• Jul 28, 2010
According to the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Monthly Statistical Report, U.S. gasoline deliveries for the first half of 2010 averaged 8.88 million barrels per day, 0.6 percent lower than the corresponding period a year ago. Though the drop in demand is minuscule, it does provide us with an indication that despite low gas prices and a rebounding economy, U.S. demand for gas continues to wane.

The numbers for the month of June paint a more vivid picture of our declining need for gas. June gasoline deliveries of 9.18 million barrel per day were the lowest level for any June on record since 2004 and were 0.5 percent lower than June 2009 deliveries. To gain a better understanding of the numbers, gasoline prices in 2004 barely cracked $2, whereas prices now sit at a nationwide average just north of $2.70.

API chief economist John Felmy offered additional insight into the declining demand for gas:
The listless economic recovery continues to take a bite out of gasoline demand. It's clear from the gasoline deliveries data that consumer confidence in the economy remains shaky. This certainly supports API's position that increased taxes or other anti-jobs policies by Congress or the administration could increase unemployment and harm our economic recovery.
While economists like to attribute decreased demand for gasoline to our shaky economical situation, we like to believe that advancements in fuel-saving technologies lead to a dwindling need for gas. Follow the jump for more info from the API.

[Source: American Petroleum Institute]

PRESS RELEASE

First-half U.S. gasoline demand 0.6% lower than last year: API


WASHINGTON, July 23, 2010 – Reflecting the ongoing sluggish economic recovery, U.S. gasoline deliveries for the first half of 2010 averaged 8.88 million barrels per day, 0.6 percent lower than the corresponding period a year ago, according to the American Petroleum Institute's Monthly Statistical Report for June.

June gasoline deliveries of 9.18 million barrel per day were the lowest level for any June since 2004 and were 0.5 percent lower than June 2009 deliveries, the report noted.

"The listless economic recovery continues to take a bite out of gasoline demand," observed API Chief Economist John Felmy. "It's clear from the gasoline deliveries data that consumer confidence in the economy remains shaky. This certainly supports API's position that increased taxes or other anti-jobs policies by Congress or the administration could increase unemployment and harm our economic recovery."

Even as gasoline demand remained depressed, distillate demand-which tends to track economic output closely-improved in both the first half of the year and for June. First-half low sulfur distillate deliveries jumped 2.1 percent from 2009 to average 3.29 million barrels per day in 2010; June low-sulfur distillate deliveries surged 12.3 percent from last year to average 3.51 million barrels per day for June 2010.

Total U.S. crude oil production averaged 5.47 million barrels per day in the first half of 2010, 3.5 percent higher than last year's 5.29 million barrels per day. For June, crude production in the Lower 48 states rose 3.9 percent to 4.8 million barrels per day, while Alaskan production dipped 2.6 percent to 556,000 barrels per day after some North Slope operators reduced production in the middle of the month. Historically, production wanes in the summer in Alaska due to maintenance work and lower operational efficiency in warmer weather.

U.S. refinery operations continued to improve in June relative to May this year, with production of all products, except residential fuel oil, improving in June. Inputs to crude distillate units averaged 15.3 million barrels per day, a 0.6 increase from May, and the fifth consecutive monthly increase. For the first half of 2010, refinery inputs of 14.84 million barrels per day were 1.3 percent higher this year than last.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 31 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      Will the "government" use the tax revenue better then the oil industry?

      That's the only question. And the obvious answer is, yes, it would.
      It would put people to work on Roads and Bridges projects that have a multi-year backlog. PA has a lot of crumbling road and bridge repair lined up. That stimulus would hire people, who could afford to buy things, which would get more people back to work. Stimulus could stop a lot of unnecessary foreclosures.

      Exxon, for one out of what, 12 oil companies, is spending virtually Nothing on Future technology. The only "innovation" at Exxon is Lobby and Propaganda campaigns against Global Warming. The oil industry subsidies should be abandoned and transferred to solar and wind.

      Solar now produces energy more cheaply the nuclear.
      Wind has NO negative externalities, like Massive Pollution and Job Loss.

      The only real question is how and why is the oil industry lead by the incompetent? And why do these CEO's still retain their jobs?

        • 4 Years Ago
        • 4 Years Ago
        "Will the "government" use the tax revenue better then the oil industry?"

        No because this revenue won't go to "shovel ready projects" but to entitlements.

        "That's the only question. And the obvious answer is, yes, it would.
        It would put people to work on Roads and Bridges projects that have a multi-year backlog. PA has a lot of crumbling road and bridge repair lined up. That stimulus would hire people, who could afford to buy things, which would get more people back to work. Stimulus could stop a lot of unnecessary foreclosures."

        Typical Keynesian irrationality. If you are at your rope's end and someone gives you $10,000 to work on a road project you will not go spend it and stimulate the economy unless you are irrational. You will save the money so that you have more rope.

        "Exxon, for one out of what, 12 oil companies, is spending virtually Nothing on Future technology. The only "innovation" at Exxon is Lobby and Propaganda campaigns against Global Warming. The oil industry subsidies should be abandoned and transferred to solar and wind."

        Exxon is investing in future technology, it is called natural gas and it is what will power us for at least several decades.

        "Solar now produces energy more cheaply the nuclear."

        Except for at night time or when it is cloudy or when it is winter or when you are at the higher latitudes. Utility scale solar requires finding and covering hundreds of square miles of land to produce multiple GW of electricity. Home solar has to deal with DC to AC conversion inefficiencies. You can't charge your plug in hybrid at night using solar.

        "Wind has NO negative externalities, like Massive Pollution and Job Loss."

        Dead birds aside and possible issues with low frequency sound waves. It also has limited geographic availability and a tendency to have spikes in its output. Wind is great for Texas and the plains states.

        "The only real question is how and why is the oil industry lead by the incompetent? And why do these CEO's still retain their jobs?"

        LMAO. Your ignorance of the real world is astounding. The CEOs retain their jobs because their companies are profitable. These companies stay in business because they currently power modern society. And because when somebody makes something better the energy companies will pay $20 billion to buy the company and transition themselves to the new form of energy.

        Super wealthy companies do not need to do high risk but potentially game changing R&D, that is what venture capitalists are for. Once the venture capitalists prove that the idea works then they sell their patented idea to the super wealthy companies (making a wonderful return on their initial investment!) and the super wealthy company will transition their business model to the new product or process.

        Your ignorance and blind hatred of oil companies is astounding.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Hmmm.
        Natural Gas is the Future?
        You've heard of Fracking?
        It's destroying the US's water supply, along with coal processing and coal ash.

        Only as long as America stays ignorant of the "negative externalities" of all carbon products do oil, coal and natural gas have a market. And the oil and coal industries are doing everything they can to insure we don't know what's going on with our water supply. The South Eastern US will be one of the first hit so we shall see how that plays out.

        No, you are wrong on solar. It's now cheaper then nuclear, with No Negative Externalities and NO Terrorist Threat! No Catastrophic Economic impact. When you take out a solar farm, that's all you do. Take out a nuclear plant and you kill millions and destroy Billions of assets.

        Ignoring the effects of global warming, and the negative externalities of carbon and nuclear, will make all of the oil, coal and nuclear profits go up in a nuclear cloud, polluted gulf coast or destroyed water aquifer.

        True, I have no respect for anyone in the industry that does Blind to the world "Risk Management" with Shareholder Equity. They are one step away from turning equity wealth into toilet paper.

        They should all be FIRED.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @augustus: Wealthy corps this and wealthy corps that. Wealthy corps need bailing out see 2008. See Enron. Wealthy corps make big mistakes and become unwealthy corps, see BP.

        We will end up picking up the tab once again for this BP mess. It will just become a super fund sight. Private gains and public losses once again and all because our politicians are bought and paid for by big oil, wall street as well as other corporate industries. We allow these wealthy corps to dump untold amounts of toxins in the water and the air through so called accidents, 300 of these accidents per year. The DEQ is funded by these wealthy corps, see revolving door.

        It is ironic BP ruins fisheries and other livelihoods and the people beg for no moratorium on drilling. "We hate the oil corps and what they did to the Gulf but please no moratorium"

        The people cheer at paying 1-2k per year for gas, when they could be paying one quarter of that and correct the trade deficit to boot, which in turn would help the budget deficit but they all want to keep their heads up oils gaas and cheer. Oil is a parasite and is harmful to this country in so many ways, one of the biggest is that we are borrowing from China to pay OPEC for more oil. We barrow from China to pay the middle east and all Joe public can do is cheer about the virtues of oil and how we can't get along with out it. The wealthy corps have a lot less say when you run a EV off solar panels, yes even the power corps have a lot less say and I am all for cheering that.
        • 4 Years Ago
        "with the recent Supreme Court ruling, we are in a position to be able to take corporate positions that were not previously available in allowing our voices to be heard."

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/coal-companies-look-to-sp_n_662556.html

        Its not tin foil hattery when it is proven to be fact.
        It must be nice to have your cake and eat it too,corporate welfare du jour.
      • 4 Years Ago
      It's useful to cross-reference this with the US government's Traffic Volume Trends data, which tracks (by sampling) how much traffic is on US highways.

      TVT data for May 2010 shows cumulative travel since January is down by 0.1%. If fuel usage is down significantly more, I think that shows an improvement in fuel economy.

      http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.cfm
      • 4 Years Ago
      API: "Hey look, some data about something. Please don't tax us."
      clipsinite
      • 4 Years Ago
      I attribute it to both the shaky economy and fuel saving technology. I say this because people aren't necessarily taken less vacations than the previous year or even the year before that. The airline business has rebounded over the past year or even two years. Fares are increasing along with demand. So, the argument that people are traveling less is not really a solid argument.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @clipsinite
        I think you are correct. Many more people are jobless and most all the rest remember $4/gal gas. The long term impact of briefly expensive gasoline is good. The long term impact of our current unemployment is horrible.
      • 4 Years Ago
      It's the economy. While it may be rebounding, there is virtually no net job creation. Most people's driving is done during their commutes, fewer jobs, fewer commuters.
        • 4 Years Ago
        No rocket science here!
        • 4 Years Ago
        The only new jobs that have been growing consistently are in the government. You can't rebuild an economy by putting everyone on the government payroll and not attracting new business.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I should also add that for 2010, I have used less than 100 gallons. In previous years it would be around 300 gallons by now.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I have not driven my car to work since April 20th. I have walked or ridden my bike for the past 100 days, and my legs are in pretty good shape now. :)

        • 4 Years Ago
        Exactly. And they also cant afford vacations.
      • 4 Years Ago
      The "Multiplier Effect" is Standard Economic Theory, but, it's a 201 course.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplier_Effect

      However, I understand your "irrationality" comment.
      Economics in the US is Political-Economics, and the right simply cannot admit to economic policies that doesn't drag the economy down during a Democratic Presidency. Now, I know from you're comment you are a standard Limbaugh, etc, listener.

      Because, we're not debating economics here, we're debating you being educated by the incompetent. If you don't understand the "multiplier effect" and have been lead to believe it's "irrational" than that means you've been taught by fools.

      So, since that's a given.
      You'd better be prepared for some truth:
      - Saudi Arabia has 7% of Fox News.
      - The Republican Party actively encourages Saudi Contributions.
      - The Washington Times is owned by a foreign crackpot.

      You have to ask yourself has the Republican Party been INFILTRATED by Foreign Money, is the Republican Party Advocating Policy that Will Destroy this Country and Build and Maintain the Saudi Government?

      Blindly following traitors is dangerous.
        • 4 Years Ago
        How are you still stuck in the false left-right paradigm?

        Get over it.
      • 4 Years Ago
      @David Martin - Actually, if you read TFA, you'd see that they are quoting research performed at Duke University - not some solar hype site.

      Attack the data, not the messenger.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Yeah.
        'While the study includes subsidies for both solar and nuclear power, it estimates that if subsidies were removed from solar power, the crossover point would be delayed by a maximum of nine years.'

        If you bung enough Government money at something, whilst using every trick in the book to increase costs for nuclear, with the fossil fuel industry acting in collusion with the 'greens', then of course it is cheap.
        It is cheap because they are not counting the true costs.

        The fossil fuel industry loves 'renewables'. They build in fossil fuel burn for the lifetime of the plant, as they can't actually cut the mustard.
        Germany is likely to build 5 new coal plants to make up for the vagueries of wind, which still bloweth when it listeth.
        In spite of their having thrown 50 billion Euros at solar putting panels where the sun don't shine it is a rounding error in their energy production.

