In the News

Natural Gas Exports: What They’re Saying

Economic Studies and Think Tanks

Business and Trade Associations

Editorial Boards and Thought Leaders

Current and Former Government Officials

Economic Studies and Think Tanks

NERA Economic Consulting, “Updated Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports from the United States” (Feb. 20, 2014)

“In all of the scenarios analyzed in this study, NERA found that the U.S. would experience net economic benefits from increased LNG exports.”

“Across the scenarios, U.S. economic welfare consistently increases as the volume of natural gas exports increases. This includes scenarios in which there are unlimited exports.”

“Unlimited exports always create greater benefits than limited exports in comparable scenarios.”

Our analysis suggests that there is no support for the concern that LNG exports, even in the unlimited export case, will obstruct a chemicals or manufacturing renaissance in the United States.”

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (Dec. 2013)

“There is nothing in the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2014 Early Release that should give the U.S. Department of Energy pause about issuing non-free trade agreement permits to export LNG.  In fact, the data supports an accelerated pace by DOE to authorize the pending applications.”

ICF International, “Liquefied Natural Gas Exports: America’s Opportunity and Advantage” (Dec. 2013)

“LNG exports could contribute as much as $10 to $31 billion per state to the economies of natural gas-producing states, such as Texas, Louisiana, and  Pennsylvania.”

“Non-natural-gas-producing states will also benefit, partly due to the boost in demand for steel, cement, equipment, and other goods. States with a large  manufacturing base, such as Ohio, California, New York, and Illinois, will see economic gains as high as $2.6 to $5.0 billion per state.”

“Natural gas-producing states could see employment gains as high as 60,000 to 155,000 jobs; and large manufacturing states, such as California and Ohio, will see employment gains upwards of 30,000 to 38,000 jobs in 2035.”

Potential Gas Committee, biennial assessment of the nation’s natural gas resources (April 9, 2013)

“[T]he United States possesses a total technically recoverable resource base of 2,384 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) as of year-end 2012. This is the highest resource evaluation in the Committee’s 48-year history, exceeding the previous high assessment (from 2010) by 486 Tcf.”

American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), “Liquefied Natural Gas: Why Rapid Approval of the Backlog of Export Applications is Important for U.S. Prosperity” (July 11, 2013)

“Each project can take five years or more to move from approval to export flow. Without a faster approval process, it is unlikely that the U.S. will achieve the economic and job growth benefits that would arise from the higher production of natural gas since other countries may gain market share at our expense.” (p. 4)

Bipartisan Policy Center, “New Dynamics of the U.S. Natural Gas Market” (May 2013)

“LNG exports are unlikely to have a large impact on domestic prices.” (p. 9)

“The price of U.S. natural gas will influence LNG export levels far more LNG exports will influence domestic prices.” (p. 9)

Small Business Etrepeneurship Council (SBE Council), “The Benefits of Natural Gas Production and Exports for U.S. Small Businesses” (May 2013)

“Looking ahead, the opportunity exists for exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG), given the large differential in natural gas prices in the U.S. versus elsewhere in the world, and rising global demand. Unfortunately, though, there is a movement afoot to have government limit LNG exports, based on the unfounded fear that LNG exports will dramatically drive up domestic natural gas prices. But the economy is not a zero-sum game. Expanded demand for U.S. natural gas internationally will be a net positive, resulting in greater U.S. natural gas production, increased investment, enhanced GDP growth, rising incomes, and more jobs.” (p. 3)

Resources for the Future (RFF), “The Controversy over US Coal and Natural Gas Exports” (March 2013)

“Coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports will almost surely confer net economic benefits to the United States.” (p. 1)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Energy Initiative, “The Future of Natural gas” (June, 2011)

“The U.S. should sustain North American energy market integration and support development of a global ‘liquid’ natural gas market with diversity of supply. A corollary is that the U.S. should not erect barriers to natural gas imports or exports.” (p. 157)

Bipartisan Policy Center, “America’s Energy Resurgence: Sustaining Success, Confronting Challenges” (Feb. 2013)

“Recommendation: Restricting international trade in fossil fuels is not an effective policy to reduce global greenhouse gas emission or to advance domestic economic interests, and we recommend against any such restrictions.” (p. 39)

American Security Project, “The Geopolitical Implications of U.S. Natural Gas Exports” (March, 2013)

“Allowing American LNG to reach world markets will enhance the energy security of our allies, providing geopolitical benefits to the U.S.”

NERA Economic Consulting, [Report commissioned for the U.S. Dept. of Energy]  “Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports from the United States” (Dec. 3, 2012)

“[F]or every one of the market scenarios examined, net economic benefits increased as the level of LNG exports increased. In particular, scenarios with unlimited exports always had higher net economic benefits than corresponding cases with limited exports.” (p. 1)

“In all of the scenarios analyzed in this study, NERA found that the U.S. would experience net economic benefits from increased LNG exports.” (p. 6)

“In conclusion, the range of aggregate macroeconomic results from this study suggests that LNG export has net benefits to the U.S. economy.” (p. 78)

“In particular, the U.S. natural gas price does not become linked to oil prices in any of the cases examined.” (DOE report, p. 6)

National Regulatory Research Institute, “LNG Exports: What State Utility Commission Need to Know” (Nov. 8, 2012)

“US policy should support LNG exports as part of a ‘free trade’ stance that with a few exceptions would serve the country’s interest.” (p. V)

“…the US would realize a net economic gain and improved international relations from LNG exports,” (p.13)

Congressional Research Service, “Natural Gas in the U.S. Economy: Opportunities for Growth” (Nov. 6, 2012)

“Exports of energy-related resources have not been a big part of U.S. trade so increasing them would likely improve the overall U.S. trade balance. Nevertheless, the rise in U.S. natural gas production has already benefitted the U.S. trade position by dramatically decreasing imports, the other component of the trade balance. Increasing U.S. LNG exports would also expand the role of the United States in international natural gas markets. Asian countries, in particular, and some European countries have called for more U.S. LNG exports.” (p. 22-23)

Baker Institute at Rice University, “Shale Gas and U.S. National Security” (July 2011)

“The United States should focus squarely on setting the policies needed to ensure that shale gas can play a significant role in the U.S. and global energy mix, thereby contributing to greater diversification of global energy supplies and to the long-term national interests of the United States.” (p. 56)

Brookings Institution, “Liquid Markets: Assessing the Case for U.S. Exports of Liquefied Natural Gas” (May 2, 2012)

“The study recommends that U.S. policy makers should refrain from introducing legislation or regulations that would either promote or limit additional exports of LNG from the United States. The nature of the LNG sector, both the costs associated with producing, processing, and shipping the gas, and the global market in which it will compete, will place upper bounds on the amount of LNG that will be economic to export.

