Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 5, 2015
US poised to become leading exporter of natural gas
The U.S. is on the verge of becoming one of the world’s largest suppliers of liquefied natural gas, but it still faces stiff competition from rivals in the $120 billion LNG export business, including Qatar, Australia and rising markets in East Africa.
Tim Boersma, acting director of the Foreign Policy Energy Security and Climate Initiative at The Brookings Institution, presented experts and analysts with his organization’s latest report on the state of global natural gas exports Monday during a briefing at the U.S. Energy Association in Washington, D.C.
“The United States is poised to become a major global supplier of LNG, but its operators will face significant competition from a variety of suppliers, in terms of alternative LNG, pipeline gas, domestic production, and alternative energy sources,” states the July report, titled “An Assessment of U.S Natural Gas Exports.”
One of those top competitors is Australia, which has been expanding its LNG production capacity over the last few months and is in the construction phase for seven export terminals. Australia and the U.S., which has five projects of its own under construction, together will add more than 110 million metric tons of annual capacity to the market within the next four years, Reuters news agency reported.
LNG export markets in East Africa also have been booming since the discovery of substantial offshore natural gas deposits over the past decade, according to the Brookings report. There is “significant interest from Asian investors” in the prospects of LNG production in Mozambique and Tanzania, but poor infrastructure and political instability in those countries have hamstrung their exporters.
This is good news for U.S. officials, who are optimistic for the future of natural gas exports.
“We anticipate becoming big players and I think we’ll have a big impact,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in April. “We’re going to influence the whole global LNG market.”
“Certainly in this decade, there’s a good chance that we will be LNG exporters on the scale of Qatar, which is today’s largest LNG exporter,” he added.
Qatar can produce up to 77 million metric tons of LNG a year, or about 25 percent of the world’s total, according to BG Group Plc, an LNG trading firm.
LNG is natural gas that has been cooled to minus 256 degrees Fahrenheit, which makes it occupy 600 times less space. Goldman Sachs Group said in March that LNG trade will top $120 billion this year.
Mr. Moniz and other proponents of domestic natural gas production say that LNG exports increase U.S. economic competitiveness and reduce risks to the environment.
The U.S. now is the world’s No. 1 producer of natural gas, according to government data. Last year, the U.S. produced more than 74 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, Energy Information Administration data show. But export projects have faced significant opposition from environmental groups and red tape in the federal government as some analysts argue that increased natural gas exports could drive up domestic prices paid by U.S. businesses and consumers.
The Obama administration has tried to downplay those concerns by arguing that an increased reliance on LNG exports would be a cleaner energy alternative to coal and could create as many as 65,000 jobs per year.
Still, the emergence of the U.S. as a major LNG exporter is clouded by “major uncertainties,” according to Mr. Boersma.
Among the uncertainties he cited, according to his natural gas report, are the extent to which “the major economies in Asia decide to reduce the share of coal in their electricity generation” and “whether the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris in late 2015 reaches a global agreement on reducing CO2 emissions.”
48 Comments on "US poised to become leading exporter of natural gas"
Dredd on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 8:51 am
Are they building the terminals in sea ports at sea level (Peak Sea Level – 2)?
Gives new meaning to terminal construction.
“The US Energy Department prepares a wave of LNG gas permits in the latest move to redraw the world’s oil and gas landscape … four LNG export terminals are under construction and the first wave of shipments may begin before the end of this year or in early 2016 at the latest” (Terminal Construction).
BobInget on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 9:12 am
The ‘smartest men in the room’ poured billions into LNG IMPORT terminals.
Just as they were completed, the price of domestic gas crashed from $15 to a low of a buck and pennies. Because these men were raking in cash elsewhere, they spent billions converting facilities to export.
Exporting gas will allow E&P’s to survive but not prosper. Will domestic gas prices raise up from below cost of production? (double lows around $2.35)
If gas can get back above $4, perhaps
exporting natty is a go.
After-all, those export terminals cost billions, if shale gas costs increase the’fun’goes out of exports.
Amvet on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 9:43 am
Amazing. The US is a net natural gas importer (2014: 1,186.5 billion cubic ft.) The only sector of NG production growth has been shale and that is now falling 259 million cubic feet per day according to the EIA. Non-shale areas have a yearly decline rate of 10% per year. Where do these predictors get their information? Statistical projections? Company PR??
