At first glance, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to facilitate increased sales of E15 — an 85/15 blend of gasoline blendstock and ethanol — by putting it on the same summertime regulatory footing as commonly available E10 in eight Midwest/Great Plains states might seem like a boon to corn farmers and ethanol producers. But as we discuss in today’s RBN blog, there are a number of economic, practical and even psychological barriers to broadened public access to — and use of — E15 that go well beyond the specific regulatory issue the EPA proposal addresses. As a result, as we see it, EPA’s plan is unlikely to boost E15 demand in any meaningful way, at least for now.
Posts from Robert Auers
U.S. production of renewable diesel (RD) is rising fast and production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) will soon follow suit, driven largely by federal and state incentives. But U.S. demand for both RD and SAF is growing at a more measured pace, mostly because they are throttled by a number of other governmental policies, including the level of blending mandates set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As we see it, the net effect of this disconnect between domestic supply and demand will be the U.S. becoming a net exporter of RD this year and a net exporter of SAF in 2025 — but only after a spike in SAF imports in 2023-24. Yes, it’s complicated, but with public-sector policies impacting both sides of the supply/demand scale, did you really expect it wouldn’t be? In today’s RBN blog, we look at two more energy products the U.S. will be exporting.
The cost of gasoline has garnered a lot of headlines since the start of 2022, with the blame for elevated prices falling on seemingly everything and everyone, from the Biden administration’s policies on oil exploration to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as decisions by major U.S. producers and OPEC not to swiftly boost oil production. Another can't-be-ignored culprit is the loss of significant U.S. refining capacity over the last few years, which has limited the ability of refiners to respond to the strong, post-COVID demand recovery by ramping up production. By and large, the refineries still operating have been running flat out. In today’s RBN blog, we look at the state of global refining, where new capacity is likely to be built, and the headwinds to future investment.
As the world economy tries to dust itself off after COVID, increased demand for transportation fuels coupled with tight supplies has become a pain. The shortage escalated to crisis levels this spring and summer when, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, sanctions eliminated Russian exports of crude oil and intermediate feedstocks to the U.S. and severely reduced flows to Europe. While Russia has been able to find some alternate markets, its overall product exports are down significantly. Adding to these product-supply reductions are policy decisions by Putin’s allies in China to reduce their product exports to a trickle. Chinese exports had been an important part of regional supply in recent years, but authorities there have decided to decrease the number and size of export quotas issued, leaving many refineries in China operating at rates well below their capabilities. In today’s RBN blog, we take a closer look at how developments in Russia and China have played a major role in the current global shortage of refined products.
Way back in 2019, just about everyone in the refining world was talking about IMO 2020, the International Maritime Organization’s soon-to-be-implemented rule requiring much lower sulfur emissions from most ocean-going ships. A lot of forecasters were anticipating that major market dislocations would result — things like $50/bbl-plus diesel crack spreads, oversupply of high-sulfur fuel oil, and ultra-wide differentials between light and heavy crude oils. They did, but only briefly, in the last few months of 2019. The implementation of IMO 2020 turned out to be pretty much a non-event, and for much of 2020 and 2021, people didn’t think much about the new bunker fuel rule. Lately, things have been changing, as we discuss in today’s RBN blog.
As the price of gasoline continues its seemingly never-ending upward path in the U.S. (not withstanding a bit of a pause in the past week), the cause (or blame, if you prefer) continues to shift. Of course, the Biden administration has heavily promoted the phrase “Putin’s price hike,” and the Russian president can certainly claim some of the blame. His invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions on the world’s second-largest exporter of refined products (after the U.S.) have led to the loss of several hundred thousand barrels per day of product supply. However, prices for refined products were already rising before his late February invasion due to a variety of other factors, both on the supply and demand sides of the equation. Perhaps the most important factor has been the loss of significant U.S. refining capacity over the last few years, which is limiting the ability of refiners to respond to the strong demand recovery and loss of supply. In its highly publicized June 15 letter to U.S. oil executives, the administration acknowledged this as it demanded refiners reactivate lost capacity and increase production. In today’s RBN blog, we summarize the shutdowns which have taken place in the U.S. and discuss the reasons behind those closures.