“LNG exports are likely to be a net benefit to the U.S. economy.” (p. 2)

Thought Leaders and Editorial Boards 

Mike Rattner, New York Times Columnist and former Counselor to the Treasury Department (July 23, 2014)

“By exporting liquefied natural gas, we would earn valuable export dollars.”

“Energy policy should not be driven by emotion. Paradoxically, the fastest way to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy is to speed the export of crude oil and natural gas.”

James Clad,  former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia (July 10, 2014)

“But the geopolitical impetus also counts for a lot: U.S. LNG exports can weaken Russian and other supply monopolies.”

Vali R. Nasr, Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (June 10, 2014)

“Most important, Congress should approve the export of America’s natural gas and support the building of terminals for shipping it. And America should, like Russia, be looking now to seal long-term gas deals with Europe and Asia. That could allow the United States to emerge a winner on both fronts of the new map of economic rivalries.”

Anne Applebaum, Columnist, Washington Post (May 1, 2014)

“A European Union thinking strategically about its future would create an energy union, as some have already suggested, and begin to bargain collectively for its gas. Europeans should also step up construction of the infrastructure needed to import, transport, and store liquefied natural gas (LNG). The United States should step up its own efforts to export LNG”

Larry Summers, former U.S. Treasury Secretary (April 6, 2014)

“Government could do much at no cost to promote private investment including authorizing oil and natural gas exports, bringing clarity to the future of corporate taxes, and moving forward on trade agreements that open up foreign markets.”

Wade Murphy, former Department of Energy official under President George W. Bush and Managing Partner at Source Rock Partners (April 1, 2014)

“Certainly, approving open expansion of America’s LNG export capacity is a wise move for both domestic and global economic security.”

Washington Post, Editorial Board (March 22, 2014)

“Debate has raged over whether the United States can fight Vladimir Putin on the Russian president’s most favorable ground: energy politics. It can, and it should, particularly because there’s an obvious path forward that coincides with the United States’ — indeed, the world’s — economic interests. That path is lifting irrational restrictions on exports and making it easier to build natural gas export terminals.”

Wall Street Journal, Editorial Board (March 20, 2014)

“The growth of LNG—which can ship internationally—has created a more global natural gas market. That market is forward-looking, and any clear signal that the U.S. intends to boost its exports will contribute to expectations about lower future prices. Even if some U.S. gas flows to Asia, the global supply will increase.

This is especially important to the many European nations that are currently dependent on Russia for 70% to 100% of their gas. Jaroslav Zajicek, deputy chief of mission for the Czech Republic, told a House hearing last year that his country has found that even the decline in U.S. gas imports in recent years has freed up more gas for Europe, lowered prices, and thus “weakened” the “Russian negotiating position during contract-renewal talks.”

USA Today, Editorial Board (March 20, 2014)

“Second, the United States — now nearly energy independent — could export liquefied natural gas to both Europe and Asia. There are many good reasons for this. The USA has 100 years to 120 years of proven reserves and could significantly boost its economy with the billions of dollars a year that would pour in from a significant export program.

The specter of Putin using natural gas spigots as a way to dominate Ukraine, while keeping other nations at bay, is all the more reason to get going.

The United States could export 12 billion cubic feet a day, equal to about 15% of current production, while hardly breaking a sweat. The Energy Department estimates that this would have only a modest impact on domestic prices, more than offset by the economic gain.”

Wall Street Journal, Editorial Board (March 9, 2014)

“All of this underscores that President Obama can serve U.S. strategic and economic interests by immediately approving every request to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal. Not every one will be built but the market will quickly decide which make economic sense. With Europe begging and Republicans in Congress encouraging, what is the White House waiting for?”

New York Times, Editorial Board (March 6, 2014)

“The United States imported 16 percent of the gas it used as recently as 2007, but it could become a net exporter of the fuel by 2020, according to the Energy Information Administration. Increasing natural gas exports could serve American foreign-policy interests in Europe, which gets about 30 percent of its gas from Russia. Countries like Germany and Ukraine are particularly vulnerable to supply disruptions that are politically driven.”

Washington Post, Editorial Board (March 5, 2014)

“America’s natural gas boom helps, too. Once thought to be a permanent importer of gas, the United States is now producing huge amounts of the fuel, to the point that energy firms want to export it. U.S. exports could reduce Russia’s leverage further.”

Thomas Friedman, Foreign Affairs Columnist, New York Times (March 4, 2014)

“Just as the oil glut of the 1980s, partly engineered by the Saudis, brought down global oil prices to a level that helped collapse Soviet Communism, we could do the same today to Putinism by putting the right long-term policies in place. That is by investing in the facilities to liquefy and export our natural gas bounty (provided it is extracted at the highest environmental standards) and making Europe, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, more dependent on us instead.”

Adam Sieminski, Administrator of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (Feb. 20, 2014)

“What we try to do is look at the economics. We run our national energy modeling system to basically say, ‘What would the economics do if you let them run?’ And that shows we’re likely to see increases in exports of both LNG and pipeline gas.

Interestingly, the model also says that there’s plenty of production to do that and still allow demand in the US to go up considerably.”

Scott Lincicome, Cato Institute Adjunct Scholar and International Trade Attorney (Feb. 10, 2014)

“The goal should really be energy stability. This energy stability comes from domestic production, imports and yes, exports. Creating a more transparent and more consistent system creates a lot more stability in global energy markets.”

Lucian Pugliaresi, President of the Energy Policy Research Foundation and former member of the National Security Council in the Reagan administration (Dec. 23, 2013)

“U.S. policymakers should fight protectionist measures and support America’s role as a reliable trading partner to our allies. We otherwise will cede the global market to competitors and deny our energy industry the opportunity to realize these economic and employment benefits for the nation.”

Donald J. Boudreaux, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center and former economics-department chair at George Mason University (Dec. 10, 2013)

“By selling more of our natural-gas supplies abroad, we Americans will increase the number of goods and services that we import, thereby improving living standards here at home. And despite claims to the contrary, boosting gas exports will actually drive down domestic energy costs over the long-term. Officials seeking to restrict natural-gas exports are preventing the United States from realizing the full rewards of the current domestic energy boom.”

The Oregonian, Editorial Board (Dec. 7, 2013)

“The LNG market has changed and Jordan Cove with it, for the better. If regulators find that exports pose little threat to energy price stability or supply domestically, Jordan Cove seems very much the real deal at the right time in exactly the right place.”

Dr. Loren Scott, Independent Economist (Oct. 16, 2013)

 “Sometime in 2014, Lake Charles should surpass its previous peak reached back in 2008 and begin to set new employment records. In fact, we project that in 2015 this MSA will break through a barrier which has been seemingly illusive since the mid-’90s — over 100,000 employed.”

Washington Post, Editorial Board (Sept. 17, 2013)

“The Energy Department was right to approve Cove Point, and it would be right to okay other projects like it in the future.”

Amy Myers Jaffe,  Executive Director for Energy and Sustainability at the University of California, Davis (Sept. 17, 2013)

“US exports of LNG are part of a package of export policies that could eventually depoliticize oil and make it difficult for countries to artificially inflate prices. In other words, US exports, even if they create additional demand, ultimately will contribute to a lowering of US energy costs over time by reducing monopoly power of foreign producer coalitions to increase prices. With the 40th Anniversary of the 1973 Oil Embargo, opponents of exports need to think more broadly about the broader benefits that might come from US energy export policy.”

Denver Post, Editorial Borad (Sept. 7, 2013)

“The U.S., with natural gas that is currently selling for a fraction of what it goes for in Europe and Asia, could also derive political power from this economic asset. And robust exports also could narrow the U.S. trade deficit. Abundant domestic natural gas reserves have the potential to revive the nation’s groggy economy if policy makers will open the doors to exports and let the market work.”

Raymond Keating, the chief economist for the U.S. Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (Aug. 28, 2013)

“There’s more than enough natural gas to supply chemical manufacturers and exports. This is a win-win for everyone.”

William O’Keefe, Chief Executive Officer of the Marshall Institute and President of Solutions Consulting, Inc. (Aug. 23, 2013)

“As a policy, we should avoid the rent-seeking advocacy opposed to LNG exports.  Instead, we should embrace both expanded natural gas development through exports and domestic manufacturing.  There’s more than enough gas to fuel both.”

Bernard Weinstein, Maguire Energy Institute (Aug. 1, 2013)

“As an energy-abundant nation, America should logically be a major energy  exporter. This is already the case with coal, and there is no reason we can’t  become one of the world’s largest gas exporters as well, with all the attendant  job creation and environmental benefits that will follow.”

Michael Economides, Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Houston, and Editor-in-Chief of Energy Tribune (Aug. 28, 2013)

“The U.S. oil and gas industry currently supports around 9.8 million jobs, yet with expanded shale development, energy infrastructure and LNG exports millions more jobs can be realized.  America can no longer rest on its historic reputation as an energy leader and innovator.”

Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation (July 16, 2013)

“The U.S. must move forward with plans that will turn cheap and abundant natural gas into liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export. We are only now building the liquefaction facilities to undertake this venture on a large scale, and the private sector is investing the money to make it happen — as long as the Obama administration will allow it.”

Washington Post, Editorial Borad (May 29, 2013)

“We are confident that any even-handed consideration will lead Mr. Moniz to the same conclusion that so many experts have already embraced: that allowing the country to sell its bounty to the world will leave it and its trading partners better off. We hope the new energy secretary reaches that conclusion swiftly so that no applications are held up while he accommodates Mr. Wyden.”

Thomas Tunstall, research director of the University of Texas at San Antonio Institute for Economic Development (May 29, 2013)

“Natural-gas exports provide a clean and much-needed source of energy to our trading partners and economic growth and jobs in the U.S.”

Margo Thorning, American Council for Capital Formation (May 27, 2013)

“Exports have proven to be a net positive boost for the U.S. economy and LNG exports shouldn’t be treated differently.”

Harry Vidas, ICF International (May 21, 2013)

“The net effects on U.S. employment from LNG exports are projected to be positive with average net job growth of 73,100 to 452,300 between 2016 and 2035, including 1,700-11,400 net job gains in the specific manufacturing sectors that include refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals.”

Joe Nocera, Economic and Business Columnist, New York Times (May 17, 2013)

“Exporting natural gas has enormous benefits for the United States. Exports create jobs that are every bit as good as manufacturing jobs. They help our trade deficit. They tie us closer to important allies like Japan, which desperately need the gas.”

T. Boone Pickens, BP Capital Management (May 15, 2013)

“Why would you keep natural gas prices down to favor other industries? It doesn’t make sense. When you export natural gas you’re going to create a lot of jobs. And if you look at the industry, the industry has created a lot of jobs. So, go ahead and move it out, sell it.”

Bloomberg News, Editorial Board (May 8, 2013)

“On May 4, Obama said, ‘I’ve got to make an executive decision broadly about whether or not we export liquefied natural gas at all.’ Though the decision has yet to be made, the right one is clear, and the approvals of the new plants should be made without delay.”

