New England’s largest utility, Eversource, is worried about a looming shortage of natural gas. CEO Joseph Nolan has publicly asked the White House to make plans for emergency supplies in the event of a severe cold spell this winter.

North America has abundant supplies and export volumes will grow. Europe is gearing up to increase its imports of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Germany expects to begin taking deliveries at its first Floating Storage Regasification Unit (FSRU) in Lubmin by the end of the year. Britain has just officially banned Russian LNG although in practice this happened in February when Ukraine was invaded. 1.2 million tonnes of LNG (58 Billion Cubic Feet, equivalent to around 60% of US daily production) is in ships offshore Europe awaiting delivery to the few import facilities available (mostly in Spain).

Prices have slumped recently, with the US Henry Hub benchmark at $5, having briefly reached $10 during the summer. The world is not short of natural gas, although global prices remain several multiples of the US. Why is Eversource worried? Why aren’t there enough windmills in Massachusetts to plug the gap?

In 2016 Kinder Morgan abandoned its proposed North East Direct pipeline that was intended to link Boston with the enormous reserves in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale. Opposition from environmental extremists was led by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Since then New England has suffered from inadequate pipeline capacity linking it to cheap, domestic reserves. Democrat opposition to reliable energy rarely confronts demand, relying instead on the misplaced conviction that solar and wind will provide cheap power along with well-paid union jobs.

As a result, in order to keep the lights on companies like Eversource have resorted to seaborne imports of LNG, the only place in America compelled to do so. Now that Europe no longer buys from Russia, there’s new competition for supplies. The Jones Act, which restricts trade between US ports to US-owned, built and crewed vessels, forces Boston to import LNG from places such as Trinidad and Tobago instead of Louisiana or Texas. In the past they’ve even bought from Russia.

Energy policies that resemble anything New Englanders have adopted should be firmly opposed by those of us who value reliable energy at a reasonable price. The virtue signaling that leaders in Massachusetts embrace has had no discernible impact on China, consumer of half the world’s coal where Green House Gas (GHG) emissions (28% of global total) remain on an upward trajectory. US GHGs have been falling for over a decade, mostly through painlessly using more natural gas (New England take note) and less coal. Should China follow through on its commitments to manage peak GHGs in 2030, masochistic energy policies in Boston will have simply enabled a later enactment of such pledges. And should developing countries’ GHGs (and therefore global) keep rising, climate extremists will have achieved nothing at great expense.

The cancellation of the PennEast pipeline last year that was supposed to bring cheap Pennsylvanian gas to New Jersey was celebrated by climate extremists and Governor Phil Murphy. It is an example of New England energy policies polluting New Jersey. It’s why people with money and limited family ties are sensibly moving south. New Jersey would be better off if the Democrats moved north.

The energy sector has benefitted from the more extreme policy prescriptions of the Democrats and the ESG movement (watch ESG is a scam). The American Energy Independence Index (AEITR) continues to make up ground on the S&P500, with their five year trailing returns now almost the same. We think circumstances continue to support outperformance of North American midstream energy infrastructure.

Some places embrace pragmatic energy policies. Poland is building its second nuclear power plant, eventually helping replace Russian gas and reducing reliance on coal. This is a climate-friendly and sensible decision.

In the US the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is planning to add 20 small modular nuclear reactors by 2050. TVA president Jeff Lyash thinks several hundred similar reactors will be needed across the US to deliver carbon-free power. Nuclear power is reliable and has a small footprint, the antithesis of solar and wind.

I have an erudite friend whose text messages send me to Dictionary.com so I can understand them. We’ll call him The Scouser, whose command of the English language belies this moniker. He recently lamented the peripeteia currently endured by English Premier League club Liverpool, who languish at midtable in a sharp reversal of fortune compared with last season. This blog is dedicated to helping inflict an overdue peripeteia on misguided climate extremists. Their policy prescriptions underpin today’s energy crisis.

Important Disclosures

The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy,  completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments.  Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.

References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)

This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r

Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.

All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.

Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.