“GOP oil titan: Keystone’s irrelevant” – Politico, 14 November 2014

Though the Keystone XL pipeline has been a hot-button issue with environmentalists, it seems that it has become an irrelevant discussion. The pipeline was introduced in 2005, and still no decision has been made about its construction. In October, the House approved a bill that would authorize the pipeline; however, a few days later, the bill failed to pass through the Senate. If it had passed, the bill would have gone directly to President Obama, though it’s likely he would have vetoed it.

But all that might change when the new Republican-majority Congress reconvenes in January. In fact, it has become the mission of Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) to have the bill pass. It’s probable that the bill will pass both Congress legislatures, but the bill will need 67 votes in favor in order to quash a presidential veto.

Regardless of the pipeline’s importance, proponents firmly contend that the $8 billion pipeline will allow for a flood of new jobs and bolster North American energy independence; but opponents believe that it will increase fossil fuels and further incite the effects of climate change.

It seems like the oil industry has moved on from Keystone; oil companies are employing other pipelines to carry their oil. Furthermore, the US now has an abundance of oil, which has reduced prices. Bringing more oil in from Canada doesn’t seem like the best plan.

What some suggest — like Harold Hamm, the CEO of Oklahoma’s Continental Resources — is that the US should end its crude oil export ban, which would make the oil market fairer for US oil companies. Congress imposed the ban in the 1970s due to the worry that we were becoming too reliant on foreign oil. Now that US oil prices have dropped, Saudi Arabia is attempting to undercut our prices so that it can recover what it has lost in the market. Further, a lift on the ban could help Ukraine and European countries that are under the thumb of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Conversely, if the ban is lifted, we could see gas prices soar; lawmakers would become our scapegoat.

(From Politico)

Developed and Written by Dr. Subodh Das and Tara Mahadevan

November 29, 2014

Phinix LLC

Copyright 2014. All rights Reserved by Phinix, LLC.

www.phinix.net    skdas@phinix.net

Social Share Toolbar

“White House touts energy policies as rules loom” – Associated Press, 30 May 2014

With continued backlash, President Obama is still trying to sell the US on his new energy policy and attempting to showcase the regulations as economically advantageous through job creation, cleaner energy sources, and protection of the US against foreign turmoil. In a 42-page report to be released on Thursday, the White House contends that the US’s natural gas boon is both economically and environmentally beneficial.

The report’s purpose is to counteract the disapproval of the EPA‘s new regulations on coal-fired power plants, which many expect will inflate electricity costs, thwart job growth, and impede economic prosperity. Conservatives and their allies believe that reducing emissions won’t actually aid the environment, and only become a hinderance to the economy.

The White House reports argues that increased domestic energy production, wind and solar power, and decreased dependency on oil have largely bolstered the security of US energy and the economy, and speak directly to the impacts of climate change by reducing carbon emissions.

The US’s upswing in natural gas safeguards the economy, and everyone’s pockets, if oil-producing countries undergo turmoil and cause oil prices to skyrocket. If we continue to produce energy sources domestically, then the US reaps the benefits—that means more money and more jobs.

Regardless, the US is still the number one consumer and importer of oil. The advent of natural gas hasn’t been embraced by everyone—the process of extracting natural gas from shale rock presents some unease with many environmental groups. The decline in oil consumption started in 2006, though that fall is ascribed to the recession. At the same time, natural gas consumption has increased by 18% since 2005.

Developed and Written by Dr. Subodh Das and Tara Mahadevan

May 30, 2014

Phinix LLC

Copyright 2014. All rights Reserved by Phinix, LLC.

www.phinix.net    skdas@phinix.net

Social Share Toolbar

“Shale-Oil Boom Puts Spotlight on Crude Export Ban” – 1 January 2014, Wall Street Journal

The flood of natural gas might have the US rethinking its ban on crude oil exports, which dates back to the 1970s.

The world’s biggest oil refinery is located in the US, along the Gulf Coast, and is pumping out an oversupply of crude. The abundance of oil is causing prices to crash, forcing producers to look at their other options — i.e. exporting. These last few months, the American Petroleum Institute (API) has been fighting to lift export restrictions, as is Exxon Mobil, the US’s largest energy company. US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has more or less agreed, noting that the bans were instituted during the period of an energy dearth, not an abundance.

Arguments on the ban pit environmentalists, producers, consumers and the government all against each other. Proponents contend that removing the ban will boost the US’s trade deficit; opponents want to retain supplies in the US so that we rely less on the Middle East; others worry about the negative effects of increased drilling on the environment and climate.

The US currently exports coal, electricity, gasoline, diesel and natural gas — everything, it seems, but crude. Crude production is on an upswing in the US, largely due to shale formations located in Texas and North Dakota. It’s predicted that these formations will generate around 7.7 million barrels/day in 2014, and, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), set to grow by 24% to 9.6 million barrels/day in 2019. The onslaught of oil could drive down prices, ultimately slowing the nation’s energy boom.

The only way Congress is likely to immediately act is if the ban induces layoffs of energy workers. Regardless, any revisions to the law won’t be immediate. But the new year might just be Exxon’s, and other major energy companies’, year.

We believe that US oil companies should be allowed to export crude oil as a tool lower trade deficit, and increase export-related high paying domestic jobs.

See also:
Exxon Presses for Exports

Developed and Written by Dr. Subodh Das and Tara Mahadevan

January 3, 2014

Phinix LLC

Copyright 2014. All rights Reserved by Phinix, LLC.

www.phinix.net    skdas@phinix.net

Social Share Toolbar

“Exxon Presses for Exports” – 11 December 2013, Wall Street Journal

MK-CI526A_EXXON_NS_20131211211205

Wall Street Journal

According to Exxon Mobil’s annual energy outlook, in the following decades, the world’s rising need for oil and energy will be met by ample amounts of petroleum sourced both in the US and globally. Exxon is asking the US to end embargoes on crude exports, which were originally created during the Arab oil embargo of 1973. The oil giant believes that the nation is now generating enough crude to become an exporter.

The US’s abundant amounts of oil have created some issues for Exxon and many energy companies: increased production has flooded US demand, causing domestic prices to decrease and gnawing at energy companies’ profits. The US doesn’t allow crude to be exported to other countries, except Canada; however, the government will soon allow natural gas to be exported through terminals to countries that don’t have free-trade agreements with the US.

Exxon’s outlook states that, by 2015, more oil will be tapped in North America than from Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), excluding Saudi Arabia. However, by 2040, Exxon foreshadows that OPEC will produce 45% of the world’s petroleum. Exxon’s outlook predicts that the world will use 35% more energy in 2040 than 2010, stemming from growing incomes and populations in developing countries like India and China. Exxon also predicts that oil and gas will supply 60% of energy used in 2040. Exxon’s projections are optimistic, noting that 65% of the world’s crude will remain untouched in 2040.

Lifting this embargo might be met with opposition, as consumers worry that crude exports can lead to rising US gas prices, and environmentalists worry about the environmental consequences of enlarged production. Exxon’s outlook reinforces the split between those who promote fossil fuel emission limits, and those — like Exxon — who deem such limits as impractical.

Exxon believes that coal will be mostly forced out by natural gas by 2030. By 2040, sources of gas, from materials like shale rock, will make up one third of the world’s energy.

As guardians of the free-trade market and pragmatism, we believe that US oil companies should be allowed to export (and import) oil and any other energy sources.

Developed and Written by Dr. Subodh Das and Tara Mahadevan

January 2, 2014

Phinix LLC

Copyright 2014. All rights Reserved by Phinix, LLC.

www.phinix.net    skdas@phinix.net

Social Share Toolbar