• 6 minutes Trump vs. MbS
  • 11 minutes Can the World Survive without Saudi Oil?
  • 15 minutes WTI @ $75.75, headed for $64 - 67
  • 16 hours Satellite Moons to Replace Streetlamps?!
  • 1 day US top CEO's are spending their own money on the midterm elections
  • 10 hours EU to Splash Billions on Battery Factories
  • 14 hours U.S. Shale Oil Debt: Deep the Denial
  • 22 hours The Balkans Are Coming Apart at the Seams Again
  • 7 hours Owning stocks long-term low risk?
  • 10 hours The Dirt on Clean Electric Cars
  • 2 days OPEC Is Struggling To Deliver On Increased Output Pledge
  • 1 day Uber IPO Proposals Value Company at $120 Billion
  • 24 hours 47 Oil & Gas Projects Expected to Start in SE Asia between 2018 & 2025
  • 1 day A $2 Trillion Saudi Aramco IPO Keeps Getting Less Realistic
  • 2 days U.N. About Climate Change: World Must Take 'Unprecedented' Steps To Avert Worst Effects
  • 5 hours The end of "King Coal" in the Wales
Alt Text

This Is Good News For South American Gold Miners

India, the world’s fastest growing…

Alt Text

No.1 Copper Mining Nation Still Churning Out A Profit

Chile, the world’s leading copper…

Dave Forest

Dave Forest

Dave is Managing Geologist of the Pierce Points Daily E-Letter.

More Info

Trending Discussions

Which of These 2 Energy Events is Most Critical?

The most widely-followed news of the week has been Obama's big move against coal.

As reports have it, the president has mandated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to introduce significant curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. Presumably targeting emitters like coal plants.

There has also been speculation that the EPA will move to limit the amount of coal-fired power in America's generating mix. To just 14% by 2030--a big reduction from the current 37%.

It's easy to see why these eye-catching promises are getting a lot of press. But in terms of practical effect, a less-followed event in U.S. energy policy may be much more critical.

That's because the new coal rules are far from certain. They face a political--and likely legal battle--in getting approved. With the eventual date for implementation likely being years into the future.

At the same time, events in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector may have a much more immediate effect.

Late last week, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said it is changing its permitting regime for LNG export projects. Developers will now be required to get environmental approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) before the DOE will issue a trade approval for exports.

That's a setback for smaller projects. Who up until now often pursued DOE approval prior to the more time-consuming and expensive FERC process. Using DOE permits as a milestone achievement to help backstop their project financing efforts.

Such projects will now face greater uncertainty. Needing to pay up to $100 million to complete their FERC approvals--before they know if the DOE will allow exports to take place from their proposed facility. By way of comparison, a DOE permit application costs about $20,000 to file.

This is a critical development for the sector and its investors. Likely meaning that smaller development companies are going to struggle with the large costs involved. Perhaps giving an edge to larger firms in the industry.

The effects of this rule-change could be felt within the next few months--following a 45-day comment period for the public. Perhaps representing a much more impactful shift in the energy landscape.

Here's to the rules of the game,

By Dave Forest


x


Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




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