## Prepared by:

David C. Tamm

Kevin P. Milburn

Baker & O’Brien, Inc.

1333 West Loop South

Suite 1350

Houston, Texas 77027 

## Addendum to Potential Supply and

Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower

RVP Gasoline

Prepared for

The American Petroleum Institute

March 2012- i - 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

............................................................................................. 1

REGULATORY ASSUMPTIONS

......................................................................... 2

OTHER ASSUMPTIONS AND ANALYTICAL BASIS

............................................. 3

STUDY RESULTS

............................................................................................. 4

COMPLIANCE RESPONSE

............................................................................................... 4

GASOLINE SUPPLY BALANCE AND REFINERY OPERATIONS

.......................................... 6

REFINERY HYDROGEN REQUIREMENTS

........................................................................ 6

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

..................................................................................... 7

TOTAL COMPLIANCE COSTS

.......................................................................................... 8



## CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................. 12

TABLES

TABLE 1 SENSITIVITY CASE 4 2016 SUMMER SUPPLY BALANCE

TABLE 2 SENSITIVITY CASE 4 2016 SUMMER REGIONAL FINISHED GASOLINE

QUALITIES AT REFINERY GATE (BEFORE ETHANOL IS ADDED)

TABLE 3 SENSITIVITY CASE 4 2016 SUMMER REGIONAL FINISHED GASOLINE

QUALITIES (INCLUDES ETHANOL)

TABLE 4 SENSITIVITY CASE 4 2016 SUMMER PRODUCTIONAddendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 1 - 

# I NTRODUCTION

In July 2011, Baker & O'Brien, Inc. (Baker & O'Brien) completed a report titled, “The

Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline” (the Original

Report). The Original Report included a Base Ca se, a Study Case, and three Sensitivity Cases.

The Study and Sensitivity Cases addressed a rang e of potential regulato ry scenarios reducing

both gasoline sulfur and Reid va por pressure (RVP). The Amer ican Petroleum Institute (API)

has engaged Baker & O'Brien to analyze an additi onal case (Sensitivity Case 4) in which only

gasoline sulfur regul ations are changed.

General industry conditions, corporate prof iles, geographic considerations, and unique

refinery characteristics can infl uence potential responses to regul atory requirements. Therefore,

Baker & O’Brien undertook a refinery-by-refinery approach in evaluating the potential impacts

of lowering the specifications for sulfur a nd RVP in gasoline. Co mpliance options were

evaluated and production estimates calculated for each refinery using Baker & O’Brien’s

PRISM TM



### Refining and Marketing Indus try Analysis System. The PRISM model is based on

publicly-available information, and incorporates Baker & O'Brien's industry experience and

knowledge.

Baker & O’Brien conducted this analysis and prepared this report with reasonable care

and skill, utilizing methods we believe to be cons istent with normal industry practice. No other

representations or warranties, expressed or implied, are made by Baker & O’Brien. All results

and observations are based on information available at the time of this report. To the extent that

additional information becomes available or the factors upon which our analysis is based change,

our opinions could be subsequently affected.

TM PRISM is a trademark of Baker & O’Brien, Inc. All rights reserved.Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 2 - 

# R EGULATORY 

# A SSUMPTIONS

The gasoline sulfur specificat ions in Sensitivity Case 4 are the same as the Study Case

and Sensitivity Cases 2 and 3, 10 parts per m illion (ppm) company annual average, with an

individual batch limit of 20 ppm. All other gasoline properties are the same as in the Base Case.

Gasoline specifications for the original cases and Sensitivity Case 4 are summarized below in

Figure 1.



## FIGURE 1

GASOLINE SPECIFICATIONS

Property Base

Case Study

Case Sensitivity Cases

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Sulfur, maximum ppm Company

annual

average 30 10 5 10

Individual

batch 80 20 10 20

Maximum

RVP,

pounds

per square

inch

absolute

(psia) Summer Base Varies

regionally 7.0 7.0 to 7.8**

Varies

regionally 1 psia

Waiver No Varies

Winter Base

Varies regionally 1 psia

Waiver

Benzene,

maximum

volume

percent

(Vol.%) Company annual

average 0.62

Refinery annual

average 1.3

Octane, minimum

(R+M)/2 Regular

Varies regionally

Premium

ASTM Drivability

Index (DI),

maximum*** Summer

Varies regionally

Winter

Ethanol, fixed Vol.% 10Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 3 - 

# O THER 

# A SSUMPTIONS AND 

# A NALYTICAL 

# B ASIS

Technology, capital investment, and other input costs in Sensitivity Case 4 are consistent

with the Original Report. The gasoline cons umption forecast, analytical basis and methodology

for forecasting individual refinery compliance res ponses are the same as in the Original Report.Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 4 - 

# S TUDY 

# R ESULTS

COMPLIANCE RESPONSE

Applying the methodology and criteria described in the Original Report, an estimate of

the most likely compliance response decisions was ma de for each refinery in Sensitivity Case 4.

Twenty-three refineries would need to upgrade fl uid catalytic cracker (FCC) feed hydrotreaters,

one refinery would require installa tion of a new FCC feed hydrotrea ter, thirteen refineries would

need to install new FCC gasoline hydrotreaters, a nd thirty-three refineries would need to expand

or upgrade their existing FCC gasoline hydrotreaters. 1



### In the Original Report Study Case and Sensitivity Cases 1 – 3, the removal of light

hydrocarbons from the gasoline pool necessitate d a reduction in naphtha and FCC gasoline

endpoints to meet the summer Dr ivability Index (DI) specification. Sensitivity Case 4 FCC

gasoline endpoints are the same as the Base Case. As a result, Sensitivity Case 4 required more

hydrotreating than the Study Case and Sensitivity Cases 2 and 3.

In the Original Report, as well as the new Sensitivity Case 4, compliance investment

requirements were calculated for all refineries, and as discussed in Section 8.8 of the Original

Report, these investment requirements were comp ared to each refinery’s “value as an ongoing

concern.” 2 

### If the investment requirement exceeded this value, it was assumed that the refiner

would not make the compliance investment. This led to decisions to close four to seven

refineries in the various Or iginal Report cases. By themselves, none of the compliance

investment requirements for Sensitivity Case 4 exceeds the “value as an ongoing concern”

threshold, and no refinery shutdowns are projected. It must be noted that if individual refineries

face investment requirements due to other re gulatory changes, “consent decrees,” or other

constraints not included in the Base Case, the co mbination of those costs with the Sensitivity

Case 4 requirements might change this conclusi on. Also, reductions in petroleum product

consumption or other market conditi ons could change this conclusion.

1 Individual refineries may ap pear in multiple categories.

2 Assumed to be five times the future annual net cash flow.Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 5 - 

### While total capital investment requirements in Sensitivity Case 4 are similar to

Sensitivity Cases 2 and 3, the breakdown of th e investments is different. The expected

compliance investments are shown below in Figure 2.



## FIGURE 2

EXPECTED REFINERY COMPLIANCE INVESTMENTS

Study Case Sensitivity

Case 1 Sensitivity

Case 2 Sensitivity

Case 3 Sensitivity

Case 4

Refinery Shutdowns 4 7 4 4 0

Number of New Units

Naphtha Depentanizer 45 43 27 16 0

FCC Depentanizer 40 38 9 9 0

Hydrocracker Depentanizer 23 22 2 2 0

FCC Feed Hydrotreater 1 8 1 1 1

FCC Gasoline Hydrotreater 9 20 9 9 13

Number of Revamps and

Expansions

FCC Feed Hydrotreater 30 28 27 27 23

FCC Gasoline Hydrotreater 32 38 30 30 33

Desulfurization, $MM 9,456 15,112 8,873 8,873 9,766

Logistics/Tankage, $MM 1,187 1,353 740 445 0

Other, $MM 845 878 344 259 0

Total Investment Cost, $MM 11,488 17,343 9,957 9,577 9,766

Note: Individual refineries may appear in multiple categories for each case. Logistics/Tankage, Desulfurization,

and Other all include contingency. The Original Report Logistics/Tankage data did not include

contingency

.Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 6 - 

## GASOLINE SUPPLY BALANCE AND REFINERY OPERATIONS

In the Original Report Base Case, United Stat es (U.S.) refineries were projected to

produce 7,296 MB/CD of hydrocarbon gasoline 3 

### annually. Hydrocarbon gasoline from other

domestic sources was estimated at 200 MB/CD. The combination of domestic production was

less than the projected consumption, resulting in a need for annual imports of 885 MB/CD.

