Will the United States Really Export Oil? Here's What You Need to Know

Photo credit: Flickr/rabiem22.

Move over, OPEC: There might be a new oil export giant in town. Explosive oil production growth is expected to push the U.S. past both Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's largest oil producer next year. As a result, American oil producers such as ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM  ) and Continental Resources are pushing for the U.S. to lift its decades-old ban on oil exports.

Is this a crazy idea or just the free markets at work? Fools Matt DiLallo and Tyler Crowe debate.

Matt's case: crazy idea
I'm a free-market guy. Exporting our excess makes sense in most cases. That's why I support limited exports of natural gas. But oil is different. We don't have a 100-year supply of oil as we do with natural gas. We have maybe one decade of shale-fueled growth, and then the expectations are that production will start declining again. That's why exporting oil just doesn't sound like a brilliant idea to me. We've fought so hard to secure our access to oil over the years that it doesn't make sense now to just sell it to the highest bidder.

That's why I agree with top oil refiner Valero (NYSE: VLO  ) that we shouldn't relax the decades-old law that has banned oil exports. Now, I know Valero's hands aren't exactly clean in this debate, as it refines oil and then exports the gasoline and diesel abroad. It wants to protect its profits. However, there is more value to the U.S. economy to export a value-added product like gasoline than a basic commodity like oil. In fact, according to America's Energy Advantage, for every $1 of final sales of U.S. manufactured products, we receive $1.34 in output from other sectors of the economy. I don't think we should sell that advantage.

Further, exports could put our country at risk to future oil spikes. Right now, U.S. benchmark crude oil trades at about a $15-per-barrel discount to globally benchmarked Brent prices. If our oil traded in-line with Brent, it would make us all that more susceptible to future supply shocks if, say, OPEC wanted to play dirty or if the Middle East started heating up again. It's a risk that's not worth taking, in my opinion.

Tyler's case: Free markets at work
If we were really that worried about the United States' ability to secure a long-term oil supply, then why are we already exporting 3.6 million barrels per day of refined products? I can understand Valero's argument that selling refined products has more added value than selling crude itself. In reality, though, selling all of our excess supply as refined products isn't possible based on the path we're heading toward. Here's why.

Crude production in the U.S. is expected to grow by 1.3 million barrels per day this year alone, and another 750,000 barrels per day in 2015. Also, the type of crude we're getting from shale oil is extremely light crude. Refiners here in the U.S. are simply not configured to process this much light crude, and production of this crude type will far outstrip our ability to refine it. Analysts at Citigroup anticipate we have another 700,000 barrels per day of light crude capacity before the entire system gets flooded with too much crude. So sometime in 2014 we will have more than we can handle.

If we were to let current policies stand, then we would see a bottleneck of our energy infrastructure, which would most likely lead to a steep drop in domestic oil prices. This is why Valero is lobbying for it: The company could make a killing! Valero gets to buy crude at extremely depressed prices and then turn around and export the refined product for more than it can get in the domestic market. No wonder the company wants to increase its export capacity to more than 400,000 barrels per day. The downside is that it would make several unconventional shale plays uneconomical, and exploration and production companies would suffer greatly while refiners like Valero take in a disproportionate amount of profits from the oil boom. 

I wouldn't go so far as to say "open the flood gates" and allow for indiscriminate exports of crude, because that would then be detrimental to refiners and domestic consumers. Also, if refiners were spending tens of billions to increase their light, sweet crude capacity right now, then I might be a little more hesitant to export, but they simply aren't doing that. I think that taking a measured approach to exporting crude, much like how we have looked at LNG exports, is the best path forward for everyone involved.

Investor takeaway
As with any debate, both sides have merit. If we don't export our excess oil production, we could be faced with a glut of oil that could put a quick end to the U.S. oil boom that has been a key to fueling our economic recovery. On the other hand, lower oil prices would also push gas prices lower, which is an economic booster in and of itself. Clearly, we need a solution that works for everyone involved.

One company making OPEC's worst nightmare a reality
In an exclusive, brand-new Motley Fool report we reveal the company we're calling OPEC's Worst Nightmare. Just click here to uncover the name of this industry-leading stock.


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (4)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On January 13, 2014, at 12:56 PM, Schneidku40 wrote:

    From an economical standpoint I think Valero is right. It is much better for the US to export finished, value-added products than to export the raw material. That keeps more money (and jobs!) in the US.

    However, I'm a contradiction because I think the US should export natural gas.

    There are places where it's cheaper and more efficient to export the oil and gas to neighboring countries than to bring it into the US. I'm all for US energy independence first, but beyond that, I think efficiencies of getting the product to the cheapest, nearest market is best.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2792167, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/3/2015 12:32:15 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Matt DiLallo

Matthew is a Senior Energy and Materials Specialist with The Motley Fool. He graduated from the Liberty University with a degree in Biblical Studies and a Masters of Business Administration. You can follow him on Twitter for the latest news and analysis of the energy and materials industries:

Today's Market

updated 3 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 16,351.38 293.03 1.82%
S&P 500 1,948.86 35.01 1.83%
NASD 4,749.98 113.87 2.46%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

9/2/2015 4:04 PM
VLO $59.01 Up +1.61 +2.80%
Valero Energy Corp CAPS Rating: ****
XOM $73.23 Up +1.15 +1.60%
ExxonMobil Corp CAPS Rating: ****