W. David Montgomery, National Economic Research Associates (April 25, 2013)

“…economic theory and practical experience clearly support the conclusion that free trade in natural gas is better for the U.S. economy than any system that restricts natural gas exports.”

David Mallino Jr., Laborers International Union of North America (April 25, 2013)

“The export of LNG can help drive additional U.S. natural gas production and support hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. jobs in engineering, manufacturing, construction, and operation of the export infrastructure, as well as others indirectly along the equipment supply chain.”

Michael Levi, Council on Foreign Relations (April 25, 2013)

“Allowing LNG exports would avoid doing damage to U.S. relations with allies and to U.S. leverage in trade organizations and negotiations more broadly. Actual LNG exports would also provide some security to U.S. friends, particularly in Asia.”

Michael Ratner, Congressional Research Service (April 25, 2013)

“As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United States could be subject to cases under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade’s General Prohibition Against Quantitative Restraints if exports were limited. While certain exemptions from this prohibition may be granted, export restrictions may put the United States in a contradictory position vis-à-vis cases it has brought to the WTO.”

Bloomberg News, Editorial Board (Dec. 28, 2012)

“Wyden is wrong: The federal government should not be exercising a heavy hand in this case. Liberal capitalist democracies should not allocate resources through regulatory determinations of the national interest. They should encourage free trade. If the domestic manufacturing and chemical industries require natural gas, they should place competitive bids for it. “

“All of this is more disappointing given Wyden’s past support for free trade. ‘If we put up unfair barriers, other countries will do so too,’ Wyden said in 2010. Why is that not true for energy?”

Robert Samuelson, Economic and Business Columnist, Washington Post (Dec. 23, 2012)

“Limiting LNG exports might initially cut prices, but the long-run consequences would be perverse. By depressing prices, we might kill the boom. Production would become less profitable or unprofitable, and new drilling would slow or stop. This is not just supply and demand. It’s also history. From 1954 to the early 1990s, the federal government regulated prices for interstate natural gas. Prices were held artificially low. “Shortages” developed in the 1970s; drilling suffered

“A policy that discriminates against producers in favor of consumers by restricting foreign sales will hurt both. The gas boom will recede as an engine of growth. For years, Americans have complained about trade deficits. Now that we have something more to sell, we shouldn’t turn away customers.”

New York Times, Editorial Board (Dec. 15, 2012)

“Exporting natural gas is a controversial issue, with powerful forces on both sides. But we are persuaded by the report’s core finding that the benefits of selling gas to other countries would more than offset the modestly negative impact of higher prices for domestic users of the fuel.”

“The United States has traditionally maintained tight control over the export of natural gas, a fuel that it once imported, allowing it to be sold only in cases deemed to be in the “public interest.” But those restrictions have become anachronistic.”

Washington Post, Editorial Board (Dec. 7, 2012)

“It would be particularly perverse for the Obama administration, which has made an explicit commitment to increasing the nation’s exports, to preserve restrictions on natural gas exports. The government should permit energy companies to sell as much of the fuel as the economics warrant, whether in Germany or Germantown.”

Wall Street Journal, Editorial Board (Dec. 6, 2012)

“It makes no economic sense to complain that foreign markets are closed to American goods and then assert that U.S. interests are served by hoarding U.S. gas. American prosperity is best served by letting business exploit as many opportunities as possible, for the U.S. market or for export.”

Bloomberg News, Editorial Board (Nov. 25, 2012)

“U.S. President Barack Obama has a rising opportunity to make good on two of his central campaign promises: harnessing domestic energy and boosting U.S. exports.

“By green lighting exports of liquefied natural gas, Obama can hasten production of an abundant U.S. resource and open a new avenue of international trade. The president can also give growth a much needed jolt: Liquid natural gas exports could add billions to the U.S. economy, create tens of thousands of long- term jobs and help narrow the trade gap.”

Marc S. Lipschultz, Global Head of Energy and Infrastructure, KKR & Co. (Nov. 15, 2012)

“LNG export sales … will directly reduce our trade deficit…Additionally, because the resource base is so large, these exports are expected to have only a modest impact on domestic prices while providing a steady source of demand to support expanded production and delivery infrastructure.”

Daniel Yergin, Chairman, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, and Pulitzer Prize winning author (Oct. 22, 2012)

“How can America, having asked Japan to reduce Iranian oil imports, turn around and prohibit the export of surplus natural gas to this key ally?”

Michael Levi, Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment, Council on Foreign Relations (Aug. 15, 2012)

“…American firms could make up to $3 billion per year by producing and exporting liquefied natural gas. It’s true that gas-dependent industries would have to pay more because of higher gas prices, but those costs would be substantially smaller than the benefits. But there are bigger stakes involved than just money. A decision to constrain natural-gas exports could have dangerous reverberations for American trade.

“At the same time, exports would likely reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, the small price increases that would result from allowing exports would have at most a marginal impact on the use of natural gas as fuel for cars and trucks. Blocking exports wouldn’t push natural gas into automobiles — it would mostly keep it in the ground, because there would be less incentive to extract it.”

USA TODAY, Editorial Board (June 20, 2012)

“Blocking exports of natural gas might hold prices down a bit, but it would dampen production here, too. In fact, export demand will create more drilling-related jobs at home and give suppliers more incentive to produce. The best solution to this nice-to-have problem is to do what the U.S. usually does best, which is to let the free market work.”

Current and Former Government Officials

Congressman Pat Tiberi (July 23, 2014)

“We have this natural-gas boom in America. We can use this newfound energy as a diplomatic tool to give the European leaders some backbone in standing up to the Russians.”

Senator John McCain (July 11, 2014)

“It is in America’s national security interest to leverage our nation’s energy boom to reduce the dependence of our allies on the natural resources of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Speeding the export of liquefied natural gas to Ukraine and Europe will help accomplish that goal.”

