Energy exports editorial was a rant

Your March 27 editorial concerning energy exports seemed like a rant. The policy arguments among environmentalists, industrialists and  the right wing do have a tendency to get distorted. There is practical reality involved.

Currently we don’t have the infrastructure to export liquefied natural gas. And do we actually want to do it?

Building shipping terminals to accommodate the practice is a matter of state regulation. In this case probably one of the Carolinas, which are already expanding their ports. Cost of doing it is a matter involving private enterprise and the state involved. Private enterprise owns the gas. The federal government can’t tell them what to do with it. The argument in your editorial seems to imply fault beyond capacity. The part involving transporting gas across state lines has  legitimacy.

There has to be a floating balance involving regulation and the industrial side’s wish to increase profit. They howl about being over-regulated, but say nothing about the tax breaks they get. Their bottom lines are fat. They want to make them fatter. They will ship gas to Europe if its economically feasible, part of which involves Europe accepting it based on affordability.

There seemed a twist in the editorial. Pipelines yes, but that issue hasn’t been raised in this case.

For the consumers if they start shipping it the price will go up.

They will ship it if it’s affordable and a market exists. The government at this point can’t order them to do it. I find it interesting that your editorial and some commentators seem to think they’re at fault for not doing so.

Meanwhile, it’s a bit early to start casting a high level of blame on the current administration. We’ll get more than enough of that in the next election cycle

How is a resident of Kalispell