Carl Pope: The Big Lie on Natural Gas Exports

Carl Pope: The Big Lie on Natural Gas Exports.

Powerful Friends and Cozy Relationships Helped Cheniere Cut Through Regulation « DC BureauDC Bureau

Powerful Friends and Cozy Relationships Helped Cheniere Cut Through Regulation « DC BureauDC Bureau.

EU-Canada trade agreement threatens fracking bans

EU-Canada trade agreement threatens fracking bans.

Stephanie Low via googlegroups.com 
3:21 PM (26 minutes ago)

to STEPHlow
Folks,

Please read the info on the EU-Canada agreement below. I know trade agreements don’t look very sexy, but if passed, they’ll have a HUGE impact on our lives. Take a look at the SClub Fact Sheet here which highlights the TPP’s fracking aspect http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/TPP-LNG%20Factsheet%20FINAL.pdf
Relevant excerpt:
The TPP may allow for significantly increased exports of liquefied natural gas without the careful study or  adequate protections necessary to safeguard the American public. This could mean an increase of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking…. It would also likely cause an increase in natural gas and electricity prices, impacting consumers, manufacturers, workers, and increasing the use of dirty coal power.

And that’s just for starters: the TPP would violate U.S. sovereignty by subjecting our environmental regs to regulation by foreign tribunals.
Relevant excerpt:
To date, corporations such as Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical have launched more than 450 cases against 89 governments. Nearly $675 million has been paid to corporations under U.S. FTAs and bilateral investment treaties, with about 70% of money going to oil, gas, and mining industries.

This is a BIG deal, especially since Japan just joined the 11 countries already negotiating the texts. The TPP would cover 40% of all global trade, and it wouldn’t be to anyone’s advantage but the 600 transnational corporations that have access to the negotiations, as opposed to the public, the press and Congress!

We need to get informed, get active, make sure our congressional reps get hold of the agreed-on texts, share them with us, and pledge to vote against Fast Track, thus allowing Congress to keep its constitutionally assigned  right to discuss and amend trade agreements.

Attend the Tuesday, May 28th, 6:30 PM, event described in the attached SAVE THE DATE, sponsored by Sierra Club and All Souls Unitarian Church in NYC to find out more and GET INVOLVED.

Thanks!
Stephanie

US shale gas to heat British homes within five years | Environment | guardian.co.uk

US shale gas to heat British homes within five years | Environment | guardian.co.uk.

Will LNG Exports Benefit the United States Economy?

Ex 5_Synapse-LNG-Exports-Study.pdf.

Here (attached) is our critique of NERA LNG export report.  I think that

you will enjoy it.  Please circulate as widely as you like, and blog

about it, etc.  We wrote it for people to read!

Bruce Biewald

CEO, Synapse Energy Economics

485 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 2

Cambridge, MA 02139

Main Synapse phone: 617 661 3248

Direct phone: 617 453 7022

www.synapse-energy.com

Exports of U.S. Gas May Fall Short of High Hopes – NYTimes.com

Exports of U.S. Gas May Fall Short of High Hopes – NYTimes.com.

DOE Study re Export of LNG–Public Comment due

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.
———————————

Ed Markey letter on Natural Gas Exports study by DOE

2012-12-14_Chu_NERA.pdf (application/pdf Object).

Sending Natural Gas Abroad – NYTimes.com

Sending Natural Gas Abroad – NYTimes.com.

Doctors Urge U.S. to Block Gas Export Terminals – NYTimes.com

Doctors Urge U.S. to Block Gas Export Terminals – NYTimes.com.