The Political Plot Thickens As LNG Export Approvals Trickle In

The Political Plot Thickens As LNG Export Approvals Trickle In

by | published August 8th, 2013

The anticipated liquefied natural gas (LNG) export boom has taken another small step forward.

After signing off on just two export licenses, a third proposal was given the green light by the Department of Energy yesterday.

This one belongs to a joint venture of British major BG Group – available via American Depository Receipts (ADRs) in the U.S. (OTC: BRGYY) – and the Southern Union division of Energy Transfer Partners, LP (NYSE: ETP).

The joint venture is now approved to export of up to 2 billion cubic feet of LNG a day for the next 20 years from a new facility at Lake Charles, LA to any nation not on a sanctions list.

It follows the first permit granted two years ago to Cheniere Energy (NYSE: LNG), and a second given to the privately-owned Freeport LNG Expansion LP in May.

All three are Gulf Coast terminals and neither is limited to the countries that have free trade agreements with the U.S. That significantly expands the likely number of future LNG export contracts.

But two potential stumbling blocks have emerged…

Concerns About Bureaucratic Delays

The first involves the delays in receiving the licenses. Initially, the DOE said they had expected to take about eight weeks between reviewing the some dozen current applications. However, the Freeport and Lake Charles approvals took longer than that.

Market insiders assume the process will be streamlined. But the nagging concern is that the time required to put terminals on line could be an impediment to American involvement in global trade.

“This is a narrow time frame,” one of my LNG contacts has acknowledged. “By the time DOE has its act together this train may have left the station.”

There is certainly a double meaning expressed here. A “train” is also the term used to describe an LNG processing facility.

As I have noted in OEI previously, the increase in LNG traffic is the single most decisive change in worldwide energy transfers to hit this decade.

If the terminals being built internationally for both liquefying natural gas and then turning it back into a gas on the other end are any indication, LNG has become the route of choice for immediate energy diversification in many parts of the globe.

The Expanding Market for LNG

In Asia, LNG is widely perceived as decisive in moving its energy sector from a heavy dependence upon the region’s inferior coal reserves. That has led to huge production projects in Australia and Papua New Guinea which are already represented in the investment portfolios for both Energy Advantage and Energy Inner Circle.

Meanwhile, Western Europe regards LNG as the tool for breaking its dependence on long-term, take-or-pay contracts (requiring a minimum amount of gas be taken or paid for as if the end user had imported that volume) that have their price determined by a basket of crude oil and oil products.

Take-or-pay contracts have long been Russian major Gazprom’s (depository receipts in the U.S. via OTC: OGZPY) approach of choice and Europe has had few options but to comply.

The arrival of LNG, on the other hand, along with the opening of several major receiving terminals and the prospect of additional facilities to come, will likely supply enough reliable import volume for local spot markets to sell at discount to take-or-pay pipeline rates.

Even Africa is on the LNG bandwagon. North African sources are providing increasing export volume, even with the ongoing political unrest.

And further south, terminal plans are emerging to provide a genuine diversification of the energy balance and the first real chance for lower energy costs.

Of course, as little as five years ago, the assumption in North America (one I shared) was that imported LNG would become a major growth story in the U.S. Some estimates even suggested imported LNG would account for 15% of total U.S. volume as early as 2020.

That was before the advent of huge shale and other unconventional gas reserves. These days, the only reason LNG would be imported into the country would be to provide an arbitrage or contract swap opportunity.

In contrast, the surfeit of new gas has resulted in wide (and largely justified) talk of American self sufficiency. In tandem, the rush to export as LNG emerged.

In fact, from zero export today, even Gazprom now acknowledges that U.S. LNG exports will comprise as much as 8% of the world market by 2020. Meanwhile, other figures put the target at closer to 12%.

A Growing Political Hurdle

And that brings up the second overarching difficulty…

Opposition is building from those who claim LNG exports will end up increasing prices for Americans.

Here the argument is that exporting the largess is self-defeating, since it would worsen the economic recovery at home by accelerating energy costs. The position is at least indirectly supported by new figures from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).

In June, the EIA revised the estimates of global shale gas reserves first put out in April 2011. While the new estimates point to 32% of gas worldwide being held in shale, they also call into question where the recoverable reserves are located. In the first report, the U.S. was listed second after China. In the latest revision, the U.S. is now fourth behind China, Argentina, and Algeria.

Putting aside my long-standing criticism of EIA figures being too conservative, and even accepting the new American positioning, the analysis still posits 665 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas in the continental U.S. That is without including conventional gas, coal bed methane, or tight gas. The figure still expands our horizon of ample readily available reserves by at least four decades (a huge figure in the business).

Nonetheless, the attack is underway.

Allowing LNG exports, the argument runs, is tantamount to increasing living costs for every resident in the country. This is having its effect.

In acknowledging the contentious nature of the debate, the DOE said yesterday it would evaluate the impact of each subsequent export license application based on “the public interest with due regard to the effect on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals.”

That means we shouldn’t expect any quickening in what has become a political lightening rod for some. The balancing of internal needs with prospects for improving trade revenue is of course necessary.

But if recent past experience is any guide, we should expect to count the licenses approved this year on one hand.

Please Note: Kent cannot respond to your comments and questions directly. But he can address them in future alerts... so keep an eye on your inbox. If you have a question about your subscription, please email us directly at

  1. Rom
    August 8th, 2013 at 14:54 | #1

    Doesn’t the slow down or restriction positively impact the Cheniere project that has been licensed for 2 years?

  2. Paul
    August 8th, 2013 at 18:04 | #2

    America throws away natural gas. How can selling it abroad increase domestic costs?
    Many shale oil wells produce natural gas. That gas is flared at the well head. What was once a dark countryside at night in north western North Dakota is now ablaze with flares every mile in every direction. Search “bakken at night aerial photo” online to see what I mean.
    This is natural gas being thrown away.
    North Dakota law requires the gas to be put into a pipeline after a year of flaring. Otherwise the flares would burn for the life of the well because taking the gas to market doesn’t make money.
    This is the supply side of the natural gas market. Adding demand will clean up the skyline at home without increasing our heating bills.

  3. yngso
    August 9th, 2013 at 07:54 | #3

    Natgas as light vehicle fuel maybe makes more sense in countries with tax as the greater part of the price of gasoline.
    Europe gets natgas from closer to home, so exports east and south are maybe more interesting. The improved Panama Canal will help, but ports on the Pacific coast…

  4. jim
    August 13th, 2013 at 13:21 | #4

    If Obama would just approve the Keystone Pipeline, approve some more export licenses for LNG and stay out of the way, we could make major strides toward solving unemployment as well as the national debt. Then we could pull out of all those muslim countries, and maybe even give quite a few of their people pistols and a handfull of ammunition, and wish them well. Just kidding about the pistols.

  5. Bruce
    August 13th, 2013 at 14:27 | #5

    What might this mean for ETP?

  6. Dom
    August 17th, 2013 at 19:18 | #6

    So anti-exporters think exporting too much LNG will result in LNG sky-rocketing in price here…which in turn will hinder non-oil/LNG company’s growth…

    Sounds somehwat plausible, but perhaps the US could regulate exporting LNG to ensure this doesnt happen?

    I hear of countries like Venezuela that are oil powerhouses paying 10c or some relatively cheap figure for gas at the gas station. I’m no expert on all of this, but seems we could do the same with LNG.

    Perhaps this could be a good topic for your next article Kent? Haven’t seen this topic addressed much before, exporting LNG hurting growth that is.


  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.