Energy Tomorrow Blog
Posted March 21, 2013
Posted March 15, 2013
Opponents of a free market for natural gas have been trumpetinga new study which purports to show that LNG exports would be an economic negative for the United States. This flies in the face of analysis done by the Department of Energy, The Brookings Institute, ICF International and others which showed that to boost economic activity open markets are the way to go. So we took a look at the study to figure out why their conclusions are not consistent with other industry or government projections. We found some serious biases and inconsistent assumptions added up to a fatally flawed report. Here are a few specifics.
The employment impact analysis is flawed because it assumes no incremental natural gas production.
Posted February 25, 2013
New analysis by the consulting firm ICF International indicates significant potential economic benefits from the export of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG):
- An average across the studied cases of 213,000 new jobs supported by LNG exports from 2015 to 2035.
- An average across the studied cases of 24,000 new jobs in the manufacturing sector over the same period.
- More than $720 billion in cumulative economic growth over the same period.
- An additional 291,000 barrels per day in natural gas liquids – the critical feedstock for chemicals and other industrial sectors – by 2035.
Posted February 22, 2013
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has written Energy Secretary Steven Chu, urging the government to support liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports for the good of our economy and to improve our trade balance. Key points in their reasoning:
- Increasing demand for U.S. natural gas will be easily met by increases in production. The letter cites U.S. Energy Information Administration projections that a 20 percent increase in domestic natural gas demand between now and 2040 will be fully offset by a 40 percent increase in production.
- Domestic production will be stimulated if producers have greater access to U.S. natural gas reserves onshore and offshore – as well as greater access to “consumption markets.” This will bring job creation, economic growth and generate an in-flow of revenue from abroad.
- Artificial restraints on the marketing of U.S. natural gas tend to inhibit future investment in development.
Posted February 12, 2013
OK, so here’s the deal: Seldom is the annual State of the Union message going to be confused with the Gettysburg Address for lyric quality. Historically, presidents use the speech to set out detailed policy agendas. As listeners seek focus during an oration that might stretch an hour or more, we’re here to help.
Posted February 4, 2013
Why isn’t the world’s leading producer of natural gas also its leading exporter – or at least among the world’s top exporters? The answer is nearly as simple as the first two: Because so far we’re not taking full advantage of our resources by recognizing the export opportunities out there and working to supply them.
Posted January 25, 2013
This week API, on behalf of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry, furnished comments on the Energy Department’s 2012 study of the impact of exporting U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG). You can read them in full here, but let’s cover some of the main points.
Posted January 18, 2013
One argument being made against the export of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) is that exports might create a domestic natural gas shortage, harming consumers and industries that use natural gas to make things or to power their operations. The chart below shows that this line of attack is just fear mongering.
Posted December 27, 2012
Posted January 1, 1