Norwegian LNG has been exported to USEC since 2008:
https://www.equinor.com/news/archive/2008/02/22/FirstLNGUSA
Nothing has gone that way since 2016.
PS> Don’t know if any went to Everett, or on green Berge LNG carriers, though.
BTW; Now Equinor is buying US LNG:
https://www.upstreamonline.com/production/norways-equinor-signs-15-year-deal-to-buy-from-us-lng-from-cheniere/2-1-1235044
No, not for import to Norway (not much consumption of gas in Norway) but to sell on the world market.
No. Not at all.
I just want to provide a minimum price consistency so that oil companies will drill and produce knowing they can get an adequate profit. I also want to prevent the price gouging and windfall profits that we see now.
The electric companies are not nationalized, the are just regulated.
Some, like Seattle City Light are public owned, others as you say are private, but strongly regulated. At any rate, most oil and gas production happens on public land leased to the producer, so in effect, that’s our oil to begin with, so your idea makes sense.
What are your thoughts on refineries (in the U.S.) being being foreign owned?
Refineries are oligopolies, effectively a monopoly. There is no spare capacity. The “crack spread” (refinery margins) are higher than ever.
Refineries need to be regulated too and allowed a minimum and maximum crack spread to keep them health and keep the market supplied They also must be required to produce the products needed in the US market.
An export duty needs to be in place to prevent them from selling the products foreign for s few extra Pennie’s a gallon and leaving the US market short at higher prices.
The US bears all the environmental risks snd costs of drilling, producing, refining and transporting US oil. Foreign buyers incur none of these risks and costs. It’s fair to give the US market a reasonable advantage on the use of thes products.
While I understand the sentiment - In the long run markets work. Occasionally there are a short term instances of pain - but markets, for the most part, and within reason work.
Government interference in markets - in the long run - does not work. It is impossible to identify all the unintended consequences of government involvement. Energy markets are a very large worldwide balloon and it is hard to know exactly what will happen when outside forces push on it.
An example here would be clean products to from the USG to US Atlantic North of Hatteras. Jones Act shipping costs drive the market to export barrels out of the USG and import barrels into the US Atlantic coast. Ex the cost of Jones Act tonnage - the USG bbls go to the USAC.
Last point - we all have to remember that much/all we are reacting to recently is a market while there is shooting war in Europe, and there are significant sanctions on the 3rd ( think 3rd anyway) largest energy producer in the world.
Are you advocating for no government regulations what so ever?
no - firstly I am not big on absolutes, absolutes - black and whites, are pretty rare in my world. There is certainly a place for governments to protect the common good. Think anti trust, bribery, environmental protections etc.
But, in general, yes I am against government involvements in markets.
Do you oppose the Jones Act?
Fair enough to keep government out of the “market” but when the commodity is a strategic national resource the government should have very strict oversight in resource allocation, distribution, and compensation. The oil companies could care less about national needs or priorities except when they can be manipulated to increase profit margins.
I oppose the us build component. At its core I believe the Jones Act is a shipyard subsidy, that by any objective measure has failed. I do not believe the slippery slope argument that doing away with the build requirement will lead to the the complete abandonment. There are many, probably most, countries that enforce cabotage laws without a build requirement - no reason to believe we could not as well. At least IMO.
Understand it is hard to have discussions of very complex issues - such at global energy markets, in these little boxes.
but -
reading between the lines of your post, you would be asking private companies to continue making large and risky investments to explore, produce, and refine. To supply into a market where allocation, distribution, and compensation would be significantly in the hands of politicians.
Those types of controls would affect investment.
Gee, what a tragedy for the oil companies.
I have a business and I don’t get a product depletion allowance or military protection overseas. I pay out of pocket for product research, development, production, and marketing. I also pay a higher percentage of profits in taxes. The only thing I don’t do is buy politicians to obtain virtually free raw materials and force consumers to purchase my products at prices that guarantee I will bank outrageous profit margins.
Markets have to be regulated in cases of market failures but the question is how to do it.
Economist in general prefer direct subsidies like the MSP to indirect subsidies like the ones shipyards get via the Jones Act.
In principle direct subsides distort market prices less then indirect subsides so they are considered more efficient although direct subsides are more likely to be less popular politically.
Well there could/should be an argument that some markets should be allowed to fail. You can make a case if needed for the public good ( US must have a shipbuilding industry) or a case that there is not ( 8 track cassette makers ).
Many years ago an Exxon CEO was questioned at a congressional hearing about Exxon making excess profits and costing US consumers , he asked if he felt bad about that.To paraphrase his response he said Exxon was not a US company but a world company. Pretty honest answer. Windfall profit taxes would take a percentage of excess profits to smooth things over but it doesn’t ever pass because “markets”. The efficient market theory is a fallacy but “markets” control the government.
A few short years ago, the Saudis decide to break the US Shale oil industry to regain market share. They dumped lower cost oil on the market, including into the US, this forced most shale drillers (except Texas with low costs) to stop drilling. It forced many companies into bankruptcy. A lot of vendors supporting the industry were forced into bankruptcy… banks and investors Los billions. Probably a couple of million people lost their jobs.
Now the Saudis are jacking up prices in cooperation with the Russians. American consumers are paying over $6 a gallon for heating oil. Oil companies are making record windfall profits.
It makes no sense to allow these foreign market manipulations to cause boom and bust cycles in the American oil industry. It is too vital to our economy. I see no logical alternative regulating the oil companies like public utilities.
Export duties to keep American oil and product here to properly supply our local market at reasonable cost. Import duties to prevent OPEC and Russian created gluts of low cost supply to artificially induce collapse in US drilling and production.
These OPEC countries and Russia are not our friends, they are enemies. We need to treat them like enemies. We need to become US energy independent. We have the needed oil and gas, but we have failed to protect our domestic oil industry from foreign predators.
The handful of super major oil companies are in effect a monopoly without any meaningful competition of alternatives. They need to be regulated like a monopoly or, the need to be broken up into many smaller competing companies.
There is no bigger believe in free market capitalism than I am, but the world oil market is not a free market. It’s a market controlled by hostile foreign governments.
As an outsider looking in the US distorts other markets to their own advantage as well.
I was referring to market failure in the sense the term is used in economics. Examples of market failure are monopoly profits, failure to price in the cost of externalities such as pollution, failure to provide public goods like national defense etc.
How would you structure those duties to prevent or minimize the primarily supply and demand driven volatility in the crude and refined market currently being experienced?
In addition to import/export duties what else would you suggest to control price volatility?
What would the regulations on the “super major oil companies” look like or how would they be regulated like a monopoly?
agree - think i kind of said that above.