ML20136B358
| ML20136B358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000471 |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1979 |
| From: | Fitzpatrick J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136B351 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909040616 | |
| Download: ML20136B358 (24) | |
Text
' '
REL4TED CORRESPmmaggy ,
~
' . :. 1
\,'b. \
, l
. .~ ,
~. -
. .$1. ?' r.91
, 3 , .,
. \
UNITED STATES DE AMERICA .l NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0f9tISSION
~
/ ;
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of ~
BOSTON EDISON COPFANY, et al. Docket No. 50-471 !
(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2) .
I i
Testimony of Joseph S. Fitzpatrick on behalf i of the Massachusetts Govemor's Office of I Energy Resources on the need for Pilgrim 2 ,
I l
I l
1 1
7 p2 09-0 l l l
I 1
1 l
l
Mr. Fitzpatrick, please state your name and address.
~
1 Q.
2 A. My name is Joseph S. Fitzpatrick. My business address is 3 73 Tremont Street, Room 700, Boston, Massachusetts.
4 Q. Please describe your educati'onal and professional background.
5 A. I graduated from Boston College in 1970 with an A.3. i Eolitical 6 Science. In 1976, I received a law degree from Suffolk 7 Udiversity Law School. From 1970 to 1974, I served as a research .
8 assistant for the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. In 1974 9 and 1975, I was Senior Research Scientist in Public Policy for 10 the Walden Research Division of ABCOR, Inc. In Cambridge, 11 Massachusetts. From 1975 to 1976 I was Director of Energy and 12 Environmental Affairs for the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.
13 From 1976 through 1978, I was Vice-President of the New England 14 Council for Energy and Business Development. In addition, I have 15 served as a lecturer at Northeastern University's Graduate School 16 of Business Administration on Energy Policy. Prior to my present 17' sppointmen't I served as Director, Government Relatirms for the 18 Ceneral Electric Company.
19 Q. What are your present positiua mod responsibilities?
20 A. In January,1979, I was appointeJ director of the then Massachusetts 21 Energy Office by Governor Edward J. King. In March, the Governor 22 established the Massachusetts Office of Energy Resources 23 which I now direct. By Executive Directive, I attend all cabinet 24 meetings and my office is responsible, among other things, for
1 establishing energy policy for the Commorwealth, including 2 conventional and alternative energy resource development.
3 conservation, and other energy-related matters.
4 Q. he is the purpose of your testimony? .
5 A. My testimony reflects how the energy and energy-related economic 6 policies of the Executive Department of the Commonwealth relate 7 to the need-for-power question now before this Board. In 8 particular, I address how the Commonwealth's policies concerning I 9 cil dependence and ecoar=ic development affect the questions of l
10 the need for this non-cil-fired generation source. l l
11 Q. he is the policy of the Executive Department of the Commonwealth 1
concerning oil dependence?
12 13 A. This policy is simple and straightforward. The Commonwealth is 1 l
14 precariously over-dependent upon oil. This over-dependence is a i
15 threat to our economy and to the quality of our lives. It is our 16 policy to discourage new uses of oil and encourage the reduction 17 of present levels of use. In particular, we intend to discourage
! 18 the use of oil and natural gas by new power plants and major I.
19 industrimi installations and to assist in the conversion of 20 existing facilities, as timing, environmental and economic con-21 siderations permit, to more abundant and secure fuel alternatives.
22 To elaborate, I will note the coincidence of state policy and 23 federal poi!cy on this issue and detail the degree to which t'et 24 entire iiew Ei. gland region is now dependent upon imported foreign oil.
Td33 J 1 Q. What is the federal policy concerning oil use?
2 A. First. I point out that federal policy on oil use is critically 3 affected by the source of oil used in this country. This issue 4 has been addressed in several recent legislative measures and was 5 well presented to the Division of Public Utility Control of the 6 State of Connecticut, this spring by David J. Bardin, Ad.ainistrator 7 of the Economic Regalatory Administration in the U.S. Department of :
8 Energy. Attached as M)ER Rwhihit 1 to this testimony are excerpts 9 from Mr. Bardin's testimmay (State of Connecticut, Department of 10 Business Regulation, Division of Public tility Control Docket 11 Nos. 781206, 781207). J 1'
12 Federal policy is committed to the reduction of oil use in general 13 and, in particular, to reductions of oil imports. Import reduc-14 tions, as Mr. Bardia points out, could yield multi-billion dollar 15 savings in foreign energy payments, representing a major contribution 16 -
to the economic health and national security posture of the country.
