An ominous note in the happy melody of increased gasoline exports
posted at 5:40 pm on December 5, 2011 by Tina Korbe
As I reported last week, the U.S. has been on track to become a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time in 62 years — and, sure enough, the U.S. actually passed that important milestone this month. CNN Money reports:
The United States is awash in gasoline. So much so, in fact, that the country is exporting a record amount of it.
The country exported 430,000 more barrels of gasoline a day than it imported in September, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
That is about twice the amount at the start of the year, and experts and industry insiders say the trend is here to stay.
But a tweet from trade lawyer Scott Lincicome redirected my attention to the very bottom of the CNN Money Article — to a couple of paragraphs that quote an oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service. The analyst’s quotes are excellent — but the topic he’s addressing is ominous. The relevant portion:
Still, [analyst Tom Kloza] cautioned against restrictions on exports of diesel or gasoline, a move he expects politicians to at least talk about in 2012.
There’s nothing forcing oil companies to bring crude to the United States to refine, Kloza said, noting that the refining industry employs thousands of workers.
“If you restrict exports, you’d really be looking for trouble,” Kloza said. “You’d just see the refining and the jobs go offshore.”
I bring this up because, in response to my earlier post, a number of commenters complained about high gas prices — and understandably so. Demand for gasoline in the U.S. could hit the lowest level in a decade next year, yet U.S. consumers will likely still pay record-high prices for gas.
But any complaint consumers make to Washington about gas prices will be met with the sort of solution the federal government typically offers — more regulation. That, in turn, would lead to the typical wages of more regulation — in this case, the unintended consequence of lost jobs.
In fact, what we need is less government involvement in the energy sector. As I also wrote in my last post, to be a net exporter of petroleum products is not the same as to be energy independent. But energy independence would almost assuredly lower prices at the pump, as U.S. oil refining companies would no longer have to pay OPEC-manipulated prices for crude.
What will it take to be energy independent? Two ideas off the top of my head: Really reopen the Gulf to drilling with a streamlined permitting process and frack, baby, frack.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Frack! – envionuts
Electrongod on May 1, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Jobs what a concept
Administration will screw it up
cmsinaz on May 1, 2013 at 8:47 AM
As long as our dear leader doesn’t stand in the way of development, things will get better for us.
NorthernCross on May 1, 2013 at 8:48 AM
OIL? are you freaking kidding me?
*Dirty, nasty, pulling support out of the earth so it collapses and causes earthquakes and chemical poisoning of the groundwater and then gets used to advance mankind causing further decay of our planets’ delicate eco-system? Have you not heard Al Gore’s latest screech/warning to us?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/milken-conference-al-gore-rocks-449247
Stop America now, bring this sucker down and we’ll stop consumption on this planet by evil Capitalist pigs. Thank goodness we have a Socialist Marxist in the White House that will put the brakes on this wretched slop called “prosperity”.
Vomit on success.
*MSNBC tirade in 5…4…3…
PappyD61 on May 1, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Sitting on unimaginable wealth, energy enough to relieve poverty in the whole world and we listen to AlGore as he grows fatter and wealthier shouting at the top of his lungs “Don’t drill, Global Warming-Global Warming!”.
Herb on May 1, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Instead of building the XL, why not build refineries in ND and MT. There’s already one in Billings that could be added to.
Kissmygrits on May 1, 2013 at 8:53 AM
Look for government to get in the way presently.
Steve Eggleston on May 1, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Put an Indian tribe to head the entire program then when the government gets in the way scream racism.
docflash on May 1, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Until the intentionally or unintentionally idiotic in this country look at the gas pumps and monthly heating bills and start screaming at politicians… Dear Leader will continue to look for ways to cripple oil and gas. His constituency of libtards look at Big Oil as Satan. (They are non-religious…except for an unending faith in government.) Hey liberals, you truly want no more “wars for oil”? Fine. I don’t think we’d declare war on California or Florida if they began drilling. Well, we’d like a regime change, but no actual boots on the ground.
Sugar Land on May 1, 2013 at 8:54 AM
I find it entertaining that 0bama takes the credit for this while strangling drilling on federal land.
cozmo on May 1, 2013 at 8:56 AM
what do you think they will call the new national mounment?
