Economic Consequences of and Resilience to a Disruption of ......Jul 09, 2017 · Economic...
Transcript of Economic Consequences of and Resilience to a Disruption of ......Jul 09, 2017 · Economic...
Economic Consequences of and Resilience to a Disruption of Petroleum Trade:
The Role of Seaports in U.S. Energy Security
Adam Rose and Dan Wei
Sol Price School of Public Policy
and Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE)
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California, USA
Donald Paul
Viterbi School of Engineering
and Energy Institute
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California, USA
(Draft; Not for Quotation)
July 9, 2017
Abstract
Despite increased domestic production, the U.S. is still importing more than one-third of its crude oil
needs, the vast majority via ocean tankers. At the same time, there are increasing concerns about the
vulnerability of ports and terminals to man-made and natural disasters. This paper advances a
methodology for estimating the total economic consequences of and resilience to a disruption of crude
oil and refined petroleum product trade at a major seaport. The methodology is able to estimate not
only the direct impacts of such disruptions but also the supply-chain effects. It also estimates the effects
of muting the impacts by various resilience tactics such as ship re-routing, drawing inventories from
storage, accessing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, geographic shifting of petroleum refining, and
production rescheduling. We apply the methodology to a 90-day disruption of petroleum trade at the
twin seaports of Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas. The results indicate that port region and national
economic activity could decline by billions of dollars, but that resilience can reduce these consequences
significantly. We also conclude that factors associated with the recent surge in the extraction of shale
and tight oil resources has significantly enhanced the potential effectiveness of some resilience tactics.
Keywords
Energy Security; National Security; Petroleum Imports and Exports; Seaport Disruption; Resilience
Highlights
Seaports are increasingly vulnerable to disruptions from man-made and natural threats
Petroleum import and export disruptions are transmitted up and down supply chains
Resilience tactics can significantly dampen regional and national economic impacts
Not all seaports may be critical to regional and national energy security
The recent shale-oil boom has contributed to the resilience of the US energy system
1
Economic Consequences of and Resilience to a Disruption of Petroleum Trade:
The Role of Seaports in U.S. Energy Security
by
Adam Rose, Dan Wei, and Donald Paul1
University of Southern California
1. Introduction
Most studies of energy security focus on a nation’s vulnerability to supply shortages, and some studies address
strategies to reduce it. The analyses typically focus on geopolitical crises as the major source of disruptions.
Studies on reducing vulnerability have nearly always emphasized pre-disruption mitigation, i.e., ways to reduce the
frequency and magnitude of disruptions in the first place. Thus, most studies to date overlook two key
considerations. The first pertains to vulnerabilities of regions, delineated by the ports and the areas surrounding
them that are dependent on trade, within large countries such as the U.S. The second pertains to reducing
vulnerability by post-disruption resilience, i.e., ways to dampen economic consequences by various tactics that
utilize existing resources more efficiently after the disruption has begun.
A major example of an energy security issue is the disruption of a seaport that is the unloading point for tankers
carrying both imported and domestic crude oil and refined oil products, as well as serving as the loading point for
exports of these same commodities. The impact of the disruption quickly ripples through the regional economy,
first by disrupting the key input into downstream processing operations located near the ports, such as oil
refineries and chemical manufacturers, or affecting business consumers and residential customers of refinery
products. Prime examples are the Port Arthur/Port Beaumont petrochemical complex, which produces
approximately 22 percent of the refined oil and 9 percent of chemicals produced in Texas, and the Port of
Providence, Rhode Island, which is the port of embarkation for the majority of the heating oil used in the New
England states. Disruptions of such ports can have further ripple effects down-stream in the supply-chain by
causing shortages of goods that directly and indirectly use raw or refined petroleum products. Furthermore,
upstream ripple effects will emanate from the inability to ship exported crude oil or refined products.
Seaports are considered prime terrorist targets and are a major example of critical infrastructure that has been
given priority by the US Department of Homeland Security. In addition to terrorist attacks, disruptions can be
caused by technological accidents and natural disasters, not just at the port site but also as a ramification of
damage to nearby offshore drilling platforms or pipeline breakages, and ship accidents, as well as destruction of
transportation arteries that are used to transport goods from the ports to inland locations.
Many recent studies have estimated the economic consequences of port disruptions following labor strikes,
technological accidents and simulated or actual natural disasters (Park et al., 2008; Rose and Wei, 2013; Rose et
al., 2016; Wei et al. 2017). However, only studies by the authors have included consideration of major types of
1 The authors are, respectively, Research Professor and Research Assistant Professor, Price School of Public Policy, and Faculty Affiliates, Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), University of Southern California (USC); and Professor, Viterbi School of Engineering, and Director, Energy Institute, USC. We thank Chris Covino for his research assistance.
2
economic resilience. Our studies indicate that these resilience tactics have the potential to reduce regional and
national GDP and employment losses by more than 75%.
The purpose of this paper is to estimate the direct and indirect regional and national economic consequences of a
90-day disruption of petroleum trade at Port Arthur and Beaumont, Texas. These twin ports are surrounded by
major oil refineries and petrochemical complexes. We use regional and national input-output models for the
analysis, justifying their application even though this modeling approach is often not considered state-of-the-art.
We explain how the major determinants of the bottom-line economic impacts are not the size of the standard
multiplier or general equilibrium effects, but rather the extent of the efficacy of various resilience tactics, which
can be effectively modeled by our methodology.
This paper advances the literature in several ways. It extends the authors’ methodology for estimating the impacts
of a port disruption in general and oil trade disruptions in particular. It also provides the most accurate estimates
to date of likely resilient responses. Most importantly, it presents a reference point for assessing the regional and
national vulnerability of a petroleum trade disruption. Our study finds that the disrupted regional economy is only
likely to be minimally affected because of the offsetting influences of such resilient features as the existence of
nearby ports and refinery complexes to where ships can be rerouted, excess capacity at those locations, the
existence of inventories at Beaumont/Port Arthur and neighboring areas, and the ability to recapture lost
production when import flows are restored. The impacts are even smaller at the national level in both absolute
and relative terms, as oil extraction and refining are shifted to areas outside the directly impacted region.
However, for some level of port activity or some locations, an oil import disruption would be significant, at least at
the regional level, i.e., it could severely disrupt motor vehicle travel and strain heating supplies causing price spikes
and/or shortages. The methodology presented here can be used to evaluate the vulnerability of other ports or
combinations thereof.2 This could significantly help improve resource allocation decisions regarding US critical
infrastructure. It raises the issue that all seaports may not really be “critical” to regional and national energy and
economic security.
In Section 2, we present a brief review of the literature on the topic of seaport disruptions. In Section 3 we present
an overview of the modeling approach. In Section 4, we present a discussion of our measurement of resilience. In
Section 5, we present our estimates of the regional and national impacts of the 90-day disruption at Port
Arthur/Beaumont. In this Section 6, we present our estimates of these impacts with the inclusion of resilience. We
conclude with a brief summary and discussion of future research.
2. Literature Review
Numerous studies have been undertaken of seaport disruptions. Increasingly, these studies include downstream
supply-side effects. However, most neglect the fact that the same port disruption will also reduce the flow of
exports, a phenomenon that causes upstream supply-chain ripples. Also, few studies consider resilience in their
assessment, and even fewer consider the broad range of resilience tactics. Even fewer studies have focused on
petroleum trade disruptions. Below, we summarize literature focusing on more recent studies that have been
relatively more comprehensive than earlier ones in terms of incorporating considerations of resilience. However,
we do include some major studies that examine port disruptions dominated by petroleum trade and related
activities.
2 In the case of significant price increases, further I-O methods need to be invoked. In addition, the resilience analysis presented
here is more generally applicable, such as its ability to be incorporated into CGE models.
3
Smythe (2013) assessed the impacts of Hurricane Sandy on the Ports of New York and New Jersey through
interviews with respondents to the disruption. The author found that cooperation between the public and private
sectors, as well as the need for an increase in fuel reserves and personnel management, were greatly facilitated
thanks to the formal port governance system. However, the loss of electricity, while temporarily handled by
generators, led to a series of negative consequences, such as a loss of communication, security concerns, and the
shutting down of oil terminals. The loss of petroleum product then exacerbated the situation not only in the port
area, but also its surrounding communities. The author also highlighted the problems that arose from personnel
that were evacuated from the area and those that did not have transportation to the port.
Rice and Trepte (2012) also surveyed a number of port practitioners regarding different types of disruptions they
experienced, as well as which processes and improvements would most lead to increased resiliency. They found
that, while ports are generally successful in handling and quickly recovering from small, frequent disruptions
(which are most common), most ports are much less resilient to large, extended disruptions. While the survey also
found that there is no absolute consensus among port stakeholders on which actions are most important towards
resilience of the port system, flexible labor agreements and improved communication and information services
were the most desired measures based on the survey respondents’ experience in small scale port delays or
disruptions.
Southworth et al. (2014) conducted case studies of the Ports of New York and New Jersey following Hurricane
Sandy in addition to the closing of marine ports along the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest due to the river
system rehabilitation project. Following interviews with a number of experts involved with these events, the
authors found that a successful communication and an uninterrupted flow of information are considered as the
most important factors in returning to a normal level of operation. The authors also highlighted several other
actions that would assist in recovery including coordination with landside operators to divert cargo following a
disaster, prioritizing incoming vessels by importance of assisting with recovery, and arranging on-site housing for
critical staff, emergency responders, and relief workers.
Trepte and Rice (2014) analyzed the entire port system within the United States in order to estimate the capacity
of the system to absorb the cargo from a disrupted port. This was done by identifying the commodity types and
total volume that major ports take in as a baseline and then measuring how much capacity is needed to absorb
surrounding ports’ volume by commodity type. The report emphasized the need for ports to cooperate with each
other to assist not only the recovery of disrupted ports, but also surrounding ports that would see a sudden
increase in demand.
Gordon et al. (2010) analyzed the economic impacts of the sharp decrease in petroleum production in the Gulf
Coast Region in the year after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The difference between the actual and predicted levels
of petroleum refining output was used as the direct impacts of 4.5 billion. Two versions of a 47-region and 47-
sector National Interstate Economic Output Model (NIEMO), including FlexNIEMO, which allows for interindustry
substitutions by modifying the input coefficients in the underlying I-O model, were used to estimate total
impacts. The total output impacts were estimated to be $8.3 billion using the standard NIEMO model, and fell to
$4.85 billion when FlexNIEMO was used. More than 92 percent of the impacts occurred in the Gulf Coast states,
and about 98 percent of the impacts were confined to the Petroleum Refining sector, which is surprising given the
many forward linkages from this sector.
Rose and Wei (2013) developed a refined I-O methodology to estimate the effects of a wide range of resilience
tactics on the economic consequences stemming from a 90-day disruption at the twin seaports of Beaumont and
Port Arthur, Texas. The resilience tactics examined are ship re-routing, export diversion, conservation, use of
4
inventories, and production recapture. The authors found that when the potential of several major resilience
tactics is taken into account, the initial total economic loss of $13 billion can be reduced by over two-thirds.
Production recapture and ship re-routing were found to be the most effective resilience tactics.
Finally, the literature mentioned a number of different actions to enhance the management of ports during a
disruption, such as increased training, regularly planned exercises, alternatives for communication, and plans with
relevant stakeholders both within and outside the port. However, most of these tactics are not applicable to our
study, because they focus on supplier-side resilience, which would accelerate the restoration of capacity and the
port. We assume a fixed 90-day disruption and focus mostly on customer-side resilience tactics to cope with the
shortfall of petroleum imports and the stifling of petroleum exports.3
3. Background
3.1. The U.S. and Regional Petroleum Systems
To facilitate our interpretation of the economic consequences of the disruptions to major seaports, it is useful to
understand the unique overall structure of the U.S. petroleum system and the major trends which have shaped it
in recent years. The U.S. petroleum system includes fully-developed upstream (exploration / production),
midstream (transportation / storage), and downstream (refining, petrochemicals, marketing) segments. In total, it
is by far the world’s largest petroleum supply-chain.
Specific world-scale dimensions of today’s U.S. system are directly relevant to our analysis:
- Third largest crude oil producer (along with Saudi Arabia and Russia) - Largest refining system - Largest pipeline and storage system - Largest importer and exporter of crude oil and refined products.
A long history of oil development, private ownership of industry assets, and the world’s largest demand market
have shaped this system. In addition, two key periods impacted the structure of the industry we see today:
Production peaks and imports rise: Even as U.S. crude production reached an historical high in 1970 (9.64 million
barrels per day) (EIA, 2017a), the midstream and downstream components of the system were expanding import
capabilities to feed a growing U.S. demand for fuels and other refined products. This trend continued essentially
unabated until reaching an historical peak of almost 14 million barrels per day of imported crude and petroleum
products in 2005/2006 (EIA, 2017b). Of particular note was the expansion of the specialized capacity of the
PADD34 Gulf Coast regional refineries to process imported heavy and extra-heavy feed stock. These supplies were
3 The literature has, however, identified a number of resilience tactics that could lead to increased port competitiveness and could indirectly promote resilience on both the supplier-and customer-sides. For instance, Trepte and Rice (2014) found that increased port capacity for the entire US system would help absorb extra cargo following a possible disruption.
4 “PADD” is the abbreviation for “Petroleum Administration for Defense District”. The Petroleum Administration for Defense was established by Congress in the Defense Production Act of 1950. It divided the U.S. petroleum system into five districts for federal oil administration purposes, incorporating reporting information on production, transport, storage, and refining capabilities and activities, PADD3 representing the Gulf Coast.
5
anticipated to increase over time with production growth from the world-scale heavy oil resources in Venezuela
and Canada. Ultimately, the flexibility created by these world-scale complex processing capabilities would create
new opportunities from an unexpected source.
New resources and abundant supply: The unexpected and unprecedented growth in production from U.S. shale
and tight oil resources has completely altered the crude oil supply balance for both U.S. and global markets in less
than a decade. Production is now approximately 4.9 million barrels per day, representing more than 50% of U.S.
total crude oil output, and has raised domestic production to near its 1970 all-time high (EIA, 2017c). Essentially all
this new production is high-value light crude, and approximately 75% is produced from resource trends feeding the
PADD3 pipeline, storage, and refining infrastructure. Two additional trends have also emerged from the new
production boom:
- The largest expansion in the crude pipelines and storage capacity in decades (more than 12,000 miles of crude pipelines added between 2010 and 2014 (a 20% increase); an increase of approximately 25% of PADD3 + Cushing, OK crude storage capacity.
- The rapid growth in U.S. exports of crude oil and refined products from 1.3 million barrels per day in 2006 to 5.2 million barrels per day in 2016 (3.9 million barrels per day from PADD3) and has reduced net U.S. crude and product imports from a 2005/2006 peak of 12.5 million barrels per day to less than 5 million barrels per day in 2016 (EIA, 2017b; EIA, 2017d).
Taken in combination, these trends have created a new set of dynamics in the PADD3 crude supply and refining
system. There are opportunities for variations in the crude supply balance (such as between abundant domestic
light production and tanker-supplied imported heavy crude) and further opportunities for selling refined products
to both domestic and export markets. These shifts can be expected to produce changes in the risk and resilience
profile for the PADD3 system and Gulf Coast supporting infrastructure and are incorporated into our port
disruption impact study.
3.2. The Role of the Port Arthur/Beaumont Petroleum Sectors in the Regional and National Economies
The Port Arthur/Beaumont Metropolitan Statistical Area includes three counties in southeastern Texas: Jefferson,
Orange, and Hardin. In 2015, the total gross output of all sectors in this Port Region was about $81 billion dollars.
The Petroleum Refining sector accounted for 33% of this total. However, 92.5% of the region’s refined petroleum
products are shipped to elsewhere in the U.S. or abroad, with the domestic shipment accounting for nearly 90% of
the total. Total demand for refined petroleum in the Port Region was $3.4 billion, with a split of 88%, 7%, 4%, and
1% for industrial, commercial, residential, and government customers. About 58% of the total regional demand for
refined petroleum is satisfied by regional suppliers (IMPLAN, 2016).
The total regional output of the Oil and Gas Extraction sector was $222 million in 2015 (IMPLAN, 2016). If we apply
the Texas average output split of oil and gas, total output of crude oil is about $158 million in the Port Region, of
which more than 40% was exported to elsewhere in the U.S. or abroad, with the domestic shipment accounting for
nearly 83% of the total. More than 99% of the crude oil demand of the Port Region was satisfied by imports, with
a total amount of $14.9 billion in 2015. Total demand for crude oil by the Port Region Petroleum Refineries
accounted for 93.4% of total regional demand, and Chemical Manufacturing for another 5.4% (IMPLAN, 2016).
In 2015, total output of crude oil in the Port Region accounted for 0.14% of the national total output; total output
of Refined Petroleum in the Port Region accounted for 6.7% of the national total (IMPLAN, 2016). Imports and
exports of crude oil through Port Arthur/Beaumont accounted for 8.2% and 9.1%, respectively, of the national
6
total in 2016; while imports and exports of Refined Petroleum Products through the twin ports accounted for 2.0%
and 10.2%, respectively, of the national total (Census Bureau, 2017).
4. Modeling Approach
4.1. Basic Considerations
To perform our economic impact analyses, we employ the methodology of regional and national input-output (I-O)
analysis. I-O is a static, linear model of all purchases and sales between sectors of the economy, based on the
technological relationships of production (Rose and Miernyk, 1989; Miller and Blair, 2009). The basic version of
the I-O model is typically not considered a state-of-the-art tool because of its linearity and associated lack of input
and import substitution possibilities, as well as the absence of behavioral considerations and resource constraints
(Rose, 1995). However, input and import substitution are limited in short-run contexts such as a 90-day disruption.
Another standard criticism of I-O applies to its use to perform downstream supply-chain analyses using its “supply-
side” variant (Oosterhaven, 1988; Dietzenbacher, 1997). However, the authors have previously overcome this
criticism by pointing out this much of this criticism is not applicable in the case of a supply shortage, and have also
remedied a computational limitation of the approach (Rose and Wei, 2013).
