The People of America's Oil and Natural Gas Indusry

Energy Tomorrow Blog

crude-oil-exports  oil-production  security  refinieries  consumer-products  economic-growth  jobs 

Mark Green

Mark Green
Posted November 2, 2015

When the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1975, Ford said it would put the United States “solidly on the road to energy independence.” The legislation included a ban on most exports of domestically produced crude oil. For many, shutting in domestic oil production – effectively self-sanctioning a vital U.S. industrial sector from the global marketplace – seemed like a good idea. At the time.

The country had been roiled by an oil embargo imposed by exporting states in response to U.S. support for Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Americans learned the meaning of oil shock – long lines for gasoline, odd/even day rationing schedules, shortages and rising prices. The Federal Reserve’s Michael Corbett writes that the embargo nearly quadrupled the price of a barrel of oil to $11.65 – quaintly low in 2015 dollars, but economically crippling four decades ago.

Read More

crude-oil-exports  oil-and-natural-gas-production  security  economic-growth  jobs 

Mark Green

Mark Green
Posted October 29, 2015

Lacking factual, substantial reasons for keeping the United States’ antiquated ban on crude oil exports, those who oppose letting U.S. crude reach the global marketplace are left to make a non-factual, unsubstantial case instead.

In a letter to the editor in the New York Times, the Sierra Club’s Michael Brune offers up a couple of scary fictions – in time for Halloween – to distract Americans from the stark, “off oil” agenda that Brune and many others advocate: a harsher, less healthy, less hospitable world minus the reliable, affordable fuels that are fundamental to modern living.

API President and CEO Jack Gerard recently called them out for the false choice that’s central to their advocacy:

“There is a vocal minority who believe that instead of growing our economy to lift people out of poverty we should reduce our current standard of living and cap our potential. We reject this notion and encourage policy makers to continue down the path we have shown to work, supplying abundant, affordable, and reliable energy to consumers while lowering our impact on the environment.”


Read More

crude-oil-exports  spr34  government-revenues  economy  jobs  eia34  taxes 

Mark Green

Mark Green
Posted October 27, 2015

Reports by Bloomberg and others say that White House and congressional budget negotiators would sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to partially pay for their new budget agreement. Sales would total 58 million barrels from 2018 to 2025, according to a draft House bill (see Section 403-a).

How much money would be raised from the sales would depend on prices at the time of the sales. But, if the goal is generating revenue for government to fund worthy projects, rather than a series of one-time sales, why not lift the ban on U.S. crude oil exports and create an annual revenue stream?

According to a study by ICF International (Page 86), ending the 1970s-era oil exports ban would lift the U.S. economy, create jobs – and generate significant additional revenue for government. A number of other studies mirror ICF’s findings on the economic benefits from lifting the export ban. We highlight ICF here because its estimate of additional oil production from lifting the ban (up 500,000 barrels per day) is almost identical to the output increase estimated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (470,000 barrels per day). ICF:

Federal, state, and local governments benefit from crude oil exports both in terms of the generation of GDP, which is then taxed at these levels, but also through royalties on federal lands where drilling takes place. Total government revenues, including U.S. federal, state, and local tax receipts attributable to GDP increases from expanding crude oil exports, could increase up to $13.5 billion in 2020.

Read More

crude-oil-exports  domestic-oil-production  security  president-obama  economic-growth  jobs 

Mark Green

Mark Green
Posted October 19, 2015

The question Americans should be asking right now: Why is the Obama administration actively working to clear the way for Iran to resume trading its crude oil on the global market while it opposes legislation that would do the same for U.S. oil?

It’s a great question for which the administration can offer no good answer, because there isn’t one.

Yet, that’s the policy disconnect that is unfolding before Americans’ very eyes, with the weekend news that the administration approved conditional sanctions waivers for Iran that at some point will let the Iranians resume exporting their oil to the world – within days of the White House threatening to veto bipartisan legislation in Congress that would end the 1970s-era ban on U.S. oil exports.

Read More

crude-oil-exports  oil-and-natural-gas-development  security  economic-growth  jobs  congress 

Jack Gerard

Jack Gerard
Posted October 14, 2015

Highlights from API President and CEO Jack Gerard’s conference call with reporters in which he discussed efforts to lift America’s 1970s-era ban on crude oil exports and the positive climate impacts of the U.S. energy revolution in advance of next month’s COP21 conference in Paris.

Last week the U.S. House of Representatives sent a clear message that it stands for a brighter energy and economic future for our nation when it approved with a strong bipartisan majority lifting the 1970s era ban on crude oil exports. We now call on the Senate to do the same. We urge them to unleash our nation’s energy potential by ending this vestige of our nation’s era of energy scarcity, dependence and insecurity.