Nony on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 9:55 am
Amvet, as has been pointed out about 10 bazillion times, we are only abobut a 5% net importer and that is because of the small net imports from Canada. As a system, the North American complex is a essentially an island as we lack physical connection to Euro or Asian markets or significant LNG export capacity.
There is a small amount of LNG exported from Alaska and a small amount of LNG imported to Boston during the winter, but these are just minor geographical issues. In addition, Canadian exports to the US happen in NW, while they import from the Marcellus. That is the benefit of free trade, export where it makes sense and import where it doesn’t.
Anyone can go look at the Sabine Pass progress reviews. That is billions of dollars of heavy metal going into the ground. It is NOT a paper program. Exports to start beginning of the year. By 2017, we’ll be a net exporter.
Davy on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 10:03 am
NOo, sure but how much and how long in a collapsing global economy. You are in la la land or cornucopia as usual. Just because there is heavy metal does not mean profits follow.
Plantagenet on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 10:58 am
Good to see the Obama administration support large scale export of US NG. One of the quickest ways to raise US NG prices will be to export US gas, bringing US prices up to world levels.
Higher NG prices in the US will REDUCE US NG consumption and CO2 emissions,which is one of Obama’s main goals.
Nony on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 11:25 am
Davy, agreed. I am still childishly impressed by the scale of construction (size, dollars, complexity, etc.) Adding in the huge risk/reward (volatility) makes it even more cool in a way. Big juevos.
P.s. WTI just inched under $45. Could be “animal spirits” as price was up to 46es (from 45s) earlier in the day. Still, gave me pause to see it in the lower 40s. We are close to testing the beginning of the year lows. And the amazing thing is it is not so much based on a temporary “glut”. Because it is not just month ahead futures dropping, but the DEC16 strip is at record lows, in the 52s.(i.e. not a contango, but the whole view of oil equilibrium reduced).
Crap…I typed too long and the price nosed into the low 45s. Still, I was all like wow to see a 44.xx for a minute. 🙂
Apneaman on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 11:37 am
Wrong again planty. The only thing Obama worries about is having a bigger library than Georg W Bush. The only chance of a significant reduction is a major economic crash and even that won’t change anything. Climate change is unstoppable and it has friends – ocean acidification and the 6th mass extinction. All are existential threats and increasing daily. Please stop with your little hopium filled cheer leading comments. Do you understand how inertia and lag time work?
Buried in Obama’s Climate Plan: A Promise of Business as Usual to the Fossil Fuel Industry
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/04/obama_s_clean_power_plan_analysis_business_as_usual_for_the_fossil_fuel.html
Plantagenet on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 12:10 pm
Apy
If you don’t understand that instituting a carbon tax or otherwise increasing the price of FF will reduce the amount of CO2 emitted, and lowering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will mitigate climate change, then you you don’t understand the climate change problem.
Why not face facts instead of fantasizing about the size of Obama’s presidential library? (–what a bizarre thing for you to have fantasies about, by the way).
Figure it out, dude—Bringing US NG prices up to world levels will INCREASE the price of NG to the US consumer and will REDUCE US FF consumption and CO2 emissions.
CHEERS!
Davy on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 12:12 pm
Ape Man, we know these policies are for show. It is just redirection in the way wealth is transfered not a reduction in wealth that would be the reality of any significant emissions reductions. This is just more of the photoshopping our culture as grown so used to. Any real reductions in emissions will be associated with an economic contraction, Period!
Davy on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 12:17 pm
Ape Man, please verbally slap the planter for me he is mentally misbehaving as usual.
GregT on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 12:19 pm
planter,
It is you, as usual, that doesn’t understand. Reducing CO2 emissions will not mitigate the “climate change problem”. That problem is here to stay. Any further CO2 emissions will only make the problem worse. Not better.
Solarity on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 12:55 pm
What is the net energy of NG at its destination? IOW how much NG is used to compress and liquify it? My guess: 1/5, which makes it much less competitive.