Senator John Hoeven (July 11, 2014)

“Achieving energy independence needs to be a priority for our economy, and also for our national security. We’re producing more than 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in our country, but use only 26 trillion. That means we can not only produce more energy than we use in the United States to create jobs, reduce flaring and decrease our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, but also produce enough energy to help our allies, including countries like Ukraine, avert conflicts over energy with hostile neighbors.”

Senator John Barrasso (July 11, 2014)

“It’s a win-win for our environment, American workers, and the energy security of our allies and strategic partners.”

Congressman Bob Goodlatte (July 6, 2014)

“It does not make sense for the U.S. to continue building our own roadblocks to energy production. Instead, let’s cut through the red tape and get the projects that have been sitting idle moving as part of a real all-of-the-above energy policy. The Senate has stalled long enough. Saying yes to unlocking American energy is saying yes to American jobs.”

Congressman Bill Johnson (July 3, 2014)

“In Ohio alone, the American Petroleum Institute estimates that over 30,000 jobs will be created as a result of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, and over 665,000 jobs could be created nationwide by 2035. The only thing standing in the way is President Obama’s Department of Energy, currently sitting on over 20 LNG export permits.”

Congressman Devin Nunes (July 2, 2014)

“Not only would our economy benefit, but we’d be giving energy-poor nations an alternative supplier to the corrupt kleptocracies and fanatical sectarians who, by controlling so much of the world’s energy, control the fates of so many people.”

Senator Mark Udall (June 19, 2014)

“I want to responsibly take advantage of our vast gas resource both for domestic consumption and for exports to global markets.”

Democratic Sens. Mark Udall, Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich, Tom Udall and Heidi Heitkamp, letter to President Obama (May 2, 2014)

“Our country has the ability to take swift and decisive action to protect our allies while boosting our economy, creating jobs and protecting the environment here at home. We must take prompt action to realize those benefits, safeguard our allies and protect vital American interests abroad. We urge you to instruct DOE to commit to act upoon the pending LNG export permits as soon as possible.”

Amos Hochstein, deputy assistant secretary for energy diplomacy at the State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resource (April 30, 2014)

On the impact of U.S. LNG exports to the global market: “The issue here is not where we’ll sell our gas. It’s about the global market…It will make a difference in all other regions.”

Carlos Pascual, the State Department’s special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs (April 6, 2014)

“If those countries have a choice in their supplies, they can use that market  power to reinforce their independence and break the ability of individual  suppliers to use energy as a tool that affects the political choices they want  to make for the future.”

Secretary of State John Kerry (April 1, 2014)

“Our new capacities as a gas producer and the approval of seven export licenses is going to help supply gas to global markets, and we look forward to doing that starting in 2015. And we will supply more gas than all of Europe consumes today.”

The White House, Joint US-EU Statement (March 26, 2014)

“We welcome the prospect of U.S. LNG exports in the future since additional global supplies will benefit Europe and other strategic partners.”

Senator John Barasso (March 26, 2014)

“There’s bipartisan support in Congress for exporting America’s natural gas and we would welcome the President’s leadership on this important issue.”

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany (March 21, 2014)

On whether U.S. shale gas could help diversify European countries’ energy sources: “Many people think that this could be one component, if the United States decided to export shale gas.”

Jaroslav Neverovič, Minister of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania (March 25, 2014)

“The United States, with your enormous natural gas resources and highly developed infrastructure, has the kind of liquid market that Europe is trying mightily to achieve.”

Senators John Hoeven and Mark Warner, letter to President Obama (March 21, 2014)

“First, direct the Department of Energy to accelerate the natural gas export permit process by approving the pending permits within 60 days, or providing specific reasons why it cannot approve individual permit applications. Though exports would not start immediately, and though the price points in Asian markets are currently more attractive to natural gas exporters, calling for expedited approval of Liquefied Natural Gas exports will increase liquidity on the global markets and will improve the European energy security.”

Senator Mary Landrieu, Chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (March 20, 2014)

“Being sanctioned by President (Vladimir) Putin is a badge of honor. It will not stop me from using my power as chair of the Energy Committee to promote America as an energy superpower and help increase energy exports around the world. We must minimize Russia’s influence over Europe, the former Soviet states — especially Ukraine that has fought so long for freedom — and our allies. And it most certainly will not stop me from advocating for orphans in Russia and around the world.”

Ambassadors of Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, joint letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (March 10, 2014)

“The presence of U.S. natural gas would be much welcome in central and eastern  Europe, and congressional action to expedite LNG exports to American’s allies  would come at a critically important time for the region”

Condeleeza Rice, former Secretary of State (March 7, 2014)

“Soon, North America’s bounty of oil and gas will swamp Moscow’s capacity. Authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline and championing natural gas exports would signal that we intend to do precisely that. And Europe should finally diversify its energy supply and develop pipelines that do not run through Russia.”

House Speaker John Boehner (March 4, 2014)

“If the president wanted to strengthen his hand, and help protect our allies in the region, he’d pick up his phone and use his pen and have the Energy Department approve the applications for these LNG exports.”

Senator Mark Udall (March 4, 2014)

“The Ukrainian crisis provides a clear example of why the U.S. Energy Department needs to quickly approve more liquefied natural gas facilities and cut through the red tape slowing LNG exports.”

Congressman Paul Ryan (March 3, 2014)

“…we should be upping our exports of natural gas to this region and showing there will be real consequences to these kind of actions”

Congressman Fred Upon, Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee (March 3, 2014 )

“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.”

Congressman Peter King (March 9, 2013)

“We have enough to supply so many countries in the world, and we should right now start lifting restrictions; we should begin the exporting as quickly as we possibly can”

U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee (Feb. 4, 2014)

“Although the economic benefits of LNG exports are significant, they may well be exceeded by the geopolitical benefits.”

James Bacchus, Former WTO Appellate Body Jurist and former U.S. Congressman  (Feb. 10, 2014)

“Imposing restrictions on exports as a matter of policy is in my view, short-sided and self-defeating economic nationalism.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (Jan. 7, 2014)

 “Multiple studies have concluded that the domestic price impacts of LNG exports will be minimal and, in any event, will be far outweighed by the net gains to the U.S. economy. Further, geopolitical benefits will accrue from helping our friends and allies overseas, dependent as many of them are on a limited number of suppliers.  DOE should expedite its review process for applications to export LNG to non-FTA countries.”