Computable general equilibrium (CGE) modeling has become the state-of-the-art tool of economic consequence
analysis (Rose, 2015; Dixon et al., 2016; Rose et al., 2017). It is especially powerful when examining lengthy
disruptions that also have long-term effects, such as, a nuclear accident or a terrorist attack using a biological or
chemical weapon. The measurement of indirect effects is considered more accurate when using CGE models than
using I-O models, because of the inherent input and import substitution possibilities, two forms of resilience, and
the fact that price changes, which motivate resilience, often offset quantity changes. However, we contend that
such substitutions are unrealistic for short-duration disruptions and that the major determinant of the bottom-line
outcome is most dependent on the effectiveness of various other resilience tactics. Moreover, CGE is not superior
to I-O in incorporating these other resilience tactics.
In our study, we have gone to extensive lengths to measure resilience tactics more accurately than has previously
been accomplished, in part by using site-specific and region-specific data and subject matter expert judgement on
the following tactics, some of which are unique to port disruptions:
- inventories
- excess capacity
- ship re-routing
- export diversion
- relocation
- production recapture
4.2. Model Framework
Figure 1 displays the major linkages in tracing port disruptions from closure and damages beginning with direct
economic impacts through short-run and longer-run impacts across five analytical time stages of a Tsunami
scenario in the case study. The scenario begins with an event (it can be natural disasters, technical incidents, or
terrorist attacks) that causes the initial disruption of the port. This initial event first translates into a risk of a port
7
Figure 1. Analytical Framework for Estimating Total Economic Impacts of a Port Disruption
Supply-side Resilience Options
Natural
Disaster;
Technical
Incident;
Terrorist
Attack
Longer-term
Facility
Downtime
at Individual
Terminals
after Port
Re-opens
Disruption of Imports and Domestic Commodity Flows
Shortage of Intermediate
Inputs to Producing Sectors
Shortage of Final Consumption and Investment Goods
Damage to Exported
Commodities
Macroeconomic
Impacts
Macro Impacts:
Port Region,
National
Reduction in Final Demand
Disruption of Port On-Site
Activities & Operations
Initial
Cause of Port
Disruption
Impacts at
Port
Microeconomic
Impacts
Long-run
Impacts:
Permanent Loss
of Port Business
Ship-rerouting, Port Excess Capacity,
Recapture Post-Reopening
Drawdown of Inventories, Input Conservation, Input Substitution, Input Importance,
Export Diversion for Import Use, Production Recapture
Diversion of Exports to Replace Imports,
Production Recapture
Commodity Substitution, Export Diversion for Import Use
Total
Impacts
Effective Management, Production Recapture
Closure of
Entire Port
Cargo
Damages
Disruption of Export Commodity Flows
Damage to Imported and Domestic Commodities
Limited resilience tactics at port-side
Customer-side Resilience Options
8
shutdown, cargo damage, and isolated terminal downtime for extended periods of time. Various general supplier-
side resilience tactics that can facilitate more speedy recovery of the commodity flows at the ports are shown in
the blue rounded boxes. At the macroeconomic level, port disruptions lead to intermediate production inputs
(such as crude oil and refined petroleum products) and final goods (such as petroleum products) shortfalls, and
reduction in final demand associated with reduction in exports of such commodities. Relevant customer-side
resilience tactics that can be utilized by the general businesses as well as final users to reduce their potential losses
from disruptions of trade flows of these commodities are depicted in orange rounded boxes.
4.3. Formal Model
Both the demand-driven and supply-driven I-O models are well-known, and extensive details need not be
presented here (Rose and Miernyk, 1989; Miller and Blair, 2009). Following Rose and Wei (2013), we do, however,
provide a discussion of how we overcome some of the criticisms of the use of the supply-side (or Ghoshian) model.
There are three categories of such criticisms.
The first criticism pertains to the implication of applying the supply-side model directly. The supply-side model
interprets the basic flow I-O table in terms of marketing (or allocation) coefficients rather than production
coefficients. That is, they reflect a fixed, proportional pattern of supplies of each good.
In the ordinary application of the supply-side I-O model, both the direct and the successive rounds of indirect
effects are underestimated based on the fixed input coefficient Leontief production function. The model
proposed by Oosterhaven is a very complex calculation framework to rectify this problem. Rose and Wei (2013)
made sure that the impact of an import disruption on the direct import-using sectors is computed in accordance
with the Leontief production function requirements as emphasized by Oosterhaven. Specifically, again in this
study, we compute the direct output effects of the supply disruption of each major consuming sector of imported
crude oil or petroleum products. Given the fact that the Port Arthur/Beaumont Region is heavily involved in the
first stage of refining raw material imports but then ships the vast majority of the processed products elsewhere in
the U.S., our calculation of the first-round adjustment is sufficient to capture nearly all the impacts that are
underestimated in the ordinary supply-side model.
The second criticism relates to its economic rationale. Several authors characterize this model as being based on
the discredited Say’s Law that supply creates its own demand. This is surely the case in a positive stimulus
application. However, there is an important asymmetry in the case of a negative stimulus, such as a port
disruption. Here the application is in spirit much more like the conventional demand-side model, where a material
input shortage will reasonably lead to a chain of direct and indirect reductions of output—it has no relationship to
Say’s Law. In the supply-side case, these multiplier effects are downstream, however, rather than upstream.
The third criticism is that, when the supply-driven I-O model is applied, the technical coefficients of the demand-
driven model are altered (Chen and Rose, 1991; de Mesnard, 1997). Rose and Allison (1989) examined the
relationship between the demand-driven and supply-driven models in terms of this “joint stability” of their
respective coefficients for the case of a supply disruption simulation on the Washington State economy. They
found the variation between the technical and allocation coefficients to be very small because of an inherent
“dampening effect” in the application of the two versions of the I-O model.
9
4.4. Adjustment of Supply-Side and Demand-Side Double-Counting
The first type of double-counting is illustrated in Figure 2. When we calculate the impact of import disruption of
crude oil, we first translate percentage crude oil impact shortage into percentage crude oil input reduction for all
the major consuming sectors. Petroleum Refineries is the major consuming sector of import crude oil. After
calculating the direct output losses for the Petroleum Refineries sector (and other major imported crude oil
consuming sectors), total impacts on both the supply-side and demand-side are calculated. There is a potential
double-counting pertaining to the demand-side impacts of export disruption of Refined Petroleum and the
demand-side impact of reduced output of Petroleum Refineries stemming from disrupted production input of
imported crude oil. In order to eliminate this double-counting, we only simulate the demand-side impacts of
export disruption of Refined Petroleum that is produced from regional produced crude oil.
When we compute the supply-side impacts of multiple import commodity disruptions, there may be double-
counting if one sector experiences input disruptions of more than one import commodity. Figure 3 presents an
example for Petrochemical Manufacturing sector. In Figure 3, imported crude oil and refined petroleum products
are both production inputs of the Petrochemical Manufacturing sector. The impacts to the Petrochemical
Manufacturing sector are not the sum of the impacts of the two disrupted inputs separately, since adding the
impacts of shortages of these two inputs due to the supply-chain interruption would amount to shutting down the
Petrochemical Manufacturing sector twice. Rather, the output impacts should be computed based on the more
constrained input between the two. Therefore, for each sector, we only count the input disruption that represents
the largest production constraint in percentage terms.
5. Resilience
5.1. Basic Considerations
There are many definitions of resilience, but Rose (2009) and others have found more commonalities than
differences. We offer the following general definitions of resilience, which capture the essence of the concept,
and then follow them up with definitions that capture the essence of economic considerations. Following Rose
(2004, 2017), we distinguish two major categories of resilience:
In general, Static Resilience refers to the ability of the system to maintain a high level of functioning when shocked
(Holling, 1973). Static Economic Resilience is the efficient use of remaining resources at a given point in time. It
refers to the core economic concept of coping with resource scarcity, which is exacerbated under disaster
conditions.
In general, Dynamic Resilience refers to the ability and speed of the system to recover (Pimm, 1984). Dynamic
Economic Resilience is the efficient use of resources over time for investment in repair and reconstruction.
Investment is a time-related phenomena—the act of setting aside resources that could potentially be used for
current consumption in order to re-establish productivity in the future. Static Economic Resilience does not
completely restore damaged capacity and is therefore not likely to lead to complete recovery.
Another important delineation in economic resilience, and resilience in general, is the distinction between
inherent and adaptive resilience (Tierney, 2007; Cutter, 2016). Inherent resilience refers to resilience capacity
already built into the system, such as the ability to utilize more than one fuel in an electricity generating unit, the
workings of the market system in offering price signals to identify scarcity and value, and established government
10
Figure 2. Double-Counting Adjustment of Export Disruption of Refined Petroleum
11
Figure 3. Double-Counting Adjustment of Crude Oil and Refined Petroleum
Import Disruptions for the Petrochemical Manufacturing Sector
12
policy levers. Adaptive resilience is exemplified by undertaking conservation that was not previously thought
possible, changing technology, devising market mechanisms where they might not previously existed (e.g.,
reliability premiums for electricity or water delivery), or devising new government post-disaster assistance
programs. It is important to realize that a good amount of resilience is already embodied in the economy at
various levels (e.g., a firm’s ability to substitute inputs, market signals for reallocating resources), and that policies
should be designed to capitalize rather than obstruct or duplicate this capacity. At the same time, policy should
also be geared to rewarding both types of resilience
The next step is to translate these definitions into something we can measure. For static resilience, this can be
done in terms of the amount of business interruption, typically measured in terms of gross output, or (sales
revenue) or GDP) that is prevented by the implementation of a given resilience tactic or set of tactics comprising a
resilience strategy. For dynamic resilience, the metric would be the reduction in recovery time in addition to the
reduction in BI, though obviously the former influences the latter.. Several studies have measured resilience using
this and related metrics. Rose et al. (2009) found that potential BI losses were reduced by 72% by the rapid
relocation of businesses following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
5.2. Empirical Estimation of Resilience to Port Arthur/Beaumont Disruptions
1. Use of inventories. This refers to stockpiling critical inputs for the production of goods and services by
firms. In the port disruption context, this resilience tactic pertains to various types of stockpiles not only
for the ports themselves but also for the direct and indirect customers of ports down the supply chain.
Note that the cost of inventories is not the actual value of the goods themselves, but simply the carrying
costs. The goods themselves are simply replacement for the ordinary supplies.
2. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is a special case of inventories from the official U.S. Government
stockpile of oil reserves in locations nearby PA/PB and accessible by pipeline. The cost in this case is both
the carrying cost and political capital associated with using the stockpile for reasons other than pure
national defense.
3. Conservation. This pertains to finding ways to utilize less of disrupted imported goods in production
processes that are potentially disrupted by the curtailment of imports directly, as well as conserving
critical inputs whose production is curtailed indirectly. Examples include reducing nonessential usage,
improving productivity, and promoting recycling.
4. Ship re-routing. This strategy is usually applied for prolonged port disruptions. It pertains to both imports
and exports, and requires a sophisticated assessment of alternative locations, ship and cargo type, and
transportation costs. One needs also consider the extent to which some of the cargo can eventually be
re-routed to the disrupted port area through land surface or sub-surface (pipeline) transportation.
5. Export Diversion. This refers to sequestering goods that were intended for export to substitute for lack of
availability of imports. This option has the added benefit of opening up some shipping capacity at ports to
which the export diversion is being channeled. Care needs to be taken, however, to ensure that the
goods diverted from exports are legitimate replacements for those goods that are in shortfall.
13
6. Production Recapture (Rescheduling). This refers to making up lost production by working extra shifts or
over time after the port and disrupted businesses re-open once the supply of critical inputs resumes. This
is a viable option for short-run disruptions, where customers are less likely to have cancelled orders.5
5.3. Measurement of Resilience for the Case Study
Table 1 summarizes our estimates of major types of resilience tactic direct effectiveness based primarily on site-
specific industry and government data, as well as expert judgment. The reader is referred to Appendix B for a
detailed presentation and discussion of underlying data. Further discussion of the resilience estimates and their
influence on the economic impacts are discussed below in Section 7.
6. Simulation Results without Resilience
6.1. Basic Results at the Regional Level
6.1.1. Crude Oil
6.1.1.1. Import Disruption
The analysis begins with the calculation of the percentage reduction of crude oil input by each consuming sector
when the Port Arthur and Beaumont ports are disrupted for 90 days. Table C1 in Appendix C presents this
calculation linked to our model’s “Oil and Gas Extraction” sector.6 Each sector uses oil from a combination of
regional producers and importers. Note that Petroleum Refining consumes 93.5% of total crude oil inputs and
93.4% of crude oil imports into the region. Next we identify the major users of crude oil imports as those that
import more than $1 million of this commodity as an input. The percentage of input disruption to these sectors is
computed as the ratio of import disruption and total input used in each sector. The percentage input disruption of
Oil and Gas Extraction is then translated into direct output loss for these major crude oil consuming sectors based
on the (linear) Leontief Production Function (i.e., an X% reduction of a production input leads to an X% reduction
of the sectoral output).
The total (direct and indirect) impacts of the crude oil import disruption are displayed in the last column of Table
C2. The direct output losses for all the sectors are $6.6 billion, which results in total supply-side impacts of $6.7
billion and total demand-side impacts of $7.4 billion. The total impacts are the sum of supply-side and demand-
side impacts, net of the double-counted direct output losses. In addition, we cap the total losses of a sector as its
total production output in the 90-day period. The total output impacts of crude oil import disruption are thus
estimated to be $7.7 billion, which represents a reduction of 9.5 percent of economic activity in the Port Arthur
MSA. This implies an overall multiplier effect of 1.16 ($7.7B / $6.6B).
5 Note that we have omitted resilience tactics such as input and import substation, management effectiveness, and
technological change because they are not really applicable to our case study (see Rose, 2009 and Wei et al., 2016 for a discussion of these alternatives, as well as discussion of resilience tactics on the supplier-side). 6 IMPLAN combines Extraction of Natural Gas and Crude Petroleum as one aggregated sector. This does not pose a
problem for the analysis because our calculations involve changes, and only changes in oil extraction are relevant, and hence only they are included in the computations.
14
Table 1. Port Resilience Metrics
Resilience Tactic
Resilience Level
Explanation
Source
Inventories
59.5 million barrels of crude
Assumes excess crude oil stocks at tank farms and pipelines in PADD 3 Region in Year 2016 that exceed the 10-year average stock level can be readily accessed and utilized by PA/PB refineries
EIA (2017e)
Ship Re-routing
Up to 95% of the ships
Assumes up to 95% of the ships can be re-routed to other ports in the Gulf Coast Region. Further assumes none of the rerouted crude oil will be transported back to Port Arthur MSA via pipelines, but rather will be used in refineries close to the diverted ports
Communication with USCG
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
20.8 million barrels
Assumes same amount of SPR release as during Hurricane Katrina
DOE (2017)
Export Diversion
Import disruption reduced by 6% Export disruption reduced by 58%
Assumes export diversion can only take place within each crude type (light/medium/heavy)
U.S. Census Bureau (2017)
Relocation
31.8% of refining activities at PA/PB
Represents excess and absorption capacity of refineries in some other parts of PADD 3
EIA (2017f)
Production Recapture
15 to 49 %
Adjusts HAZUS recapture factors to account for actual, as opposed to potential, recapture capability 49% applicable to petroleum refining and other manufacturing sectors)
FEMA (2015)
15
6.1.1.2. Export Disruption
Based on the IMPLAN Port Arthur MSA I-O Table, total crude oil exports from the Port Region that are extracted
from within the Region to the Rest of U.S. and foreign countries are $97 million.7 This translates into a final
demand reduction of $24 million for the 90-day period disruption. The demand-side impacts of the export
disruption of crude oil to the Port Region are presented in Table C3. The total output impacts are $33.7 million,
which represents a reduction of 0.04% of total annual Port Region gross output.
6.1.2. Refined Petroleum
6.1.2.1. Import Disruption
The calculation of the direct output losses for the major consuming sectors of refined petroleum products is
presented in Appendix Table C4. The total $242.4 million of disrupted refined petroleum imports (linked to our
model’s “Petroleum Refineries” sector) are distributed to each sector based on the IMPLAN Industry Import
Matrix. We then used the same $1 million import cutoff level to identify the major users of refined petroleum
product imports. The same approach as in the import disruption case of crude oil is used to calculate the direct
output loss for these major refined petroleum consuming sectors.
The total (direct and indirect) impacts of the refined petroleum products import disruption are computed in Table
C5. The direct output losses of for all these sectors are $4.2 billion, which results in total supply-side impacts of
$4.3 billion and total demand-side impacts of $4.8 billion. The total output impacts of crude oil import disruption
are estimated to be $4.9 billion (after netting out the double-counted direct output losses), which represents a
reduction of 6.1 percent of economic activity in the Port Arthur MSA. This implies an overall multiplier effect of
1.18 ($4.9B / $4.2B).
6.1.2.2. Export Disruption
As discussed in Section 4.3, demand-side impacts of an export disruption of refined petroleum products partly
overlap with the demand-side impacts of reduced output of Petroleum Refineries stemming from the disruption of
crude oil imports. In order to eliminate the potential double-counting, in Appendix Table C6, we calculate the total
impacts of export disruption of refined petroleum products using regionally produced crude oil (which is only
about 1.4% of the total output of refined petroleum products in Port Arthur MSA). The double-counting adjusted
final demand reduction is $51.1 million for the 90-day period disruption. The total output impacts are $56.1
million, which represents a reduction of 0.07% of total annual Port Region gross output.
6.1.3. Total Regional Economic Impacts (Base Case)
Table 2 presents the summary total regional impact results for the 90-day disruption of trade flows of crude oil and
refined petroleum products through Port Arthur and Beaumont for the Base Case. For both the disruptions on the
import-side and export-side, stand-alone impacts for crude oil and refined petroleum disruptions are presented
first, followed by their simple summation. The total impacts after eliminating double-counting on the import-side
and export-side are presented next in the last row of the table. The direct output losses of a 90-day disruption of
7 Exports of crude oil through Port Arthur/Beaumont extracted in the Rest of the U.S. are simulated with the
National I-O Model below.
16
Table 2. Summary Results of Port Region Impacts for the Base Case (No Resilience)
Impact Category Direct Output
Change ($ millions)
Direct Output Change
(%)
Total Output Change
($ millions)
Total Output Change
(%)
Import Disruption
crude oil 6,586 8.17% 7,661 9.50%
refined petroleum 4,154 5.15% 4,920 6.10%
sub-total (simple sum) 10,741 13.32% 12,581 15.60%
sub-total (eliminating double-counting) 7,055 8.75% 8,350 10.35%
Export Disruption
crude oil 24 0.03% 34 0.04%
refined petroleum 3,694 4.58% 4,054 5.03%
sub-total (simple sum) 3,718 4.61% 4,087 5.07%
sub-total (eliminating double-counting) 74.7 0.09% 89.3 0.11%
Grand Total (simple sum) 14,458 17.93% 16,669 20.67%
Grand Total (eliminating double-counting) 7,130 8.84% 8,439 10.46%
crude oil and refined petroleum imports and exports through the twin ports are estimated to be $7.1 billion. The
total gross output losses are $8.4 billion, or a reduction of 10.47% of the baseline total annual gross output of the
Port Region.
6.2. Basic Results at the National Level
6.2.1. Crude Oil
6.2.1.1. Import Disruption
The total impacts of the crude oil import disruption on the U.S. economy are presented in Table D1. The direct
output losses are $6.9 billion, which then ripples throughout the national economy to generate total supply-side
impacts of $23.3 billion and total demand-side impacts of $14.4 billion. The total impacts are estimated to be
$31.1 billion, which is a reduction of 0.095 percent of economic activity in the U.S. This implies an overall national
multiplier effect of 4.52 ($31.1B / $6.9B).
6.2.1.2. Export Disruption
We calculate the total impacts of 90-day export disruptions for crude oil through Port Arthur/Beaumont using the
national I-O Table. The demand-side impacts of the export disruption of crude oil on the U.S. economy are
presented in Appendix Table D2. Total output impacts are $567.4 million, which represents a reduction of 0.002%
of total U.S. gross output in the 90-day period.
17
6.2.2. Refined Petroleum
6.2.2.1. Import Disruption
Appendix Table D3 presents the total impacts of the refined petroleum import disruption on the U.S. economy.
The direct output losses are $4.2 billion, which then ripples throughout the national economy to generate total
supply-side impacts of $13.4 billion and total demand-side impacts of $9.2 billion. The total impacts are estimated
to be $18.4 billion, which is a reduction of 0.056 percent of economic activity in the U.S. This implies an overall
national multiplier effect of 4.34 ($18.4B / $4.2B).
6.2.2.2. Export Disruption
We next use the national I-O Table to calculate the total impacts of the 90-day export disruption of refined
petroleum that is produced both within the Port Region and in the Rest of the U.S. and is exported through Port
Arthur/Beaumont. The demand-side impacts of the export disruption of refined petroleum on the U.S. economy
are presented in Table D4. Total output impacts are $2.05 billion, which represents a reduction of 0.006% of total
U.S. gross output in the 90-day period.
6.2.3. Total National Economic Impacts (Base Case)
Table 3 presents the summary results of the national impacts for the 90-day disruption of petroleum trade flows
through Port Arthur and Beaumont for the Base Case. The direct output losses of a 90-day disruption of crude oil
and refined petroleum imports and exports through the twin ports are estimated to be $8.6 billion. The total gross
output losses are $36.5 billion, but this represents a reduction of only 0.11% of the baseline total annual gross
output of the U.S.
Table 3. Summary Results of National Impacts for the Base Case (No Resilience)
Impact Category Direct Output
Change ($ millions)
Direct Output Change
(%)
Total Output Change
($ millions)
Total Output Change
(%)
Import Disruption
crude oil 6,881 0.02% 31,093 0.09%
refined petroleum 4,232 0.01% 18,366 0.06%
sub-total (simple sum) 11,114 0.03% 49,460 0.15%
sub-total (eliminating double-counting) 7,370 0.02% 33,705 0.10%
Export Disruption
crude oil 212 0.00% 567 0.00%
refined petroleum 3,694 0.01% 7,923 0.02%
sub-total (simple sum) 3,905 0.01% 8,490 0.03%
sub-total (eliminating double-counting) 1,229 0.00% 2,750 0.01%
Grand Total (simple sum) 15,019 0.05% 57,950 0.18%
Grand Total (eliminating double-counting) 8,598 0.03% 36,454 0.11%
18
7. Simulation Results with Resilience
7.1. Resilience Analysis Results at the Regional Level
7.1.1. Crude Oil
7.1.1.1. Import Disruption
Table 4 presents the total economic impacts on the Port Region for a 90-day crude oil import disruption at Ports of
Port Arthur and Beaumont for both the Base Case and various resilience cases presented in this Section.
a. Inventory use. We assume that the excess crude oil stocks at tank farms and pipelines in Gulf Coast (PADD
3) Region relative to the 10-year average level, which amounted to 59.5 million barrels, can readily be
available for the refineries in the PA/PB Region to use in the case of 90-day disruption. This helps reduce
the direct output loss of the Petroleum Refineries sector to only 1.4% during the disruption period. For all
the other major crude oil consuming sectors, we apply the percentage of on-site inventory that are
Materials and Supplies with respect to annual sale (the average percentage is 4.5% for manufacturing
sectors) obtained from BEA (2017) to adjust for the percentage of crude oil input disruptions. In sum, the
utilization of the crude oil stocks can reduce the direct output losses of the Port Region from $6.6 billion
to $3.3 billion. Total output losses are reduced to $3.9 billion, representing a 4.9% reduction of regional
total gross output.
b. Re-routing tankers carrying crude oil imports. For the 3-month period, we assume that 95% of the ships
carrying imports would be diverted to other ports, with the rest returning to their port of origin.
However, we also assume that none of the re-routed crude oil will be transported back through pipelines
to the Port Region. Rather the re-routed crude oil will be refined close to the diverted ports. Therefore,
re-routing does not mute the Port Region economic losses for the crude oil import disruption case. The
effects of this resilience tactic are simulated in the national impact analysis in the next section.
c. Release of crude oil supplies from the SPR. We assume that 20.8 million barrels of SPR (the same amount
of SPR drawdown in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) will be released to the Port Region to ensure the
minimum level operation of the key refineries in the region. The release of SPR can reduce the direct
output losses from $6.6 billion to $5.1 billion. The total output losses are reduced to $6.0 billion, or a
reduction of 7.5 percent of baseline total gross output.
d. Export diversion. To determine the amount of the exported crude oil that can be diverted for import use,
we further disaggregate the total imported and exported crude oil amounts into light/medium/heavy
crude based on API gravity. We assume that export diversion can only take place within each crude type.
Export diversion is estimated to reduce import disruption of crude oil by about 6%. Gross output impacts
are only slightly reduced to $7.2 billion, or a reduction of 8.9 percent of total gross output in the region.
e. Relocation of petroleum refining activities. Excess capacities in the refineries in some other parts of the
Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Region can be readily utilized to compensate for some of the refining activities
disrupted in the Port Arthur MSA. However, this resilience tactic has no effect on reducing the economic
impacts on the Port Region. Its effect is simulated in the national impact analysis.
f. Production recapture. This refers to the ability of businesses to make up (recapture) lost production at a
later date. The recapture factors range from 15 to 49 percent, with the latter level being applicable to
petroleum refining. Although refineries operate 24/7, there is excess capacity that would enable them to
make up the lost production, though not necessarily within just three months. Total net impacts for this
resilience adjustment result in total gross output losses of only $4.0 billion, or 4.9 percent of total
economic activity in the region.
19
Table 4. Regional Economic Impacts of a 90-Day Disruption of Crude Oil Supplies at Port Arthur-Beaumont (with Resilience) (in million 2016 dollars or otherwise specified)
Resilience Case
Direct
Output
Loss
(1)
Direct
Value-Added
Change
(2)
Final
Demand
Impacts
(3)
Total
Supply
Impacts
(4)
Total
Demand
Impacts
(5)
Total
Net S+D
Impacts
(6=4+5-1)
Total
Net S+D
Impacts
(%)
Resilience
Effectiveness
(%)
A. Crude Oil Disruption
(No Resilience) $6,586 $6,466 $6,467 $6,864 $7,388 $7,661 9.5% n.a.
B. Inventory $3,257 $3,176 $3,176 $3,416 $3,775 $3,934 4.9% 48.6
C. Re-routing Re-routing has no effect on the impacts of crude oil disruption in the Port Region since we assume the re-routed
crude oil will be used in refineries close to the alternative ports.
D. SPR $5,139 $5,036 $5,037 $5,366 $5,818 $6,044 7.5% 21.1
E. Export Diversion $6,170 $6,057 $6,058 $6,427 $6,916 $7,172 8.9% 6.4
F. Relocation Relocation has no effect on the impacts of crude oil disruption in the Port Region since this resilience tactic relates to
utilizing excess capacity in refineries in other regions of the Gulf Coast.
G. Production Rescheduling a a a a a $3,964 4.9% 48.3
H. All Resilience Adj b b b b b $1,699 2.1% 77.8
a
This resilience adjustment is applied to the Total Supply + Demand Impacts. b
Total is non-additive of B, C, D, E, F, G adjusted for overlaps.
20
g. Combined resilience adjustments. Note, however, that the individual tactic impacts are not additive
because of overlaps. Inventories and release of SPR are applied first, followed by export diversions.
Production rescheduling is applied directly to overall losses after all the other resilience adjustments have
taken place. The total prevention of losses from all resilience adjustments leads to output losses of $1.7
billion, or a reduction of only 2.1 percent of regional economic activity in the Port Arthur MSA. Thus, for
the case of an input disruption, resilience has the potential to reduce the economic disruption of the
curtailment of crude oil supplies to Port Arthur MSA by 78 percent. Among the five resilience tactics, uses
of crude oil stocks and inventories have the greatest potential to reduce losses, followed by production
recapture. The former is primarily due to the surge in crude oil stocks in the PADD 3 Region because of
the sharp increase of domestic production of crude oil from shale and tight oil resources.
7.1.1.2. Export Disruption
The export diversion resilience tactic can reduce losses on both the import and export sides. When we take the
export diversion adjustment into account, total gross output impacts of an export disruption of crude oil decrease
from $33.7 million to $14.1 million, or from 0.042% to 0.017% of the baseline total annual gross output in the Port
Region.
7.1.2. Refined Petroleum
7.1.2.1. Import Disruption
Table 5 presents the total economic impacts on the Port Region for a 90-day refined petroleum import disruption
at Port Arthur and Beaumont for both the Base Case and various resilience cases.
a. Inventory use. We apply the percentage of on-site inventory that are Materials and Supplies with respect
to annual sales (an average of 4.5% for manufacturing sectors) obtained from BEA (2017) to adjust for the
percentage of refined petroleum input disruptions. This resilience tactic reduces the direct output losses
of the Port Region from $4.2 billion to $3.3 billion. The total output losses are reduced to $3.9 billion, or a
4.8% reduction of regional total gross output.
b. Re-routing of tankers carrying crude oil imports. We assume that 95% of the ships carrying imports would
be diverted to other ports. For the refined petroleum products, we assume that the re-routed refined
petroleum that was originally used in the Port Region will be transported back through pipelines to the
Region. Therefore, this resilience tactic can greatly reduce the direct output losses to $106 million, and
total output losses to $120 million, or less than only 0.1, percent of total gross output in the region.
c. Export diversion. We again considered the diversion of export refined petroleum products to importers of
the same commodities to reduce the potential losses on both the import and export sides. We use the
trade data at 6-digit HS codes (see Table A1 in Appendix A) to match the exports of refined petroleum
products with import commodities, so that we are diverting the same refined petroleum commodity type
whose importation is being stifled. Export diversion is estimated to reduce the direct output losses to
only $31 million, leading to gross output losses of $44 million, or a reduction of 0.05 percent of total gross
output in the region.
d. Production recapture. Total net impacts for this resilience adjustment result in total gross output losses
of $2.6 billion, or 3.2 percent of total economic activity in the region.
21
Table 5. Regional Economic Impacts of a 90-day Disruption of Refined Petroleum Products at Port Arthur-Beaumont (with Resilience) (in million 2016 dollars or otherwise specified)
Case
Direct
Output
Loss
(1)
Direct
Value-Added
Change
(2)
Final
Demand
Impacts
(3)
Total
Supply
Impacts
(4)
Total
Demand
Impacts
(5)
Total
Net S+D
Impacts
(6=4+5-1)
Total
Net S+D
Impacts
(%)
Resilience
Effectiveness
(%)
A. Refined Petroleum
Disruption (No Resilience) $4,154 $4,067 $4,068 $4,281 $4,794 $4,920 6.1% n.a.
B. Inventory $3,347 $3,271 $3,272 $3,421 $3,829 $3,903 4.8% 20.7
C. Re-routing $106 $102 $102 $107 $119 $120 0.1% 97.6
D. Export Diversion $31 $30 $30 $37 $37 $44 0.1% 99.1
E. Production Rescheduling a a a a a $2,553 3.2% 48.1
F. All Resilience Adjustments b b b b b $0.6 0.0007% 100.0
a
This resilience adjustment is applied to the Total Supply + Demand Impacts. b
Total is non-additive of B, C, D, E adjusted for overlaps.
22
e. Combined resilience adjustments. If we combine all the four resilience adjustment together (eliminating
the overlaps), the total gross output losses of the region of the refined petroleum import disruption can
be greatly reduced to just $1.1 million. Among the four resilience measures, export diversion has the
greatest potential to reduce losses, followed by ship-rerouting. The former is primarily due to the recent
significant growth of U.S. exports of various types of refined petroleum produced from a combination of
domestic and imported crude oil. This greatly enhances the possibility of diverting refined petroleum
products that are originally targeted for the international market. The latter is driven by the assumption
that up to 95% of the vessels would be re-routed to alternative ports in the Gulf Coast Region for a 90-day
disruption at Port Arthur-Beaumont.
7.1.2.2. Export Disruption
When we take the export diversion adjustment into account, total gross output impacts of the export disruption of
refined petroleum decrease from $56.1 million to just $0.3 million.
7.1.3. Total Regional Economic Impacts (Combining All Resilience Adjustments)
Table 6 presents the summary results for the 90-day disruption of trade flows of crude oil and refined petroleum
products through Port Arthur and Beaumont after the adjustments of all resilience tactics considered in this study.
The results are presented for total gross output impacts, in both level and percentage terms. For both the
disruptions on the import-side and export-side, stand-alone impacts for crude oil and refined petroleum
disruptions are first presented, followed by a simple summation of the stand-alone impacts. The total impacts
after eliminating double-counting of the import-side and export-side calculations are presented next. The total
output losses of a 90-day disruption of crude oil and refined petroleum imports and exports through the twin ports
are estimated to be $1.7 billion after resilience, or a reduction of 2.1% of the baseline total annual gross output of
the Port Region. All the resilience tactics considered in the analysis are estimated to have the potential to reduce
the total regional total output losses by about 80%.
Table 6. Summary Results of Port Regional Impacts for the Resilience Case
Impact Category Total Output
Change ($ millions)
Total Output Change
(%)
Import Disruption
crude oil 1,698.9 2.1%
refined petroleum 0.6 0.0%
sub-total (simple sum) 1,699.5 2.1%
sub-total (eliminating double-counting) 1,699.1 2.1%
Export Disruption
crude oil 14.1 0.0%
refined petroleum 23.5 0.0%
sub-total (simple sum) 37.6 0.0%
sub-total (eliminating double-counting) 14.4 0.0%
Grand Total (simple sum) 1,737 2.2%
Grand Total (eliminating double-counting) 1,714 2.1%
23
7.2. Resilience Analysis Results at the National Level
7.2.1. Crude Oil
7.2.1.1. Import Disruption
Table D5 presents the total economic impacts on the U.S. for a 90-day crude oil import disruption at Port Arthur
and Beaumont for both the Base Case and various resilience cases.
a. Inventory use. Utilization of the crude oil stocks can reduce the direct output losses to $2.9 billion. The
total output losses are reduced to $12.1 billion, representing a 0.04% reduction of the annual national
total gross output.
b. Re-routing of tankers carrying crude oil imports. For the 90-day period, we assume that 95% of the ships
carrying imports can be diverted to other ports in Gulf Coast Region. We further assume that none of the
re-routed crude oil will be transported back through pipelines to the Port Region, but rather be refined in
refineries close to those diverted ports. In addition, we take into consideration the total excess capacity of
the refineries in some other parts of the PADD 3 Region (including Texas Gulf Coast, Louisiana Gulf Coast,
North Louisiana and Arkansas) that can absorb the disrupted petroleum refining activities in the Port
Arthur MSA. The combination of ship-rerouting and refining activity relocation can help reduce the direct
output losses to the U.S. to $2.7 billion. The total output losses are reduced to $13.1 billion, which
represent a reduction of only 0.04% of the total gross output.
c. Release of crude oil supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). We also analyze the effect of
SPR release of 20.8 million barrels to the refineries in the Port Region. The SPR release can reduce the
direct output losses to the U.S. to $5.4 billion. The total output losses are reduced to $23.8 billion, or a
reduction of 0.07 percent of the annual total gross output.
d. Export diversion. The export diversion helps reduce the direct output to $5.7 billion. Gross output
impacts are reduced to $25.6 billion, or a reduction of 0.08 percent of total annual gross output.
e. Production recapture. This resilience tactic can reduce the total gross output loss in the U.S. from $31.1
billion to $17.0 billion, or from 0.09% to 0.05% of the annual total gross output.
f. Combination of the five resilience tactics. Applying all of the five resilience adjustments (in the same
sequencing order as in the Port Region analysis) can reduce the output losses of crude oil import
disruption to only $261 million, or a reduction of only 0.001 percent of total national economic activity.
Therefore, resilience measures to import disruption have the potential to reduce the economic disruption
to the U.S. by over 99 percent. Among the five resilience measures, use of inventory has the greatest
potential to reduce the losses, followed by ship re-routing plus relocation of refining activities to
refineries close to the diverted ports. For the latter, although each refinery in other places in PADD 3 only
has limited excess capacity, all refineries combined have considerable potential to absorb the lost
productions of the refineries in Port Arthur-Beaumont Region.
7.2.1.2. Export Disruption
When we take the export diversion adjustment into account, total gross output impacts of an export disruption of
crude oil decrease from $567.4 million to $237.5 million, or from 0.002% to 0.001% of the baseline total annual
gross output in the Port Region.