17 Congress has over the past several years enunciated this policy of 18 reduced reliance on oil imports and has mandated, as the nation's 19 highest priority, conversion to more plentiful domestic resources.
20 Congress has determined that it is in our highest national interest 21 to move to domestic and indigwoous resources and to maintain the 22 price of energy at reasonable levels. It has been clear for many 23 years that domestic oil supplies cannot meet our national demand.
24 The domestic oil reserves to production ratio in the United States l
l
Pcgs 4 1 is 7.5 to 1, which is the lowest of any of the significant oil .
2 producing nations. .
3 The federal policy most important to these proceedings is expressed 4 in the portion of the National Energy Act known as the Powerplant 5 and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 19'78 (FUA) (P.L.95-620, 92 Stat. 246),
6 which in effect strengthens the Energy Supply and Environmental 7 Coordinatio'n Act of 1974 (P.L.93-319, 88 Stat. 246) and reaf firms 8 a national commitment to convert new and existing electrical power 9 plants and asjor fuel-burning installations to indigenous resources.
10 The intention of FUA is to restrict and prohibit oil and natural gas 11 use in new electric power plants. Moreover, while FUA emphasizes 12 the role of coal as one alternate fuel, it equally suggests that 13 regulators and electric utilities -=ine uranium as an alternate 14 to oil or gas capacity additions. Congressional intent is set 15 ,
forth in Section 103 (91)(6)(A) of F.L.95-620 which reads:
16 "The term " alternate fuel" means electricity or any other fuel, other than natural gas or petroleum, and 17 includes -
18 (A) petroleum coke, shale oil, uranium, biomass, and municipal, iMustrial, or agricultural wastes, 19 wood, and renewable and geothermal energy sources
...." (Esphasis supplied) 20 21 Q. To what degree is this region dependent on oil?
22 A. Currently, New England consumes over 421 million barrels of oil 23 a year (MOER Exhibit 2, Petroleum Imports, New England and the 24 United States, U.S. Department of Energy Region I, January 1979,
1 Table 2). As can be seen froe MOER Exhibit 2, total foreign l
2 petroleum imports into the region grew f rom 75 percent of 3 total oil consumed in 1973 t,o 84 percent in 1977.* Eighty-one 4 percent of the total energy consumed in Massachusetts is 5] petroleum, 84 percent of which is imported. Fence, 68 percent 6 of the Commonwealth's total energy supply is imported from 7 abroad. In MOER Exhibit 2, Tables 7 and 8 give further details :
8 of the petroleum mix and the country of origin for New England ;
9 supplies.
10 Q. What in your view are the effects, in particular, the economic 11 effects, of the region's high dependency on imported oil?
12 A. The consumption of imported oil at current levels has resulted 13 in a number of serious economic difficulties for the region.
]
14 The large capital outflow of oil dollars continues to dis 15] advantage the region and the country.
16- Political unrest in Iran, together with OPEC price increases, 17 amply demonstrates the vulnerability of our region, more dependent 18 on oil than others, to supply shortfalls and price rises.
19 At current oil import levels we will, as a region, send over l
20 $7 billion to foreign suppliers this year. This is about $570.00 21 for every man, woman and child in the six-state area, and 22 represents the average monthly income for all New Englanders 23 in the year 1977. (See MOER Exhibit 3, New England Economic 24 Indicators, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, May 1979, p. B-9) .
A
Peg 2 6 1 It is the policy of the Cosmonwealth that a sustained and 2 syschatic reduction of our reliance on oil, and particdlarly 3 imported oil, is imperative to sustain and spur our economic 4 development. It is our view that an economy dependent *upon 5 imported oil for its energy is, t,o that extent less secures.
6 Q. Are there any downward trends in the oil consumption figures 7 you have given above?
8 A. Yes, as can be seen from MDER Exhibit 2, Table 3, total foreign 9 residual oil imports have dropped from a level of 153 10 million barrela in 1973 to 111 million barrels a year in 1977.
11 This drop in foreign residual imports into New Englard is 12 primarily the result of the installation of 2,793 MWe of 13 nuclear capacity added to the system since 1972. Moreover, 14 since 1973, total residual demand in the region has dropped 15 from 164 million barrels a year to 128 million barrels a year 16' in 1977.
l 17 Q. What would the region's level of oil consumption be without m
18 nuclear power?
l 19 A. Without the installation and operation of the nuclear capacity 20 brought on line since 1960, the region would be importing l 21 at least an additional 42.6 million barrels a year for oil-fired 22 generating units. This oil for the most part would be for No. 6 23 residual fuel oil and would mean that instead of consuming 128 i l
24 million barrels a year of residual oil, we as a region would be l
l
- j
l
! I consuming nearly 171 million barrels a year of this product.
