Watching Government: A deal to allow oil exports?

It was hardly surprising that US senators quietly started to discuss ending the 40-year-old ban on exporting domestically produced crude oil in exchange for extending renewable and alternative energy research tax credits.

This was the group, after all, that developed a 5-year federal highway repair authorization bill partly paid for by raids on completely unrelated entities, including sales of crude oil from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The same week that the US House passed its second bill that would end the crude export ban, lawmakers on the other side of the Capitol reportedly began to wonder if the Senate's Democratic leadership might consider taking up such legislation if it included a provision to revive expired so-called clean energy tax credits.

Environmental organizations were not pleased. In a Dec. 4 release, the Sierra Club cited three of the same studies crude export proponents use in predicting that domestic production could grow by as much as 3.3 million b/d between now and 2025 if more overseas sales were allowed.

Sierra Club said this would create "carbon pollution equivalent to the annual emissions of 135 coal-fired power plants and threaten our communities with increased transportation of volatile crude oil and the disastrous spills and explosions that too often come with it.

"Lifting the ban would lock in additional development of the fuels of the past for years to come here in the US, as well as keeping other nations from developing alternatives to fossil fuels," it continued. "At this critical time of international climate negotiations, we can't afford to undermine US climate leadership."

Meanwhile, Oil Change International said, "Although the crude oil export ban was never designed as a climate protection measure, it currently functions as an important limiting factor on an industry that has already increased production by 75% since 2008," adding, "Encouraging more oil production is precisely the wrong policy signal to be sending."

'Particularly untenable'

Eighteen environmental groups urged Senate members in a Dec. 1 letter to resist making a deal. "Specifically, suggestions that include extending clean energy tax incentives in exchange for lifting the ban are particularly untenable," they stated.

Producers for American Crude Oil Exports (PACE) found the letter long on rhetoric, but short on facts. "[It stands] at odds with a growing consensus of independent research and government analysis, editorial boards, thought leaders, and think tanks from across the political spectrum-all of which point to significant benefits for US consumers, our economy, and America's geopolitical standing in the world from removing the ban," PACE said.

It would be ironic if political expediency finally helped end the US crude export ban. But it wouldn't be surprising.