DOCSLIB.ORG

The Age of Group II by STEVE HAFFNER

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Age of Group II by STEVE HAFFNER The Age of Group II BY STEVE HAFFNER 1 COPYRIGHT 2020, LUBES’N’GREASES MAGAZINE. REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE When Lubes’n’Greases was in its infancy, the American In 1993, the American Petroleum Institute classified base Petroleum Institute’s base oil groups were just a couple of stocks into five groups, with Group I, II and III paraffinic min- years old, and API Group I was the base stock of choice for eral oils categorized by saturates, sulfur and viscosity index. most lubricants. In the mid-1990s, new refining technology Polyalphaolefins got their own category, Group IV, and Group was being scaled up that could deliver better base stock per- V encompasses all other base stocks, including naphthenics. formance and more efficient production. These advance- Group II was defined as having saturates greater than 90 per- ments would eventually turn Group II oils into the workhorse cent, sulfur less than 0.03 percent and a viscosity index between that they are today, making up 40 percent of the world’s base 80 and 120. API Group III base stocks have a viscosity index oil production capacity. greater than 120. Chevron’s 25,000-barrels-per-day API Group II base oil plant in Pascagoula, Mississippi (Photo: Chevron) COPYRIGHT 2020, LUBES’N’GREASES MAGAZINE. REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE 2 Industry veteran Terry Hoffman, for- Chevron began to develop a selective wax the new technology. After it made its merly of Sunoco, remarked that the first isomerization process. Instead of remov- debut, “I participated in an internal study Group II-type oils appeared in 1971 ing wax molecules as in solvent dewaxing team that recommended Chevron license when the first hydrocrackers were or cracking them into light hydrocarbons the technology rather than keep it pro- installed in Japan and at the company’s as in catalytic dewaxing, the Isodewaxing- prietary to advance the overall use of Yabucoa, Puerto Rico, refinery. “These branded catalyst and technology isomer- Group II technology in the marketplace,” initial base oils were introduced using izes the wax molecules—rearranging the Lok recalled. “It has been quite gratifying Gulf Oil technology. The early process to atoms to form new molecules—into low to see the phenomenal market growth of make Group II at Yabucoa used furfural pour point lubricating base oil. Group II and III base oils to where it is solvent extraction to reduce aromatics, Launched in 1993 at Chevron’s today.” then hydrocracking to further reduce Richmond plant, this new process repre- Jirong Xiao, Chevron Oronite’s vice aromatics and increase V.I.,” he sented a breakthrough improvement in president of sales and marketing, was also explained. hydroprocessing technology. “The a young engineer on the Isodewaxing “Another furfural extraction step Isodewaxing catalyst significantly increases project. “No one spoke in terms of [achieved] color stabilization, and finally lubricant base oil yield over competitive Group I or II, as API had not officially vacuum distillation was used to cut the technologies [solvent dewaxing, catalytic classified base stocks back then, but just material into 40, 50, 70, 100, 170 and 300 dewaxing],” said Bharat Srinivasan, how we could transform to higher quality [Saybolt Universal Seconds] viscosity Chevron’s managing director of technolo- base stocks that could extend oil drains base oils.” Hoffman noted the early 100 gy marketing. “It also can significantly and allow for higher quality lubricants,” solvent neutral cut only had a viscosity improve the product’s V.I. due to the iso- he noted. index of 90, which was much lower than merization of wax, which is the highest V.I. Xiao pointed out that lubricant additive the 100 to 110 V.I.—and even higher for component, into the base oil fraction.” companies were also able to take advan- oils marketed as Group II+—that formu- The technology “made it possible for tage of Group II base stocks. Everyone lators see today. refiners to produce large volumes of understood the oils’ improved oxidative Plants with the new technology could higher quality base oil economically,” he properties and their ability to yield prod- also make base stocks from crude that boasted, which “has led to the steady ucts at lower viscosity, lower volatility and could not be used by solvent processing increase of premium base oil production higher V.I., which enabled better fuel refineries. worldwide.” efficiency. But soon the industry found The next Group II plant started up Brent Lok was a green engineer in the other benefits, such as lower additive around 1978 at what is now Petro- mid-1980s when he began working on treat rates to meet sludge and deposit Canada’s refinery in Mississauga, Ontario, followed by Chevron’s Richmond plant in North American Base Oil Capacity Shifts 1984. These early facilities struggled to raise viscosity index in light neutral cuts (SN 100, 150 and 220) without significant reductions in the volumes