Exclusive: Loophole for condensate exports may apply to other U.S. crudes - sources

Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:56pm EDT

An oil refinery is seen in Louisiana in a file photo.  REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

An oil refinery is seen in Louisiana in a file photo.  

Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton

Related Topics

(Reuters) - The U.S. decision allowing minimally processed super-light oil known as condensate to be freely exported may open the door to doing the same with other types of crude too, according to industry and government sources who have reviewed the ruling.

This view, which has not been previously reported, will add to intense speculation over how much of the U.S. shale oil boom will reach overseas markets and how quickly loopholes will be opened in the 40-year-old ban on exporting domestic crude.

The Department of Commerce determined this week that two companies that handle condensate can export it after treatment by so-called stabilizers, which use heat to shave off volatile natural gas liquids and remove contaminants such as hydrogen sulfide in order to meet pipeline specifications.

Texas-based companies Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD.N) and Enterprise Product Partners (EPD.N) had sought clarity from the government over whether stabilized condensate could be exported as a petroleum product without a special license, which is needed to export unprocessed domestic crude.

The Commerce Department said yes.

But importantly, sources in industry and government emphasized, that determination just focused on how crude is treated. That means other types of crude that undergo similar minimal processing could potentially be exported as well.

"Under the definition of crude oil, the API level doesn't matter," a Commerce Department source said, referring to the American Petroleum Institute's scale for measuring oil’s density.

Heavy crude like that in Venezuela or Canada would be a 22 on the scale, while London’s Brent is about a 38 and typical West Texas Intermediate produced in the nation’s midsection generally is around 40. Ultra-light condensate usually rates 50 or higher.


U.S. law has traditionally defined processed oil as having passed through distillation towers, key pieces of refinery equipment that turn crude oil into finished products.

But the U.S. oil boom has created a glut of light oil and condensate that Gulf Coast refineries, largely built to run heavy crudes, have been unable to fully absorb.

Some companies have responded by building so-called splitters that turn condensate into naphthas and distillates that can be exported or sold domestically.

They have also expanded stabilizers.

Stabilizers, originally used to ensure crude and condensate meet pipeline specifications, now fall into the same rubric as splitters and distillation towers, according to the Commerce Department's determination.

"We always knew that if it ran through a simple distillation unit or a splitter it’s a (refined) product. This just moved it one step down that a stabilizer that extracts (liquefied petroleum gases) is equivalent to that," said John Auers, a refining consultant with Turner & Mason, an energy consultancy in Dallas. "It’s a more liberal definition of what distillation is."

Large U.S. oil producers in North Dakota’s Bakken shale and Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale fields told Reuters they had suspected for months that they would be able to export crude oil or condensate (after minimal processing), but resisted making such a move due in part to the ambiguity then surrounding Commerce Department’s public statements on the issues.

“It looked to us that it was a legitimate export if you take condensate and put it through a stabilizer,” said one source, who declined to be named, citing the sensitivity of discussions with regulators. “The ruling itself wasn’t a surprise.”

Quantum Energy Inc (QEGY.PK), a U.S. energy venture, said on Friday it plans to build a network of stabilizers and refining equipment that would produce fuel fit for export from North Dakota's Bakken oil patch, which churns out light crudes.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington and Kristen Hays in Houston; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

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 (4)
adamrussell wrote:
If oil corps are going to export it then they should pay more for the rights to drill in public lands. Its our oil. Pay us a fair market price for it.

Jun 27, 2014 4:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Kahnie wrote:
The oil cartels own our rear end. Pay us for oil on our land? How novel. Never going to happen, sorry to say. Not when Congress is paid off by the oil companies along with the Administration (Republican or Democrat–doesn’t make a difference).

Jun 27, 2014 5:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
matagorda wrote:
Shame be upon the Dept. of commerce for rule change to let our sweet crude go. If we got so much we have to export it why do we still import 6 million BBLS. a day. And that’s sour crude. I see this as one more way to raise the price of fuel and all the rest of things made from our energy. Not only that but the so called condensate pollutes far less than sour crude when it goes through the process of making products. Big oil strikes again. To hell with the man on the street.

Jun 27, 2014 5:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.