DISTRIBUTION OF METHANOL FOR
MOTOR VEHICLE USE IN THE
CALIFORNIA SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
ENERGY AND ENvmoNMENiAL ANALYSIS, INC.
1655 NORTH FORT MYER DR
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209
-------
EPA 460/3-87-03
DISTRIBUTION OF METHANOL FOR
MOTOR VEHICLE USE IN THE
CALIFORNIA SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Contract No. 68-03-1865
Work Assignment No. 18
Prepared by:
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC.
1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 600
Arlington, Virginia 22209
September 1986
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 Study Scope 1-1
1.2 Findings 1-1
2. EXISTING GASOLINE AND DIESEL
TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 2-1
2.1 General Distribution Scheme for
Refined Petroleum Products 2-1
2.2 South Coast Air Basin Gasoline and Diesel Sources 2-3
2.3 South Coast Air Basin Petroleum Product Terminals 2-6
2.4 South Coast Air Basin Product Pipelines 2-8
2.5 South Coast Air Basin Truck Deliveries 2-9
2.6 South Coast Air Basin Service Outlets 2-9
3. EXISTING METHANOL TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 3-1
3.1 Methanol Supplies 3-1
3.2 Terminal and Blending Operations 3-1
3 . 3 Distribution 3-2
3.4 Methanol Fuel Outlets 3-4
4. METHANOL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS 4-1
4.1 Terminal Facilities 4-1
4.2 Methanol Distribution : 4-3
4.3 Methanol Outlets 4-4
5. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXPANSION SCENARIO 5-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
6. COST OF THE METHANOL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 6-1
6.1 Phase I Capital Costs ..; 6-1
6.2 Phase II Capital Costs 6-3
6.3 Impact on Product Cost. ." 6-5
7. COMPARISON OF METHANOL AND GASOLINE RETAIL PRICES 7-1
8. OUTSTANDING UNCERTAINTIES AND CONCERNS . . .'. 8-1
REFERENCES R-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2-1 _Petroleum Refineries in the South Coast Air Basin 2-4
2-2 GATX South Coast Air Basin Terminals 2-7
2-3 General Components of Gasoline Prices in the
South Coast Air Basin 2-12
3-1 Characteristics of Terminal Facilities 3-3
5-1 Prospective Expansion of Methanol Distribution
System in the South Coast Air Basin 5-2
6-1 Capital Costs, Methanol Distribution - Phase I Expansion 6-2
6-2 Capital Costs, Methanol Distribution - Phase II Expansion .... 6-4
6-3 Impact of Distribution System Capital Improvements
on Cost of Methanol 6-6
6-4 Methanol Supply and Distribution Operating Costs 6-8
7-1 "Equivalent" Gasoline Prices Based Upon
the Retail Cost of Neat Methanol 7-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2-1 Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuels 2-2
2-2 South Coast Air Basin Fuel Distribution System 2-5
-------
1. SUMMARY
1.1 STUDY SCOPE
The transition to methanol as a significant motor vehicle fuel in the
.United States requires the simultaneous implementation of vehicle
product and fuel distribution system changes. To understand better the
costs and impediments to the fuel supply transition, a study focusing on
a single urban region distribution system was funded by EPA and DOE
(through an interagency agreement). The greater Los Angeles metropolitan
area (known as the California South Coast Air Basin for air pollution
control purposes) was chosen for this study for several reasons:
• California has an existing methanol vehicle demonstration
program with practical small scale experience.
• The state and local governments of the basin are consider-
ing conversion of some subset of vehicles to methanol as
part of an air pollution control program. /
• Results for the South Coast Air Basin should be trans-
ferable to other coastal urban areas where a substantial
portion of U.S. vehicle use occurs.
This document describes a methanol distribution system (equipment,
logistics, and costs) for the South Coast Air Basin which will provide up
to 250 million gallons per year of fuel methanol (an upper bound for
methanol requirements in the Basin in the year 2000).^/
1.2 FINDINGS
Over 200,000 gallons per year of "near-neat" methanol currently is
distributed for motor vehicle use in the South Coast Air Basin. The
methanol arrives by rail tank car at an existing chemical storage
terminal. The methanol is "splash" blended with 2 to 15% gasoline in
1-1
-------
dedicated tank trucks and is distributed through eleven specialized
fleet service outlets in the area.
This existing distribution system can be expanded to a volume of 50
million gallons per year with the addition of more trucks and outlets for
an estimated cost of $1.2 million to $9 million. Most of the cost is
associated with modifications at the service stations. While demand is
below 50 million gallons per year, too few service station owners may be
willing to commit capital to a methanol service capability unless they
can take a very substantial mark-up on the product or they are provided
separate incentives by outside parties.
Expanding the distribution system from 50 million to 250 million gallons
per year probably will require the modification of at least one existing
petroleum product terminal to methanol handling. Changes could include
dedicated handling and storage systems at a cost of $7 million to $8
million. Distribution to service stations would continue through the use
of a dedicated truck fleet. The use of local petroleum product pipelines
would not be economically justified. The number of service stations
would have to expand to 500 (ten percent of all outlets in the basin).
At a volume of 250 million gallons per year, there would be both a
sufficient number of outlets (from a customer perspective) and a suffic-
ient sales volume (from the service station owners' perspective). The
total capital cost of the terminal modifications, outlet changes and the
tank truck fleet are on the order of $5 million to $27 million. The wide
range in cost is due to uncertainties about the adaptability of existing
petroleum product equipment to a limited methanol market.
EEA estimates that distribution activities (terminals, trucks, and
service stations) will add 9$ to 19$ to the price of a gallon of fuel
methanol. Taxes on methanol add an additional 12$ to 13.5$ to that
price. Using an imported wholesale methanol price of 35$ to 45$ per
1-2
-------
gallon (as estimated for EPA by Jack Faucett Associates) this analysis
would indicate a retail after tax price between 55.5<|: and 77.5$ per
gallon. The "equivalent" gasoline price, 'taking into account the
difference in methanol energy density and its potentially higher energy
efficiency, is $0.93 to $1.29 per gallon.
While this paper prescribes one system for distributing methanol in the
South Coast Air Basin, several large uncertainties exist which will
influence the design and cost of an actual distribution system. These
uncertainties include the standardization of methanol fuel specif-
ications, the regulatory treatment of methanol as a pollutant, the means
by which the first outlets are established, and the extent to which
existing equipment can be adapted to methanol service. (In line with
these uncertainties, EEA received additional information from the staffs
at the California Energy Commission and Chevron U.S.A., after the
completion of this study. Chevron's cost estimates for service station
modifications were slightly higher than the ones in this report. The
Commission's costs are substantially higher but they translate into a
methanol price impact of only 2.5^ per gallon. The project schedule and
budget did not allow for a follow-up investigation of this new
information by EEA).
1-3
-------
2. EXISTING GASOLINE AND DIESEL TRANSPORT
AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
2.1 GENERAL DISTRIBUTION SCHEME FOR REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS3/
Motor diesel and gasolines produced in petroleum refineries move from
the refineries by pipeline, tanker and barge to storage tanks at term-
inals. The product from domestic refineries is augmented by imported
products and domestically produced alcohol blending stocks. From
terminals, motor diesel and gasolines move by truck directly to large
commercial customers and retail outlets which are principally service
stations and convenience stores. Product may also move to intermediate
distribution "bulk" tank storage plants, where it is reloaded in a truck
and taken to a service outlet. An overview of the movement of petroleum
products from refineries to wholesale distributors, retail outlets and
commercial customers is given in Figure 2-1.
A single refinery may supply products to many terminals. By means of
barge, tanker, pipeline and truck shipments, the terminals can transfer
fuels to other terminals or bulk plants. In turn, truck shipments from
terminals to retail outlets and distributors, as well as to direct
purchasers, complete the movement of gasoline and diesel from its point
of manufacture. Often, wholesalers (jobbers) of gasoline and diesel may
operate (chains of) retail gasoline outlets. There are even wholesalers
who obtain some of their gasoline from their own refineries and sell
through their own retail outlets while simultaneously supplying retail
outlets owned by others. A majority of the outlets supplied by jobbers
are operated by independent dealers.
2-1
-------
FIGURE 2-1
Production and Distribution of Motor Vehicle Fuels
BLENDING
STOCKS
Petroleum Refineries
Additives Manufacturing
Product and Blend Stock
Imports
TRUCK
-:-: OR
RAIL
MARINE
TERMINAL
SALEABLE
PRODUCTS
BLENDING
WHOLESALE
DISTRIBUTION
Refineriy Terminals '::::x:%.:...
PIPELINE OR VESSEL
Terminals
PIPELINE
OR
TRUCK
TRUCK
TRUCK.
TRUCK
TRUCK
TRUCK
gfi
Bulk Rants
END
USERS
Retail Outlets
Fleet Operations
-------
Retail distribution of gasoline is made through outlets of various
types, including large volume self-service pumpers, traditional service
stations and convenience stores. Retailers of gasoline may be single-
site dealers, operators of retail chains, jobbers, small refiners or
larger integrated oil companies.
2.2 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN GASOLINE AND DIESEL SOURCES
There are 13 operating refineries (see Table 2-1) in the South Coast Air
Basin, most of which produce gasoline and diesel for the local market.^/
Another six refineries in the Basin have shutdown since 1980 due to a
highly competitive market and no demand growth.^/ At the refineries
various process units create blending stocks which are combined to meet
the specific specifications for motor diesel and unleaded regular,
unleaded premium, and leaded regular gasolines.
Most of the area's gasoline and diesel demand (approximately 6 billion
gallons each year)"/ is met with locally produced products by the
network of refineries and pipelines depicted in Figure 2-2. Some
domestic and imported (Indonesia, Chinese, etc.) blending stocks and
finished products are brought into the South Coast by ship and barge, by
companies without local refineries or when market prices are lower
overseas. The vast majority of gasoline and diesel product blending is
done at the refineries; however, some product is blended at local
terminals or directly in a tank truck as it is loaded. /
Each type of motor vehicle fuel (regular, unleaded regular, unleaded
premium, No. 2 diesel) sold in the Basin are blended to the same general
specifications for that type of motor vehicle fuel. Product is
frequently commingled or exchanged between companies before it reaches
the fuel pump. The gasoline specification is changed during part of the
year (from April 1 to October 31) to a lower vapor pressure (from 13.5
psi to 9.0 psi) as required by state and local air pollution control
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1
PETROLEUM REFINERIES IN THE SOUTH COAST BASIN
Crude Capacity
Company (barrel/calendar day)
Operating
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 405,000
Atlantic Richfield Company 211,000
Mobil Oil Corporation 123,500
Shell Oil Company 111,000
Unocal Corporation 108,000
Texaco, Inc. 75,000
Champlin Petroleum Company 60,000
Superior Processing Company 44,000
Edgington Oil Cl. 41,600
Golden West Refining Company 40,600
Fletcher Oil and Refining Company 29,500
MacMillan Ring-Free Oil Cl. 13,000
Huntway Refining Company 5,500
Shutdown
Douglas Oil Company 46,500
Marlex Oil and Refining Company 18,000
Golden Eagle Refining Company 16,500
DeMenno-Kerdoon 15,000
Lunday-Thagard Oil Company 10,000
ECO Petroleum, Inc. 5,600
SOURCE: References 4 and 5.
2-4
-------
FIGURE 2-2
SAN
BERNARDINO
LEGEND
Product Pipeline...
Refineries
County Lines
-------
agencies (the California Air Resources Board and the South Coast Air
Quality Management District).®/ Otherwise, the specifications are held
constant. Some additives, detergents for example, which are company
specific are added during the loading of the tank truck."/
2.3 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN PETROLEUM PRODUCT TERMINALS
There are over 30 harbor and in-land terminals and bulk plants for crude
oil, petroleum products and petrochemicals in the South Coast Air
Basin.^•H/ Many of these are at or near the Los Angeles and Long Beach
Harbor and they are capable of receiving and shipping material by ship or
barge. Most of them are also capable of shipping or receiving by
pipeline, rail car or tank truck. Basin-wide, there is probably an
excess of terminal capacity due to recent chemical and refinery plant
shutdowns and continuing efforts of all petroleum product handlers to
minimize inventories. Nationwide figures indicate that existing petro-
leum product tankage is only 50 percent utilized for these same
reasons. /
With the exception of the four harbor terminals operated by GATX, the
other harbor terminals are in dedicated service to refineries, individual
fuel marketers or users, and chemical companies. It is unusual for an
outside interest to contract for the services of dedicated facilities.''/
The GATX harbor terminals are specifically designed to serve the general
terminaling needs of the South Coast Air Basin; meeting the short-term
needs for additional storage and shipping capacity of those with their
own terminals or servicing those businesses without their own facilities.
