The United States is blessed with an abundant supply of oil and natural gas. What we have been able to access so far is really only the tip of the iceberg. But as with any economic boom, state and federal lawmakers have spent the last few years debating how to best harness our full resource potential. Fortunately, success stories in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and other fossil fuel-rich states reveal that there is a path forward. When the free market is given room to breathe from well-intentioned but ill-designed regulation, prosperity typically follows. This is certainly the case for oil and natural gas development.

It worked in North Dakota, a state that has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation thanks to the shale boom. U.S. policy should focus on maximizing access to our fossil fuel resources, which will encourage domestic manufacturers to expand production and create jobs in the process.

After decades of decline, U.S. manufacturing is now on the brink of a full-fledged revival thanks to affordable oil and natural gas to power their operations. Manufacturing is a rare bright spot in an economy that is struggling to recover from a prolonged recession, with the refining and petrochemical industries in particular supporting nearly 2 million American jobs. The key to adding even more jobs is opening up additional public land to natural gas exploration and production so that manufacturers can build new plants to take advantage of these resources.

Another component that will ensure a full-scale manufacturing renaissance is maintaining a free market approach in relation to exports. Put simply, the export of petroleum-based products is no different than the export of other goods and services. By promoting open access to resources and the free market, our nation can ensure we experience a domestic manufacturing renaissance, produce the fuels needed to meet demand here at home, as well as allowing America to stabilize our balance of trade by exporting resources and products produced above and beyond domestic demand. Free markets will drive a domestic economic recovery, while also allowing America to continue growing as the new global energy powerhouse that it is becoming.

However, if lawmakers are successful in implementing additional regulatory barriers to natural gas and petroleum production and exports, it will seriously impede such a robust growth trajectory forecast. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says America’s resource potential is so big that the U.S. is likely to become a net oil exporter by 2030, a fact conceded by President Obama on two recent occasions. Beyond re-claiming a global trade balance, America’s ability to export petroleum-based products will keep refineries running at full capacity, benefiting the entire manufacturing supply chain and adding jobs in the process.

What a difference a few years and new technologies can make! In 2005, natural gas prices and its availability hamstrung our economy and sent manufacturing jobs rushing off-shore and oil imports were rising at alarming rates. Today, America is the world’s top oil producer and is projected to be the global leader in natural gas production before the end of the decade. Our policies will obviously have to adapt to this new position of strength and should be shaped to best benefit America’s families and hard-working businesses.

One way in which we can flex our global energy muscle even more is through embracing America’s first fuel: energy efficiency. By tapping into efficiency we can double-down on our growing energy surplus, yielding more opportunities and flexibility. So, while policy makers will certainly have to address the issue of energy exports, they also should look at adopting policies that will unleash the full power of energy efficiency. More than just new technologies and new supplies have moved the U.S. into its global energy dominance. Over the past 35 years, through these improved technologies and strong public policy, the U.S. has vastly improved its energy productivity (unit of energy per GDP). You probably didn’t know it, but energy efficiency has been a game changer: without efficiency we would need 50% MORE energy than we use now to power the current economy.

The Alliance Commission on National Energy Efficiency Policy is designing the “road map” for doubling U.S. energy productivity between now and 2030. The Commissioners, representing leaders from the business, government, academic, and nonprofit sectors, are finalizing a set of recommendations for the next generation of energy efficiency policies that will help American families and business to wring more economic bang from every energy buck. Stay tuned….the Alliance Commission will unveil its recommendations in early February.

It sounds too good to be true, but energy efficiency really is our cheapest and most abundant energy source and it would be foolish not to make it the bedrock for any future energy policy that hopes to capitalize on America’s newfound surplus.

The mutual benefits of free trade are proven as both a theoretical and an empirical matter; indeed, free exchange between willing buyers and willing sellers is the most essential element of a free-market economic system.

Moreover, global economic growth has accelerated with the liberalization of international trade, and countries with the freeest trade policies have grown far more rapidly than countries that indulge in the sometimes politically attractive alternative of protectionism.