that the plants could produce. Viscosity index and pour point are two competing property targets for base oils. Normal paraffins, or waxes, have the highest V.I., but their pour points are pro- hibitive for base oil applications. To meet the pour point target, solvent dewaxing removes wax from the base oil fractions. Catalytic dewaxing was also developed in the 1970s to remove wax from oil. It provided an alternative to solvent dewax- ing because it separated normal paraffins and waxy side chains from other mole- cules by catalytically cracking them into light hydrocarbons. In the mid-1980s, 3 COPYRIGHT 2020, LUBES’N’GREASES MAGAZINE. REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE requirements as well as the ability to han- initial cost and provided a technology ILSAC GF-2 was introduced,” he said. dle soot in diesel engines. base that could be readily expanded to Motiva in Port Arthur, Texas, converted Mike McMillan, former manager of the meet increasing demand. one of its Group I trains to Group II in Lubricant Chemistry and Systems Group The Group II upgrade at Baytown was 1998, then converted the other in 2001. in the Chemical & Environmental completed in 1999 in anticipation of the Jackson was working for the producer Systems Laboratory at General Motors rollout of ILSAC GF-3 and its lower volatili- when it streamed its new base oil hydroc- R&D, was one of the first on the automo- ty requirements. According to Walko, “this racker in 2005. “Moving 41,000 barrels per tive side of the lubricants business to led to ExxonMobil’s investment in raffi- day was initially challenging, but with ILSAC notice the opportunities brought by nate hydroconversion technology that GF-3 the industry began taking advantage Group II base stocks. “GM first took leveraged the existing solvent refining of the newer base stocks and the quality advantage in their factory-fill applications processes at Baytown to produce the light advantages they offered. Then we started when we had Sunoco and Petro-Canada neutral base stock required for GF-3.” seeing Group II postings in industry publi- as key suppliers,” he said. Rick Dougherty, ExxonMobil’s cations, and the [price] separation between “SAE 5W-30 [engine oil] was rolling out basestocks & specialties technology Group I and Group II began.” to the marketplace, and Group II base chief, added, “ExxonMobil produces base “The last 25 years have seen remarkable stocks not only facilitated improved fuel stocks through several of its proprietary change for base stock manufacturing, economy for that viscosity grade, they selective catalytic dewaxing processes including the validation of Group II oils, also provided a lubricant that had superi- that offer higher yields, contaminant tol- the rise of Group III because of the avail- or oxidation properties and eventually erance and higher activity, leading to able new technology, as well as the first allowed for a step-change in oil volatility longer life of the catalyst.” world-scale gas-to-liquids plant,” Jackson from 22 percent to 15 percent Noack The company first commercialized its concluded. when ILSAC GF-3 performance require- Mobil Lube DeWaxing process for Over the next 25 years, the drive ments were [proposed] around 1996,” Group I base stocks in 1981 at its toward even lower viscosity oils is expect- McMillan continued. Adelaide, Australia, refinery. Based on ed to spur advances in API Group III and He also noted that further advances the ZSM-5 aluminosilicate zeolite cata- non-conventional base stocks to meet with Group III and Group III+ base lyst, MLDW technology was designed fuel savings targets without negatively stocks later enabled General Motors to for dewaxing raffinate, but was later impacting volatility or low-temperature move to SAE 0W-20 lubricants with even licensed to several Group II base stock performance. more stringent oxidation and volatility producers, Dougherty said. API Group II is poised to be the domi- requirements. “ExxonMobil began development of its nant base stock for the next decade, and ExxonMobil first began producing own isomerization dewaxing technology, with their increasingly higher viscosity Group II base oil in 1997 at its Jurong Mobil Selective DeWaxing, which was first index, these oils will combine with Group refinery in Singapore. Those oils made commercialized at its Jurong refinery. In III to meet much of the world’s lubricant their debut in North America at the 2000, ExxonMobil commercialized the demand. Baytown refinery in 1999. Ted Walko, second generation of its MSDW technolo- Refiners around the world also are base stocks & specialties marketing man- gy at Jurong with industry-leading selec- rethinking their distillate slates in response ager, told Lubes’n’Greases that “the deci- tivity for both light and heavy stocks,” he to the International Maritime sion to invest in Jurong was driven by continued.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oil and Gas Technologies Supplemental Information
    Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Chapter 7: Advancing Systems and Technologies to Produce Cleaner Fuels Supplemental Information Oil and Gas Technologies Subsurface Science, Technology, and Engineering U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Quadrennial Technology Review 2015 Oil and Gas Technologies Chapter 7: Advancing Systems and Technologies to Produce Cleaner Fuels Oil and Gas in the Energy Economy of the United States Fossil fuel resources account for 82% of total U.S. primary energy use because they are abundant, have a relatively low cost of production, and have a high energy density—enabling easy transport and storage. The infrastructure built over decades to supply fossil fuels is the world’s largest enterprise with the largest market capitalization. Of fossil fuels, oil and natural gas make up 63% of energy usage.1 Across the energy economy, the source and mix of fuels used across these sectors is changing, particularly the rapid increase in natural gas production from unconventional resources for electricity generation and the rapid increase in domestic production of shale oil. While oil and gas fuels are essential for the United States’ and the global economy, they also pose challenges: Economic: They must be delivered to users and the markets at competitive prices that encourage economic growth. High fuel prices and/or price volatility can impede this progress. Security: They must be available to the nation in a reliable, continuous way that supports national security and economic needs. Disruption of international fuel supply lines presents a serious geopolitical risk. Environment: They must be supplied and used in ways that have minimal environmental impacts on local, national, and global ecosystems and enables their sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Response to Attacks on Persian Gulf Oil Infrastructure and Strategic Implications for Petro-States
    ISSUE BRIEF 10.29.19 The US Response to Attacks on Persian Gulf Oil Infrastructure and Strategic Implications for Petro-States Jim Krane, Ph.D., Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies Mark Finley, Fellow in Energy and Global Oil On Sept. 14, 2019, Saudi Aramco’s enormous oil tanker and its crew for two months. In oil processing plant at Abqaiq was hit in a October, Iran’s national tanker company surprise cruise missile and drone attack. reported an attack on an Iranian oil tanker Further strikes damaged facilities at the in the Red Sea.3 Khurais oil field 150 miles away. The attacks None of these disruptions had more on some of the world’s most vital pieces of than a short-lived effect on global oil prices. energy infrastructure initially knocked out Iran appears to have played a direct or 5.7 million barrels per day (Mb/d) of Saudi indirect role in the May/June tanker and oil production and 0.7 Mb/d of natural gas Saudi attacks. But the Trump administration liquids production, the largest ever outage has not, as yet, followed the guidelines in in volume terms in the modern history of oil. the 1980 Carter Doctrine, which states that Oil prices immediately jumped from $60 to Washington would use military force—if $69 per barrel. necessary—to protect its interests in the Gulf. Just over two weeks later, the sense of The US president suggested at one point urgency was gone. Saudi Aramco had fully that ultimate responsibility in dealing with restored the lost production, even as repairs the attacks rested with Saudi Arabia.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of Chevron Nigeria
    Investing in Fragile Contexts: A Case Study of Chevron Nigeria Background to Chevron in Nigeria: Chevron is one of the world's leading integrated energy companies. Its roots go back to the formation of Pacific Coast Oil Company in 1876. That company later became Standard Oil Company of California and, subsequently, Chevron Corporation. Chevron acquired Gulf Oil Corporation in 1984, merged with Texaco (formerly The Texas Fuel Company, formed in Beaumont, Texas, in 1901) in 2001 and acquired Unocal in 2005. These mergers and acquisitions have strengthened Chevron's position as an energy industry leader, increasing its crude oil and natural gas assets around the world. Chevron is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry. It has a diverse and highly skilled global workforce of approximately 64,700 employees. Its business operations traverse 100 countries. In 2014, Chevron's average net production was 2.571 million oil-equivalent barrels per day. About 74 percent of that production occurred outside the United States. At the end of 2014, Chevron had a global refining capacity of 1.9 million barrels of oil per day. Challenges: Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa and has the largest economy on the continent. It has an estimated population of 170million people who are from different ethnic backgrounds and speak more than 200 languages. The country has a high rate of unemployment and poverty, and outbreaks of violent, inter-ethnic conflicts are rife. Governance and transparency is sometimes a challenge. Nigeria gained its independence from Great Britain in October, 1960 and Chevron arrived in the country a year after.
