|
|
|
|
Presidential Hopefuls Float Plans to Curb Fossil Fuels
(Note: companies that
could be impacted by the content of this article are listed at the base of the
story [desktop version]. This article uses third-party references to provide a
bullish, bearish, and balanced point of view; sources are listed after the
Balanced section.)
With Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls embracing green energy to curb climate change, proposals to ban hydraulic fracturing (fracking), limiting U.S. exports of fossil fuels and carbon taxes have all entered the public debate. Due to the increased use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, the United States has significantly increased its production of crude oil and natural gas. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects total crude oil and petroleum net exports to average 750,000 barrels per day (b/d) in 2020 compared with average net imports of 520,000 b/d in 2019. U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports are expected to average 4.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) in 2019 and 6.4 Bcf/d in 2020 as three new liquefaction projects are commissioned. This has resulted in significant economic and political gains. As the country moves from limiting its dependence on energy imports to becoming a significant exporter of energy, should it consider restricting exports in the interest of curbing climate change? Restricting exports would have both positive (bull) and negative (bear) implications for energy producers, consumers and investors.