The U.S. government has authorized limited crude oil exports to Europe, for the first time in years, raising new questions about how companies are testing the limits of a controversial, decades-old exports ban.
The Department of Commerce has granted two licenses to export U.S. crude to the UK since last year and another two to Italy, according to data Reuters obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
One application for German exports was filed in January and is awaiting a decision by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which is responsible for reviewing requests to export crude under a 1975 law that bans most shipments with a few exceptions, including sales to Canada and re-export of foreign oil.
These are the first permits for shipments to the UK since at least 2000 and the first to any European country since 2008, according to data from the BIS. The bureau has approved 120 licenses since January 2013, nearly 90 percent of which were for sales to Canada, the data show.Two things I find so interesting: a) that it happened; and, b) it took a Freedom of Information Act request, apparently, to get the story.
The entire story provides additional interesting trivia regarding the oil and gas industry, including whether this might have simply been a swap of light oil for heavy oil? Regular readers understand the reason behind this question.
Others said oil volume swaps -- whereby companies can export U.S. light oil for a higher quality or volume of crude or refined fuels -- may be behind the recent expansion in export licenses to Europe.
"The implication is that we are not exchanging a higher value item for a lower value," said Ed Morse, global head of commodity research at Citi, while noting that re-exports of Canadian heavy oil from U.S. shores are on the rise.
Applicants for such licenses have to demonstrate that the trade is part of an overall transaction in the nation's interest and the oil cannot be sold for a reasonable price in the United States.
Sellers also have to prove that exports will be terminated if U.S. supplies are seriously threatened.
"I am sceptical that it was a swap because tests for such exports are very complicated," Kassinger said, referring to sellers' onus to prove that they can't sell the oil at a profit within the country.
*********************************
San Diego's Concealed Handgun Law
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
No comments:
Post a Comment