[Senate Hearing 109-235]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-235
GASOLINE PRICES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON GASOLINE PRICES AND FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO
CURRENT HIGH PRICES
__________
SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-575 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Bob Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Lisa Epifani, Counsel
Jennifer Michael, Democratic Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.................. 4
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 34
Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia................... 39
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 8
Bunning, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Kentucky.................... 57
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 25
Burr, Hon. Richard M., U.S. Senator from North Carolina.......... 62
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 45
Caruso, Guy F., Administrator, Energy Information Administration,
Department of Energy........................................... 16
Corzine, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.................. 54
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 29
Darbelnet, Robert L., President and CEO, American Automobile
Association.................................................... 87
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Dorgan, Hon. Byron, U.S. Senator from North Dakota............... 41
Dowd, John, Senior Research Analyst, Sanford C. Bernstein and
Co., LLC....................................................... 92
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California............. 37
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota................ 4
Landrieu, Hon. Mary L., U.S. Senator from Louisiana.............. 5
Martinez, Hon. Mel, U.S. Senator from Florida.................... 7
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 43
Overdahl, James A., Ph.D., Chief Economist, U.S. Commodity
Futures
Trading Commission............................................. 21
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 49
Shipley, William S., III, Chief Executive Officer, Shipley
Stores, on behalf of the National Association of Convenience
Stores and the Society of
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America...................... 81
Slaughter, Bob, President, National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association.................................................... 70
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 47
Talent, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from Missouri................ 59
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 52
Watson, Rebecca, Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 10
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 32
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 107
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 141
GASOLINE PRICES
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room
SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. The hearing will please come to order. First
I want to thank all the Senators for coming this afternoon.
Obviously, this is a rather difficult time for all of you
because of our schedule. I do want to remind everyone,
including the Senators, but in particular the witnesses and
those here from the press and other interested people, that
this hearing was set by myself with Senator Bingaman's
concurrence, substantially before Katrina. In other words, we
were already interested in the high prices and the spikes in
pricing and the apparent shortage of gasoline and gasoline
products in the United States before Katrina.
Now, Katrina has happened, so it is a reality about which
we cannot decide. That is, it is not relevant to these
hearings, because it is. It has pointed out some things we
ought to know.
But I am hopeful, Senators. While I cannot control what
anybody says--we are Senators; this is a public forum--but I am
hopeful that we will not spend a great deal of time talking
about who is to blame for what in Katrina. It is up to you all.
If you would like to, that is fine. But I think we have our
plate full with areas that we have something to say about, and
that have to do with supply and demand, and this region of the
country might come into the picture from the standpoint of have
we learned something about it versus our national supplies that
could be relevant and important.
Having said that, Senator Bingaman, first I thank you for
your cooperation and I hope the meeting is helpful, not only to
this Senator and our side, but to you and your side of the
aisle.
We all know that the devastation created by Hurricane
Katrina is absolutely heartbreaking. Everyone here would concur
that our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Louisiana,
Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. Working to relieve their pain
and suffering will be everyone around here, will be their
highest priority.
At this point in time it is not possible to know what has
really happened there, how many people have died, and what the
extent of the suffering will be. As I said, there are questions
and there are criticisms. I hope they are left for another day.
We announced about 2 weeks ago about the rising gasoline
prices this year, how they have been hurting consumers across
the country. Hurricane Katrina exposed the harsh reality that
we have been skirting and skating on thin ice when it comes to
this country's energy concentration in the gulf coast. The
purpose of this hearing is to learn more about the hurricane's
impact on our energy infrastructure and high energy prices in
general. Why are the gasoline prices so high? Why are the oil
companies making record profits and what are they doing with
them?
Our job is to make sure that, one, price-gouging, two,
unfair speculation and unconscionable profiteering, does not
take place and is not taking place, and especially that they do
not take place as a result of the hurricane.
As to price-gouging, there has been a great deal of concern
about this issue, the price-gouging in the wake of Katrina. The
President said that there should be zero tolerance for price-
gouging. Congress should ensure that the Federal Trade
Commission, which monitors wholesale and retail prices of
gasoline, has the tools it needs to investigate allegations and
support State attorney generals, who have primary authority
over this issue. Price-gouging laws should be vigorously
enforced at the State level. Incidentally, there are some 23
States that have such laws. I am sure others are looking at
them now.
If the U.S. Government should help in that regard, we ought
to look at it. Everyone here should know, and our fellow
Senators should know, we do not have jurisdiction in this area.
We could not be the ones that amend the Federal Trade
Commission. We could in a big bill, but we could not free-
standing. It would go to another committee.
But I will add, even though they are not subject to our
jurisdiction, that any oil company that is price-gouging at
whatever level will find themselves in those witness chairs,
where they will be held accountable, if we can ascertain that
such has happened. I am not now saying it has, but I am saying
if it has and if it is, even though we have no jurisdiction
over the law, we do have jurisdiction to bring them here and
sit them in those witness chairs and find out what is
happening.
On the issue of speculation, we will have some serious
discussion, Senator Bingaman, from an expert on that today.
Many think that the energy prices are pushed and sustained to
high levels because of speculation. We do have Dr. Overdahl,
chief economist from the Community Futures Exchange Commission,
Commodity Futures, with us today to talk about the role of the
futures market and the effect of speculation on energy prices.
Are the oil companies accumulating excess profits and large
cash reserves? Are oil companies investing profits in
production and improvement of infrastructure? Are oil companies
using profits to help keep prices affordable? Are oil companies
acting like responsible citizens?
Now, I understand there will be much quibbling as to
whether that is anybody's business. But I do submit there is
some concern and there are some questions that have to be
answered.
In addition to the high prices of oil and gasoline, I am
also worried about the price of natural gas, propane, and
butane. Any time we mention gasoline, we ought not forget that
there are thousands upon thousands dependent upon the others
that I have mentioned, and they too are having huge, huge
increases.
The forgotten commodity that will affect our economy worse
than any others is the skyrocketing cost of natural gas. I wish
we had some solutions there also. But it is a rather big, big
problem. Many on this committee have been seriously worried
about that. Obviously, Senator Alexander took a lead, along
with Senator Johnson, on that whole issue of natural gas. We
did some important things, Senators. There may be some more to
do.
On July 29, 74 Senators came together to endorse the Energy
Act of 2005 because they know we needed a road map. I am very
proud of that bill. A number of very important goals and
objectives were set. Some people wanted to go further on
issues. Some did not want to deal with certain controversial
issues. I submit that we did leave some issues out because we
wanted a bill and we could not risk a bill with regard to some
of them.
The things that were not politically possible 2 months ago
are still before us and still require answers. We can either
ignore them or we can act. We worked successfully in the energy
bill on a bipartisan basis. We need to do something like that
now with reference to the current problem regarding gasoline.
Some goals that I think we should address are to ensure
consumer protection against price-gouging, unfair speculation,
and unconscionable profiteering; to encourage citizens to
conserve. We understand the President has done that, but
obviously that should occur and we should be part of that. I
believe we must take another look at CAFE standards. We looked
at them and they were an impossibility when we looked at them
because of the politics of it. I am not sure that that should
be the case, will be the case after Katrina. I do not know how
we would address it, Senator Bingaman, if at all.
I also want to mention that increased refinery capacity is
quite obvious when you look at what has happened to our
country. It was probably there when we passed our bill, and we
did do some things to encourage additional refining capacity.
But we did duck some very serious proposals that the House made
and we might have to take another look at them.
On the proliferation of boutique fuels, it is obvious that
there are too many and they must be reduced in number because
it adds significantly to the availability of gasoline. Some of
the provisions that should go in this proposal are not in our
jurisdiction and deserve debate. But I will mention, we debated
the Outer Continental Shelf as a way to achieve more energy
security for us, the United States, and opponents threatened to
filibuster the bill and probably maintain the same as of today.
But maybe we have to address that issue again and see where it
really lies when we find out how dependent we have become on
offshore drilling from just these three States. They produce 20
percent of the gas, natural gas, for our country. That is from
no other State but those. Protecting the environment does not
mean failing to protect ourselves. So I believe we must look at
this again.
I submit that there are not bills before us on this issue,
but Senators here want to suggest things they have in mind, and
we look forward to that.
I am going to propose the following. Senator Bingaman will
make an opening statement. We will then proceed to these three
witnesses and limit their time. We have seen their testimony.
Then we will proceed in an orderly manner with each Senator
based on time of arrival. They will have 7 minutes each to make
opening remarks and make inquiry, if that is fair.
Senator Bingaman, would you proceed.
[The proposed statements of Senators Akaka, Johnson,
Landrieu and Martinez follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senator From Hawaii
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing on gasoline
prices, supplies, and constraints. It is very timely because of the
tragic events in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and the effects of
Hurricane Katrina on production and refining capacity in the Gulf of
Mexico. My heart goes out to all who are suffering through this
terrible tragedy and my prayers are with the victims of the flooding
and the storm. I look forward to hearing the views and updates from our
witnesses today.
When we talk about gasoline prices, it is often overlooked that the
State of Hawaii has consistently had the highest gasoline prices in the
nation. From 1995 through the first half of 1998, gasoline prices in
Hawaii averaged more than 30 cents per gallon higher than U.S. mainland
prices. As I have said in the past, we don't have gasoline price spikes
in Hawaii--we have one, long continuous spike!
In the past, I joined some of my colleagues from the West coast,
New Mexico, and New York, in calling for gasoline price relief through
release of oil reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and for
OPEC to increase production. Hawaii gets most of its crude oil from
Indonesia, not from the U.S. In 2002, more than 50 percent of Hawaii's
crude oil imports were from Indonesia. Current estimates by oil
industry experts are not optimistic that OPEC can increase production
enough to make a difference in Hawaii, since the biggest remaining oil
reserves are in Saudi Arabia, not Indonesia.
Gas prices have been so high above the national average for so long
that the Hawaii State Legislature passed a gas price cap in 2002, which
took effect last week--September 1, 2005. The price caps would prevent
Hawaii wholesalers from charging more than 22 cents above the five-day
average spot price for regular gasoline in Los Angeles, San Francisco,
and Portland, Oregon.
Today in Honolulu, the price of regular gas is $2.94 per gallon,
which is in line with, or even lower than, the national average this
week, which was $3.04. However, outside of Honolulu, the prices are
higher. In Hilo, for example, premium gasoline is $3.35 and regular
gasoline is $3.11.
The Hawaii State Public Utility Commission (PUC) sets the caps
based on wholesale prices on the mainland, not including any markups
that dealers may add. Dealers usually add about 12 cents to the gallon.
Caps are higher for higher grades of gasoline and on neighbor islands
to account for added operating costs such as shipping and storage. The
PUC also has the ability to adjust the caps if industry officials show
that the caps will negatively affect their operations. In addition,
Governor Lingle can suspend the cap if there is a major adverse impact
on the economy, public welfare or the health and safety of people.
I am interested in hearing the testimony of the witnesses today. I
would like to know the effects of Hurricane Katrina on oil and gas
production and how that will affect the economy not just on the
mainland, but in Hawaii as well. I am also interested in refinery
capacity and how we can safely increase refinery capacity.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony of the
distinguished witnesses today, and I have some questions for them.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator From South Dakota
Thank you, Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman, for
working together to schedule this very timely hearing. The catastrophic
hurricane and the floods and destruction wrought throughout hundreds of
square miles along the gulf coast are more devastating than any other
domestic natural disaster witnessed in our lifetimes. These are the
moments when we realize we are our brother's keeper. It is clear that
this is a national emergency, and we must all come together to help our
fellow Americans. In South Dakota, we know that Mother Nature can be
cruel. We have seen crops wiped out due to hail; our landscape changed
by floods; family farms devastated by drought; and lives lost as
tornadoes swept through our prairie. This disaster is on a scale
greater than any natural disaster in my lifetime and we must call the
country toward the collective action required to lend comfort to the
victims and ensure that their lives are put back into order.
The destruction caused from Hurricane Katrina has placed acute
pressure on the country's energy delivery network. The destructive
force of the hurricane only accelerated what had been a measured
increase throughout 2003 and 2004 in gasoline prices. South Dakota is a
good barometer for appreciating the drastic increase in gasoline
prices. My state usually falls somewhere in the middle pack of the
average cost of unleaded gasoline. In the last twelve months the
average price for a gallon of regular gasoline has increased over
$1.25, from $1.83 per gallon in September 2004 to $3.09 per gallon
average yesterday.
Although today's hearing is limited to examining oil demand and
gasoline prices, I want Chairman Domenici to understand that high oil
prices will also push natural gas prices higher at a time when farmers
are using vast quantities of natural gas for drying crops, and also
securing orders and contracts for delivery of fertilizers used in the
next seasons crop. Therefore, I hope that the Chairman will move
forward with additional hearings on high gasoline prices and take in a
broader swath of witnesses and panelists testifying to the problems and
searching for solutions.
While I was traveling in South Dakota, my constituent's pressed
their concerns regarding record-high gasoline prices, returning to a
familiar theme. Their concerns followed a similar tone: Oil companies
are reaping record profits, but whenever gasoline prices increase,
these companies continue to point toward a lack of infrastructure to
extract, refine, and transport gasoline to the marketplace as the
culprit. My constituent's want to know what oil companies are doing
with billions and billions of dollars in quarterly profits. Where is
the investment in the infrastructure these companies keep pointing
toward as the culprit for high gasoline prices?
First Quarter profits at ExxonMobil Corporation, ConocoPhillips
Inc., Royal Dutch Shell, and BP Amoco were all up more than 25 percent
compared to the same point last year. ExxonMobil boosted its profits by
44 percent to $7.86 billion compared to 2004.
These companies must invest in the refining capacity and the
infrastructure both upstream and downstream in order to take the
pressure off of the system's maxed-out refining capacity. Absent these
investments and combined with the truly eye-opening record profits,
many of my constituents are left to conclude that these oil companies
are manipulating the market, intentionally leaving infrastructure taxed
in order to wring every last dollar from American consumers.
Therefore, it is time to consider and act on the absence of a
federal statute that protects consumers from price gouging. Although
price gouging statues exist at the state level, investigations of price
gouging and enforcement is often time sporadic. In the past, Congress
has even gone so far as providing the President of the United States
with the authority to set a cap on petroleum products. While this type
of authority may not appeal to a majority of my colleagues, I would
submit that we have an obligation to ensure that prices are not
artificially set or manipulated by a tight collection of market
participants.
The United States consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day, yet
our proven oil reserves have decreased by 20 percent in the last
fifteen years. As demand continues to outstrip domestic production we
need solutions that go past the slogans purporting to convince
Americans we can drill our way toward self-sufficiency. Increased
production is indeed a piece of the upstream production answer to more
supply. However, oil companies can not sit on record profits and game
the market by failing to make corresponding investments in the
downstream refinery and pipeline network that delivers gasoline to
consumers.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, U.S. Senator From
Louisiana
Over the past week, the entire country has witnessed an
unprecedented catastrophe. People worldwide have seen the devastation
that continues to affect the gulf region. Images of New Orleans
completely underwater have haunted our television screens. The
realization that many, probably thousands, have lost their lives in
this terrible tragedy has broken the hearts of all Americans.
In order to overcome the effects of Hurricane Katrina, the gulf
coast will need the full support and cooperation of the federal
government. I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues on the Energy
Committee and their past efforts to support Louisiana's coast. In
particular, I was grateful for Senators Domenici and Bingaman for their
leadership in including coastal impact assistance in the recent Energy
Bill. Now, after this terrible disaster, we clearly have much more hard
work ahead.
Stabilizing, repairing and rebuilding Louisiana and the gulf coast
is not only a paramount concern for the thousands left heartbroken and
homeless, it is one of the largest economic challenges our country has
ever faced. The damage caused to our energy infrastructure will affect
every American and will require a concerted effort by the entire
nation.
Regretfully, I am unable to be in attendance at today's hearing as
I must remain in Louisiana to assist in the efforts to rebuild our
state. However, given the timely nature of this hearing, I did want to
offer my thoughts to the Committee regarding gasoline prices and the
factors that are contributing to the current situation around the
country in light of Hurricane Katrina.
As a result of Hurricane Katrina blowing through the coastlines of
Louisiana and Mississippi eight days ago, almost seventy percent of
daily oil production in the Gulf of Mexico--which represents thirty
percent of the nation's oil production--and fifty-four percent of daily
gas production in the Gulf of Mexico--which is represents over twenty
percent of the natural gas produced domestically--were offline as of
Monday. Ten percent of the nation's refining capacity was knocked out
initially by the storm and at least three refineries remain completely
shutdown while several others in Louisiana are operating at reduced
rates. The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), which handles about 1
million barrels a day or 13% of this country's foreign oil and is
connected to more than 30% of the total refining capacity in the U.S.
was initially shut down and still is not operating at full capacity.
Port Fourchon, which is the geographic and economic center of deepwater
production and is responsible for servicing more than sixteen percent
of the nation's oil and gas production is at about twenty-five percent
capacity and expects to be near fifty percent by the end of the week.
As both the Chairman and Ranking Member and other Members of this
Committee are well aware, and what should now be clear to the rest of
the country in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana is the
heart of oil and gas supply for the country. Consumption of oil and gas
in the United States is inextricably tied to the production and
transportation of oil and gas offshore Louisiana.
The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) represents more than twenty-five
percent of our nation's natural gas production and thirty percent of
our domestic oil production. It is estimated that sixty percent of the
oil and natural gas still to be discovered in U.S. will come from the
OCS. In fact, the OCS supplies more to oil to the United States than
any other country, including Saudi Arabia. Approximately 97% of all OCS
production is in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, an average of more
than $5 billion in bonus bids, rents and royalties are from oil and gas
production are deposited into the federal treasury each year from the
OCS--$155 billion since production began. That's the second biggest
contributor of revenue to the federal treasury after income taxes. 80%
of this production and these revenues are generated off Louisiana's
coastline.
While there are a number of factors to consider and many steps to
take in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, what must be of particular
interest to the work of this Committee is the role Louisiana's coast
plays in supplying the country with its energy. This means recognizing
not only the contributions of the past fifty years but also addressing
any impacts to Louisiana's coastline as it continues to host much of
the country's oil and gas supply well into the foreseeable future. I
mention the future because for many of us what happened to oil and gas
supply as a result of Katrina was not a surprise. Last year when
Hurricane Ivan struck, it should have been a wake up call to us all.
Although not a direct hit on the heart of supply in the Gulf of Mexico,
its impact on the price and supply of oil and gas in this country could
still be felt four months later. That situation raised the question:
How many more hurricane seasons are we going to spend playing Russian
roulette with our oil and gas supply? Unfortunately, we now know the
answer.
Unlike previous storms, Katrina damaged much of the onshore
infrastructure that provides the crucial support for the offshore oil
and natural gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of this
damage, we have had to take emergency measures to try and alleviate the
supply of oil and gas for our country in the short run by loaning crude
oil to refiners from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Also, the
International Energy Agency has agreed to provide the equivalent of 2
million barrels per day of oil for an initial period of 30 days. Both
of these actions were appropriate given the circumstances but might not
have been completely necessary had we made the appropriate investments.
As the Members of this Committee have heard me say time and time
again, Louisiana's coast is vanishing. Prior to Hurricane Katrina,
Louisiana was losing more than 24 square miles of our coastal land each
year. We've lost more than 1,900 square miles in the past 70 years, an
area the size of Rhode Island. One can only imagine how much Hurricane
Katrina has accelerated that erosion.
The erosion of Louisiana's coast is of fundamental interest to all
of us because these coastal wetlands and barrier islands are the first
line of defense for protecting the offshore and onshore energy
infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico against the combined wind and
water forces of a hurricane. Preserving these vital wetlands and the
billions in energy investments they protect are vital for the
continuation and expansion of the energy production in the Gulf of
Mexico the country so desperately relies on every day. As Louisiana's
coastal wetlands continue to wash away, this infrastructure is more
exposed to the forces of nature and storms less destructive than
Katrina. Without energy assets like Port Fourchon, LA-1 and the 20,000
miles of pipeline that crisscross our state, it would literally be
impossible to access the mineral resources of the OCS.
The need to reinvest in our energy infrastructure and coastal
wetlands along the gulf coast was already long past due. The high
prices and disrupted supply we confront today as a result of Katrina's
impact have only made the situation more urgent. Louisiana's coast is
truly America's Wetland and its continued erosion presents a clear and
present danger to our national security.
Thanks to the leadership of the Chairman and Ranking Member of this
Committee and the good work of the Senate and House of Representatives,
Louisiana, as well as other coastal producing states, will receive a
significant amount of coastal impact assistance through the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The wisdom of that policy should be clear to
everyone. The need to do more apparent. I call on my colleagues on the
Committee
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mel Martinez, U.S. Senator From Florida
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this important
hearing today to examine the cost of energy prices in the wake of the
devastating destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. We in Florida
felt only a small part of Katrina's power before she made her way
across the gulf. But as a neighbor from another hurricane-prone state,
I want to share my support and my prayers for the people of Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama. I also want to recognize my colleague from
Louisiana, Mary Landrieu for all the hard work and leadership she has
shown in these troubling times. We share our sympathies with our
friends and neighbors of the gulf. Our neighbors in the gulf have been
so good to us in our times of need in dealing with devastation that has
occurred during past disasters in Florida, and we are committed to
returning that same kindness and assistance to you. The road to
recovery will not be an easy one. But the people of America--and the
people of Florida--are behind you and we are committed to helping you
rebuild your communities and your lives.
I have urged my fellow Floridians and I want to urge our nation to
remain calm and avoid the hoarding of gasoline. We need to think of
what our neighbors are going through and do our part to employ some
simple conservation methods, like reducing unnecessary trips,
encouraging carpooling, and turning down your home thermostats. In my
state of Florida, local businesses like Publix Super Markets have
adopted energy-saving conservation practices to reduce the amount of
lighting that their retail stores use. Publix is the largest private
employer in the state with hundreds of outlets across the southeast;
this will provide significant power savings that will help keep our
energy prices lower in Florida. I have also been heartened by the
response our President and federal agencies have shown, including
opening oil reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and granting
fuel waivers to ease the stress on refineries.
There is no doubt--our economy runs on energy and it may be some
time before we return to normal. The Gulf Coast region provides more
than one-fifth of our nation's daily energy consumption. In 2004, this
region supplied over 4.5 million barrels of oil per day to the American
consumer.
The disruption of oil and gas refining operations could have a
serious impact on meeting the energy demands of our nation. It will not
only affect our personal vehicles, but also jet fuel levels in several
airports around the southern and southeastern United States. These
shortages will be severe in one our nation's busiest airports, Atlanta-
Hartsfield International, as well as many major airports in Florida--
most notably Orlando, Ft. Myers, and Tampa. According to an article
published in USA Today on September 1st, Hurricane Katrina knocked out
roughly 13 percent of our nation's jet fuel distribution system.
Without power, crude oil and petroleum products cannot be moved
through pipelines. Millions were without power throughout Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama and this has had a significant affect on our
refining capacity. We need to remember that in light of the record high
gas prices, resources are on the way; but it will take time. According
to Colonial Pipeline, it takes on average 20 days to move product from
Louisiana to Washington D.C.; and that is without a disruption from a
major disaster.
However, I also think Senator Domenici raised a good question when
he announced that we were going to have this hearing. We need to
address whether it a wise decision to have such a large concentration
of our oil refining capacity located in such a high-prone area for
hurricanes?
I have recently returned from a trip through South America, where I
visited Brazil, Chile, Columbia, and Uruguay. Over 22 percent of
Brazil's energy production comes from ethanol; I think we should
examine making stronger investments in other alternative resources. I
realize we recently doubled the renewable fuel standard for ethanol
production, but I am interested to hear from our panel of experts today
on things we can do in the short term to invest in other alternative
sources of energy.
My last concern that I hope we can address in this hearing is the
protection of consumers as we deal with market disruptions. In Florida,
for example, our price gouging law is enacted once the Governor
declares a state of emergency and remains in effect for 60 days.
Retailers cannot sell gasoline at unscrupulous prices and must justify
price increases based market trends of the previous 30 days. If such a
disaster befalls our country, it might be wise to adopt some type of
federal price gouging statute to bring some stability to the
marketplace.
I am open to your ideas--you are the experts. I am encouraged by
the quick response this Committee has shown to such a critical problem
facing our nation.
America has been through a lot in the last five years. We have
endured a terrorist attack on our soil, led a war against terrorism and
tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now have witnessed the horrific
power of disasters like Hurricane Katrina. Despite these challenges,
the American people have moved forward and have come together in one
spirit of cooperation and purpose. We must swiftly distribute aid and
assistance to our friends that have been ravaged by Katrina. Our hearts
go out to them and so does our determination to help them rebuild. We
also owe it to them and the rest of the country, to think critically
about how we manage our national energy infrastructure. At this
critical juncture in our nation, I urge people to put aside their
partisan agendas and let us rededicate ourselves to helping our friends
in the gulf and meeting the needs of those impacted by this terrible
tragedy.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
having this hearing. You indicated to me your plan to have a
hearing on high gas prices long before Katrina, and the
occurrence of the hurricane makes the issue even more timely
and one that we need to be addressing.
I begin where you did, and that is by acknowledging the
tremendous suffering and loss of life that our fellow citizens
in the gulf coast area have experienced. I'm sure everyone in
the room joins us in expressing our sympathy. Particularly I
would mention that Senator Landrieu is not with us today
because she is in her home State, as she has been now since the
hurricane occurred, trying to work with her constituents to get
through this terrible tragedy, and our sympathy goes out to her
as a member of this committee.
This human tragedy is beyond anything that we might have
imagined and it deserves our full focus in the days and weeks
ahead. I know there will be and should be extensive hearings
about the failures to protect against a hurricane of this
magnitude, also the failures to plan for the aftermath. But
this hearing is focused on the high and the rising prices of
gas and other petroleum products.
The high prices we faced before Hurricane Katrina are what
prompted the holding of the hearing and, as I indicated, the
hurricane makes the issue even more timely. Hurricane Katrina
significantly damaged the petroleum production and refining
facilities in the gulf coast, Louisiana, Mississippi and
Alabama. While we are now recovering from that damage, there
are some 900,000 barrels per day of refining capacity that has
been damaged severely enough that it will likely be off-line
for more than a month. That damage has exacerbated the high
prices that we are already seeing for gasoline, and has given
impetus to this hearing.
To understand the reasons behind the high gas prices that
we face today, I think we need to look at several issues. The
hurricane underscored the fact that our national energy system
is particularly vulnerable to losses of refining capacity in
the gulf coast area. We need to look at the policy issues that
relate to that.
There are some short-term issues. I think we can hear from
our witnesses about any additional steps that Congress or the
administration could be taking to address supply and demand of
refined product in the near term. The situation also presents
us with an opportunity to reconsider the current state of our
refining industry and the challenges that we face in going
forward.
The energy bill that you mentioned, that we have just
recently passed, contains two measures that I think have a
bearing on the current situation that we have before us, and I
would appreciate hearing from the witnesses in that regard.
First, the act creates a new tax deduction for investments to
increase refining capacity. That is section 1323 of the energy
bill. In addition, it creates a new program of technical
assistance at the EPA to help State and local government
address applications for new or expanded refineries, and I
would be interested in hearing from witnesses as to how the
industry views those provisions, whether they are useful,
whether they need to be added to, or what actions we ought to
take.
In addition, I believe we owe it to ourselves and our
constituents to see if we can get the affected parties, the
stakeholders involved with refining, around the table to put in
motion an initiative to increase and diversify U.S. refining
capacity. I think all of us are willing to work with the
President and with his administration on trying to deal with
this very important infrastructure issue.
Let me just speak very briefly about demand, because we all
know that price is a result both of supply and of demand. We
cannot ignore demand. There are three issues that I would
suggest as possible issues deserving our attention. The first
relates to vehicle fuel economy. You mentioned the importance
of that in your comments and I am very encouraged that this
possibly is an issue that we could revisit. I felt very
strongly that it was one of the shortcomings of the energy bill
that we were not able to get the votes and the support
necessary to address it there.
A second step would be another issue you mentioned, which
is encouraging the American public to take common sense
measures to improve the efficiency with which they use energy.
The third I believe would be encouraging the President to
use his authority to immediately issue instructions to Federal
agencies to implement fuel economy measures with regard to
their own fleets and their own use of energy. To my mind, this
would be a good example. If we in fact are calling upon the
American people to conserve their use of petroleum products for
the next month or 2 or whatever period, it would be appropriate
for those of us in government to be willing to make that same
kind of commitment ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the attention you have
given to this issue in calling the witnesses and I look forward
to hearing the testimony of the witnesses. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman, on the issue of asking the President
regarding the government fleet, I wonder if we might jointly
ask our staff to prepare such a letter and we will circulate it
to the members of the committee here and see how many want to
sign it, and direct it to him.
Senator Bingaman. Good.
The Chairman. I forgot, Senators, in my opening remarks to
say to each of you, thank you so much for all the attention,
time, and hard work that you put into the energy bill. It will
bear fruit. There are already some very positive things
happening, and I hope we can pull together on a few more issues
and then maybe we can say there is one good that came out of
this storm. I am not sure we need a storm, but I am sure we
need to do some things we have not done. Maybe this will be the
impetus.
With that, rather than starting with questions, if you do
not mind, Senator Bingaman, I am going to go to Senators on my
side. I will leave it up to your judgment on yours. Senator
Burns--oh, we are going to have the witnesses. I am sorry. You
are first, Senator Burns, after the witnesses.
Let us proceed with the witnesses. The first witness will
be Ms. Rebecca Watson, Assistant Secretary of Lands and Mineral
Management of the Mineral Management Service. The second will
be Guy Caruso, administrator of the Energy Information
Administration. Thank you again. You have done an excellent job
in the past and we appreciate your performance and your
testimony. And Dr. James Overdahl, chief economist for the
Commodity Futures Commission.
Let us start with you.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA WATSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF LAND AND
MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to testify on
the role of the Minerals Management Service and gasoline
prices. I will update you on the status of offshore oil and gas
production that has been shut in due to Hurricane Katrina. I
will also provide you with an overview of what the Minerals
Management Service is doing to support the safe resumption of
production in the Gulf of Mexico.
I would first like to say that it is difficult to
comprehend or express the horrific impacts of Hurricane Katrina
on the people in the Gulf of Mexico region. MMS considers
itself part of the family of New Orleans. We have many people
that live in New Orleans and all of us at the Department of the
Interior extend our condolences to all of the people impacted
in the States that have been hurt by Hurricane Katrina.
Our focus at MMS is to ensure that offshore oil and gas
operations are now brought on line safely and as soon as
possible. That is because our role at MMS in gasoline prices is
to competitively make available Federal offshore resources in
an environmentally responsible manner. But oil and gas produced
from the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf plays a major
role in supplying our daily energy needs, accounting for 29
percent of domestic oil production and 21 percent of domestic
natural gas production.
The map on the easel here shows that Hurricane Katrina
moved through a core area of offshore operations. That kind of
yellow swath there shows the whole area of the hurricane,
including the hurricane force winds and the tropical storm
winds. The red streak through there is the eye of the storm. At
its peak on August 30, 95 percent of daily oil production and
88 percent of daily gas production was shut in.
Today those numbers have been reduced. Right now 58 percent
of oil production is now shut in and 42 percent of gas
production is shut in. This graph illustrates how every day we
have brought the amount of oil and gas that is shut in down. By
``we'' I mean our partners in industry, obviously, working
together to get these numbers back up to capacity. The numbers
improve every day, but we are obviously not close to full
capacity. But I would note that just between yesterday and
today there was a 10 percent improvement in both oil and
natural gas.
As was to be expected, many production and exploration
facilities sustained damage. But early reports indicate that
the vast majority of facilities could be ready to come back on
line in days and weeks, rather than months. However, a full
assessment of the damage from Hurricane Katrina will require
several more days as many facilities still have not yet been
inspected by their operators.
I would add there have been no reports of significant
spills related to production. All safety systems worked to
successfully shut in production on the OCS platforms.
At the latest count, the hurricane destroyed 37 of the
roughly 4,000 OCS production platforms. However, all of those
37 platforms were in shallow water and they were producing
relatively small volumes of oil and gas, cumulatively, about 1
percent of the total gulf production. Most of the deep water,
high output facilities appear to have survived with minimal
damage.
Fifteen platforms suffered extensive damage. Here again,
these were in shallow water and they were low production
facilities. Four of these, however, were large, deep water
platforms which account for about 10 percent of the pre-storm
Federal offshore gulf oil production. These four platforms
could take up to 3 to 6 months to complete repairs to be
brought back on line.
But looking at it from another perspective, that means
about 90 percent of the Gulf of Mexico production did not
suffer significant damage offshore. But it is important to note
that, unlike Hurricane Ivan, we did see a lot of damage onshore
to very critical support facilities and infrastructure. Many of
these facilities do not have electricity or communications, and
they are flooded and suffering from sustained wind damage.
These are important jumping-off points for industry workers,
inspectors, and the materials and supplies that will be needed
to repair offshore pipelines and platforms. Others are needed
to move the oil and gas from the offshore to the ultimate
consumer. The availability of these vital facilities will be a
critical factor in the recovery of OCS production.
MMS is working every day with industry to assess the damage
of offshore pipelines and junction facilities that are critical
for transporting the oil from the platform to the shore. As was
the case for offshore platforms, it appears that some pipelines
suffered significant damage, which could take several months to
repair. Others have already been inspected and tested and
appear ready to resume. Right now we are still doing underwater
inspections. It is a little bit too early to give an estimate
on the impacts to pipelines. But again, we are not seeing the
type of damage we saw in Hurricane Ivan, where we had that mud
slide that caused a lot of damage to pipelines.
Our goal in dealing with hurricanes and tropical storms is
a four-part one: protection of workers through evacuation,
protection of the Nation's supply of oil and gas from long-term
disruption of production, protection of the environment, and
rapid initiation of our contingency of operations plan referred
to as the COOP, so that we may continue our business from
another location.
Unfortunately, we had to put into place our COOP. We moved
about 100 people already to Houston and set up a satellite
office. We are moving more people there. We are monitoring and
reporting on shut-in production and doing our damage
assessments from Houston. We are processing permits and are
prepared to expedite approvals for repairs to facilities in an
efficient and effective manner.
In the coming days, we will move more people there to
continue to assist industry to bring the facilities back on
line to resume normal operations. Four out of our five district
offices in the gulf are open to conduct inspections and process
permit requests. More details are in my written statement.
Mr. Chairman, Hurricane Katrina has certainly dealt the
central Gulf of Mexico region and its people in the oil and gas
industry a heavy blow, but we will recover. MMS has responded
by working with industry to assess damages, facilitate repairs,
expedite critical business processes, and resume full
production of oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf as
rapidly as possible to meet the Nation's energy needs.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Watson, Assistant Secretary for Land and
Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear here today to provide you with an update on the
status of offshore oil and gas production that has been shut in due to
hurricane Katrina. I would also like to take this opportunity to
provide you with a look at what we are doing to support the safe
resumption of production in the Gulf of Mexico.
It is difficult to comprehend or express the horrific impacts on
the people in the Gulf of Mexico region. The loss of lives, livelihoods
and property is mind boggling to say the least. Katrina, a category 4
hurricane with winds over 145 mph, will likely be recorded as the worst
natural disaster in the history of the United States. Every day we are
learning more about the extent of the casualties and destruction left
in the wake of Katrina.
As Katrina approached, those who serve at the Department of the
Interior prepared for the worst. Department bureaus efficiently
activated their emergency plans, security facilities and evacuated
employees. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) implemented its Gulf
of Mexico Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) and moved key personnel
to Houston. In the coming days, we will move more people and resources
there to help in efforts to bring facilities back on line and resume
normal operations. The Department continues to account for employees
who evacuated the area with their families. The Department and MMS
employees will continue to do whatever we can to help our gulf
colleagues and neighbors.
Our focus now is to ensure that the offshore oil and gas operations
are brought on-line safely and as soon as possible. Progress is being
made. On Monday, when the storm hit, 615 platforms and 90 drilling rigs
had been evacuated. By Thursday, September 1, the numbers had dropped
to 423 and 64, respectively. As the platforms are coming back online,
so is oil production. The oil and gas produced from the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico plays a major role
supplying our daily domestic energy needs, accounting for about 29% of
domestic oil production and 21% of domestic gas production. While it
will be several days before we have a more complete assessment, it
appears many of the high-production facilities weathered the storm
without major damage.
LATEST PRODUCTION SHUT-IN STATISTICS
As of Thursday, September 1, MMS reported the following evacuation
and production shut-in statistics based on reports from 68 companies:
Total
Platforms Still Unmanned...................................... 423
Rigs Still Unmanned........................................... 64
Oil, Barrels Per Day (BOPD) Shut-in........................... 1,356,498
Gas, Billion Cubic Feet (BCF) Per Day Shut-In................. 7.8
As discussed above, on Monday, when the storm hit, 615 platforms
had been evacuated and so had 90 drilling rigs. By Thursday, September
1, these numbers were 423 and 64, respectively. The difference in a
week's time is due to the platforms that were evacuated as a precaution
but were not in the path of the storm and suffered no damage, and those
platforms that were unscathed by the storm, although in the path, and
were remanned immediately after the assessment was done.
These evacuations are equivalent to 52% of 819 manned platforms and
48% of 137 rigs currently operating in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).
As of Thursday, September 1, shut-in oil production was 1,356,498
barrels per day. This shut-in oil production is equivalent to 90% of
the daily oil production in the gulf, which is currently approximately
1.5 million barrels per day.
As of Thursday, September 1, shut-in gas production is 7.8 billion
cubic feet per day. This shut-in gas production is equivalent to 79% of
the daily gas production in the gulf, which is currently approximately
10 billion cubic feet per day.
The cumulative shut-in oil production for the period 8/26/05-9/1/05
is 7,441,566 barrels, which is equivalent to 1% of the yearly
production of oil in the gulf, which is approximately 547 million
barrels.
The cumulative shut-in gas production 8/26/05-9/1/05 is 42 billion
cubic feet, which is equivalent to 1% of the yearly production of gas
in the gulf, which is approximately 3.65 trillion cubic feet.
These cumulative numbers reflect updated production numbers through
Thursday from all previous reports.
MMS OPERATIONS
We have three overriding principles in dealing with tropical storms
or hurricanes:
evacuate the workers so there is no loss of life or injury
protect the Nation's supply of oil and gas from long-term
disruption of production
protect the environment from oil spills
We work on each of these goals in close cooperation with our
partners in the U.S. Coast Guard and with the regulated oil and gas
industry.
Many platforms under MMS jurisdiction are designed to be manned but
also designed to be evacuated for short periods of time. The oil and
gas industry starts the evacuation of personnel far in advance of a
tropical storm or hurricane. Non-essential personnel are removed from
the oil platforms many days in advance starting with areas nearest the
storm track. The rest evacuate after securing the facility. The
industry relies on weather predictions from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and others. It is an immense undertaking to
evacuate the 25,000 to 30,000 people that are working offshore at any
given time. Industry uses the huge fleet of crew boats, supply boats,
and helicopters to service the evacuation efforts. MMS releases its 14
leased helicopters either all or in part to assist in this evacuation
effort.
As a standard practice, industry shuts in all oil production when
they evacuate the platform. In some cases, natural gas production is
monitored from onshore through what is called a Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition or SCADA system. This allows the production to be
stopped remotely if necessary.
Regarding the prevention of oil spills, the MMS has mandatory
requirements for the use of downhole safety valves to shut off the flow
of oil and gas in the event of a well failure. We are pleased that in
the aftermath of Katrina, there have been no reported significant oil
spills from production. If you recall, in Hurricane Ivan last year
there were 7 platforms that were completely destroyed. These 7
platforms had a total of 75 oil wells. All 75 of the downhole safety
valves held and no significant pollution occurred from them. Two of the
wells had very minor gas leaks but nothing of any significance.
The MMS requires the operators to report their production shut-in
statistics and number of evacuated platforms and drilling rigs. This
allows MMS to issue frequent reports on how much production is shut-in.
During Hurricane Ivan last summer, the very significant amount of
production shut-in (83 percent of oil production and 53 percent of
natural gas production at the peak) was quickly and dramatically
reduced to only that production that involved damaged facilities--
either platforms or pipelines.
The third area with which we are concerned is protecting the
Nation's supply of oil and gas from long-term disruption. MMS deals
with this issue principally in two ways. We incorporate into our
regulations tough design standards for fixed and floating production
facilities. These standards outline the acceptable wind strength, wave
height, and other environmental conditions. Current design standards
require industry to design facilities to Category 5 storm criteria. MMS
also requires annual above-water structural inspections of all OCS
platforms and periodic underwater structural surveys. We established
these requirements to minimize the potential for platform damage from
serious storm events.
Another area we focus on is facilitating the repairs to facilities
in an efficient and expedited manner. Hurricane operations plans
provide guidance to operators on how to ensure the integrity of all
systems, from visible production equipment on the platform to the
thousands of miles of pipeline that rest on the seafloor. Any damage to
facilities is identified and necessary repairs completed before systems
resume production. As I will note later in this testimony, we are
taking steps to ensure that MMS resources are available to review
company plans to bring production back on line.
Following major hurricanes, we make a systematic effort to identify
lessons learned and take steps to prepare for future hurricane seasons.
Following Hurricane Ivan, we focused on five principal areas:
First, MMS concluded that the basic design standards for deep water
floating production systems seem adequate. We had no floating
production facility failures.
Second, MMS saw that some drilling units installed on the floating
production platforms moved on their supports and caused damage. In
consultation with MMS, industry has tightened the bolting mechanism and
strengthened the clamps that secure these drilling packages on the
floating platforms.
Third, MMS issued a new reporting requirement for the 2005
hurricane season--NTL 2005 G-6. This requires industry to submit
statistics to the MMS Gulf of Mexico Region (GOMR) regarding evacuation
of personnel and curtailment of production because of hurricanes,
tropical storms, or other natural disasters. Operators must include
both those platforms and drilling rigs that are evacuated and those
that they anticipate will be evacuated. Evacuation is defined as the
removal of any personnel (both essential and non-essential) from a
platform or drilling rig. In addition, operators submit a report
regarding facilities remaining shut-in. This report includes basic
platform information, prior production information, estimated time to
resumption of operations and the reason for shut-in (facility damage or
transportation system damage). Operators must notify the MMS GOMR when
production is resumed.
Fourth, MMS issued contracts for six new engineering and technical
studies to look closely at the damage caused by Hurricane Ivan and what
design or operational changes may need to be made.
Fifth, MMS consulted heavily with industry experts and in July
jointly sponsored with the American Petroleum Institute a conference in
Houston, Texas, on offshore hurricane readiness and recovery to more
fully discuss these issues.
We will conduct similar reviews and assessments of facility
performance and impacts from Hurricane Katrina to identify any
additional steps that need to be taken.
A full assessment following hurricane Katrina will require several
more days and will require an integrated view of production and
drilling facilities, ports, electricity, availability of repair
equipment, availability of workers, and potentially other factors. Crew
began to re-board platforms by Wednesday last week.
As to be expected, many production and exploration facilities
sustained significant damage, but early reports indicate that many
facilities could come back on line in days and weeks rather than
months. Many of the deep water high output facilities appear to have
survived with minimal damage.
A different scenario is playing out in the aftermath of Katrina
that was not part of previous storm recovery events. The infrastructure
of many onshore support facilities sustained damage from hurricane
Katrina. These facilities provide vital support for the offshore oil
and natural gas industry. However, many do not have electricity, are
inundated with water, and sustained damage from hurricane winds. These
support facilities are important jumping off points for industry
workers and MMS inspectors to conduct pipeline and structure repairs
and their availability will be a key factor in getting production
online and onshore.
MMS STAFF AND COOP OPERATIONS
MMS implemented its Gulf of Mexico Region COOP (Continuity
of Operations Plan). Key personnel and operations are up and
running in Houston.
As part of the COOP, MMS established communication channels
providing staff critical information through call-in lines and
internet.
MMS provided two weeks administrative leave for all non-
essential personnel who have been affected by Katrina and were
not called to Houston or any other MMS office.
MMS coordinated with the energy operators to address mutual
needs for helicopters to perform fly over inspections.
The MMS district offices have performed fly-overs of key
facilities in the hurricanes path to perform independent
assessments as to potential damage.
Four of Five districts in GOM region are up and running. The
GOM regional operations, relocated in Houston, are providing
advice to companies on their plans to bring production back on
line.
MMS is coordinating with the Coast Guard as a contingency for oil
spill response.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Hurricane Katrina has certainly dealt the Central
Gulf of Mexico region, its people and the industry a very heavy blow.
The Department has begun to put its people and resources in place to
assist in responding to this tragic event. Progress is being made. The
MMS Continuity of Operations Plan is in place and is working. Under
this plan, we will work with industry to assess damages, facilitate
repairs and resume full production of oil and gas on the Federal OCS--
all in a manner to ensure the safety of personnel, integrity of the
offshore infrastructure, and protection of the marine environment.
Based on our experience with Hurricane Ivan, production from
undamaged facilities will be back on line in a matter of days, but it
will take some time, weeks or even months before we are back up to
100%. We stand ready to meet the challenge before us. We will continue
to keep Congress, the public and the media informed of the progress of
these operations.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Your full statement will
be made a part of the record. We greatly appreciate not only
your testimony but your professional way in which you represent
this Department.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Caruso, you are next. Your full statement
will be made a part of the record.
STATEMENT OF GUY F. CARUSO, ADMINISTRATOR, ENERGY INFORMATION
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Caruso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee, for once again asking the Energy Information
Administration to present our view of oil and natural gas
markets, in particular with the impact of Hurricane Katrina. As
both you and Senator Bingaman mentioned, even before this
tragedy the crude oil and natural gas markets were extremely
tight. On August 29, gasoline prices on the national average
were $2.61 a gallon.
The Chairman. Mr. Caruso, would you tell the public who you
are, what you do, and where you get your money and authority,
your resources and authority?
Mr. Caruso. Sure. My name is Guy Caruso. I am the
administrator of the Energy Information Administration and all
of our budget comes as part of the Federal budget.
The Chairman. What are you charged with? What is your
responsibility?
Mr. Caruso. Our responsibility is to find, collect,
disseminate, and analyze all the energy information for the
United States.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Caruso. Even before this tragedy, markets were tight.
Gasoline prices were high, diesel prices were high, natural gas
prices have been high. That was largely because over this same
period world demand had been growing rapidly, refineries were
being stretched very thin, not only in the United States but
worldwide. We had already been beginning to see tightness in
both gasoline and diesel markets.
Katrina's destruction has put further upward pressure on
oil and natural gas prices. As Secretary Watson has just
detailed, a significant amount of gulf production--both oil and
natural gas are shut down--is now well on its way to being
brought back on line, which is I think extremely good news.
In addition, about 1.8 million barrels a day of refinery
capacity in the Gulf of Mexico region was taken off line by the
hurricane. Over half of this is already back on line now or
will be in the next week or so, which again is good news.
Pipeline damage was initially thought to be severe, with
estimates of long repair times. In fact now all three major
pipelines--Colonial, Plantation, and Capline, the former two
product and the last being crude--have been restored and are
returned to full or very near full capacity as we speak today.
Gasoline supply, however, particularly in the Southeast,
remains constrained. We expect that it will remain that way for
the next several weeks before being fully restored.
The entire system, as Secretary Watson has indicated, is
interconnected and highly dependent on the electricity supply
for its recovery. Fortunately, electricity is steadily being
restored.
On the price side, crude prices rose early last week, but
already by the end of the week they were coming down, and as of
noon today on the NYMEX crude oil was $66 a barrel, which is
what it was the Friday before the hurricane. Later today, EIA
will be releasing our estimate of gasoline and diesel prices
for the week ending September 2, and we expect this national
average to be much higher than the $2.61 that I mentioned, most
likely above $3 per gallon as of today.
The near-term outlook for oil and natural gas markets will
depend on a number of factors, including the pace of recovery
in the gulf and other actions, such as the loan of crude oil
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the offer of SPR oil for
sale, and releases of government-controlled product stocks from
other industrialized countries that are members of the
International Energy Agency.
Other actions include the temporary waiver of the Jones Act
to facilitate shipments between U.S. ports. All of these should
assist in alleviating the market pressure. There has also been
a nationwide waiver on requirements of summer gasoline and for
low sulfur diesel, which should also increase the flexibility
of the distribution system.
There are a significant number of tankers which we believe
will deliver refined product, particularly gasoline, from
Europe over the next 2 or 3 weeks, and that again should add
supply and liquidity to market and we believe put downward
pressure on gasoline prices.
Fortunately for natural gas markets, we are in the shoulder
season between high demand for air conditioning and before the
heating season. So that gives time for restoration of the
offshore production, as we are seeing in the gulf, as well as
other facilities that are onshore, such as natural gas
processing centers and pipelines.
Tomorrow EIA will release its short-term energy outlook
and, although our analysis is still preliminary, we assume that
these actions that I have mentioned will help offset some of
the price impact of Katrina. The WTI crude oil price averaged
$65 per barrel in August. We anticipate that during the third
quarter--going through December--an average of about--I am
sorry, the third quarter, September, August, and July--will
average about $65, and we expect that will actually come down a
bit in the fourth quarter.
Under the medium recovery case, we expect gasoline prices
to begin to ease off in the coming weeks and to average about
$2.60 per gallon for the third quarter of 2005 and $2.40 for
2006. With normal weather, heating oil prices will still be
much higher this year, averaging about 30 percent higher than
last winter.
The natural gas market is likely to stay tight over the
next couple of months as the heating season causes increased
demand. In our medium recovery case, the Henry Hub natural gas
spot price is expected to average about $11.50 per thousand
cubic feet in the fourth quarter, but decline in 2006. Natural
gas storage remains above the 5-year average, but higher prices
are supported by high world oil prices, continued economic
growth, and the effects of Hurricane Katrina.
Obviously, economic growth changes and weather deviations
from normal could make this picture either better or worse, but
the full report will be issued, as I mentioned, tomorrow, Mr.
Chairman.
That concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer
questions as you so deem necessary.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caruso follows:]
Prepared Statement of Guy F. Caruso, Administrator,
Energy Information Administration
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss gasoline prices in
the United States and recent developments in world oil markets.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the independent
statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. We
are charged with providing objective, timely, and relevant data,
analysis, and projections for the Department of Energy, other
government agencies, the U.S. Congress, and the public. We do not take
positions on policy issues, but we do produce data and analysis reports
that are meant to assist policymakers determine energy policy. Because
the Department of Energy Organization Act gives EIA an element of
independence with respect to the analyses that we conduct and publish,
our views should not be construed as representing those of the
Department of Energy or the Administration.
The devastation of Hurricane Katrina included offshore production,
refineries, and loss of power to run pipelines and otherwise-working
refineries. Damage assessments are ongoing but still incomplete. With
the current tight global petroleum market, gasoline and distillate
prices have risen sharply. How far and how long they remain elevated
will depend on the severity of damage to petroleum facilities. Our
understanding of the situation is rapidly evolving, and I will discuss
this in my oral remarks. This written testimony focuses on events prior
to the hurricane and challenges to gasoline markets following the
recovery.
Even prior to Hurricane Katrina, petroleum prices, including
gasoline, were setting new records as crude oil prices climbed.
Gasoline prices as of August 29 were $2.61, which was 73 cents per
gallon higher than a year ago, and, on average for the month, were 58
cents per gallon higher. Yesterday's prices, which will be released
late this afternoon, will undoubtedly be much higher given the
significant disruptions experienced due to Hurricane Katrina. A
consumer who drives about 1,000 miles per month in a car that gets
about 20 miles per gallon paid almost $30 more for that car's fuel
during August this year than last August. Businesses and government
budgets are also affected, as it costs more to fill their vehicle
fleets.
The remainder of this testimony describes the fundamentals
affecting petroleum prices, focusing on crude oil and gasoline. The
underlying market situation today, even before Katrina, is one in which
the spare crude oil production, refinery, and tanker capacities that
existed for more than a decade prior to 2003 were reduced more quickly
than EIA or other analysts anticipated. Little spare capacity, both
upstream and downstream, not only supports higher prices, but they also
add to price volatility, since any upset to supply/demand balances
regionally cannot be resolved quickly. Restoring spare capacity will
not be easy or rapid, because an increase in capacity takes time and
investment, and growing demand will require capacity increases just to
maintain current cushions, which suggests that high prices and
potential volatility will be with us for some time.
Changes in the gasoline price at the pump are driven mainly by
changes in crude oil prices and changes in wholesale gasoline prices.
Crude oil cost represented nearly 60 percent of the gasoline price this
summer and explains much of the variation in gasoline price. Crude oil
prices are driven and set by international markets. The wholesale price
of gasoline or its spot price is influenced first by crude oil but also
by seasonal demand variations and by regional refinery and distribution
supply and demand balances. Retail price changes generally lag behind
wholesale price changes.
INTERNATIONAL CRUDE OIL MARKETS
Turning to crude oil prices first, Figure 1* shows that the current
crude price increase began in 2004, when crude oil prices almost
doubled from 2003 levels, rising from about $30 per barrel at the end
of 2003 to peak at $56.37 on October 26, 2004. After falling back
briefly, prices then continued to rise in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figures 1-4 have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a significant change from what we experienced during much
of the 1980s and 1990s. For most of the time since the early 1980s, we
have lived in a market in which spare crude oil production, refining,
and delivery system capacity existed. Crude oil suppliers outside of
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) produce at
maximum rates (i.e., no surplus production capacity) for economic
reasons, thus, the world's surplus crude oil production capacity
resides in OPEC (mainly Saudi Arabia). The large growth in non-OPEC
capacity and production in areas like the North Sea and Alaskan North
Slope, along with softening demand from high prices, led to major cuts
in OPEC production in the 1980s, creating large capacity surpluses. As
demand grew through the 1990s, OPEC production increased, but new
productive capacity was not added. Short-term imbalances between supply
and demand occurred and we experienced some price swings, but those
imbalances did not last long, as capacity generally existed to remedy
the situation within a year.
During most of the 1990s, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude
oil price averaged close to $20 per barrel, but plunged to almost $10
per barrel in late 1998 as a result of the Asian financial crisis
slowing demand growth, at the same time as extra supply from Iraq was
entering the market for the first time since the gulf War. OPEC
producers reacted by reducing production, and crude oil prices not only
recovered, but increased to about $30 per barrel as demand grew in the
face of OPEC production discipline.
Beginning in 2004, world oil demand growth accelerated
significantly. For the 10 years prior to 2004, world oil demand growth
had averaged 1.2 million barrels per day. But in 2004, world demand
jumped by 2.6 million barrels per day, led by an unprecedented increase
in demand from China of about 1 million barrels per day, compared to
that country's increase of 0.4 million barrels from 2002 to 2003. This
unusually rapid demand growth along with growth in the United States
and the rest of the world, quickly used up much of OPEC's available
surplus crude oil production capacity (Figure 2). As the world balance
between supply and demand tightened considerably, ongoing supply
uncertainties associated with Russia, Iraq, and Nigeria added to market
concerns over the availability of crude oil, and prices rose. In 2005,
Iran, Ecuador, and Venezuela added new uncertainties.
Global oil demand is expected to grow more slowly during 2005 and
2006, increasing by about 1.7 to 1.8 million barrels per day. China's
demand is projected to increase by 0.5 million barrels per day and U.S.
demand by 0.4 million barrels per day in 2006. Together, these two
areas are projected to account for about 50 percent of the world's
petroleum demand growth next year.
Crude oil production capacity increases are expected to keep up
with these demand increases. Production increases from OPEC members are
projected to represent almost one-third of the world production growth
next year, and the former Soviet Union is expected to provide an
additional 40 percent of the increase. Other areas such as the United
States and other non-OPEC countries will provide additional production
volumes. However, EIA is not projecting much increase in the surplus
capacity cushion any time soon. Spare capacity is projected to remain
at or below 1.2 million barrels per day in 2005.
We are facing tight crude oil markets for a number of years. EIA's
Short-Term Energy Outlook is projecting WTI crude oil prices to remain
above $55 through 2006. Even if demand softens or capacity is developed
faster than anticipated, statements from OPEC members indicate an
intention to keep prices from falling below $50 per barrel. While high
relative to recent years, the price of crude oil, adjusted for
inflation, is still below the levels seen in the early 1980s.
This tight balance results in different behavior and price
implications than exhibited by the short-term market imbalances seen
for the past 20 years. Instead of high prices being accompanied by low
inventories and expectations for prices to be falling quickly in the
future, today, in both crude oil and product markets, we see high
prices with high inventories. Consumers exhibit similar behavior when
they expect to experience higher prices in the near future. For
example, consumers top off their gasoline tanks before a bad storm that
could limit supplies and drive prices up in their region.
Prior to Hurricane Katrina, crude oil prices increased about 39
cents per gallon in summer 2005 over summer 2004, while gasoline prices
only increased 34 cents per gallon (Figure 3). Although refinery and
distribution and marketing contributions to gasoline prices were on
average lower this summer on average than last summer, seasonal and
local supply conditions affected these refinery contributions to price
gasoline more strongly at the end of the summer, as described next.
U.S. PRODUCT MARKETS
Tightening in other parts of the supply chain beyond crude oil
exacerbated product price increases in the United States and in the
rest of the world. World refining capacity utilization increased from
85 percent to 87 percent from 2003 to 2004, driven in large part by
increases in demand and utilization in areas like China and India.
While adequate refining capacity is available to meet demand today, the
refining system cannot shift quickly to meet unexpected needs. With
refinery capacity running at high utilization levels in many parts of
the world, including the United States, product balancing is frequently
done through international trade, which means products must travel long
distances, stretching out the time it takes to resolve imbalances. This
sluggish response puts additional pressure on product prices beyond the
effect of high crude oil prices and can result in price spikes if a
regional shortage evolves.
Product markets in the United States provide an example of various
supply and demand balancing effects on price. In the United States, the
spread between wholesale product prices and crude oil prices is often
higher in spring and summer than during the rest of the year. Gasoline
is the highest volume product refineries produce, and spring and summer
are when gasoline demand is typically the highest. Gasoline spreads
typically increase at this time of year, lifting overall refinery
margins to their highest seasonal level. Distillate product (diesel and
heating oil) spreads are usually lower in spring and summer, but they
represent only about half as much volume as gasoline production.
U.S. petroleum product price spreads were very unusual in spring
and summer 2005. Wholesale gasoline price spreads through July were
slightly above the average for the past 5 years, but lower than spreads
seen in 2004. Heating oil and diesel spreads were unprecedented,
exceeding gasoline spreads from April through July. This unusual
distillate market was seen throughout the world as distillate demand
grew rapidly and ultra-low sulfur diesel demand in Europe pulled on
tight supplies. Distillate prices remained above gasoline prices in
Europe as well as Asia. This unusual distillate market ultimately
affected gasoline.
Gasoline and distillate products are produced together at the same
refineries. In the spring, the U.S. inventories for gasoline were high
and prices were lower than for distillates. Distillate inventories were
low, and the price incentives caused refiners to respond by producing
unusually high yields of distillate, which resulted in reduced gasoline
yields. The consequence was that U.S. distillate inventories rose from
below normal to above normal, and gasoline inventories fell from above
normal to normal into July.
In addition to the switch in yield patterns, unplanned refinery
outages in July and August added to the tightening gasoline market. The
high demand summer season is when U.S. refiners run close to or at full
utilization rates, but outages always occur. The degree of outages
varies, and preliminary data indicate a higher level than average
occurred in July and August of this year. Had refineries been able to
run at the same utilizations as last year, they would have run about
200 thousand barrels per day more crude oil, and the gasoline
inventories in the July/August period would now be in the middle of
their seasonal range, even with the higher-than-usual distillate
yields.
The loss of supply and rapid decline in gasoline inventories
starting in July resulted in an increase in gasoline price spreads
(Figure 4). Higher gasoline spreads encourage more gasoline imports,
and some refiners may have shifted yields to produce more gasoline, but
with the peak summer driving season at an end, and winter heating needs
ahead, we would expect a continued focus on maximizing production of
distillates.
The high level of refinery outages in July and August increased
pressure on gasoline prices, adding possibly 8 to 15 cents per gallon.
Wholesale prices were poised to decline as some of the refinery
problems were being resolved, but then the gulf coast was hit by
Hurricane Katrina. Both spot market prices and near-month futures
prices for gasoline and distillate products have risen dramatically in
the days following the hurricane. Retail prices, which follow wholesale
prices with a lag, are also rising. We expect that prices will begin to
fall back as production and refining capacity are restored, although
the pace of restoration is at present highly uncertain. While the
gasoline price and supply situation will also be helped by the seasonal
decline in U.S. gasoline demand after Labor Day, seasonal trends in
crude oil markets will work in the opposite direction as world crude
oil demand begins to increase in the fall with the onset of the
Northern Hemisphere heating season.
Looking ahead to next summer, high crude oil prices are expected to
continue to support high prices for all petroleum products, including
gasoline. In addition, gasoline prices may see some additional pressure
since the industry is moving quickly to eliminate methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE). While the removal of the oxygen content requirement in
the recently-enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005, without some
accompanying liability protection, may have hastened companies'
decisions to remove MTBE, companies were moving in that direction
anyway. Removing the oxygen content requirement will help consumers in
the long run by providing more supply options for refiners and
blenders. In the short run, however, the loss of gasoline production
capability and some potential sources of gasoline imports that will
occur when phasing out MTBE cannot be made up easily. The distribution
system will also have to adjust, depending on how the industry shifts.
The result is that we may see increased volatility during the
transition, as we have seen with other fuel specification transitions.
In addition to potential supply problems due to removal of MTBE,
the United States will begin the ultra-low sulfur diesel program. In
June 2006, suppliers will begin providing diesel fuel to the on-road
market that contains less than 15 parts per million sulfur. Following a
full recovery from Katrina, production capability to produce ultra-low
sulfur diesel is felt to be adequate, but the industry is still
struggling to determine how to deliver the product through its pipeline
and storage tank system without contamination. Many issues remain to be
resolved, implying this transition may also add pressure to the system,
and can be expected to affect gasoline as well as distillate prices.
Next year is also the first year of the renewable fuel standard
established under the new energy bill, and while meeting the total
volumes of ethanol required under this standard should not be
difficult, a credit trading program must be in place and operating
smoothly to enable each gasoline supplier to meet its obligation. It is
our understanding that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
industry are working towards this goal, but little time exists for EPA
and the industry to get everything prepared.
One more specification change slated for 2006 is the final phase of
the Tier 2 low-sulfur gasoline program for refiners and importers, who
will be providing gasoline with an average sulfur content of 30 parts
per million or less, which is less than one-tenth the average sulfur
content before the program began. With many refiners already producing
gasoline at 30 parts per million, this last phase may be less
challenging than the removal of MTBE and the start of ultra-low sulfur
diesel. It is one more additional strain on the supply system, however.
For example, if a refinery loses a desulfurization unit, the stricter
specifications may result in no production of gasoline, whereas, in the
past, the refinery might have been able to produce more volumes at
higher sulfur levels for a longer time.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the world is experiencing an underlying change in
petroleum markets with the development of tight supplies that will not
likely change quickly. Hurricane Katrina has significantly exacerbated
the near-term supply tightness, especially in the U.S. market for
gasoline and diesel fuel. Even after production and refinery operations
fully recover from the effects of Katrina, capacity increases will be
needed throughout the supply chain to keep up with demand. Until the
world returns to more spare capacity, particularly in crude oil supply,
crude oil and petroleum product prices will remain high. Even if the
balance should relax unexpectedly, OPEC members have expressed an
interest to maintain prices well above their prior target range. While
the system currently can meet demand, it cannot respond quickly to
unexpected changes. We will see shifts in imbalances from one region of
the world to another and from one product to another, as we saw with
gasoline and distillate in the United States. The gasoline market in
the United States is subject not only to the higher crude oil prices
and generally tight market conditions, but also to volatility from
continuing specification changes down the road, with next summer
presenting a number of such specification challenges.
This completes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to
respond to any questions you and the other Committee members may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Caruso. We do not
have the benefit of your full report, but you have given us a
glimpse. What we have heard is good news and we appreciate
that.
Mr. Overdahl.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. OVERDAHL, CHIEF ECONOMIST,
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
Mr. Overdahl. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and members
of the committee, I appear before you today in my capacity as
chief economist of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or
CFTC, the Federal Government regulator of futures markets in
the United States. My purpose here this afternoon is to do two
things. First, I will briefly describe the methods the CFTC
uses to ensure market integrity. Second, I will address the
role played by non-commercial traders, commonly referred to as
speculators, in energy markets under the CFTC's jurisdiction.
The CFTC's mission is to administer the Commodity Exchange
Act, or CEA, the statute governing futures trading in the
United States. At its core, the CEA is an anti-manipulation
statute, meaning that the CFTC's primary mission is to detect
and deter market manipulation. The CFTC relies on a program of
market surveillance to ensure that markets under CFTC
jurisdiction are operating in an open and competitive manner.
The heart of the CFTC's market surveillance program is its
Large Trader Reporting System. This system captures position-
level data for market participants meeting certain criteria.
The Large Trader Reporting System is a powerful tool for
detecting the types of concentrated and coordinated positions
required by a trader or a group of traders attempting to
manipulate the market.
In addition to regular market surveillance, the CFTC
conducts an aggressive enforcement program that prosecutes and
punishes those who break the rules. The punishment meted out as
a result of enforcement proceedings deters would-be violators
by sending a clear message that improper conduct will not be
tolerated.
Data from the CFTC's Large Trader Reporting System can help
answer questions about the role of noncommercial traders in
U.S. energy futures markets. A current snapshot, current as of
last Friday, of these positions shows that noncommercial
traders, those who are commonly labeled as speculators, hold
about 25 percent of the so-called long positions, that is the
positions that will appreciate if gasoline futures prices rise.
The remainder of open positions are held by commercial traders,
that is producers, refiners, retailers, and those who are
commonly referred to as hedgers, in other words those who are
using futures markets to reduce their commercial risks.
The role of noncommercial traders in futures markets has
been studied extensively, both by CFTC economists and others.
One lesson from these studies is that noncommercial traders are
necessary in order for futures markets to facilitate the needs
of hedgers. In order for hedgers to reduce the risks they face
in their day to day commercial activities, they need to trade
with someone willing to accept the risk the hedger is trying to
shed.
Therefore, both hedgers and speculators are necessary for a
futures market to perform its socially beneficial role of
transferring risk from those who do not want it to those who
are willing to accept it for a price.
Noncommercial traders are a diverse group with diverse
trading objectives. Managed money traders, including those
called hedge funds, fall into the category of noncommercial
traders because they do not have a commercial interest in the
product upon which the futures contract is written. As a group,
managed money traders represent a large portion of the
noncommercial positions in unleaded gasoline futures markets.
The chart* that I have attached to my written testimony
that you have before you provides a snapshot of participation
by managed money traders in the October 2005 unleaded gasoline
contract traded at the New York Mercantile Exchange. I call
your attention to the three vertical lines at the end of that
chart. These are the positions immediately following Hurricane
Katrina. It shows that as a group managed money traders reduced
their positions, that is they were selling, as market prices,
represented by the continuous line, were soaring. A conclusion
that can be drawn from this chart is that managed money traders
and speculators in general do not have perfect foresight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The chart has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A common speculative trading strategy is to simultaneously
establish offsetting positions between crude oil and the
products that are refined from crude oil, that is gasoline and
heating oil. The trading strategy is referred to by traders as
the crack spread, the name reflecting the cracking process of
turning crude oil into refined products.
In the past week, prices for refined products have moved
much higher on a percentage basis than prices for crude oil. A
conclusion that can be drawn from this behavior is that the
increases in gasoline prices following Hurricane Katrina were
driven primarily by disruptions to the refining process and not
as much from increases in the levels of crude oil prices.
An important benefit to society provided by futures markets
is price discovery. Looking at the New York Mercantile Exchange
futures prices over the next year, one can see that the market
expects prices to fall back to levels close to where they were
before Hurricane Katrina.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Overdahl follows:]
Prepared Statement of James A. Overdahl, Chief Economist,
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, and Members of the Committee, I
appear before you today in my capacity as Chief Economist of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal government regulator
of futures and futures options markets in the United States. Energy
contracts falling under the CFTC's jurisdiction include futures and
related contracts on crude oil, natural gas, heating oil, propane,
electricity, and unleaded gasoline. Trading in these contracts takes
place predominately at the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).
In U.S. energy markets, recent experience has shown that even small
disruptions in production, refining capacity, or transportation
networks can significantly affect prices in the face of high demand for
energy products. Therefore, given the scale of disruptions caused by
Hurricane Katrina, it is not surprising that current prices for energy
products have risen significantly. Consumers of energy products, who
are paying these higher prices, deserve to know that energy prices are
being set fairly in an open and competitive environment.
Futures markets serve energy producers and consumers in two
important ways. First, these markets provide a means for market
participants to manage risks arising from their normal day-to-day
commercial activity. This risk-management activity is commonly referred
to as ``hedging.'' A significant majority of futures positions held
over time are established by commercial users of energy products who
hedge their exposure to price risks occurring in the underlying
``cash'' energy markets. Second, futures markets are a venue for price
discovery. The prices discovered through the interaction of thousands
of traders provide valuable information even to those who are.not
direct participants in futures markets. These prices are widely
distributed through newspapers and over the internet and television so
that anyone, not just professional traders, can observe futures market
prices and can use these prices as a reliable benchmark upon which to
guide forward-looking decisions. The prices discovered in futures
markets are also used as a benchmark in many types of privately-
negotiated, over-the-counter contracts.
My purpose here today is to do two things. First, I will briefly
describe the methods the CFTC uses to ensure market integrity. Second,
I will address the role played by non-commercial traders, commonly
referred to as ``speculators,'' in energy markets under the CFTC's
jurisdiction.
Methods used by the CFTC to ensure that energy futures prices are
determined in an open and competitive environment. The CFTC's mission
is to administer the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the statute
governing futures trading in the United States. Under the CEA, the CFTC
is the exclusive regulator of futures and futures options markets in
the United States. At its core, the CEA is an anti-manipulation
statute, meaning that the CFTC's primary mission is to detect and deter
market manipulation and other trading abuses. The CFTC relies on a
program of market surveillance to ensure that markets under CFTC
jurisdiction are operating in an open and competitive manner, free of
manipulative influences or other sources of price distortions.
The heart of the CFTC's market surveillance program is its Large
Trader Reporting System. This system captures end-of-day position-level
data for market participants meeting certain criteria. Positions
captured in the Large Trader Reporting System make up 70 to 90 percent
of all positions in a particular market. The Large Trader Reporting
System is a powerful tool for detecting the types of concentrated and
coordinated positions required by a trader or group of traders
attempting to manipulate the market.
In addition to regular market surveillance, the CFTC conducts an
aggressive enforcement program that prosecutes and punishes those who
break the rules. Nearly one-third of the CFTC's resources are devoted
to its enforcement program. The punishment meted out as the result of
enforcement proceedings deters would-be violators by sending a certain
and clear message that improper conduct will be detected and will not
be tolerated.
In addition to the efforts of the CFTC, futures exchanges, such as
the NYMEX, also conduct regular surveillance of their markets under
their self-regulatory obligations as defined in the Commodity Exchange
Act. Under the CEA, futures exchanges are guided by a set of eighteen
core principles to ensure that futures trading takes place in an open
and competitive environment. Core principles 3, 4, and 5 speak directly
to the duty of futures exchanges to adopt internal rules and policies
and to design futures contracts that reduce the threat of market
manipulation and other sources of price distortions. In addition, Core
principle 9 addresses the duty of futures exchanges to provide a
competitive, open, and efficient market for executing futures
transactions. The CFTC oversees compliance with the core principles by
conducting periodic rule enforcement reviews to ensure that the
exchanges are enforcing the rules on their books. Aside from their
assigned self-regulatory obligations to the public, futures exchanges
also have private business reasons to make sure that the markets they
host operate in an environment free of manipulation. Even the
perception of manipulation is one of the worst fates that can befall a
futures market.
The role of non-commercial traders in energy markets under the
CFTC's jurisdiction. Data from the CFTC's Large Trader Reporting System
can help answer questions about the role of non-commercial traders in
U.S. energy futures markets. For the unleaded gasoline futures markets,
approximately 80 percent of all open futures positions meet the size
threshold for inclusion in the CFTC's Large Trader Reporting System. A
current snapshot of these reportable positions shows that non-
commercial traders, those who are commonly labeled as speculators
because they do not have an underlying commercial purpose for holding a
futures position, hold about 25 percent of the ``long'' positions, that
is, positions that will appreciate if gasoline futures prices rise.
This current percentage is slightly lower than the average percentage
for similar positions over the past two years. The remainder of open
positions, which represent a significant majority of positions, are
held by commercial traders, that is, producers, refiners, and
retailers, who are commonly viewed as hedgers. The CFTC provides on its
web site (www.cftc.gov) a weekly report, called the Commitments of
Traders Report, showing the aggregate positions of commercial and non-
commercial traders based on the CFTC's Large Trader Reporting System.
The role of non-commercial traders in futures markets has been
studied extensively, both by CFTC economists and others. One can find a
long list of academic studies on the role played by non-commercial
traders in affecting a variety of market characteristics across many
different markets. One lesson from these studies is that non-commercial
traders are necessary in order for futures markets to facilitate the
needs of hedgers. In order for hedgers to reduce the risk they face in
their day-to-day commercial activities, they need to trade with someone
willing to accept the risk the hedger is trying to shed. Non-commercial
traders take on this risk for a price. Non-commercial traders also add
to overall trading volume which contributes to the formation of liquid
and well-functioning markets. Futures exchanges know from experience
that the markets they host cannot exist with hedgers alone. Both
hedgers and speculators are necessary for a futures market to perform
its socially beneficial role of transferring risk from those who do not
want it to those who are willing to accept it for a price.
Non-commercial traders are a diverse group with diverse trading
objectives. Managed money traders, including those called hedge funds,
fall into the category of non-commercial traders because they do not
have a commercial interest in the product upon which the futures
contract is written. In the futures market for unleaded gasoline,
managed money traders represent a sizable portion of the category of
large non-commercial traders captured in the CFTC's Large Trader
Reporting System. Like other non-commercials, the trading strategies of
managed money traders can vary greatly from one trader to another. On
average, managed money traders make up approximately 75 percent of the
non-commercial positions on the ``long'' side of the market, that is,
the side of the market that would benefit from increases in unleaded
gasoline futures prices.
The attached chart provides a snapshot of participation by managed
money traders in the October 2005 unleaded gasoline contract traded at
the NYMEX. I call your attention to the last three vertical columns
representing the positions of managed money traders in the days
immediately following Hurricane Katrina. As a group, managed money
traders reduced their positions, that is, they were selling, as market
prices, represented by the continuous line, were soaring. A conclusion
that can be drawn from this chart is that managed money traders, and
speculators in general, do not have perfect foresight.
Managed money traders also represent a significant share of traders
speculating on prices across related markets. A common trading strategy
is to simultaneously establish offsetting positions between crude oil
and the products that are refined from crude oil, that is, gasoline and
heating oil. This trading strategy is referred to by traders as the
``crack spread.'' In the past week, prices for refined products have
moved much higher, on a percentage basis, than prices for crude oil. A
conclusion that can be drawn from the behavior of the crack spread is
that the increase in gasoline prices following Hurricane Katrina are
being driven primarily by disruptions to the refining process, and not
as much from increases in the level of crude oil prices.
As I mentioned earlier, an important benefit to society provided by
futures markets is price discovery. Looking at NYMEX futures prices for
wholesale unleaded gasoline over the next year, one can see that the
market expects prices in the future to fall back to levels close to
where they were before Hurricane Katrina. Overall however, the futures
market reflects expectations that gasoline prices a year from now will
be significantly higher than prices a year ago. Of course, such
expectations depend on many variables, including how quickly refinery
facilities and transportation networks return to normal operations. I
look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Now, did you have a more detailed statement? Did you have a
more detailed statement?
Mr. Overdahl. Yes.
The Chairman. It will be made a part of the record, as you
know.
Now, we will follow the procedure that I announced, and I
think under that, Senator Burns, you are first. We will keep a
clock on all of us, but I want to be as generous as I can, but
you know there are plenty Senators, so let us stick to our
time.
Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
hearing. I think we have all got concerns. We had concerns
about this even before the tragedy in the gulf, because if you
come out of agriculture not only do high oil prices and high
gas prices drive the prices of fertilizer and everything that
we use on the farm, our petrochemicals, our transportation to
put a crop in--and of course, when you live in Montana you are
at the end of the line. In agriculture, you sell wholesale and
buy retail and pay the freight both ways. So it really hits us.
Mr. Overdahl, of course I have been around traders just
about all my life as far as futures are concerned, and of
course you buy on facts and sell on rumor if you are a
speculator. Give me some idea on the percentage, the difference
between--how many speculators do you have in the market as a
rule and how many people really use the market as a hedge in
either selling their product or hedging the cost of the
product?
Mr. Overdahl. One way to answer that question is to look at
the commitments of traders report that the CFTC publishes on a
weekly basis. This is an aggregate summary of all traders
across--it comes from our Large Trader Reporting System, but it
provides the aggregate numbers based from those reports.
From that you will see a summary figure of commercial
traders, in other words those who are actually in the market as
refiners or producers or users of commercial--have commercial
interests in the product--versus the noncommercials, that
includes perhaps hedge funds and others who do not have a
direct link to the underlying cash market. From that, it varies
across markets and it varies in multiple dimensions.
For unleaded gasoline, we break it out between long
positions and short positions. About 25 percent of the long
positions held in the unleaded gasoline futures markets are
held by noncommercial traders. However, they are also, some of
them, on the short side. So in net they have been long most
recently, but that is a rough idea.
In other markets, crude oil and natural gas, you see a
different pattern. You see the noncommercial traders, so-called
speculators, on both sides of the market, on the long side and
the short market. But importantly, you see them also playing a
big role in spreading, spread trades across related markets and
across related contracts within the same complex. That is a
bigger role in those markets and differs from what we see in
the unleaded gasoline futures market.
Senator Burns. I assume then those in a long position, if I
was a speculator in a long position, there is a time when you
have got to--you do not want to take delivery on the product,
but sometimes they do take delivery?
Mr. Overdahl. In the futures markets very few actually take
delivery. It is much less, on average much less than 1 percent
of all open positions are settled by physical delivery. Most
contracts are settled by offset, and that is because these are
primarily risk management contracts used by hedgers. They have
their own commercial day to day risks, but they can manage
those risks by opening and offsetting positions in the futures
markets.
Senator Burns. Do you get the feeling that it could be the
tail wagging the dog every now and again?
Mr. Overdahl. Well, that is always the question. I think
that what we see--it is a balancing act for the exchanges. They
need the speculators in there to absorb the risks that hedgers
are trying to unload. One way they handle that is through
position limits to make sure that not any one trader or any
single position can dominate, and so that you cannot have that
type of influence.
Senator Burns. Ms. Watson, with the storm down there I have
just got a couple questions for you. You are one of the parts
of government that really makes money for us, the Minerals
Management Service. Tell me about the people that you have in
the gulf? Are all of them safe, and how will you operate now
that you have been moved out of most of your facilities down
there?
Ms. Watson. Well, thank you for asking. Right now,
unfortunately, we are still trying to locate 67 of our people.
We had about 100 people we were not able to locate immediately
after the hurricane, but they have been reporting in. We have
some confidence and hope that they have not been injured or
killed in the hurricane, they have just not called in. We are
getting calls from them, but right now we have not been able to
account for 67 folks that work for us at MMS.
As I said, we set up a COOP office in Houston. We have 100
people there right now working and doing their duties. We have
put other folks on administrative leave. About 25 percent of
our employees have lost their homes in the hurricane. Many of
them lived in the New Orleans area. We are assessing how many
more people we need to move to Houston and for how long as we
work with the local authorities in Metairie, Louisiana, where
our office was located, to determine when it will be safe for
them to return. It is day by day on that score.
Senator Burns. Well, good luck to you, and I know you have
got a challenge down there. If we can be of any assistance, let
us know.
Ms. Watson. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Does that mean they could be dead?
Ms. Watson. Well, we hope that is not the case. What I hear
from the people at MMS is they feel optimistic that that is not
the case. The office is located outside of the immediate impact
of the storm. It was in an area that had to be evacuated and it
is an area that is kind of dicey right now. It is a bit of a
lawless area. They do not allow anybody in there.
But we are getting calls from people coming in and probably
they are tending to their families first and calling their
employer somewhere down the road. So that is what we are
hoping, and we are trying to find out where they are.
The Chairman. Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Caruso, let me just ask a couple of questions about
your information-gathering. The main focus of this hearing is
the adequacy and reliability of our refining capacity. What
information does your agency require refiners to provide to you
with regard to their current activities?
Mr. Caruso. Thank you, Senator. Each week we receive from
all refiners, a sample--we sample about 92 percent of the
refining capacity--on what their production, byproduct, and
their output is. Then we also collect more detailed information
on a monthly basis. But we do have weekly reports from most
refiners.
Senator Bingaman. Do they give you weekly reports on the
extent of their output? One of the statements in your testimony
concerned me, where you talked about how the outages of
refining capacity in July and August had caused something in
the range of 15 or 16 percent increase in the price of gas. But
you knew about that outage before it happened or at the time it
happened, or at what point?
Mr. Caruso. In terms of outages, we get that information
from commercial services. We do not get outage reports per se.
We get weekly reports on output, and of course if a refinery is
down for maintenance or what have you that would be reflected
in the weekly reporting.
One clarification on the increase in prices. It was outages
of refiners were one of a number of factors, including of
course strong demand and other factors on the world market as
well.
Senator Bingaman. It strikes me the analogy that comes to
mind is when we were talking about electricity in the hearings
we had on the energy bill, one of the concerns was that there
did not seem to be real good visibility into outages and
decisions by power plant operators to shut the operation down
for maintenance or whatever.
I am sort of gathering that we have a similar problem in
this area. We do not have good visibility into the decisions to
shut down refineries. Am I wrong about that? Do you feel that
you are on top of that situation?
Mr. Caruso. Well, as I mentioned, we do not get specific
reporting on that factor. We only get that through the
commercial trade publications, which on a monthly basis do
report on which refineries have scheduled maintenance and
scheduled outages.
Senator Bingaman. But there is nobody trying to coordinate
the scheduled maintenance among refineries?
Mr. Caruso. That is correct, sir.
Senator Bingaman. Do you think that might be a useful thing
to have somewhere in the Federal Government, someone who is
trying to encourage that a whole group of refineries do not
decide to do their maintenance at the same time?
Mr. Caruso. It is certainly worth considering, Senator.
Senator Bingaman. You have another part in your testimony
that concerned me a little bit, where you talk about this new
requirement that we have put into the energy bill on renewable
fuel standard. You say next year is the first year of the
renewable fuel standard established in the energy bill. ``While
meeting the total volumes of ethanol required under this
standard should not be difficult, a credit trading system must
be in place and operating smoothly to enable each gasoline
supplier to meet its obligation. It is our understanding that
EPA and the industry are working toward this goal, but little
time exists for them to get it all prepared.''
Could you elaborate on that problem? It seems to me that
you are subtly trying to flag a problem for us that we need to
know about.
Mr. Caruso. I believe that refers to the phasing out of the
MTBE.
Senator Bingaman. No, I do not believe so. I think that
that is separate, you deal with that separately in the previous
paragraph. This is on paragraph 9 of your testimony. I think
that the need to establish this credit trading program with
relation to renewable fuels is a separate requirement which EPA
needs to get up and running. I am just wondering if we have got
the various parts of the Government talking to each other to
see if this is getting done and can get done on time or if this
is a problem that we are going to hear about later.
Mr. Caruso. Well, I would be very happy to provide that
information for you for the record, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
The concern we were addressing was the overall assessment of the
future petroleum product supply situation in the aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and moving forward into next year. In
2006, the refining industry will be faced with implementation of two
clean fuels programs and the requirements of EPACT 2005. These
requirements include the final phase of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur
program, the introduction of ultra-low sulfur diesel. the possible loss
of MTBE as a gasoline blending component, and implementation of a more
aggressive mandate for renewable fuels. We believe the industry was on
track to fulfill their commitments with these programs.
However, the tight supply situation for petroleum products, the
significant loss of supplies and loss of time to perform maintenance
and system upgrades as a result of the two hurricanes leaves the
industry little room for error or unexpected glitches in fulfilling
these commitments. It is our understanding that EPA is working
diligently with other government agencies and industry to ensure that
the current implementation schedule for clean fuels is maintained and
that EPACT 2005 requirements are implemented in such fashion that
consumer demand will he fully met.
Senator Bingaman. Okay.
I think Mr. Slaughter in his testimony has an attachment
number 4 which gives a fuels time line listing all of the
requirements EPA and others and ourselves through the energy
bill are imposing on those involved with refining. I would
appreciate if you would look at that and see if we have got--if
everyone is talking to everybody about the doability of these
various efforts.
Mr. Caruso. I will, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
We believe industry is working with both Federal and State
governments to ensure that all are on track to fulfill commitments with
the programs listed in Fuels Timeline presented by Mr. Slaughter during
his testimony. It is our understanding that EPA is working diligently
with other government agencies and industry to ensure that the current
implementation schedule for clean fuels is maintained and that EPACT
2005 requirements are implemented so that consumer demand is met. Note,
however, EPACT 2005 imposes several new fuels-related requirements on
DOE, and in some cases authorizes funding, but Congress has not
appropriated the funding that would be required to implement those
requirements.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you.
I will stop with that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
Now we are going to on our side go to Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. To our
witnesses, thank you.
Let me say at the outset that I think this committee over
the course of the last year can be very proud of its work
product. You have mentioned it in your opening statement, Mr.
Chairman, but in a very bipartisan way we have produced a very
positive energy product on July 29, 2005. The great problem is
that we did not produce it on July 29, 2000. But this committee
at that time could not come together. The marketplace brought
us together finally. We became less selective on what we were
attempting to do for our individual political interests and I
think we finally produced a comprehensive and now very timely
energy policy for our country.
Having said that, we will work our way through the current
situation. But I have a couple of observations. I find out
there are no hearings scheduled on the 25 to 150 percent
increase in the cost of housing over the last 2 years across
the American real estate market. For some reason, Congress
simply is not interested in the cost of housing. That is the
marketplace at work and we can choose it if we wish to or we,
hopefully, can sell our home at the right time and gouge like
everybody else might be gouging. But then again, that is the
market and we are going to leave it alone.
But today, we are extremely concerned about the run-up in
the cost of energy. I do not disassociate myself with the
comments of our chairman and the ranking member. What we are
doing here today is legitimate and responsible, and if gouging
is occurring then we ought to be at it and understand why it
is, and I would hope the responsible corporate citizens of this
country would not play that game and take advantage of
difficult situations.
But the facts are out there as it relates to the supply of
gas, the demand of gas, imported gas. All of those figures this
committee, like no other in this Congress, is aware of, and we
know of the tight supplies you are all talking about.
Mr. Overdahl, you did mention I believe one thing, either
you or Mr. Caruso, the price of refined moved faster than the
price of crude. Which one made that statement as it relates to
the last week?
Mr. Overdahl. I did, yes.
Senator Craig. How much faster in that relationship has it
moved, let us say in that week's period of time, than over the
last year as crude moved up in the market?
Mr. Overdahl. Well, to give you a specific answer, I can
provide that after the hearing when I can go back to my office
and check that. But in general, just making an observation on
the spreads themselves, I would say this is a very unusual
situation following Katrina. You have not seen a spike in that
spread between refined and crude oil products like that any
time over the last couple of years.
Senator Craig. And you cannot say how much greater it was
than the normal patterning of price at the pump versus crude in
the world market?
Mr. Overdahl. Specifically, no.
Senator Craig. Is that gouging or is that speculation?
Mr. Overdahl. Well, it is a reflection, I suppose, of--
because the difference has to do with refined product versus
the input into making the refined product. It has something to
do with disruptions in the refining process.
Senator Craig. So the spike, you are not willing to label
it? You are willing to define it, but you are not willing to
label it?
Mr. Overdahl. It is what we observe in the market, yes.
Senator Craig. Okay.
Rebecca, could we go back to your first chart. I would like
to have you turn it. We have seen it, but the audience has not
seen it. On the eastern side of the path of Katrina, why is
there--why are there no wells in there? Is there no oil there?
Ms. Watson. There are resources there, oil and gas, but----
Senator Craig. But?
Ms. Watson. That is an area that is subject to a
congressional and presidential moratoria.
Senator Craig. In other words, Congress did it to the
American consumer by denying the right to explore, develop, and
produce for the market oil that could have come out of that
area?
Ms. Watson. That is a correct statement, yes.
Senator Craig. How many other coastlines of America look
like that, where there are known oil reserves?
Ms. Watson. You are looking at the only part of the
American coastline where we can produce, and that is the
central and western part of the Outer Continental Shelf. The
entire rest of the lower 48 is under a congressional and
presidential moratoria, and then around Alaska there are
portions that are also under some moratoria. But as a rule, the
entire coastline of the United States of America is under a
moratoria but for the central and western part of the gulf,
which is depicted on this map.
Senator Craig. Is it possible the anger of the American
consumer is misdirected at those who produce it instead of
those who deny production? I do not want you to answer that.
One last question. What is the general answer, Mr. Caruso,
you can give as to why our country once had 300-plus refineries
and today only has 100-plus refineries in the market?
Mr. Caruso. The main reason is that the refining sector of
the oil business was a very poor investment during the 1980's
and most of the 1990's.
Senator Craig. Why was it a poor investment?
Mr. Caruso. Because prices were relatively low and
profitability was very low in that particular sector of the
industry for a period of----
Senator Craig. Because the cost of sustaining or building a
refinery was higher in relation to yield?
Mr. Caruso. Yes.
Senator Craig. Or return?
Mr. Caruso. Yes, sir. Return on investment was much lower
than the average manufacturing part of industry.
Senator Craig. Do you know if it is true that EPA requires
tank farms to keep levels of gas at a certain level in the tank
for purposes of fumes that might be emitted? There is a report
today out of Oklahoma that some companies were willing to put
more into the pipe but were denied that by EPA. Do you know if
there are restrictions as to volumes and capacities that are
needed to be sustained in tank farms?
Mr. Caruso. I am not familiar with that restriction,
Senator, but would be happy to check on that when I----
Senator Craig. Would you do that for this committee? I
think that is important to understand, that if we had reserve
capacity out there in different storage facilities around the
country but we were denied the right to enter it into the
pipeline because of environmental concerns or certain Federal
standards?
Mr. Caruso. I will.
[The information referred to follows:]
EIA understands that the issue referred to by the Senator concerns
large above-ground storage tanks with internal floating roofs. The
floating roof is designed to keep vapors from accumulating in air space
above the liquid in the tank as the tank is drained, then being emitted
into the atmosphere when the tank is refilled. In normal practice, and
as required by law, the tank is not emptied below the minimum level at
which the roof floats on the surface of the liquid, rather than resting
on its leg supports. During the period of supply tightness following
Hurricane Katrina, we understand that the American Petroleum Institute
asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for an interpretation
of the applicable regulations, specifically as to whether terminal
tanks could be drained further during this unusual period, so as to
provide additional supply. We do not know what action was taken on this
request by EPA, and respectfully suggest that further inquiries on this
subject, if any, be directed to that agency.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
On the Democratic side, I understand that Senator Wyden was
next.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
colleagues, I may be in the minority again, but I think a major
factor in these skyrocketing prices is that the Government is
not in the consumer protection business any more. The Federal
Trade Commission, we have not heard word one from them. The
Justice Department, the same thing. The Energy Department, the
same thing.
I want to read you, Dr. Overdahl, a quote that appeared in
the Dow Jones Newswire a couple of days ago, talking about oil
commodity traders, the people that you have jurisdiction over
at your agency. I want your reaction to one comment several
days after Katrina--this comes from a Mr. Addison Armstrong,
manager of exchange-traded markets, TPS Energy Futures, LLC, in
Stamford, Connecticut, and he said, and I quote: ``There are
traders who made so much money this week they won't have to
punch a ticket for the rest of the year.''
Now, this is the New York Mercantile Exchange. This is
talking about people trading in the days after Katrina. What
happens in an instance like that? I assume you get the same
kind of clippings that I do. This was sent to me from folks in
Oregon. What happens in an instance like that? How do you
protect consumers when you have an allegation like that?
Mr. Overdahl. I have read that quote as well. I have also
read last Friday's Wall Street Journal, which had an article
about the number of people who missed participating in that.
Senator Wyden. So there should have been more people doing
that kind of thing?
Mr. Overdahl. No, what I am saying is--no, no. What I am
saying is that there are speculators on both sides of the
market. One of the things that we observed from our Large
Trader Reporting System in the days immediately following
Katrina is that a lot of these people were actually selling
their positions. Now, granted a number of them made money, and
that is how they do their job, that they earn a return from
providing this service.
Senator Wyden. So it sounds okay to you from what you are
saying to me? Just part of the market, I take it?
Mr. Overdahl. It is part of--it is a balancing act always
with these markets. You need the participation of these traders
to absorb risk. And the exchanges do limit their participation,
but they also need those traders to make these markets work.
Senator Wyden. Do you contact this person to try to
investigate if maybe this was not just garden variety markets
101?
Mr. Overdahl. I am not familiar--I am not sure what we have
done with respect to that particular instance.
Senator Wyden. Because it seems to me this cries out
exactly for the kind of thing you ought to follow up on. This
guy is saying people are making out so well they are not going
to have to do anything else for the rest of the year. I am
going to move on, but at a minimum it seems to me you ought to
be following this kind of thing up.
The second area I want to ask you about is, I guess we read
the Wall Street Journal a different way. I heard you say in
response, I believe it was to a question asked by Senator
Bingaman on the differential with respect to unleaded gasoline
and crude oil, that you did not see any big dramatic change.
That is not what is being reported.
The Wall Street Journal published a chart showing how the
price of unleaded gas in the United States had gone up 132
percent in the past year, while the price of crude oil had gone
up 64 percent. So that makes it clear that the oil companies
are not simply passing on higher crude oil costs, but they are
also adding substantial increases to the cost of gas above and
beyond the higher crude costs.
Now, that looks to me like price-gouging. I think again it
is the kind of thing that an agency with a consumer protection
portfolio, especially given the comments you made earlier,
which seemed to me to be quite different than what I just read
you, it seems to me you ought to be following up on.
Mr. Overdahl. Well, with respect to the spread between the
refined products and the crude, that is in the futures market
itself, not in the cash market. My comments were comparing the
immediate aftermath of Katrina to what we have observed more
generally. Certainly the prices of refined product have gone
up, judging from that spread.
But one of the things I can assure people is that in the
futures market that there are thousands of traders in these
markets, that there is no single trader that can have undue
influence on those prices, and that it is among the most
competitive markets that you can observe, where every trader--
they are sophisticated traders, trying to obtain the best price
for themselves or for their customers. So it is a competitive
market.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Caruso, I do not know how many times I
have heard folks from your agency say that the west coast is an
isolated gasoline market. That has been the agency's position
again and again. But even though the west coast gets no gas
from the gulf and west coast refineries were not affected, oil
companies raised prices on the west coast of the United States
immediately after Hurricane Katrina.
So if the west coast is geographically isolated from the
gulf, as your agency has been maintaining, how can the oil
industry legitimately justify these overnight price increases
for west coast dealers and consumers that followed Katrina?
Mr. Caruso. Well, the market is fungible.
Senator Wyden. That is not what you all said. You said we
were isolated.
Mr. Caruso. That is correct.
Senator Wyden. Do you want me to give you the quotes from
your people over the years?
Mr. Caruso. No.
Senator Wyden. You did not say the markets were fungible.
You said we were isolated.
Mr. Caruso. I think both are true. The west coast is
isolated in the sense that there is not enough refinery
capacity making the particular California-grade gasoline to
serve that market, so your State and Washington as well
traditionally have higher prices than the national average for
that reason and, in the case of California, due to higher
environmental standards, and, in some cases, taxes.
Now, once the price of crude oil and other products goes up
on the NYMEX, it feeds through the whole system without--there
are no price controls, as you know. So that is largely the
reason.
Just as a small matter, factual matter, for this week's AAA
retail prices, for the first time in a long time, the price of
gasoline in California is about the same as the national
average. Normally it is between 15 and 25 cents higher. So
there is usually some differential.
The Chairman. Your time has expired. The Senator's time has
expired. Thank you very much, Senator.
Now we are going to come back to our side.
Senator Alexander.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the hearing.
All of us, like most Americans, wish we could do more to
help those in the gulf coast. I for one am particularly
grateful to the hard work of utility crews who worked last
weekend to keep Tennessee and other parts of the Southeast from
being without gasoline because of the failure of electricity.
I want to spend my time asking a few questions,
particularly, Mr. Caruso and Ms. Watson, about what Chairman
Domenici called, I believe he said, the forgotten commodity,
natural gas. We talk a lot about gasoline and it is a big
problem, but I would suggest--and Senator Johnson and I have
done some work on this--that it is not a bigger problem than
the price of natural gas.
You said, Mr. Caruso, the spot market today is $11.50 per
unit. What was it 5 years ago, 4 or 5 years ago, in the United
States?
Mr. Caruso. Just a little over $2.
Senator Alexander. Just a little over $2.
Mr. Caruso. Yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. And at that time were we the lowest
priced natural gas in the industrial world?
Mr. Caruso. In the commercial world.
Senator Alexander. And today are we the highest priced
natural gas in the commercial world?
Mr. Caruso. I think so, yes, sir.
Senator Alexander. Just 2 weeks ago I was at a roundtable
at Tennessee Eastman Chemical Company with 10,000 employees. 40
percent of their cost is natural gas for raw material, and the
price was $9.50 2\1/2\ weeks ago. In our bill, unlike gasoline,
which we know is going to stay high, not as high as it is
today, we hope, we know what to do about natural gas.
I would like to ask you and maybe you could give me just a
few broad estimates of which of these steps that we have taken,
made an effort to change, would actually make a difference in
bringing down the price, first stabilizing and then bringing
down the price, of natural gas. For example, what percent of
new power plants in America have been built with natural gas
during the 1990's roughly?
Mr. Caruso. I know from the latter part of the 1990's until
right now it has been in the upper 90's, 98 percent or so.
Senator Alexander. Almost all. What effect has that had on
the price of natural gas?
Mr. Caruso. It has certainly been a major contributor to
the upward pressure on price.
Senator Alexander. How many nuclear power plants have been
built in the United States since the 1970's?
Mr. Caruso. The last one I believe was actually ordered in
1978.
Senator Alexander. So the answer would be none since the
1970's?
Mr. Caruso. Not since the last part----
Senator Alexander. And if instead of natural gas power
plants we had had nuclear power plants, what would the effect
be on the price of natural gas?
Mr. Caruso. It certainly would--we would have substantially
less demand for natural gas today than in the case you
mentioned.
Senator Alexander. Well, the energy bill, which we worked
together in a bipartisan way to enact just a few weeks ago,
encourages the use of nuclear power and coal gasification, so
we could have less natural gas.
Ms. Watson, there is something called Lease 181 down in the
Gulf of Mexico, is that correct?
Ms. Watson. Yes.
Senator Alexander. Does the President have the authority
today to draw a line between Florida and Alabama defining what
is Florida and what is Alabama on Lease 181?
Ms. Watson. Yes, the President has had that authority for
quite some time, I think about 50 years.
Senator Alexander. And if the President were to draw that
line, about how much natural gas reserves are estimated to be
available on the Alabama side of Lease 181?
Ms. Watson. I would have to get back to you with that
answer.
Senator Alexander. Is it a substantial amount of natural
gas?
Ms. Watson. It is a substantial amount of natural gas in
Lease 181.
Senator Alexander. So all the President would have to do is
draw the line and we could start leasing. Is there anything to
stop us if he draws the line from leasing the area that is in
offshore Alabama to produce more natural gas?
Ms. Watson. I really do not think drawing the line is the
predicate, but I think there is a lot of natural gas in the
Lease Sale 181 area. President Clinton thought this was an area
that should be developed for the benefit of the United States
and I think we think that the Lease Sale 181 area has a lot of
resources that would benefit the American public.
Senator Alexander. Well, if you have the authority to draw
the line, then why do you not draw the line so we can drill the
gas and bring down the price?
Ms. Watson. I think we have a 5-year plan that we have
right now out for public comment. We have asked for comment on
all the areas that are under moratorium, and we are working
with States to take a look at that issue that you have raised,
as well as others, on how we can bring more resources to the
marketplace.
Senator Alexander. Right, but this is unlike drilling off
the coast of Virginia, where the legislature has said it would
like to consider drilling. There we do have a moratorium. If
you draw the line there is no moratorium in Alabama; am I not
correct?
Ms. Watson. I do not think that is quite accurate. I do not
think the line is the predicate to that. But I take your point.
Senator Alexander. Would the opportunity to give States,
such as Virginia indicated it might want to do, the option to
drill for gas and oil, but let us say gas, offshore, have the
potential to substantially reduce the price of natural gas in
the United States? Are there much reserves out there, based on
what we know?
Ms. Watson. We really do not know how much reserves are off
the coast of Virginia. That has been one of the impacts of the
moratoria, is we have not been able to go out there. One of the
provisions in the energy bill that was just passed was a
direction to go out and perform an inventory in the moratoria
areas to find out what is out there.
Senator Alexander. I am about out of time. But we do know
there are substantial gas reserves offshore that we are not
allowed----
Ms. Watson. Based on the information we have now, we do
know there are substantial resources off our coasts.
Senator Alexander. And it would be possible to drill 20
miles out, so no one could see the rigs, is that not possible
to do?
Ms. Watson. Yes, you cannot see a rig 12 miles offshore.
Senator Alexander. Okay.
One last question. The energy bill provided new authority
to speed up bringing imported liquified natural gas from
overseas. Could you comment on whether that will significantly
begin to stabilize and reduce the price of natural gas and when
that might happen?
Ms. Watson. Yes, I think Chairman Greenspan and many others
have testified that import of liquified natural gas will have a
beneficial effect on the price of natural gas. MMS has a small
role but an important role to play in the construction of
liquified natural gas terminals, and I know there are many
requests pending right now for the construction of these
terminals, and we are working with the Coast Guard to get those
constructed as soon as we can. So we are hard at work at
bringing more terminals on and that is something we need to do.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In mid-August I wrote a letter to the seven oil companies
that serve California urging voluntary price restraint. I wrote
it to the CEOs of those seven companies. I have not had a
response. I looked at the second quarter earnings of those
companies and I was very much struck by the enormity of them. I
now see the profits of the major companies in the first half of
2005 are on track to being the highest in 5 years.
I find this hard to reconcile when everyone knows that the
consumer is pushed to the brink. I come from a State with long
commutes with no alternatives, and I look at some of these
profits for the first half of 2005--ExxonMobil, $31 billion, up
from $15 billion in 2001; ConocoPhillips, $12.1 billion; BP,
$20.9 billion; Shell, $20.3 billion.
According to Mr. Caruso's agency, refiners' margins have
grown to 40.8 cents per gallon of regular unleaded in 2004, the
highest level over the past 17 years. Then if you read Credit
Suisse First Boston, they have just raised the profit margin
estimates for U.S. gulf refineries by 67 percent to $15 per
barrel from $9 per barrel.
We see the price of oil is going to bankrupt airlines,
destroy major legacy carriers, and it is just a question of
time before it begins to destroy the economy. One of the things
I learned in the energy crisis in California is that there is
very little consumer loyalty, there is very little response to
consumers' needs. I find it inordinately puzzling why there is
no voluntary price restraint.
President Bush before the Gulf War--this is Bush I--urged
voluntary restraint. I would hope that President Bush would
urge voluntary price restraint, and I would hope if that is not
forthcoming that this body would move to take action.
Mr. Caruso, let me ask you the hard question. In your view,
is there price-gouging now occurring in the oil and gas
markets?
Mr. Caruso. Well, of course that is not--that is the
purview of the Federal Trade Commission.
Senator Feinstein. I ask your view.
Mr. Caruso. My view is that in isolated instances at
specific retail outlets, based on what I have heard, most
likely there have been some abuses. On the broad issue of
whether there is abuse, of course it would require specific
investigations.
Senator Feinstein. What would be the body that would--who
would----
Mr. Caruso. The Federal Trade Commission on that issue, and
then, if it is anti-competitive behavior, the Department of
Justice. There are substantial numbers of opportunities for
consumers to report examples of abuse, either through the
Department of Energy website, through the State attorneys
general offices, and a number of governors, especially in those
States where price-gouging laws exist. So I think that is the
track that this has to take from this point.
Senator Feinstein. Can you answer this question. How many
States have price-gouging laws?
Mr. Caruso. I believe the chairman mentioned 23.
Senator Feinstein. 23.
The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Feinstein, I might
mention, I think that is the correct number. But I think you
should also know that they are all over the waterfront in terms
of what they say. Your State says 10 percent variable, other
States just use general words, and none of them have found it
very easy to process currently, but they are looking at it. But
23 with varying degrees of gouging definitions.
Senator Feinstein. I do not know how one justifies the
projections of the annual profits of the first half that I have
just mentioned at this time. Gas prices have never been higher
in the history of the United States. There clearly is a
catastrophe that has just taken place. Yet the profit estimates
for gulf refineries are all going up.
Can any of you shed any light on what should be done, what
options you see out there?
Mr. Caruso. As I mentioned, I think if there are abuses
taking place then the proper authorities within the Government
should be allowed to--and will--investigate them.
Senator Feinstein. To the best of your knowledge, have
there been any investigations begun? Senator Wyden touched on
that.
Mr. Caruso. Any new ones? I am not aware of any. But there
have been a number of investigations over the years. Most
recently, I think the Federal Trade Commission issued a report
earlier this year.
Senator Feinstein. Well, my time is just about up, but
clearly it gives some of us a place to go to begin to demand
that these prices be looked at, because I think they have
reached the point where the American worker cannot tolerate the
price.
I come from a two and three-tank a week State, where people
have to use gas to get to work because there is not another
option. If you have as much as a $40 increase in a tank it is
tremendous. It is a tremendous hardship if you use two or three
tanks a week.
So I think we need to get to the bottom of it. I am
certainly open. I think--somebody mentioned a little earlier
that listening to this hearing is like the way it was in 2001
with energy prices in the Pacific Northwest and in California.
Everybody said it is somebody else's fault, and it turned out
to be major fraud and major manipulation, and case after case
today that is being settled shows that, I think as well as
anything else.
So for me, I just want to say the distrust is enormous. I
hope somebody out there is listening that controls these
prices.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Now I am going to come back to my side and I think Senator
Allen is next.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing. I know it was scheduled before because
even before Katrina there was a great deal of concern about the
rising cost of energy, natural gas and gasoline.
First, I know that all our thoughts and prayers are with
those who are suffering and trying to get back on their feet in
the gulf area and those who are working long hours to get
people in Alabama and Mississippi and New Orleans and southeast
Louisiana back on their feet.
We do have some considerations here on a variety of fronts
and concerns that we all hear from our constituents. The issue
on price-gouging, let me just give you the Virginia
perspective. Our attorney general in Virginia, Judy Williams
Gogman--under Virginia's laws, you have to have a state of
emergency for the gouging prosecutions to go forward and so a
state of emergency was declared, and she actually is
investigating questions of gouging where prices at a gas
station went up 50 cents or more in the same day and the
questions on that. So that is being prosecuted.
The other, larger issue here for policy is what many of you
have heard me say for months and years now, and that is why
this energy bill was so important, that an energy policy for
this country, and it is now exacerbated by the remnants or the
aftermath of this tragedy, this catastrophic hurricane. That is
how important energy is for jobs and our economy. It is
important for the competitiveness of our country and
manufacturing in particular, and also for our national
security.
Now, the President in reacting to this situation has
suspended many laws and regulations, and it is to make more--
whether it is natural gas and in more cases gasoline more
available. He suspended a slew of these regulations that do
affect gasoline and refining and distribution to make gasoline
more available to mitigate these skyrocketing prices.
Clearly, some of these regulations were having an impact.
My question really, when you look at this situation, is how
many of these regulations actually ought to be permanently
suspended? How many of these laws and rules and regulations
ought to be modified, and which ones ought to go back into
effect once the emergency has ameliorated months from now?
Mr. Caruso or Ms. Watson, do you see any of these
regulations that you think ought to be permanently suspended?
It is amazing how many regulations there are. In particular let
me bring up one where the President suspended the regulation on
reformulated fuels. The Energy Committee memo points out how
there are 100 different fuel formulations in this country,
these special gasolines or boutique fuels specifications, and
all the fuel-switching rules. I know Senator Byrd shares my
concern on this.
These special gasolines cost more to produce and are
difficult to trade among markets--lack of fungibility. In
addition, these fuels make the use of existing transportation
fuel infrastructure for fuels less efficient and
correspondingly more expensive to run. These costs are passed
on to consumers. A large number of fuel types also limits
flexibility in production, distribution, particularly if a
disruption occurs.
Would you think that a modification or permanent suspension
of that rule or some sort of modification would be appropriate?
I note in the second panel the AAA has this as one of their
recommendations. What would either of you care to say on
suspending or modifying that regulation and coming up with
maybe eight, ten different fuels, because we have such tapped-
out, fully utilized refinery capacity here in this country,
that if you had fewer types of formulations there would be less
costs to the consumers? Would either of you care to share any
of your perspective on that?
Mr. Caruso. Thank you, Senator----
Senator Allen. Or any other regulation you think ought to
be modified or eliminated?
Mr. Caruso. Thank you. I think it is an accurate statement
to say that this phenomenon of boutique gasolines does reduce
flexibility. There is no question about that. The point that
you made about transportation and the inability to use one fuel
in a different market makes it particularly difficult in a time
like this and in a time of tight markets. So there are clearly
some benefits to reducing the number of types of gasoline.
However, there are, as with anything in the case of these
types of environmental requirements, tradeoffs between the
environment and in this case supply flexibility.
The other issue with respect to a single or a smaller
number of types of gasoline, if you were to impose one standard
or several standards it could of course raise the costs in
those regions where perhaps they are using those fuels which
require a lower cost of refining. An example would be RFG,
reformulated gasoline, which probably costs 7 or 8 cents a
gallon more.
Senator Allen. Let us assume you picked one or two or at
most three reformulated fuels for nonattainment areas and then
another fuel for those that are in attainment as far as air
quality is concerned, thereby coming up with in that case about
four, and then you have the three different grades--premium,
midgrade, and lower octane. Would that not reduce the cost of
gasoline and also to some extent alleviate the pressure we have
on our limited refining capacity here in the United States?
Mr. Caruso. It certainly would be worth looking into, and I
believe that the EPA, after the passage of EPACT 2005, is doing
just that, Senator.
Senator Allen. We may want to do it more quickly.
Mr. Caruso. Yes, sir.
Senator Allen. I have 13 seconds left. I want to associate
myself with Senator Alexander's remarks. Let me ask you right
quick, Ms. Watson, in all those damages out there on the gulf
coast on the oil rigs, were any of them damaged by Katrina that
resulted in oil spills?
Ms. Watson. No, so far our investigation has shown no oil
spills from any damage to the platforms. All the safety systems
that we have which shut off oil both at the surface and at the
seafloor worked to prevent that. Of course we are still going
out to investigate, but so far we have seen no oil spills in
the Outer Continental Shelf.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Now, we are going to go to Senator Dorgan. Then, on our
side, Senator Murkowski, you are next.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Let me make just a
couple of comments with my time.
My neighbor filled up his car and his son's car yesterday,
15 gallons in each car, and it was $103. The American people
understand that kind of sticker shock with what has happened
with the price of gasoline. I acknowledge that the hurricane
has caused enormous difficulties. But this hearing was called
before that hurricane. The price ramp-up occurred before that.
One of my colleagues gave a rather spirited defense of the
oil industry. Let me give a spirited defense of the consumer
just for a moment. Let me also say that the energy bill that
was signed into law does require the Federal Trade Commission
within 90 days to begin an investigation of gasoline and oil
prices. I wrote that provision. It stayed in in conference. But
having the FTC do this hardly gives me a great deal of hope. I
wrote the piece, but their past experience does not give me a
great deal of hope.
But let me say this. Markets. This is not a free market,
just not a free market. First of all, we have got revenue-
sharing from the American taxpayer to the Saudis and Kuwaitis
and Venezuelans and Iraqis and others. Second, it is not a free
market domestically. It is a market with clogged arteries. It
is a market with OPEC pricing. It is a market with a much more
concentrated domestic oil industry through mergers and
acquisitions. It is a market with rampant speculation, much
more than is necessary for just liquidity, Dr. Overdahl. It is
a market in my judgment with massive windfall profits as well
with the major integrated oil companies.
Now, the question is: where is the pain and where is the
gain in all of this? Let me show you where the gain is, if I
can have a chart held up. My colleague from California, Senator
Feinstein, referred to this. But this shows you in 2002 a $20
billion net income for the industry and it shows you where it
is going. This year it is going to be well over $100 billion at
current rates.
So who is paying for all of this? Of course the consumer is
paying at the gas pump. Now, with the major integrated
companies moving all the way from digging in the ground to
selling at the pump, they have enormous capability and capacity
to price. 40 percent of that which we use, 21 million barrels a
day, 40 percent is domestic. In the last 18 months the price of
oil has increased by over $30 a barrel. If 40 percent of our
domestic production, 40 percent of the usage, rather, is
domestic, at $30 a barrel, that means the domestic industry,
oil industry, is profiting, profiting above that which it
previously profited, which was record profits, is profiting at
$7 billion a month, $7 billion a month, $80 billion a year.
Those in my judgment are windfall profits.
I suppose we can look at this in different ways. Let me say
that, yes, there have been errant public policies. That does
not justify the current price and the current run-up in the
price of gasoline.
Now, I propose and will propose tomorrow and introduce in
the Congress a Windfall Profits Rebate Act which will set a $40
target and impose an excise tax above that for the purpose of
rebating to consumers. We can sit around and talk about this.
There are a hundred reasons, I suppose, that people will have
that this will not work, it should not be done. The question is
are you going to do nothing while we have an industry that is
going to reap about $80 billion in windfall profits on a yearly
basis? Are you going to say that is fine, just ignore it, it
does not matter, and then have the American people pay it at
the pump?
There is a big difference in where the gain is and where
the pain is, and I think this Congress needs to stand up, not
only for good public policy--yes, for good public policy--but
also for the interests of the American consumer. That has not
been the case for a long, long time when it comes to energy.
Again, we hear all this nonsense about markets. This is as
far from a free market as about anything I know. There is just
nothing free about this market. You have OPEC countries. You
have a substantial amount of the oil on this little planet that
is under the sands in a small area. You get a bunch of people
around a table and they decide how they are going to deal with
price and also with production. Then about 40 percent of that
which is produced in this country and sold in this country is
sold by increasingly concentrated markets from mergers and
acquisitions and fewer and fewer and fewer big companies that
also set price.
I understand, Mr. Overdahl, what you are talking about with
respect to the markets and the need for liquidity. I also
understand and have studied tulipmania and all the other
speculative bubbles that have occurred. I think what we have
here is excess speculation and I think the consumer is injured
as a result of it.
So the question is not whether we do something, the
question is what do we do. Most likely the Congress will do
little or nothing and talk a great deal and hold hearings. But
I think, I submit that we should at this point embrace a
Windfall Profits Rebate Act and give the consumer some relief.
I would exempt from a windfall profits rebate, from the
taking as a result of windfall profits, I would exempt that
that is going to be invested in additional production or that
that is going to be invested in additional refineries. But take
a look at what is happening in the industry today and you will
see oil companies buying back their stock, among other things.
Do you think that advances the interests of additional
supplies, energy supplies for the consumer? It does not.
Again, we can sit around and gnash our teeth and wring our
hands and mop our brow about this, but I do think while we do
it there are people driving up to the gas pumps, paying
extraordinary prices that are not justified by this so-called
perverted market. I intend to introduce a bill tomorrow dealing
with the Windfall Profits Rebate Act.
Now, several of my colleagues have made important and
interesting points and let me say that we are a country that is
hopelessly addicted to oil. We need to find ways, and the
chairman and I and others, and Senator Akaka and even President
Bush, who talked about moving toward a construct in which we do
not have to keep running gasoline through our carburetors or
fuel injectors.
We have a $3.7 billion title in the energy bill we just
passed dealing with hydrogen fuel cells and that is a
significant step forward. We have to remove this addiction we
have. But in the short term, at the moment, we also have to
stand up for the interests of the American consumer. Frankly, I
think there is price-gouging in some areas. I do not allege
that is the case in every circumstance, but I do believe this:
This market is perverted, its arteries are clogged, this is not
a free market, and the result is an extraction to the tune of
$80 billion a year that is excess or windfall profits above
record profit levels that already existed for this industry. I
believe the Congress has a responsibility on behalf of
consumers to do something about it.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to make my say
here. It is therapeutic for me at least.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Now we are going to come back to our side and see if
Senator Murkowski has questions and/or a statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too
appreciate you bringing this hearing as quickly as you have
today, recognizing that this was on the table even before
Katrina. I do hope that my colleague who has just spoken is
wrong, that we do more than just have the hearings and do the
talk, because that is not what our constituents want. That is
not what the American consumers want.
There comes a point when they say: Enough, we have had
enough already. Whether it is paying $100 for the 2 cars at the
gas pump--or is that the point where we say we are expecting,
we are demanding, our Congress, our administration, the
industry, to get together and do something about it? I think we
are at that point.
When world oil prices are $67 a barrel, Americans are
paying $288 million a day more for fuel than we did this time
last year. Those numbers kind of get your attention. We are
paying a billion dollars a day more for fuel than we did 3
years ago, and this is according to the Oil Information
Reporting Services. At some point in time, this starts
affecting more than when you just go to the gas pump and see it
ticking up and up and up. It is affecting us in our businesses.
It is affecting the price of transporting our kids to school.
It is affecting everything we do and how this country operates.
So we get to the point where we say enough is enough.
Now, we recognize that there are things that we can do. We
look at the energy bill and we can cite to some of the things
that we are doing to encourage more refineries, because we know
that if you have the product, if you have the oil, but you do
not have the capacity to do anything with it, we are in a world
of hurt.
But one of the things that I think Katrina has pointed out
to us as a Nation is our vulnerability of having our energy
resources to a good extent sitting in one part of the country.
We have got 29 percent of our oil coming out of the region, 21
percent of our gas coming out of the region. In terms of our
refining capacity, we had 10 percent of our Nation's refining
capacity shut down because of one incident that Mother Nature
has wrecked upon us.
We are just in the beginning of the hurricane season. What
happens if we have another hurricane? What happens if there is
labor unrest in Nigeria? We cannot be so bold as to say this is
the end of the big crisis. I guess it was The New York Times
this weekend running an article about the possibility of $100 a
barrel oil, and we have to recognize that that is not so far
out of the realm of possibility.
But is that something that this country can sustain? I
cannot sit before you today and not suggest that we need to do
more to diversify our domestic resources. You all know that,
coming from Alaska, that means ANWR, and what would another
million barrels a day mean to this country if we had ANWR? We
have got to be thinking about just those opportunities, and
they are opportunities.
Mr. Caruso, I want to ask you a question just in terms of
what we can tell our constituents. They want to know, what are
you doing about the price of oil, when is the price of gasoline
going to be going down? In your comments you have indicated
that in the third quarter coming up we are going to see a drop,
I think you said around $2.60, and then in 2006 you said it was
about $2.40.
Now, you have cited in your written testimony some concerns
that Senator Bingaman started to point out that we need to be
looking at. You have mentioned the issue of the refinery outage
problems, what we do, how we reckon with that, and is this
something where we can actually time the outages so we do not
see such a hit. But what about the volatility due to the MTBE
issue that you have raised?
You also bring up the potential supply problems due to the
ultra-low sulfur diesel program kicking in. There are some
things out on the horizon that would seem to make the picture
that much more bleak in terms of price to the consumer. So
instead of seeing a drop in the price, quite potentially we are
not going to see a drop and in fact it just continues to go up
for the consumer.
Am I missing something, or what do we need to be doing
different to make a difference to the consumer?
Mr. Caruso. Well, you are correct, the risks are there for
even higher prices. The prices you quoted are from our medium
recovery case, which assumes things go reasonably well. With
respect to the point you mentioned, there are some concerns
about the phasing out of MTBE and how that might affect the
volumetric output of our refineries, given the behavior we have
seen so far; and the point that Senator Bingaman mentioned
about the ethanol requirements; and then ultra-low sulfur
diesel. All three of those potentially will put further strain
on our refinery system.
Senator Murkowski. Do you factor these into your mix when
you have come up with your $2.40 barrel for 2006?
Mr. Caruso. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. A gallon, excuse me.
Mr. Caruso. These estimates are based on, as I say, things
going reasonably well. The point you have made is that there
are certainly potentials for things going wrong. But this is
the medium case, and we have a higher price case and a lower
price case. So the risks certainly, as we have seen, are there
when you are operating a system as close to full capacity, as
we are.
Senator Murkowski. What does Katrina, or not even Katrina--
given what we are faced with today and the prices that we are
looking at, what can we anticipate then as consumers for home
heating oil for this winter?
Mr. Caruso. I mentioned in the statement that we are
looking right now at about a 30-percent increase this winter
for heating oil.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Johnson, it is your turn. Senator Johnson is not
here.
Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing and for your opening comments about
the bipartisan nature of the energy bill. I certainly went home
and trekked across the State talking about tax credits for wind
energy and biodiesel and a variety of other things, and found
many people in my State very excited about those tools and the
implementation of them.
But I also found many Washingtonians very concerned about
the high price of gasoline. As my colleague from Oregon has
already stated, Washington, Oregon, and California pay some of
the highest gas prices in the country. In fact, over the last
36 months we have gone from $1.30 a gallon to almost $3 a
gallon in the Seattle-Puget Sound area. Just this weekend as I
was traveling back across the State, in one of our rural
communities, I paid $3.29 a gallon to fill up my car.
So I can guarantee you that we are seeing an impact. This
chart basically shows you what that impact has been on the
Washington economy, and the red line just keeps going up and up
and up and up.
So consumers want to know what we are going to do about
this. They want to know what we are going to put in place. For
an economy that has already been wrecked by electricity
markets, that at the beginning of the energy crisis we were all
told that, well, it is just about not enough supply and it is
just about these regulations and it is all about things not
being put in place, only to find out, basically after my own
constituents did the investigation, that market manipulation
happened.
So my constituents are very well aware of the payments
being felt and they are very confused by going through the same
dilemma this time about gasoline prices. They are very
frustrated by the fact that someone would suggest that the FTC,
as an oversight entity, would help solve this problem.
In fact, in 2004 an argument broke out between the FTC and
the GAO. Basically, they issued dueling reports about whether
mergers and consolidations of the oil industry raised prices,
and the FTC concluded that it had little impact, while the GAO
said that increased market concentration generally led to
higher gas prices in the United States.
So they want to know, who is in charge of doing something
about the high price of gas. Dr. Overdahl, I will have some
questions for you about the CFTC and their role and
responsibility, because as far as I am concerned there is a
lack of transparency in the energy markets as it relates to
what happens on the NYMEX and how we are looking, or I should
say not looking, at physical deliveries.
Everything we found out about the Enron market in
electricity only was found out by digging deeper and deeper
into the records, into phone conversations, and proving the
case. I think everybody knows that any type of DOJ or FTC
investigation takes, not months, but years. So are we going to
allow the consumers to continue to be gouged while we are doing
this? I suggest not.
Now, another element of this dilemma, if I can indulge my
colleagues, is the fact that we also have zone issues. Here is
a gas station in Seattle selling unleaded at $2.77 a gallon.
That was on September 1. Just less than a mile away or a couple
miles away in Seattle, the same brand of gasoline selling at
$2.97. So we are talking about a 20 cent difference in the same
brand of gasoline in two different locations.
So consumers definitely want to know what is going on. So I
suggest, Mr. Chairman, working with my colleagues in the same
bipartisan fashion that we worked on the energy bill, that we
ought to consider this. In fact, I plan to introduce
legislation regarding such, that: one, we reinstate the state
of energy emergency powers given to the President of the United
States in the 1970's, that basically we allowed to expire in
1981. This state of energy emergency powers to the President
gave the President the ability, similar to what States have, to
look at this issue of price-gouging and to figure out remedies
of what level of increase is realistic.
Second, that we also give the President more ability to
look at transparency of wholesale gas prices. As I just pointed
out, I do not believe that the FTC or the DOJ can move fast
enough to even investigate and to stop this issue. If you think
back to where we were in the electricity markets, we started
making these claims in January 2001 and finally in June 2001 we
finally got the Federal energy regulators to act in putting in
price mitigation measures. I think that most people would agree
that they were effective at stopping the rapid increase of
prices.
Third, I believe that this investigation of zone pricing
also needs to be looked at, given that we have such disparity.
If we get to a point that the price continues to rise, I
believe that price mitigation similar to the energy markets
ought to be implemented as well.
The American consumer is paying a great price and I think
that today's hearing is just another example of how you each
have responsibilities, but no one has the clear oversight and
responsibility to protect consumers today. So I recommend to my
colleagues that we reinstate this legislation that was actually
passed by my predecessor, Senator Scoop Jackson, and
implemented, and it was a tool used by several Presidents in
trying to address at that point in time the energy crisis that
was felt in the 1970's.
Now, if I could, I have a question for you, Dr. Overdahl,
and that is about the CFTC and the ability that the futures
market has on setting price. If I look at prices in Seattle I
say, well, gee, what it's costing to produce is not that much
more, the oil that we are getting out of Alaska, but it is a
lot more expensive to the refineries, the four refineries that
we have in Washington State. So why is that? And then you look
at this futures price and helping to set what is considered the
market-clearing price, or obviously being a reflection of the
world oil price.
So what about it? What about actually tracking physical
deliveries, understanding what is happening with those physical
deliveries, what the payments and costs are on those physical
deliveries? Do you believe that we should be doing that?
Mr. Overdahl. Thank you for that question. In the futures
markets themselves, we of course do track the physical
deliveries to the contracts that are under CFTC jurisdiction.
The CFTC is not the regulator of over the counter markets, not
the regulator of forward markets or cash markets. Much of that
in the cash markets would come under the domain of the FERC.
Our job is to protect the market integrity and to preserve the
hedging and price discovery performance of the futures market,
and we believe that the tools we have allow us to do that.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator, I think your
time has expired.
Senator Cantwell. Yes, my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Now, on our side, I would just make an
observation so we do not have any disputes on our side. We are
going to let Senator Smith, who has an immediate need to leave,
go next. The way I understand it, Senator Bunning would have
been next, followed by Senator Thomas, and then Senator Smith.
So we are going to let Senator Smith go ahead of both of them,
if that is all right with Senator Bunning and Senator Thomas.
Then the order will be Senator Smith, Senator Thomas and then
Senator Bunning.
Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my
colleagues for their indulgence. I think all of us are
appreciative of your leadership in holding this hearing. You
began the hearing by indicating that this committee did not
have jurisdiction over the FTC. I want my colleagues to know
that the Commerce Committee has that jurisdiction and I chair
the subcommittee over the FTC. We will soon--in fact, as I
speak we are scheduling hearings on this very issue of the FTC.
I also want to express my sympathy to the people affected
by Katrina. It is not in the province of the Congress to repeal
acts of nature or certainly the avarice of the few. But it is
in our province to try and deal with, as best we can, a dire
emergency, and certainly one of the consequences of this
emergency is the high price of energy.
I have heard some of my colleagues today talk about
remedies tried in the past, price controls, excess profits
taxes. I am old enough to remember the disastrous consequences
when the Nixon administration pursued price controls. They did
not work. I remember as a law student on a very short budget
when Jimmy Carter pursued excess profits taxes, and I remember
the gas lines in southern California. That did not work either.
It may feel good in the short term, but it does not feel very
good when you are waiting in a gasoline line for many, many
hours, which I did on many, many occasions.
Nevertheless, there is a point at which we have to figure
out what can work. We know what history tells us did not work
and we have heard some of the things proposed today that
clearly will not work.
But I was one of those Senators--I think I may have been
the only Senator with Senator Feinstein who proposed Federal
intervention in the energy crisis in California and the Pacific
Northwest to do something, for FERC to do something. What we
are looking for right here is the tools of what best to do. I
will defend free markets all day long. I will not defend a
rigged or broken market. The question I think many Americans
are having is if in fact we have a broken market.
It seems to me that the FTC is not aggressively enough
pursuing the issue of price-gouging. That gouging in my mind
does not represent a free market. It represents fraud in many
cases or manipulation in a fashion that victimizes the most
vulnerable people in our society. We should not spend 1 minute
defending those kinds of activities.
I suspect when all the facts are out we are going to find
many instances of manipulation and fraud. That is the kind of
thing the FTC should be pursuing much more aggressively.
The question I have for you, any of you can comment: Are
there any benchmarks that you know of that the FTC uses to
trigger the 90 days and the Justice Department pursuing price-
gouging and manipulation? I do not know of any and I am
wondering if anyone here does, because, frankly, there ought to
be a level at which an investigation is triggered, and I am not
sure that that exists.
Do any of you have any knowledge of that?
[No response.]
Senator Smith. Do any of you have any knowledge of a State
law that does set a benchmark that triggers an investigation?
[No response.]
Senator Smith. I do not know that either. But these are the
kind of questions we are going to be investigating in our
hearing in the Commerce Committee, because there needs to be a
benchmark to trigger this kind of thing that can help us
identify free markets versus manipulated markets, because I do
not think that that currently exists.
The question of burden of proof. Do any of you know who has
the burden of proof when the Justice Department initiates an
action? I suspect I know the answer and I suspect you do as
well.
[No response.]
Senator Smith. It is the Government that has the burden of
proof. But I am wondering if perhaps the most effective thing
we could do is to change the burden of proof from the
Government to the person or the company or the manipulator who
is actually pursuing these kinds of trades or is guilty of it.
It seems to me we need a mechanism far quicker, far more
efficient, that can help to keep downward pressure on
fraudulent and manipulative activities, because I think that
there may be the key for providing some relief to the American
consumer, because what we have got now just is not cutting it,
and I think a lot of people all over the country, as Senator
Feinstein said, are deeply, deeply suspicious. They support
free markets. They simply will not be quiet, though, when they
feel like they are victims of fraud, and I think we may be at
that point with many members.
But again I want to say, price controls and excess profit
taxes, I know what those mean. I remember being a student when
those things were tried and I remember how disastrously
ineffective they were to the American consumer.
So, Mr. Chairman, know that we are going to pursue this in
the Commerce Committee. The FTC, if they do not have the
authority, they are going to get it. If they are not acting,
then we need somebody that will act, because I think that the
American people right now are being victimized more than any
free market would warrant.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas [presiding]. Do you yield back the time?
Senator Smith. I yield it back.
Senator Thomas. Senator Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Thomas. To both Senator
Bingaman and to Chairman Domenici and to the members of the
committee, I just want to say thank you again for the great
bipartisan effort and the great work of staff on the energy
bill. It was a good product and I talked a lot about it while I
was in Colorado.
Let me say that I was very much looking forward to this
hearing because I think that what my colleagues have said time
and time again is very, very true, and that is that there is
pain at the pump and there is pain in every American family and
in every American business. I think that our taking some action
in putting a spotlight on this issue that is affecting America
today is something that is very important for us to do.
I for one am particularly concerned also about the impact
that the high rising costs of gasoline and diesel is going to
have on America's farmers and ranchers. We are in the midst of
harvest season all across America today, and wherever I have
gone in Colorado I have talked to farmers and ranchers who
believe that they are possibly going to lose their farms and
ranches simply because gas and diesel prices are so high.
I talked to one farmer who has spent more on his diesel
prices than he is going to get out of his product this year
alone. Certainly, when they were putting together their
financials for their bank mortgages last year and for their
operating lines, they were not anticipating that they were
going to have this 200 percent plus rise in the cost of diesel.
So I have asked Chairman Chambliss and Senator Harkin from
the Agriculture Committee to hold a hearing with respect to how
these high rises on fuel costs are going to impact agriculture
in America.
Second, let me ask a question to you, Mr. Caruso. That is,
I am quite frankly at a loss about how your agency operates,
because when I look back at the figures that you gave to us
back in September 2004, it appeared to me that you were
predicting that for this quarter or the upcoming quarter that
we would be buying crude oil at about $34 to $35 a barrel. You
were looking at the purchase of regular unleaded at $1.83,
$1.73 in the third and fourth quarter of this year.
Obviously, we have missed the mark by some huge numbers. In
fact, almost everywhere that I have gone in Colorado I think it
has been over $3 a gallon over the last several weeks. Much of
this preceded Katrina. I was on a western slope town a week or
so before Katrina and I saw $3 a gallon gasoline for the first
time in my life.
So my question to you as the person that is supposed to
guide the United States of America, the Department of Energy,
this Congress, with respect to looking ahead, how is it that we
could have missed the mark by so much? Instead of having $1.75
or so gasoline today, we actually have $3 to $4 price for a
gallon of gasoline. How is it that we could have missed the
mark? Do we have a problem with our modeling? What is the
issue?
Mr. Caruso. Well, I think it is the problem of any
forecaster, that there are certain things that you cannot
predict. Obviously, Katrina is one, but clearly there are other
issues with respect to the numbers you have mentioned. We
certainly try to look at the best estimates of what economic
growth would be, what the best estimates of world crude prices
would be.
Senator Salazar. If I may, Mr. Caruso, though, we have been
sitting in this Energy Committee now for the last 7 months
looking at the charts of what our domestic production is,
looking at what has happened in the last 30 or 40 years. It
seems to me that we have a pretty good sense about what our
supply side is going to be like. We also have seen what has
happened with all of the information that we have on the
increasing demand side of oil consumption here in our country
and some of the global factors related to China and India
coming into the marketplace.
As the energy expert of the country, it seems that you
would have had all those factors in mind, or should have had
them, a year ago. So, being the expert that you are, much more
of an expert on energy pricing than I am, I do not understand
how we could have missed the mark by as much as we did.
Mr. Caruso. Well, it is a humbling experience, Senator. The
only thing I can say in reference is, what is the benchmark?
What were other forecasters saying then? I would say that we
were probably on the higher end of others in the consulting
business or others that published forecasts.
Senator Salazar. Mr. Caruso, I guess the request that I
would make of you is to take a look at whether or not the model
that the EIA is using is a correct model or whether there are
changes that would be more predictive. That would help us
figure out these long-term prices of energy as you are making
those forecasts to us.
Let me change the subject and ask you another set of
questions. I very much appreciated the remarks that were made
by Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman in terms of looking at
a whole host of issues that we might take to try to address the
issue of high gas and diesel and energy prices. I heard some of
my other colleagues comment about how part of what we need to
do is go out and increase supply, and that may be part of the
answer here.
But at the end of the day, if we are going to deal with
making some savings from the consumption of energy within our
country, I heard Senator Domenici talk about encouragement of
conservation, new CAFE standards, as something that we might
look at. I have seen also another piece of legislation that
essentially would put in a temporary freeze with respect to gas
prices until supplies are restored to pre-hurricane levels.
That is a piece of legislation that Senator Levin is
introducing, I think today.
Talk to us just a little bit about what would be the effect
on gasoline prices and energy prices if we were able to reduce
consumption by, say, 5 percent or 10 percent? What would be the
impact on prices?
Mr. Caruso. Well, certainly any reduction in demand should
have an impact on price, assuming that the supply is there. We
have benchmarks for that and I would certainly be happy to
provide the results for the record. But it is clearly, as you
pointed out, important to deal with this issue from both sides,
supply and demand.
Senator Salazar. I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman, but
could I just ask a follow-up on that?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Salazar. In terms of just the concept of the
reduction of consumption, how does that follow what happens in
terms of the price of gasoline, based on your background and
expertise on this issue?
Mr. Caruso. Well, the price elasticity of gasoline is
extremely low, so that indeed in the short run there would be
relatively small changes to consumption. But in the long run,
we would expect that something like a 10 percent reduction in
consumption could make a significant difference. I would
certainly be happy to provide the numbers to you, Senator.
[The information referred to follows:]
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that the
short-term changes in gasoline prices have only a small impact on
gasoline consumption. For example, EIA estimates that if gasoline
prices were to increase by 100 percent for a period of six months
consumption would only decrease by about 7 percent. This is due to the
fact that the stock of automobiles changes very slowly and, therefore,
higher prices can only affect driving habits in the short run and not
the choice of cars.
Senator Salazar. I would appreciate that very much, Mr.
Caruso. And thank you for your testimony here today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I want to just
take a minute to quantify the problem we face. Based on government
numbers, in Colorado, the average driver drives about 14,000 miles per
year and the average family drives about 27,000 miles per year. One
year ago today, the average price for a gallon of gasoline in Colorado
was $1.81, but today the average price for a gallon of gas in Colorado
is $3.10. For an average driver, that will mean $900 more spent on fuel
in the next year. For the average family, that will mean $1700 (one
thousand seven hundred) more spent on fuel in the next year. That is a
lot of money.
And this problem is hurting our farm communities even more. In
Colorado the farming communities are being hit much harder than the
average American, because it is now harvest time. At harvest time our
farmers have to use a large amount of fuel to harvest their crops. I
have been receiving an increasing number of phone calls from Colorado
farm groups whose members are extremely concerned with these rapid,
rising costs. It is my understanding that one farmer in Kit Carson
County will need an additional $46,000 more for fuel costs alone just
to be able to harvest this year--that is not including any surcharges
he might be charged for this fuel. I have also heard that a farmer in
Morgan County has been turned down for additional loans at banks to
cover these costs because they are already overextended with their
existing loans.
Mr. Chairman, everything I do in Washington is based on what I
think the people in Colorado want me to do--from Wray to Grand
Junction, from Fort Collins to Trinidad. I have been busy touring every
corner of my state this past month talking about energy and the energy
bill. And the message I have come back with from every corner is clear:
Coloradans want transparency and fairness with the way prices are set
at the pump. This was what they asked me for before Hurricane Katrina,
and their message is even stronger now.
Mr. Chairman, I know how we got ourselves in this position: years
of malignant neglect. Just last month the Energy Bill was signed into
law, and while it is a respectable bill--and one that I support--it is
clear we must do more.
For years DC has closed its eyes to the rising demand for oil in
our country, and instead of working to reduce that demand, we have only
worked to increase its supply.
By temporarily reducing our national supply, the effect Katrina has
had on the price of gasoline is really just an indication of things to
come. If America's demand for oil continues to increase as it has in
past years, prices will continue to go higher and higher, hurricane or
not. What the hurricane has done to gasoline prices is simply
accelerate the process.
We cannot drill our way out of this problem.
The current administration is singing a tired song, and will
continue to do so in the weeks to come: they will say that if we just
drill in more places, and drill faster, then the increase in supply
will overcome our demand and prices will go back down. But this is not
the case, as any earnest look at the numbers will show. China and India
continue to consume more oil while production world wide is steadying
and even declining. I repeat, we cannot drill our way out of this
problem. We cannot go on with business as usual.
The long term solution is clear: we need to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil. And that means we need to consume less. But an
administration in league with the big oil producers won't look to this
approach. Measures to reduce our dependence on foreign oil were
adamantly opposed by the President--both the aggressive oil security
amendment that I cosponsored, and even the weak oil savings clause that
passed the Senate. Neither of these provisions made the final bill.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to this hearing, and I look forward to
learning some real answers to the very real problems we are facing.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you
for this hearing. We are all very concerned about where we are.
You have heard a great deal about the concerns from the members
here.
The purpose of this hearing as I understand it is to look
at some ways, to find some ways that we can have an impact on
this price in the short term. We have been dealing with policy.
I think we have a policy out there, but that is a long-term
policy. I am very happy about it, but that is not going to
change things in the short term.
You have been invited here because you are experts in this
area. So I am going to switch it around and, instead of talking
about my concern, I would like to ask each of you to give me
your top three things you would do. What things could we do to
have an impact on this price short-term?
Ms. Watson?
Ms. Watson. Well, I am afraid that my agency is more in the
long-term business. We manage the offshore----
Senator Thomas. But the issue here is what can we do in the
short term. How about sharing that with us? Do you have any
ideas at all?
Ms. Watson. Well, I think that the energy bill has pointed
us in the right direction. We need to increase our domestic
supplies. That is in our control. I think that what the bill
has pointed us in the direction is the right way to go, and I
think we need to develop those supplies in ANWR, offshore, on
the continental lands, and we need to increase our capacity to
deliver those through refineries. The President has talked
about the need to create refineries. Those are the types of
things that will help bring down price.
Senator Thomas. You want to increase production. You want
to do something about refineries. I am asking you for three
things. Shorten it up, and if you can write them down. We want
three ideas from each of you as to what you would do.
Ms. Watson. I think to look at the reduction of the
different types of reformulated gas that one of the other
Senators brought up is a good area to look at to reduce the
complexity there.
Senator Thomas. Okay, all right. Let me just say that we
constantly hear it is not the supply of oil that is the
problem, it is the refining capacity. That is what we hear, at
any rate.
Mr. Caruso.
Mr. Caruso. I think in the very short term response to the
crisis, as the President and many of you have indicated, and as
Mr. Salazar's question implies, consumers need to respond in a
way that reduces consumption.
Senator Thomas. You do not mean changing the consumption of
automobiles?
Mr. Caruso. No, I mean in the very short run. I am talking
about in the next weeks and months.
Senator Thomas. Shut down our travel, okay.
Mr. Caruso. Second, something that has already been done is
making the SPR available until the offshore oil production can
be restored. Third, in terms of the restoration of refineries
and other facilities, everything we can do to support the
electric utilities to bring electricity back to the affected
areas.
Senator Thomas. Specifically on those in the New Orleans
area, for example.
Mr. Caruso. Yes, New Orleans, Mississippi.
Senator Thomas. Mississippi.
Mr. Caruso. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. And that can be done fairly short-term?
Mr. Caruso. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Overdahl.
Mr. Overdahl. Well, within the markets under CFTC
jurisdiction, I guess what I would recommend is redoubling our
efforts on market surveillance, which any time there is unusual
activity in prices that happens.
Senator Thomas. And who should be doing that? Who has the
most authority to do that?
Mr. Overdahl. Well, that authority in the futures markets
would be us.
Senator Thomas. Well, is that, the futures market, where it
needs to be?
Mr. Overdahl. Well, that is----
Senator Thomas. You have kind of indicated the futures
markets, not close.
Mr. Overdahl. That is what we can do within the scope of
our jurisdiction.
Senator Thomas. I see. How about the retail market?
Mr. Overdahl. We do not have jurisdiction over the retail
market. But I think one thing we can do for consumers of
information in these markets is to make sure that people are
aware of the type of statistics that we publish, so they can
see what is going on and have faith that these--that activity
in that market is being tracked and that it is transparent.
Senator Thomas. Transparent, okay. What else would you do?
Mr. Overdahl. Well, to make sure that our enforcement
program is vigorously pursuing anyone who breaks the rules.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Caruso, some people at home have suggested we ought to
reduce speed limits. We could do that quickly. Is that a
possibility? For those that are in a hurry to get to work, no,
I suppose.
The Chairman. I did not hear your question, Senator. What
did you say?
Senator Thomas. I am told by an owner of a trucking
company, for example, that if they reduced--in the West we have
a lot of 75 mile an hour highways--that if that were reduced to
65 it would make a good deal of difference. I do not know that.
Mr. Caruso. I think there are some specific studies on
exactly what reducing the speed limit might bring.
Senator Thomas. Any other ideas short-term, anyone?
Ms. Watson. I guess I would just echo--having to go first,
I was at a disadvantage. But I would agree that conservation is
the best short-term initiative that we can take. So I think
that that would also yield some benefits on the demand side in
the short term.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
I will yield my time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Very good.
Senator Corzine.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON CORZINE, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You and the
ranking member should be commended for your foresight and
timeliness of the hearing.
Let me echo what my colleagues have said with regard to the
tragedy in the gulf coast and the call for shared sacrifice
that I think that brings. I will note to the committee today
that there were a group of our colleagues that were at the
World Trade Center site for the laying of the first rail for
the new transportation center. Only by sharing in the
rebuilding have we been able to get to the point that we are
there, and I know we all have to do that here.
That said, I have some serious concerns. I have rarely been
asked as many questions about a single topic as I have been
over the last 3 or 4 days with regard to gas prices, seeing it
as high in the metropolitan New York area as $3.79 per gallon--
this is on Saturday--and as low as $2.99 less than a mile away.
I do not know whether that is zone pricing. I do not know what
kind of pricing that is. That is not a market that is sensible,
40 and 50 cent ranges for oil companies, or at least
distributors for oil companies.
Just to give you a few raw numbers, a year ago, according
to AAA, it was about $1.80 a gallon in northern New Jersey,
$2.35 a month ago, and $3.10 today. For a 15-gallon tank of gas
that was filled once a week, it was about $28 a year ago, $34 a
month ago, $45 today.
That is a 60 percent increase in expenses for an average
citizen just in the last year. I am not much of an economist,
but that sounds like a heck of an imposition.
I put that in combination with what my colleague from
Oregon talked about, where crude oil prices are up 64 percent
over the least year. I am very sympathetic--I grew up on a farm
and I know exactly what I hear from my colleagues in rural
areas. If you are from a commuting State where you have no
choice on how you get to and from work, which New Jersey is,
this is a big problem and it is going to have real implications
for an economy that is about two-thirds consumer-driven.
I am actually going to get to Dr. Overdahl, because one
thing I actually do understand a little bit is how these
futures markets work. But I do not understand retail price
disparities of this proportion and factually, being real, I
hope that Senator Smith is as effective in his hearings as he
would indicate. There clearly is something going on with how it
is being distributed.
New Jersey actually has four refineries. We are one of the
major refining States in the country. So the refinery product
is there. I do not understand the instantaneous price movement
in all sections of the country where there are supplies and it
does not sound like it is consistent with free market
principles.
So there are enough indications that something is afoul in
the market. I want to ask the CFTC, though, have we been
following whether there is an increasing element of delivery
being taken in the oil markets in the settlement months over
the last 3 months, and could we have those statistics? And are
you working with FERC or the other agencies to understand
whether there is being an accumulation of supply of refined
product, the price of which is up 132 percent?
By the way, we all know it is actually up 25 percent in 1
week, while crude oil prices have gone down. Now, some of it is
because of the release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
There is something not right about how the market is working.
Can you answer, both specifically with regard to whether
people are taking deliveries and the real question, is there a
squeeze going on here with regard to refined products? Are
there any indications in the underlying commodity markets,
which I worked in for 25 years and have more than a little bit
of standing, and have seen this occur in other markets at other
times and other places?
Mr. Overdahl. I apologize for not having those numbers with
me at this time, but that is something we would certainly track
and know, just what exactly deliveries have been over time.
To date, we have not seen any evidence of manipulation or
squeezes, but we are certainly vigorously surveilling those
markets to make sure that that continues to be the case.
Senator Corzine. Do you coordinate with the other agencies
of government to understand what the underlying inventories
are, where they lie, and whether they are controlled by some
who might be taking delivery, to indicate that a squeeze might
be in development?
Mr. Overdahl. Our futures markets specialists and
economists within our market surveillance section look at a
wide variety of data. They are gathering market intelligence,
not only from other government agencies such as the FERC or
from the Energy Information Agency, which is routinely tracked,
but also talking to people in the markets to find out exactly
what is going on.
Senator Corzine. If those are being done, I can only hope
that they are being done on a current and ongoing basis,
because the red flags are there when you see the concentrations
of inventories built up and then releases that occur, typical
market behavior, and clearly something is afoul based on the
differential that has occurred and the differentials and
disparities that are showing up in the retail markets.
[The prepared statement of Senator Corzine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon S. Corzine, U.S. Senator From New Jersey
Hurricane Katrina was devastating, and I would like to take a
minute to express my personal grief over the events happening in the
Gulf Coast region. This is a national tragedy and my deepest sympathies
and prayers are with the families affected. My deepest admiration is
with the relief workers and first responders, and members of the
National Guard who are operating under the toughest of circumstances.
But I am also saddened and angered by the slow federal response to
this disaster. I know it has failed to meet the expectations of the
American people and has failed the people of New Orleans. At all
levels, we must do more. First and foremost, we must worry about the
immediate relief of those who are suffering. This should be a time of
shared sacrifice, not exploitation.
I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding this
hearing on gas prices today. Even before the devastation of Hurricane
Katrina, skyrocketing gas prices was a salient issue for the American
consumer. But with an energy crisis looming, it is even more critical
that we address it.
The high cost of gas affects every American. Families in New Jersey
rely heavily on their cars to commute to work and drive their children
to school. But it is getting harder and harder to afford these daily
activities. Last weekend, gas prices in New Jersey increased by an
average of three percent between Saturday and Sunday. In addition, the
percentage increase between today and a month ago was 30 percent--
again, that is just in the last month alone! In addition, last year at
this time, it cost, on average, $27.32 to fill a 15-gallon tank. Today
it costs, $45.21. This in an annual increase in cost of about $930 per
year. Low and middle-income families in New Jersey and across the
country cannot sustain this radical increase in prices.
With the devastation caused to oil production in the Gulf, I am
pleased that Secretary Bodman has moved forward on releasing oil from
the strategic petroleum reserve, or SPR. But more needs to be done. If
this does not take pressure off of the market in the next couple of
weeks and there is no relief for consumers, then we must consider other
options such as a federal gas tax holiday. We can consider a windfall
profits tax on oil companies to capture the lost tax revenue. But
working Americans cannot continue to pay these exorbitant gas prices
for an extended period of time.
In 2000, President Bush promised he would ``get on the phone with
the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots.'' He hasn't
done that--and if he's ever going to follow through on that promise,
now is the time.
It is also imperative that we address the price gouging already
being reported in my State and all across the country. This cannot be
tolerated, and I urge the Chairman and Ranking Member to hold
additional hearings on this issue.
I, along with my colleague, Senator Schumer, have written a letter
to the FTC urging them to form an immediate task force to promptly
identify and set up a system to prosecute the many cases of price
gouging being reported across the country.
Just as this must not be used as an opportunity for price gouging,
those who have been arguing for years that we must open up the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
to drilling must not be allowed to use this tragedy as an excuse to
drill. We are already seeing environmental hazards throughout the Gulf
Coast as a result of oil rigs adrift that make it clear there is a
better way.
One step toward weaning this country off of oil is investing in,
and asking Americans to rely on, alternatives to driving like mass
transit. Increased support for mass transit, including the $2.5 million
to build a new trans-Hudson rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York
in the transportation bill will not only offer alternatives to driving
that help individual families save money, but they will also make a
major impact on the wasted gasoline lost in traffic.
In addition, Congress and the President should encourage
conservation while we take every step to restore our oil production and
refining capacity in the Gulf Coast as quickly as possible.
We must take our energy policy in a different direction by
increasing fuel economy through stronger CAFE standards, and promoting
fuel diversity using renewable energy sources.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about effective ways
to address rising gas prices and the growing energy supply crisis that
will neither hurt our environment or economy in the long-term.
The Chairman. Are you finished, Senator? I did not hear it.
Senator Bunning, you are next.
Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I am sorry it has taken so long, but there is
a lot of interest today.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BUNNING, U.S. SENATOR
FROM KENTUCKY
Senator Bunning. It is all right. There are Senators behind
me, so I can understand.
First of all, I would like to send my condolences to
everybody in the New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama area. It is the worst tragedy in my lifetime, natural
disaster, and I guess for everybody sitting at this committee
hearing it is the worst tragedy that any of us has seen. The
devastation is almost totally beyond belief.
I do have some questions about energy and I would like to
start off by asking anybody at the table: domestic oil
production has long been limited to the gulf coast,
particularly the area that was so devastated by Hurricane
Katrina. U.S. refining and shipping capacity is also highly
concentrated in this part of the country. Mr. Slaughter in his
statement that is in testimony of the following panel has said:
``Domestic exploration and production should be a No. 1
priority for future energy policies.''
The United States has significant natural gas and oil
reserves on the North Slope of Alaska, the Western United
States and the Outer Continental Shelf. How would you envision
the United States tapping these vast resources and what impact
would it have in buffering the domestic energy supply from
supply shock? In other words, if we acted in the things that we
have available to us how would that impact any kind of future
shock? Would anybody like to answer that?
Ms. Watson. I guess I would go first and I guess I would
just say that diversity of supply is security. Many have said
that before, but the President has said that and it is
accurate. All of these sources of energy are domestic. They are
something that we can produce and they are something that we
know how to produce in an environmentally responsible way. I
think this recent storm and the storm that preceded it, Ivan,
demonstrates that we know how to produce energy offshore and we
know how to put in safeguards to withstand even events such as
this.
We have tremendous resources. The resource in ANWR I
believe is equivalent to what we daily import from Saudi
Arabia, so it is not an insignificant amount. So we have that
opportunity in our country and diversifying the resources that
we have at our disposal would be of benefit.
Senator Bunning. Anyone else?
[No response.]
Senator Bunning. Well, we had an oil crunch in the early
1970's, middle 1970's, in this country. the Congress of the
United States did not do anything, did not do anything until
this year, when we passed the energy bill. So it is not a big
surprise that we find ourselves in this situation. We have been
sitting on our hands in the Congress of the United States since
the middle 1970's, when OPEC first acted against and supply was
cut.
I do not offer that as an excuse. I offer it as a reason
that you see the spiking. We produced about 65 percent of our
natural oil and gas production at that time and now we are
producing about 40 percent. So we are importing everything
else. We do have a major problem in supply and demand, and we
are not capable of really limiting the cost as the OPEC nations
raise the price of oil, crude.
Of course, our 40 percent that we produce domestically is
something that we are focusing on today because people think
there has been gouging, and I do not know if that is true. But
if there is, we ought to find it and root it out.
My problem is that 1974-75 is a long time ago and we had
ample red flags in this country that we could have a problem. I
think Katrina just emphasized the fact that we are at the
mercy, not of our own domestic production, but of others'
production. I want to send a flag that the energy bill is not
going to solve the short-term problems in this country, but
more the long-term problems.
Until we get more in tune with our own domestic production,
both of crude oil and natural gas, I want everybody in the
country to know that we have a 50-year supply of natural gas in
the continental United States untapped, untapped, and
environmentalists and others have restricted our ability on
U.S. properties to drill for that natural gas. So we have to
have a balanced policy here and we do not.
I would urge the Energy Committee and anyone else that has
an opportunity that we start to balance the supply with the
demand if we are going to have a problem. I hope that this
committee does not drop the ball after passing the energy bill
and we look for other areas for exploration. We have a chance
with our reconciliation bill this year with the Alaskan Arctic
Reserve. That is what it was designed for. That is what we
should do with it, for production of petroleum and for the
production of natural gas. I urge us to act when we have a
chance, which is in the next month or 2, to make sure that we
get it done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
I think now we are going to go to Senator Talent, Senator
Burr, and then I will wrap it up. I want to ask the remaining
witnesses--we have four. I gather, looking at this, two of you
are from out of the city and two of you are from the city; is
that correct? Who are our witnesses?
President of the National Petroleum Refiners, are you from
here?
Mr. Slaughter. Yes.
The Chairman. William Shipley, Shipley Stores, where are
you from?
Mr. Shipley. Pennsylvania.
The Chairman. Mr. Darbelnet, president and CEO of AAA.
Mr. Darbelnet. From Florida.
The Chairman. Mr. Dowd.
Mr. Dowd. New York City.
The Chairman. We are trying to figure out how we can get
you in somehow before we abandon this hearing. So we are going
to try. Just be patient.
Now let us move here with Senator Talent and Senator Burr.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. TALENT, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MISSOURI
Senator Talent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I get the
message and I will be brief.
I did want to mention, I think it is owing to the committee
with its great bipartisan work on the energy bill, just to say
that the renewable fuel standard and the presence of renewables
in the fuel supply is moderating somewhat prices. We conducted
an informal survey of gas stations in Missouri that were
pumping e-85, which is an 85 percent ethanol blend, and in a
number of places as of September 2 it was selling for around $2
a gallon, a dollar less than unleaded gasoline was selling in
Missouri. Once we get the distribution network worked out and
enough stations pumping it to create a competitive market, then
as supply increases I would expect that prices will go down as
well. So that is part of the future and it was in the energy
bill, and we put it in in this committee, and I think that that
is the kind of thing that we need to do in the future to try
and protect us against natural disasters or increases in world
oil costs or blackmail from foreign oil producers.
Let me just ask one thing on the question of prices and
what we can expect. Mr. Caruso, you say in your testimony that
``Both spot market prices and near-month future prices for
gasoline and distillate products have risen dramatically in the
days following the hurricane. Retail prices are also rising. We
expect that prices will begin to fall back as production and
refining capacity are restored, although the pace of
restoration is at present highly uncertain.''
Now, Ms. Watson was, one hesitates to say optimistic or
pleased in this context, because we are not optimistic about
anything that is happening in that area, but she did seem to
indicate that production was coming back on line in a manner
that, if anything, exceeded our expectations maybe a week ago.
So that means we should expect prices to be falling, is
that correct, Mr. Caruso?
Mr. Caruso. Yes, sir, that is what we are saying in our
latest short-term outlook, that over the next few weeks and
particularly months, when the additional supply comes on-
stream, particularly gasoline imports, that should put downward
pressure on prices.
Senator Talent. So, Dr. Overdahl, I take it your agency
will be watching this very carefully, and if prices do not go
down after this production comes back on line that would be a
pretty clear sign that something is going on in the market that
we do not like. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Overdahl. Well, I am not sure I would, because I think
some of this is anticipated in those prices already. If you
look at futures prices for gasoline at the New York Mercantile
Exchange, you see the current October contract at $2.11 a
gallon. This is for wholesale unleaded. If you go out to
February 2006 you see $1.90. So in some ways that has already
been built into their expectations, I think.
Senator Talent. I appreciate your candor. I do not see how,
though, if we are going to say that rapid and unexpected cuts
in production are the reason prices go up, then when that
production comes back on line prices will not necessarily go
down. I do not understand why there would not be a parallelism
in that.
Mr. Overdahl. Well, I think a lot of that is built into the
expectations. So it is not just when the actual production
comes on line, but the expectation that it will be on line.
Senator Talent. You are saying the market has already
discounted against the possibility of it coming back on line.
Mr. Overdahl. Exactly.
Senator Talent. Well, I for one will be highly suspicious
if we do not see prices go back down somewhat to reflect the
situation before Hurricane Katrina. I would hope that would
happen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing. I know we
have another panel you want to get to and I will yield back.
[The prepared statement of Senator Talent follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Talent, U.S. Senator From Missouri
First and foremost, I want to express my sincerest condolences for
the families of the Katrina victims in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
and Florida. My prayers are with all of the survivors who must now
rebuild their lives and face a very uncertain future. I offer my
sincerest thanks for all of those relief workers who are working around
the clock to get aid to folks and restore power to the region.
I also want to thank Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman
for calling, then expediting, this critical hearing.
Nearly every caller to my office wants to know, ``Why are gasoline
prices so high? What are the oil companies doing with all of that
money? What are you going to do about it?''
I'd like to be able to tell my fellow Missourians that we can
legislate an immediate solution, but we know that's not possible. This
is a long-term problem that requires long-term thinking, much of which
is incorporated into the energy legislation signed into law by the
President in July.
We need to remember that Katrina's impact on gasoline prices
wouldn't be welcomed even if pre-hurricane gasoline prices were under
$2.00. So, after doing what we can to help the communities that are
under water and hurricane debris, we need to address the underlying
concerns with energy supplies.
We need to remember that Katrina's impact on energy prices will be
relatively short-lived--it will subside when electric power is restored
and the refineries and pipelines come back on line.
However, the fuel price hikes we face as a result of Katrina are
indicative of some of the fundamental problems we face and began to
address in the recently-passed energy bill. Global demand is ever
increasing, driving up gasoline prices (e.g., China and India). It's
getting harder to find new supplies of oil to replace existing
production. At home, refineries operating at capacity serve as a
bottleneck for gasoline supply, since it prevents the crude oil from
being turned into gasoline.
We need to increase and diversify our crude oil supplies and
gasoline feedstocks. This nation has substantial oil and gas off its
Atlantic and Pacific coasts, not to mention the reserves in Alaska's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These have gone untapped due largely
to opposition from local residents or environmental groups. Similar
opposition has prevented the construction of a single new refinery
since 1976 and has made pipeline construction quite difficult.
Thirty percent of our domestic production is located in the Gulf of
Mexico, and more than 60 percent of U.S. oil imports come through ports
along the Gulf. Almost half of all U.S. refining capacity is located on
the Gulf Coast. Hurricane and flooding damage and electricity outages
have dramatically curtailed our available gasoline supplies.
Katrina has reduced the nation's daily refining capacity by 1.8
million barrels a day, or 11%. It seems to me that this may indicate
that the nation has concentrated too much of its energy facilities in
too small an area. This puts our energy supply at great risk, as
evidenced by the ongoing price spikes at the pump.
Greater offshore production in other parts of the country would
help us avoid the magnitude of oil supply disruption we are currently
experiencing. We considered allowing states to decide whether they want
to explore drilling off of their coasts during the debates over the
energy bill. Perhaps we need to reconsider this proposal to increase
our domestic energy supplies and to reduce our dependence on Gulf of
Mexico production.
Similarly, drilling in ANWR would also increase supply from a
region that doesn't face hurricane risks. The increase in supply,
wherever we get it from, can only help bring down prices.
Likewise, one of the most important elements of the energy
legislation was our encouragement of ethanol and biodiesel production.
e-85, which is auto fuel made of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent
gasoline, is considerably cheaper that even pre-Katrina gasoline. About
90% of the ethanol used in the U.S. is sold under 6 month contracts--
the average price per gallon in these contracts is $1.50. Current spot
market prices for ethanol range from about $1.50 to about $3.00, with a
majority of the spot purchase at $2.00. An informal survey of gasoline
prices across my state on September 2 shows that e-85 is selling
anywhere from 20 cents to almost $1.00 less than regular gasoline.
MISSOURI GAS PRICES
[9/2/05]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E85 Unleaded Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia, MO (Central)................ 2.79 2.99 0.20
Edina, MO (NW)........................ 1.99 2.93 0.94
Higginsville, MO (W. Central)......... 2.79 2.99 0.20
Jefferson City, MO (Central).......... 2.74 2.99 0.25
Kansas City, MO (West)\1\.............
Marshall, MO (W. Central)............. 2.77 2.97 0.20
Marshall, MO (W. Central)............. 1.99 2.97 0.98
Maryville, MO (NW).................... 2.03 3.01 0.98
Rolla, MO (S. Central)\2\.............
Smithville, MO (West)................. 2.94 3.19 0.25
St. Charles, MO (East)................ 2.99 3.19 0.20
---------------------------------
Average........................... 2.56 3.03 0.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wouldn't give over phone.
\2\ Wouldn't give over phone. (0.20 price difference)
We are a long way away from being able to grow a substantial
portion of our own fuel--we only sell 4 million gallons of e-85 fuel
annually at this point--but we can't ignore the promise of these fuels,
both from an environmental perspective and as a way to add supply to
drop the price of gasoline. Ethanol is competitive at as little as $42
a barrel of crude oil, $48 without the current federal tax incentives,
and has tremendous growth potential. Already there are 5 million
flexible-fuel cars and trucks on the road that can use regular gasoline
or a blend of up to 85 percent ethanol. These vehicles are produced by
Chevrolet, Dodge, and Ford, which has recently announced the production
of a new flexible fuel pickup truck.
I know that there are many farmers and producers in the Midwest
that are excited by the prospects of growing our own fuel and are
actively pursuing building plants to produce ethanol and biodiesel as
fast as possible to increase the supply of this fuel.
The recently passed energy bill includes tax incentives to
encourage the conversion of gasoline pumps to handle ethanol blends so
that this product can achieve greater availability outside of the
Midwest.
We also need to consider ways of increasing refining capacity. I
intend to explore why, with the importance of gasoline to this nation's
economy, we are running at such a razor thin margin on refinery
capacity. How are the oil company revenues being used, and why are
returns on refinery investment insufficient to support expanding or
building new refineries? We need to remove this bottleneck on our fuel
supplies.
I am concerned that the lack of regulatory certainty is preventing
investment in new refineries. I don't want to suggest the relaxation of
environmental rules; rather I want investors to know that the rules
won't change after they've committed their funds to a particular
project. After committing to a project, industry cannot and should not
have to recalculate plant profitability based on changing environmental
requirements. If rules must change later, perhaps they either need to
be applied uniformly, so the economics are the same for all existing
refiners, or they need to be applied only to new plants that have not
begun the regulatory approval process.
Lastly, the gasoline price crunch we are in points to the urgency
of the fuel diversity encouraged by our recently signed-into-law energy
bill. We simply must press on to find alternatives to dependence on
crude oil, whether domestically or internationally produced.
We need to continue pursuing innovative energy sources such as
hydrogen fuel cells for powering cars with hydrogen, developing more
hybrid cars, expanding the use of ethanol, renewable energy, clean coal
and nuclear energy. We need to make sure that we are not held hostage
to any oil crisis, whether by natural disaster or OPEC decision.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and the chance to ask
questions, though I am a bit disappointed that we don't have any oil
company representatives who might be able to answer some of the
difficult gasoline price questions asked by my fellow Missourians.
The Chairman. Senator Burr.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I looked over at my good friend Ron Wyden and realized this
is not the first time we have been through hearings together as
it relates to the rapid increase in oil prices. I would also
point out to my good friend Ron that today it is cheaper to buy
a gallon of gas in California and Oregon than it is in North
Carolina. So what a reversal we have seen in a period of time.
As a matter of fact, a year ago, on August 29, in the
United States the average retail price of gasoline was $1.86
for regular. This year it was $2.61. The gasoline demand a year
ago was 9.26 million barrels per day. This year it was 9.4
million barrels per day. Gasoline production a year ago was
just shy of 8.9 million barrels a day. This year it was just
shy of 8.8 million barrels a day.
Our imports of gasoline, refined gasoline, a year ago, just
shy of .9 million barrels per day. This year in August, just
shy of 1.3 million barrels per day. And the gasoline stock is
down to 1.194 million barrels per day, and it was at 2.06 a
year ago.
Clearly, a recipe for increases in prices as we see more
reliance on foreign refined product, as we see demand go up,
and as we see refinery capacity in the United States go down.
If I could, let me focus on a number of things, Mr. Caruso,
for you. One, the General Accounting Office, GAO, issued a
report in June that found the proliferation of special gasoline
blends has made it more complicated to supply gasoline and has
raised the cost, significantly affecting operations at
refineries, pipelines, and storage terminals. A 2001 EPA study
found that harmonization of fuel blends throughout the country
could be done without major cost increases, increases in
emissions, or reductions in gasoline supplies.
Has the EIA ever done an analysis on how the various blends
of reformulated gas affect supply or a study on the
harmonization of the number of blends?
Mr. Caruso. We have not done that study specifically. But
as I mentioned to Senator Allen, there is an incremental cost
of making reformulated gasoline and the study we did
specifically with reference to California and the banning of
MTBE last year indicated that was about 7 to 8 cents. But in
terms of the proliferation of, the term, ``boutique fuels,'' we
have not actually done a study.
Senator Burr. I think you also alluded to that there would
be a tradeoff for that and that might be an environmental
tradeoff. But in fact, if you accepted the 9 blends or 12
blends right at the top of the formulas, you would not have a
tradeoff. Everybody would accept the higher, the California
formula. That would not have a tradeoff with the environment.
Mr. Caruso. No. It would have a tradeoff with the price of
gasoline in States that did not have the more stringent
requirements.
Senator Burr. If in fact, since we have gone from 321
refineries to 129 refineries, if we focused those refineries on
longer runs of the same fuel regardless of where they were
going because they could now go to 50 States, would we not
reach new efficiencies in production that might actually bring
the price down, even for the most stringent, environmentally
stringent mixes?
Mr. Caruso. It may. That would be something we would have
to look at carefully.
Senator Burr. It is an interesting thing to look and study.
Let me ask you as it relates specifically--is OPEC price-
gouging?
Mr. Caruso. Well, I think probably by almost any definition
the answer would have to be yes.
Senator Burr. I think the important thing is that gouging
is a moving target from a standpoint of a definition.
When the shift in governments took place in Venezuela--and
that at one time was 22 percent of our domestic supply we got
from Venezuela--did that change in government have a positive
or negative impact on the price of crude oil for the United
States?
Mr. Caruso. Well, certainly the strikes and the stoppage of
Venezuelan oil in December 2002 and January 2003 had a negative
impact.
Senator Burr. Caused the prices to go up.
Has the growth in the Chinese economy had a positive or a
negative impact on the price of crude oil?
Mr. Caruso. It would certainly be one of the most important
factors in upward pressure on crude prices.
Senator Burr. In a study that was put out by EIA, I think,
said that you anticipated no increase in non-OPEC production.
Is that a pretty safe thing?
Mr. Caruso. We expect a small increase this year.
Senator Burr. But enough to make up the growth in our
economy and the growth in the world?
Mr. Caruso. No. In our longer term forecast, a large share
of the incremental production will have to come from OPEC.
Senator Burr. So we really are locked into the supply
coming from the same individuals. This is a pretty predictable
thing as we look 6 months out, a year out. We have refinery
challenges, we have the same people supplying us. If they are
gouging us today, without international pressure they are going
to gouge us tomorrow.
Mr. Caruso. What is predictable is a very tight oil market,
yes, sir.
Senator Burr. How much pressure was taken off of the price
of gasoline as a result of lifting the clean air standards,
specifically the reformulated regulations that the President
lifted?
Mr. Caruso. The waiver that the EPA granted last week had
to do with allowing refiners to market winter-grade gasoline
earlier than normally would have been the case. We think that
probably adds on a nationwide basis about 150,000 barrels a day
to supply.
Senator Burr. Does a refining capacity cushion exist in the
United States?
Mr. Caruso. No, sir.
Senator Burr. We have no cushion, do we?
Mr. Caruso. No, and that is one of the reasons prices
spiked.
Senator Burr. Mr. Caruso, we strategically put crude oil in
the ground. Should the United States think about a strategic
refined petroleum reserve?
Mr. Caruso. There have been a number of studies thinking
about that over the years and they have always concluded that
it would be a very expensive proposition because of where to
store it, the right specifications, and the need to turn that
product over. So it is something that certainly could be worth
looking at.
Senator Burr. I want to thank our witnesses and I want to
thank the chairman. I think every member, Mr. Chairman, agrees
with the comments of these witnesses that short-term
conservation, the restoration of the pipeline and the product
coming through that pipeline, and--maybe one you did not add--
predictable regulation, which I believe is the result of what
we tried to accomplish in a bipartisan way in the energy bill,
is in fact the best short-term recipe.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
I think I have gotten everybody except myself. Does that
sound right? I did not ask any questions and I am going to be
brief because we are committed to the proposition of bringing
the other witnesses up, however late it is. We may have to not
do as well a job of letting them be heard as they deserve.
Let me ask any of you, and perhaps Mr. Caruso or Dr.
Overdahl, first I think just some primer ideas to get repeated.
People look at the oil and gas industry and they include crude
oil and obviously refineries. You mentioned, Mr. Caruso, that
we had a great diminution, reduction, in the number of
refineries over a period of time in the United States, and your
comment as to why was that the profits that refineries made was
too small for the risks and the expenses involved in building
them. Did I read you right?
Mr. Caruso. Yes, during the 1980's and 1990's, that is
accurate, Senator.
The Chairman. I know people listening will not believe that
because they figure everybody involved in oil and gas must be
awash in money. But I always heard that the refiners were at
the tail end and for some reason they were not making very much
money.
Now, quickly, has that changed today? If in fact we were
trying to establish a policy of building some more refineries,
are we running uphill, where it is not economically feasible
because of the economics that you have just described of the
1970's? Or do you know?
Mr. Caruso. Even excluding this current catastrophe, in
which, of course, margins have grown tremendously, margins had
improved quite substantially in the last 3 years or so. We do
think that those kind of margins, if they could be counted on,
would certainly make it worthwhile to make investments in
refining and other downstream facilities.
The Chairman. I just want to say and the record will
reflect that the Saudi minister was in town talking about many
things. I saw him and he said: We want to build refineries; we
would like the United States to have more refining capacity; it
is your business, not ours. But he said: I have been looking
for partners; we would like to build a couple of new refineries
in America with partners. He said: We cannot find any; nobody
wants to build them with us.
Does that strike you--and I just ask; I do not know why you
would know, but you are the closest one on this panel to maybe
having an idea. Why might that be? Is it still back to where we
were, that the regulatory issues and the like, nobody wants to
do it? Or why would that statement be? If it is true, why would
it be so?
Mr. Caruso. Of course, I am not familiar with their seeking
of partners, but clearly it is the same sort of fundamentals
that have caused that problem.
By the way, the Saudis themselves have now decided to go
ahead with two large export refineries.
The Chairman. Well, they said that: We are going home and
we are going to build two. And they said how much they were
going to spend, and within a month they announced them.
Mr. Caruso. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So they are going to produce refined product;
it is just not going to be here.
Mr. Caruso. That is correct.
The Chairman. So they are going to add to the world's
supply.
Now, when crude oil prices go up and down, is there a--and
gasoline prices go up and down, obviously in between the crude
oil prices and the gasoline something happens, like refining,
right, and other things, but refining. Is it the up and down of
the refined product that the price of gasoline is responding to
quickly or is it the crude oil price? Which is quick and which
is slow, oil prices going up, quick responses on gasoline
prices, or refining going up and down, quick response on
gasoline?
Mr. Caruso. It is the price of refined products at the
wholesale level and in the NYMEX that gets fed through the
retail most quickly. For most contracts, although they are
volumetrically set, the price is indexed to either NYMEX or
wholesale spot price.
The Chairman. Now again, I ask any of you, and it may be
the next panel who knows more about this. But what I think the
people are upset about and do not understand and I think I do
not to some extent is that today they drove by a filling
station and they saw the price of gasoline, and 2 days later
they drive by the same filling station and the price of
gasoline is substantially higher, not 5 cents but in some cases
25 cents or 30 cents higher.
Now, I ask you, in the regular market, assuming nobody is
doing anything untoward, it is supply demand, it is a righteous
fair play business, how does that occur? How does that price
get determined and who does it, that it goes up so much in 48
hours? Does anybody know?
Mr. Caruso. Well, the retailer is always pricing his
product based on whatever the price was for the last tankwagon
of supply that was delivered and thinking about what the price
might be tomorrow. So sometimes they are pricing on the
expectations of where the market is going, so it very easily
could change with the delivery of each tank truck in each
retail facility.
The Chairman. Now, let me ask, being absolutely honest--I
do not believe there is gouging that is occurring by any
conspiracy. I do not believe major oil has a conspiracy going
on to gouge, nor do I think there is an ongoing competitive
monopoly that is doing that. But I do think that it is very
probable that individual retailers are not very concerned about
the consumer in terms of how much they are going to raise the
price, even under the scenario you have explained.
Example: You have a very big underground tank capacity. It
has been filled. The price is X. You do not get any deliveries
for 3 days, but the price each of those 3 days went up on the
pump. Part of what you have just explained is that should not
happen because there have been no refills, there is nothing in
that that would cause it, but it might be expectations of
future increases, right?
Mr. Caruso. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. And as an expert, that is probably something
that is done?
Mr. Caruso. That would be my opinion, yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, what is the gauge for that? That is the
best idea they have about their expectation of the future, or
does somebody tell them?
Mr. Caruso. Each individual operator has to make that
determination. The constraining factor, as was pointed out by
several Senators, is variations within the same area. The
consumer obviously can just move to the next service station.
The Chairman. Now, we have been talking around this issue
of gouging, so might I ask--and again, I do not hold you to
this. I do not know if you want to do it or if you know. But
Mr. Overdahl, what does the word ``gouging'' mean?
Mr. Overdahl. Well, I am not sure it is a well-defined term
if you looked in an economics textbook. We have heard I think
Senator Burr refer to it as a moving target. I guess in my own
mind it has something to do with prices that take advantage of
particular supply situations, when customers, when consumers
have little or few choices.
The Chairman. Would you not say that it would probably be
intentional, along with what you were just saying?
Mr. Overdahl. Likely so.
The Chairman. It would seem like it, would it not?
Mr. Overdahl. Yes.
The Chairman. More times than not.
What about, Mr. Caruso, do you have something in your mind
that answers that question?
Mr. Caruso. In terms of what is the definition of
``gouging''?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Caruso. I would say unreasonable pricing, given the
market principles.
The Chairman. Now, foreign countries that have been causing
the price to go up and up, obviously somebody could say that it
is all gouging because they have paid for everything, they have
no expenses, the oil is very cheap to get out of the ground,
but they are charging $50-$60 a barrel. Is that not what the
market will bear, rather than gouging?
Mr. Caruso. Except they are restricting supply as a cartel.
So I think that would, in my view, satisfy a definition.
The Chairman. Okay. In that respect, so everybody will
know, there does not seem to be anything we can do about that;
is that correct?
Mr. Caruso. Well, I think you have started it with EPACT
2005. You have to deal with this on a long-term basis.
The Chairman. But what I mean is we cannot tell them what
to do or not to do, right?
Mr. Caruso. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So the price that we are talking about, that
we are all so worried about for our constituents and for
Americans, is predominantly, no matter what we talk about
American supply, predominantly dictated by the price of crude
charged by those companies delivering oil to the marketplace,
right?
Mr. Caruso. That is correct.
The Chairman. And currently we could have an effect by
reducing our demand, but we are not the only spigot to demand,
right? There are other countries and other actions that have
spigots on this demand, one being China and India of late that
are going up dramatically; is that correct?
Mr. Caruso. That is correct, they have the fastest growing
oil consumption.
The Chairman. You are an expert. What do you say about the
next 10 years? Are we going to have prices of crude oil
continuing to go up, meaning that the supply is very tight and
demand is very big? Or are we going to have something different
and the price of crude oil is going to come down? Just use a
10-year prediction for me.
Mr. Caruso. Well, I would make it in two segments. One is
that in the next 2 to 3 years I do not see much improvement in
the tightness on the crude market, because of the lack of spare
productive capacity and our demand forecast.
The Chairman. So that means we are talking about crude oil
over $60 a barrel.
Mr. Caruso. Our forecasts are not quite that high, but
certainly even in the 3 to 4-year period in the $40 to $50
range. These are not official. This is my own view. You are
getting the Guy Caruso view right now.
The Chairman. Okay. But you are the best we have here, so
we have to listen to you.
Mr. Caruso. Well, I do not know. Senator Salazar did not
think very much of it.
The Chairman. No, he does not even try to be--where is
Senator Salazar?
Mr. Caruso. But I do think that these prices will do two
things. They will attract investment in the upstream and bring
forth some additional capacity. So over the 5 to 7-year period,
I think the supply side will improve. The second thing it will
do, unfortunately, as we have heard already, is it will have an
impact on demand through both consumer behavior and the
economic growth of our country and the world. We are going to
see slower economic growth rates as a result of higher prices.
Our models indicate going from $30 to $60 for a full year
takes about 1 percentage point off GDP, and that will reduce
energy consumption.
The Chairman. That is not a very happy scenario, is it?
Mr. Caruso. No.
The Chairman. Well, I want to tell you and for the record
that it is good that we ask experts like you, but I do not
believe it is even going to be that good. So I am acting based
upon what I hear from other sources. I do not see where that
new production is going to come from to make up for the demand
that is going to increase, because it is not going to diminish
that much unless something is really done to overtly cause it
to happen, and price alone does not seem to be enough. I think
it will have some, but it looks like the elasticity is not what
it is for other commodities.
Having said that, I have just one question. What do you
think would be the effect of a mandatory minimum level of
inventory for products like gasoline and other products?
Mr. Caruso. In my view it would reduce the flexibility of
the industry and I personally think that would not be the right
way to go.
The Chairman. My last question has to do with the charts we
see where the major integrated companies have such large
reserves of cash. What does that tell you, and why are they so
big, if they are big?
Mr. Caruso. Well, they are big I think because we have seen
such a quick run-up in prices. Why are they accumulating? I
think there is the long memory of oil prices peaking and
declining in the 1980's and staying low in real terms. So I
think it will take time, but ultimately these investments will
be made and they will come to fruition. If indeed the
individuals to whom you refer are correct about holding a much
more pessimistic view of what these investments will bring
forth, then the prices will go even higher.
The Chairman. Is there any indication in that accumulation
in that graph that I am seeing in my mind's eye as I have
described to you that there might not be a good investment
opportunity for additional production of oil and gas and-or
refining capacity? If there was, would they not use it for
that?
Mr. Caruso. I think they will, as soon as the expectations
shift. We have heard from some of the major oil companies they
are still using expectations of $25 per barrel to evaluate
investment prospects. That I believe is starting to change, but
we will not know that until we actually see the results of
those investments.
The Chairman. Well, speaking just as one Senator, I think
the companies that have those accumulations--far be it from me
to be talking about it, because I do not run them and I do not
know what all this means, but I think there is a great
vulnerability from a standpoint of policymakers looking at that
if that is not used to produce something tangible and
productive for the people. I do not know what that means, but
it seems to me they ought to be investing it.
Having said that, I do not think there are any other
questions and we thank you all. We are going to proceed to the
next panel quickly. We apologize for asking so few questions
and making such long-winded statements, but most of you are
experienced at it.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, while the panel is
assembling could I just make a comment following up on your
point to Mr. Caruso? In our arguments and the debate to get
ANWR open, some of the great frustration has been this reliance
on a price that we have not seen this year, we did not see last
year, and we are not going to see for the next 3 years,
according to Mr. Caruso.
So it would be helpful to understand really the direction,
both short-term, mid-term, and long-term. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you for your observation.
Now let me make a point here. We have a vote. If any of you
Senators would like to go make it, I will wait and let you go,
come back, and you can take over for me, any of you. We have 11
minutes.
Senator Burr. I will run.
Senator Wyden. I will run and I will come back.
The Chairman. You will come back. I am not sure we will
welcome Ron back, but anyway. The witnesses are geared up. We
are going to start right now.
First let us start with Mr. Slaughter, Mr. Shipley--is it
``Darbelnet''?
Mr. Darbelnet. Darbelnet.
The Chairman. Darbelnet.
Mr. Darbelnet. Yes.
The Chairman. And Mr. Dowd. Is that correct?
Mr. Slaughter. Yes.
The Chairman. Let us start that way. Would you keep your
statements to 3 minutes and we will put your written statements
in the record. If there is anything we do not ask you
afterwards that today has prompted, would you kindly help us by
submitting something later saying, you did not get this
information but we heard such and such and we would like to
share this with you.
Go ahead, Mr. Slaughter; you start.
STATEMENT OF BOB SLAUGHTER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PETROCHEMICAL
AND REFINERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Slaughter. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am here for NPRA,
the national association for petrochemicals.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Slaughter. Just kind of skimming, I think sometimes we
are losing appreciation of the magnitude of what happened last
week. We lost 25 percent of our crude supply, 14 percent of
natural gas supply, and 20 percent of our refining capacity,
plus the ability to ship products to the Eastern United States
for an indeterminate period.
Now, some people may be surprised that there was a market
reaction to that news, but I think it is quite obvious that
there would be. Now, hopefully, and we are making great
progress in bringing those things back, we will see improvement
soon. But we still are going to have some refineries, probably
four refineries with about 900,000 barrels a day capacity, that
do not yet have determined restart dates.
If I could just for a second show you my charts very
quickly. I just want to make really quick points. The biggest
determinant in gasoline price is the price of crude oil. You
will see there that the chart shows that the curves follow one
another. The FTC has found that 85 percent of the movements in
gasoline are due to movements in the price and supply of crude
oil.
The next one is just going to again show that 55 percent of
the cost of gasoline delivered is attributable to the cost of
crude oil and 20 percent or slightly less is taxes and refining
just basically adds 18 percent.
This is just the blizzard of things, the different programs
that refineries have to do, their environmental programs for
the refineries or the fuels in the next 3 years. We are
investing about $20 billion in that over this 10-year period.
This last one is the one that Senator Bingaman mentioned.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Slaughter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Slaughter, President,
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to discuss the impact of the wide-spread
devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina on transportation fuels
markets. While I will focus: on that urgent matter, I will also discuss
the many other factors impacting current transportation fuels markets.
My name is Bob Slaughter and I am President of NPRA, the National
Petrochemical & Refiners Association. NPRA is a national trade
association with 450 members, including those who own or operate
virtually all U.S. refining capacity, and most U.S. petrochemical
manufacturers.
Part I. Responding to Hurricane Katrina
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina our nation confronts death,
injuries and devastation of staggering proportions. The images of the
tragedy displayed in the last several days on television and other
media underscore the human toll and seeming hopelessness in ways more
eloquent and compelling than could ever be captured in testimony. We
share both the sense of dismay and increased humility felt by all
Americans before this latest reminder of nature's power to devastate
and confound the best efforts of human beings. NPRA offers our sympathy
and prayers to those who have suffered the loss of loved ones among
family members, or their neighbors and colleagues, as well as to those
who have lost much or all of their personal assets and livelihood in
this worst U.S. natural disaster.
Today's hearing has been called to inquire into the impact of
Hurricane Katrina on the nation's energy supply. It is appropriate that
Congress turn immediately to such questions because of the huge impact
of that storm on the Gulf Coast, the energy heartland of the United
States. This is a time when national, attention is and should be
focused on human needs. Many industry employees and their families-have
been victims as you will hear. Nevertheless, NPRA appreciates the
committee's immediate attention to the issue of energy supply; which
was the subject of considerable debate and attention even before the
hurricane disaster occurred. We also appreciate the opportunity to
respond to the committee's questions in person on this matter of
critical national importance. Because our expertise lies in the area of
refining and petrochemicals, we will focus on those areas, but will try
to provide other. available. information insofar as is possible.
Thus, on behalf of our refining and petrochemical industry members
we have attempted to respond to the questions most asked about
Hurricane Katrina's impact on the industry and energy supply, as
follows:
1. HOW MUCH OF THE NATION'S OIL AND GAS SUPPLIES COME FROM THIS REGION?
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (ETA),, the
Gulf of Mexico produces 1.582 million barrels per day (mmb/d) of
federal offshore crude production, which is 28.5% of the U.S. total
federal offshore crude production (5.488 million barrels per day).
Again according to EIA, the region contains 8.068 million barrels
per day of refining capacity, 47.4% of the nation's total refining
capacity (17 million barrels per day).
The Gulf Coast region receives 6.490 mmb/d of crude oil imports,
60.4% of the nation's total crude oil imports (10.753 mmb/d): (23.5% of
the nation's total comes into ports in Louisiana, Mississippi and
Alabama, and 8.5% of the nation's total crude imports come into the
LOOP.)
The Gulf Coast region produces 10.4 billion cubic feet (bcf/d) of
natural gas per day, 19.2% of the nation's total offshore natural gas
production (54.1 bcf/d).
2. HOW EXTENSIVE WAS THE DAMAGE?
Crude Oil, Natural Gas Production
According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), as of
September 2, 88.53% (1.328 mmb/d) of Gulf crude oil production was
shut-in, and 72.48% (7.248 bcf/d) of Gulf natural gas production was
shut-in. This amounts to 25% of total federal offshore crude production
and 14% of the nation's offshore natural gas production.
Crude Oil Import Facilities
The storm resulted in temporary closure of LOOP, the Louisiana
Offshore Oil Port. More than 10% (900,000 b/d) of the nation's crude
oil imports enter through LOOP. Roughly 500,000 b/d of crude produced
offshore is also unloaded at LOOP, which ceased operations on Sunday,
August 28 as the storm approached.
REFINERIES
The following refineries were directly affected by Hurricane
Katrina:
Belle Chasse, Louisiana (ConocoPhillips) 247,000 b/d; shut
Chalmette, Louisiana (ExxonMobil/PDVSA) 190,000 b/d; shut
Convent, Louisiana (Motiva) 235,000 b/d; shut
Garyville, Louisiana (Marathon) 245,000 b/d; shut
Meraux, Louisiana (Murphy) 125,000 b/d; shut
Norco, Louisiana (Motiva) 227,000 b/d; shut
Pascagoula, Mississippi (Chevron) 325,000 b/d; shut
Port Allen, Louisiana (Placid) 48,500 b/d; shut
St. Charles, Louisiana (Valero) 260,000 b/d; shut
Vicksburg, Mississippi (Ergon) 23000; shut
Together, these facilities constitute about 2 mmb/d, 12% of the
nation's total refining capacity (17 mmb/d).
In addition, the following refineries were forced to reduce
operations because of the impact of Hurricane Kristina:
Baton. Rouge, Louisiana (Exxon Mobil) 488,000 b/d; reduced
runs
Krotz Springs, Louisiana (Valero) 85,000 b/d; reduced runs
Memphis, Tennessee (Valero) 180,000; reduced runs
Port Arthur, Texas (Total). 285,000 b/d; reduced runs
Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Hunt Refining: Co.), 35,000 b/d; reduced
runs
In addition, several Midwestern refineries were affected by
shutdown of the Capline Pipeline, which supplies crude oil from the
Gulf region to refineries in the Midwest (16% of the nation's refining
capacity is in the Midwest). For example, Marathon's refineries at
Catlettsburg, West Virginia (222,000) and Robinson, Illinois (192,000)
were affected by Capline's closure, as were other Midwestern
facilities.
In total, we believe that at least 20% of the nation's refining
capacity (3.4 mmb/d) ceased operations or reduced runs at some time due
to the direct impact of Hurricane Katrina and the loss of crude
supplies from pipelines affected by the storm. This is probably a
conservative estimate.
Recent reports indicate that many of these refineries are either up
and running or anticipate start-up as early as this week. But,
unfortunately, there are some refineries representing a significant
amount of capacity that will remain shut for an undetermined period.
The Gulf refineries were first impacted by the need to protect the
personal and family safety of employees, as well as the high likelihood
of wind and flood damage as a result of the hurricane. After the
hurricane passed, many of these facilities remained totally off-line as
damages were assessed. In some instances companies could not physically
enter the facilities to conduct an assessment for several days, and had
to first depend on flyovers to study the plant. Damages included
flooding, wind damage, and lack of electricity.
Pipelines
In addition, the widespread damage caused by the storm disrupted
the electricity supply, which affected all industry operations. From a
refiner's point of view, among the most serious was closure of three
pipelines:
The Colonial Pipeline, 5,500 miles of pipeline originating in
Houston and ending in New York Harbor, carries a daily average of 100
million gallons of gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products from
refineries in the Gulf to customers in the South and Eastern United
States.
The Plantation Pipe Line, 3,100 miles of pipeline, performs a
similar function along a slightly different route, delivering a total
of 620,000 barrels (26 million gallons) of refined petroleum products
per day to Birmingham, Alabama; Atlanta, Georgia; Charlotte, North
Carolina; and Washington, D.C., among other cities.
The Capline Pipeline (previously mentioned), which carries 1.1
million b/d of crude oil to refineries in the Midwest where it is
refined to produce gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products for
distribution primarily in the Midwest.
All three of these pipelines were totally or partially out of
service due to disruption of electricity supplies as a result of
Hurricane Katrina. As a result, the major supply lines of refined
products to the Southern and Eastern states were unavailable for
shipment in whole or in part, during the initial period after the
storm. Midwestern gasoline and diesel production was affected by lack
of supply from the Capline Pipeline. This led to reduced supplies of
gasoline, diesel, and other products in parts of the country often far
removed from the Gulf area.
Petrochemical Facilities
The Gulf region is home to many of America's petrochemical plants,
which manufacture plastics and other products made from oil and natural
gas feedstocks, and which rely on these energy sources for fuel and
electricity for power. The impact of Hurricane Katrina on these
facilities is not currently known but is potentially quite serious,
both in terms. of facility damage due to water or wind damage and
temporary closure or reduced operations due to feedstock shortages,
lack of fuel or electricity and transportation problems.
Petrochemical products serve as the building blocks for many
ultimate products such as computers, medicines and other medical
products, plastic packaging for food, and also automobile components,
to name just a few. Disruption of petrochemical production due to the
storm, if it continues, could affect the economy considerably due to
the economic importance of petrochemical-based products.
Other Facilities
In addition to the major impacts outlined above, company pipelines
and shore facilities and other operations were impacted by the
hurricane, but information on these matters is less readily available
to us. Company and government statements indicate that many of these
facilities were not operating due to lack of electricity or because
other related facilities (e.g. refineries) were down. Some natural gas
processing plants were affected but NPRA does not have more information
on this sector of the industry.
3. WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATE OF REPAIRS?
The many different sectors of the energy industry, working around
the clock together with core service providers and with important help
from local, state and federal government agencies, have made
considerable progress in restoring some of the operations affected by
the storm.
The magnitude of the impact outlined above clearly dictates caution
in any assessment of when the energy production, refining, distribution
and related facilities will be back in service and industry conditions
will return to normal. Clearly, our national energy infrastructure has
suffered a setback from which it will take some time to emerge
completely.
Crue Oil, Natural Gas
According to the MMS as of Saturday, September 3, 78.98% of Gulf of
Mexico crude oil offshore production remained shut-in, an improvement
of 10% over Friday. Shut-in Gulf natural gas production stood at 57.80%
of total Gulf gas marketed production, an improvement of 21% over
Friday's figure. The number of manned offshore platforms that are
evacuated declined by 25% over the same period. Thus, important but
limited progress has been made both in restoring the flow of crude and
natural gas necessary for refiners to manufacture gasoline, diesel, jet
fuel and other petroleum products and to meet the needs of
petrochemical manufacturers. In addition, it is reported that LOOP is
operating at 75% of capacity.
These figures still leave significant amounts of offshore Gulf
crude oil and natural gas shut-in, and oil and gas volumes not produced
in the past several days are large. During the period 8/26-9/3 9.8
million barrels were shut-in, totaling 1.8% of yearly crude oil
production in the Gulf. During the same period 53.2 billion cubic feet
of natural gas were shut-in, roughly 1.45% of annual gas marketed
production from offshore.
There are indications of progress as well regarding refineries.
Marathon announced this weekend that, barring unforeseen problems, all
seven of its refineries would be operating at capacity on Monday. This
includes the Midwestern refineries impacted by the Capline Pipeline
closure as well as the Garyville, Louisiana refinery impacted directly
by the hurricane. Valero has announced that its St. Charles refinery
will probably return to operation in the next two weeks. Shell has
stated that the Convent refinery may be restarted Sunday and the Norco
refinery midweek. Those refineries will be returned to full production
gradually and safely as soon as start-ups take place. Assessments of
physical damage to the Chalmette and Meraux refineries last week helped
ascertain the extent of damage was. limited; no start=up date has been
set.
The Colonial Pipe Line expected to return to 86% capacity service
by the end of the Labor Day weekend. Plantation Pipe Line has returned
to 100% operation as has the Capline-crude oil pipeline. This means
that major pipeline links to the Midwest,, South and East have been
gradually restored. Serious problems remain, however, due to the
significant loss of product and crude volumes which would have been
shipped on these lines last week.
In addition, it remains unclear when many, if not most, of the
refineries impacted directly by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf can
return , to service. Problems with wind and water damage, electricity
supply and other infrastructure remain to be addressed despite the best
efforts of facility owners and operators. Thus, although some of the
affected refineries may restart and return to capacity or near-capacity
levels this week, there are indications that several facilities may be
out of service for a longer period.
The industry is committed to operation of these facilities as soon
as possible, but employee safety and overall safe start-up and
operation concerns are paramount. Significant flooding and damage still
affects some facilities. However, some refiners with operating
facilities have indicated that they will be able to ramp-up production
from currently reduced levels at refineries near the affected areas
which should have a positive impact on product supplies.
4. WHAT ELSE IS INDUSTRY DOING TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION?
As indicated above, ,the industry has moved with considerable speed
to restart the nation's energy infrastructure so severely damaged by
Hurricane Katrina. Even more important than assessing and repairing
physical damage however, was the need to locate and assist employees,
many of whom experienced significant personal losses of family or
friends in the tragedy as well as loss of or severe damage to their
homes. (All industry companies throughout this region have been deeply
involved in locating and providing for the needs of their employees at
the same time they. were attempting to assess and respond to facility
damages and restore energy production).
Many companies are offering varying types of assistance to
personnel arid their families who were impacted by the hurricane. These
include interest free loans; temporary living supplements for housing
and food; pay continuation while facilities are closed; transportation
assistance; paid time off; medical and prescription drug assistance;
temporary housing, including trailers, tents, and other available
housing.
The oil, gas and petrochemical industries have already contributed
millions of dollars to the American Red Cross and other relief agencies
involved in assisting all residents of the affected communities. They
are also matching employee contributions. Companies are also supplying
in-kind assistance, often including fuel, for relief efforts as well.
The industry will doubtless maintain its deep commitment to help end
the suffering in the affected communities and to begin planning for the
future.
5. WHAT HAS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DONE TO ADDRESS
THESE EMERGENCY CONDITIONS?
Federal authorities have taken several decisive actions to help
relieve the many energy-related problems left in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina.
SPR Release,
The Administration has released 9 million barrels of crude oil from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to assist refiners who are short
crude supplies as a result of hurricane damage. The recipients will use
this crude to manufacture more gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home
heating oil to be supplied to consumers across the nation. This is a
dynamic process, and additional volumes may be needed as more
refineries restart.
The current situation is precisely the type of event meant to
trigger SPR release. It demonstrates the importance of careful SPR
management.
Waivers to Increase Fuel Flexibility
EPA has provided temporary fuel waivers that will make it easier to
provide fuels to affected areas. This action pertains to both gasoline
and diesel specifications, and will help alleviate some of the supply
problems in these areas by increasing the available supply of both
domestic production and imports. Affected states participated in the
EPA's decision process on this action.
Jones Act Waiver
DOT has temporarily lifted Jones Act requirements to allow non-U.S.
flag vessels to transport much needed refined products from one U.S.
port to another.
IEA (International Energy Agency) Exchange
The Secretary of Energy has announced that the IEA will make
available 60 million barrels. of petroleum. This will provide relief in
the form of refined products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, home heating
oil) which are much needed due to disrupted supplies from several
refineries. These products should begin to reach the U.S. in one to two
weeks. The agreement with the IEA also requires the U.S. to release an
additional 30 million barrels of SPR crude.
Industry appreciates these actions, which were taken by the
Administration with bipartisan support from the Congress. They will be
very helpful in dealing with the serious supply problems that have
resulted from Hurricane Katrina.
6. WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON FUEL SUPPLY? WHEN WILL THE SITUATION
RETURN TO NORMAL?
As indicated above, Hurricane Katrina's direct hit on the energy
heartland of America resulted in significant damage to offshore energy
production in the Gulf, to facilities that are critically important to
imported oil supplies, to refineries in the affected states and beyond,
and to pipelines that serve as the major providers of refined products
and crude to large parts of the East, South and Midwest.
All segments of the industry are working together in an intensive
effort to repair as much of the damage as is possible at this time in
order to increase the flow of crude oil to refineries and refined
products to consumers throughout the country. Safety considerations.
and the immediate needs of the industry's workforce are of course taken
into account at all times.
Industry and government are working together to provide: available
supplies of product to areas that are experiencing supply concerns. The
fuel and Jones Act waivers mentioned above will be of immediate and
near-term assistance.
Increased product imports through the IEA should also help when
they arrive. Refiners who. have the ability to do so will attempt to
increase production to help meet the needs of the affected areas. The
release of oil from the SPR will be helpful in supplying them with some
of the crude needed to make these products.
Despite this hopeful news, our nation faces a disruption of the
fuel supply system that should not be understated. The hurricane
temporarily affected more than 90% of the Gulf's oil production and 80%
of its gas production. It effectively removed 10% of the nation's
gasoline supply by its impact on U.S. refining capacity located near
the Gulf. It also impacted refineries hundreds of miles away that lost
access to crude oil supplies. Although important progress has been made
through the efforts of government and industry, and with some help from
abroad, full recovery will take time. Hard work and cooperation
throughout this difficult period will certainly help speed the return
to normal conditions. The direct and indirect impact of the hurricane
on energy demand, which cannot yet be determined, will also be a major
factor during this period.
7. should we continue to rely on free market forces during this period?
Absolutely. Continued reliance on market forces provides
appropriate market signals to help balance supply and demand even
during difficult times. President Reagan eliminated price controls on
oil products immediately upon taking office in 1981. He was outspoken
about the inefficiencies and added costs to consumers as a result of
America's ten-year experiment with energy price controls.
The energy price and allocation controls of the 1970s resulted in
supply shortages in the form of long gas lines. Studies have shown
that, although intended to reduce costs, they actually resulted in
increased costs and greater inconvenience for consumers. The benefits
of market pricing became clear soon after their elimination. The U.S.
Federal Trade Commission stated in an extensive study published this
June that ``Gasoline supply, demand and competition produced relatively
low and stable annual average real U.S. gasoline prices from 1984 until
2004, despite substantial increases in U.S. gasoline consumption'' and
``. . . For most of the past 20 years, real annual average retail
gasoline process in the U.S., including taxes, have been lower than at
any time since 1919.'' Price caps and other forms of price regulation
are no more effective in the 21st century than they turned out to be in
the 1970s. Interference in market forces always creates inefficiencies
in the marketplace and extra costs for consumers.
The same holds true for ``windfall profit taxes.'' The U.S. had a
``windfall profit tax'' on crude oil from 1980 until 1988. That tax,
which was actually an ad valorem tax imposed on crude oil, discouraged
crude oil production in the United States and resulted in. other market
distortions. It was repealed in 1988.
Calls for re-imposition of a windfall profits tax on refiners
reflect a misunderstanding of refining industry economics. In the ten-
year period 1993-2002, average return on investment in the refining
industry was only about 5.5%. This is less than half of the S&P
industrials average return of 12.7% for the same period. Refining
industry profits as a percentage of operating capital are not
excessive. In dollars, they seem large due to the massive scale needed
to compete in a large, capital-intensive industry. For example, a new
medium scale refinery (100,000 to 200,000 b/d) would cost $2 to $3
billion. In short, company revenues can be in the billions, but so, too
are the costs of operations.
The FTC June 2005 study cited above had the following comments on
industry profits: ``Profits play necessary and important roles in a
well-functioning market economy. Recent oil company profits are high
but have varied widely over time, over industry segments and among
firms . . . Profits also compensate firms for taking risks, such as the
risks in the oil industry that war or terrorism may destroy crude
production assets or, that new environmental requirements may require
substantial new refinery capital. investments.''
Many other industries enjoy higher earnings than the oil industry.
Among these are telecommunication services, software, semiconductors,
banking, pharmaceuticals, coal and real estate, to name just a few.
Imposition of a, windfall profits tax on the industry would discourage
investment at a time when significant capital commitments to all parts
of the. industry, including refining, will be needed.
Tight gasoline market conditions have often led to calls for
industry investigations. More than two dozen federal and state
investigations over the last several decades have found no evidence of
wrongdoing or illegal activity on our industry's part. For example,
after a 9-month FTC investigation into the causes of price spikes in
local markets in the Midwest during the spring and summer of 2000,
former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky stated, ``There were many causes
for the extraordinary price spikes in Midwest markets. Importantly,
there is no evidence that the price increases were a result of
conspiracy or any other antitrust violation. Indeed, most of the causes
were beyond the immediate control of the oil companies.'' Similar
investigations before and since have reached the same conclusion.
There have been, however, reports of price gouging by unscrupulous
individuals who seek to profit during this time of national emergency
and crisis. Federal and state laws prohibit actions of this kind in
emergency situations like the present. Each alleged situation should be
thoroughly investigated by the appropriate state and federal
authorities and prosecuted when the law has been broken.
Part II. A Short Discussion of Oil and Oil Product Supply Drivers
1. INTRODUCTION
This hearing was originally intended to inquire into the factors
affecting the gasoline market. The natural disaster resulting from
Hurricane Katrina required an understandable shift in emphasis to the
human needs damages resulting from that storm and only then to supply
impacts. But it is important to remember that the effect of Hurricane
Katrina is an overlay on a pre-existing condition. That was and is a
situation characterized by high crude prices, strong demand for
gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products, and a challenged energy
infrastructure, especially in refining. In the interest of space and
time, NPRA has shortened the following discussion of these conditions
and policy recommendations for improving them. We urge members of the
committee to consider the need for policy changes to increase the
nation's supply of oil, oil products and natural gas as soon as
possible.
As the nation moves forward in its resolve to address and overcome
the effects of Katrina and the transportation fuels production and
distribution systems regain much-needed pre-storm productivity levels,
an underlying domestic fuel supply problem remains that requires
immediate, bold, and perhaps politically unpopular actions. NPRA
believes that policy changes must be put in place to enhance
domestically-produced supplies of oil, oil products and natural gas.
NPRA has consistently urged policy makers in gasoline. Over the last 20
years, changes in crude oil prices have explained 85 percent of the
changes in the price of gasoline in the U.S.''
Crude prices have been steadily increasing since 2004, largely
because of surprising levels of growth in oil demand in countries such
as China and India, and in the United States as well. Actual demand
growth for oil and oil products in these countries in 2004 exceeded the
experts' predictions and has remained strong this year. As a result,
world demand for crude is bumping up against the worldwide ability to
produce crude.
Strong demand for crude has dissipated the cushion of excess
available worldwide oil supply, just as strong U.S. demand for refined
products has eliminated excess refining capacity in the United States.
The good news is that producing countries will probably be able to add
crude production capacity in the years to come. The bad news is that
the United States has thus far shown only limited willingness to-face
up to its own energy supply problems.
As shown in Attachment I, gasoline costs closely track the cost of
crude oil. Before hurricane Katrina, gasoline price increases lagged
crude oil price increases on a gallon for gallon basis. This means that
refiners did not pass through all of the increased costs in their raw
material, crude oil. Crude oil accounts for 55-60% of the price of
gasoline seen at the service station.
The cost of federal and state taxes adds another 19% to the cost of
a finished gallon of gasoline. Therefore under current conditions, 74-
79% of the total cost of a gallon of gasoline is pre-determined before
the crude is delivered to the refiner for manufacture into gasoline.
(See Attachment 2)*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The attachments have been returned in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another contributor to gasoline costs is tightness in our nation's
gasoline markets. While U.S. refiners are producing huge volumes of
products, strong demand has tightened supply. Gasoline demand currently
averages approximately 9 million barrels per day. Domestic refineries
produce about 90 percent of U.S. gasoline supply, while about 10
percent is imported. Thus, strong and increasing demand can only be met
by either adding new domestic refinery capacity or by relying on more
foreign gasoline imports. Unfortunately, the desire for more domestic
gasoline production capacity is often thwarted by other public
priorities. Congress and the Administration to support environmentally
sound, economically justifiable policies that encourage the production
of an abundant supply of petroleum and natural gas products for U.S.
consumers.
NPRA supports requirements for the orderly production and use of
cleaner burning fuels to address health and environmental concerns,
while at the same time maintaining the flow of adequate and affordable
gasoline and diesel supplies to the consuming public. Since 1970, clean
fuels and clean vehicles have accounted for about 70% of all U.S.
emission reductions from all sources, according to EPA. Over the past
10 years, U.S. refiners have invested about $47 billion in
environmental improvements, much of that to make cleaner fuels. For
example, according to EPA, the new Tier 2low sulfur gasoline program,
initiated in January 2004, will have the same effect as removing 164
million cars from the road when fully implemented.
Unfortunately, however, federal environmental policies have often
neglected to consider fully the impact of environmental regulations on
fuel supply. Frankly, policy makers have often taken supply for
granted, except in times of obvious market instability. This attitude
must end. A healthy and growing U.S. economy requires a steady, secure,
and predictable supply of petroleum products.
Unfortunately, there. are no silver bullet solutions for balancing
supply and demand. Indeed most of the problems in today's gasoline
market without factoring the market disruptions caused by Katrina--
result from the high price of crude oil due to economic recovery abroad
together with strong U.S. demand for gasoline and diesel due to the
improving U.S. economy.
2. UNDERSTANDING GASOLINE MARKET FUNDAMENTALS: HIGH, CRUDE PRICES;
STRONG GASOLINE DEMAND GROWTH
It is important to recognize the overwhelming factor affecting
gasoline prices; crude oil. In June of this year the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission released a landmark study titled: ``Gasoline Price Changes:
The Dynamic of Supply, Demand and Competition.'' To quote from the
FTC's findings: ``Worldwide supply, demand, and competition for crude
oil are the most important factors in the national average price of
gasoline in the U.S.'' and ``The world price of crude oil is the most
important factor in the price of gasoline. Over the last 20 years,
change sin crude oil prices have explained 85 percent of the changes in
the price of gasoline in the U.S.''
Crude prices have been steadily increasing since 2004, largely
because of surprising levels of growth in oil demand in countries such
as China and India, and in the United States as well. Actual demand
growth for oil and oil products in these countries in 2004 exceeded the
experts' predictions and has remained strong this year. As a result,
world demand for crude is bumping up against the worldwide ability to
produce crude.
Strong demand for crude has dissipated the cushion of excess
available worldwide oil supply, just as strong U.S. demand for refined
products has eliminated excess refining capacity in the United States.
The good news is that producing countries will probably be able to add
crude production capacity in the years to come. The bad news is that
the United States has thus far shown only limited willingness to face
up to its own energy supply problems.
As shown in Attachment I, gasoline costs closely track the cost of
crude oil. Before hurricane Katrina, gasoline price increases lagged
crude oil price increases on a gallon for gallon basis. This means that
refiners did not pass through all of the increased costs in their raw
material, crude oil. Crude oil accounts for 55-60% of the price of
gasoline seen at the service station. The cost of federal and state
taxes adds another 19% to the cost of a finished gallon of gasoline.
Therefore under current conditions, 74-79% of the total cost of a
gallon of gasoline is pre-determined before the crude is delivered to
the refiner for manufacture into gasoline. (See Attachment 2)
Another contributor to gasoline costs is tightness in our nation's
gasoline markets. While U.S. refiners are producing huge volumes of
products, strong demand has tightened supply. Gasoline demand currently
averages approximately 9 million barrels per day. Domestic refineries
produce about 90 percent of U.S. gasoline supply, while about 10
percent is imported. Thus, strong and increasing demand can only be met
by either adding new domestic refinery capacity or by relying on more
foreign gasoline imports. Unfortunately, the desire for more domestic
gasoline production capacity is often thwarted by other public
priorities.
3. U.S. POLICY SHOULD ENCOURAGE ADDITIONAL DOMESTIC REFINING CAPACITY.
Domestic refining capacity is a scarce asset. There are currently
148 U.S. refineries owned by 55 companies in 33 states, with total
crude oil processing capacity at roughly 17 million barrels per day. In
1981, there were 325 refineries in the U.S. with a capacity of 18.6
million barrels per day. Thus, while U.S. demand for gasoline has
increased over 20% in the last twenty years, U.S. refining capacity has
decreased by 10%. No new refinery has been built in the United States
since 1976, and it will be difficult to change this situation. This is
due to economic, public policy and political considerations, including
siting costs, environmental requirements, a history of low refining
industry profitability and, significantly, ``not in my backyard''
(NIMBY) public attitudes.
Nevertheless, existing refineries have been extensively updated to
incorporate the technology needed to produce a large and predictable
supply of clean fuels with significantly improved environmental
performance. Capacity additions have taken place at some facilities as
well; several of these projects implemented over several years can
actually increase product output as much as a new refinery. But this
increase in capacity at existing sites has not kept pace with the
growth in U.S. demand for products, meaning that the nation is
increasing its reliance on imports of gasoline and other petroleum
products each year.
Proposed capacity expansions can often become controversial and
contentious at the state and local level, even when necessary to
produce cleaner fuels pursuant to regulatory requirements. We hope that
policymakers will recognize the importance of domestic refining
capacity expansion to the successful implementation of the nation's
environmental policies, especially clean fuels programs. The
Administration's New Source Review reform program will also provide one
tool to help add and update capacity.
NPRA wants to recognize a provision in the recently enacted energy
legislation that will help encourage additional refining investment.
The provision allows 50% expensing of the costs associated with
expanding a refinery's output by more than 5%. The refiner must have a
signed contract for the work by 1/1/08, and the equipment must be put
in service by 1/1/12.
Common sense dictates that it is in our nation's best interest to
manufacture the lion's share of the petroleum products required for
U.S. consumption in domestic refineries and petrochemical plants.
Nevertheless, we currently import more than 62% of the crude oil and
oil products we consume. Reduced U.S. refining capacity clearly affects
our supply of refined petroleum products and the flexibility of the
supply system, particularly in times of unforeseen disruption or other
stress. Unfortunately, EIA currently predicts ``substantial growth'' in
refining capacity only in the Middle East, Central and South America,
and the Asia/Pacific region, not in the U.S.
4. THE U.S. REFINING INDUSTRY IS DIVERSE AND COMPETITIVE.
Today's U.S. refining industry is highly competitive. Some suggest
past . mergers are responsible for higher prices. The data do not
support such claims. In fact, companies have become more efficient and
continue to compete fiercely. There are 55 refining companies in the
U.S., hundreds of wholesale and marketing companies, and more than
165,000 retail outlets. The biggest refiner accounts for only about 13%
of the nation's total refining capacity; and the large integrated
companies own and operate only about 10% of the retail outlets. The
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) thoroughly evaluates every merger
proposal, holds industry mergers to the highest standards of review,
and subjects normal industry operations to a higher level of ongoing
scrutiny.
Critics of mergers sometimes suggest that industry is able to
affect prices because it has become much more concentrated, with a
handful of companies controlling most of the market. This is untrue.
According to data compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce and by
Public Citizen, in 2003 the four largest U.S. refining companies
controlled a little more than 40% of the nation's refining capacity. In
contrast, the top four companies in the auto manufacturing, brewing,
tobacco, floor coverings and breakfast cereals industries controlled
between 80% and 90% of the market.
5. INDUSTRY IS WORKING HARD TO KEEP PACE WITH GROWING DEMAND FOR FUEL.
Despite the powerful factors that influence gasoline manufacturing,
cost and demand, refiners are addressing current supply challenges and
working hard to supply sufficient volumes of gasoline and other
petroleum products to the public. Refineries have been running at very
high levels, producing gasoline and distillate. Refiners operated at
high utilization rates even before the start of the summer driving
season. To put this in perspective, peak utilization rates for other
manufacturers average about 82%. At times during summer, refiners often
operate at rates close to 98%. However, such high rates cannot be
sustained for long periods.
In addition to coping with higher fuel costs and growing demand,
refiners are implementing significant transitions in major gasoline
markets. Nationwide, the amount of sulfur in' gasoline will be reduced
to an average of 30 parts per million (ppm) effective January 1, 2006,
giving refiners an additional challenge in both the manufacture and
distribution of fuel. Equally significant, California, New York and
Connecticut bans on use of MTBE are in effect. This is a major change
affecting one-sixth of the nation's gasoline market. MTBE use as an
oxygenate in reformulated gasoline accounted for as much as 11% of RFG
supply at its peak, substitution of ethanol for MTBE does not replace
all of the volume lost by removing MTBE. (Ethanol's properties
generally cause it to replace only about 50% of the volume lost when
MTBE is removed.) This lost volume must be supplied by additional
gasoline or gasoline blendstocks. Especially during a period of supply
concerns it is in the nation's interest to be prudent in taking any
action that affects MTBE use. That product still accounts for 1.6% of
the nation's gasoline supply on average, but it provides a larger
portion of gasoline supplies in areas with RFG requirements that are
not subject to an MTBE ban.
Obviously, refiners face a daunting task in completing many changes
to deliver the fuels that consumers and the nation's economy require.
But they are succeeding. And regardless of recent press stories, we
need to remember that American gasoline and other petroleum product
prices have long been low when compared to the price consumers in other
large industrialized nations pay for those products. The Federal Trade
Commission recently found that ``Gasoline supply, demand and
competition produced relatively low and stable annual average real U.S.
gasoline prices from 1984 until 2004, despite substantial increases in
U.S. gasoline consumption.''
6. REFINERS FACE A BLIZZARD OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING BOTH
FACILITIES AND PRODUCTS.
Refiners currently face the massive task of complying with fourteen
new environmental regulatory programs with significant investment
requirements, all in the same 2006-2012 timeframe. (See Attachment 3.)
In addition, many programs start soon. (See Attachment 4.) For the most
part, these regulations are required by the Clean Air Act. Some will
require additional emission reductions at facilities and plants, while
others will require further changes in clean fuel specifications. NPRA
estimates that refiners are in the process of investing about $20
billion to sharply reduce the sulfur content of gasoline and both
highway and off-road diesel. Refiners will face additional investment
requirements to deal with limitations on ether use, as well as
compliance costs for controls on Mobile Source Air Toxics and other
limitations. These costs do not include the significant additional
investments needed to comply with stationary source regulations that
affect refineries.
Other potential environmental regulations on the horizon could
force additional large investment requirements. They are: the
challenges posed by increased ethanol use, possible additional changes
in diesel fuel content involving cetane, and potential proliferation of
new fuel specifications driven by the need for states to comply with
the new eight-hour ozone NAAQS standard. The 8-hour standard could also
result in more regulations affecting facilities such as refiners and
petrochemical plants.
These are just some of the pending and potential air quality
challenges that the industry faces. Refineries are also subject to
extensive regulations under the Clean Water Act, Toxic Substances
Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and other federal statutes.
The industry also complies with OSHA standards and many state statutes.
A complete list of federal regulations impacting refineries is included
with this statement. (See Attachment 5.)
API estimates that, since 1993, about $89 billion (an average of $9
billion per year) has been spent by the oil and gas industry to protect
the environment. This amounts to $308 for each person in the United
States. More than half of the $89 billion was spent in the refining
sector.
Obviously, refiners face a daunting task in completing many changes
to deliver the fuels that consumers and the nation's economy require.
But they are succeeding. And regardless of recent press stories, we
need to remember that American. gasoline and other petroleum products
have long been low when compared to the price consumers in other large
industrialized nations pay for those products. The Federal Trade
Commission recently found that ``Gasoline supply, demand and
competition produced relatively low and stable annual average real U.S.
gasoline prices from 1984 until 2004, despite . substantial increases
in U.S. gasoline consumption.''
7. A KEY GOVERNMENT ADVISORY PANEL HAS URGED MORE SENSITIVITY TO SUPPLY
CONCERNS.
The National Petroleum Council (NPC) issued a landmark report on
the state of the refining industry in 2000. Given the limited return on
investment in the industry and the capital requirements of
environmental regulations, the NPC urged policymakers to pay special
attention to the timing and sequencing of any changes in product
specifications. Failing such action, the report cautioned that adverse
fuel supply ramifications may result. Unfortunately, this warning has
been widely disregarded. On June 22, 2004 Energy Secretary Abraham
asked NPC to update and expand its refining study and a report was
released last December. NPRA again urges policymakers to take action to
implement NPC's study recommendations in order to deal with U.S.
refining problems.
8. NPRA RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADD REFINING CAPACITY AND
INCREASE FUTURE PRODUCT SUPPLY
Make increasing the nation's supply of oil, oil products and
natural gas a number one public policy priority. Now, and for
many years in the past, increasing oil and gas supply has often
been a number 2 priority: Thus,-oil and gas supply concerns
have been secondary and subjugated to whatever policy goal was
more politically popular at the time. Enactment of the recent
Energy Bill is a first step to making a first priority the
supply of energy sources the nation depends upon.
Remove barriers to increased supplies of domestic oil and
gas resources. Recent criticism about the concentration of
America's energy infrastructure in the western Gulf is
misplaced. Refineries and other important onshore facilities
have been welcome in this area but not in many other parts of
the country. Policymakers have also restricted access to much-
needed offshore oil and natural gas supplies in the eastern
Gulf and off the shores of California and the East Coast. These
areas must follow the example of Louisiana and many other
states in sharing these energy resources with the rest of the
nation because they are sorely needed.
Resist tinkering with market forces when the supply/demand
balance is tight. Market interference that may initially be
politically popular leads to market inefficiencies and
unnecessary costs. Policymakers must resist turning the clock
backwards to the failed policies of the past. Experience with
price constraints and allocation controls in the 1970s
demonstrates the failure of price regulation, which adversely
impacted both fuel supply and consumer cost.
Expand the refining tax incentive provision in the Energy
Act. Reduce the depreciation period for refining investments
from 10 to seven or five years in order to remove a current
disincentive for refining investment. Allow expensing under the
current language to take place as the investment is made rather
than when the equipment is actually placed in service. Or the
percentage expensed could be increased as per the original
legislation introduced by Senator Hatch.
Review permitting procedures for new refinery construction
and refinery capacity additions. Seek ways to encourage state
authorities to recognize the national interest in more domestic
capacity.
Keep a close eye on several upcoming regulatory programs
that could have significant impacts on gasoline and diesel
supply. They are:
Design and implementation of the credit trading program
for the ethanol mandate (RFS) contained in the recent
Energy Act. This mechanism is vital to increase the chance
that this program can be implemented next year without
additional gasoline supply disruption. Additional resources
are needed within EPA to accomplish this key task.
Implementation of the ultra low sulfur diesel highway
diesel regulation. The refining industry has made large
investments to meet the severe reductions in diesel sulfur
that take effect next June. We remain concerned about the
distribution system's ability to deliver this material at
the required 15 ppm level at retail. If not resolved, these
problems could affect America's critical diesel supply.
Industry is working with EPA on this issue, but time left
to solve this problem is growing short.
Phase II of the MSAT (mobile source air toxics) rule for
gasoline. Many refiners are concerned that this new
regulation, which we expect next year, will be overly
stringent and impact gasoline supply. We are working with
EPA to help develop a rule that protects the environment
and avoids a reduction in gasoline supply.
Implementation of the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS standard. The
current implementation schedule determined by EPA has
established ozone attainment deadlines for parts of the
country that will be impossible to meet. EPA has to date
not made changes that would provide realistic attainment
dates for the areas. The result is that areas will be
required to place sweeping new controls on both stationary
and mobile sources, in a vain effort to attain the
unattainable. The new lower-sulfur gasoline and ULSD diesel
programs will provide significant reductions to emissions
within these areas once implemented. But they will not come
soon enough to be considered unless the current unrealistic
schedule is revised. If not, the result will be additional
fuel and stationary source controls which will have an
adverse impact on fuel supply and could actually reduce
U.S. refining capacity. This issue needs immediate
attention.
NPRA's members are dedicated to working cooperatively with
government at all levels to resolve the current emergency conditions
that result from Hurricane Kristina. But we feel obliged to remind
policymakers that action must also be taken to improve energy policy in
order to increase supply and strengthen the nation's refining
infrastructure. We look forward to answering the Committee's questions.
The Chairman. Could you just go back to that other one.
Mr. Slaughter. Yes, sir, the other one.
The Chairman. Pull that down. In your statement do you tell
us about those?
Mr. Slaughter. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are some of those less important than you
would think in terms of the urgency versus the cost imposed on
society?
Mr. Slaughter. Well, some have large costs and they do have
large potential costs on supply. We have suggested in our
statement that you ought to take a look at a few of them.
The Chairman. Okay. Will you remind us of that, staff, when
you look at them? Thank you.
Next one.
Mr. Slaughter. This last one basically just shows
everything that refiners have to do between now and the end of
2007, some of which is mandated by the recently passed Energy
Act, which is a great first step. But that just shows
everything we have got to rationalize in the next 2 years, sir.
Again, we are hoping that the members would pay some attention
to that.
That is really my statement.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I hope we do too. Thank
you. Your statement examines all that for us, right?
Mr. Slaughter. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Shipley, nice to have you again.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. SHIPLEY III, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SHIPLEY STORES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CONVENIENCE STORES AND THE SOCIETY OF INDEPENDENT GASOLINE
MARKETERS OF AMERICA
Mr. Shipley. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. My name is Bill Shipley. I am chief
executive officer of Shipley Stores in York, Pennsylvania.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on behalf
of NACS and SIGMA. I will concentrate much of my testimony on
the personal experiences over the past week as a gasoline
retailer in Pennsylvania.
This first chart depicts the daily movements of wholesale
prices in south central Pennsylvania market last week. These
wholesale prices jumped an average of over 15 cents per day for
a total increase between Monday and Friday, September 2 of 75
cents per gallon.
The second chart shows how my company reacted to these rack
price increases in terms of our retail outlet prices. As you
can see, our retail prices in general rose by a similar and in
some cases lower amount than our wholesale costs.
Chart three provides a broader look at wholesale gasoline
prices in the Philadelphia market last week and shows that my
companies experience was not unique.
Chart four summarizes the changes in rack pricing in each
region of the country, broken down by PAD.
Chart five, the final chart, provides a look at wholesale
rack prices last week in five randomly chosen cities: Atlanta,
Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Detroit, and Philadelphia. All of
these cities witnessed substantial increases in rack gasoline
prices last week.
There have been widespread media reports and even some
comments by congressional leaders of gasoline price gouging by
gasoline marketers in the wake of Katrina. I cannot assure the
committee that isolated instances of profiteering for personal
gain in the midst of this crisis did not occur last week. It is
important for this committee to understand, however, before you
rush to judgment on whether my or other retailers' actions were
proper, how I and other retailers establish our retail prices
in a market with escalating wholesale prices.
Simply stated, I try to sell my retail prices--set my
retail prices on the basis of replacement cost of the gallons I
have in my outlets. When wholesale prices are rising and I know
that the next load of gasoline I purchase from my supplier will
cost me substantially more than my last load, my sales must
generate significant cash for me to make that next purchase and
to pay my supplier.
If the only thing you knew about my company was that I
raised gasoline prices by over 75 cents per gallon last week,
would you suspect that I was attempting to profit by this
crisis? Maybe, but based on the information I have given you
today I trust that you would reach a different conclusion after
you had investigated the facts.
I urge this committee and your colleagues to gather the
facts on last week's gasoline supply and retail pricing
situation before reaching conclusions about my actions or the
actions of other motor fuel retail marketers.
I do commend you, Mr. Chairman and your colleagues, for
taking the lead in making the energy bill a reality after 5
long years. This is a good first step.
With that, we can move on.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shipley follows:]
Prepared Statement of William S. Shipley, III, Chief Executive Officer,
Shipley Stores, LLC, on Behalf of the National Association of
Convenience Stores and the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of
America
I. INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name
is Bill Shipley. I am Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Shipley
Stores, LLC, headquartered in York, Pennsylvania. I am proud to be the
fourth generation leader of a family business started by my great-
grandfather in 1929. My company owns and operates 26 convenience stores
and supplies gasoline and diesel fuel over 100 retail locations
throughout the south central Pennsylvania.
I appear before the Committee today representing the National
Association of Convenience Stores (``NACS'') and the Society of
Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (``SIGMA'').
II. THE ASSOCIATIONS
NACS is an international trade association comprised of more than
2,200 retail member companies operating more than 100,000 stores. The
convenience store industry as a whole sold 142.1 billion gallons of
motor fuel in 2004 and employs 1.4 million workers across the nation.
SIGMA is an association of more than 240 independent motor fuel
marketers operating in all 50 states. Last year, SIGMA members sold
more than 58 billion gallons of motor fuel, representing more than 30
percent of all motor fuels sold in the United States in 2004. SIGMA
members supply more than 35,000 retail outlets across the nation and
employ more than 350,000 workers nationwide.
Together, NACS and SIGMA members sell approximately 80 percent of
the motor fuel retailed in the United States each year.
III. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the impact
of Hurricane Katrina on the nation's wholesale and retail motor fuel
supply and prices. The past ten days have been some of the most
challenging in my twenty-five years as a motor fuel marketer and I
welcome this opportunity to share my personal experiences, and the
experiences and impressions of other NACS and SIGMA members with whom I
have talked, with you.
As an initial matter, I would like to express my personal sympathy,
and the sympathy of our entire industry, for the victims of Hurricane
Katrina. Individually and collectively, our industry shares the
suffering of our fellow citizens and will do all in our power to
alleviate this suffering at the earliest possible date.
My testimony will touch on three broad topics today. First, I will
provide the committee with as much information as I have available on
the impact of Hurricane Katrina on gasoline supplies and prices.
Specifically, I will share with you my personal experiences over the
past ten days and summarize, to the extent possible, the information I
have received from my fellow retailers.
Second, I am here to respond to allegations that I, and my
industry, have taken advantage of this tragedy by ``gouging'' our
customers by raising retail motor fuel prices. Such allegations are
personally offensive to me, and in general reflect a lack of
understanding of the market events that have led to the gasoline and
diesel fuel price spikes of the last ten days. While it is certainly
possible that some ``bad actors'' have sought to exploit this crisis
for personal gain, I can assure you that their actions are not the
actions of the vast majority of our industry.
Third, my testimony contains recommendations to the committee on
steps that should be taken to lessen the likelihood that such supply
disruptions and wholesale and retail price spikes will occur in the
future. Unfortunately, these recommendations are remarkably similar to
the steps NACS and SIGMA have been urging public policymakers to take
for the last ten years. While the enactment of the ``Energy Policy Act
of 2005'' earlier this summer was a good first step towards
implementing some of these recommendations, much remains to be done.
