UX – European Infra Sufficient

Link – US Exports Offset Russia

US LNG exports will offset harmful Russian influence – perception k2 reassure

WASHINGTON, DC – House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) today released the following statement on the potential for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to weaken Russian influence. The committee has been actively engaged on the benefits of LNG exports. In October of 2013, the committee held a forum on “The Geopolitical Implications and Mutual Benefits of U.S. LNG Exports” with numerous diplomats and energy advisors, including representatives from the Eastern European countries of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Lithuania.¶ “Expanding U.S. LNG exports is an opportunity to combat Russian influence and power, and we have an energy diplomacy responsibility to act quickly. The Department of Energy's approval process for LNG exports is unnecessarily putting our allies at the mercy of Vladimir Putin. Now is the time to send the signal to our global allies that U.S. natural gas will be an available and viable alternative to meet their energy needs. Based on the committee's work and input from multiple stakeholders, we will continue to advance legislation and develop new proposals that allow market forces and technology to help expand Eastern Europe's access to affordable energy beyond Russia," said Upton. ¶ BACKGROUND: The Energy and Commerce Committee released a report last month entitled “Prosperity at Home and Strengthened Allies Abroad – A Global Perspective on Natural Gas Exports,” which detailed the economic and geopolitical benefits of U.S. LNG exports and outlined the actions necessary to realize them. The report found, “In a geopolitical context, the benefits of diversity apply to suppliers as well as supplies, and the added option of U.S. LNG enhances both kinds of diversity. This is especially important to Central and Eastern European nations heavily reliant on Russia for natural gas. This dependence has not only led to higher prices, but also to the ability of Russia to exert political pressure on these nations.”

Exports give European countries options – solves Russian control

Cunningham 13

Nick, policy analyst at the American Security Project, a non-profit, non partisan public policy and research organization dedicated to fostering knowledge and understanding of a range of national security issues, March, “The Geopolitical Implications of U.S. Natural Gas Exports” https://americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Reports/Ref%200116%20-%20The%20Geopolitical%20Implications%20of%20U.S.%20Natural%20Gas%20Exports.pdf

Several European countries, including Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine hope to weaken this dependence by constructing LNG import terminals.24 The expansion of U.S. LNG exports to Europe could help these countries reduce Russian influence – in particular, the small, heavily dependent, Eastern and Central European states. The more these nations can diversify their energy portfolio, including more sources of imports, the less market share – and political power – Russia and Gazprom will control. This will pre-empt the incentive and ability of Gazprom and the Russian government to play games with energy supplies.

US offsets Russian nat gas – provides an option for European countries

Ebinger 12

Senior fellow and Director of the Energy Security Initiative at Brookings, Charles, “Liquid Markets: Assessing the Case for US Exports of Liquefied Natural Gas,” 5-2-12, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2012/5/02%20lng%20exports/20120502_lng_exports

However, there is a second, structural change to the global gas market that may have more lasting effects to Russia’s market power in the European gas market. LNG is one of the fastest growing segments of the energy sector. The growth of the LNG market, both through long-term contract and spot-market sales, is likely to put increasing pressure on incumbent pipeline gas suppliers. A significant addition of U.S. LNG exports will ac- celerate this trend. In addition to adding to the size of the market, U.S. LNG contracts are likely to be determined on a “floating” basis, with sales terms tied to the price of a U.S. benchmark such as Henry Hub, eroding the power of providers of long-term oil linked contract suppliers such as Russia. While U.S. LNG will not be a direct tool of U.S. foreign policy—the destination of U.S. LNG will be determined according to the terms of in- dividual contracts, the spot-price-determined demand, and the LNG traders that purchase such contracts—the addition of a large, market-based producer will indirectly serve to increase gas sup- ply diversity in Europe, thereby providing Euro- pean consumers with increased flexibility and market power.

