• 2 days PDVSA Booted From Caribbean Terminal Over Unpaid Bills
  • 2 days Russia Warns Ukraine Against Recovering Oil Off The Coast Of Crimea
  • 2 days Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 2 days Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 2 days Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 2 days Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 2 days Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 2 days New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 2 days Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 2 days Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 3 days Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 3 days British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 3 days Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 3 days Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 3 days Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 3 days OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 3 days London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 3 days Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 3 days Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 4 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 4 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 4 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 4 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 4 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 4 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 5 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 5 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 5 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 5 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 5 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 5 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 5 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 5 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 5 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 6 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 6 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 6 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 6 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 6 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 6 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham is a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate change, energy policy and geopolitics. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.

More Info

Why U.S. Should Be Cautious About LNG Exports

Why U.S. Should Be Cautious About LNG Exports

After much debate, the U.S. is moving ahead with liquid natural gas exports, but it might want to study Australia’s experience to understand the possible consequences.

Rapid growth in East Asia has been feeding demand for liquid natural gas (LNG) for several years, but the shutdown of almost all of Japan’s nuclear reactors in 2011 super-charged LNG demand in the region. As a result, LNG prices skyrocketed, and major natural gas producers across the globe have rushed to take advantage of high prices.

Australia has been particularly aggressive. It is set to pass Qatar as the world’s largest exporter of LNG thanks to the massive amount of export capacity currently under construction. When the slew of LNG export terminals are completed over the next four to five years, Australia’s LNG export capacity could jump from 22 million tonnes per year (mtpa) to well over 80 mtpa.

Related: With LNG Export Battle Won, Are Oil Exports Next?

The logic behind the export campaign is that exporting commodities can boost trade balance, create jobs, and incentivize production.

The same arguments have been used in the United States to justify exporting the abundant shale gas from places like the Marcellus and Eagle Ford shale plays. But lost amid the debate is the effect on domestic prices.

The Wall Street Journal has outlined the unintended consequences of exporting LNG from Australia. The export push has caused Australia’s domestic natural gas prices to triple over the last several years. The average household in New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state, could see its gas bill spike by US$200 this year. And one study suggests that the bills could keep adding up as more natural gas is diverted for exports.

Behind the phenomenon is some basic math. Natural gas producers can fetch a higher price by exporting their product rather than selling it domestically. As a result, there is a corresponding increase in domestic prices as supplies tighten. In other words, natural gas goes to the highest bidder, and when opening up to exports, there is a much broader pool of bidders.

There is good reason to believe that the experience is not translatable to the situation in the United States because of the enormous differences between the two countries. For example, the U.S. is the largest natural gas producer in the world, and it extracts more than 15 times the rate of Australia.

More importantly, the proportion of exports to production is wildly different between the two countries. By the end of the decade Australia will be exporting three times more natural gas than what it consumes. By comparison, when construction is completed, the U.S. may end up exporting only 10 percent of today’s domestic consumption levels.

Nevertheless, even if the price impact will be a difference of magnitude, the U.S. still could see domestic natural gas prices rise. That is because exports will also be competing with very strong domestic demand. Coal plants are going the way of the dinosaur, and natural gas-fired power plants are quickly replacing them. Natural gas is also increasingly being used as a feedstock for plastics, fertilizers, and other petrochemical products.

Natural gas demand tends to hit seasonal peaks in the winter, and winter peaks have gotten bigger, as the EIA chart below demonstrates.

US Natural Gas Consumption

The last winter in particular highlighted the increasingly importance of natural gas in America’s energy balance. The cold freeze on the east coast sent prices rocketing upwards as homes and businesses tried to stay warm.

Related: Three Trends Energy Investors Should be Following

U.S. vulnerability to price spikes will increase in the future for two reasons: we will be relying more and more on natural gas, and at the same time, more natural gas will be sent overseas. This could lead to temporary shortages, and as a result, potentially worse price spikes than what we saw in early 2014.

Proponents of exports often argue that the benefits – improved trade balance, jobs, more production – outweigh the costs. That may be true when benefits and costs are balanced out in the aggregate. But the benefits accrue to only certain constituencies, while the costs are borne by others.

This is all not to say that exports are a bad idea. But it is important to keep in mind Australia’s experience. LNG exporters and natural gas producers will profit, but individual households could pick up the tab for higher gas prices.

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (ret.) on October 05 2014 said:
    This excellent article touches on, but does not develop basic facts. Energy, here natural gas, is necessary for survival, and survival depends on cost. Raise the cost of survival and masses suffer. Technology dominates cost, and competition. When roads and model T Fords permitted weekly shopping on the other side of the mountain, the company store in the local valley could not charge high prices. When you can make money shipping LNG across the ocean, prices will climb, but this also incentives more production, which forces prices down. When the government takes a decade to permit an XL pipe spool, this raises the cost of survival. When they block uranium fission, or coal combustion, or lard on regulations, the cost, as President Obama stated, skyrockets. Energy intensive industries, smoke stack industries, leave, go off shore.

    LNG transport and handling is new, and lethally dangerous. Uncontrolled release and combustion can cause hideous damage, simply due to the rate of combustion. (Unlike forest fires which take weeks to burn the same energy.) All energy is inherently technical and dangerous.

    The professions' role is to define safety standards, smart people know what is needed. The government's role is to break up monopolies, facilitate the upgrade of societal standard of living, and minimize armed conflict with other nations. And keep its thumb off the scales of commerce, let supply and demand evolve.

    Commerce in LNG is simply one area, energy.
  • Ron Wagner on October 05 2014 said:
    It would be good to explain why the Northeast suffered a price hike. It hasn't built pipelines from the states that allow fracking, and there are still opponents slowing the construction!
  • Tim Bilsky on October 06 2014 said:
    We can't forget what Stephen Chu, President Obama's Energy Secretary once said famously that he'd like to see gas prices boosted to $8/gallon. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022912-602761-obama-is-not-fighting-to-lower-gas-prices-.htm

    When you're dealing with this mentality, "caution" is being forced.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News