NextEnergy to Celebrate National Transportation Week May 13-19 in Detroit with Biodiesel Facility Groundbreaking May 15, and Other Industry Activities
Biodiesel Industries of Detroit: Assisted by Detroit-based NextEnergy, California-based Biodiesel Industries, Inc. will break ground on Detroit's first biodiesel production plant. The facility will produce 10 million gallons of biodiesel fuel annually from multiple feedstocks including vegetable oil.
This is an official event of National Transportation Week (May 13-19 in Detroit), which is hosted by the Detroit Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau. (www.visitdetroit.com).
National Transportation Week (NTW): Established in 1962 by President Kennedy, NTW (www.ntweek.org) celebrates the historical significance of transportation in the United States and focuses on its future impact in our country. As of 2007 Detroit is the new home of NTW -- the city that put the nation in motion is flexing its muscles again to show the country it continues to be a leader in transportation.
WHO: Jim Croce, CEO of NextEnergy and a 20-plus-year energy industry veteran, is an alternative energy expert able to discuss current trends, near- term and future applications, and how NextEnergy is helping to transform the region into the nation's most technologically diverse transportation hub through its many alternative energy technology initiatives and partnerships.
Michigan's alternative energy accelerator, NextEnergy, is a non-profit founded to enable the commercialization of energy technologies that positively contribute to the nation's economic competitiveness, energy security and the environment.
WHERE/WHEN: Biodiesel Industries of Detroit groundbreaking at 250 E. Baltimore Avenue, Detroit, (Tuesday, May 15, 10:30 a.m. at John R and E. Baltimore)
NTW events at the NextEnergy Center (461 Burroughs, Detroit) include:
Monday, May 14
-- 10:00 - 10:30 a.m. National Transportation Week Kick-Off News Conference - to conclude with special Alternative Fuels Platform dedication
-- 10:30 a.m. - 2 p.m. Alternative Vehicles Media Ride & Drive
Tuesday, May 15
-- 7:30 - 10:00 a.m. WWJ Transportation Business Breakfast, "Moving Michigan: Advancing Transportation Through Technology"
(online registration at www.wwj.com)
Thursday, May 17
-- 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Michigan Clean Fleets Conference - presentations and exhibits on alternative fuels, hybrids, clean diesel technologies, etc.
www.nextenergy.com
Source: NextEnergy
четверг, 10 мая 2007 г.
среда, 9 мая 2007 г.
U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Approves Historic Fuel Economy Legislation for Cars, SUVs, Trucks
Senate Bill would reduce oil dependence, enhance energy security
The Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a project of Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), expressed strong support for landmark fuel economy legislation approved today by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the U.S. Senate. The bipartisan bill promises to achieve substantial reductions in U.S. oil dependence by addressing consumption in the transportation sector, which accounts for nearly 70 percent of total U.S. oil demand.
The Ten-In-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was reported out of the Commerce Committee with support from a broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats, would increase the fuel economy of all on-road vehicles.
"The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act is a bold, bipartisan effort that will greatly improve the national security of the United States by reducing our oil dependence. The legislation deserves broad support."
"The Energy Security Leadership Council commends Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Snowe and other members of the Committee who helped advance this important initiative to address a profound economic and national security vulnerability. Senators Craig and Feinstein also made major contributions to today's victory," remarked General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.), 28th Commandant of the US Marine Corps and Co-Chair of the ESLC.
The bill incorporates four major provisions central to the ESLC's policy recommendations: presumptive and aggressive increases in vehicle fuel economy; application of those required economy increases to all on-road vehicles, including cars, SUVs, and medium and heavy trucks; an attribute-based system that gives the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to group vehicles by like-attributes and then apply different standards for like vehicles; and "off ramps" to protect consumers and manufacturers by allowing NHTSA to relax the mandated increases if such improvements are economically infeasible or unsafe.
The ESLC is an intensive effort by a collection of prominent business leaders and retired military officers to build support for a comprehensive policy to reduce U.S. oil dependence. SAFE is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization committed to reducing America's dependence on oil and improving U.S. energy security in order to bolster national security and strengthen the economy.
Frederick W. Smith, Chairman, President and CEO of FedEx and an ESLC Co- Chair, commented, "The Energy Security Leadership Council was pleased to work with the members of the Commerce Committee and deeply appreciates their efforts. The Ten-In-Ten Fuel Economy Act reflects key principles central to improving U.S. economic and national security.
"As individuals who have been grappling with the challenges that oil dependence poses to American prosperity and security, the Energy Security Leadership Council is pleased to support the Ten-In-Ten Fuel Economy Act. We look forward to working with members of the Senate in the coming weeks to improve this important legislation and address the critical need to increase domestic oil supply."
The Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC), a project of Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), expressed strong support for landmark fuel economy legislation approved today by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the U.S. Senate. The bipartisan bill promises to achieve substantial reductions in U.S. oil dependence by addressing consumption in the transportation sector, which accounts for nearly 70 percent of total U.S. oil demand.
The Ten-In-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was reported out of the Commerce Committee with support from a broad coalition of Republicans and Democrats, would increase the fuel economy of all on-road vehicles.
"The Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act is a bold, bipartisan effort that will greatly improve the national security of the United States by reducing our oil dependence. The legislation deserves broad support."
