What I See by Asher Isbrucker used under CC BY 2.0
For nearly four decades, the US federal government has maintained a “ban” on exporting domestic crude oil supplies. It’s been a cornerstone of the national energy landscape since President Ford signed the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act into law in pursuit of that perpetual goal of American politicians, energy independence.
Although the legal framework includes a number of exceptions—allowing exports of North Slope Alaskan and heavy California crude, as well as exports to Canada, among other loopholes—big oil companies have had the ban in their crosshairs for years. Now, in the midst of a production boom (despite moderate domestic demand), the industry has launched a lobbying assault on federal officials in the hopes of further boosting the payoff for large-scale fracking and drilling. And their efforts appear to be paying off.
A little known federal agency, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), has quietly begun eroding the ban, issuing rulings exempting certain crude oil streams from the ban in a series of secret rulings given to oil companies. The apparent flip-flop in policy has provoked rampant speculation even among industry players and media. So murky is the underlying rationale that even the FAQ document BIS subsequently posted to its website raised more questions than it answers, a fact well illustrated by competing headlines in the industry press:: “US Ruling Loosens Four-Decade Ban on Oil Exports,” “Ban on Oil Exports Seen Dying One Ruling at a Time,” “Game Changer or Symbolic Move?” and “Did the Commerce Condensate Export Rulings Mean Nothing?”
It’s a potentially dangerous move because removing the ban could induce large-scale drilling on sensitive lands and contribute meaningfully to destabilizing the global climate. For some regions of the country—such as the Gulf Coast, with its abundant oil infrastructure, and the Pacific Northwest, with its Asia-facing ports—lifting the ban could also mean a flood of overseas-bound crude oil moved in by train and pipeline, which would increase the risks of fires, spills, and other disruptions.
It’s a policy decision with enormous consequences—one that is especially dangerous when made behind closed doors by an out-of-sight government agency in apparent consultation with industry lobbyists.
That’s why today Sightline Institute is joining with Earthjustice and Oil Change International to submit an official US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. We are asking the Obama administration to explain what it is doing and why—and to share with the public whether officials intend to loophole the existing ban to death or whether the secretive rulings apply only to niche light oils and particular refining processes.
The full text of the FOIA is posted on the Earthjustice website.
Phil Church
You think it would make sense with “peak oil” and all …. that we shouldn’t give exemptions to Big Oil that is produced within and transferred through out boundaries to be sold on the world markets to the highest bidders.
But the fact is …………. Big Oil doesn’t give a damn whose natural resources get depleted .. they’ll sell to ANYONE to make a profit. Whether it’s frac’d here, pumped here, refined here, pollutes here … they’ll fight tooth & nail …… to do what they damn well please.
They take our resources, pollute our environment, avoid US taxes, grab exemptions that cost the taxpayer dearly …….. then sell their products to the highest bidder for profit world-wide. What’s in the “best interests” of our country for the long term and values like Patriotism .. aren’t in their vocabulary. They go and do whatever’s necessary to make a PROFIT and issues like ‘national interests’??? … only if it’ll keep them PROFITABLE.
I don’t care where Big Oil Corps call ‘home’ …. in reality .. they have NO COUNTRY, no sense of nationalism … it’s anything for a buck loyalty ….. Big Oil corp ‘personhoods’ don’t have a conscience, compassion, loyalty, etc. and our government .. should treat them accordingly.
Steve Harrell
Eric, keep up the good work!
Wells
Question: Instead of Keystone XL to Alberta tar sands, why not build pipeline from Oklahoma to Dakota Bakkan shale fields? This would significantly reduce the hazards of oil/gas shipment via rail through the Pacific Northwest and eastern states; reduce demand for off-shore drilling in the Gulf; dedicate more of these fuels for domestic purposes; existing pipeline and refining facilities get safety upgrades.
I can honestly no longer use the phrase, Question Internal Combustion, ever since plug-in hybrid technology evolved, the EV technology with the most potential to reduce overall fuel/energy consumption, more than all-battery EVs like the Tesla and Leaf, more than hydrogen fuel cell EV as well because clean ‘combustable’ hydrogen is storable for use in a hybrid drivetrain at a lower pressure. PHEVs create more economic incentives to drive less, whereby walking, bicycling and mass transit may become more viable means of travel. The powers that be wouldn’t plan a devastating disruption to our distribution systems of basic commodities, would they? Is globalization their plan for global starvation?
Lloyd Hargrove
The sad reality is that only fossil fuels can provide for our current and growing energy demands regardless of continuing progress otherwise. As such a delicate balancing act should provide for transitions. I was taught 30 years ago that we would be effectively “out of oil” by this time and yet we currently find a glut, albeit a temporary one considering world-wide consumption levels. The oil “problem” is one which will ultimately take care of itself and the real question is whether our collective economies will manage to survive at all. The fact is, oil is really too complex and valuable a material to simply continue burning up as fuel.