Home » Services » Natural Gas Regulation » Electronic Docket Index
LNG Macroeconomic Impact Studies

The Office of Fossil Energy of the Department of Energy (DOE) has given notice of the availability of two studies (Federal Register Notice) examining the cumulative impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and invites the submission of comments regarding those studies. DOE commissioned the studies to inform DOE’s decisions on applications seeking authorization to export LNG from the lower-48 states to non-free trade agreement countries. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) performed one of the studies, which was released in October 2014 (2014 EIA LNG Export Study ). The second study was performed by external entities under contract to DOE (2015 LNG Export Study).

Your comments will be posted electronically on this website and will be available for public review. Please do not include any personally identifiable information (address, phone number, etc.) in the comment form if you do not intend for it to be made publically available.

Comment period closed.
Related Documents & Comments Library
Indicate comment
ID DATE SUBMITTED FILED/ISSUED BY FILING TYPE comment RELATED DOCUMENT
DATE SUBMITTED FILED/ISSUED BY FILING TYPE COMMENT RELATED DOCUMENT
1. expand/collapse 12/29/2015 11:14:38 AM CWRU 2015 LNG Export Study In response to the Department’s request for comments, I write in support of the economic benefits of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and the acceleration of permitting these important projects. Abundant domestic gas supplies give the United States the ability to export energy to our allies, while advancing the U.S. economy and maintaining affordable and competitive prices for consumers. As this new report highlights, U.S. LNG exports will provide substantial benefits for the economy, increasing investments into the United States while creating jobs and supporting government revenues. Meanwhile, U.S. LNG exports will also provide geopolitical benefits and advance environmental goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally.As this study indicates increased amounts of LNG exports will benefit the U.S. so it is essential that our government remove the red tape that is holding up LNG export applications. Department of Energy (DOE) should accelerate the permitting of LNG exports projects and give the process greater certainty so that the U.S. can take advantage of this great economic opportunity for the nation.
2. expand/collapse 1/6/2016 6:06:09 PM Jeffries, Brian General Comment The first sentence of the second paragraph of section 4.1.1, page 58 of the report: "Exports of natural gas overall rise 26 percent, pushing net LNG exports from the United States to 4 Bcf/d from 0.3 Bcf/d in the lower export case." makes no sense whatsoever against Table 3: U.S. LNG Exports in 2040 Across Cases (Bcf/d) found on page 54 of the report nor anything else I can find in the report.
3. expand/collapse 1/10/2016 5:19:23 AM Heywood, Harriet General Comment Every time a well is fracked 400 tanker trucks must carry water and supplies to the siteIt takes up to 8 million gallons of water and 40,000 gallons of chemicals to frack one wellOver 600 chemicals are used to frack, including known carcinogens such as:Lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene glycol, radium, methanol, hydrochloric acid, benzene, and formaldehyde.The fracking slurry is pressure-injected into the ground through a pipeline, and each well can be fracked 18 times.When the water and chemicals frack the underground areas, toxic chemicals and methane gas leak out and contaminate nearby groundwater. It is far more common than the industry admits.Methane gas in wells near frack sites is 17 times higher than sites where there are no fracking activities.Contaminated water is used for drinking water for nearby cities and towns. There have been 1000 cases of contaminated water, as well as sensory, neurological and respiratory damage due to ingested contaminated water.Waste fluid is left in open air pits where it is released as volatile organic compounds into the air. Or fracking fluids are stored underground where they leak into water supplies and poison aquifers. There are no leak-proof wells. Pipes, cement casings, and tanks leak. I am one voice, but there are millions in Florida who don't want a fracked gas plant in their backyards. Florida should be off-limits to fracking speculators who have no problem with laying waste to Florida's West Coast, turning our treasure into a sacrifice zone. Fine for you who live in a gated community. We have to live here. Ban fracking in Florida.
4. expand/collapse 1/22/2016 3:19:43 PM City of Tulsa-Office of the Mayor 2015 LNG Export Study In response to the Department’s request for comments, I write in support of the economic benefits of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and the acceleration of permitting these important projects. Abundant domestic gas supplies give the United States the ability to export energy to our allies, while advancing the U.S. economy and maintaining affordable and competitive prices for consumers. As this new report highlights, U.S. LNG exports will provide substantial benefits for the economy, increasing investments into the United States while creating jobs and supporting government revenues. Meanwhile, U.S. LNG exports will also provide geopolitical benefits and advance environmental goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally.As this study indicates increased amounts of LNG exports will benefit the U.S. so it is essential that our government remove the red tape that is holding up LNG export applications. Department of Energy (DOE) should accelerate the permitting of LNG exports projects and give the process greater certainty so that the U.S. can take advantage of this great economic opportunity for the nation.
