Speakers at WPC: Dumping Fossil Fuels Means Subjugation to China
Speakers on a panel at the recent 23rd World Petroleum Congress, held in Houston, TX, made a strong case for natural gas as the only legitimate “green” alternative to power the world. At least for the next couple of decades. The panel was called “Can Natural Gas, Including LNG, Deliver on the Promise of a Clean & Affordable Transition Fuel?” Charif Souki, Chairman of Tellurian and founder of Cheniere Energy, along with Jim Teague, Chief Executive of Enterprise Products Partners, made some great points. Souki asked the question, why in the world would we “trade” dealing with OPEC for dealing with (subjugation to) China?
Read More “Speakers at WPC: Dumping Fossil Fuels Means Subjugation to China”
Even though U.S. LNG exports help the U.S. by providing more jobs and economic prosperity, and even though U.S. LNG exports help the world by providing a green alternative to coal and other forms of environmentally destructive fuels, some Democrats continue to bash away at natural gas and are actively trying to kill the industry in our country. Legislation introduced Dec. 7 by Representative Jan Schakowsky (Democrat-Illinois), and Nanette Diaz Barragán (Democrat-California), would bar the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from approving new LNG terminals.
The odious leftists from the so-called Food & Water Watch (Big Green group, funded with foreign money) continue to pressure, cajole, woo, and hoodwink local municipalities in New Jersey to oppose building a new dock on the Delaware River–a dock that would allow LNG cargo carriers to come alongside and load up with yummy, safe, clean-burning LNG. The latest victim of FWW’s lies is Trenton, New Jersey.
The NYMEX “front month” futures contract for natural gas traded on the Henry Hub benchmark has crashed over the past three days, down more than 90 cents, closing at $4.26/MMBtu yesterday. Why? Because weather models predict relatively warm weather in the weeks ahead. Weather trumps all other factors in the price of natural gas. Which exposes the intentional lie (or stupidity, take your pick) of people like U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren who are spreading the false narrative that LNG exports are the cause of high natural gas prices here at home (see 
Earlier this week MDN told you about a nastygram written by U.S. Senator Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren (see 
The environmental radicals on the left continue their push to defeat the construction of an $800 million liquefaction plant in Wyalusing (Bradford County), PA, meant to liquefy and ship LNG to a planned facility on the Delaware River, for exporting to other countries. The left’s latest ploy? Antis are proclaiming a special permit issued during the Trump administration that allows LNG from the Wyalusing plant to be shipped via special rail cars is about to expire at the end of this month and almost certainly won’t get renewed. In addition, antis have stirred up some of the liberal locals near the port facility where the LNG would get safely loaded onto ships. It is a continuing, coordinated two-pronged attack against the project.
The so-called International Group of LNG Importers (GIIGNL) yesterday released a framework for transparent emissions reporting and neutrality declarations. The GIIGNL, whose members handle more than 90% of LNG imports worldwide, doesn’t like the patchwork system in place now where companies can on their own claim net-zero carbon emissions for their LNG. So GIIGNL is horning in and claiming *theirs* is the best way to measure low or no “greenhouse gas” emissions. GIIGNL demands Scope 3 emissions be included in the definition of net-zero carbon LNG, something that isn’t a part of most net-zero claims today.
If you have even the most basic education in economics (Econ 101) you will have come across the concept of commodities–things like gold, silver, corn, soybeans, oil, and (yes) natural gas. A commodity is something that no matter who produces it, the product itself is the same. A molecule of methane (CH4) is a molecule of methane, no matter who or how it gets produced. Consequently, the only factors that drive price for a commodity are availability and whoever has the lowest cost. Efforts to pretty up a commodity like natgas by claiming it is “responsibly sourced gas” (RSG), or it comes from the butt holes of cows and pigs and chickens (RNG), or is carbon-neutral LNG, are efforts to (in our opinion) snooker people into paying more for what is a garden-variety commodity. Are there people/companies willing to pay more if natgas is produced in a certain way or from a certain source?
This is an avoidable tragedy and very angering. Once again it looks as though Boston and the New England region will be hit with extremely high natural gas prices and will be forced to import LNG, most likely from Russia, to meet the region’s demand for natural gas. So says the Democrat-controlled Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Meanwhile, the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania sits a couple of hundred miles away with more than enough gas to meet New England’s natgas demand, but we can’t get the gas there because pipelines have been blocked (by the Democrats who control New York and New England) and because rail shipments of LNG are blocked by executive orders from Joe Biden. We can’t even ship it there via LNG tankers because of the idiotic Jones Act.