Apneaman on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 12:58 pm
Planty, your living in a giant carbon positive feed back loop. Between the burning trees and melting permafrost Alaska is a carbon time bomb. That can’t be stopped. It has inertia and nothing we do can stop it now – too late. Same everywhere, only worse the farther north you go as the heat always chases the cold/tries to equalize. You, like many, don’t seem to get that it is now out of our hands. We are powerless. I guess that if we shut it all down today there is a chance we might save the species, but we will do no such thing, because almost no one will stop consuming and give up their status as that is a form of death in itself. C’mon planty if you did that you would not be able to go a jet setting all over the world then come on here and brag it up. I don’t blame you planty, it what most apes do in lieu of any real talents or accomplishments. Money and the goodies it brings are the great equalizer for insecure average and below average apes. It’s always been the way. It’s almost the only thing everyone talks about in our decadent society – cars, houses, vacations, gourmet foods, electronics, jobs, money money money and the politicians or tribes who are standing in the way of getting more of it and of course the oil that makes it all possible. This is what we do and we will do it to the last ape standing. Enjoy your high carbon trip to India.
rockman on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 1:02 pm
Let’s try a little reality check using FACTS. First, the US is already a significant NG exporter: we rank #10 on the planet. And if you compare the US to the #1 LNG exporter, Qatar, we export 60% of their volume via pipelines. More important: the US NG pipeline exports, if shipped as LNG, would rank us as the #2 LNG exporter on the planet…about 40% more than the #2 LNG exporter, Indonesia.
So how much NG will Chenier (the first large scale LNG exporter in the US)start shipping when expansion is complete in THREE YEARS: 4 bcf/day. IOW it will double the amount of NG the country current exports. Which means the US (still a net NG importer today) will have to import an additional 4 bcf/day to satisfy current US consumption or the US consumers will be short 1.5 TRILLION cubic feet per year. So if the US consumer wants to compete with the global LNG buyers all they have to do is pay several times more then they do now. Maybe we could just burn more coal…that would be a lot cheaper. And we do have a lot of coal. LOL.
Works for the Rockman. But he does sell NG for a living. LOL.
Apneaman on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 1:15 pm
That coal ain’t going nowhere – it’s the back up plan. In India they still do much of the work getting it to market by human shovel power, so it’s a back up employment plan as well.
Coal India unions call off strike in relief for govt
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/01/07/coal-india-strike-idINKBN0KG1SV20150107
Do a Google image search for
“coal India workers”
That is a likely future for many of today’s toddlers or their kids, right here in N America. Everything old is new again.
antaris on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 2:34 pm
Ap, you forgot all the horrible ink on the decadent list. This summer everywhere I turn some nice looking lady has ugly tattoos covering her exposed skin.
Apneaman on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 2:51 pm
I know, but ape cultures have been inking up forever. Way back in the day when I got mine it was none too popular – only certain, ah hem, types of people got them. Once all these kindergarten teachers, librarians and nun’s started getting tatted up it really threw a wrench into my bad boy image thing. Thank the lord I found Dooming – that’s something the masses will never touch. Bitches.
Plantagenet on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 3:22 pm
@GregT
You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word “mitigate”. Your comment makes no sense because you don’t even know what the word I used means.
I suggest you buy one of those “vocabulary improvement sleep tapes” and play it while you sleep. You evidently aren’t smart enough to learn your own language on your own—maybe with a sleep tape something might seep in while you are sleeping?
Cheers!
Nony on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 3:31 pm
“Which means the US (still a net NG importer today) will have to import an additional 4 bcf/day to satisfy current US consumption or the US consumers will be short 1.5 TRILLION cubic feet per year. So if the US consumer wants to compete with the global LNG buyers all they have to do is pay several times more then they do now.”
This isn’t exactly a fact. IT is true that price will go up (this is not some discovery by you, I have pointed it out for over a year…that is a fact, you can find me doing so on this site.) LNG imports will not rise because LNG imports are not competitive with extra marginal production (a moron should realize this). The question is how much will the price go up (it has to go up some) because of the extra volume of internal production. The answer is likely to be very small because of the slope of the supply curve. Consider the FACT that we have added about 40% volume of production since 2005 and price is lower htan it was then (iow) that extra volume of production happened while price was dropping. It’s actually possible for this to continue. Of course, local consumers will pay more than “they would have” with no exports. But then this is the same for corn or any export crop.
US natural gas production history:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist_chart/N9050US2a.jpg
Nony on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 3:37 pm
US natural gas price:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm
Note how overall production has increased since 2005 while overall price was dropping.
