Crude Oil Exports - Binning the Ban

5
Crude Oil Exports : binning the ban INTRODUCED to help enforce price controls in the fuelhungry 1970s, America’s ban on crudeoil exports was all but forgotten when the economy boomed and imports soared. Now it is in the news again. It keeps American crude, measured by the West Texas Intermediate benchmark, around $10 below the world price (see chart). Cash strapped oilmen would like to sell their product abroad—just like any other industry—and are lobbying to lift the ban. A study by IHS, a consultancy, says that free trade in crude would boost output, investment, jobs, pay, profits and tax revenues—and GDP by $86 billion. It would not raise petrol prices: these are set in the (freely traded) world market. Most likely they would fall a bit. But politicians are fearful. Sooner or later, the petrol price will go up again— and anyone who voted to allow precious hydrocarbons to be sold to foreigners will be in the firing line. Supporters of the ban argue that it not only keeps prices low. It protects jobs, and also helps national security, by promoting selfsufficiency. Some of these arguments are contradictory. At a Senate hearing last week Jeffrey Warmann of Monroe Energy, speaking on behalf of a lobby group called the CRUDE Coalition, argued that the export ban kept the Reading collection adapted from

description

Crude Oil article and lesson

Transcript of Crude Oil Exports - Binning the Ban

Page 1: Crude Oil Exports - Binning the Ban

   

 Crude  Oil  Exports  :  binning  the  ban    

INTRODUCED   to   help   enforce   price   controls  

in   the   fuel-­‐hungry   1970s,   America’s  ban   on  

crude-­‐oil  exports  was  all  but  forgotten  when  

the   economy   boomed   and   imports   soared.  

Now   it   is   in   the   news   again.   It   keeps  

American   crude,   measured   by   the   West  

Texas   Intermediate   benchmark,   around   $10  

below   the   world   price   (see   chart).   Cash-­‐

strapped  oilmen  would  like  to  sell  their  product  abroad—just  like  any  other  industry—and  are  lobbying  to  

lift  the  ban.  A  study  by  IHS,  a  consultancy,  says  that  free  trade  in  crude  would  boost  output,   investment,  

jobs,  pay,  profits  and  tax  revenues—and  GDP  by  $86  billion.  It  would  not  raise  petrol  prices:  these  are  set  in  

the  (freely  traded)  world  market.  Most  likely  they  would  fall  a  bit.  

But   politicians   are   fearful.   Sooner   or  

later,  the  petrol  price  will  go  up  again—

and  anyone  who  voted  to  allow  precious  

hydrocarbons   to   be   sold   to   foreigners  

will   be   in   the   firing   line.   Supporters   of  

the   ban   argue   that   it   not   only   keeps  

prices   low.   It   protects   jobs,   and   also  

helps   national   security,   by   promoting  

self-­‐sufficiency.  

Some   of   these   arguments   are  

contradictory.   At   a   Senate   hearing   last  

week   Jeffrey   Warmann   of   Monroe  

Energy,   speaking   on   behalf   of   a   lobby  

group   called   the   CRUDE   Coalition,  

argued   that   the   export   ban   kept   the  

Reading  collection  adapted  from    

 

Page 2: Crude Oil Exports - Binning the Ban

petrol  price  low.  He  also  said  exports  would  mean  “petroleum  products  refined  in  Europe  but  derived  from  

American  crude  returning  to  our  shores”—but  that  would  happen  only  if  those  products  were  competitive,  

and  consumers  wanted  them.  

It  is  also  hard  to  argue  that  the  ban  boosts  economic  security.  It  undermines  America’s  moral  authority  at  

the  World  Trade  Organisation,  where  the  administration  berates  China,  for  example,  for   imposing  export  

bans  on  scarce  minerals.  American  crude-­‐oil  exports  would  also  hurt  hostile  petrostates  such  as  Russia  and  

Iran.  

The  mood  may  be  shifting  against  the  ban.  Some  refiners  would  be  sorry  to  lose  their  artificially  cheap  raw  

materials.  But  they  would  accept  instead  what  they  call  a  “comprehensive”  policy,  meaning  laxer  rules  on  

renewable  fuels,  and  a  change  in  the  Jones  Act.  This  is  an  even  more  archaic  law,  which  bans  foreign  ships  

from  carrying  cargo  between  American  ports.  It  delights  ship-­‐owners  and  unions,  but  imposes  a  hefty  cost  

on  anyone  wanting  to  send  a  tanker  from,  say,  a  refinery  on  the  Gulf  coast  to  a  port  in  the  northeast.  

Politics  may  trump  logic.  The  administration  supports  lifting  the  ban,  and  so  do  many  in  Congress.  But  each  

wants   the   other   to   take   the   lead.   And   Republicans   are   chary   of   almost   anything   done   by   the   executive  

branch,  such  as  new  rules  announced  last  week  to  restrict  fracking  on  federal  land.  Nonetheless,  the  mood  

at  the  Senate  hearing  gave  freetraders  grounds  for  optimism.  “They  were  asking  questions  and  listening  to  

the  arguments,”  says  a  jaded  observer,  sounding  rather  surprised.  

   

Page 3: Crude Oil Exports - Binning the Ban

a) Vocabulary  Work  :    

For  each  of  the  following    either  explain  the  following  in  your  own  words  or  give  a  synonym  

or  write  a  sentence  using  the  word  in  context  

   

1. ban  

2. boomed  

3. soared  

4. Cash-­‐strapped  

5. Lobbying  

6. in  the  firing  line  

7. berates  

8. scarce  

9. mood  

10. laxer  

11. hefty  

12. tanker  

13. trump  

14. fracking  

15. jaded  

     

Page 4: Crude Oil Exports - Binning the Ban

b)  Written  Work  :  Summary  

Write   a   summary   of   this   article   and   provide   your   reaction   or   connect   the   issue   to   a   larger,  

relevant  context.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Page 5: Crude Oil Exports - Binning the Ban

c)  Listening  Work  :  MP3    

Listen  to  the  article  using  the  MP3  provided  and  read  at  the  same  time.  

Try  to  pronounce  the  vocabulary  as  you  read.