Please recall the letter Rep. Markey wrote questioning the sanity of exporting shale gas. I hope you will take the time to read that letter. On February 20th Congress voted down the Markey that would ban exports of LNG.
The U.S. Congress rejected an amendment to a bill expanding oil and gas exploration that would restrict exports of natural gas. The amendment, proposed by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would have prohibited the export of natural gas produced from leases issued pursuant to the underlying bill. The text of the amendment is available in the Congressional Record on page H825.
Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. and FLNG Liquefaction, LLC; Application for Long-Term Authorization To Export Domestically Produced Liquefied Natural Gas to Non Free Trade Agreement Countries for a 25-Year Period
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on December 19, 2011, by Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P. and FLNG Liquefaction, LLC (collectively, FLEX), requesting longterm, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) in an amount up to the equivalent of 511 Billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas per year, which averages to 1.4 Bcf per day (Bcf/d), over a 25-year period, commencing on the earlier of the date of first export or eight years from the date the requested authorization is granted. The LNG would be exported from the Freeport LNG Terminal on Quintana Island near Freeport, Texas, to any country (1) with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, (2) which has developed or in the future develops the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carrier, and (3) with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy. The Application is filed independent of, and in addition to, FLEX’s prior application filed with DOE/FE under Docket No. 10–161–LNG. This Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.
Debate Surrounds Race to Export America’s Natural Gas Supply
Some U.S. manufacturers, utilities and consumer advocates worry exporting gas will drive up electricity prices and deepen reliance on coal.
by Bill Lascher, InsideClimate News
Energy companies are honing plans to export natural gas faster than President Obama can call the United States the “Saudi Arabia of natural gas,” and that’s raising new questions about the country’s energy policies.
Multinational energy firms and some economists say exporting natural gas is a no-brainer: the cost of producing natural gas in the United States has plummeted with the explosion in shale gas production, while prices remain high elsewhere in the world. That means exports could ease the U.S. trade deficit while stimulating job growth.
But some U.S. manufacturers, utilities and consumer advocates counter that exporting natural gas will drive up electricity prices, deepen reliance on dirtier coal and discourage investment in domestic manufacturing.
A government study released last month reinforced their concerns. The independent Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that U.S. natural gas prices could jump 36 to 54 percent if every export plan currently on the table goes through. Electricity prices could rise 2 to 9 percent, the report says.
Former FERC Commissioner Spitzer weighs in on LNG export debate
With Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introducing legislation this week that would ban exports of liquefied natural gas from the United States, how will Congress address the issue this year? During today’s OnPoint, Marc Spitzer, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson and former commissioner at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, explains why LNG exports have emerged as a critical part of the energy policy discussion. He also weighs in on the permitting process and potential action by Congress to stop exports.
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5117)
What an assasine idea–this notion of exporting our precious natural resources. We would pay the pollution penality and the foreigners would benefit from us. If the crooked politions for some reason would want to allow this activity, then they should impose a HEFTY EXPORT TAX to make this situation helpful to recuce the taxes for the peasants in the Shale Gas Areas!!!!
I think, my friend, you have just described a third world country.
That’s what we have become, nothing but a 3rd world country when it come to protecting citizens against O&G pollution. NO protecton exists and it will not come about in the future.
Looking at the legal woes Chevron is having in Ecuador, some third world countries are doing a better job of standing up to big oil than the US is!
It’s still amazing that fracking was sold so heavily as US energy independence giving, but now they want to export it, while still importing oil.