Teen Excellence Win a $100 Grocery Gift Card

COMMENTARY: U.S. gas boom puts Putin in his place

2014-05-20T23:30:00Z COMMENTARY: U.S. gas boom puts Putin in his place Glens Falls Post-Star
May 20, 2014 11:30 pm

By William F. Shughart II

No one hates the U.S. shale revolution more than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Surging U.S. oil and gas production is a nightmare he can’t escape. Already, U.S. gas production and the promise of U.S. liquefied natural gas exports have Russia’s European customers demanding cheaper prices for gas, and the Russians are reluctantly agreeing.

Nothing is more critical to Putin’s power than Russian energy revenues. Oil and gas exports account for 52 percent of the Russian state budget. That kind of dependence on one source of revenue can pay the bills when energy demand is high and prices are up, but it can be fiscally disastrous when prices fall.

Putin has long used gas exports, and Russia’s state-run gas company, Gazprom, as a lever of geopolitical influence. To extract concessions from client states, he has on numerous occasions either threatened to cut off the flow of gas, or actually done so. Ukraine knows that all too well.

But that kind of ruthless behavior sends buyers looking for new suppliers. For years, European consumers haven’t had alternatives to Russian gas. In fact, many East European countries rely on imports from Russia to meet 80 percent or more of their natural gas needs.

As a result of America’s shale-gas boom, that’s on the verge of changing.

Already, seven U.S. LNG export terminals have received Department of Energy approval to ship gas to countries with which the United States doesn’t have free trade agreements. That includes all of Europe.

While these projects will take years to complete, the writing is on the wall: Russia is going to have a major new competitor in European energy markets.

While the Russians will be able to undercut U.S. gas prices because their gas can be moved directly to market by pipeline, European buyers are ready to diversify their supply sources.

The question for Europe is: How much is energy security worth? If the full-court press European political leaders have been putting on the Obama administration and Congress to expedite the LNG export approval process is any indication, the answer is: Energy security is worth a lot.

The Russians are pivoting East in response. They’re turning to China as a new Gazprom customer, but the U.S. shale revolution is hanging over contract negotiations there as well.

The Chinese need natural gas to reduce their dependence on coal. China is now burning nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined. But China is well aware of Putin’s eroding European market share and it’s also eager to buy U.S. LNG; so China’s driving a tough bargain. Some reports suggest to get a long-term purchase contract from China, Putin may be forced to sell them gas at rock-bottom prices.

America’s new position as the world’s largest natural gas producer and burgeoning gas exporter is remarkable. Just five years ago, many experts inside the U.S. government and at U.S. utilities believed we were on the verge of becoming a major gas importer. Vladimir Putin, in fact, eyed the U.S. market as the next destination for Russian gas.

It should be no surprise U.S. energy policy has been slow to catch up with our vast new supply of gas. Bureaucratic inertia is legendary.

President Barack Obama nevertheless should embrace the energy gift that has been left on his doorstep. Roughly two-dozen additional LNG export applications await DOE review. If the approval of just seven export terminals already has begun to shift the balance of power away from Putin, imagine what the speedy approval of the remaining applications might yield.

It’s time to find out. Putin’s stranglehold on the European gas market is slipping through his hands. Let’s not let it slip through ours.

William F. Shughart II, research director and senior fellow of The Independent Institute, 100 Swan Way, Oakland, Calif. 94621, is J. Fish Smith Professor in Public Choice at Utah State University’s Huntsman School of Business.

Copyright 2016 Glens Falls Post-Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(1) Comments

  1. loneoak
    Report Abuse
    loneoak - May 21, 2014 7:57 am
    If America had the backbone to really commit our resources to resolve issues the answers would be simple. Oil sponsors terrorism, Resources enable countries like Russia and China to survive. While it is important to explore and develop[p alternative sources of energy it would make sense for the US to aggressively develop and sell all the natural resources available. This would drive the cost of these resources down dramatically, In turn this would cripple terrorist groups and countries who use this money for a less than honorable agenda. Just think what it would do for own economy if we didn't spend so much more on these commodities. it would solve an ongoing economy problem for sure,


1) Comments must be contained to the topic of the articles only. Comments that stray from the direct subject of the article will be deleted.

2) Readers are free to comment on and debate other readers' comments, but comments must specifically address the issue(s) raised. Comments containing personal insults directed toward another reader in any form will be deleted.

3) Comments must be civil in tone, and there will be no name calling of any kind. Uncivil or inappropriate comments will be deleted, as will any comment containing profanities.

4) Comments critical of crime or accident victims will be deleted.

5) Comments that are potentially libelous, including those that contain accusations not supported by facts, will be deleted.

Commenters who abuse these policies will have their e-mail registrations revoked.


View the full commenting policy.

Thank you, and we hope you enjoy interacting with us and the community.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick