Berkeley Research Group (April 2024): Comparative GHG Footprint Analysis for European and Asian Supplies of USLNG, Pipeline Gas, and Coal
Overview: The report finds that, on average, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity of coal supply chains was over twice as high as US liquefied natural gas (USLNG) for power generation in both Europe and Asia. GHG emissions from imported pipeline gas in Europe and Asia were also higher in most cases.
Rystad Energy (January 2025): Impact of Tax Policy on US Upstream and Economic Activity
Overview: This study found that an intangible drilling costs repeal could reduce 2034 production by 1.7 million boe per day, decrease direct employment by 179,000 jobs, and lower direct GDP by $16 billion. This would also increase wellhead breakevens and reduce cash flows available for reinvestment.
National Petroleum Council (April 2024): Charting the Course, Reducing GHG Emissions from US Natural Gas Supply Chain
Overview: The National Petroleum Council (Council) conducted a comprehensive study on options to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions along the U.S. natural gas supply chain (NGSC). U.S. produced natural gas is an abundant resource that plays an essential role in energy security. Its use has had a significant role in reducing U.S. carbon emissions over the last twenty years and provides reliable electric power generation to support renewable energy sources, aiding in further overall reduction of GHG emissions. Innovations such as the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have increased the supply of natural gas, leading to a reduction in its price and an increase in its use over more emission-intensive fuels, making natural gas an affordable and lower-emitting energy source in the United States.
Energy Ventures Analysis (March 2024): Impact Analysis of U.S. Natural Gas Exports on Domestic Natural Gas Prices
Overview: This report addresses the argument that LNG exports increase domestic energy costs by examining the U.S. gas market since the birth of the LNG industry in early 2016. It finds that exports have had little to no impact on domestic prices, and further argues that the ability to build pipeline infrastructure is a key driver of continued access to low-cost natural gas.
Energy Futures Initiative (April 2024): The Future of Natural Gas in a Low-Carbon World
Overview: Natural gas has a critical role in balancing the energy trilemma. The overarching challenge that this report addresses is identifying policies, programs, and options for developing pragmatic, sequenced, and regionalized approaches to the role of natural gas.
Rystad Energy (December 2023): Rebalancing European Gas Supplies
Overview: This study assesses Europe's options for re-balancing its natural gas supplies in the wake of the loss of Russian pipeline gas. It uses declining demand and assumes full stoppage of Russian pipeline imports by 2027.
Rystad Energy (May 2023): Asian Energy Security
Overview: This report focuses on the energy security outlook for Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam. It finds that securing resources, particularly LNG, is critical to these nations' energy security.
Rystad Energy (June 2024): US LNG to Asia for power generation expected to cut emissions versus coal
Overview: The value-chain emissions of liquified natural gas (LNG) are lower on average than for coal-fired power generation, even when the fuel is shipped over long distances, according to new research from Rystad Energy. Natural gas that is produced and liquified in the US and shipped to Asia on return journeys of about 23,000 miles could emit up to 50% less than even the cleanest coal power plants.
Breakthrough Institute, July 2024: A Major Paper on Liquefied Natural Gas Exports is Riddled with Errors
Overview: Only in the past decade has U.S. LNG become significant in the global energy trade. At the outset of the 2000s, U.S. energy analysts anticipated domestic gas supply constraints and planned for LNG import terminals. Two decades later, on the back of the shale gas revolution, the U.S. is now the global leader in LNG exports. Despite this success story, dubious published analyses and claims in public-facing news outlets have long cast doubt on natural gas's climate advantage over coal power. The technical basis for these assertions, which have drawn push back, revolves around largely incorrect interpretations of the scientific literature on methane leakage rates.
U.S. EIA (May 2023): AEO2023 Issues in Focus: Effects of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports on the U.S. Natural Gas Market
Overview: This report examines the impact of higher U.S. LNG exports on domestic natural gas prices, and - critically - was cited by the DOE in its non-FTA authorization for New Fortress Energy earlier this year as evidence that the Sierra Club's argument that LNG exports will raise domestic prices was "not supported."
ICF International (July 2024): Lifecycle of GHG Emissions of US LNG Exports
Overview: The purpose of the study is to provide a detailed explanation of how lifecycle analyses (LCAs) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are estimated and how those estimated emissions compare with the LCA GHG emissions of alternative fuels. The study shows that US LNG exports have lower lifecycle GHG emissions compared to using coal alone, fuel oil alone or the expected mix of alternative fuels (summed across all countries importing US LNG) that would most likely replace imported US LNG.
Wood Mackenzie (December 2024): Asia LNG Assessment
Overview: This report examines how demand for LNG will grow across Asia, with country-level deep dives and a comprehensive look at the key drivers of LNG demand growth. The country-level outlook makes it extremely helpful in countering the narrative that all incremental U.S. LNG will go to China.
