海角大神

It began with a trickle, and behind closed doors.

Last year the Department of Commerce quietly told two companies they could export lightly processed lease condensates, an ultralight form of oil, to foreign markets. When of the rulings surfaced over the summer, industry insiders saw the move as a significant break from a policy that has governed US energy trade for decades.

The US bans most forms of crude oil exports for energy security reasons that stretch back to the oil shocks of the 1970s.

Commerce鈥檚 perceived shift in the rules, however slight, cracked open a door in US energy policy that had long been closed. It left oil companies wondering what exactly they could or could not ship overseas. Free-trade advocates encouraged further loosening export restrictions to promote greater efficiency in the global oil market. Environmentalists warned that curtailing the ban would result in more oil spills and increased carbon emissions.

鈥淵ou have a 40-year-old law on the books. If you鈥檙e going to change it, you should make it clear why you would change it,鈥� says Eric de Place, policy director of the Sightline Institute, an environmental group. 鈥淓ven the industry doesn鈥檛 seem to know what鈥檚 going on.鈥�

That's why, on Tuesday, several environmental groups filed a for Commerce to release documents on its easing of the decades-old ban. 鈥淭he public has a right to know how [Commerce鈥檚 Bureau of Industry and Security] is interpreting and applying the crude oil export ban in its recent secret rulings,鈥� the FOIA request says.

Regardless of their position on the oil export ban, everyone seems to be asking: What exactly is banned, and why? Those questions might be irrelevant if US oil output were flat or in decline. But over recent years, the US has seen a dramatic increase in the production of oil 鈥� and much of it is the kind of ultralight liquids that don鈥檛 fit neatly into traditional petroleum categories, and are processed in a variety of ways.

听

鈥淲e鈥檙e in this no man鈥檚 land where it鈥檚 not raw crude, but it鈥檚 not finished product either,鈥� says Deborah Gordon, director of the energy and climate program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank.

As the US works its way toward being the world鈥檚 No. 1 producer of petroleum, there is confusion both over policies surrounding the newfound oil surge, and how exactly those policies are made.

鈥淭here鈥檚 always been a lack of transparency on crude oil exports in general,鈥� says Charles Ebinger, senior fellow in the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank. Commerce鈥檚 individual decisions on applications to export aren鈥檛 made public, so when companies are trying to figure out what鈥檚 okay to export 鈥渢here鈥檚 no regulatory history that you can go by.鈥�

For its part, Commerce has attempted to clarify its position on exports. In late December, the department detailing why companies could export condensates, including .

鈥淭he sense I get is that it鈥檚 Commerce saying 鈥� with a wink and a nod 鈥� that if you say it鈥檚 light stuff, we鈥檙e not going to fight you,鈥� says Mr. Ebinger.

As clear as crude

Environmentalists and industry insiders alike say Commerce鈥檚 ruling does not offer enough clarity and transparency on an issue that plays an increasingly large role in the country鈥檚 economy and environment. What鈥檚 more, uncertainty over the ban鈥檚 ultimate fate makes it difficult address myriad other long-term issues surrounding US energy security.

鈥淚f they 鈥榗larify鈥� this any further, I鈥檓 going to be utterly confused,鈥� Al Troner, president of Asia Pacific Energy Consulting, says of Commerce鈥檚 December policy allowing . 鈥淓verything they answer raises two more questions.鈥�

Uncertainty about what the export policy is and where it鈥檚 headed can be frustrating for companies looking to plan future ventures and for environmentalists seeking government transparency. Many are wondering about the internal Commerce decision-making process that precipitated the shift in policy on condensates.

鈥淲e don鈥檛 even know what the change in policy is,鈥� says Mr. de Place, of the environmental group Sightline. 鈥淭here鈥檚 the murkiness of [last year鈥檚 condensate export] licensing exemptions, and then there鈥檚 the murkiness of the motivation behind it.鈥�

Environmentalists see a policy slowly eroding behind closed doors, and worry that scrapping the exports ban would boost drilling and lead to more carbon emissions.

For the industry, widening the marketplace for US oil is the desired result of lifting the ban. Its push to export condensates and crude more broadly comes at a time of US energy abundance, fueled by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in US shale plays.

Though current American production rivals Saudi Arabia鈥檚, oil prices have plummeted nearly 60 percent since last June, presenting an enormous challenge for US producers that need higher prices to break even. That鈥檚 why US companies are eager to expand their pool of buyers, especially in higher-priced markets.

鈥淭he whole export discussion came about because there鈥檚 too much oil in the US,鈥� says Erik Broekhuizen, head of research at Poten & Partners, a broker and adviser for the energy and ocean transportation industries, in a telephone interview Tuesday. The industry hopes that opening up exports would alleviate the glut of US crude.

Asked for comment, Commerce pointed to a December 30 statement from Eric L. Hirschhorn, Department of Commerce under secretary, saying the policy clarification was 鈥渋nformed by a review of technological and policy issues, together with interagency consultations.鈥�

Oil politics

Environmentalists say the secrecy surrounding December鈥檚 clarifications could be an effort to protect Obama鈥檚 green credentials: 鈥淓roding the ban raises questions about Obama鈥檚 environmental commitments,鈥� de Place says.

In his second term, Obama has worked to cement an environmental legacy by proposing new limits on power plant emissions and reaching an ambitious climate accord with China.

For its part, the Obama administration has signalled it鈥檚 not particularly compelled to further lift the ban on exports.

鈥淎t this stage, I think that what the Commerce Department did in December sort of resolves the debate. We felt comfortable with where they went,鈥� White House adviser John Podesta Reuters in January. 鈥淚f you look at what's going on in the market and actions that the Department took, I think that ... there's not a lot of pressure to do more.鈥�

Congress has other ideas. Earlier this week, the GOP-led Senate Energy Committee touted an showing a 69 percent majority of Americans support 鈥渁llowing American oil producers to sell crude oil to customers in countries who are trading partners.鈥�

To that end, Congressional Republicans are testing the waters on scrapping the oil exports ban all together. Rep. Joe Barton (R) of Texas last week entirely. Several weeks ago Sen. Ted Cruz (R) of Texas considered attaching an amendment lifting the oil exports ban to legislation approving the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline.

Mr. Cruz , who want more time to make their case to reluctant members of Congress. The industry argues that sending US oil abroad won鈥檛 raise domestic gasoline prices 鈥� a perennial concern for constituents and their pocketbooks. According to the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry group, failing to lift the ban completely will 鈥渓imit our growth as an energy superpower.鈥�

Senate Energy Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska is a vocal supporter of lifting the exports ban, but has been mum about when or what the GOP-led Senate would do to change the 70s-era policy.

鈥淪o much of advancing legislation successfully is timing,鈥� Ms. Murkowski the Dallas Morning News. 鈥淎nd particularly when you鈥檙e attempting to change a policy that has been in play for decades.鈥�

[Editor's note: A previous version of this article referred to the Commerce Department's "private letter rulings" on condensate exports听as "permits." The Commerce Department does not issue "permits" to export crude oil.]