As a result of the profitability and success of fracking, the production of LNG, or liquefied natural gas, is now higher than ever. We produce so much LNG that many fracking sites have resorted to flaring, or burning off, the excess natural gas that they are unable to find use for. As a result, there has been extensive debate about whether to export the excess LNG to other countries for profit. Both backers and opponents of the shipping of LNG to other countries have been finding ammo for their side of the argument.
A recent report commissioned by the Dow Chemical Company was done in order to “examine the importance of natural gas-intensive manufacturing to the U.S. economy and how LNG exports could impact growth and other major (natural gas) demand sectors.”  This report was in response to a government study by NERA Economic Consulting, which concluded that the export of excess LNG to countries who have an extremely high demand, such as China, would provide “net economic benefits.” 
However, in the report by the Dow Chemical Company, a direct economic benefit comparison between keeping natural gas state side and exporting it to other countries was completed. It was found that if 5 billion cubic feet of natural gas was used stateside for production or research, it would contribute $40 billion to the US economy. If that same amount of natural gas was liquefied and exported, it would only result in a profit of $2.3 billion. 
From the report, it seems obvious that the path to take is to keep the natural gas within the United States for domestic uses. However, while the supporters of export do not deny the numbers, they claim that the report’s comparison is misleading since “exports do not represent and either/or scenario.”  Strictly exporting or strictly keeping the natural gas within the US is not the only option. We can use the natural gas for domestic uses such as production and research, and then any leftovers can be sold to other countries as LNG, resulting in a best-of-both-worlds scenario. Various studies have shown that this option is viable due to the “United States [having] an abundant supply of natural gas, more than enough to meet growing domestic demand and allow for exports.” 
Choosing one option over the other is further complicated by the fact that several companies, such as BP, have already signed contracts for the long term export of LNG, which will be affected by any decisions made going forward.  Also, several reports say that the “US shale revolution hinges on exports.”  By shipping the excess LNG overseas, we are able to support innovation at home.
Another option from the left field is to sell the fracking technology to the countries that demand the excess natural gas that we produce. By selling the technology instead of the gas itself, the US would be able to keep all of the natural gas for domestic use (and thus its ~$40 billion benefit) as well as still gaining some profit from overseas from the technology.
There is no one “100% right” answer to this problem. There are many pros and cons to each avenue available to the natural gas companies, and extensive analysis must be completed in order to provide enough information on what step to take from here.