E P A-420- R-85-109
ESTIMATED REFINING COST IMPACT
OF
REDUCED GASOLINE VAPOR PRESSURE
FINAL REPORT
10 July 1985
Prepared For
Environmental Protection Agency
under Subcontract with
Southwest Research Institute
Contract No. 68-03-3162
Work Assignments 23 and 28
a
ODD
Bonner B Moore Management Science
2727 Allen Parkway • Houston, Texas 77019
(713) 522-6800 »TWX 910 881 2542
5WK-ObUl
-------
DISCLAIMER
"This report was furnished to the Environmental
Protection Agency by Bonner & Moore Management
Science under subcontract to Southwest Research
Institute, 6220 (Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas,
in fulfillment of Work Assignments 23 and 28 of
Contract No. 68-D3-3162. The contents of this
report are produced herein as received from
Bonner & Moore. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agetiey. Mention of company or product
names is not to; -be considered as an endorsement
by the Environmental Protection Agency."
SWR-8501
Smner 6 Moore Management Science
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph Page
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND 1-2
1.1.1 Refinery Overview 1-2
1.1.2 Gasoline Volatility, Its
Purpose and Control 1-3
1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1-7
1.3- REPORT ORGANIZATION 1-7
SECTION 2
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 GENERAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 2-1
2.1.1 Product Demands 2-1
2.1.2 Crude Availabilities 2-1
2.1.3 Other Raw Materials 2-5
2.1.Refinery Process Configuration .... 2-5
2.1.5 Economics 2-5
2.1.6 Product Qualities 2-6
2.2 STUDY PARAMETERS AND CASES 2-7
2.2.1 Natural Gas Liquids Price
and Consumption 2-7
2.2.2 Use of Alcohols as Gasoline
Blendstocks 2-8
2.2.3 Increased Gasoline Demand 2-8
2.2.1 Investment Restriction Cases 2-9
2.2.5 Cat Gasoline Octane 2-9
2.2.6 Case Run Summary 2-9
2.3 STUDY LIMITATIONS AND AREAS EXCLUDED 2-11
SWR-8501 i
Bonner 8 Moore Management Science
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Paragraph Page
SECTION 3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
3.1 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATED COSTS 3-2
3.1.1 Added Refining Costs 3-3
3.1.2 Effects on NGL Refining Values .... 3-5
3.1.3 Estimated Annual Costs 3-7
3.1.4 Effect on Raw Material
Requirements 3-7
3.1.5 Effect on Investement
Requirements 3-10
3.2 PARAMETERS EFFECTS 3-12
3.2.1 Methanol-TBA Cases 3-13
3.2.2 Ethanol Cases 3-16
3.2.3 No-Investment Cases 3-19
3.2.4 Increased Gasoline Output Cases ... 3-21
3-2.5 Cases with Increased Octane
Values for Cat Gasoline 3-23
3.3 CONCLUSIONS 3-25
3.3.1 Refiners' Cost for RVP
Reduction 3-25
3.3-2 Natural Gas Liquids (NGL)
Effects 3-26
3.3.3 Using RVP Restrictions for
Emissions Control 3-26
3.4 EFFECT OF SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTIONS 3-28
3.5 ISSUES FOR FURTHER STUDY 3-29
SECTION 4
DETAILED RESULTS
4.1 PADD 1 CASE RESULTS 4-2
4.2 PADD 2 CASE RESULTS 4-2
4.3 PADD 3 CASE RESULTS 4-2
SWR-8501 ii
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
BIBLIGRAGPHY 4-31
APPENDICES
A PRODUCT DEMAND FORECASTS A-1
B PROJECTED CRUDE AND NGL SUPPLY B-1
C PRODUCTION SPECIFICATIONS C-1
D ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL FACTORS D-1
E BASE CONFIGURATION E-1
F ALCOHOL BLENDING VALUES F-1
SWR-8501 iii
Banner & Moore Management Science
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
2-1 Petroleum Administration for Defense
Districts CPADDs) 2-2
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 CASES STUDIED 2-10
3-1 REGIONAL RVP LIMITS 3-2
3-2 REFINING COSTS FOR REDUCING MAXIMUM RVP 3-4
3-3 INCREMENTAL REFINING VALUES OF NGLs 3-6
3-4 ANNUAL REFINING COSTS ESTIMATES FOR
REDUCING GASOLINE RVP 3-8
3-5 EFFECT OF RVP REDUCTION ON RAW MATERIAL 3-9
3-6 ESTIMATED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
REDUCING RVP 3-11
3-7 EFFECTS OF 50/50 METHANOL-TBA 3-14
3-8 EFFECTS OF 2/1 METHANOL-TBA 3-16
3-9 PREDICTED GASOLINE POOL RVP WITH ETHAHOL 3-17
3-10 ALCOHOL BLENDING VALUES 3-18
3-11 NO-INVESTMENT IMPACTS 3-19
3-12 EFFECTS OF INCREASED GASOLINE DEMAND 3-22
4-1 PADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL
PURCHASES (Sheet 1 of 4) 4-3
SWR-8501 iv
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
4-2 PADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 4) 4-7
4-3 PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 4) 4-11
4-4 PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 4) 4-15
4-5 PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 8) 4-19
4-6 PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 4) 4-27
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
v
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a study of the
economic impact, on the U. S. refining industry, of regula-
tions which would reduce the vapor pressure of summer gaso-
line. The study was conducted under subcontract to Southwest
Research Institute (SwRI) of San Antonio, Texas, the prime
contractor for a work assignment project commissioned by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This study was initiated as a quick-response analy-
sis of the refining industry costs involved in restricting
vapor pressure in summer gasoline in the United States. To
limit execution time and costs, only the Atlantic Coast,
Mid-Continent and Gulf Coast regions were explicitly modeled
and analyzed.
After interim reporting of initial results, several
alternative situations or conditions were identified by the
EPA as important extensions to the study. It was also
decided that all results would be documented in a complete
and formal manner in order to allow wider distribution of and
broader access to the study than was originally envisioned.
It must be emphasized that expanding the study scope
to include formal documentation did not expand the scope of
the study itself, i.e., regionality remained restricted to
the three-region basis as originally defined. The reader is,
therefore, encouraged to review discussions of study approach
and methodology (see Section 2, particularly subsection 2.3»
which is a direct discussion of study limitations).
SWR-8501
Bonner & Moore Management Science
1-1
-------
1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND
The language and content of this report assume that
the reader is generally familiar with petroleum refining.
The report, therefore, makes use of terms and references
to processes used in petroleum refining without definition.
On the other hand, the results presented do not require inti-
mate knowledge of refining technology and can be understood
with only a general knowledge of the major facets of refinery
operations and their general relationship to gasoline manufac-
ture. A brief overview of refinery operations, the importance
of controlling gasoline volatility and possible means for
restricting volatility are presented in subsequent paragraphs
of this introduction for readers desiring a broad familiarity
with the subject being analyzed.
1.1.1 Refinery Overview
Petroleum refineries are designed to separate crude
oil, a complex mixture of hydrocarbon materials, into frac-
tions with boiling ranges, combustion characteristics and
other properties which are desirable in a variety of fuels,
lubricants, solvents and petrochemical feedstocks. Processes
are also installed and used to adjust product qualities and
volumes in order to satisfy end-user demands.
In the U. S., motor gasoline is the major fuel prod-
duct of refining. Its demand is normally greater than the
volume of gasoline which can be distilled from most crude
oils. Therefore, processes are used to thermally and cata-
lytically "crack" or break up large hydrocarbon molecules
present in distilled crude fractions, converting the less
desirable fractions into materials with a boiling range
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
1-2
-------
within that bracketed for gasoline. Each refinery process
produces a mixture of materials which makes the resultant
material more or less suitable for a particular end product.
Final product volume and quality are achieved by selective
blending of available streams from the refining processes.
Each refinery is, thus, a combination of processes whose
capability varies with the kind of crude to be processed as
well as the volume and quality demands for its finished pro-
ducts .
In general, when more restrictive product specifica-
tions are imposed (either by regulatory changes or by changes
in engine design, for example), it becomes necessary to alter
the conversion and blending operations to satisfy the addi-
tional requirements. Such changes normally impact the cost
of manufacturing all end products, not just the product
in question. It is, therefore, necessary to evaluate the
overall cost impact on the entire refining operation in order
to ascertain the cost of specific changes to a single product
such as reduction of gasoline volatility. It is also possible
for a change to be large enough to require new or expanded
processes. Such large-magnitude changes involve capital ex-
penditures as well as operating costs for the new or expanded
processes.
1.1.2 Gasoline Volatility, Its Purpose and Control
To function properly as a fuel for spark-ignited
internal-combustion engines, gasolines must have certain
volatility characteristics. To permit easy starting of a
cold engine, for example, the fuel must contain enough low-
boiling hydrocarbons to provide, at ambient temperature,
an air-fuel vapor mixture that is rich enough to be spark-
ignited. Performance, after start-up and during and after
SVJR-8501
Banner B Moore Management Science
1-3
-------
warm-up of the engine, is also influenced by the concen-
trations of low-boiling constituents. If, however, the
concentration of low-boiling hydrocarbons is not restricted,
the fuel pump (after warm-up) may become "vapor locked" and
fail to deliver enough fuel to support combustion, causing
the engine to stall. Gasoline is normally blended with a
volatility that is just below the level that might cause
vapor lock.
With recognition that hydrocarbon emissions ad-
versely affect air quality, evaporative losses of low-boiling
hydrocarbons from vehicle fuel systems have become another
reason for concern about gasoline volatility. Lowering
gasoline volatility by decreasing the maximum allowable vapor
pressure is one possible means of reducing evaporative losses.
To do so, however, will increase the cost of manufacturing
gasoline. To understand the reasons for the increased cost
of low-volatility gasoline, it is helpful to review the manner
by which gasoline volatility is controlled during fuel manu-
facture and the nature of certain relevant economic factors.
As formulated, gasoline normally contains hydro-
carbons with boiling points ranging from 31 degrees Fahrenheit
to approximately 400 degrees Fahrenheit.* The concentrations
of hydrocarbons in this range are controlled to satisfy a
variety of quality characteristics, including volatility.
This control is accomplished by adjusting the refining
processes which produce gasoline blend stocks and by the
careful blending of these intermediate stocks to produce
finished gasolines. Properties of blend stocks are determined
largely by the nature of the processes involved, but can be
•Small amounts of hydrocarbons boiling outside this range
are usually present because physical separation processes
are imperfect.
SWR-8501
Banner C Moore Management Science
1-4
-------
varied somewhat by adjusting the operating conditions of those
processes. Satisfying quality requirements of finished
gasoline is, therefore, achieved primarily by controlled
blending of available blend stocks and secondarily by control
of operating conditions of processes by which blend stocks
are made.
Two measures of volatility are used to obtain de-
sired cold-start and warm-up characteristics in fuel. These
measures are Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)* and the temperatures
below which specified percentages of the gasoline must boil.t
Company-proprietary product specifications may involve the
cited ASTM schedule or similar restrictions on the distilla-
tion properties of gasolines. Seasonal and regional adjust-
ment is generally employed to account for ambient prevailing
conditions. Vapor lock tendency is also controlled via a
combination of vapor pressure and percent distilled at 158°F,
namely,
VL1 = RVP (psi) 4 0.13 (% 0 158<>F).
This same relationship has been given the name Front-End
Volatility Index (FEVI), and has been shown to relate to
evaporative losses^. These two properties are related chiefly
to the concentration of the lowest-boiling hydrocarbon con-
stituents, namely butanes and pentanes (C4S and C5S) blended
into gasoline. To a somewhat lesser extent, the concentration
of C6 components is also involved. Thus, control of gasoline
volatility is related to the inclusion of these hydrocarbons
in gasoline blend stocks.
•ASTM D 323
tASTM D 439
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
1-5
-------
Most refiners have access to normal butane (nC^),
both as a purchased raw material and as a refinery stream.
Historically, normal butane has been available as a by-
product from natural gas processing and has been priced well
below gasoline. Thus, the refiner has an incentive to blend
the maximum amount of butane into his gasoline as limited by
vapor-lock considerations. A further incentive is the fact
that normal butane has a high octane rating and thus reduces
the cost of meeting octane requirements for finished gaso-
lines.
Gasoline volatility is controlled to meet limits
imposed by the average ambient temperatures of the region in
which it will be sold. If gasoline volatility were restricted
below present levels, refiners would further restrict the
amount of low-boiling hydrocarbons in their blends. This
would prevent the use of normal butane, a relatively inexpen-
sive component, and in addition would require compensation for
the octane quality which the butane would otherwise provide.
The first step toward meeting more restrictive RVP limits
would be to restrict (or discontinue) the blending of butane,
as such. The second step would be to change processing to
exclude butane presently contained in other blend stocks.
This could require modification of existing separation facil-
ities and/or the installation of new facilities to remove
contained butanes. As a further step, extreme RVP limits
could require removal of some C5 components which in most
cases would require new separation facilities. Not only
would the refinery incur additional costs for removal of
these hydrocarbons from gasoline, there also would be a loss
in revenue since the rejected materials would be less valuable
in their alternative dispositions. Achieving these alternate
dispositions would require capital expenditures for new facil-
ities such as storage tanks, loading racks, lines and pumps.
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Marragement Science
1-6
-------
Finally, additional crude and adjusted processing conditions
would be required to make up for the gasoline volume lost
by rejecting low-boiling hydrocarbons to other dispositions
and by increasing process severities to compensate for lost
octane quality.
1.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the design and execution of this study, Mr.
Cooper Smith of EPA, Ann Arbor, and Mr. Norman R. Sefer of
Southwest Research Institute contributed suggestions and
support and produced comments concerning final documenta-
tion. All of these efforts were helpful and are gratefully
acknowledged.
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
Beyond this introduction, this report contains three
additional sections and six appendices. Section 2 discusses
the approach taken and the methodology employed. Section 3
summarizes results obtained and Section presents detailed
results. Supporting information is presented in Appendices
A through F. Bibliographies are included at the end of the
main body of the report and with each appendix, as appropri-
ate .
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
1-7
-------
SECTION 2
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
An understanding of approach, premises and assump-
tions is important in judging the applicability of the results
and in appreciating the study's inherent limitations. This
section describes the general approach taken by Bonner & Moore
Management Science in estimating the refining costs associated
with gasoline vapor pressure reduction in the United States.
General descriptions are also provided for the major study
premises and assumptions.
2.1 GENERAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Estimates of the added costs associated with
restricting gasoline volatility were prepared by determining
the increased refining costs in each of three regions of the
U. S., by using these results to estimate costs in two other
regions, and by incorporating results from a recent study
on vapor pressure reduction costs in California^. The three
regions explicitly evaluated in this study are known as
Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADDs) 1, 2
and 3. These three regions, as well as the other two regions
of concern, are mapped in Figure 2-1.
SWR-8501
Bonner C Moore Management Science
2-1
-------
09
«
50
I
00
U1
o
s
CO
3
CO
CO
o
CO
3
3
Unci. Alaska
and Hawaii)
ro
i
ro
Figure 2
-1.
Petroleum Administration for Defense
Districts (PADDs)
-------
Mathematical (linear programming) models of the
composite refining capability in PADDs 1, 2 and 3 were con-
structed using RPMS, a proprietary Bonner & Moore software
and database system. Each model was run with gasoline vapor
pressure set to correspond to current limits and, subse-
quently, at one and then two pounds per square inch (psi)
reductions from current limitations. Differences in total
refining costs, as determined from these runs, provided the
desired cost estimates for each region modeled.
Results from analyses in these regions are extrap-
olated to national estimates by assuming that per-barrel
costs for reducing gasoline vapor pressure for PADDs 4 and 5
(excluding California) would be the average of costs deter-
mined for PADDs 2 and 3, and by including results from the
aforementioned study for California2.
Three simplfying assumptions were employed to
restrict the scope of the study in order to minimize time and
cost of study completion. These assumptions were:
1) That national cost estimates will be suffi-
ciently accurate if extrapolated from PADDs 1,
2 and 3 results and from the aforementioned
California study.
2) That costs determined for the forecasted situa-
tion in 1990 wJ 11 be indicative of long-range
effects.
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
2-3
-------
3) That industry-level results will be adequate
for current and preliminary decision-making
with respect to vapor pressure reductions. This
underlying assumption precludes use of study
results for decisions at the sub-regional or
individual refinery levels.
Model study premises are summarized in the following
paragraphs.
2.1.1 Product Demands
All products, except LPG and petroleum coke, were
fixed at forecasted refining output for each region. LPG and
coke were allowed to vary at prices determined from current
market quotations. Forecasts of demands and refinery output
are presented in Appendix A.
2.1.2 Crude Availabilities
Projections of crude supply were allocated to three
classes; namely, low sulfur, high-sulfur and "swing" crudes.
The swing crude was defined as a mix of 40 percent imported
Arabian heavy crude oil and 60 percent imported Arabian light
crude oil. Low-sulfur and high-sulfur mixes were fixed at
projected volumes. The swing crude volume was allowed to
vary as required by overall product output and process energy
requirements. Crude oil supply forecasts are presented in
Appendix B.
SWR-8501
Bonner & Moore Management 8cience
2-4
-------
2.1.3 Other Raw Materials
Normal butane, iso-butane and natural gasoline volu-
mes were defined on two bases; namely, as maxima based on
recent DOE reporting and as fixed input at the same volumes
defined as maxima. Details are presented in Appendix B.
2.1.4 Refinery Process Configuration
Total capacities of all major processes were imposed
as maximum throughputs for each region. These throughputs
were based on public information representing capacities as
of 1 January 1981 (Oil & Gas Journal, March 26, 1984). Minor
process capacities were allowed to take any required level at
costs representing typical equipment construction. All major
processes except for cat cracking of untreated feeds and
light-oil hydrocracking were allowed to be built at costs
typical of the sizes installed in recent years. Base con-
figuration details are presented in Appendix E.
2.1.5 Economics
All costs and prices were set at first half 1984
values. Crudes were priced FOB the Arabian Gulf plus trans-
portation to the East and Gulf Coasts and to the Great Lakes
from the Gulf Coast. Natural gas liquids were priced accord-
ing to Piatt's quotations for each region. Purchased elec-
trical power was priced according to regional quotations. No
escalation to 1990 was employed, i.e., a constant 1984 dollar
value was employed. Details are presented in Appendix D.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
2-5
-------
2.1.6 Product Qualities
Except for gasoline, all products were required to
meet current product quality specifications as presented in
Appendix C. Gasoline distillation and octanes were forced to
meet current quality specifications based on the ASTM D 439
schedule (except for unleaded premium gasoline which was
assigned a 93 (R+M)/2 minimum octane rating to reflect recent
trends. Lead content of leaded regular was limited to 0.1
gram/gallon, maximum.
Current summer gasoline vapor pressure was deter-
mined from the ASTM D 439 schedule for seasonal and geographic
volatility classes for the areas supplied by refineries in
each region. This resulted in maximum summer RVP specifica-
tions of 11.50, 11.46 and 11.12 psi, respectively, for PADDs
1, 2 and 3•
Details on product specifications are presented in
Appendix C.
SWR-8501
Bonner C Moore Management Science
2-6
-------
2.2 STUDY PARAMETERS AND CASES
Certain assumptions or conditions were subjected to
analysis to determine their effects on the cost of reducing
gasoline vapor pressure.
2.2.1 Natural Gas Liquids Price and Consumption
As noted under the discussion of "other raw material"
premises, two situations were defined for natural gas liquids
(NGLs). These materials, which are produced as by-products of
natural gas processing, were represented in the study models
as purchased normal butane, iso-butane and natural gasoline.
One NGL situation allowed the volume of each NGL to vary up
to a maximum projected availability for each region (see
Appendix B) at prices derived from recent market quotations
(see Appendix D). Cases under this situation are noted as
"open NGL" cases.
Because it would be expected that decreased demand
for NGLs would depress NGL market prices, and because no study
was included to determine the price elasticity of this market,
a second situation was defined in which NGL purchases were
forced to equal projected availabilities. This is equivalent
to reducing prices to levels where refining use would be at a
break-even value. Cases under this situation are noted as
"fixed NGL" cases.
