Exporting Our Gas

Articles and Photographs

Joe Nocera, Op Ed article in the New York Times on exporting gas:

Energy Exports Are Good!

Published: May 17, 2013
  • What first caught my eye was the op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal. Published in late February, it was written by Andrew N. Liveris, the chairman and chief executive of the Dow Chemical Company. Liveris, an Australian, has become quite the Washington player in recent years. Among other things, he heads President Obama’s efforts  to revive manufacturing.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times


Connect With Us on Twitter


The op-ed was about one of my favorite subjects: the abundance of natural gas reserves discovered in the United States since the “fracking” revolution began. This newly found gas, Liveris wrote, offered “a historic opportunity to strengthen the economy, increase national competitiveness and create jobs.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Within a few paragraphs, however, the Liveris article took on a Pravda-like quality: a political insider sending a coded message to other insiders. He wrote, for instance, that the new jobs the natural gas boom was expected to create would depend on an “affordable” and “plentiful” supply. Given that that’s exactly what we currently have, what was the real subtext?

Then it became clear: Liveris’s plan for ensuring cheap domestic gas was — are you ready for this? — limiting exports. An export market driven by, you know, supply and demand was described as “unchecked.” What was left unsaid was that if natural gas could not be exported, the resulting oversupply would depress prices — and boost Dow’s profits.

Finally, Liveris acknowledged that Dow owned 15 percent of a proposed facility in Texas, which was causing “advocates of unchecked exports” to “attack” the company for being in a position to profit from exports while publicly opposing them. But, he insisted, Dow would not make a profit. Hmmm.

I bring all this up because on Friday, the Department of Energy, after a two-year hiatus,granted a permit to a facility called Freeport LNG, which will allow it to export liquefied natural gas to countries with which we do not have free-trade agreements.

Originally built to import natural gas, the plant will cost as much as $11 billion to retrofit and take years to complete. It will export only a tiny fraction of the natural gas that is consumed by Americans. And wouldn’t you know it? This is the facility in which a Dow Chemical limited partnership holds a 15 percent stake.

Exporting natural gas has enormous benefits for the United States. Exports create jobs that are every bit as good as manufacturing jobs. They help our trade deficit. They tie us closer to important allies like Japan, which desperately need the gas. According to Michael Levi, the author of an authoritative new book, “The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America’s Future,” the prospect that America could export natural gas has even helped our European allies gain leverage with its primary supplier of fossil fuels, Russia.

“Most studies suggest that the main impact of exports will be to increase U.S. production rather than take away other uses,” Levi says. Thus, it will not likely have a major effect on the price of gas. Levi told me that one legitimate fear is that the additional drilling could increase the potential environmental risks posed by fracking. But the answer is to ensure that wells are drilled in an environmentally safe manner. That is true whether we export gas or not.

And what does Dow Chemical say now that “its” facility has been approved? I spent much of Friday afternoon peppering the company with questions, most of them revolving around Dow’s seeming hypocrisy in opposing “unfettered” exports while owning a big chunk of a facility that would someday be shipping natural gas to Japan.

Finally, more or less in exasperation, a Dow spokesman put Liveris on the phone. The Dow chairman pointed out that when the company originally invested in Freeport LNG, the facility was meant to import gas rather than export it. He said that the company won’t make money because its stake will be so diluted once capital is raised for the retrofitting. He insisted that he is a believer in market forces, but that the natural gas market is so different from other commodities that it must be treated differently.

He also said, though, that the company was not opposed to natural gas exports — just so long as it was limited.

Earlier, a Dow spokesman had sent out a press release claiming that the permit approval by the Department of Energy was actually a victory for Dow’s position. To put it in words that the press representative would never use, so long as the Department of Energy permitting process is so absurdly slow — thus creating a government bottleneck that restrains “unfettered” exports — Dow and Liveris have gotten exactly what they’ve been seeking: limited exports and plenty of cheap domestic gas to help fuel their profits.

There is a technical term for this. It’s called “having your cake and eating it, too.”



FROM: The Sierra CLub

Right now, communities across the country are already fighting the fracking industry for clean air and clean water. And the stakes have gotten even higher with the potential for more fracking so the natural gas industry can export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to other countries.

The natural gas industry is working every angle — drilling in local communities with abandon while pressuring federal, state, and local policy makers to change laws so they can drill even more. This has got to stop. President Obama needs to make sure there is a time out on LNG exports. . . .

President Obama is only hearing one side of the story from the Department of Energy, and it favors the natural gas industry. DOE’s recent study on the economics of fracked gas exports completely ignores the public health, environmental, and climate costs of an export rush. The study also shows that the middle class loses if gas is exported — our wages fall and our utility bills rise, while the gas companies get rich.

