Removing U.S. Oil Ban Would Create Jobs

Lifting a 40-year-old U.S. ban on crude exports would create a wide range of jobs in the oil drilling supply chain and broader economy even in states that produce little or no oil, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Some 394,000 to 859,000 U.S. jobs could be created annually from 2016 to 2030 by lifting the ban, according to the IHS report, titled: “Unleashing the Supply Chain: Assessing the Economic Impact of a U.S. crude oil free trade policy.”

Only 10 percent of the jobs would be created in actual oil production, while 30 percent would come from the supply chain, and 60 percent would come from the broader economy, the report said. The supply chain jobs would be created in industries that support drilling, such as oil field trucks, construction, information technology and rail.

Many of the jobs would be created in Florida, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, and other states that are not known as oil producers.

“The jobs story extends across the supply chain, right across the United States,” said Daniel Yergin, a vice chairman at IHS and an oil historian. “It’s not just an oil patch story, it’s a U.S. story.”

Record spare U.S. crude oil supplies caused by the drilling boom of the last five years have put pressure on the Obama administration and Congress to lift the country’s ban on oil exports. Congress put the ban in place after the 1970s Arab oil embargo led to fears of energy shortages, and only a few lawmakers including Republicans Senator Lisa Murkowski and U.S. Representative Joe Barton support lifting the restriction.

Many other lawmakers have been hesitant to support relaxing the ban, fearing they could be blamed for any unrelated rise in gas prices.

In New York, a state that maintains a ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas, jobs for the drilling business have been created in big data analytics and database management. The number of those jobs would rise if the ban was lifted, said the report. In Illinois, jobs would be created in durable manufacturing of engines and machine tools and mining for fracking sand.

The report, sponsored by energy companies including ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Pioneer Natural Resources, assumed there would be no slowdown in drilling due to campaigns by environmental or other groups.

RIGZONE

12 Comments on "Removing U.S. Oil Ban Would Create Jobs"

Makati1 on Tue, 17th Mar 2015 6:54 am 



Rigporn… not worth reading.

rockman on Tue, 17th Mar 2015 6:58 am 



Just on the chance that there’s a newbie floating around: there is no ban on exporting oil. The govt regularly grants exceptions to the so called “ban”. Last Dec the US exported oil at the rate of 7.5 BILLION GALLONS PER YEAR.

And for the umtenth time: US consumers don’t buy oil therefore they don’t compete with foreign buyers…refineries compete with them. US consumers compete with foreigners for refinery products. And there are no restrictions at all for exporting those products. Currently the US is exporting refinery products made from 46 BILLION GALLONS OF OIL PER YEAR.

So to the proposition they offer: eliminating the “oil export ban” would create jobs. So they make up a number that can’t be verified. But while they are cooking the books about employment it would be interesting to see their estimate of the number of current jobs being supported by exporting over 50 BILLION GALLONS of oil and refined products every year. That has to take at least 10 or 12 workers. LOL.

Rigzone is my first go-to source for FACTUAL INFORMATION. They essentially concentrate articles from a variety of good sources. But when they editorialize they are often an embarrassment to the oil patch IMHO.

Bob Owens on Tue, 17th Mar 2015 1:50 pm 



More propaganda. Gosh, I am getting ill. Let’s just sell our oil at rock bottom prices into a glut! That sounds like a great plan to me! And we will create xxx jobs! And if we build the XL pipeline we will get xxx more! (fill in your numbers). How about solar? All the infrastructure, jobs, money and energy stay in the USA! How about that? Sounds like a better plan to me. Wake up America!

northwestresident on Tue, 17th Mar 2015 2:09 pm 



I’m having a difficult time figuring out exactly WHY oil industry execs are making so much noise and seemingly trying as hard as they can to overturn the ban on exporting oil.

It isn’t because it would create more jobs — as rockman points out.

You’d figure that the REAL reason has to do with their expectation that they would make more profit, as explained in the article linked below. But that expectation is based on the premise that there are all a bunch of refineries somewhere overseas that are finely tuned to refine American “light sweet” crude, if only they could just get some!! I have a difficult time believing that there are those overseas refineries that are set up to refine American shale oil, given the fact that American shale oil has distinct chemical qualities that set it apart from all or most other types of oil. Or, am I wrong?

