Daily Archives: March 28, 2012
PARIS/NEW YORK (Reuters)- Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi mounted his most direct rhetorical attack against high oil prices on Wednesday, but showed no sign of moving to increase supplies even as France joined the United States and Britain in talks for a release of strategic reserves.
Two weeks after Reuters initially reported that Britain and the United States were set to agree on tapping emergency stockpiles, French Energy Minister Eric Besson said the European nation was also in talks with Washington. Le Monde reported that the move could come in a matter of weeks.
At the same time, the Financial Times published a rare opinion piece by the head of the world’s largest crude oil exporter, who said a feared shortage of oil supplies was a “myth” but reiterated that Saudi Arabia was ready, able and willing to meet any gap in supplies.
The moves emphasized the growing concern from both sides of the market — producers and consumers — about the economic and political impact of the 15 percent jump in oil prices this year. But it also highlighted the different responses they are taking.
Any release of strategic reserves is expected to be based on the assumption that oil markets face a shortage of crude, putting Western economies directly in opposition to the opinions offered this month by top exporter Saudi Arabia.
Naimi’s comments were his bluntest yet on oil prices, which have been driven by the loss of supplies from several producers across the world and, more importantly, by the threat of a disruption from Iran.
“The bottom line is that Saudi Arabia would like to see a lower price,” he said.
“Supply is not the problem, and it has not been a problem in the recent past. There is no rational reason why oil prices are continuing to remain at these high levels.”
But in the editorial, Naimi fell short of saying that the kingdom planned to increase production. Oil markets, already trading lower on the day after news of the French talks with the United States, barely budged after his comments.
Oil markets have been gripped this year by expectations U.S. and EU sanctions against Tehran aimed at halting the OPEC nation’s nuclear ambitions will cause a shortage in global oil market.
Global supplies are already down by more than a million barrels per day, according to a Reuters survey, due to outages in Yemen, Syria, South Sudan and the North Sea.
Rising oil prices have become a major headache for politicians around the world, including U.S. President Barack Obama who is aiming for re-election in November and facing public anger over soaring U.S. gasoline prices.
Earlier in March, British sources said London was prepared to cooperate with Washington on a release of strategic oil stocks that was expected within months, in a bid to prevent fuel prices from choking economic growth.
A White House official reiterated that the United States was considering a reserve release but no decisions had been made.
“As we have said repeatedly, while this is an option that remains on the table, no decisions have been made and no specific actions have been proposed,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.
“Anybody who tries to convince you — in this government or any other government, frankly — that specific decisions have been made or actions have been proposed is not speaking accurately.”
Fuel prices in France have hit record levels, prompting an intense debate between presidential candidates, also ahead of a national election. The French budget minister and government spokeswoman, Valerie Pecresse, told journalists France had joined the United States and the UK in IEA consultations to receive authorization to draw from strategic stocks.
Oil reserve releases are normally coordinated by the International Energy Agency that represents 28 industrialized countries on energy policy.
But the head of the IEA, Maria van der Hoeven, has said on several occasions that a coordinated IEA release is not warranted because there is no significant supply disruption on world oil markets. Germany and Italy say they are opposed.
Van der Hoeven said earlier this month that countries could choose unilaterally to release stocks in consultation with the agency. The IEA declined further comment on Wednesday.
The Paris-based IEA has authorized only three coordinated releases since it was founded in 1974, with the last one in June 2011 in response to lost Libyan production during its civil war.
The government in Berlin said it was unaware of any official request from the United States to release emergency oil stockpiles and did not believe the current situation justified such action under German law.
The German law on oil provisions says emergency reserves can only be released in the case of “physical disruption to supplies. In our view, there is no physical shortage at the moment,” a government spokeswoman told reporters.
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world with significant spare capacity to compensate for a major supply shortfall.
Naimi last week insisted Saudi Arabia could immediately ramp up production up to its full strength — 12.5 million barrels per day (bpd) — from 9.9 million bpd now if buyers requested more oil.
