Murkowski Joins Growing Chorus Calling to Lift Ban on Crude-Oil Exports

Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-AK, seen during the Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing on June 23, 2010 on Capitol Hill In Washington, DC. The committee is holding a hearing on Minerals Management Service reorganization. 
National Journal
Amy Harder
See more stories about...
Amy Harder
Jan. 7, 2014, 6:36 a.m.

The seni­or Re­pub­lic­an on the Sen­ate En­ergy and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Com­mit­tee called for the lift­ing of the na­tion’s dec­ades-old ban on crude-oil ex­ports in a speech Tues­day, adding a key voice to a grow­ing chor­us sup­port­ing the policy change.

“I am call­ing for end­ing the pro­hib­i­tion on crude-oil and con­dens­ate ex­ports,” En­ergy rank­ing mem­ber Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said in an ap­pear­ance at the Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion. “The cur­rent sys­tem is in­ef­fi­cient and may lead to sup­ply dis­rup­tions that we can ill af­ford.”

Chan­ging this cur­rent sys­tem, which dates back to the 1973 OPEC oil em­bargo and skyrock­et­ing gas­ol­ine prices, will be a Her­culean task. Just a year or two ago, be­fore Wash­ing­ton caught up to the re­per­cus­sions of the na­tion’s oil and nat­ur­al-gas boom, such a policy change was con­sidered un­think­able. Murkowski said the ad­min­is­tra­tion has the power to change the law it­self, which is ad­min­istered with­in the Com­merce De­part­ment and al­lows only a very small amount of crude oil to be ex­por­ted. She doesn’t think le­gis­la­tion is ne­ces­sary, but if the ad­min­is­tra­tion doesn’t move for­ward, she’s pre­pared to.

“If the ad­min­is­tra­tion is un­will­ing to act on its own or if that stat­utory au­thor­ity needs fur­ther modi­fic­a­tion, I’m pre­pared to in­tro­duce le­gis­la­tion to mod­ern­ize the laws,” Murkowski said.

She went on to say that per­haps Wash­ing­ton could pur­sue a two-pronged ap­proach: Con­gress could push le­gis­la­tion on up­dat­ing the na­tion’s en­ergy in­fra­struc­ture, which is out­dated and not equipped to handle the oil and nat­ur­al-gas boom of the past six years, and the ad­min­is­tra­tion could do its part to lift the ban on crude-oil ex­ports.

Since 2008, U.S. oil pro­duc­tion has in­creased 56 per­cent, and crude-oil im­ports have cor­res­pond­ingly fallen to the low­est level since the mid-1990s. In re­sponse to this oil boom, re­finer­ies have been ex­port­ing re­cord amounts of gas­ol­ine, dies­el, and oth­er products re­fined from oil, which do not face the same fed­er­al trade re­stric­tions as crude oil.

One of the biggest — if not the biggest — chal­lenge to chan­ging the law re­strict­ing crude-oil ex­ports will be con­cerns about wheth­er lift­ing the ban would in­crease gas­ol­ine prices, a claim con­sumer ad­voc­ates and some mem­bers of Con­gress, in­clud­ing Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee Chair­man Robert Men­en­dez, D-N.J., and Sen. Ed­ward Mar­key, D-Mass., have made. Murkowski ad­dressed this dir­ectly in one of the most force­ful parts of her speech.

“Op­pon­ents of trade will be quick to as­sert, too of­ten without cit­ing any evid­ence, that ex­ports of crude oil will raise gas­ol­ine prices for Amer­ic­an con­sumers,” Murkowski said in her speech, which was also ac­com­pan­ied by a white pa­per on the top­ic. “This claim is wrong, but it must be dealt with im­me­di­ately and head-on.”

She con­tin­ued: “I have said re­peatedly — and I mean it — that the goal must be to make en­ergy more af­ford­able,” Murkowski said. Chan­ging this policy dur­ing an elec­tion year, when high gas­ol­ine prices can mean the death of any in­cum­bent, is about as dif­fi­cult as a task could get.

“What you need to re­mind Amer­ic­ans, what you need to re­mind mem­bers of Con­gress, is that when you in­crease sup­ply, that ac­tu­ally helps re­duce price,” Murkowski said after her speech.

Charlie Dre­vna, pres­id­ent of the trade group rep­res­ent­ing re­finer­ies, the Amer­ic­an Fuel and Pet­ro­chem­ic­al Man­u­fac­tur­ers, said gas­ol­ine prices prob­ably wouldn’t be af­fected.

“I don’t know what ef­fect it’d have, if any,” Dre­vna said in a re­cent in­ter­view. “It’s go­ing to be set on a glob­al mar­ket.”

Some of Dre­vna’s mem­ber com­pan­ies, in­clud­ing Valero, do not sup­port lift­ing the ban. Dre­vna said his group doesn’t op­pose lift­ing it. Non­ethe­less, a rift is brew­ing with­in the oil in­dustry over how much the policy should change, since re­finer­ies are reap­ing a fin­an­cial wind­fall from the glut of oil in the coun­try.

“They’re go­ing to have to deal with that with­in the in­dustry,” Murkowski said. “From a policy per­spect­ive, it’s good policy, again, to al­low for that level of trade. My in­terest is not to pro­tect the re­finer­ies’ bot­tom line.”

Men­en­dez said Tues­day that he re­mains un­con­vinced that ex­port­ing crude oil is in the na­tion’s in­terest.

“If it doesn’t get used do­mest­ic­ally, then it doesn’t help the con­sumers in this coun­try,” he said in the Cap­it­ol.

“Someone needs to make the con­nec­tion for me — why we should drill but not in­sist that the oil stay here,” Men­en­dez said.

Sen­ate En­ergy and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Com­mit­tee Chair­man Ron Wyden, D-Ore., was less crit­ic­al but didn’t en­dorse the idea either.

“My po­s­i­tion with re­spect to that whole dis­cus­sion is A) I know we are go­ing to have a de­bate on that and B) Mak­ing sure that the bot­tom line is that any­thing done pro­tects the con­sumers’ in­terest,” he told re­port­ers in the Cap­it­ol.

“Cer­tainly there are go­ing to be ques­tions raised about how the con­sumer is go­ing to fare in all this, and that is go­ing to be my fo­cus,” Wyden ad­ded.

Mar­key said he would re­lease re­ports soon that de­scribe how ex­ports would harm the U.S. eco­nomy and se­cur­ity.

“The Amer­ic­an people want our Amer­ic­an re­sources to stay here to be­ne­fit our in­dus­tries, our fam­il­ies, and our se­cur­ity, not sent to China and oth­er com­pet­it­ors,” Mar­key said in a state­ment.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
17 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
18 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×