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
2-7
-------
2.2.2 Use of Alcohols as Gasoline Blendstocks
Three kinds of alcohol use were studied. One set of
cases involved blending five volume percent of a one-to-one
mixture of methanol and tertiary-butyl alcohol (TBA) into
each grade of gasoline. Another set of cases involved
blending 7.5 volume percent of a mixture which was 2 parts
methanol and 1 part TBA. The third set of alcohol cases
involved blending 10 percent of gasoline-grade ethanol into
each gasoline grade.* This latter situation was examined
under both NGL situations. Methanol blending was examined
only with NGL purchases left open.
2.2.3 Increased Gasoline Demand
One set of cases, with NGL purchases fixed at fore-
casted levels, was run with gasoline output from each PADD
increased by 10 percent. No other major product demand was
varied.
•Ethanol-containing blends were required to meet finished
gasoline specifications (as were methanol blends) in contrast
to Gasahol which is finished unleaded regular to which 10
percent ethanol has been added, and which is not, therefore,
required to meet volatility restrictions.
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moate Management Science
2-8
-------
2.2.4 Investment Restriction Cases
As stated under "Refinery Process Configuration"
(Paragraph 2.1.U), each region model was equipped to repre-
sent new and expanded capacity additions. To measure the
cost effect of restricting vapor pressure before planning,
engineering and construction could be accomplished, a set of
cases was run which prevented any major process from being
added or expanded above the capacities required by each 1990
case at current summer vapor pressure limits.
2.2.5 Cat Gasoline Octane
Early case results indicated a significant decrease
in the use of catalytic cracking. To test the possibility
that this behavior was caused by a too-low octane quality
assumption for cat gasoline, cases for PADD 3 were run which
reflected an increase of one octane number in cat gasoline
blending values.
2.2.6 Case Run Summary
Table 2-1 identifies the cases examined in terms of
parameter selections, region and RVP level. Note that most,
but not all, combinations of conditions were not included in
this study.
SWR-8501
Banner B Moore Management Science
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-1
CASES STUDIED
PADD 1
PADD 2
PADD 3
Open NGL Cases B M
L
B
M L
B
M L L-1
Standard Premises x x
X
X
X X
X
X X
With 51 1-to-1 MeOH-TBA x
X
X
X
X
XX X
With 7.51 2-to-1 MeOH-TBA
X
X
With EtOH
X
X
X
X
With Incr. Cat Gaso. Octane
X
X X
Fixed NGL Cases
Standard Premises x
X
X
X X
«
X
With 10* EtOH x
X
X
X
X
X
With Incr. Gasoline Demand x
X
X
X
X
X
Without Capital Investment
X
X
X
# PADD 3 base case with open NGLs used
available.
maximum
NGLs
LEGEND: B = Base RVP
M = Base RVP minus 1
L = Base RVP minus 2
L-1 = Base RVP minus
psi
psi
3 psi
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moare Management Science
2-10
-------
2.3 STUDY LIMITATIONS AND AREAS EXCLUDED
Inherent in the scope, methodology and simplifying
assumptions of this study are limitations in accuracy of
results, in the range of applicability and in the depth of
the analyses performed. Certain limitations are obvious; for
example, costs which may be experienced at specific refin-
eries could be greater or smaller than those measured in this
study. Certain limitations are more subtle; for example,
changes in supply logistics caused by changes in manufac-
turing costs have not been addressed.
Modeling assumptions embodied in the mathematical
depictions of refinery technologies, while of importance, are
secondary to effects caused by study assumptions and premises.
Because these modeling details have been subject to repeated
and nearly continuous scrutiny and improvement during the
course of use in many studies, both private and public, and
because the scope of this study and this document do not call
for review, no further examination of process modeling will
be presented except where pertinent to explaining certain
results.
In addition to the general caution that industry-
level model results do not reflect the extremes of specific
refining situations, there are four other limitations which
should be noted, namely:
1) Effects of recurring recession or rapid recov-
ery of the U. S. economy are not recognized in
forecasts of crude supply or product demand.
2) Other than increased gasoline production,
changes in product demand or shifts in product
demand ratios have not been examined.
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
2-11
-------
3) Changes in motor gasoline demand, because of
potential changes in vehicle performance, were
not addressed.
4) Differences in gasoline or fuel oil grade mix
among regions have been ignored.
Several areas were excluded from this study which
are related to the issue of reduced gasoline volatility or to
study and model premises. These exclusions do not necessarily
imply lack of concern on the part of those involved in this
study or lack of importance. These exclusions are listed
below.
1) Deviations from assumed economics, e.g., crude
costs, capital costs, or by-product prices have
not been studied.
2) Major changes in crude supply or product dis-
tribution logistics have not been considered.
3) Effects of changed gasoline volatility on vehi-
cle performance or on emissions levels were not
examined.
4) Technology breakthroughs in refinery processes
or in end-use of fuels were not considered.
5) Measures other than Reid Vapor Pressure for
controlling gasoline volatility {e.g., front-
end volatility index) were not considered.
6) Consequential changes in refinery emissions have
not been considered.
SWR-8501
Banner G Maare Management Science
2-12
-------
7) A future limit of 0.1 gram/gallon maximum lead
alkyl was imposed on leaded gasoline. No
assessment of vapor pressure control costs at
other lead alkyl limits was made.
8) This study assumed enough alcohol, of each
type, would be available for inclusion at the
prescribed concentrations in all gasolines. No
attempt was made to determine how such alcohol
might be supplied or the price at which it
would be made available because this study is
not concerned with the economics of alcohol
blending.
9) Although it is theoretically possible to
restrict summer vapor pressure on only that
gasoline sold in critical metropolitan areas,
this study does not address the potential lower
manufacturing costs or the higher segregation
and distribution costs of doing so.
10) If added refining costs were passed to the con-
sumer, increased prices at the pump could
decrease demand. No analysis of changes in
gasoline demand was attempted.
SWR-8501
Bonner G Moore Management Science
2-13
-------
SECTION 3
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section summarizes and analyzes the results
obtained from this study. Detailed results from which these
summaries have been prepared are presented in Section 4.
Supporting material is provided in the appendices to this
report.
All results are based on forecasted product demands
and crude supplies for the year 1990. Economics are based on
prices for the first half of 1984 and constant (non-inflated)
1984 dollar values. Refinery output to satisfy projected
demands is based on historical distribution patterns, for
example, Gulf Coast refineries (PADD 3) are assumed to con-
tinue to supply large volumes of products to the East Coast.
The several volatility requirements imposed on each
regional model represent the volumetric weighting of volatil-
ity requirements for gasolines to each region supplied from
a given refining center. Table 3-1 shows the EVP maxima using
the current ASTM D 439 schedule and the maxima with one-psi
and two-psi decreases for the three regions studied.
3WR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1
REGIONAL RVP LIMITS
Maximum, psi
Base RVP
RVP-1
RVP-2
PADD
1
11.50
10.50
9.50
PADD
2
11.46
10.46
9.46
PADD
3
11.12
10.12
9.12
These limits were applied to each of the three gaso-
line grades depicted in each model, namely, unleaded pre-
mium, unleaded regular, and leaded regular. All other
quality limits (see Appendix C) were unchanged from case to
case.
3.1 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATED COSTS
As described in Section 2.1, extrapolation of
regional cost estimates was necessary because PADDs 4 and 5
were not included in this study. By assuming that the average
cost (per barrel) for PADDs 2 and 3 is a reasonable estimate
for refining costs in PADDs 4 and 5, excluding those in
California, and by using results of a similar study for that
state2, national refining costs for vapor pressure control
have been estimated.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
3-2
-------
Unlike the present study, that for California did
not allow NGL input to vary. Furthermore, current regulations
in that state limit summer gasolines to 9.0 psi maximum
RVP. Since this is already more restrictive than would be
required under the current ASTM schedule, it is not clear
that national restrictions would affect California. Thus,
national estimates have been prepared with and without costs
for California's control.
3.1.1 Added Refining Costs
Table 3-2 presents per-barrel refining costs for
reducing allowable maximum RVP. National costs are estimated
with and without reduction costs for California. Estimates
are shown with open and fixed NGL purchases. These results
summarize supporting detail presented in Section 4.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
3-3
-------
f/5 TABLE 3-2
s
? REFINING COSTS FOR REDUCING MAXIMUM RVP
CD
VJ1
° ($ Per Barrel of Gasoline)
PADD
W/NGL purchase open
1 psi reduction 0.184
2 psi reduction 0.547
W/NGL purchase fixed
1 psi reduction 0.l87t
2 psi reduction 0.561
0. 364
0.748
0.396
0.857
r
Ex
+ 5
Calif
0.21 1
0.501
0.212t
0.504
0.288*
0.625*
0.304*
0.681*
Calif
0.502
1.082
0.502
1.082
Total
U.S.
0.288
0.646
0.298
0.679
Total
U.S.
(Ex Calif)
0.259
0.587
0.271
0.626
•Estimated as average of costs for PADDs 2 and 3.
tActual case not run, cost estimated using half the percentage increase between
2 psi reduction costs.
2See Bibliography, Page 4-31.
UO
i
-------
3.1.2 Effects On NGL Refining Values
It is apparent from results in Table 3-2 that costs
for the two NGL situations are similar. Incremental values
of NGLs, however, vary considerably in these two situations.
This is illustrated by tabulation of incremental NGL values
presented in Table 3-3.
As can be seen, forcing NGL purchases decreases the
incremental values of individual NGLs. In general, restrict-
ing vapor pressure limits reduces the value of individual
NGLs. Exceptions, primarily in PADD 2 results, are the con-
sequences of changes in operating conditions and shifts in
the NGL limits which are restricting purchases from one RVP
level to the next.
It should be noted that as "incremental" values, the
results in Table 3-3 apply, at best, to small volumes of
these raw materials and are, therefore, useful only as indi-
cators of pressure to change market prices. They should not
be interpreted as predictions of potential market prices
which might arise from future situations. What is shown, by
Table 3-2, is the fact that relatively large changes in NGL
prices would have small effects on the cost of vapor pressure
control.
The fixed-NGL cases provide an answer to the ques-
tion, "How low must NGL prices be to provide economic incen-
tive for using the base-case volumes of NGL?" These derived
NGL refining values may be lower than some alternative
consumer could afford to pay and, thus, they ignore the
possibility that the refiner might discontinue use of these
raw materials. They do, however, provide a lower limit
estimate of NGL prices and the case results reflect the cost
of vapor pressure control when refining must dispose of these
(low cost) potential gasoline components.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
3-5
-------
c/i TABLE 3-3
s:
T INCREMENTAL REFINING VALUES OF NGLs
oo
o ($/BBL)
C3
=3
CO
CO
3
CD
CO
ra
PADD-
1
PADD
-2
PADD
-3
Base RVP
Normal Butane
Iao-Butane
Nat. Gasoline
Open
35.27*
32.03*
32.52
Fixed
35.24
32.05
30.03
Open
24.77*
24.75
29. 12
Fixed
20.98
23-30
27.41
Open
29.80*
31 . 16*
29.51*
F ixed
29.80
31 .16
29.51
RVP-1 psi
Normal Butane
Iso-Butane
Nat. Gasoline
28.75*
30-51*
32.52
na
na
na
23.20
25.83*
29. 12
18.37
23.46
28.34
26.22*
•51 1 ii #
29-98*
na
ns
na
RVP-2 psi
Normal Butane
Iso-Butane
Nat. Gasoline
21 .97
28. 15
32.52
21 .04
27.05
29.36
22.39
24.89*
29.55*
16.44
21 .69
28.95
23-30
29.04*
30.01 *
21 . 30
26.86
29.90
•Limited by maximum availability
uu
CT\
-------
3.1.3 Estimated Annual Costs
When applied to the volumes of gasoline forecast for
each region, for a 92-day summer period, the costs in Table
3-2 produce estimated annual costs ranging from $131 million
to $386 million. Table 3-4 shows the development of these
costs. As noted earlier, the cost effect of forcing NGL
purchases is relatively small.
3.1.4 Effect on Raw Material Requirements
Changes in crude oil requirements account for most
of the costs for reducing gasoline vapor pressure. Costs
associated with capital investments and changes in operating
costs {less credits for by-products) account for the rest.
Table 3-5 presents the changes in raw materials (crude plus
NGLs) indicated from model results. As shown by the dif-
ferences between values with open and fixed NGL purchases,
changes in NGL input are small except in PADD 2*. Using
$30.00 per barrel (approximately the average price for swing
crude) for national crude costs, the national annual crude
cost for a 2 psi reduction in RVP (fixed NGL purchase) would
be approximately $308 million, including California, or $259
million, excluding California. This represents 80 percent of
the total refining cost estimate shown in Table 3-4.
•PADD 2 model results consistently showed a surplus of low-
boiling streams relative to gasoline demand. This suggests
that crude type and/or gasoline yield would be shifted from
those assumed in study forecasts by changing crude and pro-
duct logistics.
SWR-8501
Bonner C Moore Management Science
3-7
-------
to
»
I
CD
U1
o
TABLE 3-4
ANNUAL REFINING COSTS ESTIMATES FOR REDUCING .GASOLINE RVP
PADD
Total
1
2
3
4+5
Ex Calif
Calif
Total
U.S.
U.S.
(Ex Calif)
Average 1990 Gasoline
Output, MBPCD
465'
1541
2844
418
710
5978
5268
Summer Gasoline
Output, MBPY*
44,490t
147,4001"
272,100t
39,990t
65,320
569,300
503,980
Cost of vapor pressure
reduction, M$/Yr
W/NGL purchase open
1 psi
2 psi
8,190
24,330
53,700
110,300
57,410
136,300
11,520
24,990
32,660
70,550
163,^80
366,570
130,820
296,020
W/NGL purchase fixed
1 psi
2 psi
8,320
24,960
58,370
126,300
57,690
137,100
12,160
27,230
32,660
70,550
169,200
386,140
136,540
315,590
•Summer period of 92 days
tSummer gasoline output 4$ greater than annual daily
average
03
O
3
CO
S.
uo
I
CD
-------
TABLE 3-5
EFFECT OF RVP REDUCTION ON RAW MATERIAL
PADD
Total
4 + 5
Total
U.S.
1
2
3
Ex Calif
Calif
U.S.
(Ex Calif
Open NGL
Total Raw Material,
BBL/BBL of gasoline
0.0122
1 psia reduction
0.016
0.006
0.006
0.006*
0.007
0.006
2 psia reduction
0.012
0.014
0.014
0.014*
0.0252
0.015
0.014
Total Raw Material,
BPCD
1 psi reduction
7,490
8,520
17,090
2,510
8,520
44,110
35,590
2 psi reduction
5,730
21 , 170
39,690
5,850
17,750
90,190
72,440
Fixed NGL
Total Raw Material ,
BBL/BBL of gasoline
1 psi reduction
na
0.012
na
na
0.0122
0.009t
0.008t
2 psi reduction
0.013
0.025
0.014
0.019
0.0252
0.018
0.015
Total Raw Material,
BPCD
1 psi reduction
7,4got+
18,960
17,070tt
3,760§
8,520
55,800
47,280
2 psi reduction
6,210
38,650
40,920
7,940
17,750
111,740
93,720
•Average of values
for PADD 2
and 3-
tEstimated by using
"Open NGL
" values
for PADDs 1 and 3.
ttOpen-NGL value used in the absence of
actual
case results.
§Increased average
per barrel
value of
0.009 applied to
418 BPCD
gasoli ne
output.
2See Bibliography,
Page 4-31.
-------
3.1.5 Effect On Investment Requirements
After accounting for raw material costs, investment-
related costs are the major part of vapor pressure control
costs. Amortization, cost of capital, maintenance, insur-
ance, local and federal taxes and cost of manpower are those
associated with investment in new and expanded facilities.
For purposes of this summary, the changes in investment
requirements (rather than the associated costs of supporting
the investment) have been prepared and are presented in Table
3-6.
Minimization of costs in the solution to each case
represents a balance of capital costs, operating costs and
raw material costs. Each refining situation would dictate a
unique balance of its costs which would not necessarily match
the balances achieved by the model solutions of this study.
Thus, the added capital requirements shown in Table 3-6 must
be viewed as indicative since actual needs could vary widely
from those estimated in this study.
A further qualification of added investment results
must be recognized. As noted in the discussion of model prem-
ises in Section 2.1, major as well as auxiliary process
investment options were allowed as needed above January 1 ,
1984, process capabilities. Differences in process invest-
ments between a base-RVP and lower-RVP case can and do
reflect, for certain processing, lower capacity-additions in
the low-RVP case than required in the base-RVP case.
SWR-8501
Banner B Moore Management Science
3-10
-------
r„ TABLE 3-6
7 ESTIMATED CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REDUCING RVP
CD — —
o
to
qo
2
s
3
CO
CO
3
CO
I
PADD
Total
4+5
Total
U.S.
1 2
3
Ex Calif
Calif
U.S.
(Ex Calif)
Open NGL, M$/BBL of
gasoline
0.1042
1 psi reduction
0.205 0.101
0.054
0.078
0.098
0.083
2 psi reduction
0.165 0.187
0.112
0.150
0.2232
0.178
0.142
f MM$
1462
1 psi reduction
95.5 156.3
154.8
33- 0t
585.6
439.6
2 psi reduction
76.6 288.8
319.3
62.7t
3142 1
061.4
747.4
Fixed NGL, M$/BBL of
gasoline
0.1042
1 psi reduction
na 0.068
na
na
na
na
2 psi reduction
0.151 0.136
0. 100
0.118*
0.223
0. 160
0.122
,MM$
146 2
1 psi reduction
na 104.1
na
na
na
na
2 psi reduction
70 .1 209 • 8
316.0
49. 32
3142
959.2
645.2
•Estimated a3 average of costs for PADDs 2 and
3
tCalculated from per
-barrel estimate
and gasoline volume of 418
MBPCD.
2See Bibliography, Page 1-31.
-------
Restated, this is the consequence of the optimal configura-
tion for the low-RVP case not requiring more of every type of
process than would be required in optimal configuration for
the base-RVP case*.
3.2 PARAMETER EFFECTS
Effects of changes to certain premises on the costs
of reducing RVP were examined in this study. One set of
changes represents use of various alcohols as gasoline
constituents. One change examines the effect of increased
gasoline demand. Another examines the effect of not allowing
capital investment beyond that justified for the 1990 era
without RVP restriction. Finally, one set of cases was run
to confirm that observed changes in utilization of catalytic
cracking were not caused by inappropriate blending values
assumed for cat gasolines.
Each of these parameter studies was restricted to
some, but not all, combinations of RVP reduction and region.
Because of missing evaluations, effects on national costs can
only be assumed to approximate the same percentage change
observed for a given PADD.
•High-severity reforming is the most notable major process
that was needed to a lesser extent in low-RVP cases compared
to its need in base-RVP case3.
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
3-12
-------
3.2.1 Methanol-TBA Cases
All cases involving methanol-TBA blends were run
with NGL purchases open. Two types of methanol-TBA mixes were
examined. Eight cases examined the effect of using 5 volume-
percent of a one-to-one mix of methanol-TBA. Two cases were
run to examine the effect of a two-to-one mix at 7.5 volume-
percent. All gasoline grades were formulated with the same
specified alcohol content.
Table 3-7 summarizes the results from the one-to-one
methanol-TBA cases. Costs of reducing vapor pressure when
this mix of methanol-TBA is blended into all gasolines are
50, 20 and 40 percent above those for no-alcohol cases for
PADDs 1, 2 and 3, respectively. These percentages weighted
by the relative volumes of gasoline from each region indicate
that national costs for vapor pressure reduction would be
approximately 34 percent greater if all gasolines were
blended with 5 percent methanol-TBA. As shown by the added
raw material and added investment results in Table 3-7, both
of these factors are more costly if vapor pressure restric-
tions are imposed in a 1—to — 1 methanol-TBA environment.