S&P Global (December 2024): Major New US Industry at a Crossroads: A US LNG Impact Study
Overview: The objective of this study is to provide a clear understanding of an industry that has, in less than a decade, gone from zero to become one of America’s major export industries, with wide-ranging benefits for the US economy, for the position of the US in the world and for global efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
American Exploration and Production Council (March 2024): Energy Royalty Payments: Directly Benefiting The Economy
Overview: AXPC issued a survey of member companies that produce oil and natural gas in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The survey collected data on production, royalty payments, the number of people receiving royalties, and the estimated share of gas that is exported as LNG. Generally, a royalty payment is a percentage share of production, or the value derived from production, paid from a producing well, paid to families, farmers, and landowners. This survey does not include the billions of dollars that companies pay in taxes, fees, and charitable contributions to state and local entities. Natural gas produced by AXPC members and then exported as LNG generated royalties to families, farmers, and landowners of more than $193 million in Pennsylvania and $181 million in Ohio in 2023.
ICF International (July 2022): The Economic Benefits of Lifting the US Crude Oil Export Ban: A Retrospective Analysis
Overview: The study analyzes the changes that have occurred in US oil and natural gas markets since Congress enabled crude oil exports compared to a hypothetical scenario where US oil exports remained in place. The study found that enabling open markets increased oil and natural gas development in America, which decreased US consumer costs by $92 billion; reduced global oil prices by $1.93 per barrel over the six-year period; added $161 billion to US GDP; and increased jobs in the US by nearly 50,000, on average.
American Council for Capital Formation (July 2022): Economic Impacts of A Potential Ban on US Refined Product Exports
Overview: An ACCF study examines the short-to-medium term logistics, pricing, and economic impacts of a complete ban on US petroleum product exports. It concludes that a petroleum product export ban would result in forced US refinery closures which would increase product prices in the global market as buyers of US exports bid up the price of fuel from alternate sources. As a result, US gross domestic product (GDP) would fall more than $44 billion in 2023 and more than 110,000 jobs would be lost by the end of 2023.
IHS Markit (November 2021): Banning Exports of US Crude Oil Would Likely Raise Gasoline Prices, Not Lower Them
Overview: Expert analysis cautioning that a new crude export ban could make increasing energy costs only worse, with unintended consequences of such a policy likely increasing gasoline prices, rather than lowering them – and explaining that the most effective supply-side force that could lower oil prices is more oil production.
IHS Markit (December 2021): Why a ban on US LNG exports would hit consumers, including in the United States, and damage US interests globally – link to news article that does a good wrap up
Overview: As consumers across the globe face rising gas and power prices, curtailing US LNG exports has been discussed by some to protect US consumers. At a time of extreme stress in gas markets, any mandated disruption to US LNG supply would have a highly destabilizing effect.
US Department of Energy (June 2018): Macroeconomic Outcomes of Market Determined Levels of US LNG Exports
Overview: An increase in LNG exports will result in positive labor income, increased natural gas production, and profits for domestic producers. The global economic shift towards the United States will also improve US consumers’ economic position.
Breakthrough Institute (2024) Understanding NEPA Litigation
Overview: Breakthrough Institute analysts, in collaboration with legal experts at Holland & Knight, compiled and analyzed 387 NEPA cases brought to the U.S. appellate court system over the 2013-2022 period and categorized them by project type, environmental review, length of judicial review, federal agency, and plaintiff. The results indicate that NEPA litigation overwhelmingly functions as a form of delay, as most cases take years before courts ultimately rule in favor of the defending federal agency.
U.S. Department of Energy (January 2021): Economic and National Security Impacts under a Hydraulic Fracturing Ban
Overview: This study shows that if hydraulic fracturing was banned, there would be a crippling economic effect through increased household energy bills, higher fuel costs for industrial and commercial customers, higher and more frequent electricity price spikes, and deteriorating competitiveness of the United States energy supply in the global market. Furthermore, America’s environment would be worse off without hydraulic fracturing because less natural gas would be available for electricity generation, and it would remove an important tool for American diplomacy.
GSI Environmental (July 2021): Comment on “Fracking with Forever Chemicals” by Physicians for Social Responsibility (also tag in water and waste management issue page)
Overview: The facts show that PFAS have been rarely used in oil and gas operations and the limited use that has occurred was principally prior to 2017 and almost exclusively limited to three states, where hydraulic fracturing occurs at great depth and does not pose risk to groundwater resources. None of the alleged health impacts from PFAS that are discussed by a separate publication are associated with upstream oil and gas activities, nor would such impacts be expected, given the regulatory specifications in place to properly contain drilling and fracturing fluids and protect water resources.
Upstream Producers Statement on Electricity Reliability during Winter Storm Elliott
American Exploration and Production Council (2023): Upstream Producers Statement on Electricity Reliability during Winter Storm Elliott
Overview: When looking at the root causes of the production losses, survey results show that 61% of all production losses occurred due to outages downstream of the production wellpad and out of the upstream natural gas producer’s control. In the survey, these types of outages are characterized as “Midstream/Downstream Outages”. If upstream producers continue production when a midstream facility (including gathering and boosting, compression and processing) experiences an outage, it can cause unsafe high pressures to build in gathering and transmission pipelines. For this reason, when a midstream or downstream facility loses power or has an outage, the upstream natural gas production facilities are required to shut in. This was commonly observed by producers during Winter Storm Elliott.
