six things to watch for, including the deadline tomorrow, and the numbers that enrolled. what that could mean for insurance providers and the health care law. and a look ahead to the next enrollment, which will begin november 15. also, more details on insurance enrollment. some details from the exchanges in kentucky and missouri. how perspective 2016 candidates are reacting to recent foreign policy positions like ukraine. >> two weeks after the burglary, i received a large manila envelope. ofhad a return address liberty publications, which did not mean anything to me, but was

slightly intriguing. commissiona citizens fbi, the name the the burglars gave each other. what they wrote sounded like a commission appointed by the attorney general might have said. he described the fact they had burglarized and fbi office. they had become concerned there were informers in antiwar and civil rights organizations. they saw no way to confront this evidence thatng suppression of dissent was taking place. hoped we would make it public. these have been sent to members of congress, george mcgovern and mitchell from baltimore, and three journalists who were not named.

i started to read them. the enhanced paranoia document stood out. it seems like this might be a hoax. group broke into an fbi office and stole every document in the building. , onstory tonight at 8:00 q&a. >> negative here e.r. and expanding u.s. energy production. on expanding u.s. energy production. the hearing was about two hours.

>> good morning, everyone. thank you for attending. it is my pleasure to bring the energy committee to an opening session this morning, on the subject of natural gas. our title "importing energy, exporting jobs." can this be reversed? senator murkowski is on her way. she is in a very important meeting. we expect her momentarily. wyden,to thank senator my dear friend and former leader of this committee, for his leadership and support. continuingard to working with him and all members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. ago, membersecade of this committee attended numerous meetings in this room to consider the 2005 energy policy act.

at that time, we discussed at length the need to import more liquefied natural gas to meet our growing energy demand. extraordinarily -- extraordinary and swift advances in technology, to locate, capture, and produce natural gas, this committee will discuss the opportunity to export america, andn support our allies in europe and budding democracies across the world. epacgeorge w. bush signed in 2005, the price of natural gas was averaging two dollars and $.50. why october, the price had risen to$13, and continued to rise 15. these high prices caused chemical manufacturers to close

up their factories. this affected many states. not just michigan, louisiana, and other industrial states. the fact that less than 10 years later we are in a four-year time of domestic gas prices at five dollars or less is stunning. and long-term favorable outlook ahead of us. because of this price stabilization, the world's isgest producer of methanol literally breaking down a factory, piece by piece in tole, and shipping it back where it originally was. what caused this reversal of fortune? game changing technologies were involved? what action should this committee and the u.s. take, given this new set of data and facts?

oil and gas's in from fortified our economy in the last few years, buffering us from an even deeper recession which i believe would have occurred, and providing new high-paying jobs for thousands of americans. evidentis this more than in my home state of louisiana and all along the gulf coast, america's energy coast. 2013, over 2000 jobs will be created by new unconventional production in louisiana alone by 2019. this is not considering other jobs in other states around the country. it is quite promising. the oil and gas industry supports over 300,000 jobs in louisiana, and has been a major factor in ensuring below average unemployment for the last five years. also, for states such as north dakota, that have had increased

ongoing production -- colorado, etc. a recent report said approximately $47 billion of private sector investments will be made in new and existing plants and projects in allen paris, beauregard, and jefferson davis. hersh is that people on this committee have probably never heard of, and people in america have never heard of it either. but these are real places with real people. a 100 mile stretch between ican, lafayette, and lake charles, louisiana. that investment would create 37,000 new jobs, high-paying jobs. willerica, lng exports drive domestic production and create jobs. there are are also a powerful geopolitical tool, particularly

in light of russia's it illegal aggression in the ukraine. events have shown that putin is intent on using his monopoly on energy supplies to pressure our to advance hise economic and philosophical agenda. last week, russia sanctions nine officials. i was one of them. being sectioned by president putin is a badge of honor for me and the people i represent. it has only encouraged me to redouble my efforts to increase domestic energy production in the united states and make the u.s. a global leader in energy exports. america can and should be an energy superpower in all aspects of conventional and advanced sources of energy, including new alternative fuels and alternative energy sources. reall know that competition in real open markets drives efficiency and lowers prices for everyone.

the last thing putin and his cronies want is competition from the united states of america in the energy race. tyrants and dictators throughout history have had many reasons to fear revolution. this u.s. energy revolution is one they should all keep their eyes on. i look forward to playing a role to bring energy independence to america and its democratic allies around the world, to advance freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, and to promise to hold leaders accountable for what they do. today's hearing is part of this effort. far too often, faced with complex and difficult challenges, we stand unsure, hesitant, moving in every different direction. i can assure you this will not be the case in this committee under my leadership. we will do our part to use our domestic production of gas and technologies,el

and exciting renewables, to meet our energy needs at home and abroad. we will also break the stranglehold of tyrants who threaten to use their energy stockpiles to crush the hopes of freedom and democracy for all people, particularly women and girls. i look forward to hearing from them how we will achieve these goals. i will turn to the ranking member as soon as she is here for opening statements. then, let me call on our witnesses this morning. i do want to mention, for the record, and give credit to senator mark udall, who is here this morning, on a bill he has introduced that is currently pending. hopefully, we can take this up at some point. the american job creation strategic alliances act. it commands a section of the natural gas act to allow for

exports to wto companies. we will look forward to hearing more specifically about other pieces of legislation on this subject, both pro and con, and neutral, as we develop our policy. senator, thank you, for your introduction of this bill. then i would like to put into the record an op-ed that i thought was particularly on point from the wall street journal. export strategy. and from the new york times, from thomas friedman, a blessing in disguise. with ourike to begin witnesses. we will go through a round of questions. adamson minsky -- adam, and next a senior fellow in national

security. have avery pleased to minister of energy from the republic of lithuania. that will give us extraordinary and very timely view of what is happening in his part of the world. when,. david gold brookings institute. with fiveld proceed minutes of testimony and a round of questions, thank you. committee,of the thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. statistical analytical agency. >> could use big a little bit closer to your microphone? to leanou will have into the microphone. thank you. >> a statistical agency within the department of agency. by law, the data and analyses are independent of approval from

any office of the u.s. government, so my views should not be an strewed as representing the department of energy or any other federal agency. the latest short-term outlook forecast -- total natural gas production will average a slight 2013, as generators respond to a year-over-year increase in natural gas production. in than offsets increased demand from industry. side, forecast that natural gas production will rise 2.5% in 2013. growth in the marsalis formation, centered in pennsylvania, but also west virginia, is noteworthy. we anticipate drilling in

louisiana, arkansas, and the barnett in texas. of prolonged and widespread cold weather, which is continued throughout the northeast and much of the united states, has led to a record-breaking natural gas season. operators will make record high torage injections substantially rebuilt inventory levels. growing natural gas production has already had significant ,mpact on the natural gas trade while enabling increased pipeline exports to mexico. worldscale natural gas liquefaction plants come on stream, we expect the united states to become a net exporter, beginning later this decade. turning to longer-term

projections presented in the annual energy outlook for 2014, natural gas production from shale gas and offshore natural gas resources rose steadily, increasing 56% between 2012 and 2040. the largest contributor of shale 50% of totalver production at that time. the plate gas and offshore gas production also increasing. opportunity in the middle of the next date for liquefied natural gas exports. outlook, whichgy will be released next month, that couldsumptions change this outlook. 10% above thely

oil price scenario, and roughly 20% beyond the reference case level. projected prices and export levels also differ considerably. producers develop lower grade resources over time. we see the spot price increasing at about 3.7% are year in the oference case, from a low $7.5 million -- 207 the 5 perion -- from $7.5 million btu. we benefit as the availability and price of natural gas are attractive, compared to the situation in other world regions. generators using natural gas are also expected to capture a growing share of total u.s. electricity production.