24
7.2.2. Refined Petroleum
7.2.2.1. Import Disruption
Table D6 presents the total national economic impacts for a 90-day disruption of refined petroleum products at
Port Arthur and Beaumont for both the Base Case and various resilience cases.
a. Inventory use. We again apply the percentage of on-site inventory that are Materials and Supplies with
respect to annual sales (an average of 4.5% for manufacturing sectors) obtained from BEA (2017) to adjust
for the percentage of refined petroleum input disruptions. This resilience tactic reduces the direct output
losses of the U.S. from $4.2 billion to $3.6 billion. The total output losses are reduced to $15.7 billion, or a
0.05% reduction of national total annual gross output.
b. Re-routing of tankers carrying crude oil imports. We assume that 95% of the ships carrying imports would
be diverted to other ports. Therefore, this resilience tactic can greatly reduce the total output losses to
$918 million, or less than only 0.003 percent of national total gross output.
c. Export diversion. Export diversion is estimated to reduce the direct output losses to only $39 million,
leading to gross output losses of $179 million at the national level.
d. Production recapture. Total net impacts for this resilience adjustment result in total gross output losses of
$10.0 billion, or 0.031 percent of national total annual gross output.
e. Combined resilience adjustments. If we combine all the four resilience adjustment together (eliminating
the overlaps), the total gross output losses of the U.S. of the refined petroleum import disruption at Port
Arthur-Beaumont can be greatly reduced to just $2.5 million. Among the four resilience measures, export
diversion has the greatest potential to reduce losses, followed by ship rerouting.
7.2.2.2. Export Disruption
When we take the export diversion adjustment into account, total gross output impacts of the export disruption of
refined petroleum decrease to just $12.7 million.
7.2.3. Total National Economic Impacts (Combining All Resilience Adjustments)
Table 7 presents the national economic impact summary results for the 90-day disruption of petroleum trade flows
through Port Arthur and Beaumont after the adjustments for all resilience tactics considered in this study. The
total output losses of a 90-day disruption of crude oil and refined petroleum imports and exports through the twin
ports are estimated to be $512.7 million after resilience, or a reduction of only 0.002% of the baseline national
total annual gross output. The total national impacts with resilience are even lower than the impacts on the Port
Region. This is mainly because resilience tactics, such as ship-rerouting, divert refining activities from the port
region to other regions in the country, offset the negative impacts stemming from the Port Region. All the
resilience tactics considered in the analysis are estimated to have the potential to reduce the national total output
losses by about 98%.
25
Table 7. Summary Results of National Impacts for the Resilience Case
Impact Category Total Output
Change ($ millions)
Total Output Change
(%)
Import Disruption
crude oil 261.3 0.001%
refined petroleum 2.5 0.000%
sub-total (simple sum) 263.8 0.001%
sub-total (eliminating double-counting) 262.5 0.001%
Export Disruption
crude oil 237.5 0.001%
refined petroleum 46.0 0.000%
sub-total (simple sum) 283.5 0.001%
sub-total (eliminating double-counting) 250.2 0.001%
Grand Total (simple sum) 547.2 0.002%
Grand Total (eliminating double-counting) 512.7 0.002%
The estimated total output loss at the national level for the Base Case in our study is about 4 times larger than the
estimate in Gordon et al. (2010), which analyzed the economic impacts of production reduction in the Oil Refinery
Sector in the Gulf Coast Region in the year after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. There are three major reasons for the
difference. First, Gordon et al. only focused on the total impact of production reduction in the Oil Refinery Sector.
In contrast, import disruptions of both crude oil and refined petroleum products analyzed in this study affect
productions of many sectors in the economy. Second, although Gordon et al. (2010) analyzed the impacts for the
entire year after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the estimated production reductions in the Oil Refinery Sector only
ranged between 0 and 14% during the year. Our analysis is a complete cessation of petroleum trade through
PA/PB over a 90-day period. Third, Gordon et al. only focused on the demand-side impacts, with an implicit
multiplier of 1.8 for the Oil Refinery Sector at the national level. Our analysis includes both demand-side and
supply-side impacts, with an implicit multiplier of 4.2 for the U.S. Our estimates of impacts when resilience is
included are much lower than those of all other comparable studies, which do not include resilience at all or do so
in a very limited way. For example, the only resilience adjustment conducted in Gordon et al.) was interindustry
substitution, which has the potential to reduce the total estimated losses by 41%. This compares to a nearly 98%
loss reduction potential at the national level we estimated for all the relevant resilience tactics combined.
The estimated regional economic impacts in the current study is about 65% of the estimate in Rose and Wei
(2013), who analyzed a disruption of trade of all commodities through Beaumont and Port Arthur. However, our
current study indicates a higher percentage loss reduction potential of about 80% at the regional level, largely due
to the use of different types of resilience and different estimates of their direct effectiveness on the basis of better
site-specific and region-specific data.
26
8. Conclusion
We refined and applied our methodology for estimating the total regional and national economic impacts of the
disruption of a major seaport. The application focuses on the petroleum sector supply-chain during a 90-day
closing of the ports at Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas. The major emphasis of the analysis was the use of
primary data and expert judgments to estimate key parameters of various types of resilience tactics, i.e., actions
taken by shipping companies, petroleum refineries and various crude oil and refined petroleum product customers
to reduce their business interruption.
Our analysis indicates that resilience is especially high at the national level, such as to almost totally eliminate the
possibility of any significant disruption, by virtue of such tactics as rerouting tankers, using inventories at the
directly affected ports, and shifting refining activity to nearby locations. Resilience tactics varied significantly at
the regional level depending on their application to crude oil and refined petroleum product imports and exports.
Our analysis also indicates that some of the improvement in system robustness and resilience arises from two
major changes in the U.S. crude oil and refined product supply chain. The first is the unprecedented reversal of the
decline in U.S. oil and gas production driven from development of previously non-productive shale and tight oil
resources. These new resources have added more than 4 million barrels per day of onshore light crude oil supplies.
The scale of the impact is such that U.S. crude oil production volumes are now forecasted by the EIA to set an all-
time record of 10 million barrels per day in 2018 (surpassing the previous 1970 peak). To accommodate this
massive injection of new crude supplies, significant expansions have been required in the U.S. crude pipeline and
storage infrastructure. U.S. crude inventories are now at elevated levels over historical norms. The majority of
these expansions have taken place in areas directly impacting PADD3. The second important change in the U.S.
crude oil and refined product system is the continued and significant growth of U.S. exports of both high-value
light crude oil and of finished hydrocarbon products refined from a combination of domestic and imported crude
supplies. As with domestic supply growth, this export growth has also generated material investments in
expansion of product pipeline and storage facilities, the majority of which has occurred in PADD3 as well. Taken
together, these expansions provide added flexibility and capacity to address crude oil or product supply
disruptions.
Although the example presented in this paper does not appear to represent a major challenge to U.S. national
security, it is likely that a similar disruption and at a much larger port, such as that at Houston, Texas, would in fact
represent such a threat. Our methodology is intended to be able to estimate the total economic impacts of such a
case, as well as a more widespread disruption of several seaports by a major natural disaster or a series of terrorist
acts.
27
References
Barker, K., Santos, J.R. 2010. Measuring the efficacy of inventory with a dynamic input-output model. Int. J. of
Prod. Econ. 126(1): 130-143.
Boettke, P., Chamlee-Wright, E., Gordon, P., Ikeda, S., Leson, P., and Sobel, R. 2007. Political, economic and social
aspects of Katrina. South. Econ. J. 74(2): 363-76.
Bruneau, M., Chang, S., Eguchi, R., Lee, G., O’Rourke, T., Reinhorn, A., Shinozuka, M.,Tierney, K., Wallace, W., von
Winterfeldt, D. 2003. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance seismic resilience of communities. Earthq.
Spectra. 19: 733-52.
Chen, C.Y., and Rose, A. 1991. The absolute and relative joint stability of input-output production and allocation
coefficients. A. W. A. Peterson: Advances in Input-Output Analysis. pp. 25-36. New York: Oxford.
Cutter, S. 2016. The landscape of disaster resilience indicators in the USA. Nat. Hazards. 80: 741–58.
de Mesnard, L. 1997. A biproportional filter to compare technical and allocation coefficient variations. J. of Reg,
Sci. 37(4): 541-64.
Dietzenbacher, E. 1997. In Vindication of the Ghosh Model: A Reinterpretation as a Price Model. J. of Reg. Sci.
37(4): 629-651.
Dixon, P. B., Jerie, M., and Rimmer, M. T. 2016. Modern trade theory for CGE modelling: The Armington, Krugman
and Melitz models. J. of Glob. Econ. Anal. 1(1): 1-110.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015. HAZUS-MH MR4 earthquake technical manual.
Washington, DC: National Institution of Building Sciences.
Flynn, S. 2008. America the resilient: defying terrorism and mitigating natural disasters. Foreign Aff. 87: 2-8.
Gordon, P., Moore, J., Park, J., and Richardson, H. 2010. Short-run economic impacts of Hurricane Katrina (and
Rita). CESifo Forum. 11(2): 73-79.
Miller, R. and Blair, P. 2009. Input-output analysis: foundations and extensions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
IMPLAN. 2016. Impact analysis for planning (IMPLAN) system. Huntersville, NC.
Oosterhaven, J. 1988. On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model. J. of Reg. Sci. 28(2): 203-217.
Park, J., Gordon, P., Moore, J., and Richardson, H. 2008. The state-by-state economic impacts of the 2002
shutdown of the Los Angeles-Long Beach ports. Growth and Chang. 39(4): 548-572.
Park, J.Y., Gordon, P., Moore, J.E II, Richardson, H.W., and Wang L. 2007. Simulating the state-by-state effects of
terrorist attacks on three major U.S. Ports: applying NIEMO (National Interstate Economic Model). The Econ. Cost.
and Conseq. of Terror. 208-234.
Paixao, A. and Marlow, P. 2003. Fourth generation ports - a question of agility? Int. J. of Phys. Distrib. and Logist.
Manag. 19(1): 29-41.
28
Pimm, S. L. 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nat. 307(26): 321–26.
Rice, J. and Trepte, K. 2012. The MIT CTL port resilience survey report. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for
Transportation & Logistics.
http://ctl.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Port%20resilience%20survey%20report%20v27%20sans%20SEM.pdf
Rose, A. 1995. Input-output economics and computable general equilibrium models. Struct. Chang. and Econ. Dyn.
6(3): 295-304.
Rose, A. 2004. Defining and measuring economic resilience to disasters. Disaster Prev. and Manag. 13: 307-14.
Rose, A. 2009. A framework for analyzing and estimating the total economic impacts of a terrorist attack and
natural disaster. J. of Homel. Secur. and Emerg. Manag. 6(1): Article 6.
Rose, A. 2015. Macroeconomic consequences of terrorist attacks: estimation for the analysis of policies and rules.
Benefit Transfer for the Analysis of DHS Policies and Rules. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Rose, A. 2017. Defining and measuring economic resilience from a societal, environmental and security
perspective. Singapore: Springer.
Rose, A. and Allison, T. 1989. On the plausibility of the supply-driven input-output model: empirical evidence on
joint stability. J. of Reg. Sci. 29(3): 451-458.
Rose, A. and Miernyk, W. 1989. Input-output analysis: the first fifty years. Econ. Syst. Res. 1(2): 229-271.
Rose, A. and Wei, D. 2013. Estimating the economic consequences of a port shutdown: The Spec. Role of Resil.
Econ. Syst. Res. 25(2): 212-232.
Rose, A. Sue Wingi, I., Wei, D., and Wein A. 2016. Economic impacts of a California tsunami. Nat. Hazards Rev.
17(2): 1-12.
Rose, A., Asay G., Wei, D., and Leung, B. 2009a. Economic impacts of shutting down the U.S. borders in response to
a security or health threat. Global Business and Terrorism. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Rose, A., Oladosu, G., Lee, B., and Beeler-Asay, G. 2009b. The economic impacts of the 2001 terrorist attacks on
the World Trade Center: a computable general equilibrium analysis. Peace Econ., Peace Sci., and Public Policy.
15(4), Article 4.
Rose, A., Prager, F., Chen, Z., Chatterjee, S., Wei, D., Heatwole, N., and Warren, E. 2017. Economic consequence
analysis of disasters: The E-CAT Software Tool. Singapore: Springer.
Smythe, T. 2013. Assessing the impacts of hurricane Sandy on the port of New York and New Jersey's maritime
responders and response infrastructure. Natural Hazards Center.
http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/research/qr/submitted/smythe_2013.pdf.
Southworth, F., Hayes, J., McLeod, S., and Strauss-Wieder, A. 2014. Making US ports resilient as part of extended
intermodal supply chains. National Cooperative Freight Research Program Report 30.
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ncfrp/ncfrp_rpt_030.pdf.
Tierney, K. J. 1997. Business impacts of the Northridge earthquake. J. of Conting. and Crisis Manag. 5(2): 87-97.
29
Trepte K. and Rice, J. 2014. An initial exploration of port capacity bottlenecks in the USA port system and the implications on resilience. Int. J. of Shipp. and Transp. Logist. 6(3): 339-355. U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. USA Trade Online. https://usatrade.census.gov/. (accessed 2 Mar. 2017). U.S. Department of Energy. 2017. History of SP releases. https://energy.gov/fe/services/petroleum-reserves/strategic-petroleum-reserve/releasing-oil-spr. (accessed 21 Mar. 2017). U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2017a. U.S. field production of crude oil.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=A. (accessed May 31, 2017.)
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2017b. U.S. imports of crude oil and petroleum products.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUS2&f=A. (accessed May 31, 2017.)
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2017c. Annual energy outlook.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/tables_ref.cfm. (accessed May 31, 2017.)
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2017d. U.S. exports of crude oil and petroleum products.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTEXUS2&f=A. (accessed May 31, 2017.)
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2017e- Gulf Coast (PADD 3) crude oil stocks at tank farms and pipelines. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrsfp31&f=a (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2017f. Refinery utilization and capacity statistics for PADD 3. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_unc_dcu_r30_a.htm (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) Wei, D., Chen. Z, and Rose, A. 2016. Development and application of an economic framework to evaluate resilience
in recovering from major port disruptions. Final Report to the California Department of Transportation. Price
School of Public Policy, USC, Los Angeles.
30
Appendix A. Trade Data
Table A1 presents the import and export data for crude oil and petroleum products at the 6-digit HTS code level for
Ports of Port Arthur and Beaumont (Census Bureau, 2017).
Table A1. Imports and Exports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products through Port Arthur and Beaumont, 2016 (in 2016$)
Commodity Import Export
Port Arthur Beaumont Total Port Arthur Beaumont Total
270900 Crude Oil From Petroleum And
Bituminous Minerals 7,360,416,169 1,020,426,259 8,380,842,428 67,441,110 790,775,278 858,216,388
271011 Light Oils& Prep (not Crude) From Petrol &Bitum
271012 Lt Oils, Preps Gt=70% Petroleum/bitumNt Biodiesel 29,945,294 29,945,294 727,243,561 1,386,543,009 2,113,786,570
271019 Petrol Oil Bitum Mineral (nt Crud) EtcNtBiodiesl 787,035,029 142,974,871 930,009,900 3,171,823,323 1,143,787,111 4,315,610,434
271020 Petroleum Oils And Preps Containing Biodiesel, Etc 430,977 430,977
271091 Waste Oil Cont.polychlorina.biphenyl (pcb)/pct/pbb
271099 Waste Oils, Nesoi 63,506 63,506
271111 Natural Gas, Liquefied
271112 Propane, Liquefied 158,438,030 836,110,368 994,548,398
271113 Butanes, Liquefied 20,056,646 197,426,375 217,483,021
271114 Ethylene, Propylene, Butylene,
Butadiene Liquefied 5,639,102 5,639,102
271119 Petroleum Gases Etc., Liquefied, Nesoi
271121 Natural Gas, Gaseous
271129 Petroleum Gases Etc., In Gaseous State, Nesoi
271210 Petroleum Jelly
271220 Paraffin Wax Less Than 0.75% Oil By Weight
271290 Other Mineral Waxes, Nesoi
271311 Petroleum Coke, Not Calcined 12,069,717 12,069,717 242,345,111 36,539,234 278,884,345
271312 Petroleum Coke, Calcined 5,215,590 5,215,590 87,364,795 87,364,795
271320 Petroleum Bitumen 1,956,041 1,956,041
271390 Residue Of Pet Oils Or Bitumin Oils
Nesoi
271410 Bituminous Or Oil Shale And Tar Sands
271490 Bitumen A Asphalt, Asphaltites And Asphaltic Rocks
271500 Bit Mix Fr Nat Asph, Nat Bit,petBit,min Tar Or Pt
Source: Census Bureau (2017).
31
Appendix B. Analysis of Individual Resilience Tactics
B-I. Inventories (crude & refinery products)
Table B1 presents the crude oil and petroleum products stocks at refineries in the Texas Gulf Coast Refining District
for each individual year in the last 10 years. The 5-year and 10-year average levels of stocks are calculated in the
right partition of the table. Table B2 presents the crude oil stocks at tank farms and pipelines in the Gulf Coast
(PADD 3) Region. We assume that the other refineries will not release their own inventories to PA/PB refineries in
case of port disruptions. However, for a 90-day pot disruption, it is reasonable to assume that the excess crude oil
stocks in Year 2016 (182,473 thousand barrels) that exceeds the 10-year average level (123,004.5 thousand
barrels) can be readily accessed and utilized by the PA/PB refineries.
Table B1. Refining District Texas Gulf Coast Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Stocks at Refineries
(thousand barrels)
Year Avg. Avg.
2007 83,519.5 2016 82,171.8
2008 83,650.5 5-year (2012-2016) 81,270.2
2009 81,309.3 10-year (2007-2016) 81,616.2
2010 81,144.9
2011 80,186.7
2012 80,981.8
2013 80,028.7
2014 80,242.6
2015 82,926.0
2016 82,171.8 Source: EIA (2017a).
Table B2. Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Crude Oil Stocks at Tank Farms and Pipelines (thousand barrels)
Year Avg. Avg.
2007 111,858.0 2016 182,473.0
2008 100,821.5 5 Year 133,940.9
2009 119,257.3 10 Year 123,004.5
2010 119,400.4
2011 109,002.8
2012 102,575.0
2013 106,727.0
2014 112,359.0
2015 165,570.7
2016 182,473.0 Source: EIA (2017a).
32
B-II. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Table B3 presents the historical releases of strategic petroleum reserve. In this study, we assume that in a case of
a 90-day disruption at PA/PB, the same amount of SPR withdrawal that was released during Hurricane Katrina can
be released to help maintain the minimum level of operations at the refineries in PA/PB.
