Subscribe to Money Morning get daily headlines subscribe now! Money Morning Private Briefing today's private briefing Access Your Profit Alerts

The Government Foil to Energy Independence (and Profit)

As the rush to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) gathers steam, the Energy Advantage portfoliois primed for even bigger gains.

Make no mistake, LNG exports are now set to hand us one of the best investment opportunities of the decade.

That's a stunning reversal from just seven years ago, when everyone agreed the United States would be using LNG imports to meet 15% of its gas needs by 2020.

However, the unconventional shale boom (shale, tight, and coal bed methane) has changed everything we used to think about natural gas.

Now, even the most conservative Russian estimates acknowledge that the U.S. could be providing between 6% and 8% of all LNG exports worldwide by 2020.

In fact, Cheniere Energy Inc. (NYSE: LNG) has already garnered no fewer than five huge, multi-billion dollar, 20-year contracts with some of the largest European and Asian importers.

But new developments have suddenly thrown up another hurdle that threatens to delay all of this economic promise.

Here's the countermove that's brewing in Washington, D.C…

A New Wrinkle in the LNG Export Debate

At the eleventh hour, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has now stepped in.

At issue is the application by Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE) for permission to export LNG from a terminal at Cameron, La.

You see, despite the fact that the Department of Energy (DOE) authorized exports in this case over a month ago, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) must still approve all export permits.

That's where the EPA has figured in.

The U.S. environmental regulator has again raised concerns about what the export of LNG may mean to the aggregate production of natural gas.

Specifically, the EPA has recommended that FERC review the proposed Sempra Energy export project to determine the potential environmental effects of more natural gas drilling. The EPA released its findings on March 3, but FERC only published its findings on March 28.

In its findings, the EPA urged FERC to weigh the indirect greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental effects that would result from the increase in gas drilling required to supply exports from the Cameron plant.

Now both sides on the issue of drilling regard the EPA assessment as a new wrinkle in the debate over how much LNG should be exported from the United States.

FERC should "consider the extent to which implementation of the proposed project could increase the demand for domestic natural gas extraction, as well as potential environmental impacts associated with the potential increased production of natural gas," the EPA said in response to the commission's draft review of the project.

An Exercise in "Keystone XL Logic"

Of course, we've already seen an application of this type of reasoning in another recent policy decision.

In providing what amounted to support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) released by the U.S. Department of State concluded that the pipeline project would not directly lead to increased heavy oil and oil sands production in Canada.

In other words, the "indirect" impact on production argument has already been employed.

Join the conversation. Click here to jump to comments…

About the Author

Dr. Kent Moors is an internationally recognized expert in oil and natural gas policy, risk assessment, and emerging market economic development. He serves as an advisor to many U.S. governors and foreign governments. Kent details his latest global travels in his free Oil & Energy Investor e-letter. He makes specific investment recommendations in his newsletter, the Energy Advantage. For more active investors, he issues shorter-term trades in his Energy Inner Circle

Read full bio

  1. Woolval | April 3, 2014

    EPA… Economic Prevention Authority…

  2. Jeff P. in Canada | April 3, 2014

    To the EPA and other environmentalists who are still pushing the "global warming" B.S.:
    Two million years ago the entire planet was either tropical or sub-tropical. What humans are doing to warm the climate is like pissing into the ocean. The planet is going through its natural return to its tropical/sub-tropical state. Nothing that we do is going to change that unless we create something akin to what happened when Earth was hit by a giant meteor. A nuclear winter might work. Maybe you radical environmentalists want to consider that. Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to give them any ideas.

    • Robert in Vancouver | April 5, 2014

      But enviro-nuts don't call it 'global warming' anymore, because the facts show there hasn't been any.

      So now they call it 'climate change' because the climate is always changing and will keep on changing no matter what we do.

      Calling it 'climate change' ensures their tax-free donations will keep coming in from people and governments who have an anti-oil, anti-business, and anti-progress agenda.

  3. David Gallagher | April 4, 2014

    Eventually your pool (oceans) becomes full of piss and other rubbish n …t.
    Not sure if homo sapiens were around 2 million years ago. I believe it does warant us having an open look at what damage has been done by man in a much shorter period though. DG

    • HerpDerp | April 5, 2014

      The biggest problem is that we're not actually taking an "open look," as demonstrated by Dr. Richard Lindzen's paper here on the shady practices involved in climate science research:

    • Robert in Vancouver | April 5, 2014

      OK David.

      So what exactly has man done to destroy the planet in such a short period of time?

      – developed cures for many diseases that used to kill people when they were kids or teens
      – invented electricity which allows us to read books in the dark and live healthier longer lives
      – invented heating systems so we don't have to burn logs to keep warm, or freeze
      – invented the flush toilet and waste-water treatment plants to give us a clean environment
      – invented the internet which allows people to learn and self-develop
      – created organizations that help people around the world in need of help
      – created governmental systems that ensure we have basic human rights instead of living like serfs, or worse

      The list is much longer. But anyone who thinks the above list is bad must be a radical environmental-nut.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Some HTML is OK