Can the U.S. Become the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas?

By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From

The Department of Energy gave a Texas-based energy company permission Tuesday to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to countries with which the U.S. does not have free trade agreements.

Golden Pass Products will build an LNG export terminal capable of shipping 2.21 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas around the world. It’s the first LNG export terminal approved by the Trump administration, adding to the already 19.2 Bcf/d of exports approved by the Obama administration.


The export facility will create an estimated 45,000 direct and indirect jobs over the next five years, according to Golden Pass. The company estimates the construction operation of the facility will generate up to $3.6 billion in federal and state tax revenues.

The Trump administration said the terminal’s approval would help make the U.S. a “dominant” energy force in the world.

“This announcement is another example of President Trump’s leadership in making the United States an energy dominant force,” Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in a press statement. “This is not only good for our economy and American jobs but also assists other countries with their energy security.”

U.S. energy ascendancy will have political implications in Europe where about half the continent’s natural gas supply comes from state-owned Russian companies. Foreign policy experts see U.S. gas exports as a way to undermine Russia’s energy dominance in the region.


U.S. consumers would deal with minimal costs to export LNG and it would lead to huge economic benefits, according to a study published in December 2015 by the DOE. The study found exporting American LNG would provide huge environmental benefits as well. The report states exporting LNG will help “address a variety of environmental concerns in the power‐generation sector.”

Exporting natural gas is likely to be a growth industry, as global demand for natural gas is expected to be 50 percent higher by 2035 than it is now, according to the International Energy Agency. Demand for imports of LNG increased 27 percent in the United Kingdom last year alone.
Read more:


The shale revolution enabled U.S. natural gas production to surge out of a 30-yr  doldrum:

""Newly discovered evidence that polar bears, climate change, and the sun are intimately connected in ways never envisioned.

No wonder the sun seems to be slowing down.


With apologies to the French, and everybody else for that matter.

” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”alignnone size-full wp-image-3396″ src=”” alt=”chart (1)” scale=”0″>

Figure 1.  U.S. natural gas production (Bcf).  Source: EIA

The surge in production has been accompanied by a surge in exports:

Today at 00 GMT (5PM PST) a new month started. Every time a new month of statistics starts being logged by WordPress for Watts Up With That, I say to myself, “there’s no way I’ll get this sort of traffic again”. And yet, again I’m surprised that WUWT not only met last months stats, but significantly exceeded them.Thank you again, loyal readers.

Click for full sized image

It was one year ago that I moved from the Typepad blog to WordPress, and as you can see from above, the growth has been steady, except for one month, April. which had a slight dip.

For September 2008 the total was 846,193 page views, up from 667,215 page views in August 2008.

But there is a caveat, I think the real numbers are just shy of 800,000, because on the weekend of 09/20 and 09/21 I got quite a bit of unexpected traffic that I’m not sure is real or not. During that time, we got a lot of Spam on one particular older entry comparing UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, and GISS, but not anywhere near the numbers specific to that post, shown below:

Blog Stats Increase due to DOS “something”

Saturday 09/20     23,486
Sunday   09/21
Monday  09/22       1,006

Total: 49,811

You can read about it here in this entry

I checked with WordPress support, twice, and they assured me that the numbers are real, saying:


Our stats expert has had a look and found no evidence of a DoS or anything untoward.  He says “the most plausible reason is an email newsletter featuring the URL, or else some other non-browser app loading the URL such as a feed reader. I have not been able to find any evidence of of a DDOS attempt or other “foul play.”

Separately, I’ve checked our security logs and see no other signs of activity that would normally indicate a blog under attack.

In short: we’re quite sure the traffic is genuine and doesn’t correspond with an attack of any kind.

Kind regards,
WordPress Support

Even so, I’m unconvinced. I got not one single comment added on that posting during the onslaught of traffic, almost 50,000 page views, which tells me the numbers aren’t real, no matter what WordPress support says.

Therefore I have decided to take the step of publishing an “adjusted” set of numbers this month. The difference is that instead of inflating the numbers, such as GISTEMP and USHCN adjustments do, I’m reducing them to what I consider a truly representative value for the month.

Raw WUWT September numbers:           846,193 page views

WUWT Spam Uncertainty numbers:           -49,811 page views (from 09/20 to 09/22)

Final Adjusted WUWT September numbers:    796,382 page views

Still, not too shabby.

” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”alignnone size-full wp-image-3405″ src=”” alt=”chart (2)” scale=”0″>

Figure 2. U.S. Natural gas exports (mmcf).  Source: EIA

LNG exports are expected to be the driving force in the U.S. natural gas business over the next 30 years.

EIA: LNG exports expected to drive growth in U.S. natural gas trade


WASHINGTON, DC — The United States is expected to become a net exporter of natural gas on an average annual basis by 2018, according to the recently released Annual Energy Outlook 2017 (AEO2017) Reference case. The transition to net exporter is driven by declining pipeline imports, growing pipeline exports, and increasing exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). In most AEO2017 cases, the United States is also projected to become a net exporter of total energy in the 2020s in large part because of increasing natural gas exports.


The growth of natural gas exports, especially from new LNG terminals, sustains continued growth in U.S. natural gas production. In the Reference case, natural gas production is projected to grow through 2020 at about the same rate (3.6% annual average) as it has since 2005, when production of natural gas from shale formations began to grow rapidly. After 2020, natural gas production grows at a lower rate (1.0% annual average) in the Reference case as net export growth moderates, energy efficiencies increase, and natural gas prices slowly rise.

Natural gas production and trade vary with different assumptions for resources and technology, macroeconomic growth, and world oil prices. In the High Oil and Gas Resource and Technology case, larger natural gas resource estimates and improved drilling technology lead to higher domestic natural gas production, lower U.S. natural gas prices, and therefore, greater natural gas exports. Most of the increase in natural gas trade is from LNG exports, which grow to 8.4 Tcf (23 Bcfgd) in 2040.

However, LNG exports are highest in a case with high world oil prices. In the High Oil Price case, when consumers move away from petroleum products when other energy sources become economically favorable, global LNG demand increases and U.S. LNG exports reach 9.2 Tcf, or 25 Bcfgd. Compared with other LNG suppliers, U.S. LNG has the advantage of domestic spot prices that are less sensitive to global oil prices.

Conversely, in a scenario with more pessimistic assumptions for oil and gas resources and technology or a scenario with low world oil prices, LNG exports still increase, but remain below Reference case levels through 2040.

World Oil

The EIA’s reference case projection would make the U.S. a dominant player in the global LNG market.

Click for print sized Al Gore Halloween Mask, courtesy
SAFETY NOTE: Please don’t use this image to frighten children, oh wait, that happens in schools everyday when AIT is shown, nevermind…

From The West Australian newspaper

Climate change could haunt humanity forever: Garnaut

30th September 2008, 14:00 WST

Failure to deal with climate change now will “haunt humanity” forever, the nation’s top greenhouse adviser has warned as he issued a rallying cry for action.

Professor Ross Garnaut has warmed to the idea of a deep, fast cut to Australia’s emissions in his final report, released today.

After infuriating green groups earlier this month by calling for a 10 per cent cut in Australia’s emissions by 2020, he’s now more open to a deeper 25 per cent cut.

Prof Garnaut issued a blunt assessment of the dangers of climate change as he launched the 620-page report.

“If we fail, on a balance of probabilities, the failure of our generation will haunt humanity until the end of time,” he told reporters in Canberra.

“We are entering territory here that humanity has not been in before.

“We will delude ourselves if we think that uncertainty about the climate change science… is a cause for delay.”

And Australia would probably be “the biggest loser” among developed countries from climate change, he said.

Prof Garnaut has recommended Australia push for a strong global climate pact, which would mean a 25 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.

“Strong mitigation, with Australia playing its proportionate part, is in Australia’s interests,” the report says.

This ambitious target would be in the context of a global deal to keep atmospheric carbon concentration to 450 parts per million (ppm).

However, Prof Garnaut is pessimistic about the possibility of the world agreeing to this “strong mitigation” deal.

If his scepticism proves correct, Prof Garnaut wants the nation to push for a global atmospheric carbon concentration of 550 ppm, which means Australia cutting emissions by 10 per cent by 2020.

And if no climate deal is forged out of the United Nations process, Australia should cut emissions by five per cent, Prof Garnaut says.

“There’s no point in hiding from reality,” he said about the possibility of a strong global climate pact.

He wants Australia to start emissions trading in 2010, and warned consumers would pay more.

“Consumers will wear the majority of the cost of an emissions trading scheme, paying more for a range of goods and services as businesses pass on the emissions price,” he said.

Electricity would cop the biggest price rise, rising by 37 per cent by 2020 if a deep emissions cut was made, and by 21 per cent if a more modest cut was made.

Other prices would rise too, although the impact would be less than the GST had been.

“Petrol and food prices, general prices, will increase to some extent as a result of the ETS.”

Prof Garnaut wants Australia to spend $2.7 billion a year on research on low-emissions technology.

He wants emissions trading to start in 2010, with a fixed, rising carbon permit price until 2012.

Less than 30 per cent of the permits should be given to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive companies. Coal-based electricity generators would not get free permits or compensation.

Prof Garnaut thinks half the revenue from emissions trading should go to households, 30 per cent to businesses, and 20 per cent  to research.

Householders would be able to access a “green credit” arrangement to install energy-smart appliances.

Prof Garnaut said the global financial crisis, which worsened overnight, was no excuse to delay acting on climate change.

“Financial crises are short-term phenomena … climate change is a long-term structural issue.”

He also lashed out at various business groups and industries which have warned they will have to shut plants, cut jobs and move offshore due to emissions trading.

“Why would you expect public policy advice in the national interest from the chief executive of a business who’s responsible to his board and shareholders for maximising the profit of that business?” Prof Garnaut asked.

“I think you are just looking at the world through the wrong end of the telescope if you think that that’s where you go to for objective public policy advice.”


” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”alignnone size-full wp-image-3410″ src=”” alt=”lng-exports-us” scale=”0″>

Figure 3.  EIA forecast of U.S. natural gas exports.  7 Tcf/yr = 19.2 Bcf/d          Source: EIA via World Oil

  • 19.2 Bcf/d = 3.4 mmBOE/d
  • Canada exported  3.2 million bbl/d of crude oil in 2013.

The EIA reference case would make the U.S. the “Canada” of natural gas exports in BOE.  It would also make our natural gas exports comparable to Russia’s at ~7 Tcf/yr.

If you look at page 180 of the 451-page monster bailout bill that easily passed the Senate yesterday (PDF here), you will see that it includes at Section 116 language about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide.” It also provides, at Section 117, for a “carbon audit of the tax code.”What could a provision about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide” and another provision about doing a “carbon audit” of the tax code possibly have to do with restoring confidence in Wall Street’s troubled credit and banking markets?

The answer: NOTHING.

This appears to be an attempt by global warming alarmists to lay the foundation for a carbon tax in the middle of another crisis, hoping nobody will notice.

Call your congressman now! More at Planet Gore


Apparently the bill with the carbon provisions existed already and was passed by the Senate. So, the Senate used the bill as a vehicle for advancing the bailout package. They couldn’t under the Constitution initiate a spending bill in the Senate, so they had to amend one that was already passed by the House.   Nonetheless, what was so urgent about the carbon provisions that they had to go with the bailout bill? Who decided which bill to use as the vehicle? Why not pick a non-controversial bill? My guess would be that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the call but it’s just a guess.

An expert offers a better explanation of one of the carbon-related provisions that is in the Bailout 2.0 bill.

According to this wizard of Wall Street, one provision provides preferential tax treatment for publicly-traded partnerships when they trade so-called carbon offsets. It was reportedly already passed in another bill: What’s so urgent about that tax provision that it absolutely had to go into another bill that aims to deal with a financial emergency? So, you can see it’s a little more complex than explained above. However, it’s still bad because it gives legitimacy to these strange indulgences known as carbon offsets and provides a tax incentive for trading them.

I am also informed by this source that Henry Paulson did not push to insert these two carbon-related provisions, but he certainly didn’t object to them, and his track record strongly suggests he would support them. When he ran Goldman Sachs, Paulson released a statement specifically endorsing carbon trading. As the Washington Post reported (June 1, 2006) reported: Last year under Paulson’s direction, Goldman Sachs issued an eight-page position paper on environmental policy, saying it accepts a scientific consensus, led by United Nations climate experts, that global warming poses one of the greatest threats this century.

Like Bush, the Goldman Sachs statement endorsed a market for businesses to buy and sell rights to emit greenhouse gases, saying it will spur technology advances by companies “that lead to a less carbon-intensive economy.” But, it added, “Voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate change problem,” a position contrary to the Bush administration’s view.

Source: Capital Research

The text of the provision on page 180 of the bill (PDF here) is in full below:

Lines 1-4


5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section
6 7704(d)(1) (defining qualifying income) is amended by in7
serting ‘‘or industrial source carbon dioxide’’ after ‘‘tim8
9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by
10 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment
11 of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
13 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall
14 enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
15 Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Inter16
nal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and
17 specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on car18
bon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate
19 the magnitude of those effects.
20 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date
21 of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of
22 Sciences shall submit to Congress a report containing the
23 results of study authorized under this section.
25 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
26 $1,500,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”alignnone size-full wp-image-3414″ src=”″ alt=”eia-natural-gas-1″ originalw=”720″ scale=”1.5″>

Figure 4.  EIA forecast of U.S. natural gas production and consumption.           Source: EIA via World Oil


Figure 5.  EIA forecast range of U.S. LNG exports.   Source: EIA via World Oil

  • 26 Bcf/d = 4.6 mmBOE/d
  • Russia exported  4.9 million bbl/d of crude oil in 2013.

The “High Oil Price” scenario would make the U.S. the “Russia” of natural gas exports in BOE.

U.S. exports of LNG are ramping up rapidly.

100th LNG Cargo Shipped from Sabine Pass Liquefaction Facility

Cheniere Energy announced today the 100th cargo of liquefied natural left the company’s Sabine Pass liquefaction facility on Saturday, April 1st, 2017. Including the 100th cargo, Cheniere has delivered cargoes to 18 countries on five continents since the first shipment on February 24, 2016.  “This milestone for Cheniere is a testament to the global demand for


One thought on “Can the U.S. Become the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s