Lifting crude export ban could add 394,000 jobs...yeah really, it sure can!

what a LOAD of self serving claptrap in a study obviously funded by the very oil producers who are truly the beneficiaries of lifting the export ban. Just like Keystone XL was going to create tens of thousands of jobs (until the construction was complete) then just a couple thousand when done

Lifting crude export ban could add 394,000 jobs

Lifting the 1970’s-era crude export ban could add 394,000 jobs and greatly benefit the US economy says IHS

Written by Kelli Lauletta - March 17th, 2015

The ban on US crude oil exports is exacerbating the challenges of lower oil prices for US tight oil production, creating a “doubly chilling effect” on additional investment, jobs and oil production that would actually lower gasoline prices if the ban were lifted says industry consultancy IHS.

A new study from IHS, “Unleashing the Supply Chain: Assessing the Economic Impact of a US Crude Oil Free Trade Policy” finds that ending the crude oil export ban would benefit the entire US economy. It would generate another 394,000 jobs annually, add US$238 in annual household disposable income, and generate $86 billion more per year in GDP on average from 2016-2030. IHS predicts that increased economic activity would add $1.3 trillion to cumulative government revenues during that period. Additionally, the increased supply of oil on the global market would lower US gasoline prices by an average of $0.08/gal.

The study builds on previous IHS research on the economic impacts related to the 1970s-era ban on exports of US crude. IHS concludes that substantial economic benefits of developing the nation’s oil and gas resources extend beyond the oil producing regions throughout an extensive supply chain that includes every state. Every new oil production job creates three jobs in the supply chain and another six jobs in the broader economy. The export ban—enacted in 1973 in conjunction with now defunct oil price controls—deters additional production, which reverberates in job losses throughout the supply chain and broader economy, the study says.

ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance addressed the export ban at the US Chamber of Commerce earlier this month. He explained that lifting the export ban would enable surplus US light oil that exceeds US refiners’ processing capacity to sell on the world market. This would create additional demand for light oil from the nation’s growing shale producing fields, helping sustain the energy-driven economic stimulation and job creation that has contributed to the rebounding US economy.

IHS points out that the negative effects of the ban are amplified in the current price environment. It creates a supply gridlock that forces US light crude to be sold at a sharp discount since production of that type of crude has outpaced domestic capacity to refine it. During periods of lower oil prices, crude oil production drops even more sharply with each incremental price cut such as those that result from the crude export ban. A US$3/bbl change in a $50/bbl price environment can have the same effect as a $10 change in a $100/bbl environment, the study finds.

[B]The export ban—which keeps domestic crude from trading on the global market—causes US crude prices to be discounted versus international crude. [/B]The study notes that the difference in price between international and domestic crude recently widened, ranging from $7 to $12/bbl over the past month. In its March Short-Term Energy Oulook, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts WTI prices in 2015 and 2016 to average $7/bbl and $5/bbl, respectively, below Brent. The Brent-WTI spread also reflects continuing large builds in US crude oil inventories, including at the Cushing, Oklahoma storage hub.

Kurt Barrow, IHS vice president, downstream energy, said, “The decline in global oil prices provides further need to remove the market distortions created by the ban on US crude oil exports and avoid the additional disruption to investment in oil and gas production and its associated economic benefits and jobs growth. US crude production would be facing the doubly punitive impact of low global oil prices and additional price discounts compared to international crudes. At current prices, the spread between Brent and WTI pricing will be the difference between the viability and non-viability of a great deal of new investment."

IHS concludes that lifting the crude oil export ban would greatly benefit a diverse set of industry sectors that support oil and gas producers. These sectors include steel and nonferrous metals to engines, pumping equipment, construction, professional services and railroads that represent more than a third of the total economic benefits if the export ban was lifted.

I see that Rob’s buddy from Conoco Phillips is the one leading the chorus of jobs, jobs, jobs which means profits, profits, profits when you translate the text from it’s BULLSHIT dialect to plain English! It their world, “discounted domestic oil” means “bad, bad, bad” while higher priced domestic oil means “good, good, good” for the consumer and the economy. How the FUCK does this work and how the FUCK does in mean jobs?

FUCK THESE PEOPLE…THEY ARE CORPORATE SLUGS!

Yeah at the expense of how many mariner jobs to be lost?

Shale oil trades at discount because there is not enough pipeline capacity to handle it. If it had to be transported by train to the coast, the cost of that would cause it to still trade at a large discount to Brent.

It makes more sense to create jobs and boost energy independence by retooling refineries, that are presently set up to process low quality heavy sour crude oil from Venezuela and elsewhere, to instead process more light sweet U.S. shale oil.

We only produce half of what we need each day, but must import the other half. We are eventually going to need all the oil that can be produced right here in the US.

It would be crazy for us to allow crude exports, that will only increase our foreign energy dependence, and piss away the strategic advantage that we enjoy now.

The cure for the present problem is to (a) set a minimum price for US oil at $50, and put an import duty on foreign oil to keep its delivered after tax cost in the US at $60. That sort of stability and predictability would keep oil exploration going, production increasing, support energy independence, increase tax revenue, and create jobs.

Hell no. No exports of US crude.

ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance addressed the export ban at the US Chamber of Commerce earlier this month. He explained that lifting the export ban would enable surplus US light oil that exceeds US refiners’ processing capacity to sell on the world market. This would create additional demand for light oil from the nation’s growing shale producing fields

What he is saying is that instead of his company making an investment in American labor and American hardware to build an American refinery to process American crude, he wants to collect American taxpayer subsidies to sell American natural resources at a discount to foreign interests and make a personal fortune for himself and his political stooges.

The lack of processing capacity he talks about is because he and his ilk don’t make as much money investing in American infrastructure as they do by exporting American jobs and resources.

I would like to export him and all the other parasites who are getting filthy rich by driving more Americans into poverty.

http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/offshore-wind-twice-the-jobs-energy-as-drilling-report