Table B3. Historical SPR Releases
(in million barrels)
Year Event Amount
Exchange
2012 Hurricane Isaac 1
2008 Hurricane Gustav and Ike 5.389
2006 Ship Channel Closure 0.75
2006 Barge Accident 0.767
2004 Hurricane Ivan 5.4
2002 Hurricane Lili 0.394
2000 Heating Oil Shortage 32.836
2000 Ship Channel Closure 1
1999 Maya Exchange 11
1996 Pipeline Blockage 0.9
Drawdowns/Releases/Sales
Emergency Drawdowns
2005 Hurricane Katrina 20.8
Non-emergency releases
2011 IEA Coordinated Releases 30
1996 Weeks Island Sale 5.1
1996-97
Sales to Reduce Federal Budget Deficit (second and third
sales of Weeks Island crude oil) 23
Test Sales
2014 Test Sale 5
1990 Desert Shield Test Sale 4
1985 Test Sale 1
Source: DOE (2017).
33
B-III. Excess Capacity of other Refineries in PADD 3 Region
The excess capacity was calculated by subtracting the gross input of crude from 96.5% of the operable capacity.
Gross input and operable capacity for each region was obtained from EIA (2017b). Refineries could not operate at
100% of operable refining capacity for an extended period. Therefore, based on historical data for PADD 3 Region,
we assume 96.5% as the maximum utilization rate of the refineries in the calculations presented in Tables A4 to
A6.
In order to calculate the excess capacity of refineries in areas of the Texas Gulf Coast region other than Port
Arthur/Beaumont, we need to subtract the Port Arthur/Beaumont gross input and operable capacity from the total
input and capacity of the Texas Gulf Coast region. Gross input and operable capacity data are not available for the
specific Port Arthur/Beaumont region. However, EIA (2016) did provide operable capacity of individual refineries in
the two regions, and these were added up to a total operable capacity of 1,498,100 bbl/d . To determine gross
input for Port Arthur/ Beaumont, the Texas Gulf Coast utilization rate of 87.7% was multiplied by the total
operable capacity of the Port Arthur/ Beaumont refineries for an estimated gross input for this region of 1,313,834
bbl/d. The Port Arthur/Beaumont gross input and operable capacity was then subtracted from the total Texas Gulf
Coast gross input and operable capacity to determine the input and capacity of the remaining Texas Gulf Coast
refineries.
Table B4. Texas Gulf Coast* 2016 Excess Capacity (bbl/d)
Gross Input (GI) 2,902,166
Operable capacity (OC) at 96.5% 3,188,264
Operating Utilization rate ( GI/OC) (%) 91.0%
Total Excess Capacity (OC-GI) 286,097
Total Excess Capacity (%) 9.0%
Source: EIA (2017b).
*Not including PA/B
Table B5. Louisiana Gulf Coast 2016 Excess Capacity (bbl/d)
Gross Input (GI) 3,470,000
Operable capacity (OC) at 96.5% 3,566,640
Operating Utilization rate ( GI/OC) (%) 97%
Total Excess Capacity (OC-GI) 96,640
Total Excess Capacity (%) 2.7% Source: EIA (2017b).
Table B6. North Louisiana and Arkansas Excess Capacity 2016 (bbl/d)
Gross Input (GI) 199,000
Operable capacity (OC) at96.5% 234,495
Operating Utilization rate ( GI/OC) (%) 85%
Total Excess Capacity (OC-GI) 35,495
Total Excess Capacity (%) 15.1% Source: EIA (2017b).
34
B-IV. Export Diversion (crude & refinery products)
Table A1 presents that total crude oil imports and exports through the twin ports. To further estimate the
potential of export diversion, we obtained information on the light/medium/heavy breakout for imported crude.
Table B7 presents the percentages of 2016 U.S. total imported crude oil by API gravity. We further aggregate the
percentages into three broad API gravity levels: Light (API>=35˚), Medium (25˚<API<35˚), and Heavy (API <= 25˚).8
Table B8 presents the split of 2016 imported crude by API gravity for the PADD3 (Gulf Coast) processing area. In
2016, the split is roughly 3:32:65 for light, medium, and heavy crude. Compared to the national average level,
PADD3 imported about 9% more heavy crude and 8% less light crude. On the export side, currently EIA does not
provide export crude data by API gravity. So we gather data on US oil production by API gravity (presented in
Table B9). According to the 2016 trade data, total imported and exported crude through PA/PB are $8.38 and
$0.85 billion, respectively. In Table B10, we apply the light/medium/heavy crude percentages of the imported
crude for PADD3 (calculated in Table B8) and the light/medium/heavy crude percentages of the U.S. produced
crude (calculated in Table B9) to the import and export data, respectively. In the last column of Table B10, we
calculate the export diversion potentials after taking into consideration different types of crude. The formula used
is as follow:
Export Diversion = min (exported, imported) (B1)
Table B7. Percentages of U.S. Total Imported Crude Oil by API Gravity, 2016
API Gravity Percentage
20.0˚ or Less 16.82
20.1˚ to 25.0˚ 39.17
25.1˚ to 30.0˚ 8.15
30.1˚ to 35.0˚ 24.67
35.1˚ to 40.0˚ 8.51
40.1˚ to 45.0˚ 1.45
45.1˚ or Greater 1.23
Light (API>=35˚) 11.19
Medium (25˚<API<35˚) 32.82
Heavy (API <= 25˚) 55.99
Source: EIA (2017c).
8 The classification of crudes in Table 1 is used in the EIA Crude Oil Import Tracking Tool. A more widely used
classification is as follows: Light API > 31.1; Med 23.3 to 31.1; Heavy API < 23.3; X-Heavy API < 10.0.
35
Table B8. Crude Oil Imports by API Gravity for PADD3, 2016
Type Thousand Barrels Percent
Light 36,784 3.0%
Medium 391,392 31.9%
Heavy 800,121 65.1%
Source: EIA (2017c).
Table B9. U.S Crude Oil Production by API Gravity, 2016
API Gravity Thousand
Barrels Percent
<=20.0 4,839 4.8%
20.1-25.0 2,077 2.1%
25.1-30.0 8,476 8.4%
30.1-35.0 14,065 14.0%
35.1-40.0 18,726 18.6%
40.1-45.0 30,182 30.0%
45.1-50.0 11,366 11.3%
50.1-55.0 4,908 4.9%
>55.0 5,453 5.4%
Unknown 530 0.5%
Total 100,620 100.0%
Light (API>=35˚) 70,635 70.6%
Medium (25˚<API<35˚) 22,541 22.5%
Heavy (API <= 25˚) 6,916 6.9%
Source: EIA (2017c).
Table B10. Import and Export of Crude Oil through Port Arthur and Beaumont by API Gravity, 2016 (in 2016$)
Type Import Export
Amount of Export
Diversion
Light (API>=35˚) $0.25 $0.61 $0.25
Medium (25˚<API<35˚) $2.67 $0.19 $0.19
Heavy (API <= 25˚) $5.46 $0.06 $0.06
Total $8.38 $0.86 $0.50
The potential of export diversion of petroleum products is analyzed using equation B1 based on the trade data presented in Table A1.
36
B-V. Import Diversion (shifting crude intended for chemical plants)
Import diversion refers to diverting imported crude oil originally purchased as production inputs by other economic sectors to petroleum refineries in case of emergency crude oil import disruption. Table B11 presents the top 10 crude oil consuming sectors in the Port MSA Region. However, we decided not to pursue this resilience tactic because, when the port is disrupted, the imported crude to all the users is disrupted. Therefore, no imported crude can be shifted from chemical plants to refineries.
Table B11. Top 10 Crude Oil Using Sectors in the Port MSA Region
(in million 2016$)
Industry Code
Description Crude Oil
Input (locally produced)
Crude Oil Input
(imported)
Total Crude Oil Input (imported + locally produced)
156 Petroleum refineries $118.7 $14,221.6 $14,340.3
161 Petrochemical manufacturing $6.3 $748.3 $754.7
42 Electric power generation - Fossil fuel $0.5 $53.8 $54.2
165 Other basic organic chemical manufacturing $0.4 $44.8 $45.2
50 Natural gas distribution $0.4 $44.8 $45.2
413 Pipeline transportation $0.3 $38.5 $38.8
20 Extraction of natural gas and crude petroleum $0.2 $22.2 $22.3
160 All other petroleum and coal products manufacturing $0.2 $20.2
$20.3
164 Other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing $0.1 $9.3 $9.4
526 Other local government enterprises $0.1 $8.5 $8.6
Source: IMPLAN (2017)
37
B-VI. Relocation (Regional Refinery Capacity)
PADD 3 Absorption Capacity
Other refineries along the Gulf Coast can reasonably be assumed to access diverted “over the water” crude
supplies; However, inland PADD3 refineries will likely being using different crude slates and supply chains, and thus
would be difficult to utilize the diverted crude from PA/PB. We assume that the refineries in the following three
sub-regions of PADD 3 can absorb some of the refining activities of the Port Arthur/Beaumont refineries when
there is disruption at PA/PB: Texas Gulf Coast, Louisiana Gulf Coast, and North Louisiana/Arkansas.
Absorption capacity as a percent was calculated by dividing the excess capacity of each of the three PADD 3 sub-
regions calculated in section BII by the 2016 estimated Port Author and Beaumont gross crude input (1,313,834
bbl/d). Remaining Texas Gulf Coast refineries had a calculated excess capacity of 286,097 bbl/d, with the capacity
to absorb 21.8% of the Port Arthur/ Beaumont gross input. Louisiana Gulf Coast refineries had a calculated excess
capacity of 96,640 bbl/d, with the capacity to absorb 7.4% of the Port Arthur/ Beaumont gross input. North
Louisiana and Arkansas refineries had a calculated excess capacity of 35,495 bbl/d, with the capacity to absorb
2.7% of the Port Arthur/ Beaumont gross input. These three PADD 3 sub-regions have a combined total excess
capacity of 418,232 bbl/d, having the total capacity to absorb 31.8% of the Port Arthur/ Beaumont gross input.
Table B12. PADD 3 Excess and Absorption Capacities (Assuming Refineries work at 96.5%)
Texas Gulf Coast
Texas Gulf Coast - Port Arthur/Beaumont Calculations (bbl/d)
TX GC Gross Input 4,216,000
PA/B Gross Input 1,313,834
TX GC - PA/B GI 2,902,166
TX GC Operable Capacity 4,802,000
PA/B Operable Capacity 1,498,100
TX GC - PA/B Capacity 3,303,900 Source: EIA (2017b) and EIA (2016)
Texas Gulf Coast* 2016 Excess Capacity (bbl/d)
Gross Input (GI) 2,902,166
Operable capacity (OC) @ 96.5% 3,188,264
Operating Utilization rate ( GI/OC) (%) 91.0%
Total Excess Capacity (OC-GI) 286,097
Total Excess Capacity (%) 9.0% Source: EIA (2017b)
TX Gulf Coast* Absorption Capacity (2016)
Estimated Beaumont/ Port Arthur Gross Input (bbl/d) 1,313,834
TX Gulf Coast Excess Capacity (bbl/d) 286,097
TX Gulf Coast Absorption Capacity 21.8% Source: EIA (2017b)
*Not including PA/B
38
Louisiana Gulf Coast
Louisiana Gulf Coast 2016 Excess Capacity (bbl/d)
Gross Input (GI) 3,470,000
Operable capacity (OC) @ 96.5% 3,566,640
Operating Utilization rate ( GI/OC) (%) 97%
Total Excess Capacity (OC-GI) 96,640
Total Excess Capacity (%) 2.7% Source: EIA (2017b)
LA Gulf Coast Absorption Capacity (2016)
Estimated Beaumont/ Port Arthur Gross Input (bbl/d) 1,313,834
LA Gulf Coast Excess Capacity (bbl/d) 96,640
LA Gulf Coast Absorption Capacity 7.4% Source: EIA (2017b)
North Louisiana and Arkansas
North Louisiana and Arkansas Excess Capacity 2016 (bbl/d)
Gross Input (GI) 199,000
Operable capacity (OC) @96.5% 234,495
Operating Utilization rate ( GI/OC) (%) 85%
Total Excess Capacity (OC-GI) 35,495
Total Excess Capacity (%) 15.1% Source: EIA (2017b)
North Louisiana and Arkansas Absorption Capacity (2016)
Estimated Beaumont/ Port Arthur Gross Input (bbl/d) 1,313,834
NLA & AR Operating Excess (bbl/d) 35,495
NLA & AR Gulf Coast Absorption Capacity* 2.7% Source: EIA (2017b).
Table B13. Excess and Absorption Capacity of Select PADD 3 Refineries Working at 96.5% of Capacity
PADD 3 Region Excess Capacity (bbl/d) Absorption Capacity of
PA/B Gross Input**
Texas Gulf Coast* 286,097 21.8%
Louisiana Gulf Coast 96,640 7.4%
North Louisiana and Arkansas 35,495 2.7%
Total 418,232 31.8%
* Not including PA/B **Estimated PA/B Gross Input =1,313,834 bbl/d
39
B-VII. Production Recapture (Recapture Factors – 90 days or less)
Production recapture refers to the ability to make up lost production by working overtime or extra shifts after the
ports re-open and the supply-chain resumes, in order to recoup losses. Table B14 presents the production
recapture factors (the percentage of output losses that can be recouped by production rescheduling by HAZUS
occupancy class). Since the HAZUS recapture factors pertain to the maximum potential recapture capability, in the
analysis we cut these percentages in half in order to account for obstacles to implementation.
Table B14. Production Recapture Factors
HAZUS Occupancy Class HAZUS Recapture Factor
RES4 Temporary Lodging 0.60
RES5 Institutional Dormitory 0.60
RES6 Nursing Home 0.60
COM1 Retail Trade 0.87
COM2 Wholesale Trade 0.87
COM3 Personal and Repair Services 0.51
COM4 Professional/Technical Services 0.90
COM5 Banks 0.90
COM6 Hospital 0.60
COM7 Medical Office/Clinic 0.60
COM8 Entertainment & Recreation 0.60
COM9 Theaters 0.60
COM10 Parking 0.60
IND1 Heavy 0.98
IND2 Light 0.98
IND3 Food/Drugs/Chemicals 0.98
IND4 Metals/Minerals Processing 0.98
IND5 High Technology 0.98
IND6 Construction 0.95
AGR1 Agriculture 0.75
REL1 Church/Non-Profit 0.60
GOV1 General Services 0.80
GOV2 Emergency Response 0.00
EDU1 Grade Schools 0.60
EDU2 Colleges/Universities 0.60 Source: FEMA (2015).
40
B-VIII. Other Considerations
A. PA/PB Refinery Capacity (including a description of crude oil utilization by type)
Port Arthur Refineries Motiva Motiva Enterprises LLC 2555 Savannah Avenue Port Arthur, TX 77640 This refinery is operated by Motiva and owned by both Shell and Saudi Aramco (50/50). According to Shell the refinery can handle most grades of crude oil, including the lowest quality crude (Motiva, 2017). The facility has the highest crude refining capacity in the United States with a capacity of approximately 600,000 barrels per day (EIA, 2016). The refinery produces gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel delivered to the East Coast, Midwest and Central and Southeast Texas (Motiva, 2017).
Total SA Highway 366 & 32nd St. Port Arthur, TX 77642 This Refinery is owned and operated by Total SA. The facility can refine both heavy (hard to process) crude oil and lighter (domestic) crude oil (Total SA, 2017). The capacity of the refinery is approximately 225,000 barrels per day (EIA, 2016). The facility also operates a 1 million metric ton/year steam cracker in a joint-venture with BASF, 80% of the steam cracker feedstock needs are met with ethane, butane and propane from shale gas. Other petroleum products that the facility produces include transportation fuels, aromatics and liquefied petroleum gas (Total SA, 2017).
Valero 1801 South Gulfway Drive Port Arthur, TX 77640 The Valero Port Arthur refinery facility can process 100% heavy sour crude oil (Valero, 2017). The company did not go into detail on the other types of crude the facility can handle. The facility also produces conventional, premium and reformulated gasoline before oxygenate blending, as well as diesel, jet fuel, petrochemicals, petroleum coke and sulfur (Valero, 2017). The refinery capacity of the facility is approximately 335,000 barrels per day (EIA, 2016).
Beaumont Refineries
Exxon Mobil
Sycamore St, Beaumont, TX 77701
Exxon owns and operates this facility with a capacity of 334,600 barrels per day as of Jan 2016 (EIA, 2016) with a possible expansion of 40,00 bbl/day in 2016 or 2017 (ExxonMobil, 2017). The facility produces gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, polyethylene, benzene, lubricants, greases, wax stock, Mobil1.It is part of a large Exxon complex that includes chemical, lube and polyethylene plants. The type of crude oil that this facility processes was unable to be found at the current time.
41
Table B15. Port Arthur/Port Beaumont Refinery Products and Capacity
Sources: EIA(2016), Motiva Enterprises LLC (2017), Total SA (2017), Valero (2017), ExxonMobil (2017).
B. Cushing, OK Oil Storage Area
Cushing Oklahoma is a major crude oil storage area and pipeline hub. It receives crude oil from various
drilling regions in the US and Canada via 13 pipelines and then stores or transports the crude to refineries
throughout the US (Bloomberg, 2012) Storage facilities are operated by nine different firms and have an
approximate combined storage capacity of 63.8 Million barrels of crude oil.
Two of the fourteen pipelines that deliver crude from Cushing can supply the Beaumont/Port Arthur area. The first
is the 487 mile Gulf coast portion of the Keystone pipeline, which has the capacity to deliver 830,000 bbl/day
directly to the Beaumont/Port Arthur region via a terminal in Nederland, Texas (TransCanada Corp). The second, is
the Seaway pipeline system which has a capacity of 850,000 bbl/day and delivers crude directly to the Houston
area and then to the Beaumont/Port Arthur region via two short connecting pipelines (Seaway Pipeline Project).
Location Refinery Crude Oil Processing
Ability Products
Capacity bbl/day
Port Arthur
Motiva
Can handle most grades of crude oil, including the lowest quality crude
Refinery produces and transports gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel
603,000
Total SA
Can refine both heavy (hard to process) crude oil and lighter (domestic) crude oil.
Facility operates a 1 million metric ton/year steam cracker in a joint-venture with BASF, producing 80% of ethane, butane and propane from shale gas. Also produces transportation fuels, aromatics and liquefied petroleum gas.
225,500
Valero (Premcor Refining Group)
Can process 100% heavy sour crude oil according to Valero.
Production includes conventional, premium and reformulated gasoline before oxygenate blending, as well as diesel, jet fuel, petrochemicals, petroleum coke and sulfur.
335,000
Beaumont Exxon Mobil No Data Found
Facility produces gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, polyethylene, benzene, lubricants, greases, wax sock, Mobil1 Itis part of a large Exxon complex that includes a chemical, lube and polyethylene plants
334,600
Total 1,498,100
42
Table B16. Cushing, OK: Storage Facilities and Capacity
Storage Facility Storage Capacity (MMbbl)
Rose Rock Midstream, LP (Cushing) 7.6
Plains All American Pipeline, LP (Cushing) 3.8
Blueknight Energy Partners, LP (Cushing) 7.4
Enbridge Energy Partners, LP (Cushing) 20.1
Enterprise Products Operating, LLC (East & West Cushing) 3.5
NGL Energy Partners, LP (Cushing) 7.6
Magellan Midstream Partners, LP (Cushing) 12
Kinder Morgan Terminals, Inc. (Cushing) 1.8
TransCanada Corp. (Cushing) 6.2- 20*
Total 63.8
Source: Tank Terminals.com (2017)
* Not included in the total.
Sources: Seaway Pipeline Project (2017), TransCanada Corporation (2017)
Pipelines Connecting Cushing to Beaumont/ Port Arthur
Pipeline Capacity (bbl/d) Connection to Beaumont/ Port Arthur
Keystone (Gulf Coast Project) 830,000 Directly to Beaumont/Port Arthur area via Nederland,
Texas
Seaway 850,000 Via ECHO to Beaumont/Port Arthur Lateral connector
43
Pipelines
Two oil pipelines service Port Arthur and Beaumont, the Keystone (Gulf Coast Project) and the Seaway via the
Houston connection. The Keystone pipeline is a direct line from Cushing, OK with the capacity to deliver 830,000
bbl/day directly to the Beaumont/Port Arthur region via a terminal in Nederland, Texas. The second is a
connecting line of the Seaway pipeline, which connects the Enterprise Crude Houston (ECHO) oil terminal; with al
has a storage capacity of 6.4 million barrels directly to Port Arthur/Beaumont.
Sources: Seaway pipeline Project (2017)
44
Appendix C. Regional Impact Analysis Results
Table C1. Regional Direct Output Impacts Due to a 90-day Import Disruption of Crude Oil
at Port Arthur and Beaumont
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
Sector
Imported Crude Oil
Disruption
Input of Oil and Gas
Extraction (Imported)
Input of Oil and Gas
Extraction (Regionally Produced )
Total Oil and Gas
Input
Percent Oil and
Gas Extraction
Input Reduction
Total Sectoral Output
Direct Output
Reduction
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 139.8 0.0
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 3.0 21.7 0.2 21.8 13.8% 222.7 30.7
03. Other Mining 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0% 208.0 0.0
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 7.3 52.6 0.4 53.0 13.8% 253.7 34.9
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 899.4 0.0
06. Natural Gas Distribution 6.1 43.8 0.4 44.2 13.8% 126.7 17.4
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 43.9 0.0
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 227.7 0.0
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 242.3 0.0
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential Structures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1,385.3 0.0
11. Construction of Residential Structures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1,083.3 0.0
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1,006.1 0.0
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 375.5 0.0
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 22.6 0.0
15. Wood Products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 105.8 0.0
16. Paper and Printing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 427.6 0.0
17. Petroleum Refineries 1,931.1 13,903.4 116.2 14,019.5 13.8% 26,814.8 3,693.5
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 1.0 7.5 0.1 7.5 13.8% 179.5 24.7
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 101.6 731.6 6.2 737.8 13.8% 16,345.3 2,251.1
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 1.0 7.1 0.1 7.2 0.0% 710.7 0.0
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0% 164.0 0.0
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Mfg 1.3 9.1 0.1 9.2 13.8% 535.2 73.6
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Mfg 6.1 43.8 0.4 44.2 13.8% 3,257.1 448.3
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 0.6 4.4 0.1 4.5 0.0% 2,072.1 0.0
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 0.3 1.9 0.0 2.0 0.0% 750.5 0.0
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0% 762.5 0.0
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 142.2 0.0
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 70.9 0.0
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0% 561.1 0.0
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1,086.4 0.0
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1,397.1 0.0
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 227.6 0.0
45
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 50.2 0.0
34. Transportation Equipment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 334.7 0.0
35. Furniture & Related Product 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 13.8 0.0
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 24.7 0.0
37. Wholesale Trade 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0% 1,680.8 0.0
38. Retail Trade 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0% 1,814.8 0.0
39. Air Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 35.9 0.0
40. Rail Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 231.7 0.0
41. Water Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 67.3 0.0
42. Truck Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 270.8 0.0
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 50.5 0.0
44. Pipeline Transportation 5.2 37.6 0.3 37.9 13.8% 86.8 11.9
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 332.2 0.0
46. Couriers & Messengers 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 59.2 0.0
47. Warehousing & Storage 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 83.1 0.0
48. Information 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 722.0 0.0
49. Finance and Insurance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1,410.2 0.0
50. Real Estate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 722.8 0.0
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 1,498.6 0.0
52. Rental and Leasing 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0% 289.2 0.0
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management & Admin Services 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0% 2,703.5 0.0
54. Educational Services 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 74.5 0.0
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0% 2,078.4 0.0
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 123.1 0.0
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0% 1,051.0 0.0
58. Other Services 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0% 909.6 0.0
59. Government & Non-NAICs 0.8 5.9 0.1 5.9 0.0% 2,079.1 0.0
Total 2,066.5 14,873.8 124.6 14,998.4 13.8% 80,645.9 6,586.3
46
Table C2. Base Case Total Regional Economic Impacts of a 90-Day Import Disruption of Crude Oil
at Port Arthur and Beaumont
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
I-O Model Sector Direct
Output Loss
Supply-
Side bjj
Direct
Value-
Added Change
Total Supply-
Side Output
Change
Demand-
Side bjj
Final
Demand Change
Total Demand-
Side Output
Change
Total
Import Disruption
Impacts (net
double-counting)
Capped
Total
Import Disruption
Impact
Output change
(annual basis)
(%)
1 2 3 (=1/2) 4 5 6 (=1/5) 7 8 (=4+7-1)
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0.0 1.030 0.0 0.5 1.029 0.0 3.3 3.8 3.8 2.7%
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 30.7 1.001 30.6 31.3 1.001 30.6 48.1 48.8 48.8 21.9%
03. Other Mining 0.0 1.030 0.0 1.0 1.030 0.0 8.7 9.7 9.7 4.6%
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 34.9 1.002 34.9 35.8 1.002 34.9 44.8 45.7 45.7 18.0%
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0.0 1.450 0.0 18.1 1.448 0.0 35.3 53.4 53.4 5.9%
06. Natural Gas Distribution 17.4 1.000 17.4 17.9 1.000 17.4 32.1 32.6 31.2 24.7%
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0.0 1.005 0.0 0.3 1.005 0.0 2.2 2.5 2.5 5.7%
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0.0 1.000 0.0 1.0 1.000 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.4%
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0.0 1.000 0.0 2.4 1.000 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 1.0%
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential Structures 0.0 1.000 0.0 6.4 1.000 0.0 0.0 6.4 6.4 0.5%
11. Construction of Residential Structures 0.0 1.000 0.0 4.9 1.000 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.9 0.5%
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 0.0 1.010 0.0 6.6 1.007 0.0 57.8 64.5 64.5 6.4%
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0.0 1.005 0.0 0.7 1.005 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.4 0.4%
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.1 1.001 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3%
15. Wood Products 0.0 1.016 0.0 0.4 1.016 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6%
16. Paper and Printing 0.0 1.003 0.0 1.7 1.003 0.0 0.9 2.6 2.6 0.6%
17. Petroleum Refineries 3,693.5 1.012 3649.8 3728.7 1.012 3650.9 3746.7 3781.9 3781.9 14.1%
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 24.7 1.002 24.6 27.5 1.002 24.6 26.2 29.0 29.0 16.2%
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 2,251.1 1.035 2176.0 2311.7 1.035 2176.0 2265.3 2325.8 2325.8 14.2%
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 0.0 1.021 0.0 9.0 1.021 0.0 8.8 17.8 17.8 2.5%
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0.0 1.001 0.0 2.6 1.001 0.0 0.3 2.9 2.9 1.8%
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Mfg 73.6 1.006 73.1 79.0 1.006 73.1 75.3 80.7 80.7 15.1%
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Mfg 448.3 1.002 447.4 474.3 1.002 447.4 453.9 479.9 479.9 14.7%
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 0.0 1.003 0.0 15.3 1.003 0.0 0.5 15.8 15.8 0.8%
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 0.0 1.000 0.0 7.9 1.000 0.0 0.1 8.0 8.0 1.1%
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0.0 1.003 0.0 2.4 1.003 0.0 0.9 3.2 3.2 0.4%
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.5 1.001 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.4%
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0.0 1.013 0.0 0.3 1.013 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.9%
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0.0 1.014 0.0 1.7 1.014 0.0 0.2 1.8 1.8 0.3%
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0.0 1.006 0.0 2.2 1.006 0.0 0.9 3.1 3.1 0.3%
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0.0 1.008 0.0 2.4 1.008 0.0 0.7 3.2 3.2 0.2%
47
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.4 1.001 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2%
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.1 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3%
34. Transportation Equipment 0.0 1.009 0.0 0.5 1.009 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.3%
35. Furniture & Related Product 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3%
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.1 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3%
37. Wholesale Trade 0.0 1.027 0.0 3.7 1.022 0.0 95.6 99.3 99.3 5.9%
38. Retail Trade 0.0 1.069 0.0 5.0 1.045 0.0 55.8 60.8 60.8 3.3%
39. Air Transportation 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.8 1.001 0.0 1.2 2.0 2.0 5.6%
40. Rail Transportation 0.0 1.002 0.0 3.3 1.002 0.0 20.9 24.2 24.2 10.4%
41. Water Transportation 0.0 1.001 0.0 1.1 1.001 0.0 2.4 3.6 3.6 5.3%
42. Truck Transportation 0.0 1.008 0.0 3.7 1.007 0.0 18.1 21.8 21.8 8.1%
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0.0 1.002 0.0 0.4 1.001 0.0 1.3 1.7 1.7 3.4%
44. Pipeline Transportation 11.9 1.002 11.9 13.4 1.002 11.9 23.3 24.8 21.4 24.7%
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0.0 1.105 0.0 1.5 1.104 0.0 5.6 7.0 7.0 2.1%
46. Couriers & Messengers 0.0 1.024 0.0 0.5 1.024 0.0 1.9 2.4 2.4 4.1%
47. Warehousing & Storage 0.0 1.035 0.0 0.3 1.034 0.0 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.8%
48. Information 0.0 1.102 0.0 1.0 1.099 0.0 15.7 16.7 16.7 2.3%
49. Finance and Insurance 0.0 1.332 0.0 2.2 1.319 0.0 40.0 42.3 42.3 3.0%
50. Real Estate 0.0 1.046 0.0 2.6 1.042 0.0 18.8 21.3 21.3 2.9%
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0.0 1.012 0.0 1.2 1.008 0.0 45.7 46.9 46.9 3.1%
52. Rental and Leasing 0.0 1.009 0.0 0.5 1.008 0.0 8.5 9.1 9.1 3.1%
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management and Admin Services 0.0 1.134 0.0 7.2 1.121 0.0 67.6 74.8 74.8 2.8%
54. Educational Services 0.0 1.006 0.0 0.3 1.005 0.0 2.2 2.5 2.5 3.3%
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0.0 1.148 0.0 6.4 1.097 0.0 58.2 64.6 64.6 3.1%
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.0 1.033 0.0 0.3 1.032 0.0 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.2%
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0.0 1.036 0.0 2.9 1.025 0.0 24.8 27.7 27.7 2.6%
58. Other Services 0.0 1.042 0.0 2.5 1.029 0.0 23.4 25.9 25.9 2.8%
59. Government & Non NAICs 0.0 1.030 0.0 8.0 1.020 0.0 35.2 43.1 43.1 2.1%
Total 6,586.3
6,465.9 6,864.4
6,467.1 7,387.9 7,666.1 7,661.3 9.5%
48
Table C3. Base Case Regional Impacts of a 90-Day Export Disruption of Crude Oil
at Port Arthur and Beaumont
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
I-O Model Sector Final Demand Change
Demand-Side Impacts of Export
Disruption Output Change
(%)
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0.00 0.01 0.008%
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 23.99 24.01 10.785%
03. Other Mining 0.00 0.83 0.397%
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 0.00 0.08 0.030%
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0.00 0.27 0.030%
06. Natural Gas Distribution 0.00 0.01 0.011%
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0.00 0.03 0.058%
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0.00 0.00 0.000%
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0.00 0.00 0.000%
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential Structures 0.00 0.00 0.000%
11. Construction of Residential Structures 0.00 0.00 0.000%
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 0.00 0.67 0.067%
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0.00 0.01 0.003%
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0.00 0.00 0.003%
15. Wood Products 0.00 0.00 0.003%
16. Paper and Printing 0.00 0.01 0.002%
17. Petroleum Refineries 0.00 0.19 0.001%
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 0.00 0.02 0.011%
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 0.00 0.03 0.000%
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 0.00 0.04 0.006%
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.000%
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.000%
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.000%
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.000%
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.000%
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0.00 0.01 0.001%
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0.00 0.00 0.000%
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0.00 0.01 0.008%
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.001%
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0.00 0.01 0.001%
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0.00 0.02 0.002%
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0.00 0.00 0.000%
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0.00 0.00 0.000%
34. Transportation Equipment 0.00 0.01 0.003%
35. Furniture & Related Product 0.00 0.00 0.001%
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.001%
49
37. Wholesale Trade 0.00 0.29 0.017%
38. Retail Trade 0.00 0.88 0.048%
39. Air Transportation 0.00 0.01 0.031%
40. Rail Transportation 0.00 0.02 0.007%
41. Water Transportation 0.00 0.02 0.033%
42. Truck Transportation 0.00 0.04 0.016%
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0.00 0.02 0.042%
44. Pipeline Transportation 0.00 0.09 0.106%
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0.00 0.03 0.010%
46. Couriers & Messengers 0.00 0.01 0.021%
47. Warehousing & Storage 0.00 0.02 0.027%
48. Information 0.00 0.27 0.037%
49. Finance and Insurance 0.00 0.71 0.050%
50. Real Estate 0.00 0.34 0.047%
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0.00 1.05 0.070%
52. Rental and Leasing 0.00 0.16 0.055%
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management, and Admin Services 0.00 0.77 0.029%
54. Educational Services 0.00 0.05 0.067%
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0.00 1.34 0.064%
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.00 0.08 0.061%
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0.00 0.49 0.046%
58. Other Services 0.00 0.41 0.045%
59. Government & Non NAICs 0.00 0.29 0.014%
Total 23.99 33.68 0.042%
50
Table C4. Regional Direct Output Impacts Due to a 90-day Import Disruption of Refined Petroleum Products
at PA/PB
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
Sector
Imported Refined
Petroleum Products
Disruption
Input of Refined
Petroleum Products
(Imported)
Input of Refined
Petroleum Products
(Regionally Produced )
Total Refined
Petroleum Products
Input
Percent Refined
Petroleum Products
Input Reduction
Total Sectoral Output
Direct Output
Reduction
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0.1 0.6 2.2 2.7 0.0% 139.8 0.0
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 0.1 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0% 222.7 0.0
03. Other Mining 0.2 1.1 3.3 4.4 0.0% 208.0 0.0
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 0.1 0.8 3.3 4.2 0.0% 253.7 0.0
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0.2 1.5 5.7 7.1 0.0% 899.4 0.0
06. Natural Gas Distribution 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 126.7 0.0
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.0% 43.9 0.0
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0.2 1.1 4.0 5.1 0.0% 227.7 0.0
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0.9 5.5 11.5 17.0 0.0% 242.3 0.0
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential Structures 1.3 7.9 25.1 33.0 4.0% 1,385.3 56.1
11. Construction of Residential Structures 1.3 7.5 19.0 26.5 4.8% 1,083.3 51.8
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 2.0 11.6 28.8 40.5 4.9% 1,006.1 49.1
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.0% 375.5 0.0
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 22.6 0.0
15. Wood Products 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.0% 105.8 0.0
16. Paper and Printing 0.2 1.0 3.7 4.7 0.0% 427.6 0.0
17. Petroleum Refineries 16.1 94.9 271.6 366.5 4.4% 26,814.8 1,178.4