"The Energy Security Leadership Council commends Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Snowe and other members of the Committee who helped advance this important initiative to address a profound economic and national security vulnerability. Senators Craig and Feinstein also made major contributions to today's victory," remarked General P.X. Kelley, USMC (Ret.), 28th Commandant of the US Marine Corps and Co-Chair of the ESLC.
The bill incorporates four major provisions central to the ESLC's policy recommendations: presumptive and aggressive increases in vehicle fuel economy; application of those required economy increases to all on-road vehicles, including cars, SUVs, and medium and heavy trucks; an attribute-based system that gives the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to group vehicles by like-attributes and then apply different standards for like vehicles; and "off ramps" to protect consumers and manufacturers by allowing NHTSA to relax the mandated increases if such improvements are economically infeasible or unsafe.
The ESLC is an intensive effort by a collection of prominent business leaders and retired military officers to build support for a comprehensive policy to reduce U.S. oil dependence. SAFE is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization committed to reducing America's dependence on oil and improving U.S. energy security in order to bolster national security and strengthen the economy.
Frederick W. Smith, Chairman, President and CEO of FedEx and an ESLC Co- Chair, commented, "The Energy Security Leadership Council was pleased to work with the members of the Commerce Committee and deeply appreciates their efforts. The Ten-In-Ten Fuel Economy Act reflects key principles central to improving U.S. economic and national security.
"As individuals who have been grappling with the challenges that oil dependence poses to American prosperity and security, the Energy Security Leadership Council is pleased to support the Ten-In-Ten Fuel Economy Act. We look forward to working with members of the Senate in the coming weeks to improve this important legislation and address the critical need to increase domestic oil supply."
пятница, 4 мая 2007 г.
Bipartisan Energy Congressional Bill Would Increase Energy Efficiency of Appliances, Buildings, Vehicles and Permanently Authorize ESPCs
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s bipartisan energy bill would make important strides towards increasing the nation’s energy efficiency, the Alliance to Save Energy said today. The bill, passed by a large bipartisan majority, is headed for a vote by the full Senate within the next few weeks. While building on the foundation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, this bill also includes a number of key provisions that would fill gaps in the earlier legislation, the Alliance said.
The Alliance was involved in developing an amendment by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), adopted by the committee, authorizing a commercial building initiative – a new research, development, and deployment program to develop “zero-energy” commercial buildings. The program would be run by the U.S. Department of Energy in collaboration with an industry consortium.
The agreement, when combined with additional appliance efficiency standards for refrigerators and clothes washers, could increase total 30-year savings to nearly 15 quads of energy and 68 million acre feet of water. The specific efficiency levels for refrigerators and clothes washers will be determined by DOE and will depend on cost-benefit and other analyses. Total cumulative utility bill savings could be as high as $68 billion. (68 million acre feet would meet the annual water needs of about 272 million people; 3.3 quads would meet one year’s energy needs for about 70 percent of the U.S. population.)
The bill would codify in law new consensus energy-efficiency standards for residential boilers, dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators, dehumidifiers, and electric motors – standards that the Alliance helped to negotiate.
Notably, the bill would permanently authorize the Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) program, which allows private-sector financing of energy-efficiency upgrades to federal buildings. The program operates at no cost to taxpayers, with contractors paid with the money saved from reduced building energy costs.
The bill would codify targets from a recent Executive Order requiring a 30 percent reduction in energy use in existing federal buildings by 2015 and require new federal buildings to meet standards for reducing fossil fuel use, with the eventual goal of eliminating fossil fuel consumption in new buildings by 2030.
In the transportation area, the bill sets aggressive national goals for reducing gasoline use by 20 percent by 2017, 35 percent by 2025 and 45 percent by 2030 and requires federal fleets of civilian vehicles to reduce petroleum consumption by 20 percent by 2016.
The bill would also amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to authorize the secretary of energy to issue loan guarantees for facilities that manufacture parts for fuel-efficient vehicles.
On the appliance standards alone, the bill would provide the following savings:
* Electricity: At least 50 billion kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power roughly 4.8 million typical U.S. households;
* Natural gas: 170 million therms per year, or enough to heat about a quarter million typical U.S. homes;
* Water: At least 560 million gallons per day, or about 1.3 percent of total daily potable water usage; and
* Dollars: More than $12 billion in net present benefits for consumers.
“The Alliance sees this bipartisan bill as a critical step in moving our nation towards a more energy-secure future,” said Alliance President Kateri Callahan. “Recent polls indicate that 70 percent of the American people want Congress to take action to address climate change,” she added, “and enacting legislation to advance energy efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest and quickest way to make a meaningful start.”
“The Alliance to Save Energy is proud to be part of the forward-looking coalition of manufacturers and efficiency advocates whose landmark agreement on higher energy and water efficiency standards, as well as tax incentives to make major appliances more affordable, will save consumers energy and money and help curb the polluting emissions that contribute to climate change,” said Alliance to Save Energy President Kateri Callahan. “Minimum efficiency standards pay dividends for years to come by establishing base energy-efficiency levels for newly manufactured products and by locking in savings for the considerable lifespan of products such as clothes washers and dishwashers. They also push the U.S. economy, on a continuing basis, towards greater energy efficiency.”
