On Monday the U.S. Energy Information Administration released its study on the “Effects of Removing Restrictions on U.S. Crude Oil Exports.” Some lawmakers have long advocated for abolishing the ban, which was enacted in 1975, and it appears the EIA more or less agrees that the positives outweigh the negatives. According to the report, “[C]ombined U.S. production of crude oil and lease condensate show a rise from 5.6 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2011 to 8.7 million b/d in 2014.” This year it is expected to eclipse 9.4 million barrels. The problem though, as the EIA notes, is that most of that crude oil has nowhere to go: “Current laws and regulations allow for unlimited exports of petroleum products, but require licensing of crude oil exports.” The Wall Street Journal editorializes that, even though “Obama has the authority to lift the ban unilaterally” and “the Administration has been allowing exports here and there — most recently to Mexico,” his current strategy is political gerrymandering intended to satiate both sides of the aisle: “The President may be hoping this will soften the call for a legislative repeal of the ban, while satisfying his green allies who want to keep the ban to deny U.S. producers access to world markets and squelch the U.S. drilling boom.” A comprehensive repeal, however, could provide America’s ailing economy a much-needed boost. The EIA found that “[p]etroleum product prices in the United States, including gasoline prices, would be either unchanged or slightly reduced by the removal of current restrictions on crude oil exports.” But that’s assuming a full repeal, not Obama picking winners and losers.