This is possible because the new supply was so competitive. Tt’s actually the opposite of the Art Verman worries on natural gas shale costs. Shale ended up competing away some conventional gas production (e.g. it pushed you, Rock, out of the shallow Gulf gas drilling game).
Again, please consider that any exported item (corn, airplanes, etc.) would be cheaper for internal customers if we stopped exports. however, free trade helps the overall economy more because of the benefit to internal producers and external customers.
Boat on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 6:11 pm
Nom It’s actually possible for this to continue. Of course, local consumers will pay more than “they would have” with no exports.
That may or may not be true, just a matter of splitting hairs. There is such a plethora of good wells. Demand might outrun supply only because it takes awhile to crank up a few more drilling rigs. It is amazing how resilient low prices have been for this long a period in spite of massive expansion on all fronts.
Without exports would prices go down and then more rigs shut down and then level back to the price? I would guess so.
GregT on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 6:44 pm
In your own words planter:
“and lowering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will mitigate climate change”
Burning fossil fuels does not lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it raises the amount of CO2, and that CO2 is accumulative. Burning less fossil fuels does not mitigate climate change. It continues to add to the problem, and makes the problem worse.
Boat on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 6:50 pm
Rockman,
Which means the US (still a net NG importer today) will have to import an additional 4 bcf/day to satisfy current US consumption or the US consumers will be short 1.5 TRILLION cubic feet per year.
My gut feeling says we will not import the 1.3 trillion to make up the short fall and not only that but by the end of three years we will be a net exporter as well. There’s drilling to be done, get to it Rock.
Nony on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 7:44 pm
The trend is towards less imports.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist_chart/N9180US1a.jpg
We’ve basically pushed out all the LNG imports. Very small amount goes into Boston in winter because of pipeline restrictions into Yankee-land, but that is just a quirk of geography. At this point, we’re essentially pushing excess Canadian gas back and it becomes a price war. To get to zero net imports for the US, you need NG export capacity.
It is a completely reasonable assumption that as LNG export comes on line we end up becoming a net exporter. That is what all the credible, good analysts say. Rockman is nothing special compared to them. Just a very minor guy in the industry who posts here at this site.
Nony on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 8:01 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/saudi-arabia-may-go-broke-before-the-us-oil-industry-buckles-20150805-gism05.html
“He said the resilience of the sister industry of shale gas should be a cautionary warning to those reading too much into the rig-count. Gas prices have collapsed from $US8 to $US2.78 since 2009, and the number of gas rigs has dropped 1200 to 209. Yet output has risen by 30 per cent over that period.”
Poordogabone on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 9:10 pm
Dear Plant, you wrote (concerning the merits of gas exports):
“Higher NG prices in the US will REDUCE US NG consumption and CO2 emissions,which is one of Obama’s main goals.”
Sounds like a glut A domestic glut, this time though we manage the “glut” and deal with falling prices by dumping the excess gas onto the world market. Let others burn the stuff to make shit that we want, that will solve the global CO2 emission issue.
Maybe the US and its competitors can dump enough LNG on the market to create a GGG (global gas glut) on top of the GOG.
Makati1 on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 9:21 pm
“US poised to become leading exporter of natural gas’
LMAO at that assumption.
Boat on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 10:01 pm
Mak, when you twist the words that are on the same page it seems like you don’t understand shyt.
The United States is poised to become a major global supplier of LNG
A major global supplier is a far cry from leading exporter.
Just argue your opinion on the facts. It’s ok to agree to disagree. But why flat out lie.
Apneaman on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 10:26 pm
So what? Assuming it happens, and it’s still an assumption, what’s the big deal? Why are some jumping up and down like it’s V day or something? Is it going to bring back the middle class? Restore democracy? Usher in a new American century? Or will it just mean a handful of decent jobs for awhile? How many full time permanent positions does any one think there will be at one of those LNG plants? Already heard all the hype with the shale revolution which has just about gone full circle. About the best thing one can say about that, if you discount the externalities, is that it prevented total economic collapse for a couple more minutes. Big fucking whoop. Still teetering on the edge. Still rotten and hollowed out. How pathetic that this is all some have left to cling too. How telling of how far we have fallen.