During the summer season, gasoline impor ts of 923 MB/CD were required.

The reductions in summer RVP in the Original Report Study and Sensitivity Cases,

combined with projected refinery closures, resulted in significant reductions in domestic gasoline

production. The summer season reductions range d from 622 to 1,377 MB/CD. Because RVP

specifications were held constant with the Ba se Case and because no shutdowns are projected,

total gasoline production in Sensitivity Case 4 is the same as the Base Case. Details of the

gasoline quality and supply balance for Sensitivity Case 4 summer season are reported in Tables

1 through 4.



## REFINERY HYDROGEN REQUIREMENTS

In the Original Report cases, the previously -discussed reductions in naphtha end points to

meet the DI specification resulted in lower re former utilization and a reduction in refinery

hydrogen production relative to the Base Case. Reformer hydrogen production in Sensitivity

Case 4 is the same as the Base Case. In the Original Report cases, th e combination of reduced

reformer hydrogen production and increased desulfuriz ation resulted in an annualized increase in

net hydrogen purchases of 164 to 293 million standa rd cubic feet per ca lendar day (MMscf/CD)

at refineries that continued to operate in the respective cases. The annualized increase in net

hydrogen purchases for Sensitivity Case 4, 129 MMscf/CD, is lower due to the additional

reformer hydrogen production. These numbers assu me that existing refinery hydrogen plants

produce at capacity where needed. It was a ssumed that the incremental hydrogen purchases

would be available from third- party steam methane reformers.

3 Changes in gasoline production and imports throughout the report are hydrocarbon only. It was assumed that

domestic ethanol production and consumption remain constant at Base Case levels.Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 7 - 

## FIGURE 3

HYDROGEN PURCHASES, MMSCF/CD

Total U.S. PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD 5

Base Case * 1,629.7 20.1 36.5 1,326.7 0.8 245.5

Study Case Purchases 1,793.6 28.4 64.8 1,424.5 1.5 274.5

Delta vs. Base Case ** 163.9 8.2 28.3 97.7 0.6 29.0

Delta, % 10% 41% 77% 7% 72% 12%

Base Case * 1,618.4 20.1 36.5 1,315.4 0.8 245.5

Sensitivity Case 1 1,911.2 46.3 93.5 1,469.3 1.5 300.5

Delta vs. Base Case ** 292.8 26.2 57.0 153.9 0.6 55.0

Delta, % 18% 130% 156% 12% 74% 22%

Base Case * 1,629.7 20.1 36.5 1,326.7 0.8 245.5

Sensitivity Case 2 1,814.4 28.3 64.5 1,416.6 0.8 304.1

Delta vs. Base Case ** 184.7 8.2 28.0 89.9 0.0 58.6

Delta, % 11% 41% 77% 7% 0% 24%

Base Case * 1,629.7 20.1 36.5 1,326.7 0.8 245.5

Sensitivity Case 3 1,814.6 28.3 64.5 1,416.5 0.8 304.4

Delta vs. Base Case ** 184.9 8.2 28.0 89.8 0.0 58.9

Delta, % 11% 41% 77% 7% 0% 24%

Base Case * 1,662.6 20.1 69.3 1,326.7 0.8 245.5

Sensitivity Case 4 1,791.3 20.9 91.6 1,382.1 0.8 295.8

Delta vs. Base Case ** 128.7 0.8 22.3 55.4 0.0 50.3

Delta, % 8% 4% 32% 4% 0% 20%

* The hydrogen purchases are based on the refineries operating in the respective Study or Sensitivity

Case relative to Base Case purchases.