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 0.9 5.6 17.7 23.2 0.0% 179.5 0.0
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 123.1 724.9 223.7 948.6 13.0% 16,345.3 2,120.6
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 1.6 9.7 34.9 44.6 3.7% 710.7 26.1
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0.7 3.9 15.3 19.2 0.0% 164.0 0.0
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Mfg 1.2 7.2 23.4 30.6 4.0% 535.2 21.3
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Mfg 19.3 113.6 58.2 171.8 11.2% 3,257.1 365.6
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 8.8 51.6 35.3 86.9 10.1% 2,072.1 209.0
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 5.7 33.4 22.2 55.6 10.2% 750.5 76.5
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0.4 2.5 7.3 9.7 0.0% 762.5 0.0
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0% 142.2 0.0
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.0% 70.9 0.0
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0.2 1.0 1.8 2.8 0.0% 561.1 0.0
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0.1 0.7 1.7 2.4 0.0% 1,086.4 0.0
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0.3 1.6 4.2 5.8 0.0% 1,397.1 0.0
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0% 227.6 0.0
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0% 50.2 0.0
34. Transportation Equipment 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0% 334.7 0.0
51
35. Furniture & Related Product 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 13.8 0.0
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0% 24.7 0.0
37. Wholesale Trade 0.2 1.1 4.1 5.2 0.0% 1,680.8 0.0
38. Retail Trade 0.1 0.8 2.6 3.4 0.0% 1,814.8 0.0
39. Air Transportation 0.2 1.3 5.2 6.5 0.0% 35.9 0.0
40. Rail Transportation 0.9 5.3 20.8 26.1 0.0% 231.7 0.0
41. Water Transportation 0.3 1.8 7.1 8.9 0.0% 67.3 0.0
42. Truck Transportation 1.0 5.6 21.5 27.1 0.0% 270.8 0.0
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0.1 0.5 2.0 2.6 0.0% 50.5 0.0
44. Pipeline Transportation 0.3 1.6 6.5 8.1 0.0% 86.8 0.0
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0.2 0.9 3.3 4.3 0.0% 332.2 0.0
46. Couriers & Messengers 0.1 0.7 2.8 3.5 0.0% 59.2 0.0
47. Warehousing & Storage 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0% 83.1 0.0
48. Information 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.0% 722.0 0.0
49. Finance and Insurance 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.0% 1,410.2 0.0
50. Real Estate 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.0% 722.8 0.0
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0.2 1.0 0.9 1.9 0.0% 1,498.6 0.0
52. Rental and Leasing 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.0% 289.2 0.0
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management & Admin Services 0.2 1.2 4.4 5.6 0.0% 2,703.5 0.0
54. Educational Services 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0% 74.5 0.0
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0.2 1.2 3.9 5.1 0.0% 2,078.4 0.0
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.0% 123.1 0.0
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0.2 1.0 3.5 4.4 0.0% 1,051.0 0.0
58. Other Services 0.1 0.5 1.8 2.3 0.0% 909.6 0.0
59. Government & Non-NAICs 0.3 2.0 7.6 9.6 0.0% 2,079.1 0.0
Total 242.4 1,118.5 928.7 2,047.2 11.8% 80,645.9 4,154.4
52
Table C5. Base Case Regional Impacts of a 90-Day Import Disruption of Refined Petroleum Products
at Port Arthur and Beaumont
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
I-O Model Sector Direct
Output Loss
Supply-
Side bjj
Direct
Value-
Added Change
Total Supply-
Side Output
Change
Demand-
Side bjj
Final
Demand Change
Total Demand-
Side Output
Change
Total
Import Disruption
Impacts (net
double-counting)
Capped
Total
Import Disruption
Impact
Output change
(annual basis)
(%)
1 2 3 (=1/2) 4 5 6 (=1/5) 7 8 (=4+7-1)
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0.0 1.030 0.0 0.2 1.029 0.0 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.2%
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.5 1.001 0.0 6.3 6.8 6.8 3.0%
03. Other Mining 0.0 1.030 0.0 0.5 1.030 0.0 3.6 4.1 4.1 2.0%
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 0.0 1.002 0.0 0.4 1.002 0.0 9.1 9.5 9.5 3.7%
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0.0 1.450 0.0 1.3 1.448 0.0 32.4 33.6 33.6 3.7%
06. Natural Gas Distribution 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.2 1.000 0.0 13.1 13.2 13.2 10.4%
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0.0 1.005 0.0 0.4 1.005 0.0 1.9 2.3 2.3 5.2%
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.4 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2%
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.7 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.3%
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential Structures 56.1 1.000 56.1 58.4 1.000 56.1 56.1 58.4 58.4 4.2%
11. Construction of Residential Structures 51.8 1.000 51.8 53.6 1.000 51.8 51.8 53.6 53.6 4.9%
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 49.1 1.010 48.6 50.9 1.007 48.8 76.0 77.8 77.8 7.7%
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0.0 1.005 0.0 0.3 1.005 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.2%
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2%
15. Wood Products 0.0 1.016 0.0 0.2 1.016 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7%
16. Paper and Printing 0.0 1.003 0.0 0.7 1.003 0.0 0.8 1.5 1.5 0.4%
17. Petroleum Refineries 1,178.4 1.012 1164.4 1196.3 1.012 1164.8 1233.0 1250.9 1250.9 4.7%
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 0.0 1.002 0.0 1.0 1.002 0.0 1.2 2.2 2.2 1.2%
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 2,120.6 1.035 2049.8 2140.9 1.035 2049.8 2137.2 2157.6 2157.6 13.2%
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 26.1 1.021 25.6 28.7 1.021 25.6 33.6 36.2 36.2 5.1%
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.9 1.001 0.0 0.3 1.2 1.2 0.7%
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 21.3 1.006 21.1 23.3 1.006 21.1 23.2 25.2 25.2 4.7%
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 365.6 1.002 364.8 381.9 1.002 364.8 371.6 388.0 388.0 11.9%
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 209.0 1.003 208.4 217.9 1.003 208.4 209.4 218.4 218.4 10.5%
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 76.5 1.000 76.4 81.3 1.000 76.4 76.6 81.4 81.4 10.8%
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0.0 1.003 0.0 1.2 1.003 0.0 0.7 1.9 1.9 0.3%
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.5 1.001 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.4%
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0.0 1.013 0.0 0.1 1.013 0.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4%
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0.0 1.014 0.0 0.7 1.014 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.1%
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0.0 1.006 0.0 1.1 1.006 0.0 1.1 2.2 2.2 0.2%
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0.0 1.008 0.0 1.2 1.008 0.0 0.8 2.0 2.0 0.1%
53
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.2 1.001 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1%
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.1 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2%
34. Transportation Equipment 0.0 1.009 0.0 0.2 1.009 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.2%
35. Furniture & Related Product 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1%
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.0 1.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2%
37. Wholesale Trade 0.0 1.027 0.0 1.7 1.022 0.0 74.9 76.6 76.6 4.6%
38. Retail Trade 0.0 1.069 0.0 2.3 1.045 0.0 53.9 56.2 56.2 3.1%
39. Air Transportation 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.3 1.001 0.0 1.1 1.4 1.4 3.8%
40. Rail Transportation 0.0 1.002 0.0 1.3 1.002 0.0 19.5 20.8 20.8 9.0%
41. Water Transportation 0.0 1.001 0.0 0.4 1.001 0.0 1.8 2.2 2.2 3.2%
42. Truck Transportation 0.0 1.008 0.0 1.3 1.007 0.0 12.8 14.1 14.1 5.2%
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0.0 1.002 0.0 0.2 1.001 0.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 2.4%
44. Pipeline Transportation 0.0 1.002 0.0 1.3 1.002 0.0 4.1 5.4 5.4 6.3%
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0.0 1.105 0.0 1.0 1.104 0.0 3.5 4.5 4.5 1.3%
46. Couriers & Messengers 0.0 1.024 0.0 0.2 1.024 0.0 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.7%
47. Warehousing & Storage 0.0 1.035 0.0 0.1 1.034 0.0 2.5 2.6 2.6 3.1%
48. Information 0.0 1.102 0.0 0.6 1.099 0.0 12.6 13.2 13.2 1.8%
49. Finance and Insurance 0.0 1.332 0.0 1.5 1.319 0.0 31.3 32.8 32.8 2.3%
50. Real Estate 0.0 1.046 0.0 2.9 1.042 0.0 15.1 17.9 17.9 2.5%
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0.0 1.012 0.0 4.5 1.008 0.0 34.9 39.4 39.4 2.6%
52. Rental and Leasing 0.0 1.009 0.0 0.3 1.008 0.0 8.1 8.3 8.3 2.9%
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management and Admin Services 0.0 1.134 0.0 3.4 1.121 0.0 57.5 60.9 60.9 2.3%
54. Educational Services 0.0 1.006 0.0 0.1 1.005 0.0 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.4%
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0.0 1.148 0.0 3.2 1.097 0.0 44.4 47.6 47.6 2.3%
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.0 1.033 0.0 0.1 1.032 0.0 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.4%
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0.0 1.036 0.0 1.3 1.025 0.0 18.9 20.2 20.2 1.9%
58. Other Services 0.0 1.042 0.0 1.7 1.029 0.0 18.4 20.1 20.1 2.2%
59. Government & Non NAICs 0.0 1.030 0.0 4.8 1.020 0.0 26.3 31.0 31.0 1.5%
Total 4,154.4
4,067.2 4,281.0
4,067.7 4,793.5 4,920.1 4,920.1 6.1%
54
Table C6. Base Case Total Regional Impacts of a 90-Day Export Disruption of Refined Petroleum
at Port Arthur and Beaumont
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
I-O Model Sector Final Demand Change
Demand-Side Impacts of Export
Disruption Output Change
(%)
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0 0.0 0.003%
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 0 0.2 0.101%
03. Other Mining 0 0.0 0.021%
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 0 0.0 0.014%
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0 0.1 0.014%
06. Natural Gas Distribution 0 0.0 0.016%
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0 0.0 0.016%
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0 0.0 0.000%
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0 0.0 0.000%
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential Structures 0 0.0 0.000%
11. Construction of Residential Structures 0 0.0 0.000%
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 0 0.6 0.057%
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0 0.0 0.001%
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0 0.0 0.001%
15. Wood Products 0 0.0 0.002%
16. Paper and Printing 0 0.0 0.001%
17. Petroleum Refineries 51.1 51.7 0.193%
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 0 0.0 0.007%
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.001%
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0 0.0 0.000%
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0 0.0 0.003%
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0 0.0 0.000%
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0 0.0 0.000%
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0 0.0 0.000%
34. Transportation Equipment 0 0.0 0.001%
35. Furniture & Related Product 0 0.0 0.000%
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0 0.0 0.000%
55
37. Wholesale Trade 0 0.5 0.030%
38. Retail Trade 0 0.3 0.016%
39. Air Transportation 0 0.0 0.014%
40. Rail Transportation 0 0.0 0.010%
41. Water Transportation 0 0.0 0.014%
42. Truck Transportation 0 0.1 0.047%
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0 0.0 0.016%
44. Pipeline Transportation 0 0.1 0.159%
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0 0.0 0.010%
46. Couriers & Messengers 0 0.0 0.019%
47. Warehousing & Storage 0 0.0 0.017%
48. Information 0 0.1 0.013%
49. Finance and Insurance 0 0.2 0.017%
50. Real Estate 0 0.1 0.016%
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0 0.3 0.021%
52. Rental and Leasing 0 0.0 0.012%
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management, and Admin Services 0 0.3 0.012%
54. Educational Services 0 0.0 0.020%
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0 0.4 0.019%
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0 0.0 0.020%
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0 0.2 0.016%
58. Other Services 0 0.1 0.016%
59. Government & Non NAICs 0 0.2 0.010%
Total 51.1 56.1 0.070%
56
Appendix D. National Impact Analysis Results
In this Appendix, we present detailed analysis results by sector at the national level for both the import and export
disruptions of crude oil and refined petroleum products through Ports of Port Arthur and Beaumont for 90-days.
A. Base Case
a. Crude Oil
Table D1. Total National Economic Impacts of a 90-Day Import Disruption of Crude Oil at Port Arthur and
Beaumont, 2016
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
I-O Model Sector Direct
Output Loss
Supply-
Side bjj
Direct
Value-Added
Change
Total Supply-
Side Output
Change
Demand-
Side bjj
Final
Demand Change
Total Demand-
Side Output
Change
Total Import
Disruption Impacts
(net double-counting)
Capped
Total Import
Disruption Impact
Output change
(annual basis)
(%)
1 2 3 (=1/2) 4 5 6 (=1/5) 7 8 (=4+7-1)
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0.0 1.274 0.0 300.3 1.254 0.0 89.4 389.6 389.6 0.09%
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 45.2 1.052 43.0 151.4 1.046 43.2 1248.6 1354.8 1354.8 0.73%
03. Other Mining 0.0 1.141 0.0 144.9 1.137 0.0 396.4 541.3 541.3 0.21%
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 63.3 1.012 62.6 146.3 1.007 62.9 101.6 184.6 184.6 0.12%
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0.0 1.520 0.0 207.7 1.508 0.0 102.1 309.8 309.8 0.07%
06. Natural Gas Distribution 18.0 1.007 17.8 74.0 1.004 17.9 127.1 183.1 183.1 0.19%
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0.0 1.004 0.0 9.7 1.003 0.0 3.9 13.5 13.5 0.08%
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0.0 1.000 0.0 58.1 1.000 0.0 0.0 58.1 58.1 0.06%
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0.0 1.000 0.0 88.3 1.000 0.0 0.0 88.3 88.3 0.09%
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential Structures 0.0 1.000 0.0 335.3 1.000 0.0 0.0 335.3 335.3 0.06%
11. Construction of Residential Structures 0.0 1.000 0.0 349.9 1.000 0.0 0.0 349.9 349.9 0.06%
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 0.0 1.033 0.0 300.1 1.019 0.0 129.3 429.5 429.5 0.11%
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0.0 1.392 0.0 629.7 1.340 0.0 205.3 835.0 835.0 0.07%
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0.0 1.075 0.0 59.3 1.072 0.0 14.0 73.2 73.2 0.08%
15. Wood Products 0.0 1.193 0.0 68.6 1.191 0.0 12.9 81.5 81.5 0.08%
16. Paper and Printing 0.0 1.265 0.0 222.0 1.255 0.0 45.8 267.7 267.7 0.08%
17. Petroleum Refineries 3,850.9 1.028 3746.6 3968.2 1.022 3767.8 4065.6 4182.9 4182.9 1.05%
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 25.5 1.010 25.2 122.1 1.009 25.3 41.5 138.1 138.1 0.25%
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 2,308.0 2.048 1127.0 2792.7 2.045 1128.6 2732.2 3216.9 3216.9 1.35%
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 0.0 1.028 0.0 29.3 1.027 0.0 17.2 46.5 46.5 0.23%
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0.0 1.010 0.0 26.7 1.010 0.0 5.5 32.3 32.3 0.20%
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 61.8 1.049 58.9 111.9 1.048 58.9 83.2 133.3 133.3 0.35%
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 438.9 1.126 389.8 968.0 1.124 390.5 646.5 1175.5 1175.5 1.10%
57
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 0.0 1.063 0.0 523.9 1.062 0.0 32.0 556.0 556.0 0.55%
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 0.0 1.001 0.0 70.3 1.001 0.0 1.7 72.1 72.1 0.63%
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0.0 1.154 0.0 686.8 1.134 0.0 117.4 804.2 804.2 0.13%
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0.0 1.081 0.0 465.7 1.075 0.0 40.4 506.1 506.1 0.21%
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0.0 1.110 0.0 91.2 1.108 0.0 13.6 104.8 104.8 0.08%
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0.0 1.271 0.0 129.9 1.268 0.0 29.6 159.5 159.5 0.06%
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0.0 1.126 0.0 172.4 1.119 0.0 53.4 225.8 225.8 0.06%
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0.0 1.112 0.0 220.0 1.109 0.0 47.4 267.4 267.4 0.05%
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0.0 1.189 0.0 194.2 1.182 0.0 38.8 233.0 233.0 0.04%
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0.0 1.053 0.0 89.1 1.050 0.0 12.3 101.4 101.4 0.06%
34. Transportation Equipment 0.0 1.325 0.0 436.1 1.310 0.0 71.1 507.2 507.2 0.05%
35. Furniture & Related Product 0.0 1.042 0.0 45.7 1.040 0.0 8.4 54.1 54.1 0.07%
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.0 1.061 0.0 111.6 1.055 0.0 19.5 131.1 131.1 0.07%
37. Wholesale Trade 0.0 1.131 0.0 583.0 1.081 0.0 407.3 990.2 990.2 0.06%
38. Retail Trade 0.0 1.166 0.0 538.7 1.082 0.0 263.4 802.1 802.1 0.05%
39. Air Transportation 0.0 1.015 0.0 311.5 1.008 0.0 30.4 341.9 341.9 0.17%
40. Rail Transportation 0.0 1.008 0.0 91.8 1.006 0.0 65.0 156.7 156.7 0.19%
41. Water Transportation 0.0 1.003 0.0 79.3 1.002 0.0 10.0 89.3 89.3 0.14%
42. Truck Transportation 0.0 1.046 0.0 456.8 1.033 0.0 101.6 558.4 558.4 0.16%
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0.0 1.006 0.0 41.4 1.003 0.0 8.9 50.3 50.3 0.09%
44. Pipeline Transportation 69.7 1.006 69.2 92.4 1.005 69.3 169.4 192.2 192.2 0.54%
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0.0 1.104 0.0 70.7 1.099 0.0 25.2 95.9 95.9 0.08%
46. Couriers & Messengers 0.0 1.048 0.0 83.1 1.044 0.0 17.8 100.9 100.9 0.10%
47. Warehousing & Storage 0.0 1.068 0.0 44.9 1.064 0.0 19.8 64.7 64.7 0.06%
48. Information 0.0 1.299 0.0 504.0 1.247 0.0 219.6 723.6 723.6 0.04%
49. Finance and Insurance 0.0 1.663 0.0 811.8 1.536 0.0 433.6 1245.4 1245.4 0.05%
50. Real Estate 0.0 1.111 0.0 272.7 1.080 0.0 237.6 510.3 510.3 0.03%
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0.0 1.051 0.0 211.9 1.025 0.0 247.6 459.5 459.5 0.03%
52. Rental and Leasing 0.0 1.034 0.0 90.6 1.026 0.0 71.1 161.7 161.7 0.05%
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management, and Admin Services 0.0 1.481 0.0 1653.1 1.342 0.0 569.6 2222.8 2222.8 0.06%
54. Educational Services 0.0 1.047 0.0 123.7 1.025 0.0 46.2 169.9 169.9 0.06%
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0.0 1.345 0.0 1032.7 1.170 0.0 367.8 1400.5 1400.5 0.07%
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.0 1.097 0.0 119.2 1.079 0.0 54.3 173.5 173.5 0.05%
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0.0 1.116 0.0 392.7 1.061 0.0 164.0 556.7 556.7 0.06%
