American oil companies call for end to export ban

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

American oil companies call for end to export ban
By JONATHAN FAHEY, AP Energy Writer | January 7, 2014 | Updated: January 7, 2014 2:19pm

NEW YORK (AP) — American oil companies have not been allowed to export crude for 40 years, but the industry wants to change that, even though the U.S. still consumes far more oil than it produces.

A surprising surge in domestic production of light, sweet crude — a particular type of oil that foreign refiners covet — has triggered growing calls to lift the restrictions, which were put in place after the Arab oil embargo of 1973.

But the idea is touching a nerve that remains raw four decades after oil shortages crippled the economy and led to the law that banned crude exports without a special license.

"For 40 years, energy policy has been shaped by that experience of the 1970s," says Daniel Yergin, energy historian, author and vice chairman of the research and analysis firm IHS. "But we are in a different world. Neither our logistics nor our thinking has caught up with the dramatic changes in North America."


Read more: http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/American-oil-companies-call-for-end-to-export-ban-5121492.php

[Vincardog]

1. F.EM

[blackspade]

2. Fuck this guy:

"For 40 years, energy policy has been shaped by that experience of the 1970s," says Daniel Yergin, energy historian, author and vice chairman of the research and analysis firm IHS. "But we are in a different world. Neither our logistics nor our thinking has caught up with the dramatic changes in North America."

Another shill for the oil corps.

[olddad56]

9. Yeah, lets increase fracking and destroying what is left of our environment .....

So the rich can make some more money that they will never be able to spend. Fuck the oil industry.

[Strelnikov_]

11. Yergin . . . yea . . . big time n/t

[herding cats]

3. Wait, they want to up our exports of the sweet crude and increase the imports of sour crude?

As the article states we already export vast amounts of diesel and gasoline, which aren't regulated by the mentioned need for a special license. We also export export around 1.5 - 1.6 million barrels of crude daily. Now they want to bring in more of the dirty, cheaper crude for our refineries to turn into fuels while shipping more of our less dirty crude to other countries to refine. Is this a joke? To make matters worse they're trying to frame it as being about jobs and job creation, when it actually appears to be all about a battle between two different types of refineries here in the US.

What's their new mantra going to be, "drill baby drill, so we can export the good stuff overseas for maximum profits while we import more of the cheap stuff here for refining!" Call me crazy, but I don't think that's going to catch on even with the crazy fringe of the Republican party!

[progressoid]

4. Never underestimate the crazy fringe of the Republican party.

Or even the mainstream Republican party.

[herding cats]

6. You're probably right.

I've seen some really insane things being supported by some Republican voters in my lifetime. It just seems like they've spent so many years screaming about how we need to drill more no matter the environmental risks to supply ourselves with oil, that even a total idiot should be able to see the folly in exporting the cleaner, higher quality crude to other countries while we import a lower grade dirty crude for our own use. But you'll probably end up being right in the end. They'll spin it around until they make it sound like American oil is bad and imported oil is so much better for our country. When what they really mean is they stand to make a killing off of exporting our resources while they destroy the environment little bit faster.

[Populist_Prole]

7. Had an argument with some conservative dolt at work

He was blaming the higher cost of gasoine on, you guessd it, Obama and, using the trite talking points of how "the libruls" won't let us build any refineries or let us drill for oil. I countered that oil companies love tight supplies, since they can keep prices high, and that, in any case, we're exporting it, tightening supplies further. He said "that's capitalism" and they have the right to do what they like to make the most money. I asked him if he relaized he contradicted himself: He didn't.

[herding cats]

10. It's all nothing but talking points to some of them.

It's as if they don't ever stop and think for themselves, as if they're afraid of what they may discover if they ever had to reason out a logical conclusion on their own. Instead they're just angry and more than willing to spout off whatever it is they've read in right-wing chain emails and Facebook memes. Which they believe unconditionally and without question. It can be so frustrating at times!

[notadmblnd]

5. tell them to give up their government welfare checks that they call subsidies

and pay double taxes on what they export and let them go for it.

[dipsydoodle]

8. The actual answer is for all oil producing countries to impose an export ban

to the USA. 'nuff said.

US responsible for 29% of carbon dioxide emissions over past 150 years, triple China’s share.

Since the mid-1800s, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary human-caused greenhouse gas, accounted for 29% of the global total. Those 328,000 million metric tons of cumulative emissions are the most of any country and more than three times the amount emitted by China over the same period (93,000 MtCO2), according to data from data from the World Resources Institute.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/06/01/204179/us-responsible-for-29-of-carbon-dioxide-emissions-over-past-150-years-triple-chinas-share/

'nuff said.

[quadrature]

12. nutty laws --> more pollution

don't like pipelines, it gets moved by rail.

don't like selling oil to Japan--->
other oil gets shipped the long way

[Cryptoad]

13. Keep the ban and...

let US Oil prices float independent of World Oil Prices