IV. IMPACT OF HURRICANE KATRINA ON WHOLESALE AND RETAIL GASOLINE PRICES
For much of the eastern two-thirds of the nation, the impact of
Katrina on wholesale and retail gasoline prices could not have been
more immediate and profound. I will leave it to other witnesses here
today to discuss the impact Katrina had on crude oil production and
imports, crude oil movements from production to refineries, domestic
refining capacity, and the movement of finished gasoline and diesel
fuel throughout the country via pipeline, barge, and truck. That is not
my area of expertise. Instead, I will concentrate my testimony on my
personal expenses over the past ten days as a marketer in Pennsylvania,
and on the experiences of fellow marketers in other areas over the past
ten days.
It will be helpful for me to use several charts to graphically make
these points. This first chart (Chart 1)* depicts the daily movements
of wholesale prices in my south central Pennsylvania market last week.
This is the ``rack,'' or wholesale price--the price at which my
suppliers are willing to sell me, and other marketers, truckloads of 87
octane conventional gasoline. As you can see, these wholesale prices
increased daily, and dramatically, last week. On August 28th, before
Katrina struck, my wholesale gasoline cost was $2.44 per gallon
including federal, state, and local taxes. Early last week, as Katrina
struck the Gulf Coast, these wholesale prices jumped an average of over
fifteen cents per day, for a total increase between Monday, August 29th
and Friday, September 2nd of 75 cents per gallon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The charts have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must point out that I am primarily a branded marketer--the
stations .I own and supply fly the flag of a major refiner. The
wholesale prices in this chart reflect branded rack prices, not
unbranded, or independent, rack prices. However, I also operate two
unbranded outlets. During this same five day period, wholesale prices
for these unbranded stores rose $1.00 per gallon, or over 20 cents per
day.
This second chart (Chart 2) shows how my company reacted to these
rack price increases in terms of our retail outlet prices. As you can
see, our retail prices in general rose by a similar, and in some cases,
lower amount than our wholesale costs. In short, my company reacted
primarily to changes in wholesale price increases when determining
where to set our retail prices. In some cases, because of competition
from other retailers in our market area, we did not pass the entire
increase in rack prices through to retail. On these days, virtually
every gallon we sold from our stations resulted in no or negative
profit margins for our company, once our operating costs are taken into
account.
My personal experience is similar to the experiences of other
retailers across the nation. NACS and SIGMA obtained rack pricing data
from the Lundberg Survey, an independent report on wholesale motor fuel
prices, for several major metropolitan areas for last week. This chart
(Chart 3) provides a broader look at wholesale gasoline prices in the
Philadelphia market last week.
The next two charts (Charts 4 & 5) indicate that my experience in
Pennsylvania was not unique. Chart 4 summarizes the changes in rack
pricing in each region of the country, broken down by PADD. As you can
see, wholesale prices were up significantly last week in all areas of
the country. Chart 5 provides a look at wholesale rack prices last week
in five randomly chosen cities--Atlanta, Boston, Dallas/Fort Worth,
Detroit and Philadelphia. All of these cities witnessed substantial
increases in rack gasoline prices last week.
I have used these charts to provide you with detailed evidence that
Katrina had a widespread impact on gasoline prices in much of the
country last week--not just in the areas devastated by the storm
itself. Because crude production was reduced, refineries crippled, and
gasoline pipelines were taken out of service, gasoline supply shortages
began to occur, first in areas close to the areas hit by Katrina and
rapidly moving outwards to areas of the country served directly or
indirectly by the production, refining and transportation hub of the
nation's Gulf Coast.
These statistics confirm that retail gasoline price increases last
week were justified by movements in the wholesale cost of gasoline.
While two months from now hindsight may provide us with additional
facts that will indicate that the markets could have responded to this
supply crisis differently, as we are going through this crisis, the
fundamental laws of economics tend to apply forcefully--if demand
remains the same or increases and supply is reduced, prices will rise.
This is the situation we have experienced for the last ten days.
V. ALLEGATIONS OF PRICE ``GOUGING''
Last week, there were widespread media reports, and even some
comments by congressional leaders, of gasoline price ``gouging'' by
gasoline marketers in the wake of Katrina. I can not assure the
committee that all of these reports are false or that isolated
instances of profiteering for personal gain in the midst of this crisis
did not occur last week. I wish I could.
However, I can tell you that such actions were not the norm in our
industry. The vast majority of gasoline marketers are fair and
scrupulous businesses. As my testimony has shown, I personally
responded to wholesale price hikes in my area in setting my retail
prices. I am not aware of any credible instance in which retail price
increases were not justified by the supply crisis faced by a retailer.
It is important for this committee to understand how I and other
gasoline retailers establish our retail prices in a market with
escalating wholesale prices. Simply stated, I try to set my prices on
the basis of the replacement cost of the gallons I have at my outlets.
This is an important concept which may not be readily grasped. When
wholesale prices are rising, and I know that the next load of gasoline
I purchase from my supplier will cost me substantially more than my
last load, my sales must generate sufficient cash for me to make that
next purchase and to pay my supplier.
For example, assume the gasoline at one of my retail stations cost
me $2.00 per gallon yesterday. I know that the next gasoline truckload
from my supplier, to be purchased tomorrow, will cost me $2.25 per
gallon. I will, if I can based on competition in my area, set a retail
price at my outlet today that will cover the higher price I will have
to pay tomorrow. If I don't, I will be forced to borrow money from my
company's banks to pay for tomorrow's gasoline. Such debt only
increases my cost of staying in business and adds to the upward
pressure on retail gasoline prices. It is a sound business practice for
a retailer to price today on the replacement cost of gasoline at the
outlet, not the cost of product actually at the outlet.
If instances of profiteering on this tragedy have occurred, federal
and state officials have ample legal recourse for dealing with those
bad actors, including Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Such behavior must not be tolerated now or in the future in our
industry or any industry.
However, just as such behavior must not be tolerated in our
industry, neither should the media or other opinion leaders react to
such anecdotal reports by issuing blanket indictments of all motor fuel
marketers. Such generalizations may make for good ``sound bites,'' but
they do not reflect what is actually happening across the country and
unfairly damage the reputations of many companies that are struggling
to meet the challenges of the current crisis.
If the only thing you knew about my company was that I raised by
retail gasoline prices by over 70 cents per gallon last week, would you
suspect that I was attempting to profit from this crisis? Maybe. But
based on the information I have given you today, I trust that you would
reach a different conclusion after you had investigated the facts. I
urged this committee and your colleagues to gather the facts on last
week's gasoline supply and retail pricing situation before reaching
conclusions about my actions or the actions of other motor fuel
marketers.
As a final point with respect to retail pricing, I have one more
chart to share with you (Chart 6). This chart outlines the approximate
gross revenues that several different parties in the petroleum
exploration, refining, and distribution system realize from each barrel
of crude oil. Simply stated:
In August 2003, the royalty owner of the crude oil received
approximately $4 per barrel; in August 2005, the royalty owner
received about $8 per barrel;
In August 2003, the crude exploration and extraction company
was receiving approximately $28 per barrel of oil; in August
2005, this company received about $67 per barrel;
In August 2003, a refiner was receiving around $11 per
barrel; in August 2005, this company received about $27 per
barrel;
In August 2003, a gasoline retailer was receiving
approximately $6 per barrel; in 2005, that retailer still
received about $6 per barrel; and,
In August 2003, a credit card company was receiving
approximately $1.50 per barrel; in 2005, that company is
receiving approximately $3 per barrel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All information based on publicly available sources.
Based on this information, I question whether it is appropriate to
single retailers out for pricing scrutiny.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
In 1996, Tom Robinson, a former president of SIGMA, offered the
following testimony to this committee as part of a hearing on ``Recent
Increases in Gasoline Prices.'' ``The federal and state governments
regulate the gasoline refining and marketing industry with little or no
thought given to costs, distribution difficulties, or market
efficiencies. Congress must acknowledge that . . . the present course
will lead to further market disruptions and higher gasoline prices at
the pump.'' Mr. Robinson made that statement over nine years ago.
Last year, Bill Douglass testified on behalf of NACS and SIGMA at a
House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on gasoline prices and
stated:
``Our nation's gasoline and diesel refining industry is
shrinking at a time when consumer demand continues to rise.
Unless we collectively change course, domestic refining
capacity will be unable to keep pace with demand, gasoline and
diesel fuel price spikes such as the one we have experienced
this year will become the norm rather than the exception, and
our nation will become more reliant on imports of gasoline and
diesel fuel to meet increased consumer demand in the coming
years. Congress has a choice, it can either pursue policies
that will encourage the expansion of domestic refining
capacity, or it can turn its gaze overseas for our nation's
future gasoline and diesel fuel needs.''
Unfortunately, both Mr. Robinson's and Mr. Douglass' predictions
have come true. Domestic refining capacity continues to shrink,
wholesale and retail motor fuel price spikes have become the norm
rather than the exception, and more of our nation's gasoline needs are
being met by foreign sources. NACS and SIGMA assert that it is time to
stop talking about these problems and do something about them.
In my opinion, the enactment of the ``Energy Policy Act of 2005''
(EPAct 2005) is a good first step towards addressing these problems. I
commend you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues for taking the lead in
making this important legislation a reality after five long years.
Specifically, EPAct 2005 gave the Environmental Protection Agency the
statutory authority to waive certain gasoline and diesel fuel controls
last week, providing the market with much needed flexibility to move
product between markets to mitigate supply disruptions. This is an
immediate example of the positive impact this energy bill has had on
the market.
There are other important provisions in the 2005 energy bill that
will assist in expanding domestic refining capacity and in mitigating
gasoline supply dislocations and price spikes, including:
Repeal of the reformulated gasoline program's oxygenate
mandate;
Restrictions on creation of new ``boutique fuels'' which
strain refining capacity and the distribution system;
Authority for retailers to blend compliant RFGs for limited
periods each summer; and,
Federal tax incentives to encourage the expansion of
domestic refining capacity.
NACS and SIGMA urge this committee and this Congress to build on
the progress made through EPAct 2005 in the following ways:
Assure prompt implementation of the EPAct 2005 provisions
outlined above, including the joint Environmental Protection
Agency and Department of Energy study on increasing gasoline
and diesel fuel supplies while protecting the environment;
Streamline permitting and siting procedures for expanding
existing domestic refining capacity and for the construction of
new grassroots refineries;
Adopt additional tax incentives to expand our domestic
refining capacity, or a federal government-led effort to site
and build three new 500,000 barrels per day refineries on
federal lands to augment domestic production;
Encourage increased price transparency and lower price
volatility in the nation's gasoline futures markets by
increasing the number of delivery points and product types
under such contracts; and,
Investigate the pricing policies of credit card companies,
whose charges make up an ever-increasing portion of the price
of gasoline at retail outlets, particularly when gasoline
prices are high.
None of these recommendations will result in a substantial short-
term increase in gasoline supplies or retail price decreases. However,
if we do not undertake these initiatives now, we will be sure to repeat
the experiences of the ten days in the future.
VII. CONCLUSION
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important topic.
I would be pleased to answer any questions my testimony may have
raised.
The Chairman. Let me say thank you, and let me also say I
am very sorry that the hearings have proceeded as they have
because you deserve, both of you deserve to be heard by a much
larger audience, including different media than is here--there
is not much media left--because I think both of you talk about
some very practical things, one on some things we ought to be
doing, another on rather realistically showing us what one
chain company through its hierarchy is doing.
There is no chance that at the lower level that anybody is
changing the prices you recommend in your chain? That is the
price that is going to be charged, right?
Mr. Shipley. You mean other than me setting prices?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Shipley. Actually, there are other people that are
setting prices, but they are doing it at my direction.
The Chairman. That is what I mean. If we find one of your
stations, it should be setting prices that you have already
indicated are what you want?
Mr. Shipley. That are consistent with--which is basically
to be able to afford----
The Chairman. So it is basically pursuant to the plan you
have just told us about?
Mr. Shipley. Yes.
The Chairman. Are the business notions that mean survival
for you.
Mr. Shipley. Yes. Last week was one of the most unusual
weeks we have ever been through. The uncertainty of not knowing
what our cost is made it difficult to price it.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Shipley. But also, we were threatened by the fact that
we could end up in a situation where we could not buy.
The Chairman. Right. Very good.
Now we are going to go to you, Mr. Darbelnet. The same
rules for you, if you please.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. DARBELNET, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Darbelnet. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
remaining members of the committee. I am Robert Darbelnet,
president and CEO of AAA. In a sense, every American has been
visited by the emotional impact of Katrina and now many
Americans have also been affected by the economic consequences
of what has occurred. I will speak to the latter, but let me be
clear. The greatest tragedy is on the gulf coast. Addressing
the situation there must be the Nation's first priority.
I stated that many Americans would be impacted by the
economic consequences of Katrina. That will occur through
potentially limited availability of gasoline and increasing
prices. In fact, gas is already selling at a dollar more than
it was 12 months ago. The price of gas increased by 45 cents
last week alone. That is not a function of increased costs of
crude. In fact crude remained flat last week. It is not a
function of increased cost of refining. Most of this gas was
refined before the storm hit. It may be marginally a function
of the fact that this was more expensive to transport under the
circumstances. But the increase of 45 last week is primarily a
function of what the market will bear.
To avoid this escalating into a nationwide crisis, the
country needs a broad and well-coordinated effort. This gets to
Senator Thomas's question about what are some of the near-term
measures. Some of the near-term measures involve motorists, oil
companies, Federal authorities, local authorities, and the
media. The required measures include the following:
Motorists must reduce consumption by using their most fuel
efficient car and avoiding unnecessary trips. Oil companies
must ensure that their pricing yields what they need and
deserve, but no more. Federal authorities need to relax
requirements for blended fuels and release crude oil from the
SPR. We applaud that they have.
Local authorities must be vigilant with regard to any
retail pricing abuses which may occur. The media must carefully
cover the situation. Overreporting a limited number of
shortages could provoke panic buying or hoarding.
But doing all of these things will not put an end to the
crisis. There are three other things that Congress could do
that would help the situation. First, you could require that
the EPA modify its MPG testing procedures to accurately reflect
real world driving conditions. Current tests assume drivers
never go over 55, never go up hills, and never use air
conditioning. The American people deserve better if we expect
them to make intelligent purchases of vehicles.
Second, we ought to seek a Federal standard for clean
gasoline that does not result in a patchwork of fuel blends,
which was amply discussed earlier.
Third, we must commit to achieving higher fuel economy
standards on all vehicles. We acknowledge that the
administration has issued a proposal to revise the current CAFE
program. However, this proposal does nothing to address the
largest and heaviest passenger vehicles on the road today and
that simply is not right.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Darbelnet follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert L. Darbelnet, President & CEO, AAA
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I am
Robert Darbelnet, President and CEO of AAA.
The devastation resulting from Hurricane Katrina is unfathomable. I
suspect all of us have been moved over the last few days by the
heartbreaking pictures of those who have lost everything and are now
homeless.
In a sense, every American has been visited by the emotional impact
of Katrina. Soon though, many American's will also be affected by the
economic impact of what has occurred.
I will speak to the latter, but let me be clear--the greatest
tragedy is on the Gulf coast. Addressing that situation must be the
nation's first priority.
Mr. Chairman, not only has this hurricane wreaked havoc on the
inhabitants of the Gulf region, it has added considerably to an energy
market already on edge. In addition to laying waste to millions of
homes, it has devastated much of our nation's fragile gasoline
infrastructure. Many people were already paying nearly $3.00 a gallon
for gasoline before the storm with no end in site. Katrina had made
what was a bad situation, worse.
I stated that soon many Americans would be impacted by the economic
consequences of Katrina.
That will occur through potentially limited availability of
gasoline and increasing prices. Gas may soon be selling at a dollar
more a gallon than it was 12 months ago. In some areas, it already is.
In times of abundance and low prices, we don't realize how critical
fuel is to our economy and our way of life. As a public service, AAA
maintains a nationwide gasoline price report on the Internet, the Fuel
Gauge Report (www.fuelgaugereport.com). We list daily average prices
for 250 metropolitan locations and all 50 states which is updated every
24 hours. At the end of last week the Fuel Gauge Report showed that the
national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was
$2.867. This compares to $1.852 per gallon a year ago, or an increase
of over $1 per gallon.
Although AAA is not involved in the production, shipping, refining,
or retailing of gasoline, we have serious concerns about policy
decisions and approaches to the nation's price and supply of gasoline,
and the resulting impact on consumers.
The uninterrupted availability of reasonably priced gasoline is
what allows:
people to get to work,
children to get to school,
goods to be transported,
business people to travel, and
families to vacation.
Katrina has disrupted our access to crude oil and our refining
capability, both of which were already under enormous pressure.
To avoid this escalating into a nationwide crisis, the country
needs a broad and well-coordinated effort.
To be successful, this immediate effort must involve:
motorists
oil companies
federal authorities
local authorities, and
media.
The required measures include the following, some of which are
already under way:
Motorists must reduce consumption by using their most fuel
efficient car, avoiding unnecessary trips, maintaining their
vehicle, driving ``gently'' and car-pooling whenever possible.
We should also avoid the impulse to hoard gas or constantly
top off tanks. Even in the best of times there is not enough
fuel in the system to fill every car and truck to the top of
their fuel gauge.
Effective use of energy is a learned behavior. To conserve,
Americans must find ways to lessen their demand for gasoline
and do more with less. But Americans are faced with marketing
messages that promote a bigger, high-powered automotive
culture. We are urged to ``drive bigger,'' ``go faster,'' and
``do more.'' Such messages are inconsistent with fuel
conservation, let alone traffic safety.
Americans can do a great deal to conserve gasoline. They can
use public transportation wherever and whenever feasible. They
can form carpools for commuting. They can purchase fuel-
efficient vehicles. And they can take everyday actions that
will help reduce the amount of gasoline they have to purchase.
In particular, the car or truck you drive, how it's
maintained, where you drive and how you drive are the most
important factors in conserving fuel:
Routinely maintaining your vehicle by keeping tires
properly inflated, keeping moving components well
lubricated, and emissions systems operating properly will
help you achieve maximum fuel economy and extend its useful
life.
A heavier vehicle uses more gasoline so don't haul extra
weight or cargo if you don't have to.
Take a look at your owner's manual. If your vehicle does
not require premium or mid-grade fuel, purchase less
expensive regular unleaded.
Consolidate trips and errands to cut down on driving time
and slow down. Leave enough time to reach your destination
at a proper speed.
Avoid sudden stops and ``jack rabbit'' starts that waste
fuel and are hard on your vehicle's components.
Finally, comparison shop for gasoline prices just like you
would any other consumer good.
Employers can do their share too. Many companies have
telecommuting policies, allowing staff to work from home. Now
is the time to apply those policies more liberally, especially
while refining capacity is diminished.
Oil companies must ensure that their pricing yields what
they need and deserve, but not more.
Federal authorities needed to relax requirements for blended
fuels and release crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. We applaud that they have.
Local authorities must be vigilant with regard to any retail
pricing abuses which may occur. Also, they must be prepared to
institute fuel purchase management programs if the need arises.
The media must carefully cover the situation. Over-reporting
a limited number of shortages may provoke panic buying or
hoarding, and that will only make the situation worse.
Doing all of these things will not end the crisis, but will
mitigate its impact.
There are three other things Congress could encourage that would
also help the situation:
1. Require that the EPA modify its MPG testing procedures to accurately
reflect real-world driving conditions.
Current MPG tests assume drivers never go over 55 miles per hour,
drive up hills or use their air conditioners. That's wrong and the
American people deserve better, especially if we expect them to make
informed car purchases.
Americans need to be smarter, better informed consumers when it
comes to fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, people who shop for new
vehicles are experiencing a different kind of ``sticker shock'' when it
comes to the posted mileage estimate for highway and city driving.
Unfortunately, motorists find out after they've bought that new vehicle
that the posted estimated mileage by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is not going to reflect the results they experience in the
real world.
The EPA uses tests designed in the mid-1970s, to measure vehicle
miles per gallon under ideal circumstances that reflect little of the
actual driving conditions that face most motorists. AAA has urged the
EPA repeatedly to use whatever means at its disposal to enhance these
mileage tests to better reflect the manner in which people actually
drive. We were very appreciative of Senator Cantwell's efforts to
address this issue during consideration of the Senate version of the
transportation bill. But AAA believes the MPG provision in the recently
enacted energy bill will not solve this problem and we will therefore
continue to advocate an effective standard to achieve more accurate
mileage estimates.
Another tool that consumers can utilize is AAA's Fuel Price Finder.
This is a new Internet-based tool to research local gasoline prices.
When prompted by a ZIP code or a city name, the site will identify
recent prices for fuel stations within a three, five, or ten-mile
radius with addresses and a map of their locations. This is a new
service that is currently available to approximately 50 percent of
AAA's membership in the United States. Just like you shop around for
other consumer products, AAA recommends you shop around, when possible,
for gasoline.
2. Seek a federal standard for clean gasoline that does not result in a
patchwork of fuel blends.
AAA has no interest in scaling back improvements in air quality,
but so-called ``Boutique Fuels'' have contributed to price volatility
and regional disruptions. We need to find a way to achieve both our
clean air and supply goals.
3. Commit to achieving higher fuel economy standards on all vehicles.
We would prefer to see automakers commit to this challenge
voluntarily, but if they are unwilling to do that, Congress should
require improvements through changes in CAFE standards. AAA
acknowledges that the Administration has issued a proposal to revise
the current CAFE program. However, this proposal does nothing to
address the largest and heaviest passenger vehicles on the road today.
That's not right.
AAA believes the proposal is flawed: it is merely a small step
toward fuel efficiency and does nothing to capture the heaviest
passenger vehicles on the road. This is unacceptable while the nation
faces the reality of high gasoline prices and potential supply
problems.
AAA understands that Americans want choice in their vehicles, but
we also believe choice is possible among much more fuel efficient
vehicles. We can no more ignore these vehicles in CAFE standards than
we can when we try to park next to one.
When things do return to normal, we should not forget the fragility
of our situation.
As Katrina has reminded us, we are never more than a disaster away
from this type of crisis.
If we do not reduce our dependency on fossil fuel or increase our
access to a reliable source of it--or both--the narrow margin we rely
on for stability will continue to erode.
There are also longer term strategies that are important, such as:
developing alternate fuel sources,
building more fuel efficient vehicles,
expanding efficient public transit,
reducing our dependency on foreign oil, etc.
These will all take time and thus won't resolve our more immediate
problems.
But these longer term strategies are important and are deserving of
your attention. These are not new issues, but it is now clearly time
for them to be elevated in importance and priority.
Mr. Chairman, a word of caution. In the Spring and Summer of 2000
as the nation grew alarmed by $2 per gallon gas prices, Congress
seriously considered a temporary repeal of federal gasoline taxes. AAA
opposed those efforts then, and would caution against such an effort
now as well.
While attractive at first glance, such a course of action will do
little to address the root causes of our gasoline price problem today.
The resulting loss in receipts to the Highway Trust Fund would severely
compromise the safety of the traveling public. Asking the American
people to choose between a gas tax reduction and safety is posing the
wrong question. Short term fixes, while politically popular, are not
the answer to a long-simmering national energy problem, and are not in
the best interests of highway safety and the overall economic well-
being of the nation.
Let me reiterate that the greatest hardship resulting from Katrina
is not at a fuel pump that displays a high price or--even worse--the
word ``empty''.
The greatest hardship is that faced by the people of the Gulf
coast, and our hearts go out to them.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, AAA will continue to urge motorists to
do their part, but we are also looking to our leaders in government and
industry for answers.
If we consider the issues in a comprehensive fashion, we will
better be able to serve our constituents--and yours--together.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will
be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Darbelnet, would you give me a moment. I
must vote or I will miss it. Senator Burr is here, Senator
Wyden is here. My recommendation as chairman is that the next
witness proceed and that we go, collectively not go beyond 6
o'clock, meaning that the two of you could take over and ask
some questions, but that we not stay open for very long.
Senator Burr. Mr. Chairman, before you leave could I ask
unanimous consent that all members be allowed to submit written
questions to the second panel?
The Chairman. That will be done. I have already asked if
you would submit questions to things you have heard that we
might not have time today to inquire of you because of this
problem.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes?
Senator Wyden. You have been very gracious. Could I amend
that UC to perhaps say 10 after 6?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Wyden. Would that be acceptable?
The Chairman. That would be fine.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
The Chairman. If it is all right with you, if you do not
mind.
I would say to all of you, it has been most enlightening,
just the little bit I have heard, and I think, Mr. Dowd, you
will contribute to a continuation of that. I think that the
most interesting thing is that there is nobody here yelling and
screaming. They are being very productive. AAA, I commend you.
You know what is out there and I think what you are talking
about in terms of practical things are very good.
Senator Burr will be in charge because that is the way it
is. We are in the majority, regardless of his experience, age,
and bald-headedness. No, you are about the same. But with that,
I am going to relinquish the chair. Thank you.
Senator Burr [presiding]. Mr. Darbelnet, please continue.
Mr. Darbelnet. Thank you.
If we do not reduce our dependency on fossil fuel or
increase our access to a reliable source of it or both, the
narrow margin we rely on for stability will continue to erode.
There are also longer term strategies that are important, such
as developing alternate fuel sources, building more fuel
efficient vehicles, expanding efficient public transit, and
reducing our dependency on foreign oil. But all of these will
take time and thus will not resolve our more immediate
problems. However, these long-term strategies are important and
they are deserving of your attention.
These are not new issues, but it is now clearly time for
them to be elevated in importance and in priority. Let me
reiterate that the greatest hardship resulting from Katrina is
not at a fuel pump that displays a high price or, even worse,
the word ``empty.'' The greatest hardship is faced by the
people of the gulf coast and our hearts go out to them.
As it relates to fuel, gentlemen, we at AAA will do our
part to calm the public and to calm our 48 million members, but
only if we are confident that you are doing your part, too.
Katrina has shown the public and perhaps the world how
vulnerable our transportation and energy networks are. There is
an opportunity here, in fact an obligation, to go beyond the
energy bill and to make the changes that will keep this from
ever happening again.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
Senator Burr. Thank you, sir.
At this time the chair would recognize Mr. Dowd.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DOWD, SENIOR RESEARCH ANALYST,
SANFORD C. BERNSTEIN AND CO., LLC
Mr. Dowd. Thank you. I would first like to thank you for
the opportunity to speak today. My name is John Dowd. I am a
senior energy analyst at Sanford Bernstein, which is a firm
that specializes in providing expert advice to Wall Street
investors.
Actually, I would like to deviate from the script a little
bit because there are some key points that have not been
addressed. The key point: This is a global problem. Changing
U.S. consumption by 5 percent would alter global demand by 1.3
percent. Now, 1.3 percent is a large number, depending on how
you look at it. It would double the amount of spare capacity in
the oil markets today. But 1.3 percent is also about enough to
offset 2 years of Chinese demand growth. The point is this is
not just us.
Also, energy independence is a sense a myth. Even if the
United States were an exporter of crude, it is not clear that
would help out the U.S. consumers. The UK is a net exporter of
crude and gasoline prices in the UK are above where they are
right here in the United States I think it is important to
recognize the global extent of these issues.
With spare capacity in the energy industry at the lowest
level in decades, not just in the United States but globally,
it really was just a matter of time before a disruption
somewhere upset what is currently a very delicate balance in
the markets. At present the world has only 1.4 million barrels
per day of spare capacity, and this assumes that all of the
Gulf of Mexico production that is off-line today comes back
immediately. That is less than 2 percent of current oil demand,
less than 1 year of demand growth.
Two months ago my company provided expert analysis to
support a simulation exercise called Oil Shockwave that
examined the sensitivity of the oil markets to supply shocks
and potential policy responses. The simulation brought together
nine former high-level White House Cabinet officials right here
in Washington. It was sponsored by two independent
organizations, SAFE, which is Securing America's Future Energy,
and the National Commission on Energy Policy.
I would like to include in my testimony two reports issued
as a result of that simulation.
Senator Burr. Without objection.
Mr. Dowd. The conclusion is that our policy response is
really straightforward. We can either increase spare capacity--
well, that is it. We can increase spare capacity. We can do
that either by increasing world oil supplies or by reducing
global demand, either of which will reduce the risk premium and
prices will fall.
In practice, accomplishing that task of increasing spare
capacity is anything but straightforward. My key point is that
the reason we find ourselves with such limited spare capacity
in the global hydrocarbon markets is because it has been so
difficult to accelerate supply. This is not intuitive.
Conventional wisdom holds that if an industry invests more
money then supply growth will accelerate. Unfortunately,
conventional wisdom has not been working and that is why we are
in the situation we are in today.
The data is fairly stunning. Coming from Wall Street, we
talk primarily in terms of data. The investment in the U.S. oil
and gas industry has doubled over the past decade to one of the
highest levels in history. Nonetheless, domestic hydrocarbon
production continues to decline. My point being it is going to
be very difficult to solve the world's supply issues through
additional investment in the United States.
There are striking examples overseas as well. A decade ago,
the hope of the industry was that new reserves in deep water
basins would provide for the next wave of global supply
additions. The industry invested aggressively and tripled the
number of deep water rigs in order to tap reservoirs beyond the
continental shelves. However, after the initial flurry of
exploration success, discovery rates stabilized despite the
jump in drilling activity. Reserves outside of OPEC and the
former Soviet Union peaked in 1997 despite all of the
exploration in the deep water and the record investment by the
oil industry since that timeframe.
This lack of sizable discoveries is one reason why non-OPEC
production growth rates have slowed. Excluding the former
Soviet Union, production growth rates from non-OPEC countries
have slowed in each decade over the past 5 years. It does not
seem to be tied to investment.
A major concern--there are two going forward. First, E&P
spending, spending by the energy industry, is already at a
record high level. Virtually every rig in the world is already
being used. There are four quality offshore drilling rigs that
are idle. It is about 1 percent of supply. This industry is
running hard today. Adding new equipment to the drilling rig
industry will take 3 to 5 years. That is how long it takes to
build a modern piece of equipment.
Another concern is that events outside our border will
influence oil prices here. Much attention has been focused on
the growth in China, which has been responsible for 25 percent
of the growth in global oil demand over the past 10 years. All
of the increase in Chinese oil demand, however, has been offset
by increased exports from the former Soviet Union. What makes
that an alarming statement is that, while Chinese demand
continues to grow, Russian production growth stopped last
September. This is potentially a game-changing event for the
oil markets and one that we in the United States have limited
control over.
We are probably all familiar with the well-worn homily
about having the serenity to accept what you can change, the
courage to change what you can, and the wisdom to know the
difference. I do not know that anyone would counsel serenity
under the current circumstances, but courage and wisdom are
certainly called for.
We cannot control hurricanes, terrorists, or the investment
climate in foreign countries. We cannot stop international oil
markets from adding a sizable risk premium to oil prices as
long as global spare capacity is as low as it is. The only way
that we can really help the U.S. consumer mitigate the effects
of global price inflation is to help them conserve. I would
recommend stronger fuel efficiency rules. That could make a
difference. Increasing U.S. production really is not likely to
make a difference to the global crude price. We should build
more refineries, we can build more refineries. Refining
investment in the United States this year is going to be the
highest in 10 years, so I know that efforts are under way to do
that.
But I caution that this is global. This is not a U.S.-
specific event. And I thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dowd follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Dowd, Senior Research Analyst,
Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC
INTRODUCTION
Good afternoon. I am John Dowd, Senior Research Analyst at Sanford
Bernstein & Co., a firm that specializes in providing expert advice and
research to Wall Street investors. I would first like to thank you for
the opportunity to speak today about why gasoline prices are so high
and how we might better protect ourselves in the future from the kinds
of price shocks we have been seeing over the last few years and more
recently, of course, in just the last few days.
This hearing was scheduled weeks before Hurricane Katrina barreled
into the Gulf Coast, setting off a chain reaction in energy markets
that has now raised the visibility and the urgency of the issues we are
discussing to a whole new level. Once again we find ourselves wondering
if an energy crisis is at hand and how long and how bad it might be.
Once again, we find ourselves asking: Isn't there some way to stop
having these crises in the future?
My esteemed colleagues on this panel can speak with authority to
the specifics of our current situation and to the pain it is causing
the average American consumer and the larger economy. It is, of course,
important that we address these specifics and that we take whatever
steps we can to ameliorate the effects and minimize the duration of the
present crisis. Hurricane Katrina has exposed the vulnerabilities
created by a critical shortage of refinery capacity in our country and
I agree with many of my fellow panelists that this must be addressed.
But I would also like to take the opportunity in my testimony to
step back from the specifics of the pre-and post-Katrina situation to
address some of the bigger-picture forces of oil supply and demand that
have brought us here. For I believe that, unless we address some of
these underlying dynamics now, we will be back in a few months or a few
years, re-examining the same issues we are discussing today.
I would like to highlight five main points about our current oil
predicament and what we can and can't do about it.
1. The oil industry is inherently volatile in the sense that it is
driven by a host of supply and demand factors which are largely beyond
our control, at least in the short-run. That volatility becomes acute
when, as now, spare production capacity is extremely tight. Under these
circumstances, even a small disruption can produce large price spikes.
2. The primary reason that we find ourselves with such limited
spare capacity is because the record investment by the energy industry
aimed at expanding oil production has not resulted in the expected
supply response. Conventional wisdom holds that more investment will
lead to more supply. In the case of global oil production, the validity
of conventional wisdom does not appear to be certain. This uncertainty
emanates from several sources:
a. Global oil production growth rates outside of OPEC and the
Former Soviet Union have slowed each decade over the past five,
regardless of the level of investment.
b. Investment in U.S. hydrocarbon production has doubled over the
past decade and production has not grown. The record investment
undertaken by the industry over the past five years has not been
sufficient to cause global oil reserves outside of OPEC and Russia to
expand. Furthermore, exploration success rates in deepwater basins have
been substantially below initial expectations.
c. Virtually every rig and every petroleum engineer in the world is
already working. Materially increasing the level of activity beyond the
current level is not feasible over the coming 3-5 years.
3. In the case of the refining industry, conventional wisdom
regarding the effectiveness of additional investment does appear to be
correct. We can and should build more refining capacity. Nonetheless,
the industry today finds itself operating at a very high level of
utilization due to the robust economic growth over the past decade, the
slowdown in efficiency improvements in the auto fleet, more stringent
environmental requirements, and the deteriorating quality of crude
available to the industry.
4. This is not only a U.S. predicament. Gasoline prices this year
have risen equally in Europe and the Far East. This is a global supply
and demand issue. Important trends taking place overseas will likely
exacerbate the situation. For instance, China has accounted for 1/4 of
the global increase in oil demand over the past decade. To date, this
increase in demand from China has been entirely offset by accelerated
production from the Former Soviet Union (FSU). What is alarming is that
while Chinese demand continues to expand, Russian production stopped
growing last September.
5. In the short run we have relatively few options for addressing a
crisis beyond tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So even as we
cope with today's realities we must begin to think--and act--beyond the
short run. In doing so it's important to recognize that U.S. consumers
and policymakers have far more control over long-term demand than they
do over long-term supply. The demand side of the equation is where we
have the most leverage and where we must focus our effort and
resources.
HIGH UTILIZATION IS THE CAUSE OF HIGHER PRICES
With spare production and refinery capacity at the lowest levels
they have been in decades--not just in the United States, but
globally--it was only a matter of time before some disruption,
somewhere, would have the dramatic impact on oil markets and on our
economy that we are seeing as a result of Katrina today. In fact, as
you well know, gasoline prices have been rising for some time now,
largely because rapidly growing global demand has outpaced the oil
industry's ability to bring new supplies to the market. This created a
situation in which any disruption to existing supplies, even a
relatively small one, would inevitably have an exaggerated impact on
oil markets and on gasoline prices.
Just two months ago, in fact, my company provided expert analysis
to support a simulation exercise called Oil ShockWave that attempted to
examine how we might respond to a short to medium-term oil supply
crisis of just the sort are experiencing now. The simulation brought
together nine former high-level White House and Cabinet officials right
here in Washington D.C. It was sponsored by two independent non-profit
organizations--Securing America's Future Energy or SAFE and the
National Commission on Energy Policy--that see our nation's oil
dependence as constituting one of the preeminent public policy
challenges of our time. In Oil ShockWave, the hypothetical events that
trigger a crisis primarily involved terrorist attacks and political
unrest in far-off lands. But the point of the exercise was that, due to
the lack of spare capacity, it really doesn't take much of a disruption
to trigger a crisis in today's market and it doesn't really matter how
that disruption comes about. Indeed, recent events may be proving, all
too tragically, that Mother Nature can do just as well as Al Qaeda at
sending a shockwave through the world's advanced economies.
In addition, because there is so much overlap between these points
and the findings that emerged not only from Oil ShockWave but also from
the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, which issued a
comprehensive set of policy recommendations last December, I am
including with my testimony the two reports issued as a result of both
those efforts.
As I have already mentioned, our growing susceptibility to a supply
disruption like that caused by Katrina is rooted in a dramatic decline
in spare production capacity as global demand for oil has grown more
quickly than the ability to bring new supplies to market. The
volatility and high prices we've been seeing since well before last
week are a direct consequence of historically low spare production
capacity, not only in the United States but in the world as a whole.
When spare capacity is low, even a relatively small disruption in
global supply can cause shortages and produce sharply higher prices.
The market responds to the increased risk of future shortages by
attaching a premium to the prices they would otherwise charge based on
current inventories and current demand. This premium appears to be
directly proportional to the amount of spare production capacity held
in reserve.
For example: if there were 6 million barrels per day of idle
capacity worldwide, no single terrorist act or natural catastrophe
would be sufficient to cause a shortage. The risk premium would be low.
At present, however, the world has only 1.4 million barrels per day of
spare production capacity (assuming that all of the Gulf of Mexico
capacity returns imminently), or less than 2 percent of current global
demand. This is only enough spare capacity to meet a little more than
one year of expected demand growth and it leaves world oil markets at
the mercy of political conditions in Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iraq, not
to mention natural disasters and potential terrorist acts. In fact, the
price of oil over the last year has hovered somewhere between the cost
of producing it and the $100-per-barrel price (in real terms) witnessed
during past crises, indicating that the market was already factoring in
some probability that a shortage would occur at some point in the
future. In the weeks before Katrina, oil prices were fluctuating near
$60 per barrel; last week, after the storm, they hit a high of $70 per
barrel. Analysts have since speculated that at this point, any
additional supply disruption--in the United States or elsewhere--could
easily send prices into the triple-digits. In this context, the
situation depicted in Oil Shockwave--where a global supply shortfall of
less than 4 percent produces a world oil price of $160 per barrel--
looks prescient.
WHY HAS SUPPLY GROWTH LAGGED EXPECTATIONS?
In theory, the policy response to this situation is
straightforward. If we can increase spare capacity--either by
increasing world oil supplies or by reducing world demand--we will
reduce the risk premium and crude oil prices will fall. In practice,
accomplishing either is anything but straightforward. On the supply-
side, the primary concern stems from the apparent inability of non-OPEC
producers to materially increase production in recent years despite
increased investment and rising prices. The conventional wisdom within
the energy industry for decades has been that the price of oil could
not permanently move above $25 per barrel because if it did, this would
invite a non-OPEC production response. High prices would attract more
oil investment and production would rise.
Unfortunately, recent history suggests that the relationship
between investment and output is not quite so simple, at least when it
comes to this industry. The primary reason that capacity growth has
been slower than expected is that the productivity of new basins has
been substantially less than expected. A stark example can be seen in
Exhibit 1.* In the United States, capital investment by the oil and
natural gas industry has doubled since 1994--yet natural gas production
has not grown and oil production has actually fallen. This situation
does not appear to be an aberration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The exhibits and other attachments have been retained in
committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A decade ago, the hope of the industry was that new reserves in the
deepwater regions of the world would provide the next wave of global
supply additions. The industry invested sizable sums in building new
drilling equipment in order to tap the hoped-for reservoirs beyond the
continental shelves in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, West Africa, and the
North Sea. However, after an initial flurry of exploration success,
discovery rates have been stable despite a jump in drilling activity
(Exhibit 2).
While the deepwater basins are a source of supply growth, it is
important to keep the size of this production growth in context. For
instance, roughly 1/3 of the deepwater drilling equipment in the world
is operating offshore Brazil, and has been for a decade.
Nonetheless, Brazil is still a net importer of crude oil. Viewed
more broadly, even with the opening of the deepwater basins to
exploration, reserve discoveries outside of OPEC producing countries
and the Former Soviet Union have not kept pace with production from
those regions. As seen in Exhibit 3, discovered oil reserves outside of
OPEC and the Former Soviet Union peaked in 1997, despite the record
investment by the oil industry since that time.
In fact, the same trend has occurred in all non-OPEC countries
outside the former Soviet Union. Collectively, these countries have not
only been unable to sustain production growth rates, they have
witnessed a decline in production growth rates in each of the last five
decades. During the 1970s, oil production in these countries grew by
3.1 percent annually. Over the past decade, production in these
countries grew only 1.1 percent annually, despite considerably higher
levels of investment, as seen in Exhibit 4.
Non-OPEC countries outside the former Soviet Union have experienced
sub-par reserve discoveries despite an increase in exploratory drilling
and the development of more sophisticated locating equipment. In fact,
annual reserve discoveries in these countries have failed to
substantially increase over the past 20 years. Worse, over the past
four years the discovery of new reserves has fallen behind current
production, resulting in a decline in total reserves for these
countries.
To some extent, these recent trends are explained by simple
geologic reality. As reservoirs are gradually depleted, the remaining
oil becomes harder and more expensive to extract. New discoveries must
constantly be made just to compensate for the depletion of existing
basins, let alone to meet a substantial new increment of global demand
growth each year. The world's largest and most accessible reservoirs
have already been tapped. As a result, we are now pursuing the less
accessible and/or smaller reserves which typically cost more and
experience more rapid production declines once they are developed
(Exhibit 5). The U.S. experience with natural gas production provides a
worrisome analog in this regard. Hence, I am including with this
testimony a separate short paper that provides some additional detail
about that experience.
We are also pursuing development of crude oil reserves that in
prior times, under lower pricing scenarios, were considered to be of
unacceptably poor quality. The implications are significant not only
for the oil producing industry, but also for the oil refining industry.
When lower-quality crude oil enters the refining system, it must be
refined more intensively in order to yield the same amount of gasoline.
This is one of the factors that has contributed to the high utilization
of the refining system. The performance of the U.S. refining industry
in particular has been impressive. The industry has been able to
increase gasoline production by 10 percent over the past decade,
despite a reduction in the absolute number of refineries, more
stringent environmental requirements, and a slow but persistent
deterioration in the quality of crude oil available to the market (see
Exhibit 6).
To grossly oversimplify the energy sector, the exploration industry
is essentially the business of finding gasoline, while the refining
industry is the business of making gasoline. It is not possible to
analyze one without the other. One of the major reasons that refining
industry is tight today is because the lack of success of the E&P
industry in finding new resources. Because we have not found
substantial new deposits of light sweet crude oil, we have been forced
to refine the barrels that we have found more intensively. Further
deterioration in the quality of crude supplies will likely mitigate the
benefits of future refining capacity additions.
One major concern is that the lack of necessary equipment and
expertise may limit the future supply response. For example, there are
today only four competitive offshore drilling rigs that are idle
available to go to work tomorrow (by contrast, some 422 offshore rigs
are already working). While demand for offshore drilling equipment has
recently spiked, supply is expected to rise by only 3 percent annually
through 2008 based on already signed construction contracts. One
difficulty in quickly expanding offshore production capacity is that
building a modern drilling rig requires 3-5 years and costs between
$150 million and $500 million, depending on the type of equipment.
Another difficulty is that qualified labor in the oil industry is
limited, and we are already running into shortages of skilled workers.
THESE ARE INTERNATIONAL, NOT DOMESTIC, ISSUES
Meanwhile, a lively debate about whether we are, in fact, beginning
to ``run out'' of oil has recently been picked up even by the
mainstream press. My first response to that debate is to say that no
one really knows. My second response is to say that I'm not sure it
really matters. The question is not whether global oil production has
begun to reach a peak. The question is whether the growth rate of
supply can continue to keep pace with the growth rate of demand. Much
attention has recently focused on the impacts of China's growth on
world oil markets. In fact, all of the increase in Chinese oil demand
over the last decade has been offset by increased exports from the
former Soviet Union (Exhibit 7). This does not, however, appear likely
going forward. The fact that production in Russia stopped growing last
September is potentially a game-changing development that will further
exacerbate the risks of a major supply crisis. Unforeseen changes on
the demand side could equally accentuate these risks. For instance, if
global oil consumption were to grow at a pace of 3.1 percent next year
rather than current expectations of 2.1 percent, the forecast surplus
global production capacity would be cut in half.
Not only is the sensitivity of oil prices to supply disruptions
heightened today because of the lack of spare capacity, the frequency
of such disruptions is likely to increase because of where new oil
producing facilities are being located. Throughout history, oil
companies have taken a very rational approach to investment, weighing
political risk against geologic risk when deciding where to explore and
drill. As the world's oil basins have matured and geologic risks have
increased, the industry has demonstrated an increasing propensity to
invest in politically risky areas. Today our attentions are
understandably focused on the risks posed by nature, but any number of
eminently plausible scenarios involving terrorism or political unrest
could have similarly profound effects on world oil markets.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
We may soon find out what our immediate options are for responding
to a sustained supply crisis and how far those options will take us. At
the moment it is still too soon to know whether recent events in the
Gulf region constitute such a crisis. If they do I think we will find,
as the Oil ShockWave participants discovered, that our near-term
options are limited. The President has called for releasing some oil
from the Strategic
Reserve and for voluntary conservation efforts, while other
countries have indicated that they too will tap emergency reserves. The
relaxation of environmental constraints in the refining industry should
be a small positive for supply. I would recommend a stronger call for
conservation. If, as a country, we were to obey speed limits for the
next two months, we would probably conserve more fuel than will be lost
by the refinery outages. Reducing speeds from 70 mph to 60 mph, for
example, improves fuel efficiency by 15 percent. If Americans want to
know what they can do to limit gasoline price inflation, the answer is
simple: slow down. I don't think this is generally known, or believed,
by the U.S. public, and it should be. That may be all we can do in the
weeks and months ahead.
Longer-term of course, we must look for more fundamental ways to
shift the current balance of supply and demand as a means of reducing
our vulnerability to oil price shocks that we cannot control. Many will
instinctively reach for supply-side solutions and for measures to
increase U.S. oil output. For the reasons discussed above, however,
it's not clear that further incentives for expanded domestic production
will do much good. And even if we succeeded in boosting domestic
production for a time, our nation's oil resources are simply too
limited to make a lasting dent in the global market that determines the
prices we all pay. Some of the provisions in the Energy Bill of 2005
will also help in the long run, especially those that seek to diversify
the nation's energy resources and promote efficiency, but most address
the needs of the electricity industry, and not transportation fuels
such as gasoline.
Our current predicament, simply put, is rooted in the near-total
dependence of our transportation sector on petroleum fuels. Our nation
possesses only 3 percent of the world's estimated oil reserves but
accounts for as much as 25 percent of global oil demand, the great bulk
of it for use in our cars and trucks. When you look at these numbers
it's obvious that controlling our destiny in terms of oil security
comes down to controlling the relentlessly growing demand of our
transportation sector for gasoline and diesel fuel. Fortunately, the
potential for efficiency improvements in this sector is also
substantial if the political obstacles can be overcome. The National
Commission on Energy Policy found, for example, that a concerted effort
to increase fuel economy standards, and promoting hybrid and advanced
diesel vehicles, could substantially reduce future petroleum
consumption by the U.S. transportation sector. We estimate that
improving the average fuel efficiency of the entire U.S. vehicle fleet
by 2 miles per gallon--an objective that can be readily achieved using
already available, conventional vehicle technologies--would reduce
total U.S. gasoline demand by roughly 1 million barrels per day. This
amount is equivalent to all of the growth in U.S. gasoline consumption
over the past eight years.
Of course, to matter at a global level, demand reductions must be
significant, especially given the growth pressures we face in other
parts of the world. And significant demand reductions cannot be
realized overnight any more than significant supply enhancements or
refinery expansions can be. But it is reasonable to aim to achieve
gradual yet steady progress that can yield substantial dividends over
time. Gradually improving vehicle fuel economy through a combination of
higher standards, manufacturer and consumer incentives, and other
initiatives would essentially ``buy us time'' to develop the more
advanced vehicle technologies and alternative fuels that will someday
allow for a more decisive shift away from our current petroleum
dependence. Even in the short run, moreover, the benefits of any
efficiency improvements introduced in the U.S. vehicle market would
likely be amplified as a result of their diffusion to markets in other
countries, most of which have as keen an interest as we do in slowing
demand growth and blunting their exposure to future oil shocks.
We are probably all familiar with the well-worn homily about having
the serenity to accept what you cannot change, the courage to change
what you can, and the wisdom to know the difference. I don't know that
anyone would counsel serenity under current circumstances, but courage
and wisdom are certainly called for. We can't control hurricanes,
terrorists, or the investment climate in foreign countries. We can't
stop international oil markets from adding a sizable risk premium to
oil prices as long as worldwide spare production capacity remains
dangerously low. What we can do is limit our future dependence on oil
and our exposure to these risks through thoughtful, long-term policies
aimed at promoting a greater supply and diversity of fuel options while
at the same time significantly improving the efficiency of our nation's
vehicle fleet. Something good will have come of the current crisis if
it impels us to take the long view. We should try to control what we
can control. And we should start doing that now.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Dowd. Thank you to all the
witnesses.
The chair would recognize Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. For questions?
Senator Burr. Right.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Sorry we missed much of your testimony. Mr. Darbelnet, I
read your statement and I appreciate your listing some of the
things that you think are something we can do in the short
time. Again, as I said earlier, we have covered what we do in
the long range. What we are talking about here is what we do I
think a little more soon.
Mr. Slaughter, in respect to the Nation's refining
capacity, 47 percent is in the gulf coast region, I think you
pointed out.
Mr. Slaughter. Yes, sir.
Senator Thomas. Only one new refinery being developed since
the 1970's. What can we do to facilitate more refining capacity
and get regional diversity in it?
Mr. Slaughter. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Of
course one of the problems and one of the reasons why there is
not a lot of regional diversity, as is the case with
production, is that a lot of other areas really are not that
receptive to refineries. The one that was added in 1976 that
was the last one was added in Garyville, Louisiana, and is one
of those near New Orleans.
One of the things that was started--and we are talking
about things being first steps--the energy bill had an
important provision, the first one in 50 years, that would
actually have encouraged investment in refining. There was a
provision that came through the Senate bill that basically
allowed expensing of 50 percent of the investment of basically
increasing the capacity of a refinery by 5 percent or more.
Now, there were other things that were looked at. That was
a bill originally introduced by Senator Hatch. He originally
also wanted to change the depreciation rate for refining
investments. 40 years ago it was decided that refining should
have a 17-year life and therefore have a 10-year write-off
period. Everything else, all industries like us, have a 5-year
write-off period. If you could make that change, it also would
encourage people to invest money in refining.
The other thing is, and Mr. Dowd just mentioned it, perhaps
the last 2 years, which were good years for refining, will
encourage more people to make refining-related investments. It
will take a lot bigger investment, $3 billion, to build a new
refinery as opposed to adding capacity at existing sites. But
hopefully--before that we had 10 years in which the return on
investment in the industry was only 5 percent, which you can
get on a T-bill with no risks.
So if more people think that the last 5 years are what the
next 10 are going to be like, it would be very helpful. But it
would be very helpful to have an extension of that tax cut idea
to actually encourage more investment in domestic refining.
Senator Thomas. I guess, Mr. Shipley, you represent more
retail outlets. You heard all the discussion about the change
in price over the day and the difference between when you
filled your tank and when you changed. How do you react--maybe
you did in your statement. How do you react to that concern
about it seeming like just automatically setting different
prices?
Mr. Shipley. The arbitrariness----
Senator Thomas. Yes.
Mr. Shipley [continuing]. Or apparent arbitrariness. I
guess the first thought I have is I share it as a buyer of
gasoline for retail. We are experiencing that uncertainty and
fast moves in the cost, rising cost of fuel that we need to put
in our tanks.
Our company with 26 stores has 100 tanks with 10,000
gallons, a million gallons of storage. We need to fill that
with gasoline before we can sell it. In your car you might have
a 20-gallon tank. We are really dealing with the same thing
that consumers are dealing with on a slightly larger scale,
right before consumers deal with it.
Senator Thomas. But if you fill your million gallons on
Tuesday and suddenly the guy down the street increases his
price, do you increase yours too just because it is
competitive?
Mr. Shipley. No. If I can get the gallons from the guy down
the street, I will do it.
Senator Thomas. I am not talking about that. I am saying if
you are basing your price on what it costs you to fill your
wholesale tank, are you going to change it simply because the
community is going higher and you can make a higher profit? Or
are you going to base it on the cost in addition, your profit
in addition to the cost of your product?
Mr. Shipley. On the replacement cost of the product.
Senator Thomas. Which you are guessing.
Mr. Shipley. Last week there is no question about, there
was an element of trying to get a handle on what the next cost
was, what the cost was going to be.
Senator Thomas. I see.
Mr. Shipley. We do get price--we knew what the price was
from our supplier.
Senator Thomas. Sure.
Mr. Shipley. And as we are continuously filling our tanks,
we are buying at those prices.
Senator Thomas. Well, the allegation, whether it is right
or wrong, or suspicion is that your tanks are full, but because
the price changed that day, why, you raised your prices 20
cents even though you are still using the same gas. Do you find
that to be the case?
Mr. Shipley. That could happen at a certain spot. But when
it is time to fill that tank again, we still need to have the
money. We need to be able to sell that product at a price that
we can buy the next gallon of gasoline.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Senator Burr. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, are we going 5-minute rounds
here? What is your pleasure here?
Senator Burr. Based on your unanimous consent, you and I
are splitting between now and 6:10.
Senator Wyden. I am going to ask then for a UC to go to
6:15.
Senator Burr. What if I do not agree with that?
Senator Wyden. You and I have only been friends about 20
years. I think my odds are okay.
Senator Burr. I will be here as you have questions.
Senator Wyden. Great, thank you. This will be very brief.
Mr. Slaughter, you represent all of the major oil companies
in your association. Right now those companies are awash in
money. They have got record profits. We have got record prices.
We have got huge margins. I would like you to tell me what
those companies are going to do with all that money. What are
they going to do particularly with that money in the next 90
days when we have these tremendous needs for affordable energy
in our country? What are they going to do with all this money
that they are sitting on?
Mr. Slaughter. Well, obviously one of the things they will
be doing is helping basically put the gulf coast back in order
and keeping the supply lines, improving the supply lines,
putting them back together for the rest of the country to
supply fuel.
There is a lot of talk about profits in the oil industry,
but there is not much talk about profit margin. The reason
there is not is because it takes huge amounts of money to be in
this business. Actually, the only measure of profitability
really is how much you actually make after you put money in the
business.
These companies, many of our companies, not all but many,
are international companies that invest billions of dollars
around the world. They may invest it in some particular country
that has promising oil reserves, but they may lose that
investment overnight because of terrorism or some kind of
change of government in that country. You look at what is
happening on the world stage to the United States and you look
at what is going on with world terrorism. Our companies that
deal in exploration and production have to invest money in
those types of places all the time. It takes vast amounts.
We are talking about need to increase refining investment
in the United States. It takes a vast amount of money to be in
refining business in the United States. We will spend $20
billion in this industry on environmental program compliance in
this decade, on top of what we put into maintaining the
business and do what upgrades we can.
There are tremendous calls for money in this business. The
good thing is--you talk about LNG terminals, you talk about
expanded gas production. Much of this hearing is about what
needs to be done. It takes capital to do that and the energy
companies are going to have capital to reinvest into the
business to produce more energy for not just the American
people, but globally, which will help us too.
Senator Wyden. You just told me that profits could be
marginal. You told Senator Thomas you might need additional tax
credits. That just defies everything that I read in independent
sectors of the press and everywhere else. What I would like you
to do, would you get to me personally a written response to my
question by the end of this week?
Mr. Slaughter. I would be happy to, Senator.
Senator Wyden. I would like--and I appreciate that. I
appreciate your responsiveness. I would like to know what the
oil industry, your member companies, are going to do with all
this money that they are sitting on in the next 90 days. I
appreciate your responsiveness and I will look forward to
getting it by the close of business on Friday.
My question for the AAA president is essentially this. On
your website you have a daily fuel gauge report that shows
current oil and gasoline prices. Today's report shows how
gasoline prices have been spiking up at the same time that
crude oil prices are going down. The chart shows a 50-cent
increase from $2.55 to over $3 a gallon for gas at the same
time crude oil dropped 50 cents a gallon.
So how can the run-up in gasoline at the same time crude
prices are dropping not essentially be price-gouging?
Mr. Darbelnet. Well, I am not sure that that question can
be properly answered by myself. It might be one best directed
at those who produce and distribute and sell the product. But
to the extent that your question reflects the difficulty that
the public has understanding why prices rise as quickly as they
do, I think it is on target in that regard.
As I said earlier, last week the price of retail gas
increased by 45 cents a gallon, the price of crude remained
roughly flat during that period. The gas that was sold was
refined before the storm hit and one can only conclude that the
price at which gas is being sold is perhaps marginally affected
by the fact that it is more costly to distribute it, but
predominantly affected by the fact that it is being priced at
the level that the market will pay.
I noted that it was suggested that in setting the price one
has to think about the replacement cost of future gasoline and
I think that leads a lot of consumers to wonder when the trend
is in the other direction and the price, the foreseeable price
of the replacement fuel, is going down, are we under those
circumstances decreasing the price of the gas we sell or are we
relying on the price we purchased it for. I think it is the
latter.
Senator Wyden. One last question for you, Mr. Slaughter,
involving the west coast market. What I have heard--I do not
know if you were here when I asked Mr. Caruso--is that oil
industries have claimed for years when the west coast prices
were 20 cents per gallon higher than the national average, they
constantly told me and other west coast members that the west
coast was a separate market. That was the argument, it is a
separate market from the rest of the country.
So now we have seen our prices go up dramatically just in
the last few days. We do not get gasoline from the gulf, and it
seems to me either the oil industry was gouging for years when
it routinely charged higher prices on the west coast or it is
gouging now when west coast prices are going up because of a
tragedy that had no impact on west coast supplies. What is
going on here?
Mr. Slaughter. First of all, as has been pointed out here,
we are talking about a global market and 25 percent of American
crude production was called into question last week and still
has not been completely restored. That affects the global
market for oil.
Now, California is largely an isolated market. There are
limited pipelines in and out of California, although there are
some. Material can be brought to California from the gulf coast
through the Panama Canal, but it takes a while to do that. But
there are ways in which that market is going to be affected by
what the overall world price of oil is and what products
generally are going for in the United States.
Other products now, as has been pointed out, are now higher
than they are in California, which very rarely happens. But
essentially, when you have an outage of the magnitude of the
one we have, it basically radiates throughout the country,
generally slowly, as material basically is brought in from
different parts of the country as prices go up to try to get
more product into areas that are short. That will affect
California and people in California will see a tightening of
the market immediately as a result of what happened of the
magnitude it did on the gulf coast.
So you do have your own fuel specifications out there,
which are difficult to make. It is very difficult to resupply
those fuels. But those fuels can be used anywhere else. You can
always use a more environmentally pure blend of fuel, which is
what you have out there. So there is a chance that some of the
fuel that would have been used in California would be brought
around to the gulf coast area to solve the outages there or to
the Southeast. That is just simply competition, Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. The trouble--my time is up and I am going to
leave it with this. The trouble with that argument, Mr.
Slaughter, is that the industry says it is a global market when
they are trying to justify price increases as a result of a
national tragedy, which we have obviously had, but we never get
the pricing relief. We never see the prices go down, which is
essentially what our man from the AAA said, when global forces
would dictate it.
In other words, the industry's argument shifts almost from
occasion to occasion. When it is convenient to raise prices,
well, we are part of a global market. When we make an argument
for lowering prices, it is a different occasion: Well, you are
an isolated market.
I will look forward, though, to getting the response by the
close of business on Friday. I think it will be very helpful. I
think the American people want to know what the oil industry is
doing with this enormous amount of money that the industry is
collectively sitting on. They do not want to know what will
happen in 5 years, 10 years. First, they want to know what is
going to happen quickly, and to have that from you about the
next 90 days is responsive and I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burr. Gentlemen, I will be extremely brief. Mr.
Shipley, how if at all were you notified of potential shortages
being the result of two east coast pipelines down, and did you
experience shortages?
Mr. Shipley. We in Pennsylvania were relatively, from what
I have heard of people in other parts of the country, fortunate
that we were put on 100 percent allocation by our branded
suppliers. So what that meant generally was that whatever we
bought in July was what we were allocated to buy during the
last couple days of August and indefinitely until we hear
further.
So that is how we were notified. I have heard in North
Carolina they are on 50 percent allocation.
Senator Burr. Yes, it has been tight.
Let me ask you, is there a standard process that you follow
in the convenience store business relative to any notification
to customers as to what you see happening from the standpoint
of supply?
Mr. Shipley. To retail customers?
Senator Burr. Clearly some retail customers drove up and
the sign was ``out of gas.''
Mr. Shipley. Actually, again, in Pennsylvania we did not
have that, but we had high prices, which was still not good
from the customer's standpoint. I can tell you the way I
handled that in my company. I addressed it to the people behind
the sales counter and the people that answer the telephone at
our company, they are really the ones who are hearing from our
customers about the high prices.
Senator Burr. We were the next phone call, just so you know
it.
Mr. Shipley. Right. What I said to them is that we do need
to offer ideas for conserving. We cannot control. We do not
know anything about these prices other than that it is telling
us now is a good time to save.
Senator Burr. Do we have too many boutique fuels?
Mr. Shipley. I think so, yes.
Senator Burr. So you would not----
Mr. Shipley. I think that has actually been a good thing in
the last week. The prices would have even maybe been higher if
we had not relaxed standards.
Senator Burr. But it would not upset you if we went to a
much smaller stable of products, that we allowed refineries to
produce product that could be shipped in the regions where the
refineries actually are, and they could have longer runs of
that?
Mr. Shipley. Particularly as a marketer, I can say
fungibility is good. The more we can buy and sell fuels across
borders, whether it is State borders or county borders, the
better.
Senator Burr. Mr. Slaughter, you stated in your testimony
that 177 refineries have been closed in the United States since
1981. Can you tell me how many, if any, could potentially
reopen if in fact we saw that as the greatest opportunity to
increase the refinery capacity?
Mr. Slaughter. Not too many, Senator Burr. A number of
those at the beginning that shut down in the 1980's were
particular refineries that had been encouraged to operate as a
result of price controls. Given what is going on in the
refining industry in the last couple years, anyone who had
additional equipment to restart would have restarted. Some of
those refineries have been disassembled and other refineries
have bought them and are using them now. So you will not find a
great many, I think, Senator, if that is the route you decide
to go.
Senator Burr. Is it safe then for us to assume that we have
two options? We can expand the current refineries that we have
and/or build new ones?
Mr. Slaughter. Yes. Those are--and you are going to get
most of the bang for your buck in adding capacity at existing
sites, which is not quite as costly, and you may be able to get
permits more easily. There is a group in Arizona that for 10
years has been trying to build a refinery for a couple billion
dollars out there, a 150,000 barrels a day, in one of the
fastest growing States, that does not have a refinery, with a
lot of demand for products, and they have not been able to get
it built. But people like that, who are willing to take the
risk, put up the up-front money and try to build a refinery,
ought to be able to build one, too. So I would encourage you to
go after both.
Senator Burr. No question that we have got to have a
streamlined process if we want people to make that capital
investment.
One last thing as it relates to refineries. The first panel
sort of laughed when I talked about a refinery cushion.
Basically they said we do not have one. Do we need one?
Mr. Slaughter. Well, you are always better off when you
have a bit of a cushion. We did have one, but we have worked it
off about the last 5 to 6 years.
Senator Burr. Are we at 97 percent capacity of refineries
in this country?
Mr. Slaughter. Well, right now, with the outages, the
numbers would not be that. But on August 26, which are the last
numbers that came out from EIA, we were running at 98 percent
of capacity. So we are back. We had had some outages early in
the summer, which is why the numbers that you mentioned earlier
were down somewhat from last year. But those were cured by the
time of August 26 and we were way back up at the top in
utilization again.
Senator Burr. Given that refineries are at that point
annually that they shift over to focus on home heating oil, and
clearly we have some gasoline stock requirements out there, is
this going to throw our home heating oil off from a standpoint
of the refinery time that we need?
Mr. Slaughter. Well, the good news is that home heating oil
inventory had been going up and got well into the upper average
level. So it all depends on how quickly everything comes back,
Senator. If things come back quickly enough or if we--we are
getting additional product from abroad through the EIA--if we
can make it up quickly enough, we will not pull down those
inventories and cause problems in the winter. But we will have
to wait and see.
Senator Burr. Thank you.
Mr. Shipley, let me come back to you for just a quick
question. I remember back the once or twice that Ron Wyden and
I have gone through this in the House and I think the one thing
I learned from North Carolina petroleum marketers was that
there is a tendency as the price goes up, especially when it is
quick, that the price that you post and sell at is not always
reflective of every gallon you have in the ground, and there is
an offset to your increased profits as price goes up; and that
if you have a similar event on the back side, which is usually
the result, where price goes down, the tendency is you have to
be competitive with whoever got the last load of oil. So the
tendency is that you are always in a position where you may be
selling at the pump at what you bought it for, which is not a
profit. Potentially, if you sat on it you could eventually lose
money.
Is your experience in these years that it is pretty much a
wash on one side and the other?
Mr. Shipley. It is generally, the retail price will move
slower than the wholesale price both ways, on the way up and on
the way down. That means for a retailer that our margins get
squeezed on the way up. I showed you a little bit of that with
1 percent margin, gross margin, last week. We cannot operate
our business on that kind of a margin sustaining it
continuously.
There is a tendency also to lag on the way down. Even with
these rises, even with these rapid increases that we have had
in the last week, they are not as fast as the wholesale price
is rising. We have not gone up on the street at the same rate
or held it at the same rate as the wholesale price.
Senator Burr. Once again let me thank all of our panelists.
We apologize for the time of the evening that it is and for the
fact that we lost some members, but they are in a briefing on
Katrina right now with a number of secretaries of Federal
agencies. I hope all four of you will make yourselves available
to the written comments and questions that they might have.
At this time, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Robert L. Darbelnet to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. In your written testimony, you state that oil companies
must ensure that their pricing yield what they ``need and deserve but
no more.'' Do you believe that the current price environment suggests
that companies are exceeding what they need and deserve?
Answer. AAA understands that oil is a commodity subject to market
fluctuations and that there are multiple issues that can impact the
price and supply of refined products. At the same time, consumers have
every right to voice their concerns when they observed prices
increasing dramatically even before the full effects of Hurricane
Katrina were evident. Retail prices went up 45 cents a gallon in the
week after the storm, but the price of crude oil remained flat. Of
further concern to consumers was the realization that the product being
sold at these sky-high prices had been refined and sold at lower prices
to gas stations before the storm. I would simply say in the aftermath
of Katrina, AAA urges caution on the part of the oil companies and
others involved in the pricing and sale of gasoline. While gasoline
price increases in the face of major supply disruptions are
unavoidable, the American public will not tolerate unjustifiably high
prices that seem to take unfair advantage of tragic circumstances.
Rapid increases in retail prices can also have the effect of causing
consumers to panic and line up for gasoline, creating artificial
shortages.
Question 2. If you could suggest one reasonable step that each
American driver could take to help reduce the high price at the pump,
what is it?
Answer. First and foremost, make conservation top of mind. Attitude
is everything. If we could all slow down just a little, leave more time
so we are not rushing from place-to-place, avoid the sudden starts and
stops that lower fuel mileage, we can all get a little more out of each
gallon of gas. Properly maintaining your vehicle and keeping your tires
properly inflated also contribute to better fuel efficiency. And, then
over the longer-term, motorists should consider replacing their
existing vehicles with ones that offer the benefits of safe-design and
increased fuel efficiency.
Question 3. You assert that if automakers do not voluntarily commit
to changes, Congress should require improvements through changes to
CAFE standards. What specifically do you think these standards should
be?
Answer. AAA is not recommending any specific standard. AAA believes
that the federal government should establish fuel economy standards
that are ambitious enough to result in significant improvements in
overall fuel efficiency, but realistic enough to ensure passenger
safety and consumer choice. The existing CAFE program is no longer
accomplishing this objective. In terms of specific recommendations, AAA
would urge the first step be to capture those vehicles between 8,500
lbs and 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight that are currently not covered
by the CAFE standards. We also want consumers to have access to more
realistic fuel economy ratings for new cars and trucks, so they can
accurately compare one vehicle's fuel efficiency to another.
Question 4. Do you have any data with respect to the percentage of
disposable income that Americans spend on gasoline now against what
they have spent in years past?
Answer. AAA's tracking of fuel prices does not encompass this type
of data collection.
Responses of Robert L. Darbelnet to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. The recently passed Energy Bill included an important
tax provision that will allow 50% expensing of investment that expands
a refinery's capacity by more than 5%. Do you think this is enough to
stimulate growth or are additional incentives needed?
Answer. It is obvious that our current problems can be attributed
in substantial part to a deficit in refining capacity. The new tax
incentives in the energy bill, coupled with the substantial profits
already being reaped by the oil industry, should be all the financial
motivation necessary to create more capacity. Estimating the size of
tax incentives is outside of the scope of AAA's purview.
Question 2. As you may know, Kentucky has an abundance of coal.
Among other things, this supply of coal allows Kentucky to offer its
citizens and industries some of the lowest utility rates in the
country. I am deeply concerned that the increasing cost of oil will
increase the cost of producing and transporting Kentucky coal. Do you
have any additional information on how the price of gasoline will
affect the cost of other energy sources such as Kentucky coal?
Answer. There is no doubt that the cost of oil raises the cost of
producing and transporting energy supplies. However, AAA's tracking and
analysis of gasoline prices do not include the economic impact on other
energy sources.
Question 3. The number of domestic refineries has decreased by more
than 50% in the last 30 years, and the real-volume capacity of the
domestic refinery network has decreased 10% in that same time period.
What factors do you believe have suppressed U.S. refining capacity?
Answer. Factors include lack of economic incentives during the
1990's and government regulatory processes. While we fully support the
goals of the Clean Air Act, we believe the overly complex set of state
and local clean fuel regulations that have been adopted over the last
10 years have discouraged investment in large, new refining facilities
that can freely ship products when and where they are most needed.
Question 4. The cost of gasoline is largely determined before it
reaches the pump. The cost of crude oil and federal and states taxes
make up 74 to 79% of the retail price of gas. Could you describe how
the remaining 20 to 25% is determined and what profit each part of the
supply chain receives?
Answer. Because the price of oil changes each day along with the
price of gasoline, the percentage cost and profit of each component in
the supply chain is in constant fluctuation. Only the oil industry
knows the percentages of cost and profit in gasoline at any given time
with the exception of the federal, state and local taxes on gasoline.
Question 5. As the price of oil skyrockets, alternative fuels will
become more price competitive. What segments of the energy market will
see growth in investment because of higher oil and gas prices? What
impact will this have on the domestic energy market?
Answer. Other forms of energy will undoubtedly attract investment
as oil prices rise, however, AAA's area of immediate concern is for the
price and availability of gasoline and diesel fuel. New investments in
alternative energy, as well as in expanded oil and gasoline production,
will help bring global supplies more in line with demand over the next
several years. These trends are unlikely to contain fuel prices over
the long-term, however, unless more emphasis is placed on fuel
conservation and the elimination of barriers to the production,
shipment and sale of gasoline across the nation.
Question 6. Global spare production capacity has decreased
dramatically in the past decade and it appears it will decrease even
more. This will provide international suppliers with an even smaller
ability to combat supply disruptions. Do you think the international
oil supply is secure or is another price spike just around the corner?
Answer. I would not want to speculate on whether another price
spike is ``just around the corner''. AAA suggests that Congress look at
what actions can be taken to encourage the oil industry to hold larger
inventories of gasoline and diesel fuel to guard against sudden
shortages and better protect our citizens in times of national
emergencies.
Response of Robert L. Darbelnet to Question From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Hurricane Katrina has underscored the concentration of
U.S. petroleum production, refining and energy infrastructure in the
Gulf of Mexico region. In recent correspondence with the President, I
have mentioned the need to bring together the necessary stakeholders to
focus on ways to facilitate a more robust and distributed
infrastructure for refining petroleum products in the U.S. Would you
and your respective stakeholder organization, be willing to take part
in such a discussion? How would you see this proceeding?
Answer. AAA participates in various stakeholder groups as a
representative of the consumer. We would consider participation in any
such group as long as it is positively directed toward solving
problems. It's important to begin such an effort with a clear set of
objectives and a willingness to include all relevant stakeholders.
Responses of Robert L. Darbelnet to Questions From Senator Corzine
Question 1. Right now, my constituents and consumers across the
country are paying exorbitant prices for a necessary commodity. In your
testimony, you say that a federal gas tax holiday would not be the best
solution because of the resulting loss in receipts to the Highway Trust
Fund. If we were to offset the loss to the Highway Trust Fund by
implementing a windfall profits tax on oil companies, would that be
more effective in stabilizing prices and preventing a loss of revenue?
Answer. There have been calls for relief from the federal gas tax
in the wake of increased prices. This would do nothing to address the
root causes of our gasoline price and supply problems. The resulting
loss in receipts to the Highway Trust Fund, however, would severely
compromise the safety of the traveling public because we already suffer
from a lack of investment in our transportation infrastructure. Asking
the American people to choose between a gas tax reduction and safety is
posing the wrong question.
Neither would AAA support a wind-fall profits tax which would keep
high fuel prices in place for consumers, while redistributing profits
from the oil companies to the federal government.
AAA is interested in policies that promote fuel conservation,
consumer choice, and more competition between those who make and sell
refined fuel products in the United States. We are urging the federal
government to consider adoption of a uniform clean gasoline standard in
the United States, to revisit the federal CAFE standard, to engage in
more careful scrutiny of mergers and other business activity in the oil
industry and its related financial markets, and to do all that is
possible to limit America's reliance on razor-thin inventories of
gasoline and diesel fuel. This last point is especially important for
economic as well as national security reasons.
Question 2. According to AAA.com, the average price for a gallon of
unleaded regular at stations within 10 miles of downtown Newark
reported today to be $3.133. On Saturday, it was reported to be $2.926;
on Sunday, it was reported at 3.006. So on average a 15-gallon tank
costs $45.21 to fill. A year ago it was $27.32. Just to put it in
perspective, the annual increase in cost from a year ago works out to
$930 at current prices compared to a year earlier. In addition, the
percentage jump from just a month ago is 30 percent. (From $34.66 to
$45.21). Prices before Hurricane Katrina were already skyrocketing, how
much of a spike in prices last week is due to price gouging? What do
you think are the most effective ways to prevent price gouging by the
oil companies as well as by retailers?
Answer. Because there is no uniform definition of price gouging, it
is difficult to determine what percentage of recent price spikes could
be attributed to the phenomenon. AAA is aware that a number of states
have anti-price gouging statutes. The regulations define price-gouging
and set penalties. More state governments should look to the adoption
and strict enforcement of similar statutes.
______
Responses of William S. Shipley, III, to Questions From Senator
Domenici
Question 1. In your testimony, you concede that there may be some
``bad actors'' who may be taking advantage of the current shortage of
gasoline supplies by overcharging customers. Do your organizations have
any mechanisms for monitoring the behavior of your members? Do you have
a process for disciplining members who may be found guilty of such
practices?
Answer. Neither the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of
America nor the National Association of Convenience Stores has any
mechanism for monitoring the behavior of its individual members with
respect to pricing practices. Pricing decisions are made by individual
entrepreneurs and the associations scrupulously avoid any behavior
which appears to influence such decisions. It is the associations
concern that such behavior could be construed as violative of Section 1
of the Sherman Act. As a consequence, both associations scrupulously
avoid such behavior.
Question 2. Can you give us a brief status report on the current
state of gasoline supplies at retail? Are the major sources of gasoline
supplies such as the Colonial and Plantation pipeline systems now back
in service? If not, do you have any idea when deliveries of supplies
might resume and thereby alleviate the pressure on gasoline and
aviation fuel prices?
Answer. The current status of gasoline supplies at retail is
adequate but tight. The Colonial and Plantation pipeline systems are
back in service. However, a not inconsequential percentage of U.S.
refining capacity remains out of service as a consequence of Hurricane
Katrina. As the Committee is aware, the balance between U.S. domestic
manufacturing capacity and demand for motor fuels has been in a
delicate balance for an extended period of time. While alternative
supplies, including imports, are providing relief in the sense of
sufficiency of raw physical volume, it is likely to require, at least
in our opinion, the restoration of refining capacity operations to take
the pressure off of gasoline and aviation fuel prices. As the pipelines
and refineries come back on line, they will help alleviate supply
tightness providing for daily demand. However, it will take an extended
period of time before supplies are returned to the limited pre-Katrina
levels. The restoration of these systems will provide relief, but full
recovery will not be immediate.
Question 3. In your written testimony you explain how you establish
prices at retail based on the prices charged you by your wholesale
supplier. Would you please elaborate for the Committee how real time
pricing decisions are made by gasoline retailers?
Answer. In a rapidly ascending market, most retailers will do their
best to obtain a price for gasoline which will cover the replacement
costs of the inventory being sold. In the context of a static or
declining market, retailers will attempt to achieve the best price for
their product that the market will allow them. As prices decline,
normal competitive forces operate to lower prices when individual
competitors, seeking to improve their volume, seek to increase volume
by lowering price and attracting customers from other retailers.
This set of decisions is made by each entrepreneur based on the
capacity of that competitor's outlets, supplies and the costs thereof,
and that competitor's strategy for maximizing his or her profit.
Question 4. How will the recently passed energy bill's restrictions
on the proliferation of so-called ``boutique fuels'' impact retail
gasoline prices?
Answer. It is the hope of SIGMA and NACS that the recently passed
energy bill's restrictions on the proliferation of so-called ``boutique
fuels'' will tend to stabilize supplies, perhaps leading to more stable
or decreased gasoline prices. As the Committee is aware, since the
enactment of the Clean Air Act amendments of the early 1990s, the
increase in the number of different grades of gasoline and other motor
fuels which must be transported and stored in the Nation's distribution
system has had the effect of decreasing supply by decreasing the
efficiency of that distribution system. The energy bill, by preventing
the continued loss of efficiency presented by additional boutique
fuels, should benefit the market.
Question 5. What, if any, affect has the increase in the average
price of gasoline had on driving patterns? Does AAA see any indications
that Americans are driving less frequently as a result of the rising
cost of gasoline?
Answer. While neither SIGMA nor NACS currently have available to
them any scientifically-obtained data responsive to this question,
anecdotes indicate that increased retail prices might have reduced
demand, although not significantly. They have, however, had the
unintended consequence of increasing the number of transactions using
credit cards as motorists charge their higher fuel bills.
Responses of William S. Shipley, III, to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. The recently passed Energy Bill included an important
tax provision that will allow 50% expensing of investment that expands
a refinery's capacity by more than 5%. Do you think this is enough to
stimulate growth or are additional incentives needed?
Answer. The Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America
and the National Association of Convenience Stores believe that the
provisions of the recently passed energy bill encouraging the expansion
of refiners' capacity are an excellent first step. Only time will tell
if these incentives are sufficient to stimulate the kind of investment
in the Nation's manufacturing capacity that both SIGMA and NACS believe
would be required to reduce the volatility of motor fuel prices. Both
associations are concerned that more incentives may be required.
Question 2. As you may know, Kentucky has an abundance of coal.
Among other things, this supply of coal allows Kentucky to offer its
citizens and industries some of the lowest utility rates in the
country. I am deeply concerned that the increasing cost of oil will
increase the cost of producing and transporting Kentucky coal. Do you
have any additional information on how the price of gasoline will
affect the cost of other energy sources such as Kentucky coal?
Answer. Increasing fuel prices cannot avoid generating a
significant and unfortunate upward pressure in the cost of not only
Kentucky coal but other sources of fuel. While most attention is
focused upon gasoline prices because of their prominent display and the
average motorist's almost daily interaction with them, SIGMA and NACS
believe that Congress should be equally concerned about diesel fuel
prices. Diesel fuel price escalation has a ripple effect in the economy
as it increases the costs of not only truck transportation but rail
costs and in some instances jet fuel. In addition, as distillate prices
rise, fuels with which they complete, such as natural gas and propane
in the home heating market, also increase.
Question 3. The number of domestic refineries has decreased by more
than 50% in the last 30 years, and the real-volume capacity of the
domestic refinery network has decreased 10% in that same time period.
What factors do you believe have suppressed U.S. refining capacity?
Answer. SIGMA and NACS believe that a number of factors have
suppressed U.S. refining capacity. First, for an extended period of
time the returns on investment in refining capacity were abysmal. As a
consequence, when compliance with new environmental regulations
required significant investments in refineries, many refinery
operations decided to cease operations. With respect to new capacity,
if one assumes that the average return on invested capital in a
manufacturing enterprise is somewhere between five and eight percent
per year, through the 90s the refining industry performed on a
substandard basis. Thus, drawing capital for expansion is difficult.
Secondly, siting a new refinery involves not only significant
permitting issues at the federal, state, and local levels, it also
involves facing significant resistance from many communities. While
everyone would like the benefit of increased manufacturing capacity,
only a few communities are prepared to accept a significant refinery as
a part of their daily lives.
Question 4. The cost of gasoline is largely determined before it
reaches the pump. The cost of crude oil and federal and states taxes
make up 74 to 79% of the retail price of gas. Could you describe how
the remaining 20 to 25% is determined and what profit each part of the
supply chain receives?
Answer. Please see attached chart.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The chart has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5. As the price of oil skyrockets, alternative fuels will
become more price competitive. What segments of the energy market will
see growth in investment because of higher oil and gas prices? What
impact will this have on the domestic energy market?
Answer. SIGMA and NACS do not predict which segments of the energy
market will see growth and investment because of higher oil and gas
prices. In markets other than motor fuels, one assumes that sources of
power such as wind, solar, and hydroelectricity will see increased
demand.
Question 6. Global spare production capacity has decreased
dramatically in the past decade and it appears it will decrease even
more. This will provide international suppliers with an even smaller
ability to combat supply disruptions. Do you think the international
oil supply is secure or is another price spike just around the corner?
Answer. It appears that crude oil production capacity is becoming
increasingly tight. SIGMA and NACS both hope that this may be offset by
the development of sources such as Canadian tar sands or other
unconventional sources of crude petroleum. Refining capacity likewise
has become increasingly tight worldwide. Moreover, as the United States
has gone off world specification products, our ability to obtain relief
from non-domestic sources in the event of a domestic problem such as
experienced in the wake of Katrina, become more limited. Consequently,
a disruption in crude oil supply or another significant blow to
domestic manufacturing capacity could generate volatility such as that
recently experienced again.
Responses of William S. Shipley, III, to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Mr. Shipley, I saw an expert on CNBC saying that
convenience store owners don't know what they are paying for gasoline
until after they have had it delivered and after they have started
selling it at the pump. Is that even possible?
Answer. It is in fact possible, and not altogether uncommon, for a
gasoline retailer literally not to know what it is paying for gasoline
until after that product has been delivered and after that retailer has
actually started selling. This happens because of timing differences
between the need to supply an outlet and the supplier's price. In
addition, suppliers may change prices more than once a day and because
of scheduling problems and the logistics of making sure that trucks
arrive at a retail outlet with replacement supplies in a timely way,
that product may literally have been delivered before the price for it
is recognized by the individual or individuals responsible for pricing
it.
Question 2. From your testimony, I see that the money going back to
the refiners, royalty holders, and exploration companies has doubled in
two years. Surely that is not due to the cost of doing business;
otherwise these industries could not suddenly be awash in profits. Is
anyone besides the producers and refiners benefiting from these higher
prices? Since your testimony has been so candid--and I thank you for
that--how would you propose the prices you are being charged to be held
in check?
Answer. Yes, one of the principal beneficiaries of higher fuel
prices has been the credit card industry. The amount of money which
most consumers carry in their pockets at one time has not changed
dramatically since the mid 80s--somewhere between $20.00 and $30.00. As
the cost of a typical fill up (around 11 gallons) escalates past $20.00
consumers increasingly charge their motor fuel. Because credit card
fees are calculated as a percent of sales price, this has resulted in a
significant increase in the credit car fees associated with the
purchase of every gallon of gasoline.
The prices which retailers charge can best be held in check by
market forces. Specifically, if the country has a manufacturing base
for motor fuels which can promptly and effectively increase supplies in
the event of a price spike, prices will decline rapidly.
______
Responses of Rebecca Watson to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. It appears that many facilities could come back online
in days and weeks rather than months. Has MMS formulated a more
specific timetable or goals for getting production online? If so, what
is it?
Answer. The timing of resumption of activity is largely in the
hands of industry and has been exacerbated by the impacts of Hurricane
Rita. MMS is working with the private sector to monitor, facilitate,
and expedite any permits necessary to get production on line as soon as
possible. Daily oil shut-in production has gone from 95% on August 30th
to 57% on September 12; daily gas shut-in production has gone from 88%
to 38%. These shut-in numbers went back up to 100% for oil and 80% for
natural gas immediately post-Hurricane Rita. As of October 3, 2005,
92.8% for oil and 74.95% for gas remain shut-in. Approximately 85
percent of Gulf oil production comes from facilities that suffered no
or minor damage and this production could return to the market in three
months if refineries, processing plants, pipelines and other onshore
infrastructure are in place to receive process and transport it.
Question 2. Can you clarify reports of damage to specific
platforms, in particular the MARS facility operated by Shell Oil
Company?
Answer. MMS does not report on individual facilities but defers to
the operator to assess and report these damages. This approach helps to
quickly identify issues that need to be resolved, the overall impact
from the storm, and where MMS efforts will be most effective in helping
to restore our nation's oil and gas supplies from the affected area.
Out of 4000 producing facilities, 43 have been destroyed (some are
single well caissons) and 16 have sustained major damage. Most of these
are older facilities which do not provide much production. The largest
impact will be from four damaged deep water facilities, including MARS.
Only 4 drilling rigs were destroyed and 9 rigs have extensive damage, 6
rigs went adrift and all have been re-manned and are beginning to power
up. Our inspectors are working with industry on the major facilities to
expedite the process of returning these facilities to production.
Question 3. Is it still correct to say that there have been no
reports of significant oil spills in the GOM as a result of Hurricane
Katrina?
Answer. As to the OCS, there have been no reports of significant
spills related to offshore production. There are some spills from tanks
that were knocked overboard from facilities which were toppled or
damaged. OCS facilities maintain redundant safety systems to shut-in
production with sub-surface and surface safety valves which prevent the
flow from wells even if the facility is completely destroyed. All
safety systems worked to successfully shut-in production on the OCS
platforms. We understand there were some significant onshore spills.
Question 4. Can you comment on any pipeline damage, or lack
thereof, in the Gulf?
Answer. Pipelines are difficult to inspect because pipelines
segments are below the surface and often must be physically inspected
to determine the extent of damage. Industry is early in this process,
however at this point the damage does not appear to be as great as
Hurricane Ivan when massive offshore mudslides caused significant
pipeline movement. However, as of October 18, 2005, there have been 90
preliminary reports of damage to offshore pipelines post Katrina and
Rita. Industry continues its preliminary assessment of pipeline damage
and, as a result of a Notice to Lessees (NTL) issued September 27,
2005, has until May 1, 2006 to complete its inspections and surveys of
OCS structures.
Question 5. Does it make sense for this country to have all of its
offshore production consolidated in one area of the OCS? If not, how do
you suggest the government can alleviate this problem?
Answer. The difficulty is that, but for the states bordering the
central and western portions of the Gulf, historically coastal states
and other interested parties have opposed offshore oil and gas activity
off their coasts. The result is that 85% of the OCS is under moratoria.
The Administration gives great weight to the views of adjacent states,
as does the law. We believe that the nation's energy security resides
in diversity of energy supply to provide Americans with reliable,
affordable energy. We recently solicited public comment on all areas of
the OCS as we initiated the first step for the 5-Year OCS Program for
2007-2012. This will provide the Secretary an opportunity to gather the
current views of all interested parties in considering the future
direction of the program.
Response of Rebecca Watson to Question From Senator Talent
Question 1. Compare the historical and projected growth of demand
to growth in production, refinery, and delivery capability, 1980-2030.
Answer. This question is outside the purview of the Department of
the Interior, and we defer to the expertise of other witnesses from the
Department of Energy.
Responses of Rebecca Watson to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. Global spare production capacity has decreased
dramatically in the past decade and it appears it will decrease even
more with the continued growth of demand in China and the United
States, as well as the leveling of Russian oil production. This will
provide international suppliers with an even smaller ability to combat
supply disruptions. Do you think the international oil supply is secure
or is another price spike just around the corner?
Answer. This question is outside the purview of the Department of
the Interior, and we defer to the expertise of other witnesses.
Question 2. I've heard stories in the news media that a significant
factor contributing to the current extraordinarily high oil prices is
bidding by speculators in the worldwide oil commodity futures markets.
Can you comment on the extent to which profit taking in the oil futures
market is influencing the price of crude and gasoline? Is this
phenomenon expected and how does it affect price spikes?
Answer. This question is outside the purview of the Department of
the Interior, and we defer to the expertise of the witnesses.
Question 3. OPEC and other oil producing countries have expressed
the desire to keep oil prices well above prior target range. What
should we expect going forward as far as market-level crude oil prices?
Answer. This question is outside the purview of the Department of
the Interior, and we defer to the expertise of the witnesses.
Question 4. As you know, the United States now imports over 60% of
its crude. A significant portion of these imports come from unstable
regions of the world. Yet we have vast untapped energy resources in the
United States. Can you please discuss what the federal government can
do to help to encourage the development of these secure, domestic
energy supplies?
Answer. The President's National Energy Policy includes directives
to diversify and increase all forms of energy supply in an
environmentally sound manner, encourage conservation, and ensure
adequate energy distribution. The Department has implemented a number
of NEP directives to increase domestic energy supplies and enhance
national energy security by ensuring continued access to Federal lands
for domestic energy development, and by expediting permits and other
federal actions necessary for energy-related project approvals.
For example, we are helping to ensure that the OCS remains a solid
contributor to the Nation's energy and economic security by holding OCS
lease sales in available areas on schedule. Since May 2001, DOI has
held 17 OCS oil and natural gas lease sales on schedule while
undertaking a comprehensive consultation process with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and the public. These sales
resulted in leasing of almost 24 million acres of OCS lands to industry
for oil and gas exploration and development, and generated about $3.2
billion dollars in bonus bid revenue (not counting future royalties and
rentals) for the U.S. Treasury. Production from leases issued as a
result of these sales will contribute substantially to future domestic
oil and gas production.
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Oil and Gas Management
program is one of the major mineral leasing programs in the Federal
government and BLM has been making a concerted effort to help bring
additional oil and gas supplies to the market. For example, the
processing of Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) and offering
parcels of Federal land for oil and gas leasing continues to be a major
priority for the BLM.
Increased funding provided by Congress and management improvements
have enabled the BLM to make significant progress in responding to the
greatly increased number of APDs being submitted by industry. In FY
2004, the BLM processed 7,351 APDs, approving 6,452 (on both Federal
and Indian lands). As of September 3, 2005, the BLM had processed
approximately 6,928 APDs (about 400 ahead of FY-2004's pace), approved
6,257 APDs (about 600 ahead of FY-2004's pace). By the end of Fiscal
Year 2006, the BLM plans to substantially reduce the inventory of APDs
pending for more than 60 days to 1,800, a reduction of 20 percent from
2004.
BLM is also working to make oil and gas resources in Alaska
available through its leasing, exploration and development activities
in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), an area covering more
than 23 million acres in the northwest corner of the state. Development
of these oil and gas resources is an important component of the
President's National Energy Policy. The first significant commercial
production from the NPR-A is expected as early as 2008.
The BLM will also participate in the inter-agency activities
relating to the siting of an Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. On October
13, 2004, the President signed into law the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline
Act, (ANGPA), legislation that greatly enhances the prospects for
approval of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, which will provide
enhanced access to the natural gas supplies on the North Slope of
Alaska. In order to meet the intent and provisions of the ANGPA,
Federal agencies, including BLM, with jurisdiction have been meeting
regularly and are developing an interagency Memorandum of Understanding
to define regulatory alignment.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains several provisions through
which the BLM can further work to improve the APD permit approval
process and expedite oil and gas leasing, development and production on
public lands. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will allow the BLM to
continue streamlining efforts in leasing and permitting. The BLM will
work with other regulating agencies to develop a one-stop permitting
process for oil and gas activities in the 8 offices in 5 states where
70% of all APDs are processed. The objective of grouping the
appropriate agency personnel is to create a more efficient and
effective process through which to issue permits for oil and gas
activities to interested parties while ensuring that the Nation's
energy resources are developed in an environmentally-responsible
manner.
Question 5. In most areas of the world, including the oil-rich
Middle East, we are looking at diminishing excess supply capacity. Mr.
Dowd explained that other countries throughout the world are now
exploring smaller oil fields and recovering lower-grade crude. How do
our domestic oil sources compare in retrieval cost and quality?
Answer. This question is outside the purview of the Department of
the Interior, and we defer to the expertise of the witnesses.
Responses of Rebecca Watson to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Hattiesburg, MS is a major distribution center for
propane which is an important energy source in many rural areas. How
has the hurricane affected Hattiesburg and propane supplies?
Answer. This question is outside the purview of the Department of
the Interior, and we defer to the expertise of the witnesses.
Question 2. I understand that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is predicting that, during the current hurricane season,
as many as nine hurricanes will hit the Gulf, including at least two
more hurricanes of a similar strength to Hurricane Katrina. What
additional steps can be taken if any to lessen the impact of future
natural disasters in the Gulf of Mexico area and to the refining
industry in the United States?
Answer. Following recent hurricanes such as Ivan and Andrew MMS has
conducted oceanographic, engineering and other studies reviewing
offshore infrastructure or environmental damage. Our Technology and
Research Program is used to assess and understand the areas of our
regulatory program that could be improved. The results of these studies
are incorporated into the MMS offshore program. Changes may include
structure or facility engineering specifications, response or
regulatory changes. MMS will conduct additional reviews and studies
focusing on the damage and response after both Katrina and Rita.
Internally, MMS has a continuity of operations plan (COOP) that we
practice each year where Gulf of Mexico operations are moved to
Houston. The COOP team occupied the emergency quarters prior to
Hurricane Katrina entering the oil and gas areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
The COOP was moved briefly to Herndon, VA during Hurricane Rita but has
since moved back to Houston. This plan will be reviewed to assess if
modifications are needed for longer-term disaster response and to
identify any lessons learned.
Question 3. Hurricane Katrina has underscored the concentration of
U.S. petroleum production, refining and energy infrastructure in the
Gulf of Mexico region. In recent correspondence with the President, I
have mentioned the need to bring together the necessary stakeholders to
focus on ways to facilitate a more robust and distributed
infrastructure for refining petroleum products in the U.S. Would you
and your respective stakeholder organization, be willing to take part
in such a discussion? How would you see this proceeding?
Answer. The Department of the Interior would be pleased to
participate in any effort to work with the energy industry sector to
find ways to improve and enhance the distribution infrastructure
necessary to move OCS production to market centers and refining
facilities.
Response of Rebecca Watson to Question From Senator Corzine
Question 1. We've already heard Members of Congress exploiting the
tragic events of last week and its effect on our oil production and
refining capacity by calling for drilling for more oil in both the
Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR. In 2000, the MMS estimated that there
were only 196 million barrels of oil off the coast of the Mid Atlantic
region, only enough to last the country ten days. Considering the
minimal benefit and significant downside of drilling off of areas such
as the coast of New Jersey, is it worth threatening over 800,000 New
Jersey jobs that are dependent on the Jersey Shore economy by opening
up the coast to potential oil spills and other environmental impacts.
Wouldn't it be more prudent for Congress to look for ways to reduce our
dependence on oil and diversify our energy sources?
Answer. The fact that America faces an energy challenge is exactly
why the President developed the National Energy Policy report and
worked with Congress to enact The Energy Policy Act of 2005. Together,
these two initiatives provide a balanced, comprehensive energy program.
Energy use sustains our economy and our quality of life, but a
fundamental imbalance exists between our energy consumption and
domestic energy production. We must look at ways to narrow the gap
between the amount of energy we use and the amount we produce. There is
no one single solution. Achieving the goal of secure, affordable and
environmentally sound energy will require diligent, concerted efforts
on many fronts on both the supply and demand sides of the energy
equation.
President Bush's National Energy Policy report laid out a
comprehensive, long-term energy strategy for securing America's energy
future. That strategy recognized that to reduce our rising dependence
on imported oil and gas, we must also increase domestic production. The
President proposes to open a small portion of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to environmentally responsible oil and gas
exploration using newly available, environmentally friendly technology.
ANWR is by far the largest untapped source of domestic petroleum and
would equal nearly 60 years of imports from Iraq.
Presidential withdrawals or congressional moratoria have placed
more than 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the lower
48 states off limits to energy development. The Federal OCS is a major
supplier of oil and natural gas for the domestic market, contributing
more oil and natural gas for U.S. consumption than any single state or
country in the world, accounting for about 30 percent of the Nation's
domestic oil production and 21 percent of our domestic natural gas
production. The OCS contains billions of barrels of oil and trillions
of cubic feet of natural gas that can be safely produced.
The Federal offshore oil and gas program has an excellent
environmental record. Of the approximately 8.7 billion barrels of oil
which have been produced from the OCS since 1985, only 73,400 barrels
of all liquids (which includes condensates, oil and diesel) connected
with offshore operations have been released into the marine environment
less than .001% of produced liquids. According to the National Academy
of Sciences, more than 150 times the amount of oil seeps into U.S.
waters from natural cracks in the sea bed than from offshore platforms.
With our reliance on imports of foreign oil climbing each year, we
would be irresponsible if we did not consider how we might develop
these abundant domestic resources. The Department's Minerals Management
Service announced in late August that it is seeking initial public
comment on the development of its 2007-2012 five-year leasing plan for
energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and
accompanying environmental impact statement.
Most media coverage of the President's National Energy Policy and
the recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005 focused on the parts
dealing with production of traditional energy. However, both call for
increased energy conservation and alternative and renewable sources as
critical components to a balanced energy program. Good stewardship of
resources dictates that we use energy efficiently and conserve
resources. Thus, fossil fuel development is only a part of the solution
to our Nation's energy issues. Americans have already made great
strides in using energy more efficiently. Since 1973, the United States
economy has grown nearly three times faster than energy use, in part
due to more efficient use of energy. Efforts over the past 20 years
have proven that simple conservation actions by individuals and small
business can yield impressive results in demand reduction.
Alternative and renewable sources of energy can also play an
important role in helping meet our increased energy needs. To this end,
the President and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourage development
of a cleaner, more diverse portfolio of domestic energy supplies, and
include measures to aid in the development and expansion of renewable
energy technologies in use today, including geothermal, wind, solar,
and biomass, as well as continued research into using hydrogen as an
alternative energy carrier. Such diversity helps to ensure that
Americans will continue to have access to the energy they need.
Responses of Rebecca Watson to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. For the panel, here's something I don't understand but
would really like to know: where does the money go? Big Oil has been
making money hand over fist in the past year--billions upon billions of
dollars--and all of that extra profit is paid for by the consumers. All
of that profit makes me think that a good chunk of that price at the
pump must be some form of price gouging, even if it isn't being exacted
at the last step. So what I want to know is who buys the barrels of
oil, and where does the money from that purchase end up? Does Big Oil
buy their own product from their own subsidiaries, for pure profit? And
next, when I buy a gallon of gasoline at the pump, where does that
money go? It seems that Big Oil takes a cut every step along the way,
and by the time it gets to a citizen of Colorado filling up at the gas
station, that person's pocketbook is feeling the greed of the entire
system.
Answer. This question is outside the purview of the Department of
the Interior, and we defer to the expertise of the witnesses.
Question 2. How can the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump
go up 50 cents in one day? Isn't that the same gas in the station's
storage tank that was 50 cents cheaper yesterday? And if gas goes up
that fast why does it go down so slow, if it goes down at all? I am
hoping you can explain it to me and to the people of Colorado I
represent.
Answer. This question is outside the purview of the Department of
the Interior, and we defer to the expertise of the witnesses.
Question 3. Since last week we have seen wholesale gas prices surge
above $2.50 but they are now down to around $2. What I don't understand
is why the country saw stations raising their prices multiple times a
day and multiple times during the week, but with wholesale prices now
falling, there has not been a corresponding change in the price at the
pump. In other words, while there seems to be a rush to raise prices
under any excuse, is there no similar incentive to lower prices? Why
aren't prices going back down just as quickly?
Answer. This question is outside the purview of the Department of
the Interior, and we defer to the expertise of the witnesses.
______
Responses of James A. Overdahl to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Is the recent trend of high prices the result of more
speculation in oil markets?
Answer. I do not believe that oil prices are being driven by
speculation in the crude oil futures market. Moreover, I do not believe
that the level of speculative positions has increased, as a percentage
of all open positions, in the crude oil futures market, at least over
the past couple of years.
The CFTC's primary tool for monitoring the role of speculative
traders in the futures market is its Large Trader Reporting System.
There is no bright line for differentiating between speculative traders
and hedgers. As a rule of thumb, the CFTC uses the term ``speculator''
to describe traders who are classified as ``non-commercial,'' that is,
traders who do not have a commercial interest in the commodity upon
which the futures contract is written.
Since the beginning of 2003, non-commercial traders in the crude
oil futures market at the New York Mercantile Exchange have, in
aggregate, held nearly equally-sized positions on both the ``long''
side and the ``short'' side of the market. Currently, the long
positions of non-commercial traders account for approximately 13
percent of all open long futures positions, while short positions by
non-commercials account for approximately 14 percent of all open short
futures positions. The current numbers are nearly identical to the
average numbers compiled since the beginning of 2003. This balanced
holding of long and short positions is inconsistent with the notion
that the positions of non-commercial traders have driven crude oil
futures prices upward. In addition, approximately 16 percent of open
positions are held by non-commercial traders in ``spread'' positions,
that is, in offsetting positions across related contracts. These spread
positions are structured to speculate on relative price differences
(e.g., prices for October delivery vs. prices for November delivery),
and when structured as such, are unrelated to the overall level of
crude oil futures prices, and therefore cannot be responsible for
changes in the level of these prices. These spread trades play a vital
role in keeping prices of related markets (and prices of related
contracts within the same market complex) in proper alignment with one
another.
An analysis by the CFTC's Office of the Chief Economist shows that
in general, futures price changes are positively correlated with
changes in positions of non-commercial traders, meaning that prices
rise as they buy and fall as they sell. However, we also observe this
same correlation with commercial traders, that is, prices rise when
they buy and fall as they sell. Therefore, in determining whether non-
commercial traders cause futures prices to change, it is necessary to
understand the market interaction between non-commercial and commercial
traders. What we observe is that non-commercial traders respond to
position changes by commercial traders, that is, as commercial traders
alter their positions, non-commercial traders take the opposite side of
these positions in response. In other words, when a commercial trader
sells, it will often be a non-commercial trader who takes the other
side of the transaction, that is, is the buyer. And when a commercial
trader buys, it will often be a non-commercial trader who is the
seller. What we observe is consistent with the notion that non-
commercial traders respond to price changes and are not the cause of
price changes.
Finally, the futures market does not sit in isolation from other
markets. Futures markets and cash markets are highly integrated. If
trading in the futures market causes futures prices to differ from its
cost-of-carry relationship with the underlying cash market, the
resulting arbitrage opportunities will attract other traders whose
trades will drive futures and cash markets back into their proper
alignment. Indeed delivery of the cash commodity on futures contracts,
and the prospect of delivery, while infrequent, leads to a predictable
economic relationship between cash and futures prices.
Question 2. What are the futures prices saying about future prices
for crude oil, natural gas and gasoline?
Answer. As a general policy, the CFTC refrains from predicting
prices. However, prices from futures markets can be viewed as
reflecting the markets' expectation of future cash market prices. Based
on crude oil futures prices as of September 21, one can see that the
market expects crude oil prices to fall slightly on a year-over-year
basis over the next three years.
[Quoted in dollars per Barrel]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Futures Price
Delivery Date as of 9/21/
2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2006............................................. 66.66
January 2007............................................. 65.97
January 2008............................................. 63.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market expectations reflected in natural gas futures markets show
generally falling prices on a year-over-year basis. The table below
displays futures prices for January delivery in each of the next five
years:
[Quoted in dollars per mmBtu]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Futures Price
Delivery Date as of 9/21/
2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2006............................................. 13.812
January 2007............................................. 11.454
January 2008............................................. 10.217
January 2009............................................. 9.307
January 2010............................................. 8.582
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contracts for summer delivery are lower by approximately $2 to $3
from the January prices across years.
Although the unleaded gasoline futures market lists contracts for
12 consecutive months, it is only actively traded in the four nearest
months. The contract for October delivery is priced currently (as of
September 21, 2005) at $1.98 per gallon of wholesale unleaded New York
Harbor gasoline. The contracts for delivery in November, December, and
January are at $1.93, $1.88, and $1.86 respectively, reflecting the
markets' expectation that cash market wholesale gasoline prices will
fall slightly.
Futures market prices represent estimates of future cash market
prices but do not tell us anything about the range of possible
outcomes. Prices for options on futures contracts can reveal additional
information about the probability of future cash market prices falling
within specified price ranges.
Question 3. The chart you included in your written testimony shows
clearly how hedge funds significantly reduced their position following
the Hurricane. What factors do you think motivated that trend?
Answer. I do not know for sure what motivated managed money
traders, including hedge funds, to reduce their long positions in the
unleaded gasoline futures market following Hurricane Katrina. I have
heard anecdotally that some funds use volatility filters, in addition
to other information, to guide their participation in the market. If
volatility is too high, these funds will pull back their participation
in the market. Others have suggested that the sell-off was due to
profit taking following the run-up in prices preceding Hurricane
Katrina. Yet others have suggested that many speculators simply
underestimated the impact of Hurricane Katrina on prices and therefore
sold on the basis of incorrect expectations. All of these theories are
explored in a ``Heard On The Street'' column entitled ``Many
Speculators on High Oil Prices Bailed Too Soon,'' in the September 2nd
Wall Street Journal.
Question 4. What would happen to the level of price for oil and
natural gas if non-commercials were not allowed to participate in the
market?
Answer. It is difficult to say for certain what the effect would
be. The only thing we know for sure is that if non-commercials were not
allowed to participate in futures markets, hedges constructed with
futures contracts would be less efficient. In addition, the liquidity
provided by non-commercial traders would be absent from the market,
increasing trading costs faced by commercial traders remaining in the
market.
First, as a factual matter, in recent times non-commercial traders
as a group have had nearly equally balanced long and short positions in
both crude oil and natural gas futures markets. This means that their
presence is unlikely to have had any systematic affect on the direction
of the market. In fact, in both the crude oil and natural gas futures
markets, the most recent statistics from the CFTC's Commitments of
Traders report show that the net overall position of non-commercial
traders has been skewed slightly to the short side, meaning that if
anything, non-commercial traders are exerting downward pressure on
prices.
Second, prohibiting non-commercials from trading in futures markets
will necessarily reduce participation by commercial traders. This is
because commercial traders, who are attempting to use their futures
position to reduce risk, need to trade with someone, that is, a non-
commercial trader, who is willing to accept the risk the hedger is
trying to shed. If the non-commercial trader is absent from the market,
the commercial trader must either buy at a higher price, or sell at a
lower price, in order to induce other commercial traders, who are
themselves trying to shed the same risk, to trade. The bottom line is
that the cost of constructing hedges in the futures market for all
commercial traders will be higher, and many will simply refrain from
participating in the market. Assuming, prior to a prohibition, that
non-commercial traders and commercial traders are on opposite sides of
the market (which will often be the case), eliminating the price
influence of non-commercial traders will also eliminate the offsetting
influence of commercial traders. Therefore, attempting to influence the
futures price by prohibiting participation by non-commercial traders
may be self-defeating.
Third, as mentioned in response to a previous question, an analysis
by the CFTC's Office of the Chief Economist contains results consistent
with the notion that non-commercial traders in the crude oil futures
market and the natural gas futures market respond to price changes and
are not the cause of price changes.
Question 5. As an economist, how do you define price gouging?
Answer. ``Price gouging'' is not a formal term within the economics
profession. I would define the term as a sudden and unjustified
increase in the price of essential goods caused by an event that leaves
consumers with few choices and little bargaining power. The term
necessarily appeals to a notion of what is a ``just'' or ``fair''
price, as well a notion of which goods are considered ``essential.''
Such notions are generally outside of the scope of economic analysis.
Price gouging, as I understand the term, is primarily a retail concept
in cash markets outside of the CFTC's jurisdiction.
Within the markets under the jurisdiction of the CFTC, it is
difficult to conceive of how price gouging could occur because the
prices determined in these markets reflect information brought to the
market by thousands of sophisticated traders who vigorously compete
with one another to receive the best price they can when executing
orders, either for themselves, or on behalf of their customers.
Question 6. In your testimony, you state that non-commercials hold
25% of the long positions for unleaded gasoline futures. How much can
that 25% force an upward trend in the price of gasoline futures if they
all behaved as though they expected prices to increase?
Answer. Although it is true that non-commercial traders have held
approximately 25 percent of the long positions in unleaded gasoline
futures most recently (as of September 6, 2005), they also have held
approximately five percent of the short positions. In net, non-
commercial traders have been long most recently, and over the past
couple of years, within the unleaded gasoline futures market.
In general, futures price changes are positively correlated with
changes in positions of non-commercial traders, meaning that prices
rise as they buy and fall as they sell. However, we also observe this
same correlation with commercial traders. Therefore, in determining the
cause of futures prices changes, it is necessary to understand the
market interaction between non-commercial and commercial traders. What
we observe is that non-commercial traders respond to position changes
by commercial traders, that is, as commercial traders alter their
positions, non-commercial traders take the opposite side in response.
Therefore, the long positions we see held by non-commercial traders may
be a reflection of the desire by commercial traders to hold short
positions. What we observe is consistent with the notion that non-
commercial traders respond to price changes and are not the cause of
price changes.
Responses of James A. Overdahl to Questions From Senator Smith
Question 1. How much gasoline is now refined off-short and imported
as a finished product into the United States?
[No response received.]
Question 2. How many ports in the United States accept gasoline
imports? Which ports are they?
[No response received.]
Question 3. Which in the United States can handle oil supertankers?
[No response received.]
Question 4. What has happened in the last two weeks to the price
and availability of aviation fuel?
[No response received.]
Question 5. What are EIA's projections of the availability and
price of aviation fuel for the rest of the year?
[No response received.]
Question 6. About 55 percent of all Americans heat their homes with
natural gas. The Petroleum Industry Research Foundation projects that,
for these households, it will cost an extra $700 to heat their homes
this winter. Is this an assessment with which you agree?
[No response received.]
Responses of James A. Overdahl to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. Global spare production capacity has decreased
dramatically in the past decade and it appears it will decrease even
more with the continued growth of demand in China and the United
States, as well as the leveling of Russian oil production. This will
provide international suppliers with an even smaller ability to combat
supply disruptions. Do you think the international oil supply is secure
or is another price spike just around the corner?
[No response received.]
Question 2. I've heard stories in the news media that a significant
factor contributing to the current extraordinarily high oil prices is
bidding by speculators in the worldwide oil commodity futures markets.
Can you comment on the extent to which profit taking in the oil futures
market is influencing the price of crude and gasoline? Is this
phenomenon expected and how does it affect price spikes?
Answer. I do not believe that oil prices are being driven by
speculation in the crude oil futures market.
The CFTC's primary tool for monitoring large speculative futures
traders is the Large Trader Reporting System. There is no bright line
for differentiating between speculative traders and hedgers. As a rule
of thumb, the CFTC uses the term ``speculator'' to describe traders who
are classified as ``non-commercial.''
Since the beginning of 2003, non-commercial traders in the crude
oil futures market at the New York Mercantile Exchange have, in
aggregate, held nearly equally-sized positions on both the ``long''
side and the ``short'' side of the market. Currently, the long
positions of non-commercial traders account for approximately 13
percent of open futures positions, while short positions by non-
commercials account for approximately 14 percent of open interest. The
current numbers are nearly identical to the average numbers compiled
since the beginning of 2003. This balanced holding of long and short
positions is inconsistent with the notion that the positions of non-
commercial traders have driven crude oil futures prices upward. In
addition, approximately 16 percent of open positions are held by non-
commercial traders in ``spread'' positions, that is in offsetting
positions across related contracts. These spread positions are
structured to speculate on relative price differences (e.g., prices for
October delivery vs. November delivery), and when structured as such,
are unrelated to the overall level of crude oil futures prices.
In the unleaded gasoline futures market, non-commercial traders
have held approximately 25 percent of the long positions and five
percent of the short positions most recently. In net, non-commercial
traders have been long in this market most recently, and over the past
two years. Immediately following Hurricane Katrina, we observed non-
commercial traders reducing their long positions, that is, they were
selling, as gasoline futures prices were rising. Some of this selling
may have been the result of profit-taking by covering previously-
established long positions This observation is inconsistent with the
notion that non-commercial traders were causing futures prices to rise
after Hurricane Katrina.
In general, futures prices are positively correlated with changes
in positions of non-commercial traders, meaning that prices usually
rise as they buy and usually fall as they sell. However, we also
observe this same correlation with non-commercial traders. Therefore,
in gauging the cause of futures prices changes, it is necessary to
understand the market interaction between non-commercial and commercial
traders. What we observe is that non-commercial traders respond to
position changes by commercial traders, that is, as commercial traders
alter their positions, non-commercial traders take the opposite side in
response. Therefore, the long positions we see held by non-commercial
traders may be a reflection of the desire by commercial traders to hold
short positions. What we observe is consistent with the notion that
non-commercial traders respond to price changes and are not the cause
of price changes.