The four GATX terminals specialize; one for chemicals, two for petroleum
products (gasoline and diesel), and one for crude and fuel oil. They
have a total storage capacity in excess of five million barrels (see
Table 2-2).^/ The gasoline and diesel harbor terminal is integrated
directly with GATX in-land terminal (with over three million barrels of
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-2
GATX SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN TERMINALS13/
Name
Primary Product
Handled Storage Capacity
L.A. Marine Crude and fuel oil
San Pedro
Carson
Chemicals
Petroleum products
and crude
980,000 bbls
L.A. Harbor Gasoline and diesel 592,000 bbls
578,000 bbls
3,319,000 bbls
Number
of Tanks
19
18
111
42
Receipt Services
Pipeline, vessel,
barge, tank truck
Pipeline, vessel,
barge, tank car,
tank truck
Vessel, barge,
tank car, tank
truck
Pipeline, tank
car, tank truck
Delivery Services
Pipeline, vessel,
barge
Pipeline, vessel,
barge, tank car,
tank truck
Vessel, barge,
tank car, tank
truck, drums
Pipeline, tank
car, tank truck
-------
additional capacity) and the whole GATX products and crude oil system is
connected by pipeline to several of the large refineries and the common
carrier product pipelines operated by the Southern Pacific Pipeline
Company (SPPL). Charges for terminaling product at the GATX terminal
are on the order of 1£ per gallon. GATX's product terminals are used in
a limited way for gasoline blending but are not set up for large scale
blending of gasoline.'/
Larger refiners and retailers (Chevron, ARCO, Shell) have one to six
truck loading terminals in the Basin.1^»1-V j^g truck terminals are
adjacent to their refineries or at a distance of 50 miles or more,
where the pipeline transport cost is sufficiently better than trucking
rates to justify double handling of the product (pipeline and truck
rather than trucking directly from the refinery).
2.4 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN PRODUCT PIPELINES7'14-16/
The product pipeline system in the Basin includes three large common
carrier lines to move product out of the Basin to Las Vegas, San Diego
and Arizona and smaller privately-owned lines to move product between
refineries, harbor terminals and in-land truck terminals.1'/ In the
common carrier lines and most private lines, diesel and all three
grades of gasoline are carried in a single line. They are batched into
the pipeline in minimum volumes and are separated at the destination by
careful monitoring of flow rates and delivery schedules, with limited
mixing between batches.
SPPL accepts material from any party in minimum tenders of 5,000 to
10,000 bbls and minimum rates on the order of 2,000 bbl/hr. SPPL also
operates a large terminal and product handling facility in Colton
(60 miles east of the Los Angeles Harbor). This terminal gathers
product for shipment out of the Basin and services truck loading racks
operated by several major oil companies. SPPL does not handle methanol,
2-8
-------
ethanol or unfinished gasoline stocks in its pipeline system. To handle
methanol, SPPL would require a substantial volume of traffic in compari-
son to existing products. Also SPPL and its clients would consider and
resolve, through hardware and procedure changes, concerns about methanol
water contamination and materials compatibility before methanol would be
moved in the SPPL pipeline system.
2.5 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN TRUCK DELIVERIES7'18/
Gasoline and diesel are delivered to retail outlets and commercial fleet
operators by tank truck. Most trucks pull two tank trailers and each
tank trailer can have one, two or three compartments. Each compartment
can be used for a separate fuel so that one truck can deliver all the
products (unleaded regular, unleaded premium, lead regular, and diesel)
to a service station. The total truck practical capacity is about 8,700
gallons and a truck takes about one-half hour to load at a terminal.
Trucks may be owned by the integrated oil company or the retailer,
but are most often owned by an independent firm. One can readily hire
the services of a trucking firm to move product within the Basin. Trucks
are typically operated two ten-hour shifts or three eight-hour shifts per
day, seven days a week to maximize their utilization. Within the
Basin, trucks are the exclusive means of delivering gasoline and diesel
to service stations and outlets. At distances of 50 to 100 miles, trucks
are marginally more expensive than the combined use of a pipeline,
in-land terminal, and short haul truck delivery (this alternative is only
practiced by the large volume integrated firms). Using trucks to deliver
at distances over 50 miles can increase costs of delivery by 1/2<|; per
gallon. Trucking services are on the order of !<); per gallon.
2.6 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN SERVICE OUTLETS3/
There are approximately 5,000 retail outlets in the South Coast Air
Basin. •*•' •20/ The traditional service station typically possesses two (or
three) pump islands, each with three pumps and six nozzles. Underground,
2-9
-------
the station has three tanks with total storage capacity of approximately
25,000 gallons of gasoline, suitable for holding three grades (leaded
regular, unleaded regular, and unleaded premium).
A new station is more likely to contain more pump islands. Also,
many stations have added a fourth underground tank and fourth grade or
kind of fuel, for example, diesel fuel or gasohol. Over the last 20
years there has been a general nationwide decline in the number of
terminals and service stations while demand has been steady or rising.
Economics are favoring fewer, higher volume facilities. Nationwide,
major oil companies are shutting down several thousand service stations
annually and replacing them with fewer higher volume "super stations"
which average over 150,000 gallon/month of sales (compared to current
average levels below 100,000 gallons/month). Self-service capacity is
being added and service bays are being replaced by convenience
stores.21-28/
The product slate at retail outlets is in transition. Due to EPA lead
regulations and the attrition of older cars, leaded regular is being
phased out over the next two years. Most refiners and retailers are
contemplating the introduction of a mid-grade unleaded gasoline to
replace leaded regular. Also, diesel availability should drop off, due
to the drastic slow down in diesel car sales. Except in areas of high
truck traffic volume, diesel is not being provided at new service
stations and it is likely to be phased out at some existing
stations.29'30/
Retail mark-up on gasoline in the South Coast Air Basin is currently
between 30<); and 35
-------
The overall breakdown of the components of gasoline retail prices in the
South Coast Air Basin are estimated in Table 2-3.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-3
GENERAL COMPONENTS OF GASOLINE PRICES
IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Cost Component
Wholesale price
Terminaling
Trucking
Service station
State sales tax
State fuel tax
Federal fuel tax
Cents per gallon
52.5
1
7
Total
83.5
2-12
-------
3. EXISTING METHANOL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
3.1 METHANOL SUPPLIES'^/
Methanol is not manufactured in California. In the United States, most
methanol is manufactured in the Gulf Coast area. There is also substan-
tial production capacity in Western Canada. Methanol for chemical use
is supplied to California from the Gulf Coast or Canada by drum, truck
load, or rail tank car.
Under contract to the California Energy Commission (CEC), Celanese
Corporation supplies methanol from its Alberta, Canada plant for use in
the state-sponsored demonstration methanol fueled fleets. Celanese also
supplies bulk volumes of methanol to the Los Angeles area for direct
purchases by Los Angeles County and Bank of America for use in their
methanol vehicles.^°/
3.2 TERMINAL AND BLENDING OPERATIONS7/
The methanol supplied by Celanese arrives in the South Coast Air Basin by
rail tank car and is off loaded into a dedicated tank at GATX Terminaling
Corporation's San Pedro Chemical Terminal. The tank has a cone roof
with an internal floating roof. This combination protects against rain
entry through the roof and controls air emission as well. A dedicated
connection to the truck loading rack minimizes the chances of product
contamination.
In general, chemical terminals are better suited than petroleum product
terminals for preventing water contamination. However, the typical low
volumes, the segregation, and the cleanliness of the chemical terminal
add 2-44/gal to the cost of methanol handling relative to gasoline.
3-1
-------
Also, the hours of operation are restricted. This limits the efficiency
of the downstream blending and trucking operations. Table 3-1 compares
the characteristics of a chemical terminal to those of a typical gasoline
and diesel terminal.
The "near neat" methanol distributed by the California Energy Commission
is 85 percent methanol blended with gasoline with a high aromatics
content. ^/ Blending is done in the truck. The truck loads methanol at
the chemical terminal and splash blends the 15 percent gasoline at a
local petroleum products terminal.'/
The methanol fuel used by Bank of America is blended to a higher methanol
content, 90-95 percent, depending on the time of year. The blending is
accomplished in the same way.^"/
3.3 DISTRIBUTION
The blended methanol fuel is delivered in a dedicated truck fleet. (In
general, petroleum product distribution tank trucks change tank service,
as needed, to optimize distribution efficiency. Tank compartments are
rinsed and flushed with the upcoming product before service is
switched. )1°/ The cost of distribution by truck is on the order of 1.5
-------
TABLE 3-1
CHARACTERISTICS OF TERMINAL FACILITIES
Pipelines
Loading racks
Tanks
Operating hours
Operating modes
Products handled
Costs
Petroleum Products
Common lines
Large diameter
6"-42"
Bottom loading
Driver loaded
Large tanks
(80MB-300MB)
Floating roofs
24 hrs/day
Pipeline
Vessel
Tank car
Tank truck
6-10
. Commingled
Large volume
Low (If/gal)
Chemical
Dedicated lines
Small diameter
4"-8"
Top loading
Operator loaded
Small tanks
(30MG-25MB)
Cone roofs
7:00-5:00
Vessel
Tank car
Tank truck
No pipeline
50-75
Dedicated
Small volume
High (3-5
-------
The GATX chemical terminal is only open between 8:00 and 4:30 daily and,
as a result, the truck fleet is under utilized. In petroleum product
service trucks typically operate 20 to 24 hours a day, seven days per
week. /
3.4 METHANOL FUEL OUTLETS^ ,39,40,41/
There are eleven methanol fuel outlets in the South Coast Air Basin.
Five outlets have been established by the California Energy Commission
(CEC) at existing service stations and more are planned in the area.
At these stations, the CEC installed all new tanks and pumps, designed
specifically to be compatible with methanol. The equipment changes
instituted by the CEC included the replacement- of all pump seals with
methanol compatible ones, the use of a chemical type hose, the replace-
ment of the aluminum fuel screen with a stainless steel one, and instal-
lation of a flame arrester on the system. Access to the CEC self-service
pumps is provided using state-issued credit cards. Two fleet operators
also have their own dedicated pumps. Bank of America has two outlets and
the County of Los Angeles has four.
Under the CEC's current program, CEC pays all costs of installing these
automated methanol outlets and the retailer is not provided any mark-up.
However, the new equipment becomes the property of the retailer within
two years. The California and Federal fuel taxes for methanol are one
half those which apply to gasoline. ?3/34/ Each is 4 l/2<|;/gallon. The
state and county sales tax of 6 1/2% applies to fuel methanol just as it
applies to gasoline. /
CEC has encountered one fuel quality problem in the operation of its
state-wide demonstration methanol supply network. A desiccant air drier
on a storage tank accidentally filled with methanol when the tank was
overfilled. The methanol reacted with the calcium chloride in the
desiccant to create a corrosive mixture which drained back into the
3-4
-------
storage tank. Several vehicles were damaged by the contaminated fuel
before the problem was identified.
The CEC now believes that the desiccant system is unnecessary and that
water contamination up to one percent presents no problem in fuel
stability or vehicle performance.
3-5
-------
4. METHANOL DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
4.1 TERMINAL FACILITIES
As methanol use in the Basin increases, rail tank car deliveries will
be augmented or replaced by vessel and barge deliveries. Just as
chemical terminals are characterized by smaller volumes and greater
segregation than petroleum terminals, chemical vessels and barges
provide segregated, cleaner handling than the petroleum product counter-
parts .
Any methanol terminalling facilities must be capable of receiving and
handling the methanol without any substantial contamination with water,
grit, or oil products (although some contamination with gasoline is
acceptable). A chemical type terminal such as GATX's San Pedro Terminal
is capable of handling methanol in a segregated clean system. Other
private chemical terminals in the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor
complex may have similar capabilities.
Use of a conventional petroleum product terminal carries with it some
risk of product contamination. At this point in the development of
methanol as a vehicle fuel, it is not possible to be certain that there
will be acceptably low water contamination in a conventional petroleum
products terminal. The reasons are several: ^/
• Different products are moved through common pipelines and
manifolds. The products have traditionally contained small
amounts of water (in part because water would cause no
problem).
• In some terminals, pipelines are flushed with water between
changes in service. ->/
4-1
-------
• Water will separate and segregate in low spots when the
handling system is in petroleum product service. This water
will be taken up when the system is switched to methanol
service.
• Water heels (bottoms) are often kept in petroleum product
tanks. A tank placed in methanol service must be drained and
may require cleaning.
• Environmental regulations require that gasoline tanks in the
South Coast Air Basin have floating roofs with double seals or
an internal floating roof under a cone roof. The more common
floating roof tanks, without a cover, have some risk of rain
water leakage into the tank. °/
Many of these potential water sources can be eliminated by changing the
operating practices at the product terminal. Particularly in the South
Coast Air Basin, where rainfall is limited, it is likely that high
volumes of methanol can be handled in conventional gasoline pipelines and
tanks with acceptable levels of contamination. However, the necessary
safeguards, if that is not the case, should be identified and may be
required while the market is in its infancy (as insurance against any
possible problem while the fuel is being introduced).
One option would be to install separate lines and tankage for methanol
handling at a petroleum product terminal. Another option would be to
treat all material entering the terminal with a dehydration unit. (In
the past, Phillips Petroleum used dehydrators on some of its product
lines to keep the system "dry"). -V
If 100 percent methanol is not used and blending is required, meeting
the prescribed "near neat" methanol specification can be accomplished in
one of three ways:
1) Splash blending in the truck (the current practice): This
approach is time consuming and may result in insufficient
mixing in the truck. Product quality cannot be checked
before shipping. ^
4-2
-------
2) In-line blending as material is pumped to the truck: This
minimizes the opportunities for the methanol to become
contaminated but it does not allow product testing before
shipping (the current practice in gasoline blending). This
method is used by most gasohol producers.^'>^°/
3) In-line blending to tankage: This is the common practice at
refineries. Its key advantages are the ability to fine tune
a blend to use the least cost components while meeting
product specifications and testing and verifying product
quality before shipment.
The second option is now favored for methanol product blending.
