The big (quiet) push to lift the oil export ban. just fuck.

[cali]

Yes, this is a terrible idea.

Since the gasoline shortages of the 1970s, Congress has, with only a few exceptions, barred all U.S. crude oil exports. But an energy policy that may have made sense 40 years ago no longer does. Innovative drilling techniques have spawned an oil and natural gas boom in the United States. Since oil surpluses can create as many problems as oil shortages, it’s time to eliminate those export restrictions.

The good news is that Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has indicated that it may be time to rethink the export ban on crude oil, though he recently downplayed the change. And Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, just called for an end to the exporting ban and released a paper to encourage Senate discussion.

<snip>

Huge Economic Benefits. States that are exploiting oil and natural gas drilling, which is mostly done on private land, have seen economic explosions. For example, North Dakota is at the epicenter of the drilling boom. Its unemployment rate is 2.7 percent, compared to 7 percent for the country. Those states can’t find enough workers, especially blue-collar, so wages have gone up rapidly. That rapid rise is good, but it can create economic distortions, such as very expensive housing and strains on public education. If the federal government allowed more drilling on federal land and offshore, more states could participate in the energy boom, creating job opportunities at home. It’s our best immediate way to address concerns about income inequality and strengthening the middle class.

Swelling Government Revenues. Those states that have embraced the oil and gas boom are improving their budgets rapidly. In 2013 Texas received about $8.8 billion in oil and gas royalties and taxes. If the Obama administration opened up millions of acres of federal land and offshore regions to drilling, it would create a huge new federal revenue stream. Congress could take a lesson from Alaska by returning that money to the public, perhaps in the form of a contribution to a personal retirement account. Such accounts would give everyone a direct stake in a successful energy sector.

<snip>

http://www.rollcall.com/news/the_economic_case_for_permitting_crude_oil_exports_commentary-231130-1.html

The White House could lift the ban on U.S. oil exports in stages, according to an analysis of past presidential decisions prepared for Senator Lisa Murkowski, the highest-ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

"The executive branch retains the statutory authority to authorise crude oil exports," according to the report released in Washington on Monday ("Past is precedent: executive authority to authorise crude oil exports" March 3).

"Even statutes that generally prohibit the export of crude oil contain provisions that permit the president to authorise exports under certain conditions," it concluded.

<snip>

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/03/usa-oil-exports-idUKL6N0M01RS20140303

All of these articles and editorials, including the ones I've quoted above, are from the last few days.

Guest Column: Time for U.S. to start exporting
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20140302/OPINION02/303020017/Guest-Column-Time-U-S-start-exporting-oil

Let U.S. oil exports flow
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140226/OPINION01/302260004/Let-U-S-oil-exports-

An Argument AGAINST lifting the ban:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2014/02/05/83559/u-s-crude-oil-exports-opportunities-and-challenges/

[jsr]

1. This is a must read.

[cali]

2. thanks, jsr

[subterranean]

3. "Drill, baby, drill!"

I seem to remember we rejected the candidate who said that.

The funniest part of the article, to me, was this:

Congress could take a lesson from Alaska by returning that money to the public, perhaps in the form of a contribution to a personal retirement account.

I laughed out loud when I read that. It's far more likely that Congress would return the money to the rich (er, sorry, "job creators&quot in the form of a huge tax cut.

[cali]

4. If a republican was in the WH overseeing the expansion of drilling and

the opening of increasing acreage for drilling on public lands, DU would be condemning it wholesale.

[truebrit71]

6. Yup....

...

[They_Live]

17. + 1 n/t

[jsr]

5. +1

[truebrit71]

7. Hmmm...I thought the reason d'etre of more drilling was to become self-sufficient...

...not so that a few could get filthy-fucking-rich?

Good grief...I thought a lame-duck Obama was supposed to become MORE liberal, not less...

[cali]

8. President Obama's policies are largely aligned with corporate interests

I don't think President Obama wants to have a terrible environmental legacy, but that's where he's headed- largely due to fracking.

[truebrit71]

9. ...and "clean coal"...and more drilling...

....and his "all of the above" strategy...

He is not as bad as a McCain or Mittens Presidency would have been, but holy fucking shit, he's a longshot away from where he SHOULD be...

[cali]

10. He's good on social issues and civil rights. All in all, he's not very good on economic

issues- though surely better than any repub. On environmental issues, he's mostly sleight of hand; lots of talk but his drill, drill, drill policies reveal an agenda that's not nearly as environmentally friendly as the image.

He's a very corporately inclined politician

[progressoid]

14. "clean coal"

I remember people defending that bullshit during the primaries.

[FarCenter]

11. The US is still a big net importer of crude oil and will be for the foreseeable future.

[OregonBlue]

12. So this is what the XL pipeline has always been about. If this is allowed, how long before oil

companies demand that we start looking for an developing our own tar sands oil?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

13. They're already doing that in Utah. They want to dig up most of eastern Utah for

tight oil trapped in sandstone.

[GeorgeGist]

15. Hip, Hip Hooray ...

another way for the rich to get richer.

[cali]

16. and for the environment to sustain damage, and for public health to suffer

[brett_jv]

18. Why the holy hell would we export ... when we're still importing damn near 50% of the oil we consume

How the f*** does THAT make any sense?

What'll be even stupider is when the wingnuts jump on board with this, convinced by Faux and Rush that it totally makes sense ... mostly because the morons have absolutely zero idea that we're still huge importers AND that there's absolutely no guarantee that we'll ever ramp up production past the point of self-sufficiency (in fact, most experts believe we never will ... the amount we import is too large, and the depletion rate from the tight-oil wells too rapid).