“We look forward to working with the Energy Committee and the full Senate on additional energy-efficiency measures to improve national model building energy codes and to allow different efficiency standards for heating and cooling equipment in different climate regions,” Callahan continued.
“We also look forward to working with other congressional committees to add critical extensions and improvements to tax incentives for efficient new homes, home improvements, commercial buildings, appliances, and vehicles, and to add provisions on vehicle efficiency and federal building efficiency,” Callahan said.
~~~~~
The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote the efficient and clean use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, the environment, economy, and national security.
Source: The Alliance to Save Energy
The Alliance was involved in developing an amendment by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), adopted by the committee, authorizing a commercial building initiative – a new research, development, and deployment program to develop “zero-energy” commercial buildings. The program would be run by the U.S. Department of Energy in collaboration with an industry consortium.
The agreement, when combined with additional appliance efficiency standards for refrigerators and clothes washers, could increase total 30-year savings to nearly 15 quads of energy and 68 million acre feet of water. The specific efficiency levels for refrigerators and clothes washers will be determined by DOE and will depend on cost-benefit and other analyses. Total cumulative utility bill savings could be as high as $68 billion. (68 million acre feet would meet the annual water needs of about 272 million people; 3.3 quads would meet one year’s energy needs for about 70 percent of the U.S. population.)
The bill would codify in law new consensus energy-efficiency standards for residential boilers, dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators, dehumidifiers, and electric motors – standards that the Alliance helped to negotiate.
Notably, the bill would permanently authorize the Energy Savings Performance Contracting (ESPC) program, which allows private-sector financing of energy-efficiency upgrades to federal buildings. The program operates at no cost to taxpayers, with contractors paid with the money saved from reduced building energy costs.
The bill would codify targets from a recent Executive Order requiring a 30 percent reduction in energy use in existing federal buildings by 2015 and require new federal buildings to meet standards for reducing fossil fuel use, with the eventual goal of eliminating fossil fuel consumption in new buildings by 2030.
In the transportation area, the bill sets aggressive national goals for reducing gasoline use by 20 percent by 2017, 35 percent by 2025 and 45 percent by 2030 and requires federal fleets of civilian vehicles to reduce petroleum consumption by 20 percent by 2016.
The bill would also amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to authorize the secretary of energy to issue loan guarantees for facilities that manufacture parts for fuel-efficient vehicles.
On the appliance standards alone, the bill would provide the following savings:
* Electricity: At least 50 billion kilowatt hours per year, or enough to power roughly 4.8 million typical U.S. households;
* Natural gas: 170 million therms per year, or enough to heat about a quarter million typical U.S. homes;
* Water: At least 560 million gallons per day, or about 1.3 percent of total daily potable water usage; and
* Dollars: More than $12 billion in net present benefits for consumers.
“The Alliance sees this bipartisan bill as a critical step in moving our nation towards a more energy-secure future,” said Alliance President Kateri Callahan. “Recent polls indicate that 70 percent of the American people want Congress to take action to address climate change,” she added, “and enacting legislation to advance energy efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest and quickest way to make a meaningful start.”
“The Alliance to Save Energy is proud to be part of the forward-looking coalition of manufacturers and efficiency advocates whose landmark agreement on higher energy and water efficiency standards, as well as tax incentives to make major appliances more affordable, will save consumers energy and money and help curb the polluting emissions that contribute to climate change,” said Alliance to Save Energy President Kateri Callahan. “Minimum efficiency standards pay dividends for years to come by establishing base energy-efficiency levels for newly manufactured products and by locking in savings for the considerable lifespan of products such as clothes washers and dishwashers. They also push the U.S. economy, on a continuing basis, towards greater energy efficiency.”
“We look forward to working with the Energy Committee and the full Senate on additional energy-efficiency measures to improve national model building energy codes and to allow different efficiency standards for heating and cooling equipment in different climate regions,” Callahan continued.
“We also look forward to working with other congressional committees to add critical extensions and improvements to tax incentives for efficient new homes, home improvements, commercial buildings, appliances, and vehicles, and to add provisions on vehicle efficiency and federal building efficiency,” Callahan said.
~~~~~
The Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote the efficient and clean use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, the environment, economy, and national security.
Source: The Alliance to Save Energy
четверг, 3 мая 2007 г.
Kinder Morgan Fined for Tainted Fuel
Washington, D.C. - May 2, 2007 -- Kinder Morgan Transmix Co. has agreed to pay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency $600,000 to resolve numerous violations of federal air and hazardous waste regulations, including mixing hazardous waste with gasoline.
"Illegally adding hazardous waste to gasoline can injure people's health and foul our environment," said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "The fuel requirements of the Clean Air Act are a critical part of EPA's program to reduce air pollution, and today's action serves to underscore that we are protecting public health."
EPA cited the company for multiple violations of the federal Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The violations included failure to conduct an adequate waste analysis of the spent solvent and storing the material without an appropriate permit. The company also failed to collect and analyze samples of gasoline produced at its Hartford, Ill. facility.
EPA first discovered the violations in 2004 after following up on complaints from motorists about stalled vehicles. Hundreds of reports indicated that cars using gasoline produced at Kinder Morgan's Indianola, Pa., facility had stalled due to clogged fuel filters. During the investigation, EPA discovered the facility was blending gasoline with spent cyclohexane solvent, which is classified as a hazardous waste.
In addition to the hazardous waste violations, the company failed to meet the standards of the federal Clean Air Act. These standards require that all gasoline sold in the United States meet certain criteria ensuring it will not contribute to emission control system failures resulting in potential increased emissions.
Blending facilities mix gasoline with other components to produce finished gasoline. Gasoline is required by law to meet stringent environmental standards before it can be distributed.
The settlement also includes two related Kinder Morgan gasoline facilities located in Colton, Calif. and Richmond, Va. The Richmond facility is required to pay an additional penalty of $13,000 for failing to properly sample and analyze gasoline, as required by the Clean Air Act.
The settlement requires that the three companies improve quality control procedures at each of their five gasoline blending facilities. They must hire an independent firm to conduct compliance evaluations of the environmental practices and must take corrective action to address any problems identified by the auditors.
More information on the Kinder Morgan Transmix settlement: epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/kindermorgan.html
Help EPA protect our nation's land, air and water by reporting violations: epa.gov/tips
Source: US EPA
"Illegally adding hazardous waste to gasoline can injure people's health and foul our environment," said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "The fuel requirements of the Clean Air Act are a critical part of EPA's program to reduce air pollution, and today's action serves to underscore that we are protecting public health."
EPA cited the company for multiple violations of the federal Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The violations included failure to conduct an adequate waste analysis of the spent solvent and storing the material without an appropriate permit. The company also failed to collect and analyze samples of gasoline produced at its Hartford, Ill. facility.
EPA first discovered the violations in 2004 after following up on complaints from motorists about stalled vehicles. Hundreds of reports indicated that cars using gasoline produced at Kinder Morgan's Indianola, Pa., facility had stalled due to clogged fuel filters. During the investigation, EPA discovered the facility was blending gasoline with spent cyclohexane solvent, which is classified as a hazardous waste.
In addition to the hazardous waste violations, the company failed to meet the standards of the federal Clean Air Act. These standards require that all gasoline sold in the United States meet certain criteria ensuring it will not contribute to emission control system failures resulting in potential increased emissions.
Blending facilities mix gasoline with other components to produce finished gasoline. Gasoline is required by law to meet stringent environmental standards before it can be distributed.
The settlement also includes two related Kinder Morgan gasoline facilities located in Colton, Calif. and Richmond, Va. The Richmond facility is required to pay an additional penalty of $13,000 for failing to properly sample and analyze gasoline, as required by the Clean Air Act.
The settlement requires that the three companies improve quality control procedures at each of their five gasoline blending facilities. They must hire an independent firm to conduct compliance evaluations of the environmental practices and must take corrective action to address any problems identified by the auditors.
More information on the Kinder Morgan Transmix settlement: epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/caa/kindermorgan.html
Help EPA protect our nation's land, air and water by reporting violations: epa.gov/tips
Source: US EPA
This Week in Petroleum: Benchmark
Gasoline Prices Increase While Diesel Prices Continues to Fall
May 2, 2007 -- Webster’s online dictionary defines benchmark as, “A standard by which something can be measured or judged”. With his retirement following the 1998 football season, John Elway became the benchmark for every quarterback who plays for the Denver Broncos. Whether this is a fair benchmark is a reasonable question to ask.
The same question might be asked about using West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil as a benchmark for crude oil prices in the Americas. For more than 20 years, futures market prices for light, sweet crude oil for delivery at Cushing, Oklahoma have been posted on the New York Mercantile Exchange and used by traders, analysts, and the public for price discovery purposes. The crude oil used in the contract, while not specifically mentioning WTI, matches the qualities of WTI. The transparency and liquidity of this contract has generally well served its intended use as the U.S. reference crude oil benchmark for monitoring oil price movements, hedging, and establishing physical market spot and contract prices for other U.S. crude oils, e.g., Louisiana Light Sweet, Alaskan North Slope, and to a lesser extent, some foreign crude oils exported to the United States.
Nevertheless, the use of WTI as a reference crude oil has become increasingly complicated by various developments that, at times, have shifted significantly its relationship to other crude oil prices. Over time, WTI production has dropped sharply to levels currently averaging no more than 400 thousand barrels per day, a relatively thin volume to represent price movements in a 15 to 16 million barrel per day U.S. market that increasingly depends on heavy, sour crude oils.
Recently, the Cushing hub has experienced a local oversupply of crude oil, which has tended to depress the price of WTI relative to other crude oils. The surge in Canadian crude oil exports since last year, which has flowed primarily to the U.S. Midwest, and larger-than-average outages at Midwest refineries that have historically been major users of WTI crude oil, have both contributed to this situation. Moreover, WTI volumes are land locked, with insufficient pipeline capacity to adequately accommodate flows out of Cushing, which serves as the hub for the physical WTI market, as well as the delivery point for the NYMEX futures contract. In this situation, the accumulation of excess stocks in the Cushing region results in the potential for distortions in the price of WTI relative to other crude oils, despite the declining trend of WTI production.