. . . Other costs: the cost of buying drinking water because your well is polluted with fracking chemicals, lost work days because your child is sick due to respiratory problems, and increasing utility bills to heat our homes while communities are left to pay the price for fracking.

Deb Nardone
Director, Beyond Natural Gas Campaign
Sierra Club

January 25, 2013

  • Smoke and Mirrors: Obama DOE Fracked Gas Export Study Contractor’sTobacco Industry Roots

Steve Horn

At first, it was kept secret for months, cryptically referred to only as an “unidentified

third-party contractor.”

Finally, in November 2012, Reuters revealed the name of the corporate

consulting firm the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) hired to produce

a study on the prospective economic impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

LNG is the super-chilled final product of gas obtained – predominatly in today’s context – via the controversial hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) process taking place within shale deposits located throughout the U.S. This “prize” is shipped from the multitude of domestic shale basins in pipelines to various coastal LNG terminals, and then sent on LNG tankers to the global market.

The firm: National Economic Research Associates (NERA) Economic Consulting,

has a long history of pushing for deregulation. Its claim to fame: the deregulation

“studies” it publishes on behalf of the nuclear, coal, and oil/gas industry – and as it

turns out, Big Tobacco, too.

With easily apparent deep-seated roots dating back to the halcyon days of

Big Tobacco, the DOE’s NERA selection begs the question: Can one view

the NERA/Obama DOE economic findings on LNG exports as anything but a

deeply cynical PR ploy?. . . .

Sierra Club press release. “The public should be outraged to hear that domestic

supplies of gas would be shipped overseas and that households which rely on a

paycheck will see no benefit, which is clearly stated in the report,” said the organization.

“Most Americans rely on a paycheck. Meanwhile communities all across the country

are left footing the bill to clean up contaminated water supplies and with increased

medical bills due to air pollution. Exporting fracked gas is clearly not in the best

interest of the United States. DOE and President Obama must not accept this

flawed study.”



January 11, 2013

By Alexandra Duszak


When Pennsylvanians agreed to a massive increase in natural gas drilling in the state, they were told that the economic benefit would outweigh any potential risk to the environment.

The drilling employs a controversial technology known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that backers say will help the nation become energy independent and provide jobs and lower heating costs for Pennsylvanians.

But with gas prices collapsing thanks to an unforeseen glut, energy companies are pushing for permission to export the commodity to countries such as Japan and South Korea. Exports will lead to more drilling, more damage to roads and the environment, and higher, rather than lower, gas prices, say critics.

Pennsylvanians are “surprised, stunned, angry and upset” about the export push, said Delaware Riverkeeper Maya van Rossum. “And that’s whether or not they’re supportive of fracking.”

Some history

Fracking involves injecting millions of gallons of water, sand and toxic chemicals into holes drilled into underground shale deposits.

The technology, which became popular in Pennsylvania around 2008, enabled drilling companies to access enormous, previously unreachable supplies of natural gas — and brought hope to a state long-mired in a recession.

Despite its economic potential, fracking has a dubious environmental record. Exempt from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act, it has been blamed for contaminating residential wells and sparking explosions.

Drilling rigs don’t make great neighbors, either. The fracking process — which requires trucking in billions of gallons of water — is unsightly and tough on roads.  But those concerns took a backseat to drilling in Pennsylvania, where a pro-fracking governor, Republican Tom Corbett, was elected in 2010.

Natural gas production in the U.S. has been so prolific that the price of gas has fallen to approximately $2.50 per million British thermal units from a previous high of about $15.

Low prices were great for consumers, who were able to heat their homes at record-low cost, but not so great for natural gas producers, whose profits and stock prices spiraled downward.

Shares of Chesapeake Energy, for example, the No. 1 producer in Pennsylvania and No. 2 nationwide, reached nearly $70 in 2008 but are now trading around $17.

New markets, more profits

Gas companies are now seeking authorization from the Department of Energy to export the gas overseas, where demand is higher.

They already have permission to export the gas to the nation’s free trade partners, which are not major potential customers. Many are obtaining permits to build the massive facilities that convert the gas to liquid by chilling it to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, which allows it to be shipped overseas.

To realize big profits, they need permission to export to non-free trade agreement countries such as South Korea, India, China and Japan, where the price of natural gas has reached more than $18 per million British thermal units.

Requests from 16 gas producers to export to such countries are currently in limbo. Approval may hinge on the conclusions published last month in an Energy Department report on exports. The status of the permits will remain undecided until the closing of a public comment period and additional department analysis.

If the agency approves the permits, natural gas companies would be allowed to export upward of 21 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per day — more than one-quarter of current U.S. consumption.