GregT on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 10:29 pm
Boat,
The title of the article is “US poised to become leading exporter of natural gas”?
Boat on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 10:57 pm
Apneaman,
If you lived in Japan or Europe you would hoopla if you paid the US price for Nat gas. When you get a 40% volume increase it means the air is cleaner, it means the grid is getting stronger because nat gas ramps up and down easier, it means a faster future for wind and solar. It means refineries along with CHP tech can get to 80%-90% efficient and produce more product from a gallon of gas. It means a lot of high energy products that moved overseas are moving back. It means as the nat gas builds out the US will have an ever increasing advantage in trade. Need I go on? CHP combined with nat is distributed, No grid loss, less pollution. Over 80 GW deployed and 40 more planed by 2020.
Since you doomers plan to crash way before 2020 I can see your reluctance to get excited by GW of CHP by 2020. But for some of us energy geeks that think we’ll survive it is yet another good sign we are moving towards a more secure and cleaner future.
GregT on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 11:33 pm
Burning natural gas is not clean Boat, and according to many peer reviewed scientific papers, it is actually a larger contributor to climate change than coal. We are not heading towards a more secure future, we have already triggered a mass extinction event, and in all probability have already triggered a run-away greenhouse event.
You are living in denial Boat. Serious denial.
Apneaman on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 11:41 pm
Top Scientists Urge Obama Administration to Use Accurate Estimates of Methane’s Dangerous Climate Effects
Letter Urges Aggressive Methane Reductions From Oil and Gas Industry
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/methane-07-29-2014.html
Apneaman on Wed, 5th Aug 2015 11:49 pm
Key Greenhouse Gas Study May Have “Systematically Understated” Methane Leaks, New Research Shows
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/08/04/key-greenhouse-gas-study-may-have-systematically-understated-leaks-new-research-shows
rockman on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 2:29 am
Boat – A reminder how a company like Chenier would invest many $BILLIONS in converting to LNG exports: those sales contract are put in place years ahead of the delivery date. And on their side on the table Chenier will have purchase contracts in place for Henry Hub NG. And these contracts typically run 15 to 25 years. I think I recall the Chenier contracts run 20 years with an option to extend an additional 10 years. Once Chenier is underway that NG will be exported. Not even the US govt could stop it due to trade treaties and international laws. So when I said US consumers would have to compete for that NG I didn’t mean in 3 years but today. Of course the consumers aren’t structured to do that.
Think about it: would Chenier invest $6 BILLION and years of construction on just the hope NG would be available to then? Additionally hoping there would be buyers for their LNG? I’ve yet to see a single LNG export facility built anywhere in the world that didn’t have purchase and sales contracts in place long before the first LNG load is shipped.
Think of it this way: Chenier is a public company currently spending $BILLIONS at a time when they have zero profit. Would you buy their stock on the assumption they would have the NG available to them to export years down the road? And if not you who would?
Folks like to rattle on about the pros and cons of US LNG exports. But how many have gone to the web to learn that business model? Check out Chenier’s contracts they have in place…they describe it in detail: the LNG sales price is based upon the Henry Hub index price + transportation + liquefaction costs + a fixed profit margin. They make zero assumptions about the NG/LNG market years down the road.
rockman on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 2:55 am
Boat – “A major global supplier is a far cry from leading exporter.” Chenier recently received approval from the Dept of Energy to export 3.6 bcf/day. Just that one facility in Sabine, Texas (not counting the others the govt has approved) would export more LNG then all others countries except Qatar.
The US today is the 7th largest exporter of NG in the world…mostly via pipelines. Add just the one Chenier facility and we just edge out Canada for the #4 spot.
And if anyone thinks I make up these numbers: they all come from the EIA. If someone has a more credible source please share. The truth is out there…just search the www. LOL.
Nony on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 6:42 am
The business model is just HH plus expenses and profit. There’s no new content, Rock, after we already said that extra market will mean competition at HH.
By the way, the exact same thing happens when new gas power plants come on line. They compete with the old ones for supply.
Next you will be discussing the wetting angle of water? The gravitational acceleration constant? How many fluid ounces in a pound? The number of points a field goal scores in basketball?
