U.S. energy boom spurs economic vs political clash

October 18, 2012

By Christopher Swann
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

America’s energy boom is spurring a clash between the realms of politics and economics. Meaningful exports of oil have been banned for almost a century. But with output surging and crude fetching a 20 percent discount at home, producers want to ship it overseas. BP, Royal Dutch Shell and four others have applied for limited licenses to do just that. Unblocking trade could benefit everyone.

The 1920 Mineral Leasing Act allows producers to sell only tiny amounts of black gold abroad. Even shipments to Canada require a special license – BP has just secured one. At present America exports just 47,000 barrels a day, against imports of over 8 million barrels. Yet production has shot up 32 percent since 2008.

The output surge has been gradually helping to make America more energy self-sufficient. The only drawback is that there’s not as much demand at home for the light sweet crude generated by new fields – and many U.S. refineries are configured to process heavy sour crude. On top of that, the pipeline network for transporting domestic crude is inadequate.

This prevents drillers from getting the full global price. Internationally traded Brent crude now sells for $21 a barrel more than U.S. crude, close to the widest gap this year. Selling it abroad where demand for light sweet crude is greater would allow them to capture the difference in prices. And exporting one type of crude while importing another wouldn’t change Uncle Sam’s overall energy balance.

But the export ban won’t be lifted without a fight. Even efforts to allow exports of America’s over-abundant natural gas have been resisted by energy nationalists like Congressman Ed Markey, ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, who believe this would raise domestic prices. Exporting crude is that much more sensitive. In addition, selling oil abroad, opponents argue, is at odds with the goal of reducing reliance on less-than-friendly states like Venezuela or troublespots like the Middle East.

Yet without exports, U.S. producers of both gas and oil will have little incentive to keep increasing output, because domestic constraints on demand could cause prices to drop further. That is in almost nobody’s interests. America wants pretty much everybody else’s oil to be accessible to U.S. consumers, yet keeps its own oil off world markets. That’s a political double standard that’s being put to the test by the economics of energy production.



We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Re: Why Doesn’t the United States Export More Oil?

Well, perhaps because the latest EIA data show US crude oil production of 6.6 mbpd (million barrels per day), versus crude oil inputs into US refineries of 14.8 mbpd, resulting in US net crude oil imports of about 8.2 mbpd, with overall net liquids imports of 7.1 mbpd.

Incidentally, because of a global bidding war for declining net oil exports, US consumers already can’t afford to buy all of the output from US refineries, and the US is a net exporter of refined petroleum products, but we remain the world’s largest overall net liquids importer (although China is closing fast).

This has to be the silliest article regarding energy that I have read since a Bloomberg column a couple of years ago talking about Brazil–a net oil importer–taking market share away from OPEC.

The fact is that the US, and other oil importing OECD countries, are being gradually shut out of the global oil market, as developing countries, led by China, consume–so far at least–an increasing share of a declining volume of Global Net Exports of oil (GNE). At the 2005 to 2011 rate of decline in the ratio of GNE to Chindia’s Net Imports (CNI), the Chindia region alone would theoretically consume 100% of GNE in only 18 years. While I don’t think that this will actually happen, the fact remains that the rate of decline in the GNE/CNI raito has recently accelerated.

For more info, you can search for: Peak Oil Versus Peak Exports.

Posted by hopesand1 | Report as abusive

This is actually a good opportunity to amend America’s foreign policy. Curb schemes to install puppet governments in foreign energy rich countries, reduce military expenditure and propaganda campaigns attacking other nations. Use the savings to address the deficit and invest into education and alternative energy systems.

The domestic energy producers will benefit, energy import bill will drop and anti American feelings will subside all over the world.

Posted by WJL | Report as abusive