Page added on May 4, 2014
Whether to allow more exports of U.S. oil and natural gas has become a matter of political debate in Washington. But to economists, the answer is clear: The nation would benefit.
The vast majority of economists surveyed this month by The Associated Press say lifting restrictions on exports of oil and natural gas would help the economy even if it meant higher fuel prices for consumers.
More exports would encourage investment in oil and gas production and transport, create jobs, make oil and gas supplies more stable and reduce the U.S. trade deficit, they say.
As domestic energy production has boomed, drilling companies have pushed to be allowed to sell crude oil and natural gas overseas, where they can command higher prices. Such exports are restricted by decades-old energy security regulations.
Those opposed to opening trade say exports could make it more expensive for Americans to heat their homes and fill up their cars.
But even economists who think exports might increase fuel prices for U.S. consumers — an open question — say the overall benefit to the economy would outweigh any possible harm. It would be better to allow the exports and use tax breaks or other methods to help those struggling with higher prices, they say.
“The economy in general is better off if we can sell something to someone and bring money into the economy,” said Jerry Webman, chief economist at Oppenheimer Funds. “I’d rather deal with any side effects directly than limit our ability to do business with the world.”
The AP survey collected the views of private, corporate and academic economists on a range of issues. Of the 30 economists who participated, nearly 90 percent responded that more exports of oil and gas would help the U.S. economy.
Oil and gas export restrictions went largely unchallenged for decades because consumption in the U.S. — by far the world’s biggest consumer of oil and gas — was rising while production was falling. Imports were increasing, and few thought the U.S. would ever be in a position to export oil or gas.
But new techniques have allowed drillers to tap oil and gas in formations once thought out of reach, and U.S. production has soared.
The U.S. still consumes far more crude oil than it produces. But oil companies are producing a light sweet crude that foreign refineries covet and that many U.S. refineries are not equipped to handle. The companies and some politicians have called for lifting oil export restrictions. Proponents concede, though, that that’s unlikely in an election year.
Seven terminals have received Energy Department approval to export natural gas and are at various stages of planning, permitting, finance and construction of the facilities needed to cool the gas into a liquid for transport. Thirty additional facilities are awaiting approval.
Low natural gas prices in the U.S. have helped reduce heating and electricity prices for residents and given U.S. manufacturers a cost advantage over their competitors in Europe and Asia.
3 Comments on "Economists back increase in US oil, gas exports"
rockman on Sun, 4th May 2014 7:12 am
First, there are no restrictions to exporting NG. That has been going on unimpeded for a long. New pipeline systems to México are currently being expanded. The only supposed issue is the rate at which new LNG terminals are being permitted. An insignificant metric IMHO given that the great majority of NG export potential is via pipelines. The emphasis on LNG is the potential access to higher priced Asian market.
The most obvious BS should the misuse of the concept of higher NG prices being good for the economy. It would be good for the economy of those of us who explore for and sell NG. But not for US NG consumers. Which oddly enough is the last point the article makes: “Low natural gas prices in the U.S. have helped reduce heating and electricity prices for residents and given U.S. manufacturers a cost advantage over their competitors in Europe and Asia.” So their logic must be that lower “heating and electricity prices for residents” are bad and US manufacturers have an unfair “cost advantage over their competitors in Europe and Asia”. You have to wonder if the fools even read what they write.
Davey on Sun, 4th May 2014 7:55 am
I would say these numb nut economist need to go back to school like Rock eludes to. These economists may intentionally be offering misleading information for lobbyist purposes. Yet, the more I listen to economists the more I see the former. I personally think economist as a group are completely discredited at this point at “ALL” levels for systematic understanding of the dynamics of energy, food, water, and population in our complex interconnected global world. They have been our false gods and false heroes (Greenspans). If this article would have pushed the idea of the US exporting refined product I would have agreed whole heartedly. The US has a comparative advantage with refined product. We need the refinery jobs and already have the built out infrastructure. It keeps our country as a player in the energy market even if we see our production drop as is expected here.
Harquebus on Sun, 4th May 2014 5:48 pm
Eggonomist: A financial eggspurt.