2 Q. What'is your estimate of the current value of 42.6 million 3 barrels of No. 6 residual oil?
4 A. Mr. Buckley's testimony, which we have sponsored, indicates 5 that a barrel of imported crude oil will cost $22.50 by the I 6 and of this summer. This equates to a value of $958,500,000 l
7 in oil savings a year.
8 I point out that these are not absolute savings to New England l
9 electricity consumers because the differential between the 10 capital and production costa of the nuclear plants and the 11 capital and non-fuel production ecsts of the oil plants must be 12 subtracted. However, these oil savings represent, in large 13 part, money that otherwise would be going overseas, adversely affecting 14 our balance of payments, the value of the dollar and also our i
15 national inflation rate.
N Q. Can you sumanarize at this point how the policies of the Executive 17 Department on oil dependence and economic development relate to i
18 this proceeding?
]
19 A. Yes. In light of the adverse economic and national consequences 4 20 of continued dependence on expermive and uncertain suonties of 22 foreign oil, the policy of the Executive Department is that 23 future electricity must be generated without increasing oil use.
j 24 The proposed Pilgrim 2 facility accomplishes this purpose.-
1 Q. Have you evaluated the amount of oil the proposed facilirf 2 would save? -
3 A. Yes. My staff used the estimates and projections presented 4 by Mr. Buckley to calculate oil savings., Starting with Mr. Buckley's i 5 base price for imported crude of $22.JO a barrel in September,
\
6 1979 and adjusting for the 12% refining cost suggested by a
7 Applicants' Panel 2 in Exhibit NP-44, my staf f considered 8 two escalation scenarios. The first projecta this price from 9 1979 to 1990 at an annual inflation rate of 10%. From 1991 10 to 2014, the end of' the unit's book life, this scenario projects 11 the price at 8% anam11y. The second scenario projects the 12 price of oil at 8% until 1990 and 6% thereaf ter. The Applicants' 13 testimony on capacity factors was utilized to find the number 14 of barrels of oil displaced and oil savings were calculated in 15 current dollars for each year of operation. For each scenario, 16 a not present value was calculated in 1986 dollars, assuming two 17 different discount rates,10% and 16.5%. These oil savings, the 18 1986 value of the amounts that would be spent for oil to generate 1 19 an equivalent enount of electricity, are:
20 Scenario A (oil escalated at 10% to 1990, 8% to 2014) 21 Net Present Value 10% Discount Rate 16.5% Discount Rate 22 (1986 dollars) $19,159,218,647 $11,489,207,537
. 23 Scenario B (oil escalated at 8% to 1990, 6% to 2014) 1 l
24 l
1 I
l 1 Net Present Value 10% Discount Rate 16.5% Discount Rate l 1
2 (10845 dollars) $13,188,128,500 $8,343,613,369 3 These numbers are very largs and provide an indication of the impact 4 this single facility could have in the national of fort- to reduce 5 expensive foreign oil imports.
r 4
0 e
MDER Exhibit 1 Excerpts From Testimony Of DAVID J. BARDIN ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED' STATES DEFARTMNT OF ENERCT BEFORE TWE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEFARTMNT OF BUSINESS REGUIATION DIVISION OF PUBLIC trrILITY CONTROL DoomT No. 781206 - AFFLICATI0tt OF THE COINECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER C(StFANT DOCERT NO. 781207 - AFFLICATION OF TEE RARTF0ED ELECTRIC LIGNT ColeANT l
4 f
l
,)
1 Statement of' Qualifications 2 sty name is David J. Bardin. Ny business address is 2000 M. Street, 3 N.W., Room 6001, Washington, D.C. 20461. .
4 I as the Administrator of the Economic Regulatory Administration in 5 the Department of Energy.
ere 6 Since the activation of the Department of gnergy, the Economic 7 Regulatory Administration has been assigned the following responsibilities:
8' o Proh15it the use of oil and s'as by new powerplants and major 9 industrial installations, and convert existing facilities to coal or other 10 abundant fuels.
11 o Control imports or exports of oil, gas and electricity.
I 12 o Support adoption of utility rate structures which foster energy j
13 conservation, afficiency and equity. ;
14 o Achieve equitable pricing and allocation of crude oil and petroleum
'l 15 products and enforce existing Federal energy 1 sus pertaining to the pricing l 16 and allocation of crude oil and petroleum products.
