Poll: 62% of Americans support LNG exports to Europe to help countries reduce dependence on Russian energy

14
177

European countries, which are heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas, could benefit by diversifying its energy sources. Some 61% of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center say they favor the United States expanding production to export large amounts of natural gas to European countries to meet that need. A smaller share (37%) say they would oppose expanding natural gas production to export to countries in Europe.

Seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor exporting large amounts of natural gas to European countries, as do a somewhat smaller majority of Democrats and Democratic leaners (55%), the Pew Research Center survey finds. The Democrats surveyed were more concerned about climate change and the impact that more natural gas usage may have on it.

In response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, European countries, including Germany and Italy, announced plans to phase out oil and gas imports from Russia – the largest supplier of energy to Europe.

The Biden administration has pledged to increase natural gas exports to the European Union, though a large increase in natural gas exports could face challenges, including production timelines and existing pipeline and export terminal capabilities.

While the survey finds broad support for exporting natural gas to Europe, the findings also underscore how potential impacts on domestic prices are front-of-mind for large shares of Americans.

Two-thirds (67%) say the impact on natural gas prices in the U.S. should be a major consideration when it comes to whether the U.S. should export large amounts of natural gas to European countries. Both those in favor of and opposed to exporting U.S. natural gas to Europe agree that the impact on domestic prices should be a major consideration.

Prices rank ahead of other considerations, including the impact on climate change and the Russian economy. About half (51%) say the impact on climate change should be a major consideration when it comes to whether the U.S. should export large amounts of natural gas to Europe. Those who oppose increasing natural gas exports to Europe are more likely than those who favor this to say that climate impacts should be a major consideration (64% vs. 44%). Climate experts have raised concerns about the effects that President Joe Biden’s plan to increase natural gas exports might have on the administration’s climate goals.

Read this story at Pew Research Center.

14 COMMENTS

  1. How about we get natural gas to the interior and the bush to bring their prices down first?

  2. Boxers can earn a lot of money if the are successful. Nevertheless, experience shows that boxers tend to pick up a large entourage that consumes the big money fairly quickly. The take-away is that wealth can support an individual for quite a while but when used to support a larger group it can be dissipated fairly quickly.

    Russia holds, by far, the largest natural gas reserves. In second place is Iran. That doesn’t sound so good. The USA is fifth – with less than a third of the Russian reserves. Franky, I am not so keen on depleting US reserves to serve Europe.

    Perhaps the best choice to supply gas to Europe is Qatar, the third largest reserves holder. German Vice Chancellor Habeck has recently met with the Qatar government. Assuming the gas can be safely and reliably transported to Europe, the gas from Qatar makes more sense.

  3. 99.9% of Americans could approve exporting LNG and petroleum and it still won’t happen. Biden’s handlers have shut it all off. Monetary gain for the elitists and fulfilling the dreams of the climate change mafioso. Better to beg from evil dictators than provide prosperity for Amercans.

    • While it would be SO convenient to blame Biden…you’ve missed the facts. The U.S. exports both oil and LNG to foreign countries/markets already.

      In 2021, the US exported about 8.63 million barrels (42 US gallons) per day of petroleum to 176 countries and 4 U.S. territories. In 2021, the US exported about 6,652,609 million cubic feet of LNG.

  4. Doesn’t matter if 100% support, Deb Haaland and the Biden admin aren’t going to budge on the petroleum purge. The only thing we can do know is wait and pray.

    • Biden’s fellow dumdums are killing wild mustangs now too. So when your real enemy Swissman Klaus said to the north American continent “You will own nothing…” he was as serious as a luciferian heart attack. Go ahead. Hire you his WEFfers as your authoritarian karen rulers. Enjoy your trance. Jump for joy.
      On your way to horse and buggy days in Anch without the horse or buggy. Keep your nose high!

  5. Funny that the powers that be were trying to get Europe off of Russian petroleum prior to Trump’s election in 2016. There was a push to route a pipeline from Iraq through Syria and a huge effort to shut down Nordstream 2 before construction was completed. Seems like they took a few years off and then resumed the push to boycott Russian exports again. Kind of a coincidence that the war in Ukraine started right after Nordstream 2 was activated.

  6. Unfortunately, no matter how badly the US would like to cripple Putin by replacing Russian LNG with American LNG, there are significant challenges with infrastructure, even if US suppliers could provide enough supply to maintain domestic markets and support LNG exports. Developing enough new wells (sorry, all Lower 48 due to geography) and constructing the pipelines and export facilities would take years and cost a few hundred billion dollars. Then, you still need new LNG tankers (a few hundred million dollars each) and import receiving terminals in Europe, which would be a few hundred billion Euros. Compound the time and money of constructing this new infrastructure with a stated European goal of moving toward renewable and away from hydrocarbons, and you have what will potentially be a collapsing market just as all of this new infrastructure comes on line. There’s a reason why nonconventional oil and gas companies in the Lower 48 aren’t clamoring for this new market potential.

  7. Anonymous Guest Contributor? While I feel for the pain the Europeans are experiencing, I do not believe we should sacrifice for them – our energy costs are high enough, thank you Biden and the greenies. An Alaska gas pipeline would help the world’s supply, but it would be difficult to get it to Europe from here. “Renewables” just aren’t there yet, but that is the direction we will have to go in a hundred years or so – no harm experimenting, but don’t force something that ranks right up there with the COVID vaccine in effectiveness and environmental friendliness. Europe must understand that also – as they really would like to keep doing business with Russia – just without the war.

  8. They’ve been turning around LNG tankers from the Gulf LNG plants that were headed to Asia after they’ve already passed through the Panama Canal and were half way to Asia to supply the European market.

  9. No. They can fire up their moth-balled nuclear power plants. We’re done with supporting the world and fighting their battles. Europe needs to step up to the plate and take care of their own problems.

  10. European economies will not give the proverbial rat’s a$$ what 62% of American voters think about LNG exports from the USA to them. The cost of LNG will be five times the price they are paying now and take five years to build out the necessary infrastructure. EU globalist leaders may be all for tanking their economies, but there will be hell to pay in the streets when the peasants revolt!

  11. I say to heck with the Euro-peons — if they want to indulge in their ‘green energy’ unicornian fantasies and delusions, let them, and let them suffer the full consequences of their ignorance and insanity.

Comments are closed.