Energy Independence? American LNG Headed For Overseas

The US has too much natural gas.  Liquified natural gas will be sold overseas to the highest bidder.  Wasn't all this shale gas extraction supposed to produce energy for us?  Now we have so much, we have to sell it abroad?  Here is an article from The Wall Street Journal:

Cheniere Wins Approval to Export U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704644404575482290198119482.html

* SEPTEMBER 9, 2010, 7:59 P.M. ET

By ISABEL ORDONEZ

HOUSTON—The U.S. Department of Energy said Thursday it has granted approval to Cheniere Energy Partners LP's bid to export liquefied natural gas produced in North America from a terminal in Louisiana.
The approval, granted Sept. 7, puts the terminal in Cameron Parish one step closer to becoming the first facility to export natural gas produced in the Lower 48 states, drawing supply from the burgeoning
unconventional gas fields in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

The proposal underscores how the natural-gas supply picture in the U.S. has turned from scarcity to overabundance, thanks to the exploitation of rock formations called shales. It also marks a radical shift in the plans of companies such as Cheniere, which once planned to profit from building multibillion-dollar liquefaction terminals in different U.S. coastal locations. But the natural-gas shale boom brought those plans to a halt. North America's new gas wealth has prompted other export projects, such as Apache Corp.'s proposed facility in British Columbia, which aims to supply Asia with large quantities of Canadian natural gas. Natural gas, usually shipped through pipelines, has traditionally been a regional market, but when it is converted into liquid, it can be shipped overseas. Through its Sabine Pass Liquefaction subsidiary, Cheniere asked the Department of Energy in early August for permission to export up to 16 million metric tons annually for 30 years. It also filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to build, in
phases, a liquefaction facility that would eventually handle an average of 2.6 billion cubic feet a day from four liquefied natural gas, or LNG, trains.

The Department of Energy's approval allows Cheniere's unit to export LNG to any nation that has the capacity to import the fuel and with which the U.S. has entered, or may in the future enter, into a Free
Trade Agreement, including Canada, Mexico, Chile and Singapore,
according to the order from the Department of Energy.

Gas-bearing rock formations known as shales have changed the view that domestic U.S. natural-gas output would decline and that new supplies would have to come into the U.S. from other countries. In fact, these
new supplies have depressed gas prices, discouraging gas imports that were once thought critical to feed growing demand for the fuel. Prolific onshore gas fields in Texas and Oklahoma, and the well-
documented unconventional gas fields in the Barnett, Haynesville, Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, Woodford and Bossier basins in Texas and Louisiana, would represent the most likely sources of physical supply for the Sabine Pass, Cheniere's unit said in its application.

The Sabine Pass LNG terminal is already an import facility. With a total send-out capacity of four billion cubic feet a day and 16.8 billion cubic feet of storage capacity, it is the largest receiving terminal, by regasification capacity, in the world, according to Cheniere's website. The FERC recently allowed Sabine Pass to use the terminal for the additional purpose of exporting foreign-sourced LNG. Cheniere will soon file a separate application for authorization to export LNG to countries with which a Free Trade Agreement applicable to natural gas and LNG isn't in effect, according to the application it filed in August. The second application will be subject to more rigorous public-interest review and analysis by the Department of
Energy, the company has said in the application.
—Jason Womack contributed to this article.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

In Memory of Karen Korell

SPLASHDOWN

1944-2010

Advertising Campaign Should Be Stopped

A recent article, published by the Marcellus Shale Committee, highlights three primary messages which are part of an advertising campaign begun last February: “Energy Independence,” “Jobs and Economic Prosperity,” and “Environmental Stewardship.” Joanne Fiorito, a concerned citizen and regular contributor to the Susquehanna County Gas Forum, is taking exception to these misleading or false phrases, saying that use of them should not be allowed. She writes:

...at least two of these three claims are false and our
government should force them to stop such advertising.

1) Energy Independence - would only be true if, WE KEEP THE GAS HERE IN THE US, currently it's liquefied and then shipped overseas. How does that make us Energy Independent? The answer is: IT DOES NOT.....but it does make the investors in that product RICH, without giving a thought to our FUTURE ENERGY NEEDS.

2)Environmental Stewardship - would only be true if our land water and air weren't impacted.....but alas we have plenty of documentation to prove that this harms our environment. Yet the government fails to act.

3) Jobs & Economic Prosperity- we still have plenty of folks who are unemployed. The only folks working the rigs and trucks in this area (PA) are from other parts of the US, many from Texas. Job opportunity for local folks is still NON-EXISTENT.

Read the article, "Marcellus Shale Committee Continues Advertising Campaign," here. Since the PA Marcellus Shale Committee provides all state, county, and local government or regulatory bodies with information pertaining to the oil and gas industry, it is incumbent upon it to use accurate words and phrases, free of misleading or false claims.

For a related article from Bucks County Courier Times, click here.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Natural Gas Should Not Be a Transition Fuel

Mary Sweeney of Upstate NY, writing on the Susquehanna County Gas Forum online, writes:

The gas industry has played up the possibility of using natural gas as a "transition" fuel. However, the gas locked up in the shale will take decades to extract. Moreover, that gas will be expensive to extract and extracting the gas presents very serious public health and environmental problems. In the end, even taking into account unconventional sources like shale gas and coal bed methane, this country does NOT possess that much natural gas in comparison to what is available in Russia and the Middle East.

If we convert more and more of our energy usage to natural gas, it will not be long before we are forced to turn to Russia and the Middle East for our natural gas. Meanwhile, we will have trashed some of our most valuable resources (e.g. water) in trying to squeeze more gas from the shale.

Rather than investing a HUGE amount of money in drilling the shale and then trying to clean up the environmental and public health mess that results, it would make a great deal more sense to invest that money in renewable energy sources. And if we get truly serious about energy efficiency and conservation, we will use up less fossil fuel in the meantime. That is the way to make the transition--by using less coal, oil, and natural gas. A transition based on conservation can begin immediately, will help the environment rather than harming it, and will save people money, because using less energy costs less money. Needless to say, the fossil fuel industry has its own reasons for NOT wanting people to conserve--they would like us all to keep buying fossil fuel, regardless of the environmental and health problems that will result.

We don't need a transitional fuel. We need to understand that fossil fuel use is not the way to go forward, that we have already wasted several decades and a lot of money pretending that fossil fuel use could go on and on, and that we need to stop repeating past errors and get serious about conservation and renewable energy.

My sentiments exactly! -Peacegirl

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!