Good morning; here's what the Oilman has for you today:

• Keep It At Home? Oil Export Ban Back on the Table

• Exxon Cuts Investor Advisor Down to Size

• Tweet of the Day

Keep It At Home: Oil Export Ban Back on the Table

A group of Senators and House Reps has proposed a bill to ban oil and gas exports, claiming it would help the country hit its climate targets.

It would also be good for coastal communities and all Americans in general as it would make their gas cheaper.

Old tune, new singers

There’s been a string of legislative attempts to reimpose the ban on oil and gas exports that the Obama administration saw lifted in 2015.

The cheap gas argument is a frequent one: keep the oil and gas at home so there’s enough for our people first.

Sounds legit, right?

What the people putting these arguments forward forget is that oil is a globally traded commodity. Even before the ban was lifted, U.S. prices followed global prices.

In other words, you won’t get cheap gas when U.S. exports dry up and benchmark oil soars to $150 a barrel.

In fact, you will get cheap gas if more U.S. oil goes international because it would help keep global prices down.

Sounds weird but makes perfect sense if you think about it.

The sponsors of the BAN Fossil Fuel Exports Act don’t seem to be big on the thinking, however.

And they are forgetting another thing, too.

The ban would benefit the Bad Guys

A ban on U.S. oil and gas exports would hand an easy victory to OPEC+.

• First, it would increase the cartel’s global market share.

• Second, it would raise prices, which OPEC+ likes very much.

• Third, as a result of the first and second, the international clout of OPEC+ will increase while the U.S. will suffer a decline.

We don’t want that, now, do we?

And what will our European “allies” say if we turn the oil and LNG taps off?

Today’s Edition is Brought to You By Wicked Energy

Are you tired of feeling disconnected from the pulse of the energy industry? Want to stay ahead of the game and be in the know of the latest developments and trends shaping the industry?

Look no further than the Wicked Energy with JG podcast.

Each episode is like a VIP pass to an exclusive industry event featuring in-depth interviews with experts who are shaping the future of energy. Forget the "us vs. them" narrative; join Wicked Energy's journey as JG strives to unite the industry and bridge the gap to create more abundant, reliable, and affordable energy for all. Don't just take our word for it; tune in and see for yourself.

Join the conversation at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube.

Exxon Cuts Investor Advisor Down to Size

A proxy advisor for Exxon shareholders just got a dose of reality from the company after recommending that shareholders vote for more climate disclosure and more emission-cutting.

In an SEC filing, Exxon shredded Glass Lewis’s claims it’s not doing enough for the transition and even said the transition might not work.

A supermajor that’s had enough

Glass Lewis has insisted that Exxon should produce more emission disclosure reports and that it should do something about reducing risks arising from the tRaNsitiOn tO nEt ZeRo.

In response, Exxon had this to say:

“Glass Lewis’ conclusion appears to be that we have already provided so much disclosure that it should be easy for us to provide more.

“Requests for ever more reporting ignore the time, additional cost, and resources every report takes for the company to prepare.”

And that was just a warm-up.

“Glass Lewis states that AROs could represent a material financial risk to the company. We are unable to understand how they have arrived at this conclusion. In accordance with GAAP, we do not incorporate into our financial statements those types of risks that are as remote as the IEA NZE path.”

Boom.

Net zero is not happening, and we all know it

AROs stands for “asset retirement obligations” and basically refer to claims that with net zero, oil companies will end up with their assets stranded and losing money.

But if the net-zero scenario is as remote as Exxon says it is—citing the IEA, no less—the risk of assets getting stranded is just as remote…and not worth thinking about.

In other words, Exxon is saying that the IEA itself does not believe its own net-zero scenario can work.

If the IEA doesn’t believe in its own scenario, why should Exxon?

And why should Exxon splash on literally pointless reporting and risk assessment when the risk is minuscule?

These are uncomfortable questions for the likes of Glass Lewis, but Exxon saved the best for last.

“It is highly unlikely that society would accept the degradation in the global standard of living required to permanently achieve a scenario like the IEA NZE.”

Case closed.

Around the Global Patch

🇨🇦 Fuel costs soar as Canadian driving season begins.
🇨🇳 China intensifies old oil tanker inspections. 
🇿🇦 Winter woes: South Africa's anticipated surge in blackouts.

Tweet of the Day

Thanks for reading today's Oil Patch!

Stay oily, my friend.

Two quick requests before you go:

• If you found this useful, forward this email to a friend to spread the word. 👇

• Take 1 second to answer the poll below, and please tell us what you think 👇👇

Interested in sponsoring The OilPatch?

Reply to this email to request our media kit and to learn more about sponsorship opportunities.