The report claims that although such large-scale exports would cause a slow rise in domestic prices, they would benefit the nation’s economy overall by improving the balance of trade, encouraging foreign investment in the U.S. and creating more income for natural gas producers.

But the macroeconomic benefits of exports don’t mean much to those who have to deal with gas rigs, potholed roads and contaminated water supplies.

“If you think, ‘That’s where we are today and the markets couldn’t be more deflated,’ what happens if the markets open up and the industry is allowed to go hog wild?” asked David Masur, executive director of the Pennsylvania-based environmental advocacy group PennEnvironment.

Masur estimates that approximately 6,000 wells have been drilled in Pennsylvania so far, and said that as many as 50,000 wells could be drilled as the industry grows.

“I think we will continue to see many of the effects we’re seeing now, many-fold over,” he said.

One town’s story

In the beginning, fracking brought a much-needed economic boost to Dimock, Pa.

“There were preachers in church saying this was God’s work, this is a gift from heaven,” said Victoria Switzer, a retired teacher who lives in Dimock.

But the town’s water became so contaminated with methane gas that a private well exploded. Water taps became potential flamethrowers. Fifteen families in the town filed a lawsuit against Cabot Oil & Gas, alleging the company’s drilling practices had contaminated their water supply.

Cabot was barred from drilling in the Dimock area, fined $120,000 and ordered to deliver water to the residents. That hasn’t stopped other drillers.

Switzer, who was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the sky is lit up at night by natural gas flares. Roaring natural gas compressors make sleeping difficult. And these problems continue for days, sometimes weeks, on end, she continued.

“Let’s just plunder and glut the market. How is that going to benefit us?” Switzer asked. “I can’t even heat my home with natural gas.”

Dimock may be a major source of natural gas, but there’s no pipeline to Switzer’s house.

Van Rossum said the drillers’ promise that fracking would be good for Pennsylvania was simply “messaging.”

“It’s not truth,” she said. “It’s not reality.”

For its part, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an energy industry trade association focused on Pennsylvania, said in a statement that it supports “common-sense natural gas export policies” that “could be a major economic boost for our nation.”

As environmental groups push to regulate fracking and manufacturers seek to keep natural gas prices low in America, producers are primarily concerned with getting back in the black.

More than $170 million has been spent so far lobbying on a variety of liquefied natural gas issues, including transportation and facility siting. At least $6.5 million of that sum was spent specifically to support or oppose LNG exports. The actual figure is probably much higher because of vague lobbying disclosure laws.

From shortage to glut

In the early 2000s, the U.S. was on track to become an importer of natural gas as resources ran low.

Energy companies built multibillion-dollar LNG import facilities up and down the country’s coastlines. But the advent of widespread fracking by companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Chesapeake Energy made the facilities unnecessary.

The industry invested “tons of money in building these re-gasification terminals, and in less than five years, they’re barely operating,” said Bill Cooper, president of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas.

Exporting, however, would not only solve the price problem, it would mean the idle import facilities might become useful if energy companies converted them to export terminals.

But the energy companies’ gain could come at a loss for consumers.

A study that the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration published in January 2012 concluded that domestic natural gas prices would rise dramatically if the U.S. began exporting.

Other LNG export studies, from the Brookings Institution and the Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies at Rice University, also concluded that prices would rise but that increases would be moderate and manageable.

“We do have an astronomical amount of natural gas and the demand predictions in the future will not cause that to go away, even if we do export,” Cooper said.

Dow objects

In addition to consumers, some petrochemical, manufacturing and utility companies have expressed reservations about large-scale exports because of their potential impact on domestic natural gas prices.

Petrochemical companies such as Dow Chemical are among the largest consumers of natural gas in the country, and they use it both as a primary material for products and as a fuel.

Dow CEO Andrew Liveris blasted the Energy Department’s recent pro-export report, saying it “offers the baffling conclusion that the U.S. would be better off using its domestic natural gas advantage to fuel growth and jobs in other regions [of the world] versus strengthening the U.S. economy through manufacturing and benefiting consumers with lower energy costs.”

Scott Morrison, government affairs manager for the American Public Gas Association, says his organization opposes exporting LNG, because doing so will make natural gas less affordable for the consumers and manufacturers served by APGA’s members. APGA represents local, publicly owned gas utility companies.

Exporting LNG will also negatively affect the affordability of natural gas vehicles and run counter to the goal of U.S. energy independence, Morrison said.

But most trade associations and companies have been loath to speak out, either because their members don’t take a uniform view or for fear of appearing anti-free market.

The National Association of Manufacturers, for instance, wouldn’t say whether it supported or opposed natural gas exports, only that it supports “free trade and open markets” and believes “policies that accommodate growth in domestic natural gas production” are important.

