US companies are inching closer to liquified gas exportation.  A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal observes that the Department of Energy recently released a report showing that liquefying natural gas for export would result in a net benefit for the economy.

Writing for the WSJ, Keith Johnson and Tennille Tracy said,

The looming prospect of the U.S.’s becoming a major exporter of natural gas underscores how the energy revolution is transforming the nation’s economic prospects. Just a few years ago, many energy companies were planning to build facilities to import liquefied natural gas into the U.S.

This of course is not without its barbs.  Environmental activists are not keen on what Johnson and Tracy call a “glut of cheap gas”, and some are calling for more attention to the alleged toxicity of shale gas removal methods.

“It is baffling that this report omits the serious threats increased fracking and gas production pose to our water, our air, and the health of our families,” said Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, in the article.

Meanwhile, some think that US manufacturers are increasingly using natural gas and that NERA Economic Consulting, the group who conducted the survey, is underestimating domestic demand.

Dow Chemical Vice President George Blitz was quoted as saying that the report was “just not an honest assessment”.

The authors note that availability has “has helped underpin a revival in manufacturing and helped lower electricity costs for consumers.”

Key to this, I think, is the fact that much of this liquefied natural gas is not meant for domestic consumption, but rather for export.  Apparently, it is more profitable for companies to ship the fuel overseas than it is for them to sell it to domestic customers.

This may help to win over skeptics of the controversial hydrofracturing technology, particularly those in the Obama administration.

The US economy still needs sources of new growth, and selling LNG as an export takes pressure off of political leadership to bolster the economy while still allowing allowing Obama to pursue domestic green energy goals.  In theory.

Also, the piece observes how LNG exports can be a powerful geopolitical tool for the Obama Administration.  Some have observed that Obama’s second term will be dominated by foreign policy concerns.

Johnson and Tennille write,

“Pipelines from Russia now supply a big chunk of the natural gas to Western Europe, but alternative sources could undercut Moscow’s sway. In Asia, the U.S. can bolster allies such as Japan and South Korea by helping lessen their dependence on gas imports from unstable regions.”

In other words, it could be a nice card in Obama’s deck.