Australia's most popular type of petrol - unleaded - could be phased out within two years

[Express]

Australia's most popular type of petrol - unleaded - could be phased out within two years


Matthew Knott
Bevan Shields
21 December, 2016


Regular unleaded petrol - the most popular fuel choice among Australian motorists - would be completely phased out under a series of radical proposals by the Turnbull government.

Banning regular unleaded petrol would dramatically improve the quality of Australian fuel, rated the dirtiest in the developed world, but would likely lead to substantial price hikes for motorists.

See link below for video

Premium unleaded petrol costs an average of 10.7 cents more per litre than regular unleaded, which has been the standard fuel for Australian vehicles since leaded petrol was phased out by the Howard government.

The operators of Australia's four remaining oil refineries - two in Victoria, one in Queensland and one in Western Australia - would also be forced to rebuild their plants, with costs potentially running into the billions.



Regular unleaded petrol is the most popular type of fuel in Australia. Photo: Chris Ratcliffe


A government discussion paper quietly released on Tuesday afternoon (see related article below) argues that reducing the amount of sulfur in the petrol sold in Australia would produce strong environmental and health impacts. Australia has the lowest quality petrol of the 35 countries in the OECD, below Mexico, Turkey and Estonia.

The paper proposes five options, including:

•Phasing out regular unleaded petrol over two to five years, with sulfur in premium unleaded and ethanol blends limited to 10 parts per million (down from 50ppm);
•Bringing Australian standards into line with Europe, with a 10 ppm sulfur limit for all fuels including regular unleaded (down from 150ppm);
•Limiting sulfur in regular unleaded petrol limited to 50ppm from 2020 and 25ppm for premium unleaded; and
•Business as usual

NRMA spokesman Peter Khoury said the association supported improving Australian fuel standards but was growing "increasingly concerned" about the ideas suggested by the government.



The Altona refinery in Melbourne would be affected by changes to fuel standards. Photo: Luis Ascui


"If you go down the path of phasing out regular unleaded you would be exposing motorists to even more rorts than we are now," he said.

"Premium unleaded already costs 21 cents more than ethanol - imagine what could happen if we adopt European standards."

The Australian Automobile Association said in a submission to government that reducing the availability of regular unleaded petrol would have "significant cost implications for the vast majority of motorists".

"This would be particularly bad for those that drive older vehicles, who would be forced to pay a higher price for fuel, without any emissions benefits being realised."

Regular unleaded petrol is used by around 80 per cent of motorists in the states and territories outside NSW. In NSW, which has an ethanol mandate, regular unleaded is used by around 22 per cent of motorists, premium unleaded 30 per cent, ethanol 18 per cent and diesel 30 per cent.

The paper acknowledges the the impact on "different socio-economic groups" of phasing out regular unleaded will have to be carefully analysed. It says particular attention will also have to be given to the impact on regional communities and domestic refineries.

The Australian Institute of Petroleum has warned the introduction of European standards here would threaten the viability of the refineries, three of which have already closed in the last five years.

"Given the potential impact on Australian oil refineries we're seeking a careful and thorough consideration of costs and benefits of change, particularly to refineries and Australian motorists," chief executive Paul Barrett told Fairfax Media.

The closure of the Vitol-operated refinery in Geelong would have major economic ramifications for the Victorian industrial city.

An AIP submission to the government's fuel review said the industry would need at least five years to implement any significant changes.

"If the implementation of the 10ppm sulfur petrol leads to refinery closures, it will also place a significant volume demand on the import market in Asia providing upward pressure on the price of new Australian grade fuel specifications," the submission warns.

When releasing the discussion paper on Tuesday, Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher said the proposals, open for consultation until March, were "designed to keep Australia in line with international vehicle markets and keep us enjoying some of the cleanest air in the world".

Melbourne motorist Alison Lansley said she would struggle to afford the switch to premium unleaded for the family's 16-year-old Toyota. "I guess if they mandated it, we wouldn't have much of a choice. But if it's better for the environment, that's okay," the Carlton resident said.

But Patrick O'Neill was angered by the proposal. "It would **** me off that I have to pay more for something I didn't want," the Albury father of two said. "I can afford it, but my kids can't, so that's not fair."

- with Alexandra Laskie


.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...21-gtft1v.html

Government fuel crackdown could save motorists $519 a year but increase cost of new vehicles


James Massola
21 December, 2016


New cars could cost up to $2000 more under new environmental standards being considered by the Turnbull government, but motorists could save more than $500 a year on their petrol bills.