Non-commercial traders are an important source of liquidity in both
the crude oil and unleaded gasoline futures markets. In a liquid
market, prices are less likely to ``spike'' in response to one-sided
order flow arriving in the market. If anything, the presence of non-
commercial traders has contributed to fewer price spikes in the market.
Question 3. OPEC and other oil producing countries have expressed
the desire to keep oil prices well above prior target range. What
should we expect going forward as far as market-level crude oil prices?
[No response received.]
Question 4. As you know, the United States now imports over 60% of
its crude. A significant portion of these imports come from unstable
regions of the world. Yet we have vast untapped energy resources in the
United States. Can you please discuss what the federal government can
do to help to encourage the development of these secure, domestic
energy supplies?
[No response received.]
Question 5. In most areas of the world, including the oil-rich
Middle East, we are looking at diminishing excess supply capacity. Mr.
Dowd explained that other countries throughout the world are now
exploring smaller oil fields and recovering lower-grade crude. How do
our domestic oil sources compare in retrieval cost and quality?
[No response received.]
Responses of James A. Overdahl to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. For the panel, here's something I don't understand but
would really like to know: where does the money go? Big Oil has been
making money hand over fist in the past year--billions upon billions of
dollars--and all of that extra profit is paid for by the consumers. All
of that profit makes me think that there a good chunk of that price at
the pump must be some form of price gouging, even if it isn't being
exacted at the last step. So what I want to know is who buys the
barrels of oil, and where does the money from that purchase end up?
Does Big Oil buy their own product from their own subsidiaries, for
pure profit? And next, when I buy a gallon of gasoline at the pump,
where does that money go? It seems that Big Oil takes a cut every step
along the way, and by the time it gets to a citizen of Colorado filling
up at the gas station, that person's pocketbook is feeling the greed of
the entire system.
[No response received.]
Question 2. How can the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump
go up 50 cents in one day? Isn't that the same gas in the station's
storage tank that was 50 cents cheaper yesterday? And if gas goes up
that fast why does it go down so slow, if it goes down at all? I am
hoping you can explain it to me and to the people in Colorado I
represent.
[No response received.]
Question 3. Since last week we have seen wholesale gas prices surge
above $2.50 but they are now down to around $2. What I don't understand
is why the country saw stations raising their prices multiple times a
day and multiple times during the week, but with wholesale prices now
falling, there not been a corresponding change in the price at the
pump. In other words, while there seems to be a rush to raise prices
under any excuse, is there no similar incentive to lower prices? Why
aren't prices going back down just as quickly?
Answer. Several studies within the academic economics literature
suggest that prices rise rapidly when costs go up, but fall gradually
when costs fall. However, as has been noted in this literature, the
facts do not really support any particular explanation for this effect
which has been labeled as the ``rockets and feathers'' phenomenon. For
markets we do regulate, that is futures markets, prices do not seem to
follow this pattern.
______
Responses of Bob Slaughter to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Can you please give the Committee an update on the
current situation with respect to the refineries affected by Katrina?
How much capacity has been restored? Have your members made any
projections regarding restoration of fuel production at those
refineries remaining out of commission?
Answer. As of October 17, three refineries (a total of 554,000
barrels/day refining capacity) are still shut down from Hurricane
Katrina. ExxonMobil's Chalmette and Murphy Oil's Meraux refineries in
Louisiana have partial power. ConocoPhillips' Belle Chase refinery in
Louisiana has full power. These companies have not yet released
projected dates for full production.
Chevron's Pascagoula refinery in Mississippi (325,000 barrels/day
reining capacity), also shutdown by Hurricane Katrina, has recently
restarted and the estimated date for normal production is late October.
In addition, there are many refineries that were affected by
Hurricane Rita:
Port Arthur (TX)/Lake Charles (LA) area
Citgo in Lake Charles 324,300 b/d restarting
ConocoPhillips in West Lake (LA) 239,400 b/d restarting
Calcasieu in Lake Charles 30,000 b/d operating at full rate
ExxonMobil in Beaumont (TX) 348,500 b/d attempting to restart
Motiva in Port Arthur 285,000 b/d attempting to restart
Total Petrochemicals USA refinery in Port Arthur 233,500 b/d
restarting
Valero in Port Arthur 255,000 b/d restarting
Houston/Texas City area
Shell in Deer Park 333,700 b/d operating at full rate
Lyondell-Citgo in Houston 270,200 b/d reduced rates
Astra Oil/Pasadena Refining in Pasadena 100,000 b/d operating at
full rate
Valero in Houston 83,000 b/d reduced rates
ExxonMobil in Baytown 557,000 b/d operating at full rate
BP in Texas City 437,000 b/d expected restart late Oct./early Nov.
Valero in Texas City 209,950 b/d operating at full rate
Marathon in Texas City 72,000 b/d operating at full rate
ConocoPhillips in Sweeny 229,000 operating at full rate
Question 2. What impact do you believe that loans from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve will have on the nation's supplies of
gasoline and other critical fuels?
Answer. The release of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve (SPR) enabled several refineries that were otherwise unaffected
by the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to regain full productive
capacity in a relatively short time frame. Lacking access to the SPR
supply these refineries, representing approximately 17% of the nation's
supply of refined product capacity, most certainly would have been
forced to further limit or even completely shut down their operations.
This unpredictable event is precisely the type of situation that
requires the release of SPR supplies; it underscores the need for
judicious management of the SPR.
Question 3. Can you tell us how much finished product the refining
industry is bringing into the country now and, can imports of finished
products like gasoline and diesel help alleviate the current supply
situation?
Answer. On average, the imports of either finished refined products
or blending products used for refined products is 10% of the nation's
supplies. However, the Northeast U.S. receives the bulk of these
imported fuel products which account for over 20% of this region's
demand.
More specifically, the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
publishes data on imports of finished petroleum products on a weekly
basis. See Table 11 in EIA's Weekly Petroleum Status Report (http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/
weekly_petroleum_status_report/w psr.html). There is considerable
detail on Table 11. National data in summary form:
IMPORTS OF FINISHED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
[million b/d]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Week ending
---------------------------------------
8/19 8/26 9/02 9/09 9/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline
Reformulated................ 0.478 0.336 0.259 0.220
Conventional................ 0.269 0.314 0.273 0.297
Blending components......... 0.478 0.621 0.330 0.581
Jet fuel........................ 0.031 0.165 0.105 0.143
Distillate fuel oil
>15ppm S.................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
16-500 ppm S................ 0.066 0.129 0.113 0.099
501-2000 ppm S.............. 0.072 0.087 0.082 0.060
2000 ppm S.................. 0.091 0.098 0.085 0.017
Residual fuel oil............... 0.415 0.658 0.547 0.472
Propane/propylene............... 0.234 0.136 0.081 0.203
Other\1\........................ 1.329 1.117 1.029 1.381
---------------------------------------
Refined products................ 3.463 3.661 2.904 3.473
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes kerosene, unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum gases
(except propane/propylene), and other oils.
While imports can alleviate petroleum product supply disruptions,
they take a longer time to reach a U.S. port. Perhaps more importantly,
however, is the over-riding policy question of whether it is in the
nation's best interest for continued reliance on foreign supplies of
refined products to meet the current and projected demands of U.S.
consumers.
Question 4. Will temporary relaxation of federal fuel requirements,
such as sulfur content, help alleviate the situation?
Answer. Temporary relaxation of summer Reid vapor pressure (RVP)
regulations permits the early introduction of winter gasoline, which
would occur normally on September 16 in most areas of the country. Less
stringent RVP limitations in the winter increase gasoline production
because some gasoline components, such as butanes and pentanes which
raise RVP, can be used concern of additional impact on ozone formation.
It is estimated that the RVP waivers issued by EPA in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina increased overall gasoline supply by roughly 4%.
The temporary relaxation of sulfur regulations in highway diesel
fuel was instrumental production of additional diesel supplies for
highway vehicles. This higher sulfur diesel is normally used only in
off-road vehicles (e.g., road construction equipment, tractors). Aside
from the direct impact on refineries caused by Katrina, the main
facility providing hydrogen to many refineries in the area shut down
due to the storm. Hydrogen is a vital component used in the process for
removing sulfur from diesel fuel. Without the diesel sulfur waiver,
critical supplies of fuel would have been lost.
The Administration's swift and decisive actions concerning
emergency fuel waivers for certain gasoline and diesel fuel standards
are certainly appreciated and clearly helped alleviate potential supply
disruptions throughout the nation. The cooperative spirit and
information sharing between EPA and other agencies with the refining
and pipeline industries was instrumental in making the best of a
terrible situation.
Question 5. How do you justify the record level of the profits the
refining sector has experienced?
Answer. Despite recent profit data, the refining sector of the oil
and gas industry has not historically enjoyed generous returns on
investment. In the ten-year period 1993-2002, average return on
investment in the refining industry was only about 5.5%. This is less
than half of the S&P industrials average return of 12.7% for the same
period. Refining industry profits as a percentage of operating capital
are not excessive. In dollars, they seem large due to the massive scale
needed to compete in a large, capital-intensive industry. For example,
a new medium scale refinery (100,000 to 200,000 b/d) would cost $2 to
$3 billion. In short, company revenues can be in the billions, but so,
too are the costs of operations.
The Federal Trade Commission released a study in June 2005 that
made the following comments on industry profits: ``Profits play
necessary and important roles in a well-functioning market economy.
Recent oil company profits are high but have varied widely over time,
over industry segments and among firms . . . Profits also compensate
firms for taking risks, such as the risks in the oil industry that war
or terrorism may destroy crude production assets or, that new
environmental requirements may require substantial new refinery capital
investments.''
Many other industries enjoy higher earnings than the oil industry.
Among these are telecommunication services, software, semiconductors,
banking, pharmaceuticals, coal and real estate, to name just a few.
Imposition of a windfall profits tax on the industry would discourage
investment at a time when significant capital commitments to all parts
of the industry, including refining, will be needed.
Tight gasoline market conditions have often led to calls for
industry investigations. More than two dozen federal and state
investigations over the last several decades have found no evidence of
wrongdoing or illegal activity on our industry's part. For example,
after a 9-month FTC investigation into the causes of price spikes in
local markets in the Midwest during the spring and summer of 2000,
former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky stated, ``There were many causes
for the extraordinary price spikes in Midwest markets. Importantly,
there is no evidence that the price increases were a result of
conspiracy or any other antitrust violation. Indeed, most of the causes
were beyond the immediate control of the oil companies.''
Question 6. Two important facts stand out with respect to the
nation's refining capacity: First, 47% of the nation's refining
capacity is in the Gulf Coast Region. And, secondly, we have heard of
only one new refinery being developed since the mid-1970's--it is in
Yuma, Arizona. In your view, what additional steps, both direct and
indirect, can Congress take to facilitate the construction of new
refinery capacity? In addition, is it possible to secure greater
geographic diversity of refineries so that we do not have a repeat of
the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina?
Answer. It is true that 47% of the nation's refining capacity is
located in the Gulf Coast region. It is also true that crude oil and
natural gas production and processing are not only unwelcome in other
resource rich regions of the nation, current and long-lasting policy
prohibits their development. This attitude must change if the nation is
to increase its ability to produce domestic energy supplies. There is
no shortage of resources, only shortage of political will to amend
failed policies of the past. There is no need to pit environmental
protection or impact on tourism against energy development. They are
not mutually exclusive.
Focusing more specifically on refinery capacity, NPRA believe that
there exists a basic misconception that domestic refiners have not
increased capacity at their operations. On the contrary, capacity
increases over the past four years have netted an additional 520,000
barrels of crude input capacity. This is the equivalent of 2 new
refineries. Unfortunately, even these remarkable accomplishments have
not been able to keep up with continued domestic demand for both
gasoline and diesel fuels. It must also be kept in mind that these
capacity additions were accomplished at the same time when refiners
were faced with increasing regulatory compliance requirements from both
plant and fuel parameters.
New refineries have not been built in almost 30 years for many
reasons, including economic, public policy and political
considerations, such as siting costs, environmental requirements, a
history of low refining industry profitability, and, significantly,
``not in my backyard'' (NIMBY) public attitudes. It will be difficult
to change this situation.
There are, however, several steps and programs that Congress should
consider that may very well spur refinery capacity expansions. These
include:
Make increasing the nation's supply of oil, oil products and
natural gas a number one public policy priority. Now, and for
many years in the past, increasing oil and gas supply has often
been a number 2 priority. Thus, oil and gas supply concerns
have been secondary and subjugated to whatever policy goal was
more politically popular at the time. Enactment of the recent
Energy Bill is a first step to making a first priority the
supply of energy sources the nation depends upon.
Remove barriers to increased supplies of domestic oil and
gas resources. Recent criticism about the concentration of
America's energy infrastructure in the western Gulf is
misplaced. Refineries and other important onshore facilities
have been welcome in this area but not in many other parts of
the country. Policymakers have also restricted access to much-
needed offshore oil and natural gas supplies in the eastern
Gulf and off the shores of California and the East Coast. These
areas must follow the example of Louisiana and many other
states in sharing these energy resources with the rest of the
nation because they are sorely needed.
Resist tinkering with market forces when the supply/demand
balance is tight. Market interference that may initially be
politically popular results in market inefficiencies and
unnecessary costs. Policymakers must resist turning the clock
backwards to the failed policies of the past. Experience with
price constraints and allocation controls in the 1970s
demonstrates the failure of price regulation, which adversely
impacted both fuel supply and consumer cost.
Consider expanding the refining tax incentive provision in
the Energy Act. Reducing the depreciation period for refining
investments from ten to seven or five years would remove a
current disincentive for refining investment. Changes could
allow expensing under the current language to take place as the
investment is made rather than when the equipment is actually
placed in service, or the percentage expensed could be
increased as per the original legislation introduced by Senator
Hatch.
In addition, NPRA urges Congress to keep a close eye on several
upcoming regulatory programs that could have significant impacts on
gasoline and diesel supply. They are:
Implementation of the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS standard.
Design and implementation of the credit trading program for
the ethanol mandate (RFS) contained in the recent Energy Act
Implementation of the ultra low sulfur diesel highway diesel
regulation.
Phase II of the MSAT (mobile source air toxics) rule for
gasoline.
Further and expanding on several of the above mentioned items, the
National Petroleum Council (NPC) released a study last December,
``Observations on Petroleum Product Supply.'' The NPC review of
refining and inventory issues presents observations on petroleum
product supply and a response to the Secretary's request for advice on
both refining and inventory issues. It is intended to update the 1998
and 2000 NPC reports on these subjects. The report provides insights on
petroleum market dynamics, as well as advice on actions that can be
taken by industry and government to ensure adequate and reliable
supplies of petroleum products to meet the energy and environmental
requirements of American consumers. The report recommends actions that,
if implemented, would:
help avoid policies that hinder refining capacity
expansions;
improve the environment for investment in domestic refining
and logistics capability; and
allow the current supply system to continue to operate
efficiently.
More specifically, the NPC study focused on precise topics of
immediate impact and concern to the refining industry and recommended
appropriate actions that should be taken to ameliorate current and
potential problems. These recommendations represent appropriate
Congressional action. These topics and associated recommendations
include:
New Source Review
``Immediate implementation of comprehensive NSR reform is a very
important policy step needed to improve the climate for investment in
domestic refinery expansion. The NSR reforms promulgated by the
Administration, including the Equipment Replacement Rule currently
under judicial review, should be implemented as soon as possible.
Attempts to delay or overturn the reforms should be vigorously opposed.
Additional NSR reform proposals regarding debottlenecking and product
aggregation should be issued and finalized.''
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
``The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should revise the
NAAQS compliance deadlines and procedures to take full advantage of
emissions reduction benefits from current regulatory programs such as
cleaner fuels/engines and reduction of regional emissions transport. As
currently structured, attainment deadlines precede the benefits that
will be achieved from emissions reductions already planned . . . The
current deadlines could result in:
Requirements for additional emissions offsets for any
refinery modifications, reducing the economic attractiveness of
investment in refinery capacity expansion
Additional investment in stationary controls at refineries,
reducing the overall profitability and viability of domestic
refining versus imports
Additional requirements for boutique fuels . . .''
Implementation of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) Regulations
``. . . there are concerns about meeting Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel
(ULSD) demand during the transition to the 15 ppm maximum sulfur
specification beginning in mid-2006 . . .
To reduce the potential for supply disruption, EPA should work with
the Department of Energy (DOE) and the various fuels supply industries
to consider emerging information about the behavior of ULSD moving
through the entire distribution system and to consider how to achieve
the goals of the program while recognizing distribution system
realities. EPA's current testing tolerance for ULSD should be adjusted
to reflect the reproducibility of the tests that will be available for
regulatory compliance; otherwise, enforcement actions based on testing
inaccuracy may result in disruption to the supply system.''
Sound Science, Cost Effectiveness, and Energy Analysis
``The 2000 NPC refining report recommended that: `Regulations
should be based on sound science and thorough analysis of cost
effectiveness.'
Executive Order 13211, signed by President Bush in 2001, requires
agencies to prepare a `Statement of Energy Effects' including impacts
on energy supply, distribution and use, when undertaking regulatory
actions. The NPC recommends that Executive Order 13211 be made law and
strictly enforced. The NPC is not suggesting elimination or rollback of
environmental requirements, but rather that the cost analysis of
proposed regulations should include a thorough analysis of energy
supply effects from production to end-use. Examples of regulations that
the NPC does not believe reflect a thorough analysis of the energy
supply effects include ULSD and NAAQS regulations. As a result,
implementation of these regulations may impose unintended costs without
commensurate benefit . . . .''
Permitting
``Streamlining the permitting process would help improve the
environment for domestic refining capacity investment.''
Alternative Fuels
``Mandates or subsidies for alternative fuels increase uncertainty
and reduce the incentive for investment in additional domestic
petroleum refining capacity. Therefore, these mandates and subsidies
may not reduce petroleum product imports as intended and could increase
the cost to consumers.''
Responses of Bob Slaughter to Questions From Senator Talent
Question 1. What level of refinery operation could be supported by
current crude oil supply and demand?
Answer. It is difficult to answer this question with precision
without reference to the fact that the market dictates what level of
refining operations is supported by current supply and demand. Of
course, in addition to the historically problematic returns on
investment in the refining sector, there are non-market complications
that constrain investments in refining. These include multiple layers
of regulatory standards, fuel mandates, failure to create an
appropriate risk environment by addressing liability concerns arising
out of those mandates, and community opposition to construction and
expansion.
Question 2. How long does it take for a refiner to recover its
capital investment for a new or expanded refinery? Are any analysts
predicting a decline in U.S. gasoline consumption over that time
period?
Answer. The answer to this question will vary, depending on the
return on investment for refining as a whole. Despite recent profit
data, the refining sector of the oil and gas industry has not
historically enjoyed generous returns on investment. In the ten-year
period 1993-2002, average return on investment in the refining industry
was only about 5.5%. This is less than half of the S&P industrials
average return of 12.7% for the same period. Refining industry profits
as a percentage of operating capital are not excessive. In dollars,
they seem large due to the massive scale needed to compete in a large,
capital-intensive industry. For example, a new medium scale refinery
(100,000 to 200,000 b/d) would cost $2 to $3 billion. In short, company
revenues can be in the billions, but so, too are the costs of
operations. The Federal Trade Commission recently found that these
highly variable returns on investment have hampered new capital
investment in the sector.
Question 3. Is there sufficient competition for refining crude oil
into finished products like gasoline?
Answer. Today's U.S. refining industry is highly competitive. Some
suggest past mergers are responsible for higher prices. The data do not
support such claims. In fact, companies have become more efficient and
continue to compete fiercely. There are 54 refining companies in the
U.S., hundreds of wholesale and marketing companies, and more than
165,000 retail outlets. The biggest refiner accounts for only about 13%
of the nation's total refining capacity; and the large integrated
companies own and operate only about 10% of the retail outlets. The
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) thoroughly evaluates every merger
proposal, holds industry mergers to the highest standards of review,
and subjects normal industry operations to a higher level of ongoing
scrutiny.
In 2004 the FTC published an FTC Staff Study ``The Petroleum
Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust Enforcement.''
Among the points made in that publication was the following: ``. . .
mergers have contributed to the restructuring of the petroleum industry
in the past two decades but have had only a limited impact on industry
concentration. The FTC has investigated all major petroleum mergers and
required relief when it had reason to believe that a merger was likely
to lead to competitive harm . . .''
According to data compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce and
by Public Citizen, in 2003 the four largest U.S. refining companies
controlled a little more than 40% of the nation's refining capacity. In
contrast, the top four companies in the auto manufacturing, brewing,
tobacco, floor coverings and breakfast cereals industries controlled
between 80% and 90% of the market. Further, several mergers in the
refining industry have actively maintained or even increased refining
capacity when, without such consolidation, the individual refineries
involved might not have been economically viable. One such example
involves over 550,000 barrels/day of capacity. Also, Valero Energy
Corporation has increased the productive capacity of the refineries it
has acquired by an aggregate of nearly 400,000 barrels per day over the
past several years.
Question 4. According to Fortune magazine, in 2004 when oil prices
were a lot lower than they are now, the average return for both
independent refiners and integrated majors was 23.9 percent and it is
higher this year. Over the past decade, according to Fortune, the
return on equity in the sector has averaged 16 percent. However, the
American Petroleum Institute claims these returns are as low as 6
percent. Can you explain this vast difference? For refineries owned by
oil producing companies, is this an issue of how they assign profits
between production and refining?
Answer. As noted above, when viewed over a decade or so, average
return on investment in the refining industry was only about 5.5%, less
than half of the S&P industrials average return of 12.7% for the same
period. However, the Federal Trade Commission released a study in June
2005 that made the following comments on industry profits: ``Profits
play necessary and important roles in a well-functioning market
economy. Recent oil company profits are high but have varied widely
over time, over industry segments and among firms . . . Profits also
compensate firms for taking risks, such as the risks in the oil
industry that war or terrorism may destroy crude production assets or,
that new environmental requirements may require substantial new
refinery capital investments.''
Many other industries enjoy higher earnings than the oil industry.
Among these are telecommunication services, software, semiconductors,
banking, pharmaceuticals, coal and real estate, to name just a few.
Imposition of a windfall profits tax on the industry would discourage
investment at a time when significant capital commitments to all parts
of the industry, including refining, will be needed.
Question 5. What are the factors in preventing refinery investment?
To the extent environmental and siting issues are among these, explain
the importance to investors of streamlining the applicable
environmental requirements and ensuring regulatory certainty, i.e.,
locking in requirements prior to start of refinery construction.
Answer. The decision to invest in new refinery construction is
constrained by three factors: poor historical economics; a changing but
pervasive landscape of environmental rules; and community opposition.
While new refinery construction has not occurred, refiners have made
and will continue to make significant investments in expanding capacity
at existing refineries. All refineries engage in maintenance and
debottlenecking projects that maintain or expand capacity. One NPRA
member, Valero, recently announced its capital expenditure plans. The
result from the program will be to add 105,000 barrels per day of
capacity in 2006, and another 66,000 barrels per day in 2007. At one
refinery in Detroit, Marathon Ashland Petroleum announced an expansion
of about 26,000 barrels a day.
In addition to expansion of capacity, several Gulf Coast refiners
have made investments to enhance the ability of their refineries to
handle less expensive, high-sulfur (or ``sour'') crudes. These
investments expand the total pool of crude input available to refiners
and, according to the Federal Trade Commission, the crude input
represents some 85 percent of the cost of the refined product excluding
taxes.
While it is tempting to view recent refining margins as indicative
of trend favorable to refinery investment, the truth is that allocation
of capital is based upon the historic performance of the sector. As the
data cited above indicates, the average return on investment for
refining (1993-2002) is about 5.5 percent. After a recent economic
assessment of the refining sector, Oklahoma Secretary of Energy David
Fleischaker put it simply, ``People aren't going to invest in a 5 to 7
percent rate of return when money costs you 8 percent . . .
Unfortunately, bankers aren't looking for welcome mats. They're looking
for high rates of return.''
While NPRA does not represent exploration and production interests,
it goes without saying that a macroeconomic examination of much of the
oil and gas sector will show that the industry is making large
investments in these activities. Exploration and production can be
highly risky investments--one field off-shore Angola alone has cost $7
billion to develop--and such investments can be decimated by political
instability, terrorism, and the like.
The changing environmental landscape affects the economics of the
refining sector in two ways: by making changes in the products we
produce, and by limiting changes we can make in our actual operations.
Refiners currently face the massive task of complying with fourteen new
environmental regulatory programs with significant investment
requirements, all in the same 2006--2012 timeframe. In addition, many
programs start soon. For the most part, these regulations are required
by the Clean Air Act. Some will require additional emission reductions
at facilities and plants, while others will require further changes in
clean fuel specifications. NPRA estimates that refiners are in the
process of investing about $20 billion to sharply reduce the sulfur
content of gasoline and both highway and off-road diesel. Refiners will
face additional investment requirements to deal with limitations on
ether use, as well as compliance costs for controls on Mobile Source
Air Toxics and other limitations. These costs do not include the
significant additional investments needed to comply with stationary
source regulations that affect refineries.
Coming to grips with the newly enacted renewable fuels mandate and
the diminished role MTBE will play in the supply of clean octane
further exacerbates cost and supply concerns. Congress' failure to
adopt limit liability provisions in the last energy bill was another
missed opportunity to encourage investment in refining. As the Council
of Economic Advisors has found, ``tort liability raises the cost of
capital . . . and mobile capital will seek relatively higher return
elsewhere until rates of return are again equalized. The result is that
the capital stock in the United States may be smaller with high tort
costs than with low tort costs.''
Other potential environmental regulations on the horizon could
force additional large investment requirements. They are: the
challenges posed by increased ethanol use, possible additional changes
in diesel fuel content involving cetane, and potential proliferation of
new fuel specifications driven by the need for states to comply with
the new eight-hour ozone NAAQS standard. The 8-hour standard could also
result in more regulations affecting facilities such as refiners and
petrochemical plants. These are just some of the pending and potential
air quality challenges that the industry faces. Refineries are also
subject to extensive regulations under the Clean Water Act, Toxic
Substances Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Oil Pollution Act of
1990, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and other federal statutes.
The industry also complies with OSHA standards and many state statutes.
API estimates that, since 1993, about $89 billion (an average of $9
billion per year) has been spent by the oil and gas industry to protect
the environment. This amounts to $308 for each person in the United
States. More than half of the $89 billion was spent in the refining
sector.
As for limitations on actual operations, consider the effect of the
new source review, or NSR, program on refinery expansions. When the
last Administration abruptly changed its interpretation of the NSR
program, it became more difficult to undertake debottlenecking projects
that can have the effect of maintaining or growing capacity. This rule
change was made without notice-and-comment rulemaking. The result, of
course, is uncertainty and cost.
For a case study of how the Clean Air Act can complicate refinery
investments, the Arizona Clean Fuels (ACF) project is an example. ACF
is based in Phoenix, AZ, and intends to build a state of the art, $2.5
billion refinery that could provide significant product to the
Southwest and West Coast using crude input supplied by the Mexican
national oil company, PEMEX. Unfortunately, ACF has been trying to
obtain necessary permits to proceed for almost seven years.
A remaining impediment to the new refinery investment has been
community reaction, or the so-called not-in-my-back-yard syndrome. Some
critics who complain the loudest about industry investment practices
unfortunately also oppose the construction of new facilities in new
communities. Indeed, when the media began to question why so much
refining capacity is concentrated on the Gulf Coast, the answers
includes access to infrastructure and supply, but also community
acceptance of the refining industry. To say the least, this acceptance
is not typical of many other regions of the country where product
demand is quite high.
Responses of Bob Slaughter to Questions From Senator Bunning
Question 1. The recently passed Energy Bill included an important
tax provision that will allow 50% expensing of investment that expands
a refinery's capacity by more than 5%. Do you think this is enough to
stimulate growth or are additional incentives needed?
Answer. The decision to invest in new refining capacity or in
expansion of existing capacity is complicated by three factors--low
historic rates of return on investment; significant regulatory hurdles
(including complex environmental regulations); and local opposition to
refinery construction. The tax treatment of refining investments
complicates these factors. NPRA appreciates a provision in the recently
enacted energy legislation that will help encourage additional refining
investment. This provision allows 50% expensing of the costs associated
with expanding a refinery's output by more than 5%. The refiner must
have a signed contract for the work by 1/1/08, and the equipment must
be put in service by 1/1/12. This provision is a good first step, but
NPRA also supports reduction of the current 10 year depreciation period
for refining investments to five years.
Question 2. As you may know, Kentucky has an abundance of coal.
Among other things, this supply of coal allows Kentucky to offer its
citizens and industries some of the lowest utility rates in the
country. I am deeply concerned that the increasing cost of oil will
increase the cost of producing and transporting Kentucky coal. Do you
have any additional information on how the price of gasoline will
affect the cost of other energy sources such as Kentucky coal?
Answer. While NPRA does not possess specific knowledge of
particular impacts transportation fuel prices might have on the
economics of Kentucky coal, we understand your concern. As we
understand it, the cost associated with shipping coal can cost as much
or more than the cost of mining it. The Energy Information
Administration notes that almost 60 percent of coal in the U.S. is
transported, for at least part of its trip to market, by train. While
barge traffic may be preferable from an economic perspective, barges
simply cannot take coal everywhere that it needs to go. While we are by
no means experts on rail transportation, shippers typically pay a
destination charge that is based on the distance traveled. Similar to
renting a passenger car, the shipper may pay a daily rate just to get
use of the car, then pay for the fuel depending on how far it is
driven. As a result, increases in price or scarcity of diesel fuel can
have a significant impact on the cost of getting coal to market.
NPRA is sensitive to the issue of diesel fuel economics. NPRA has
called upon EPA to ensure that its non-road, locomotive and marine
(NRLM) diesel fuel sulfur reductions are undertaken with maximum
flexibility. Market economics ensure that, in the long run, supply will
match demand. However, when new regulatory fuels requirements are
implemented, short-term supply disruptions have typically occurred. Two
earlier diesel programs are examples: implementation of the EPA highway
diesel requirement for maximum 500 ppm sulfur (low sulfur diesel, LSD)
in 1993 led to supply disruptions for several months and the CARB
diesel program led to supply disruptions that lasted for more than a
year.
Specifically, NPRA recommends cautious implementation of the ultra
low sulfur diesel highway diesel regulation. The refining industry has
made large investments to meet the severe reductions in diesel sulfur
that take effect next June. We remain concerned about the distribution
system's ability to deliver this material at the required 15 ppm level
at retail. If not resolved, these problems could affect America's
critical diesel supply. Industry is working with EPA on this issue, but
time left to solve this problem is growing short.
Question 3. The number of domestic refineries has decreased by more
than 50% in the last 30 years, and the real-volume capacity of the
domestic refinery network has decreased 10% in that same time period.
What factors do you believe have suppressed U.S. refining capacity?
Answer. The decision to invest in new refinery construction is
constrained by three factors: poor historical economics; a changing
landscape of environmental rules; and community opposition. But while
new refinery construction has not occurred, refiners have made and will
continue to make significant investments in expanding capacity at
existing refineries. All refineries engage in maintenance and
debottlenecking projects that maintain or expand capacity. One NPRA
member, Valero, recently announced its capital expenditures plans. The
result of the program will be to add 105,000 barrels per day of
capacity in 2006, and another 66,000 barrels per day in 2007. At one
refinery in Detroit, Marathon Ashland Petroleum announced an expansion
of about 26,000 barrels a day.
In addition to expansion of capacity, several Gulf Coast refiners
have made investments to enhance the ability of their refineries to
handle less expensive, high-sulfur (or ``sour'') crudes. These
investments expand the total pool of crude input available to refiners
and, according to the Federal Trade Commission, the crude input
represents some 85 percent of the cost of the refined product,
excluding taxes.
While it is tempting to view recent refining margins as indicative
of a trend favorable to refinery investment, the truth is that
allocation of capital is based upon the historic performance of the
sector. As the data cited above indicates, the average return on
investment for refining (1993-2002) is about 5.5 percent. After a
recent economic assessment of the refining sector, Oklahoma Secretary
of Energy David Fleischaker put it simply, ``People aren't going to
invest in a 5 to 7 percent rate of return when money costs you 8
percent . . . Unfortunately, bankers aren't looking for welcome mats.
They're looking for high rates of return.''
While NPRA does not represent exploration and production interests,
it goes without saying that a macroeconomic examination of much of the
oil and gas sector will show that the industry is making large
investments in these activities. Exploration and production can be
highly risky investments--one field off-shore Angola alone has cost $7
billion to develop--and such investments can be decimated by political
instability, terrorism, and the like.
The changing environmental landscape affects the economics of the
refining sector in two ways: by making changes in the products we
produce, and by limiting changes we can make in our actual operations.
Refiners currently face the massive task of complying with fourteen new
environmental regulatory programs with significant investment
requirements, all in the same 2006--2012 timeframe. In addition, many
programs start soon. For the most part, these regulations are required
by the Clean Air Act. Some will require additional emission reductions
at facilities and plants, while others will require further changes in
clean fuel specifications. NPRA estimates that refiners are in the
process of investing about $20 billion to sharply reduce the sulfur
content of gasoline and both highway and off-road diesel. Refiners will
face additional investment requirements to deal with limitations on
ether use, as well as compliance costs for controls on Mobile Source
Air Toxics and other limitations. These costs do not include the
significant additional investments needed to comply with stationary
source regulations that affect refineries.
Coming to grips with the newly enacted renewable fuels mandate and
the diminished role MTBE will play in the supply of clean octane
further exacerbates cost and supply concerns. Congress' failure to
adopt limit liability provisions in the last energy bill was another
missed opportunity to encourage investment in refining. As the Council
of Economic Advisors has found, ``tort liability raises the cost of
capital . . . and mobile capital will seek relatively higher return
elsewhere until rates of return are again equalized. The result is that
the capital stock in the United States may be smaller with high tort
costs than with low tort costs.''
Other potential environmental regulations on the horizon could
force additional large investment requirements. They are: the
challenges posed by increased ethanol use, possible additional changes
in diesel fuel content involving cetane, and potential proliferation of
new fuel specifications driven by the need for states to comply with
the new eight-hour ozone NAAQS standard. The 8-hour standard could also
result in more regulations affecting facilities such as refiners and
petrochemical plants. These are just some of the pending and potential
air quality challenges that the industry faces. Refineries are also
subject to extensive regulations under the Clean Water Act, Toxic
Substances Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Oil Pollution Act of
1990, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and other federal statutes.
The industry also complies with OSHA standards and many state statutes.
API estimates that, since 1993, about $89 billion (an average of $9
billion per year) has been spent by the oil and gas industry to protect
the environment. This amounts to $308 for each person in the United
States. More than half of the $89 billion was spent in the refining
sector.
As for limitations on actual operations, consider the effect of the
new source review, or NSR, program on refinery expansions. When the
last Administration abruptly changed its interpretation of the NSR
program, it became more difficult to undertake debottlenecking projects
that can have the effect of maintaining or growing capacity. This
change was made without notice-and-comment rulemaking. The result, of
course, was uncertainty and increased cost.
For a case study of how the Clean Air Act can complicate refinery
investments, the Arizona Clean Fuels (ACF) project is an example. ACF
is based in Phoenix, AZ, and intends to build a state of the art, $2.5
billion refinery that could provide significant product to the
Southwest and West Coast using crude input supplied by the Mexican
national oil company, PEMEX. Unfortunately, ACF has been trying to
obtain the necessary permits to proceed for almost seven years.
A last impediment to the new refinery investment has been community
reaction, or the so-called not-in-my-back-yard syndrome. Some critics
that complain the loudest about industry investment practices
unfortunately also oppose the construction of new facilities in new
communities. Indeed, when the media began to question why so much
refining capacity is concentrated on the Gulf Coast, the answers
includes access to infrastructure and supply, but also community
acceptability of the refining industry. To say the least, this
acceptability is not typical of many other regions of the country where
product demand is quite high.
Question 4. The cost of gasoline is largely determined before in
reaches the pump. The cost of crude oil and federal and states taxes
make up 74 to 79% of the retail price of gas. Could you describe how
the remaining 20 to 25% is determined and what profit each part of the
supply chain receives?
Answer. The overwhelming factor affecting gasoline and distillate
prices is the supply and price of crude oil. In June of this year the
U.S. Federal Trade Commission released a landmark study titled:
``Gasoline Price Changes: The Dynamic of Supply, Demand and
Competition.'' To quote from the FTC's findings: ``Worldwide supply,
demand, and competition for crude oil are the most important factors in
the national average price of gasoline in the U.S.'' and ``The world
price of crude oil is the most important factor in the price of
gasoline. Over the last 20 years, changes in crude oil prices have
explained 85 percent of the changes in the price of gasoline in the
U.S.''
Crude prices have been steadily increasing since 2004, largely
because of surprising levels of growth in oil demand in countries such
as China and India, and in the United States as well. Actual demand
growth for oil and oil products in these countries in 2004 exceeded the
experts' predictions and has remained strong this year. As a result,
world demand for crude is bumping up against the worldwide ability to
produce crude.
Strong demand for crude has dissipated the cushion of excess
available worldwide oil supply, just as strong U.S. demand for refined
products has eliminated excess refining capacity in the United States.
The good news is that producing countries will probably be able to add
crude production capacity in the years to come. The bad news is that
the United States has thus far shown only limited willingness to
confront its own energy supply problems.
Gasoline costs closely track the cost of crude oil. Before
hurricane Katrina, gasoline price increases lagged crude oil price
increases on a gallon for gallon basis. This means that refiners did
not pass through all of the increased costs in their raw material,
crude oil. Crude oil accounts for 55-60% of the price of gasoline seen
at the service station. The cost of federal and state taxes adds
another 19% to the cost of a finished gallon of gasoline. Therefore
under current conditions, 74-79% of the total cost of a gallon of
gasoline is pre-determined before the crude is delivered to the refiner
for manufacture into gasoline.
Another contributor to gasoline costs is tightness in our nation's
gasoline markets. While U.S. refiners are producing huge volumes of
products, continued strong demand has tightened supply. Gasoline demand
currently averages approximately 9 million barrels per day. Domestic
refineries produce about 90 percent of U.S. gasoline supply, while
about 10 percent is imported. These imports make up over 20% of the
refined product demand of the Northeast U.S. Thus, steadily increasing
demand can only be met either by adding new domestic refinery capacity
or by relying on more foreign gasoline imports. Unfortunately, the need
to add more domestic gasoline production capacity--the option NPRA
believes to be the prudent choice--is often thwarted by other public
priorities.
Question 5. As the price of oil skyrockets, alternative fuels will
become more price competitive. What segments of the energy market will
see growth in investment because of higher oil and gas prices? What
impact will this have on the domestic energy market?
Answer. There is no doubt that relatively high prices for
transportation fuels such gasoline and diesel stimulate the development
of alternatives as well as conservation strategies. Recent legislation
introduced in the Senate (S. 1772) seeks to create a favorable
environment for certain ``future fuels.'' Legislation recently passed
on the House floor (H.R. 3893) encourages demand side strategies like
carpooling and vanpooling. Proposals like these should be carefully
considered.
Frequently-discussed alternative transportation fuels include those
based on hydrogen. However, one of the major issues in meeting Ultra
Low Sulfur (ULS) targets is the availability and effective use of
hydrogen. The availability and cost of hydrogen has been and will
increasingly become a challenge to refiners making these clean fuels.
More stringent gasoline and diesel specifications increase the demand
for hydrogen while they constrain the hydrogen production of catalytic
reformers.
Of course, recently adopted energy legislation contains a renewable
fuels mandate. NPRA is not opposed to the use of ethanol as a fuel
additive--in fact, many of its members produce ethanol-blended fuel for
the market. However, NPRA has always maintained that national ethanol
mandates jeopardize fuel supplies and hurt consumers, while not
enhancing the nation's energy independence. Now that such a mandate has
been adopted, the federal government must do all it can to implement
the program in a cost-effective manner sensitive to supply and demand
realities. The government should encourage access to alternative
sources of ethanol supply, including imports or cellulosic production,
in order to augment traditional starch-based ethanol production.
In addition, EPA must exercise care in the design and
implementation of the credit trading program for the ethanol mandate.
This mechanism is vital to increase the chance that this program can be
implemented next year without additional gasoline supply disruption.
Additional resources are needed within EPA to accomplish this key task.
Many alternative transportation fuels also rely on petrochemical
production. In light of this, NPRA is also extremely concerned about
the current natural gas supply situation. We must implement policy
changes to encourage increased natural gas supplies for use by U.S.
consumers. NPRA favors policies that will encourage increased natural
gas production from domestic sources, both onshore and offshore. U.S.
petrochemical producers rely on an adequate supply of natural gas and
gas liquids at reasonably predictable prices to maintain their
competitive position in a difficult global market.
Question 6. Global spare production capacity has decreased
dramatically in the past decade and it appears it will decrease even
more. This will provide international suppliers with an even smaller
ability to combat supply disruptions. Do you think the International
oil supply is secure or is another price spike around the corner?
Answer. NPRA shares the concern of many policy makers and academic
experts that crude oil supply presents a major challenge. Given that
the FTC has demonstrated that as much as 85%, excluding taxes, of the
cost of refined product is determined by the underlying cost of crude
input, securing sufficient supply is very important to NPRA and its
members. NPRA believes increasing the nation's supply of oil, oil
products and natural gas should be a number one public policy priority.
Now, and for many years in the past, increasing oil and gas supply has
often been a lower priority. Thus, oil and gas supply concerns have
been secondary and subjugated to whatever policy goal was more
politically popular at the time. Enactment of the recent Energy Bill is
a first step to making the supply of energy sources the nation depends
upon a first priority.
Congress should further act to remove barriers to increased
supplies of domestic oil and gas resources. Recent criticism about the
concentration of America's energy infrastructure in the western Gulf is
misplaced. Refineries and other important onshore facilities have been
welcome in this area but not in many other parts of the country.
Policymakers have also restricted access to much-needed offshore oil
and natural gas supplies in the eastern Gulf and off the shores of
California and the East Coast. These areas must follow the example of
Louisiana and many other states in sharing these energy resources with
the rest of the nation because they are sorely needed.
Responses of Bob Slaughter to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Measures such as the institution of a windfall profits
tax on energy producing companies, a Federal gasoline excise tax
holiday, and/or a price caps on wholesale and or retail gasoline prices
have been put forth as possible solutions to the problem at hand. Would
these measures have the intended outcome of bringing down gasoline
prices?
Answer. The U.S. had a ``windfall profit tax'' on crude oil from
1980 until 1988. That tax, which was actually an ad valorem tax imposed
on crude oil, discouraged crude oil production in the United States and
resulted in other market distortions. It was repealed in 1988.
Current suggestions for re-imposition of a windfall profits tax on
refiners reflect a misunderstanding of refining industry economics. In
the ten-year period 1993-2002, average return on investment in the
refining industry was only about 5.5%. This is less than half of the
S&P industrials average return of 12.7% for the same period. Refining
industry profits as a percentage of operating capital are not
excessive. In dollars, they seem large due to the massive scale needed
to compete in a large, capital-intensive industry. For example, a new
medium scale refinery (100,000 to 200,000 b/d) would cost $2 to $3
billion. In short, company revenues can be in the billions, but so, too
are the costs of operations.
The FTC June 2005 study cited above had the following comments on
industry profits: ``Profits play necessary and important roles in a
well functioning market economy. Recent oil company profits are high
but have varied widely over time, over industry segments and among
firms . . . Profits also compensate firms for taking risks, such as the
risks in the oil industry that war or terrorism may destroy crude
production assets or, that new environmental requirements may require
substantial new refinery capital investments.''
Many other industries have higher earnings than the oil industry.
Among these are telecommunication services, software, semiconductors,
banking, pharmaceuticals, coal and real estate, to name just a few.
Imposition of a windfall profits tax on the industry would discourage
investment at a time when significant capital commitments to all parts
of the industry, including refining, will be needed.
Question 2. I understand that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is predicting that, during the current hurricane season,
as many as nine hurricanes will hit the Gulf, including at least two
more hurricanes of a similar strength to Hurricane Katrina. What
additional steps can be taken if any to lessen the impact of future
natural disasters in the Gulf of Mexico area and to the reining
industry in the United States?
Answer. Of course, since this question was posed, an additional
hurricane (Rita) did hit the Gulf Coast, making landfall at the Sabine
Pass at the Louisiana-Texas border. This storm hit at the heart of much
of the nation's refining and petrochemical sector. The fresh experience
of Katrina made local, state and federal officials more aware of the
potential consequences of storms, both to the energy sector and to Gulf
communities as a whole. As a result, more and better response and
evacuation plans were evident. Still, the issue of on-site temporary
housing for reconstruction activities could be better addressed. In the
recent legislation approved by the House (H.R. 3893), the final
provision (introduced as an amendment at markup by Texas Congressman
Gene Green) vests emergency planning and federal response
responsibility with the U.S. Department of Energy as opposed to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Given the specific nature of the
challenges to this vital infrastructure, the approach of the Green
Amendment should be considered.
Question 3. Hurricane Katrina has underscored the concentration of
U.S. petroleum production, refining and energy infrastructure in the
Gulf of Mexico region. In recent correspondence with the President, I
have mentioned the need to bring together the necessary stakeholders to
focus on ways to facilitate a more robust and distributed
infrastructure for refining petroleum products in the U.S. Would you
and your respective stakeholder organization, be willing to take part
in such a discussion? How would you see this proceeding?
Answer. There are important reasons for the location of much of the
refining assets of this nation along the Gulf Coast. First, much of the
domestic oil and gas production in the lower 48 states of the United
States is sequestered in the area of the Western Gulf off the coast of
Texas and Louisiana. This fact derives from national and state
legislation, as well as geological realities. Second, the area of the
Gulf Coast near which much refining capacity is built is a unique
confluence of transportation infrastructure, including the Mississippi
River, the significant ports of New Orleans, Houston, Texas City,
Corpus Christi, Galveston, and others, as well as the Intercoastal
Waterway. The Gulf Coast also plays host to a significant portion of
the nation's crude, refined product and natural gas pipeline
infrastructure, as well as the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, or LOOP.
The states of Texas and Louisiana, further, have a tradition of
creating a hospitable business environment for petroleum refining and
petrochemical production not likely to be found elsewhere in the United
States.
That said, NPRA is always interested in dialogue for the betterment
of U.S. energy security. We stand ready to participate in any
constructive stakeholder process that addresses vital energy
infrastructure.
Question 4. The Defense Production Act is the primary legislation
for ensuring domestic availability of industrial resources and critical
technology items that are essential for national defense. The Title III
Program provides a vehicle to create, maintain, modernize or expand
domestic production capability for technology items, components and
resources essential for national defense and for which there is
insufficient production capacity to meet these needs. This Act might be
used to help the refining industry acquire the materials that it may
need to get the refineries impacted by the storm up and running again.
Have you looked at this? Do you suspect that you will be able to obtain
all of the materials that you will need to restore the refining
capacity that Hurricane Katrina took off line?
Answer. NPRA and its members are interested in examining all
sources of materials and authority that can assist in more timely
reconstruction of vital infrastructure. We have identified the need for
greater coordination in the areas of emergency housing, National Guard
support, Coast Guard support, and other specific but limited federal
services. That said, the primary responsibility for reconstruction of
these facilities will remain with the industry itself. And, despite
storm impacts taking as much as a quarter of refining capacity off line
at one time, we believe the industry is well on its way to restoring
shut-in capacity in a timely fashion.
Question 5. I have requested a study of global refining issues from
the CBO that should reach us some time this fall. What kind of issues
and recommendations should we be looking for?
Answer. NPRA is encouraged that CBO will be taking a serious look
at policy options that may address refining issues. As suggested at the
hearing and subsequently before the Senate Commerce Committee
(September 21, 2005), NPRA made the following recommendations:
Make increasing the nation's supply of oil, oil products and
natural gas a number one public policy priority. Now, and for
many years in the past, increasing oil and gas supply has often
been a number 2 priority. Thus, oil and gas supply concerns
have been secondary and subjugated to whatever policy goal was
more politically popular at the time. Enactment of the recent
Energy Bill is a first step to making a first priority the
supply of energy sources the nation depends upon.
Remove barriers to increased supplies of domestic oil and
gas resources. Recent criticism about the concentration of
America's energy infrastructure in the western Gulf is
misplaced. Refineries and other important onshore facilities
have been welcome in this area but not in many other parts of
the country. Policymakers have also restricted access to much-
needed offshore oil and natural gas supplies in the eastern
Gulf and off the shores of California and the East Coast. These
areas must follow the example of Louisiana and many other
states in sharing these energy resources with the rest of the
nation because they are sorely needed.
Resist tinkering with market forces when the supply/demand
balance is tight. Market interference that may initially be
politically popular results in market inefficiencies and
unnecessary costs. Policymakers must resist turning the clock
backwards to the failed policies of the past. Experience with
price constraints and allocation controls in the 1970s
demonstrates the failure of price regulation, which adversely
impacted both fuel supply and consumer cost.
Consider expanding the refining tax incentive provision in
the Energy Act. Reducing the depreciation period for refining
investments from ten to seven or five years would remove a
current disincentive for refining investment. Changes could
allow expensing under the current language to take place as the
investment is made rather than when the equipment is actually
placed in service, or the percentage expensed could be
increased as per the original legislation introduced by Senator
Hatch.
Review and streamline permitting procedures for new refinery
construction and refinery capacity additions. Seek ways to
encourage state authorities to recognize the national interest
in more U.S. domestic capacity.
Keep a close eye on several upcoming regulatory programs
that could have significant impacts on gasoline and diesel
supply. They are:
a. Implementation of the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS standard. The
current implementation schedule determined by EPA has
established ozone attainment deadlines for parts of the country
that will be impossible to meet. EPA has to date not made
changes that would provide realistic attainment dates for the
areas. The result is that areas will be required to place
sweeping new controls on both stationary and mobile sources, in
a vain effort to attain the unattainable. The new lower-sulfur
gasoline and ULSD diesel programs will provide significant
reductions to emissions within these areas once implemented.
But they will not come soon enough to be considered unless the
current unrealistic schedule is revised. If not, the result
will be additional fuel and stationary source controls which
will have an adverse impact on fuel supply and could actually
reduce U.S. refining capacity. This issue needs immediate
attention.
b. Design and implementation of the credit trading program
for the ethanol mandate (RFS) contained in the recent Energy
Act. This mechanism is vital to increase the chance that this
program can be implemented next year without additional
gasoline supply disruption. Additional resources are needed
within EPA to accomplish this key task.
c. Implementation of the ultra low sulfur diesel highway
diesel regulation. The refining industry has made large
investments to meet the severe reductions in diesel sulfur that
take effect next June. We remain concerned about the
distribution system's ability to deliver this material at the
required 15 ppm level at retail. If not resolved, these
problems could affect America's critical diesel supply.
Industry is working with EPA on this issue, but time left to
solve this problem is growing short.
d. Phase II of the MSAT (mobile source air toxics) rule for
gasoline. Many refiners are concerned that this new regulation,
which we expect next year, will be overly stringent and impact
gasoline supply. We are working with EPA to help develop a rule
that protects the environment and avoids a reduction in
gasoline supply.
Responses of Bob Slaughter to Questions From Senator Akaka
Question 1. Mr. Slaughter, I would like to ask you the same
question I asked of Panel I. Do you expect there will be wholesale
price increases on the West coast due to the lost production and
refining capacity in the Gulf of Mexico due to Hurricane Katrina? If
so, can you provide me with an estimate of the magnitude of the
increase or decrease?
Answer. The West Coast of the United States faces particular
challenges when it comes to transportation-fuel price and supply. While
the Federal Trade Commission has estimated that some 85% of fuel cost
is related to crude prices, the West Coast--notably California--suffers
from additional complications beyond the world price of crude. The
largest regional market, California, constitutes about one-third of the
U.S. market. California imposes significant additional regulations on
its fuel, thus making fuel less fungible in that market. In addition,
California has proved to be challenging business environment for
petroleum refining. Not only do supply complications resulting from the
hurricanes cause price increases across the nation, but the West Coast
is not in the best position to respond because of geography and
regulatory constraints.
Question 2. With respect to refining capacity, you testified that
refiners make an average return on investment of about 5.5 percent,
which is very low. This suggests that encouraging new refinery capacity
will be difficult. Do you have any policy suggestion for increasing
either refinery efficiency or investment in increasing capacity that
will be useful in places where the market is relatively small, as in
Hawaii?
Answer. Despite recent profit data, the refining sector of the oil
and gas industry has not historically enjoyed generous returns on
investment. In the ten-year period 1993-2002, average return on
investment in the refining industry was only about 5.5%. This is less
than half of the S&P industrials average return of 12.7% for the same
period. Refining industry profits as a percentage of operating capital
are not excessive. In dollars, they seem large due to the massive scale
needed to compete in a large, capital-intensive industry. For example,
a new medium scale refinery (100,000 to 200,000 b/d) would cost $2 to
$3 billion. In short, company revenues can be in the billions, but so,
too are the costs of operations. The Federal Trade Commission recently
found that these highly variable returns on investment have hampered
new capital investment in the sector.
Responding to these factors is likely all the more acute when
facing a small or isolated market. That said, NPRA believes that
Congress and the Administration are asking the right questions.
Policies that focus on depreciation of refinery assets, appropriate
regulatory reform, and crude and natural gas availability are
critically important.
Responses of Bob Slaughter to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Mr. Slaughter, I have a very pointed question for you.
Isn't it true that refiners benefit by restricting supply--that is, by
restricting the refining capacity of the United States? We all know we
need refineries to turn crude oil imports into gasoline. But even
though we have been using more and more oil every year for decades,
there hasn't been a new refinery built for 30 years in this country! I
think simple supply and demand concepts tell us that if the country had
more refining capacity, gasoline would be cheaper, and we would be
better able to weather a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. But if you
want to squeeze profits out of every drop, then you would restrict your
refining capacity. In fact, you would probably try to reduce refining
capacity over time, because you will make more money that way. So
again, isn't it true that if you reduce the ability of the United
States to refine crude oil into gasoline, you are creating a supply
squeeze, and that causes the price of gasoline to go up? How much do
you think this affects the price at the pump right now?
Answer. While it is true that utilization of refineries has crept
upward to about 98 percent in recent years, the decision to build new
refineries unfortunately is more complicated than a simple supply-
demand curve might dictate. The decision to invest in new refinery
construction is constrained by three factors: poor historical
economics; a changing landscape of environmental rules; and community
opposition.
While it is tempting to view recent refining margins as indicative
of trend favorable to refinery investment, the truth is that allocation
of capital is based upon the historic performance of the sector. As the
data cited above indicates, the average return on investment for
refining (1993-2002) is about 5.5 percent. After a recent economic
assessment of the refining sector, Oklahoma Secretary of Energy David
Fleischaker put it simply, ``People aren't going to invest in a 5 to 7
percent rate of return when money costs you 8 percent . . .
Unfortunately, bankers aren't looking for welcome mats. They're looking
for high rates of return.''
While NPRA does not represent exploration and production interests,
it goes without saying that a macroeconomic examination of much of the
oil and gas sector will show that the industry is making large
investments in these activities. Exploration and production can be
highly risky investments--one field off-shore Angola alone has cost $7
billion to develop--and such investments can be decimated by political
instability, terrorism, and the like.
The changing environmental landscape affects the economics of the
refining sector in two ways: by making changes in the products we
produce, and by limiting changes we can make in our actual operations.
Refiners currently face the massive task of complying with fourteen new
environmental regulatory programs with significant investment
requirements, all in the same 2006--2012 timeframe. In addition, many
programs start soon. For the most part, these regulations are required
by the Clean Air Act. Some will require additional emission reductions
at facilities and plants, while others will require further changes in
clean fuel specifications. NPRA estimates that refiners are in the
process of investing about $20 billion to sharply reduce the sulfur
content of gasoline and both highway and off-road diesel. Refiners will
face additional investment requirements to deal with limitations on
ether use, as well as compliance costs for controls on Mobile Source
Air Toxics and other limitations. These costs do not include the
significant additional investments needed to comply with stationary
source regulations that affect refineries.
Coming to grips with the newly enacted renewable fuels mandate and
the diminished role MTBE will play in the supply of clean octane
further exacerbates cost and supply concerns. Congress' failure to
adopt limit liability provisions in the last energy bill was another
missed opportunity to encourage investment in refining. As the Council
of Economic Advisors has found, ``tort liability raises the cost of
capital . . . and mobile capital will seek relatively higher return
elsewhere until rates of return are again equalized. The result is that
the capital stock in the United States may be smaller with high tort
costs than with low tort costs.''
Other potential environmental regulations on the horizon could
force additional large investment requirements. They are: the
challenges posed by increased ethanol use, possible additional changes
in diesel fuel content involving cetane, and potential proliferation of
new fuel specifications driven by the need for states to comply with
the new eight-hour ozone NAAQS standard. The 8-hour standard could also
result in more regulations affecting facilities such as refiners and
petrochemical plants. These are just some of the pending and potential
air quality challenges that the industry faces. Refineries are also
subject to extensive regulations under the Clean Water Act, Toxic
Substances Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Oil Pollution Act of
1990, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know (EPCRA), Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and other federal statutes.
The industry also complies with OSHA standards and many state statutes.
API estimates that, since 1993, about $89 billion (an average of $9
billion per year) has been spent by the oil and gas industry to protect
the environment. This amounts to $308 for each person in the United
States. More than half of the $89 billion was spent in the refining
sector.