5. expand/collapse 2/8/2016 12:44:42 PM Jones, Paula General Comment " Abundant domestic gas supplies give the United States the ability to export energy to our allies, while advancing the U.S. economy and maintaining affordable and competitive prices for consumers. As this new report highlights, U.S. LNG exports will provide substantial benefits for the economy, increasing investments into the United States while creating jobs and supporting government revenues. "After reading the above comment, I can only conclude that its claims are totally false and made by those who will benefit from their investments not the long term safety and sustainability of jobs in Oregon. Jordan Cove is an idea that needs to be stopped because it endangers the coastal communities of North Bend and Coos Bay. It is sponsored by the fossil fuel industry and it benefits Veresen, a Canadian company whose only interest is the profit they will make. How can our country okay a project that will be located near a earthquake subduction and tsunami zone. Veresen wants to build a workers' camp under the highway in Coos Bay. These are short term jobs that are not sustainable. The fact that they would create long term jobs is a distortion of this Canadian company. Any jobs of a significance will be few. Please, I hope that our federal agencies will do their due diligence and see through the hype and distortions of this fossil fuel company and those who have been bought by it. Please protect the common welfare of our coastal towns. Those who have lived for years in these Oregon communities beseech you to act in good conscience and respect for our future.Paula Jones
6. expand/collapse 2/9/2016 4:44:31 PM McDonald, Norris General Comment February 9, 2016 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585 Docket No.: 2015-32590, Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports Studies Dear Department of Energy: The African American Environmentalist Association has a long history of supporting the use and development of U.S. natural gas resources. Hydraulic fracturing has been vital to bolstering the U.S. economy and removing energy vulnerabilities for our national security. We understand that the need for fossil fuels to continue economic growth is unquestionable, and in conjunction, we believe there are more reasonable ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than prohibiting the use of fossil fuels. As a result, we support the Department of Energy’s (DOE) recently released study that concludes the positive macroeconomic impacts of exporting LNG at higher rates. We believe this is a practical solution and encourages foreign countries to use clean fossil fuels as an alternative to other hydrocarbon fuels such as coal. In addition to the clean energy benefits natural gas provides, LNG exports will encourage economic growth at both national and state levels, while also creating numerous American jobs. The DOE study specifically reports that between 2026 and 2040 an additional $7-20 billion will be injected into America’s GDP if exports are raised from 12 Bcf/d to 20 Bcf/d. The report also found that the effects of increased LNG exports in industry sectors are overall positive and will increase their economic gains in direct relation to the amount of added LNG exports. Another study conducted by ICF International also concludes that LNG exports will lead to added value to their economy – ranging from $10 to $31 billion for producing states and $2.6 to $5 billion for non-producing states. That same study also found that up to 665,000 new jobs could be added nationwide as a result of natural gas exports. However none of these benefits can be realized without an expedited process for LNG export terminal applications. There are currently more than 30 permit applications for LNG exports currently sitting with the Department of Energy (DOE) for final approval. And with no set deadline currently on the Department of Energy to make its final decision on a permit following an environmental assessment by either the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the Maritime Administration as a part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), expediting reviews will hold DOE accountable to set deadlines. The window of opportunity is closing for the U.S. to utilize and encourage this source of clean energy and insure the nation’s role in an economically sustainable green future. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments and your consideration of our point of view on this important matter. Sincerely, Norris McDonald President African American Environmentalist Association
  1. DOELNGComments.pdf
7. expand/collapse 1/22/2016 1:24:17 PM Keating, Raymond General Comment See attached comments
  1. DOELNGExportComments.pdf