The proposed new fuel efficiency standards - which would require manufacturers to sell cars, trucks and buses with more efficient engines - would also help Australia meet its Paris climate-change commitments by keeping some 65 million tonnes of pollution out of the atmosphere.

See link below for video

Two other measures - upgrading existing air pollution standards and improving the quality of fuel sold at the bowser - are also being considered.

However, the trio of proposals quietly released on Tuesday afternoon has alarmed motoring group the Australian Automobile Association (AAA), which warned of a hit to household budgets because new standards for cars and fuel could drive up the cost of fuel and cars - an argument the government's own draft regulatory impact statement concedes.



Petrol bills could fall but the cost of new cars could climb under any tightening of Australia's fuel standards. Photo: Louis Douvis


Climate change is a politically sensitive topic for the Turnbull government, which earlier this month beat a hasty retreat after initially announcing a review of its climate policy would examine a form of carbon pricing on the electricity industry.

Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher announced they were seeking feedback about the proposed efficiency measures after inquiries from Fairfax Media on Tuesday.

In a joint statement, the pair said the proposals are "designed to keep Australia in line with international vehicle markets – and keep us enjoying some of the cleanest air in the world".

"By requiring global automotive manufacturers to supply vehicles in Australia with more fuel-efficient engines – as they are now doing in many other countries – these new standards could cut consumer fuel spending by up to $28 billion by 2040."



The Australian Institute of Petroleum has warned higher quality could threaten the economic viability of Australian refineries. Photo: Jessica Shapiro


"This translates into annual fuel savings for the average owner of a passenger car and light commercial vehicle of up to $519 and $666 respectively."

Upgrading the quality of Australia's fuel, and mandating a reduction in the amount of sulphur in it, is potentially problematic for Australia's four remaining refineries because it could force them to upgrade ageing infrastructure and pass the cost on to consumers.

The draft impact statement notes that the Australian Institute of Petroleum has warned higher quality could "threaten the economic viability of Australian refineries".

However, the ministers noted current fuel standards expire in 2019 and "we need to be ready with new standards to ensure Australians can have access to the right fuel for the latest vehicle technology".

The claimed saving of between $237 to $519 a year in petrol costs assumes, in 2025, an average motorist in an average car purchasing petrol at a retail price of $1.30 a litre. The highest potential saving is based on Australia adopting the same fuel standard targets as Europe.

But the study models a price increase for an average performing passenger vehicle in 2025 of between $827 and $1922 - assuming manufacturers pass the full cost on to consumers.

It would take a motorist about four years to recoup the extra cost of a new car through fuel savings, according to the study - or an average of about 57,000 to 62,000 kilometres of driving.

AAA chief executive Michael Bradley questioned the government's claimed savings "in the absence of either real-world emissions testing, or a decision on future fuel standards and prices".

"The AAA encourages the government to credibly identify all of the costs and benefits associated with these proposed changes, as motorists deserve a clear explanation of how any fuel and car price increases will affect household budgets," he said.

Australia currently has a much lower quality of fuel compared to Europe and the United States.

In the year to December 2015, transport accounted for 17 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, with light vehicles accounting for 10 per cent of that. Under current policy settings, transport emissions are projected to rise to 20 per cent by 2029-2030.

A discussion paper released by the government on Tuesday noted fuel consumption by Australian passenger vehicles increased by 460 million litres between 2010 and 2014 and automotive fuel was significant source of noxious emissions.

"Unless further action is taken to improve the management of vehicle emissions, air quality is likely to decline in the medium to long term. This will adversely impact on the health of Australians," the paper said.

Correction: An earlier version of this story reported that new cars could cost $2000 a year more under the new environmental standards being considered. In fact, it would be a one-off cost.

Follow James Massola on Facebook


.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...20-gtf7db.html

[Supafordies]

That's typical..

[RHR]

So why do we have such an "average" fuel quality here in Aus

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by RHR

So why do we have such an "average" fuel quality here in Aus

I could be wrong here but from everything I hear it is because the equipment used in our refineries is quite old (dating back to the 60's). The companies have not updated their equipment to better improve the refinement of fuel like they have in other countries and therefore we have a higher concentration of sulfur.

[Express]

Originally Posted by RHR

So why do we have such an "average" fuel quality here in Aus

I remember back during the introduction phase the Howard government was looking at the cheapest production option in the belief it would supply the Australian public with the cheapest fuel at the bowser.

Howard believed Australians wouldn’t be prepared to pay for higher grade fuel and didn’t want the political backlash an increase in fuel cost would cause for his government.