Cases for PADD 3 with 1 psi and 3 psi reduction in
maximum RVP were run to identify costs effects with methanol
and a need to further restrict RVP. The reason for such
further restriction might arise as means of compensating for
the fact that vehicle operators could produce a high-vapor-
pressure mixture in their fuel tanks by adding a non-alcohol
gasoline to a partial tank of alcohol-containing gasoline,
or vice versa. Because of the non-linear blending behavior
of alcohol-hydrocarbon mixtures with respect to volatility
characteristics, such occurrences would result in vehicle
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
3-13
-------
in
s:
Pd
I
oo
Ul
o
TABLE 3-7
EFFECTS OF 50/50 METHANOL-TBA
(Open NGLs)
PADD
1
PADD
2
PADD
3
W/0
W
W/0
W
W/0
W
Refining Cost,
$/BBL of gasoline
0.314
1 psi reduction
0. 184
na
0.364
na
0.21 1
2 psi reduction
0.547
0.815
0.748
0.898
0. 501
0.692
3 psi reduction
na
na
na
na
na
1 . 163
Added Raw Material,
BBL/BBL of gasoline
1 psi reduction
0.016
na
0.006
na
0.006
0.007
2 psi reduction
0.012
0.029
0.014
0.021
0.014
0.016
3 psi reduction
na
na
na
na
na
0.029
Added Investment,
M$/BBL of gasoline
0.054
0.036
1 psi reduction
0. 205
na
0. 101
na
2 psi reduction
0. 165
0.312
0. 187
0.269
0.112
0. 186
3 psi reduction
na
na
na
na
na
0.255
CD
CO
CO
CD
3
TO
8
CD
OJ
I
-------
fuel tanks containing a mixture that exceeds RVP limits even
though both the alcohol-containing and non-alcohol gasolines
were at, or slightly below, the allowable maximum.
In an environment where gasoline with and without
methanol-TBA would be available, it could conceivably become
required to blend all gasolines to a lower base RVP to over-
come the above-described problem. Further reduction in RVP
to combat evaporative emissions would then take place from a
lower base RVP. The differences in costs between 3-psi and
1-psi reduction represents the RVP-reduction (of 2-psi) costs
from a lower base. From Table 3-7, the 3-to-1 difference of
$0,849 per barrel for PADD 3 is a significantly larger cost
for a 2 psi reduction than the $0,692 per barrel cost shown
for a 2 psi reduction from base RVP. This illustrates the
fact that a given reduction in RVP is more costly for low
base levels, than from a higher base level.
Cases with 2-to-1 methanol-TBA were evaluated only
for PADD 3. Table 3-8, therefore, presents a comparison of
like results from standard-premise and 1-to-l methanol-TBA
cases. As can be seen, vapor pressure costs for gasoline
with alcohol are greater than those with alcohol-free blends.
The larger concentration of the 2-to-1 mix, even though more
methanol is involved, results in lower costs because the
vapor-pressure blending value of this alcohol mixture (at the
higher concentration) is lower than that for the 1-to-1 mix
of methanol-TBA (see Appendix F) and because the increased
alcohol concentration means less hydrocarbon base stock is
needed.
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
3-15
-------
TABLE 3-8
EFFECTS OF 2/1 METHANOL-TBA
(PADD 3)
Methanol-TBA
Std.
Premises
5% of
1/1 Mix
7.5* of
2/1 Mix
Cost of 2 psi Reduction,
$/BBL of gasoline
0.501
0.692
0.532
Added Raw Materials,
BBL/BBL of gasoline
0.014
0.16
0.009
Added Investment,
M$/BBL of gasoline
0. 112
KO
CO
*
o
0.186
3.2.2 Ethanol Cases
Five case-pairs were prepared to measure the cost of
vapor-pressure reduction with 10 volume-percent ethanol.*
Each pair represents case3 at base RVP and at 2 psi reduction.
Two pair (for PADDs 2 and 3) were run with NGL purchases open
and three (for PADDs 1, 2, and 3) with NGL purchases fixed.
In every case with ethanol being blended, vapor-
pressure-reduction costs were zero. The reason is simply
that base-RVP cases all show gasolines being blended well
below maximum RVP. Each grade was limited instead by the
maximum % § 160°F. Table 3-9 presents the predicted RVP of
each gasoline pool for the base-RVP cases run in this study.
*This use of ethanol should not be confused with the practice
of adding ethanol to finished unleaded gasoline to produce
Gasahol. Ethanol-containing blends in this study are required
to meet normal volatility specifications. Gasahol is not.
SWR-8501
Bonner & Moore Management Science
3-16
-------
TABLE 3-9
PREDICTED GASOLINE POOL RVP WITH STHAUOL
(psl)
1
PADD
2
3
Max FVP Specification
11.50
11.16
11.12
Open NGL Purchases
na
6.84
7.94
Fixed NGL Purchases
6.MO
6.97
7.07
It appears from these results that lowering the
allowable maximum FVP by 2 psl would impose no restriction to
ethanol-containing gasoline and that base case EVPs would be
well below that restriction.
The explanation of this characteristic of the etha-
nol casess compared to the cases involving other alcohols
depends on the relationships of blending values for vapor
pressure and % § 160°F of each type of alcohol mixture.
These blending values are shown in Table 3-10*. Also shown
In Table 3-10 are the contributions to blend quality of each
type of alcohol, namely, the blending values times their
*Blending values for other properties are shown in Appendix F.
¦8501 Bonier EMoote Mar agertenl Science ^
-------
respective concentrations (as volume fractions). Maximum
% § 160°F was defined as 35 volume percent. Maximum base
FVPs were 11.50 to 11.12 psi. Thus, the 1 — to — 1 methanol-TBA
mixture accounts for approximately 2H percent of allowable
RYP and 16 percent of the allowable % § 160°F. Ethanol, on
the other hand, accounts for 13 percent of the maximum RVP
and 63 percent of the maximum % § 160°F.
Without relaxing the maximum limit for % § 160°F,
gasoline blends with ethanol cannot approach current RVP
limits. Unlike the other alcohol cases, this characteristic
of ethanol blends means there would be no need to reduce
"base" RVPs since they would be well below the lower limits
considered in this study.
TABLE 3-10
ALCOHOL BLENDING VALUES
METHANOL
1/1
-TBA
2/1
ETHANOL
Assumed Concentration,
Volume %
5
7.5
10
RVP Blending value, psi
54.0
40.0
15.0
i § 160°F Blending value
115
175
220
Contribution to blend
quality (blending value
times concentration)
RVP, psi
t § 160°F
2.70
5.75
3.0
13. 125
1.50
22.00
SWR-8501
Bonner & Moore Management Science
3-18
-------
3.2.3 No-Investment Cases
Three cases without the ability to invest in new or
expanded facilities for major processes were run to measure
the impact of not having time to plan, engineer and construct
such capacity. Each case assumes that capacity which was
shown to be justified at current RVP limits and with NGL pur-
chases fixed at forecasted availabilities would be in place
and would have to serve for lower RVP limits. Table 3-11 pre-
sents a summary of the results from these cases (W/0) along
with results for cases with (W) investment allowed.
TABLE 3-11
NO-INVESTMENT IMPACTS
(2 psi Reduction)
Cost, $/BBL
of gasoline
Added Raw Mate-
rial, BBL/BBL
of gasoline
Added Investment,
Major processes
Auxiliary pro-
cesses
Total
PADD 1
W W/0
0.561 0.641
0.013 0.020
0.007
0.158 0.112
0.151 0.112
PADD 2
W W/0
0.857 1.084
0.025 0.036
-0.003
0.139 0.169
0.136 0.169
PADD 3
W W/0
0.504 0.713
0.014 0.024
0.040
0.060 0.051
0.100 0.051
SWR-8501
Banner 6 Moore Management Science
3-19
-------
These results indicate that lack of time to adjust
facilities for reduced volatility requirements would increase
costs by 14 percent, 26 percent and 41 percent in PADDs 1, 2
and 3, respectively. Using gasoline output to weight these
increases gives an estimate of 34 percent increase for
national costs. As would be expected, added raw materials
increase even more, namely, 54 percent, 44 percent and 71
percent for PADDs 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and the estimate
of national raw material increase is 61 percent.
Added-investment results require explanation. As
noted in Section 3.1.5, optimal process configurations do
not have all process expansions from base capacities in the
same proportions. As is illustrated by the added investment
results in Table 3-11, this can lead to some subset of proc-
ess expansions being less in one case than in another. In
this particular instance, the process subset termed "major
processes" shows a net smaller investment requirement in the
low-RVP case than in the base-RVP case for PADDs 1 and 2. In
addition, Table 3-11 shows that auxiliary process investments
can be larger in the no-investment (of major process) situa-
tion than in the situation allowing investments.
It is important, in this context, to recognize that
auxiliary process investments should be classed as operating
costs. Further, it should be recognized that defining cer-
tain processes (e.g., sulfur recovery) as auxiliary was some-
what arbitrary, and in retrospect, could have been done to
minimize the apparent anomaly appearing in the above results.
SWR-8501
Bonner S Moore Management Science
3-20
-------
3.2.4 Increased Gasoline Output Case3
Three pairs of cases with NGL purchases fixed and
with gasoline output requirements increased by 10 percent
were run to measure the effect of this change in product
demand on RVP reduction costs. Each pair consisted of a
base-RVP and an RVP-minus-2 case. Results are summarized in
Table 3-12.
Because of the change in divisors which is caused by
increasing gasoline output, Table 3-12 shows measured effects
as per-day and per-barrel-of-gasoline results. For all PADDs,
daily cost for a 2-psi reduction increases. The per-barrel
cost for PADD 1 decreases slightly. The three-PADD increase
in daily refining cost is 11 percent. Thus, a 10 percent
increase in forecasted gasoline demand would be expected to
increase the national refining cost of reducing RVP by 11
percent. The average per-barrel cost, on the other hand,
increases only 1.2 percent with a 10 percent demand Increase.
Added raw material requirements for the 10 percent
increase in gasoline output for these three regions is shown
to be approximately 10,000 barrels per day above that required
to adjust RVP with base case demands. The increase in gaso-
line demand is more easily accommodated by PADDs 1 and 2
(both show a decrease in added raw material requirements
to reduce RVP at higher gasoline output) than by PADD 3.
This is because PADD 1 and 2 gasoline demands are relatively
easier to meet.
SWR-8501
Bonner 8 Moore Management Science
3-21
-------
aaC3, Kerosene jet fuel demand for each PADD is
the total jet fuel demand less the naphtha jet fuel
demand.
3) Residual Fuel
The grades of residual fuel represented in this
study are low sulfur (0 to 0.3 weight percent
Sulfur) medium sulfur (0.31 to 1.0 weight percent
Sulfur) and high sulfur (greater the 1.0 weight per-
cent Sulfur). Grade mixes are based on the growth
rates for each grade from a comprehensive study of
nautral gas usage,7 applied to 1983 production of
each grade. This results in a small percentage
increase in the low and medium sulfur grades at the
expense of the high-sulfur grade. Because of pro-
jected increase in total residual fuel demand by
1990, individual grades of residual fuel also show
increases.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
A-1 3
-------
TABLE 3-12
EFFECTS OF INCREASED GASOLINE DEMAND
(2 psi Reduction)
PADD 1
As
Forecast
+ 10*
PADD 2
As
Forecast
10*
PADD 3
As
Forecast
10*
Gasoline Output,
MBPCD
Cost, M$PCD
$/BBL of gasoline
Added Raw Material,
MBPCD
BBL/BBL of gasoline
Added Investment,
MM$
M$/BBL of gasoline
465.0
2& 1.0
0.561
6.210
0.013
70. 1
0. 151
511 .5
2&1 .7
0.512
1 .280
0.003
189.7
0. 371
1541 .0
i320.7
0.857
38.650
0.025
209.8
0. 136
1695.1 2844.0
1485.6 1432.5
0.876 0.504
37.020
0.022
40.920
0.014
380.3 316.0
0.224 0.111
3128.4
1607-3
0.514
57-550
0.018
2.9
0.001
-------
The larger added investments shown for PADDs 1 and 2
when gasoline demand is increased are indicative of shifts
in the balance between raw material costs and capital costs.
Total added investment for these regions is approximately $23
million greater for the increased-gasoline cases but its
distribution among the regions is obviously not uniform.
All of these effects must be recognized as small
differences between large numbers. Even though the model
behavior leading to these results, as well as the direction
of change indicated by the results, are understandable and
for the most part consistent with expectations, their limited
accuracy and dependence on study premises and model assump-
tions must be recognized.
3.2.5 Cases with Increased Octane Values for
Cat Gasoline
Unlike the other parameter examinations, which
explored study premises, this particular investigation was
made to confirm that observed model behavior was not the
result of modeling assumptions about the octane blending
values assigned to catalytic gasolines. Details of these
cases are included with other case details in Section 4.
No summary is, however, presented here. Instead, a brief
discussion of the model behavior is provided.
Early model results showed cat cracking capacity to
be utilized at low levels. Recognizing that this was, in
part, caused by the low limit (0.1 gm/gal) on use of lead
alkyl, and that cat gasoline octane values at this low level
were at or below gasoline specifications, it was decided to
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
3-23
-------
test the effect of slightly higher blending values. Octane
values of cat gasoline can be controlled to some extent by
feedstock selection and by operating conditions as well as
catalyst type selection. To approximate the possible improve-
ment in blending values that use of this flexibility might
achieve, cases with higher octane blending values for gaso-
lines were run.
Results showed that even lower utilization of cat
cracking capacity was needed when octane values were
increased. The model behavior, for purposes of this study,
was, therefore, judged acceptable.
SWR-8501
Bonner 8 Moore Management Science
3-24
-------
3-3 CONCLUSIONS
Several important conclusions may be drawn from the
results of this study.
3-3.1 Refiners' Cost for RVP Reduction
Possibly the most important conclusion which may be
drawn from study results is that refiners' cost increase can
be expected to vary according to the severity of the vapor
pressure restriction and among the regions in which the gaso-
lines are processed. Refiners' cost of reducing summer gaso-
line RVP could vary from 0.4 to 2.6 cents per gallon. There
would undoubtedly be variations in the sub-regional areas as
well, although this study did not attempt to measure costs at
this level of detail.
Increased cost of gasoline with RVP restriction
would not necessarily be reflected as increase in pump prices
for gasoline. Costs could be absorbed at any point in the
manufacturing/marketing chain and/or passed on to the con-
sumer. Increased gasoline costs might be masked by other
important influences such as the prices of crude oils or by
an intense competitive situation in a particular area. The
increased cost of manufacturing lower-volatility gasoline is
real, however, and would represent a large cost to the econ-
omy of the U. S. Under the standard premises of this study,
the national costs are estimated to be more than $315 million
during the first year of restriction.
SWR-8501
Banner E Moore Management Science
3-25
-------
3.3-2 Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) Effects
A second conclusion is that the results of this
study show that refining costs for restricting RVP are rela-
tively insensitive to the market price of natural gas liquids
(normal butane, iso-butane and natural gasoline). That is,
changes in prevailing prices for natural gas liquids would
not be expected to exert a significant impact on the cost of
reducing vapor pressure.
On the other hand, the converse is not true. NGLs
are currently significant components of gasoline, and regula-
tions reducing the vapor pressure of gasoline will have a
significant effect on the price of natural gas liquids. If
these raw materials cannot be used in gasoline blending,
their decreased value in alternate dispositions (probably as
plant fuel) would depress their market prices.
3•3•3 Using RVP Restrictions For Emissions Control
A third important conclusion has to do with RVP
measurement as a volatility control. This conclusion can
be drawn from the effects of alcohol use on the cost of RVP
reduction. The effect of using RVP alone as a control speci-
cation is seen most clearly in the cases using ethanol as a
blend stock.
The conclusion which can be drawn from these cases
is that controlling RVP alone is probably more costly and
less effective than controlling a combination of vapor pres-
sure and distillation properties. Other studies1 have shown
SWR-8501
Banner £ Moore Management Science
3-26
-------
that Front-End Volatility Index (FEVI)* correlates much more
accurately with evaporative emissions than does RVP alone.
This study defines volatility reduction as RVP
reduction only. The importance of volatility restrictions
other than RVP is emphasized by ethanol case results. Because
of ethanol's effects on % § 160°F, relative to its effects
on RVP, all ethanol blends are limited by the maximum of
35% § 160°F and, at 6 to 8 RVP, are well below the maximum
restriction considered in this study. Using RVP alone as a
means for controlling evaporative emissions limits the flexi-
bility the refiner has in meeting volatility restrictions and
thus would increase the cost of manufacturing gasoline.
Had the study models been given the flexibility of
blending to FEVI limitations rather than RVP limitations
alone, the measured costs for volatility reduction would have
been lower in the non-alcohol cases and higher in the alcohol
cases.
*FEVI = RVP + 0.13 (* § 160° F).
SWR-8501
Banner & Moore Management Science
3-27
-------
3.4 EFFECT OF SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTIONS
As constituted, this study was designed to estimate
the refining costs of restricting summer gasoline volatility.
Restrictions were defined as reduction in RVP amounting to
1 psi and 2 psi from limits currently specified by ASTM D 439.
This standard defines regional summer maxima with a range of
9 psi to 11.5 psi. Thus, a 2-psi reduction would require
gasoline blends with RVP specifications from 7 psi to 9.5 psi.
To simplify the study models, for purposes of re-
ducing study cost, all gasolines from a given region were
combined to represent a single volatility grade. This results
in base-case RVPs of 11.50, 11.46 and 11.12 psi for PADDs 1,
2 and 3, respectively—which are at the upper end of the
range of stated ASTM standard. The cost of restricting RVP
is inversely proportional to the base RVP, i.e., reduction
from a base of 10 RVP is more costly than a reduction from a
base of 11 RVP. The simplified models, thus, tend to under-
state the true cost of RVP reduction.
Another simplification tends to overstate the true
cost of RVP reduction. This assumption is that regional
refining output of gasoline would not change if RVP restric-
tions were to cause shifts in regional gasoline costs.
These simplifications (along with others, as
reflected in Section 2.1) introduce a degree of uncertainty
into the estimated costs. Since reduction of maximum vapor
pressure is only one of several alternatives which can be
used for reducing hydrocarbon emissions, it is important to
recognize the uncertainty of results when making comparisons
with costs for other reduction methods.
SWR-8501
Bonner G Moore Management Science
3-28
-------
3.5
ISSUES FOR FURTHER STUDY
Several issues related to this study subject are
topics which deserve further investigation. Important issues
are:
1) PADDs ^ and 5 Costs
This study estimated costs for RVP reduction in
PADDS 1, 2, and 3* Costs for refining in PADDS 4
and 5 were inferred or drawn from other studies on
the same subject.
2) Use of Measures Other than RVP
The use of FEVI or similar measures of evapora-
tive tendency should be compared to the use of RVP
as a means of volatility control.
3) Impact on Product Supply
The restriction of gasoline volatility vill
have an effect on the supply logistics of gasoline
and other petroleum products. This effect should be
examined since it would influence the cost of
restricting gasoline volatility.
4) Impact on Natural Gas Processing
Restriction of RVP has the potential for major
impact on the natural gas processing industry. The
potential economic impact of reduced refining demand
for NGLs is a cost which was not assessed in this
study, but one that would occur with volatility
restriction.
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
3-29
-------
5) Impact on Individual Refining Situations
The possible cost extremes associated with
unique refinery problems could vary considerably
from the industry-level estimates derived in this
study. A study of individual refining situations
is, therefore, recommended.
SWR-8501
Bonner C Moore Management Science
3-30
-------
SECTION 4
DETAILED RESULTS
This section contains selected detail for each case
evaluated in this study. As shown earlier in Table 2-1, not
all combinations of region, vapor pressure level and parameter
situations were included. Presentation order and grouping of
case results are based on region first, NGL situation second
and decreasing vapor pressure limits, within a given subordi-
nate parameter situation, third. Such ordering is, of course,
arbitrary and should not be taken to imply relative signifi-
cance .
Results for each case are arranged in groups,
namely, operations detail, gasoline blend detail and result-
differences between reduced-RVP cases and the appropriate
base-RVP case. The latter is always grouped with related
reduced-RVP cases except for low-RVP cases not allowing major
processing investment. The appropriate base-RVP case for the
low-RVP-no-investment cases is always the left-most (standard
premises) case in tables containing the no-investment result.
For cases involving alcohols, gasoline volumes
represent only the hydrocarbon portion of finished blends.
This is because it was convenient to model the fixed alcohol
content of each situation by adjusting gasoline specifica-
tions and volume demands as if refining produced gasoline
which, when the appropriate alcohol is added, would satisfy
finished quality and volume requirements. Predicted gasoline
grade and pool qualities shown under blend detail results
are, however, those for the finished fuels including the
appropriate alcohol.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
4-1
-------
4.1 PADD 1 CASE RESULTS
Table 4-1 presents case results for PADD 1 with NGL
purchase open. Table 4-2 presents case results with NGL
purchases fixed at forecasted levels.
4.2 PADD 2 CASE RESULTS
Table 4-3 presents case results for PADD 2 with NGL
purchases open. Table 4-4 presents case results with NGL
purchases fixed at forecasted levels.