more than three times net --eline and tourists interests. by 3.5 trillion cubic feet, with remaining volumes originating from export drums located along the atlantic along withast, alaska. future u.s. energy exports depend upon a number of factors which are difficult to anticipate, including price convergence, competition with oil, and natural gas inside and outside the united states. they have not yet completed exports. price case,oil nearly twice as high as reference case. in the high oil and gas resource case, which is more optimistic about the size of the resource

base and technology advances, it falls midway between those in the reference gas price cases. thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee. >> thank you very much. please proceed. >> thank you, madam chair. i thought you were going to ask questions. >> we will do the whole panel and then we will have questions. >> thank you. of thehair and members committee, i am also honored by your invitation to testify today in this distinguished company. it was my privilege to lead the study of macroeconomic impact at my company, national economic research associates. end of our recent update to that study. i provided a copy, along with my

testimony, and like to ask that this be entered into the record. reportsmony and these represent my own opinions and conclusions, not necessarily of any other consultant. i can speak only for myself. to address some issues about our earlier study. particular, one using 2011 data made our study. we updated it to the energy administration's most recent forecast. we used the 2013 outlook. as mr. simmons suggested, they have not published cases that were critical for our analysis of scenarios. we agree that we have to look at scenarios, because it is very difficult to get exactly what the level would be. we do not have access to a full analysis of cumulative impact.

we examine exports all the way up to what they could be, with no restrictions on exports. we found alan g exports provide net economic benefits in all the scenarios we examined. the greater the exports, the greater the benefits. there is no sweets but that would suggest lowering x votes -- exports beyond market levels. another point raised recently was about the notion that somehow if we export natural gas it will not be available for manufacturing in the u.s.. that is a false dichotomy. we looked at it very closely. the u.s. chemicals industry was very threatened in 2005. is tied tont, it it a large advantage over rivals of natural gas, which will not be taken away by the affect of lng

exports. it is a false economy. scenarios, the increased demand for exports is almost all satisfied by increased production. away frome is taken domestic users because of higher prices. two other topics, one extending the economic analysis. talk about jobs. there are two things about lng exports i am convinced our true no matter what level of exports we look at. first is that they require workers drawn from all over the economy. since the facilities have to be built before the gas can be anded, the investment employment associated is going to be coming up front. --calculated, on page eight i believe the committee may have a handout. we calculated the annual employment directly on building

liquefaction facilities. 30,000 jobs on site, building .iquefaction the faster we export gas, the more jobs there will be, and the faster we can build the facilities, the more jobs there can be. the congressional budget office, where i used to be assistant director, does economic forecasts with a budget. it always assumes the economy will be back to full economy. been a long-term secular trend in the economy. what is really important is the time between now and when we reach full employment, projected for 2018. these jobs are coming exactly when they are needed, when we looking for people to

be brought back into the labor force. 40,000 unemployed would be put back to work between now and gearing up for lng exports. i would like to make a point about russia. that is really the focus of this hearing. myself, what is it that is sufficiently attractive on its , as punishment for russian aggression? i believe that is lng exports. look at what a would happen to russia's revenues if two things happened. a policy,m is, however it is phrased in law, it committed the u.s. not to put it -- a cap on lng

exports. we must not cut off shale gas through ham-handed regulation or giving into groundless fears. and encourage production. but with that, we could see russia's exports dropping by up to 5 trillion cubic feet per year. that is what would happen if beat the prices of competitive producers. not, they will have to sell at lower prices. that adds up to somewhere between a 40% and 60% loss in russia, forues for the u.s. entering the lng market aggressively. i think that is a punishment that would mean something. >> i will come back to the minister at the end and let this

group go first. >> thank you, madam chair and members of the committee, for this opportunity to be here today. i also speak on my own behalf, and not for bookings. in my own behalf, not from brookings. the dramatic growth in the united states of natural gas has resulted in economic growth, relative reduction in greenhouse emissions, and security. our future energy supply suggests future exports of decades to come. this could enhance our national power by positioning our nation as a reliable supplier of natural gas in the world and suffers from the intimidation of suppliers or the economy crushing burden of oil. the question before us is not whether we have the geopolitical potential, but whether we will realize it in time. countries enhance their national power when they act as reliable suppliers of strategic

commodities to the global market. this path -- power can be wielded for good, but also for ill as we have seen with russia, using its market power to intimidate neighbors. the u.s. can be a strategic supplier to the global gas market. while the government does not dictate where the supply goes, it does dictate how fast we can act to the global supply market. our friends and allies without free-trade agreements with us at the back of the line. in addition, the process and ispo for reviewing these potentially out of sync with commercial realities. the crisis in the ukraine should cause us to think in new on this of leveragingms allies like celebrating applications so that they can plan for the day when they can reduce their reliance on russian gas from these supplies the cripple the economy's. we should begin now to compete actively with russia for asian

markets before we cease to receive that information as well. the benefits of u.s. owned exports would be global but mime onm -- my remarks will focus russia because of the events in the ukraine. russia's annexation of crimea is an example of the challenges that we face. the challenge will be with us as long as president putin remains in power. his unabashedly's i are to regain territories and remained independent after the fall of the secure -- soviet union is a threat to american leadership. the president has responded with savvy by targeting the eclectic inner circle that is attempting to use private resources for public gain, but the central and eastern europe neighbors aren't dependent on oil supplies. the objectives of the energy insecurity means that europe has to do a lot on its own, making strives towards further integrating its gas to move from

point to point, promoting market countries to those who want to invest, and develop further infrastructure to support alternative gas supply and interconnection between countries. the u.s. will need to recommit to our caspian policy to reassure that the southern court or is completed and that azerbaijan and kaz extend retain autonomy and sustain roles as suppliers of oil and gas to europe to make further integration of the gas markets a key tenant of our integration as well. a clear signal from the u.s. that lng exports will be available to european allies for future purchases would be -- would put immediate pressure on the russians for gas transportation infrastructure in europe. in the mania, ukraine, poland, and estonia. while it is no panacea, removing the uncertainty as to where and

with thee projects european empires could get approval would accelerate both financing of u.s. lng export projects and european import projects. those who dismiss the utility of accelerating these approvals underestimate the impact it can have on the roving russian market power now. this, it impacts price formation for the future and erodes the price that russia can get for its gas in europe and asia, reducing russia's market share in europe making its companies less attractive and investment in its upstream less valuable. just after we announced sanctions, markets reacted today to news in the future, allowing european projects to access the pricing making those projects more finance a bowl. it may be true that asian rather than european buyers are just -- from arom a part

political perspective, it does not make a difference, as this also hurts their cash flow. the more it hits the market, the greater the bargaining power of european buyers. as i said at the outset, these are serious times the call for serious solutions. within celebrated export policy, that is part of the toolbox. it may be a long-term measure, but it is serious and the time to get started is now. >> thank you very much. >> madam chair, members of the committee, it is my honor to appear before you today to discuss the matters you have posed. first of all, senator, let me congratulate you for chairing what i understand to be your first full committee hearing and for being on the sanctions list. you must be the envy of your colleagues in more ways than one. i understand the committee would

likely to focus on the international impact of the unconventional oil and gas revolution. particularly in light of the crisis over the russian invasion of crimea and the potential threat it poses for gas supply disruptions for ukraine as well as for europe. of course, the long-term impact of the unconventional revolution is just getting to be felt internationally. much depends on whether the american experience can be replicated around the world. studies indicate that shifts exist in different parts of the world. the history of the technology makes me optimistic that this advancement would be transferred to other countries, simply taking time is the application of new technology adapt to local conditions. even before spreading to other countries, the oil shale gas revolution has already made important contributions to the stability of global markets.

u.s. oil production increased by more than 2 million barrels per 2010, partially offsetting global supply disruptions in recent years, already holding a significant impact on the market before exports. as you pointed out madam chair, more than 30 terminals were proposed in the u.s. as imports, not exports, at one time. imagine what the international market would he like if the u.s. had become a major importer rather than expected to become a net gas exporter by 2018. u.s. exports could lead to important changes to the global gas market. because we have gas and gas competition, natural gas prices are not linked to oil prices as they are in most of the world. our exports will also contribute to increased lng cargoes not

tied to long-term contracts. for the first roger act exporting is completed, which i am sure you are very familiar with, it will have taken more than five years to complete. it is not merely governmental permittingd local that take time. but also negotiating purchase agreements with qualified buyers, securing financing, engineering, and construction work. the combined capacity of the projects already conditionally approved are higher than the total gas consumption of germany. the u.s. will become a major exporter if all contracts are completed. more export projects are in the queue. there are ample damascus economic reasons for why restrictions should be relaxed. with oil that includes share

prices they cannot be run optimally by this -- by sophisticated refineries that are made to process heavier style goods. we would maximize the economic benefits of the reduction by exporting some light sweet to import continuing heavier style crude. with gas exports it would help to sustain the level of investment in production with price levels that benefit both producers and long-term consumers without depressed prices choking off expected growth. these are complicated issues that deserve a full debate in congress that has already do begun. decades of perceived energy scarcity already take oil and gas export policies and it takes time to re-examine these policies with applicable law in a new era of energy abundance. of regulatory

certainty is important when billions of dollars are at stake with investments that take years to complete. russian aggression against ukraine has added a geopolitical foreign policy dimension to the issue. some argue that hastening approvals of exports by the united states would have a deterring effect on hostile actions by russia. unfortunately, this is unlikely to have much of an immediate effect. russia produces over 10 million barrels per day of oil and exports about 7 million barrels in crude and petroleum products. no amount of increase in exports can begin to root wastes such large volumes. russian exports of natural gas have more than twice the capacity of year-over-year approved export projects from the u.s. so far. in order to reduce the influence that russia exerts through oil and gas, europe laser crucial is more russia

dependent on europe after the decimation of its exports within europe is reliant on russia for supply. europe would do well to focus on developing indigenous energy resources in order to be less import the pendant and fully integrating it to gas and electricity networks so that supply can flow more easily to countries vulnerable to cut off. unfortunately, lithuania, where the ministers from, is one of the few european countries committed to developing this gas. a silver bullet for europe. lng imports declined significantly last year as a result of more favorable pricing terms offered by traditional norwaye suppliers, like and russia. like countries such as russia, the united states does not direct commerce and leave it to private companies to operate freely in the market, except in

times of war and national emergency. indeed we have historically taken a stance against the use of energy is a geopolitical weapon. especially after the arab oil embargo of 1973. inflaming frederick on exports could cause them to recognize it as irrelevant in the short run. more importantly it can distract from the critical task of shoring up ukraine economically. i know the committee may have more questions on ukraine, it is a country i have spent some time working in. we will wait until the question and answer. to answer those. whack thank you very much. an interesting perspective. we will now hear from the minister from lithuania. committeeers of the -- >> members of the committee -- >> speaking to the microphone, please.

>> i will share with you the story of lithuania, which i can summarize in one phrase, which is that freedom is not for free. before i make my point, i want when the to 2003, historic vote happened on the senate floor on the a margin of nato. one year later we we became formal members. in that year we celebrated our membership anniversary. the role of some of the senators could not be underestimated. thank you for your leadership. lithuania has become a free-market nation with a political system. we have become a trusted international partner, operated closely with the united states, including on fighting terrorism in places like afghanistan. we are very proud of our achievements. hem honored to appear here

for such a distinguished group of american officials, led by ,he chairwoman andrews irrespective of political affiliations individually and collectively you stand proudly for the principles of free and fair trade and implicitly understand that the unrestricted flow of goods, services, and energy resources benefits the united states and your trading partners. madam chairwoman, we have a common vision for a democratic system. we share the same values in international relations. despite our unwavering commitment to these ideals, laws enacted in your country some 75 years ago denies us access to your abundant energy resources. we must change that situation. let the energy strengthen, deepening. at present we are completely 100% dependent on a single

supplier of natural gas. as a result, we are forced to pay a political price. lithuanian families have displayed arty percent more than other european countries. abuse --ot fair and and an abuse of a mama -- of a monopolistic position. i'm here to tell you that lithuania is taking steps to achieve energy independence and strengthen our national security, but let me be 100% transparent. i am also here to plead with you , to do everything within your power to expedite the release of some of your abundant natural gas resources into the world market. especially those nations beholden to a supplier. the united states, with your normal natural gas resources, has the kind of liquid market that europe is trying to build right now. what is the potential in europe?

there are currently 22 operating facilities with combined capacities of 6.7 dollar trillion and another additional capacity of over one million cubic feet per year under construction. import fell actual by almost half between 2010 and last year. because these prices are generally connected to the global price of oil, current prices are tied to natural gas elsewhere on the continent. as a consequence, terminals across europe are functioning minimal technical capacities. however, america's entry into the global natural gas market has changed the situation completely. last week vice president biden visited lithuania and during his visit the vice president said that we have learned the hard way that protecting the

sovereignty of nations depends on having more than one supplier of energy. vice president biden expressed support for our efforts by encouraging the energy corporations. indeed, working successfully to overcome energy violence situations. i am pleased to tell you that in just 250 more days we will have our own lng import terminal. a newly built, floating storage vessel has been symbolically named independence and its primary goal is to satisfy our national needs. the terminal will operate under the so-called access regime, meaning that we could use terminal capacity to meet the own needs. our first large-scale import facility on the baltic sea will be the icebreaker, helping to ensure alternative gas supplies. while the united states appears

positioned to be a key player in the marketplace, as you know there is a sticking point. the majority of your exports are subject to a public interest review. we understand that the u.s. president has the authority to deem all impending applications to be within public interest. we hope that this administration will do just that by opening the door to exports. in af they do not act timely way, we would urge congress to step in and amend the law. accelerating america's entry into the global natural gas market is a win win win situation. america receives job creation, economic growth, revenue for the government, customers in europe, gas from the you up -- u.s., and whichgic corporations sequentially would be on the european continent in their

levelers -- levels of influence. the present situation in ukraine has taught us one that -- one lesson. one they should and should not be able to use its monopoly to punish another nation. in conclusion, we should work together to let competition in. to keep the monopoly out. gas pricesg natural down for customers in america and europe. thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much. senator, we will begin with a round of questioning. welcome. foregoing opening statements for the matter of time, we will have an opening round of questions. then it will be senator wyden, senator scott,'s senator udall. -- senator scott, senator udall. think,ask this first, i to mr. chow, then dr. montgomery.

it should be better known in the united states that russia's national budget is made up 52% of editing -- energy revenue. i'm sure the u.s. budget is considerably less. it has been written over the course of several years that russia has continued to use what has been termed -- not my term, but someone else said this -- energy blackmail. their state coffers full. foreign policy over the last 20 used thissia has energy blackmail over 40 times, including in countries like lithuania. you said that there was no silver lining. that our actions today may not take immediate effect. were much more bullish on your position. i would like to ask you all, what are the steps, in your

opinion, that the u.s. should take to reduce russia's influence and reduce their quick access to cash and promote policies not in our interest and not in the interest of europe and democracies around the world? starting with you, dr. montgomery. what are the one or two things we should do? >> i will stick energy things that we can do. i am sure that there are many others that can accomplish what you're talking about as well. ised on your numbers, bevan probablyral gas are somewhere around 20% of energy revenues. 10% of the budget. if we could take out half of that, that would be five percent of your budget. i know what the budget committees in congress would feel about that.

think that that would be effective. i agree with mr. gold win, it is the potential competition that is really important. after this in industry industry, where the potential for monopoly restrains itself because they know that if they go above competitive pricing there are others not in the market that ready to leap in. that is the position the united states needs to be in. i agree that a critical part for that is in some form or another moving past the daily process of making it clear that there is a policy commitment not to cap natural gas exports, not to madent trades from being with our allies and ourselves. also dealing effectively with potential problems with natural gas production.