4.2 METHANOL DISTRIBUTION
As mentioned earlier, methanol is not handled in any product pipelines
in the Basin. The SPPL common carrier lines in the basin will not
handle methanol until the volumes handled are very large (10-30 percent
of the product traffic in the region), commingling of methanol product
among shippers is acceptable, and the concerns about water contamination
are resolved.
At the relatively small volumes of methanol traffic in the early years
of its use, pipeline service offers no economic benefit in distributing
it within the Basin. Even at large volume the benefit of pipeline use
(to supply in-land terminals) is on the order of l/2<£/gal for the
in-land markets.^/
Direct truck deliveries to service outlets is expected to be the predomi-
nant delivery method for methanol even when the sales volume is large. A
fleet of dedicated tank trucks will minimize contamination but is
marginally less efficient than the current practice of carrying multiple
products in compartmentalized tanks, allowing the delivery of all
products to a station in one truck. °/
4-3
-------
4.3 METHANOL OUTLETS
The primary consideration in specifying methanol outlet equipment is
materials compatibility. Underground storage tanks must be made of
carbon steel or specially formulated fiberglass (conventional fiberglass
can soften and deteriorate in the presence of methanol).^*/ State
environmental laws require that service station tankage be monitored for
leaks.50/ As a result, some outlet tanks are being replaced with double
wall tanks,^l'5 '. / and at other locations groundwater monitoring wells
are being installed. The leading fiberglass tank manufacturers indicate
that they are not getting many orders for methanol compatible fiberglass
tanks, which cost $1,000 to $2,000 more due largely to the small volume
of production of methanol compatible tanks. ' "/ Also, current regu-
lations do not require that tanks be both gasoline and methanol
compatible. If an existing carbon steel tank is converted to methanol
service, tank cleaning is recommended and a fuel filter is added to
remove rust particles, which may be loosened from the tank walls by the
methanol.56/
Service station pumps, pipes, and hoses need to be equipped to meet
methanol's unique qualities, avoiding methanol contact with zinc or
aluminum (corrosion) and certain plastics and rubbers (swelling or
deterioration). / A major California service station equipment supplier
under contract to the CEC identified the changes necessary to pump
methanol and successfully outfitted CEC's outlet pumps for methanol
service. -*''
4-4
-------
5. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXPANSION SCENARIO
To identify prospective costs and logistical problems that might arise
in the expansion of a fuel methanol supply system in the South Coast Air
Basin, one technically feasible means of expanding the supply network
has been developed. This expansion scenario is not intended to be a
recommendation nor is it intended to imply that alternatives will be more
expensive or less likely. In particular, this scenario focuses on a
single terminaling operation serving the Basin. If methanol use grows
substantially, one would expect several companies to enter the market and
distribution would likely occur through several of the dozens of tank
farms and terminals in the Basin.
The expansion scenario targets a sales volume of approximately 250
million gallons per year of methanol for vehicle use. This level of
methanol use could be achieved by the year 2000 through an aggressive
program of car, truck, and bus fleet conversions and private purchases
of methanol automobiles rising gradually to 8% of new car sales by 2000
(new car diesel sales at their peak reached 6.2% in the early 1980(s).
A sales volume of 250 million gallons per year is equivalent to methanol
cars penetrating to 6% of the automobile population or a combination of
4% of the automobile population, 1 1/2% of the light and medium duty
trucks and 50% of the bus fleet.58/
The distribution system has been specified in two phases. Phase I
reflects an expansion of the current GATX chemical terminal operation.
Phase II involves the installation of a large methanol distribution
system at an existing petroleum product harbor terminal such as the GATX
Carson Terminal. Table 5-1 outlines the modes of transport and storage
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1
PROSPECTIVE EXPANSION OF METHANOL DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM IN THE SOUTH COAST BASIN
Current System
Volumes:
Terminal
Receipts:
Terminal:
Blending:
(if necessary)
Distribution:
Outlets:
Less than 500,000 gal/yr of methanol.
Rail tank cars or tank trucks.
GATX chemicals terminal with a dedicated tank and truck
rack.
Splash blended in the tank truck; truck makes a
separate stop at a gasoline terminal.
Trucked directly to the outlets.
State leased space at service stations (5); privately
owned fleet fuel stations (6).
Phase I Expansions (Maximum Use of Chemical Type Terminal)
Volumes: 500,000 to 50,000,000 gal/yr of methanol.
Chemical vessel, chemical barge or rail tank cars.
Terminal
Receipts:
Terminal:
Blending:
(if necessary)
Distribution:
Outlets:
GATX or similar chemical terminal operation with
dedicated lines from wharf to tank to trucks. Move to
round-the-clock operation to meet increased volumes.
Utilizes at least 15 percent of GATX chemical tankage
and two of seven truck racks.
Splash blended in the tank truck; truck makes a
separate stop at a gasoline terminal.
Five dedicated trucks (tractor with two tank trailers)
deliver directly to the outlets.
100 to 250 new outlets (at existing stations) --
represent two to five percent of all basin outlets.
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-1 (cont'd)
PROSPECTIVE EXPANSION OF METHANOL DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM IN THE SOUTH COAST BASIN
Phase II Expansion (Development of a Dedicated Methanol Terminal)
Volumes: 50,000,000 to 250,000,000 gal/yr of methanol.
Vessel, barge and railcar.
Terminal
Receipts:
Terminal:
Blending:
(if necessary)
Distribution:
Outlets:
Expansion or modification of an existing L.A. harbor
petroleum products terminal. Dedicated internal
floating roof tanks and truck loading rack (three
bays). Wharf to terminal pipeline may or may not be
dedicated.
Gasoline and methanol blended in-line during truck
loading.
Dedicated truck fleet, delivers directly to outlets.
No use of in-land terminals or common carrier
pipelines.
Total of 500 outlets (methanol as a high volume
product at ten percent of all basin outlets).
5-3
-------
in the current distribution system and the hypothesized Phase I and
Phase II expansions.
In Phase I, the distribution system is expanded up to 50,000,000 gallons/
year (versus less than 500,000 gallons per year at present). At this
upper limit, loading of trucks is carried out round-the-clock and at
least 15 percent of the GATX terminal storage capacity is in methanol
service.7'13/ At the level of 50,000,000 gallons per year, the addition
of methanol service at 100 to 250 service outlets is required. (There
are currently about 5,000 service outlets in the Basin. Diesel cars were
sold in the South Coast Air Basin when only one percent of the stations
sold diesel, / and Canada has demonstrated that fuel availability has
not been a question in their propane vehicle program where ten percent of
the station carried propane.5^/ The Phase I target of 100 to 250 or two
to five percent of all outlets should be acceptable.) With 250 stations
handling 50,000,000 gallons/year, methanol volumes at each station will
be about half the volume now targeted per product for new stations.
However, the volume is typical for the smaller volume existing
outlets.21/
The Phase II system will handle at least 250,000,000 gallons per year of
methanol. Any existing harbor product terminal can be modified to meet
this requirement and a dedicated three bay truck loading rack would
handle the associated round-the-clock truck loading.1®/ With the number
of service outlets expanded to about ten percent of all outlets, methanol
would be a high volume product at those 500 outlets, at or above the
target throughput rates for new service stations. If the volume of
methanol traffic in the South Coast Air Basin were to exceed 250,000,000
gallons/year, the system layout and cost per gallon would not change
dramatically from that described for Phase II.
5-4
-------
6. COST OF THE METHANOL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Based upon the supply and distribution system expansion scenario in the
previous section, EEA developed estimates of the capital investment and
likely operating costs for both phases.
6.1 PHASE I CAPITAL COSTS
Table 6-1 presents EEA's estimate of the capital costs of creating a
methanol distribution system handling 50,000,000 gallons/year. No
additional capital investments are required for terminal operations. The
GATX chemical terminal can receive by vessel, barge, or rail car these
volumes, store the methanol in tankage with internal floating roofs and
load trucks without any hardware changes. The volume will call for a
switch to round-the-clock operations, however.
In distribution this volume of methanol can be handled easily by a
dedicated fleet of five trucks (each delivering three to four truckloads
per day). A single truck tractor with two tank trailers costs about
$140,000.18/
The largest potential cost will occur at the service outlets. A range
of costs has been developed, keyed to the availability and suitability of
in-place storage tanks. If an existing underground tank is suitable, the
costs of cleaning it and modifying the pump are on the order of two
thousand dollars. °•"/ This lower cost case is credible (but not
assured) for several reasons:
• Most stations will be phasing out leaded gasoline and will have
a pump and tank available for an alternate product (medium
octane unleaded is probably preferred). /
• Methanol is a high octane product which logically could
displace premium unleaded from its slot at a station.
6-1
-------
TABLE 6-1
CAPITAL COSTS, METHANOL DISTRIBUTION - PHASE I EXPANSION
(at 50,000,000 gal/yr)
1. Terminal and Blending Operations
Existing chemical terminal facilities are adequate; no capital
investment required.
2. Truck Fleet
Five trucks with tank trailers (8,500 gallon capacity)
5 x $140,000 = $700,000
3. Service Station Modifications
Low Cost Case: Uses existing tankage and pump. Costs are due to
tank cleaning, new fuel screen, new fuel filter, and replacing seals
and pump hose.
$2,000 per station x 250 stations = $500,000
High Cost Case: New double wall storage tank, new pipe to pump, and
one new pump (methanol compatible)
$33,000 x 250 stations = $8.25 million
4. Total Capital Cost
Total capital cost = $1.2 million to $9 million
6-2
-------
• Carbon steel and a special type of fiberglass tank are neat
methanol compatible. Some tankage in the Basin is being
replaced with double walled storage tanks (for environmental
reasons). However, one major oil company serving the Basin
indicates all of its tankage will be only ten percent methanol
compatible.30/
• In Phase I and Phase II, only five and ten percent of all
service stations, respectively, are expected to handle
methanol.
To present the full range of service station costs, however, EEA has
included the cost of a new underground storage tank, pipe and a service
pump. In EEA's review of the cost of a new tank, piping and pump
resulted in a cost of $33,000 per outlet.50' 51,57,61,62,63/ A(_ $33^00
per station, this accounts for over $8 million of potential costs related
to the Phase I expansion.
The total estimated capital cost of Phase I is $1.2 to $9 million.
6.2 PHASE II CAPITAL COSTS
Capital costs for Phase II as presented in Table 6-2 include a substan-
tial investment in terminal equipment. A high and low cost case were
developed to reflect outstanding uncertainties. For the low cost case,
terminal investments were limited to installing a new truck loading rack
and an in-line blender. The low cost case assumes the use of existing
tankage and harbor facilities. This case is credible (but not assured)
for several reasons:
• The GATX Carson Terminal has sufficient tank capacity with
internal floating roofs to handle the target 250,000,000
gallons/year. These tanks are used, on a short-term basis, by
GATX clients and might be made available for methanol service
in the future.
• While gasoline is comingled in most large product marine
terminals, even "neat" fuel methanol can tolerate some gasoline
addition (up to several percent) and can tolerate up to one
percent water. -V
6-3
-------
TABLE 6-2
CAPITAL COSTS, METHANOL DISTRIBUTION - PHASE II EXPANSION*
(at 250 million gal/yr)
1. Terminal and Blending Operations
Low Cost Case: Use existing wharf facilities (comingling with
gasoline acceptable) and existing tankage. Install new truck rack
and in-line blender.
Truck loading rack (three bays) =.$900,000
In-line blender = $150,OOO48/
Total = $1,050,000
High Cost Case: New dedicated pipeline from wharf to terminal,
500,000 bbls of new tankage with internal floating roofs, in-line
blender, pumps and new three bay truck rack.
Pipeline to wharf = $1.2 million65/
500,000 bbls storage = $5.0 million15'66/
In-line blender and pumps - $0.2 million66/
Truck rack = $0.9 million18/
Total = $7.3 million
2. Truck Fleet: Trucks with tank trailers - 22 x $140,000 = $3,080,000
3. Service Station Modifications
Low Cost Case: Using existing tankage.
500 stations x $2,000 = $1 million
High Cost Case: New tankage and two new pumps
500 stations x $36,000 = $18 million
4. Total Capital Cost = $5.13 million to $26.88 million
*Includes Phase I components.
6-4
-------
• There is generally an excess of product storage capacity in
the refining industry. ^/
However, the costs of all new tankage and a five mile dedicated pipeline
to the harbor has been included in the higher cost case.
For the Phase II expansion, the costs include 22 tank trucks and
twice as many service outlets as specified in Phase I (each one handling
more volume). The cost per station is $3,000 greater to reflect the
installation of a second pump.
The total capital cost associated with completing Phase II is between $5
million and $27 million.
6.3 IMPACT ON PRODUCT COST
The price of methanol at the retail outlet is expected to reflect the
operating and capital costs of terminal, truck and service station
operations. The current mark-up on gasoline, excluding taxes, is
approximately l
-------
TABLE 6-3
IMPACT OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ON THE COST OF METHANOL
Phase I: Capital costs recovered over 5 years at an annual sales
rate of 50 million gallons/year
Terminal Costs
Truck Costs
Station Costs
Total
= " 0$/gallon
0. 3<|:/gallon
- 0.5-3.6^/gallon
0.8-3.9<|:/gallon
Phase II: Capital costs recovered over 5 years at an annual sales
rate of 250 million gallons/year
Terminal Costs
Truck Costs
Station Costs
.08-0.6$/gallon
.25«j;/gallon
.08-1.46/gallon
Total = 0.4-2.2<);/gallon
6-6
-------
T-hese figures are based upon steady sales volumes of 50 million and 250
million gallons per year, for each phase respectively.
Capital cost recovery during the transition from current sales of less
than 500 thousand gallons/year to the target Phase I volume of 50 million
gallons/year could be substantially higher. However, there are no real
economies of scale in the terminal and trucking operations specified for
Phase I (the terminal incurred no capital costs and the five truck fleet
could be brought into service gradually). Only the service station
costs could be substantially higher in the early part of the transition
to vehicle methanol use. EEA estimates that methanol sales could
progress as follows if an aggressive fleet conversion and new car
introduction program were initiated:5**/
Year 1 10 million gallons/year
Year 2 20 million gallons/year
Year 3 40 million gallons/year
Year 4 60 million gallons/year
Year 5 80 million gallons/year
If 250 service stations (5% of all outlets) were required in the South
Coast Air Basin to supply the introduction of methanol vehicles and each
station owner sought to recover a $33,000 investment during that five
year period, the capital recovery mark-up alone would be:
250 stations x $33.000 0 n. . ....
TTT TTT": .., = 3.9
-------
TABLE 6-4
METHANOL SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION ESTIMATED COSTS*
Phase I (50 million gallons/year)
Terminal ing 3-5<£/gal
Trucking 1-2^/gal
Service Station 10-12({:/gal
Total 14-19$/gal
Phase II (50 million-250 million gal/vr)
Terminal ing l-2$/gal
Trucking l-1.5$/gal
Service Station 7-9<):/gal
Total 9-12.5<|:/gal
* Excluding Federal, State and Local taxes. Based on the current
mark-up for gasoline and estimates of costs to cover capital investments.
6-8
-------
bution and retail services for Phase I are estimated at 14-19<|:/gallon
not including taxes. In Phase II, per gallon costs are expected to drop
to between 9 and 13. 5<|:/gallon, excluding taxes. These cost estimates
combine qualitatively the current costs of petroleum and chemical product
distribution and some premium to recover the added capital requirements
for methanol distribution over a five year period. These costs may be
low if current rates do not include any significant capital recovery and
if the methanol equipment purchaser requires a very quick payback.
Alternatively, these costs may be too high (on the "per gallon" basis)
because'methanol sales volumes eventually will be higher than gasoline
volumes due to energy intensity differences.
6-9
-------
7. COMPARISON OF METHANOL AND GASOLINE RETAIL PRICES
As the foregoing sections have indicated, the cost and tax structure of
the methanol and gasoline markets differ considerably. In addition,
methanol has a lower energy density (a gallon of methanol contains about
half the energy in a gallon of gasoline) but a potentially higher energy
efficiency (up to 20%) than gasoline, making a price comparison on a
straight cents-per-gallon basis inappropriate.
Using the results of a companion study for EPA by Jack Faucett Assoc-
iates, '•*•/ which estimated the delivered price of methanol imported into
the U.S., this section will estimate the equivalent price of gasoline at
which methanol can be competitive in the South Coast Air Basin.
The Jack Faucett study indicates, that while the current import price of
methanol is 26$ to 31
-------
TABLE 7-1
"EQUIVALENT" GASOLINE PRICES
BASED UPON THE
RETAIL COST OF NEAT METHANOL
Cost Component
Methanol Production and*
Delivery to L.A. Harbor
Methanol Terminaling**
•JUJU
Truck Distribution
•JfJf
Service Station
State Sales Tax
State Fuel Tax
Federal Fuel Tax
Total
Cents per Gallon of Methanol (Range)
Phase I Phase II
35.0 - 45.0
3.0 - 5.0
1.0 - 2.0
10.0 - 12.0
3.2 - 4.2
4.5
4.5
61.2 - 77.2<£/gal.
35.0 - 45.0
1.0 - 2.0
1.0 - 1.5
7.0 - 10.0
2.9 - 3.8
4.5
4.5
55.9 - 71.3
-------
v.ehicles will ultimately be 20% more efficient (on a unit of energy
basis). Under those circumstances, a gallon of methanol is equivalent
to about 0.6 gallon of gasoline. Based on this figure, Table 7-1 shows
a range of "equivalent" gasoline prices in Phase I and Phase II, between
93
-------
8. OUTSTANDING UNCERTAINTIES AND CONCERNS
While this report prescribes methanol fuel distribution transition for
the South Coast Air Basin from less than 500,000 gallons/year to over 250
million gallons/year, several large uncertainties exist which will
influence the ultimate costs and acceptability of the distribution
system. The key concerns identified in the conduct of this study are
outlined below:
• Standardizing fuel methanol specifications: A variety of neat
and "near neat" methanol blends have been tested and demon-
strated. A uniform specification will improve handling
efficiency and insure proper equipment specification.
• Treatment of methanol toxlcitv: Air emissions permitting
regulations are very strict in the South Coast Air Basin. In
addition, the state has implemented an elaborate new program to
control toxics. An early indication of how methanol will be
treated in that permitting context will improve the commitment
of private interests to implementing methanol distribution
systems.'^/
• Establishing the initial outlets: While demand is well below
the 50,000,000 gallon/year target, few service station owners
will be willing to commit to methanol unless they take a
substantial mark-up (as is done with low volume sales of
propane) or they are provided separate economic benefits by
outside parties.
• Adaptability of existing equipment: The question of water
take-up when methanol is placed in existing gasoline pipelines
and tanks will be resolved only after additional experience is
gained handling methanol as a fuel. If the existing petroleum
product systems are dry enough and clean enough, substantial
cost savings will occur. For underground service station
storage a "window of opportunity" exists to make tanks methanol
compatible. Specifically, some tanks are being replaced over
the next couple of years to meet environmental regulations.
For modest additional costs, methanol compatible tanks can be
specified. However, it is not required or recommended by
government.
8-1
-------
REFERENCES
1. Wuebben, Paul, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
"Methanol As A Regional Air Quality Strategy," Transportation Energy
Research Symposium, Sausalito, CA, April, 1985.
2. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.'s calculated demand in year
2000 based upon an aggressive program of fleet conversions and new
vehicle sales beginning in the late 1980's, figure equivalent to
operating 6% of the automobile population on methanol.
3. American Petroleum Institute, "Gasoline Marketing in the United
States Today," Washington, D.C., API Publication No. 1593, September
1983.
4. "U.S. Refineries: Location, Capacities and Types of Processing,"
OGJ Report, Oil and Gas Journal. March 24, 1986, pp. 103, 104.
5. "U.S. Refineries: Location, Capacities and Types of Processing,"
OGJ Report, Oil and Gas Journal. March 24, 1980, pp. 136, 137.
6. Based upon State data from the Federal Highway Administration and
split estimate for the Basin from L. Stearnets of the CEC.
7. Personal communication with Mr. Bradford J. Kordic, GATX Terminals
Corporation, March 1986.
8. Telephone conversation with Mr. Dean Simeroth, California Air
Resources Board, July, 1986.