US Natural Gas Exports Offset Russia

Patterson, 14

[covered federal grant funding and congressional appropriations for Thompson Publishing Group, writing for a range of print and online publications. He holds a BA in history from theUniversity of Rochester; Counter Russia With Natural Gas; April, 7^th, 2014; http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T019-C021-S010-countering-russia-with-natural-gas.html-EW]

Crisis thousands of miles away in Ukraine is about to have a big impact on the U.S. energy industry, as the Obama administration seeks to offset Russia’s growing influence in Eastern Europe. The White House aims to hit Moscow in the pocketbook by supplanting it as a big supplier of natural gas to Europe. Support for selling more of the U.S.’ abundant natural gas supplies abroad had already been building prior to Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean territory. Though existing law bars energy firms from exporting natural gas to countries that haven’t signed free-trade agreements with the U.S., would-be exporters can apply to the Department of Energy for a special export license. Seven such licenses have been granted since 2012, with dozens more firms applying for approval to sell cheap domestic gas to buyers in Europe and Asia, where gas prices are far higher. Though multiple studies commissioned by the federal government have concluded that exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) would boost GDP and create jobs, the Department of Energy has taken a go-slow approach to granting export licenses, for fear that a flood of exports could ramp up gas prices here at home. But Russia’s recent aggression in Ukraine promises to expedite the process. Lessening Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas by boosting global supplies of LNG and creating alternative supply options is “what this is really all about,” says energy analyst Phil Flynn of brokerage firm PRICE Futures Group. Russia is “desperate to hang on to” its share of the European energy market, he says. Europe currently relies on Russia for one-third of its gas needs, according to data from the International Energy Agency. The White House figures a Europe less dependent on Russia for gas — and less exposed to Russian threats to shut off that gas during times of geopolitical tension — will be able to take a firmer stand against future Russian aggression. Even with a faster pace of approvals for LNG export permits, building the multi-billion-dollar facilities for liquefying gas and loading it on ships will take years. The first export terminal, Cheniere’s Sabine Pass facility in coastal Louisiana, is still about a year and a half away from operation, with others coming on line from 2016 to 2019. But the effect of those exports on prices of natural gas could show up sooner, as markets anticipate the increased demand. Henry Hub benchmark prices, now at about $4.40 per million British thermal units (MMBtu), have already rebounded from the lows of 2012, when a glut of gas pushed prices to $2 per MMBtu. It’s hard to say just yet how much higher prices will rise, especially since domestic users such as electric utilities will also be ramping up their gas usage during this time frame, even as drillers unlock new supplies. We think the most likely outcome is a moderate gain, to a range of $6 or so per MMBtu over the next few years. That’s a considerable increase from two years ago, when gas prices were so low that many new wells became unprofitable to drill. But $6 gas would still be cheaper than 2008’s average price of about $9 per MMBtu, and would still compare favorably to the $10 or more that prevails in many Asian and European markets. That means U.S. makers of plastics and other chemicals that use natural gas as a raw material should continue to enjoy a competitive advantage over their foreign rivals. Consumers will feel the effects of rising gas prices on their utility bills. Roughly half of U.S. households use natural gas to heat their homes, and nearly 30% of the nation’s power is generated by burning gas, too. So winter heating costs figure to rise slowly but steadily along with gas prices. Ditto for electric rates, which should increase by 10% to 15% as gas costs rise and utilities facing tougher limits on power plant emissions switch from burning coal to gas. But rising gas prices promise to boost profits for producers. The biggest gas suppliers in the U.S. — ExxonMobil, Anadarko, Chesapeake Energy, Devon, etc. — would get a significant lift in profitability. That in turn means more drilling activity, particularly in the Marcellus Shale of Pennsylvania, where production costs tend to be relatively low. Also look for higher drilling and output rates in Texas (already the biggest gas-producing state) and the Gulf Coast. Rising output means significant investment in pipelines to get gas to market: upwards of 300,000 miles of new pipe by industry estimates, along with new compressor stations and related infrastructure. All told, that equipment build-out will require $14 billion in annual spending and should keep pipeline builders and engineering firms busy for years to come. Figuring out which firms looking to export gas will profit is tricky. Michael Lynch, an energy analyst and forecaster with Strategic Economic and Energy Research, figures not every company applying for an export permit will end up building an LNG shipping terminal, even if their application is approved. Plants that get built first “will make a ton of money,” he says, but latecomers could miss their chance to grab a share of the global LNG market.