4.3 PADD 3 CASE RESULTS
Table 4-5 presents case results for PADD 3 with NGL
purchases open. Table 4-6 presents case results with NGL
purchases fixed at forecasted levels.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
-------
TABLE 4-1
PADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 4)
STANDARD PREMISES
5 % METHANOL-TBA
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
MAX. RVP (ALL GRADES), PSI
11.500
10.500
9.500
11.500
9.500
OPERATIONS DETAIL
UTILITY PURCHASES
CAT/CHEM, MSPCD
140.031
139.426
154.263
130.960
151.052
PUR GEN, H-KWH-PCD
5208.949
5264.535
5480.262
4931.965
5290.863
RAW MATERIAL PURCHASES, MBPCD
LOW-SULFUR CRUDE
555.500
555.500
555.500
555.500
555.500
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
302.500
302.500
302.500
302.500
302.500
SUING CRUDE
232.624
240.113
240.016
209.632
223.527
PROPANE
6.620
6.620
6.620
6.620
6.620
N-BUTANE
0.950
0.950
0.000
0.000
0.000
ISO-BUTANE
5.670
5.670
4.959
5.670
0.000
NAT. GASOLINE
0.000
o.ooo
O.OOO
0.000
0.000
TOTALS
1103.364
1111.353
1109.595
1079.922
1088.147
RAW MATERIAL
INCREMENTAL VALUES, S/BBL.
LOW-SULFUR CRUDE
32.010
31.980
31.920
31.930
31.920
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
29.800
29.860
29.930
29.940
29.940
SWING CRUDE
29.690
29.690
29.690
29.690
29.690
PROPANE
23.850
23.850
23.850
23.850
23.850
N-BUTANE
35.27C
2B.750
21.970
22.030
18.810
ISO-BUTANE
32.03C
30.510
28.150
28.280
24.430
NAT. GASOLINE
32.520
32.520
32.520
29.010
29.390
SELECTED PRODUCT SALES, MBPCD
LEADEO REGULAR
79.050
79.050
79.050
75.097
75.097
UNLEADED GASOLINE
302.250
302.250
302.250
287.137
287.137
UNLEADED PREMIUM
A3.700
83.700
83.700
79.515
79.515
TOTAL GASOLINE
465.000
465.000
465.000
441.749
441.749
SWR-8501
Banner & Moore Management Science
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1
FADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet
2 of 4)
STANDARD PREMISES
5 X METHANOI-TBA
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP ¦ 2
II
II
ti
II
II
II
II
II
========
========
========
========
SELECTED PROOUCT SALES,
HBPCO (CONT.)
LIQ.PET.GAS.
36.930
38.585
37.712
33.224
35.338
SALABLE COKE (NTPCD)
22.728
27.188
22.720
22.721
22.720
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL
43.34-4
43.705
46.314
40.799
45.683
LIQUID PUNT FUEL
0.090
0.608
0.000
0.000
0.000
RELATIVE CASK FLOW, HSPCD
-7313.602
-7399.027
-7567.848
-6577.641
-6956.512
RELATIVE INVESTMENT, WIS
875.7S9
780.307
952.368
770.076
915.134
BLEND DETAILS
RVP • LD. REG.
11.500
10.500
9.500
11.500
9.500
RVP ¦ (JUL. REG.
11.500
10.500
9.500
11.500
9.500
RVP ¦ UNL. PRE.
11.500
10.500
9.500
11.500
9.500
RVP - POOL
11.500
10.500
9.500
11.500
9.500
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-LD. RES.
16.033
15.050
14.050
16.050
13.813
VAPOR-LOCK IHOEX-UNL. REG.
16.050
15.050
14.050
16.050
13.930
VAPOR-LOCK 1NDEX-UNL. PRE.
16.050
14.111
11,980
16.050
12.149
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-POOL
16.047
14.881
13.677
16.050
13.589
*3160 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
34.869
35.000
35.000
35.000
33.174
XS160 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
34.076
Sal60 DEGREES F.-UML. PRE.
35.000
27.781
19.076
35.000
20.380
S3160 DEGREES F.-POOL
34.978
33.700
32.134
35.000
31.457
X3210 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
57.000
57.000
57.000
57.000
57.000
X51210 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
54.897
54.384
53.810
55.553
53.512
X3210 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
50.810
46.177
41.197
52.795
42.310
13210 DEGREES F.-POOL
54.519
53.352
52.082
55.303
52.0B9
SWF-8501
Banner E Maare Management Science
-------
TABLE 4-1
PADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 3 of H)
STANDARD
PREMISES
5 X METHANOL-TBA
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
sessssss s
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
(1
II
II
II
II
II
11
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
it
========
SLEND DETAILS (CONT.)
132JO DEGREES F.
-LO.
REG.
62.973
63.023
63.191
61.881
62.388
X32J0 DEGREES F.
-UNL
REG.
62.459
62.594
62.293
62.446
61.430
X22JO DEGREES F.
-UNL
PRE.
65.029
61.501
58.428
67.158
58.096
X3230 DEGREES F.
-POOL
63.009
62.470
61.750
63.198
60.993
X3330 DEGREES F.
-LD.
REG.
91.83?
91.964
92.158
90.747
91.130
XSJ330 DEGREES F.
-UNL.
REG.
94.61i
95.011
95.188
93.914
94.492
*3330 DEGREES F.
-UNL.
PRE.
97.631
97.507
97.337
97.957
96.343
X3330 DEGREES F.
-POOL
94.685
94.942
95.059
94.103
94.254
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-LD.
REG.
0.741
0.742
0.743
0.747
0.753
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-UNL.
REG.
0.751
0.751
0.752
0.757
0.762
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-UNL.
PRE.
0.739
0.751
0.759
0.739
0.754
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
•POOL
0.74?
0.749
0.752
0.752
0.759
X AROMATICS-
LD.
REG.
30.630
31.032
31.055
28.741
29.997
X AROMATICS-
UNL.
REG.
38.165
37.880
38.327
36.247
37.847
X AROMATICS-
UNL.
PRE.
31.602
35.777
35.976
25.530
27.579
X ARONATICS-
POOL
35.735
36.337
36.668
33.042
34.664
RESEARCH OCTANE-
UNL.
REG.
92.370
92.472
92.849
93.778
94.094
MOTOR OCTANE-
UNL.
REG.
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
(R+M)/2-
UNL.
REG.
87.185
87.236
87.424
87.889
88.047
RESEARCH OCTANE -
UNL.
PRE.
98.500
98.500
98.500
98.500
98.515
MOTOR OCTANE-
UNL.
PRE.
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
(R+M)/2-
UNL.
PRE.
93.000
93.000
93.000
93.000
93.008
RESEARCH OCTANE-
LD.
REG.
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.50G
94.500
MOTOR OCTANE-
LD.
REG.
as.500
83.500
83.5C0
83.50C
83.500
(R+M)/2-
LD.
REG.
89.000
89.000
69.000
89. DOC
89.GQ0
SWR-8501
Banner E Moore Management Science
-------
TABLE 4-1
PADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet of *0
STANDARD PREMISES
5 % METHANOL-TBA
BASE RVP RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP RVP - 2
CASE DIFFERENCES
SUING CRUDE, MBPCD
7.489
7.392
13.895
N-BUTANE, HBPCD
0.000
-0.950
0.000
I SO-BUTANE, HBPCD
0.000
-0.711
-5.670
NAT. GASOLINE, KDPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, HBPCD
7.489
5.731
8.225
LIQ. PET. GASES, LPG, HBPCD
1.655
0.782
2.114
SALABLE COKE, MTPCD
4.460
-0.008
-0.001
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL, HBPCD
0.361
2.970
5.084
LIQUID PLANT FUEL, HBPCD
0.60B
0.000
0.000
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, KSPCO
*0.604
14.233
20.092
ELECTRICAL POWER, M-ICWH-PCD
55.586
271.313
358.898
CASH FLOW, M$PCD
-85.425
-254.246
-378.871
INVESTHENT, MMt
-95.452
76.579
145.058
CASE DIFFERENCES,
NORMALIZED PER BARREL OF GASOLINE
SWING CRUDE, BBL./BBL.
0.016
0.016
0.030
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, BBL./BBL
0.016
0.012
0.018
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, S/BBL
-0.001
0.031
0.043
ELECTRICAL POWER, KWH/BBL.
0.120
0.583
0.772
CASH FLOW, S/BBL.
-0.184
-0.547
-0.815
INVESTMENT, MS/BBL.
-0.205
0.165
0.312
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
4-6
-------
TABLE H-2
PADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 4)
NO
STANDARD
PREMISES
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED
GASOLINE
INVESTMENT
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
RVP - 2
MAX. RVP (ALL GRADES), PSt
11.500
9.500
11.500
9.500
11.500
9.500
9.500
OPERATIONS DETAIL
UTILITY PURCHASES
CAT/CHEM, MSPCD
139.688
154.793
152.376
152.376
149.797
169.872
151.471
PUR GEM. M-KUH-PCD
5203.660
5469.418
5472.324
5472.324
5624.254
5893.152
5630.004
RAW MATERIAL PURCHASES, MBPCD
LOW-SULFUR CRUDE
555.500
555.500
555.500
555.500
555.500
555.500
555.500
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
302.500
302.500
302.500
302.500
302.500
302.500
302.500
SUING CRUDE
232.027
238.237
210.826
210.826
289.903
291.185
241.114
PROPANE
6.620
6.620
6.620
6.620
6.620
6.620
6.620
N-BUTANE
0.950
0.950
0.950
0.950
0.950
0.950
0.950
I SO-BUTANE
5.670
5.670
5.670
5.670
5.670
5.670
5.670
NAT. GASOLINE
0.640
0.640
0.640
0.640
0.640
0.640
0.640
TOTALS
1103.907
1110.117
1082.706
1082.706
1161.783
1163.065
1112.994
RAU MATERIAL
INCREMENTAL VALUES, S/BBL.
LOU-SULFUR CRUDE
32.010
31.910
31.770
31.770
32.020
31.950
32.770
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
29.810
29.940
30.030
30.030
29.800
29.960
29.930
SUING CRUDE
29.690
29.690
29.690
29.690
29.690
29.690
29.690
PROPANE
23.850
23.850
23.850
23.850
23.850
23.850
23.850
N-BUTANE
35.240
21.040
22.150
22.150
36.090
22.400
18.550
ISO-BUTANE
32.050
27.050
28.840
28.840
32.480
28.650
32.270
HAT. GASOLINE
30.030
29.360
21.630
21.630
30.730
29.220
28.920
SELECTED PROOUCT SALES, MBPCD
LEADED REGULAR
79.050
79.050
71.145
71.145
86.955
86.955
79.050
UNLEADED GASOLINE
302.250
302.250
272.024
272.024
332.474
332.474
302.250
UNLEADED PREMIUM
83.700
83.700
75.330
75.330
92.070
92.070
83.700
TOTAL GASOLINE
465.000
465.000
418.499
418.499
511.499
511.499
465.000
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
4-7
-------
TABLE *1-2
PADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 2 of 4)
NO
STANDARD PREMISES
10 X EIHANOI
INCREASED
GASOLINE
INVESTMENT
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
RVP - 2
SELECTED PROOUCT SALES,
HBPCD CCONT.)
LIO.PET.GAS.
36.898
37.644
36.180
36.180
41.454
41.318
39.003
SALABLE COKE (MTPCD)
22.718
22.7?0
25.363
25.363
30.950
26.887
22.720
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL
£3.311
46.356
53.645
53.645
47.509
50.660
48.412
LIQUID PLAMT FUEL
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
RELATIVE CASH FLOW, HSPCO
-7315.156
-7576.113
•6629.113
-6629.113
-8914.954
-9176.684
•7613.062
RELATIVE INVESTMENT, KH$
87-4.351
944.445
758.681
758.682
861.098
1050.832
926.317
BLEND DETAILS
ftVP - LD. REG.
11.500
9.500
6.272
6.272
11.500
9.500
9.500
RVP - UNL. REG.
11.500
9.500
6.537
6.300
11.500
9.500
9.500
RVP - UNL. PRE.
11.500
9.500
6.002
6.857
11.500
9.500
9.500
RVP - POOL
11.500
9.500
6.396
6.396
11.500
9.500
9.500
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-LD. REG.
16.033
14.050
10.822
10.822
15.845
14.050
14.050
VAPOR - LOCK INDEX-UNL. REG.
16.050
14.042
11.087
10.850
16.050
14.050
14.050
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-UNI. PRE.
16.050
11.934
10.552
11.407
16.050
11.987
12.254
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-POOL
16.047
13.664
10.946
10.946
16.015
13.679
13.727
%3160 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
34.869
35.000
35.000
35.000
33.422
35.000
35.000
Xai60 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
35.000
34.940
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
X3160 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
35.000
18.721
35.000
35.000
35.000
19.131
21.183
X3160 DEGREES F.-POOL
34.978
32.031
35.000
35.000
34.732
32.144
32.513
«I210 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
57.000
57.000
42.028
42.828
57.000
57.000
57.000
J021C DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
54.847
53.798
49.092
47.913
54.538
53.883
53.4B7
30210 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
50.830
40.557
44.104
48.362
50.330
40.926
42.331
*S21>Q DEGREES F.-POOL
54.490
47^30
47.130
54. W
52.OM
52.076
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
-------
TABLE 4-2
PADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(SheeL 3 of H)
NO
STANDARD PREMISES
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED
GASOLINE
INVESTMENT
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
RVP - 2
========
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
il
ii
il
ii
il
ii
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
========
========
BLEND DETAILS (CONT.)
13230 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
62.973
63.191
46.035
46.035
63.241
63.191
63.566
*3230 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
62.403
62.261
54.368
52.426
62.306
62.599
61.918
*3230 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
65.050
57.872
55.397
62.412
64.313
58.272
59.263
X3230 DEGREES F.-POOL
62.977
61.629
53.137
53.137
62.826
61.921
61.720
*2330 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
91.837
92.158
61.000
81.000
92.260
92.158
93.129
X3330 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
94.616
95.150
92.985
91.169
94.869
95.406
95.147
*3330 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
97.633
97.253
89.656
96.213
97.293
97.340
97.401
X3330 DEGREES F.-PXL
94.686
95.020
90.348
90.348
94.862
95.202
95.210
SPECIFIC GRAVITY-LD. REG.
0.741
0.743
0.760
0.760
0.743
0.754
0.748
SPECIFIC GRAVITY-UNL. REG.
0.751
0.917
0.775
0.775
0.752
0.752
0.754
SPECIFIC GRAVITV-UNL. PRE.
0.738
0.759
0.763
0.754
0.737
0.758
0.757
SPECIFIC GRAVITY-POOL
0.747
8.659
0.771
0.769
D.74B
0.75J
0.753
X AROKAIICS- LC. REG.
30.830
31.055
23.346
23.346
31.316
31.055
34.428
X AROHATICS- UHL. REG.
38.277
38.178
36.231
38.159
33.643
37.945
39.068
X AROKAIICS- UNL. PRE.
31.540
15.768
29.974
23.QU
29.672
15.569
35.410
X ARQKAT1CS- PCOL
35.799
36.534
32.915
32.915
35.786
36.348
37.621
RESEARCH OCTANE- UNL. REG.
92.381
92.760
95.835
95.733
92.518
92.798
92.846
MOTOR OCTANE- UNL. REG.
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
-------
TABLE 4-2
PADD 1 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NOL PURCHASES
(Sheet 4 of 4)
NO
STANDARD PREMISES 10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED GASOLINE
INVESTHENT
BASE RVP RVP ' 2 BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP RVP • 2
RVP - 2
--------
====?==- -------
--------
CASE DIFFERENCES
SWING CRUDE, HBPCD
6.210
0.000
1.232
9.087
M-BUTANE. HBPCO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
ISO-BUTANE, HBPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
NAT. GASOLINE, HDPCD
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
o.ooo
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, HBPCO
6.210
0.000
1.232
9.087
LIQ. PET. GASES, LPG, HBPCD
0.74B
0.000
•0.136
2.105
SALABLE COKE, MTPCD
0.002
0.000
-4.063
0.002
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL, HBPCD
3.047
o.ooo
3.151
5.101
LIQUID PLANT FUEL, HBPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
CATALTST ANE CHEMICALS, MSPCD
15.105
0.000
20.075
11.784
ELECTRICAL POUEfi, H-KWH PCD
265.758
D.000
266.893
426.346
CASH FUW, WPCD
¦260.957
0.000
¦261.750
•297.906
INVESTHENT, HHS
70.094
0.001
189.734
51.966
CASE DIFFERENCES,
NORMALIZED PER BARREL OF GASOLINE
SUING CRUDE, B3L./BBL.
0.013
o.oco
0.003
0.020
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, BBL./BBL
0.013
0.000
0.003
0.020
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, S/BBL
0.032
0.000
0.039
0.025
ELECTRICAL POWER, KUH/BBL.
0.572
0.000
0.526
0.917
CASH FLOU, t/BBL.
-0.561
0.000
-0.512
-0.641
INVESTMENT, W/BBL.
0.151
.000
0.371
0.112
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
.fc
1
o
-------
TABLE 4-3
PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
{Sheet 1 of 4)
STANDARD PREMISES
5 X METHANOL-TBA
10 X ETHANOL
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP ¦ 2
MAX. RVP (ALL GRADES), PSI
11.460
10.460
9.460
11.460
9.460
11.460
9.460
OPERATIONS DETAIL
UTILITY PURCHASES
CAT/CHEN, MSPCO
448.1/3
466.478
484.387
437.110
499.933
502.000
502.000
PVR GEN, M-KUH-PCO
13653.715
14020.539
14440.496
13353.223
14342.309
14657.230
14657.230
RAW HATER IAL PURCHASES, MBPCD
LOW-SULFUR CRUDE
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
466.000
486.000
486.000
486.000
486.000
436.ODD
486.000
SUING CRUDE
219.247
225.360
229.393
181.926
219.035
153.448
153.448
PROPANE
83.630
B3.630
83.630
83.630
83.630
83.630
83.630
N-BUTANE
44.750
16.219
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
7.442
7.442
ISO-BUTANE
34.168
36.000
36.000
19.347
0.000
36.000
36.D00
NAT. GASOLINE
0.000
29.085
53.940
14.239
28.482
0.000
0.000
TOTALS
3162.TVS
3171.314
3163.963
3080.142
3112.147
3061.520
3061.520
RAW MATERIAL
INCREMENTAL VALUES, S/BBL.
LOW-SULFUR CRUDE
31.300
31.250
31.290
31.300
31.320
31.170
31.170
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
29.970
29.960
29.950
29.980
30.050
29.920
29.920
SWING CRUDE
30.420
30.420
30.420
30.420
30.420
30.420
30.420
PROPANE
20.450
20.450
20.450
20.450
20.450
20.450
20.450
N-BUTANE
24.770
23.200
22.390
22.250
18.010
23.200
23.200
I SO-BUTANE
24.750
25.830
24.B90
24.750
23.510
29.820
29.820
NAT. GASOLINE
29.120
29.120
29.550
29.120
29.120
29.120
22.090
SELECTED PROOUCT SALES, MBPCD
LEASED REGULAR
261.970
261.970
261.970
248.871
248.B71
235.773
235.773
UNLEADED GASOLINE
1001.650
1001.650
1001.650
951.567
951.567
901.485
901.485
UNLEADED PREMIUM
277.380
277.380
277.380
263.510
263.510
249.642
249.642
TOTAL GASOLINE
1541.000
1541.000
1541.000
1463.948
1463.948
1386.900
1386.900
SWR-8501
Bnnnei 6 Moore Management Science
4-11
-------
TABLE 1J-3
PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 2 of 4)
SELECTED PRODUCT SALES,
MBPCD (CONT.)
LIQ.PET.GAS.
SALABLE COKE (MTPCD)
CASEOUS PLANT FUEL
LIQUID PLANT FUEL
RELATIVE CASH FLOW, H$PCD
RELATIVE INVESTMENT, MHS
BLEhO DETAILS
RVP - LO. REG.
RVP - UNL. REG.
RVP - LNL. PRE.
RVP - PCOt
VAPOR-LOCK IfflJEX-LD. REG.
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-UNL. REG.
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-UNL. PRE.
VAPOR
-LOCK INDEX-POOL
X3160
DEGREES
F.-LD.
REG.
xai60
DEGREES
F.-UNL.
REG
%ai60
DEGREES
F.-UNL.
PRE
X3160
DEGREES
F.-POOL
XS210
DEGREES
F.-LD.
REG.
X3210
DEGREES
F.-UNL.
REG
X321C
DEGREES
F.-UNL.
PRE
X3210
DEGREES
F.-POOL
STANDARD PREMISES 5 X METHANOL-T6A 10 X ETHANOL
BASE RVP RVP - 1 RVP • 2 BASE RVP RVP ¦ 2 BASE RVP RVP ¦ 2
169.172
25.876
119.681
0.000
171.271
26.25/
123.366
1.422
173.638
26.799
131.936
0.000
165.793
23.005
117.223
0.000
175.379
26.019
133.394
0.000
153.942
19.526
153.276
0.000
153.942
19.526
153.276
0.000
-8607.469 -9167.957 -9759.449 -6454.891 -7838.781 -6308.906 -6308.906
2530.464 2686.781 2819.235 2440.437 2855.346 2599.731 2599.731
11.440
11.410
11.460
11.460
15.994
16.010
14.601
15.754
34.881
35.000
24.160
33.028
57.000
55.745
43.673
53.785
1G.460
10.460
10.460
10.460
15.010
15.010
13.195
14.683
35.000
35.000
21.038
32.487
57.000
54.817
41.939
52.870
9.460
9.460
9.460
9.460
14.010
13.967
11.859
13.595
35.000
34.671
18.451
31.808
57.000
54.151
40.500
52.178
11.460
11.460
11.460
11.460
15.695
16.010
16.010
15.956
32.578
35.000
35.000
34.588
57.000
55.464
52.204
55.138
9.460
9.460
9.460
9.460
13.847
13.862
12.319
13.582
33.748
33.863
21.989
31.706
57.000
52.532
43.284
51.627
6.2S5
7.0&4
6.466
6.B37
10.835
11.634
11.016
11.387
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
42.772
45.855
48.722
45.847
6.285
6.255
9.460
6.837
10.835
10.805
14.010
11.387
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
42.772
47.207
43.841
45.847
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-3
PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 3 of 4)
STANDARD PREMISE.! 5 X METHANOL-TBA 1C X ETHAIIOL
DETAILS (CONT.)
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
X3230 DEGREES F.-lD. REG.
X3230 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
X3230 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
X3230 DEGREES F.-POOl
62.938
63.303
59.139
62.491
63.036
62.583
58.380
61.903
63.028
62.038
58.007
61.481
62.219
62.541
66.728
63.240
62.287
60.306
60.121
60.610
46.023
51.336
61.637
52.287
46.023
53.826
52.646
52.287
*3330 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
X3330 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
X3330 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
X3330 DEGREES F.-POOL
91.915
93.245
97.297
93.74A
91.993
93.489
97.291
93.919
91.828
93.524
97.326
93.920
91.041
93.276
97.957
93.738
91.020
93.317
97.211
93.628
81.000
91.626
95.730
90.55B
81.000
92.841
91.342
90.558
SPECIFIC GRAVITY-LO. REG.
SPECIFIC GRAVITY-UNL. REG.
SPECIFIC GRAVm-UHU PRE.
SPECIFIC GRAVITT-PCOL
0.742
0.741
0.757
0.744
0.742
0.744
0.759
0.746
0.743
0.745
Q.759
0.747
0.753
0.754
0.739
0.751
0.752
0.757
0.759
0.757
0.759
0.773
0.742
0.765
0.759
0.775
0.735
0.765
X AROMATICS- LP- REG.
% AROWTICS- JUL. REG.
% ARCMATICS- DHL. PKE.
X ARCHATICS- POOL
31.172
51.963
S7.ass
12.886
31.075
33.077
36.940
33.432
31.501
33.559
35.564
33.570
50.331
13.653
25.064
11.543
29.529
34.476
3C.079
32.344
23.220
34.560
16.689
29.415
23.220
35.216
14.320
29.415
RESEARCH tKTAk'E- UNL. REG.
MOTOR CCTAh-: UML. RE£.
{RHI/2- U1L. tE«.
¦92.483
oca
£7.2+1
92.«a
62.300
B7.544
52.003
37.473
sf.occ
tT.WA
94.556
32.030
BE.02B
?5.6I5
£2,OCO
SS.BCS
95.615
62.300
B8.808
RESrWCH CCr«UE- Uh"L. PRE.
MrCR CCrUIE- UHL. P-RE.
url. m.
W.SOfl
B7.50C
V3.WJQ
9B.S0D
87.SOD
W.titJt)
W.5C0
£7. SCO
W.TOt)
98.500
B7.5DC
W.TOO
93 .*72
37.503
93.066
9S.50C
B7.50C
93.01)0
W.530
87.530
93.000
RESEARCH OCTANE- L0. REG.
MOTOR OCTANE- LP. REG.
(R+M)/2- LP. REG.
94.500
83.500
89.000
94.500
83.500
89.000
94.500
83.500
B9.000
94.500
83.500
89.000
94.500
83.500
89.000
94.500
83.500
89.000
94.500
83.500
89.000
SWF-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-3
PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 4 of 4)
STANDARD PREMISES
5 X METHANOL-TBA
10 X ETHANOL
BASE
RVP RVP • 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP RVP • 2
BASE RVP RVP - 2
====
==== ========
II
II
II
(I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
tl
II
II
u
II
II
II
II
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
CASE DIFFERENCES
SUING CRUDE, HBPCD
6.133
10.146
37.109
0.000
N-BUTANE, HBPCD
•28.531
-44.750
0.000
0.000
ISO-BUTANE, MBPCD
1.832
1.832
-19.347
0.000
NAT. GASOLINE, HDPCD
29.085
53.940
14.243
0.000
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, MBPCD
8.519
21.168
32.005
0.000
HQ. PET. GASES, LPG, MBPCD
2.099
4.466
9.586
0.000
SALABLE COKE, MTPCD
0.381
0.923
3.014
0.000
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL, HBPCD
3.685
12.255
16.171
0.000
LIQUIO PLANT FUEL, MBPCD
1.422
0.000
0.000
0.000
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, KSPCD
18.305
36.214
62.823
0.000
ELECTRICAL POWER, M-KWH-PCD
386.824
806.781
989.086
0.000
CASH FLOW, MSPCD
-560.488
•1151.980
-1383.890
0.000
INVESTMENT, MM$
156.317
288.771
414.909
0.000
CASE DIFFERENCES,
NORMALIZED PER BARREL OF GASOLINE
SWING CRUDE, BBL./BBL.
0.004
0.007
0.024
0.000
TOTAL RAU MATERIALS, BBL./BBL.
0.006
0.014
0.021
0.000
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, S/BBL.
0.012
0.024
0.041
0.000
ELECTRICAL POWER, KUH/BBL.
0.251
0.524
0.642
0.000
CASH FLOW, S/8BL.
-0.364
-0.748
•0.898
0.000
INVESTMENT, MS/BBL.
0.101
0.187
0.269
0.000
SWR-8501
Banner £ Moore Management Science
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-4
PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 4)
NO
STANDARD PREMISES
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED GASOLINE
INVESTMENT
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
RVP - 2
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
\\
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
========
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
MAX. RVP (ALL GRADES), PSI
11.460
10.460
9.460
11.460
9.460
11.460
9.460
9.460
OPERATIONS DETAIL
UTILITY PURCHASES
CAT/CHEH, MSP CD
446.447
481.772
501.436
521.869
521.869
468.775
522.191
506.768
PWR GEN, H-KUH-PCD
13399.641
13925.004
14359.129
13912.617
13912.617
14451.703
15385.379
15485.652
RAW MATERIAL PURCHASES, MBPCD
LOW-SULFUR CRUDE
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
2295.000
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
466.000
486.000
486.000
486.000
486.000
486.000
486.000
486.000
SUING CRUDE
161.025
179.989
19?.678
82.321
82.321
333.717
370.734
215.773
PROPANE
83.630
83.630
83.630
83.630
83.630
83.630
83.630
83.630
H-BUTAHE
44.750
44.750
44.750
44.750
44.750
44.750
44.750
44.750
ISO-BUTANE
36.000
36.000
36.000
36.000
36.000
36.000
36.000
36.000
NAT. GASOLINE
53.940
53.940
5 J.940
53.940
53.940
53.940
53.940
53.940
TOTALS
3160.345
3179.309
3190.998
3081.641
3081.641
3333.037
3370.054
3215.093
RAW MATERIAL
INCREMENTAL VALUES, S/BBL.
LOW-SULFUR CRUDE
31.340
31.320
31.340
31.020
31.020
31.650
31.230
31.510
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
29.980
30.030
30.100
29.780
29.780
30.240
30.050
29.890
SWING CRUDE
30.420
30.420
30.420
30.420
30.420
30.420
30.420
30.420
PROPANE
20.450
20.450
20.450
20.450
20.450
20.450
20.450
20.450
N-BUTANE
20.980
18.370
16.440
20.450
20.450
28.900
15.200
11.000
ISO-BUTANE
23.300
23.460
21.690
26.820
26.820
30.350
20.190
19.590
NAT. GASOLINE
27.410
28.340
28.950
20.170
20.170
29.160
29.600
25.470
SELECTED PRODUCT SALES, MBPCD
LEADED REGULAR
261.970
261.970
261.970
235.773
235.773
288.167
288.167
261.970
UNLEADED GASOLINE
1001.650
1001.650
1001.650
901.485
901.485
1101.814
1101.814
1001.650
UNLEADED PREMIUM
277.380
277.380
277.380
249.642
249.642
305.118
305.118
277.380
TOTAL GASOLINE
1541.000
1541.000
1541.000
1386.900
1386.900
1695.099
1695.099
1541.000
SWR-8501
Banner B Moore Management Science
4-15
-------
TABLE H-4
PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 2 of 4)
STANDARD PREMISES
SASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP
10 X ETHANOI
INCREASED GASOLINE
BASE RVP
RVP - 2 BASE RVP
RVP
NO
INVESTMENT
RVP • I
SELECTED PROOUCT SALES,
MBPCD (CONT.)
LIO.PET.GAS. 166.428 172.511 174.067 155.003 155.003 176.032 180.963 185.851
SALABLE COKE (MTPCD) 21.368 22.925 24.485 14.555 14.555 35.099 38.072 24.446
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL 118.536 127.252 136.212 154.590 154.590 129.682 146.822 146.384
LIQUID PLANT FUEL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
RELATIVE CASH FLOW, MSPCD -8642.559 -9252.859 -9963.219 -6791.887 -6791.887 -13826.367 -15311.984 -10313.441
RELATIVE INVESTMENT, MM! 2663.405 2767.547 2873.169 2835.360 2835.359 2776.089 3156.390 2923.834
BLEND DETAILS
RVP - LD. REG.
11.460
10.460
9.460
6.103
6.103
11.460
9.460
9.460
RVP - UNL. REG.
11.460
10.460
9.460
6.671
6.675
11.460
9.460
9.460
RVP - UNL. PRE.
11.460
10.460
9.460
8.850
8.837
11.460
9.460
9.460
RVP - POOL
11.460
10.460
9.460
6.967
6.967
11.460
9.460
9.460
VAPOR'
¦LOCK INDEX-LD. REG.
16.010
15.010
14.010
10.653
10.653
16.010
14.010
13.992
VAPOR'
¦LOCK INDEX-UNL. REG.
16.010
15.010
13.754
11.221
11.225
16.010
13.606
13.978
VAPOR
¦LOCK INDEX-UNL. PRE.
16.010
13.771
11.859
13.400
13.387
15.795
11.859
11.859
VAPOR'
¦LOCK INDEX-POOL
16.010
14.787
13.456
11.517
11.517
15.971
13.360
13.599
X3160
DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
34.861
%316C
DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
35.000
35.000
33.028
35.000
35.000
35.000
31.890
34.755
X3160
DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
35.000
25.469
18.451
35.000
35.000
33.344
18.457
18.457
%ai60
DEGREES F.-POOL
35.000
33.284
30.739
35.000
35.000
34.702
30.001
31.839
*3210
DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
54.719
55.653
55.511
42.266
42.266
56.598
57.000
57.000
Xs)210
DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
56.287
53.986
50.465
45.487
46.535
56.255
51.889
54.286
53210
DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
50.676
44.862
40.500
47.951
44.165
49.615
40.438
40.438
X3210
DEGREES F.-POOL
55.011
52.627
49.529
45.383
45.383
55.118
50.697
52.255
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-4
PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 3 of 4)
NO
STANDARD
PREMISES
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED GASOLINE
INVESTMENT
BASE RVP
RVP ¦ 1
RVP ¦ 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP • 2
RVP - 2
II
11
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
========
11
II
II
II
II
It
It
It
========
II
It
II
It
11
It
11
tl
II
It
It
It
It
It
It
It
BLEND DETAILS (CONT.)
*3230 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
60.439
61.605
61.443
45.375
45.375
62.760
62.459
63.042
X3230 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
63.965
61.756
58.284
50.853
52.533
63.973
59.777
62.674
X3230 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
63.639
60.023
58.007
60.496
54.430
62.923
57.954
57.954
X3230 DEGREES F.-POOL
63.307
61.418
58.771
51.657
51.657
63.578
59.905
61.887
33330 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
91.104
91.554
91.611
81.000
81.000
92.191
91.343
91.815
X3330 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
93.108
92.762
92.319
90.646
92.023
93.230
92.594
93.902
XS330 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
97.550
97.359
97.326
95.082
90.112
97.507
97.319
97.319
X3330 DEGREES F.-POOL
93.567
93.384
93.100
89.805
89.805
93.823
93.232
94.162
SPECIFIC GRAVITr-LD. REG.
0.740
0.741
0.738
0.766
0.766
0.743
0.736
0.746
SPECIFIC GRAVITY-UNL. REG.
0.738
0.740
0.747
0.762
0.764
0.739
0.747
0.746
SPECIFIC GRAVITY-UNL. PRE.
0.748
0.757
0.759
0.755
0.748
0.730
0.759
0.759
SPECIFIC GRAVITY-POOL
0.740
0.743
0.748
0.762
0.762
0.738
0.747
0.748
X AROHATICS- LD. REG.
30.480
30.858
29.117
26.771
26.771
31.875
28.250
33.015
X AROHATICS- UNL. REG.
29.932
31.049
34.072
28.745
29.491
30.733
33.758
33.855
X AROHATICS- UNL. PRE.
37.446
37.327
35.564
24.383
21.689
37.584
35.396
35.396
X AROHATICS- POOL
31.378
32.147
33.498
27.624
27.624
32.160
33.117
33.989
RESEARCH OCTANE- UNL. REG.
92.293
92.370
92.611
94.979
95.472
92.527
93.210
93.167
KOTOR OCTANE- UNL. REG.
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
(R+HJ/2- UNL. REG.
87.146
87.185
87.305
88.489
88.736
87.264
87.605
87.584
RESEARCH OCTANE- UNL. PRE.
98.500
98.500
98.500
98.993
98.500
98.500
98.500
98.500
MOTOR OCTANE- UNL. PRE.
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
(R+M)/2- UNL. PRE.
93.000
93.000
93.000
93.247
93.000
93.000
93.000
93.000
RESEARCH OCTANE- LD. REG.
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
MOTOR OCTANE- LD. REG.
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
(R+M)/2- LD. REG.
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
SWR-8501
Bonner & Moore Management Science
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-4
PADD 2 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 4 of 4)
NO
STANDARD PREMISES
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED
GASOLINE
INVESTMENT
BASE
RVP RVP • 1
RVP - 2 BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
RVP - 2
====
II
It
If
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
ii
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
It
u
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
CASE DIFFERENCES
SWING CRUDE, MBPCD
18.964
33.653
0.000
37.017
54.748
N-BUTANE, MBPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
ISO-BUTANE, MBPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
NAT. GASOLINE, MDPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, MBPCD
18.964
38.653
0.000
37.017
54.748
LIO. PET. GASES, LPG, MBPCD
6.083
7.639
0.000
4.931
19.423
SALABLE COKE, HTPCD
1.557
3.117
0.000
2.973
3.078
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL, MBPCD
8.716
17.676
0.000
17.140
27.848
LIQUID PLANT FUEL, MBPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OOO
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, MSPCD
35.324
54.9B8
0.000
53.416
60.321
ELECTRICAL POWER, M-KUK-PCO
525.363
999.488
0.000
933.676
2086.011
CASH FLOW, MSPCD
-610.300
-1320.660
0.000
-1485.617
-1670.882
INVESTMENT, MMS
104.142
209.764
-0.001
380.301
260.429
CASE DIFFERENCES,
NORMALIZED PER BARREL OF GASOLINE
SUING CRUDE, BBL./BBL.
0.012
0.025
0.000
0.022
0.036
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, BBL./BBL.
0.012
0.025
0.000
0.022
0.036
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, S/flBL.
0.023
0.036
0.000
0.032
0.039
ELECTRICAL POWER, KVH/BBl.
0.341
0.649
o.ooo
0.551
1.354
CASH FLOU, S/BBL.
-0.396
-0.857
0.000
-0.876
-1.084
INVESTMENT, MS/BBL.
0.068
0.136
.000
0.224
0.169
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management (Science
CO
r—
1
-------
TABLE 4-5
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 8)
STANDARD PREMISES
5 X METHANOL-TBA
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
RVP - 3
MAX. RVP (ALL GRADES), PSI
11.120
10.120
9.120
11.120
10.120
9.120
8.120
OPERATIONS DETAIL
UTILITY PURCHASES
CAT/CHEH, M$PCD
989.619
1032.082
1042.944
1004.179
1013.558
1051.304
1059.703
PWR GEH, H-KUH-PCD
30539.926
30993.672
31304.414
29839.547
30414.176
30968.867
31843.020
RAW MATERIAL PURCHASES, MBPCD
LOU-SULFUR CRUDE
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
SUING CRUDE
1351.765
1368.834
1394.944
1224.337
1287.982
1318.174
1411.948
PROPANE
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
N-BUTANE
68.040
68.040
64.551
44.283
0.000
0.000
0.000
ISO-BUTANE
38.030
38.030
38.030
38.030
38.030
34.246
0.000
NAT. GASOLINE
150.970
150.970
150.970
150.970
150.970
150.970
129.559
TOTALS
6356.905
6373.974
6396.595
6205.720
6225.082
6251.490
6289.607
RAW MATERIAL
INCREMENTAL VALUES, S/BBL.
LOU-SULFUR CRUDE
31.610
31.650
31.650
31.650
31.700
31.710
31.610
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
30.030
30.030
30.070
30.030
30.040
30.070
30.110
SUING CRUDE
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
PROPANE
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
N-BUTANE
29.700
26.120
23.200
23.200
22.690
18.830
15.590
ISO-BUTANE
31.160
31.140
29.040
29.070
28.490
24.300
20.780
NAT. GASOLINE
29.480
29.950
29.980
29.500
29.770
29.590
28.640
SELECTED PRODUCT SALES, MBPCD
LEADED REGULAR
483.479
483.479
483.479
459.305
459.305
459.305
459.305
UNLEADED GASOLINE
1848.600
1848.600
1848.600
1756.170
1756.170
1756.170
1756.170
UNLEADED PREMIUM
511.920
511.920
511.920
486.323
486.323
486.323
486.323
TOTAL GASOLINE
2843.999
2843. W9
2843.999
2701.798
2701.798
2701.798
2701.798
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-5
PADD 3 CASE RESULT5 WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 2 of 8)
STANDARD PREMISES
5 X METHANOL-TBA
BASE RVP RVP ¦ 1 RVP • 2 BASE RVP RVP - 1 RVP - 2 RVP • 3
SELECTED PRODUCT SALES,
MBPCD (CONT.)
HQ.PET.GAS.
SALABLE COKE (HTPCD)
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL
LIQUID PLANT FUEL
276.341
141.029
213.159
0.000
282.003
1<2.708
218.948
0.000
284.794
144.746
226.157
0.000
272.852
130.035
203.501
0.000
276.943
134.883
212.453
0.000
287.040
136.036
220.652
0.000
298.446
143.376
235.337
0.000
RELATIVE CASH FLOU, HSPCD -46554.684 -49154.320 -49980.477 -44264.836 -45156.B40 -46232.520 -47572.781
RELATIVE INVESTMENT, MHS 5&3B.352 5793.130 5957.621 5573.654 5676.159 6101.971 629B.480
BLEND DETAILS
RVP - LD. REG.
RVP - UNL. REG.
RVP - UNL. PRE.
RVP - POOL
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-LD. REG.
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-UNL. REG.