** Difference in reported delta values are due to rounding.



## GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The additional hydrotreating requ ired in Sensitivity Case 4 w ould result in an increase in

carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) emissions versus the Base Case. The increase in CO 2 

### emissions in

Sensitivity Case 4 versus the Study and Sensitivity Cases in the Original Report is attributed to

the number of refineries running and se verity of hydrotreating operations.Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 8 - 

## FIGURE 4

INCREMENTAL CO 2 

## EMISSIONS, TONNES/CD

CO 2 Emissions TOTAL

U.S. PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD 5

Base Case * 717,811 48,248 137,968 375,030 24,241 132,323

Study Case 727,748 48,667 140,932 380,321 24,892 132,935

Delta 9,936 419 2,964 5,292 650 612

Base Case * 708,840 48,248 135,811 368,215 24,241 132,323

Sensitivity Case 1 724,976 49,245 139,793 376,141 25,276 134,521

Delta 16,136 997 3,982 7,926 1,035 2,197

Base Case * 717,811 48,248 137,968 375,030 24,241 132,323

Sensitivity Case 2 725,411 48,502 139,524 379,316 24,583 133,486

Delta 7,599 253 1,555 4,286 342 1,163

Base Case * 717,811 48,248 137,968 375,030 24,241 132,323

Sensitivity Case 3 724,951 48,502 139,429 379,135 24,506 133,379

Delta 7,140 253 1,461 4,105 264 1,056

Base Case * 729,459 48,248 146,147 375,030 24,241 135,793

Sensitivity Case 4 733,404 48,339 146,769 377,371 24,353 136,572

Delta 3,944 90 622 2,342 112 778

* The CO 2 values are based on the refineries operating in the respective Study or Sensitivity Case

relative to Base Case emissions for those refineries.



### Assuming foreign refineries e xperience a proportional increase, the combined increase in

CO 2 

### emissions would be 1.7 million tonnes per year for Sensitivity Case 4 versus 2.9 to 7.4

million tonnes per year from the cases in the Original Report.



## TOTAL COMPLIANCE COSTS

In the cases from the Original Report, th e downgrading of light hydrocarbons was the

most significant compliance cost. In Sensitivity Case 4, this cost is eliminated, resulting in

significantly lower annual compliance costs. Total annual compliance costs are shown below in

Figure 5.Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 9 - 

## FIGURE 5

TOTAL ANNUAL COMPLIANCE COST

2009 $MM PER YEAR

Study Case Sensitivity

Case 1 Sensitivity

Case 2 Sensitivity

Case 3 Sensitivity

Case 4

Purchased Hydrogen 305 546 354 354 246

Other Variable

Operating Expenses 498 749 342 303 455

Fixed Operating

Expenses 269 404 37 35 23

Capital Recovery 1,953 2,949 1,693 1,628 1,666

Light Hydrocarbon

Downgrading 7,368 8,572 4,363 2,528 0

Total Cost 10,393 13,220 6,789 4,848 2,390



### In Figures 6 through 10, the annualized and su mmer individual refinery compliance costs

are plotted in cents per gallon (¢/Gal.) of gasoline for the Study and Sensitivity Cases vs.

cumulative barrels of gasoline supplied by U.S. refiners.



## FIGURE 6Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 10 - 

## FIGURE 7

FIGURE 8Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 11 - 

## FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of

Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline

- 12 - 

# C ONCLUSIONS

Compliance costs in Sensitivity Case 4 are si gnificant, but the elimination of the RVP

changes included in the Original Report removes the substantial costs associated with removing

light hydrocarbons from the gasoline pool. The re sults indicate no change in gasoline supply

relative to the Base Case.