What I really think is that all the crying and all the trying to overturn the oil export ban is just another big public relations scam. That the fact is, the “glut” of fracked oil is not really wanted by anybody, and that the big PR push to overturn the export ban is just another effort to make investors *THINK* that all that fracked oil glut actually has some value, IF ONLY they could sell it to the people that really want it, when in fact, it has very little value at all.

When it comes to shale oil, it is all about hype, propaganda, twisted half truths and misleading statements. The “effort” to overturn the ban on shale oil exports fits right in.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-04-20/perverse-outcomes-lifting-u-s-oil-export-ban-would-mean-greater-dependence-on-foreign-oil

Northwest Resident on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 10:00 am 



The propaganda surrounding the supposed attempts to remove the U.S. Oil Export Ban is intense these days.

But do they REALLY want to remove the U.S. Oil Export Ban, or are they simply pretending that they desperately want to remove those restrictions on exporting unrefined crude?

Listening to the CEOs and politicians who are making the most noise on this subject, you’d get the impression that there are numerous oil refineries outside of the USA that are finely tuned up and dialed in to refine American-produced shale oil — which seems to me to be a really implausible assumption. Even in the USA refineries, I read that for every new load of shale oil received, they had to re-adjust and re-tune their equipment to meet that load’s specific chemical properties — because EACH load of shale oil is substantially different than the previous one. Making all those adjustments and retuning the equipment is time consuming, risky and expensive. It all due to the substantial variations in crude “quality” that the shales are producing.

But we’re supposed to believe that there is a substantial market for that unprocessed crude somewhere out there in the world, if ONLY we could export the stuff. I call BULLSHIT on this propaganda ploy.

The REAL reason that the oil CEOs and the financial talking heads and the politicians are screaming so loudly for an end to the ban on crude oil exports is BECAUSE they desperately want investors in oil to BELIEVE that huge profits are imminent, once they get that oil export ban lifted. Which they never will, because that would call their bluff — the LAST thing they want is to have the oil export ban lifted only to show that nobody anywhere in the whole wide world wants that crap that sitting in storage, comprising Plant’s precious oil glut.

It is all about keeping “the fish” on the hook for just a little while longer, believing the big illusion.

Speaking of propaganda on this topic, here’s a perfect example that I found on Yahoo. Read it for the laughs — see how many false assertions you can find in this article:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-oil-industry-headed-inevitable-185453264.html

rockman on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 3:50 pm 



NR – I know from past conversations you’re a smart cookie. But those comments make it sound like you don’t know that the US is one of the largest oil exporters on the planet. No, we’re not a net oil exporter but we do export oil. A lot of oil. And when it comes to exporting liquid petroleum (oil + refined products) the US runs neck and neck with the 2nd largest o+rf exporter, Russia. And it’s all due to our refineries: the US is the largest exporter of refinery products on the planet…we are the world’s fuel pump.

Things have changed greatly in a decade or so: according to the EIA US oil exports have increased from 3.3 million bbls per year in 2002 to 50 million bbls per year in 2013. But that ain’t nuthin: from Jan 2014 to Nov 2014 the annual rate of US oil exports increased from 91 million bbls/yr to 180 million bbls/yr…doubled in just 11 months. Yes: while all this phony “US oil ban” bullsh*t was flooding the nightly news we doubled the volume of oil we exported.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrexus1&f=m

Check out the chart above and look at annul US oil exports: we are exporting oil more oil today then since they started keeping track of that stat in 1920. It’s truly breath taking. Look at that chart and tell me what you see that indicates a ban on US oil exports. And interesting side note: look at how US oil exports dropped from 43 million bbls in 1999 to 3.3 million bbls in 2002…a 92% decrease in such a short period of time. And I have no idea why. At least not yet.

And you do understand that the current export of US oil and refined products is the only thing preventing the complete destruction of what’s left of the oil exploration and production industry? What do you think refiners would be paying for my oil if they were exporting the oil and all those refined products overseas? If all the oil and refinery products could only be consumed in this country I doubt oil would be selling for even $20/bbl. We may be a net oil importer but we are greatly oversupplied with refined products.