17 .... this proceeding presents an opportunity for addressing another 18 and related goal of the DOE which is the paramount need of the United States 19 to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources and increasingly rely on 20 more abundant domestic energy supplies. This goal is explicitly acknowledged 21 in the Conference Report accompanying PURPA [Public Utility Regulatory 22 Policies Act of 1978] wherein it is stated with regard to the purposes of the 23 Ac t: "Also, the phrase, 'ef ficiency of use of .. . resources' is intended 24 to include the concept of conserving scarce energy resources by techniques 1
_ . . _. .~ ~ . _ - - - - . , - _ . . _ _ _ - . _ _. _ . _ . . . _ _ . - .
s .y :.
1 of rate reform which substitutes the use of more plentiful resources 2 produced in the United States in lieu of less plentiful resourcis, 3 especially those imported into this . country." (P. 69 Conf erence Report) .
- e .
4 Nationas Energy Policy: Reduction in the Share of the U.S. Energy Economy Represented by 011:
5 The United States today imports nearly 45 percent of the oil 6 consumed in this country - 20 percent of all energy (fuels) consumed -
7 far more than during the 197F1974 embargo. As world oil corsumption 8 approaches world oil production lisaits, it is likely that oil will 9 become more expensive during the 1980's, unless the U.S. takes steps to
- 10 influence the path of these price increases through its national energy 11 policias. Any reduction in the demand for OPEC exports not only displaces 12 expensive import oil, but also reduces pressure in the future for oil 13 inernases.
i 14 Such reductions could yield multi-billion dollar savings in 15 foreign energy payments and thus represent a major contribution to the 16 economic health and national security posture of the United States.
l 17 011 represents approximately 50 percent of the total U.S. energy l 18 requirements. For the world as a whole oil represents more than 50 per-l 19 cent of total energy requirements. We are fortunate to produce nearly 20 half of our oil requirements; however, this share of domestic productiou ;
21 has gradually been declining over recent years. When viewed as a global 22 matter, the role of the United States is dominant. This country's con- l 23 sumption of oil represents 30 percent of world production. At the same 24 time, there is a geographic imbalance between centers of production and
. Pcge 3 1 consumption, which is seriously impacted by these levels of imports ,
2 and overall consumption. Conversely, significant and prpmpt actions 3 to reduce this oil dependence and quantity of use could dramarically 4 lessen er eliminate this imbalance.
5 Consumption of oil at current levels has resulted in a number of serious 6 economic difficulties. The large balance of paysents deficit, sub-7 stantiAlly influenced by our level of oil imports, continues to adversely 8 affect the purchasing power of the American dollar. The recent political 9 instability in Iran and OPEC price increases in th.e world price of oil 10 demonstrate that price increases pose continuous threats to the stability 11 of economic growth.
Without sustained and systematic action to reduce our reliance 12 on oil, the U.S. demand for petroleum will continue to increase in the 13 future to about 22 million barrels per day (BPD) of oil by 1985. Our 14 existing domestic oil and natural gas supplies cannot meet our national 15 demand. Domestic oil reserves constitute only 3.7 percent of U.S.
16 conventional energy reserves, but provided 27 percent of the U.S. energy 17 consumption in 1976. The ratio of reserve to production of oil in the 18 Continental United States is 7.5 to 1, the lowest of any significant oil
)
19 producing country. Moreover, other vast additions to domestic oil supply l l 20 such as Prudhoe Bay are unlikely. For more than 17 years, domestic oil l i l 21 discoveries have been outpaced by domestic consumption, except for the 22 discovery of oil on the North Slope of Alaska.
23 In 1976, oil imports averaged 7.3 BPD or 42 percent of U.S. oil 24 consump tion. Currently, oil imports are over 9 million BPD. Increasing l
Pe.ge 4 1 consumption of imported oil has led to a deepening dependence on the world l
2 oil market and growing vulnerability to a supply interruption as clearly
~~
3 evidenced by events in Iran today. A substantial increase in imports will 4 occur by 1985 unless demand is curbed. Although estimates vary widely, 5 the most reasonable range of estimates of 1985 oil imports without the 6 recently enacted energy legislation is 10.5 to 12.5 million BPD. -' -
7 In 1978, electric utilities in the United States consumed 1,741,326 8 million BPD of petroleum, or a total of 635,683,000 barrels for the year.
9 This is equal to 21.7 percent of the total impotts of crude and petroleum 10 products into the United States. Despite efforts to develop solar power 11 and other renewable eneigy sources, it is our view that for tne next 20 to 12 30 years, at least, coal and nuclear will represent the principal alternate 13 energy sources to oil both for existing utility electric generation and for 14 new base load generation.
l 15 Over the last several years and culminating with the recent passage 16 of the National Energy Act. Congress has enunciated that reduction of our i 17 reliance on oil imports and conversion to more plentiful domestic and 1
18 renewable energy resources is of the highest national priority. Congress 19 has also determined that it is in our national interest to maintain the 20 price of energ5 at reasonable levels in order to contribute to economic 21 growth and stability.