dealing with issues of shale gas and potential regulations. >> mr. goldman, would you like to add anything? >> i don't disagree. there are a shortlist of five things the u.s. could do to reduce russian influence. the first is diplomatic. we have a big agenda with europe. integrating the gas market means we will be able to help more. i started a program called the global shale gas initiative at the state department. called the unconventional gas technology program and we can do more with other countries to help them to develop their resources efficiently. the third thing, as we spoke , is accelerating our ability to connect to the global market on gas. we could encourage europeans to provide credit support to many of these projects. many of these economies are in bad shape. they have a lot of work to do before they can get prices right

to get people to invest their. union couldeuropean give credit support to a lot of these countries to enable them to build these up. i think we should support them as we have for decades, buying courage oil production. both here at home and overseas. the more supply that there is coming from mexico, or even our own exports, if we get to a point where we can do that, we will drive down the global price of oil. when that is done, revenues are reduced and other countries have other choices for supply. >> thank you, madam chair. i actually do not disagree much with what my colleagues have to timing.ept in terms of to be a bit modest as to how much immediate impact we can , while perhaps not attending to more urgent matters , like shoring up ukraine. in addition to what my colleagues have said, i would

emphasize the fact that our european allies are the ones over russia on oil and gas imports, not us. 80% of russia's oil and gas exports go to europe. they do not have many alternatives in the short term to medium term. the pipelines to china are not built yet, although mr. putin may be trying to do that in may. a number of the allies we have met with, that president obama met with yesterday and today, have bans on shale gas. we should send david back to paris, where there is an effective ban on even looking at exploring the resource in france. germany has an effective ban on fracking. 20% of germany demand comes from russia. getting together with our allies

to talk about what they can be doing in europe to improve their own situation, as well as mitigating dependency on russia, would be a good thing, in my mind. >> thank you. senator? >> he will get used to it. andnd like you both so much i work with you both so closely. >> well, thank you, madam chairman. good to have you as chair next to my good friend senator wyden. to those on the panel, good morning, i apologize. late this morning not because i was not anxious to hear the wisdom and opinions of each of you. i thank you for your leadership in so many different areas. mr. gold win, i think you notioned that it was whether in terms of exports we know in time to help, as i some of you are aware.

i have released a series of white papers after my 2020 energy report from last year, including the one about a narrowing window when it came to opportunities for exports. when we talk about these issues it is important to keep it in the context of timing. i also recognize that we are in an enviable position as a nation . we are in fact having hearing of this nature, talking about our energy opportunities for export. a position of abundance rather than one of scarcity, which is what we so often seem to focus on. to be able to discuss our natural gas, our oil, our other resources, it is truly a stiff edict asset. amething that i think is remarkable story coming out of

the united states and our ingenuity, german by technology, allowing us access amazing resources in this country. it is a fabulous conversation to be having today. a bit hererill down on the discussion of what we can do to make a difference today. over the ukraine. the discussion that has been being had about accelerating the permit in process. that does not get gas to ukraine or anywhere, at least for couple of years. therefore, if we cannot do something by gosh today to get our gas across the water, it is not worth doing? i have suggested that it is about the signal that is sent

about the role of the united states, our leadership role from a geopolitical perspective, which is as instrumental as anything. mr. chair, you used the term that it is irrelevant in the short run. what i would like to hear from ish of you is how important that signal that you send? oure are to accelerate permitting through the daily process? if you can speak to it from the pricing perspective? what does it mean in europe and in asia? if we are to act more aggressively with the signals that come out of this administration, saying that we are serious about being a player on the world scene? if we can truly just go down

through the panel and you each give your observation as to how significant the signal it is as opposed to actual gas to our friends and allies? >> senator, mixed signals can be important. they have to be followed up by concrete action in order to ultimately have the impact and not be temporary. itby concrete action, does need to be more than an expedited process? example, the gas actually entering into the marketplace in some way. you could argue that the increase, the strong increase in domestic production in the u.s. has already had some impact, because our imports are much lower now than they were projected to be just five years ago.

treated other gas in the markets to be available to other consumers. the possibility that the u.s. would enter into a global market with alan g exports after the of the facility, that has already had some impact on the psychology of long-term contracts. there have been companies who feltbeen vindicated, who that they have had more successful opportunities to negotiate with large gas suppliers. for better contract terms than , have theyhave had have the facility in louisiana not already under construction.

>> going down quickly, minister, how have signals been received in other nations? for thisnk you question. it is absolutely important, the signals that you can send. i can bring your attention to the fact that there are companies that trade in gas which are already moving to spot market pricing. the majority of the contracts are still being done on the basis of long-term pricing. this is where it is important that any signal that is there, which is sent to the market, goes to the buyers. they could feel more comfortable be morethat there would gasoline market. their position would be much longer these are the monopolist

suppliers. we don't have to attach ourselves to these long-term contracts knowing that there will be gas on the market and that it will possibly be more competitive. this signal would be very important, i would say. >> if the three of you all would answer that quickly, for the senator? 30 seconds each. how important is the signal? i believe it is important. it is my opinion that we see evidence across economic markets. graded -- great advantage of this kind of signal , it is to our advantage to facilitate this and it is also serve -- also strategic. >> from a diplomatic point of view, the signal is important for reassurance. you can spend decades trying to get other countries to provide gas to europe, but if we did it

ourselves that would be powerful. it is cheaper to get financing for those projects overseas. third, it would impact the market cap a russian companies right now. if they are getting lower revenues, than the prices on global markets will be lower. it impacts price formation. they are waiting to see if alan g comes into the market. buy the rumor, sell the fact, whatever you are after. the things we do in the market today have an immediate impact. >> dr., quickly, and then i will turn to the senator. signalmost important that we can give in response to russian aggression in the ukrainian about the economy. ukraine could be self-sufficient in gas and a faster amount of time than you could build a terminal.

until the 1970's, ukraine exported gas. it is the basic corruption and inefficiency of the ukrainian energy system that makes ukraine vulnerable. the ukraine continues to transfer more than 50% of russia's gas to europe. if we strengthen ukraine, that would be the most important signal to the kremlin, it seems to me. frankly, senators, $1 billion on guarantee is a feeble response to what has already happened. >> senator wyden? >> madam chair, i want to congratulate you. i think you are going to do a first-rate job on the committee. i think that this team of colleagues, we will all be well served by having the two of them leading us. in my view, colleagues, to approve decision the jordan cove facility in my home state reinforces my view

that there is a sensible place between no energy exports and approving every application on offer. in this room, that was called finding a sweet spot, where you factored in the needs of our manufacturers, of our consumers, the environmental question, and national security. my view is that there is still a recognizing that the geopolitical and national security considerations have certainly changed in the last year. decision showss the kind of considerations that need to go into this. for example, jordan cove is the only west coast facility that is now on track for approval for exports.

there will also be less impact on american gas supply, which is going to be important. there are consumers who have made this point. a portion of the gas will come from canada. it is not going to be american supply. in light of that, let me pick up on what the senator was talking about with respect to the situation in eastern europe. looking at the range of events surrounding ukraine, i was struck by how the mention of potentially significant shale formations is coming up more often with respect to eastern european countries. i am sure there will be discussion of it in lithuania. learned, andhave you touched on this, is that it is going to take a lot of money and time to build a terminal

like this. we are talking about years, not months. my question, perhaps for you, mr. goldman, wouldn't it be to export more of our knowledge more quickly to these countries in terms of how we can free of them shake russian oil and gas? would that not be the fastest way to move in a manner that really would help them shake free of russian oil and gas? i think i really heard you touch on this and maybe you can amplify it. knowledge could really make a difference quickly. the years itt to would take for terminal.

