LNG Exports: A Chat with CLNG's Bill Cooper

LNG Exports: A Chat with CLNG's Bill Cooper

Rigzone recently featured a series of articles highlighting different viewpoints from prominent individuals on the issue of exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States. Shortly after the six-part series ran, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) added a new "twist" to this evolving story by granting conditional approval to a third LNG export terminal: BG Group and Energy Transfer Partners' Lake Charles Exports project in southwestern Louisiana. The two other LNG export terminal investments include Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project and the Freeport LNG Liquefaction and Export Project, which is owned by ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, Osaka Gas and others.

As the head of a trade association of LNG producers, shippers, terminal operators and developers, Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG) President Bill Cooper is naturally pleased with the latest DOE action on the LNG export issue. However, he finds the pace at which DOE has rendered LNG export decisions too slow.  

Cooper points out that many more applications for LNG export projects await action from DOE. Moreover, he stated in a subsequent CLNG press release that comment periods for 16 of the 19 pending applications have closed.

"[T]here should be no new information to consider," remarked Cooper. "The facts are clear: increased LNG exports will unlock significant benefits to our economy, workforce and trade partnerships. It is time for DOE to follow its rules and act quickly on the pending applications."

Following DOE's Aug. 7 decision on the Lake Charles project, Rigzone contacted Cooper for his insights on this latest development as well as the broader dialogue about LNG exports among various stakeholders. A transcript of his conversation with Rigzone follows.


View Full Article

Matthew V. Veazey has written about the oil and gas industry since 2000. Email Matthew at mveazey@downstreamtoday.com


Click on the button below to add a comment.
Post a Comment
Generated by readers, the comments included herein do not reflect the views and opinions of Rigzone. All comments are subject to editorial review. Off-topic, inappropriate or insulting comments will be removed.
michael | Aug. 24, 2013
This is all so very typical of CEO greed. The usual rationale of play the fear card (energy prices), then play the profit card (missing the profit for our economy), then the get rich quick card, (for the already wealthy investors), then the get out of town card, (for the CEO and offshore accounts--before jail). None of this Bone-Head Harvard MBA greed training ever entertains the idea that it is possible to sustain an energy source long enough to supply our own grandchildren.That is because they are all convinced their personal fortunes will last longer then the 50 years of gas they sell.

Boris | Aug. 22, 2013
We have nearly unlimited gas resources (100 years? even at 50 years that could be considered unlimited in a practical sense). Our "energy security" will not be harmed in any way. Please explain how the US would have its security depleted by becoming more wealthy?

Robert Godfrey | Aug. 19, 2013
To imply that US energy security will not be depleted along with the natural gas being exported is disingenuous.


Our Privacy Pledge

From the Career Center
Jobs that may interest you
Project Controls Specialist
Expertise: Project Management
Location: Minneapolis
Facility Engineer
Expertise: Facilities Engineer
Location: North Dakota, ND
Lease Operator
Expertise: Gas Plant Operations|Production Operator|Production Technologist
Location: Pecos, TX
search for more jobs

Brent Crude Oil : $50.79/BBL 1.30%
Light Crude Oil : $49.96/BBL 1.10%
Natural Gas : $2.77/MMBtu 2.12%
Updated in last 24 hours