Democrats ask for price impact analysis of U.S. oil exports

WASHINGTON Thu Feb 6, 2014 1:50pm EST

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) speaks to the media after the Democratic policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington on December 18, 2012. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) speaks to the media after the Democratic policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington on December 18, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Joshua Roberts

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. public deserves to know how lifting the country's decades-old ban on crude oil exports would affect gasoline prices, two Democratic U.S. Senators said on Thursday, calling for a "comprehensive analysis" of the issue.

Senator Ron Wyden, the Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, and Senator Maria Cantwell, from Washington state, asked the Energy Information Administration for details about how allowing unlimited oil exports would impact domestic energy supplies and costs.

Burgeoning oil production has ignited a debate over whether the United States' government should ease its 40-year prohibition on shipping U.S. crude overseas.

"It's important that everyone has the facts before such a major a decision is made," Wyden said in a statement.

Oil producers and business groups have pressed for a change in the policy, largely crafted in the aftermath of the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970s. Federal regulations allow exports of refined products, but effectively ban all but a handful of specific crude oil shipments.

Permitting more crude oil exports would help address the mismatch between soaring output of light, sweet crude from the nation's shale formations and U.S. Gulf coast refineries, better suited to process heavier crudes, oil producers argue.

Some groups have raised concerns that lifting the ban would lead to higher domestic gasoline prices.

Wyden and Cantwell asked EIA, the independent statistics arm of the Energy Department, to analyze the effects of oil exports on both refiners, who purchase crude oil, and consumers, who purchase refined products like gasoline and diesel.

The lawmakers also asked the agency to study how crude destined for export would be transported, specifically questioning the likelihood of more oil train traffic in the Pacific Northwest region that they represent.

As attention on crude oil exports intensifies, some lawmakers have been hesitant to stake out a position on the issue, which could alienate voters if they feel pinched by expensive fuel costs.

Usually united on energy matters, the Republican caucus has yet to reach a consensus.

Congressman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican and former head of the House Energy and Commerce committee, told reporters on Thursday that he could "argue on either side of the debate" right now.

At a breakfast sponsored by Politico, Barton said he understood the economic argument against the ban. But he added: "a lot of the environmentalists are going to fight us tooth and nail if we try and end the ban. Is it really worth having that fight?"

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, has urged President Obama to lift the ban, saying it would create jobs and boost the economy. She does not plan to introduce legislation to lift the ban in the immediate future, but is willing to consider taking such action if Obama does not act, a spokesman said in January.

(Additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici, editing by G Crosse)

FILED UNDER:
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/
Comments (3)
Speaker2 wrote:
So lets see, we are going to frack more, use more water, more chemicals to extract good low cost sweet crude and export it in exchange for importing heavy, high sulfur sour crude, just because the Gulf Coast refineries are geared for heavy crude processing?

At a bare minimum, if we export any oil, it should be after we have covered all US oil consumption with 100% domestic oil and no imports.

Have the refineries upgrade to process the sweet lite crude.

Feb 06, 2014 3:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
@speaker2, I agree completely, and think of all the jobs created for building new/upgrading old refineries. Plus older ones could be made more efficient and more modern pollution control equipment can be installed. I bet that would create thousands more jobs then some stupid tar sands pipeline.

you and I both know why they do not want to do this, because it will be more expensive for the Big Oil companies. They are smart enough to know they are working with a limited supply of oil, so they need to make as much as they can before it runs out.

Feb 06, 2014 3:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
alwaysskeptic wrote:
Whenever business wants to change policy, we should all look at it with a cynical eye.

Feb 07, 2014 6:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Pictures