Tag Archives: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

Joe Biden’s Dangerous Natural Gas Game

From RealClearEnergy

By Tristan Abbey

If the devil is in the details, bureaucracy is hell on earth. Though terrain familiar to the Biden administration, Republicans must prepare to navigate it.

Witness the debacle over liquefied natural gas exports, wherein the White House, by “pausing” most new approvals, has catapulted the energy security of key U.S. allies straight into the buzzsaw of its climate ambitions. (The category of exports that will continue to be authorized is tiny.) The Department of Energy claims that a multifactor impact study due in early 2025 is required to determine whether and how the moratorium will be lifted.

Under a certain conception of executive power, it should be simple enough for a second-term Trump administration to end this national embarrassment by pressing “resume” on the authorization process. But as analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies have suggested, merely setting aside the study could provide a basis, however tenuous, for future litigation. In the modern administrative state, it is easier to open than shut the procedural door to delays.

Previous administrations have already published macroeconomic impact studies on the question of LNG exports from the U.S. The Obama administration paused its authorizations until its first study was released in December 2012, for example—curious timing, considering the election the previous month and the study’s actual completion in July of that year. Virtually every scenario in every study, including additional analysis in 2015 and 2018, has found net benefits to accrue.

It’s possible reopening the Obama playbook was the Biden team’s plan all along. After all, Secretary Granholm didn’t commission a new study in 2021, or in 2022, or in 2023. By waiting so long, the DOE can now claim that the cumulative volume of its authorizations is approaching the upper limit of the range that the 2018 study examined. Under the duplicity theory, approvals resume under a second Biden term as soon as the study is released and the election fades away.

But maybe the administration doesn’t even have a plan. It could be sheer incompetence. Gas exports offend the sensibilities of the Democratic base, but Appalachian swing states reap the economic rewards and European allies are desperate to detach themselves from Russian energy. Political operators will try in vain to triangulate even if it is impossible. We can imagine them now, hunched over the asphalt between the West Wing and the Eisenhower building, desperately chalking angles with a compass and ruler.

More ominously, Energy Secretary Granholm may be laying the groundwork for a Kafkaesque application process designed to punish an industry this administration has only ever pretended to tolerate. The fact that DOE’s approving authority is now housed in the Office of Resource Sustainability is suggestive, as is the Fiscal Year 2025 budget request to triple programmatic funding for export authorizations, primarily in the form of “anticipated studies and environmental reviews.”

In any event, undoing what the Biden team has done will take careful work by a putative second-term Trump administration. Putting the matter to rest on a more permanent basis will require legislative action, chiefly amending the Natural Gas Act signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1938. In the meantime, “death by study” works both ways.

Tristan Abbey is a senior fellow at the National Center for Energy Analytics. He previously served as a staffer at the White House and the U.S. Senate.

The Incredible Dumbness of Biden’s War on LNG, Part Deux

From Watts Up With That?

Guest “You Can’t Fix Stupid, Part Trois” by David Middleton

Biden’s pause of new LNG export permits is truly a “stupid and futile gesture“…

APRIL 17, 2024

U.S. natural gas trade will continue to grow with the startup of new LNG export projects

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO)

In our recently released Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), we forecast that U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will continue to lead growth in U.S. natural gas trade as three LNG export projects currently under construction start operations and ramp up to full production by the end of 2025. We also forecast increased natural gas exports by pipeline, mainly to Mexico. In our STEO forecast, net exports of U.S. natural gas (exports minus imports) grow 6% to 13.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2024 compared with 2023. In 2025, net exports increase another 20% to 16.4 Bcf/d.

We forecast that U.S. LNG exports increase 2% in 2024 to average 12.2 Bcf/d. In 2025, we forecast that LNG exports grow by an additional 18% (2.1 Bcf/d). We forecast U.S. natural gas exports by pipeline to grow by 3% (0.3 Bcf/d) in 2024 and by 4% in 2025. We expect pipeline imports to decline by 0.4 Bcf/d in 2024 and then increase slightly (0.1 Bcf/d) in 2025.

In 2024–25, we forecast that existing U.S. LNG export facilities will run at similar utilization rates as in 2023. Annual maintenance typically occurs in the spring and fall, when global LNG demand is lower and temperatures are mild. In April and May 2024, we expect LNG exports to decline while two of the three trains at the Freeport LNG export facility undergo annual maintenance. Later in 2024, we expect that Plaquemines LNG Phase I and Corpus Christi Stage 3 will begin LNG production and load first cargoes by the end of the year. In 2025, the developers of Golden Pass LNG plan to place in service the first two trains of this new three-train LNG export facility.

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO)

We forecast an increase in U.S. natural gas pipeline exports to Mexico as several pipelines in Mexico—Tula-Villa de Reyes, Tuxpan-Tula, and Cuxtal Phase II connecting to the Energía Mayakan pipeline on the Yucatán Peninsula—become fully operational in 2024–25. These pipelines started partial service in 2022–23 but have not been operating at full capacity. Also, flows via the Sur de Texas-Tuxpan underwater pipeline are likely to increase slightly in 2024 when it begins delivering natural gas from the United States to Mexico’s first LNG export project, Fast LNG Altamira.

