Energy Tomorrow Blog
Posted May 8, 2019
We can’t say it enough: U.S. consumers, not China, are paying the costs of the administration’s tariffs on Chinese goods – which the administration says will increase on Friday to 25 percent on $200 billion in goods, up from the current 10 percent.As we’ve noted here, here and here, Americans are the ones hurt by tariffs, which essentially are a tax on consumer goods that millions of U.S. families use.
Posted April 5, 2019
In this third post on the benefits of the United States’ emergence as a major global natural gas exporter (see parts one and two), we continue looking abroad to evaluate the key liquefied natural gas (LNG) importing markets that are driving global demand growth.
We’ll see that in all of these markets, U.S. LNG can deliver a plethora of economic and environmental benefits, including better local air quality and enhanced access to reliable and affordable energy. The challenge is immense – globally, nearly 1 billion people still don’t have access to electricity, while an additional 1.2 billion have only intermittent access – but LNG, including from the U.S., has emerged as a critical part of the solution.
In other words, LNG is now delivering globally many of the same benefits the U.S. has enjoyed for decades.
Posted January 14, 2019
The U.S. set new natural gas and oil production and export records in the fourth quarter of 2018, even as the administration's trade war with China continued to escalate. As 2018 trade figures have become clear, an emerging consequence was decreased U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargoes to China, which fell by around 20 percent from 2017, as these shipments became subject to a 10 percent Chinese import tariff effective Sept. 24.
Americans should care about the health of these U.S. natural gas exports because growing markets for domestic natural gas can generate economic growth at home by helping stimulate additional natural gas development, more than is needed to supply domestic demand; attract multi-billion-dollar U.S. investments in infrastructure – including pipelines, natural gas processing, LNG liquefaction, export facilities and shipping – and the high-quality jobs and wages that accompany these; and more.
Posted August 8, 2018
A couple of observations on China’s announcement late last week that it may impose a 25 percent tariff on U.S. shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to that country – which would be in retaliation for announced U.S. tariffs on certain Chinese goods coming into this country.
First, China was the third-largest importer of U.S. LNG in 2017, accounting for nearly 15 percent of our LNG exports, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). As those numbers indicate, this exchange of tariffs could leave a mark as far as U.S. energy exports are concerned. ...
If U.S. energy exports are restricted – at the same time trade policies have been adopted that increase the cost of the steel our industry uses – there’s a risk of significantly affecting a sector that has been a driving force for economic growth. It’s a big price to pay.
Posted July 26, 2018
The Trump administration has long touted its commitment to U.S. energy production but continues to push policies that directly counter these efforts, hurting U.S. workers and consumers in the process. The proposed Section 301 tariffs – and the retaliatory tariffs from China that they will provoke – are no exception.
Posted June 20, 2018
Two charts pretty well capture the what’s at stake for U.S. energy – specifically exports of domestic crude oil – in an intensifying trade standoff between the United States and China.According to U.S. Energy Information Administration figures, this is a very big deal. Big as in U.S. crude oil exports to China accounted for about one-fifth of all U.S. oil exports in 2017 – growing from basically nothing in 2013 to 81.6 million barrels last year.
Posted May 13, 2015
The Hill: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) have introduced a bill to lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports.
The bill would fulfill one of Murkowski’s biggest energy priorities and allow American oil companies to export crude oil as they do petroleum products. It would also allow exports of condensate, a type of light crude oil.
“America’s energy landscape has changed dramatically since the export ban was put in place in the 1970s. We have moved from energy scarcity to energy abundance. Unfortunately, our energy policies have not kept pace,” Murkowski said in a statement.
“This legislation builds from bipartisan ideas, linking energy security and infrastructure to expanding exports and helping our allies. Our nation has an opportunity to embrace its role as a global energy powerhouse, sending a signal to the world that we are open for business and will stand by our friends in need.”
Posted June 11, 2014
Having read the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) report, “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States,” published on May 29, 2014, we are puzzled by the skewed conclusions reached by the Washington Post:
“That U.S. exports of LNG to China could end up being worse from a greenhouse gas perspective than if China simply built a new power plant and burned its own coal supplies.”; and that “the benefits of cleaner, more efficient combustion of natural gas are largely offset by methane leakage in U.S. production and pipelines and by methane leaks and energy used in the process of liquefying and transporting the LNG.”
A correct reading of the report reaches a completely different conclusion. After accounting for all the methane leakage factors mentioned by the Post, the NETL study clearly demonstrates that life cycle GHG emissions from LNG exports from the U.S. are significantly less than emissions from coal generated electricity in China and in Europe.
Posted June 24, 2011
Jane Van Ryan
Posted November 8, 2010