It's another stiff blow to the Northwest's besieged fossil fuel industry; a number of other proposed fossil
fuel export projects in the region have been killed in recent years.
Not exact matches
Natural Gas Natural gas futures were among the quarter's key decliners -LRB--7.5 %, to US$ 2.73 per million British thermal units) as production growth outweighed seasonal consumption and higher
exports of the
fuel.1 Spot prices saw an even larger drop of 20.6 % (to US$ 2.81) as the support of December's weather - related demand spikes faded and a more normal winter pattern developed.1 Natural gas generally took its downward price cues from elevated US production and growth in the natural gas - focused rig count, which increased from 179 to 194 in March alone.2 Despite the price drop, traders remained optimistic given surging US shale - gas
exports and a supply deficit that was 20 % larger than the five - year average at March - end, the biggest in four years.3 Moreover, total natural gas inventories of 1.38 trillion cubic feet were nearly 33 % below their year - ago level.3 Meanwhile, the market appeared focused on an anticipated production surge (2018 is
projected to be a record growth year for gas supplies) and may have overlooked intensifying demand as US
exports increasingly helped drain supplies.
Distillate inventories are
projected to increase by 0.5 million barrels as
exports of distillate
fuel out of the U.S. Gulf were steady last week.
The shortage, exacerbated by the big LNG
export plants off Gladstone in Queensland that have been set up during the past few years, has
fuelled plans for two rival LNG import
projects for the eastern seaboard of Australia, by AGL Energy in Victoria and the Andrew Forrest - backed Australian Industrial Energy in NSW.
Storage and
export facilities at Shuaiba will be used in an ongoing clean
fuels project in the Gulf country, the official added.
Ban the
export credit guarantee department from underwriting risky investment in foreign fossil
fuel projects.»
Factor in the «carbon light» CO2 from coal seam gas
projects in the East (and other LNG expansion in the north and west) and you're talking about Australia's fossil
fuel emission
exports equating to TWO Saudi Arabias by 2020, not one as I've been saying to many disbelieving ears.
This round of public comment on the Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit for Millennium's proposed coal
export terminal in Longview is our final chance to tell decision - makers that religious communities want sustainable and healthy growth for our state — not polluting and dangerous fossil
fuel projects.
After providing almost $ 6 billion annually to fossil
fuels from 2013 to 2015, the U.S.
export credit agency — the U.S. Export - Import Bank (Ex-Im)-- has been unable to finance large fossil fuel projects for the past two
export credit agency — the U.S.
Export - Import Bank (Ex-Im)-- has been unable to finance large fossil fuel projects for the past two
Export - Import Bank (Ex-Im)-- has been unable to finance large fossil
fuel projects for the past two years.
The
Export Import Bank needs leaders who will improve transparency and accountability while ending the bank's financing of harmful
projects, including all fossil
fuels.
«While Americans have rallied in support of clean renewable energy at home, the U.S.
Export - Import Bank has made it a priority to handout money to fossil
fuel companies to work on
projects abroad,» said Kate DeAngelis of Friends of the Earth U.S. «If Trump gets his way, U.S.
Export - Import Bank will become a slush fund for Big Oil's plans to accelerate climate change.
As communities in our region stand up to Big Oil and Coal
export projects, we are rejecting the status quo and keeping the fossil
fuels in the ground.
Australia should declare a moratorium on new fossil
fuel mining and
export projects, and begin phasing out existing ones.
Proposed Australian coal
export projects collectively have been identified as the second largest proposed expansion of fossil
fuel CO2 emissions after Chinese coal mining.
As mentioned in the press release:» -LRB-...) these groups released a briefing titled «Dirty Dozen: How Public Finance Drives the Climate Crisis through Oil, Gas, and Coal Expansion», highlighting fossil
fuel projects by the World Bank Group, other multilateral and national development banks and
export credit agencies.
When mitigating anthropogenic global warming is
projected to require greater than 80 % lower fossil energy use, how do we provide the transport
fuel and energy for rapid growth by developing countries while sustaining OECD economic growth when the Available Net
Exports of crude oil — after China and India's imports — have already declined 13 % since 2005, and Saudi Arabia may need to import oil by 2030?
Note that NMBI legislation would ban NEW fossil
fuel extraction
projects and the resultant new
export agreements, but adoption of NMBI legislation would not affect current
export income.