Total capital investment costs are projected at just under $10 billion, in the same range as

three of the previous cases. Ongoing annual co mpliance costs, includi ng capital recovery, are

estimated at $2.4 billion in Sensitivity Case 4. Allocating these annualized costs to gasoline

produced results in a marginal cost of 6¢ to 9¢/Gal. in most markets.Ethanol3Hydrocarbon TOTAL U.S. PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD 5Domestic Refinery Gasoline Production4E85 48.417.065.40.464.70.10.00.2Lower Sulfur Gasoline - C 547.14,9245,4713181,5702,842344397Lower Sulfur Gasoline - R 180.61,6261,8063583451,068-35CARB 96.4868964----964TOTAL 8737,4358,3076771,9803,9103441,396Gasoline Consumption5E85 48.417.065.40.464.70.10.00.2Lower Sulfur Gasoline - C 627.05,6436,2702,1322,0801,172369517Lower Sulfur Gasoline - R 210.11,8912,1011,307358345-91CARB 111.81,0061,118----1,118TOTAL 9978,5589,5553,4402,5031,5173691,726E85 -------Lower Sulfur Gasoline - C (719)(799)(1,814)(510)1,670(25)(119)Lower Sulfur Gasoline - R (266)(295)(949)(13)723-(56)CARB (138)(154)----(154)TOTAL (1,123)(1,248)(2,763)(523)2,393(25)(330)NOTES:(1)(3)TABLE 1Sensitivity Case 4 2016 Summer Supply Balance1,2(Thousands of Barrels Per Day - Including Ethanol)Domestic Refinery Over/(Under) Supply6"Summer" is defined as April through September. Annual average consumption from the EIA 2010 Annual Energy Outlook Early Release was seasonally adjusted using actual 2005/2006 consumptionas reported by the EIA in Petroleum Marketing Monthly.Totals represent finished gasoline produced from refinery CBOB, RBOB, and CARBOB as determined byPRISMsimulations and include 10 Vol.% ethanol added to domestic refinery production.Gasoline blender production, based on blendstock sources other than from domestic refiners, is not included.(2)As described in the main body of the report "Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline".(5) Total U.S. gasoline consumption is based on the full year 2016 forecast contained in the EIA 2010 Annual Energy Outlook Early Release. PADD level allocations are based on annual 2005/2006 vehiclemiles traveled as reported by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Grade allocations are based on 2005/2006 average annual share of sales as reported in the Petroleum Marketing Annual.(6) Net supply requirements are from finished gasoline and gasoline blendstocks, excluding oxygenates, either from foreign imports or non-refinery supply.The difference between the ethanol in Domestic Refinery Gasoline Production and Gasoline Consumption is the ethanol blended into the imported gasoline blendstocks.(4)TOTAL U.S. PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD 5

Domestic Production by Crude Oil Refiners 3

Total Pool

RVP, psi 7.4 7.0 8.1 7.3 8.5 6.8

Olefins, Vol.% 9.7% 12.0% 10.1% 10.6% 9.9% 5.8%

Aromatics, Vol.% 29.1% 28.6% 30.2% 29.4% 27.6% 27.3%

Benzene, Vol.% 0.56% 0.65% 0.61% 0.51% 0.71% 0.54%

Sulfur, wppm 10.2 11.8 11.0 11.3 11.5 4.8

Lower Sulfur Gasoline - C

RVP, psi 8.4 8.9 8.7 8.0 8.5 8.9

Olefins, Vol.% 11.7% 18.3% 10.2% 12.2% 9.9% 10.3%

Aromatics, Vol.% 32.2% 37.6% 32.1% 32.4% 27.6% 30.7%

Benzene, Vol.% 0.60% 0.67% 0.67% 0.53% 0.71% 0.69%

Sulfur, wppm 11.0 10.4 10.7 11.5 11.5 8.4

Lower Sulfur Gasoline - R

RVP, psi 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 - 5.2

Olefins, Vol.% 6.8% 6.3% 9.8% 6.2% - 4.5%

Aromatics, Vol.% 21.1% 20.5% 21.7% 21.4% - 10.4%

Benzene, Vol.% 0.48% 0.63% 0.36% 0.46% - 0.66%

Sulfur, wppm 11.4 13.2 12.3 10.7 - 7.5

CARBOB

RVP, psi 5.9 -

- - - 5.9

Olefins, Vol.% 4.0% -

- - - 4.0%

Aromatics, Vol.% 26.5% -

- - - 26.5%

Benzene, Vol.% 0.48% -

- - - 0.48%

Sulfur, wppm 3.3 -

- - - 3.3

NOTES:

(1)

(3) PRISM simulation results. "Summer" is defined as April through September. TABLE 2

Sensitivity Case 4 2016 Summer Regional Finished Gasoline Qualities 1,2

At Refinery Gate (Before Ethanol is Added)

(2) As described in the main body of the report "Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline"

.TOTAL U.S. PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD 5

Domestic Production by Crude Oil Refiners 3

Total Pool

RVP, psi 8.6 8.2 9.2 8.5 9.5 8.0

Olefins, Vol.% 8.8% 10.8% 9.1% 9.5% 8.9% 5.2%

Aromatics, Vol.% 26.2% 25.7% 27.2% 26.5% 24.8% 24.6%

Benzene, Vol.% 0.51% 0.59% 0.56% 0.46% 0.65% 0.49%

Sulfur, wppm 10.2 11.6 10.9 11.2 11.3 5.4

Lower Sulfur Gasoline - C

RVP, psi 9.4 9.9 9.7 9.1 9.5 9.9

Olefins, Vol.% 10.5% 16.5% 9.2% 11.0% 8.9% 9.3%

Aromatics, Vol.% 29.0% 33.8% 28.9% 29.2% 24.8% 27.6%

Benzene, Vol.% 0.55% 0.61% 0.61% 0.48% 0.65% 0.62%

Sulfur, wppm 10.9 10.4 10.6 11.4 11.3 8.6

Lower Sulfur Gasoline - R

RVP, psi 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.7 - 6.7

Olefins, Vol.% 6.2% 5.7% 8.8% 5.5% - 4.0%

Aromatics, Vol.% 19.0% 18.4% 19.6% 19.3% - 9.4%

Benzene, Vol.% 0.43% 0.57% 0.33% 0.42% - 0.60%

Sulfur, wppm 11.3 12.8 12.1 10.7 - 7.8

CARBOB

RVP, psi 7.3 -

- - - 7.3

Olefins, Vol.% 3.6% -

- - - 3.6%

Aromatics, Vol.% 23.9% -

- - - 23.9%

Benzene, Vol.% 0.44% -

- - - 0.44%

Sulfur, wppm 4.0 -

- - - 4.0

NOTES:

(1)

(3) PRISM simulation results. "Summer" is defined as April through September. TABLE 3

Sensitivity Case 4 2016 Summer Regional Finished Gasoline Qualities 1,2

(includes Ethanol)

(2) As described in the main body of the report "Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline"

.TOTAL U.S. PADD 1 PADD 2 PADD 3 PADD 4 PADD 5Domestic Production by Crude Oil Refiners3E85 Gasoline 65.40.464.70.10.00.2Lower Sulfur Gasoline - C 5,4713181,5702,842344397Lower Sulfur Gasoline - R 1,8063583451,068-35CARB Gasoline 964----964Jet Fuel 1,4887926366641439Distillates 4,2443318932,345170505Pentanes 922030-60Other44,1263067222,184128786TOTAL 18,2571,3953,8589,1356823,186NOTES:(1)(4)Includes LPG, residual fuel oil, aviation gasoline, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants, waxes, asphalt, road oil, still gas,special naphthas, petroleum coke, andmiscellaneous petroleum products.(3)TABLE 4Sensitivity Case 4 2016 Summer Production1,2(Thousands of Barrels Per Day - Including Ethanol)Totals represent finished gasoline produced from refinery CBOB, RBOB, and CARBOB as determined byPRISMsimulations and include 10 Vol.% ethanoladded to refinery production. Gasoline blender production, based on blendstock sources other than from domestic refiners, is not included."Summer" is defined as April through September. Annual average consumption from the EIA 2010 Annual Energy Outlook Early Release was seasonallyadjusted using actual 2005/2006 consumption as reported by the EIA in Petroleum Marketing Monthly.(2)As described in the main body of the report "Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline".