Ten countries that really, really want the United States to export more natural gas

posted at 5:31 pm on October 12, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Despite the hullabaloo over their own DOE-commissioned study released at the end of last year that finally concluded with the earth-shattering revelation that — brace yourselves — free trade is not a zero-sum game and protectionism only succeeds in making people the world over poorer, the Obama administration has been taking their sweet ol’ time approving the permits that natural gas companies need to be allowed to export their LNG all over the globe.

The administration has issued permits to three LNG export terminals this year, which is great, but that’s three out of the just four they have approved over the past five years. I doubt they want to appear too eager to support any form of fossil fuels (even relatively cleaner ones) in any overly hasty manner, even though they know that the only people even pretending to put up a fight against LNG exports anymore are the chemical and manufacturing interests who don’t want to see domestic natural-gas prices rise, with perhaps a handful of anti-fracking eco-radicals thrown into the mix.

And indeed, it’s true — natural gas prices in Europe and especially parts of Asia are often at least several times the going domestic rate, and a freer export scenario would likely mean a gradual jump in prices at home. The beneficiaries of said higher prices, however, would be the United States in the form of economic growth, i.e., wealth- and job-creation, and meanwhile, we have energy companies just twiddling their thumbs and waiting in line while the Obama administration puts on a good show of deliberating.

Besides the help it would offer them in weaning some of their dependence on less savory nations (looking at you, Russia), a bunch of countries are also pushing hard for the United States to export more gas to help increase the global market supply, reduce world prices, and help out their own struggling economic recoveries — which happened to be the topic of a specially-convened international meeting with Congress on Friday.

Via the National Journal:

Delegates from 10 countries—including Hungary, Haiti, India, Japan, and Thailand—argued for increased U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas to increase global energy security and strengthen diplomatic ties during a Thursday forum convened by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power.

Delegates from Hungary and the Czech Republic said expanded LNG exports would bring U.S. gas into competition with Russia, the major supplier of oil and gas in eastern Europe. Increased competition, they argued, would drive down gas prices to the benefit of consumers.

“We need to have more competition to have affordable energy prices,” said Anita Orban, ambassador-at-large for energy security for the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Representatives from Japan and Singapore also called for increased U.S. LNG exports, saying it would help diversify domestic energy markets.

“We are a small island state with no energy endowments of our own,” said Ashok Kumar Mirpuri, Singapore’s ambassador to the U.S.

While the Obama administration continues to hesitate on removing red tape from the industry supporting the bulk of his otherwise pathetic “recovery,” Canada is moving forward with expanding their export operations and picking up on the growth in which we could share. Tick, tock.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Us, and our friends first… the rest can wait.

CPT. Charles on October 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

The world looks at Obama and increasingly sees… No More Mr. Nice Guy.

thatsafactjack on October 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Sorry, but that would cause global warming. Enjoy the long, cold winter.

BDavis on October 12, 2013 at 6:12 PM

If it’s good for the country, King Barack I is AGAINST it!

GarandFan on October 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Our Natural gas should be used to offset imports of oil. The obvious use is natural gas as a vehicle fuel. Instead of burning natural gas in power plants to power electric/hybrid vehicles, just burn it directly and get more energy for your cubic foot of natural gas. (A lot of electrical energy is lost in transmission let alone heat when it is used.)

All the countries listed are unwilling to drill for gas because they believe the lie about affecting water tables.

Oil companies are proving that energy is everywhere if you have the right incentive to go get it.

– and lets not forget COAL — it is a lot of places people would rather not look too.

KenInIL on October 12, 2013 at 6:40 PM

The world looks at Obama and increasingly sees… No More Mr. Nice Guy.

thatsafactjack on October 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM

I’m sorry but there was never a Mr. Nice Guy.

The world looks at the lazy stupid bastard and sees that The masked has slipped.

Happy Nomad on October 12, 2013 at 6:40 PM

…was that a thread picture of Candy Crowley… floating on her back?

KOOLAID2 on October 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM

. . . all I’m going to say is that I wish to heaven that Jazz had posted this story instead of Erika so that I could say all the awesome things I thought of when I noticed the story’s picture’s ship’s gigantic balls.

. . . perhaps another opportunity will present itself later for creative genius.

. . . all I’m going to say.

Axe on October 12, 2013 at 7:44 PM

…was that a thread picture of Candy Crowley… floating on her back?

KOOLAID2 on October 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM

– LOL — I was not the only one inspired, I see.

Axe on October 12, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I’m against it.

astonerii on October 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Obama stumbles between incompetence and malice like a drunk on a crowded sidewalk.

pat on October 12, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Why this guy screws over our allies disgusts me.

Iblis on October 12, 2013 at 11:10 PM

I’m sorry but am I suppose to care about the rest of the world? If our prices are going to increase, well I’m not too happy about that.

MoreLiberty on October 13, 2013 at 7:22 AM

I think this story serves as an indication of the sad state of our “free market” system. When a company, any company, has to secure the permission of the government to sell overseas, we have reached the bottom of the “Do what I tell you” barrel.

gasmeterguy on October 13, 2013 at 9:46 AM

I’m against it.

astonerii on October 12, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Whatever it is?

iurockhead on October 13, 2013 at 10:31 AM

“Delegates from 10 countries—including Hungary, Haiti, India, Japan, and Thailand—argued for increased U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas …”

Now, if those disparate countries don’t have the least little bit of a clue re: the importance of free trade & “energy”, et alia, what would convince Emperor Øligula? I thought that The Øne salivated over “clean” energy … But oh that pesky “anthropogenic global warming” thingy.
Maybe if those countries built shrines to the man-child he might do the right thing.
I won’t be holding my breath – OR – a “Nobel Peace Prize” either.
OH! And how about they “donate” shakedown money to Ø’s slush fund. Ya, that’s the ticket!
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on October 13, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I’m sorry but am I suppose to care about the rest of the world? If our prices are going to increase, well I’m not too happy about that.

MoreLiberty on October 13, 2013 at 7:22 AM

The point is the fact that we have more than we can use. Selling natural resources to other countries creates millions of jobs here.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on October 13, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Reactionary conservatives call for energy independence and then call for selling one of our sources of excess energy. If we are to disengage from Middle Eastern Jihadists we have to treat specific industries and national security assets, even “if” it reduces the wealth of a few owners of those assets and perhaps trickles down to the rest of Americans. Energy independence is more valuable that $14 (or whatever it is) making its way to the median American family each year.

elfman on October 13, 2013 at 8:40 PM