U.S. Crude Oil Exports Increased to Nearly 3 Million Barrels per day in 2019

U.S. Energy Information Administration

2018. This growth in U.S. crude oil exports was driven by increasing U.S. crude oil production, expanding domestic infrastructure, and increasing global demand for light, low-sulfur crude oils. The number of destinations for U.S. crude oil exports also increased from 41 to 44. Canada received the largest share of U.S. crude oil exports at 459,000 b/d (15%), followed by South Korea at 426,000 b/d (14%).

U.S. crude oil exports averaged 2.98 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2019, up 45% (930,000 b/d) from Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly

get more

from your land

Are Your Royalty Checks Correct? From preparing your year-end income tax return and conducting meetings with service providers to performing royalty audits and identifying a wealth enhancement plan that’s tailored to meet your family’s unique needs. Give us a call and find out if you could be missing out on an even bigger pay day.

Jim Fracker 740.630.9644 jim.fracker@reacpa.com

Scott Moyer 740.454.3297 scott.moyer@reacpa.com

Conversely, U.S. crude oil exports to China, the third-largest export destination in 2018, fell by nearly 100,000 b/d to average 133,000 b/d in 2019, dropping China to the seventh-largest export destination in 2019. In the first half of 2018, the United States exported 389,000 b/d of crude oil to China, which made China the top destination for U.S. crude oil exports during that period. However, in the summer of 2018, trade negotiations between the United States and China and unfavorable prices led China to reduce imports of U.S. crude oil to an average of just 77,000 b/d.

In 2019, the reduction of U.S. exports to China continued; U.S. crude oil exports to China averaged only 133,000 b/d in 2019 compared with 232,000 b/d in full-year 2018. Although U.S. exports to China declined in 2019, U.S. crude oil exports to other destinations increased, most notably to South Korea, the Netherlands, and India.

Principal contributor: Mason Hamilton Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly

are making to be part of the solution to water quality challenges.”

This bill also faces significant challenges at the state level. Amanda Ferguson with the Ohio Attorney General’s environmental enforcement division said in the state’s perspective, Toledo’s power would be overreaching state authority, as the State of Ohio has constitutionally protected rights in ownership of the lake.

Although the Toledo lawsuit was filed in response to concerns from farmers and fertilizer runoff, CELDF has pushed similar initiatives across Ohio and in other states using oil and natural gas as the primary target to push its agenda. Founder and Executive Director Thomas Linzey’s clearly laid out this agenda in a 2015 speech:

“If you are going to put all that work into a ballot initiative, why not do a ballot initiative that bans all finance companies in New York City from funding new projects that exasperate climate change? Why not do something real…why not do something real…cause people are saying to themselves, ‘it would be illegal, it would be unlawful, it would be unconstitutional, because you are taking their property’ well..(expletive), it’s time.” (emphasis added) As a result of the continued push regardless of its legality, in Youngstown alone, taxpayers have voted against CELDF’s measures nearly a dozen times. As Reutersreported:

“Linzey says his goal is not to write local laws that are popular, or stand up in court, but rather to trigger a public CELDF continued from page 12 debate about community rights to local self-government – even if it means a community ultimately falls into financial ruin.”

A year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Baxter ruled against Grant Township’s (Elk County, Pa.) claim for taxpayers to pay for the township’s legal fees during its attempts to ban a Class II injection well. In 2018, Judge Baxter even called out CELDF lawyers:

“Attorneys Linzey and Dunne have pursued certain claims and defenses in bad faith. Based upon prior CELDF litigation, each was on notice of the legal implausibility of the arguments previously advanced…”

“Despite their own prior litigation, CELDF and Attorney Linzey, in particular, continue to advance discredited arguments as a basis for CELDF’s ill-conceived and sponsored [Community Bill of Rights], and in doing so have vexatiously multiplied the litigation of this matter.”

As EID has covered at length, CELDF’s constant battles (and losses) have become exceedingly burdensome for taxpayers. This ruling is just another loss to be added to the list of court challenges overturning LEBOR measures. We’ve been down this road before, but it seems as if CELDF refuses to give up – no matter the cost.

OHIO’S LEADING CHOICE IN OIL AND GAS LAW

Roetzel’s experienced Oil and Gas attorneys provide a wide array of legal services focused on landowner representation including: • Leasing and lease renewals, ratifications and amendments • Litigation, including: Lack of production, Dormant Mineral Act, Marketable Title Act • Pooling and unitization • Pipeline easements • Surface development • Mineral LLC’s • Royalty disputes

For additional information, contact Dave Wigham at dwigham@ralaw.com or Tim Pettorini at tpettorini@ralaw.com.

GAS AND OIL TEAM MEMBERS: EMILY ANGLEWICZ, SARA FANNING, BEN FRAIFOGL, JEREMY MARTIN AND BRET MCNAB • 222 SOUTH MAIN STREET I AKRON, OH 44308 I 330.376.2700 • 121 NORTH MARKET STREET, 6TH FLOOR I WOOSTER, OH 44691 I 330.376.2700