8. expand/collapse 2/10/2016 4:29:14 PM Utah State University 2015 LNG Export Study Looking for sustainable ways to pump life back into the U.S. economy, we must recognize the important role played by exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Reports commissioned by the Department of Energy in 2014 and 2015 both confirm that, “Economic gains generally increase with the amount of added LNG exports,” and “Negative impacts in energy‐intensive sectors are offset by positive impacts elsewhere.” The evidence is clear and unmistakable: America can—and will—see greater global economic competitiveness if we take advantage of the expanding LNG industry. The United States is home to the fourth largest deposits of recoverable shale gas on the planet, with estimates of natural gas reserves rising to 388.8 trillion cubic feet in 2014 alone in consequence of improved technology and efficient operations. And on top of the DOE’s 2014 and 2015 reports, analysis from ICF International confirms that virtually every state would benefit from LNG exports. Producing states would see gains ranging from $10 billion to $31 billion, while non-producing states could see gains of $2.6 billion to $5 billion by 2035. The study also projected up to 665,000 jobs created nationwide. Clearly, we have the production levels and promising forecasts to reach even greater success. But none of this will come to fruition unless we mobilize natural gas exports. Notably, the benefits transcend U.S. borders into the global market. The U.S. natural gas industry is far ahead of competitors in Europe and North-East Asia, where prices are two to five times higher. For example, JKM spot prices – the LNG marker for East Asia – were trading at $7.28 per million Btu for December delivery, down nearly two-thirds from early 2014 prices. In contrast, EIA reported that 2015 natural gas spot prices at the national benchmark Henry Hub averaged $2.61 per million Btu—the lowest annual average since 1999. DOE has green-lighted fewer than 10 U.S. LNG facilities in four years, while nearly 30 applications are still pending. The latest DOE report confirms that even in the most optimistic exports scenario analyzed, the U.S. will see major macroeconomic benefits. This evidence should tip the balance in favor of moving quickly to approve the pending LNG export applications. Let’s fully capitalize on America’s historic energy potential.
  1. DOE Comment - Shughart.pdf
9. 2/10/2016 6:19:39 PM Oregon Wild 2015 LNG Export Study
  1. LNG_Export_public_interest_comment_2-10-2016_DOE....
10. 2/11/2016 1:01:46 PM Golden Pass Products LLC 2015 LNG Export Study
  1. GPP Cover 2112016 Comments to DOE FE re 2015 LNG ...
  2. GPP 2112016 Comments to DOE FE re 2015 LNG Study....
11. expand/collapse 2/11/2016 3:50:39 PM American Petroleum Institute 2015 LNG Export Study Attached please find comments of the American Petroleum Institute.
  1. DOE LNG Export Report API Comments Feb 11 2016.pd...
12. 2/12/2016 10:45:17 AM Thorning, Margo 2015 LNG Export Study
  1. ACCF comments on DOE LNG study.pdf
13. 2/12/2016 11:46:55 AM Women Impacting Public Policy 2015 LNG Export Study
  1. WIPP 2015 LNG Export Study .pdf
14. 2/12/2016 12:40:27 PM Our Energy Moment 2015 LNG Export Study
  1. OEM comments on 2015 DOE study.pdf
15. expand/collapse 2/5/2016 4:43:28 PM Eisenberg, Ross General Comment Attached are the comments of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing association in the United States representing nearly 14,000 small, medium and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. The NAM's comments pertain to both the 2014 EIA LNG Export Study and the 2015 LNG Export Study.
  1. NAM comments on 2015 DOE LNG study.pdf
16. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 12:59:15 PM Eatherington, Francis General Comment See attached comments and referenced study.
  1. Comments on DOE 2014-15 studies.pdf
  2. LNG and RenewablePower 2016 study.pdf
17. 2/12/2016 1:35:17 PM Rafuse, John 2015 LNG Export Study
  1. Rafuse Comment.pdf
18. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 1:50:16 PM Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. 2015 LNG Export Study Please see attached PDF.
  1. JC Ltr to US Dept of Energy-Smith Myers re LNG E...
19. 2/12/2016 2:23:31 PM Progressive Policy Instutue 2015 LNG Export Study
  1. PPI Comments on DOE LNG Study.pdf
20. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 2:28:18 PM Arbuckle, J. Gordon General Comment Attached
  1. SeaOne Gulfport LLC Feb 12.pdf
21. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 2:34:58 PM Center for Liquefied Natural Gas 2015 LNG Export Study DOE’s study supports LNG exports as an opportunity to continue U.S. economic growth. With this study in hand, DOE should promptly act on the pending applications seeking authorization to export LNG to non-FTA countries without limitation based upon the following: 1. The Natural Gas Act creates a rebuttal presumption that applications are consistent with the public interest, and no opponent has offered evidence to the contrary; 2. Granting the authorizations is consistent with DOE’s established policies and previous decisions, as well as U.S. free trade principles; 3. A plain reading of 10 CFR Part 590 clearly shows that upon the expiration of the time period set forth in the Federal Register, DOE’s regulations do not contemplate predicating when DOE will render a decision based upon when an applicant files with another federal agency; and 4. The general agreement among studies, including the 2015 LNG Export Study, indicates that LNG exports will provide net benefits to the U.S. economy and thus are in the public interest.
