Similar concerns apply to LNG exports from the Australian east coast. In the next few years we'll need all that gas for ourselves. Perhaps we could set aside some export cash income to save up for imports in 20 years time.

Selling cheaply what you'll need later brings to mind the Australian kids story 'The Magic Pudding'. Whenever a slice is taken from the pudding it regrows. The converse is true for most resources; once it's gone it's gone or the replacement will be much more expensive. Sections of the corporate world and politics seem to be stuck in this Magic Pudding mindset.

Tell me again why we're running out of oil....

Exactly Arthur, exactly. What the US or any industrialist there or here studiously ignore, is the possible role of biogas.

Every family produces enough biological waste, if digested in conveniently located smell free biodigestors; which can be located underground if that remains the only convenient option, to completely power their domiciles 24/7, with the methane this system creates.

and capable of creating around a 50% salable surplus, if this bio-fuel is used scrubbed in onsite ceramic fuel cells.

And thorium reactors coupled to micro-grids could outperform hydro as the cheapest source of non polluting energy.

Imagine this, super silent self driven electric cars, moving around four commuters each!

Thereby in one single fowl swoop reducing the commute grid lock by some 75%!

And able to do some productive work or study during that time!

Imagine closed cycle loop monorails and connecting moving walkways (all doable with very cheap energy) moving people all over the city, and never once ever impeding the passage of emergency vehicles.

Imagine very rapid rail moving intercity travelers CBD to CBD, and at whisper quiet speeds up to 900 per hour! And for a fraction of air travel!

An impossible dream?

Perhaps, but only if enough people sit on their apathetic bums, and refuse to demand change we can all believe in.

If enough people used the social networks to organize themselves, to place the incumbent last on the ballot?

Positive change would have no choice but to follow!
As would prosperity, given the number of manufacturing options created in the formula!

More American debt is an absolute certainty!

And does nothing to correct the present status quo, as currently being inserted into the economy.

However, injected as massive capital works, it would get all of America back to work, paying taxes and consuming; but particularly that made using very low cost energy, in largely high tech automated factories.

America doesn't need more and more oil and or gas.
Just some clever ideas and long overdue (change we can all believe in) action!
Rhrosty.

Yes Taswegian, the chickens are coming home to roost.
There is even the possibility that the finance will not be there to
restart the tight oil fields after thet shut down because of the
current low prices.
It appears the Wall St financiers are a bit put off by the low
returns and volatile prices.

You said; "to save up for imports in 20 years time."

In 20 years we may not be able to get anyone to sell us petrol & diesel.
We import 95% of petrol & diesel now and we would have to have some
mighty financial clout to out bid the US, China and the Europeans to
get supply of petrol & diesel.
We will need all the gas we can lay hands on.
As the tight oil declines this year it will expose the decline that
has been going on in conventional crude oil. Currently it has been
declining between 4% & 6% a year. As the Canadian sands and the US
shale close from about the middle of this year, it is anybodies
guess where the price will go.

Malcolm; eerrr because we are using it !

I don't understand the purpose of this article. Who is proposing that the USA should export oil?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Taswegian, allowing the export of gas will result in the price rising, so Australia's likely to become less reliant on gas in the future. But we do have a lot of gas in the ground, so we won't ever have to resort to imports.

Aiden,
No Berman is opposed to the US exporting crude.
It is obviously a stupid idea when they import about 8 million barrels a day !
There is not all that much gas if we have to convert every car & truck
to natural gas.
That is not as far fetched as it first seems as we now have no
refining capacity and a fast depleting production of oil, which is
why the refineries are closing.

Bazz, I repeat: I don't understand the purpose of this article. Who is proposing that the USA should export oil?

Australia's refineries are closing because it's cheaper to refine the oil overseas. But we have the ability to synthesise petrol and diesel from gas, or from coal, or from biomass.

There are even two known ways to synthesise liquid fuel directly from CO2 and water, though of course they both require a lot of energy. Those aren't commercialized yet, but it's certainly an option for Australia's future, though I expect the first commercial applications to be in Antarctica.

‘morning Arthur,

I really don’t know what to make of your article. There seem to be so many omissions of fact and misdirection that even as a fossil fuel layperson, I am aware of many things you have not taken into account.

I guess the first would be political. With both the XL pipeline and the restrictions on some US oil exports up for debate, the Democrats and the Greens have been trumped by the Republican Senate.

Then we have Geo-politics. With the EU locked into a disastrous renewable framework and paying 60% more for gas than the US domestic market, thanks to Gazprom. The EU is exporting industrial capacity at the same time as the USA is repatriating it’s industrial capacity away from overseas “low labor cost” markets back to a US base of a “low energy cost” market.

You also failed to discuss the US domestic market in terms of types of oil. Some types are in demand but not produced in sufficient volume, whilst other types are domestically produced in volume but not in high demand. The thrust of changes to export legislation is to allow export of sufficient low value categories to offset the high value imports and to fund infrastructure.

You might also have mentioned that some oil producers already have licenses to export both oil and gas, particularly to Canada. Such oil companies win twice. They buy very cheap and sell at high margins. They also benefit from being able to offset infrastructure costs against export markets.

The bulk of domestic producers enjoy no such advantage and I suspect do not want to be the “biggest” producers, they just want to have access to export markets, to make money, to threaten competitors, to offset against imports and most importantly, have a level playing field domestically.

As such the US has no desire for global prices to rise short term.

So is your allegiance to the bulk of the domestic oil Co’s that are disadvantaged or to the privileged few who already export?

You’re not a Democrat by any chance?

Hmmm Aiden, I answered your question but it is not here.
Try again;
It is the oil companies mainly I think the smaller ones.
They want to pick up the difference between Brent & WTI prices.
The importers have to pay the Brent price so as far as the US as a
whole is concerned it would be a loosing proposition.
There is some complication in that simple explanation in that a
percentage of the proposed export is not necessarily the same as the imports.
Oils is not oils !