So, yes, it is important to maintain Australia's future
export income, but given the small amount of
export income we actually receive from fossil
fuel exports, it should be relatively easy to replace that with new climate - safe
exports and new foreign investment in local renewable energy
projects provided we plan and prepare accordingly.
If all new coal and gas extraction
projects are slated for
export, why do state and territory governments even consider allowing new fossil
fuel extraction
projects despite the climate imperative of keeping fossil
fuels in the ground, and despite often fierce community opposition?
Banning new fossil
fuel extraction
projects would indeed affect future
export income since virtually all new extraction would be for
export.
Even if they meet those targets, any actual climate benefit could be more than wiped out by the climate impacts of the fossil
fuels exported from the NEW extraction
projects they continue to approve in the meantime.
Australia can develop new climate - safe
exports to make up for forgoing potential future
export income that might accrue from new fossil
fuel extraction
projects.
Of course we need to stop new fossil
projects of all types for climate reasons regardless of what it might cost us, but it seems we are not as dependent on fossil
fuel exports for our prosperity anywhere as much as the fossil
fuel industry tends to imply.
No new fossil
fuel extraction is needed for use within Australia so new extraction
projects simply mean more fossil
fuel exports.
Banning new fossil
fuel extraction
projects would indeed affect future
export income since it is likely that any new extraction would be for
export.
But it would be a powerful demonstration that governments can ban new climate - damaging
projects and refuse to make new fosil
fuel export agreements on climate - ethical grounds.
ECAs provide billions of dollars in financing to increase their respective countries»
exports, including financing to construct fossil
fuel projects abroad.
Export credit agencies — including Ex-Im Bank — are collectively the largest source of public financing for coal and other fossil
fuel projects abroad.
Still, they represent crucial progress in stemming the flow of the tens of billions of dollars that
export credit agencies provide to fossil
fuel projects every year.
(1) No False Choices: To Preserve a Livable Climate, We Need to Slash Both CO2 and Methane ASAP; (2) Oil Change International Report: Fossil
Fuel Production Subsidies Exceed $ 21 Billion Annually in United States, have increased by 45 % under Obama's «All of the Above» energy policy; (3) Joint Economic Committee Hearing on «The Economic Impact of Increased Natural Gas Production» (video); (4) Leaked Trade Deal Document Shows EU Pressuring U.S. to Lift Crude Oil
Export Ban; (5) Deep Decarbonization Pathways
Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary - General Ban Ki - Moon.
In July, BNEF
projected that «electric cars will outsell fossil
fuel - powered vehicles within two decades as battery prices plunge, turning the global auto industry upside down and signaling economic turmoil for oil -
exporting countries.»
Trump's Ex-Im Bank appointment could accelerate climate change WASHINGTON, D.C. - A multi-part Columbia School of Journalism investigation published this week reveals that the U.S.
Export - Import Bank has financed tens of billions of dollars in fossil
fuel projects under the Obama administration, triple the levels seen under the Bush administration.
We learned how the Texas - based Spectra Energy was rapidly pushing the
project, primarily
fueled by an urgent need to get gas to
export markets to Europe.
Supporting community efforts to protect our oceans from fossil
fuel projects, including
export terminals and coal plants.
This expansion in US coal
exports could release more carbon pollution than any other new fossil
fuel project in the United States, according to a new report Greenpeace released today.
Opponents say a presidential rejection of the
project would send a powerful message to the world about the importance of moving away from fossil
fuels and make it more difficult for Canada to
export its energy - intensive oil.
Pacific Environment and its coalition partners, including Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, are calling upon the
Export - Import Bank to halt funding of fossil
fuels projects overseas and instead focus on clean energy.
The coal industry's efforts to
export huge amounts of taxpayer - owned coal from Montana and Wyoming to Asia has generated unprecedented opposition in the Pacific Northwest - tens of thousands of people have rallied, attended public hearings, and called on their elected officials to oppose coal
export terminals that would disrupt and pollute communities and pose one of the biggest threats to the climate of any fossil
fuel project in the world.
Mr. Matthews has represented clients in NRC hearings regarding the licensing of the South Texas
Project, Units 3 & 4, the Mixed Oxide
Fuel Fabrication Facility, numerous contested license transfer proceedings, license amendment proceedings, and contested import /
export license proceedings.