Washington should lift its decades-old ban on crude-oil exports regardless of some oil companies’ opposition to it because it’s in the country’s national interests, American Petroleum Institute CEO and President Jack Gerard said Tuesday.
Gerard addressed a report by National Journal published Tuesday that a rift was brewing within the industry — between domestic producers and refiners — over whether the ban should be lifted.
Because the ban applies only to crude oil, refiners are bettering their bottom lines by exporting refined oil products at record rates. Some refiners oppose ending the ban. That’s not the case with API’s more than 500 members, Gerard said Tuesday.
“We believe the national interest will overwhelm self-interest,” Gerard said in an interview after his group’s annual luncheon. “There will be some who will articulate self-interest. We don’t believe that’s in the best interest to the nation.”
Gerard was asked if there was unanimity among all API members, including those that are primarily refiners like Marathon Petroleum and Phillips 66 as well as industry giants such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron that both produce and refine oil. “I know our member companies are on the same page,” he said.
In emailed responses to National Journal last week, spokesmen for Marathon and Phillips said they don’t oppose lifting the ban. Another refiner, Valero, said it does not support ending the ban. Valero is not an API member but is part of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a small trade group representing refinery companies whose official position is also supportive of lifting the ban.
Some refiners privately oppose lifting the ban, and others are still figuring out what their official position should be.
Gerard delivered his annual State of the Energy speech at his group’s luncheon Tuesday, and to the surprise of some analysts and attendees, he fell short of calling explicitly for lifting the oil-export ban, which dates back to the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, to be ended. So, was that intentional?
“No, not at all,” Gerard said. “I probably fell short in a lot of areas.”
He had also indicated a couple of months earlier that this wasn’t a top-tier issue for his group, a sign of how quickly things can change in a city where politics usually slow everything down.
“We’re not focused on that primarily in the short-term,” Gerard said in an interview with National Journal in November.
In less than two months, statements by major oil companies and a signal of willingness to revisit the ban by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has thrust the issue to the front burner. A major speech by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, calling for an end to the crude-export ban also gave new energy to the issue.
This has all changed Gerard’s outlook.
“I think the events have overtaken the original thought that [the export ban issue] would gradually roll out over time,” he said.
While the debate has come quickly, action in Congress is likely to be much slower, if it comes at all.
What We're Following See More »
U.S. District Judge William Orrick Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing part of an executive order calling for the end of federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision was followed by a scathing rebuke from the White House, a precedent-breaking activity which with this White House has had no qualms. A White House statement called the decision an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." The statement was followed by an inaccurate Wednesday morning tweetstorm from Trump, which railed against the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Judge Orrick's district falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, Orrick himself does not serve on the Ninth Circuit.
"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."
President Trump on Wednesday "will order a review of national monuments created over the past 20 years with an aim toward rescinding or resizing some of them—part of a broader push to reopen areas to drilling, mining, and other development." Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters on Tuesday said he'd be reviewing about 30 monuments.
"An emerging government funding deal would see Democrats agree to $15 billion in additional military funding in exchange for the GOP agreeing to fund healthcare subsidies, according to two congressional officials briefed on the talks. Facing a Friday deadline to pass a spending bill and avert a shutdown, Democrats are willing to go halfway to President Trump’s initial request of $30 billion in supplemental military funding."
The Michael Flynn story is not going away for the White House as it tries to refocus its attention. The White House has denied requests from the House Oversight Committee for information and documents regarding payments that the former national security adviser received from Russian state television station RT and Russian firms. House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz and ranking member Elijah Cummings also said that Flynn failed to report these payments on his security clearance application. White House legislative director Marc Short argued that the documents requested are either not in the possession of the White House or contain sensitive information he believes is not applicable to the committee's stated investigation.