Summary of Studies and Analyses on Energy Exports

Crude Oil Exports
ICF International (July 2022): The Economic Benefits of Lifting the US Crude Oil Export Ban: A Retrospective Analysis

    • Overview: The study analyzes the changes that have occurred in US oil and natural gas markets since Congress enabled crude oil exports compared to a hypothetical scenario where US oil exports remained in place. The study found that enabling open markets increased oil and natural gas development in America, which decreased US consumer costs by $92 billion; reduced global oil prices by $1.93 per barrel over the six-year period; added $161 billion to US GDP; and increased jobs in the US by nearly 50,000, on average.

American Council for Capital Formation (July 2022): Economic Impacts of A Potential Ban on US Refined Product Exports

    • Overview: An ACCF study examines the short-to-medium term logistics, pricing, and economic impacts of a complete ban on US petroleum product exports. It concludes that a petroleum product export ban would result in forced US refinery closures which would increase product prices in the global market as buyers of US exports bid up the price of fuel from alternate sources.  As a result, US gross domestic product (GDP) would fall more than $44 billion in 2023 and more than 110,000 jobs would be lost by the end of 2023.

IHS Markit (November 2021): Banning Exports of US Crude Oil Would Likely Raise Gasoline Prices, Not Lower Them

    • Overview: Expert analysis cautioning that a new crude export ban could make increasing energy costs only worse, with unintended consequences of such a policy likely increasing gasoline prices, rather than lowering them – and explaining that the most effective supply-side force that could lower oil prices is more oil production.

API Policy, Economics and Regulatory Affairs (November 2021): Crude Oil Export Ban

    • Overview: This analysis explains why reinstating the ban on US crude exports would be a flawed policy option to address rising energy prices amidst record inflation, explaining that a ban on US crude oil exports is an outdated, ineffective policy measure that would likely increase the price of gasoline in addition to other negative consequences.

Resources for the Future (March 2014): Crude Behavior: How Lifting the Export Ban Reduces Gasoline Prices in the United States

    • Overview: This analysis by Resources for the Future outlines how lifting the ban on US crude oil exports would allow for a more efficient distribution of crude oil among refineries in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere in the world. A better allocation of refinery activity will result in more gasoline production, which will lower gasoline prices.

Council on Foreign Relations (July 2013): The Case for Allowing US Crude Oil Exports

    • Overview: Export restrictions reduce the value of US crude oil, costing the country a potential $15 billion in lost revenue annually. Allowing the market to work freely would stimulate US production, advance US foreign policy goals and demonstrate the US commitment to freer trade, without jeopardizing energy security.

 Brookings Institute (September 2014): Changing Markets: Economic Opportunities from Lifting the US Ban on Crude Oil Exports

    • Overview: Lifting a ban on oil exports is economically beneficial for US oil producers and household consumers. Producers are able to produce crude oil more profitably because they are not forced to sell it to US refiners and the resulting drop in gas prices due to an increase in supply allows for consumers to save at least nine cents on the gallon.

Government Accountability Office (September 2014): Changing Crude Oil Markets: Allowing Exports Could Reduce Consumer Fuel Prices, and the Size of the Strategic Reserves Should Be Reexamined

    • Overview: Removing a ban on crude oil exports is likely to increase domestic crude oil prices but decrease consumer fuel prices as a result of a competitive market within global crude oil prices.

LNG Exports
IHS Markit (December 2021): Why a ban on US LNG exports would hit consumers, including in the United States, and damage US interests globally

    • Overview: As consumers across the globe face rising gas and power prices, curtailing US LNG exports has been raised as an option to protect US consumers. At a time of extreme stress in gas markets, any mandated disruption to US LNG supply would have a highly destabilizing effect.

IHS Markit (January 2022): LNG Trade in 2021: Runaway Recovery

    • Overview: The report finds that the United States, which was the third-largest LNG exporter behind Australia and Qatar for the full year of 2021, is poised to claim the top spot in 2022.

US Department of Energy (June 2018): Macroeconomic Outcomes of Market Determined Levels of US LNG Exports

    • Overview: An increase in LNG exports will result in positive labor income, increased natural gas production, and profits for domestic producers. The global wealth transfer towards the United States will also improve US consumers’ economic position.

Center for Energy Studies (October 2015): The Macroeconomic Impact of Increasing US LNG Exports

    • Overview: As LNG exports increase, so does domestic production and an increase in natural gas prices as international market demand increases. Any negative impacts, such as small declines in output by the cement, concrete, and glass sectors, are offset by the positive impact to the energy industry, as a whole.

 LNG Lifecycle Emissions
CRES Forum (March 2022): US Fossil Fuels Should Play a Crucial Role in Reducing Global Emissions

    • Overview: This briefing paper provides substantive background information on climate change policy, including an analysis of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) 2019 update to explain that the GHG life-cycle emissions of coal, natural gas, and oil vary by supplier – often significantly. For example, Russian-produced natural gas shipped by pipeline to Europe has approximately 41 percent higher life-cycle emissions (CO2 equivalent) than US liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipped to the same destination. Russian-produced natural gas shipped by pipeline to China has 47 percent higher life-cycle emissions than US LNG exported to China.

American Chemical Society’s Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering Journal (August 2021): LNG Supply Chains: A Supplier-Specific Life-Cycle Assessment for Improved Emission Accounting

    • Overview: The analysis finds that switching from coal to natural gas in China results in a 47–57 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions intensity across the entire supply chain.

 ICF International (July 2020): Update to the LifeCycle Analysis of GHG Emissions for US LNG Exports Analysis

    • Overview: A study conducted by researchers at ICF examines the environmental benefits of US natural gas use in China, Germany, and India, finding that using US liquefied natural gas (LNG), rather than coal for electricity generation produces on average 50.5 percent fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in all base case scenarios studied.

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) (September 2019): Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective On Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas From The United States: 2019 Update

    • Overview: This analysis shows that for all 100-yr time horizon scenarios the generation of power from natural gas has lower life cycle GHG emissions than power generation from regional coal.

Click to download PDF