9. Personal communication with Mr. R. Hallford, Tosco Corporation,
May 30, 1986.
10. GATX Los Angeles Basin Pipeline System Maps -- Refineries and
Terminals.
11. GATX Map -- Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach Terminals.
12. National Petroleum News, NPN 1985 Fact Book.
13. GATX Western Terminals Maps.
14. Personal communication with Mr. John Elliott, Tosco Corporation,
May 1986.
R-l
-------
REFERENCES (cont'd)
15. Discussion with Mr. B. Swanson, Gasoline Marketing Consultant, May
1986.
16. California Division of Oil and Gas, Energy Map of California. 1982.
Map S:2, Sacramento.
17. Tosco Corporation's Refined Products Supply Map.
18. Phone call to Mr. Eugene Guerisoli, Shipping Supervisor, Tosco
Avon, May 1986.
19. Personal communication with staff at the California Energy Commis-
sion, May 1986.
20. Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Division of Chemistry and Chemical
Engineering, California Institute of Technology, California Methanol
Assessment. Volume II, March 1983, JPL Publication 83-18 (Vol. II).
21. American Petroleum Institute, "Recent Changes in Retail Gasoline
Marketing," Washington, D.C., January 1981.
22. Exxon, 1985 Annual Report.
23. Unocal Corporation, Annual Report 1985. p. 15.
24. Texaco, Annual Report 1985.
25. Shell Oil Company, 1985 Annual Report.
26. Atlantic Richfield Company, 1985 Annual Report.
27. Mobil, 1985 Annual Report.
28. Chevron Corporation, 1985 Annual Report.
29. Personal communication with Mr. Roy F. Wickland, Wickland Oil, March
1986.
30. Personal communication with Mr. Bruce Beyaert, Chevron U.S.A.,
Inc., March 1986.
31. Statistics-Gasoline Prices, Oil and Gas Journal. June 1986, p. 135.
R-2
-------
REFERENCES (cont'd)
32. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Marketing Monthly.
DOE/EIA-0380(86/01), Washington, D.C., January 1986.
33. Phone call to the American Automobile Association Technical Informa-
tion Center, Los Angeles, California, June 1986.
34. Gasoline, Motor Fuels Taxes - California. State Tax Guide, 1986,
Commerce Clearinghouse, p. 40-261.
35. Personal communication with Mr. Mike McCormick, CEC, March 1986.
36. Telephone conversation with Bank of America representative, April
1986.
37. Telephone conversation between P. Ward of CEC and J. Alson of the
U.S. EPA., June 1986.
38. U.S. Department of Transportation, "The Transport of Methanol by
Pipeline," Washington, D.C., April 1985.
39. "California's Escort Methanol Fleet," CEC Bulletin.
40. Personal communication with Daniel Fong, CEC, July 1986.
41. Telephone conversation with M. Fischer, Bank of America, September
1986.'
42. Harold, L.W., U.S. National Alcohol Fuels Commission, "Distribution
Options for Alcohol Fuels," Fuel Alcohol: An Energy Alternative for
the 1980's Appendix. 1981.
43. American Petroleum Institute, "Storing and Handling Ethanol and
Gasoline - Ethanol Blends at Distribution Terminals and Service
Stations," API Recommended Practice 1626, April 1985.
44. Bevilaqua, O.M., et al, "An Environmental Assessment of the Use of
Alcohol Fuels in Highway Vehicles," Argonne National Laboratory for
DOE, 1980.
45. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., The Outlook for Use of Methanol as a Transpor-
tation Fuel. January 1985.
46. Personal communication with Mr. John Elliott, Tosco Corporation,
March 1986.
R-3
-------
REFERENCES (cont'd)
47. Jones, J.W., and Fontes, C.A., Comments in a technology session on
blending, Oil and Gas Journal. April 14, 1986, p. 121.
48. Jones, J.W., "Isomerization, Blending, Key Octane Sources at
Refineries," Oil and Gas Journal. March 24, 1986, p. 78.
49. Personal communication with Mr. S. Scoik, Underwriters Laboratory,
Engineering Department, Illinois, June 1986.
50. National Petroleum News. February 1985, p. 15.
51. National Petroleum News. June 1985, p. 58.
52. Personal communication with Mr. D. O'Brien, Office of Underground
Storage, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
June 1986.
53. "CPI Firms Get Ready for Underground Tank Rules," Chemical Engineer-
ing. May 26, 1986, p. 27.
54. Personal communication with Mr. G. Hammond, Owens Corning Fiberglass
Corporation, June 1986.
55. Personal communication with Mr. Terry Jensen, Xerxes Corporation,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 1986.
56. "Majors Scramble to Take Sides Over Controversial Alcohol Fuel
Mixtures," National Petroleum News. July 1984, p. 42.
57. Personal communication with Mr. Bart Scowley, Sheilds, Harper, and
Co., Inc., June 1986.
58. Estimated by Energy and Environmental Analysis using the DOE Motor
Fuel Consumption Model.
59. Personal communication with Mr. Roy Sage, Energy, Mines and
Resources, Canada, May 1986.
60. Personal communication with Mr. Albert J. Solbey, General Motors
Corporation, May 1986.
61. National Petroleum News. June 1985, p. 58.
62. National Petroleum News. September 1985, p. 34.
R-4
-------
REFERENCES (cont'd)
63. Personal communication with Mr. P. Ward, California Energy Commis-
sion, June 1986.
64. Obel, Michael, "Refiners Meeting U.S. Demand With Less Product in
Inventory," Oil and Gas Journal. February 17, 1986, pp. 19-22.
65. Based upon an average installed costs of $45/ft.
66. Personal communication with Mr. C. Wrigley, Maintenance Superinten-
dent, Tosco, Avon Refinery, June 1986.
67. Telephone conversation with Mr. Brian Dardis, Southland Corporation,
September 1986.
68. Telephone conversation with Mr. Thomas Potter, President, Petroleum
Marketers Association of America, September 1986.
69. Telephone conversation with Mr. Carl Bolch, Vice President of the
Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America.
70. Telephone conversation with Mr. Jeff Leiter, Society of Independent
Gasoline Marketers of America.
71. Jack Faucett Associates, Draft Report, "Methanol Prices During
Transition," prepared for teh U.S. EPA, September 1986.
72. Larsen, R.P., "Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards
Applicable to the Dispensing of Alternative Fuels for Vehicles,"
ANL/EES-TM-288, Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois, March 1985.
73. "Fuel Tax Credits," Publication 378 (rev. May 1985), Department of
the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, p. 5.
74. Meridian Research, Inc. and Versar, Inc. "Financial Responsibility
for Underground Storage Tank Releases: Financial Profile of the
Retail Motor Fuel Marketing Industry Sector," Draft Interim Report,
prepared for the U.S. EPA, May 22, 1986, p. 26.
R-5
------- |