58. Other Services 0.0 1.146 0.0 446.0 1.077 0.0 182.4 628.3 628.3 0.06%
59. Government & Non NAICs 0.0 1.084 0.0 1102.5 1.043 0.0 152.8 1255.3 1255.3 0.05%
Total 6,881.3
5,540.2 23,555.6
5,564.4 14,419.2 31,093.5 31,093.5 0.09%
58
Table D2. National Economic Impacts of a 90-Day Export Disruption of Crude Oil
at Port Arthur and Beaumont
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
I-O Model Sector Final Demand
Change
Demand-Side Impacts of Export
Disruption
Output Change
(%)
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0 4.7 0.001%
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 212 221.2 0.119%
03. Other Mining 0 25.0 0.009%
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 0 2.0 0.001%
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0 5.3 0.001%
06. Natural Gas Distribution 0 1.4 0.001%
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0 0.2 0.001%
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0 0.0 0.000%
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0 0.0 0.000%
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential
Structures 0 0.0 0.000%
11. Construction of Residential Structures 0 0.0 0.000%
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 0 7.2 0.002%
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0 14.1 0.001%
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0 0.9 0.001%
15. Wood Products 0 0.7 0.001%
16. Paper and Printing 0 2.8 0.001%
17. Petroleum Refineries 0 4.2 0.001%
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 0 0.8 0.001%
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 0 6.4 0.003%
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 0 0.5 0.002%
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0 0.1 0.001%
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 0 0.3 0.001%
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 0 1.2 0.001%
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 0 0.7 0.001%
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 0 0.1 0.001%
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0 7.1 0.001%
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0 2.0 0.001%
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0 0.9 0.001%
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0 1.9 0.001%
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0 2.8 0.001%
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0 3.4 0.001%
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0 2.2 0.000%
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0 0.8 0.000%
34. Transportation Equipment 0 5.0 0.000%
35. Furniture & Related Product 0 0.7 0.001%
59
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0 1.4 0.001%
37. Wholesale Trade 0 14.5 0.001%
38. Retail Trade 0 19.1 0.001%
39. Air Transportation 0 1.8 0.001%
40. Rail Transportation 0 1.0 0.001%
41. Water Transportation 0 0.5 0.001%
42. Truck Transportation 0 3.2 0.001%
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0 0.6 0.001%
44. Pipeline Transportation 0 3.7 0.010%
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0 1.2 0.001%
46. Couriers & Messengers 0 0.8 0.001%
47. Warehousing & Storage 0 1.0 0.001%
48. Information 0 15.3 0.001%
49. Finance and Insurance 0 30.6 0.001%
50. Real Estate 0 16.9 0.001%
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0 20.1 0.001%
52. Rental and Leasing 0 4.6 0.001%
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management of Companies, and Admin Services 0 33.2 0.001%
54. Educational Services 0 3.7 0.001%
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0 29.8 0.001%
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0 4.2 0.001%
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0 12.4 0.001%
58. Other Services 0 13.4 0.001%
59. Government & Non NAICs 0 8.0 0.000%
Total 211.6 567.4 0.002%
b. Refined Petroleum
Table D3. Total National Economic Impacts of a 90-Day Import Disruption of Refined Petroleum at Port Arthur
and Beaumont, 2016
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
I-O Model Sector Direct
Output Loss
Supply-
Side bjj
Direct
Value-Added
Change
Total
Supply-
Side Output
Change
Demand-
Side bjj
Final
Demand Change
Total
Demand-
Side Output
Change
Total Import
Disruption Impacts
(net double-counting)
Capped
Total Import
Disruption Impact
Output
change
(annual basis)
(%)
1 2 3 (=1/2) 4 5 6 (=1/5) 7 8 (=4+7-1)
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0.0 1.274 0.0 142.1 1.254 0.0 65.1 207.2 207.2 0.05%
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 0.0 1.052 0.0 58.4 1.046 0.0 486.7 545.1 545.1 0.29%
60
03. Other Mining 0.0 1.141 0.0 71.0 1.137 0.0 165.9 236.9 236.9 0.09%
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 0.0 1.012 0.0 33.5 1.007 0.0 28.7 62.2 62.2 0.04%
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0.0 1.520 0.0 77.3 1.508 0.0 75.6 152.8 152.8 0.04%
06. Natural Gas Distribution 0.0 1.007 0.0 17.5 1.004 0.0 95.7 113.3 113.3 0.12%
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0.0 1.004 0.0 5.2 1.003 0.0 2.7 7.9 7.9 0.04%
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0.0 1.000 0.0 28.1 1.000 0.0 0.0 28.1 28.1 0.03%
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0.0 1.000 0.0 38.4 1.000 0.0 0.0 38.4 38.4 0.04%
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential Structures 66.4 1.000 66.4 229.1 1.000 66.4 66.4 229.1 229.1 0.04%
11. Construction of Residential Structures 60.0 1.000 60.0 233.6 1.000 60.0 60.0 233.6 233.6 0.04%
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 60.4 1.033 58.5 201.5 1.019 59.3 126.6 267.8 267.8 0.07%
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0.0 1.392 0.0 337.6 1.340 0.0 133.2 470.7 470.7 0.04%
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0.0 1.075 0.0 44.0 1.072 0.0 9.4 53.4 53.4 0.06%
15. Wood Products 0.0 1.193 0.0 41.2 1.191 0.0 13.5 54.7 54.7 0.05%
16. Paper and Printing 0.0 1.265 0.0 130.7 1.255 0.0 32.8 163.5 163.5 0.05%
17. Petroleum Refineries 1,252.5 1.028 1218.6 1322.9 1.022 1225.5 1475.6 1546.0 1546.0 0.39%
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 0.0 1.010 0.0 50.8 1.009 0.0 11.8 62.5 62.5 0.12%
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 2,097.8 2.048 1024.3 2336.4 2.045 1025.8 2599.3 2838.0 2838.0 1.19%
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 22.4 1.028 21.8 37.9 1.027 21.8 36.7 52.2 52.2 0.26%
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0.0 1.010 0.0 12.6 1.010 0.0 5.1 17.7 17.7 0.11%
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 19.7 1.049 18.8 47.7 1.048 18.8 41.8 69.8 69.8 0.18%
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 374.0 1.126 332.2 780.2 1.124 332.7 595.5 1001.7 1001.7 0.94%
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 199.7 1.063 187.8 603.8 1.062 188.1 227.0 631.1 631.1 0.62%
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 79.4 1.001 79.3 133.7 1.001 79.4 80.9 135.1 135.1 1.19%
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0.0 1.154 0.0 489.1 1.134 0.0 83.1 572.3 572.3 0.09%
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0.0 1.081 0.0 452.0 1.075 0.0 33.4 485.5 485.5 0.20%
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0.0 1.110 0.0 50.6 1.108 0.0 15.2 65.8 65.8 0.05%
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0.0 1.271 0.0 64.7 1.268 0.0 22.4 87.0 87.0 0.03%
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0.0 1.126 0.0 95.7 1.119 0.0 46.3 142.0 142.0 0.04%
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0.0 1.112 0.0 132.0 1.109 0.0 31.2 163.3 163.3 0.03%
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0.0 1.189 0.0 113.7 1.182 0.0 28.1 141.8 141.8 0.03%
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0.0 1.053 0.0 59.2 1.050 0.0 11.0 70.2 70.2 0.04%
34. Transportation Equipment 0.0 1.325 0.0 271.8 1.310 0.0 46.3 318.1 318.1 0.03%
35. Furniture & Related Product 0.0 1.042 0.0 29.8 1.040 0.0 6.1 35.9 35.9 0.04%
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0.0 1.061 0.0 87.3 1.055 0.0 12.6 99.9 99.9 0.05%
37. Wholesale Trade 0.0 1.131 0.0 291.0 1.081 0.0 300.3 591.3 591.3 0.04%
38. Retail Trade 0.0 1.166 0.0 269.0 1.082 0.0 178.2 447.3 447.3 0.03%
39. Air Transportation 0.0 1.015 0.0 113.7 1.008 0.0 21.3 135.0 135.0 0.07%
40. Rail Transportation 0.0 1.008 0.0 35.1 1.006 0.0 57.1 92.2 92.2 0.11%
41. Water Transportation 0.0 1.003 0.0 29.6 1.002 0.0 6.8 36.4 36.4 0.06%
61
42. Truck Transportation 0.0 1.046 0.0 176.7 1.033 0.0 71.3 248.0 248.0 0.07%
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0.0 1.006 0.0 17.6 1.003 0.0 5.6 23.3 23.3 0.04%
44. Pipeline Transportation 0.0 1.006 0.0 10.9 1.005 0.0 44.2 55.1 55.1 0.15%
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0.0 1.104 0.0 33.9 1.099 0.0 16.6 50.5 50.5 0.04%
46. Couriers & Messengers 0.0 1.048 0.0 35.6 1.044 0.0 12.3 47.9 47.9 0.05%
47. Warehousing & Storage 0.0 1.068 0.0 21.7 1.064 0.0 14.0 35.8 35.8 0.03%
48. Information 0.0 1.299 0.0 260.5 1.247 0.0 140.5 401.0 401.0 0.02%
49. Finance and Insurance 0.0 1.663 0.0 407.2 1.536 0.0 271.0 678.1 678.1 0.03%
50. Real Estate 0.0 1.111 0.0 141.4 1.080 0.0 150.1 291.5 291.5 0.02%
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0.0 1.051 0.0 123.0 1.025 0.0 145.3 268.3 268.3 0.02%
52. Rental and Leasing 0.0 1.034 0.0 44.9 1.026 0.0 49.8 94.7 94.7 0.03%
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management, and Admin Services 0.0 1.481 0.0 838.6 1.342 0.0 394.9 1233.5 1233.5 0.03%
54. Educational Services 0.0 1.047 0.0 61.8 1.025 0.0 27.2 88.9 88.9 0.03%
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0.0 1.345 0.0 549.9 1.170 0.0 215.9 765.8 765.8 0.04%
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.0 1.097 0.0 58.8 1.079 0.0 32.7 91.5 91.5 0.03%
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0.0 1.116 0.0 199.9 1.061 0.0 99.0 298.9 298.9 0.03%
58. Other Services 0.0 1.146 0.0 230.1 1.077 0.0 112.8 342.9 342.9 0.03%
59. Government & Non NAICs 0.0 1.084 0.0 543.3 1.043 0.0 104.6 647.9 647.9 0.03%
Total 4,232.3
3,067.6 13,355.4
3,077.7 9,243.2 18,366.3 18,366.3 0.06%
Table D4. National Economic Impacts of a 90-Day Export Disruption of Refined Petroleum
at Port Arthur and Beaumont
(in million 2016$ or otherwise specified)
I-O Model Sector Final Demand
Change
Demand-Side Impacts of Export
Disruption
Output Change (%)
01. Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 0 9.5 0.002%
02. Oil & Gas Extraction 0 265.2 0.143%
03. Other Mining 0 79.0 0.030%
04. Electric Power Generation from Fossil Fuels 0 4.6 0.003%
05. Other Electric Power Generation 0 12.1 0.003%
06. Natural Gas Distribution 0 5.0 0.005%
07. Water, Sewage and Other Systems 0 0.4 0.003%
08. Construction of New Power and Manufacturing Structures 0 0.0 0.000%
09. Construction of New Highways and Streets 0 0.0 0.000%
10. Construction of Other Non-Residential Structures 0 0.0 0.000%
11. Construction of Residential Structures 0 0.0 0.000%
12. Maintenance and Repair Construction 0 22.4 0.006%
62
13. Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products 0 28.1 0.002%
14. Textile, Leather & Allied Products 0 1.9 0.002%
15. Wood Products 0 1.7 0.002%
16. Paper and Printing 0 6.1 0.002%
17. Petroleum Refineries 957.2 978.4 0.246%
18. Other Petroleum & Coal Products 0 2.5 0.005%
19. Petrochemical Manufacturing 0 28.6 0.012%
20. Industrial Gas Manufacturing 0 0.9 0.004%
21. Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 0 0.3 0.002%
22. Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 0 1.4 0.004%
23. Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 0 5.4 0.005%
24. Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 0 1.8 0.002%
25. Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 0 0.2 0.001%
26. Other Chemical Manufacturing 0 14.7 0.002%
27. Plastics & Rubber Products 0 4.7 0.002%
28. Nonmetal Mineral Products 0 2.0 0.001%
29. Primary Metal Manufacturing 0 4.0 0.001%
30. Fabricated Metal Products 0 6.4 0.002%
31. Machinery Manufacturing 0 7.2 0.001%
32. Computer & Other Electronic Product 0 4.7 0.001%
33. Electrical Equipment & Appliances 0 1.7 0.001%
34. Transportation Equipment 0 10.5 0.001%
35. Furniture & Related Product 0 1.3 0.002%
36. Miscellaneous Manufacturing 0 2.9 0.002%
37. Wholesale Trade 0 47.4 0.003%
38. Retail Trade 0 38.5 0.003%
39. Air Transportation 0 3.9 0.002%
40. Rail Transportation 0 3.4 0.004%
41. Water Transportation 0 1.2 0.002%
42. Truck Transportation 0 13.4 0.004%
43. Transit & Ground Passengers 0 1.3 0.002%
44. Pipeline Transportation 0 19.6 0.055%
45. Sightseeing Transportation 0 3.2 0.003%
46. Couriers & Messengers 0 2.3 0.002%
47. Warehousing & Storage 0 2.5 0.002%
48. Information 0 32.0 0.002%
49. Finance and Insurance 0 63.9 0.003%
50. Real Estate 0 35.2 0.002%
51. Owner-occupied Dwellings 0 39.3 0.003%
52. Rental and Leasing 0 9.6 0.003%
53. Professional, Scientific Services, Management of Companies, and Admin Services 0 75.1 0.002%
63
54. Educational Services 0 7.3 0.003%
55. Health Care and Social Assistance 0 58.4 0.003%
56. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0 8.4 0.003%
57. Accommodation and Food Services 0 25.3 0.003%
58. Other Services 0 27.5 0.003%
59. Government & Non NAICs 0 19.4 0.001%
Total 957.2 2,053.3 0.006%
B. Resilience Analysis Results
a. Crude Oil
Table D5. National Economic Impacts of a 3-Month Disruption of Crude Oil Supplies at Port Arthur and Beaumont
(in million 2016 dollars or otherwise specified)
Case
Direct
Output
Loss
(1)
Direct
Value-
Added
Change
(2)
Final
Demand
Change
(3)
Total
Supply
Change
(4)
Total
Demand
Change
(5)
Total
Net S+D
Change
(6=4+5-1)
Total
Net S+D
Change
(%)
Resilience
Effective-
ness (%)
A. Crude Oil Disruption
(No Resilience) $6,881 $5,540 $5,564 $23,556 $14,419 $31,093 0.09% n.a.
B. Inventory $2,877 $1,851 $1,856 $8,988 $6,020 $12,131 0.04% 61.0
C. Re-routing + Relocation of
Refining Activities $2,742 $2,612 $2,626 $10,115 $5,718 $13,092 0.04% 57.9
D. SPR $5,373 $4,072 $4,088 $17,923 $11,253 $23,804 0.07% 23.4
E. Export Diversion $5,729 $4,487 $4,506 $19,380 $11,991 $25,642 0.08% 17.5
F. Production Rescheduling a a a a a $17,025 0.05% 45.2
G. All Resilience Adjustments b b b b b $261 0.001% 99.2
a
This resilience adjustment is applied to the Total Supply + Demand Impacts. b
Total is non-additive of B, C, D, E, F to adjust for overlaps
64
b. Refined Petroleum
Table D6. National Economic Impacts of a 90-day Disruption of Refined Petroleum Products at Port Arthur-Beaumont
(in million 2016 dollars or otherwise specified)
Case
Direct
Output
Loss
(1)
Direct
Value-
Added
Change
(2)
Final
Demand
Change
(3)
Total
Supply
Change
(4)
Total
Demand
Change
(5)
Total
Net S+D
Change
(6=4+5-1)
Total
Net S+D
Change
(%)
Resilience
Effective-
ness (%)
A. Refine Petroleum Disruption
(No Resilience) $4,232 $3,068 $3,078 $13,355 $9,243 $18,366 0.056% n.a.
B. Inventory $3,600 $2,641 $2,650 $11,435 $7,851 $15,686 0.048% 14.6
C. Re-routing $212 $153 $154 $668 $462 $918 0.003% 95.0
D. Export Diversion $39 $31 $31 $133 $85 $179 0.001% 99.0
E. Production Rescheduling a a a a a $9,997 0.031% 45.6
F. All Resilience Adjustments b b b b b $2.5 0.000% 100.0
a
This resilience adjustment is applied to the Total Supply + Demand Impacts. b
Total is non-additive of B, C, D, E adjusted for overlaps.
65
Appendix References
Bloomberg.com, 27 Sept. 2012. "In the Pipeline” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-27/in-the-pipeline (accessed 19 Apr. 2017.) Blueknight Energy Partners. http://www.bkep.com/ (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. USA Trade Online. https://usatrade.census.gov/. (accessed 2 Mar. 2017). Enterprise Products. Crude Oil Pipelines & Services. http://www.enterpriseproducts.com/operations/onshore-crude-oil-pipelines-services (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) Enbridge Partners. https://www.enbridgepartners.com/Delivering-Energy/Storage.aspx (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil, 2017. http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/worldwide-operations/locations/united-states/us-refineries/beaumont (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) Google Maps. https://www.google.com/maps (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. https://www.magellanlp.com/Investors/~/media/94BBB3DAC6D5456093E944E867AF9223.ashx?db=master (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) IMPLAN. 2016. Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) System, Huntersville, NC.
Motiva Enterprises LLC, 2017. http://www.motivaenterprises.com/terminals.html (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) NLG Energy. http://www.nglenergypartners.com/segments/crude-oil-logistics/ (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) Plains All American. http://ir.paalp.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=41379&GoTopage=8&Category=117&BzID=789&G=549 (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) Seaway Pipeline Project. http://seawaypipeline.com/ (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.)
66
SemGroup Corporation. http://www.semgroupcorp.com/Operations/RoseRock/Facilities/Storage.aspx (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) Shell Global, 2017. http://www.shell.com/about-us/major-projects/port-arthur-refinery.html (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) TankTerminals.com, 2017. Bulk Petroleum Storage Terminals, Oil Storage Terminals, Chemical Storage Terminals, Gas and Liquid Storage Terminals. https://www.tankterminals.com/index_auth.php (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) Total SA, 2017. http://www.total.com/en/energy-expertise/projects/refining-petrochemical-platform/port-arthur-sustainable-platform (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) TransCanada, M2 to Build New Crude Storage Facility in Cushing. Reuters. 15 Mar. 2017 http://www.reuters.com/article/transcanada-contract-idUSL3N1GS4LL?rpc=401& (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) TransCanada Corporation http://www.gulf-coast-pipeline.com/ (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017- Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Crude Oil Stocks at Tank Farms and Pipelines. EIA 2017a. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrsfp31&f=a (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017. Refinery Utilization and Capacity Statistics for PADD 3. EIA, 2017b. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_unc_dcu_r30_a.htm (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis. Refinery Capacity Report. EIA, 2016. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/ (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA 2017c EIA. 2017. Petroleum & Other Liquids. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_ipct_k_a.htm (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA 2017d EIA. 2017. U.S. Crude Oil Production. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/ (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.) Valero, 2017. https://www.valero.com/en-us/Pages/PortArthur.aspx (accessed 18 Apr. 2017.)