    [Show full text]
  • The New American Oil Boom Implications for Energy Security
    The New American Oil Boom implications for energy security a project of The New American Oil Boom implications for energy security a project of copyright © 2012 securing america’s future energy. all rights reserved. Disclaimer: Although the authors and endorsers of this report have used their best efforts in its preparation, they assume no responsibility for any errors or omissions, nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of or reliance on information contained herein. The authors have sought to obtain permission from all image, data, and chart owners and apologize to any who could not be properly traced for permission and acknowledgement. Energy Security Leadership Council council co-chairs General P.X. Kelley, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) Frederick W. Smith 28th Commandant, U.S. Marine Corp Chairman, President and CEO, FedEx Corporation members Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.) General John M. Keane, U.S. Army (Ret.) Former Director of National Intelligence and Former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command Admiral Timothy J. Keating, U.S. Navy (Ret.) General Bryan “Doug” Brown, U.S. Army (Ret.) Former Commander, U.S. Pacific Command Former Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command Herbert D. Kelleher Founder & Chairman Emeritus, Southwest Steve Cahillane Airlines Co. President & CEO, Coca-Cola Refreshments (CCR), The Coca-Cola Company John F. Lehman Former Secretary to the U.S. Navy Admiral Vern Clark, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Former Chief of Naval Operations General Michael E. Ryan, U.S. Air Force (Ret.) 16th Chief of Staff, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Investment Rationale LTM EV/EBITDA 4.5X LTM Price/Earnings 8.7X at the Start of FY19-20 the E&U Team Decided to Disband Its Long- Held Synthetic U.S
    RESEARCH REPORT November 9, 2019 Insert Picture in Master View Stock Rating BUY Price Target $72.00 – $89.00 Bear Price Bull Case Target Case $72.00 $80.50 $89.00 Ticker COP ConocoPhillips Market Cap (MM) $63,642 Investment Rationale LTM EV/EBITDA 4.5x LTM Price/Earnings 8.7x At the start of FY19-20 the E&U team decided to disband its long- held synthetic U.S. ETF. To do so, the team liquidated all of its 52 Week Performance holdings and identified two U.S.-based names to take active positions in: ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) and Kinder Morgan, Inc. 100 (NYSE: KMI). This report focuses on ConocoPhillips, and seeks to 78.3 analyze the company’s business model and explain the E&U team’s investment rationale. 75 The QUIC E&U team believes that COP has a best in-class 69.6 management team which exhibits strong capital prudence, a shareholder-friendly business model underpinned by quality assets, 50 and an all-weather balance sheet capable of generating free-cash- flow throughout the entire cycle. 25 Despite ConocoPhillips’ strengths, investors continue to discount the Nov-18 Mar-19 Jul-19 Nov-19 company’s value, largely because of COP’s infamous leverage profile during the mid 2000s energy boom and uncommon listing position TSX:COP TSX Capped Energy Index as a mega-cap pureplay E&P name. Given COP’s stark deleveraging, refined capital allocation strategy, and attractive operational characteristics, the E&U team concludes Energy & Utilities that these concerns are trivial and estimate the company’s equity value is approximately $72 - $89, a 21% - 50% premium to current Mircea Barcan market prices.
    [Show full text]
  • The Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill's Impact on People's Health
    THE SEA GRANT and GOMRI THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL’S PARTNERSHIP IMPACT ON PEOPLE’S HEALTH: The mission of Sea Grant is to enhance the practical use and INCREASES IN STRESS AND ANXIETY conservation of coastal, marine Larissa Graham, Christine Hale, Emily Maung-Douglass, Stephen Sempier, Tara Skelton, and Great Lakes resources in LaDon Swann, and Monica Wilson order to create a sustainable economy and environment. There are 33 university– The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill stretched beyond the based Sea Grant programs Gulf of Mexico’s waters, plants, animals, and habitats. It affected the throughout the coastal U.S. These programs are primarily mental health of some residents along the Gulf Coast. The impacts supported by the National varied based on what kind of job a person had, how attached they were Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the states to the place they lived, and how many disasters they had lived through in which the programs are prior to the spill. located. In the immediate aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill, BP committed $500 million over a 10–year period to create the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, or GoMRI. It is an independent research program that studies the effect of hydrocarbon releases on the environment and public health, as well as develops improved spill mitigation, oil detection, characterization, and remediation technologies. GoMRI is led by an independent and academic 20–member research board. The Sea Grant oil spill science outreach team identifies the best available science from projects funded by GoMRI and others, and only shares peer- reviewed research results.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Tax Rates for Oil and Gas Companies
    Effective Tax Rates of Oil and Gas Companies: Cashing in on Special Treatment July 2014 Table of Contents Page Results in Brief …………………………………………………………………….. 3 Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………. 4 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 6 Notes …………………………………………………………………………………… 6 U.S. Federal Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 …………………………… 7 Foreign Effective Tax Rates, 2009-2013 ………………………………..... 8 Deferred Tax Liabilities from Property, Plant, and Equipment in 2012 and 2013……………………………………………………………………….. 9 Appendix: Company Profiles ExxonMobil Corporation ……………………………………………......... 10 ConocoPhillips …………………………………………………………………. 12 Occidental Petroleum Corporation …………………………………….. 14 Chevron Corporation ………………………………………………………… 15 Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ………………………………………. 17 Chesapeake Energy Corporation …………………………………......... 19 EOG Resources, Inc. …………………………………………………........ 20 Devon Energy Corporation …………………………………………......... 22 Apache Corporation ………………………………………………………….. 23 Pioneer Natural Resources Company ………………………………….. 25 Continental Resources, Inc. ……………………………………………… 27 Marathon Oil Corporation …………………………………………………. 28 Hess Corporation ……………………………………………………………… 29 Range Resources Corporation ……………………………………………. 30 Plains Exploration & Production Company …………………………. 31 SandRidge Energy, Inc. ……………………………………………………. 33 Whiting Petroleum Corporation …………………………………………. 34 Denbury Resources, Inc. ………………………………………………….. 35 Noble Energy, Inc. …………………………………………………………… 36 Concho Resources Inc. …………………………………………………….. 37 Company Notes …………………………………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Ranking Operator by Gas 1947
    PDRANKOP UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PRODUCTION MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE 22-DEC-2000 GULF OF MEXICO REGION PAGE: 1 Production by Operator Ranked by Volume (4120) Start Date : 194701 Report Type : Report End Date : 199512 ASCII File Name: C:\TIMSWork\PDRANKOP.DAT Report Option: Order by Total Gas Group By : All Operator Crude Oil Condensate Total Oil Natural Gas Casinghead Total Gas (BBLS) (BBLS) (BBLS) (MCF) (MCF) (MCF) 00078 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 1,926,333,769 137,016,779 2,063,350,548 11,063,925,241 2,504,607,294 13,568,532,535 00689 Shell Offshore Inc. 1,417,893,524 85,274,236 1,503,167,760 7,372,318,798 2,025,230,206 9,397,549,004 00001 Conoco Inc. 797,691,267 90,614,940 888,306,207 6,665,540,300 1,270,468,340 7,936,008,640 00540 MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING SOUT 323,970,684 67,931,345 391,902,029 6,452,624,776 498,954,383 6,951,579,159 00276 Exxon Mobil Corporation 1,093,558,792 56,026,660 1,149,585,452 5,223,562,198 1,323,290,927 6,546,853,125 00985 Union Exploration Partners, Ltd. 172,994,887 68,962,600 241,957,487 5,693,340,954 248,803,779 5,942,144,733 00081 Tenneco Oil Company 213,224,062 48,335,567 261,559,629 5,587,612,854 279,449,349 5,867,062,203 00040 Texaco Inc. 189,506,674 33,936,036 223,442,710 4,576,194,031 442,571,025 5,018,765,056 00114 Amoco Production Company 97,147,101 34,421,651 131,568,752 3,175,779,982 235,024,436 3,410,804,418 00167 PennzEnergy Company 191,565,059 26,157,422 217,722,481 2,812,024,858 262,674,308 3,074,699,166 00967 Atlantic Richfield Company 242,193,417 18,221,055 260,414,472
    [Show full text]
  • Historic NAME: Gulf Oil Distribution Facility STREET & NUMBER
    (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FoRM ~NAME 01? PRopEwry hISTORIC NAME: Gulf Oil Distribution Facility OTHER NAME/SITE NUMBER: Hickory Street Annex L~LoCATIoN STREET & NUMBER: 501 Second Avenue CITY OR TOWN: Dallas VICINny: N/A NOT FOR PUBLIcATION: N/A STATE: Texas CODE: TX COUNTy: Dallas CODE: 113 zu CODE: 75226 [3. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certif~’ that this (~nomination) L request for determination of eligibility) meets the documentation standards for registering propertie~s in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property ( ~ meets) (_ does not meet) the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant (_ nationally) (_ statewide) (x locally). C_See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certil~ying official Date State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission - State or Federal agency and bureau In my opinion, the property _meets does not meet the National Register criteria. (_ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) — Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau [~. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CERTIFICATION I hereby certif~’ that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action entered in the National Register —
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Sustainability in the Gulf States: the Why and the How
    Energy Sustainability in the Gulf States: The Why and the How Laura El-Katiri* March 2013 MEP 4 * Laura El-Katiri, Research Fellow at Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Oxford, UK. Correspondence address: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies; 57 Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6FA, United Kingdom; Tel: +44 (0)1865 889134; Fax: +44 (0)1865 310527; Email: [email protected]. The author thanks Bassam Fattouh, Jonathan Stern, David Robinson, Lavan Mahadeva, and William Yong for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper; Christian Bruhn for his help and comments on the logarithms drawn up for this paper; as well as a number of unnamed friends, the discussion with whom has proven invaluable for this research. All remaining errors are the author’s. The contents of this paper are the authors’ sole responsibility. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies or any of its members. Copyright © 2013 Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (Registered Charity, No. 286084) This publication may be reproduced in part for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. ISBN 978-1-907555-70-1 2 Abstract For many decades, the Gulf states’ significant oil reserves have rendered the region among the most important energy suppliers in the world, and there is similar potential for the region’s natural gas reserves.
