Boutique fuels not the cause of high gas prices
While George W. Bush suggested the high gas prices are partially to blame on the blended boutique fuels needed to help states meet clean-air rules, a draft study ordered by the White House claims the opposite. The review, conducted by a task force headed by the EPA and involving and Energy and Agriculture department state representatives, concluded the boutique fuels have not caused distribution problems or contributed to price increases. The report stated that both refining and distribution systems currently in place have sufficient capacity to provide the needed quantities of boutique fuels, unless there are disruptions in the supply. Nevertheless, energy legislation passed by Congress last year limits the growth of boutique fuels, and allows the EPA to waive the use in the case of supply problems. Do we really want to sacrifice clean air for price increases? [Source: Detroit Free Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
snakesausage 2:57PM (6/25/2006)
This cannot be correct, there has to be some cost associated with distribution of so many different fuels and the engineering behind them. The cost may be transparent and a small portion of the total but it is there. It would seem logical to have three or four fuels that everyone could agree on, summer – winter fuels for metropolitan areas and one other type for everyone else.
One would think that enviro-conscious California would have more boutique fuels than Texas, but not!!! (2 vs. 4 respectively)
Reply
1985 Gripen 7:11PM (6/25/2006)
I would very much like to see the full-scale version of the GIF attached to this article. It's too small to pick up detail. It doesn't exist in the linked article either.
Reply
Brad 10:19AM (6/26/2006)
#2, I just Googled for boutique fuels and found it:
http://www.nacsonline.com/images/pr_toolkit/prtkboutique_lg.gif
From the article here:
http://www.nacsonline.com/NR/exeres/00003b5awuxdjkeyylsgikgz/GeneralUse_Government.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fNACS%2fGovernment%2fMotorFuels%2fIssueUpdate_BoutiqueFuels%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7b792012BD-3BF4-4A04-BE81-A8C9C70DB297%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1
Reply
Brett 5:03PM (6/26/2006)
Agree with poster #1 - also small factual error in your article ....
"draft study ordered by the White House claims the opposite"
It does not claim the opposite - which would be that they reduce costs.
Common sense dictates that multiple fuels will cost more - and California's idioitic MBTE experiment show just how misguided their intentions can be.
Reply
loikll 6:37PM (6/26/2006)
Snakesausage is right, OF COURSE a plethora of different boutique fuels causes fuel to cost more. The problem is NOT that there may be a production shortage of any particular blend, as this report very naively seems to assume. (Here's where you can tell the report-writers unfortunately had an agenda.)
The problem is that the collective productive resources are not producing a single uniform commodity -- which would be ideal from a cost standpoint, as it would allow improved economies of scale, an industry wide learning-curve, standardized equipment, procedures, etc; also ready transport of fuel from anywhere to some place where a regional shortage is forming.
This is basic stuff, applicable to any industry. No sense denying it.
Reply
1985 Gripen 8:03PM (6/26/2006)
Thanks, Brad.
Reply