1. No category

Date：2014/6/13
ワシントン事務所：ヤスミン・シンクレア
米国： AN ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. CRUDE OIL EXPORT BAN
（EIA、WSJ、FT、Reuters）
・米国の純石油輸入量は、2005 年をピークにこの 10 年間減少してきた。この純輸入量という用語は、全
輸入量から輸出量を減じることによって定義される。2005 年、米国の石油輸入の依存度は 60.3％の頂
点に達して以来、2010 年までに 49.3％まで下降した1。2012 年には、米国は約 1,060 万 bbl/d の原油
を輸入し、320 万 bbl/d の石油及び石油製品を輸出した2。米国の輸入依存は継続して減少している。
しかし米国の 2012 年の純輸入量は合計 740 万 bbl/d であり、米国は今もそしてこれからも主要な原油
輸入国であり続けるだろう。
・米国国内における原油生産量の増加は否定できない事実である。水圧破砕技術の恩恵によって、米
国は 2013 年末時点で 800 万 bbl/d の原油を採取したが、これは 2007 年の水準よりも 60％多くなって
いる。米国における原油生産量の増加と高まりつつある軽質低硫黄原油3の供給過剰への対応という
課題は、ホワイトハウスの主な高官をして長年の原油輸出の禁輸に関して見解を述べさせるまでにな
った。実際、2014 年の最初の数ヶ月のうちに、ホワイトハウスの高官の発言とともに、米国原油輸出の
禁止に関する多くのイベントやニュースヘッドラインが現れてきている。産業界における見解は複雑で
ある。石油・天然ガス産業内においても、上流生産企業は一般的に原油の輸出制限には反対であり、
一方で下流企業の意見は割れている。米国における原油の輸出に対する法的制限に関する議論は、
それを支持するものであれ反対するものであれ、公衆の面前に現れてきているのは明らかである。
1. INTRODUCTION
Comments by U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz at an energy conference in Seoul in May set energy
markets abuzz with speculation that the White House may reverse the long-standing ban on U.S. crude oil
exports.4 Mr. Moniz said that “the issue of crude oil exports is under consideration [because] the nature of the
oil we’re producing may not be well-matched to our current refinery capacity.” U.S. domestically-produced oil
is light and sweet, meaning it has low levels of sulfur. But U.S. refineries lining the Gulf Coast are built to
EIA, “U.S. Oil Import Dependence: Declining no matter how you measure it”, May 25, 2011,
http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/110525/twipprint.html
2 EIA, “How dependent are we on foreign oil?”, May 10, 2013,
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm
3 原油はその密度や硫黄分などの含有物によって特徴付けられる。一般的に軽質低硫黄原油は重質高硫黄原油よりも製油所で石油製品
を精製するためのコストが脱硫処理などの過程を経ないため低くなる。しかし米国の多くの石油精製能力が集中しているメキシコ湾
岸地域の製油所は歴史的に重質油への対応を進めてきた。
4 Harder, Amy and In-Soo Nam, "Oil-export ban is up for review," May 14, 2014, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052702303851804579559173078617520
-11
Global Disclaimer（免責事項）
本資料は石油天然ガス・金属鉱物資源機構（以下「機構」）調査部が信頼できると判断した各種資料に基づいて作成されていますが、機構は本資料に含ま
れるデータおよび情報の正確性又は完全性を保証するものではありません。また、本資料は読者への一般的な情報提供を目的としたものであり、何らかの
投資等に関する特定のアドバイスの提供を目的としたものではありません。したがって、機構は本資料に依拠して行われた投資等の結果については一切責
任を負いません。なお、本資料の図表類等を引用等する場合には、機構資料からの引用である旨を明示してくださいますようお願い申し上げます。
process heavy and sour crude oil from Latin America and Canada.5
Earlier in the same month, one of President Obama’s most senior counselors, John Podesta, said that the White
House was “taking an active look” at the surging domestic supply wrought by the U.S. drilling boom.6 He
mentioned in particular the production in Eagle Ford in Texas.
