Key Barrier to Alaska Oil Export Lifted : Trade: Move could create thousands of jobs in California and help revive petroleum industry. Congress must OK an end to the ban, which could ease imbalance with Japan, the likeliest market.

Secret negotiations have cleared away the key obstacle to lifting the ban on export of Alaskan crude oil, a move that could lead to the revival of California’s moribund oil industry and create thousands of jobs in the state.

Independent California oil producers estimate that ending the export ban could trim more than $2 billion annually from the U.S. trade deficit with Japan, the likeliest market for the oil.

Until now, U.S. maritime unions--whose crews by law now tanker the Alaskan oil to U.S. ports in California and the Gulf Coast--have opposed lifting the ban, effectively quashing congressional action. But the unions have accepted a deal in principle that would send the oil to Asian markets on U.S.-flag ships, sources close to the talks say.

That agreement--reached in recent weeks by the unions and British Petroleum, one of the big Alaskan oil producers--means that Congress will probably remove the export ban as it extends the Export Administration Act, a measure now under consideration in the House and Senate, according to officials familiar with legislative discussions.

Independent California oil producers and oil companies working in Alaska--principally British Petroleum--have lobbied long and hard to end the ban, which they say floods the California market with Alaskan crude.

That depresses oil prices in the region and makes it uneconomical to pump oil from California fields, the industry contends. Since 1985, 32,000 jobs and $623 million in state and local taxes and royalty payments have been lost, according to estimates by the California Independent Petroleum Assn.

The ban is “a relic” of 20 years ago, said Dan Kramer, executive director of the producer trade group. The export limits--and the assurance of U.S. control of the shipping jobs--were embedded in the legislation that authorized construction of the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline.

At first, most of the crude made the long journey from Alaska to refineries on the Gulf Coast. But in recent years, as West Coast refineries have been modified to accept the Alaskan crude, most of the oil has ended up making the shorter, less expensive trip to California.

That, California producers say, forces an extra 300,000 barrels a day of Alaskan crude into the California market. Others estimate that the “excess” oil is about half that.

Officials of the Seafarers International Union, headquartered in Washington, declined to comment Friday, and British Petroleum executives could not be reached for comment. But other sources confirmed the outline of the agreement. Most agreed that a pact between BP and the unions would have to be given the force of law by Congress.

Howard Marlowe, spokesman for the Coalition to Keep Alaska Oil--a group that opposes lifting the ban--confirmed to the Associated Press that some coalition members have told BP they would support the deal.

Exxon Corp. and Los Angeles-based Atlantic Richfield Co., both big producers in Alaska, use their crude primarily in their own refineries and distribution networks. But BP has long wanted to sell its Alaskan oil to Asian refiners--sales from which the company can expect higher profits. Diverting the Alaskan crude to Asia would spur production by California refiners and almost certainly raise their prices, which they say are depressed by $2 to $5 a barrel.

In both states, oil experts expect that lifting the ban would increase investment in the industry. But few believe it would significantly affect the price of gasoline at California pumps because retail prices depend largely on world oil prices.

BP approached the U.S. maritime unions about a month ago, according to one knowledgeable maritime attorney, asking whether they would drop their opposition to lifting the ban in exchange for the assurance that U.S. ships and sailors would keep their jobs transporting the oil.

“And as of about a week ago, maritime labor said yes,” the attorney said Friday.

U.S. shipping executives apparently agree. “They think they have a better chance of utilizing existing boats and perhaps building a couple of new boats” under such an agreement “than if (they continue to support) the dwindling traffic to the gulf,” the lawyer said.

Many in the Clinton Administration have favored ending the ban, but opposition in Congress has been led by the unions and shipping concerns. The U.S. Department of Energy has been studying the economic and employment impact of lifting the ban, and Assistant Energy Secretary William White is scheduled to detail some of the study’s findings Monday in Monterey, at the annual meeting of the producers association.

Earlier industry-sponsored studies held that ending the ban would create 5,500 to 15,000 jobs in California and increase production in the state by as much as 500,000 barrels a day.

“If the analysis concludes that lifting the ban would benefit independent producers, domestic production and the state, I would be a strong advocate,” Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary said during a visit to California in February.