>> thank you, senator. it is not just shale gas. you could increase conventional gas production faster. you do not have to wait for shale gas. it is not only knowledge, it is also investment and managerial expertise. before you can do that, ukraine needs to clean up its act in terms of its energy sector. today they import gas from russia, around $300 for every 3000 cubic meters. be going up on april 1. providing $40 per cubic meter for the same gas for domestic production. domesticasizes reduction. all of that needs to change. the reason it is not an accident, as they say, it .acilitates corruption for 20 years the ukrainian energy sector has been hampered by corruption from the top.

if we do anything at all, it should condition the aid that we are citizens -- considering giving the ukraine to the imf and other western donors on fundamental structural reform of the energy sector. >> i heard you touch on this in terms of for we could do, in addition to what we are doing now when it comes to helping these countries. >> thank you for your leadership on this issue. i think that we need to do both. no question, providing technical assistance to these countries will help them to develop these over time. but europe actually has a number of existing terminals that have not use their maximum capacity. spain is kind of an island to the rest of europe. which is why i think that the prophecy of interconnection will enable countries like ukraine to get gas from these imports

before they need to build new terminals. you can do a lot with interconnection, pipelines, reversing the flow into places. i think that the timescale for central and into eastern europe could happen much more quickly than the time it takes to build a new import facility. >> my time is up, but i am interested in this speed question. it is fine to talk about this in the abstract. if you could get that to the chair and ranking members, for me the question is speed. >> thank you. senator brasso? or is it senator flake? yes?or scott, >> thank you, madam chairman. congratulations to you in your new role. i appreciate your willingness to hear this topic today. i am happy to hear from each witness and i very much value their opinions. but i must point out that today's hearing on this is the

third committee hearing we have had on liquefied natural gas exports in the last two and a half years. on since our first hearing these exports in november of 2011, the administration has continued to boom -- to move, i believe, at a snails pace, using discretion to approve only seven applications and meanwhile the administration continues to sit on 24 pending applications. 13 of these have been pending for more than one year. i believe that the delays have been inexcusable. hearingshat we need like this, but more important we need to vote and the senate needs to take action. yesterday i filed an amendment to the ukraine bill that would expedite exports to the ukraine and members of the north atlantic treaty organization. these nations are pleading for american natural gas.

to actuallye senate do something. what we have heard from the majority leader's, one excuse after another for by the senate shouldn't act. the foreign relations committee arbitrarily block to the amendment to the ukraine bill. other members have said that the administrations should stop putting lng exports and altogether. if we're serious, we should call in the majority leader to let do its job. call in the majority leader to allow the senate to expedite these exports. this is one way to make progress on this issue. two days from now, thursday, the committee will be asked to vote in a nomination on the assistant secretary for the interior. she has called natural gas production easily the single greatest threat to the ecological integrity of the west. i believe that if she is

confirmed she could block access and would block access to our nation's natural gas resources. it is difficult for me to understand why this committee will hold a hearing in support of lng exports today but asked to vote to approve one of the opponents of natural gas on thursday. adam chairman, i would urge you to reject this nominee. we need to send a strong message that we are all in support of natural gas, not one in in youron to it erie it testimony, you explained that lithuania is totally dependent on russian natural gas. lithuania along with three other nato and european allies, 100% dependent on russian gas. you explained that you are here today to plead with congress to do everything in our power to do everything you can to release these resources and to the world market. you say you hope the administration will ask for the -- expedite these exports, but

that if the administration fails to act then congress should work to expedite these exports. has the administration given lithuania any indication that it is actually going to expedite these exports? >> thank you for this question. i had a very good meeting that was planted a very short time, but still good meetings in the department of energy and department of state. good discussion with my interlocutors, who introduced on lng exports. my understanding is that their main preoccupation is to find this sweet spot, which the senator previously mentioned. understanding the current situation, geopolitically, and eastern europe, they are looking into ways to expedite this

process of approving these licenses. however, i argued that it should .e made faster that these signals are important to countries like us, specifically those developing infrastructure, which would allow us to bring the supply. and then american gas would appeal on the world market and make a difference. continue to encourage both the administration and congress to do everything possible. to you, buted nice they failed to give you the assurance you hope for that we would actually get the action? i would think that if the administration is not ready to make that commitment today, they are not intended to act in the congress. mr. goldman, your testimony was that a clear signal from the u.s. that lng exports would be

available and put immediate pressure on the russian market share. you explained that some respected analysts have been too quick to dismiss the connections . you spoke to that and answer -- and answered questions related to that. you go on to say that in dismissing that connection they make a number of mistakes. can you please explain these mistakes to the committee? itsome analysts say that will not matter to have u.s. lng experts -- exports. i think that is a premature assumption to make. number one, what if russia were to restrict exports? no doubt european exports would go up. like other buyers, they often put a premium on diversity. second, they downplay the impact on price formation. lng buyers by long-term. buying for next

year, they are buying for the 2022. they are now negotiating for projects that will come online for delivery in the future. like anything else, it has a future price. increasing future supplies a certainty that it will reach the market within a certain time. i think that the third thing they underestimate is the impact on financing. projects the u.s. has approved, only one has reached final investment decision. who knows what will get financed, but if you are trying to, you have finances for projects that are lower if the cost of your gas is cheaper and the cost of the money you need is cheaper, so it impacts the financial stability. scoressense, the market prices for equity investments today based on future performance. a clear signal that future russian market share will be

less than anticipated. of any of these companies that have publicly traded shares that have calculated income from gas or oil into their impacts. this is what happens today as long as we create certainty about tomorrow. >> thank you very much. again, thank you for the bill you have introduced. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to start out by welcoming our new chair. the vast amount of energy expertise and energy, bringing them both to the committee. thent to acknowledge minister. forgive me if i did not pronounce her name properly. i wanted to acknowledge the size of your country geographically, but enormous when it comes to courage and resolve. we are proud to be your ally and are well ahead -- well aware of the history of the baltic states in its iterations. thank you for being here today.

i would like to acknowledge that i am pleased that the chairman has focused in her first section on such an important issue. gas should and can play an important role in strengthening global security. the ongoing crisis in the ukraine being discussed today and around the world, including whyrussian threat, showing we need to responsibly develop our own natural gas reserves and expand our capacity to export this resource abroad. i share the frustration of many of my colleagues. the department of energy has moved slowly. i can put it in other ways. that is why i introduced a bill a few weeks ago that would free the current logjam at the department of energy by exporting all wto countries into the public interest, in effect proving the pending application. this bill is bipartisan and bicameral.

after introducing my legislation, my home state colleague presented an identical measure in the house that will be marked soon. i welcome him in joining me in this effort. i have made this point publicly and with the secretary numerous times. the crisis has focused u.s. natural gas exports and how they can stabilize global security. bill would allow for immediate approval in these countries as an amendment to the pending ukraine sanctions bill. i do think that the department of energy is finally heating the calls that i and others have put forth on these permits. as the senator mentioned yesterday, the department approved the facility as something i have been pushing for, real signal. i would like to thank the department for putting additional emphasis on global security and the importance of our allies as part of the

rationale of approval. i am hopeful that this refocus emphasis on energy security and lead to even more movement from the department of energy. after all, there are still 24 permits pending. with that, let me turn to the witnesses. i want to direct this to the panel. much of the focus has been on the review of applications. is it not true that even with approval, the volume of natural gas to be exported depends on many other economic and financial considerations? as well as approval for environmental and other considerations? would it be fair to say that approval simply gives the greenlight for a market driven? i would welcome a comment from anyone on the panel. mr. chow, i think you have said some important -- shed some important light. maybe we will start with you. >> thank you for your question,

senator. in my testimony, as i said, there are many good reasons why we should proceed. one consideration is they may be speeding up the process for licensing of crude exports. make isthat 1.i would that not only does this send the signal to the market, the fact of the matter is that that sweet spot that the senator mentioned, it grows as resource estimates grow. as our ability to recover more gas from the shale grows. i imagine that it also sends a message to the market, that the department of energy is confident in having sufficient resources to entertain exports as well as meet domestic demand. >> answered your question, really, is yes. the license is just a license to

market. it says that we have trade agreements and you can sell gas to them. it does not involve environmental clearance. it is not an indication that you have that communities sent to build a project. and it does not mean you have financing. that is probably the challenge of the process right now. people look at these like they are real projects, but they are not. it is just the letter and the stamp. you have got to have millions of dollars and credible financing. if i could, i have written an alternative proposal that i would like to enter for the record. a modest proposal, essentially if you just let projects which the headed ferc go to of the line, you would be accelerating projects that were not just licenses to market, but projects that are already commercially mature.

i think that that would solve a lot of the confusion about whether or not we can have these 18 projects. we are not going to do it just by getting approval to projects that are already built. >> let me turn to you for a follow-up question. the seasonality of natural gas prices, we might be able to stabilize these fluctuations for consumers and producers. of course, in my home state and across the nation. there is a surge in the winter. fore is a maintenance of x production with high demand. >> it is certainly possible. the availability of storage available to these export facilities might be available domestically. if prices got higher than what the gas could get in the global markets. that could have been a useful thing, for example, if there had been some way to get lng quickly

into boston. back to your earlier question, i believe that there are lots of factors that enter into the export calculation, including what the oil prices are in the global markets, how quickly oil and gas prices converge thomas the pace of growth in supply and demand outside. so, yes. i would also agree that there are many factors both in the energy markets and the financial markets that would come into play in determining whether an lng export facility was actually built and used. >> thank you for that. let's find that sweet spot. >> thank you very much for bringing that process up. the senator and i are really going to focus on that. there are a lot of questions. thank you, mr. goldman.

your report will be referenced for the record in response to the question. ?enator flake sorry, senator mansion is next. senator flake, then senator mansion. >> he has changed sides. that's why. >> we will never allow that. [laughter] although he has tried on occasion. >> give me a sense of the world market here for alan g. so many years ago i went to a facility in trinidad. at that time most of it was coming to the states. now we are almost no longer a net importer. just barely. where is that going? what kind of margin do they operate under? is some of that going back to south america? or europe?

what is the price point needed where existing natural gas facilities like this can export to europe? i don't have those numbers in front of me, but might guess is that gas from trinidad and tobago is going to european markets. there are also a couple of that might be available. lng markets are developing rapidly. even with the estimates that exports, made for u.s. that is still a fairly small portion of the global market. many other competitors in that market, including australia, indonesia, some of the west

african countries, and others entering the markets. you could tell me, how would russia react if we were to start permitting the process and signal was sent with prices drop? would russia act like opec did ?t earlier or any cartel that would discourage investment in other facilities elsewhere? how would russia react? how much lower with the prices have to be to discourage >> thank you for the question. i only went to law school and did not get my phd, but first russia has not shown any ability because it doesn't control enough of world supply to try to lower its prices to impact

others investments. but russia has had to lower its prices to save a market. stopurplus of lng when we importing it force russia to renegotiate a lot of its contracts with europe because they were able to buy spot. they also had a famous project where they thought they were going to be a major to lend the -- lng exporter and it may their project to expensive. it wasn't so much they decided they were going to kill investment elsewhere by getting more market share, but they were going to lose market share to the spot market if they did not lower their prices. see withund to russia's negotiation with china whether they will lower their prices or correlation between gas and oil prices to save market share. they been negotiating for a huge pipeline. they have been at loggerheads for years over price.

we will see this year of the russians are going to cave in my guess is they will and they will agree to a better price yield not because they're trying to kill our investment but because they have no other choice. that is a trend we want to drive further because it squeezes their cash flow. thereust wonder how big market share is or what ability they have to actually lower prices and undercut investment elsewhere. ukraine itself, because of corruption and you mentioned theirinability to produce own, whether it is shale gas or traditional gas, if they were to ramp up production significantly, how quickly could they become completely independent of russian gas or could they? >> i don't think it is the aim

necessarily to be completely independent of russian gas. 60% dependent are 40% ofian gas and primary energy in ukraine comes from natural gas. that dependency on russia is very significant. get 50%to self-sufficiency level, ukraine can probably do it within two or three years with the right kind of policies and the right kinds of investment. increase inikely an conservation measures that are highly inefficient. >> efficiency would help right now. come downnd has because of the collapse of the domestic economy, not because of efficiency improvement. when the economy grows, somewhat that demand will come back creating greater gdp with the

same amount of gas. >> thank you very much. you, madam chairman and thank you all for your presentations today. i would like to thank senator landrieu and i look forward to working with her on truly creating an all of the above national energy policy. i'll would also like to thank chairman wyden and the ranking member and to see all of the above energy policy we use in our state will stop we tried user coal, gas, wind, solar, everything. as aink it is most needed policy for this country also. my home state of west virginia has been blessed to have a little bit of everything. we use everything that we have also and i inc. we ought to do that more in this country and be more energy independent and not

write one off against the other. questionike to ask a of mr. cement ski. with the polar vortex we just had and the eia saying we're going to need fossil coal for the next four decades -- you know the problem we are having with epa as far as producing the aboutare you concerned the mix we are having right now and the mix of their portfolio? i'm told we are critically close to having some serious blackouts or brownouts during this polar vortex because of the coal-fired plants going off-line. >> there were some electricity issues mainly because of the growing dependence of new england on natural gas to fire their plans and the pipeline

constraints getting gas into new england. bye of that was dealt with switching to fuel oil. longer-terms projections, we have coal consumption just coming off a little bit. that's on the basis of existing law and regulation that does include rings like mercury and so on. one of the interesting things you brought up and i might just add and see question was asked is there something europe could do, the u.s. has been asked porting coal to europe. if it wasn't for that, we would have more market in west virginia and the all of the above strategy you indicated the administration is pursuing here is one thatit

probably makes sense for many countries. do you truly believe we are ursuing and above -- >> back to your question of the energy mix -- you been pretty straightforward. what we see is natural gas and renewable's growing faster than some of the others. is going toand coal be 75% of the energy production we need and anyone who doesn't think that is true, they are deniers. the overall mix of fuels in the but evenges somewhat 2040, we are going to be very reliant on fossil fuels for our energy. we have to tell some of our friends who truly do not want to hear that and there is more

demand around the world than there ever was for fossil. general is rising very rapidly. we think overall energy demand is going to be up by more than half. is going to growth be in china and india alone. it's going to bh -- going to be a challenge to fill. >> if we were basically using the technology that we were unable to reduce the particulates in this country and other countries that are polluting more. lex one of the things i have been asked in the past is when you look back at eia's forecast three or four years ago back to 2011, have we see in demand increases and how does that relate to the export question?

we do see higher demand that our supply numbers look even more isust and what that suggests there is ample gas for domestic and dump -- and exports. if i may ask you, do you all believe you have the geological departments -- deposits were we could explore and do more development in your country and other european countries that would give you more freedom as far as from russia's gift question were >> thank you for your question. i believe we should investigate and if we have gas deposits, we should explore them. i had learned in the u.s., it took many support from the department of energy to investigate how to investigate and it took 30 years for this revolution to happen.

it could be possible to do this very quickly, even considering your know-how. we have to have this learning process both on the level of the administration and on the level of you -- love love local communities. unfortunately, some groups presenting shale gas threat, aion as a major threat to local communities, which is usually not the case. with appropriate protection for the environment, it is possible to investigate. after we get through all of these legal environment adjustments so that investment is encouraged, it could be lithuaniao do it in

and it's already happening here in other european countries. much.nk you very we will be wrapping up at about 12:00. >> thank you and congratulations on chairing the committee. i do want to take a few moments because it's a perspective not represented here on the committee today to talk about not only the u.s. energy revolution but the fact that we need to make sure it's coupled with the u.s. manufacturing revolution. about signalsking today overseas and it's important to send a signal to american manufacturers looking because ofjobs home low energy prices to make sure if there is a sick old for them as well. haveow energy prices you been talking about really are

making a difference in terms of creating jobs here at home and in manufacturing. i welcome each of you and to have our minister of energy welcome to each of you. but i think it is important for the record that last month there was a study by the charles river associates and they found using is own low-cost natural gas twice as valuable. times as manyight jobs as sending this important resource overseas. suggesting we should cap her and exports, what i'm advocating for is a thoughtful, balanced approach as others have said to make sure we find the sweet spot. we still got 10 million people out of work in this country and people know manufacturing jobs are good jobs for us will stop i

think we have an important balance to do. , themonday's announcement doe has approved six export facilities with 9 billion cubic feet per day. it's important we move forward with the right kind of analysis about the impact on prices. we don't know for sure. i'm concerned as we look that up dating the studies that the accompanying building and export facility actually funded the up eight of the nearest study, so i think there are other respective that are important. --have a study from perjurer from purdue university found exports resulted in the klein in american gdp. the study concludes while the gas sector benefits from more exports, other industries and consumers lose out due to high energy cost.

i think it's important. we can debate it and maybe it's we will find we could do both as the panel talked about which would be the best of both worlds will stop but i do believe the doe should conduct a new study on the impact and move forward on a thoughtful way because of the impact on the american economy. i'm deeply concerned about what's happening in ukraine and you can estimate what's happening around the world i also know what's happening here at home. a renaissance in manufacturing leading to our recovery that so very important. the boston consulting group concluded gas prices could lead to 5 million more manufacturing jobs by the end of the decade. the american chemistry council has identified 120 newly

announced chemical and plastics manufacturing plants with over $100 billion in investment. it's great news for us, but the study did not include these projects, nor does the eia energy outlook, which used to updated studies. i will get in a question -- all of you taught us rightly about a developing export potential. i think it is important to talk about it will take several years to get something online. upe they are approved, it's to private companies aced on private pressures. atseems to me when we look in asia right now, prices are nearly 16 million -- $16 per million to use versus europe

pere prices are -- $10 million btu's. i would ask mr. chow, don't you think a company would want to go to the highest bidder and chances are our natural gas will be going to asia? that may be true, i also think we will continue to maintain a level of competitiveness for this country because we have the advantage of sitting at the source of that gas rather than having to spend four to six william dollars to gas,fy and transport the so some level of competitiveness edge will be in the u.s.. point to consider is long-term investors in manufacturing also need to know there is a stable supply of gas

that is available. the natural gas price dropped so about make us concerned long-term viability of sustaining that supply when dropped from below three billion dollars per edu is for policy makers to make, not foreign analysts. >> i know my time is up. i do think this is not easy. i don't support stopping exports or capping exports, but i do think it's important we move forward in a thoughtful way. >> thank you. we will get to the bottom of these facts. senator waldman -- this -- senator murkowski will do some closing. iq for being here so early, we are happy for your questions

now. >> thank you for holding this hearing today and thank you to the panelists for being part of the conversation which is obviously a very timely conversation as we look at this as a geopolitical tool using our resources in an effective way. thatalso important to know later this week, the committee will hold an important vote on the future of natural gas election with the nomination of ms. sue to become the assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. the strong support of natural gas and lng exports that have been displayed during this -- and my first question is in both of your testimony, you have essentially said an immediate announcement of unlimited lng export would signal competition to russia that could impact their contract

prices with europe. could the same be said of the u.s. immediately allowed crude oil experts as well -- exports as well? >> thank you, senator scott. both crude oil exports and natural gas exports can serve to diminish russia's revenues and therefore would have an effect. adding is less a matter of immediacy then crude oil versus natural gas and magnitude. cases, the importance of the announcement is it establishes expectations over termsnger term about what natural gas will be available over the long term contract people are now signing. can look atrm, we substantial xor to being

possible and having substantial effects on russia. at this point, our issue with crude oil exports appears to be one of a mitch match -- a mismatch between the crude oil and our refineries. an announcement of crude oil exports, our policy toward crude oil exports would certainly have a signaling effect. we're just trying to work on what kind of magnitude that is. it has to go in the right direction. it will mean more crude production in the united states. balance, lowers world oil prices, that has benefits in many ways in depriving strategic rivals and clearly declared enemies. with dr. montgomery,

the more we export crude oil, we will increase supply on brent prices and that is what cruise are priced to. at brookings, we have a task force on assessing crude oil exports and we have commissioned dr. montgomery to do the study because everyone is asking this question about whether there will be a day of reckoning. a dayclear there will be of reckoning and we will maximize how much we can use light side oil on our refineries or canada and it will start to impact production negatively. the question of when that day of reckoning is is a complicated question and need some serious analysis. forceookings task addresses that question. >> we only have about a minute callwill stop would you

natural gas production the single greatest threat to the ecological integrity of the west and if the obama administration or any administration held that view, how could that mindset impact natural gas production in the future of u.s. lng exports? >> i don't think it is that natural gas production is a major ecological threat. natural gas production can be carried out in an environmentally sensitive way that avoids harm to ecologically important regions consistent with wildlife preservation's will stop my son lives in colorado also. he's an avid environmentalist and works in oil and gas exploration. there is a great deal of misinformation and fear mongering about the effects of shale gas production. beingf the claims completely untrue. trying to study geology here,

expert opinion is quite clear that fracking does not reduce round water problems. the problem if they exist are because of wastewater practices. it is clear industry wants to solve this problem. they work closely with the governor of colorado to develop regulations that they could agree in a bipartisan way. i'm sorry senator udall is not here to take credit for this. everything we do has a risk. it can be nothing more with manageable risks to the environment. >> inc. you for your extra night patience. you have been here early the whole morning and just in order of seniority, we find you at the end. >> let me start by congratulating you on your new role. it's great to see you in the chair and i look forward to our work together in the years to

come. i want to associate myself with some of the comments of senator stevan ali for she has to depart. say all politics is local and when you think about it, this is obviously a large country and i think it's fair to say as with other energy issues, the policies we are discussing today don't necessarily affect all of our states in an even manner. like senator stevan off -- senator stevan now, wisconsin is one of the leading manufacturing states and can boast the role of number one manufacturing state as a percent of our overall economy. i note because the focus of today's hearing, we don't have a representative representing consumer voices today.

i look forward to future opportunities to hearing from that as well. i would like to ask you two questions this morning. paper industry is a major part of wisconsin's manufacturing economy and our companies are working hard to work in a trade industry. most of their foreign competitors do not faces. mills that want to switch to natural gas have been unable to switch because of inadequate infrastructure. many companies don't have

adequate access to gas but we are talking about increasing her exports to natural gas. my first question is how will increased exports impact the construction of gas infrastructure for companies in wisconsin that they might not be able to rely upon? saying instart off by the reference case forecast, we have natural gas consumption in the paper industry overall nearly doubling between 2010 and 2040. we have very strong growth in natural gas consumption, so i that there is a shortage in the sense that would in the a problem manufacturing industry.

the infrastructure which you asked about, there is the secretary of energy and the president have a quadrennial interview -- quadrennial review underway that tends to directly address these infrastructure issues. let me back up just a second and start with on the issue of natural gas reduction in the , there is no dispute i can find in the economic literature on either side of this that the positive impact on jobs and gdp from the production activity are really strong. on the jobs impact of exports, the literature is somewhat mixed. interestingly, it seems to be relatively minor. the impact on gdp and the impact on jobs from exports are small because the exports are a small

proportion of the overall production in the u.s. and overall global markets. one of the things i think mr. tow said and i would like come back to is u.s. manufacturers are always -- anybody that is an industrial consumer of gas or even a regular consumer of gas will have an advantage over a global lng market which will be two or three times higher in price than the average price for gas at the wellhead in the u.s.. if we come back to the question of what is the difficulty you in your state of wisconsin with the paper industry being able to get gas, isaac it's not so much a question of the overall availability of gas, talladega the pipelines built to take the gas and get it into those

companies? and something the utilities companies themselves are going to have to work out. intent of the quadrennial energy review is to try to see if there are any policy bottlenecks. might, my time has run out and i want to ask some other questions. but on that comment, we have a deep skepticism this particular year and i'm going to switch fuels for a second. having been told there are adequate supplies of cocaine at a time when there are incredible we had a in exports, dire emergency where a quarter million people were having trouble heating their homes and a lot of it has to do with that

infrastructure. and being more -- and being diverted for more profitable fuels so they can change direction. being able to respond to this need in manufacturing is going to be critical to our domestic employment and a mistake economy. thank you. my time has run out. >> thank you very much. you have continually raised this issue. it is important to the people of wisconsin and minnesota. we will be doing some hearing on that to help figure that out. senator hoeven? >> thank you. i want to congratulate you on your new position as chairman of the committee and look forward to continue to work with you. to the good senator from wisconsin, we are flaring off