RonK on May 1, 2013 at 8:56 AM
If the next Republican Presidential candidate wants my support s/he better campaign on complete energy independence for America. That was my number one issue way back in 2000, and while it’s fallen to #2 or #3 in the last couple of campaigns due to current events, it’s back to #1 with a bullet now.
Chris of Rights on May 1, 2013 at 8:58 AM
This is astounding. The cash pouring into the economy would change the American Experiment fundamentally. Of course, this will be fought because they think that cheaper oil will prevent people from investing in alternative energy. Secretly, it will also let Americans lead bigger lives. They want less consumption, period.
From inefficient organic farming to inefficient sources ofenergy, the Left wants to pare down lifestyles to a comfortable 1960′s Cuba level.
antisense on May 1, 2013 at 8:59 AM
To think the Green River formation along the front range of the Rocky Mountains dwarfs the Bakken formation but bid daddy gov keeps it off limits.
trs on May 1, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Any state with oil and gas reserves better get brushed up on 10th Amendment sovereignty, and be ready to defend it against the enemy in DC.
Demonized on May 1, 2013 at 9:02 AM
EPA will regulate fracking out of business. I’m surprised that the Obama regime is even acknowledging these projections.
petefrt on May 1, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Eagle Ford,Tx. is bustin’ production records as well.
workingclass artist on May 1, 2013 at 9:09 AM
This isn’t even a Red vs. Blue state kerfuffle, but a Red/Purple/Light Blue vs. Deep Blue State-and-Washington squabble. In Colorado, Democratic Gov. Hickenlooper drank fracking fluid to show the enviros how safe the process is, and while New York bans the process because Gov. Cuomo wants green support if he runs for the White House in 2016, just to the south Pennsylvania is raking in tons of $$$ via Marcellus Shale drilling.
That’s the big problem for the hard-core Democratic environmentalists — while they and their allies in the White House would love to do to the entire country what they’ve done to millions of acres of federal land, they can’t stop most states from OKing more drilling without angering a lot of people, including much of the party’s more moderate supporters. And for a place like Texas, where the Dems hope to use the growth in Hispanic voters to win the state back in the next decade, the hundreds of thousands of high-paying oil and gas jobs Hispanic residents have gotten from the new Eagle Ford and Delaware Basin shale development is a major hurdle for the state party, which has to hide it’s hard-core activists who want Texas’ energy policies to be like those of New York or California.
jon1979 on May 1, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Who said, we couldn’t drill our way out of this?
serendip2b on May 1, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Eh, I was looking forward to living in a mud hut and scrounging for acorns and grubs to feed the family, to live like the cavemen did in harmony with Mother Gaia.
Ok yeah we might die of strep throat, a broken bone, or an animal bite but think of the harmony. Homophobes.
Bishop on May 1, 2013 at 9:21 AM
This could end up being such an “easy button” for the next Republican President. All the hippies from the ’60s will be eating mashed peas in a nursing home (if they are lucky) by the time the American public would be capable of giving the Left another chance
Sekhmet on May 1, 2013 at 9:23 AM
Addthe new oil deposits to the EPA’s recent clarity of vision:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/epa-just-shook-debate-over-fracking/64678/
along with the Canadian pipeline and it should be game over for the short term energy crisis in this country. Prosperity should be busting out six ways from Sunday with abundant, reasonably priced energy. Yet, I’ll go out on a limb and predict that Mr. Obama will whiff on all three, holding out for more failed public financed green energy misadventures and pipe dreams.
parke on May 1, 2013 at 9:30 AM
But we have to ship our money off to Saudi Arabia. How else are they going to fund islamic terrorists?
rbj on May 1, 2013 at 9:30 AM
So, will lefties now deny ‘science’ after bedding down with it for their AGW crusade?
socalcon on May 1, 2013 at 9:30 AM
Drill baby drill. I’m sure Obama Hussein administration/Congress will find some way to destroy the progress in being “on our own” with gas independence. We should embrace and cheer this finding.
karlinsync on May 1, 2013 at 9:36 AM
If all government restrictions on oil drilling were removed, we’d be completely energy independent within two years and wouldn’t have to import another barrel of oil for the foreseeable future.
gryphon202 on May 1, 2013 at 9:38 AM
FIFY.