Legislative issue

The release of the most recent Energy Department report sparked a response from Capitol Hill.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the incoming chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has called for the Energy Department to develop a national energy strategy and to further clarify its criteria for approving pending permits.

In response to the report, Wyden said in a statement that he will continue working to make sure that “unfettered natural gas exports don’t harm U.S. consumers and manufacturers.”

Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has been one of the most vocal opponents of jumping into large-scale LNG exports and says that more careful study and debate on the economic and environmental effects of the practice are needed.

Markey introduced two bills, the North America Natural Gas Security and Consumer Protection Act and the Keep American Natural Gas Here Act, that are likely to be reintroduced in the new Congress, said Eben Burnham-Snyder, a committee spokesman.

Markey also blasted the study.

In a letter to Energy Department Secretary Steven Chu, he wrote that the study contains “fundamental flaws” that cause it to “severely underestimate the negative impacts of large-scale natural gas exporting,”

In addition, there are long-standing concerns that LNG facilities would become terrorist targets. A fire resulting from an LNG spill could severely burn people up to 1 1/4 miles away, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, both support exports.

Louisiana is home to Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass facility, the first newly proposed LNG export terminal the Energy Department has approved. Alaska is home to a 40-year-old facility that is the only currently operating LNG export terminal in the U.S.

Lengthy debate expected

The Energy Department’s new report is just one factor in deciding the future of the natural gas exports.

Gaining permission to export natural gas isn’t easy.

First, a potential exporter needs permission to export to free-trade agreement countries. Next, the company needs to get permission from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to build a facility. FERC in turn works closely with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard, the Department of Transportation and the states.

If the applicant is given the green light to build a terminal, it can go back to the Energy Department and request permission to export to non-free trade countries, such as Japan, South Korea and India.

Even if their requests are approved, they will have to spend $6 billion to $10 billion on each new or converted facility, and construction is likely to take several years.

Once the facilities are up and running, Pennsylvania and other gas-producing states can expect to see a big increase in drilling, a prospect that has left some in the state fearful that its history of natural resource exploitation will repeat itself.

“Pennsylvania has been the dumping ground for so long,” Switzer said. “I taught history, and people don’t learn from history.”


The fracking industry wants to start exporting fracked gas all over the world — one of the greatest threats to our fight against fracking and climate change, because it would dramatically increase the scale of fracking in this country.  The U. S. Department of Energy has released a terrible report that douwplays the devastating impact that fracking, burning and exporting methane has on local communities, our econnomy and on the climate. Push back on this report.The fracking industry has already applied for permits to build 19 massive export facilities to ship gas overseas. Unless we oppose gas exports now, there is a good chance the Obama administration will use this report to rubber-stamp these applications. As President Obama begins his new term, we need to urge his administration to take a stand to protect our climate, not continue giving fossil-fuel companies free rein to destroy our health, communities and our future.Tell the Obama administration: Reject applications to export fracked gas. Fracked gas is mostly methane, a potent greenhouse gas that leaks from natural gas wells, pipelines, and other infrastructure. Recent research even suggests that methane emissions from fracked natural gas operations are so high that fracking may be worse for the climate than coal.Exporting fracked gas — which requires a carbon-intensive process of liquefying it, cooling it to -260 degrees Fahrenheit, and shipping it — produces 20%-30% more CO2 than burning gas in the U.S. Furthermore, exporting fracked gas would increase domestic prices, giving utility companies an incentive to use coal-fired power plants — which are beginning to be phased out, largely due to the low price of natural gas — and increasing U.S. carbon emissions overall.Bottom line: No matter how you do the math, a world that runs on natural gas is a world wracked by climate chaos and extreme weather — deadly superstorms, wildfires, droughts, and floods.5 We need to move away from fossil fuels, not make massive investments in new infrastructure that will lock us into dirty fracked gas for years to come.Green-lighting fracked gas export terminals would have a disproportionate impact on communities near fracking operations. People living near fracking operations cope with terrifying local impacts: contaminated — even flammable — drinking water, cancer-causing air pollution and smog, massive open pits full of toxic wastewater, huge fleets of diesel trucks, chemical spills, and pipeline explosions.6 Some residents have even found fracking chemicals and heavy metals in their blood.7In short, the human toll taken by fracking is already far too high. Giving the fracking industry an incentive to expand its operations by allowing it to export fracked gas overseas is nothing short of irresponsible.For the United States, 2012 was the hottest year in recorded history. A slew of climate change-driven disasters — including deadly Superstorm Sandy — underscored the dangers associated with unchecked climate change. It’s time for President Obama to answer the call of history and stand up to the fossil fuel industry — starting with blocking fracked gas exports. 

Comments are closed.