22 The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA) (P.L.
23 95-620, 92 Stat. 246) which strengthens the ESECA of 1974, P.L.93-319, 24 88 S tat. 246) reaffirms a national commitment to convert new and existing
Pcgs 5 1 electric utility powerplants and major fuel burning installations to coal 2 and other indigenous energy resources. While this act is of ten referred 3 to as a " coal conversion act", in fact, it is an act to restrict and 4 prohibit oil and natural gas use in new utility power plants. C6nsequently, 5 while the Act emphasizes the role of coal' as an alternate fuel, it equally 6 requires examination of uranium as an alternate to oil or gas burning plant 7 additions. This Congressional intent was set out in Secticn 103 (91)(6)(A) 8 of FUA which r6 ads:
i 9 "The term ' alternate fuel' means electricity or any
! fuel, other than natural gas or petroleum, and in-l 10 cludes -
l l 11 (A) petroleum coke, shale oil, uranium l biomass, and municipal, industrial, 12 or agricultural wastes, wood, and renewable and geothermal energy 13 sources; (FP=is added) ... . ."
14 DOE, 'while mandated to address the issue of imported petroleum, 15 .is also required to consider consumer interests and the need for energy 16 prices to be the lowest reasonable. The Department of Energy Organizational 17 Act (42 U.S.C. 7107, et. seq.) declares that DOE has been established, 18 among other purposes, "to promote the interest of consumers through the 19 provision of an adequate and reliable supply of energy at the lowest 20 reasonable cost." (P.L. 95-91, Section 102[g]) . This policy has 'again 21 been reiterated with specific references to electric utility rates in the 22 provisions of the Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1978 (PURPA) (P'L. .
I 23 95-617, Section 101) .
l 24 .
I l
.s, 9 :
- .a
' ~
~1 i
1 . . . . <
EXHIBIT fl0ER 2 l' I a
..,=, .
q
- g. ., - .
.. ...l
. ; ,.. . - . ,. ,.cr t..'. ;...: 9. -- . .s
. <$. . .-- . .- . J.
A. .
b~.., ..
/
..s:. nb M:sse%,.r...f_ . *--+:n .A, . . . , ... ,
o ::...
- r. W.'.;. .
a f
,~ . s? ?my.%. >, : -s.. - 51i .
- t -', .. . ;,; ' ; .~.. . . . .g,,,t
, y-ni. . ; - @9,.
- .. -.t T
.. ,~ , , .e.. .-..
ry:: . .. .,.a-a .y . :. , . .
- p. .pp... w. ee s.
. . ..-..- . . ,o. . g,
.w .
- < y- - ....
.: : s- . -.
. .,......?, ..u_ e .t .n.....
- r- . . . . . .... -- .. . . . . ~ .%vo.,,-, . ,. ; .,,: v *., p.
4' ,.
.e. p . =y Pr~u.
- . . =* g : .. .
.~.,...,.r....
u.a. v.n .: n . .
.- .. h.s.,*;.*,~g;,
. . . f. (.
e,. . .- ...
... 3. .7 .,. ..i . . . ;
.. .t . .> .
.-* a .~or ,,.w . <. . g. ^7..b , .
- ie g$4.. -*.
- 7c%. .. ;.. 4.
.g
. . . .. s. .m s
. . . M . d=$.;'.g3.
e v .*j ,, 't. . .- .
- e. * ,. .
. .. g'4, M.:* ~g.- -. .-.-
-. -: W r.
. n .. : Ws.44' . t; -4.i.
- b. :.2*m. '
qp. *.- ~,. < w..f* . t'v ) " - -
t.i:% n . . . .da. * .
.... ..,.T.T..','.a..-f;..'. .**: %. , ,. :; . . :.- :5., ,. , , y Qp+
M :s 9.'.. . .t,.
... w a ca, .;,a.r.;.s v..s.< M. '. p ne a
.... v. . .
.. .., 3,,...$J .:"1.
? .; r:.;--. . .. .- . - .
. 6s .1--. y.r ..a: .. He *r
~
~q.
, ; . .. ..u;t.. .. . u y.,.%,,.,.,.:s%'
ag '.
r ,, ~7..,* 4 ' . . . ' y .5 .:
3.a # .:. . . . ;.. ht'.*Mw,; <.N 4._ ,:t p , ' ~- .