  1. CLNG DOE study comments.pdf
22. 2/12/2016 3:05:48 PM Sempra LNG 2015 LNG Export Study
  1. Sempra Comments on 2015 Study.pdf
23. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 3:29:10 PM Industrial Energy Consumers of America 2015 LNG Export Study IECA Comments on 2015 LNG Export Study.
  1. 02.12.16_Comments_2015 LNG Export Study_FINAL.pdf
24. 2/12/2016 3:32:58 PM Adams, Clarence General Comment
  1. Comments on Department of Energy 2014 and 2015 St...
25. 2/12/2016 3:43:32 PM Hair on Fire Oregon 2014 EIA LNG Export Study
  1. Deb Evans and Ron Schaaf - Comments on 2014 EIA L...
26. 2/12/2016 3:56:15 PM Hair on Fire Oregon 2015 LNG Export Study
  1. Deb Evans and Ron Schaaf - Comments on DOE-FE - 2...
27. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 4:10:57 PM Rohrer, MA 2015 LNG Export Study LNG is a fossil fuel. It contributes to Climate Change. We need to stop producing fossil fuels. We need to take care of our planet where we live. Climate Change is the most urgent priority we have. We need sustainable and renewal energies. This is not about the bottom line for gas and pipeline companies. It is about clean air and clean water. A natural gas-dominated electricity system has significant climate risks and does not represent a long-term solution to global warming The electric power sector is the largest contributor to U.S. global warming emissions and currently accounts for approximately one-third of the nation's total emissions. To limit some of the worst consequences of climate change, the U.S. needs to cut power sector carbon emissions 90 percent from current levels by 2050, as recommended by the National Research Council (NRC). If the U.S. continues on its current path toward a natural gas-dominated electricity system, the electricity sector would generate up to three times the NRC's recommended amount of carbon emissions. There are also other heat-trapping gases associated with natural gas beyond its smokestack carbon emissions. The drilling and extraction of natural gas, and its distribution in pipelines, also results in the leakage of methane — a primary component of natural gas that is 25 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat.
28. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 4:17:57 PM Byles, Torrey General Comment These two studies, while documenting important hypothetical macro results of hypothetical scenarios, are nonetheless too narrowly conceived to adequately assess the uncertainties and outlook for an investment in a natural gas export capacity for North America. In part, the narrowness of scope of the two studies involves overlooking (or obscuring) environmental and social equity costs of an export capacity. To be sure, both studies address these issues to some extent. For example, the Oxford et al study does appropriately frame the decision to greenflag the build-out of a North American export capacity as a “trade-off” in an economic struggle between gas producers (and their suppliers) on one hand and US consumers and manufacturers (including alternative energy producers) on the other (see p. 9). And even though they frame it appropriately, the highly aggregative results of their forecasts fail to specify who benefits and who loses and by how much. The EIA study likewise indicates that an export capacity would result in higher consumer expenditures, higher usages of electricity, higher emissions, and ¾ of the export capacity dependent on the very dirtiest of NG production, shale sources. But again, the aggregative nature of these findings does not reveal the depth of how we are locked into a socially and environmentally suboptimal and destructive technology track for our country for 50 years. Both studies fail to provide the precision necessary to make a strategic decision for such a vast, intercontinental physical infrastructure and its many ramifications for the distribution of income among various social groups domestic and foreign. More importantly, the two studies fail to address the radical uncertainty of competitive conditions of global energy markets – even in the very near term, whose risks would presumably be easier to quantify. In particular, the continuing decline in costs and, hence, in competitiveness of renewable sources of energy, are stunting demand for gas-fired energy generation. A recent report by the Brattle Group (source URL below) shows how penetration into energy markets by wind and solar (and, for that matter, nuclear – as Japan has recently re-started its reactors) are undermining the profitability of natural gas investments. Already the Asian price of LNG (now at $10-$11/MMbtu) is below the threshold delivered-price in order for profits to be made in a North American export capacity. This price collapse some think is only temporary and due to worldwide and Chinese economic slowdowns. The report advises against thinking that this is a temporary slowdown. Many forces are at work and the world market for NG is highly uncertain. “[Energy] market participants should be very cautious in thinking that the LNG supply glut is necessarily a temporary problem because another important dynamic in the world energy markets is the declining cost of renewable power and the prospect of increased penetration of renewables in the global power generation mix.” Some regions such as Germany and California where renewable penetration has been high have seen demand for natural gas stunted. With the announcement by Chinese authorities that the country will adopt a greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade system, China is poised to follow in the footsteps of these regions. CO2 trading platforms make gas production and use more expensive and renewable energy sources more competitive. As more CO2 trading regimes appear, natural gas will be less of a viable energy source. The many uncertainties of both the viability of this particular energy source as well as the myriad opposing interests to it make it a clear case to not undertake this very risky and long-term destructive infrastructure. LNG and Renewable Power. 2016. The Brattle Group. http://www.brattle.com/system/publications/pdfs/000/005/249/original/LNG_and_Renewable_Power_-_Risk_and_Opportunity_in_a_Changing_World.pdf?1452804455
