Skip to main content

Oil Change International published a report which was discussed in this DK diary.  

The report claimed that 60% of the gasoline production from Gulf Coast refineries  (in PAD 3) was exported from the United States in 2012.   The problem is that nothing in the report explained or showed the basis of the 60% figure which was claimed to be based on DOE-EIA data.   A link OCI provided to DOE-Energy Information Agency did not show the claimed 60% gasoline exports from Pad 3.

DOE-EIA has not published its 2012 annual report, which is due at the end of this month, so OCI did not base its conclusions on the specific 2012 report in question.

Year 2011 data from DOE-EIA is shown in this PDF table:

http://www.eia.gov/...

For year 2011, the PAD 3 Gulf-area refineries produced:

[all in thousands of barrels]

                                         Exports         Supplied Products (domestic consumption)
Finished Motor Gasoline      156,214              483,739

This puts the finished motor gasoline exports for 2011 in PAD 3 at 24% exports.....far from the 60% gasoline exports claimed by OCI for year 2012.

As noted above, the definitive report from DOE-EIA for 2012 will be published by the end of the month.  However, some summary data for 2012 indicates that the 60% gasoline export claim made by OCI is unlikely to be supported in the 2012 report.

This report shows that gasoline exports from PAD 3 refineries dropped in 2012 from 2011.

Under the circumstances, the Oil Change International claim cannot be supported and should be withdrawn as a misleading and erroneous claim.

Originally posted to LakeSuperior on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Climate Hawks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Environmental advocacy organizations cannot allow (0+ / 0-)

    themselves to make serious errors in this manner that confuse physical facts with conflations and fabrications.  

  •  I've been bothered for awhile (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LakeSuperior

    by the XL pipeline critics who dwell on the exporting of processed Tar Sands oil from the Gulf Coast as if not a gallon would be consumed here.

    The main evidence is usually a reference to Valero's presentation to its investors where they say they will increase exports of refined products.

    Yet Valero will buy only 20% of XL's output.

    “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

    by 6412093 on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:15:28 PM PDT

    •  The real question is whether a claim that the (0+ / 0-)

      KXL is primarily for export undermines the issue equities
      of anti-KXL opponents as to the breadth of the jurisdiction of the 'national interest' determination and test.   Claiming the pipeline is for export means that the decision as to 'national interest' has less rather than more effect on the final outcome.  

      Anti-KXL forces are in a better position not claiming the pipeline is primarily for export because because domestic use of the tar sands crude is then far more relevant to the
      national interest test than if most of the transported oil were to be exported....thus making it less relevant to U.S. interests.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site