Zygimantas Pavilionis, Lithuania’s ambassador to the U.S. and Mexico (Jan. 16, 2014)

“If we have cuts of supplies, if our security is under threat, we have to stand for each other. So, LNG is something that would really benefit the common security of the whole Trans-Atlantic family.”

Niki Tzavela, European Union Parliament (Jan. 16, 2014)

“It’s better if you give us cheap energy than sending money through the IMF,”

U.S. State Department (April 17, 2013)

“The increase in U.S. gas supplies is already having foreign policy impacts. Although the United States for the moment is still a net importer of natural gas, the United States also exports natural gas by pipeline and has exported liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Alaska. The decline in U.S. LNG imports has boosted global supplies and given some consumers, particularly in Europe, greater flexibility in meeting their energy needs. A number of our allies and partners have also expressed a desire to import natural gas from the United States, which they see as a secure and potentially cheaper source of supply.”

Congressman Michael Turner (Oct. 22, 2013)

“Enhancing global energy security through increased U.S. natural gas exports will  strengthen U.S. security partnerships, bolster our national security, help our  economy and create jobs for American workers.”

Anita Orbán, Energy Ambassador for Hungary and Vacláv Bartuska, Energy Ambassador for the Czech Republic (Oct. 10, 2013)

“The United States has the chance to become a key player in international exports of natural gas. If Washington expands export opportunities, the results would include strengthened domestic production, enhanced global energy security, expanded market opportunities, lower global prices and stronger transatlantic alliances. By making strategic choices, the United States could demonstrate, once again, that it considers the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Poland close allies and start a new, even closer, chapter in bilateral relations.”

Bipartisan letter to Ernest Moniz, 34 members of the U.S. Senate (July 9, 2013)

“The availability of U.S. LNG exports can help curtail the need for Iranian energy. Similarly, we can also provide secure LNG supplies to longstanding allies and strategic partners in Europe and Japan. One certainty in the marketplace is that nations need energy to fuel their economies. The only question is where they will get that energy. If the U.S. does not aggressively market LNG abroad, many of these nations may have no choice but to purchase energy from Iran or other nations that are not aligned with our own national interests.”

David Malpass, former deputy assistant Treasury secretary in the Reagan administration and deputy assistant secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration (July 22, 2013)

“In the U.S., any movement to encourage growth would be a positive surprise and a catalyst. A step toward a free-market energy policy—such as approval of the Keystone XL pipeline or permits for LNG export facilities—would be one such movement.”

Senator John Barrasso (June 16, 2013)

“The United States has a rare opportunity to simultaneously help its allies, strengthen its foreign policy hand and create much-needed jobs at home — all by exporting plentiful American natural gas. The question is whether the Obama administration will allow it.”

Bipartisan letter to Steven Chu, 110 members of the U.S. House of Representatives (Jan. 23, 2013)

“The growth of the natural gas industry drives jobs creation, increases tax revenue, royalties and supports domestic manufacturing,” the bipartisan letter reads. “However, the continued growth of this industry is reliant on steady demand; demand which we believe can responsibly include the export of LNG. We are pleased that the NERA study commissioned by DOE supports this, indicating the export of LNG will provide economic benefits to our nation.”

President Barack Obama, Interview with TIME Magazine (Dec. 12, 2012)

“The other big piece of this is that the transformation and energy could have a huge geopolitical consequence. The United States is going to be a net exporter of energy because of new technologies and what we’re doing with natural gas and oil.”

President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address (Jan. 2010)

“[W]e need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America…We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores.”

Jason Bordoff, former senior director and special assistant to President Obama for energy and climate change on the staff of the National Security Council (June 4, 2013)

“The president has a goal of doubling exports, recognizing the broad economic consensus that free trade leads to faster economic growth. Energy should be no different. Increasing global energy market integration will benefit both the U.S. economy and our national security.”

J. Winston Porter, former assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (March 20, 2013)

“The administration should take every step possible to encourage the shale revolution both here and abroad. Expediting the approval of liquefied natural-gas exports is a big step in the right direction.”

J. Bennett Johnston, former Democratic senator from Louisiana and chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (March 4, 2013)

“[D]oes anyone really think that Congress or the Department of Energy, years in advance, can predict supply and demand or determine which of the 16 applicants can procure the billions of dollars and decades-long contracts necessary to build an LNG export facility?”

“The free market might not always lead to everyone’s definition of the sweet spot, but experience has shown that it is a better allocator and regulator than bureaucrats and politicians. We should heed the admonition of Adam Smith that demand begets supply: Allow the free market to allocate the nation’s newfound energy bounty.”

Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, West Virginia (Jan. 16, 2013)

“First, we are pleased with the long-awaited December release of the report conducted for the Department of Energy (DOE) entitled “Macroeconomic Impacts of LNG Exports from the United States.” We were pleased to see the report concluded that each LNG export scenario the study reviewed resulted in “net economic benefits” for the United States. The report also found that while additional exports could impact the domestic natural gas prices, any increases would be offset by the U.S. economic benefits.”

Excerpt of pro LNG export letter to Secretary Chu, 16 members of the U.S. House of Representatives (Sept. 24, 2012)

“Creating more opportunities to sell natural gas into global markets and access overseas customers could help the goals of increasing natural gas use and smooth out historical boom-bust cycle.”

Bipartisan letter to Steven Chu cosigned by 43 Members of Congress, Co-Sposored by Reps. James Lankford and Gene Green (August 2, 2012)

“[T]here are active applications that could directly and significantly add thousands of temporary construction jobs along with permanent operational and production jobs in our states. These export terminals could also help balance our trade deficit and importantly provide additional stability to natural gas pricing. We strongly support your Department taking coherent and timely action to move this process forward.”