~ . . . + w. . ;. . .
- e. > .:
,,h.>.- . r.3*, , . . .M .:.2,.a : Y '
?g. .c L:
. . ...' ... '.L,,,,,-;.,' .is . W. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . :: L.,. a. , '..' .
..%.,p...,.....'..
. .: . .. .s..
,.<.p.........~
e.
n.
,,.9me
- u. ... .g.n.
. . .- -. . . . '. . ..g, ..ua..<;.p . %. Mw; .. ; . >.. m t . -. .
..g .,,c.
. ... ., . . v .t ,,-
.a, 4
w
.- _- -.m : 2.g'p : uc:.. . c . i-.: ~.. PETR01.EtM.. DFORTS - e -
- w ; i
, z,,. . . g .M... .
d m.. -
.s,.- .
r.:4,$s ;. . -
.t-- .n:;.-
- .h
- ?
'.:@, .a. a.-2.NEW ENdtAND AND LMITED
.. .'f; .i.[,. STATES.
.7
- ,...f' -h... ir;,.; s..
'li,:?
-. = - =. . .;.7. .
19U i. ;. .<..
~...
~ n ..,". ;,.
y.,. . . . ,;
.s
- i. . ,n,. ... .. ..m... ,,
~~ .~... . . .
- u. -n s. ;.: . : ri, : . ..
..: .s..:
.I-n.,+.,,c .. .. ,. 3
'~ .. .
- ' * *~ ' ' * *
...:~ ' h ,* t' .a ' .Y ;-r=/ *t -
5* % . L ,'
.'~
.,. e,.. - .e, z;& t*
74y s e.-e;.
.. *%.5.'-
....'.s.9*=*".-* =
.. 6 !
., ..,br$ . ' . . - * ".' .
3 .
- g A y.. . . .a'
. -%1 . .?.'" , *,"*., . l 0';* :
- p ., -
1*
s v. e. . % .. .s ., *
- y- *t, f ~ ~.' ,
- r. a s. d -.*.
......,'C p
,.. l. ~h * .5.es. e . , ; !
. /,
a
. . e,* k
. . . : W (.
., . 9 4 7. . 4.~.y ? -. o . s.; m- .,J,-.. 5
.. ;y}*Q, >*
.1. . _ - (. -y;.....s;6.r....-fr - ,,.
a..
- g...,J
' f.' .:, .*. .t
},
- s. 4, . .i 8
. . . .*.2..- :.: .7 .t . .-
.,w. .. . -a,J.
..;sy -
~
.*s 2..
. a ; -.4.
..F.e .g a,t e
4 f
+
. N. s r
.a s.
e - . . - .
.. 'e .
.w 6.%. .l o -
- I
- . . . . .. . a
. .t
.,,i.. .g _ .
, , , . . .. .2 - . ,.,;e .. . g
. . . s.. * .
en x.e.
- . . .. ~ ,, c.a ,i ,. .
- a. : .
. *. ,. ~,v.. ... . s . , :. -
.: . ..,%. . - . . ,..p.. - . -
.~... ..J:
. . .- ,, a. .+ .q.
..q m , .3 . ..
.a,.. . .:.4 ..j-
. m. .<- - .
. .. . . .,. . ...e.,v. .. ..- .y?'.,n, ::
. .n. . ..~.. v;. a. m .a. ,, . ..l
. .~.
Barbara Boynton i Department of Energy ,' '-
Region I - Boston . . !
150 Causeway Street , [
Boston, Ma. 02114- . . e!
.- - t
. .y .
January 1979 - -
. . .'..t.'
. r ..; [
_ gg
- .' '*g i
.. .;c
. < r3
" f '.i.,I. -
1
..1
..f
',f f & ~ .___
~
SOURCE OF DATA AND METHODOLOGY
- l in previous years the source of data for the direct petroleum product imports was the U.S. Department of Comme ce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade, division -
for the New England customs districts. The source of data for the indirect patroleum imports was the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Division of _
l Fuels.
The 1977 data source for the direct petroleum product, imports into New England '
was the U.S. Department of Energy. A comparison is made in table 10 of data from '
the two sources in order to have a consistent data base for comparing previous '
years with 1977. The major difference between the two data series is that previously Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands imports were considered indirect; now they are cos.ddered direct.
The source of data for the analysis of indirect petroleum imports is also the U.S.
Department of Energy. The data, however, is the same as that which was l previously gathered by the Department of the Interior.