U.S. natural gas pipeline imports from Canada remained relatively unchanged over the last two years (2022–23), averaging 8.1 Bcf/d. We expect pipeline imports from Canada to remain a key supply source, particularly for the U.S. Midwest region during winter months.

U.S. LNG imports, which primarily serve New England and generally peak in winter months, declined slightly in 2023, mainly because of record-warm winter weather. We expect LNG imports to average about 0.1 Bcf/d in 2024–25 and continue to serve as a marginal supply source during periods of high demand, particularly in the winter months.

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Monthly

Principal contributor: Victoria Zaretskaya

Tags: forecasts/projections, natural gas, international, monthly, pipelines, STEO (Short-Term Energy Outlook), exports/imports, United States, LNG (liquefied natural gas), Canada, MexicoUS EIA

Biden’s imbecilic pause did not affect LNG facilities that are fully permitted and/or under construction. By the time the next president reverses this malfeasance next year, LNG exports will have climbed by about 2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) as new facilities come online. Projects currently under construction will add enough capacity (~17 Bcf/d) to more than double the current export volume (~12 Bcf/d).

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

At worst, the moronic pause in Department of Energy (DOE) permitting will delay final investment decisions (FID) for about 13 Bcf/d of capacity additions. 7 Bcf/d of that total have already been approved by FERC.

FERC is the agency that approves the construction of LNG facilities. DOE approves permits to export LNG to nations that do not have free trade agreements (FTA) with the US.

An Amazingly “Futile and Stupid Gesture”

Sixteen states have sued the Biden administration over this unlawful pause in LNG export permitting:

March 21, 2024 | Press Release

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Sues Biden to Stop Unlaw­ful Ban on LNG Exports

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit to block the Biden Administration’s unlawful and indefinite ban on approving applications to export liquified natural gas (“LNG”) that the Department of Energy itself has already acknowledged has “no factual or legal basis.” 

Texas, along with Louisiana and fourteen other states, has filed a lawsuit to void the unconstitutional LNG export ban, which ignores the Natural Gas Act’s presumption in favor of exports, decades of Department of Energy policy, and State and private reliance on exports. Texas is the nation’s leading producer of both crude oil and natural gas. The Biden Administration’s ban stands to harm the Texas economy and the millions who rely on Texas energy.

“Biden’s unilateral decree disregards statutory mandates, flouts the legal process, upends the oil and gas industry, disrupts the Texas economy, and subverts our constitutional structure,” said Attorney General Paxton. “The ban will drive billions of dollars in investment away from Texas, hinder our ability to maximize revenue for public schools, force Texas producers to flare excess natural gas instead of taking it to market, and annihilate critical jobs. I will not stand by while Biden attacks Texas.”

To read the filing, click here.Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas

This should be an easy win for Louisiana et al…

  1. Reporting has also unveiled other possible motivations behind the unexplained LNG
    Export Ban. For example, White House officials have acknowledged that “one significant reason for the” LNG Export Ban “was to address concerns of young and climate-focused voters,” whom “the administration needs . . . in the fall.” R. Rapier, How An American LNG Export Pause Could Increase Global Carbon Emissions, Forbes (Jan. 29, 2024), https://perma.cc/3WQR-84HK. The “hope is that announcing this pause will energize them to vote for Biden in the November election.” Id.
  2. Other reporting describes President Biden’s climate envoy, John Podesta, as an architect of the LNG Export Ban, and notes that Podesta’s brother is a lobbyist for foreign interests— including Russian LNG oligarchs—who stand to benefit significantly from the Ban. See A. Goodman,
    John Podesta Was Behind Biden’s Decision To Pause Natural Gas Exports. His Lobbyist Brother Stands To Benefit, Wash. Free Beacon (Feb. 15, 2024), https://perma.cc/P3JW-AZSA.

Louisiana et al v Biden et al

Biden Blank Looks Matter senile dementia alzheimer’s.jpg

Germany’s energy future threatened: Biden stops LNG exports

From Blackout News

Germany is facing a devastating energy crisis that is seriously threatening its security of supply. US President Joe Biden has unexpectedly halted the expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG), putting Germany in a precarious position.

The country has relied heavily on LNG from the US to become independent of Russian pipeline gas. Biden’s decision now has far-reaching implications that could pose serious problems for German energy policy (berliner-zeitung: 26.01.24).

Germany in Energy Crisis: How Biden’s Decision Threatens Germany’s Energy Supply

Biden has halted construction projects for new LNG terminals for the time being, stressing the importance of climate protection in the face of the climate crisis. The U.S. is the world’s largest exporter of LNG, but the U.S. government has put new export terminals on hold for now.

Germany in Energy Crisis: How US President Biden’s Decision Threatens Germany’s Energy Supply

This has implications for Germany, as it has sourced most of its LNG from the US, especially after saying goodbye to Russian gas. Representatives of the U.S. energy industry have turned to the U.S. government about Europe’s jobs and security of supply, but the focus is on climate protection.

Permits have already been issued for some terminal projects, but new export licenses will not be issued for the time being. This affects four ongoing projects and could affect Germany’s energy supply.

Germany in the LNG crisis – hedge funds are already betting on price losses of German companies

Much of Germany’s LNG comes from the US, where it is often extracted using fracking. However, the origin and composition of the LNG are not always clear.

Investors have raised concerns about Germany’s energy policy before Biden made his decision. A hedge fund founder criticized German policies and sees favorable conditions for energy companies such as RWE AG, Engie SA and SSE Plc.

Anglo-Saxon hedge funds have placed short positions against German companies, fearing a slump in global demand and price losses. Qube Research & Technologies has bet more than $1 billion against German companies, including Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank.

Germany must act urgently to secure its energy future

Some market observers point out that short selling must be reported, while betting on rising prices does not have to. In addition, many funds use short positions to hedge their investments.

Deutsche Umwelthilfe and Greenpeace welcome Biden’s decision and demand that Germany also review and stop LNG projects, as they are incompatible with climate protection.

Overall, Germany is facing challenging times in terms of energy policy, as it must look for new solutions for its energy supply, while at the same time looking at the environmental impact.

Canada Road to Ruin Paved with Trudeau’s CO2 Intentions

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Bill Bewick explains in his National Post article Federal climate policy makes us poorer.  Excerpts in italics wtih my bolds and added images.

The clean fuel standard on top of an escalating carbon tax and onerous emissions
targets will make everything more expensive

Canada is in an affordability crisis. Despite the pain felt by Canadians every day at the till or the gas pump, the federal government’s passion for world-leading carbon taxes and regulations is driving up the cost of everything while making us collectively poorer.

Tax advocates say it is a small % of GDP. But it is still $10 Billion extracted from Canadian households.

Canada Day saw the Clean Fuel Standards (CFS) regulation come into effect. A week earlier they passed a “Sustainable Jobs Act” that seeks to help transition workers away from highly productive jobs in oil, gas and related industries despite growing global demand for these energy sources.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that by 2030 the net CFS cost will be over $1,100 per household in Alberta and Saskatchewan. While it will add roughly 17 cents on a litre of fuel (in addition to the carbon tax, of course) most of the costs will be on Canadian businesses, which means less jobs, less tax revenue and higher prices, making life more expensive with less ability to pay for it.

The fact is the world will need oil for the next 20-30 years at least. Canada is the responsible, reliable supplier many in the world would already prefer to get their energy from. With Canadian oilsands producers aggressively pursuing net zero operations by 2050, there is no better place to get oil from.

The demand for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is booming globally. It should be vocally supported by anyone concerned with emissions since Canadian exports off our west coast would drive down the need for all the coal plants being built and planned in China and India. It also features an unprecedented level of Indigenous partnerships, offering an unparalleled opportunity for the economic self-sufficiency of countless communities.

Why would we “transition” these high-paying, unsubsidized jobs?
And transition them to what?

Well, the federal government seems to know that our oil and gas sector will have to shrink despite growing world demand. This is because in addition to steadily rising carbon taxes and the new CFS, they’ve arbitrarily demanded a 42 per cent reduction in emissions for the oil and gas sector in seven short years.

Requiring this drastic reduction by 2030 will force hasty and frantic changes as well as production cuts that will drive up energy prices for everyone while decreasing jobs and government revenues. That means more debt and more tax burden for Canadians, while hurting our economy and increasing our reliance on foreign oil.

An escalating carbon tax was supposed to let the economy decarbonize in an efficient way, but the federal government keeps piling on. This is crushing Canada’s competitiveness generally, especially after our American neighbours decided to go along with most of the rest of the world and not implement a carbon tax at all.

The fact that every manufacturer, farmer, trucker, and even commercial business owner on this side of the border has to pay these taxes on their fuel, heat, and power means everything is more expensive and will keep going up. Lower wages and job opportunities means we will be less and less able to afford it.

The government either says we must make these sacrifices for the planet, or that the green jobs they will transition to will be just as profitable and more sustainable. Their most recent example: the Volkswagen battery plant. There will be 3,000 jobs created, but the government will subsidize the plant with an estimated $13 billion. Does $4.3 million in taxpayer dollars per job sound sustainable to you?

As for our sacrifices saving the planet, carbon emissions are global. As Asia grows its economy, emissions are steadily rising. Canada can certainly “do its part” but other than massive LNG export to Asia, nothing we do with our declining 1.6 per cent share can meaningfully reduce overall global emissions.

There’s one more major federal policy being pursued that might be the most expensive of them all: the demand that every province’s electrical grid get to net zero by 2035. Canadian ratepayers spent billions to convert coal plants to gas and subsidize solar and wind projects. Now they are forcing us to get off natural gas entirely — a fuel source even the EU considers green.

Canadians care about reducing emissions and it is happening. Canadians also care about affordability. We need to demand our governments find a balance between the two. If Canada recalibrates our carbon policies to be part of the global parade instead of driving off an economic cliff, we can have both.

See Also Canada Budget Officer Quashes Climate Alarm