Nony on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 6:47 am
Oh and Rock, go look up Zeno’s paradox. Put down the mudlogger and read up on Wiki. You saying we can’t become a net exporter because we currently import is like some bizarre modern day Zeno’s paradox. You can’t get anywhere with that. 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Paradoxes_of_motion
Nony on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 6:48 am
Rock, you do realize that corn would be cheaper in the US if we prevented farmers from selling it overseas?
Maybe you can read up on why free trade is a net surplus to the economy though.
rockman on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 7:11 am
“You saying we can’t become a net exporter because we currently import”. No, I’m saying we can’t be a net exporter if we are a net importer. And today we are a net importer because the US consumes more NG then it produces. Sounds like 2nd grade math is tough for you. LOL.
And in the future…who knows? But does anyone here believes doubling our NG exports in the next few years will make us a net exporter? Very sad if they can’t handle such simple logic.
Anyway thanks Nony for lobbing up such a softball to hit out of the park. LOL.
Davy on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 7:34 am
Good job Rock giving the NOo a slap screw.
The NOo is an example or a corn getting twisted up in a message and losing track of the original thought. Corns are so invested in their ideology they get into double negative type speak or they use multiple positives that contradict each other within their point.
This is what happens when you distort reality. Reality is like water it is difficult to keep out of a discussion. Reality has no mercy to those who ignore her and supports those who do. Doomers do this too but it is the corns who have such a large message to defend. Long term growth and progress is a tough concept to defend in a world that is clearly at limits and suffering declining marginal returns to growth and progress.
Nony on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 7:57 am
The discussion of net export has always been posited to the future. Your chaff thrown out has been mindless.
By the way, I still remember you confusing a monthly and annual Marcellus number. Not a big deal (although you do mess up basic numbers a lot). But refusing to man up and admit it is just intellectually cowardly.
It’s a pattern with you. Referring to yourself in the third person and carrying on like you are some big cheese when you are a pretty mediocre industry guy. I still recall rockdoc just obliterating some of your matrix flow mistakes. Cited 5 peer reviewed papers as well as his experience as VP of a shale company. And you were stuck with your Austin Chalk blabla. And didn’t have the guts to read the papers he cited and comment on the real science.
marmico on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 8:20 am
But does anyone here believes doubling our NG exports in the next few years will make us a net exporter?
Why not? Arithmetically, Net exports (NE) is a function of production (P) and consumption (C).
2014 (actual): P=25.0TCF, C=26.2TCF, NE=-1.2TCF
2017 (estimated): P=28.0TCF, C=27.0TCF, NE=1.0TCF
Nony on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 4:18 pm
Rock, you’ve been trying to pour cold water on the LNG export story for over a year. Saying that we would never be a net exporter because we’re now an importer. Which is a moronic argument!
Here, you are on 21NOV14
“NR – “The USA was never going to be a natural gas exporter anyway”. Just a little tweak: the US will never be a NET natural gas exporter.”
http://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/russia-china-gas-deals-could-kill-americas-dream-of-natural-gas-exports
Well all the real analysts (people smarter than you and more honest than you) say we WILL become a NG net exporter in 2018 or earlier. When we do tip over to net export–and those LNG construction dollars and that heavy metal is REAL–I’m gonna remind you.
Nony on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 4:21 pm
Rockman also said:
“Also it’s good to remember that the future price of the domestic NG that has to be purchased won’t be “$4-$4.50″. It will be based upon the price of NG at Henry Hub at the time it’s purchased. About 4 years ago that price topped $6.47. And 6 years ago it topped $12.87. And 9 years ago it topped $15.39.”
Wrong direction, Rocky. Right now it is below $3. It’s BETTER than $4-4.50. HA!
apneaman on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 4:41 pm
Nony you are right. Currently it’s still just a story. Assume it comes to pass what does it mean for the Average American? Are those 48 million going to be able to cancel their food stamps? Massive homelessness solved? Millions of manufacturing jobs coming back home? National debt under control. Decrepit national infrastructure gonna get fixed? Retail recovery? Roll back the MIC/police/security state? Communities rebuilt? Pray tell Nony-marm what’s all the fervor about?
Nony on Thu, 6th Aug 2015 5:05 pm
Ape-man: We need something to keep the sheople distracted. They were getting sick of war hype. [We’ll go back to that in another cycle.] Now you behave and watch Taylor and Miley like a good boy. 🙂