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-UNL. PRE.
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-POOL
X3160 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
X3160 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
X3160 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
%3160 DEGREES F.-POOL
X3210 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
X3210 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
X3210 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
X3210 DEGREES F.-POOL
11.120
11.120
11.120
11.120
10.120
10.120
10.120
10.120
9.120
9.120
9.120
9.120
11.120
11.120
11.120
11.120
10.120
10.120
10.120
10.120
9.120
9.120
9.120
9.120
8.120
8.120
8.120
8.120
15.670
15.607
14.557
15.429
14.670
14.372
12.680
14.118
13.670
12.952
11.442
12.802
15.670
15.538
15.556
15.564
14.670
14.321
13.700
14.269
13.260
12.831
12.551
12.854
11.432
11.746
10.705
11.505
35.000
34.515
26.442
33.144
3"5.000
32.704
19.694
30.753
35.000
29.477
17.865
28.325
35.000
33.986
34.123
34.183
35.000
32.315
27.539
31.912
31.848
28.548
26.393
28.721
25.474
27.892
19.888
26.040
54.911
57.000
44.861
54.460
5'5.359
56.056
40.813
55.194
55.978
53.666
40.162
51.628
55.553
57.000
54.000
56.214
55.863
55.734
47.931
54.352
55.907
53.547
46.551
52.689
49.936
51.222
44.135
49.728
SWR-8501
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-5
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 3 of 8)
STANDARD PREMISES
5 X METHANOL-TBA
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
RVP • 3
BLEND DETAILS (CONT.)
X3230 DEGREES F.
-LD.
REG.
61.905
62.151
62.490
61.987
62.169
61.565
56.784
X3230 DEGREES F.
-UNL.
REG.
63.135
62.382
60.926
63.737
62.294
61.126
58.489
XS230 DEGREES F.
-UNL.
PRE.
59.852
57.978
57.976
67.005
63.982
62.351
62.786
X3230 DEGREES F.
-POOL
62.335
61.550
60.661
64.028
62.577
61.421
58.972
X3330 DEGREES F.
-LD.
REG.
93.137
92.807
92.364
92.900
92.635
91.150
90.919
JIB330 DEGREES F.
-UNL.
REG.
91.200
P0.822
90.921
91.334
91.093
90.991
90.996
90330 DEGREES F.
•UNL.
PRE.
96.332
96.947
97.299
97.225
97 .£06
97.644
97.309
JGD330 DEGREES F.
-POOL
92.543
92.262
92.314
92.661
92.564
92.216
92.119
specific CRhvirr
-LD.
KEG.
C.748
0.747
0.745
0.758
D.757
0.756
0.768
SPECIFIC CRAVW
-UNL.
REG.
C.739
0.741
0.744
0.744
D.751
0.754
0.763
SPECIFIC CRAVI FT
•UNL.
PRE.
C.746
0.753
0.758
0.746
0.750
0.756
0.749
SPECIFIC CRAVI IT
-POOL
C.742
0.744
0.748
0.747
0.752
0.755
0.762
X AROHATICS-
LD.
REG.
34.587
33.581
32.223
33.880
33.037
31.015
35.337
X AROKATICS-
UNL.
REG.
31.322
31.219
32.367
27.586
30.807
3O.B08
35.645
X AROHATICS-
UNL.
PRE.
30.945
31.316
34.479
28.968
26.675
29.563
22.517
X AROHATICS-
POOL
31.809
31.638
32.722
28.905
30.442
30.619
33.230
RESEARCH OCTANE-
UNL.
REG.
92.779
93.251
93.440
93.565
94.173
94.398
95.151
MOTOR OCTANE-
UNL.
REG.
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
(R+H)/2-
UNL.
REG.
87.3B9
87.626
87.720
87.783
88.086
88.199
88.576
RESEARCH OCTANE-
UNL.
PRE.
98.500
98.500
98.500
98.500
98.500
98.668
98.557
MOTOR OCTANE-
UNL.
PRE.
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
(R+tt)/2-
UNL.
PRE.
93.000
93.000
93.000
93.000
93.000
93.084
93.028
RESEARCH OCTANE-
LD.
REG.
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
MOTOR OCTANE -
LD.
REG.
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
(R+H)/2-
LO.
REG.
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
SWR-8501
Bonner £ Moore Management Science
4-21
-------
TABLE k-5
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 14 of 8)
STANDARD PREMISES
5 X METHANOL-TBA
BASE RVP RVP - 1
RVP ¦ 2 BASE RVP
RVP • 1
RVP - 2
RVP - 3
CASE DIFFERENCES
SWING CRUDE, MBPCD
17.069
43.179
63.645
93.837
187.611
N-BUTANE, MBPCD
0.000
-3.489
-44.283
•44.283
•44.283
ISO-BUTANE, MBPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
-3.784
•38.030
NAT. GASOLINE, MDPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-21.411
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, MBPCC
17.069
39.690
19.362
45.770
83.887
HQ. PET. GASES, IPG, MBPCO
5.662
8.453
4.091
14.1B8
25.594
SALABLE COKE, MTPCD
1.679
3.717
4.848
6.001
13.341
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL, MBPCD
5. 789
12.99a
8.952
17.351
31.836
LIQUID PLANT FUEL, MBPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
CATALITST AND CHEHiCALS, K$PCO
42.463
53.325
9.379
47.125
55.524
ELECTRICAL POWER, M-KVH-PCD
453.746
764.488
574.629
1129.320
2003.473
CASH FLOW, HtPCD
-599.636
-1425.793
-892.004
•1967.684
-3307.945
INVESTMENT, KM$
154.778
319.269
102.505
52B.317
724.826
CASE DIFFERENCES,
NORMALIZED PER BARREL OF GASOLINE
SWING CRUDE, BBL./BBL.
0.006
0.015
0.022
0.033
0.066
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, BBL./BBL
0.006
0.014
0.007
0.016
0.029
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, t/BBL
0.015
0.019
0.003
0.017
0.020
ELECTRICAL POWER, KUH/BBL.
0.160
0.269
0.202
0.397
0.704
CASH FLOW, S/BBL.
¦0.211
-0.501
-0.314
-0.692
-1.163
INVESTMENT, MS/BBL.
0.054
0.112
0.036
0.186
0.255
StfR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-5
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 5 of 8)
7.5 X METHANOL-TBA
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED OCTANE FOR
CAT GASOLINE
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP ¦ 1
RVP - 2
MAX. RVP (ALL GRADES), PSI
11.120
9.120
11.120
9.120
11.120
10.120
9.120
OPERATIONS DETAIL
UTILITY PURCHASES
CAT/CHEM, M$PCD
995.303
1015.262
1082.671
1082.671
987.399
1049.586
1076.102
PUR GEN, M-KWH-PCD
29476.820
29792.566
29888.242
29888.242
30562.844
30917.461
31345.270
RAW MATERIAL PURCHASES, MBPCD
LOU-SULFUR CRUDE
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
SUING CRUDE
1276.453
1223.438
1255.208
1255.208
1357.994
1354.932
1391.588
PROPANE
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
N-BUTANE
68.040
0.000
68.040
68.040
68.040
68.040
48.603
ISO-BUTANE
38.030
36.798
38.030
38.030
38.030
38.030
38.030
NAT. GASOLINE
0.000
149.816
0.000
0.000
150.970
150.970
150.970
TOTALS
6130.623
6158.152
6109.378
6109.378
6363.134
6360.072
6377.291
RAW MATERIAL
INCREMENTAL VALUES, S/BBL.
LOW-SULFUR CRUDE
31.690
31.540
31.520
31.520
31.540
31.710
31.750
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
30.050
30.080
30.070
30.070
29.960
30.020
30.030
SUING CRUDE
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
PROPANE
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
N-BUTANE
25.240
18.770
23.630
23.630
28.780
25.010
23.200
I SO-BUTANE
31.670
24.300
30.640
30.640
30.010
31.070
29.120
NAT. GASOLINE
27.340
28.640
28.640
28.640
29.260
29.490
29.730
SELECTED PRODUCT SALES, MBPCD
LEADED REGULAR
447.219
447.219
435.132
435.132
483.479
483.479
483.479
UNLEADED GASOLINE
1709.955
1709.955
1663.740
1663.740
1848.600
1848.600
1848.600
UNLEADED PREMIUM
473.526
473.526
460.727
460.727
511.920
511.920
511.920
TOTAL GASOLINE
2630.700
2630.700
2559.599
2559.599
2843.999
2843.999
2843.999
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-5
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 6 of 8)
7.5 X METHANOL-TBA
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED OCTANE FOR
CAT GASOLINE
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
SELECTED PRODUCT SALES,
MBPCD (CONT.)
LIQ.PET.GAS.
268.041
275.896
253.121
253.121
283.442
283.291
287.440
SALABLE COKE (MTPCD)
132.660
129.265
129.677
129.677
131.043
140.915
144.228
CASEOUS PLANT FUEL
197.890
206.995
215.434
215.434
207.266
213.753
220.728
LIQUID PLANT FUEL
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
RELATIVE CASH FLOW, HIPCC
-41815.855
-43328.406
-42141.812
-42141.812
-48153.020
-48713.348
-49541.840
RELATIVE INVESTMENT, HM$
5282.888
5811.001
5870.292
5870.292
5170.381
5773.782
6010.668
BLEND DETAILS
RVP - LD. REG.
11.120
9.120
6.074
6.114
11.120
10.120
9.120
RVP - UNL. REG.
11.120
V.120
8.861
8.170
11.120
10.120
9.120
RVP ¦ UNL. PRE.
11.120
9.120
6.782
8.809
11.120
10.120
9.120
RVP • POOL
11.120
9.120
8.013
7.935
11.120
10.120
9.120
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-LD. REG.
15.670
13.670
10.624
10.664
15.670
14.670
13.670
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-UNL. REG.
15.670
13.670
13.411
12.720
15.656
14.419
13.055
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-UNL. PRE.
15.670
13.670
11.332
13.359
14.023
12.684
11.451
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-POOL
15.670
13.670
12.563
12.485
15.365
14.149
12.871
X3160 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
X3160 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
34.896
33.070
30.270
X3160 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
22.328
19.724
17.933
XS160 DEGREES F.-POOL
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
32.651
30.996
28.B54
X3210 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
54.429
53.600
42.414
41.326
57.000
56.119
57.000
X3210 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
55.118
55.242
47.27B
46.378
57.000
57.000
54.974
X3210 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
51.197
51.396
41.117
45.513
42.778
40.712
39.936
X3210 DEGREES F.-POOL
54.295
54.271
45.342
45.363
54.440
53.918
52.612
SWR-8501
Bonner 8 Moore Management Science
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-5
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 7 of 8)
7.5 X METHANOL-10A
10 X ETHANOl
INCREASED OCTANE FOR CAT
GASOLINE
BASE RVP
RVP ¦ 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
BLEND DETAILS (CONT.)
X3230 DEGREES F.
-L0.
REG.
60.330
60.135
45.402
44.459
62.987
62.557
63.033
X3230 DEGREES F.
-UNL.
REG.
61.723
62.491
51.436
50.225
63.035
63.068
61.672
X3230 DEGREES F.
-UNL.
PRE.
66.910
67.225
50.727
57.583
59.591
57.952
57.917
X3230 DEGREES F.
-POOL
62.420
62.943
50.283
50.569
62.407
62.060
61.227
X3330 DEGREES f.
-LD.
REG.
91.472
91.871
83.713
83.028
92.004
92.422
91.834
XSS30 DEGREES F.
-UNL.
REG.
91.231
91.050
89.836
89.127
91.525
90.605
90.501
X3330 DEGREES F.
-UNL.
PRE.
96.720
98.000
91.729
94.976
96.952
96.819
97.013
X2I330 DEGREES F.
-POOL
92.260
92.440
89.136
89.143
92.583
92.032
91.900
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-LD.
REG.
0.759
0.761
0.766
0.766
0.743
0.746
0.743
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-UNL.
REG.
0.755
0. 755
0.766
0.764
0.741
0.739
0.744
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-UNL.
PRE.
0.735
0.746
0.727
0.734
0.744
0.750
0.753
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-POOL
0.752
0.754
0.759
0.759
0.742
0.742
0.745
X AROMATICS-
LD.
REG.
30.072
30..565
26.517
26.641
31.255
32.403
30.615
X AROMATICS-
UNL.
REG.
30.898
29.'i57
32.159
30.057
32.648
29.858
30.873
X AROKATICS-
UNL.
PRE.
15.845
22.4B5
3.243
11.384
27.216
29.443
30.284
X AROKATICS"
POOL
25.046
28.422
25.995
26.115
31.433
30.215
30.723
RESEARCH OCTANE -
UNL.
REG.
94.220
94.774
94.810
94.997
92.480
93.059
93.434
MOTOR OCTANE-
UNL.
REG.
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
82.000
(R+H)/2-
UNL.
REG.
88.110
88.387
88.405
88.499
87.240
87.529
87.717
RESEARCH OCTANE-
UNL.
PRE.
98.604
98.500
98.758
98.500
98.287
98.500
98.500
MOTOR OCTANE-
UNL.
PRE.
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.500
87.713
87.500
87.500
(R+HJ/2-
UNL.
PRE.
93.052
93.000
93.129
93.000
93.000
93.000
93.000
RESEARCH OCTANE -
10.
REG.
94.500
94.500
94.500
94.500
93.471
94.500
94.500
MOTOR OCTANE -
LD.
REG.
83.500
83.500
83.500
83.500
84.529
B3.500
83.500
(R+H)/2-
LD.
REG.
89.000
89.000
69.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
89.000
SWR-8501
Banner E Moore Management Science
11-25
-------
TABLE JJ-5
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH OPEN NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 8 of 8)
7.5
X METHAHOI -TBA
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED OCTANE FOR CAT GASOLINE
BASE
RVP RVP - 2
BASE RVP RVP • 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 1
RVP - 2
CASE DIFFERENCES
SWING CRUDE, MBPCO
•53.015
0.000
•3.062
33.594
N-BUTANE, KBPCO
-68.040
0.000
0.000
-19.437
ISO-BUTANE, MBPCD
•1.232
0.000
0.000
0.000
NAT. GASOLINE, MDPCD
149.816
0.000
0.000
0.000
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, HBPCD
27.529
0.000
-3.062
14.157
LIQ. PET. GASES, LPG, MBPCD
7.855
0.000
•0.151
3.998
SALABLE COKE, MTPCD
•3.395
0.000
9.872
13.185
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL, MBPCD
9.105
0.000
6.487
13.462
LIQUID PLANT FUEL, MBPCD
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, tttPCO
19.959
0.000
62.187
88.701
ELECTRICAL POWER, H-KUH-PCD
315.746
0.000
354.617
782.426
CASH FLOW, KSPCD
-1512.551
0.000
-560.328
-1388.820
INVESTMENT, HHS
528.113
o.ooo
603.401
840.287
CASE DIFFERENCES,
NORMALIZED PER BARREL OF GASQLtttE
SUING CRUDE, BBL./BBL.
-0.019
0.000
-0.001
0.012
TOTAL RAW MATERIALS, BBL./BBL.
0.010
0.000
-0.001
0.005
CATALYST AND CHEMICALS, S/BBL.
0.007
0.000
0.022
0.031
ELECTRICAL POWER, KWH/BBL.
0.111
0.000
0.125
0.275
CASH FLOW, S/BBL.
-0.532
0.000
-0.197
•0.488
INVESTMENT, NS/BBL.
0.186
o.ooo
0.212
0.295
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Balance
4-26
-------
TABLE 4-6
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 1 of 4)
NO
STANDARD
PREMISES
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED
GASOLINE
INVESTMENT
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
RVP - 2
MAX. RVP (ALL GRADES), PSIA
11.120
9.120
11.120
9.120
11.120
9.120
9.120
OPERATIONS DETAIL
UTILITY PURCHASES
CAT/CHEM, HSPCD
989.619
1042.285
1074.731
1074.731
1082.184
1096.499
1023.818
PUR GEN, M-KVH-PCO
30539.926
31368.176
29893.629
29893.629
33144.555
33783.973
32517.387
RAW MATERIAL PURCHASES, MBPCD
LOU-SULFUR CRUDE
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
2578.000
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
2051.000
SUING CRUDE
1351.765
1392.684
1123.701
1123.701
1667.682
1725.230
1418.664
PROPANE
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
119.100
N-BUTANE
68.040
68.040
68.040
68.040
68.040
68.040
68.040
ISO-BUTANE
38.030
38.030
38.030
38.030
38.030
38.030
38.030
NAT. GASOLINE
150.970
150.970
150.970
150.970
150.970
150.970
150.970
TOTALS
6356.905
6397.824
6128.841
6128.841
6672.822
6730.370
6423.804
RAU MATERIAL INCREMENTAL VALUES, $/BBL.
LOU-SULFUR CRUDE
31.610
31.70 CI
31.510
31.510
31.620
31.670
37.050
HIGH-SULFUR CRUDE
30.030
30.07(1
30.060
30.060
30.030
30.070
30.510
SUING CRUDE
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
29.820
PROPANE
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
N-BUTANE
29.700
21.200
23.800
23.800
29 . 750
21.550
19.110
ISO-BUTAME
31.160
26.860
30.750
30.750
31.220
27.240
39.000
NAT. GASOLINE
29.480
29.870
22.630
22.630
29.500
29.750
34 790
SELECTED PROOUCT SALES, MBPCD
LEADED REGULAR
483.479
483.479
435.132
435.132
531.827
531.827
483.479
UNLEADED GASOLINE
1848.600
1848.600
1663.740
1663.740
2033.458
2033.458
1848.600
UNLEADED PREMIUM
511.920
511.920
460.727
460.727
563.111
563.111
511.920
TOTAL GASOLINE
2843.999
2843.999
2559.599
2559.599
3128.396
3128.396
2843.999
SWR-8501
Bonner £ Moore Management Science
4-27
-------
TABLE 4-6
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 2 of 4)
NO
STANDARD
PREMISES
10 X ETHANOI
INCREASED
GASOLINE
INVESTMENT
BASE RVP
RVP • 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
RVP - 2
SELECTED PRODUCT SALES,
NBPCD (CONT.)
UQ.PET.GAS.
276.341
285.314
250.548
250.548
295.359
302.599
286.932
SALABLE COKE (MTPCD)
141.029
144.146
119.661
119.661
165.912
170.523
141.031
GASEOUS PLANT FUEL
213.159
226.211
224.232
224.232
236.836
253.621
239.680
LIQUID PLANT FUEL
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.283
RELATIVE CASH FLOW, NSPCD
-48554.684
-49987.219
-43041.789
-43041.789
-58388.770
-59996.117
-50581.457
RELATIVE INVESTMENT, MMS
5638.352
5954.396
6273.015
6273.015
6384.724
6387.610
5782.245
BLEND DETAILS
RVP - LD. REG.
11.120
9.120
6.262
6.262
11.120
9.120
9.120
RVP • UHL. REG.
11.120
9.120
7.703
6.778
11.120
9.120
9.120
RVP - UNL. PRE.
11.120
9.120
5.550
8.892
11.120
9.120
9.120
RVP • POOL
11.120
9.120
7.071
7.071
11.120
9.120
9.120
VAPOR-LOCK INOEX-LO. REG.
15.670
13.670
10.812
10.812
15.670
13.482
13.670
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-UNL. REG.
15.607
12.944
12.253
11.328
15.614
12.919
12.790
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-UHL. PRE.
14.557
11.442
10.100
13.442
14.710
11.444
11.448
VAPOR-LOCK INDEX-POOL
15.429
12.797
11.621
11.621
15.461
12.750
12.698
X3160 DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
35.000
33.552
35.000
J016O DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
34.515
29.410
35.000
35.000
34.572
29.226
28.234
X3160 DEGREES F.-UHL. PRE.
26.442
17.860
35.000
35.000
27.618
17.880
17.906
X3160 DEGREES F.-POOL
33.144
28.280
35.000
35.000
33.393
27.919
27.525
J021O DEGREES F.-LD. REG.
54.911
55.978
41.640
41.640
55.016
54.245
56.539
X3210 DEGREES F.-UNL. REG.
57.000
53.658
48.771
47.268
57.000
52.967
51.990
X3210 DEGREES F.-UNL. PRE.
44.861
40.164
38.557
43.987
45.445
40.109
39.984
*3210 DEGREES F.-POOL
54.460
51.623
45.720
45.720
54.583
50.870
50.602
SWR-8501
Banner B Moore Management Science
4-28
-------
TABLE H-6
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet 3 of 4)
STANDARD
PREMISES
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED GASOLINE
NO
INVESTMENT
BLEND PETAILS (CONT.)
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP - 2
BASE RVP
RVP ¦ 2
RVP - 2
50230 DEGREES F.'LD. REG.
X32J0 DEGREES F.'UNL. REG.
JH230 DEGREES F.'UNL. PRE.
*8230 DEGREES F.'POOL
61.905
63.135
59.852
62.335
62.490
60. W1
57.9 rr
60.671
44.717
54.857
45.806
51.504
44.717
52.313
54.994
51.504
61.964
63.061
60.229
62.365
61.306
60.347
57.963
60.081
62.777
59.319
57.900
59.651
«330 DEGREES F.'LO. REG.
JU330 DEGREES F.'UML. REG.
*3330 DEGREES F.'UML. PRE.
93330 DEGREES F.'POOL
93.137
91.200
96.632
92.543
92.3&A
90.907
97.301
92.305
81.000
92.746
85.522
89.449
81.000
90.434
93.869
89.449
93.066
91.129
96.648
92.452
92.733
91.197
97.232
92.544
92.040
91.122
97.129
92.360
SPECIFIC GRAVm-LQ. REG.
SPECIFIC GRAVm-UML. REG.
SPECIFIC GRAVJTY'UML. PRE.
SPECIFIC GRAVITY'POOL
0.746
0.739
0.748
0.742
0.745
0.746
D.758
0.746
0.7M
0.764
0.740
0.759
0.760
0.767
0.731
0.759
0.748
0.739
0.744
0.741
0.750
0.749
0.757
0.750
0.743
0.752
0.755
0.751
X AROHAT1CS- LD. REG.
X AROMATICS- UML. REG.
X AROMATICS- UML. PRE.
X AROHATICS- POOL
34.557
31.322
30.945
31.609
32.223
32.259
34.519
32.659
23.076
29.876
15.032
26.048
23.076
31.409
9.494
26.048
34.369
31.103
28.C78
31.114
34.370
33.720
33.496
33.790
31.2B5
35.749
31.931
34.303
RESEARCH OCTANE- UNL. REG.
KOTOR OCTANE- UML. REG.
(R+KJ/2- UML. REG.
92.779
82.000
«7.389
93.43'.
82.000
87.71f
94.925
82.000
88.463
95.012
82.000
88.506
93.102
82.000
87.551
93.635
82.000
87.817
93.664
82.000
87.832
RESEARCH OCTANE- UNL. PRE.
KOTOR OCTANE- UML. PRE.
/2- UNL. PRE.
98.300
87.500
93.000
98.500
87.500
93.000
98.587
87.500
93.043
98.500
87.500
93.000
98.500
B7.500
93.000
98.500
87.500
93.000
98.500
87.500
93.000
RESEARCH OCTANE- LD. REG.
HOTOfl OCTANE- LD. REG.
LD. *tt.
94.500
83.500
&9.
94.500
83.500
89.000
94.500
83.500
89.000
94.500
63.500
69.000
SWH-8501
Borrner S Moure Management Science
H-29
-------
TABLE 4-6
PADD 3 CASE RESULTS WITH FIXED NGL PURCHASES
(Sheet
1J Of D
NO
STANDARD PREH1SES
10 X ETHANOL
INCREASED GASOLINE
INVESTMENT
BASE RVP
RVP ¦ 2
BASE RVP RVP - 2
BASE SVP RVP - 2
RVP - 2
CASE DIFFERENCES
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
11
SUING CRUDE, MBPCD
40.919
O.OOO
57.543
66.899
N-BUTANE, HBPCO
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
0.000
ISO-flUTAKEj HBPCO
0.000
0.000
O.OCO
0.000
MAT. GA30UNE, W3PCB
0.000
o.ooo
o.ooo
0.000
TOTAL RAU MATERIALS, MBPCD
40.919
0.000
57.548
66.899
LIS. PET. GASES, IPG, HBPCO
8.973
0.000
7.240
10.591
SALABLE COKE, HTPCO
3.117
0.000
4.611
0.002
CASEOUS PLANT FUEL, HBPCO
13.052
0.000
16.765
26,521
LIOUID PLANT FUEL, MBPCD
O.OOO
o.ooo
O.DOO
B.283
CAIALrST AMD CHENICAU, NIPCD
52.466
0.000
14.315
34.199
ELECTRICAL POWER, H-KWH-PCD
eZB.tSB
c.ooo
&39.416
1977.461
CASH FLOW, HSPCD
1432.535
o.aoo
-1607.347
-2026.773
IttVESlMEJll, HH$
316.014
0.000
2.886
143.893
CASE DIFTEKEBCES,
NORMALI ZED PER BARREL OF CASOLINE
SUING CRUDE, BBl./BBL.
0.014
0.000
0.018
0.024
TOTAL KAVKATERmS, &3L.?3BL.
0.014
0.000
C.01S
0.1324
CATALrsr AMD CHEMICALS, S/BBL.
0.019
0.000
0.005
0.012
ELECTRICAL POWER, KWfl/BBL.
0.291
0.030
0.204
0.695
CASK FLOU, VBBL.
-0.504
o.ooo
¦0.514
•0.711
INVESTMENT, MS/BBL.
0.111
0.000
0.001
0.051
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
^State of California ftir Resources Board, "The Feasibility
and Impact of Reducing Hydrocarbon Emissions by Reducing
Gasoline Volatility," December 9, 1975.
^Bonner & Moore Management Science, "Impact of Reducing Gaso-
line Volatility," 30 November 1983, Document No. CAR-8201
prepared for the California Air Resources Board.
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
11-31
-------
APPENDIX A
PRODUCT DEMAND FORECASTS
SWR-6501
Bonner B Moors Management Science
A-1
-------
APPENDIX A
PRODUCT DEMAND FORECASTS
Appendix A presents the forecasts of petroleum pro-
duct demands used in this study. Forecasts were developed as
a review and update of a forecast prepared for an earlier
study1. This forecast is based on four general assumptions
and six premises relating to specific products. The four
general assumptions are:
1) U.S. GNP is assumed to grow at 3.5 percent per
year through the 1980s.
2) Continued conservation will hold growth of
energy consumption to 1.6 percent per year.
3) Petroleum-based fuels will provide a large but
declining part of energy supply. From a
current percentage of 43, petroleum supply will
decrease to 36 percent of total energy satis-
faction by 2000.
4) Crude oil prices will drop slightly in terms of
real dollar value through the 1980s.
Certain premises have been used in forecasting
demands for individual products. These are:
1) Gasoline consumption will decline at a slower
rate than predicted in forecasts made in the
preceding three to four years. Slower develop-
ment, than first expected, of the penetration
SWR-8501
Banner C Moore Management Science
A-2
-------
of diesel-powered vehicles into new car sales
is the main reason for this less rapid decline.
Another factor is a lower than projected vehi-
cular fuel economy of the new car mix. This
forecast is based on diesel penetration amount-
ing to five percent of new car sales by 1990.
The recent trend toward larger, more powerful,
more spacious cars will reduce the mile-per-
gallon assumptions of earlier forecasts.
2) Demand projections for aviation turbine fuel
has been taken from a recent forecast con-
centrating on middle distillate fuels2,
3) Distillate fuels, i.e. diesel fuel and heating
oil, demand will grow at a rate of 1.5 percent
per year. Growth will occur because of the
addition of diesel-powered cars and trucks to
the automotive population. Heating oil for
both residential and commercial consumption is
assumed to decline during the forecast period.
4) Residual fuel oil demand is projected to
increase through 1990. Between 1985 and 1990,
growth is assumed to be 3.9 percent per year,
with a slight decline thereafter. Potential
demand variation for utility boiler fuel, in
dual-fired boilers, is approximately two
million barrels per day of fuel oil equivalent.
With the deregulation of natural gas price,
stable crude prices, surplus refining capacity
and the trend toward heavier crude supply, it
is expected that the balance between fuel oil
and natural gas use will swing toward fuel oil.
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
A-3
-------
Further, assuming no new projects for nuclear
power facilities and with current projects
being held up, utility power supply from
nuclear plants will be lower than assumed in
earlier forecasts. It is expected that this
shortfall will be made up by a combination of
coal-fired and dual-fired boilers in the near
term and by coal-fired boilers in the longer
term.
Automotive lube oil demand is assumed to be
level through the forecast period. Industrial
lube oil demand may grow slightly. Asphalt
demand should grow during the period of the
late 1980s in response to construction and road
repair activities.
Miscellaneous products include specialty
naphthas, petrochemical feedstocks (naphthas
and light ends) and other products
(petrolatums, associated oils, ramjet and
rocket fuels, SNG feeds, etc.). Petrochemical
feedstock demand is expected to grow at a
modest rate of 2.4 percent per year. Other
miscellaneous products are assumed to be level
throughout the forecast period.
Bonner EWonri Management Science
A-1
-------
7) Demand for petroleum coke* will continue to be
much lower than production. Excess production
competes with high-sulfur coal domestically
and abroad. Current and planned processing to
accommodate heavy crude may be more than ade-
quate, depending on residual fuel oil demand.
There is a large potential market for petroleum
coke as a fuel and over-supply offers signifi-
cant incentives for its development. Projec-
tions for coke in this forecast assume a growth
based on use of installed and announced coking
capacity.
National forecasts, developed for this study, are
presented in Table A-1. Also shown are 1983 actual consump-
tions of refined products and two 1984 forecasts from other
sources for comparison.
Distribution of this national forecast among the
five PADDs is based on maintaining the same proportions of
each product demand as represented in the earlier referenced
study. Product demands forecasted for each region are shown
in Table A-2.
•Catalyst coke is consumed in the cat cracking process and
is, therefore, not considered marketable and is not repre-
sented in the coke demands of this forecast.
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moure Management Science
A-5
-------
C/J
s:
=0
oo
VJI
o
TABLE A-1
PETROLEUM DEMAND FORECAST FOR U.S.
(MBPCD)
CO
as
o.
C3
3
1U.S. Department of Energy, Monthly Petroleum Summaries
20il and Gas Journal, January 30, 1984, page 99
3National Petroleum News, December 1983, page 42
Bonner & Moore
Forecast
Comparisons
1983 1
1984
1984
Product
1985
1990
Actual
O&GJ2
ipaa3
Gasoline
6,500
6,000
6,643
6,640
6,563
Jet Fuel3
1,140
1 ,240
1,042
1,075
1,081
Distillates
2,900
3, 100
2,809
2,810
2,903
Residual Fuels
1,650
2,000
1 ,^03
1 ,455
1,531
Lubes and Asphalts
560
610
530
na
na
Miscellaneous
575
645
547
na
na
Petroleum Coke
250
270
228
na
na
13,575
13,965
13,202
-
-
i
-------
co
s:
sa
t
ao
ui
o
TABLE A-2
FORECAST OF REFINED PRODUCT DEMANDS
(MBFCD)
1985 -
ra
Q3
Q)
3
Qi
(B
CO
3
CO
3
1990 -
U.S.
PADD 1
PADD 2
PADD 3
PADD 4
PADD 5
Gasoline
6,500
2,223
2,112
930
195
1 ,040
Jet Fuels
1,140
441
220
130
30
319
Distillates
2,900
1,093
905
435
104
363
Residual Fuels
1,650
934
205
219
15
277
Lubes and Asphalts
560
163
224
71
20
82
Miscellaneous
250
33
65
80
-
72
Petroleum Coke
575
49
106
375
7
38
Total
13,575
4,936
3,837
2,240
371
2,191
Gasoline
6,000
2,088
1,932
852
168
960
Jet Fuels
1,240
470
238
139
40
353
Disti Hates
3,100
1, 128
958
505
115
394
Residual Fuels
2,000
968
290
368
22
352
Lubes and Asphalts
610
185
240
76
22
87
Miscellaneous
270
23
59
106
-
82
Petroleum Coke
645
54
116
428
8
39
Total
13,865
4,91b
3,833
2,47 4
375
2,267
I
-------
The location and capacity of major refining centers
are such that satisfying regional demands involves inter-
regional product movements. Most of these movements are by
pipeline, some are by tanker and barge and a lesser amount
is moved by tank car and tank truck. Some product supply,
particularly to PADD 1, is via import from Caribbean sources.
Traditional movements among PADDs have been influenced
more recently by refinery shutdowns. For this study, the
projected inter-PADD movements were taken from two recent
studies6,7 and revised to account for the most recent refin-
ery closures. Because it appears likely that further refin-
ery closures will, if needed, involve PADD 1, previous
inter-PADD movements have been revised to reflect more
movements from PADD 3 to PADD 1. Application of estimated
inter-PADD movements leads to the refinery output requirements
shown in Table A-3. In addition to the forecasts of refinery
output requirements, Table A-3 also shows 1983 actual refining
supplies for each PADD.
Neither the demand projections shown in Table A-2
nor the refinery output requirements shown in Table A-3
include LPG. Although refineries produce this fuel, only a
minor part of that output is produced from refinery proc-
esses. The major part must, therefore, be brought in with
other raw materials such as natural gas liquids and even with
crude oils. LPG actually produced in refining is a by-product
since process operating decisions are rarely, if ever, made
on the basis of adjusting production of LPG.
SWR-8501
Bonner G Moore Management Science
A-8
-------
CO
z:
30
I
CD
U1
o
CO
3>
KO
TABLE
A-3
EXPECTED-
GROWTH REFINERY
OUTPUT
REQUIREMENTS
(MBPCD)
(Sheet 1 of 2)
Net Imports
+
Stk Drawdown
U.S. Product
- Exports -
Demand
Stk Addt'n
PADD 1
PADD 2
PADD 3
PADD 4
PADD 5
1983 (Actual)*
Gasoline 6,643
291 .3
580.8
1755.5
2812.2
220.9
982.3
Jet Fuels 1,042
22.2
44.8
157.3
512.4
32.6
272.7
Distillates 2,809
245.6
265.8
604.4
1229.3
113-3
350.6
Residual Fuels 1,403
556.6
99.7
73.4
357 .1
10.1
306. 1
Lubes and Asphalts 530
-3.3
94.5
140. 1
207.9
22.9
67.9
Miscellaneous 547
40.3
19.5
42.5
412.5
1 .2
31.0
Petroleum Coke 228
-16.5
12.3
61.4
84.8
1.3
81 .7
Total 13,202
1 136.2
1117.4
2834.6
5616.2
405. 3
2092.3
1985 (Forecast)
Gasoline 6,500
291.0
566.0
1716.0
2750.0
215.0
962.0
Jet Fuels 1,140
23-0
49.0
172.0
561 .0
36.0
299.0
Distillates 2,900
254.0
276.0
624.0
1267.0
116.0
363-0
Residual Fuels 1,650
656.0
117.0
86.0
419.0
12.0
360.0
Lubes and Asphalts 560
-4.0
100.0
148.0
220.0
24.0
72.0
Miscellaneous 575
41.0
21 .0
45.0
434.0
1.0
33.0
Petroleum Coke 250
-15.0
33.0
65.0
85.0
0.0
82.0
Total 13,575
1246.0
1162
2856
5736.0
404.0
2171.0
•Source: DOE, Petroleum Supply
Monthly
-------
TABLE
A-3
EXPECTED
-GROWTH REFINERY OUTPUT
REQUIREMENTS
(MBPCD)
(Sheet 2
of 2)
TJ.S
. Product
Demand
Net Imports
+ Stk Drawdown
- Exports -
Stk Addt'n
PADD 1
PADD 2
PADD 3
PADD 4
PADD 5
1990 (Forecast)
Gasoline
Jet Fuels
Distillates
Residual Fuels
Lubes and Asphalt3
Miscellaneous
Petroleum Coke
6,000.0
1,240.0
3,100.0
2,000.0
610.0
645.0
270.0
22.0
-46 .0
142.0
723.0
55.0
0.0
-40.0
465.0
94.0
225.0
135.0
85.0
43.0
23.0
1541 .0
172.0
759.0
215.0
181 .0
103.0
59.0
2844.0
627.0
1465.0
553.0
180.0
452.0
121.0
181.0
43.0
124.0
22.0
22.0
8.0
0.0
947.0
350.0
385.0
352.0
87.0
39.0
107.0
Total
13,865.0
856.0
1070.0
3030.0
6242.0
400.0
2267.0
-------
Petroleum coke is also a refinery by-product, except in those
cases where its quality and location permit its use in non-
fuel applications such as anode and electrode manufacture.
Coke is also produced and consumed in the cat cracking proc-
ess. As shown in Tables A-2 and A-3, coke volume is based
on a fuel-oil-equivalent as a means of representing coke out-
put volumetrically. No attempt has been made to identify
that part of the petroleum coke which goes to non-fuel uses.
Only marketable coke is represented in the figures shown in
these tables. Because a significant portion of coke produc-
tion is by-product, the forecast figures really constitute
estimates of consequential production, not demands.
Table A-4 shows the grade mixes used for major pro-
ducts, namely, motor gasoline, jet fuels and residual fuel.
1) Motor Gasoline
The motor gasoline grade mix is based on a
recent forecast developed by E. I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co.® The projected 1990 split of leaded-
to-unleaded gasoline corresponded to a forecast
developed by Bonner 4 Moore for use in an alcohol
study for the U.S. Department of Energy.9 This
gasoline grade split was applied to each PADD.
2) Jet Fuel
The jet fuel grade mix is based on a recent
forecast of naphtha and kerosene jet fuels.2 The
allocation of the total U. S. naphtha jet produced
to each PADD is based on 1981 through 1983 actual
SWR-8501
Banner & Moore Management Science
A-11
-------
w
s:
so
r
CO
U1
o
co
CO
3
O
g
3
3»
I
ro
TABLE
PRODUCT GRADE
A-4
DISTRIBUTION
(SfT
PADD
T
PADD
2
PADD
3
Motor Gasoline
1983
1990
1983
1990
1983
1990
Unleaded Premium
Unleaded Regular
Leaded Regular
61.8
38.2
18.0
65.0
17.0
51.6
48.4
18.0
65.0
17.0
57.2
42.8
18.0
65.0
17.0
Jet Fuel
Naphtha Jet
Kero Jet
41.3
58.7
26.6
73-4
18.8
81.2
18.7
81.3
18.6
81.4
19.4
80.6
Residual Fuel
Low Sulfur (0-.3 wt%)
Medium Sulfur (.3-1.0
High Sulfur (over 1.0
16.3
wt*) 59.0
wt*) 24.7
16.0
60.0
24.0
6.9
25.2
67.9
7.0
27.0
66.0
8.3
29.0
62.7
9.0
34.0
57.0
-------
data.10 Kerosene jet fuel demand for each PADD is
the total jet fuel demand less the naphtha jet fuel
demand.
3) Residua2 Fue]
Hie grades or residual fuel represented in this
study are low sulfur CO to 0.3 weight percent
Sulfur) medium sulfur (0.31 to 1.G weight percent
Sulfur) and high sulfur (greater the 1.0 weight per-
cent Sulfur). Grade mixes are based on the growth
rates for each grade from a comprehensive study of
nautral gas usage,7 applied to 19^3 production of
each grade. This results in a Small percentage
increase in the low and medium sulfur grade3 at the
expense of the high-sulfur grade. Because of pro-
jected increase in total resiiaal fuel demand by
7990, individual grades o? residual fuel also snow
increases.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A BIBLIOGRAPHY
^Bonner & Moore Management Science, "Natural Gas Consumption
in U. S. Refineries," Appendix A, prepared for the Gas
Research Institute under Contract No. 5083-800-0909. NTIS
Document No. GRI-84/0143.
^Carlton R. Jones, Resource Planning Consultants, "Middle
Distillates Outlook, Part 1 - Marketing Trends", presented
at the API Mid-Year Refining Meeting in New Orleans,
Louisiana, May 15, 1984.
3u.S. Department of Energy, Monthly Petroleum Summaries
^Oil and Gas Journal, January 30, 1984, page 99
5Nat ional Petroleum News, December 1983, page 42
^Bonner & Moore, "Impact of Alcohol fuels on the U. S-
Refining Industry," prepared for the U. S. Department of
Energy under contract No. DE-AC01-81CS-50007, August, 1983-
?Bonner & Moore, Jensen Associates - Proprietary Study of
Natural Gas Deregulation.
®0il & Gas Journal, "Automakers Seek Oil Product Changes,"
May 28, 1984, Page 46.
9Bon ner 4 Moore Management Science, "Impact of Alcohol Fuels
on the U. S. Refining Industry," Appendices A and F, Volume
2, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract
Number DE-AC01-81CS-500007.
10u. S. Department of Energy, Annual Petroleum Statement
DOE/EIA-0340(81),(82) and (83)
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B
PROJECTED CRUDE AND NGL SUPPLY
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management 3cience
B-1
-------
APPENDIX B
PROJECTED CRUDE AND NGL SUPPLY
Appendix B provides projections of crude oil and
other raw materials supply employed in this study.
B.1 CRUDE SUPPLY
Production of crude oil and lease condensate in the
United States is expected to decline throughout the remainder
of the decade, from 8.7 million barrels/day in 1983 to 7.5
million barrels/day In 1990- Since product demand is"
expected to increase slightly through 1990, imported crude
oil must increase from the 1983 level of 3 million barrels/
day. Because of the expected oversupply of world crude oils
of all qualities through the rest of the decade, however,
increased crude oil imports should not cause the 1°-to-2°
API gravity reduction in crude that some forecasters have
di cted.
Table B-1 shows projected 1990 crude slates for
PADDs 1, 2 and 3-~ The crude charge to each PADD, by source,
was developed using the Jensen/Bonner 4 Moore Study1 and
by modifying some of its assumptions to reflect changed
conditions. The methodology used was to project the amount
of crude available from each source through 1990 and then to
allocate this crude to each PADD based on historical patterns
modified by changing conditions of refining capacity and
product demands. Saudi Arabian crude was used as the supple-
mental (swingj crude.
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
B-2
-------
Sources
Represent -
ative Crudes
North Slope
PADD 1
PADD 2
PADD 3
PADD 4
North Africa
West Africa
U.A.E.
North Sea
VZ, Trin.& Tob.
Mexico
Canada
Saudi, Iran,
Iraq & Kuwait
TOTALS
North Slope
Ci tronelle
Eastern Kansas
Citronelle
Gibson Terminal
Morgan City
Weeins Arco Sour
Camrick
Wyoming Sweet
Saharan Blend
Bonny Light
Forcados
Murban
Ninian
Galleota
Leona
Isthmus
Mayan
Glacier Pipeline
Arabian Light
Arabian Heavy
TABLE B-1
CRUDE SLATES
PADD 1
PADD 2
PADD 3
° API
Wt*S
Groupi ng
CMBPCD)
(MBPCD)
CMBPCD)
26.4
1.0
High S.
123.0
580.0
43-5
0.35
Low S.
21 .0
77.0
30.2
0.35
Low S.
32.0
533.0
43.5
0.35
Low S.
86.0
334.0
35.8
0.46
Low S.
4.5
215.0
557.0
28.5
0.20
Low S.
172.0
358.0
3^.4
0.90
High S.
*>5
24 1 .0
490. Q
39.7
0.14
Low S.
147.0
490.0
38.2
0.33
Low S.
515.0
44.9
0.14
Low S.
107.0
180.0
313.0
36.9
0.13
Low S.
78.0
61 .5
137.0
28.8
0.33
Low S.
78.0
61 .5
34.0
39.0
0.80
High S.
16.0
47.0
115.0
35.2
0.46
Low S.
205.0
85.0
160.0
34.1
0.22
Low S.
14.0
39.0
118.0
24.1
1.52
High S.
60.0
8.0
55.0
32.8
1.51
High S.
40.0
95.0
405.5
22.0
3.32
High S.
59.0
95.0
405.5
40.0
0.50
Low S.
16.0
200.0
32.9
1 .70
Swi ng
88.8
45.6
679.2
27.0
2.82
Swi ng
59.2
30.4
452.8
o
o
cr
•
o
2,857.0
5,761 .0
-------
Typical crudes, from the Bonner & Moore assay
library2t were selected to represent sources of crude oil.
For foreign sources, major export crudes from the particular
area were selected. To confirm these selections, these
representative crudes were used with the 1983 actual volumes
of crudes, by source, to each PADD and a volumetric average
API gravity and weight percent sulfur were determined. These
averages were compared to the actual average API gravity
and weight percent sulfur of crude charge reported in the
DOE "Petroleum Supply Annual." Adjustments were made, as
necessary.
Table B-2 contains a comparison of the reported 1983
crude gravities and sulfur contents for each PADD with those
calculated from the crude slates shown in Table B-1. The"
composite crude quality of the three PADDs is projected to be
heavier and contain more sulfur than current crude slates but
not to the degree anticipated by others. The quality changes
in PADDs 1 and 2 are slight whereas the major deterioration
of quality appears to be in PADD 3« Current refinery process
trends are anticipating and, in a way, directing this trend.
The majority of topping refineries and hydroskimming refin-
eries in PADD 3 needing the lower-sulfur-content and lower-
gravity crudes have been shut down. Complex refineries
have been modified by investments in bottom-of-the-barrel
upgrading and in desulfurization processes to accommodate
heavy crudes such as Mayan. During the past two years, refin-
ery shutdowns in PADD 2 represent an 18 percent decrease in
refining capacity. In PADD 1, 17 percent of refining capa-
city has been shut down. Very little process investment has
been announced for the existing refineries in PADDS 1 and 2.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
-------
TABLE B-2
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE GRAVITY AND SULFUR
OF CRUDE
SLATES
1983
1990
ACTUAL
PROJECTED
PADD 1
API0 Gravity
31.8
32.7
Weight Percent Sulfur
.95
.97
PADD 2
API0 Gravity
34.6
35.0
Weight Percent Sulfur
.89
.65
PADD 3
API0 Gravity
34.3
33.2
Weight Percent Sulfur
.87
1.18
WEIGHTED AVERAGE (PADDs 1,2,3)
API0 Gravity
34.1
33.7
Weight Percent Sulfur
.88
1.00
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
B-5
-------
B. 2 NGL SUPPLY
NGL supplies (LPG, normal butane, iso-butane and
natural gasoline) were maintained, for purposes of this
study, at 1983 levels. These levels were developed from
the DOE "Petroleum Supply Annual —1983."
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
B-6
-------
APPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHY
^Bonner & Moore Management Science and Jensen Associates,
proprietary study of natural gas deregulation.
^Bonner & Moore Management Science, proprietary crude oil
assay library.
SWR-8501
Banner B Moore Management Science
B-7
-------
APPENDIX C
PRODUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
C-1
-------
APPENDIX C
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
The specifications used for those products modeled
to meet quality restrictions are shown in Table C-1. In
addition, LPG was modeled to compositional specification of
maximum 5 volume-percent olefins and 2.5 percent butanes.
All other produts, such as lubes, asphalts, and specialty
naphthas were modeled as recipe blends.
The specifications, with the exception of those enu-
merated below are those in the Refinery and Petrochemical
Modeling System (RPMS) library. These RPMS specifications
are routinely reviewed and updated to be representative of
current industry requirements. The specifications were not
varied by PADD nor varied for seasonality.
The Road Octane specification, (R+M)/2, for leaded
regular and unleaded regular gasolines are ASTM D 439 speci-
fications. The unleaded premium (R+M)/2 is an average from
recent announcements by various marketers1.
Gasoline volatility specification for percent dis-
tilled at 160°, 210°, 230° and 330° Fahrenheit were derived
from considerations involving historical gasoline quality
surveys2 an(j from ASTM D 439 standards using the average
of B and C volatility classes. It should be noted that
ASTM D 439 schedules for various volatility classes describe
distillation controls in terms of minimum and maximum temper-
atures at specified percents distilled. Representing such
limits in mathematical models is usually done by transposing
temperature limits at specified distillation points to dis-
tillation limits at specified temperatures. Blending data
SWR-8501
Banner f> Moore Management Science
C-2
-------
GASOLINES
RVP
(fl+M )/2
Motor Octane
% at 160° F.
% at 210° F.
% at 230° F.
% at 330- F.
Wt. % Sulfur
JET FUELS
Specific Gravity
% at 400° F.
% Aromatics
Wt. % Sulfur
Smoke Point, MM
H2 Treat Req . (1}
Flash, Degrees F.
•See later discussion
TABLE C-1
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
(Sheat 1 of
2)
Leaded
Regular
Unleaded
Regular
Min
Max
Min
Max
»
*
89.0
87.0
83.5
82.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
57.0
35.0
57.0
44.0
44.0
81 .0
98.0
81 .0
98.0
0.15
0. 10
JP
-4
JTA
Min
Max
Min
Max
0.75
0.80
0.77
0.84
60 .0
10.0
25.0
25.0
0.3
0.3
20 .0
18.0
50.0
100.0
Unleaded Premium
Min Max
*
93.0
87.5
35.0
35.0
54.0
4ii _ 0
81 .0
98.0
0. 10
-------
NO. 2 FUEL OIL
Specific Gravity
% at JlOO°F.
Wt. % Sulfur
H2 Treat Req. %
Flash, Degrees F.
NO. 6 FUEL OILS
Specific Gravity
Wt. % Sulfur
Flash, Degrees F.
Viscosity, SSF/122
TABLE C-1
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
(Sheet 2 of 2)
No. 2 Fuel Oil
Min Max
0.88
10.0
0. ?0
50.0
125.0
High Sulfur
Min Max
1.0
2.8
50.0
300.0
Low Sulfur Medium Sulfur
Min Max Min Max
0.00 0.00
0.30 0.7
150.0 150.0
300.0 300.0
-------
in RPMS and the corresponding distillation specifications are
based on temperatures covering normally expected 10, 50 and 90
percentage points, namely, 160°, 210°, 230° and 330°F. The
160°F temperature was chosen because it is approximately
equal to 158°F (70°C) which is frequently used to control
"front-end" volatility and a3 part of the relationship termed
Vapor Lock Index (VLI), also termed Front-End Volatility Index
(FEVI). The expression for this relationship is:
VLI = RVP + 0.13 (* § 158°F)
It is used by some refiners to approximate control of 20 V/L
temperature, a test which relates to vapor lock tendency. It
is not, however, certain that all gasolines are produced to a
20 V/L temperature limit. In the absence of a VLI limitation,
a maximum if 35 percent was imposed at 160°F to prevent exces-
sively high percentages.
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) specification, being the
subject specification of the study, was varied by PADD.
Table C-2 shows the RVP specifications used for base and
reduced volatility. Base-case RVP specification were derived
using the volatility classes from ASTM D *139 for the months
of June, July and August. The ASTM standard defines permitted
volatility classes by State, by month. Class A is a maximum
RVP of 9, Class B is a maximum of 10, and Class C is a maxi-
mum of 11.5. Based on the gasoline volumes to each location,
a weighted average was developed of the RVP specification for
refinery production in each PADD by accounting for the
inter-PADD movements of gasoline.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
C-5
-------
TABLE C-2
RVP SPECIFICATIONS
(psi)
Base RVP
RVP-1
RVP-2
PADD
1
11.50
10.50
9.50
PADD
2
11 .U6
10.46
9.^6
PADD
3
11.12
10.12
9.12
Veight-percent-sulfur specifications for No. 6 Fuel
Oils were set co represent the fuel oil production grouping
in the DOE "Petroleum Annual Statement." Low-sulfur fuel oil
with a specification of 0.3 weight percent sulfur, represents
the 0-to-.3 weight-percent grouping. Medium-sulfur fuel oil,
with a weight percent sulfur of 0.7 represents the .3-to-1.0
weight-percent grouping. The 0.7 level was used rather than
1.0 since most of the fuel oil in this group is produced at
0.5 and 0.7 sulfur levels. High-sulfur fuel oil was given a
specification of 2.8 weight-percent sulfur.
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
C-6
-------
APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY
^The Oil & Gas Journal, "Mor
-------
APPENDIX D
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL FACTORS
SWR-8501
Bonner 8 Moore Management Science
D-1
-------
APPENDIX D
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL FACTORS
All costs and prices employed in this study were set
at current 1984 values. No inflation to 1990 was employed,
i.e., a constant dollar value was assumed. This assumption
is not material to the results since results are based on
comparisons between cases.
Prices for major products and the base crude slate
were not needed since the quantities were fixed at forecast
levels. Prices for swing crudes, normal and iso-butane,
natural gasoline, LPG, coke and sulfur were, however,
required and the values used are displayed in Table D-1.
Swing crude prices are based on current posted
prices, FOB Ras Tanura, pjus transportation costs to New
York, Chicago and Houston representing PADDs 1, 2 and 3,
respectively, Normal butane, iso-butane and natural gasoline
prices for PADD 3 were based on the average of spot Mont
Belvieu prices quoted in Piatt's Oilgram, for the first
quarter of 1984. Prices for PADDs 1 and 2 were determined
using transportation cost estimates to Philadelphia and
Chicago, respectively. LPG prices were similarly developed
but adjusted higher by $0.#0/barrel to be consistent with
fuel oil costs derived from the swing crude. Coke prices
were taken from the study of vapor pressure reduction in
California^ and assumed to b«: constant for all PADDs. Sulfur
prices were obtained from the Chemical Marketing Reporter,
for Houston and Tampa Bay, through the first quarter of 1984.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
D-2
-------
TABLE D-1
RAW MATERIAL COSTS AND BY-PRODUCT PRICES
PADD 1
PADD 2
PADD 3
RAW MATERIALS ($/BBL)
Swing Crudes
Arabian Light
Arabian Heavy
30.86
27.94
31.59
28.67
30.99
28.07
Normal Butane
27.15
23.75
23-30
Iso-Butane
28.15
24.75
23-30
12# Natural Gasoline
32.52
29.12
28.67
BY-PRODUCT PRICES
LPG ($/BBL)
Coke ($/FOEB)
Sulfur ($/ST)
23.85
4.23
94.00
20.45
4.23
80.00
20.00
4.23
94.00
PURCHASED UTILITY COSTS
Electrical Power (£/KWH)
6.24
6.69
5.99
SWR-8501
Bonner E Moore Management Science
D-3
-------
The Refinery and Petrochemical Modeling System
(RPMS), a proprietary Bonner 4 Moore system, generates proc-
ess operating costs based on utility consumption factors
multiplied by utility costs. Fuel and steam costs to all
processes are based on crude costs plus investment and oper-
ating costs for utility supply facilities. Cooling water
costs are based on zero-cost raw water plus the investment
and operating costs of cooling and pumping facilities. Elec-
tric power was assumed to be purchased in all cases rather
than internally generated. Power costs were obtained from
Electric Power Monthly using regional quotations representing
each PADD.
RPMS process data include 1982 catalyst and chemi-
cal costs for each process. These 1982 costs were converted
to 1984 values using the Nelson Cost Index for chemicals of
1.026.
Capital requirements for new and expanded capacity
were derived from investment-versus-capacity relationships*
for each process using process sizes consistent with recent
industry activities. Thus capacity costs are based on typi-
cal process capacities.
The cost of supporting investments for typical facil-
ities was determined by applying a capital recovery factor
derived from the factors shown in Table D-2.
•Part of RPMS proprietary data.
SWR-8501 D-4
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
-------
TABLE D-2
FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL-RELATED FACTORS
FACTOR
Economic Life, yrs.
13
Depreciation Life, yrs.
13
Federal Income Tax Rate, percent
48
After tax Cost of Capital, percent
15
Capital Recovery Factor*
0.262
Local Taxes, Insurance and Overhead, % per year
2
Maintenance, % per year
4
Adding maintenance and local taxes, insurance and
overhead to capital recovery, the total cost of supporting
one dollar of investment becomes 0.322 dollars per year.
•Using double-declining-balance depreciation tax credit.
SWR-8501 Bonner 6 Mooie Management Science
-------
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D BIBLIOGRAPHY
Conner A Moore Management Science, "Impact Assessment of
Reducing Gasoline Volatility," study report prepared for
the California Air Resources Board under State of California
Contract No. A2-051-32, 30 November 1983.
SWR-8501
Banner E Moore Management Science
D-6
-------
APPENDIX E
BASE CONFIGURATION
SWR-8501
Boraier & Moore Management Science
E-1
-------
APPENDIX E
BASE CONFIGURATION
The capacities of major processes used in models for
each PADD's refinery capability are displayed in Table E-t.
These data are based on the Oil & Gas Journal "Annual Refining
Survey" and represent reported capacities as of January 1,
1984. Base capacities in each model were allowed to be
expanded, as required, at cost typical of the sizes installed
in recent years.
Auxiliary processes, including utility supply facil-
ities, were allowed to take any required capacity at costs
representing typical equipment sizes and construction costs.
SWF-8501
Bonner B Mnnre Management Science
E-2
-------
TABLE E-1
REFINING PROCESS UNIT CAPACITIES
(Thousands of Barrels Per Calendar Day)
UNITS
PADD 1
PADD 2
PADD 3
Atmospheric crude dist.
1,437. 1
3,379.5
7,295.6
Vacuum distillation
722.5
1,239.0
2,844.6
Naphtha hydrotreating
428.7
881.3
1,770.4
Reformi ng
400. 3
877.3
1,679-6
Cat cracking (Total Feed)
622.8
1 ,405.6
2,528.9
Hydrocracki ng
51.7
160.1
261.1
Alkylation
62.6
245.1
410.6
Catalytic polymerizaton
11.3
17.3
35.6
Coking
74.8
257.7
437.4
Visbreaking
12.2
6.4
64.3
Light oil hydrotreating
320.0
451.6
1,147.7
Gasoil hydrotreating
244.4
253.2
862.0
Residual desulfurization
18.8
0.0
317.7
Butane isomerization
0.0
15.4
37.7
C5 - C5 isomerization
23.5
36.2
64.6
H2 steam reforming (MMCFD)
162. 3
188.5
637.6
H2 purification (MMCFD)
0.0
0.0
89.3
SWR-8501
Banner C Moore Management Science
E-3
-------
APPENDIX F
ALCOHOL BLENDING VALUES
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
F -1
-------
APPENDIX F
ALCOHOL BLENDING VALUES
Aziotropes formed by blends of alcohols and hydro-
carbons result in non-linear blending characteristics for
predicting quality of such blends. In this study, alcohol
addition was fixed at predetermined concentrations for each
alcohol mix. It is, therefore, possible to define the
apparent linear blending values for each alcohol mix and to
avoid the problems of non-linear representation.
Table F-1 presents the blending values employed for
each of the three alcohol mixes included in this study.
These values were derived from data in several literature
sources1>7 as well as unpublished laboratory results supplied
by Southwest Research Institute.
SWR-8501
Bonner B Moore Management Science
F-2
-------
TABLE F-1
blending values for alcohols
METHANOL-
TBA
50/50
2/1
ETHAN0L
Fixed Concentration,
Volume percent
5.0
7.5
10.0
Property
fleid Vapor Pressure, psia
54.0
O
O
15.0
Percent Distilled at:
160 °F
1 15.0
175.0
220.0
210 °F
1 10.0
105.0
137.0
230°F
100.0
100.0
108.0
330°F
100.0
100.0
100.0
Research Octane
150.65
12H.7
13^.^4
Kotor Octane
*£.55
$7.3
J 01.8
¦:-=.6
111.0
117.6
Specific Gravity
0.3
:-.a
:-.3
SWR-8501
flcmra 6 Moore Management Science
F-3
-------
APPENDIX F BIBLIOGRPAHY
^ARCO Chemical Company, Technical Bulletin, 0XIN0L50.
^ E.I.DuPont De Nemours & Co., E.N. Cantwell and W. E. Smith,
IV, "Volatility Characteristics of Alcohol/Gasoline Blends
and Automotive Emmissions." VI International Symposium on
Alcohol Fuels Technology, May 21-25, 1984, Ottawa, Canada.
^Hinkamp, Oil & Gas Journal, 12 Sept. *83
^B.H. Eccleston and F. W. Cox, "Physical Properties of
Gasoline/'Hethanol Mixtures," Bartlesville Energy Research
Center, January, 1977.
^Sun Tech, Inc. "Assessment of Ether and Alcohol Fuels from
Coal,11 Technical Report, March 1983» under DOE Contract No.
DE-ACOH-78CS 54045.
^Chevron Research Company, private communication re Contra
Costa County Oxinol 50 Test, March 15 over December 13, 1983,
to John D. Tosh, Southwest Research Institute.
^Mueller Associates, Inc., "Status of Alcohol Fuels Utiliza-
tion Technology for Highway Transportation," June 1978 under
DOE Contract No. EX-77-X-01-2923.
SWR-8501
Bonner 6 Moore Management Science
F-4
------- |