In his piece on Wednesday, Naimi said that the OPEC kingpin did not want rising fuel costs to undermine the economy of consumer nations. Earlier this year he identified $100 a barrel as an ideal price for producers and consumers, about $25 below current world prices.
“I hope by speaking out on the issue that our intentions – and capabilities – are clear. We want to see stronger European growth and realize that reasonable crude oil prices are key to this,” he wrote, adding Saudi Arabia had a responsibility to “do what it can to mitigate prices.”
But, echoing his comments from last week, the oil minister said that it was not actual supply disruptions that were driving up prices, but political tensions and worries about potential shortages that were driving the market.
“It is the perceived potential shortage of oil keeping prices high – not the reality on the ground,” he said. “There is no lack of supply. There is no demand which cannot be met.”
- IEA sees no disruptions in oil markets (business.financialpost.com)
- Saudi Arabia sends tankers to US with pledge to bring down oil price (telegraph.co.uk)
- Murky data makes oil trading tricky (business.financialpost.com)
- Oil Prices: Saudi Pumping Surge & US-EU Iran Strategy (globalbarrel.com)
- Saudi Vela To Send 11 Supertankers To US In March/April (gcaptain.com)
The Obama administration’s announcement that it may allow seismic studies potentially paving the way for offshore drilling along the East Coast is political posturing designed to distract voters concerned about high gasoline prices, oil industry leaders and Republican lawmakers said today.
The administration’s move “continues the president’s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. “The president is focused on trying to talk his way out of what he’s done, rather than taking real steps to boost American energy production.”
At issue is Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s announcement in Norfolk, Va., this morning that the government is assessing the environmental effects of allowing seismic surveys along the mid- and south-Atlantic that could help locate hidden pockets of oil and gas. If ultimately approved, the studies by private geological research companies also could help guide decisions about where to place renewable energy projects off the coast.
The Interior Department is issuing a draft environmental impact statement that assesses the consequences of seismic research on marine life in the area. The Obama administration had planned to release a similar document in 2010, before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
If the draft environmental assessment is finalized after public comments and hearings, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management could give companies permits to conduct the studies off the coasts of eight East Coast states.
Salazar said that if the geological research turned up promising results, that could open the door to offshore drilling in the area within five years, even though the administration currently has ruled out that kind of exploration before 2017. A government plan for selling offshore drilling leases from 2012 to 2017 does not include any auctions of Atlantic territory.
“If the information that is developed allows us to move forward in a quicker time frame, we can always come in with an amendment,” Salazar said. “We’re not prejudging that at this point in time. My view is … we need to develop information so we can make those wise decisions.”
Industry officials noted that under federal laws, it could take years for the government to revise the 2012-2017 leasing plan, even if federal officials decided to pursue Atlantic drilling.
Erik Milito, upstream director for the American Petroleum Institute, said the administration is repackaging old news and old plans to make it appear it is making real progress to encourage more domestic energy development.
“This is political rhetoric to make it appear the administration is doing something on gas prices, but in reality it is little more than an empty gesture,” Milito said.
Randall Luthi, the president of the National Ocean Industries Association, likened the administration’s announcement to giving the industry “a canoe with no oars, since there are no lease sales planned anywhere off the East Coast.”
If allowed to conduct seismic surveys, geological research firms would ultimately give the resulting information to the government and sell it to companies eager to analyze the data.
But Milito questioned whether seismic companies would pursue the work, given that some of their best customers — oil companies — wouldn’t be able to use it to plan offshore drilling for years, if at all.
“Without an Atlantic coast lease sale in their five-year plan, the administration’s wishful thinking on seismic research has no ultimate purpose,” Milito said. “The White House has banned lease sales in the Atlantic for at least the next five years, discouraging the investment and job creation, and ultimately production, which would make seismic exploration valuable.”
Still, at least six companies already have told the government they want to conduct seismic research along the East Coast.
“We have gotten significant expressions of interest from companies in contracting for these seismic surveys,” said Tommy Beaudreau, the director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. “I am confident that, assuming the process continues on the track we anticipate, that there will be significant interest next year in conducting these surveys.”
Geological research uses seismic waves to map what lies underground or beneath the ocean floor. The shock waves — which some environmental advocates say may harm marine life — map the density of subterranean material and can gives clues about possible oil and gas.
Seismic studies also help identify geologic hazards and archaeological resources in the seabed — information useful in determining the placement of renewable energy infrastructure as well as oil and gas equipment.
The existing seismic surveys of the Atlantic coast are decades old, and in the years since, “there have been enormous technological advances,” Salazar noted.
“We do need to have seismic moving forward so we can really understand what the resource potential is,” Salazar added.
- Obama administration advances plan for seismic research along Atlantic coast (mb50.wordpress.com)
- Obama officials rip into GOP gasoline bills (mb50.wordpress.com)
When the president says he is opening up millions of acres for drilling exploration in the United States, Cavuto says you might want to thank the previous presidents instead, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. According to the Bureau of Land Management, the current administration has actually decreased approval of drilling permits by 36 percent. Even under Bill Clinton, his administration increased the approval of drilling permits by 58 percent, and George W. Bush increased approval by 116 percent.
But what about more drilling? Will an increase in domestic production make a dent on oil prices? Some analysts say “yes”. Cavuto showed a graphic of current drilling sites in the United States vs. the amount of land that we ‘could’ drill on. You can decide for yourself:
So how much potential oil-energy does the U.S. really have domestically? Jim Angle reports that some energy analysts say the U.S. could have up to 1.4 trillion barrels of ‘recoverable’ or potential barrels of oil yet to be drilled. This means the U.S. has the potential to have more drill-able oil than Saudi Arabia.
However, these analysts results are at odds with the president’s estimates. The Obama administration says the U.S. only has 21 billion barrels of proven reserves, and drilling more will not lower gas prices.
What do you think? Will more domestic drilling decrease your pay at the pump?
- LOOK Who Is Lying About Drilling (tarpon.wordpress.com)
- Obama officials rip into GOP gasoline bills (mb50.wordpress.com)
- MRC’s Tim Graham and Neil Cavuto Compare Coverage of Gas Prices (Bush vs. Obama) on Fox News (newsbusters.org)
- Critics rip Obama claim that drilling in U.S. won’t drop gas prices – Washington Times (gds44.wordpress.com)
- Obama administration advances plan for seismic research along Atlantic coast (mb50.wordpress.com)
- Insiders: Southern Section of Keystone Pipeline Doesn’t Need Obama (mb50.wordpress.com)
- No Permit, No Drilling, The Soft Spot (tarpon.wordpress.com)
For leaders of smaller nations, a meeting and a photo op with the American President in the White House is always a huge thrill. And so Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt was no exception when she received the presidential treatment on February 24, basking in the glow of President Obama’s approval. The President (rightly) praised Denmark’s military contribution in Afghanistan and Libya, saying that the small Nordic country of 4.5 million people ”punches above its weight.”
As sweet as this praise must have been to the ears of the Danish prime minister, it was soon tempered by revelations that President Obama is very free with the use of this phrase. Danish television clipped together a montage showing Obama complimenting the leaders of Norway, Ireland, and the Philippines in exactly the same words, all for ”punching above their weight.” President Obama apparently has not used the expression about the British, despite the fact that he borrowed it from British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd.
The conservative Danish newspaper Jyllands–Posten noted that Obama must really be pleased with the Danes, as he said the same thing to the previous Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, during his state visit last year, sitting in the very same armchairs under the same picture of George Washington. Meanwhile, an editorial in the left-of-center newspaper Politiken grumbled that it was the unfortunate Danish desire to ”punch above their weight” that had gotten the Danes involved in the Iraq war and other American affairs. The newspaper advocated that Danes stick to their own bantam weight class in the future.