Europe Desires Liberation from Russia- US Offers Alternative

Herron, 14

[David Herron- Univ of Kentucky Computer Science, 1981 – 1988, Barbara Brennan School of Healing, Journalist covering electric vehicles viaPlugInCars.com, and TorqueNews.com, as well as other green technology and environmental topics onexaminer.com , Software engineer, Blogging about Sustainability issues, Green Transportation, and technology and other stuff, Helping to launch Transition Silicon Valley and Transition Mountain View (Transition Towns movement), Developer of Java's java.awt.Robot class, 11 March 2014, Europe’s Dependency on Russia is Similar to Ukraine’s Struggle For Liberation,http://www.longtailpipe.com/2014/03/europes-dependency-on-russian-natural.html-EW]

Thanks to the political situation in Ukraine, American politics is discussing using America's "glut" of natural gas as a political weapon. The idea is to undermine Russia's strength in natural gas supplies, by selling America's natural gas into the world market, especially to critical countries most vulnerable to Russia, in order to undercut Russia. Put another way, the US would protect specific countries from natural gas dependency on Russia. Russia, obviously, is returning to its old role of bogeyman. But, isn't it alarming to see a fossil fuel used this way? In any case, politicians planning to use America's glut of natural gas for geopolitical ends is not new. It wasn't something they cooked up last week, they've been talking about this for awhile. I wrote it up in my last blog post about Ukraine where I'd found a paper written in August 2013 by the Congressional Research Service about Europe's Energy Security. Tonight I thought it would be useful to go back over the document in its own right. First - here's a couple links to current news items discussing natural gas as a political weapon: U.S. natural gas could be geopolitical weapon Republicans use Putin as an excuse to push fossil-fuel projects Here goes A key element of the EU’s energy supply strategy has been to shift to a greater use of natural gas independent of Russia The report doesn't say why Europe is making this switch, but one imagines it's to do with climate change and other environmental concerns. Natural gas is supposedly cleaner, right? The key is "cleaner" because natural gas is not "clean", it's still a fossil fuel, and is still increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere. Natural gas is also the same as methane, meaning it by itself is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. All the methane which escapes from natural gas drilling and transport operations causes even more greenhouse gas damage. In any case - geopolitically it means Europe is dependent on Norway (#1 supplier) and Russia (#2 supplier) for natural gas. The actual amount of dependency varies from country to country, with the former Soviet-bloc countries having the greatest dependency on Russia. The paper says Russia has not been idle in protecting its market share of natural gas in Europe. There's two plausible reasons for that - one is economic and political leverage over countries ("we'll cut off your gas if you don't do what we say") - the other is simply the riches flowing into Russian coffers. The paper also says this ominous statement: Successive U.S. administrations and Congresses have viewed European energy security as a U.S. national interest. There's a tendency for this to mean that the US is willing to go to war to protect "national interests". Europe's domestic natural gas has been declining - indicating that Europe has passed its peak of production for natural gas. They're caught in a no-win position, they want to increase natural gas consumption because it's supposedly a cleaner fuel than Coal, but it makes them dependent on Russia, a country that is seeking political domination over everything. Additionally, relations between Ukraine, Belarus and Russia have not been cozy the last few years, resulting in several instances where Europe's natural gas supply was cut off because of arguments between Ukraine and Russia. Europe clearly can't afford to be dependent on untrustworthy suppliers. One approach to energy security has led to building alternate pipelines - NordStream and South Stream - allowing Russia to sell natural gas to Europe without transhipping it through Ukraine. It keeps Europe dependent on Russia for natural gas, but removes a particularly untrustworthy element. Another approach is rather fraught with problems - the "Southern Strategy," also known as the "Southern Corridor." The Caspian Sea region is still free'd from Russia's sphere of influence, and has lots of natural gas. The problem has been how to get that natural gas to market without going through Russia. Some think the Afghanistan War was about opening a corridor for this through Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Southern Corridor, however, goes across Turkey, to Greece and Italy.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.9 Mb.

Share with your friends: