The recent debate over sending U.S. oil abroad misses the point: The United States is already a budding export powerhouse.
The United States is once again the top oil producer in the world, surpassing Saudi Arabia and Russia. This year, America is on pace to pump out an average of 12 million barrels a day of crude oil plus gas liquids, an all-time record level. Add in biofuels and volumetric gains from refining, and the United States is effectively producing 14 million barrels a day. All this is the extraordinary result of the shale-oil revolution, in which new extraction technology—hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—has made vast reserves suddenly economically viable.
Yet by law, much of this bounty must stay in the United States. Since the 1970s, America has banned the unlicensed export of crude oil, a policy put in place after the crippling Arab embargo that followed the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Today, the discussion about exports of U.S. crude oil is changing quickly. Producers have been aggressively lobbying Congress and the administration to lift the ban, and they seem to be getting results: Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Commerce Department was planning to allow certain types of oil to be sold abroad as soon as August—news that sent the White House scrambling to deny that there had been any change in export policy whatsoever, and had many reporters scratching their heads.
But the White House itself is responsible for some of the confusion. Presidential adviser John Podesta’s public admission less than a month ago that the government was considering exporting oil from Eagle Ford, a shale formation in South Texas, focused industry attention on expected changes in what constitutes allowable exports of condensates, ultralight crude oil that is itself considered a petroleum product when separated from crude oil in a refinery. Thus when news came out of the dense, opaque Commerce Department decision-making process affirming that condensate separated from oil in a small process in the field could be exported as petroleum product, it was logical for observers to see the White House’s hand in the department’s clarification.
Even without a decision or legislation to lift various export bans and obstacles, the 65 percent increase in U.S. oil production since 2010 and the continuing relentless surge in U.S. production is rapidly changing the facts on the ground, which point to the United States possibly becoming a major exporter of crude oil of about 1 million barrels per day before the end of 2014, even as the country remains a net importer of oil. And condensate—the subject of the recent uproar—is central to that growth. Much of the 3.6 million barrel-per-day surge in U.S. oil production is in fact condensates, and much of it cannot be processed in U.S. refineries. So unless producers can send it abroad, that production growth could be in jeopardy.
That’s why the Commerce Department’s obscure and otherwise dense “clarification” is in fact a very big deal—a move that will mean additional U.S. hydrocarbon exports this year of more than 200,000 barrels per day of condensates, and potentially more than double that by the end of 2015.
Contrary to recently misleading statements in the press, the United States does not ban exports of crude oil. Although there is limited wriggle room, the markets are finding ways through the cracks, largely because crude oil in the United States is cheaper than in the rest of the world due to legal and logistical bottlenecks to exports.
Ed Morse is global head of commodities research at Citi. The views expressed herein accurately reflect his personal views and were prepared independently of Citi Global Markets involvement in any investment or transaction.
Politico.com
