Pipeline would encourage natural gas fracking in the state

by Brian Leubitz

The Obama Administration will likely decide on an oil-company backed proposal that would allow unlimited exports of liquid natural gas (LNG) within a few weeks. Big Oil and others whose bottom lines stand to grow from the policy are seeking to muddy the issue. But it really is simple: the results of expanding exports of liquid natural gas (LNG) could have some dramatic impacts on our economy and environment. And with the California GOP possibly looking to use their pro-fracking stance as an electoral issue, these are very relevant questions.

Natural gas prices in the United States have dropped by two-thirds since 2008. It has helped the expansion of U.S. manufacturing and our economic recovery by lowering energy costs for businesses, households and governments. A CNN editorial last year called the drop in prices “one of the most important developments for the U.S. economy in the last 60 years.” Cheaper natural gas gets us one step closer to energy independence, but at a very real cost.

But studies have shown that exporting LNG could increase the price of gas domestically by as much as 300 percent, savagely curtailing our ability to climb out of the recession and to build a competitive 21st century economy. Why is the DOE considering a policy, which would harm American citizens and American industry for the sake of increasing the overseas profits for a few giant oil and gas companies?

While a positive tool for the U.S. economy, workers, and consumers, there are negative environmental and health consequences associated with the methods used to drill for natural gas: hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Fracking has been shown to contaminate air and groundwater, lead to local water shortages, and impact human health, ecosystems, and the global climate.  

Acting on the behalf of oil and gas drilling lobbyists, Congress has excluded fracking from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, or the Clean Water Act, three of America’s vital health and environmental protections. With federal regulation failing to provide adequate public protection, we should do everything in our power to prevent additional market demand for fracking – and expanded unlimited exports would create precisely that demand.

Expanding LNG exportation would translate to Big Oil and gas companies raking in profits overseas (while simultaneously fueling our economic competitors), and Americans here at home suffering increased rates of cancer, child asthma, and respiratory conditions as a result.

Natural gas is currently a cleaner and more socially and economically beneficial energy source than oil or coal.  But, given the environmental and health ramifications, it is best if thought of as a short-term resource for the United States. The best way to take advantage of this resource while still protecting our citizens’ health and our environmental heritage is by limiting natural gas demand to the current U.S. consumption, without expanding sales overseas. In the longer term, natural gas is going to be a less and less attractive option, for environmental, health, and economic reasons. We should not expand our reliance on it.

Oil and gas companies are currently pressing to expand U.S. exports of LNG to other countries, where the price is much higher and therefore, so are the associated profits. While this would increase the profits of these energy companies, it would increase prices for Americans in the short term and encourage more fracking and an economy further based on fossil fuels in the long term.

The Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Clean Water Action, and a host of other major environmental groups have sent a letter to President Obama urging him to oppose expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports until the government conducts additional environmental and economic studies. “Exporting even a fraction of the gas proposed could seriously harm American communities and the environment,” the groups wrote.

Allowing increased natural gas exports would be the worst of both worlds for the United States: we would throw away our current economic advantages and hurt American families in the short term, and damage our communities, health, and planet in the long term.

By sending our gas overseas we’ll be poisoning our land, water, and communities, all for the profit of big oil and gas companies. Not only will we harm communities and families here and now, but we’ll be crippling ourselves for the future. We need to ensure that the DOE understands the consequences of granting any further export permits.