U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., told oil giants BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil his natural gas export bills now in Congress would block a proposed $40 billion pipeline to export Alaska natural gas to Asia.
The bills, originally introduced in February, drew a sharp response from Alaska’s Sen. Mark Begich.
The $40 billion plan was covered by Financial Times reporter Ed Crooks on Wednesday (on.ft.com/GF4pMJ). Markey released an announcement the same day in which he “decried the plans” to allow export of “American natural gas to China.”
Markey said his suite of bills prohibit liquefied natural gas exports in two ways. One bill requires natural gas extracted from federal lands to be sold to U.S. consumers (Keep American Natural Gas Here Act). The other bill prohibits the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from licensing LNG terminals used for export of domestic gas (North America Natural Gas Security and Consumer Protection Act).
Markey said the purpose of one bill is to keep natural gas prices low in the U.S. by shielding the U.S. market from the volatility of the international market.
“Natural gas prices in Asia are six times higher than prices in the United States,” Markey stated in the release.
Markey introduced his bills in February.
Begich found Markey’s announcement ironic.
“Yet again, Rep. Markey is trying to shut down any Alaska development,” Begich said. “I find it laughable that after 30 years of blocking the development of Alaska’s oil and gas resource for American manufacturers, farmers and families he is now demanding we supply them. I eagerly await his sponsorship of bills to support development of ANWR and the Arctic OCS to address his newfound concern for American consumers.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s energy committee spokesman, Robert Dillon, said any attempt to ban exports is “short sighted.”
Alaska needs to remain flexible when looking for customers, he said.
“Alaskan gas is going to go where the market demands,” Dillon said.
It is not going to the Lower 48 if there isn’t a demand, Dillon said.
Alaska’s congressional delegation, he said he believed, would work to exclude Alaska from the reach of Markey’s bills.
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
Comments (9)
Add commentGo get 'em, Begich!
Notice how Begich's words were strong and decisive whereas Murkowski's were tepid?
Begich, Young and Murky need to strike a united hard blow at this guy's legislation, and they need to do it right now.
Thank you Mark Begich for leading the way.
p.s., where is Don Young?
So, we cannot export energy?
In this instance, we cannot export our natural resource energy, yet Patty Murray can lobby and back laws that would allow the company that her husband has a hand in, export coal to China? Why would this be any different than Alaskan Natural Gas? Where is Markey on the coal issue? Why dosn't he block that resource using the same argument?? HIPOCRIT!
The more these clowns try to
The more these clowns try to regulate prices the more everything gets fubared.
Put a nice tariff on the gas and sell it. We have lots. While you're at it put a rebate on the sale of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and see if the Chinese will put them in a prison camp for us........
energy independence
What I find ironic is the same people that claim to want energy independence are fine with our energy being sold to other countries instead of in the U.S. The owner of Keystone pipeline has said he would sell that product overseas, and Alaska ships the majority of our oil overseas. How do we expect to gain energy independence when we sell everything to other countries. In reality Keystone, etc has nothing to do with energy independence, it has everything to do with getting the highest price for the product and that is overseas. And while that may be alright, lets be truthful. As long as we keep selling everything to other countries, U.S. energy independence wont be happening anytime soon. At some point, if we truly want energy independence, oil companies are going to have to commit to selling the product that is produced in the U.S., to the U.S. All Markey's bill does is shed light on this issue because in reality, his bill wont pass and the U.S. will continue on the same path its been going on and every year we can blame the sitting President for high gas prices.
Sounds like somebody...
...has a vendetta against Don.
I think hes doing the right
I think hes doing the right thing. It makes no good sence to send gas over seas if it will cause prices to rise.
Think about the American people for god sakes Mr. Begich & Ms. Murkowski....rather than more wealth creation for the this industry.
oil exports
Just for the record to clarify, Alaska exports no oil abroad and the only time it did, it did so under mandate from Congress and then President Clinton. Between 1996 and Jun 2000 Congress allowed up to 5% of Alaskan crude to be exported to clear the glut of oil at West Coast refineries. The yearly amount never grew higher than 4% of TAPS throughput during that time. The Congressional export ban that was lifted to do this was never reinstated by Congress simply because it was well acknowledged by industry and politicians the capacity coming through the pipe could never match the demand of West Coast refineries. Both sides of the aisle know and generally support that it would take a nanosecond for the ban to be reinstated and would easily pass under most any Congress should (we be so lucky) flow rates would increase. Its a complete non issue and political irrelevance. That is why Congress is so lax about it.
@caribousteaks
I stand corrected. But what I have read indicated that the refining capacity in Alaska has been reduced. Alaska oil is sent to refineries in Washington and other states on the West Coast and from there, its hard to track where it really ends up. Looking at most of those States websites under their Energy or Commerce Depts indicates that those states do in fact export oil overseas. So unless there is some sort of specific tracking available for the public to see, Im not sure how we know where it really ends up. So perhaps we dont export directly abroad but according to this statement in a USA Today article I would think a percentage of Alaska oil does end up overseas. "The U.S. exported more oil-based fuels than it imported in the first nine months of this year, making it likely that 2011 will be the first time since 1949 that the nation is a net exporter of such goods, primarily diesel." http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-16/us-oil-... There are also plenty of articles indicating that Parnell met with oil execs regarding the gas pipeline saying that it would be cheaper for it to be shipped overseas then to build a pipeline to the lower 48. And with the "free market" mantra these days, I find it hard to believe its a non-issue. Im not sure that both sides of the aisle would support a ban in a nanosecond.