The real question might be, however, whether the United States under President Obama is punching below its weight, making the contributions of others seem all the greater. From premature military withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan to selling out U.S. missile defense to the Russians and mouthing mechanical blandishments to U.S. allies like the Danes, President Obama is squandering a great foreign policy legacy.
Helle C. Dale is Senior Fellow in Public Diplomacy at The Heritage Foundation—and a native of Denmark.
Posted in American Leadership
- The Danish Jon Stewart Schools Obama on Using the Same ‘Punch’ Lines with Every Ally (newsbusters.org)
- Punch Drunk: Danish Television Captures the President Delivering The Same Back-Handed Compliment To A Series Of “Little Countries” (jonathanturley.org)
- Danish TV Host Mocks Obama for His Rhetoric “Maybe the copy key got stuck on the presidential speechwriter’s keyboard.” (blogginghounds.wordpress.com)
In response to a congressional inquiry regarding a Navy purchase of expensive biofuels, Secretary Ray Mabus made numerous claims that are either factually incorrect or misleading regarding federal energy policy and the nation’s oil reserves.
Mabus was responding to concerns raised by Reps. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Mike Conaway (R-TX) regarding a Navy purchase of 450,000 gallons of biofuels – the largest-ever federal purchase of such fuel – at $15 per gallon. That is more than three times the price of conventional diesel fuel.
The company providing the fuel, Solazyme, is advised by an energy consultant who helped write the alternative energy portion of president’s stimulus package.
“The math is clear,” Mabus told Lamborn in a letter dated March 23. “Opening up every possible source of oil available to us still would not provide enough to supply all our needs.”
That statement is categorically untrue. The United States has 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, more than the proven reserves (note: reserves, not recoverable resources) of any other nation, and more than the entire non-North American world combined, according to a study by the Institute for Energy Research.
It is true that the U.S. has only two percent of the world’s oil reserves, a statistic that Mabus cited in his letter in highly misleading fashion. But that measure only accounts for oil that is recoverable at current prices and under current law. In other words, if all government-owned land were open to oil development, that two percent figure would skyrocket.
What’s more, Lamborn did not suggest that all of the military’s energy should be met using oil. The issue is how best to determine what mix of energy sources should be used. The Obama administration apparently believes that bureaucrats, not market forces, are best suited to make that decision, despite evidence that the market is better suited to the task.
Mabus also touted one of the White House’s favorite talking points on energy production. “President Obama’s ‘All of the Above’ energy strategy clearly advocates increasing domestic oil production as much as possible,” Mabus wrote. “In fact, domestic oil production has risen and foreign oil imports have declined in each of the last three years.”
But as Scribe has reported, oil production on federal lands – lands over which the president has authority – is at a nine-year low. The increase in oil production that Mabus cites is due primarily to activity on privately-owned land.
As for oil imports, the decline Mabus cites is primarily attributable to decreases in domestic demand brought on by the economic downturn, and policies put in place by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, according to independent energy analysts.
Mabus went on to cite the potential price shocks that result from changes in global oil prices, claiming, “every dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the Navy an additional $30 million.”
But unless oil prices rise so rapidly that the per-gallon cost of fuel reaches $15 – the price paid for the biofuels that spurred Lamborn’s letter – even these price shocks cannot cost the Navy as much, per gallon of fuel, as the biofuel purchase in question.
Indeed, Mabus insisted, “a competitively priced and domestically produced liquid fuel that can be dropped in as a replacement to diesel or aviation gas can give us greater energy independence.” But Lamborn’s issue is precisely that the biofuels the Navy purchased are not “competitively priced.” They are many times the price of conventional fuel.
Mabus attempted to deflect that obvious point by noting that alternative energy remains expensive because “we have not provided the type or level of incentives for alternative fuels that we provide the oil industry to encourage exploration and production.”
Again, this claim is untrue. Most of the incentives enjoyed by the oil industry are enjoyed by a multitude of other businesses. They include standard tax write-offs for operating expenses, and tax breaks offered to all manufacturing or natural resource extraction companies. Alternative energy sources, meanwhile, enjoy specific and targeted subsidies aimed at benefitting certain technologies, industries, or companies.
The level of benefits afforded the oil industry is in fact below that given to the alternative energy sector. Tax breaks for oil companies – again, the primary source of federal support – pales in comparison to tax breaks given to alternative energy companies, as a recent Congressional Budget Office report pointed out.
Those facts aside, “every American would be better served by getting rid of all energy subsidies,” Heritage energy policy expert Jack Spencer told Scribe. “The fact is that the federal government doesn’t need to waste taxpayer money to bring new energy technologies on line.”
Spencer noted that if Mabus is correct and oil prices skyrocket to unaffordable levels, market forces would naturally offer a foothold for biofuels and other renewables without making the purchase of economically uncompetitive fuel sources necessary.
The Navy’s biofuel purchase, and Mabus’s defense of it, is part of an ongoing mission “that needlessly bleeds scarce resources away from core missions to advance a political agenda is untenable,” Spencer noted in a report on the effort.
“The White House is pushing the idea that the alternative energy industry would get the kick start it needs if the military will just commit to using them,” Spencer added. “But the assumptions behind this argument are flawed, and the strategy would increase demands on the military budget while harming national security.”
Here is the full text of Mabus’s letter: Mabus Letter
- On Energy Policy, Navy Secretary Is Either Dishonest or Misinformed (papundits.wordpress.com)
- When Defending Biofuels, Supporters Point to History (forbes.com)
- Military’s alt energy programs draw Republicans’ ire. (eenews.net)
- Daily Benefactor News – Obama’s Crony-Connected Biofuel Deal Will Cost Taxpayers Up To 9 Times More To Fuel Navy Jets (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
- Navy Secretary: Algae-based fuel makes us ‘better warfighters’ (junkscience.com)
- Obama Defense Dept. Under Fire for Going Green (junkscience.com)
- GOP Congressmen slam Navy Secretary for green focus (junkscience.com)
Obama administration officials ripped into GOP proposals to tie Strategic Petroleum Reserve releases to increases in federal oil and gas land leases and to require new analysis of the economic impacts of several gasoline-related environmental regulations.
A new GOP bill would require a new interagency panel to analyse how certain future Environmental Protection Agency rules might impact gasoline prices and jobs, but an EPA official said the bill wouldn’t reduce prices at the pump and could threaten Clean Air Act health protections.
The Gasoline Regulations Act targets a number of looming EPA regulations, including one for cutting sulfur in fuel by two-thirds, U.S. ozone standards and refinery emissions standards.
Gina McCarthy, an EPA assistant administrator, said in written testimony that the bill appears to use high gas prices as the reason to rollback public health protections, but those protections have little to do with gasoline prices. The bill would also duplicate analysis that is already done by officials.
“This legislation also delays — indefinitely — rules that EPA has not even proposed,” McCarthy said. “In short, this legislation does not address the reasons for the recent increase in the price of gasoline, while rolling back core aspects of the Clean Air Act — which was passed on a bipartisan basis and signed by a Republican president.”
Gasoline prices have steadily become a growing political point as prices rise near the $4 mark for the first time since 2008. The national average hit $3.91 Wednesday, a rise of 2 cents, according to the AAA gas gauge. Houston drivers are paying $3.87, or 9 cents below the record-high price of $3.96 in July 2008.
As prices have risen, the Obama administration has touted an “all-of-the-above” energy plan that officials say is the best long-term solution to the rising energy costs. Republicans, however, have argued the administration should remove unnecessary regulations and spur domestic drilling.
Republicans have also recently proposed that a 1 percent increase in federal lands leased for oil and gas production be required for every percentage point drawdown in oil from the strategic reserve, a 700-million-barrel stockpile on the Gulf Coast for emergency supply disruptions.
That proposal also came under fire by Obama administration officials.
Deputy Assistant Energy Secretary Chris Smith said in written testimony that the Strategic Energy Production Act would make it more difficult for to respond promptly to supply interruptions in crude oil. He argued that the bill would also make release from the strategic reserve more dependent on actions of potential lessees.
“It would also limit DOE’s ability to manage the SPR on a day to day basis, in which releases occasionally are necessary for the routine maintenance and operation of the reserve,” Smith added.
Republicans are proposing the legislation in seeking to position themselves against Democrats and the White House on oil and gas policy, which has surged to the forefront of political debate in the wake of higher gasoline prices. GOP lawmakers insisted Wednesday their legislation would increase oil supplies and decrease refining costs, helping put downward pressure on gasoline prices.
Democrats have called for cracking down on what they view as excessive speculation in oil markets and urged the White House to consider releasing oil from the strategic reserve.
But analysts have repeatedly said policymakers have few, if any, short-term tools to address gasoline prices, which are tied to oil prices set on global markets.
James Burkhard, managing director at IHS CERA, a research firm, said in written testimony said the current run-up in oil prices, the biggest determinant of what consumers pay at the pump, stems from geopolitics, specifically from uncertainty linked to the Iranian nuclear issue.
Analysts have said increased U.S. drilling would take years to kick in and would have, at best, a fractional impact on oil prices. They also have said the strategic reserve is intended for use only during supply emergencies, not as a price-smoothing tool as some Democrats have advocated.
Obama has ripped into GOP proposals to expand drilling into new waters and lands as an election-year “bumper sticker” that wouldn’t reduce gasoline prices. He has touted an “all-of-the-above” strategy of more oil, gas, renewable energy and fuel-efficiency boosts to cut oil use as a long-term strategy for U.S. energy independence.
- US Gasoline Prices Top $3.90 (247wallst.com)
March 27, 2012 | 9:30 p.m.
Standing at a podium in front of piles of pipes in Cushing, Okla., last week, President Obama unveiled an executive order meant to speed federal permitting of pipeline infrastructure, including the southern portion of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. Critics immediately jumped on the move, accusing Obama of being “the rooster taking credit for the dawn” and arguing that no federal action is actually needed for that portion of the Keystone pipeline to move forward. National Journal’s Energy & Environment Insiders agree.
More than 70 percent of Insiders said that Obama’s executive order was unnecessary, with some even saying the move smacks of federal overreach.
Insiders overwhelmingly agreed that the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline, which will run from Cushing to refineries in Port Arthur, Texas, only needs local approval. States typically handle the siting of interstate oil pipelines, while the only federal involvement normally comes from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Obama’s involvement in the approval process is “not even remotely necessary,” said one Insider, arguing that Obama’s campaign likely thought it was “politically necessary to invent an executive action to [stanch] the coming decline in the polls.”
The Cushing campaign stop came just a day after Gallup released a poll showing that nearly 60 percent of Americans think the U.S. government should approve the entire Keystone project, which Obama rejected in late January.
“The Cushing event was all show … but a well-executed one,” said another Insider.
Still, by rejecting the permit for the full pipeline—which would run from Canada to the Gulf Coast—and then going full-force in supporting the southern section of the pipeline, Obama is sending out inconsistent messages to the public, Insiders said.
“This is a local permitting decision. The president getting involved looks like federal government interfering in the traditionally local decision of land-use planning—and it likely won’t actually change the permitting process, which is already under way,” said one Insider. “Not great optics—and I say this as a fan of the president.”
Even some of the 29 percent of Insiders who said the Obama administration should be involved argued that it is not legally necessary but noted that it is politically important.
“It is necessary in a political sense, to demonstrate that the administration is doing everything it can to lower high gas prices,” said one Insider. “But even without the administration’s involvement, the southern portion of Keystone will get built and, shockingly, gas prices will remain high.”
Insiders overwhelmingly agreed that the southern portion of the pipeline won’t do much for oil prices. Asked whether prices will go up or down once this piece of the pipeline is completed, 75 percent of Insiders chose “neither,” a mere 14 percent said prices would go down, and 11 percent said they would go up.