BKennedy on May 1, 2013 at 9:39 AM
The 10th Amendment doesn’t exist anymore. SCOTUS has used the 14th as a murder weapon against the 10th. Repeatedly. And would certainly be willing to do so again in this case, particularly if Obama can get one more justice.
Chris of Rights on May 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM
But isn’t that their entire reason for living?
Cleombrotus on May 1, 2013 at 9:49 AM
I’m not sure we could actually do it in two, although I did read a 180-day plan once on U.S. energy independence. I’d settle for five, just because I’m not convinced the government could even get out of it’s own way in two years. Still, this is clearly the direction we should take.
Chris of Rights on May 1, 2013 at 9:51 AM
another reason to get rid of federal ownership of state land
dmacleo on May 1, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Environmentalists, Obama and Al Gore hardest hit.
Developing.
GarandFan on May 1, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Why do they push this narrative. Fracking has been around for decades, first used by Halliburton in the 1940′s, with the Left and Greenies not raising an eyebrow or batting and eye at its implementation before. It has been used in over 1 million wells.
Patriot Vet on May 1, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Isn’t this what Rommey ran?
Kat_man on May 1, 2013 at 10:07 AM
FIFY
Cleombrotus on May 1, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Here’s the irony — The biggest thing Obama could do to negatively impact the economies of some Red States and boost those of Blue States would be to push for the end of fracking bans. That’s because there are some Red State areas (like Eagle Ford in Texas) where production costs only become viable at $70-$80 a barrel, while there are Blue State zones where viability kicks in at a lower per-barrel cost, but drilling is banned. No drilling in California means more drilling in Texas or North Dakota, because the market price is kept high enough to justify drilling in previously marginal or cost-ineffective areas.
You already see that to some extent in gas production. You can frac for gas in Pennsylvania cheaper than you can in parts of West Texas, because the shale formations containing the gas are twice as deep in the southwestern Permian Basin. So with the relatively low gas prices, fracking in that area isn’t viable right now. Open more lands to drilling and you cut the price of oil as well, and also completely shake up where drilling activity is, because companies will gravitate to the lowest-cost areas.
jon1979 on May 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Indeed. Regulation allows follows the money, especially in times of desperate economic fundamentals.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 1, 2013 at 10:29 AM
That’s all well and good and all… But where’s the algae?
Everything runs on algae these days.
Polish Rifle on May 1, 2013 at 10:45 AM
But that would destabilize the Middle East. Especially Saudi Arabia!
Bwwahahahahaha!
Lily on May 1, 2013 at 10:48 AM
The enviro-progressive beast has grown far beyond the ‘limits’ of government. They have built a structure of far-reaching law such that one person can open a lawsuit and shut down billion dollar resource project and demand multi-year studies.
The huge multinational environmental corporations that do the studies have to be paid by the resource companies at handsome rates, allowing them to grow even larger. The courts go along with it all because they’ve been salted with progressive judges for the last thrity years.
slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM
The beauty of being a Leftist is being able to say anything you want, regardless of how badly you might change positions, or even justifications, from one day to the next – and feel absolutely no shame in so doing.
/whores
Wanderlust on May 1, 2013 at 11:13 AM
The enviros must be having an Al Roker reaction. :)
PattyJ on May 1, 2013 at 11:50 AM
If all extracted at once, it is enough to fuel America for 9 months straight. Of course oil pricing happens at the margins, so any increase is welcome to lower the cost of energy.
astonerii on May 1, 2013 at 12:37 PM
Environmentalism is a religion. Call for the separation of church and state.
John the Libertarian on May 1, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Peak wut?
mchristian on May 1, 2013 at 1:24 PM
The price of used Hummers must be going thru the roof !!! :D
BigSven on May 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM
The EPA better hustle to put the brakes on this with some legal mumbo-jumbo, lest the push for crony capitalist green projects suffer, and Al Gore’s
scam– er – pilgrimage towards the sunny uplands of renewable energy hit a pothole.tpitman on May 1, 2013 at 2:19 PM