Reuters: U.S. condensate oil export requests put on hold for now


The U.S. reportedly has put on hold two companies’ requests for permission to sell condensate, effectively stalling an industry push for U.S. exports of the expanding glut of oil.

The delay may give the Commerce Department more time to put together some form of comprehensive public guidance about what kind of oil can or cannot be exported, answering the industry's plea for clarity; sources tell Reuters they think it could occur within weeks.

The news last month that Pioneer Natural Resources (NYSE:PXD) and Enterprise Product Partners (NYSE:EPD) had been told that putting condensate through an advanced stabilizer was sufficient processing to export it without a license created a storm of confusion and questions.

ETFs: USO, OIL, UCO, SCO, BNO, DTO, DBO, CRUD, USL, UWTI, DWTI, DNO, SZO, OLO, OLEM

From other sites
Comments (14)
  • DrP79
    , contributor
    Comments (2464) | Send Message
     
    Why would the US want to stop exports?

     

    - calm the world market
    - put pressure on Russia
    - put pressure on the Middle Eastern oil producers
    - Help Israel
    - Increase the economy

     

    But it is not in Obama's interest to do those things so regardless of the US interest - meh
    29 Jul 2014, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • karibou
    , contributor
    Comments (37) | Send Message
     
    Of course any sitting politician wants to do those things, so the good Dr. Pee is purposely aggravating the commentary.

     

    Why sell raw materials that come at great environmental cost, and is a strategic resource to boot? Because you protect jobs and the environment by adding value here, at home, before you sell it. The jobs and the margins come with the processing, not by having a couple of employees rip the raw material out of the ground and sell it in bulk as a commodity. I thought this argument was settled when we decided to stop pulping U.S. old growth forests and selling the raw product to Asia.

     

    Let the Arabs sell their cheap and easy oil to Israel or Japan. If we're gonna split tight rock to get an expensive light condensate we should at least turn it into something with high value-added before we sell it overseas. Doing otherwise is bad business and bad policy.
    29 Jul 2014, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • Pablomike
    , contributor
    Comments (4483) | Send Message
     
    We do not have the refinery capacity to use all the condensate being produced. If not exports what is you solution??
    29 Jul 2014, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • karibou
    , contributor
    Comments (37) | Send Message
     
    Ummm, I'd guess refining is the first step to adding value. Obviously we need refinery capacity to proceed alongside extractive capacity. Yes I know, they're difficult to build, but there is your first source of employment.

     

    If you can't process it, then its stranded and you've simply got to cap it and save it. Makes a nice savings account since the stuff doesn't go bad.
    29 Jul 2014, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • Pablomike
    , contributor
    Comments (4483) | Send Message
     
    Excess condensate exists now. How many years would it take to permit and build a refinery??
    Cap it and save it?? There goes your employment.
    29 Jul 2014, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • Fracjob
    , contributor
    Comments (2182) | Send Message
     
    You should be happy, karibou! That much less condensate transported to Canada to the "evil tar sands" to be used for dilution. A side note is that karibou doesn't taste like chicken.
    29 Jul 2014, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • karibou
    , contributor
    Comments (37) | Send Message
     
    I'm a Ducks Unlimited greenie, not Greenpeace. I used to shoot my moniker in the western Brooks range.

     

    Who implied the tar sands were evil? They're greasy and nasty and stupid, and a perfect way for Canada to show that's its willing to "shit in its own mess kit." I just don't want to see America sell our light stuff to the Japs then purchase heavy junk from the Canooks. Let's keep and refine what we've got.

     

    The Obama haters here should acknowledge that there's a reason we have an export ban, and it was a Republican president who done it.
    30 Jul 2014, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • boris813
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    Exports may very slightly influence the bulletpoints above, but this has very little to do with Obama or foreign policy. It's about money (surprise!). Producers and shippers want expanded exports and refiners don't. That said, I'm beginning to wonder if Washington (D or R) can even decide whether or not to go to the bathroom.
    29 Jul 2014, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • toomuchgas
    , contributor
    Comments (996) | Send Message
     
    Anything the Obama administration can do to avoid having a free market economy and control private business from Washington they do. Everything is politics for them. The amount that would be exported would have been a drop in the proverbial bucket.
    29 Jul 2014, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • arthur_bishop1972
    , contributor
    Comments (4321) | Send Message
     
    <<Anything the Obama administration can do to avoid having a free market economy and control private business from Washington they do. Everything is politics for them.>>

     

    Do you anti-Obama people really think this type of Administration behavior will end after Obama leaves office?? You guys need therapy (sorry...j/k). Your tone sounds exactly like Clinton's detractors 2 decades ago. THINK BIGGER. There are forces at work that were around WAY before Obama and will continue to be around when Hillary (or whoever) is in office.

     

    Deep Throat (from 'All the President's Men'): "You're missing the overall. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they're running against. They bugged, they planted false leads, canceled campaign rallies...and on and on. Don't tell me you think this is all the work of little Don Segretti."
    29 Jul 2014, 11:21 PM Reply Like
  • demotom
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Two sides to every argument: oil companies want to export to get better prices. US Industry want the cheap energy kept here for competitive advantage.
    30 Jul 2014, 12:45 AM Reply Like
  • Union Trade Assoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1152) | Send Message
     
    Agreed w DrP79 Politics aside.
    30 Jul 2014, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • Union Trade Assoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1152) | Send Message
     
    No, The Producers want to push higher Volume by routing the Refiners, opening a secondary market - good for Industry, Employment, increased production and Consumers. The Refiners want to maintain the current glut, cheap supply and strangle hold on retail consumer pricing.
    The door to Condensates has already been opened, it's only a matter of time before the Ban on Exports will be entirely removed.
    Politically, the pressure is building in favor of opening the Market irrespective of parties.
    30 Jul 2014, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • DrP79
    , contributor
    Comments (2464) | Send Message
     
    This is the same sort of argument that the federal government imposed on the public in the Carter years. Then we had the issue of old oil and new oil.

     

    Now we have a price differential in US oil and the world price. Yet the product has two components - the actual oil and the government regulation. This needless complexity drives up the cost and makes the market less efficient.
    30 Jul 2014, 10:15 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs