Loading
“WE CAN NOWDELNGLNGLNGLNGLNGDELNGDE SPLNGLNGDCSPLNGLNGLNGLNGLNGDELNGUS Your browser does not support the element. assess the future of natural gas exports based on the facts.” So declared Jennifer Granholm, America’s outgoing energy secretary, in a statement published on December 17th. It accompanied a research report from the Department of Energy (o) on the implications of increased exports of American liquefied natural gas (). Despite her reassuring tone, this was a sharp-elbowed effort to place an obstacle in the way of the incoming Trump administration.Boosting exports ought to have been a point of policy agreement between Messrs Trump and Biden. The former had championed such exports during his first term as “freedom gas” that could help liberate Europe from the tyranny of piped Russian gas. When Vladimir Putin cut off supplies as punishment for Europe’s support for Ukraine, Mr Biden heartily supported American exports, which rose to a record high (and will go higher). Projects already approved are set to propel American exports to a level 50% above those of Qatar, a gas superpower, by 2030.The trouble began when Mr Biden bowed to election-year pressure from the subset of environmentalists hostile to . On January 26th he unveiled a controversial “temporary pause” on s so that the o’s boffins could scrutinise their environmental, security and economic impact. Though not an export ban, it cast a shadow over proposed long-term projects that would benefit countries lacking free-trade agreements with America (including important ones in Asia and Europe). The move rattled the industry’s financiers and upset those American allies who import .The ostudy, released this week, examines various scenarios for export growth and their potential impacts. Though the boffins’ language is muted, Ms Granholm paints a stark picture in her letter (which was leaked in advance to the ). Further “unfettered” expansion of exports would, she suggests, raise consumer prices, support an adversarial China and contribute to global warming. All three claims are worth examining.The government’s analysis suggests the “unfettered” boom would boost wholesale domestic gas prices by more than 30% and increase costs for the average American household by over $100 a year by 2050. This claim is politically combustible, but open to challenge. An analysis by & Global, a research firm, was also published this week. Looking at plausible export levels up to 2040, it finds no big price increase likely. It notes that exports and overall gas production have skyrocketed since 2010 but real gas prices in America have fallen by two-thirds. Abundant shale resources and continued innovation are likely to add to supply and keep prices in check.As for the claim that increasing American would help China, it is politically clever, playing as it does on anti-China sentiment in Washington, , but energetically dumb. Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer-winning historian of oil markets and vice chairman of & Global, notes that globally-traded molecules of frozen gas are fungible, and cargoes are regularly rerouted to the highest bidder. This became apparent during Europe’s energy shock when cargoes destined for Asia were resold to European bidders desperate to replace lost Russian gas. America gains no extra security by discouraging exports to China as it will simply get its from eager suppliers in Qatar, Australia or elsewhere.The third argument is more plausible. If exported gas is produced in ways that are reckless, as happened previously in America’s shale patch, a lot of climate-warming methane is released through needless venting and flaring, as well as via leaky pipes and shoddy kit.The Biden administration has introduced a fee on methane emissions from the hydrocarbon industry, as well as strong rules restricting those emissions. There is little chance of that fee surviving in a Republican-controlled Congress. If Mr Trump scraps those tough methane rules too, then future exports could indeed become a big climate worry.But that may not happen. Paul Bledsoe of American University points to new methane standards imposed by the European Union that provide an incentive for American exporters eyeing that huge market to cut their emissions of the gas. Giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron already have made investments to do so and support such regulation to avoid being tarnished by smaller and dirtier rivals. Also, if is made with low methane emissions, it is a much cleaner alternative to the coal burning in the developing world.So will the last-minute gas gambit keep Mr Trump from his promise to lift the pause? Not a chance, especially given that Chris Wright, his designated replacement for Ms Granholm at the top of the o, is himself a shale boss. Even so, reckons Kevin Book of ClearView, an energy research firm, the move looks likely to delay the new administration’s decision. The study has probably provided enough fodder for opponents to slow things down for a while by bringing lawsuits.
