The federal government will open the nation’s first two gasoline reserves, in New York and New England, most likely near Boston, to guard against fuel shortages if supplies are disrupted by events such as Hurricane Sandy, which battered the East Coast in October 2012.
US Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, a Fall River native, said the reserves — which will be placed near New York Harbor and in the Boston region — will each hold 500,000 barrels of gasoline. Together, that’s roughly a third of the gasoline consumed on the East Coast each day.
Related: The Marriage of McCarthy and Moniz
He's got connections.
The fuel, which will be kept in space leased from existing storage facilities, is expected to be available by late summer, typically the height of hurricane season. “This reserve is a step toward preventing another Sandy situation,” Moniz said during a Friday conference call with reporters.
Sandy left many communities flooded, without electricity, and unable to get the gasoline to power generators after two refineries and more than 40 terminals in New York Harbor were damaged by the powerful storm. Some gas stations went a month without fuel.
As part of a broader energy review, Moniz said his department is looking at whether similar reserves are needed in other areas of the country. It’s among the Obama administration’s initiatives to prepare for the effects of climate change, including violent weather.
Just wondering when and who decided to ascribe the term violent to weather. Damaging, yes, destructive, yes, but it is weather. It doesn't know intent.
Again, I'm dealing with what is essentially a war paper so I shouldn't be surprised regarding the self-internalization of viewpoint and terms. Not even complaining. Just recognizing it.
John Kingston, director of news at Platts, a provider of energy information, said creation of the gasoline reserves might temporarily boost prices as government purchases add to demand. Just what the impact will be depends on how and when the government makes those buys.
Yeah, well, WHO CARES? The set-upon AmeriKan consumer laden with sequestration and austerity can suck it up.
“If they spread it out over time,” Kingston said, “it won’t even be noticed.”
The New York and New England gasoline reserves will be similar to existing stockpiles of government-owned petroleum products. Officials established the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which can hold 727 million barrels of crude, after the Arab oil embargo of the early 1970s.
That is there for the military in the event of a cut-off off supplies, folks. You fellow citizens out there won't be seeing a drop and will be under ration if that thing needs to be seriously tapped in any way. You will have a little less than three months before this government runs out and then goes nuclear on the world. Read it here first.
Emergency supplies were released in 1991 after Iraq invaded Kuwait, leading to the first Gulf War; and in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina damaged oil operations in the Gulf.
The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, meanwhile, holds 1 million barrels of ultra-low sulfur fuel. The Heating Oil Reserve, created in 2000 under a bill by Massachusetts Senator Edward J. Markey, a Democrat, was used for the first time following Hurricane Sandy. The Obama administration released emergency supplies to the Department of Defense for distribution to federal, state, and local first responders.
While the exact cost of the new reserves will be determined by the price of gasoline, they are expected to run about $200 million combined.That money will come from the occasional sale of supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Meaning they are robbing Peter to supply Paul?
The US government sometimes sells portions of its stockpile in order to test whether its system is ready to respond in an emergency situation. It held a test sale in mid-March, when it offered 5 million barrels of crude for sale.
Kingston, of Platts, said one potential drawback of government-owned gasoline reserves is the question of whether a government cache of fuel will discourage private enterprises from building their own inventories.
They gave BP new contracts for deepwater drilling. What's the concern? This government is owned by oil interests, among others.
“That’s always a risk, always a concern,” he said, but having a federal gas reserve is “probably not going to do any harm.”
Markey and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, joined Moniz to announce the creation of the gasoline reserves Friday.
“This gasoline reserve is right up there with sandbags and seawalls in terms of what we need to be ready for super-charged storms,” Markey said.
Related: More Monday Muck
What a muddy mess.
And while they are building a reserve they are going to also export?
"Economists back increased US oil and gas exports" by Jonathan Fahey | Associated Press April 30, 2014
NEW YORK — Whether to allow more exports of US oil and natural gas has become a matter of political debate in Washington. But to economists, the answer is clear: The nation would benefit.
The vast majority of economists surveyed this month by The Associated Press say lifting restrictions on exports of oil and natural gas would help the economy even if it meant higher fuel prices for consumers.
You are just a ca$h pump to them, readers.
Corporate economists, of course, are never wrong.
More exports would encourage investment in oil and gas production and transport, create jobs, make oil and gas supplies more stable, and reduce the US trade deficit, they say.
As domestic energy production has boomed, drilling companies have pushed to be allowed to sell crude oil and natural gas overseas, where they can command higher prices. Such exports are restricted by dated energy security regulations.
Yeah, let 'em rip off someone else for even more obscene profit.
Those opposed to opening trade say exports could make it more expensive for Americans to heat their homes and fill up their cars. But even economists who think exports might increase fuel prices for US consumers — an open question — say the overall benefit to the economy would outweigh any possible harm. It would be better to allow the exports and use tax breaks or other methods to help those struggling with higher prices, they say.
Reading this corporate swill is like drinking a quart of oil.
‘‘The economy in general is better off if we can sell something to someone and bring money into the economy,’’ said Jerry Webman, chief economist at Oppenheimer Funds. ‘‘I’d rather deal with any side effects directly than limit our ability to do business with the world.’’
The AP survey collected the views of private, corporate, and academic economists on a range of issues.
Seems like I saw that somewhere before.
Of the 30 economists who participated, nearly 90 percent responded that more exports of oil and gas would help the US economy.
Oil and gas export restrictions went largely unchallenged for decades because consumption in the United States — by far the world’s biggest consumer of oil and gas — was rising while production was falling. Imports were increasing, and few thought the United States would ever be in a position to export oil or gas.
But new techniques have allowed drillers to tap oil and gas in formations once thought out of reach, and US production has soared.
Related: Fracking Causes Earthquakes
Never mind the rotten water, either.
The United States still consumes far more crude oil than it produces. But oil companies are producing a light sweet crude that foreign refineries covet and that many US refineries are not equipped to handle. The companies and some politicians have called for lifting oil export restrictions. Proponents concede, though, that that’s unlikely in an election year.
Low natural gas prices in the United States have helped reduce heating and electricity prices for residents and given US manufacturers a cost advantage over their competitors in Europe and Asia.
Related: Natural gas sector suffers growth pains
Yeah, just ignore the record-high prices this past winter.
Sick of the lying yet?
That’s one reason Robert Johnson, director of economic analysis at Morningstar, doesn’t embrace the idea of unfettered natural gas exports. ‘‘We’ve already got a few industries building on the concept that we’re going to have a long-term energy advantage here, and I’d hate to interrupt those plans,’’ Johnson said.
He also argues that higher energy prices would hurt those with lower incomes, who spend a relatively large portion of their paychecks on energy.
Who cares? We are all here to $ervice and $upport wealth and the 1%.
But it is far from clear that exports would raise fuel prices or eliminate the country’s competitive advantage.
You know, as long a someone is making a buck who cares if gas prices zoom for whatever reason? Setting new highs all the time.