While this distortion seemingly began its evolution last year, it reached significant levels in February 2007 when cold U.S. weather drove heating fuels demand sharply upwards. Combined with other U.S. and global supply/demand factors, crude oil prices generally rose in tandem, with relative prices, or spreads between grades, remaining roughly constant, with the exception of WTI. Between late February and the end of April, some crude oils have risen as much as $7 to $9 per barrel, with Malaysian Tapis (a key Asian light sweet crude oil) reaching the $75 per barrel level, while Brent (the European benchmark) was at $67 per barrel. While fluctuating some, WTI was near $66 per barrel by the end of April, only $4 above late February levels, resulting in record spreads or discounts to these crude oils.
In short, tightening global fundamentals have already propelled oil prices relatively close to year-ago levels, with the exception of WTI. The surge in Canadian crude oil imports combined with extensive Midwest refining maintenance and unexpected outages this year has uniquely dampened upward pressures on WTI, as stocks at Cushing have reached near capacity levels. In particular, Valero's McKee refinery is heavily dependent on WTI and recently reported that it may be unable to operate at full capacity for the remainder of the year. Hence, at least until Midwest refineries complete maintenance and increase their crude oil demand significantly, the degree of fundamental oil market pressures already evident in low and declining stock levels is not fully apparent in monitoring WTI prices. A better measure or sense of these pressures becomes evident when focusing on the shift already seen in most other U.S. and foreign crude oil prices, say Brent.
Gasoline Prices Increase While Diesel Prices Continues to Fall
Gasoline prices rose sharply for the week of April 30, 2007, increasing 10.2 cents to 297.1 cents per gallon. Prices are 5.2 cents per gallon higher than at this time last year. All regions reported price increases. East Coast prices were up 8.2 cents to 291.7 cents per gallon. The largest gas price increase was in the Midwest, where prices jumped 15.0 cents to 292.5 cents per gallon. Prices for the Gulf Coast rose 9.8 cents to 285.3 cents per gallon, while Rocky Mountain prices increased 11.3 cents to 295.7 cents per gallon. West Coast prices were up 5.9 cents to 327.7 cents per gallon. The average gasoline price for regular grade in California was up 4.3 cents to reach a record price of 335.9 cents per gallon, 15.7 cents per gallon above last year's price.
Retail diesel prices fell for the second consecutive week, decreasing 4.0 cents to 281.1 cents per gallon. Prices are 8.5 cents per gallon lower than at this time last year. East Coast prices fell 3.7 cents to 280.0 cents per gallon. In the Midwest, prices were down 5.6 cents to 277.5 cents per gallon, while the Gulf Coast saw a decrease of 4.9 cents to 276.6 cents per gallon. The only region to see an increase in price was the Rocky Mountains, where prices were up 1.0 cent to 298.8 cents per gallon. Prices on the West Coast saw a decrease of 0.1 cent to 295.2 cents per gallon, while California prices fell 1.7 cents to 298.7 cents per gallon, 17.6 cents per gallon lower than at this time last year.
Propane Inventories Post Below-Average April Build
Propane inventories moved higher by 2.0 million barrels last week, pushing inventories to an estimated 27.9 million barrels as of April 27, 2007, a level that remains just below the lower boundary of the average range for this time of year. Despite the robust gain, however, the overall April stockbuild of 2.8 million barrels fell short of reaching the 5-year average stockbuild for this month of about 4.8 million barrels. Regional inventories were generally higher, except in the East Coast, where they reported a weekly decline of 0.2 million barrels. Inventory gains were reported in the Midwest with 0.6 million barrels and the Gulf Coast with 1.7 million barrels, while the combined Rocky Mountain/West Coast region was relatively unchanged. Propylene non-fuel use inventories remained unchanged last week but accounted for a lower 8.0 percent share of total propane/propylene inventories, down from the prior week’s 8.6 percent share.
Source: US Dept. of Energy
May 2, 2007 -- Webster’s online dictionary defines benchmark as, “A standard by which something can be measured or judged”. With his retirement following the 1998 football season, John Elway became the benchmark for every quarterback who plays for the Denver Broncos. Whether this is a fair benchmark is a reasonable question to ask.
The same question might be asked about using West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil as a benchmark for crude oil prices in the Americas. For more than 20 years, futures market prices for light, sweet crude oil for delivery at Cushing, Oklahoma have been posted on the New York Mercantile Exchange and used by traders, analysts, and the public for price discovery purposes. The crude oil used in the contract, while not specifically mentioning WTI, matches the qualities of WTI. The transparency and liquidity of this contract has generally well served its intended use as the U.S. reference crude oil benchmark for monitoring oil price movements, hedging, and establishing physical market spot and contract prices for other U.S. crude oils, e.g., Louisiana Light Sweet, Alaskan North Slope, and to a lesser extent, some foreign crude oils exported to the United States.
Nevertheless, the use of WTI as a reference crude oil has become increasingly complicated by various developments that, at times, have shifted significantly its relationship to other crude oil prices. Over time, WTI production has dropped sharply to levels currently averaging no more than 400 thousand barrels per day, a relatively thin volume to represent price movements in a 15 to 16 million barrel per day U.S. market that increasingly depends on heavy, sour crude oils.
Recently, the Cushing hub has experienced a local oversupply of crude oil, which has tended to depress the price of WTI relative to other crude oils. The surge in Canadian crude oil exports since last year, which has flowed primarily to the U.S. Midwest, and larger-than-average outages at Midwest refineries that have historically been major users of WTI crude oil, have both contributed to this situation. Moreover, WTI volumes are land locked, with insufficient pipeline capacity to adequately accommodate flows out of Cushing, which serves as the hub for the physical WTI market, as well as the delivery point for the NYMEX futures contract. In this situation, the accumulation of excess stocks in the Cushing region results in the potential for distortions in the price of WTI relative to other crude oils, despite the declining trend of WTI production.
While this distortion seemingly began its evolution last year, it reached significant levels in February 2007 when cold U.S. weather drove heating fuels demand sharply upwards. Combined with other U.S. and global supply/demand factors, crude oil prices generally rose in tandem, with relative prices, or spreads between grades, remaining roughly constant, with the exception of WTI. Between late February and the end of April, some crude oils have risen as much as $7 to $9 per barrel, with Malaysian Tapis (a key Asian light sweet crude oil) reaching the $75 per barrel level, while Brent (the European benchmark) was at $67 per barrel. While fluctuating some, WTI was near $66 per barrel by the end of April, only $4 above late February levels, resulting in record spreads or discounts to these crude oils.
In short, tightening global fundamentals have already propelled oil prices relatively close to year-ago levels, with the exception of WTI. The surge in Canadian crude oil imports combined with extensive Midwest refining maintenance and unexpected outages this year has uniquely dampened upward pressures on WTI, as stocks at Cushing have reached near capacity levels. In particular, Valero's McKee refinery is heavily dependent on WTI and recently reported that it may be unable to operate at full capacity for the remainder of the year. Hence, at least until Midwest refineries complete maintenance and increase their crude oil demand significantly, the degree of fundamental oil market pressures already evident in low and declining stock levels is not fully apparent in monitoring WTI prices. A better measure or sense of these pressures becomes evident when focusing on the shift already seen in most other U.S. and foreign crude oil prices, say Brent.
Gasoline Prices Increase While Diesel Prices Continues to Fall
Gasoline prices rose sharply for the week of April 30, 2007, increasing 10.2 cents to 297.1 cents per gallon. Prices are 5.2 cents per gallon higher than at this time last year. All regions reported price increases. East Coast prices were up 8.2 cents to 291.7 cents per gallon. The largest gas price increase was in the Midwest, where prices jumped 15.0 cents to 292.5 cents per gallon. Prices for the Gulf Coast rose 9.8 cents to 285.3 cents per gallon, while Rocky Mountain prices increased 11.3 cents to 295.7 cents per gallon. West Coast prices were up 5.9 cents to 327.7 cents per gallon. The average gasoline price for regular grade in California was up 4.3 cents to reach a record price of 335.9 cents per gallon, 15.7 cents per gallon above last year's price.
Retail diesel prices fell for the second consecutive week, decreasing 4.0 cents to 281.1 cents per gallon. Prices are 8.5 cents per gallon lower than at this time last year. East Coast prices fell 3.7 cents to 280.0 cents per gallon. In the Midwest, prices were down 5.6 cents to 277.5 cents per gallon, while the Gulf Coast saw a decrease of 4.9 cents to 276.6 cents per gallon. The only region to see an increase in price was the Rocky Mountains, where prices were up 1.0 cent to 298.8 cents per gallon. Prices on the West Coast saw a decrease of 0.1 cent to 295.2 cents per gallon, while California prices fell 1.7 cents to 298.7 cents per gallon, 17.6 cents per gallon lower than at this time last year.
Propane Inventories Post Below-Average April Build
Propane inventories moved higher by 2.0 million barrels last week, pushing inventories to an estimated 27.9 million barrels as of April 27, 2007, a level that remains just below the lower boundary of the average range for this time of year. Despite the robust gain, however, the overall April stockbuild of 2.8 million barrels fell short of reaching the 5-year average stockbuild for this month of about 4.8 million barrels. Regional inventories were generally higher, except in the East Coast, where they reported a weekly decline of 0.2 million barrels. Inventory gains were reported in the Midwest with 0.6 million barrels and the Gulf Coast with 1.7 million barrels, while the combined Rocky Mountain/West Coast region was relatively unchanged. Propylene non-fuel use inventories remained unchanged last week but accounted for a lower 8.0 percent share of total propane/propylene inventories, down from the prior week’s 8.6 percent share.
Source: US Dept. of Energy
$3.50 Gas Price Expected This Summer by About 3 Out of 4 Americans, Half Will Cut Travel, Spending in Response
Mounting Frustration Evident: 83% See Gas Price Gouging, 77% Say Not Enough Federal Action, 67% Want Higher MPG Standard Now, 77% Back Oil Windfall Profits Tax.
WASHINGTON, May 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Nearly three out of four Americans (72 percent) expect gasoline prices to reach $3.50 a gallon this summer and just over one in four (28 percent) foresee prices at $4 a gallon in the next few months, according to a major new Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) survey conducted for the nonprofit Civil Society Institute (CSI) think tank and its 40MPG.org project. More than four out of five Americans (83 percent) already think that there is price gouging going on at the gas pump today.