  1. Feb 12, 2016 Comment on Energy Gov.pdf
29. 2/12/2016 4:27:42 PM Matthews, Nathan General Comment
  1. Sierra Club 2014-2015 LNG Economic Analysis Comme...
30. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 4:28:39 PM Hutchison, Fred General Comment Please find a CORRECTED version of LNG Allies submission.
  1. CORRECTED_Final_Comments_DOE_2016-02-12.pdf
31. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 4:26:31 PM Henderson, Vince General Comment See attached.
  1. sids_dock.pdf
32. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 12:00:00 AM Institute for 21st Century Energy 2015 LNG Export Study See attached.
  1. 2-12-16 US Chamber DOE Study Comment Letter.pdf
33. expand/collapse 2/11/2016 12:00:00 AM Shumate Lee, Tara General Comment In response to the Departments request for comments, I write on behalf of Triana Energy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, in support of the economic benefits of U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports and the acceleration of permitting these important projects. Abundant domestic gas supplies give the United States the ability to export energy to our allies, while advancing the U.S. economy and maintaining affordable and competitive prices for consumers. As this new report highlights, U.S. LNG exports will provide substantial benefits for the economy, increasing investments into the United States while creating jobs and supporting government revenues. Meanwhile, U.S. LNG exports will also provide geopolitical benefits and advance environmental goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally. As this study indicates, increased amounts of LNG exports will benefit the U.S. so it is essential that our government remove the red tape that is holding up LNG export applications. Department of Energy (DOE) should accelerate the permitting of LNG exports projects and give the process greater certainty so that the U.S. can take advantage of this great economic opportunity for the nation.
34. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 12:00:00 AM Streams, Ryan General Comment Please see the attached comment letter on behalf of Western Energy Alliance.
  1. Final Western Energy Alliance 2015 LNG Export Stu...
35. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 12:00:00 AM McCaffree, Jody General Comment Please accept the following comments and supporting documents attached below.
  1. DOE_CALNG-McCaffree_Comment_2-12-2016.pdf
  2. DOE_CALNG-McCaffree_Index-for-Exhibits_2-12-2016....
  3. DOE_CALNG-McCaffree_Exhibits_1-to-10.pdf
  4. DOE_CALNG-McCaffree_Exhibits_11-to-20.pdf
  5. DOE_CALNG-McCaffree_Exhibits_21-to-26.pdf
36. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 12:00:00 AM Jones, Ninette General Comment Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. [FE Docket No. 12-32-LNG]. LNG Development Company, LLC (d/b/a Oregon LNG) [FE Docket No. 12-77-LNG]. Hello, thank you for the opportunity to participate in these discussions, and I write today out of great concern for the macroeconomic impacts of LNG export in the bioregion of the Pacific Norwest. Therefore, if LNG export is allowed to proceed as proposed we ought to consider the current Oregon economy as under attack. The flora and fauna and the public's best interest will be in serious jeopardy. Considering that the biggest growing sector of Oregon's economy is based around generating tourism dollars, which are fueled by the bioregion's, iconic public coast, beautiful vistas and waterways not beachfront views of LNG gas export refineries. The current proposals slated for two LNG import/export refineries to be erected on the beautiful public sands of the iconic Oregon coast ( docket numbers are listed above). Essentially turning the bioregion into a hub for LNG gas export will not benefit the flora and fauna of the Pacific Northwest, which is the current lifeblood of our communities. LNG export will have a negative impact on our current economy. Moreover, destroying family businesses, eradicating jobs, degrading habitat, enforcing eminent domain upon private property, lowering property values as well as place extra strain on emergency services while gas developers expect the public to bear all the costs of clean up if something goes wrong. These are not economically sound proposals for Oregon, neither the public nor the wild salmon. Jordan Cove is one of the last places on the Oregon Coast where oysters can still be grown in the ocean. This is priceless and must be protected at all costs. There are dead zones all along the west coast and LNG export on the Oregon Coast will further degrade our life support system of the planet by threatening our oceans and our air quality. This will greatly lower the quality of life in the bioregion, which simply is not in the public's best interest. LNG export will severely raise profits for gas developers while gas prices at home soar. The proposed LNG export economic impacts associated with proceeding with these proposals are not an economically sound investment for the State of Oregon or the public. I am adamantly opposed to the import/export of LNG in Oregon.
