From:

Subject:
Date:
To:

Douglas Grandt answerthecall@me.com

Where is the objective, quantitative and transparent critical assessment of proposed oil exports
December 16, 2015 at 10:50 AM
Edward Hild (Sen. Murkowski) Edward_Hild@murkowski.senate.gov, David Cleary (Sen. Alexander)
David_Cleary@alexander.senate.gov, Dan Kunsman (Sen. Barrasso) Dan_Kunsman@barrasso.senate.gov,
Joel Brubaker (Sen. Capito) Joel_Brubaker@capito.senate.gov, James Quinn (Sen. Cassidy) James_Quinn@cassidy.senate.gov,
Jason Thielman (Sen. Daines) Jason_Thielman@daines.senate.gov, Chandler Morse (Sen. Flake)
Chandler_Morse@flake.senate.gov, Chris Hansen (Sen. Gardner) Chris_Hansen@gardner.senate.gov,
Ryan Bernstein (Sen. Hoeven) Ryan_Bernstein@hoeven.senate.gov, Boyd Matheson (Sen. Lee) Boyd_Matheson@lee.senate.gov
, Mark Isakowitz (Sen. Portman) Mark_Isakowitz@portman.senate.gov, John Sandy (Sen. Risch) John_Sandy@risch.senate.gov,
Travis Lumpkin (Sen. Cantwell) Travis_Lumpkin@cantwell.senate.gov, Jeff Lomonaco (Sen. Franken)
Jeff_Lomonaco@franken.senate.gov, Joe Britton (Sen. Heinrich) Joe_Britton@heinrich.senate.gov, Betsy Lin (Sen. Hirono)
Betsy_Lin@hirono.senate.gov, Patrick Hayes (Sen. Manchin) Patrick_Hayes@manchin.senate.gov,
Bill Sweeney (Sen. Stabenow) Bill_Sweeney@stabenow.senate.gov, Mindy Myers (Sen. Warren)
Mindy_Myers@warren.senate.gov, Jeff Michels (Sen. Wyden) Jeff_Michels@wyden.senate.gov,
Michaeleen Crowell (Sen. Sanders) Michaeleen_Crowell@sanders.senate.gov, Kay Rand (Sen. King) Kay_Rand@king.senate.gov
, Joe Hack (Sen. Fischer) Joe_Hack@fischer.senate.gov, Derrick Morgan (Sen. Sasse) Derrick_Morgan@sasse.senate.gov,
Karen Billups (Senate ENR Ctee) Karen_Billups@energy.senate.gov, Angela Becker-Dippmann (Senate ENR Ctee)
Angela_Becker-Dippmann@energy.senate.gov
Cc: Jordan Cox (Sen. Fischer) Jordan_Cox@fischer.senate.gov, Ginger Willson (Sen. Sasse) Ginger_Willson@sasse.senate.gov

Dear Chiefs of Staff of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee (ENR) and the
Nebraska Senate Delegation,
.
This week, the Omnibus Spending Bill is being considered. It contains a provision to lift the ban
on oil exports that is based on faulty assumptions as to global supply and prices.
I have admonished you to invite petroleum CEOs to testify how they will behave in the face of
declining profits as their companies begin to lose moneywill they act in the Public Interest as
they exercise their fiduciary duty? How will We the People ensure that our interest and the
National Interest are protected? What Speaker of the House Paul Ryan just now said about
allowing oil exports is not true. You need objective critique of "conventional wisdom and
hearsay and prove quantitatively that what is being said is substantiated or just a pipe dream.
Following are two individuals opinion pieces which raise critical questions about what is being
done in Congress at this very moment.
Best regards,
Doug Grandt

Lifting crude oil export ban fails the farmer test

By Art Tanderup | December 15, 2015, 01:30 pm | Bit.ly/HILL15DEC15
The ban on exporting crude oil out of the United States was put in place in the 1970's to
protect consumers and support energy independence.
If the ban is lifted, American crude and natural gas will be sold to other countries, raising the
price at our pumps. Fracking and drilling will increase, along with the side effects of
earthquakes and risky wastewater injection wells leaking into groundwater. Transporting the
product will require more trains and pipelines. Potential accidents and spills will endanger lives,
land and water.
This does not pass the farmer test.

Nebraska provides quality education in its schools, colleges and universities. But our state's
culture of "The Good Life" also provides an education that cannot be found in these
institutions. That degree is in "common sense." The classrooms are in rural Nebraska; the
best students are the farmers and ranchers.
Our parents and grandparents taught us that if we elected quality people to government, the
politicians would look out for our interests. The farmers and ranchers could concentrate on
raising food, fiber and children.
But over the years, we have seen a paradigm shift where words and handshakes have
transformed into the highest bidder winning whatever's up for a vote. Every decision that our
government officials make somehow affects what we do in agriculture.
My litmus test is: What would a farmer do?
Lifting the oil ban will provide up to $170 billion in total revenue to Big Oil in the next 10 years.
In that same 10 years, domestic refining revenues could also drop by up to $200 billion,
costing jobs. It does not pass the farmer test.
Lifting the ban will also increase production as much as 2.9 million barrels per day. That is 453
million metric tons of additional carbon pollution per year. It is the same as 42 95 million
passenger vehicles or 53 119 coal-fired power plants. Once again, it does not pass the
farmer test.
As of August 2015, over five million barrels of oil are imported every day almost half of them
from the Persian Gulf. This does not pass the farmer test.
The Paris climate talks show the urgency to severely limit our dependence on fossil fuels.
Farmers have met the challenge to do our part on climate change. We produce significant
quantities of clean renewable fuels. We sequester carbon by using no-till farming and planting
cover crops. We cut our own energy consumption and use the renewable fuels we grow.
Some of us have installed solar and wind energy to power our farms. Some of us drive electric
vehicles to save fossil fuels. This type of action passes the farmer test. Lifting the oil export
ban does not.
Earlier this fall, a bill to repeal the crude oil export ban passed the House of Representatives
and is now in committee in the Senate. Rather than following through with the regular process,
a rider is being attached to the omnibus spending bill. This has become a common practice to
pass legislation that would otherwise fail. No hearings or serious debate on the merits of the
issue.
Once again, Big Oil is deceiving the public. It does not pass the farmer test.
Tanderup is a farmer from Neligh, Nebraska.

Voices: We must shift the discussion on lifting oil export ban

Voices: We must shift the discussion on lifting oil export ban

Letter to the editor | 11:10 a.m. CST December 8, 2015 | Bit.ly/DailyWorld8Dec15
In 1975, President Ford signed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) that to this
day prohibits the export of domestically produced crude oil. While the export ban has received
relatively sparse attention since its passage, the recent shale boom has re-invigorated this
decades old debate. This October, the House of Representatives passed a bill striking this
provision from EPCA that restricts the export of crude.
This debate, like many current political debates, can be summed up into right versus left,
economic development versus the environment. Right-wing conservatives, who are probusiness, have argued that the lifting of the ban will increase the price of domestic crude,
therefore incentivizing new production and creating thousands of jobs. Left-wing liberals, who
are concerned about global climate change, have argued that lifting the ban will increase
domestic crude production and therefore exacerbate global climate change.
In short, both groups seem to agree that lifting the ban will increase domestic production. The
disagreement is on whether more crude production is good (i.e. economic development) or
bad (i.e. global climate change).
The problem, though, lies in the fact that this apparent consensus is simply not well-founded.
This presupposed increase in drilling stems from predictions that were made over the last
several years during the shale boom regarding price differentials between domestic and
foreign crude. Predictions have been made that the US refining industry would simply be
unable to process all of the light crudes being produced domestically and therefore domestic
crude would sell at an increasing discount. But this prediction has simply not panned out.
Domestic production has declined and at the time of this writing, Gulf Coast and European
crude are trading within about a dollar of one another; with transportation costs exceeding this
difference, an arbitrage opportunity for domestic producers simply does not exist.
The debate over this policy needs to be re-examined, and the seeming consensus that lifting
the ban will increase domestic crude prices and therefore increase production should be
questionednot taken as a given.
But there are real potential benefits and costs associated with lifting the ban that should be
considered. Due to the shale boom, the US Gulf Coast is on the cusp of becoming the world
hub for hydrocarbon commerce. With the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) commoditizing
storage and multi-billion dollar investments in Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), trade liberalization
on hydrocarbons can create a unique opportunity for the Gulf Coast to truly be the epicenter of
oil and gas trading.
But in return, the Gulf Coast will have to give up a long-run federal protectionist policy on the
domestic refining industry. Allowing for crude exports will legally allow domestic producers to
sell crude to overseas refineries thus circumventing the domestic industry. While the domestic
refining industry currently has a comparative advantage due to its close proximity to crude
production and access to inexpensive natural gas, only time will tell if this comparative
advantage will persist or whether this industry could slowly exit the region in the absence of an
export ban.
Certainly, one might find solace in clinging to a decades-old policy that was created for national

Certainly, one might find solace in clinging to a decades-old policy that was created for national
security reasons as justification for protecting a specific industry. But having confidence in our
region and our nations energy economy, instead we might decide to move forward and take
risks that have the potential to grow the Gulf Coasts economy into a future with a dynamic
energy environment.
The debate over the export ban should not be decided based on net economic costs or
benefits, nor should it be based on protecting one industry at the expense of another. Nor
should it be based on environmentalists concern that the removal of the ban will increase
global CO2 emissions. All of these supposed costs and benefits are highly speculative and are
based on a number of overarching assumptions about the future.
Instead this debate should be focused on whether the export ban continues to achieve national
security objectives and whether a federal policy that protects a specific industry is appropriate.
Proponents should not make promises of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and opponents
should not be concerned that the lifting of the ban will exacerbate CO2 emissions. These
comments are based on a LSU Center for Energy Studies Whitepaper titled: Crude Oil
Exports and the Louisiana Economy.
Greg Upton is an assistant professor at Louisiana State University.