“You need to connect the hose to the spigot if you want to water the lawn,” one Insider said, arguing that only the approval of the full Keystone XL pipeline project would affect prices.
Insiders said that aside from some efficiencies in delivery, this portion of the pipeline won’t have much of an impact.
“It will only have an impact on the price of oil if investors see the construction as a sign of things to come in terms of fostering more domestic development,” said one Insider.
- Obama said ready to push partial Keystone XL approval (mb50.wordpress.com)
- Keystone XL Pipeline Has Competition – WSJ (247wallst.com)
- President Obama Promises Fast Track for Keystone XL’s Southern Leg (TRP) (247wallst.com)
- Claims Keystone XL pipeline will destroy Oklahoma historical sites is disputed (newsok.com)
- Obama Headed For Defeat in Pipeline Fight – Byron York – Townhall Conservative Columnists (gds44.wordpress.com)
1909-1919 When the company that was to be known as Gulf was born in 1901 with an oil discovery in Spindletop, Texas, the primary commercial fuel was coal. By 1903, the age of mechanization had arrived and it was now up to the petroleum industry to keep pace, for the age could not proceed without it. Gasoline development, into which Gulf invested millions of dollars, responded to advances in automotive technology to make the modern motorcar possible. Within a dozen years of Spindletop, Gulf scored notable firsts with the world’s first drive-in service station, complimentary Gulf road maps and over water drilling at Ferry Lake. In 1917, the Gulfstream went into World War I service, along with the rest of Gulf’s tanker fleet.
1920-1949 Gulfpride – the World’s Finest Motor Oil was manufactured and first marketed in 1928 and by the early Thirties, Gulf was a major U.S. corporation. In 1949, William Larimer Mellon, a founder and active head of Gulf for 45 years, died at 80, just 17 months after his retirement, as the company moved into eighth place among the largest manufacturing concerns in the United States
1950-1974 As Gulf entered its second half-century, the needs became more diverse and technologically ever more sophisticated. By 1960, it was clear that Gulf’s growth rate during the 1950s had been twice that of the United States as an economic entity. During the 1960s, Gulf mounted vigorous exploration, production and marketing programs including several new refineries, petrochemical and polyethylene plants, the construction of six mammoth tankers, a joint development with the Holiday Inns of America and the redesign of the Orange Disc to make it more clearly identifiable.
1975-1985 In 1975, Gulf was restructured into seven separate operating companies. By year’s end, the Company evaluated 48 of 82 Gulf of Mexico tracts acquired since 1972, resulting in seven major discoveries and nine less significant discoveries. Gulf ended its 75th year facing new patterns of relationships abroad, and prepared to devote increased attention to interests in the U.S. and Canada.
1986-2009 In 1986 Cumberland Farms acquired the naming rights to the Gulf Oil brand from Chevron to be used in eleven northeast states. But it wasn’t until 1993 that Gulf Oil Limited Partnership was formed after Cumberland Farms entered a joint venture with Catamount Petroleum LP. In 2005, Cumberland acquired the company in full and brought in CEO Joe Petrowski, who charged the company with “reinventing” the brand. Since then, a renewed commitment to the Gulf brand has been established with the introduction of new minimum standards and image requirements.
January 12, 2010 – Present On January 12, 2010, Gulf Oil acquired all rights, title and interest to the “Gulf” brand in the U.S. This acquisition enabled Gulf to expand its use of the Gulf brand throughout the U.S. for the first time since it acquired certain rights to the brand in 1986. Under the leadership of Gulf Oil President and Chief Operating Officer Ron Sabia and Gulf Oil Senior Vice President and Chief Sales and Marketing Officer Rick Dery, thousands of service stations proudly fly the Gulf flag, carrying on the tradition of a quality product line and friendly service. Gulf Oil Limited Partnership, now based in Framingham, Massachusetts is a wholesaler of refined petroleum products. Gulf distributes motor fuels through a network of more than 2,000 Gulf branded gas stations and service stations, as well as heating oil, diesel fuel and kerosene.