37. expand/collapse 2/11/2016 12:00:00 AM Fariello, Theresa General Comment See attached comments from Exxon Mobil Corporation.
  1. exxon macroeconomic.pdf
38. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 12:53:01 PM de Vriend, Wim 2015 LNG Export Study On page 8 of the Exec. Summary, one of the ‘Findings’ is: “The overall macroeconomic impacts of higher LNG exports are marginally positive . . . the impact of increasing exports . . . is between 0.03 and 0.07 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over the period of 2026–2040, or $7–$20 billion USD annually in today’s prices”. The ‘Finding’ needs a couple of qualifications. One, it is based on a ‘robust’ estimate of foreign demand for US LNG. The other is the unacknowledged (and more serious) exception for foreign-owned LNG exporters whose main purpose is to export foreign-produced gas. Except for a few services provided by Americans (mainly construction contractors, plus a small plant payroll, pilots and tugboat operators), such exporters will contribute far more to the GDP of a foreign country, not the US. The Jordan Cove export facility proposed for Coos Bay, Oregon, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Veresen, a Canadian pipeline operator listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX:VSN). While Jordan Cove has hinted it may export gas from the U.S. Rocky Mountain region, eliciting support from U.S. politicians in those parts, it plans to export mainly, and possibly only, Canadian gas. In fact, according to: “Falling Short: A Reality Check for LNG Exports” (Leonardo Maugeri, December 2014, Harvard Kennedy School), p. 23, the Jordan Cove terminal will “. . . need Canadian gas to come online, a major factor of uncertainty.” The explanation is on page 30: “To circumvent some of the problems affecting British Columbia, Canadian gas developers could send their natural gas to the U.S. west coast, where it could be liquefied and shipped to Asia. But the fate of Oregon’s LNG schemes seems very uncertain in this decade.” So, Canadians are desperate to ship gas, the people of Coos Bay are supposed to cheer them on and let them have their land through eminent domain, and more: the US government will be expected to deepen the Coos Bay harbor strictly for Jordan Cove, at great public expense. The ‘problems affecting British Columbia’ are the dashed hopes for LNG export from that Canadian province, mostly due to local politics. And in Canada’s National Post of September 3, 2015, global LNG consultant Wood Mackenzie was quoted as follows: “The window to build liquefied natural gas projects in Canada and elsewhere has closed amid a global supply glut. . . . There is a clear reluctance by companies to stand down, but the reality is that [it] closed over six months ago for everyone, not just for Canada.” In recent years Jordan Cove/Veresen has repeatedly promised to have long-term contracts with overseas LNG buyers. In a press release of October 7, 2013, Veresen boasted of having obtained: “. . . initial customer expressions of interest by entering into non-binding arrangements, referred to as "Heads of Agreement" (HOA). The HOA sets out indicative commercial terms of the subsequent, binding, Liquefaction Tolling Services Agreement . . .” But ‘Heads of Agreement’ are no more than polite, unenforceable expressions of interest. On March 5, 2014, Veresen’s 2013 “Fourth Quarter and Year-End results“ claimed it: “. . . made good progress in its discussions with potential international off-take customers to secure long-term arrangements to produce LNG.” There have been more such announcements, always followed by nothing, and considering LNG market conditions, it would be highly surprising if any contracts materialized. Given the negligible good that Jordan Cove would do for the United States (and the harm it would do to Coos Bay; but that’s another story) plus the lack of demand, it seems illogical and improbable that any agency of the U.S. government could in good conscience sign off on a Section 7 ‘certificate of public convenience and necessity’ for Jordan Cove, this being a requirement for asserting eminent domain for the “Pacific Connector” pipeline required by that LNG terminal.
39. expand/collapse 2/12/2016 12:00:00 AM McCaffree, Jody General Comment Additional supporting documents to accompany comments.
  1. DOE_CALNG_McCaffree_Exhibits_27-to-31.pdf