Some of America’s oldest allies are heavily reliant on unappealing sources of oil and our nation’s resource abundance places us in a position to render vital assistance.
The International Energy Agency estimates that in 2012 the United Kingdom depended on Russia for 12 percent of its crude oil imports, a relatively modest proportion when compared to the Netherlands (31 percent) and Poland (96 percent). All told, Russian oil accounts for approximately one-third of European Union imports. Meanwhile, Italy receives some 21 percent of its imported crude from Libya, and other key partners — India, Japan, and South Korea — bank on steady access to the Middle East for some two-thirds of their oil imports, even continuing to purchase Iranian petroleum under the sanctions regime.
European allies, struggling to diversify away from Russia, would be able to receive U.S. domestic oil almost immediately. Unlike liquefied natural gas projects, which take years to build and cost billions of dollars, large-scale infrastructure is not necessary for the oil trade.
For more than 40 years, U.S. laws have tightly restricted crude oil exports. This antiquated regulatory architecture must be modernized. Congress could repeal these restrictions and still preserve the emergency authority of the executive branch to intervene in cases of national security, as the president’s emergency powers are derived from entirely separate laws.
However, President Obama already has the authority, explicitly delegated by Congress, to allow for shipments of domestic oil. This would be consistent with the White House’s 2015 National Security Strategy, which calls to “promote diversification of energy fuels, sources, and routes.” The president may make exemptions “based on the purpose for export, class of seller or purchaser, country of destination, or any other reasonable classification or basis,” as provided for in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. Companies may submit applications, and the Commerce Department will consider them “on a case-by-case basis”. With production and storage at record highs, crude oil is arguably no longer in “short supply.”
Past administrations led by presidents from both parties — Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton — used executive authority to boost exports of refined products or crude oil when market conditions warranted. Should President Barack Obama make such a determination today, he would have my full support.
The United States is producing more energy today than at any point in its history. There is simply no reason — legal, political or economic — for our nation to refuse to sell energy to our friends and allies.
It’s rare to find a policy that combines bad economics with harmful national security overtones and, at the same time, violates US obligations to the world trading system. But US… Read more »
The case for lifting the export ban is persuasive: the main effect of the ban is to force sellers of light tight oil from the Bakken, Eagle Ford, and Permian… Read more »
Many thanks to Senator Murkowski for beginning this important discussion on OEP, and indeed for initiating the national conversation on energy exports more generally. Messrs Hufbauer and Mason, and Sen.… Read more »
It is quite surprising to read a discussion about issues revolving around crude oil exports and not have a mention of climate change. Whatever short-term economic or national security benefits… Read more »
Dan, We are discussing the ban on exports. Climate change is attributed to the combustion (use) of fossil fuels. What am I missing? World climate change, to my knowledge, has… Read more »
Jack: You are correct that climate change is directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels. It turns out that we burn most of the fossil fuels that we dig… Read more »
Sorry Dan, I cannot agree with much of your argument. I am old enough to believe in the free market. It is not always kind, but it is effective. Supply… Read more »
Jack: As you know, there is a difference between energy consumption and fossil fuel supply. We must immediately and dramatically lower fossil fuel supply and consumption and replace it with… Read more »
I appreciate Senator Murkowski hosting this discussion and the opportunity to provide commentary and data on this subject. Regarding the reasons cited for opposition to the ban, domestic economic impacts and… Read more »
Environmental regulations cannot address the CO2 emissions that result from the burning of the increased oil production. You cite a study that says “lifting crude export restrictions would increase domestic… Read more »
You are presuming that increasing oil production in the U.S. would necessarily mean higher overall global consumption (and thus emissions). The increase in domestic production would offset production elsewhere and change… Read more »
It is difficult to argue that increased production results in decreased production! As to your comment, “energy policy experts would agree that an economic policy is NOT the proper, nor… Read more »
Any policy that increases North American oil production, such as lifting the U.S. crude oil export ban or increasing Alberta oil sands production for delivery via the Keystone XL pipeline,… Read more »
Henry, Please consider that we have a global market for oil that is relatively free. To the extent that USA enters the production side of that market the price of… Read more »
Thank You Dawn, a good posting. Another point. The boost to our economy may well provide the resources for future development of more environment friendly technology. It has always worked… Read more »
There are a lot of tactical issues involved in whether the US should lift its current export ban on crude oil or not, but one underlying strategic question: is the… Read more »
This has been a good thread, so not a lot to add, just a few points. WTI is artificially 10 to 15 percent below Brent price due to the export ban. … Read more »
The rationale for the ban on exporting crude oil is certainly out of date. US demand is already flat and lifting the ban would allow US crude to compete for… Read more »
Export restrictions not only contradict global trade rules and national trade and energy policies, they also threaten to derail the American energy revolution. In a free market, the answer to… Read more »
Yes it is true that …. Unfortunately, the U.S. crude oil market is anything but free … and that Washington has long opposed restrictive and opaque export licensing systems at… Read more »
I agree with Jane and will add that I am surprised that you do not seem to be concerned with the extreme market distortion caused by the fact that the… Read more »
In many respects, those opposing crude oil export restrictions are just crying crocodile tears. For many years. Oil producers have actively tried to restrict access to markets to others so… Read more »
Senator Murkowski, thank you for making yourself available for this discussion, as it’s clearly a focus of your platform and one that multiple elements of the government seem to be spending… Read more »
While one can articulate the geopolitical, fair trade and environmental pro’s and con’s of lifting the ban on oil exports, I think that for most Americans, it comes down to:… Read more »
Thank you Senator for beginning this discussion. Most of the respondents so far share your view of lifting the export ban, making great arguments that outline the economic and geopolitical… Read more »
The reasons why removing the ban on crude oil exports will benefit the American economy, improve energy security and lower gasoline prices have been well stated by several contributors to… Read more »
Mr. Montgomery, as I said in my post above, I agree that lifting the crude oil export ban will increase US oil production, lower the world oil price, and increase… Read more »
Mr. Montgomery, I agree with Mr. Goldberg’s response to your comments. I will add that I do not understand what is “hypocritical” about wanting to preserve a livable climate for… Read more »
I agree with the 2 previous comments that Mr. Montogomery’s concern about the global poor is misplaced. Here are some examples of decarbonized access to electricity that are happening around… Read more »
As is apt to happen during a discussion about fossil fuels, advocates of renewables start to focus on electric power. While electric power is an important consideration, that doesn’t address world… Read more »
Ms. Santoianni: Fortunately, there is a policy available that will lower emissions significantly while creating millions of jobs and growing the economy. With a “Fee and Dividend” policy, a rising… Read more »
The United States may be the only major oil-producing nation where the domestic politics of petroleum production appear almost entirely divorced from its international interests. Iran’s foreign minister has been… Read more »
“Predictions show at least 3,000 trillion more air-miles and at least as many more road-miles will be ‘consumed’ over the next two decades. All those air miles will be propelled… Read more »
Now is not the time to end oil export ban Only a few years ago, America’s oil policy was defined by scarcity and high prices. The consensus solution was characterized… Read more »
In general, allowing world markets to operate makes sense. However, energy is a unique commodity in that enables every other action and activity. Without access, it drives up food, transportation,… Read more »