huge amounts of natural gas in my state. we would love nothing more than to bring it to you and others. is,uestion for the panel right now the european union gets about 1/3 of its natural gas from russia. you to tell each of me how you think we can help the e.u. reduce its dependence on russian gas. eia is a statistical agency and not a policy agency, so i will not offer policy prescriptions other than to say that the all of the above energy strategy seems to make sense for the united states and might for other countries. one thing i can say in terms of growth in supply we are seeing over the last few years is extraordinary and

leaves an opportunity for growth in domestic consumption as well as exports. >> thank you for the question. the problem we have is we have a fragmented and closed market in some of the e.u. countries. lithuania is one of those. we are dependent 100% on supply from [indiscernible] what we have to do to address the problem is diversify, to create alternative routes of supply. the floating ship will help to bring gas from alternative directions. then there is the question of where we get the gas. diversification would serve the purpose of having a and forective price

monopoly not being able to charge this much in a closed market. increased other hand, and newly created global gas market would help to bring down those prices globally. this would definitely be the direction which all actions on the part of the u.s. government and congress would help, specifically the rising of exports. >> thank you. dr. montgomery? exports wherever they go in the world will help to reduce europe's dependence on russia, even if our exports go to asia and are competing with exports russia might be sending through a pipeline to china. that frees up other gas to move to europe.

in the long-run global market, if we put gas into it, it will benefit europe eventually. europe would then be facing either a chastened russia who has to accept lower prices for gas or be less physically dependent on russian gas. i am not sure which way it will play out. >> thank you. mr. goldwyn.en -- -- it is hard to move gas from point to point. they have eliminated the destination causes. there is enough pipeline capacity from the iberian peninsula to the rest of europe. you need to negotiate the injury and exit price at each point along the high plane. it can be up to 10 steps to figure out what it is.

they are not transparent about capacity on the pipelines. the work would make it easier for lng to get into the terminals. it is important to control demand and attract investment, promoting indigenous gas in europe, enhancing energy efficiency and renewables in places where appropriate in europe, and accelerating the consideration of applications to export u.s. lng. >> would you put the graph up? this will explain the pipeline system in europe. both of you are commenting on it. the energy ministers are meeting in april on this issue. >> just hold it up. blue are the already constructed gas pipelines, correct?

yes. oil -- our proposed proposed oil -- are proposed gas? comment ins map and answer to senator hoven's question. is it integrated with this pipeline? >> it is not. notinfrastructure is necessarily connected as well as it needs to be. two is market practices. you have incumbents in some countries also trying to protect their own monopoly power and not let gas and electricity flow freely across the continent. that is a big problem in europe. you are right, senator. the u.s. energy council will be meeting next month in europe. >> this is an area where they

can do substantive work. if i amld add more allowed. they would need to look at developing further their own energy resources in europe beyond renewables which they do a good job in. resources inat oil, gas, and coal in western europe already they are not taking advantage of rather than importing those resources from faraway places? that is something they can do to help themselves very much. i have a sense of irony that it is the central and eastern european countries who are most dependent on russia for oil and gas. they want to take the strongest position on russia because of the aggression it has caused in ukraine, as opposed to the western european countries who

are by definition more diversified who are reluctant to respond to russia's aggression. do to get ouran allies and ourselves on the same doingn that area is worth in the coming days and weeks. >> very important insight. >> if i could beg your point, ie on that visited with companies like exxon, chevron, and others willing to do more onshore and offshore in the black sea, as well as companies doing a lot of oil and gas development in the north sea and so forth. what about their ability in the near term to provide more natural gas to these countries? is there something we can do to make that happen? >> with respect to the

norwegians, they do have capacity to move more gas. over the last year and a half, they have been the largest supplier of gas. they have the ability. there's nothing we need to do to help them capture that market. on the other key points, i would echo what ed chow has said. we could be more forthright and less timid about encouraging gas development in europe. i have been to eight of those countries trying to teach safe shale gas practices. they don't have private ownership or access to infrastructure. assistance, getting regulators comfortable, those are things we are doing but we could do more of. the second one is the point ed made. the european story is weak eliminated destination causes --

we illuminate destination causes, that is not the case. i have encouraged the state department put that at the top of the agenda. you get more connections, you don't strand iberian gas. you get connections between lithuania and latvia, you can move a lot gas around faster than it takes to build a new terminal. you can use the ones they've got. >> this has been an excellent hearing. we have to bring it to a close. i have one or two. comments and questions. i want to thank you for your patience and excellent testimony. everything will be submitted to the record. let me bring this back locally to the u.s. and particularly to louisiana and the energy code. designing an energy policy which this committee will be focused on will create thousands of jobs and will helproad

us promote democracy, which is one of the central principles of the existence of our nation. i know we spent a lot of time talking about europe and ukraine, but we started this hearing by talking about the 37,000 jobs in louisiana and texas and the gulf coast that can be created right now with the production and opening up of exports for liquefied natural gas. colleagues whoy were spectral in their comments, and i want to be the same. second-largeste producer of gas in this country offshore and on. we're also the third-largest consumer of gas. it is not in this senator's interest to promote a policy where prices would skyrocket and put our consumers at a disadvantage. we have industrial consumers,

residential consumers. i think the case has been made overwhelmingly by a variety of different reports that opening up export markets helps increase domestic supply, not close it down, increase it, of gas and natural gas. it also will help to create jobs at home and abroad. will always have an advantage because we are the source of the product. does thought have to go into it? is it the silver bullet? no, but it is part of the equation of how to create jobs at home and promote america's strength abroad. ie three questions i have, may ask you to submit these in

writing for the committee. an other thing we can export louisiana and texas are proud of this. it is our technology. it is not just our gas and oil we can export, our technology. what can we do better as a country? we will do these answers in writing. toencourage, technology -- encourage technology, not just from the big companies, but from the thousands of small producers who sometimes find it difficult to work overseas. how can we assist them to promote and export their technology, which is value added to american inventors, etc.? that is one question for the writing. we talked a lot about america. i would like to talk about north america. i would like to talk about the panic of canada, america -- the power of canada, america, and

mexico is a major producer and supplier. what recently happened is a game changer with the government of mexico moving for the first time to privatize their energy sector. they are reducing corruption, opening up the private market. mexico is a big place with a lot of promise. it sits very close to us. i would like our country to start thinking about mexico and building the keystone pipeline and using the north american alliance of energy is a powerful tool. finally, i don't want to underestimate my colleague. senator brosseau says if we would just streamline these processes, yes, i am for streamlining and expediting. i also hope critics of the administration will focus on what we can do to help ukraine minimize corruption. what can we do to enhance the $1

just a mr. chow said was drop in the bucket? for the record, you should submit what would sin the most positive signal. there is a lot of criticism from one side to the administration. i would like to go on record saying for my colleagues on the republican side, put your money where your mouth is. you want to help? step up with additional funding to help ukraine and not just blame someone else because permits are going slowly. i will let you have the last word. >> thank you. this has been a great hearing, certainly a good way to kick off your first full committee hearing as chair on an issue holdss clearly timely and so much promise for america's position in the world as an energy leader. again, an opportunity for us as

a nation to wield some influence in a positive way. you started out the questioning talking about russia and energy blackmail. i don't think the u.s. would ever assert they would come at it from that kind of dictatorial type of position, but one where we can help our friends and allies. one where we can engage in an where as we seek to increase production domestically, how that influences and positively impacts those around the globe. all things being equal, all are and ourd by the u.s. increasing presence in this market. i want to ask one quick question. issue thees to the

senator brought up with the amendment he attempted to advance in foreign relations. as you know, we have the ukraine legislation on the floor in front of us. to extend the fta fast tracking to nato and wto numbers, there has been the issue raised of potential trade violations based on this expedited treatment to nato members and other specific countries like japan, but not all two members. can anybody speak to that issue in terms of whether or not you believe it does present a trade violation? mr. goldwyn? >> i ano