Replies

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 This policy exists: removing the United States’ irrational and outdated ban on exporting domestically produced crude oil.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.

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.