected by the shift to natgas as a source fuel for electricity. The rail companies know that they will still have a good long-term coal shipment business--as exporters of coal. They are also major beneficiaries of the lack of pipeline capacity from the shale oil producing basins.
Traditionally, the oil & gas and petrochemical industries have enjoyed strong Republican support and Democratic opposition in DC. What is interesting is that the Republicans stopped the passing of the Natgas Act. From the above it is easy to see why. The independent E&Ps don't have the size of capital to compete with the integrated majors, refiners and chemical companies for the Republican vote in DC. Proponents of the Natgas Act would do well to court the Democrats and 'independent' Republicans if they hope to pass their legislation. Neither presidential candidate is leading the charge for this plan either, which is unfortunate. IMHO, this is a lost opportunity for them and the country.