    [Show full text]
  • The Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust
    Federal Trade Commission TIMOTHY J. MURIS Chairman MOZELLE W. THOMPSON Commissioner ORSON SWINDLE Commissioner THOMAS B. LEARY Commissioner PAMELA JONES HARBOUR Commissioner Bureau of Economics Luke M. Froeb Director Mark W. Frankena Deputy Director for Antitrust Paul A. Pautler Deputy Director for Consumer Protection Timothy A. Deyak Associate Director for Competition Analysis Pauline M. Ippolito Associate Director for Special Projects Robert D. Brogan Assistant Director for Antitrust Louis Silvia Assistant Director for Antitrust Michael G. Vita Assistant Director for Antitrust Denis A. Breen Assistant Director for Economic Policy Analysis Gerard R. Butters Assistant Director for Consumer Protection This is a report of the Bureau of Economics of the Federal Trade Commission. The views expressed in this report are those of the staff and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Trade Commission or any individual Commissioner. The Commission has voted to authorize staff to publish this report. Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the Bureau of Economics under the supervision of David T. Scheffman, former Director; Mary T. Coleman, former Deputy Director and Mark Frankena, Deputy Director; and Louis Silvia, Assistant Director. Bureau economists who researched and drafted this report were Jay Creswell, Jeffrey Fischer, Daniel Gaynor, Geary Gessler, Christopher Taylor, and Charlotte Wojcik. Bureau Research Analysts who worked on this project were Madeleine McChesney, Joseph Remy, Michael Madigan, Paul Golaszewski, Matthew Tschetter, Ryan Toone, Karl Kindler, Steve Touhy, and Louise Sayers. Bureau of Economics staff also acknowledge the review of drafts and many helpful comments and suggestions from members of the staff of the Bureau of Competition, in particular Phillip L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Birth of the Oil Industry Main Ideas Key Terms and People 1
    DO NOT EDIT--Changes must be made through “File info” CorrectionKey=TX-A Section 1 The Birth of the Oil Industry Main Ideas Key Terms and People 1. The Texas oil industry began with the discovery of a • petroleum major oil field in Corsicana. • fossil fuel 2. The Spindletop strike marked the beginning of the oil • derricks boom in Texas. • refinery Why It Matters Today • Pattillo Higgins During the 1800s Americans searched for new energy • Anthony F. Lucas sources. Use current events sources to learn about • Spindletop strike different sources of energy available today. • boom-and-bust cycle TEKS: 1A, 1C, 6A, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 13C, 20C, 20D, 21A, 21B, 21C, 22A, 22D The Story Continues myNotebook Spindletop was a small hill just outside Beaumont. Although it was only 12 feet high, people often called it Big Hill. One Use the annotation tools in your eBook day Pattillo Higgins took a Sunday school class on an outing to take notes on the to Big Hill. He happened to notice gas bubbles in the spring discovery of oil at Bleed Art Guide: at the top of the hill. When Higgins poked his cane into the All bleeding art should be extended fullySpindletop to the and the bleed guide. beginning of the oil ground, gas escaped. This visit convinced Higgins that there industry in Texas. was oil under Big Hill. The Search for Oil The demand for oil had risen dramatically after scientists developed kerosene in the mid-1800s. Kerosene was a new form of fuel for light- Art and Non-Teaching Text Guide: Folios, annos, standards, non-bleeding art, etc.
    [Show full text]