By Carl Pope, Bloomberg Almost every aspect of the US energy landscape is changing drastically – except government policy. Consider: The global price of oil has soared to more than US $100 today from $30 a barrel in 2004. As a result, the US’s annual bill for oil imports has risen to $365 billion, even though domestic oil production has jumped in the past two years to 7.5 MMb/d from 5.5 MMbbl. Meanwhile, the price of natural gas has plummeted. The tight shale gas boom in the US has caused the domestic price of gas to drop to less than $4/MMcf today from $10/MMcf in 2010. By replacing a diesel or gasoline engine with one that accommodates compressed gas, Americans can drive for the equivalent of 50 cents a gallon. A similar revolution is under way in the solar industry. Solar panels that cost $7.50 per peak watt a few years ago can now be had for less than $1 per peak watt. Conventional utilities fear not only that their legacy coal-fired and nuclear plants are fast becoming white elephants, but also that their customers will become competitors, producing electrons for sale from cheap rooftop solar panels. Change Avalanche The exception to this avalanche of change is Washington: It has barely acknowledged the revolution. Neither the Barack Obama administration nor the Republican Party offers a coherent vision of how to exploit these new energy realities, including cheap natural gas, which is poised – but still only poised – to be used as a prime transportation fuel. The broad outline of a new, comprehensive energy policy, one capable of restoring vigor to the economy while revitalizing middle-class jobs, is abundantly apparent. Yet no one in Washington seems willing to acknowledge the shape of things to come, let alone sketch in the details. Congress has not passed significant energy legislation since 2007, before many of these trends emerged. It cannot muster the will to do so now. The oil and gas industry has a clear strategy for driving up US fuel prices – employing the mantra of “free trade” to export US oil and gas over the objections of major domestic manufacturers such as Alcoa Inc. and Dow Chemical Co. Although US laws prohibit exports of crude oil (to prevent upward price pressure), oil from the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale formations is now routinely exported. The American Petroleum Institute has initiated a campaign to remove the export ban, arguing that US refineries will be unable to handle increased production. The US Department of Commerce has bought it, ruling that, with Gulf Coast refineries committed to processing Canadian crude, the US lacks sufficient refinery capacity to crack US light oil. Meanwhile, the department has quietly been issuing export waivers to appease the industry. The result is that we now export cleaner, cheaper US light crude and import heavier, more expensive Canadian bitumen. It’s hard to see how these exports help the US economy: We get higher oil prices and environmental risks; Canada gets the profits. The case of natural gas is even more perverse. Despite intense proselytizing, the marketplace has not sorted out the role natural gas should play in transportation, and the federal government has, if anything, undermined its great potential as transportation fuel. Both economics and environmental quality argue for large fleets of gas-powered vehicles. That vision, however, will require greater infrastructure and capital investment to support. If big capital investments are instead made in export terminals for liquefied natural gas, export contracts will trump development of LNG transportation infrastructure. The first in line calls the tune. Substantial Premium If the US fails to make a determination about the role of gas in transportation, a decision will nonetheless be made for it. Export contracts are typically 20 years and require foreign customers to pay whatever the price of gas is in the US plus 15%. If buyers find cheaper gas elsewhere, these contracts require them to pay a heavy penalty – so heavy, in fact, that they will probably keep buying US gas even if the cost doubles. US consumers would likewise end up paying a substantial premium over current prices. In effect, once gas- export terminals are built, cheap US gas prices can be maintained only if foreign customers leave a surplus for the domestic market. The Obama administration claims that it can revoke export authorizations if exports cause price surges. Yet that would require breaking contracts, which trade agreements make a dubious proposition. Indeed, the Department of Energy has thus far refused to specify what circumstances would trigger a cancellation – despite requests from Congress to do so. Market realities suggest that if global prices rise, US prices will rise with them until our dramatic price advantage over European competitors, who now pay three times what Americans pay for natural gas, evaporates almost completely. As a result, the price advantage of gas over oil will also sharply narrow, and the opportunity to replace imported oil with domestic gas in trucking fleets may be lost. Likewise, the shift in industrial power from dirty coal to cleaner gas stands to be reversed, along with the economically beneficial decline in home heating and cooling costs. “America’s natural gas bounty is more than a simple commodity,” Dow Chemical Chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris has said. “It’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity for America to export advanced products, not just BTUs.” Not all the signals from Washington are negative. New Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has promised to evaluate natural gas export proposals comprehensively, rather than one by one. Obama has signaled new caution about the export-oriented Keystone XL pipeline. Meanwhile, Senate Energy Committee Chairman Ron Wyden is pushing ahead with a series of hearings exploring the issues. Ideological War At the same time, congressional Republicans appear determined to handicap vast swaths of the US economy in favor of securing windfall profits for the oil patch. The infrastructure investments that would enable the US to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, which are broadly supported by American business, have been blocked by Republicans’ ideological war on federal spending. And no one from either party seems eager to question the impact of pending trade agreements on the US’s ability to leverage its oil and gas resources domestically for competitive advantage. The US has the resources and technologies to transform its economy and ecology, re-establish US manufacturing strength, and cut our debilitating dependence on oil from the Middle East. Such a policy would also make progress combating climate change. But with one major political party captured by dirty energy interests and the other often blinded by its commitment to trade doctrines that promote energy exports over a domestic value-added economy, our dysfunctional political system has put a second American Century at risk. Carl Pope is a former chairman of the Sierra Club.
2023-10-27 - Healthy backlogs are expected to help maintain growth for both Linde and Air Liquide as each look to take on more hydrogen projects in the U.S.
2023-12-01 - COP28 gives the private sector—including those from the oil and gas industry—and other delegates an opportunity to chime in on the global climate agenda set by world leaders.
2023-10-26 - After posting $19 million in free cash flow in the third quarter, Pittsburgh-based CNX Resources said it expects its New Technologies group to generate between $75 million and $100 million in free cash flow next year.
2023-11-06 - The U.S. oil giant has quietly evaluated opportunities to produce lithium from subsurface brine water in Arkansas—a process Exxon says is an extension of its current upstream capabilities.
2023-09-21 - Arclight Capital Partners adds former Vistra Corp. CEO Curt Morgan as senior adviser.