This paper indicates wral imports. For the United States, this includes crude plus refined products. OPETanformation includes crude and products imported directly from OPEC sources and also indirectly imported products, primarily from Caribbean and European areas, that have been refined from crude oil produced in OPEC countries. For New England, total imports include product imported directly and indirectly from OPEC sowces, and also product obtained indirectly from f oreign crude refined in PAD districts I and III and shipped to New England.
The method used to calculate New England's indirect imports was discussed in detail in the 1976 report (available upon request). Briefly, New England receives almost all of its domestically refined oil from refineries in PAD I and III. Itis assumed that the refined product New England receives from these two areas has the same domestic / foreign crude oil mix as the crude that goes into the refineries.
This crude mix ratio is then applied to shipments of product from both PAD 4 to New England.
l
', OIL DDfAND AND SUPPLY SOURCES TABLE 2 NEW ENCLAND
' Millions '
at Barrels. 447 M -
DEMAND 428. M 421 MMB 4021918 388 H DEMAND DEMAND 40)_ DEMAND DEMAND -
355 MMB 334 MMB 338 MMB n..... . . . - ;
se - : : . ' . ' ..2'.'."""
../.i.
. . .. " " " ?::.9
- . : :.! :. .-7f 2Da _ . . - .
. . . . . . f i
100 .
A A A A A
^
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 UNITED STATES Millions of 6723 H Barrels 6317 W 6078 M 6373 M DE N D DEMAND DEMAND 5957 M DE N D DEMAND 6000 i
5000 4000 #-
l
' 3184MMB 3000 -
2669MMB W****"'"
2283MMB 2231MMB 2210 m : 1. *.*f'
[
20x - illl.llli- Ei::\*i:::. ? ;:.".::**C. / ,l. . ,
1000 -
l f Y
_s 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
~
tOfESTIC SOURCES UWN-OPEC IMPORTS E3PEC IMPORTS DOE REGION I, BOSTON
NEW ENGLAND PETROLEUM IMPORTS AS A PERCENT OF DEMAND TMLE 3 1973 -
~
?reduct Direct Imports Indirect Imports "To tal Foreign Total '
MMB % of MMB % of MMB % of DemanE Demand Demand Demand MMB l acidual 104 64% 49 30% 153 94I 164 '
)ictillate 33 27% 47 38% 80 65% 123 , j lacoline 6 5% 75 59% 81 64% 127 ,
Ithor oils 8 24% 12, 37% 20 61% 33
.0TAL 151 34% , 183 41% 334 75% 447 5' - l
. . . 1 1977 .
j l
.aoidual 88 69% 23 18% 111 87% 128 l
'iotillate 20 17% 71 60% 91 77% 118 -
cooline ,
18 14% 100 76% 118 90% 131 ,
l thor oils 11 25% 24 55% 35 80% 44 OTAL 137 32% 218 52% 355 84% 421 -
UNITED STATES PETROLEUM IMPORTS AS A PERCENT OF DEMAND 1
1973 1977 l TMPORTM IMPORTS .
MMB % of Demand MMB % of Darand Demand MMB Demand MMB taidual 676 66% 1030 493 44% 1116 La tilla t e 143 13% 1129 91 7% 1223 tooline 49 2% 2436 78 3% 2619 '
- hor oils 231 13% 1722 132 7% 1765
. ado 1184 26% 4537 2390 45% 5332 stal 2283 36% 6317 3184 47% 6723 4-l DOE REGION I, BOSTON
i i 1
1 TABLE 7 l
. 1 PETROL.EUM IMPORTS B MAJOR AREAS 1973 and 1977 .
t -
l 3 Millions of Barrels Estimate of .
Additional d Indirect Direct Indirectg Total OPEC 2 Imports Imports imports Imports New England ,'*
Arab-OPEC Saudi Arabia 0 12.1 12.1 (16.0)
Algeria .4 1.1 1.5 (1.0)
Libya 0 4.2 4.2 (9.0) others .2 .9 1.1 (4.0)
(Sub Total Arab-OPEC) (.6) (18.3) (18.9) (30.0)
Other OPEC l
Nigeria .1 4.8 4.9 (9.0)
- Venezula 35.4 1.6 37.0 (33.0)
Iran 2.4 4.6 7.0 (13.0) i others .1 .1 .2 (5.0)
, (Sub Total All OPEC) (38.6) (29.4) (68.0) (90.0)
Canada 15.6 132.5 148.1 Mexico .3 0 .3 Europe 24.1 .1 24.2 Africa .3 .3 .6 U.S. Caribbean 16.7 0 16.7 Non-U.S. Caribbean 67.4 3.1 70.5 Others 4.6 .6 5.2 ,
Total 167.6 166.0 333.6 u.
