Commerce Issues Guidance Regarding Restrictions on Crude Oil Exports

Jan 12, 2015

Reading Time : 4 min

Background

BIS administers the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) that, among other things, restrict the export of crude oil (including lease condensate) from the United States. While crude oil exports are largely prohibited without a license that is only available in narrow circumstances and for limited periods of time, the same rules do not apply to crude oil that has been processed through a distillation tower. The resultant product is considered to be a “petroleum product” that is generally not subject to export restrictions.

In the summer of 2014, BIS issued classification rulings to a U.S. oil producer and a large midstream company that received significant attention because they apparently determined that “lightly” processed condensate was considered to be a petroleum product that can be exported to non-embargoed destinations without a license. See our prior analysis here. In the wake of the rulings, BIS faced questions from Congress and industry groups on whether the rulings were tantamount to a policy change that provided a way to circumvent export restrictions on crude oil. Although BIS received additional classification requests from companies, it apparently did not issue any further classification rulings until now. A primary question that consequently remained for companies was what level of processing was sufficient to transform crude oil into a petroleum product.

Separately, BIS indicated that it would issue FAQ guidance to provide exporters with its interpretation of the export restrictions surrounding crude oil and what constitutes sufficient processing to convert crude oil into a petroleum product. This guidance was issued on December 30, when BIS also released rulings on a number of related CCATS.

FAQ Guidance

Two of the FAQs issued provide new guidance regarding crude oil exports: (i) one (FAQ #4) attempts to clarify what constitutes “processed through a distillation tower” and the factors it uses in making that determination, and (ii) the other (FAQ #6) discusses the commingling of foreign and domestic crude oil in the context of a license application for exports of foreign crude oil. This new guidance is discussed in further detail below.

FAQ #4 - “Guidance on What Constitutes Processing through a Distillation Tower”

FAQ #4 provides the following threshold guidance:

  • Distillation is “the process of separating a mixture of components according to their differences in boiling points.” 
  • “Material” processing must occur in the distillation tower to be sufficient processing to transform crude oil.
  • Processes that utilize pressure reduction alone to separate vapors from liquid or pressure changes at a uniform temperature, such as flash drums with heater treaters or separators, are insufficient processing to transform crude oil.

BIS also identifies a non-exhaustive list of factors that it considers in making a determination whether crude oil has been processed through a distillation tower. Applications submitted to BIS for classification requests, as well as company self-classification determinations, should address each of these factors:

  • Whether the distillation process materially transforms the crude oil, by using heat to induce evaporation and condensation, into liquid streams that are chemically distinct from the crude oil input
  • Whether the streams resulting from distillation have purposes other than allowing the product to be classified as exportable petroleum products, such as use as petrochemical feedstock, diluent and gasoline blendstock
  • Whether the distillation process utilizes temperature gradients and has significant internal structures, such as trays or packing, and differentiated output streams
  • Whether the distillation uses towers with more mechanical complexity and heat, higher residence time, internal structures that promote condensation and better separation, and consistent quality liquid streams (also called cuts or fractions) than equipment used to separate vapors and liquids for transportation needs.

Additionally, the FAQ identifies other factors that are information requirements, such as:

  • The change in API gravity of the products between the input to the process and the output of the process
  • The change in percentage of different types of hydrocarbons between the input and output of the process.

However, because the FAQ does not mention any embedded standards or thresholds, it is unclear what BIS’s position is on these factors, including the quantitative criteria for what constitutes “distillation.”  In the context of a self-determination, these factors carry some risk of misclassification without further information from BIS.

In sum, this FAQ attempts to provide companies with a basis to either submit CCATS to BIS or self-classify products using these criteria. Consequently, it is likely that more companies will take one of these paths and position themselves to export petroleum products to the extent that their business operations align (or could align) with this guidance. Should a company decide to self-classify, it bears the legal risk that its determination is incorrect, which can result in large fines and other penalties. As noted, the risk could be exacerbated because some of the factors are information requests without stated thresholds or standards. Moreover, the legal risk increases to the extent a company electing to self-classify its exports relies upon its counterparties; for example, in the case of a producer, its gatherers and processors, downstream transporters and purchasers, to take adequate measures (e.g., not commingling “petroleum products” resulting from a distillation process with non-exportable condensate) to support such determination.

FAQ #6 – “Commingling of Foreign and Domestic Crude Oil”

FAQ #6 provides new guidance with respect to license applications for the export of foreign-origin crude oil. Specifically, BIS acknowledges that there may be minimal mixing of products due to incidental contact in pipelines and/or storage tanks when foreign-origin and U.S.-origin oil is sequentially transported or stored in the same pipeline or tank. In such cases, BIS encourages applicants to include an explanation of the precautions taken to ensure that U.S. crude oil is not mixed with the foreign-origin crude, other than incidental contact.

The guidance may address some companies’ questions regarding de minimis commingling of products and related information that should be included in a license application, and is also instructive for similar commingling issues that may occur outside of foreign crude issues (e.g., commingling of domestic crude and “petroleum products” that have been processed differently).

Impact on Efforts to Lift Export Restrictions on Crude Oil

Administration officials recently commented that the White House believes that these recent BIS actions essentially resolve the debate regarding lifting the ban on crude oil because there is “not a lot of pressure to do more.” Nevertheless, Rep. Joe Barton (R–TX) apparently intends to re-introduce a bill next week to lift the export restrictions on crude oil.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Trade Law

2023-01-26

At the end of last year, World Trade Organization (WTO) members agreed that the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO will take place in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in February 2024. There is no doubt that the WTO is facing headwinds and is in need of a vigorous push forward. The UAE’s success in transforming itself into a global trade and digital hub and a leader in services trade could serve to drive a successful outcome at MC13.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2023-01-17

On December 21, 2022, the appeal arbitrators in the Colombia – Frozen Fries (DS591) World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute circulated their award (the “Award”). This was the second appeal conducted under Article 25 of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and the first appeal under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), a framework created by a group of WTO members to overcome the challenges posed by the non-operational Appellate Body.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2022-02-10

The United Kingdom just issued a new statutory instrument, effective immediately, which extends the authority to designate persons and entities under the U.K. sanctions against Russia.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-06-10

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin Gump’s webinar, “Protecting the Crown Jewels - New U.K. National Security Rules for Foreign Investment in a Post-COVID-19, Post-Brexit World.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-05-07

The clock is ticking down to the entry into force of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020.  Leading up to that date, businesses have a unique advocacy opportunity to influence the implementing regulations and associated processes, such as legislative changes to Mexico’s domestic laws. Additionally, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), along with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts, have begun issuing guidance for the trade community seeking to obtain the benefits of the agreement. At this time, these guidance documents include a petition process for automakers to request alternative staging for the automotive rules of origin as well as general interim implementation instructions for USMCA entries. Still to come are regulations regarding the automotive labor value content requirements and Uniform Regulations regarding the customs provisions. Akin Gump and our partners at Dorantes Advisors in Mexico City have jointly developed brief summaries of these guidance documents and a timeline of key actions still to take place prior to entry into force. The materials are available here in both English and Spanish.

...

Read More

Trade Law

2020-03-02

Last week, in a highly anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) concluded that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 does not offend the non-delegation doctrine. To most observers, the ruling does not come as a surprise, but the story on Section 232 and the non-delegation doctrine is not yet over.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.