According to [studies by Columbia University and Brookings/NERA], putting this additional U.S. oil on the world market could reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by as much as 12 cents a gallon, a significant savings for consumers. American consumers could save about $5.8 billion per year by 2020, [according to an ICF study]. The study also found that by lifting the ban on crude exports could create up to 300,000 American jobs, well beyond oil-producing states. Eighteen states could gain more than 5,000 jobs each in 2020 from the export of U.S. crude oil. Every other major study agrees. …

Read More

crude-oil-exports  domestic-oil-production  economic-growth  jobs  us-energy-security  trade 

Mark Green

Mark Green
Posted October 13, 2015

Last week’s bipartisan U.S. House vote to end America’s 1970s-era ban on crude oil exports is stirring needed debate over U.S. energy and trade policy as the exports issue advances in Congress. Unfortunately, much of the conversation remains focused on the wrong things.

For example, export opponents continue to say the United States shouldn’t export crude oil as long as it’s an oil importer. We rebutted that economically faulty position here.  Access to global markets means bringing overseas wealth to the United States. Conversely, shutting in a domestic commodity is an obstacle to production and economic growth. The oil imports/exports threshold is one that isn’t applied to other domestic goods – and for good reason: Access to global markets is good for domestic producers.

Read More

crude-oil-exports  domestic-oil-production  economic-growth  jobs  security  congress 

Mark Green

Mark Green
Posted October 9, 2015

It’s a bit early to go into a “victory formation” with the U.S. House of Representatives’ bipartisan vote to pass legislation lifting the United States’ decades-old ban on exporting domestic crude oil. The measure still has to get through the Senate, and President Obama has promised to veto it – vetoing help to consumersjobs and economic growth, as well as an opportunity to increase America’s global competitiveness while strengthening our security.

Yet, it’s a major step in the direction of making energy history, which ending the export ban surely would represent. It would acknowledge that the world is much changed since the 1970s-era ban was imposed – mainly, that the U.S. energy revolution has rewritten America’s energy narrative while fundamentally reordered the world energy balance. Both compel policymakers to finish the job and lift the export ban. 

Read More

crude-oil-exports  domestic-oil-production  economic-growth  security  jobs 

Mark Green

Mark Green
Posted October 9, 2015

It’s a bit early to go into a “victory formation” with the U.S. House of Representatives’ bipartisan vote to pass legislation lifting the United States’ decades-old ban on exporting domestic crude oil. The measure still has to get through the Senate, and President Obama has promised to veto it – vetoing help to consumersjobs and economic growth, as well as an opportunity to increase America’s global competitiveness while strengthening our security.

Yet, it’s a major step in the direction of making energy history, which ending the export ban surely would represent. It would acknowledge that the world is much changed since the 1970s-era ban was imposed – mainly, that the U.S. energy revolution has rewritten America’s energy narrative while fundamentally reordered the world energy balance. Both compel policymakers to finish the job and lift the export ban.

Read More

crude-oil-exports  earnings  oil-and-natural-gas-development  investments  taxes  economic-growth  jobs 

Mark Green

Mark Green
Posted October 9, 2015

We’re still more than a year from the next presidential election, but already we’re hearing attacks on energy company earnings, rhetoric calibrated for the sole purpose of riling up the party base. It’s bad political theater that misleads the American public to score political points, distracting from a substantive debate on the right energy path for the country. This has come up most recently in the debate over lifting the 1970s-era ban on U.S. crude oil exports -- which was advanced with bipartisan U.S. House passage of a bill ending the export ban.

Yesterday, we looked at problems with the White House’s opposition to lifting the ban. Goodness knows, export opponents on Capitol Hill have their own faulty reasons. We’ve covered most of these before, including consumer impactsnational security and the oil imports vs. exports muddle.

Some of the biggest confusion comes from those who find it convenient to flay the oil and natural gas industry. Certainly, running around and repeating “Big Oil” over and over again plays well with people who don’t like fossil fuels and/or progress in general. Unfortunately, in their rush to attack those who supply products that the American people actually want and demand – products that power our economy and modern way of life – it’s the American people who take the hit.


Read More

crude-oil-exports  economic-growth  jobs  white-house  ghg-mitigation-technologies  oil-and-natural-gas-development 

Kyle Isakower

Kyle Isakower
Posted October 8, 2015

These things are true:

  • The U.S. gets the majority of its energy from oil and natural gas, and is projected to continue to do so for decades.
  • Since 2005 U.S. production of natural gas is up 43 percent.
  • Since 2008 U.S. production of crude oil is up 88 percent.
  • U.S. air quality continues to improve, with concentrations of carbon monoxide down 60 percent, ozone down 18 percent, lead 87 percent, nitrogen dioxide 43 percent, particulate matter 35 percent and sulfur dioxide 62 percent since 2000.
  • The federal U.S. budget deficit for FY2015 was $435 billion.
  • The U.S. trade deficit rose in August as exports hit a three-year low.
  • Since 2008 our working age population has grown by over 16 million, while employment is up 8.5 million, leaving the U.S. at odds with trends in other countries.
  • U.S. poverty and wages are stagnant, and it is getting harder for people to move beyond a minimum-wage job.
  • Americans' trust in the federal government's ability to handle domestic problems has reached a new low.

These things are true, and thus, when presented with bipartisan legislation to reduce consumer fuel costs and the trade deficit while increasing U.S. investment, domestic crude oil production, GDP and government revenues and creating good paying jobs – all via U.S. crude oil exports – the White House obviously had no choice but to … threaten to veto it.


Read More