• 5 minutes Mike Shellman's musings on "Cartoon of the Week"
  • 11 minutes Permian already crested the productivity bell curve - downward now to Tier 2 geological locations
  • 17 minutes WTI @ 67.50, charts show $62.50 next
  • 17 hours The Discount Airline Model Is Coming for Europe’s Railways
  • 5 hours Pakistan: "Heart" Of Terrorism and Global Threat
  • 48 mins Saudi Fund Wants to Take Tesla Private?
  • 10 hours Desperate Call or... Erdogan Says Turkey Will Boycott U.S. Electronics
  • 59 mins Starvation, horror in Venezuela
  • 2 hours Renewable Energy Could "Effectively Be Free" by 2030
  • 10 hours Venezuela set to raise gasoline prices to international levels.
  • 1 day Batteries Could Be a Small Dotcom-Style Bubble
  • 4 hours Are Trump's steel tariffs working? Seems they are!
  • 1 day Newspaper Editorials Across U.S. Rebuke Trump For Attacks On Press
  • 2 days France Will Close All Coal Fired Power Stations By 2021
  • 2 days Don't Expect Too Much: Despite a Soaring Economy, America's Annual Pay Increase Isn't Budging
  • 24 hours Scottish Battery ‘Breakthrough’ Could Charge Electric Cars In Seconds
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




Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment

Leave a comment




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