Righteous: Energy Department approves another natural-gas export terminal

posted at 9:01 pm on February 11, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

In terms of truly bright-and-shiny economic news, there hasn’t been a whole lot to get too excited about for what seems like an age now — but the administration’s apparent recognition that they owe a lot of the United States’ recently increased exports (a stated goal of Obama’s economic agenda) to the oil and gas industry might be one of them. The federal government has been sittin’ pretty on more than twenty pending export-terminal applications, but with any luck, they’re finally advancing on unleashing our domestic production boom to the fuller economic benefits of global competition, via Reuters:

The U.S. Energy Department on Tuesday approved exports from Sempra Energy’s Cameron liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Louisiana as the Obama administration moves forward with its goal of expanding the global market for the fuel.

The conditional approval of exports from the terminal to countries with which the United States does not have free trade agreements, such as India and Japan, was the sixth approval by the department since 2011, and the first since mid-November. …

The latest export approval confirms that the review process is becoming “largely depoliticized,” said Leslie Palti-Guzman, a gas analyst for the Eurasia Group. The consulting firm predicted that permitting would “continue unabated through 2014.”

Well, I’d certainly hope so, but I won’t be taking it as a given, either:

But some analysts cautioned that a pause in approvals could still be near as licensed export volumes near the threshold of 12 bcf a day considered in DOE-commissioned studies by the Energy Information Administration and NERA Economic Consulting.

“We think a cautious agency may be unlikely to exceed the upper-bound of the range of studied outcomes,” ClearView Energy Partners said in a research note.

Which would be a damn shame, ’cause there are plenty more where that came from, also with their own job- and wealth-creating (not to mention geopolitical!) inducements. Even as the trade gap widened in December amid falling net exports, petroleum products’ role in the trade mix only continued to grow — which is a great reason to not only approve more natural-gas projects, but to make short work of finally ending the crude-oil export ban, too.


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

Obama executive decree to kill this in 3…2…1…

oscarwilde on February 11, 2014 at 9:13 PM

oscarwilde on February 11, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Say it ain’t so!

Wouldn’t surprise me in the least, just a carrot dangling on the end of a stick…

Scrumpy on February 11, 2014 at 9:14 PM

What the DOE giveth, it can taketh away. I smell a Lucy and the football moment…

vnvet on February 11, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Obama executive decree to kill this in 3…2…1…

oscarwilde on February 11, 2014 at 9:13 PM

Uhh, and so it shall, uhh, be written, and so uhhh, it shall, uhh, be uhh, done.

Let them, uhhh, NOT sell natural gas uhh, except by Warren’s choo-choo.

-Pharaoh Obama

ConstantineXI on February 11, 2014 at 9:19 PM

No news here. Just another in a long list of actions that have helped create the Great Obama Energy Boom across all sectors of energy production.

everdiso on February 11, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Obama executive decree to kill this in 3…2…1…

oscarwilde on February 11, 2014 at 9:13 PM

oscarwilde:)
=============

Executive Orders
*****************

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders

canopfor on February 11, 2014 at 9:35 PM

Celebrity cruises in the making. Right?

bettycooper on February 11, 2014 at 9:55 PM

As we suffer a propane shortage that has already cost lives

Grunt on February 11, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Approval of the Louisiana terminal was done under the Obama Administration’s Mary Landreu Endangered Species Act.

jon1979 on February 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM

No news here. Just another in a long list of actions that have helped create the Great Obama Energy Boom across all sectors of energy production.

everdiso on February 11, 2014 at 9:32 PM

I do hope you zip Obama back up when you’re done.

307wolverine on February 11, 2014 at 10:49 PM

No news here. Just another in a long list of actions that have helped create the Great Obama Energy Boom across all sectors of energy production.

everdiso on February 11, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Fact-free commentary comes easily to you, I see.

Oil and gas production declining on federal lands under Obama.

Wherever Obama can limit/stop fossil fuel production, i.e. on federal lands and through executive/EPA actions, he has been busily doing so. Giving him credit for the PRIVATE-LAND-BASED energy boom is a bit like giving a communicable disease credit for improving the revenue stream at the pharmaceutical company with the medicine that cures it.

‘Reality bites the liberal on the bum once again.’

xNavigator on February 12, 2014 at 8:56 AM

test

Steve Z on February 12, 2014 at 10:44 AM

While there is something like 20 applications for these, not more than a dozen will be economically feasible to build. It takes billions of dollars to build one with the liquefaction trains being very costly, upwards from over $10 billion. Such terminals will already have to have enough customers under contract to finance construction.

Kermit on February 12, 2014 at 11:05 AM

1) Someone please explain to me how we can claim to want energy independence and also want to export it as fast as it comes up?

2) How can we stop propping up Islamist and communist regimes if we’re still buying their oil and sending ours to Europe and Asia?

3) If it takes years to build new distribution systems, refineries, and retool transportation, how could we leave oil exporting states alone if they want to destroy themselves?

4) Is constitutional capitalism consistent with regulating international commerce with autocracies in support of national security?

5) If we’re refusing to acting in the interests of our nation, values and people by protecting their security and resources so that a few well connected ones are left alone to export those resources, even if some of their profits trickle down, are we capitalists or corporatists?

elfman on February 12, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Sending our LNG to NON-FREE-TRADE countries … is absurd. The only reason 0bammie is allowing us to ship all this newly found energy to countries that don’t honor free-trade, is so that WE pay more for energy here… higher energy prices support wind and solar.

It’s the same exact reason why Yo-mama won’t allow the Keystone pipeline to deliver oil to us from Canada.

RedManBlueState on February 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM

It’s the same exact reason why Yo-mama won’t allow the Keystone pipeline…
RedManBlueState on February 12, 2014 at 2:26 PM

With the thousands of reasons to fight back against an intrusive state, there’s no reason to bring the race of the president into it. Take it elsewhere guy.

elfman on February 12, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Liquified Natural Gas is not the same as Propane, and they aren’t interchangeable.
As far as “energy independence” is concerned, we have more than we need of some things, less than we need of others. Should we hold up exporting coal, because we need oil? Nuts.

ReggieA on February 12, 2014 at 8:59 PM