Oil Follies

Certainly one of the issues on everyone's mind these days is the price of gasoline and the price of oil.  The runup in the price of both over the past couple of years has everyone wringing their hands and looking for solutions.  Every politician from the local dogcatcher to the President of the United States (and more importantly, the King of Saudi Arabia) has either come up with a plan to address the 'oil crisis' or is working on one. 

Andy Harris, the Republican nominee for Congress in Maryland's First District recently released his plan.  As I understand it, the plan includes:

1. Temporarily suspending the Federal and state gasoline taxes from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
2. Temporarily reducing the 40+ gasoline blends used in the United States to four blends in an effort to simplify refining and improve the efficiency of refining and transporting gasoline.
3. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, the Aleutian Islands and the US continental shelf to oil and gas production.
4. Increase long-term oil refining capacity by establishing fast track approval for new and expanded refineries.
5. Provide incentives for technological innovations in alternative forms of energy such as nuclear, solar, geothermal, and cellusolic ethanol.

Before analyzing the plan, let's take a look at the background of the problem. 

World Petroleum Production and Consumption (Millions of BBL/day)

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Production	79.6	83.1	84.6	84.6	84.6
Consumption	79.6	82.3	83.7	84.6	85.4

These figures are from the US Energy Information Administration.  Note that production has stagnated since 2005 while world consumption has continued to grow.  Consumption by industrialized countries (OECD members) in 2007 was basically the same as it was in 2003 - a little under 49 million barrels a day.  Consumption in other countries, however, increased from about 31 million barrels a day in 2003 to 36.4 million barrels a day in 2007.  Every indication is that the demand from non-OECD members will continue to increase.  Demand in China, with its 2 billion citizens and India with its billion or so will continue to grow at a rapid rate.  Demand in the former USSR is also growing. 

Production, on the other hand, isn't increasing at all.  While new fields are coming on line, in the Caspian Sea area for example, and new discoveries are being made, they are insufficient to overcome the long-term decline of three to four percent in the production of existing fields.

Many blame speculators for increasing the price of oil by driving up demand and, in fact, they do contribute to some of the wild fluctuations and instability in the market, but they never actually take delivery of the oil and thus don't contribute to the ultimate demand.  So what we really have is a growing imbalance between a static supply and a growing demand that is driving prices higher.

With that in mind, let's take a look at Andy Harris's proposed energy plan.

First he proposes eliminating the gasoline tax - both Federal and state - between Memorial Day and Labor day.  This will have the effect of increasing demand but will do nothing to boost supplies.  In addition, of course, hundreds of millionss of dollars that should be used to ease traffic bottlenecks, maintain roads and expand mass transit will be lost.  Sure the price might drop a bit initially, but will creep back up as demand returns and we'll have nothing to show for it.  I've written about it before, but I have to say it again - this is a bad idea.

Second, he wants to reduce the 40 or so different gasoline blends in the United States to 4 - he doesn't say how.  The reason these different blends exist is to mitigate air quality problems in many large metropolitan areas around the United States.  They are designed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds which, combined with sunlight, produce ozone.  Some also are formulated to reduce emission of nitrogen oxides which pollute air and waterways and can contribute to acid rain.  Certainly a reduction in the number of blends will reduce transportation and storage costs for the oil companies.  The effect on consumer costs is uncertain.  Many of the blends cost more to produce than conventional gasoline but pollute less.  It's hard for me to see how this will save money for consumers without increasing ozone pollution in our metropolitan areas.  I don't see any additional production or reduced demand from this.

Third, he wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), the Aleutian Islands and the US Continental shelf to exploration.  The US Geological Survey estimates that there are between 7 and 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR.  The Energy Information Administration estimates that opening ANWR to production would result in a peak production of 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 which would reduce the price of a barrel of oil by about 75 cents - not quite two cents per gallon. 

I have no idea how much recoverable oil is in the Aleutian Island area - I haven't been able to find much about it.  It appears certain there are significant amounts of recoverable crude oil in the unexplored parts of the US continental shelf - perhaps more than exist in ANWR.  Americans need to decide what kinds of risks they want to take to obtain additional domestic oil supplies - even if they are small compared to our imports.  It's worth noting, though, that we seem unwilling to allow even wind turbines to be built offshore, much less oil platforms, pipelines, etc. that would come with significant oil production.  This proposal does add something to production, albeit not for ten or fifteen years at the earliest.  

Fourth, he wants to increase long-term refining capacity in the United States, presumably by eliminating some of the environmental and safety reviews that are now required.  Refining is an interesting problem.  Over the past year, the price of oil has increased much faster than the price of gasoline, sharply reducing the profits levels of refineries.  Oil companies like Valero and Sunoco which refine oil but don't produce it have dropped sharply over the past year.  As a result refiners are shifting their operations to produce more distillate (diesel and heating oil) which has a relatively high price and less gasoline from each barrel.  

Harris's proposal ignores the real problem with refining - it's not consistently profitable.  If companies can't earn a reliable and fair return on investment in new refinery capacity, none will be built, regardless of any loosening of regulations.  I don't see anything here which will alter the supply/demand relationship.

Fifth, he wants to provide incentives for technological innovations in alternate forms of energy.  I'm all for this, provided the incentives don't turn into long-term subsidies.  We need to find alternatives and, in the long run, this will help to reduce demand for petroleum and all that comes with it.

So what does all this do for Marylanders and the voters of the First District?  Not much in the short term except for the ridiculous and self-defeating gas tax holiday.  But maybe there's not much that can be done in the short term.  I do note that Harris's proposals contain nothing about mass transit or public transportation, nothing about smart growth that would reduce transportation needs, nothing about increasing corporate fleet mileage requirements and nothing about alternative fuels such as the plug-in hybrids being developed by General Motors and Toyota and the hydrogen fuel cell car recently introduced by Honda, but that may be too much to ask.

[The photo (click on it to see the large version0 is of the Thunderhorse production platform built by BP at a cost of about $1 billion.  It was struck by hurricane Dennis in 2005 before it was in production and partially capsized due to a construction error.  It's a reminder that there are risks to offshore drilling and production that need to be balanced against the potential rewards]