The push to export natural gas will help benefit small to midsized energy companies that are players in U.S. shale development, such as Apache, Anadarko, Plains All American and Chesapeake Energy. Yet Ineson says that halo effect could even extend to construction companies that will help build export terminals.
Yep! But that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface in terms of the beneficiaries of free trade in natural gas, which we're a long, long way from by the way. Here's a bit from my December 2012 blogpost on the topic:
The Earth stores vast supplies of natural gas. And, presuming it can be extracted safely, it can go a very long way toward resolving our present-day issues related to energy. From a purely economic standpoint, when it’s extracted on U.S. soil and sold abroad, natural gas producers will see profits, and we’ll see employment and economic growth. Our foreign customers’ energy costs will decline, which will free up capital with which to invest and spend (domestically and on other imports from around the world, including the U.S.)—in essence creating profits, employment and economic growth in myriad industries within their countries.
If the tables were turned, if the vast reserves were to be found under the soil of say Great Britain—and Great Britain producers were free to sell their commodity on the open market—it would see profit and employment growth concentrated in its energy sector. While the U.S. would benefit from lower cost energy, thus freeing up capital to invest and spend—in essence creating profits, employment and economic growth in myriad U.S industries. And U.S. exporters of other stuff would capture those dollars we spend on foreign-produced stuff. For example: we’d buy gas from Great Britain with U.S. dollars, Great Britain would buy and invest in U.S. stuff—or buy from other nations who want U.S. stuff—with those dollars.
You see folks, in a world of free trade, lines drawn on maps are entirely insignificant.