UPDATE 3-U.S. approves natural gas exports from third terminal | Reuters
August 8, 2013
UPDATE 3-U.S. approves natural gas exports from third terminal | Reuters.
DOE Study re Export of LNG–Public Comment due
December 24, 2012
A – create your comment, using tips from C below
B – email your comment to LNGStudy@hq.doe.gov.
Put 2012 LNG Export Study in the subject line.
C. Assumptions to critique (and destroy) in your comments:
1) the U.S. is projected to gain net economic benefits from allowing LNG exports.
2) for every one of the market scenarios examined, net economic benefits increased as the level of LNG exports increased. Under these conditions, allowing exports of LNG would cause no change in natural gas prices and do no harm to the overall economy. U.S. natural gas prices increase when the U.S. exports LNG. But the global market limits how high U.S. natural gas prices can rise under pressure of LNG exports because importers will not purchase U.S. exports if U.S. wellhead price rises above the cost of competing supplies.
This is a fracking gross assumption as no one knows what will or can happen globally, e.g. war, other countries become more fed up with the U.S. and its imperialism, famine here and in other countries, devastating storms,etc.
3) Theoretical scenarios were created that resulted in these theoretical assumptions.
4) “Across all these scenarios, the U.S. was projected to gain net economic benefits from allowing
LNG exports. Moreover, for every one of the market scenarios examined, net economic benefits
increased as the level of LNG exports increased. In particular, scenarios with unlimited exports
always had higher net economic benefits than corresponding cases with limited exports.
In all of these cases, benefits that come from export expansion more than outweigh the losses
from reduced capital and wage income to U.S. consumers, and hence LNG exports have net
economic benefits in spite of higher domestic natural gas prices. This is exactly the outcome that
economic theory describes when barriers to trade are removed.”
These assumptions are based on global free trade economic theory created in computers and in the fevered brains of academics and govt. consultants, not on the on the ground experiences of people living in shale drilling areas in the U.S.
That is, the effects on the air, water, soil, psychology, sociology, etc. of shale communities are NOT factored in.
5) Producing large quantities of shale at low cost, a desirable requisite for the theoretical outcomes to work according to the NERA study provided to the DOE (study and FED Register notice attached), is EXACTLY one of the main problems with shale drilling.
Cutting corners, haste, lack of transparency, confidentiality agreements when contamination of drinking water, pollution of soils, death of animals, human sickness, etc. occur, fracturing of community society, costs of increased crime, housing costs, externalization of costs onto shale drilling communities, bribing of electeds with huge amounts of campaign contributions or fire trucks, etc.
None of this is factored into the economic theory driving the arguments for export of LNG other than in this dismissive comment in the study’s summary – “How increased LNG exports will affect different socioeconomic groups will depend on their income sources. Like other trade measures, LNG exports will cause shifts in industrial output and employment and in sources of income. Overall, both total labor compensation and income from investment are projected to decline, and income to owners of natural gas resources will increase. Different socioeconomic groups depend on different sources of income, though through retirement savings an increasingly large number of workers share in the benefits of higher income to natural resource companies whose shares they own. Nevertheless, impacts will not be positive for all groups in the economy. Households with income solely from wages or government transfers, in particular, might not participate in these benefits.”
Hope this helps.
———————————
LOOK-BEFORE-YOU-LEAP: LPG Exports
December 3, 2012
LOOK-BEFORE-YOU-LEAP.pdf (application/pdf Object).
LOOK BEFORE THE LNG LEAP:
Why Policymakers and the Public Need Fair Disclosure Before Exports of Fracked Gas Start
Sierra Club
U.S. GAO – Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks
November 13, 2012
What GAO Found
Estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Potential Gas Committee–three organizations that estimate the size of these resources–have increased over the last 5 years, which could mean an increase in the nation’s energy portfolio. For example, in 2012, EIA estimated that the amount of technically recoverable shale gas in the United States was 482 trillion cubic feet–an increase of 280 percent from EIA’s 2008 estimate. However, according to EIA and USGS officials, estimates of the size of shale oil and gas resources in the United States are highly dependent on the data, methodologies, model structures, and assumptions used to develop them. In addition, less is known about the amount of technically recoverable shale oil than shale gas, in part because large-scale production of shale oil has been under way for only the past few years. Estimates are based on data available at a given point in time and will change as additional information becomes available. In addition, domestic shale oil and gas production has experienced substantial growth; shale oil production increased more than fivefold from 2007 to 2011, and shale gas production increased more than fourfold from 2007 to 2011.
Oil and gas development, whether conventional or shale oil and gas, pose inherent environmental and public health risks, but the extent of these risks associated with shale oil and gas development is unknown, in part, because the studies GAO reviewed do not generally take into account the potential long-term, cumulative effects. For example, according to a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed, shale oil and gas development poses risks to air quality, generally as the result of (1) engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, (2) emissions from diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, (3) gas that is flared (burned) or vented (released directly into the atmosphere) for operational reasons, and (4) unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment or impoundments–temporary storage areas. Similarly, a number of studies and publications GAO reviewed indicate that shale oil and gas development poses risks to water quality from contamination of surface water and groundwater as a result of erosion from ground disturbances, spills and releases of chemicals and other fluids, or underground migration of gases and chemicals. For example, tanks storing toxic chemicals or hoses and pipes used to convey wastes to the tanks could leak, or impoundments containing wastes could overflow as a result of extensive rainfall. According to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s 2011 Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, spilled, leaked, or released chemicals or wastes could flow to a surface water body or infiltrate the ground, reaching and contaminating subsurface soils and aquifers. In addition, shale oil and gas development poses a risk to land resources and wildlife habitat as a result of constructing, operating, and maintaining the infrastructure necessary to develop oil and gas; using toxic chemicals; and injecting fluids underground. However, the extent of these risks is unknown. Further, the extent and severity of environmental and public health risks identified in the studies and publications GAO reviewed may vary significantly across shale basins and also within basins because of location- and process-specific factors, including the location and rate of development; geological characteristics, such as permeability, thickness, and porosity of the formations; climatic conditions; business practices; and regulatory and enforcement activities.
Why GAO Did This Study
New applications of horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracturing–in which water, sand, and chemical additives are injected under high pressure to create and maintain fractures in underground formations–allow oil and natural gas from shale formations (known as “shale oil” and “shale gas”) to be developed. As exploration and development of shale oil and gas have increased–including in areas of the country without a history of oil and natural gas development–questions have been raised about the estimates of the size of these resources, as well as the processes used to extract them.
GAO was asked to determine what is known about the (1) size of shale oil and gas resources and the amount produced from 2007 through 2011 and (2) environmental and public health risks associated with the development of shale oil and gas. GAO reviewed estimates and data from federal and nongovernmental organizations on the size and production of shale oil and gas resources. GAO also interviewed federal and state regulatory officials, representatives from industry and environmental organizations, oil and gas operators, and researchers from academic institutions.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency for review. The Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Energy did not provide comments.
For more information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.
GDACC 