So those who suggest restricting exports of coal or natural gas should face an enormous burden of proof to justify swimming against the tide of global free trade. They fail that test.

The U.S. has the world's largest supply of coal, which is still the world's cheapest source of baseload electric generating capacity. Over a billion people in the world still live without electricity. There couldn't be a clearer case of willing buyers and willing sellers trading to their mutual benefit. Moreover, with the EPA placing a de facto moratorium on coal powerplants in the U.S. under the greenhouse gas NSPS, the future of the domestic coal industry depends on exports, as do related rail and port jobs. The all-out effort by green activists to block west coast terminals will destroy thousands of American jobs and keep millions in the dark around the world. It's unconscionable.

Restricting LNG exports would be similarly foolish. The landmark study conducted for the Department of Energy by NERA released last month concluded, unsurprisingly:

"Across all these scenarios, the U.S. was projected to gain net economic benefits from allowing LNG exports. Moreover, for 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."

The shale boom has dropped domestic natural gas prices dramatically, which because of export restrictions has idled significant additional production capacity. That means hundreds of thousands of potential jobs waiting for the approval of export terminals, with only a modest effect on domestic prices.

America's energy producers and manufacturers can compete with anyone in the world. They should all embrace free trade.

With its abundant natural resources, the United States should seize the opportunity to secure the economic benefits that would come from selling a small percentage of our gas supplies to trade partners abroad. As Energy Secretary Steven Chu put it last year, “Exporting natural gas means more wealth comes into the United States.”

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) recent third party study, conducted by NERA, underscored that increasing the rate at which we export natural gas would result in U.S. GDP growth, more government revenue at every level, significant job creation and a decrease to the trade deficit. Consumers, far from being undermined as some have suggested, would actually see their households experience an increase in real income. In fact, the study specifically found that “all export scenarios are welfare-improving for U.S. consumers.”

Even more, providing our gas producers with an overseas outlet will go a long way towards ensuring growth remains steady, and help us avoid the “boom and bust” price swings that create a volatile consumer market.

Exporting LNG is not an either/or scenario that demands we choose between strengthening our manufacturing base here at home or improving our trade balance through exports. We can do both. Countless experts agree that our domestic natural gas resources are so vast that we can meet U.S. demand while simultaneously exporting LNG around the world, which will stimulate jobs and investments by our domestic gas producers and manufacturers.

Each export terminal represents a multi-billion dollar private industry investment that will create tens of thousands of steady, high-paying jobs, including many in the manufacturing industry. The manufacturing renaissance already underway, thanks in large part to increased natural gas production, would only be supported by LNG exports.

With a thorough regulatory process already in place, our policies going forward should take every step to ensure the United States doesn’t miss out on this opportunity. The DOE has already begun receiving comments from lawmakers, community leaders and industry experts who agree: the faster these projects are approved, the more quickly the United States economy will experience the net benefits exports are expected to bring.

President Obama made the case for exports as an engine of economic growth and job creation in his 2010 State of the Union, when he announced the National Export Initiative to "double our exports over the next five years” to support “two million jobs in America."

The freedom to import and export products benefits consumers and companies on both sides of the trading relationship. It allows importers as well as exporters to access more products at more competitive prices than they otherwise would be able to, which in turn expands wealth and raises standards of living. Free trade benefits include more choices, lower costs, and job creation in export industries. The free trade of oil, natural gas, coal or chemicals is no different than the thousands of other products that are produced in the United States and North America and exported globally on a daily basis, from corn and soybeans, to automobiles and machinery, to computer products, chemicals, and semiconductors.

Maintaining free trade is critical to continued U.S. energy security—as is producing the energy we have in the U.S. Blocking the free trade of natural gas by the enactment of protectionist policies would undermine U.S. efforts to promote free trade globally and hamper the ability of the natural gas industry to expand production, create new jobs, and increase economic growth. And the rationale for banning exports, keeping natural gas here for industrial use, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

America’s natural gas resources have never been greater and the innovative development of energy from shale has revolutionized the scale and future of energy in this country. Because of this abundant supply and world-class industry capability and infrastructure, the U.S. has the opportunity to fulfill and expand our domestic supply and capture significant economic benefits by selling liquefied natural gas (LNG) to international markets.

Multiple studies have shown that exporting natural gas could increase gas development activities in the U.S. which will have a positive overall impact on the U.S. economy. The economic benefits also include, for example, net value-added contributions to GDP, jobs and tax revenues. Increased natural gas production could also result in an increase in natural gas liquids – ethane, propane and butane, for example -- that are important feedstocks to U.S. industrial businesses.

The World Trade Organization writes the “case for free trade is strong and proven,” and free trade policies “sharpen competition, motivate innovation and breed success.” The energy revolution in the United States is also strong and proven, and now is the time to ensure its success with policies that promote competition and encourage innovation and production, under the basic rules of sound economics.

(These comments were submitted by Tammy Klein, Senior Vice President of Downstream Research at Hart Energy.)

Recent technological advancements in the drilling of horizontal wells with multiple hydraulic fractures to extract oil and gas from shale and other tight formations have fundamentally altered petroleum supplies in the U.S. (and Canada). Production of these new, unconventional tight oils is growing rapidly. According to new estimates in Hart Energy’s Global Crude, Refining & Clean Transportation Fuels Outlook study, U.S. tight oil production rose to 1.70 million barrels per day in the last quarter of 2012 and is expected to approach 4.0 million b/d by 2020.

The increased supply of tight oil and oil sands crude will displace crude oil imports into the U.S. Gulf and Midcontinent by 2020. Considering the projected surplus production of U.S. refined products and the crude oil supply-and-demand balance, North America will become self-sufficient with respect to petroleum sometime between 2020 and 2025. Moreover, the growth in North American production will create the market need for crude exports by the end of this decade.

Those exports should be permitted and encouraged.

Recently, supplies of tight oil (and crude pricing discounts), and low natural gas prices have bolstered the competitive position of U.S. refiners. Contrary to popular belief, the refining industry has had a difficult time as a result of the economic downturn, spiking crude oil prices and the impact of new fuel programs and other environmental regulations. Low crude and natural gas prices, coupled with increased opportunities to export refined product, are sorely needed good news for an industry which has struggled through in recent years.

The U.S. supply and demand of refined products has experienced dramatic changes over the past three years. This country changed from being a net product importer of nearly 1.4 million b/d in 2007 to a net exporter of 0.8 million b/d in 2011. Gasoline imports fell as a result of declining demand and increased domestic supply provided by additional volumes of ethanol blended into the fuel. This shift in supply and demand will be magnified further when new fuel economy standards take effect.

Our study forecasts that exports of refined product will expand through 2015, at least. Progress in legislative activity on energy issues this year is unlikely, but Congress should do what it can to remove all barriers to accessing the export market. Let’s let the market – the experts as it were – determine how to best utilize and rationalize our crude, natural gas and refined product supplies.

The U.S. natural gas industry leads the world in technical innovation, and shale gas and other unconventional development. The dramatic increase in production and reserves over the last five years has benefitted consumers, and is enabling manufacturing to return to the U.S. to take advantage of low prices. Europe, particularly Germany, is starting to wake up to the fact that their high energy prices are putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage, while reliance on Russian gas continues to leave them vulnerable. Natural gas prices around the world, particularly in Asia, are more than double or even triple the price in the U.S.

The time is now to export Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). DOE’s LNG export study, conducted by NERA Economic Consulting, finds that in every scenario, America benefits economically from natural gas exports. In fact, the study finds that the more we export, the more America benefits from job creation and GDP growth. While that seems like an obvious conclusion based on fundamental economic and free trade principles, it was an important statement, as politicians and manufacturing interests have lined up to oppose exports.

One criticism of exporting natural gas is that it will raise prices for U.S. consumers, although the NERA study finds that prices will rise only moderately with exports. However, I believe the analysis failed to take into account the significant capacity of the industry to increase production in response to the greater demand arising from exports. Because of the glut in natural gas supplies, development activity is down in many areas, particularly in dry gas basins. With increased demand, producers in the West and across the country will likewise respond with increased production, further moderating prices. Given the large disparity between U.S. and world natural gas prices, American manufacturing would still retain the competitive advantage.

As with any technology, the United States cannot expect to maintain its first-mover advantage forever. Other nations are starting to invest in American-developed horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology to develop their own reserves. Now is the time for the Obama Administration to approve applications for LNG export terminals, rather than continuing to delay job creation and economic growth.

Calls for restrictions on the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) not only ignore the government’s recent findings regarding the benefits of such exports, but opponents also pay little if any regard to the negative economic impacts that would follow such restrictions.

The recently completed NERA Economic Consulting study on the impact of natural gas exports, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, clearly shows that the benefits from exports will outweigh the costs of rising natural gas prices. After examining various market scenarios and estimates on natural gas supply and demand, the report concludes “across all these scenarios, the U.S. is projected to gain net economic benefits from allowing LNG exports … net economic benefits increase as the level of LNG exports increases,” according to the executive summary.

That trade makes the pie bigger for everyone is a well-established economic principle. Whether it’s oranges, cars or machinery, access to global markets means more demand, more opportunity, and more jobs. That’s true for energy production, too. By 2016, America’s supply of natural gas is estimated to exceed domestic demand. Without access to new markets, drilling will stop and the associated economic benefits will go away.

Recent years have brought us discoveries of shale gas plays, such as the Marcellus stretching through West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York, and the Barnett in north Texas. Hydraulic fracturing and other technological breakthroughs are combining to release the gas trapped and previously inaccessible in these formations. As a result, the United States has become the world’s No. 1 producer of natural gas, according to a recent International Energy Agency report. The “shale boom” has meant a huge economic boost in terms of jobs and tax revenue in producing states.

A sensible and balanced long-term energy policy that includes LNG exports will support new investments in America’s economy that, in turn, will create tens of thousands of new jobs and keep U.S. dollars at home for years to come.

Looking at how the United States could capitalize on possible fossil fuel exports looks simple at first. After decades of importing more and more oil, and then planning for multi-billion dollar import facilities for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), within the past 6-7 years, things changed completely.

American technology and investment combined directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in shale rock, to open huge resources of natural gas and oil that were impossible to develop 10 years ago. The United States now produces 7 million barrels per day (MMBD) of oil – the most in 20 years, and still on an upward trend. U.S. natural gas production is up 8 trillion cubic feet per day (TCF/D) since 2005 to nearly 25TCF/D; the country will surpass Russia as the largest gas producer by 2015. Oil and gas production, and 5 years of lowering demand for transportation fuel allowed the U.S.to meet 83% of its energy needs during 2012, the highest level since 1991.

So all trends are favorable, and are great for America’s economy. Low gas prices are bringing chemical and fertilizer manufacturers back to the United States, and repeated studies have projected that the resource is so large that it can support LNG exports without major price hikes at home. Even the International Energy Agency, one of the most pro-regulation bodies in the world, forecasts great economic, environmental and international results from the shale oil and gas outlook – but cautions that it all depends upon policies that foster investment.

So recall that President Obama’s antipathy for fossil fuels and for American oil and gas companies is as strong as ever.

Senator Ron Wyden, new Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, told a Washington Post reporter two weeks ago that he considers himself a free trader -- but that energy is a separate issue! He said that “with natural gas, you should look before you leap.” Days later, he leaped, damning a DOE study that projected price rises of less than 7% if LNG was exported from the United States, and a production increase of 2TCF/D, spurred by the exports. Wyden wants the study redone (no doubt, until it says what he wants).

On the international front, Russia opposes U.S. LNG exports, using arguments favored by American environmental groups – which fracking is bad for groundwater, air pollution and drinking water wells (EPA disagrees). Russia’s real reason is that their gas pipelines give them a stranglehold over current European customers (they have cut off supplies more than once in recent winters).

And then, of course, Dow Chemical and ALCOA just announced formation of a group opposed to “indiscriminate” LNG exports. The group, America’s Energy Advantage, wants the government “to proceed carefully” on any export permits for LNG. A week before the AEA was announced a Dow vice president said “We believe in free trade. We export chemicals.” Dow only wants the government to find a middle ground – be sure that Dow and all AEA members will work hard to ensure that the “middle ground” precludes LNG exports. The confusing part to the newly formed Dow led-coalition is the contradiction of a 2010 report to the Department of Energy (DOE) as part of the Freeport LNG export project, stating that the proposed project would not increase natural gas prices. Dow and their partners of the project concluded in a letter sent to DOE,

“The United States has sufficient natural gas resources available to meet projected domestic needs, as well as supply natural gas for export through the Liquefaction Project, without materially increasing prices.” [Italics mine]

And yet, last week, Dow launched a new campaign to block proposals to export LNG.

So the outcome is unclear. One company is rebuilding an LNG import facility to reverse all processes and serve as an export terminal. Another is not far behind. Others are considering such billion dollar projects. Stopping or severely limiting LNG export will cast another pall on the outlook for the U.S. economy, the U.S. environment, the economic health of some of our most important trading partners, and a release for those partners from one source of geopolitical pressure. What will you bet?

Exporting American energy could be a good thing, but would be even better if it is sold with American made innovation. America needs to secure its own competitive footing before surrendering affordable and reliable electricity to other countries. This is a possibility through the development of clean coal technologies, but only if the U.S. regulatory environment allows for a future for coal. Then companies would be incentivized to create and manufacture clean coal technologies in America.

It is not by accident that already thriving overseas economies are using American coal to drive down costs, making business more competitive and improving their own quality of life. They know that affordable and reliable energy equals competitively priced goods and services and a marketplace for steady employment. Countries like Germany are quickly moving towards an energy future that includes next-century clean coal. They could are positioned to lead the way in the development of clean coal technologies.

That is why we must insist on developing those technologies in America. Let’s not export opportunity before we have secured the path to our own future.

As a nation, we export corn, wheat, food products, electronics, cars and many other commodities and products. Why should oil and gas be treated differently?

Today, opponents of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are looking to block exports of our energy resource from the U.S. into world markets. LNG’s detractors claim these exports will hurt domestic manufacturing by raising energy costs here at home. But these individuals and special interests are not looking at the bigger picture. They are simply pushing their own narrow agenda, one of unprecedented protectionism, which would be damaging to the American public and the American economy.

The companies who recently formed a coalition to oppose exports are hypocritical and shamelessly self -serving. They want low-cost input so that they can increase their profit margins and continue to export their products. A recent Department of Energy (DOE) study by a group of knowledgeable and respected economists found the benefits of increased LNG exports far outweigh the costs. It will stand the test of time. The arguments and objections of America Energy Advantage will not.

The current price of natural gas is a reflection of too much supply and not enough demand. As such, there is no equilibrium and it cannot remain this low. Already the number of working gas rigs has been reduced 50 percent year over year. The abundance of natural gas provides new opportunities for investment, shifting from coal to gas, fleet transportation and a host of other uses. These opportunities will create jobs and economic benefits, as will the construction of LNG facilities and exports.

Gas prices are also low because of developments in gas production technology, and the vast shale gas discoveries that it made possible. Yet in many parts of Asia, Europe and Latin America gas prices remain high. This has created a tremendous foreign trade opportunity that will clearly benefit the US economy.

There has been similar opposition to the export of refined products, which has been just as short sighted and self-serving. Demand for gasoline and diesel in the US is not growing for a number of reasons. Exports provide a way to keep refineries operating efficiently and open. As refineries shutter as several have on the east coast, imports become the source of supply and with them come higher prices.

Policymakers should disregard the shortsighted and misguided protectionist proposals of special interest groups. Instead, they should focus on investment, long-term growth and a healthy economy. Elected officials should turn to the decades of empirical evidence that demonstrates the virtues of free market forces.

The history of interference with energy markets has been a sordid one. Interstate controls on natural gas lead to a national shortages and usage restraints even though that was not the issue in the intra-state market. Until the policy was changed the net-result was higher consumer and business costs. Restrictions on the export of Alaskan crude made costs on the West Coast higher than they needed to be.

Price and allocation controls after the first embargo were a disaster that imposed damage to the economy and consumers. Government can never move fast enough or with enough knowledge to outperform the market place. Policy makers should read the March of Folly and learn from history.

With an unemployment rate hovering around 8 percent, a goods and services trade deficit over $42 billion, and a national budget deficit over $16 trillion, it’s beyond curious that Washington feels a need to debate this issue at all. Boosting LNG exports should be accepted for what it is: an opportunity to create new jobs and help our struggling economy.

The resurgence of American energy production and the potential economic benefits must not become the hostage of short sighted political opportunism. In addition to the obvious economic benefits for the U.S., many observers note that LNG exports will improve global energy security and strengthen our international relations.

Our political leaders should be doing everything in their power to foster investment and support the American workforce. As supply growth continues to outpace forecast demand, the debate over export will grow louder. Ultimately, the questions we must ask ourselves are quite simple. Does America want to restrict free trade opportunities? Do we want to put at risk America’s energy renaissance and the economic benefits that come with shale development? And, does the government want to try again to manage market forces in an attempt to promote industrial policy?

President Obama should follow through on his commitment on natural gas exports. DOE noters that the U.S. has a robust 100-year supply of natural gas at today’s consumption level, which is more than adequate to meet the needs of manufacturers and utilities. The recent DOE report cited by Amy reinforces other economic findings that under all LNG export scenarios, the U.S. economy benefits even when factoring in the impact of price increases: “Across all these scenarios, the U.S. was projected to gain net economic benefits from allowing LNG exports. Moreover, for 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. In all of these cases, benefits that come from export expansion more than outweigh the losses from reduced capital and wage income to U.S. consumers, and hence LNG exports have net economic benefits in spite of higher domestic natural gas prices. This is exactly the outcome that economic theory describes when barriers to trade are removed.” The Brookings Institute, American Chemistry Council and Baker Institute have all highlighted the economic and market benefits of increased production and expanded trade of natural gas. You can read more about these in my blog post here. From corn to cars to wheat, exports have proven to be a net positive boost for the U.S. economy and LNG exports shouldn’t be treated differently.

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

Yes, we certainly should export coal. For the U.S., coal exports offer a classic example of how international trade confers reciprocal benefits to both exporting and importing countries. Our 250-year supply of coal, the world’s largest, is enough to serve our domestic needs as well as those of present day Europe and the growing needs of fast-growing developing countries.

Over the past decade, our steady growth in coal exports -- from about 60 million short tons in 2000 to a record 123 million short tons last year – have added substantial value throughout coal’s supply chain. From mines in Appalachia to Wyoming, throughout the barge and rail transportation network, to ports on the East Coast and the Gulf, coal exports have added jobs for American workers and revenue for local communities. Coal terminal expansions now underway will enable us to meet more of the world’s growing need for affordable energy and benefit Americans as well.

The abundance and affordability of U.S. coal will be of critical assistance to the 1.4 billion people in the world currently without access to electricity. Studies show that every tenfold increase in electricity is linked with a better standard of living, higher literacy and a healthier population. These rudimentary advantages of civilization we often take for granted are still beyond the reach of many.

For example, experts expect India will overtake China to become the largest coal importer. Fully one-third of India's population of 1.2 billion people lacks electricity – that means they lack basic heat and water sanitation. The black out in India last year put 10 percent of the world’s population in the dark, renewing official commitments to import more coal.

U.S. policymakers will hopefully be realistic about the reciprocal benefits of exporting coal and its contributions to the President’s ambitious export goal. They have an enormous opportunity if only they will take it.

In 1817 David Ricardo described the principal of comparative advantage, why differences in productive capabilities make it in the interest of parties to engage in trade. Almost 200 years later, we still debate whether in a particular instance these principles apply. The answer is the same; from an economic perspective, yes they do! Free trade in energy, as in other goods, will make us better off. The argument applies as much to exports as to imports; export energy in order to purchase other goods that we are less efficient at producing, and realize gains overall.

What objections come to mind?

First, it might be claimed that energy resources are strategic and therefore should be kept within U.S. borders. But the same could be said about foodstuffs, weaponry, even financial instruments of one kind or another. And we export all of those in large quantities.

What about using low-cost energy sources to encourage a rebirth of domestic manufacturing? Wouldn’t low cost natural gas, for example, encourage expansion of our domestic chemical and petrochemical industries, and wouldn’t the export of some of that gas raise its price?

We could debate how much effect exports would have on price and whether forcing a lower price by forbidding exports would discourage domestic resource development. But at heart this argument is about capturing the rents from low cost energy, in other words the politics of who gets what, not whether there are gains from energy exports. Those who oppose such exports on these grounds want to capture the gains of low prices for themselves. We could equally forbid the export of wheat to keep bread prices down, but we would all be the poorer for it.

Finally, won’t allowing exports of fossil fuels encourage their development and worsen the environment? Not necessarily. Of course, if we do nothing to regulate the environment, then the development and combustion of more fossil fuels is likely to be harmful. But if we regulate (or tax) harmful emissions appropriately, then we do not need to constrain energy exports for that purpose. Appropriate regulation is a challenge but that doesn’t change the basics; energy export protectionism foregoes opportunities to enhance investment, job creation and growth. Our forebears (Riccardo in particular) had it right; their advice was on target then and it’s still on target today.

LNG exports represent an exciting opportunity for the U.S. in terms of job creation, economic recovery and enabling the nation to whittle away at its huge trade deficit.

The U.S. natural gas resource base is proving to be enormous. A National Petroleum Council report released in autumn 2011 showed that even if natural gas demand were to grow at the highest potential levels – which would include vehicle conversions to natural gas, exports to Mexico and LNG exports on top of dynamic gas growth in the power-generation and industrial sectors –supply would be plentiful to meet that demand.

While some American consumers and businesses are understandably concerned that LNG exports might increase U.S. natural gas prices, a recent study for the Department of Energy found the price impact would be very modest. Moreover, the study concluded that: “Scenarios with unlimited exports always had higher net economic benefits than corresponding cases with limited exports.”

Limiting or restricting LNG exports might initially trim domestic natural gas prices, but in the long-term this policy could backfire. If prices drop further – they already are at near historic lows – producers might be compelled to slow or stop their U.S. drilling activities.

U.S. natural gas and oil development has been one of the very few economic high points – and job creators – during this tepid economic recovery. Having a dynamic and diverse market, which includes LNG exports, gives producers the confidence they need to invest in domestic exploration and production. U.S. natural gas development provides enormous benefits by creating American jobs, generating federal, state and local tax revenues, and helping provide the fuel we need to heat our homes, run our business and the feedstock to many of our everyday goods, such as plastics. The incentives to maintain robust investment in exploration and production will be diminished if the market for U.S. gas production is artificially constrained.

Congress and the administration should maintain the current legal and regulatory framework for LNG exports, which will contribute to the ongoing development of domestic energy resources, as well as stable natural gas prices. Markets, governed by existing law, should guide the expansion of U.S. natural gas exports.

Current law already provides for a thorough review of natural gas exports to determine if such exports are in the “national interest.” While the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the lead federal agency that evaluates the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of LNG projects, the DOE must review the proposed export transaction.

While free trade agreements govern most of the existing North American trade, the Natural Gas Act requires a “national interest” determination for any exports not covered under a free trade agreement. Thus, current law provides an additional layer of government review not in place for exports of many other energy products, including coal and refined petroleum products.

This is a good system that works. Continuing to permit a broad range of uses for U.S. natural gas, including exports, will contribute to U.S. economic growth, job creation and energy security. In addition, the construction, operation and maintenance of energy infrastructure supports thousands of professional jobs in construction, and thousands of additional jobs in the manufacturing sector. Exports, governed by existing law, can make a significant positive contribution to the U.S. economy.