Apneaman on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 4:03 pm 



2002. Wasn’t the war machine getting cranked up right around then?

Northwest Resident on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 4:15 pm 



rockman — I greatly appreciate the feedback. Sometimes when I post on this forum, I am crying out for somebody who actually knows what is going on to respond and set me straight.

I was and am aware that there is no restriction on exporting refined oil products. I know that for a fact primarily because I’ve read so many of your posts.

But, isn’t it true that the ban on unrefined oil — “raw crude” — is still in effect? And isn’t that what all the oil execs, the politicians and the financial jaw flappers are screaming about?

Actually, as usual, there are some variations on exporting raw crude, but those are minor. I refer to the link copied below that makes a case for removing the U.S. Oil Ban.

That article, like so many others, makes the case the IF ONLY U.S. (shale) oil producers could export their raw unrefined crude, nearly all their problems would be solved — greater profitability, no more gluts.

What the article doesn’t specifically mention is which, if any, refineries outside of the USA (except maybe Canada) are all that eager to purchase the glut of fracked oil piling up in storage across America.

And I guess what I’m saying with my post — and I am welcoming any and all differing opinions (that are reasonable, logical and factual) that can make the case that yes, indeed, foreign refineries are just chomping at the bit to purchase our growing glut of fracked oil, because they are fine-tuned to process just exactly that oil that American refiners are having such a difficult time with.

And my main point — speculative assertion actually — is that NOBODY in the world wants that crude glut, that it is all just a big propaganda ploy to cover for the fact that nobody wants it.

But, I could be wrong, as usual. What info can be provided to make a convincing case that international refiners are eager to purchase that fracked oil and process it for profit and net energy? Anybody??? (crickets…?)

http://www.cfr.org/oil/case-allowing-us-crude-oil-exports/p31005

marmico on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 4:49 pm 



The U.S. is exporting almost 400,000 crude oil b/d to Canada, mostly Bakken. The terminus is Montreal, Quebec and St. John, New Brunswick refineries. The Canadian refinery acquisition costs are lower than African/Middle East/Western Canada shipments.

Montreal refines for its regional markets and St. John refines primarily for product export to the U.S. between Bar Harbour, MI and Boston, MA.

U.S. Eagle Ford producers are starting export markets of lease condensate to Asia after the liquid stream has been run through a condensate splitter which by-passes the federal crude oil export licence restrictions. Aggressive estimates are that condensate exports may reach 500,000 b/d by the end of 2015.

The EIA now tracks condensate exports in the “kerosene and light gas oils” category.

Northwest Resident on Wed, 18th Mar 2015 10:14 pm 



marmico — Good info, for sure. I knew Canada was an exception. But the question still remains, why are they making so much noise about doing away with the raw crude export ban? Clearly, when it is profitable as it has been with Canada (or at least generates good cash flow) they can find a way to get around the export ban. Why is this issue always in the news? The Republicans control congress, and its a pretty fair observation that congress is controlled to a large extent by the oil industry. If they REALLY wanted to overturn the export ban, they would just do it.

But they don’t. They just keep it in the news, an ongoing constantly highlighted problem for the oil industry. If they could just overturn that ban, then they could sell their fracked crude to refiners around the world who can pay for it and make a profit off of it. WHO are those international refiners, and do they really exist?

I think not. I think it is all just a MUMMER’S FARCE — fiction, subterfuge, propaganda, whatever you want to call it.

They — TPTB — have a serious need to keep investors invested and confidence in the system propped up. If word got out that the much touted oil glut is nothing but a bunch of inferior product that can’t be refined for a profit, that would kind of put a hole in the Grand Illusion, wouldn’t it?

That’s my point.

GregT on Thu, 19th Mar 2015 12:51 am 



The US imports more crude FROM Canada than it exports TO Canada. According to the EIA, US net imports from Canada are 2.58 million barrels per day.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6

The US is a net importer of crude Marmico. Not a net exporter.

Apneaman on Thu, 19th Mar 2015 1:55 am 



marmico is a net exporter of Bullshit. Lies/deception come in many forms. He has been caught making shit up and torturing facts and data, but he just keeps it coming as if people have forgotten.