Apr 18, 2013 3 min read

Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /usr/web/cs-washington.ogdennews.com/wp-content/themes/News_Core_2023_WashCluster/includes/single/strategically_placed_photos_article.php on line 412

Notice: Trying to get property 'term_id' of non-object in /usr/web/cs-washington.ogdennews.com/wp-content/themes/News_Core_2023_WashCluster/includes/single/strategically_placed_photos_article.php on line 412

The ongoing debate about whether U.S. natural gas producers should export liquefied natural gas came to Washington & Jefferson College on April 4.

A panel discussion, part of W&J’s Center for Energy Policy and Management’s annual Energy Summit, brought some of the country’s experts together to discuss the export issue, a topic that has been highlighted on Bloomberg News and has made the cover of Chemical & Engineering News magazine.

The panel, which was moderated by Amy Harder, energy and environment reporter for the National Journal, included Mark Mills, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute and energy intelligence columnist for Forbes magazine; Peter Molinaro, vice president of federal and state government affairs for Dow Chemical Co.; Daniel Donovan, director of media relations for Dominion Energy; and David Schryver, executive vice president for American Public Gas Association.

The discussion topic was particularly timely, because on April 1, Virginia-based Dominion Resources submitted a 12,000-page application to federal regulators to build a $3.4 billion plant in southern Maryland to export LNG.

The company said it has deals in place with energy companies in Japan and India to buy the gas that would be processed there.

Dominion wants to expand its existing Cove Point plant in Lusby, Md., to produce liquefied natural gas for export. The facility – already served by 88 miles of pipeline – would take advantage of the natural gas boom in the Mid-Atlantic associated with the Marcellus and Utica shale formations.

Exporting gas allows it to be sold at a much higher price than on the domestic market, where gas is more abundant.

In the summit’s panel discussion, “U.S. Energy Security and Shale Gas: The LNG Export Debate,” the participants from the chemical and oil and gas industry agreed that the government needs to find a balance between how much gas it should export and how much should be kept here for cost-advantaged chemical production, natural gas transportation and other purposes.

Schryver, whose association represents small, rural communities across the country that depend upon natural gas to heat their homes and businesses, voiced opposition to any exports, stating that exports could cause domestic gas prices to rise for a customer base that has no other options when it comes to energy supplies.

Donovan told the audience that if the project is approved, his company couldn’t begin shipping LNG to customers in Japan and India until 2017, given the four-year construction time frame.

But Dow’s Molinaro said his company opposes the export of natural gas, arguing that the fuel can be best used by U.S. manufacturers for a competitive advantage.

Mills said exports of LNG could go a long way to helping the U.S. reduce its trade deficit.

According to Mills, the gas industry is deploying modern technology that should enable it to produce enough gas for export and also produce enough gas to “keep Dow happy.”

But like other panelists, Molinaro said the government needs to move slowly in deciding the export question.

“Let’s not make all of the decisions about this 100-year supply in the next five years,” he said.