Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Geoffrey Styles on Jun 25, 2014 with 1 response

Condensate Pries Open the Oil Export Lid

US Administration OKs Exports without Requiring Congressional Approval

I see that the US Commerce Department has given two US companies permission to export condensate that would otherwise be trapped here under a 1970s-vintage ban on US oil exports. This validates the view, as described in a white paper from the office of Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) earlier this year, that the administration has the statutory authority necessary to allow such exports.

After decades of investment to process the increasingly heavy and sour crude oil types available for import, most US refineries, particularly on the Gulf and west coasts, are no longer equipped to run large volumes of the extremely light condensates and oils now coming from onshore shale deposits. Allowing producers to achieve world-market prices for their output should boost the economy and raise tax receipts, yet is unlikely to harm consumers.

Condensate Exports Won’t Reduce US Gasoline Production

Condensates are a class of hydrocarbons distinct from crude oil, but they share enough oil-like characteristics frequently to be lumped in with the latter, as in US export regulations. The technical definition of condensates encompasses both the “natural gasoline” extracted during the processing of natural gas produced from oil fields (“associated gas”,) as well as the heaviest liquids separated from “non-associated” gas, i.e. from gas fields, rather than oil fields.

The condensate being exported in this case comes mainly from liquids-rich shale deposits like the Eagle Ford in Texas, which produces varying proportions of dry gas, “wet” gas containing NGLs and condensate, and crude oil, depending on well location. Condensate apparently accounts for around 20-40% of Eagle Ford “tight oil” output.

Condensate mainly consists of natural gas liquids like ethane, propane and butane, along with substantial quantities of naphtha, a low-octane mix of hydrocarbons that boils in the gasoline range, plus much smaller proportions of diesel and heavier “gas oils” than would be typical of crude oil. The naphtha in condensate can sometimes be blended into gasoline, depending on its specific qualities, or processed in a refinery to yield higher-quality gasoline components.

Subsequent to the phase-out of tetraethyl lead, most gasoline from US refineries has been a blend of higher-octane naphthas produced by catalytic cracking units and the “reformate” from catalytic reforming units, and intended for further blending during distribution with up to 10% ethanol. Last month US refineries set an all-time record for gasoline production, at over 10 million barrels per day. They are unlikely to miss the naphtha exported in condensate.

Petrochemical Market Demand

Historically, the global market for condensate has had important distinctions from the broader crude oil market, based on the inherent characteristics of these liquids and the end-users seeking them. Refiners running mainly heavy oils sometimes buy condensate to lighten their average inputs and fill gaps in their processing and blending capacities.

With the Gulf Coast now drowning in light “tight oil” from shale, this is becoming too much of a good thing, as refiners increasingly have more light material in their feedstock than their facilities can easily handle. The result is prompting investment in new facilities to provide minimal processing–really just distillation–for condensate.

By contrast, petrochemical producers, particularly in Asia, are expected to import growing volumes of condensate for use in the production of olefins like ethylene and propylene, and aromatics like toluene and benzene, from which to make plastics, solvents and other petrochemicals. In that market, US condensate will compete with condensate from other gas producing nations, and with exports of refinery naphtha from Europe and elsewhere. This looks like a good opportunity for US firms.

Conclusions – Will Condensate Exports Lead to Crude Oil Exports?

Advocates of lifting the ban on crude oil exports will likely see the Commerce Department’s ruling as a precedent for allowing exports of all types of oil, or at least a good first step. However, some reports have focused on this ruling as an end-run around the export rules by redefining minimally processed condensates as a petroleum product, and thus exempt from the ban. In that case, the resulting precedent from condensates for exports of true crude oil may be weaker than that from ongoing, permitted oil exports to Canada.

Either way, I believe this is a smart move that, if continued, should ease crude congestion on the Gulf Coast and reduce the likelihood of fratricide–steep discounts making domestic oil less economical to produce, benefiting imports. It might even push the problem beyond the current election year, allowing Congress to consider normalizing all oil exports, without the inhibiting effect of populist pressures at the polls. In the meantime, you can bet these condensate exports will be closely scrutinized for any noticeable effects, good or bad.

  1. By Forrest on June 27, 2014 at 11:31 am

    The alchemy of producing fuel and plastic from the array of geological chemical brew is indeed complex and intricate. The yield of each gas and oil well is unique. To me the industry appears to be in constant flux of refining, processing, and exploration to match up with market need and technological capability of each processing plant and regulation. No wonder the countries that try to nationalize the oil business fail. Also, it appears the endeavor requires an international cooperation as the job is best accomplished and sold upon marketplace of need (higher price) and complementary capability.

    The subject is about our government attempt to control oil market per some perceived benefit to consumers aka populism of biases. History is riddled with such examples of politics coming to the rescue to save citizens from ravages of business. Politicians can’t help themselves as electorate demands action. Action from the most incompetent of the mix that has control. We need lobbyist to educate politicians, as they are hapless without such expert information. Can you image the carnage if politicians just acted upon and stroked partisans’ ideology biases instead of leading and educating country to better choices? When countries have supply problems be it gasoline, food, toilet paper, or value of money government politicians come to the rescue and apply draconian solutions that always do more harm than good. The unintended consequences of real world supply demand economics. The regulations are crude, inflexible, and never updated. The real world has tremendous ability to adjust, invent, and invest to meet needs of consumers, even if it has to be black market supply. Government at best should enable, increase, and maximize the open market competition, and that would entail minimizing corruption and monopolistic forces. But, politicians become powerful not by such noble endeavors, they become powerful explaining to population their need to trust more money and power to their control and to seed distrust of every competing entity. Jimmy Carter had one such easy (bad) solution. We can’t make oil cheaper by shackling exports, but doing so will hurt our own economy and future supply. Not a good remedy.

    [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!