In response to the increasing pain at the pump, about half of Americans say they will "definitely" or "probably" cut back on personal spending (51 percent) and summer or end-of-year holiday travel (46 percent) if gasoline reaches $3.50 a gallon this summer. Nearly three in 10 (29 percent) Americans say they are more likely to buy a hybrid or other highly fuel-efficient car if gasoline hits $3.50 a gallon.
Other key findings of the CSI/40MPG.org survey:
-- More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) believe the federal government is not doing enough about the high cost of energy and this country's dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Nearly two thirds of Republicans (64 percent) think the government isn't doing enough compared to 79 percent of Independents and 88 percent of Democrats.
-- More than two thirds of Americans (67 percent) say that recent gas price increases make it more important that the Federal government take steps to increase the fuel-efficiency standards in this country. There is strong support across party lines for such action, including 61 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Independents and 75 percent of Democrats.
-- There is considerable public support for a windfall profits tax on oil companies if the revenue is used to research alternative energy (77 percent).
Commenting on the survey findings, Civil Society Institute President and 40MPG.org founder Pam Solo said: "These survey findings should send a real jolt through the corridors of the White House and the halls of Congress. Americans are fed up with skyrocketing gasoline prices and they want action, including higher federal fuel-efficiency standards now for cars and other vehicles. We hope that all the Washington 'experts' who want to wait for a decade until 2017 or 2018 to gradually increase federal mileage standards see the results of this survey. We can and should take bold action now to reduce our addition to Middle Eastern oil and to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
Opinion Research Corporation Senior Research Associate Graham Hueber said: "What we see in these findings is a real consensus view among American consumers that gas prices are already too high and that they are going to reach even more painfully high levels this summer. The findings about expected cuts in summer and end-of-year travel plans, as well as the expectation of reductions in general consumer spending, must be viewed with real concern. Clearly, the idea that Americans are just going to accept higher gasoline prices with no real reaction does not appear to be well founded."
SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS
Other key findings of the CSI/40MPG.org survey include the following:
-- Higher fuel prices would hit those with lower incomes the hardest. About three-fifths (61 percent) of those in households with less than $25,000 in income say they will definitely or probably have to cut back on personal spending if gasoline hits $3.50 a gallon, compared to about half (51 percent) of all households).
-- Women (88 percent) are more likely then men (77 percent) to perceive such price gouging at the gas pump. The overall level of 83 percent of Americans seeing gas price gouging is roughly the same as in September 2005 (86 percent) when CSI/40MPG.org asked the same question during a time of escalating gasoline prices and calls for a windfall profits tax on oil company profits.
-- More than two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) say that recent gas price increases make it more important that the Federal government take steps to increase the fuel-efficiency standards in this country. Only 22 percent say that price hikes have had no impact on the need for such action and fewer than one in 10 (9 percent) say it is now less important that the government take action. There is strong support across party lines for such action, including 61 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Independents and 75 percent of Democrats.
-- Over half of Americans (54 percent) would support raising the taxes on gasoline sales if that revenue would be used for research into alternative fuels. This idea is more popular with women (58 percent) than it is with men (50 percent). The idea of earmarking a portion of existing federal income taxes for research into alternative fuels is a wildly popular idea among those age 18-24 (74 percent).
-- More than three out of four Americans (78 percent) say they support using some of the money collected in the Federal Highway Trust Fund from taxes on gasoline sales, to investigate alternative energy sources.
-- Two-thirds of Americans are either more likely (35 percent) or just as likely (31 percent) to buy a hybrid, clean-diesel or other highly fuel efficient car as they were six months ago. Less than a third (31 percent) say they are less likely to make such a purchase.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The new CSI/40MPG.org survey was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation among a sample of 1,013 adults (504 men and 509 women) aged 18 and over living in private households in the Continental United States. Interviewing for this survey was completed during the period of April 19-22, 2007.
The other survey mentioned here also was conducted by ORC and involved 1,019 adults (507 men and 512 women) aged 18 and over living in private households in the Continental United States. Interviewing for the earlier survey was completed during the period of September 15-18, 2005. Both surveys were weighted by four variables: age, sex, geographic region and race to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total population. The margin of error for both surveys at the 95 percent confidence level is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Smaller sub-groups in either survey will have larger error margins.
Source: Civil Society Institute and 40MPG.org, Newton, MA
WASHINGTON, May 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Nearly three out of four Americans (72 percent) expect gasoline prices to reach $3.50 a gallon this summer and just over one in four (28 percent) foresee prices at $4 a gallon in the next few months, according to a major new Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) survey conducted for the nonprofit Civil Society Institute (CSI) think tank and its 40MPG.org project. More than four out of five Americans (83 percent) already think that there is price gouging going on at the gas pump today.
In response to the increasing pain at the pump, about half of Americans say they will "definitely" or "probably" cut back on personal spending (51 percent) and summer or end-of-year holiday travel (46 percent) if gasoline reaches $3.50 a gallon this summer. Nearly three in 10 (29 percent) Americans say they are more likely to buy a hybrid or other highly fuel-efficient car if gasoline hits $3.50 a gallon.
Other key findings of the CSI/40MPG.org survey:
-- More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) believe the federal government is not doing enough about the high cost of energy and this country's dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Nearly two thirds of Republicans (64 percent) think the government isn't doing enough compared to 79 percent of Independents and 88 percent of Democrats.
-- More than two thirds of Americans (67 percent) say that recent gas price increases make it more important that the Federal government take steps to increase the fuel-efficiency standards in this country. There is strong support across party lines for such action, including 61 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Independents and 75 percent of Democrats.
-- There is considerable public support for a windfall profits tax on oil companies if the revenue is used to research alternative energy (77 percent).
Commenting on the survey findings, Civil Society Institute President and 40MPG.org founder Pam Solo said: "These survey findings should send a real jolt through the corridors of the White House and the halls of Congress. Americans are fed up with skyrocketing gasoline prices and they want action, including higher federal fuel-efficiency standards now for cars and other vehicles. We hope that all the Washington 'experts' who want to wait for a decade until 2017 or 2018 to gradually increase federal mileage standards see the results of this survey. We can and should take bold action now to reduce our addition to Middle Eastern oil and to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
Opinion Research Corporation Senior Research Associate Graham Hueber said: "What we see in these findings is a real consensus view among American consumers that gas prices are already too high and that they are going to reach even more painfully high levels this summer. The findings about expected cuts in summer and end-of-year travel plans, as well as the expectation of reductions in general consumer spending, must be viewed with real concern. Clearly, the idea that Americans are just going to accept higher gasoline prices with no real reaction does not appear to be well founded."
SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS
Other key findings of the CSI/40MPG.org survey include the following:
-- Higher fuel prices would hit those with lower incomes the hardest. About three-fifths (61 percent) of those in households with less than $25,000 in income say they will definitely or probably have to cut back on personal spending if gasoline hits $3.50 a gallon, compared to about half (51 percent) of all households).
-- Women (88 percent) are more likely then men (77 percent) to perceive such price gouging at the gas pump. The overall level of 83 percent of Americans seeing gas price gouging is roughly the same as in September 2005 (86 percent) when CSI/40MPG.org asked the same question during a time of escalating gasoline prices and calls for a windfall profits tax on oil company profits.
-- More than two-thirds of Americans (67 percent) say that recent gas price increases make it more important that the Federal government take steps to increase the fuel-efficiency standards in this country. Only 22 percent say that price hikes have had no impact on the need for such action and fewer than one in 10 (9 percent) say it is now less important that the government take action. There is strong support across party lines for such action, including 61 percent of Republicans, 65 percent of Independents and 75 percent of Democrats.
-- Over half of Americans (54 percent) would support raising the taxes on gasoline sales if that revenue would be used for research into alternative fuels. This idea is more popular with women (58 percent) than it is with men (50 percent). The idea of earmarking a portion of existing federal income taxes for research into alternative fuels is a wildly popular idea among those age 18-24 (74 percent).
-- More than three out of four Americans (78 percent) say they support using some of the money collected in the Federal Highway Trust Fund from taxes on gasoline sales, to investigate alternative energy sources.
-- Two-thirds of Americans are either more likely (35 percent) or just as likely (31 percent) to buy a hybrid, clean-diesel or other highly fuel efficient car as they were six months ago. Less than a third (31 percent) say they are less likely to make such a purchase.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The new CSI/40MPG.org survey was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation among a sample of 1,013 adults (504 men and 509 women) aged 18 and over living in private households in the Continental United States. Interviewing for this survey was completed during the period of April 19-22, 2007.
The other survey mentioned here also was conducted by ORC and involved 1,019 adults (507 men and 512 women) aged 18 and over living in private households in the Continental United States. Interviewing for the earlier survey was completed during the period of September 15-18, 2005. Both surveys were weighted by four variables: age, sex, geographic region and race to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total population. The margin of error for both surveys at the 95 percent confidence level is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Smaller sub-groups in either survey will have larger error margins.
Source: Civil Society Institute and 40MPG.org, Newton, MA
вторник, 1 мая 2007 г.
OPEC Daily Basket Price Stood at $64.65 a Barrel Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Vienna, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 -- The price of OPEC basket of eleven crude oils stood at 64.65 dollars a barrel on Tuesday, compared with 64.12 dollars the previous day, according to OPEC Secretariat calculations.
The new OPEC Reference Basket of Crudes (ORB) is made up of the following: Saharan Blend (Algeria), Minas (Indonesia), Iran Heavy (Islamic Republic of Iran), Basra Light (Iraq), Kuwait Export (Kuwait), Es Sider (Libya), Bonny Light (Nigeria), Qatar Marine (Qatar), Arab Light (Saudi Arabia), Murban (UAE) and BCF 17 (Venezuela).
Source: Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
The new OPEC Reference Basket of Crudes (ORB) is made up of the following: Saharan Blend (Algeria), Minas (Indonesia), Iran Heavy (Islamic Republic of Iran), Basra Light (Iraq), Kuwait Export (Kuwait), Es Sider (Libya), Bonny Light (Nigeria), Qatar Marine (Qatar), Arab Light (Saudi Arabia), Murban (UAE) and BCF 17 (Venezuela).
Source: Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)