Do the math – no, the U.S. can’t punish Putin by exporting oil and gas.

[dipsydoodle]

Can the U.S. direct our oil and gas exports to Europe (or Ukraine) to help?

In the short term: No, because the U.S. does not have excess natural gas or oil to sell.

In the medium to long term: Only if the U.S. has excess natural gas or oil to sell. There is a chance the U.S. could be a net exporter of natural gas within a decade, but almost no chance for becoming a net exporter of oil.

In the short term:

It is practically impossible for the U.S. to have any significant impact on Russia in the short term because today the U.S. is still a net importer of natural gas and oil. Yes, the U.S. is still a net buyer of both natural gas and oil from the rest of the world – not a net seller to the world.

See EIA data showing that NG imports (see here for EIA data) are greater than NG exports (see here for EIA data). For example, the EIA data for 2013 show 1572 billion cubic feet of exports and 2883 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of imports, meaning that despite all of the shale gas production, the U.S. is a NET IMPORTER of natural gas (mainly via pipeline from Canada) of 2,883 – 1,572 = 1,311 Bcf/yr.

Regarding the idea of sending natural gas to Ukraine, the Ukrainians imported 1,162 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas in 2012 (see here for EIA data). So currently, the U.S. net imports 2,883 – 1,572 = 1,311 Bcf/yr, which is about the same quantity of Ukrainian NG imports (1,162 Bcf in 2012)!

http://blog.environmentalresearchweb.org/2014/04/01/do-the-math-us-cant-punish-putin-by-exporting-oil-and-gas/

[cthulu2016]

1. Correct. (...now apply that to drill baby drill, keystone, etc.)

It seems some folks on all sides of everything share a stubborn refusal to recognize that energy is fungible.

From drill baby drill dramatically cutting domestic energy prices, to keystone dramatically increasing domestic energy prices by making energy easier to export, or to punish Putin by selling our oil, it is all attempts to take a hose and fill up only one part of a swimming pool.

If we sell oil to Joe instead of Mary then Mary buys oil from somebody else. If we sell to Joe for less than Mary has to pay, that is tantamount to a cash payment to Joe.

If the argument is that we should give somebody a cash payment, that's fine. But that is all it boils down to.

Energy costs what it costs globally, as a commodity, plus transportation and refining costs, and minus whatever subsidies someone gives, which are the same as a cash payment since they could sell the subsidized product on the open market.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Aside from that,

with respect to the US getting involved with loosening Europe's ties to Russia for gas , if the US really wants to fuck the environment then this is how it would happen :

It would require 400 supertankers , most of which don't exist at present anyway , with each tanker emitting what is known to be the equivalent of 50,000,000 cars each year - I make that the equivalent of 20 billion cars