DOE REGION I BOSTON l
PETROLEUM IMPORTS BY MAJOR AREAS 1973 and 1977 1977 Millions of Barrels .
- Estimate of Additional Indirect -
^
Direct Indirecj Total OPEC 2 Imports Imports Im, ports Imports ,
New England Arab-OPEC Saudi Arabia .4 36.7 57.1 (14.0)
Algerla .3 24.7 25.0 (1.0)
Libya .5 13.3 16 1 (9 0)
Others .5 3.0 k (% .O (36.0) !l (Sub Total Arab-OPEC) (4.7) (99.7) (104.4)
Other OPEC Nigeria 3.9 47.0 50.9 (7.0)
Venezula 33.9 21.3 55.2 (15.0)
Iran 0 23.3 23.3 (20.0)
Others .1 8.8 Q.9 _
(6 g (Sub Total All OPEC) (42.6) (200.1) (242.7) (84.0)
Canada 2.4 .8 3.2 i Mexico 0 4.2 4.2 Europe
- 24.5 5.3 29.8 Africa 1.4 2.2 3.6 U.S. Caribbean 30.6 0 30.6 I Non-U.S. Caribbean 32.1 2.9 35.0 5.8 I Others 3.5 2.3 Total 137.1 217.8 354.9 Ilndirect imports reier to product refined in the United States from imported crude I and shipped to New England. l 2The estimate of additional indireh OPEC Imports refers to U.S. Imports of petroleum products, primarily from Caribbean and European areas, that have been ,
refined from crude oil produced in other areas. Imports of these products have been i
-i prorated to each OPEC country of origin based on the share of total crude oil supply in the Caribbean and European areas which was imported from each OPEC country. These volumes do not add to the total they are in the Caribbean and European totals. g 1
DOE REGION I, BOSTON ,
l 1
l
mvvi sus i uv is suiucuvi o data / charts / features e
G ee
._ _ an n
Consumer i
Persorialincome February January February Monthly Average *
(hMelons of DoNars, Sees 3neNy Adjusted) 1973 1973 1978 1978 1977 United States
- 154 156 "152 905 135e 10 9 142,240 126,884 New England 4 915 Se82F Te FF 4 4,2 F6 F, 36 9 Connocecut 2:545 2 e5 3 T 2e 14 8 Z e 3 4F 2,122 Maine 61T 624 54 F 5 86 519 Maseechusetts 4e 268 4 e1*82 3e80 3 3,9 69 New Hampshire 3e 501 55 7 560 49 8 5 26 464 Rhode taland 434 629 533 5 85 529 -
Vermont 290 2 95 24 9 2 66 234 Does copyrigheed try Suomees M McGrou>4es, Inc.
Retail Sales (tnden 1947 = 100 Adjusted for Seasonal February January February Monthly Average Varianon and Trading Dey Differences) 1878 1878 1878 1878 1877 TotalRetaN Sales Urnted States 291.5 290.5 25 F. 9 2F2.4 New England 24 6. 6 221.5 211 3 194 4 2 11 .4 195 0 Durable Goods Senres United States 33 F. 3 34144 New England 29 F. 2 312.4 2T4.9 228 4 214.3 144.3 2 15 .8 20 0. 0 Nondurable Goods Stores 1 Unned Steses 2F16 2 84 .4 245.1 New England 255.0 232 5 218.6 218 2 198.9 289.6 193 1 Consurrier Prices
- March February January March February (Inden 1987 = t00 Not *---- C, Adjusted) 1973 1973 1979 1978 1978 AN Items United States 249 1 28T.1 204.7 1 89 .8 188 3 Boston 245 1 ---
201.6 1 88 .2 ---
Food Unned States 238.4 Boston 228 2 223 9 284.2 201 3 222 6 ---
215.9 1 99 .6 199 1 SheMer United States 228.0 225.9 Boston 222 8 202 9 200.3 208.9 --*
218 8 1 91.1 ---
Fuel and Uttatlee United States 225.9 223 3 Boston 221.5 212 6 21 0. 4 230.5 ---
223 8 214 2 ~~
Transportation United States 198 1 1 95 .6 Boston 19!.9 1F9.9 IF 9. 4 211 4 =*-
20T.6 199.7 ---
Medical Care United States 233 9 232 6 Boston 23 C.F 2 14.5 213 3 225.1 **-
222 4 ! Y8.F ---
% Change from Year Ago: Allitems U States 10 1 9.9 9.S 65 43 8., ... F., ... ...
' Consumer Pnce ledes for all urten consumers starting wtth March 1978. Unrevised Consumer Pnce indes for wban wage eerpers and cWeal workers for prowlous months.