        It should not be inferred from this that I am against solar energy.
        I am very much against it when it is used as a scam, to build out an immature technology at the public expense, when a fraction of the same sum would pay to develop something which is actually economic and useful.

        Whatever the future development of solar we will still need nuclear.
        There is no substitute for a compact highly energetic energy source.

        Does anyone imagine that the Chinese would be building two coal plants a week if proper development of small modular reactors had been allowed, and they were given access to the technology?
        The 'greens' working inadvertently for the fossil fuel industry are directly responsible for the high level of CO2 emissions, which they are so vociferously opposed to.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Ok here is a link showing that solar costs are 4x nuclear. Nuclear is ~6 cents per kilowatt hour in France today.

        http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/05/12/levelized-cost-of-new-generating-technologies/


        I like solar and am excited by what nanosolar and first solar are doing but will the fanatics please answer these two questions:

        1. How many square miles do you have to coat with solar cells to generate 50GW of electricity (what CA uses on a warm day, it gets worse if everyone has a BEV).
        2. What will you do when the sun goes down or gets near going down?
        • 4 Years Ago
        Tell you what - let me know when the US taxpayer isn't on the hook for insuring and handling nuclear waste disposal and then we'll talk about what is "cheaper".

        There's no doubt that in the short term fossil fuel powered plants will be required for some time to come.

        But installing renewable energies with negligible running costs directly offsets fossil fuel consumption where the running costs are based on the price of fuel.

        When you install more renewable power, fossil fuel consumption goes down.

        Once we get to the point where renewable generates most of our electricity, we'll have to get really serious about grid storage and transmission capacity, but we're not even close to that point yet. We've spent 100+ years building fossil fuel powered generation - it's going to take some time to get us off that.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @DaveR

        "Tell you what - let me know when the US taxpayer isn't on the hook for insuring and handling nuclear waste disposal and then we'll talk about what is "cheaper"."

        Nuclear waste disposal has been paid for since the 70s through a per kW/hr surcharge on all nuclear power. In fact if the US gov does not dispose of nuclear waste (which they are legally required to do at Yucca Mountain) then the taxpayer is going to have to pay back about 30 billion dollars when companies with nuclear power generators sue them to recoup their money with interest.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Solar Now Cheaper Than Nuclear

      http://thephoenixsun.com/archives/10688
      • 4 Years Ago
      For every "fuel saving" technology introduced, FORD counters with another gas guzzling Horsepower Idiot machine.

      China's expansion "slowed" to 10%.
      China now the worlds largest vehicle producer.
      China now the worlds largest polluter.

      Exxon still spending massive amounts of shareholder PROFITS on Fraudulent Global Warming "studies".

      US Supreme Court now allowing Corporations to throw massive amounts of money into the political process. [ Impeach Roberts! ]

      World population 7 Billion, with two continents rapidly industrializing.

      US politics paralyzed by the Corporate "Tea Party".

      My guess is if the "Tea Party" "wins" [ by voting machine fraud ], this country turns into a third world dump site.


        • 4 Years Ago
        Wow, you got some real conspiracy theories going here. The right wing wackos called and want their tin foil hat back...........
        • 4 Years Ago
        Nice hats.. you guys match, how cute... ha ha.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Except there's nothing factually wrong in my comment.

        China is now the worlds biggest manufacturer and polluter.
        Exxon spending multi-millions on US Propaganda Operations.
        Roberts gave our democracy away to Multi-National Corporations.

        Three years from now, when You finally see it, it will be too late.

        When do you expect manufacturing to come back?
        When will Exxon invest in Wind or Solar? Before a massive species die off, and a national Drought.

        Maybe you guys should start reading the news.
        Of course, you guys are Fox "news" viewers.
        Never mind, you will Never Know.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Only a Libtard would ever say that Sun and Wind have no deleterious side effects.

      Fact: Wind is Nature's way of equalizing temperature differentials and mitigating excessive heat. If you take Energy from the wind, it can't do what it exists to do, equalize temperatures. Downwind in the hotter areas, it increases so-called Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warning.

      Fact: Solar increases the Albedo greatly. It increases the amount of energy absorbed by the Earth thus increasing the dreaded Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, that Libtards have been brain-laundered to fear.
    • Load More Comments