As for limitations on actual operations, consider the effect of the
new source review, or NSR, program on refinery expansions. When the
last Administration abruptly changed its interpretation of the NSR
program, it made more difficult debottlenecking projects that can have
the effect of maintaining or growing capacity. This change was made
without notice and comment rulemaking, and without regard to the
downside consequences for environmental and energy policy that result
from retarding plant maintenance. The result, of course, is uncertainty
and cost.
A last impediment to the new refinery investment has been community
reaction, or the so-called not-in-my-back-yard syndrome. Some critics
that complain the loudest about industry investment practices
unfortunately also oppose the construction of new facilities in new
communities. Indeed, when the media began to question why so much
refining capacity is concentrated on the Gulf Coast, the answers
includes access to infrastructure and supply, but also community
acceptance of the refining industry. To say the least, this acceptance
is not typical of many other regions of the country where product
demand is quite high.
Question 2. As a follow up, do you know of any new refineries being
planned? How could this Congress encourage your industry to build more
capacity--will the provisions we put in the Energy Bill have any teeth?
Answer. The only new refinery project widely discussed is the
Arizona Clean Fuels (ACF) project. ACF is based in Phoenix, AZ, and
intends to build a state of the art, $2.5 billion refinery that could
provide significant product to the Southwest and West Coast using crude
input supplied by the Mexican national oil company, PEMEX.
Unfortunately, ACF has been trying to obtain the necessary permits to
proceed for almost seven years.
As noted, the decision to invest in new refinery construction is
constrained by three factors: poor historical economics; a changing
landscape of environmental rules; and community opposition. But while
new refinery construction has not occurred, refiners have made and will
continue to make significant investments in expanding capacity at
existing refineries. All refineries engage in maintenance and
debottlenecking projects that maintain or expand capacity. One NPRA
member, Valero, recently announced its capital expenditures plans. The
result of the program will be to add 105,000 barrels per day of
capacity in 2006, and another 66,000 barrels per day in 2007. At one
refinery in Detroit, Marathon Ashland Petroleum announced an expansion
of about 26,000 barrels a day. On the whole, existing refineries have
been extensively updated to incorporate the technology needed to
produce a large and predictable supply of clean fuels with
significantly improved environmental performance. Capacity additions
have taken place at many facilities as well. Between 1985 and 2004,
U.S. refineries increased their total capacity to refine crude oil by
7.8%, from 15.7 mmb/d in 1985 to 16.9 mmb/d in May 2004. This increase
is equivalent to adding several mid-size refineries, but it occurred at
existing facilities to take advantage of economies of scale.
In addition to expansion of capacity, refiners also changed
processing methods to broaden the range of crude oil they can process
and to allow them to produce more refined product for each barrel of
crude processed. (2005 FTC analysis). Several Gulf Coast refiners have
made investments to enhance the ability of their refineries to handle
less expensive, high-sulfur (or ``sour'') crudes. These investments
expand the total pool of crude input available to refiners and,
according to the Federal Trade Commission, the crude input represents
some 85 percent of the cost of the refined product excluding taxes.
______
[Note: Responses to the following questions were not
received at the time the hearing went to press.]
Questions From Senator Domenici for Guy F. Caruso
Question 1. What would be the effect on prices if a windfalls tax
profit or price caps were instituted?
Question 2. What do you think would be the effect of a mandatory
minimum level of inventory for products like gasoline and other
products?
Question 3. Many observe that gasoline prices respond quickly, that
is go up, when crude prices go up, but they don't seem to come down as
quickly when crude starts to fall. Explain to us the how the price of
oil affects the price of gasoline and what price stickiness is.
Question 4. The high price trend in oil that we have seen in the
past couple of years has been described as a demand-led shock.
Hurricane Katrina has added a supply shock to the situation. Has the
U.S. ever experienced a demand-led shock in oil and natural gas before?
Question 5. According the EIA's International Energy Outlook, Gross
Domestic Product is expected to grow at about 3% between 2005 and 2015.
Will sustained high energy prices change that estimation, and if so, by
how much?
Question 6. How much of the recent $60 plus oil prices we have been
seeing can be contributed to the so called ``fear premium''?
Question 7. In your written testimony, you use the West Texas
Intermediate price of $55 for crude oil for 2006 projections. Can you
explain to us the relationship between the WTI price benchmark and
other prices like the NYMEX futures and OPEC basket price? Which price
should we look to as the one that sets the international oil price?
Also, tell us about the relationship between the price of domestic oil
production and the international price.
Question 8. In your testimony, you note that OPEC members have
expressed an interest in maintaining prices above the prior target
range. What do you think the OPEC target range is today? Do you think
OPEC purposefully created inventory tightness in 2001 and 2002 and
continues to keep production at levels that deprive the market of the
ability to build inventories?
Question 9. Has the trend of running our refineries at high levels
like 97% and the failure to build more refineries undermined the
effectiveness of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
Question 10. Over the past 20 years, is it true that demand for
refined products has increased by about 30% and capacity has only
increased about 9%?
Question 11. Did Europe's dieselization program affect incentives
to add refinery capacity? Are there other examples of other country's
fuel choice decisions that have affected our markets and refinery
capacity?
Questions From Senator Talent for Guy F. Caruso
Question 1. Compare the historical and projected growth of demand
to growth in production, refinery, and delivery capability, 1980-2030.
Question 2. How long does it take for a refiner to recover its
capital investment for a new or expanded refinery? Are any analysts
predicting a decline in U.S. gasoline consumption over that time
period?
Questions From Senator Smith for Guy F. Caruso
Question 1. How much gasoline is now refined off-short and imported
as a finished product into the United States?
Question 2. How many ports in the United States accept gasoline
imports? Which ports are they?
Question 3. Which in the United States can handle oil supertankers?
Question 4. What has happened in the last two weeks to the price
and availability of aviation fuel?
Question 5. What are EIA's projections of the availability and
price of aviation fuel for the rest of the year?
Question 6. About 55 percent of all Americans heat their homes with
natural gas. The Petroleum Industry Research Foundation projects that,
for these households, it will cost an extra $700 to heat their homes
this winter. Is this an assessment with which you agree?
Questions From Senator Bunning for Guy F. Caruso
Question 1. Global spare production capacity has decreased
dramatically in the past decade and it appears it will decrease even
more with the continued growth of demand in China and the United
States, as well as the leveling of Russian oil production. This will
provide international suppliers with an even smaller ability to combat
supply disruptions. Do you think the international oil supply is secure
or is another price spike just around the corner?
Question 2. I've heard stories in the news media that a significant
factor contributing to the current extraordinarily high oil prices is
bidding by speculators in the worldwide oil commodity futures markets.
Can you comment on the extent to which profit taking in the oil futures
market is influencing the price of crude and gasoline? Is this
phenomenon expected and how does it affect price spikes?
Question 3. OPEC and other oil producing countries have expressed
the desire to keep oil prices well above prior target range. What
should we expect going forward as far as market-level crude oil prices?
Question 4. As you know, the United States now imports over 60% of
its crude. A significant portion of these imports come from unstable
regions of the world. Yet we have vast untapped energy resources in the
United States. Can you please discuss what the federal government can
do to help to encourage the development of these secure, domestic
energy supplies?
Question 5. In most areas of the world, including the oil-rich
Middle East, we are looking at diminishing excess supply capacity. Mr.
Dowd explained that other countries throughout the world are now
exploring smaller oil fields and recovering lower-grade crude. How do
our domestic oil sources compare in retrieval cost and quality?
Questions From Senator Bingaman for Guy F. Caruso
Question 1. Natural gas prices were over $11 per MMBtu on Friday--
this compares to $6.51 in early July 2005. According to several
industry analysts annual natural gas prices are at an all-time high
share of GDP (over 1.4%) How much of an increase will consumers see in
their winter heating bills this season?
Question 2. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes tax incentives
for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes, including
efficient furnaces, air-conditioners and heat pumps. These incentives
would help many residential consumers reduce their energy costs this
winter. However, the IRS must issue regulations to implement these
provisions. Will the Administration place a priority on making sure
that consumers can take advantage of these energy saving provisions?
Question 3. Similarly, the Energy bill authorizes the States to
offer rebates to consumers who replace inefficient energy equipment
with Energy Star rated products. New York state has had tremendous
success reducing peak demand for electricity with a ``bounty'' program
for old appliances. Will the Administration request funding for this
state grant program in the supplemental appropriations or the FY07
budget?
Question 4. The Energy Policy Act also provides tax incentives for
building new homes that meet specified energy efficiency standards.
These incentives apply to manufactured housing as well. Again, the IRS
should place a high priority on implementing these provisions and
developing the necessary regulations and guidelines so that consumers
can take advantage of them. Many communities hit by Hurricane Katrina
will require significant quantities of new housing. This is an
opportunity to improve the energy efficiency of the housing stock--
reducing the demand for energy and improving the quality of life of for
homeowners and renters. Will the Department of Energy work with FEMA
and HUD to assure that the new housing meets cost-effective energy
efficiency standards?
Question 5. I have requested a study of global refining issues from
the CBO that should reach us some time this fall. What kind of issues
and recommendations should we be looking for?
Question 6. Hurricane Katrina has underscored the concentration of
U.S. petroleum production, refining and energy infrastructure in the
Gulf of Mexico region. In recent correspondence with the President, I
have mentioned the need to bring together the necessary stakeholders to
focus on ways to facilitate a more robust and distributed
infrastructure for refining petroleum products in the U.S. Would you
and your respective stakeholder organization, be willing to take part
in such a discussion? How would you see this proceeding?
Questions From Senator Akaka for Guy F. Caruso
Question 1. Mr. Caruso, my question has to do with gasoline prices
on the West coast and in Hawaii. As you may know, our wholesale
gasoline prices are based on West coast wholesale prices, under a
Hawaii state law just implemented on September 1, 2005. As an example,
this week, our Hawaii State Public Utility Commission is allowing up to
a 30-cent increase per gallon, in order to keep up with West Coast
prices.
Question 2. In your analysis, do you expect that the events of
Hurricane Katrina and the disruption in supply from the Gulf of Mexico
will affect the West coast gasoline prices? And if so, by how much or
how little?
Question 3. Do you have any indication that there are likely to be
gas shortages in areas like Hawaii where all oil must be shipped in and
refined on the island?
Question From Senator Corzine for Guy F. Caruso
Question 1. The EIA's energy outlook predicts that the U.S. demand
for oil will continue to increase in the near future. Wouldn't one of
the best ways of getting a handle on gas prices be to take long term
steps to reduce the demand for oil? Wouldn't raising CAFE standards and
promoting the use of hybrid vehicles significantly reduce the
consumption of gasoline? Ultimately, wouldn't the best way to avoid the
situation we are now in, with gasoline prices skyrocketing, be to
reduce the country's reliance on gasoline?
Questions From Senator Salazar for Guy F. Caruso
Question 1. I am concerned about our refining capacity in this
nation. Releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve doesn't do
much for the country unless we can turn that oil into gasoline. What
kind of excess refining capacity do we have in normal times? How much
do you think this lack of refining capacity impacts the price
Coloradans--any Americans, in fact-- end up paying at the pump? Will
you provide me with an estimate of how much excess capacity we would
need in this country--in terms of new refineries--to smooth out
gasoline prices?
Question 2. For the panel, here's something I don't understand but
would really like to know: where does the money go? Big Oil has been
making money hand over fist in the past year--billions upon billions of
dollars--and all of that extra profit is paid for by the consumers. ALl
of that profit makes me think that a good chunk of that price at the
pump must be some form of price gouging, even if it isn't being exacted
at the last step. So what I want to know is who buys the barrels of
oil, and where does the money from that purchase end up? Does Big Oil
buy their own product from their own subsidiaries, for pure profit? And
next, when I buy a gallon of gasoline at the pump, where does that
money go? It seems that Big Oil takes a cut every step along the way,
and by the time it gets to a citizen of Colorado filling up at the gas
station, that person's pocketbook is feeling the greed of the entire
system.
Question 3. How can the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump
go up 50 cents in one day? Isn't that the same gas in the station's
storage tank that was 50 cents cheaper yesterday? And if gas goes up
that fast why does it go down so slow, if it goes down at all? I am
hoping you can explain it to me and to the people in Colorado I
represent.
Question 4.Since last week we have seen wholesale gas prices surge
above $2.50 but they are now down to around $2. What I don't understand
is why the country saw stations raising their prices multiple times a
day and multiple times during the week, but with wholesale prices now
falling, there has not been a corresponding change in the price at the
pump. In other words, while there seems to be a rush to raise prices
under any excuse, is there no similar incentive to lower prices? Why
aren't prices going back down just as quickly?
______
Questions From Senator Domenici for John Dowd
Question 1. You suggest that a record investment by the energy
industry aimed at expanding oil production gas has not resulted in the
expected supply response. Why? Has industry not invested wisely to
increase supply? Is it a case of depletion of available reason? Is it
due to the failure to make additional areas accessible for production?
Question 2. Is it a combination of these factors or perhaps others?
Question 3. You testify that U.S. consumers and policymakers have
more control over long-term demand than they do over long-term supply.
What specific, practicable steps do you suggest that policy makers can
take in the near term to affect demand? What can we do by way of long-
term steps?
Question 4. If your contention is that the key issue that Congress
has not addressed is consumption, what steps do you believe that
Congress could take to best address this issue?
Question 5. Friday's Wall Street Journal suggests that executives
from large U.S. retailers are now worried that one affect of Hurricane
Katrina will be to drive sales lower as middle-income shoppers now
respond to rising fuel prices by reducing spending. This would follow
the trend set earlier in the year by lower income shoppers. Please
comment on this fear from retailers and on the overall affect of these
rising fuel prices on the overall economy.
Questions From Senator Talent for John Dowd
Question 1. What level of refinery operation could be supported by
current crude oil supply and demand?
Question 2. How long does it take for a refiner to recover its
capital investment for a new or expanded refinery? Are any analysts
predicting a decline in U.S. gasoline consumption over that time
period?
Question 3. Is there sufficient competition for refining crude oil
into finished products like gasoline?
Question 4. According to Fortune magazine, in 2004 when oil prices
were a lot lower than they are now, the average return for both
independent refiners and integrated majors was 23.9 percent and it is
higher this year. Over the past decade, according to Fortune, the
return on equity in the sector has averaged 16 percent. However, the
American Petroleum Institute claims these returns are as low as 6
percent. Can you explain this vast difference? For refineries owned by
oil producing companies, is this an issue of how they assign profits
between production and refining?
Question 5. What are the factors preventing refinery investment? To
the extent environmental and siting issues are among these, explain the
importance to investors of streamlining the applicable environmental
requirements and ensuring regulatory certainty, i.e., locking in
requirements prior to start of refinery construction.
Questions From Senator Bunning for John Dowd
Question 1. The recently passed Energy Bill included an important
tax provision that will allow 50% expensing of investment that expands
a refinery's capacity by more than 5%. Do you think this is enough to
stimulate growth or are additional incentives needed?
Question 2. As you may know, Kentucky has an abundance of coal.
Among other things, this supply of coal allows Kentucky to offer its
citizens and industries some of the lowest utility rates in the
country. I am deeply concerned that the increasing cost of oil will
increase the cost of producing and transporting Kentucky coal. Do you
have nay additional information on how the price of gasoline will
affect the cost of other energy sources such as Kentucky coal?
Question 3. The number of domestic refineries has decreased by more
than 50% in the last 30 years, and the real-volume capacity of the
domestic refinery network has decreased 10% in that same time period.
What factors do you believe have suppressed U.S. refining capacity?
Question 4. The cost of gasoline is largely determined before it
reaches the pump. The cost of crude oil and federal and state taxes
make up 74 to 79% of the retail price of gas. Could you describe how
the remaining 20 to 25% is determined and what profit each part of the
supply chain receives?
Question 5. As the price of oil skyrockets, alternative fuels will
become more price competitive. What segments of the energy market will
see growth in investment because of higher oil and gas prices? What
impact will this have on the domestic energy market?
Question 6. Global spare production capacity has decreased
dramatically in the past decade and it appears it will decrease even
more. This will provide international suppliers with an even smaller
ability to combat supply disruptions. Do you think the international
oil supply is secure or is another price spike just around the corner?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Beth A. Nagusky, Director of Energy Independence and
Security, State of Maine
Chairman Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and distinguished members of
the U.S. Senate Energy Committee, I am Beth Nagusky, Governor John
Baldacci's Director of Energy Independence and Security. I had hoped to
offer this testimony at the hearing scheduled for September 8th. I
would like to provide it now because of the serious impact of rising
energy prices on Maine people. Maine is a small, rural state with a
significant percentage of its population living below and at the
poverty level.
Maine is worried, and is taking action now, to prepare for what is
likely to be the most difficult winter on record for many Maine people.
While today's gasoline prices are a major source of concern to a state
with few viable transportation alternatives, our bigger fear revolves
around what lies ahead this winter. Nearly 50,000 of Maine's homeowners
receive federal fuel assistance. This number, while staggering, in no
way reflects the actual number of Maine people who cannot afford
heating fuel that could reach $3 per gallon.
As gasoline prices began to soar, the Governor and my office have
worked closely with Maine's Attorney General G. Steven Rowe, The
Governor has made it clear that any retail gas or oil dealer who is
found to be violating Maine's laws against unfair trade practices,
profiteering, or collusion will be prosecuted to the full extent of
those laws. At the same time, we are urging Maine citizens to conserve
gasoline and not to hoard.
We are becoming increasingly convinced that recent rapid gasoline
price increases.may be tied not only to the supply disruptions caused
by Hurricane Katrina, but also to the possibility that the mega-mergers
of recent years in the oil and gas industry have created an oligopoly
acting like a monopoly. We believe that the Department of Justice
should undertake a thorough and objective analysis of the oil industry
and report to Congress on its competitiveness. If the analysis shows a
market that is too highly concentrated, then aggressive action must be
taken to restore a healthy level of competition.
In the meantime, I am calling on Congress to recognize and
acknowledge the fact that the major oil companies have made record
profits for the last six quarters.\1\ These profits are unconscionable
when contrasted with the prices Maine people are paying at the gas
pumps. These profits are outrageous when contrasted against the
decision Maine people face this winter as they are forced to choose
between paying for heat, for medicine, or for food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ExxonMobil, the world's most profitable company, made $25.3
billion last year. The combined profits of it and BP, Royal Dutch
Shell, and ChevronTexaco, last year were $72.8 billion. A month ago,
ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips announced record second-
quarter profits of $7.6 billion,$3.7.billion, and $3.1 billion,
respectively. Royal Dutch Shell's quarterly profits of $5.2 billion
were up by 34 percent over the same period last year. Other well-known
companies like Sunoco also had record second-quarter earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time the federal Energy Bill asks taxpayers to pay
billions to these same oil companies. We urge you to rethink and repeal
tax credits for the oil and gas industry. It is past time to get
serious about reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels, and it
is high time to provide significant financial incentives for
conservation, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. We urge you to
join Maine's delegation and support significant improved fuel economy
standards for cars, SUVs and light duty trucks; a federal renewable
energy portfolio standard; and, a federal renewable fuel standard.
I also ask that you increase funding for federal fuel assistance.
Last winter fuel prices were 35% higher than they were the year before.
This year they are projected to be at least 25% higher than last year.
Yet, our federal fuel assistance funding has not increased. Last year
Maine launched a unique program using teams of volunteers to winterize
the homes of our neediest citizens. We installed window, door, and pipe
insulation to cut cold air leakage. We gave out compact fluorescent
light bulbs to cut electricity bills. This year we are expanding the
program. But, it is not enough. We need more funding, and we need it
soon.
Under Governor Baldacci, Maine has become a leader when it comes to
promoting and practicing a 21st century energy policy. We have improved
the fuel economy of the state fleet through downsizing our vehicles and
the purchase of hybrid vehicles. We have reduced state travel through
greater use of conferencing technologies. We have expanded the state
vanpool program and provided preferential parking for employees who
carpool to work. We have cut our motor fuel usage by over half a
million gallons in two years. We have installed efficient lighting in
state office buildings and purchase only the most efficient office
products. We buy 30 to 40% of our electricity from renewable power, and
we use a biodiesel blend to heat some state offices.
In addition to saving state government money, we are reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions. The Baldacci Administration takes climate
change seriously. Maine is the first state to measure and track its
greenhouse gas emissions. We have cut them 8% since 2002.
When it comes to energy policy, perhaps it is time to resurrect the
old expression, ``As Maine goes, so goes the Nation.''
Thank you.
______
Statement of American Trucking Associations, Inc.
American Trucking Associations (ATA) appreciates the opportunity to
submit written testimony on the impact of rising fuel prices on the
trucking industry. ATA is a federation of motor carriers, state
trucking associations, and national trucking conferences created to
promote and protect the interests of the trucking industry. ATA's
membership includes more than 2,000 trucking companies and industry
suppliers of equipment and services. Directly and through its
affiliated organizations, ATA encompasses over 37,000 companies and
every type and class of motor carrier operation.
Concerns about rising fuel prices often focus on the troubled
airline industry, but the impact high diesel fuel prices are having on
the U.S. trucking industry should not be underestimated. The trucking
industry is the lynchpin of the transportation system, hauling more
than two-thirds of all the domestic freight transportation tonnage in
the United States and accounting for 88% of the nation's freight bill.
Trucking also accounts for over 70% of the value of trade between the
U.S. and Mexico and Canada.
Fuel prices were a significant concern for the trucking industry
well before last week's devastating hurricane. According to the Energy
Information Administration (EIA), the national average price of diesel
rose from $1.32 per gallon in 2002 to $1.51 in 2003 and $1.81 in 2004.
This year, we expect the price to average over $2.40 per gallon. Now,
with 5% of America's refining capacity shut down and fuel supplies
limited, we are seeing fuel prices skyrocket. The average cost of
diesel fuel has risen from $2.59 per gallon the week prior to Hurricane
Katrina to $2.90 as of September 5.
This year, the industry will consume more than 35 billion gallons
of diesel fuel at an estimated record cost of $85 billion--$23 billion
more than in 2004; $33 billion over 2003 levels, and nearly double the
industry's cost of fuel in 2002.
For most motor carriers, the cost of fuel is their second-highest
operating expense after labor expenses. For many long-haul carriers,
fuel equals as much as 25 percent of all operating costs. One carrier
recently noted that if crude oil hits $85 per barrel, diesel will
overtake labor as its largest expense. Small carriers are particularly
vulnerable to large and swift increases in fuel prices. Typically, the
smaller the carrier, the larger percentage fuel represents of total
operating expenses. The motor carrier industry is comprised of
thousands of small carriers. According to the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA), as of August 2005, 95.8 percent of the
564,000 interstate motor carriers operated fewer than twenty trucks.
ATA recently asked motor carriers to describe the impact of fuel
prices on their businesses. Here is what several carriers had to say:
``Fuel prices, along with insurance, are keeping us hanging
on by our fingernails. We cannot afford to replace our
equipment any more.''
``Fuel costs per mile have increased by 17 cents per mile in
the last year. When 6 cents a mile is considered a good profit,
this is bad news. We have been able to increase rates and get
fuel surcharges from some customers to offset some, but not
all, of the fuel cost increase. We have had to cut insurance
expenses by offering less health-care benefits. We also have
had to delay the purchase of much needed new equipment.''
``During the first seven months of 2005, we have spent
$2,171,922.73 for fuel. This represents an increase of
$547,447.27 over 2004. During the first seven months of 2005
and 2004 our fuel cost has increased $958,037.53. This increase
cost has impacted our customers, and we are now seeing a
slowdown in their business, which impacts ours.''
``We have governed our trucks to control speed. We have asked
our drivers to shop carefully for fuel and only purchase
limited amounts of fuel in those areas where the price is high.
So far, our drivers have been very co-operative. They realize
what is at risk. Last year our fuel expense was 21.64% of our
bottom line. This year, that number has increased to 25.84%.
Our year to date profit is 1.09%. Not much room for a
mistake.''
While the trucking industry may pass along some of the added fuel
costs to shippers (which ultimately impacts consumers), frequently not
all such costs are recouped by motor carriers. Despite increasing fuel
costs, ATA has not sought legislative imposition of fuel surcharges in
transportation agreements. However, steps to increase the supply of
affordable fuel would benefit motor carriers, shippers, and ultimately
consumers.
Due to extreme volatility in fuel prices in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina, on September 6, ATA requested the Secretary of Energy to
direct the Energy Information Administration to report diesel prices
twice a week, instead of the normal once a week, until fuel pricing
becomes more stable. This change would provide the trucking industry
with more accurate fuel pricing and help it make better business
decisions.
The trucking industry will face an added challenge beginning
October 15, 2006, when ``ultra low sulfur diesel'' (ULSD) fuel will be
introduced at the retail level in advance of the introduction, in 2007,
of lower-emission diesel engines. EPA has stated that upon
introduction, ULSD will quickly become the standard diesel fuel for the
trucking industry. The petroleum industry cannot yet estimate what the
added cost of ULSD will be (estimates have ranged from 5 cents to 13
cents per gallon), but we are certain that the fuel will be both more
expensive and have less energy content than the diesel fuel used today.
ATA recognizes that it is difficult for the government to impact
world crude prices, but there are some steps that can be taken to
lessen the severity of future spikes in diesel fuel prices.
REFINING CAPACITY
For years now it has been apparent that the U.S. has underinvested
in refining capacity. Regardless of the reason for this underinvestment
(e.g., environmental restrictions or economic factors), it is time to
reverse this trend.
It became apparent in the aftermath of Katrina that we simply do
not have enough spare refining capacity. As refiners shut down in the
Gulf Coast, other refiners across the nation were unable to make up the
difference because, on average, refiners already were running near 95
percent of total capacity, according to the American Petroleum
Institute.
Congress needs to get involved in this issue now. Even if world oil
exploration increases due to the high price of crude, U.S. refiners
will be unable to refine more diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel.
ONE NATIONAL DIESEL FUEL STANDARD
We believe that Congress should amend section 211 of the Clean Air
Act to restore a single national diesel fuel standard. A single
national diesel fuel standard is critical to limiting the duration and
magnitude of fuel price spikes, which are devastating to the economic
health of the trucking industry.
Varying state diesel fuel requirements (``boutique fuels'')
typically result in fuel price differentials and prevent diesel fuel
from simply being transported from one jurisdiction to another in times
of shortage. Boutique fuels, due to their limited markets, are produced
by only a handful of refineries, which results in less competition and
higher fuel prices.
California, which requires a boutique diesel fuel, provides a
perfect example of this principle. The state's CARB-diesel is a
specially formulated diesel fuel with a higher cetane index and lower
aromatic content than the diesel fuel sold in the rest of the country.
As of August 29, 2005, according to EIA, the average retail price of
CARB-diesel was $3.05 per gallon, which is 46 cents higher than the
$2.59 national average. The cost of manufacturing CARB-diesel adds 4--5
cents extra per gallon. The difference in state fuel taxes adds another
12 cents per gallon. This leaves a 29 cent difference that can only be
explained by higher distribution costs and the oligopolistic pricing
associated with boutique fuels.
The price disparity that results from state-mandated boutique fuel
blends hurts the trucking industry by creating an uneven playing field
and causing damaging fuel price spikes. Due to the competitive nature
of the trucking industry, which has average operating margins of only
two to four percent, a sudden increase in the price of diesel fuel
turns a marginally profitable truck route into an unprofitable
obligation. Moreover, the companies located within the boutique fuel
jurisdiction have an economic incentive to refuel their trucks outside
the jurisdiction, resulting in additional vehicle miles traveled,
additional fuel consumed, and additional air emissions.
The Clean Air Act provides for a national diesel fuel standard and
prohibits states (except California) from requiring fuel formulations
that differ from the standard established by the EPA. EPA, however, may
grant states a waiver to adopt a unique fuel formulation where the
state demonstrates that the boutique fuel is necessary to achieve
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and that
other pollution control measures are either unreasonable or
impracticable.
In addition to California's boutique diesel fuel (i.e., CARB
diesel), EPA has granted a diesel fuel waiver to the state of Texas.
Beginning in October 2005, Texas will require the sale of a boutique
fuel that is similar to CARB diesel. Minnesota is poised to implement a
boutique biodiesel fuel in October.
ATA strongly supports a single national diesel fuel standard. We
believe that the restoration of a single national diesel fuel standard
will prevent localized supply shortages and price spikes and request
that this Committee consider amending section 211 of the Clean Air Act
to achieve this goal.
DOMESTIC EXPLORATION OF CRUDE OIL
An uninterrupted fuel supply is essential to meet the nation's
transportation needs. ATA supports the goals of increased national
energy self-sufficiency and reduced vulnerability of future energy
disruptions. Therefore, the industry supports government efforts to
promote offshore exploration and development of domestic oil and
natural gas reserves. This includes drilling in Alaska's Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in an environmentally sensitive manner.
CONCLUSION
The trucking industry is primarily a small business industry with
relatively slim profit margins. Rapid escalation in the price of diesel
fuel, like we've seen in 2005, is devastating to the industry and will
result in failures, lower capital investment, and negative employment
trends.
ATA knows that there is little that Congress can do to impact the
price of crude oil on the world market. However, steps can be taken to
reduce the magnitude of price spikes.
First, Congress needs to address the lack of investment in new
refining capacity. If refining capacity continues to operate at near
full utilization, price spikes will be more extreme than necessary. And
if several refiners go down, like with Katrina, then other refiners are
unable to make up the difference.
Complexity in the refining industry also adds to price spikes. By
creating one national diesel fuel standard, Congress would be reducing
complexity in the refining network and thus reduce the magnitude of
price spikes when they occur.
The American trucking industry is the backbone of the U.S. economy.
Congress needs to ensure that the industry has access to enough fuel
and reasonable prices so that motor carriers can continue to deliver
America.
______
Statement of Marcia Merry Baker and Richard Freeman,
Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee
ESTABLISH EMERGENCY, INTERIM ENERGY RE-REGULATION; END THE ENRONOMICS-
THINKING BEHIND `UN-NATURAL' DISASTERS
To the Honorable Senators Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman, and
Members of the Committee: The merits of swift action by the Senate, to
initiate intervention to establish re-regulation of the United States
national energy system, are obvious in the face of requirements for
dealing with the vast impact of Hurricane Katrina; but also, were
apparent even at the time of Aug. 19, when the Committee announced its
Sept. 8th hearing and its purpose in the first place, to address out-
of-control oil and gas prices.
Given that we now face a huge natural disaster made into a horrible
catastrophe, by the negligence and inaction of the Executive Branch on
infrastructure-maintenance generally, as well as in the case of the
immediate epic storm, it is even more urgent for the Senate to rise to
its unique advise-and-consent role, and initiate a long overdue shift
to an economy-building policy. This is not a partisan question, but a
matter of national public interest of the most profound and urgent
kind.
In this testimony, we wish to provide back-up for initiative of the
Senate to institute energy re-regulation and related policies, in terms
of three vital considerations. These have been reiterated in recent
months by economist Lyndon LaRouche, in a series of policy briefs,
webcasts, and international discussions, some of which directly
addressed to the Senate, from which we summarily quote.
Internationally, Mr. LaRouche has been meeting with national leaders
anxious to see and support such a shift in the United States.
We can provide full documentation to the Committee of the following
summary points, including animated graphics of the economic processes
involved, at request.
First, the context for the dramatic run-up of energy prices, is
that the financial/monetary system itself is in crisis. Hyper-inflation
is underway across most all essential commodities and services, as
contrarily, ``financials''--derivatives, debts, speculation of all
kinds, soar, to the point of an imminent crash.
Secondly, the specifics involved in energy hyper-inflation--
speculation, gaming of supplies, creation of shortages, cartelization
mergers, etc.--are all (characteristic), not aberrations, of the
practices of the past several decades of the shift to policies of de-
regulation of utilities, imposition of outsourcing of manufacturing and
agriculture, and globalization generally.
Thirdly, action by the Senate is in particular urgent, because in
addition to the vital matter of energy, there is the responsibility of
the Senate to take action in the broadest way to restore nation-saving
policies in the face of the negligence of the Executive Branch
regarding lack of Federal government functions before, during, and
after Hurricane Katrina. We have devolved to where states, localities,
charities, and others are casting about on their own to try to fill the
breach in Federal functions of all kinds.
CONTEXT: FINANCIAL, MONETARY CRISIS
The run-away energy prices are best understood in terms of the
overall end-phase crisis we have entered, of the disintegration of the
international financial system itself. Increasingly over the past three
decades, the divergence of volumes of debts, deficits, and financial
valuations of all kinds (stocks, derivatives, mortgages, etc.) as
against the decline in condition and activity of physical economic
input and output (manufacturing, agriculture, infrastructure) has
widened to the point of financial blow-out and economic breakdown. The
other way to say it, as many commentators finally admit, is that
financial bubbles of home mortgage securities, hedge fund bets of all
kinds, etc., are now beginning to burst.
Looking to what must be done, LaRouche summarized it this way at a
June 16 international webcast this year: ``Now, the situation is, such
that people now generally realize that the United States is in deep
trouble. The U.S. economy's in trouble. It's about to go under in a
chain-reaction collapse. When, nobody knows exactly. But we know it's
oncoming. That's why I say, as Roosevelt said, ``We have nothing to
fear, as much as fear itself.'' (Because there are things we could do
about this.)
``There are things the American people could force the United
States government to do about this.
``But the average person doesn't understand this problem.
Therefore, they're not sure of what to do, and they're not sure about
what kind of proposal they should support. But they know they've got to
get some action, from government, to protect them from the danger of a
collapse, which, in point of fact, is much bigger than the 1929-1933
collapse; 1929-1933, which was given to you by Presidents Coolidge and
Hoover, was relatively mild in its effect compared with the threat to
the world, as well as the United States, from the presently onrushing
crash.
``The situation is this: The entire world system is coming down.
Not just the United States' system, but the entire world system. Now,
there are many people who're whistling in the dark, and saying, `It's
not going to happen. It couldn't happen'--well, it IS going to happen!
It's inevitable!
``What do we do about it?'' (from ``Dialogue with the Senate on
Economic Policy; LaRouche's Historic Webcast of June 16, 2005'',
www.larouchepac.com).
``ROOSEVELT MODEL'': RE-REGULATE, BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE
In brief, LaRouche is calling for a series of steps, in the spirit
of the ``Roosevelt Model.'' Using the ``experience of 1933 through
1945, we have to guarantee the stability of U.S. Treasuries, which is
the basis for the security of the U.S. dollar. We have to enter into
agreements with Europe and with other parts of the world, on a fixed-
exchange-rate system, which can be fairly described as a New Bretton
Woods system--the kind of system which Roosevelt created at the closing
period of the war, the fixed-exchange-rate system. It worked. It worked
fine until the middle of the 1960s. it was the system under which we in
the United States helped Europe rebuild itself from war . . .
``We have to go back to that kind of system, which was destroyed by
Nixon, where our troubles really began. And by getting long-term
credit, instead of having short-term credit, we have to have agreements
on long-term credit: credit in terms of investment in infrastructure .
. . We have to rebuild the world economy. We have to build new
infrastructure for places that don't have it. We have to rebuild the
infrastructure of the United States and Europe. This is going to
require long-term investment.'' (Also from, ``Dialogue with the Senate
on Economic Policy,'' op. cit.)
The character of what kind of infrastructure is needed is
underscored by the catastrophe at hand: transportation, water systems,
medical systems and public health, power generation and transmission,
land improvements, housing, education and R&D facilities, etc.
Most important for the energy base of the United States, is to
resume a full-scale nuclear power plant program. By Y2000, had we
continued our original pathway, we would by now have been 50 percent
nuclear-generated instead of 20 percent. We have at present 28 sites
for new nuclear electricity units, on the pre-existing nuclear plant
sites.
``PAPER OIL,'' CONTRIVED SHORTAGES
In direct contrast to this approach, are the wild gyrations in
prices of gasoline, petroleum and all other energy prices--fuel oil,
natural gas, LP, jet fuel, even coal, etc.
There is no need for us to document the current price spikes here,
which data your Committee will have before you on Sept. 6. Instead, we
make the point that the very pattern of such economy-bashing prices,
results from the continuation of radical practices, euphemistically
called ``free-market,'' that caused the undermining of the U.S. and
worldwide economy to begin with, over the past 30 years.
Look at ``paper oil.'' This is the well-known term to describe the
fact that for every barrel of petroleum pumped somewhere, shipped and
refined, there are hundreds of ``paper barrels'' worth of trades on the
speculative commodity markets. German Economics Minister Wolfgang
Clement recently estimated that, at present, $18 per barrel of oil is
attributable to speculation. On Sept. 2, when German Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder announced his commitment for Germany to come to U.S. aid by
oil and gas shipments, his spokesman Thomas Steg stressed that there
must be collaboration between countries now, to crack down on energy
companies to keep prices stable.
Especially during the episode of the so-called ``California Energy
Crisis'' of 2000-2001, and since, the Senate Energy Committee, and
individual Senators have assembled all the evidence needed to document
the whole range of fundamental malpractices that are systematically
involved--namely, mergers and consolidation of control, speculation,
gaming, shorting supplies, etc. These practices are done either
illegally outright, or ``legally''--technically defined as such, under
the insane energy de-regulation laws perpetrated over the last 15
years. Until these practices are rolled back, ``Enron'' lives.
The Senate has what it needs to act to restore regulation of energy
supplies--in the American tradition of public utility supervision of
private corporations, which worked to the public good for decades.
Therefore, we here identify only a few selected aspects of the present
crisis, for the purpose of underscoring the general point.
U.S. Refinery Capacity Lacking.
Over the past three decades, the U.S. could and should have
expanded significantly its refining capacity, but under decision-making
by the increasingly de regulated energy/financial conglomerates, the
U.S. capacity was shrunken, and geographically concentrated in ever
more vulnerable locations, such as the Gulf Coast. In 1981, according
to the Department of Energy, the U.S. had 324 refineries, with a
refining capacity of 17.99 million bpd. In January 2005, after a period
of sweeping shutdown, it had only 148 refineries with a capacity of
17.12 million bpd. To meet the deficit, refined product now is imported
from a number of sources, including Canada, the U.K., and the
Netherlands. From 1995 to 2005, imports of refined product have nearly
doubled, rising from 1.6 million barrels per day, to more than 3.1
million for the first half of 2005.
The last time a new major refinery was built in the lower 48 states
was in 1976, in Louisiana. As of Jan. 1, 2005, fully 52 percent of all
U.S. refining capacity was owned and controlled by only six companies:
Conoco-Phillips, 12.8%; ExxonMobil, 10.9%; BP 8.8%; and Chevron Texaco,
5.9%; as well, Royal Dutch Shell, 5.7%; and Marathon Oil, 5.5%.
Therefore, under these circumstances, when a ``market-excuse'' is
given to justify gas and oil price run-ups--namely such citations as,
`the effect of the Iraq War,' or `hostile OPEC action,' or now,
`Katrina Storm Damage'--no matter how partially true, the larger truth,
from the vantage point of the responsibility of government to provide
for energy security, is that the entire system of energy provision is
in the hands of predator cartels, which must be brought under control.
Look at simply the dramatic rise in per barrel crude oil futures
prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange, for late August, yearly
from 2002 to 2005, and you see that the (price more than doubled, well
before Hurricane Katrina)!: Aug. 28, 2002--$28.34; Aug. 28, 2003--
$31.50; Aug. 28, 2004--$43.18; and Aug. 26, 2005--$66.13. (On Aug. 30,
2005, the price hit `only' $69.81.
2001 Senator Wyden Report on Contrived Shortages.
A study commissioned by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) during the
California crisis, focuses on the essential, and defining, threat
involved. In June 14, 2001, soon after the release of the Cheney
Taskforce Energy Report, Sen. Wyden released an investigative report
which concluded, ``The oil industry and its allies would have the
public believe that insufficient refining capacity, restrictive
environmental standards, growing gasoline demand, and OPEC production
cutbacks are the primary reason for the current oil and gas supply
problem. However, the record shows . . . that major oil companies
pursued efforts to curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for
improving profit margins.''
Wyden included as documentation an internal document obtained from
Chevron Oil, dated Nov. 30, 1995, which asserts, ``A senior energy
analyst at the recent API [American Petroleum Institute] convention
warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining
capacity it will never see any increase in refining [profit] margins.''
Mega-Mergers.
This year, Y2005, is the busiest for energy-industry deals since
2001, with about $100 billion of takeovers announced so far. The total,
including pipelines, utilities, and coal producers, is more than the
full-year total in 2002, 2003 or 2004, and if the pace continues, will
be nearing 1999, when $200 billion of energy industry consolidations
occurred. The period 1998 to 2000 was the biggest span in history for
energy mega-mergers, including the mega-deal of Exxon Corp. acquiring
Mobil Corp. for about $79 billion. Soon afterward--in the wake of the
1996 electricity deregulation laws, and the earlier gas and oil dereg,
the stage was set for the California energy debacle, and the largest
energy rip-off in history . . . until now.
In the recent buy-out frenzy of energy commodity companies, Chevron
in August acquired Unocal for $17.8 billion, and other mergers are
underway. The menace is clear.
SENATE'S UNIQUE ROLE
We can't afford to stand back, in the lax spirit of waiting two
years from now for a post mortem, Enron-style, on what went wrong in
2005. The Senate needs to act now.
Already at the state and local level, lawmakers are casting about
for fall-back measures to defend their functioning under the gas price
hikes.
Hawaii. This week, Hawaii imposed a wholesale gas price cap at
$2.74 a gallon, including tax, which is indexed to average wholesale
prices around the U.S.A. The cap level stands for a pump price in the
range of $2.86 a gallon in Honolulu.
Massachusetts. Commonwealth leaders are considering a moratorium on
natural gas price hikes through the winter months, and direct purchases
of oil by the state. Secretary of State William Galvin and others are
raising this. Galvin said, ``We're all suffering from the high price of
gasoline, but you have no option about heating your home. We need a
comprehensive effort within 90 days, because once heating season
begins, you have to heat your house 24 hours a day.'' State Sen.
Michael Morissey (D-Quincy), Chairman of the Telecommunications,
Utilities and Energy Committee, intends to hold hearings.
Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri are talking about declaring a
moratorium on state sales taxes on gasoline.
In the face of this scrambling, on Sept. 1, President Bush told the
American public, as if in a daze, ``Don't buy any gas you don't need .
. .''
The U.S. Senate must act.
NEEDED EMERGENCY MEASURES
At the time of the energy price run-up in 2000, LaRouche issued a
memorandum Sept. 19, stressing the principles involved in needed
Federal government action. These guidelines are now even more urgently
needed.
Excerpts:
1. The following statement constitutes a preliminary statement of
policy ``On the Subject of Emergency Action by Governments to Bring the
Present Petroleum-Price Inflation Under Control.''
2. Broadly, the current global inflation in petroleum prices
threatens to be the detonator of a chaotic breakdown in many, if not
all of the economies of the world. The actions proposed here to deal
with that emergency situation will not solve the more general problem
of the world's financial and monetary systems at large, but will
contribute an important, and perhaps decisive step in that direction.
3. The underlying cause of the crisis, of which the petroleum-price
crisis is but the presently leading political-economic consequence, is
a general hyperinflation in financial asset-prices, which is now being
expressed, at increasing rates, as a hyperinflation in commodity prices
now following a trend similar to that suffered by Weimar Germany during
the interval March-November 1923.
4. For sundry, converging, and relatively obvious reasons, the most
brutal effect of that upward spiral of financial hyperinflation is
being expressed in devastating rates and magnitudes of rises in the
costs of petroleum. The increasingly desperate effort to secure inflows
of financial assets into the U.S. dollar sector, has seized upon
several combined factors, as the opportunity to increase asset-price
accumulations from hyperinflationary trends in the delivery prices of
petroleum products.
These factors include: recently increased concentration of
ownership of major oil companies through mergers and acquisitions, the
increased role of the spot market in petroleum deliveries, the
significance of denomination of deliveries in U.S. dollars, and an
intensity of speculative activity, especially in the form of financial
derivatives, in this area which threatens to bring the per-barrel price
of petroleum to between $40 and $50 per barrel, soon, and not much
later, much higher.
5. No ordinary means could bring this problem under control during
even the short term. Only drastic measures taken in concert between and
among sovereign national governments, could bring the petroleum-price
crisis itself under control. Any other proposal would be a childish
delusion. For the immediate future, either such governmental action
will be taken, or the eruption of international chaos within the weeks
ahead were the likely result.
6. The appropriate action, which must be led by the U.S.
government, must aim at immediate emergency cooperation among the
governments of principal petroleum-exporting and principal petroleum-
consuming nations.
7. These governments must: a) Declare a general strategic emergency
in the matter of stability of flows and prices of essential energy-
supplies of national economies; b) Establish contracts, directly
between and among governments, of not less than twelve months,
government-scheduled deliveries of petroleum from exporting to
consuming nations; c) Define reasonable prices for these contracts; d)
On the grounds of a global strategy emergency in petroleum prices and
supplies, these governments must set priority on processing of such
contracted petroleum flows through relevant refiners to priority
categories of consumers in each nation, causing other stocks to be
shunted to one side in the degree that these priority deliveries must
be processed first.
8. Such action will, obviously, collapse much of the current
hyperinflationary trends in petroleum. That will have a significant
political effect, in the form of reactions from the speculators
currently gorging themselves on the suffering of national economies
suffering zooming speculative prices of petroleum. We can not permit
the cupidity of a powerful few speculators to destroy enterprises
essential to the national interests of nations, and to the relations
among those national economies. That opposition to urgently needed
measures must be resisted on grounds of overriding national strategic
interests.
9. This proposed action will not cure the more general
hyperinflationary trend in progress. It will only bring a most critical
segment of this speculative inflation under control; but it will set
standards of cooperation now urgently needed, for dealing with the
general international banking and related crises about to strike the
world as a whole during the weeks and months immediately ahead.
10. There are many details of the current speculative marketing of
petroleum contracts which require closer scrutiny and related
assessment. That investigation should proceed; it is urgent. However,
those representatives of governments who understand the politics of
oil, must play a leading role in implementing the general measures I
have indicated, now, without delay. After a thirty-to ninety-day
initial period of operation of the proposed agreements, secondary and
tertiary features of the problem will be clearer, and, most important,
governments and others will have developed the mechanisms needed for
further courses of action.
______
Statement of Dr. James Newsome, President,
New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Jim Newsome
and I am the President of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX or
Exchange). NYMEX is the world's largest forum for trading and clearing
physical-commodity based futures contracts, including energy and metals
products. We have been in the business for 135 years and are a
federally chartered marketplace, fully regulated by the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission. On behalf of the Exchange, its Board of
Directors and shareholders, I thank you and the members of the
Committee for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record of the
hearing on global oil demand and gasoline prices.
First and foremost, we would like to acknowledge that not only has
the nation's energy supply been severely affected, but lives have been
lost, homes have been destroyed, and entire cities are in ruins. Our
thoughts and prayers are with all the families that have suffered from
the destruction of Katrina.
INTRODUCTION
NYMEX provides an important economic benefit to the public by
facilitating competitive price discovery and hedging. As the benchmark
for energy prices around the world, trading on NYMEX is transparent,
open and competitive and heavily regulated. Contrary to some beliefs,
NYMEX does not set prices for commodities trading on the exchange.
NYMEX does not trade in the market and, being price neutral, does not
influence price movement. NYMEX provides the forum for traders to come
together and execute trades at prices which best represent what market
participants think prices should be in the future, given today's
information.
Periods of market uncertainty and volatility often result from
extreme supply disruptions as we see with the numerous refineries shut
down due to Hurricane Katrina, which brings me to the reason I was
asked to testify today. There is a strong beneficial and interdependent
relationship between the futures and cash markets. The primary
motivation for using the futures market is to hedge against price risk
in the cash market. Prudent business managers rely on the futures
market to protect their business against price swings in the cash
market. Price volatility following Hurricane Katrina drove many into
the futures markets, as is reflected by the record volumes traded on
NYMEX since the hurricane.
Futures markets provide a reference point for use in arranging
trades at competitively determined prices. An understanding of the
NYMEX market, its pricing mechanism and the relationship between the
futures price and the cash price will provide useful instruction and
clarity to what is often perceived as an esoteric area of financial
dealings.
OVERVIEW
Futures markets fulfill two primary functions: (1) They permit
hedging, giving market participants the ability to shift price risk to
others who have inverse risk profiles or are willing to assume that
risk for profit; and (2) They facilitate price discovery and market
transparency. Transparency involves many factors, including: (1)
Continuous price reporting during the trading session; (2) Daily
reporting of trading volume and open interest; and (3) Monthly
reporting of deliveries against the futures contract.
NYMEX futures contracts trade by open outcry on the Exchange floor
during the day and during the evening on NYMEX ACCESSsm, our
after-hours electronic trading platform. Transactions are executed in a
transparent and competitive environment between NYMEX members who are
registered futures industry professionals. The daily settlement price
for each contract is calculated pursuant to Exchange rules, which
generally is the average price for all outright transactions during the
closing range.
NYMEX energy futures markets are highly liquid and transparent,
representing the views and expectations of a wide variety of
participants from every sector of the energy marketplace. Customers
from around the globe can call into a broker on the NYMEX trading floor
to place buy and sell orders. On behalf of the customers, buyers
announce their bids and sellers announce offers. The price agreed upon
for sale of any futures contract trade is immediately transmitted to
the Exchange's electronic price reporting system and to the news wires
and information vendors who inform the world of accurate futures
prices.
Price signals are the most efficient transmitters of economic
information, telling us when supplies are short or in surplus, when
demand is robust or wanting, or when we should take notice of longer-
term trends. NYMEX futures markets are the messengers carrying this
information from the energy industry to the public. The wide
dissemination of futures prices generates competition in the
establishment of current cash values for commodities.
GASOLINE
Gasoline is the largest single volume refined product by volume
sold in the United States and accounts for almost half of national oil
consumption. It is a highly diverse market, with hundreds of wholesale
distributors and thousands of retail outlets, often making it subject
to intense competition and price volatility.
NYMEX trades, among other things, New York Harbor leaded and
unleaded regular gasoline futures contracts. The New York harbor
gasoline futures contract trades in units of 42,000 gallons (1,000
barrels). It is based on delivery of petroleum products to terminals in
the New York harbor, the major East Coast trading center for imports
and domestic shipments, from refineries in the New York harbor area or
from the Gulf Coast refining centers.
Average daily trading volume in these contracts has hit record
levels in recent months and prices have been volatile. These market
conditions reflect the basic market fundamentals where there is an
imbalance of supply and demand. Tight gasoline supplies due to lack of
refinery capacity, compounded by the impact of hurricane Katrina, which
resulted in the closing of 9 refineries, has driven prices upward
dramatically in the cash and futures market.
The importance of the Gulf Coast refineries as a key supply source
for the New York Harbor via Colonial Pipeline directly impacts the
physical gasoline market and the futures gasoline market. During the
one-week period prior to hurricane Katrina, the cash market price for
Gulf Coast gasoline averaged $1.82 per gallon (using the Platts
wholesale assessment at the Colonial Pipeline), which was $.08 per
gallon lower than the weekly average NYMEX futures settlement price.
After the supply disruption due to hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Coast
gasoline cash market rose more than one dollar to $2.84 per gallon for
the daily average on August 30 (one day after the storm), $.37 higher
than the NYMEX futures settlement price on August 30. This differential
between the cash and futures prices represents the free market price
that is derived in light of the extreme supply disruption and reflects
a new equilibrium in the marketplace in response to the shock to the
demand and supply balance.
NYMEX has closely monitored the gasoline futures market during this
recent period of price increases in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina
and has initially concluded that the market behaved rationally and the
market participants acted responsibly in their futures and options
trading.
SURVEILLANCE
Hurricane Katrina has had a devastating economic impact. Nine
refineries in the Gulf of Mexico have been damaged beyond immediate
repair and critical petroleum supplies have been lost. Prior to
Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. refineries had already been running at
maximum capacity for years, struggling to keep up with rising gasoline
demand. This huge natural disaster in a key refining region only
further exacerbated an already growing problem.
The NYMEX Market Surveillance staff routinely follows trends in the
cash markets, focusing on whether the futures markets are converging
with the spot physical market as the NYMEX contract nears expiration.
In light of the market uncertainties that resulted from hurricane
Katrina, the NYMEX staff also monitored the supply and demand
fundamentals in the underlying cash market to ensure that NYMEX prices
reflect cash market price movements, that there are no price
distortions and no market manipulation.
After analyzing events and developments over the past week, NYMEX
staff believes that price increases experienced were due to fundamental
market factors tied to supply disruptions in the wake of hurricane
Katrina. The NYMEX system worked according to design, and added a level
of economic stability to the situation by providing a viable price
discovery and risk management forum.
SPECULATORS
It is widely, yet inaccurately, theorized that speculators can
drive prices up. Placing blame on speculators may grab the attention of
the media, but does not accurately reflect the realities of how markets
work. With hundreds of commercial participants and instantaneous price
dissemination, any ``speculative'' price would be met with an equally
strong ``commercial'' reaction. If markets move in a direction
inconsistent with actual market factors, there is a vast number of
participants including energy producers, wholesalers, retailers, and
government agencies that have comparable access to information. These
participants will respond to ensure that prices rapidly return to where
the industry consensus believes they should be.
Speculators do exist and they actually play a valuable, even
necessary role in the market. They add liquidity to the market and
enable commercial traders to get in and out of the market when
necessary. By the nature of their role, speculative traders seek to
take advantage of price trends, but because they lack the real product
to back up their investment, they cannot control the price. They create
virtually no impact on daily settlement prices, the primary benchmark
used by the marketplace.
The Exchange has been scrutinized in the past on the role of hedge
fund participation in causing market volatility. The effects of
hurricane Katrina further emphasize the minimal impact hedge funds and
speculators have on futures prices when compared to the real impacts of
true market factors. hurricane Katrina is a natural disaster that
severely disrupted the U.S. supply system and in effect drove prices
higher.
Hedge funds do not account for anywhere near enough volume to
affect prices. According to a NYMEX study on the participation of hedge
funds in the energy markets over a one year period beginning in January
2004, hedge funds only accounted for 4.6% of overall futures volume. Of
this total, the crude oil futures market had 3.07% hedge fund
participation and, its products, heating oil and unleaded gasoline, had
3.62% and 3.26% hedge fund participation, respectively.
MARKET IMPACT OF KATRINA
NYMEX directly felt the disruptive effects of Katrina in our energy
futures markets. The Exchange experienced several unprecedented market
events in the aftermath of Katrina. Significant price moves occurred in
the energy complex on Sunday evening during the NYMEX
ACCESSsm trading session which commenced at 7:00 PM. During
this session (which is effectively the commencement of the Monday
business day) gasoline moved upward due to severe concerns around the
immediate and longer term effect to refineries in Louisiana, as well as
pipeline distribution systems in the region.
During regular trading hours on Tuesday, August 30, the September
2005 unleaded gasoline contract traded to its maximum upward price
limit, resulting in a temporary trading halt. Exchange rules impose a
price fluctuation limit of $0.25 per gallon of unleaded gasoline above
or below the previous day's settlement price. When that limit is hit, a
five minute temporary trading halt is triggered. This limit was reached
last Tuesday when the September 2005 contract traded at $2.31. In
accordance with NYMEX Rules, the market was halted at 11:15 AM and re-
opened after 5-minutes with an expanded limit of $0.50 cents above the
previous day's settlement.
In response to the price volatility, NYMEX increased margins on
several occasions for a variety of the energy futures contracts,
including gasoline and crude oil. Margin is the money or collateral
deposited with the clearinghouse to protect the clearinghouse against
loss on open futures or options positions. In all cases, NYMEX required
additional margin to maintain the integrity of the clearinghouse.
Margin is vital to ensuring the financial integrity of the Exchange and
provides the clearinghouse with the ability to protect customers
against counterparty credit risk. On August 30, 2005, NYMEX managed and
cleared the greatest single intra-day variation margin call scenario,
when it moved nearly $2 Billion.
During the August 30 trading session, NYMEX set daily volume
records for overall Exchange volume and for gasoline and crude oil
futures, as well as for the Exchanges electronic clearing platform
NYMEX Clearportsm. The following day, August 31, Exchange-
wide options, NYMEX Division options, and NYMEX ClearPortsm
clearing once again reached record volumes. These record volume
numbers, clearly reflect NYMEX's importance as a transparent trading
forum where customers can effectively manage their price risk. It is
precisely during such times of market volatility and uncertainty that
the Exchange's vital role in facilitating price discovery and risk
management is most crucial to our customers.
During the entire week following hurricane Katrina, NYMEX
Compliance and CFTC officials have had a heightened presence on the
trading floor overseeing all markets. All activity has been thoroughly
reviewed utilizing all available electronic tools to detect any abusive
activities.
CONCLUSION
At all times during this period of extreme uncertainty in the
market, NYMEX has been the source for transparent prices in the energy
markets. Our price reporting systems to the world's vendors have worked
flawlessly and without delay. Our trading systems during regular
trading hours and during after hours trading on our electronic
platforms have performed flawlessly.
Even though as consumers we may not like the result, the NYMEX
marketplace performed its responsibility to create open, competitive
and transparent energy pricing. We can only imagine the market
uncertainty and further devastation to consumers if NYMEX were unable
to perform its duty and prices were determined behind closed doors.
I thank you for the opportunity to share the viewpoint of the New
York Mercantile Exchange with you today.