Bipartisan letter to Steven Chu cosigned by 21 Members of Congress, Co-Sposored by Reps. Bill Johnson and Tim Ryan (June 29, 2012)

“As members of Congress from states that overlay the Marcellus and Utica Shales, we urge you to move forward with the approval process for companies seeking to break into the global marketplace for liquefied natural gas (LNG).”

Bill Richardson and Spencer Abraham, former Secretaries, U.S. Department of Energy (Dec. 24, 2012)

“We believe, however, that LNG exports can buttress US geopolitical leadership and trade, while at the same time continuing to support low domestic natural gas prices and a renaissance in domestic manufacturing. In addition LNG exports offer the potential for lower global carbon emissions”

Letter from PA state legislators to President Obama (Jan. 2, 2013)

“We urge you to take the steps necessary to expedite the approval process for the export of LNG. Building the energy infrastructure necessary to allow market-based exports of liquefied natural gas will not only add stability to the energy production cycle in our region, it will create more American jobs, help reverse economic down turns, and continue reviving once declining industries.”

C. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel and former U.S. ambassador to the European Union (Dec. 25, 2012)

“Finally, there is no reason to exempt gas from the economic principles of comparative advantage that support free trade. Why not restrict agricultural exports for the benefit of American food processors? Exports restrictions make no more sense for energy than they do for agriculture.”

Trade Associations and Business Groups

West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association, Corky DeMarco (July 10, 2014)

“The United States is just now in the early stages of an historic transformation to natural gas abundance and long term energy security. This abundance is fueling an energy and manufacturing surge at home, while providing more than enough surplus for LNG exports. We need Congress and the White House to move expeditiously to streamline and modernize the regulatory process so we can get on with the work of building out this export capability.”

Montana Business Leadership Council, Don Sterhan (June 26, 2014)

“Our country has never produced more natural gas than it is right now, and to continue increasing production and providing jobs, we need to be able to export a portion of that production and ship it to our allies in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere.”

National Association of Waterfront Employers, John Crowley, Executive Director (May 7, 2014)

“We believe expanding and expediting LNG export applications is consistent with the public interest by creating high quality jobs and supporting international commerce by opening additional markets for our abundant resources.”

AFL-CIO, President Richard Trumka (Feb. 4, 2013)

“All facets of it ought to be up on the table and ought to be talked about. If we have the ability to export natural gas without increasing the price or disadvantaging American industry in the process, then we should carefully consider that and adopt policies to allow it to happen and help, because God only knows we do need help with our trade balance.”

Southern States Energy Board (October 2013)

“[m]embers of the Southern States Energy Board find that expansion of LNG exports is in the national interest and hereby call upon the United States Department of Energy and all other responsible regulatory agencies to facilitate and expedite the licensing and permitting of facilities for the processing, shipping and export of LNG so that the abundant domestic natural gas resources can serve the international market, without undue restrictions and thereby bring about substantial and important benefits.”

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), Ross Eisenberg, Vice President of Energy and Resources Policy (June 18, 2013)

“The NAM believes free trade and open markets should govern in the context of energy exports, and we oppose bans or similar market-distoring barriers to energy exports. Manufacturers support the President’s National Export Initiative and his goal of doubling U.S. export capacity by 2015.”

The Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council, President John Mohlis (May 21, 2013)

“For a small-population state like Oregon, the investment opportunity Jordan Cove represents is truly historic. I believe North American natural gas will be exported. The question is whether it will be exported via the U.S. West Coast or British Columbia. I would rather see the United States, and Oregon benefit from this trade by building the Jordan Cove terminal.”

LyondellBasel, CEO Jim Gallogly, (March 13, 2013)

“We as an industry support exports. We love free enterprise and exports,”

American’s Natural Gas Alliance, (Jan. 23, 2013)

“America’s Natural Gas Alliance strongly supports the country’s ability to export natural gas.  As is the case with any product or commodity, when free trade is allowed to flourish our economy enjoys greater prosperity, our people greater economic benefits, and our workers more and better jobs.  Imposing arbitrary limits on free trade, including exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), would be an economically short-sighted mistake.”

United States Council on International Business, (Jan. 22, 2013)

“USCIB has long championed expanded trade and investment, and the elimination of barriers to global commerce, including in the energy sector, under a rules-based system, and we support established WTO rules limiting export and import bans. Erecting new barriers to LNG exports would run counter to our past positions and efforts by the American business community to discourage restrictions by other countries.”

“Increased domestic supplies of natural gas are already providing a competitive edge for many U.S.-based manufacturers, with positive impacts on jobs both in the energy sector and in the economy as a whole. Many observers, including the International Energy Agency, predict that the United States will become a net energy exporter, which would have major economic and geopolitical ramifications. Additionally, there is potential for natural gas, with its much lower climate footprint, to surpass coal as the world’s number-two energy source.”

American Exploration & Production Council, V. Bruce Thompson, President, (Jan. 23, 2013)

“AXPC strongly believes that the export of natural gas is in the national interest of the United States. Our support is based on sound economic reasoning -­‐ the increase in sales of natural gas via exports would increase demand for economically advantaged U.S. Natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGL’s), thereby increasing investment of domestic and foreign capital which will enhance the search for and production of additional quantities of US natural gas and NGL’s. The Study bears out our support by making it clear that, as noted above, the export of natural gas would generate substantial benefits for the overall US Economy in all market scenarios. Additionally, It is important to note that — due to evolving pricing mechanisms — LNG exports would have a minimal impact on domestic natural gas prices. The DOE Study concludes that global markets will limit any increase in prices, and that U.S. natural gas prices would not become linked to oil prices in any of the cases examined in the report.”

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, (Jan. 18, 2013)

“The NERA study stated that “exports of natural gas will improve the U.S. balance of trade and result in a wealth transfer into the U.S.” This would be an important step toward reducing the trade deficit that has existed in our economy for many years. Beyond these balance of trade implications, the report found LNG exports could attract overseas capital to support investments in domestic energy infrastructure, providing “another form of wealth transfer into the U.S.”

The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) (Jan. 16, 2013)

“They have also become occasion for some debate over the wisdom of permitting exports of LNG. On that issue, like most, the National Foreign Trade Council prefers that the market, rather than the government, be the determining factor.”

“Over the longer term, LNG exports, despite the large capital investment required, are a logical consequence of the rapid development of domestic production capacity and will provide producers an appropriate market addition. That said, the domestic end-use of domestic natural gas production, given the unparalleled domestic infrastructure the U.S. enjoys, will continue to grow, provided that pricing is not artificially distorted by protectionist policies.”

“The NFTC urges the Administration to do no harm to the marketplace in its evaluation of LNG export proposals.”

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, John Murphy, vice president for International Affairs (Jan. 16, 2013)

“LNG exports will foster U.S. job creation, new tax revenues, and stronger international alliances.  At issue is the freedom to export. In fact, both history and trade law take a dim view of export restraints. Indeed, the notion that the federal government has the power to limit the freedom to export is at odds with U.S. tradition and law. In considering LNG exports, the U.S. should continue its proud tradition of support for the freedom to export.”

Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT), Calman Cohen, President (Jan. 15, 2013)

“Similarly, ECAT has serious reservations about reports suggesting that some in the business community ma favor the obstruction of approvals to export liquefied natural-gas, or LNG. U.S. law establishes a process for approving the export of LNG to ensure that such exports are not inconsistent with the public interest. Competition in world-energy markets promotes the efficient development and consumption of energy resources, which benefit producers and consumers alike, whereas the economic distortions that ensue from artificial barriers would have adverse consequences for the U.S. economy.”

“U.S. natural-gas reserves are reportedly vast, and the development of these resources can play an important role in expanding trade through growing exports, as well as in sustaining and growing the jobs to support those exports. ECAT urges the Department of Energy to weigh fully these potential benefits as it evaluates pending applications for authorization to export LNG.”

American Chemistry Council (ACC) (Feb. 6, 2013)

“The Executive Committee unanimously expressed its opposition to any new export bans or restrictions on liquefied natural gas such as a moratorium on export terminals or the prohibition on the export of natural gas produced on public lands. The Executive Committee also reaffirmed its support for free-market policies that promote the export of American-made goods, including the export of liquefied natural gas.”

Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) (Jan. 14, 2013)

“Economic theory (and, to be fair, most observation) indicates that restrictions on exports create similar inefficiencies as import protectionism.  Export restrictions reduce the incentive to invest in production of products and services whose prices are held down, just as restrictions on import trade reduce the incentive to invest in the protected market in favor of other markets.”

“As advocates for consuming industries, CITAC believes that open access to raw materials creates the maximum benefit for all manufacturing.  While the export restraint picture is more complex than import restraints, economic freedom creates more winners than restrictions do.

National Taxpayers Union (NTU), Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President (Jan. 16, 2013)

“The market, not government, is best equipped to balance supply and demand and thereby create an equilibrium for prices, wages, and jobs – an equilibrium that will foster long-term economic prosperity. That’s why American taxpayers have such a major stake in supporting free trade.  Knowing this, why would we treat LNG exports differently?”

Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC), Kathryn Z. Klaber, CEO (Jan. 10, 2013)

“American shale gas development represents a truly historic opportunity for our nation. Moving forward with the timely permitting of LNG exports to our nation’s allies and global trading partners will lead to more American job creation, economic growth, a reduction in our trade imbalance, and cleaner air – all of which is in the public interest.” 

American Petroleum Institute (API), Jack Gerard, President and CEO (Jan. 10, 2013)

“America’s newfound abundance of natural gas resources is a boon to all domestic manufacturing through lower energy costs, lower costs on raw materials and reduced heating bills. Restricting exports of energy as a ‘strategic resource’ makes no more sense than unnecessarily restricting the export of chemicals, agriculture products or cars, and such a backward move could violate international trade rules.”

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Pres. Thomas J. Donohue (Jan. 10, 2013)

“If they don’t do something to stimulate the price of gas a little, nothing will be taken out of the ground. You can’t go around the world demand free, open, and transparent markets, and then not allow LNG exports. Our significant energy resources give us a chance to move on federal spending and taxes because they can generate so much more government revenue.”

Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), Raymond J. Keating, Chief Economist (Jan. 10, 2013)

“It’s hard to believe that American interests are working to limit exports given their critical importance to our economy, and efforts by the Obama Administration to double exports by 2015… This is not just a big business issue. To the contrary, the energy sector is populated overwhelmingly by small and mid-size businesses. Quite simply, the effort to limit LNG exports is an effort to limit opportunity for American small businesses and entrepreneurs.”

Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA), R. Skip Horvath, President and CEO (Jan. 10, 2013)

“Because of homegrown developments in shale gas technology, the United States has an abundance of natural gas to meet all current and projected needs of businesses and households here in America.”

“Natural gas suppliers look forward to demonstrating to our customers that we can grow their businesses while allowing the market to set LNG export levels.”

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), Charles Drevna, President  (Jan. 10, 2013)

“We believe domestic policy should focus on maximizing access to the nation’s abundant natural gas resources and encouraging domestic manufacturers to use those resources. Opening up more public lands to natural gas exploration and production, and regulatory reform aimed at ensuring manufacturers can actually build plants to take advantage of our resources are the best paths toward achieving these objectives,”

Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG), Bill Cooper, President (Jan. 10, 2013)

“Experts agree that America’s new-found natural gas supplies are so abundant that we can meet our needs here at home and enhance America’s competitiveness in the global marketplace by selling some to our trading partners at the same time.  That’s a good thing for gas producing and manufacturing communities all around the country.  Exports will help sustain economic growth in such communities by stimulating additional energy production here at home and creating new markets for our products abroad.” 

West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Stephen G. Roberts, President, (Jan. 4, 2013)

“The NERA report supports the position that LNG exporting will be good for the families and businesses of our region. In light of these findings, we urge the Department of Energy to move forward with pending export applications.