Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on April 27, 2016

Bookmark and Share

Is the US so energy independent we should export crude oil?

Public Policy

[ This is one of several House of Representative sessions discussing energy independence and whether to revoke the energy policy and conservation act of 1975 ban on crude oil export.

The only time so far I have ever seen a cautionary note about the reality of energy independence so far is in this session, in which Rep Bobby L. Rush of Illinois inserts Mason Inman’s “The Fracking Fallacy”, though Rush never brings this evidence up in the hearing.  A Nature editorial describes the findings as: “The EIA projects that production will rise by more than 50% over the next quarter of a century, and perhaps beyond, with shale formations supplying much of that increase. But such optimism contrasts with forecasts developed by a team of specialists at the University of Texas, which projects that gas production from four of the most productive formations will peak in the coming years and then quickly decline. If that pattern holds for other formations that the team has not yet analyzed, it could mean much less natural gas in the United States’ future.” 

Alice Friedemann   www.energyskeptic.com  author of “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation, 2015, Springer]

House 113-187. December 11, 2014. The energy policy and conservation act of 1975: Are we positioning America for success in an era of energy abundance? U.S. House of Representatives. 118 pages.

Excerpts follow:

ED WHITFIELD, KENTUCKY.   This morning’s hearing we are going to be focused on the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which prohibited the export of crude oil. But as we all know, the trends behind the oil export restrictions have dramatically reversed themselves in recent years. Thanks to advances in hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling, domestic oil production has been sharply rising.  In fact, America may soon be producing more oil than it can handle. We will conduct a thorough analysis and give all points of view the opportunity to be heard before we consider whether to take action [to allow the export of crude oil].

JOE BARTON, TEXASI would hope in the new Congress we take a look at the bill that I have introduced this week, H.R. 5814 which repeals the ban on crude oil exports, and it requires a study reported to this committee of what we do with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is a different world today, Mr. Chairman, and when you are number one you use that status. If we allow our producers to export the crude oil that can’t be consumed here in the United States or refined here in the United States, we put pressure on OPEC, we put pressure on Russia, we create jobs here at home, and we make sure that that world price which sets the crude oil price is based on real supply and demand, and that is a good thing for everybody.  [H.R. 5814 was not enacted]

LUCIAN PUGLIARESI, President, Energy Policy Research Foundation, Inc.  We want to make the distribution of crude oil efficient. That is why we need Keystone. We want to have good regulations. We want to open up the Federal lands a lot more. You know, all this production we have seen has come from Federal lands.

Traditionally, conventional oil had a very modest decline rate, maybe 5 percent, and a pretty high recovery factor, as much as 50 percent. What I don’t think we understand is that, even though we have this very high decline rate in these unconventional resources we have now, but we have to keep drilling, our recovery factor is quite small. Small improvements in this recovery factor are going to make a big difference. That is why we want—you know, we want to see this technology continue to progress.

Deborah Gordon, Director, Energy and Climate Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  The bottom line is that oils are changing and a more complex array of hydrocarbon resource is replacing conventional oil.  The truth is we know precious little about these new resources. The Nation needs reliable, consistent, detailed, open-source data about composition and operational elements of U.S. oils. Significant information gaps have accompanied the Nation’s oil—increased oil production.

Several EPCA provisions merit careful review and consideration and possible updating: One, widely expanding oil data collection, making this information publicly available; two, increasing the heavy-duty vehicle efficiency standards for trucks and marine vessels that move the oil and petroleum product that we are trying to consume less of at home; and, three, revisiting oil accounting practices so that the SEC is fully informed about oils that are on tap to bolster U.S. markets.

Do policymakers and the public have sufficient information about America’s oil? Unfortunately, they do not. Ironically, there is more detailed open-source data about OPEC crudes than the oils in the Bakken, Permian, and Eagle Ford. In seeking to obtain and verify these needed oil data, we have encountered several obstacles, from data inconsistencies, to withheld data, to Government limitations on expanding oil reporting.

There are so many reasons why the information is not there. The first reason is that the light tight oils are the newest kid on the block

Another one, having met with DOE, is that apparently the Energy Department can’t really collect data on oil freely. It turns out OMB—and I was kind of flabbergasted when I learned this— but OMB says this is duplication of effort. Industry submits data on oil. DOE doesn’t set reporting requirements for oil. Although, when you read EPCA, there is room for this to happen. It just hasn’t really evolved that way. So DOE is actually only getting the information that industry wants to report out. These are new oils; there is less information reported out. One of our partners tried to purchase data owned by big oil consultancies, and after negotiating about a year and hundreds of thousands of dollars, they were told the data wasn’t for sale because it is competitive. They don’t want the academic sector to compete with the consulting sector. So there a lot of concerns when it comes to oil data, especially as now more oils are out there.

What are the environmental risks these new oils pose?  There are several categories of higher emissions from oils. These include gassy oils, like the Bakken or Nigeria, where gas associated with oil is flared or burned instead of separated and sold; heavy oils, those that use more heat, steam, hydrogen through their value chains to yield more bottom-of-the-barrel products like petroleum coke, a coal substitute; watery oils, which are interesting, like those in California’s San Joaquin Valley where it takes a tremendous amount of energy to lift as much as 50 barrels of water for every one barrel of oil that you produce; and extreme oils like those in the Gulf of Mexico that are miles below the surface or those in the boreal peat bogs in Alberta, where carbon is naturally sequestered.

The heavier oils, don’t preferentially make more gasoline. They make more diesel.

The oil market is one of the least efficient markets. There are so many reasons: barriers to entry, barriers to exit, not enough information, externalities. There is far more efficiency in peach markets than in oil markets.

We have new oils, new conditions, and then we have huge growth in China in terms of demand that is sporadic. It is not going to be red hot consistently. It is a market. And so we do tend to talk about oil at a moment in time, maybe because it is sold on every corner, that it is as if this is the condition that exists for all time. But the reality is it is very dynamic and we could easily return with risks, differential risks, different consumption patterns. Even in America, we are selling a lot more SUVs right now. They are up tremendously.

John A. Yarmuth, KentuckyWhile everything looks wonderful right now with an abundance of oil and petroleum in the world and prices down, that would seem to mitigate against worrying about a crisis. But isn’t it entirely possible that we could return to a 1970s situation? I was a staffer here in the 1970s and remember those lines as well. So would it not be useful to have at least some contingency measure for an international outbreak or a war, terrorism, whatever it may be, that we have some way to protect our domestic supply in case of an emergency?

LOIS CAPPS, CALIFORNIA. This lack of transparency is very concerning not just for our assessment of oil export policy but for conducting proper oversight of the industry in general. If the industry is asking us to lift the export ban, I believe they need to provide the information that is so clearly needed to properly assess the very policy that they asking us to expand upon.

Ms. GORDON. Certainly taking the sulfur out will be fantastic for health and for the environment. But a bigger question with the heavier oils is petroleum coke and what happens with the very bottom of the barrels. So when you put coking capacity into these refineries, you basically remove the middle of the barrel and you end up with a lot more gasoline and diesel, which is good for profit, and then a lot more of a solid substance, called petroleum coke. And we are also exporting that. The U.S. has increased its petroleum coke exports to China 70-fold in the last several years. It is a coal substitute, and it is worse than coal in terms of emissions.

Petroleum coke is the bottom of the barrel after all the liquids from the heavy oil are wrung out in every refining process, but in very small amounts. Though with heavy oils, you have a lot of petroleum coke, a high-carbon bottom- of-the-barrel product. And so, when you put in coking capacity that actually cleaves these molecules, you get more liquids out, which is good, but then you get more solids out of your refinery. Petroleum coke is a solid fuel. If it is a very, very high-quality petroleum coke, which goes into steel and glass and ceramic manufacture. If it is a low-quality coke, high in sulfur, high in heavy metals— this is what comes out of the oil production process—that goes into power production and steam, and then you are basically burning coal. It has about 10 percent higher greenhouse gas emissions than coal and higher nickel, vanadium, sulfur, than some of the worst coals. So when coal is priced high, as it had been recently and before we were exporting a lot of our coal, China wanted petroleum coke because it was an economic benefit for them to burn coke instead of coal. Now prices of coal are low. And so coke is a little bit out of favor. And, if you remember, there was a news release in Detroit about a pile of petroleum coke that got a lot of attention in the press. It is very—it is black. It is voluminous. They are spreading it in Alberta over miles because they can’t export it. So it ends up being a problem. Canada wants to send America the heavy oil so that we can export the petroleum coke since we are closer to ports of call.

Prices have come down so petcoke is really priced to sell. It is very hard to get data on petcoke. It is not traded publicly, but person to person, company to company. Since it is a byproduct of refining and no one really wants to make petcoke, it builds up and you have to get rid of it.  Refiners want to get a lot of money for it. But, if they can’t, they still have to put it into the market. So the price is relatively volatile.

There are definitely things you could do with the fuel-grade petroleum coke. You could take heavy metals and the sulfur out and make it actually a beneficial industrial byproduct, but it is going to cost money to do that.

You have to look at the geopolitics and the kinds of oil that we would be exporting.  The light tight oil has backed Nigerian imports out of the U.S. As we produce more of that oil, we are importing no oil from Nigeria, and that has a geopolitical impact  on Nigeria. I think even though oil is not being used at all as a weapon, it ends up being something that can counteract the peacekeeping and the other efforts that we have in these very fragile nations around the world.

I think that Russia is reeling from the price of oil. It is not our exports that are changing what is going on in Russia right now. It is $60 a barrel oil that is changing what is going on in Russia

The problem we have is twofold. We have had many impassioned proposals to do something to help Ukraine with the Russian crisis and other geopolitical events. But the reality is that our oil and gas are owned by private companies, and they are likely to ship the oil or gas to where the market gives them the greatest profit. Right now,  it is assumed that the market for LNG primarily would be in the Far East, because the premiums there have been much higher than those in Europe. Though now we have LNG prices crashing in Asia to such low levels it is questionable whether we can deliver LNG into those markets competitively. By the time we actually have LNG ready to go, outside contracts have already been signed. Geopolitically, I think the issue of exports is extremely important. Our allies in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are very desirous to have energy from the United States because they see an increasingly bellicose China threatening sea lanes which all of their energy imports come from, not only oil and gas but also coal. I think it does improve our diplomatic status to the extent that we send energy there, but again, these are going to be commercial choices made by the companies that own that oil and gas.

Global production is not site specific anymore and this is also going to happen in refining. The country that added more refining capacity to the world market than any other last year was Saudi Arabia. And China is also adding refining capacity.  Demand growth is happening in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, Asia.  So the whole market is really shifting somewhat. I don’t think you can really draw a circle around North America very easily in this market.

There is certainly some transparency in the market. But I think the best example of why there isn’t enough information in the market is the explosiveness of the rail cars taking Bakken oil. The market really didn’t know the composition of that oil, and the equipment wasn’t really designed to deal with that oil. So I think that we are seeing physical manifestations of the fact that there isn’t enough transparency in this market

Energy Skeptic



40 Comments on "Is the US so energy independent we should export crude oil?"

  1. makati1 on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 7:23 am 

    Hahahahahahahahahahah. That headline made me laugh. The article is a waste of time.

  2. geopressure on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 8:30 am 

    Get ready… You will be reading more & more about US Exports this year as oil prices climb… That way the higher gasoline prices can be blamed on the Republicans in Congress…

    It is known… I got that idea from the Rockman, the first post I ever read on this website…

  3. paulo1 on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 8:46 am 

    I only made it through the headline, so that is what I will address.

    No.

  4. Dredd on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 10:15 am 

    If there is a choice between crude and not-so-crude … oh never mind … it is all crude.

    Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.” –Butch Hancock

  5. shortonoil on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 10:19 am 

    The US is still 7.9 mb/d a day short of being a net oil exporter. That is the amount of oil it is still importing, while much of its own production of LTO goes to a storage area somewhere around Cushing. LTO’s low quality, and high variability make it a much less attractive input to refineries than imported crude. That is a situation that is not going to change.

    World crude inventories are still growing, and as we have been saying, the energy analysis (which is the only one that ultimately has merit) clearly shows that is also a situation which will not be changing. It was high inventories that originally depressed prices in 2014, and it is high, and growing inventories that will continue to keep those prices down.

    The world will never again be able to consume all the oil that is produced. Long term, prices will continue to decline until no one can make money producing oil; at that point they will stop!

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

  6. Plantagenet on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 11:44 am 

    This is a done deal. In 2015 Obama signed the law legalizing US oil exports, i.e. the export of US oil is part of Obama’s energy policy. Obama has long supported the export of all sorts of US energy commodities. Under Obama US coal exports rose to record levels, and Obama has also approved the construction of several huge LNG terminals to export natural gas as well—the first LNG tanker filled with US gas sailed to Europe earlier this year.

    Cheers!

  7. PracticalMaina on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 12:04 pm 

    Exactly, Obama was pro fossil fuels, go tell the people of Wyoming that, many wont believe you, and despite of all of the opportunities he tried to open up, stupid, idiotic greedy management was able to build huge piles of debt all while cashing their bonus checks. Now we have to deal with the consequences of these primarily republican CEOs idiotic actions.

  8. Boat on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 12:23 pm 

    short,

    Your only off 2.3 mbbp/d after exports. Net imports are 5.76.

  9. Boat on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 12:33 pm 

    short,

    “The world will never again be able to consume all the oil that is produced. Long term, prices will continue to decline until no one can make money producing oil; at that point they will stop!”

    That argument would water if world consumption didn’t keep growing over 1 mbp/d. An annoying little stat you don’t mention.

  10. Plantagenet on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 12:38 pm 

    @PracticalMaina

    Are you suggesting that Obama is anti-fossil fuels? If so, then please explain why he has approved exporting US oil and natural gas? Why did the Obama administration grant waivers to US oil companies to export oil even before obama signed the law in 2015 allowing oil exports? Why did the US “fast-track” construction of LNG terminals and why why are we now exporting NG? Why did the US export 70 million tons of coal in 2015, with much of it going to China and India—two of of the most polluted countries on earth and both major CO2 producers from burning…….US coal.

    None of that sounds like an anti-fossil fuel policy to me.

    CHeers!

  11. PracticalMaina on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 12:44 pm 

    no the exact opposite, I am mocking the republican establishment lie. It is pretty obvious for anyone interested in looking. I am saying it was the idiotic suicidal greedy executives, who are primarily republicans, that have driven companies like Peabody and Chesapeake into the ground, all while fucking over workers and the environment and taking bonuses. Counting on growing coal consumption, in a developing nation where over a million die annually due to coal use, or giving bonuses based on production to your executives, when el nino and global warming have destroyed winter heating demand is beyond idiotic. If I held their stocks I would be looking into a class action.

  12. HARM on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 12:55 pm 

    Terrific post. Starts out with headline/premise that could be disproven instantly by simply comparing U.S. production to consumption (we’re still using more than we produce, even with fracking added to the mix), then goes on to quote irrelevant blathering of “Sloppy Joe” Barton (R, TX). The very same guy who sobbed apologetically in front of his boyfriend, Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, during the Macondo hearings. He may as well given old Tony a blowjob right then and there –hence his nickname.

  13. energyskeptic on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 1:08 pm 

    The point is that just as economists are crazy for ignoring biophysical realities, now U.S. House and Senate leaders are crazy to think that we have achieved “energy independence”. They spin this nonsense as a way to help our allies (i.e. Europe) to not have to depend on Russia or the Middle East, but I can’t help wonder if it isn’t driven by oil and gas billionaire donors to their campaigns who want to make more money exporting crude oil than they do now pushing mainly Republican leaders in this direction. It’s also alarming that there’s no attempt to invite speakers who won’t tell them what they want to hear.

    It’s also interesting for the historical record to see, after the exponential decline rate grows high enough that even a financial depression can’t hide it, who are the political and economic leaders who said we had achieved energy independence.

  14. Plantagenet on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 1:09 pm 

    @Maina

    Oh….so you think the Ds are good guys and the Rs are the bad guys.

    That might sense except for the fact that (1) some oil companies are owned by Ds and many oilfield workers are Ds and Ds in Congress from energy states are just as supportive of the energy Biz as Rs in Congress from energy states, and (2) Obama’s is a Ds and his policies have been very supportive of producing more oil, gas, and coal, and very supportive of the US exporting these energy supplies, which by the way is the subject of this thread.

    Cheers!

  15. peakyeast on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 1:10 pm 

    It sounds like a GREAT idea. If the US starts being a net exporter of oil there is some reason to be happy since it will indirectly incur a massive cut in US international terrorism – or a profound cut in spending and consumption of the populace.

    Both a boon to the rest of the world.

  16. Plantagenet on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 1:17 pm 

    @peakyeast

    The Obama administration doesn’t envision the US being a NET exporter of oil. Their plan is for energy rich regions like Texas to be free to export oil and gas overseas, while energy poor regions like New England can buy oil and gas either from Texas or the Saudis or whoever.

    Obama’s 2015 law legalizing US exports says nothing about the US being a NET exporter—it simply repealed the existing law that banned US oil exports altogether. Obama had previously issued several waivers allowing oil exports before the 2015 law, so he clearly wants more US oil exports.

    Cheers!

  17. peakyeast on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 1:24 pm 

    @plant: I just put in an extra condition to make the export meaningful and not just shuffling things a little around within the US.

  18. PracticalMaina on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 1:27 pm 

    No my point was republicans are often shitty business people who screw up an industry, while lining their pockets, then need a bail out. Then the Koch brothers step in and trumpet lies to try to make things look unfair. I am very critical of Obama and the democratic establishment. He is very supportive of exports, but as Rockman pointed out, nothing has really changed when it comes to the US exporting oil. He has done everything possible to support fracking, including backing the EPA off after his second election.

  19. wratfink on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 2:10 pm 

    Actually a pretty good article. It brings up certain questions such as the makeup of tight oil and it’s depletion rates.

    I am of the opinion that Bakken LTO is not composed of the long chain molecules that US refiners want and need. The producers need to sell it somewhere and, while they can export it now with minimal refining, it is much easier for them to ship it as is. More profit, less expense.

    Are these legislators purposely blind to facts or are they paid off to look the other way? Silly question.

  20. shortonoil on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 2:15 pm 

    “That argument would water if world consumption didn’t keep growing over 1 mbp/d. An annoying little stat you don’t mention.”

    Between 2005 and 2014 the world production of crude + condensate grew by an average of 0.317 mb/d/yr, or 0.430% per year. Now – how exactly did consumption grow by 1 mb/d per year when production only grew by 0.317.

    Guess we will have to fire the EIA because Boat says that they are wrong? It’s a good thing that you are here to keep everyone straight! Consumption now includes “beer”!

  21. PracticalMaina on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 2:40 pm 

    Short, beer might not even be able to keep up the charade. Or at least decent beer…http://time.com/money/4288681/hops-shortage-craft-beer/
    I believe alternatives can maintain some low level of comfort on a small scale, but without good hoppy beer, I don’t even want to think of it.

  22. Boat on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 2:47 pm 

    short,

    Try the latest information short. 1.3 for 2015. You little cherry number picking phd. Lol High school grad like me making a phd look like a politician. shame, shame.

    Global Petroleum and Other Liquids Consumption
    EIA estimates that global consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels grew by 1.3 million b/d in 2015, averaging 93.7 million b/d. EIA expects global consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels to grow by 1.2 million b/d in 2016 and by 1.3 million b/d in 2017. Real gross domestic product (GDP) for the world (weighted by oil consumption), which increased by 2.4% in 2015, is expected to rise by 2.3% in 2016 and by 3.0% in 2017.

    https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

  23. Comic Relief on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 2:50 pm 

    “That argument would water if world consumption didn’t keep growing over 1 mbp/d. An annoying little stat you don’t mention.”

    BOAT, there you go again displaying your ignorance for all to see. They are consuming more boxes of chocolates (barrels of oil) because there are fewer chocolates in the box (BTU’s of energy in each barrel) because the workers are eating more of the chocolates for their own energy (EROI).

    Peak oil is way behind us. More barrels of oil are produced but more are not being consumed in economies for growth. Internal consumption by the producers and the growing consumption to produce and market, refine the remainder increases. I hope that is simple enough. Venezuela would be a good study for you.

  24. PracticalMaina on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 3:00 pm 

    Boat 2016 and 2017 projections are pretty damn optimistic, considering they are calling for a huge drop in non opec output. They are assuming there will be a continued market share battle and that there will be more stability. I think this summers domestic demand in the KSA and Iran may make the market share fight much less relevant.

  25. PracticalMaina on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 3:02 pm 

    Also, assuming that there will be stability in oil producing nations around the world for the next 2 years is a long shot if you look at the last 15 years or so.

  26. Boat on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 5:12 pm 

    comic,

    “BOAT, there you go again displaying your ignorance for all to see. They are consuming more boxes of chocolates (barrels of oil) because there are fewer chocolates in the box (BTU’s of energy in each barrel) because the workers are eating more of the chocolates for their own energy (EROI)”

    Venezuela produces oil that has always been like sludge, what has changed. They also get docked and receive less money for their product.

  27. Comic Relief on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 5:21 pm 

    If you don’t know what has changed you don’t belong commenting here.

  28. Boat on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 5:27 pm 

    Practical,

    What instability are you talking about. The world is in a glut.

    “Boat 2016 and 2017 projections are pretty damn optimistic, considering they are calling for a huge drop in non opec output.”

    Who is they. The eia still predicts a glut into 2017.

  29. GregT on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 5:33 pm 

    “You little cherry number picking phd. Lol High school grad like me making a phd look like a politician. shame, shame.”

    If you graduated from high school Boat, there was something seriously wrong with the curriculum. Your english skills wouldn’t have allowed you to pass 5th grade around these parts.

    I call bullshit on that one.

  30. Boat on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 5:34 pm 

    comic,

    I think your lack of oil and refining knowledge shows. Your like the twin brother of o’l yellow two tooth gregt. Eh?

  31. GregT on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 6:00 pm 

    “I think your lack of oil and refining knowledge shows.”

    That’s hilarious. You have proven without a shadow of a reasonable doubt, to people everywhere around the world who read this forum, that you’re not capable of thinking.

    At least not rationally. You’re a few bricks short of a load Kevin. Even most really stupid people would know when to stop putting their feet into their mouths. You are on an entirely

    different level of dumbness.

  32. Practicalmaina on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 6:21 pm 

    The IEA predicts a large drop in non opec output in 2016. They have 2016 world supply down.https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/

  33. Boat on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 6:56 pm 

    Practicalmaina

    That is the first eia report I’ve seen that has the glut growth down to 200,000 bpd for the last 2 qtrs.

    The million dollar question, where did the 1.3 mbpd missing barrels of the glut go.

  34. GregT on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 7:08 pm 

    “That is the first eia report I’ve seen that has the glut growth down to 200,000 bpd for the last 2 qtrs.”

    Apparently your reading comprehension isn’t much better.

  35. Apneaman on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 7:11 pm 

    Old McBoaty had a report

    EI EI A

    And with that report he made shit up

    EI EI A

    With a math error here and a math error there

    EI EI A

    Old McBoaty had a report

    EI EI A………………….

  36. Apneaman on Wed, 27th Apr 2016 7:14 pm 

    Old McBoaty had a report

    EI EI A

    And with that report he made shit up

    EI EI A

    With a math error here and a math error there

    Here an error there an error everywhere an error

    EI EI A

    Old McBoaty had a report

    EI EI A………………….

  37. Harquebus on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 3:10 am 

    If it ain’t sold on the oil market then, it ain’t oil. It’s other stuff used to make production figures appear better than they really are.

  38. rockman on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 6:59 am 

    “This is a done deal. In 2015 Obama signed the law legalizing US oil exports”. It’s really amazing how some folks continue with the lies…lies that they have been shown to not only be untrue but so easily proven as bullshit. They aren’t just ignorant but really are liars since the facts have been posted here many times and are known. Don’t take the Rockman’s word for it…here’s the govt’s numbers:

    https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrexus1&f=a

    And again notice on that chart the huger surge in oil exports happened before the “ban” was eliminated.

    The US has exported well over 1 BILLION BBLS OF OIL since the ban law was signed. In fact the year after that bill was signed more oil was exported then the year before the “ban” was put in place. In 2015, the year before President Obama “signed the law legalizing US oil exports” the US exported 167 MILLION BBLS OF OIL according to the EIA. But even that doesn’t truly capture the reality of the situation: the US is currently exporting refinery production made from almost 1 BILLION BBLS OF US OIL PER YEAR right now. So ask yourself a simple question: is there any difference to the consumer if 1 billion bbls of oil per year is exported or if the refinery products from that oil are exported? In 3ither case the US consumers are denied that energy.

    It’s really funny: just sit back and watch how some will completely ignore the FACTS as they try to spin their preferred flavor of bullsh*t. LOL.

  39. rockman on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 8:12 am 

    And to be more precise I just took the time to add up the govt numbers: since the “oil export ban” law took effect the US has exported 1.757 BILLION BBLS OF OIL. And this is OIL…not REFINED PRODUCTS. According to the govt numbers since 1981(when the feds started keeping track) the US has exported 14 BILLION BBLS of refinery products. (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mtpexus2&f=a)

    So again let’s just sit back and chuckle silently as some folks go on about the changing dynamics now that US companies can finally export oil. LOL

  40. Kenz300 on Fri, 29th Apr 2016 9:26 pm 

    The fossil fuel industry will slowly fade away……..

    U.S. Coal Use Falls 29 Percent

    http://ecowatch.com/2016/04/29/coal-use-falls-29-percent/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *