U.S. exports of natural gas have soared in recent years. It’s one of the most conspicuous examples of how the fracking boom has enhanced our energy security.
Driven by production in the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale, the Lone Star State is an energy juggernaut, providing affordable energy for Texas families while helping our allies meet their demands for cleaner energy. As a result, the U.S. Energy Information Administration recently announced that in 2017, for the first time since 1957, the U.S. exported more natural gas than it imported.
Yet, even as we become a global energy superpower, political barriers prevent us from maximizing the benefits of the shale revolution.
Earlier this year, New England — located just a few hundred miles from the Marcellus Shale, one of the world’s largest natural gas fields — was forced to import a cargo of Russian liquefied natural gas. This was necessary because anti-energy activists have convinced local elected leaders to block new energy infrastructure, including pipelines that could bring American gas to the region. This is making households in the Northeast more dependent on imported energy, and forcing them to pay among the highest energy bills in the country.
This was no accident. The Conservation Law Foundation, a prominent anti-energy group in Massachusetts, states on its website that importing natural gas from foreign counties is preferable to building new pipelines. The Sierra Club’s Massachusetts chapter has simply declared “No New Pipelines,” while the state’s attorney general thinks Russian LNG is better for the climate than piping in American fuel.
Even the Boston Globe opined that “Massachusetts’ reliance on imported gas from one of the world’s most threatened places is also a severe indictment of the state’s inward-looking environmental and climate policies.”
Indeed, blocking access to affordable energy is one of the “Keep It In the Ground” campaign’s core strategies. “If we can forestall gas infrastructure being put in the ground and locking in that demand for the next 60 years,” said Sierra Club’s Lena Moffitt, “the hope is that renewables will come in and be cost competitive in all markets.”
“Keep It In the Ground” is playing politics with working families’ energy bills, based on the “hope” that the handful of energy sources they support will soon be affordable. Anti-energy activists are also silent on the massive new infrastructure investments that their preferred energy plan would require, even as those investments face increased local opposition.
In a perfect world — or at least one that appreciated common sense — we could address this political obstruction with reasonable alternatives. The U.S. has several LNG export facilities that are already operational or will come online in the coming years. Why can’t we ship American LNG to Boston?
One reason is an antiquated federal law from 1920 – the Jones Act – that prohibits cargoes from being transported between U.S. ports unless they are carried on American-flagged ships. The Jones Act attracted scrutiny last year when it prevented much-needed supplies from reaching Puerto Rico after it was devastated by Hurricane Maria. The Trump administration later temporarily waived the law to allow assistance to reach the battered island.
Natural gas demand is growing worldwide, and there is a shortage of tankers that carry LNG. Yet, the U.S. limits its options even further with the Jones Act. It’s likely cheaper for New England to import LNG from foreign countries than it is from Texas or Louisiana — or even Maryland, where the Cove Point LNG facility will soon start exporting fuel around the world.
In 2015, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle recognized that the federal ban on crude oil exports was inconsistent with the shale revolution, so they repealed it. Perhaps a fresh look at the Jones Act will be the next bipartisan moment. As seen during Hurricane Maria, overturning that law could have broadly positive implications.
For years, Texans have helped families in the Northeast meet their energy needs through existing pipeline infrastructure. Pennsylvanians who sit atop the Marcellus Shale are also well-positioned to help New Englanders meet their growing demand for affordable power. Clearly, the region needs more American energy — be it through pipeline or LNG — and less dependency on Russia.
As is often the case, both extreme environmental groups and costly federal regulations are standing in the way.
Steve Everley is spokesman for Texans for Natural Gas, a pro-drilling grassroots group with more than 250,000 members which is funded by three gas companies. Learn more at www.texansfornaturalgas.com.
