mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Exporting Oil
Is It Time for the World to See America’s Crude?

Because of a 1970s-era exporting ban, American oil producers can’t sell their crude abroad. But the global oil picture today looks remarkably different than it did forty years ago, and burgeoning American production has many calling for an end to the ban. A new report from the Energy Information Administration takes an in-depth look at what lifting that ban might mean.

One of the most frequently cited reasons for lifting the ban has to do with the difference in price crude fetches here in America as compared to the rest of the world. The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) benchmark, used as a stand-in for the price of crude here in the U.S., frequently trades at a significant discount compared to Europe’s Brent benchmark, the price most often used when we talk about the global price of crude. Today WTI is hovering just above $45 per barrel, $4 cheaper than Brent, nearly a 10 percent discount. At times the divide between those two benchmarks has risen past $10, and that has consequences for producers, especially in today’s bearish market.

That’s because cheap crude, while nice for consumers, stretches the ability of oil companies to make a profit. When prices drop, companies have to cut capital expenditures and lay off employees, and, in the case of relatively high-cost U.S. fracking, that can also mean ratcheting down production. In that sense, the WTI discount can hurt the ability of American oil companies to compete in the global market. And while the gap between WTI and Brent has narrowed somewhat over the past year, the new EIA report finds that if U.S. production stays high and the export ban is maintained, the discount “is expected to increase to more than $10/b.” However, with a discount that high, if the U.S. were to lift the ban then we could expect “higher wellhead prices for domestic producers, who would then respond with additional production.”

That sounds like lifting the ban could be beneficial for producers, but what about consumers? For that, we turn to the WSJ:

[The EIA report] concludes that lifting the nation’s four-decade ban on oil exports wouldn’t increase U.S. gasoline prices and could even help lower them, raising the stakes in the debate about whether to lift or relax the ban. […]

Because most U.S. retail gasoline is priced based on the global benchmark rather than the national one, it could lower prices at home, the study concludes. Global crude traded more than $4 higher than U.S. prices on Tuesday, settling at $49.56 a barrel.

Cheaper gas and a more competitive environment for U.S. producers sounds like a win-win, but lifting the ban is still a politically fraught endeavor. One option, Arthur Herman has argued in these pages, would be slowly to mete out American crude on the global market to carefully-chosen allies. In this way, we might fully capitalize on the strategic advantage our new bounty gives us. Whatever happens, the fact that we’re now having this discussion is remarkable. Today we rely on foreign sources for just 27 percent of our oil, the lowest level in 30 years, and that’s opening up new policy options. Hail shale!

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Shallow analysis. We rely on zero percent of the light crude which is produced from shale (the US no longer imports light crude). American exports would increase the world (over) supply and depress Brent prices further.

    • rheddles

      Any analysis of the oil market is shallow; just like forecasts of the climate in 100 years. The market knows more than any participant or government. They all need to work together voluntarily to arrive at the correct solution. But the more government interferes the more sub-optimal the solution. Free exports.

      No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

      It seems to me export prohibition is the ultimate tax.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    America still imports millions of barrels of crude every day, and Oil is fungible so supply and demand is responsible for the price differential between Brent and WTI oil. I think it just costs more to deliver oil to Europe than to America, and the price differential reflects the changing shipping costs.

    • Andrew Allison

      Oil is, indeed, fungible. That’s why we no longer import light sweet crude. But I think the price differential is largely due to the fact that US oil can’t be exported. If the market were open, the clearing price would be somewhere between the two for everybody.

  • FriendlyGoat

    It’s a fairly simple matter to CONDITION any exports on the on-going monitored price of petroleum products in the USA and stop any exports if/when prices are rising. You don’t just lift a citizen ban FOR NOTHING and “trust” the oil companies.

    Donald Trump, lately, as taken to calling stupid stuff STUPID. We all should. Citizens, just write yourself an export agreement that is as smart for actually protecting YOUR interests into the future as Mr. Trump writes any contract to protect his interests in a business deal.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service