Posted on 08/03/2015 4:47:59 AM PDT by thackney
A Senate panel has approved energy legislation that would lift the 40-year-old ban on crude oil exports and open some areas of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas exploration.
Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the panel, championed the plan to lift the restrictions. It passed by a party-line vote of 12-10.
Murkowski said lifting the ban would turn the U.S. into an energy superpower.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Lifting the export ban on crude oil would be a boon to the U.S. economy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lifting-the-export-ban-on-crude-oil-would-be-a-boon-to-the-us-economy/2015/08/02/32cfcde4-37c8-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html
IMAGINE THERE were a simple policy that would spur economic growth, lower gas prices and please international allies. This policy exists: removing the United States’ irrational and outdated ban on exporting domestically produced crude oil. A bill lifting the ban passed a Senate committee last week, a day after House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that he, too, supported bringing the country fully into the international oil market.
Congress imposed the ban amid the oil shocks of the 1970s in a desperate move to tame gasoline prices. Lately, the situation has changed: U.S. crude oil production rocketed up 74 percent from 2008 through 2014. That has led to a glut here at home, where crude oil is selling at a discount relative to world prices. Yet the ban’s superficial logic still appears to hold some power: Lifting the export restrictions, one might imagine, would send more oil abroad, which would raise gasoline prices here and hurt the economy.
In fact, experts predict gas prices would go down, based on the simple fact that you don’t put raw crude oil in your tank. Consumers don’t buy crude oil. Refiners do. Domestic gasoline prices tend to track international, not domestic, oil prices. So the current policy is great for refiners who get to buy their feedstock at a bargain price and sell their product at an international rate. But it’s not much help to domestic producers, who have to accept less money for the crude they bring to market, or to consumers, who don’t get the savings passed on to them.
Letter: Lifting oil export ban is a win-win for everyone
http://www.inforum.com/letters/3809326-letter-lifting-oil-export-ban-win-win-everyone
When it comes to what are likely the world’s two most precious commodities, the United States of America is the largest producer of one and the largest exporter of the other. The production of each provides the economic base of rural North Dakota communities and for technical, manufacturing and engineering jobs within each of our larger communities. Yet one is limited in trade while the other is shipped across the world.
Of course, these two commodities are energy and agricultural products. Both could be traded globally to the betterment of the American foreign policy and economy.
The America of today, especially its energy economy, is much different than the stagnant conditions of the 1970s when the embargo was enacted. Pioneering techniques developed in north central Texas were replicated in North Dakota, Ohio and Texas shale formations to unlock vast reserves where before producers recognized oil and gas but lacked the tools to extract the gas. Shale technologies continue to rapidly advance and promise to grow production from current shale oil formations, and open production in new formations.
However, America is not equipped to use the qualities of oil we now produce. As much as each crop is not the same, each formation produces different qualities of petroleum, and just as a food processor accepts a certain food product, each refinery is tooled to process a certain quality of petroleum. Our refineries are tooled to accept the heavy oils that our country produced and imported for decades, not the light sweet crude produced by the shale formations. Allies, however, could process our crude, eliciting a need to lift this outdated ban.
But will Obama veto it ?
Achievable Economic Policy Reforms for Congress
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/03/achievable-economic-policy-reforms-for-congress
Energy
Remove limitations on energy exports and imports.
Dramatic increases in domestic oil and natural gas production over the past several years have produced tremendous economic benefits for Americans. However, the federal government restricts opportunities by limiting the ability to export crude oil and natural gas. Crude oil exports have been banned since the 1970s except in rare circumstances. For liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, companies must first obtain approval from both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the DOE. A facility is automatically authorized if the recipient country is one of the few with a free trade agreement with the U.S. In the absence of such an agreement, the DOE can arbitrarily deny a permit if it believes the volume of natural gas exports is not in the public’s interest.
Congress should treat energy like any other regularly traded good or service and end both the crude oil export ban and the DOE’s role in the decision-making process for LNG exports. Further, the federal government should not impose taxes on foreign energy technologies to protect American energy manufacturers. Companies should have the ability to import energy technologies at a lower cost without facing a penalty from Washington.
Make him veto it every day and twice on Sundays.
the energy/ag comparison is fascinating.
In the real world, do ag exports ever cause prices for the consumer to go up?
Probably not...
And then hammer the Democrats next year in why our economy is doing poorly and why fracking is actually good for our economy.
If there were long term export contracts to supply at a fixed price and the domestic supply diminished, the domestic price would rise while the export quantity and price was the seme
I think you need a /sarc tag there FRiend.
The short answer is yes, but seriously. Pass it every single day. Until he doesn’t veto it.
That’s what I would do. I’d change it too. Just a little bit, every time. So it would cut into his precious golf time every single damned time.
You still don’t get it.
That’s not the way a liberal would think about it.
For them: it’s good for the economy, but it’s “bad” for the environment.
Progressives are all about emotion. Not logic, nor fact, nor reason. You can wrap them around your little finger by making them believe that something good is victimizing a minority, or the Earth. Elicit an emotional response of empathy and you win.
Stupid short term thinking. Americans get screwed again. USA should be increasing the refining capability to handle light sweet instead of shipping it overseas. What a crock. Since when does removing a glut lower prices. BS.
Take the comparison farther.
If we banned the export of wheat, what would happen to our wheat production?
Farmers could not afford to produce more than could be used domestically. They would drastically cut production.
In just a few years, we would be importing wheat as the farmers would need to make sure each year their production stayed under domestic demand.
Ethanol causes perturbations in both food and fuel pricing.
We already refine more than we use. We export those excess products.
But building new refineries takes years and is blocked at every step required.
You don’t see it because Ag is subsidized heavily.
Dude you are lying. We only have enough domestic oil to meet a little over 50% of our own demand. This is stupid short term thinking.
You don’t need NEW refineries just increase current capacities.
Yes, if this passes energy costs in the USA will go up. China will probably buy all our oil leaving US citizens fighting for the crumbs China leaves us.
This just got it out of committee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.