However, the “debate” effectively began January 2014 when Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ranking
Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released her white paper, “A Signal to the
World: Renovating the Architecture of U.S. Energy Exports.” Her paper addresses export policies covering a
range of hydrocarbons, while also covering renewables and nuclear technology. But her comments on “ending
the prohibition on crude oil and condensate exports” are the ones which gained media attention.
Indeed, during the first few months of 2014, along with White House officials’ comments, there were many
events and news headlines on U.S. crude oil export ban. Along with Sen. Murkowski’s paper, the American
Petroleum Institute called to end “arbitrary or unfair limits or outright bans on energy exports.” The U.S.
Senate Energy Committee conducted its first public hearing on the future of U.S. crude oil export policy, that is,
whether to lift the U.S. ban on crude oil exports. Other key U.S. senators also outlined their positions in the
debate. Senators Edward Markey (D-MA) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), supporters of the oil export ban, sent
a letter to President Obama outlining why the Department of Commerce does not have the legal authority to
lift the ban on its own – emphasizing that only Congress has the ability to adjust U.S. oil export policy, instead
of the executive branch. In February, Reuters released a news story about the U.S. Department of Commerce
having issued licenses for crude oil cargoes bound for Europe.7 (Reuters later made the distinction that the
cargoes bound for the U.K. and Italy, which received export permits in January, were simply re-exports of
foreign-origin crude, and did not invoke the legal exemption applying to crude oil swaps or sales from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.)
Despite such a seeming shift in tone, due to legal and policy constraints, the Obama administration has little
leeway in lifting the ban. U.S. mid-term elections are set for November 2014, with one-third of U.S. Senate
seats up for contention, as well as all 435 seats in the House of Representatives. Looking forward to the
Presidential elections in 2016, the U.S. political climate is in a state of flux. There is thus a lack of consensus in
accomplishing this during the remainder of President Obama’s administration.
Friedman, Nicole, “Crude Rises on News of U.S. Mulling Export Ban,” May 13, 2014, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140513-707942.html
6 Meyer, Gregory and Ed Crooks, “White House ‘taking an active look’ at crude oil export ban,” May 8, 2014, Financial Times
-25
Global Disclaimer（免責事項）
本資料は石油天然ガス・金属鉱物資源機構（以下「機構」）調査部が信頼できると判断した各種資料に基づいて作成されていますが、機構は本資料に含ま
れるデータおよび情報の正確性又は完全性を保証するものではありません。また、本資料は読者への一般的な情報提供を目的としたものであり、何らかの
投資等に関する特定のアドバイスの提供を目的としたものではありません。したがって、機構は本資料に依拠して行われた投資等の結果については一切責
任を負いません。なお、本資料の図表類等を引用等する場合には、機構資料からの引用である旨を明示してくださいますようお願い申し上げます。
2. CRUDE OIL EXPORT RESTRICTIONS
Anchoring the U.S. crude export policy is the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, which
directs the President of the United States to restrict the export of domestically-produced crude oil, along with
natural gas. (The Department of Energy determines natural gas licensing export process. It is less restrictive as
set forth by the Natural Gas Act of 1938.)8 The law establishes a broad policy of banning crude oil export.
Crude oil transported on pipelines that received federal right of ways; produced on the Outer Continental Shelf;
or produced from the Naval Petroleum Reserve—these are all restricted from exports.9 (These restrictions are
covered under the statutes of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Export Administration Act of 1979, the
Exports of Alaskan North Slope Oil Title (technically part of the Mineral Leasing Act), the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands (OCS) Act of 1953, and the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act from 1976.)10EPCA
allows the President to permit crude oil export only in circumstances where the exports are deemed to be in the
national interest. The President made such determinations in 1992 for limited export of heavy crude oil from
California, crude oil produced from Alaska’s Cook Inlet in 1985, and oil exports to Canada for use or
consumption therein in 1985 and 1988.11
The Department of Commerce regulates crude oil export licenses through the Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS). The BIS administers guidelines for crude oil exports that fall in categories listed in its Short
Supply Controls. The BIS will grant licenses under the requirements in the Export Administration Regulation
(EAR) listed below:12
(i) Exports from Alaska’s Cook Inlet;
(ii) Exports to Canada for consumption or use therein;
(iii) Exports in connection with refining or exchange of strategic petroleum reserve oil;
(iv) Exports of heavy California crude oil up to an average volume not to exceed 25 Mbd/;
(vii) Exports of foreign origin crude oil where the exporter can demonstrate that the oil is not of U.S. origin and
has not been commingled with oil of U.S. origin
Gebrekidan, Selam, “U.S. opens tap, a bit, on oil exports to Europe,” February 4, 2014, Reuters,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/04/uk-usa-energy-exports-idUKBREA130NC20140204
8 Ladislaw, Sarah O., and Michelle Melton, “The Molecule Laws: History and Future of the Crude Export Ban,” January 2, 2014,
CSIS, http://csis.org/publication/molecule-laws-history-and-future-crude-export-ban
9 Nerurkar, Neelesh. “U.S. Oil Imports and Exports.” Washington D.C.. UNT Digital Library.
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc86624/. Accessed May 28, 2014.
10 Ladislaw, Sarah O.
11 Nerurkar, Neelesh.
12 Bureau of Industyr and Security, Short Supply Controls,
http://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/forms-documents/doc_view/425-part-754-short-supply-controls
-37
Global Disclaimer（免責事項）
本資料は石油天然ガス・金属鉱物資源機構（以下「機構」）調査部が信頼できると判断した各種資料に基づいて作成されていますが、機構は本資料に含ま
れるデータおよび情報の正確性又は完全性を保証するものではありません。また、本資料は読者への一般的な情報提供を目的としたものであり、何らかの
投資等に関する特定のアドバイスの提供を目的としたものではありません。したがって、機構は本資料に依拠して行われた投資等の結果については一切責
任を負いません。なお、本資料の図表類等を引用等する場合には、機構資料からの引用である旨を明示してくださいますようお願い申し上げます。
Crude oil shipped on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, produced overseas, or is from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve are also permitted for exports.
(1) LOOPHOLE FOR EXPORTS
The BIS does allow exports of refined petroleum products, bypassing the need for a license.13 The President
is not bound by EPCA to restrict refined products such as gasoline, diesel, distillate and propane. The U.S. is
already exporting liquids such as naphtha and condensates.14 The result is that U.S. exported 4.3 MMbd in
December 2013. U.S. Energy Information Administration chief Adam Sieminski says that the U.S. is one of
the largest petroleum exporters in the world, becoming a net exporter by 2017. The U.S. exports gasoline
mainly to Latin America and diesel to Europe.
(2) HISTORY OF CRUDE OIL EXPORT RESTRICTIONS
The historical underpinning of U.S. hydrocarbons export ban stems from the “oil shocks” of the 1970s. At the
time, the prevailing view was the U.S. faced a persistent energy crisis, due to permanent shortage resulting
from declining domestic production; increased domestic demand; and vulnerability to disruptions stemming
from the politicized global market. Imports had risen in the early 1970s, while U.S. production was on the
decline, having peaked in 1970. In 1973, supplies were disrupted, when OPEC imposed an oil embargo
against the U.S. in retaliation for U.S. support of Israel during the Arab-Israeli War.15 Another major
disruption occurred during the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Propped by a scarcity mentality, the prevailing
mindset in the U.S. was that exports were detrimental to national security.
3. ECONOMICS OF EXPORTS VS. IMPORTS
The situation today is, of course, vastly different. The U.S. is just entering what has been termed the “Great
Revival”.16 Since 2008, U.S. production has grown to 3 MMbd or 50%. U.S. demand has also decreased to 2
MMbd lower than 2005. Several factors have contributed to lowered demand: the recession of 2008; U.S.
motorists are driving less; biofuel use has grown; fuel economy of the U.S. vehicle fleet has improved; along
Nerurkar, Neelesh.
Hill, Patrice, “U.S. energy giants use crude oil loophole to post record petroleum exports,” May 11, 2014, Washington Times,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/11/us-energy-giants-use-crude-oil-loophole-to-post-re/?page=all
15 Department of State, Oil Embargo, 1973-1974, http://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo
16 Burkhard, Jim, Managing Director, CERA, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Testimony, January 31,
2012, http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=ace3e7ff-44de-49d8-8b53-e4a9bbed87e2
-413
14
Global Disclaimer（免責事項）
本資料は石油天然ガス・金属鉱物資源機構（以下「機構」）調査部が信頼できると判断した各種資料に基づいて作成されていますが、機構は本資料に含ま
れるデータおよび情報の正確性又は完全性を保証するものではありません。また、本資料は読者への一般的な情報提供を目的としたものであり、何らかの
投資等に関する特定のアドバイスの提供を目的としたものではありません。したがって、機構は本資料に依拠して行われた投資等の結果については一切責
任を負いません。なお、本資料の図表類等を引用等する場合には、機構資料からの引用である旨を明示してくださいますようお願い申し上げます。
with the potential of using natural gas instead of diesel for trucks.
It is important to understand that crude oil comes in many varieties. They are measured and graded by
whether they are light or heavy. The American Petroleum Institute gravity or API gravity gives crude oil types
their measurements. A higher API gravity number indicates a lighter crude oil whereas a lower API gravity
number indicates a heavier crude oil. Although API gravity has no units, it is nonetheless expressed in
“gravity.” In general, crude oil with lower API gravity and higher sulfur content (crude oil is also characterized
by its content of sulfur) are more costly to refine compared to those with higher API gravity and lower sulfur
content.
Crude oil is a commodity traded globally. In terms of the debate on U.S. crude oil exports, the most important
benchmark prices are those for West Texas Intermediate (WTI, priced in Cushing, OK) and Brent (produced
in the North Sea for delivery to Sullom Voe in Scotland.) Light Louisiana Sweet (LLS) at the US Gulf coast
is also quickly rising in importance as a secondary benchmark supplementing the traditional benchmark WTI.
The U.S. also has price differentials for crude as reported by the Petroleum Administration Defense Districts or
PADDs. PADDs cover the East Coast, Midwest, Gulf Coast, Rocky Mountains, and the West Coast. The price
spread between WTI and Brent has been around U.S.$6.50-7.00. Some analysts posit that will likely widen if
the crude oil export ban is kept in place. The crux of the debate on whether to maintain the restriction on U.S.
crude exports or to lift the ban is the implications for crude oil price—domestic and international.
The fracking revolution has brought considerable light sweet crude to the U.S. market, creating excess supply.
The major surplus of oil produced in the U.S. is light sweet oil, with the prolific areas of the Bakken in North
Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas as the premier stand-outs. Historically, U.S. crude imports have been
comprised of the heavy sour crudes coming from Canada, Venezuela, and Mexico. The explosion of new U.S.
domestically-produced crude is creating a glut in the refinery system, specifically in the Gulf Coast (PADD 3),
site of America’s largest refinery industry.
Because of the export ban, excess supply of light sweet oil is stuck in the U.S. and cannot be shipped to other
refiners. U.S. refiners, especially those located in PADD 3 in the Gulf Coast, thus are struggling to keep pace
with the flow of light oil. Gulf Coast refiners have been shipping excess light sweet crude to PADD 2 refining
centers and east coast Canadian refineries17. According to EIA’s statistics, the U.S. refining system is currently
operating almost full, more than 85% of capacity for the past 12 months18. It’s likely that the U.S. refining
system need to add more capacity to absorb the additional supply. And most analysts agree that the U.S.
Canada is one of exception of US crude oil export restriction.
EIA, “U.S. Percent of Utilization of Refinery Operable Capacity”,
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MOPUEUS2&f=M
-5-
17
18
Global Disclaimer（免責事項）
本資料は石油天然ガス・金属鉱物資源機構（以下「機構」）調査部が信頼できると判断した各種資料に基づいて作成されていますが、機構は本資料に含ま
れるデータおよび情報の正確性又は完全性を保証するものではありません。また、本資料は読者への一般的な情報提供を目的としたものであり、何らかの
投資等に関する特定のアドバイスの提供を目的としたものではありません。したがって、機構は本資料に依拠して行われた投資等の結果については一切責
任を負いません。なお、本資料の図表類等を引用等する場合には、機構資料からの引用である旨を明示してくださいますようお願い申し上げます。
refinery industry will reach its point of light crude saturation. Some call this the “light crude wall.” They say it
will arrive well after President Obama has left office.
PADD Map of the United States
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4890
4. POLITICS AND PROCESS OF LIBERALIZING CRUDE OIL IMPORTS
There has been much talk in the recent weeks from several senior Obama administration officials who have
spoken publicly about conducting a serious review of U.S. policy toward crude oil exports. However, some
analysts have described the White House approach as “cautious,” as discussions over amending the policy will
be lengthy and contentious. The most important consideration is that entirely lifting the export ban would
require legislative action, rather than an executive order from President Obama. Even if the White House were
to invoke the use waivers for the sake of “national interest,” President Obama would face strong opposition
from within his party. Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), both of whom support the ban,
wrote a terse letter to the President, saying that the Department of Commerce does not have the legal authority
to lift the ban. Only the legislative has the ability to adjust the policy, not the executive branch. Even among
politicians who are aware of the uneconomical nature of the export restrictions, there is still much opposition to
-6Global Disclaimer（免責事項）
本資料は石油天然ガス・金属鉱物資源機構（以下「機構」）調査部が信頼できると判断した各種資料に基づいて作成されていますが、機構は本資料に含ま
れるデータおよび情報の正確性又は完全性を保証するものではありません。また、本資料は読者への一般的な情報提供を目的としたものであり、何らかの
投資等に関する特定のアドバイスの提供を目的としたものではありません。したがって、機構は本資料に依拠して行われた投資等の結果については一切責
任を負いません。なお、本資料の図表類等を引用等する場合には、機構資料からの引用である旨を明示してくださいますようお願い申し上げます。
liberalizing the statute. For example, Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) expressed concerns about price impacts on
gasoline if the ban were lifted. It is important to note that Ohio is located in PADD 2, and that a major
independent refinery, Marathon Petroleum Corporation, maintains its headquarters in Ohio. As the debate
unfolds, state-interest issues will come to the fore.
Some lawmakers are said to appear nervous in embracing crude oil exports. They are afraid of facing political
attacks in upcoming elections should gas prices rise for unrelated reasons. No new legislation thus far has
appeared to overturn the ban and few expect any lawmakers to introduce measures before the November
mid-tem elections.19 It seems that the Republican Party leadership in Congress has been mainly silent on the
issue. Republican Senate seats are up for re-election in 2016, including Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These
vulnerable Republican Senators, especially, would fear having their opponents using the vote against them. A
Republican candidate in the 2016 presidential election season would be hard-pressed to include lifting the ban
as part of their platform. It is also important to note that the 2018 Senate races include two shale-state
Democrats who are up for re-election. They are Jon Tester from Montana and Heidi Heitkamp of North
Dakota. It thus appears that opponents of liberalizing U.S. crude oil export policy have an easier argument than
those who support it.
Gardner, Timothy. “Lifting oil export ban would spark U.S. economy: IHS,” May 29, 2014, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/29/us-usa-energy-exports-idUSKBN0E909U20140529
-7-
19
Global Disclaimer（免責事項）
本資料は石油天然ガス・金属鉱物資源機構（以下「機構」）調査部が信頼できると判断した各種資料に基づいて作成されていますが、機構は本資料に含ま
れるデータおよび情報の正確性又は完全性を保証するものではありません。また、本資料は読者への一般的な情報提供を目的としたものであり、何らかの
投資等に関する特定のアドバイスの提供を目的としたものではありません。したがって、機構は本資料に依拠して行われた投資等の結果については一切責
任を負いません。なお、本資料の図表類等を引用等する場合には、機構資料からの引用である旨を明示してくださいますようお願い申し上げます。