Ever since that decision Australian fuel has been regarded and often reported as being low grade in comparison to much of the rest of the world.

I haven’t bothered to do a search to find any documentation to support my comment as I’m only relying on the memories of a demented and forgetful aging brain.

[commodorenutt]

Originally Posted by Express

I remember back during the introduction phase the Howard government was looking at the cheapest production option in the belief it would supply the Australian public with the cheapest fuel at the bowser.

Howard believed Australians wouldn’t be prepared to pay for higher grade fuel and didn’t want the political backlash an increase in fuel cost would cause for his government.

Ever since that decision Australian fuel has been regarded and often reported as being low grade in comparison to much of the rest of the world.

I haven’t bothered to do a search to find any documentation to support my comment as I’m only relying on the memories of a demented and forgetful aging brain.

Howard didn't come in as PM until 1996.

Hawke & Keating ran from '83 to '96

Unleaded was mandated from 1/1/86, and was available in growing number of servos from mid '85 as the infrastructure was rolled out to meet the introduction.

The decision to offer 91 RON ULP as the base grade had nothing to do with Howard. Labor made those choices.

Other developed countries in 1986 had 95 RON as their base ULP fuel.
91 RON was considered a 3rd world fuel.

[Express]

Originally Posted by commodorenutt

Howard didn't come in as PM until 1996.

Hawke & Keating ran from '83 to '96

Unleaded was mandated from 1/1/86, and was available in growing number of servos from mid '85 as the infrastructure was rolled out to meet the introduction.

The decision to offer 91 RON ULP as the base grade had nothing to do with Howard. Labor made those choices.

Other developed countries in 1986 had 95 RON as their base ULP fuel.
91 RON was considered a 3rd world fuel.

You’re right and as I said, my confused brain.

If I’d done a search on my old memory I wouldn’t have mixed it up with the debate years ago about the fuel excise tax that was to be used to reduce the sulphur content in unleaded.

There are many articles on the issue with much discussion in the public domain at the time where Howard could have taken steps to reduce the sulphur years ago.

Costello abandons fuel tax hike plan


By Renee Barnes
September 20, 2005


A planned increase in the excise on petrol has been abandoned, Treasurer Peter Costello said today.

But plans announced by the Treasurer to continue paying petrol companies to develop cleaner fuels have been denounced as "obscene".

Mr Costello said the increase, which would have added 0.06 cents a litre to the cost of all petrol, would now be financed directly out of the budget.

The rise, which was to have taken effect from January 1 next year, was intended to fund the introduction of cleaner fuels.

"Given current market conditions the government has decided there will be no increase in excise to fund this incentive," Mr Costello said in a statement.

"The incentive for low-sulphur premium unleaded petrol will be funded from the budget.

"Excise will remain at 38.143 cents, the same rate as was fixed when indexation was abolished in 2001."

Service Station Association chief executive Ron Bowden said: "In the current market conditions it would be ludicrous for the Government to have increased the price of fuel."

But he said the Government should not be paying for the oil companies to develop low-sulphur premium unleaded petrol.

"It will still be funded from taxpayer money, people need to remember that. That we are funding these hugely profitable multinational companies, it's obscene."

He said he understood that the Government was bound through its agreement with the oil companies to fund the grants, but said the agreement should never have been signed.

"They effectively sold the Australian people out by agreeing to fund this."

The RACV's David Cumming called on the Government to provide further price relief through cutting GST, which applies to the total cost of fuel after the 38-cent excise is added.

"It it effectively just a tax on a tax," said Mr Cumming.He said it would be insensitive to raise the excise. "I think that it is appropriate that it is funded through the budget and not through the pump."

The Government has been under pressure over climbing oil prices and the Government's excise and GST on petrol.

Earlier today, Prime Minister John Howard signalled the government may change its position on the excise increase.

The increase was agreed upon in 2003 to help cover the cost of the introduction of low-sulphur fuel.

Mr Costello said the Government would continue to review the arrangements covering the introduction of low-sulphur fuels.

"New, lower-sulphur, mandatory standards will apply to diesel from 1 January 2009," he said.

"Incentives to take up these standards from 1 January 2007 will be reviewed in the period prior to implementation to ensure it aligns with new fuel standards and market conditions."

.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...982042013.html

Fuel tax indexation: the pressure is on

The Drum By Richard Denniss

Posted 29 Oct 2014, 2:45pm


If the Greens and Labor really are concerned about cost of living, they should support the re-indexation of fuel excise in return for a say on how this revenue is spent, writes Richard Denniss.

In 2001, John Howard announced the end of fuel excise indexation, a decision that has cost the Commonwealth budget around $42 billion in the intervening 13 years.

If the excise had remained indexed since 2001 then, this year alone, the government would have collected an extra $5.5 billion, about as much money as would be raised by increasing the GST by 1 per cent.

Howard's decision to scrap indexation had nothing to do with good policy, and certainly had nothing to do with helping the poor. Rather, it had everything to do with the looming 2001 federal election; an election which, until the Tampa arrived, most people thought John Howard would lose.

Without the regular indexation of fuel excise, the rate of tax on petrol falls every year. This is because the legislation specifies the tax in cents per litre, and as the price of petrol rises with inflation, the percentage rate of tax falls.

In this year's budget the reintroduction of fuel excise indexation was scheduled to begin in August 2014 and would have raised $280 million in 2014-15, rising to $1.85 billion per annum in 2017-18 for a total of $4.2 billion over the forward estimates. While the Government's attempts to get its budget measures through the Senate have been ham-fisted to say the least, it is easy to understand why the Government assumed this measure would pass.

Back in 2006, the Greens included the abolition of fuel tax indexation on their list of the top ten budget mistakes made by John Howard. Indeed, they rated it number 1. In 2006, they also called for the reintroduction of fuel tax indexation to fund a climate disaster fund. And in 2010, they had the reintroduction costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) as part of their election platform.

Leaving aside the Greens' long history of calling for the reintroduction of indexation, the Government no doubt took heart when Greens leader Christine Milne stated her intention to support the budget measure. However, for reasons best known to her, she quickly reversed that position and has spent the past few months arguing that her party's long standing policy is inequitable and unsupportable.

The Greens have come under significant pressure to do a second u-turn on petrol tax. The Government's desperate need for revenue to fund its rapidly growing defence spending meant that the Greens were in a good position to negotiate improved policy outcomes in other areas. A number of groups had pushed them to propose a 'RET for petrol' deal in which the government locked in the existing Renewable Energy Target in return for the Greens support on petrol. But instead of trying to negotiate a win/win outcome, Milne continued to reaffirm her determination to sit on her hands.

On Tuesday, however, the Government effectively called the Greens' bluff. The Government has announced that it will increase fuel excise from November 1 and spend the next 12 months seeking parliamentary approval for that decision. If, after 12 months, the Senate still refuses to pass the petrol tax increase, the Government will be forced to refund the tax. Not to the motorists, but to the fuel companies who collected it.

Australia has some of the lowest rates of petrol tax in the developed world and, thanks to the abolition of indexation, it is getting lower each year. While there is no doubt that low income earners spend a larger share of their income on petrol than average, there is also no doubt that a steadily falling rate of petrol tax would have to be among the least effective ways to address poverty in Australia.

It is estimated that the indexation will cost around 40 cents per week for the typical household. While every cent counts for Australians who have to make do on meagre benefits such as Newstart, such benefits are actually indexed to the CPI, which ensures people on Newstart and other payments are compensated from any flow-on price increases.

If the Greens or Labor aren't just playing politics by resisting excise indexation, and they really are concerned about the misspending of the revenue it collects, or the cost of living impact, there's an easy way to show it. Insist the money be put into funding the social assistance programs the Government maintains it can't afford. Use it to keep the Schoolkids Bonus, or the age pension in its current form, or to scrap the Government's draconian and burdensome Newstart reforms.

The pressure is now on the Greens and, to a lesser extent, the ALP. It will be interesting to see who blinks first.


.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-2...-is-on/5850536

[2011G6E]

Magnificent....so we're stuck with either ethanol crap that a lot of cars simply cannot use, or premium which means 10 cents or more extra per liter.

Well done.

[foxtrot3]

Hi. Sounds like its all rubbish. Couldnt even remember that Bob Hawke was the PM in 86 when unleaded came along. Cheers MD

[commodorenutt]

Originally Posted by foxtrot3

Hi. Sounds like its all rubbish. Couldnt even remember that Bob Hawke was the PM in 86 when unleaded came along. Cheers MD

While he was PM when ULP was introduced, Leaded (Super) remained alongside for another decade. It was around 1994 that Shell was selling "half lead" and within a few more years (when Howard was in) lead levels dropped over time, and eventually leaded was phased out completely - LRP being one of the "options" they left in place for a little while, but it was eventually dropped by the early 2000s.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by foxtrot3

Hi. Sounds like its all rubbish. Couldnt even remember that Bob Hawke was the PM in 86 when unleaded came along. Cheers MD

Not rubbish at all, talk about this has been ongoing for quite a few years & now you will see the push to get rid of 91 unleaded fuel since Australian car manufacturing is closing shop, most import cars are designed to run on 95 or more for graded fuel, makes sense to get rid of inferior fuel.

[malazn mafia]

They could phase out E10. That's stuff is garbage and erodes fuel lines..

[simon varley]

91RON is **** though. I don't even really like putting it in the lawnmower

[CyberWasp]

If they want Australia to have cleaner air, how about having road systems where cars can travel at optimal speeds like 80 - 90km/h.

Inadequate roads where people sit in peak hour, stop start traffic cause more pollution issues than any changes to fuel or motors will ever achieve.

In my case in optimal driving conditions I can get to work in 30mins @ approx 80km/h. In peak hour it is anywhere from 80 - 90+ mins in stop start traffic.
I am no Einstein but in which scenario is my car producing less pollutants.

So sick of the Nanny State, Do Gooder, Climate Change idiots in this country.

[bangm001]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

If they want Australia to have cleaner air, how about having road systems where cars can travel at optimal speeds like 80 - 90km/h.

Inadequate roads where people sit in peak hour, stop start traffic cause more pollution issues than any changes to fuel or motors will ever achieve.

In my case in optimal driving conditions I can get to work in 30mins @ approx 80km/h. In peak hour it is anywhere from 80 - 90+ mins in stop start traffic.
I am no Einstein but in which scenario is my car producing less pollutants.

So sick of the Nanny State, Do Gooder, Climate Change idiots in this country.

Yeah well said.

Slighly off topic but on a recent trip to Dubai, we travelled from the airport to the Atlantis hotel on the palm mostly at 130km/hr and only had ONE set of traffic lights (which was only to allow people onto the main road out of the airport).. I get that they could design their infrastructure from scratch but goes to show what having proper freeways can achieve.
They have also rid their roads of trams, trains, buses, cyclists and pedestrians which im sure helps immensely.

We need better roads, less intersections, then better fuel.

[Interceptor]

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

cars can travel at optimal speeds like 80 - 90km/h.

According to who? the

Originally Posted by CyberWasp

Climate Change idiots in this country.

?

[Sabantien]

The government seems to claim that the environment is pristine and burning fossil fuels is a good thing, so this seems an odd decision. Could it be that the 1960s infrastructure is at the point it needs replacing anyhow, and so this was probably always going to happen?

I normally don't touch the 91, but have been lately because it's often 20c or so cheaper, and I've been out of work. It'd be nice if it meant 95 became cheaper, but I suspect it'll push the prices up and they'll stay up.

[the_scotsman]

Typical media crap. This is just a discussion paper, with a number of different options. And they just focus on the most "newsworthy" attention grabbing one.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by the_scotsman

Typical media crap. This is just a discussion paper, with a number of different options. And they just focus on the most "newsworthy" attention grabbing one.

Your surprised?

[Bossxr8]

Switch to 95 can't come soon enough. The extra cost is supposed to be 2-3 c per litre extra over 91, the reason it sells for 10c extra or whatever they charge is solely a cash grab by the oil companies. The sooner the government steps in and stops this little rort the better.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Switch to 95 can't come soon enough. The extra cost is supposed to be 2-3 c per litre extra over 91, the reason it sells for 10c extra or whatever they charge is solely a cash grab by the oil companies.
The sooner the government steps in and stops this little rort the better.

Not holding your breath are you ?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Not holding your breath are you ?

I'd be long dead waiting for this

[csv8]

PULP isn't 10c more than 91, more like 18cl more!!

[Yellow_Festiva]

Why would they need to rebuild their plants? Sounds like total BS.

Bit like saying a factory that is set up to make Sprite needs to be rebuilt before switching to mountain dew....

If they remove regular 91 and replace the base fuel to 95 I don't see why any of the refining hardware needs to be changed...

[danzvtil]

Aussie refineries wont be upgraded if this gets introduced, we are such small fry that it ALL will be imported, we don't have economy of scale for investing in modern refining infrastructure.
As for 95 ron being 18cpl more expensive, that is more a result of our continuing capacity to pay rather than the cost over 91 ron. But even better, that fuel will now BUST DIRT inside my engine! The ads on radio keep saying it so it must be true, we're all driving around with DIRTY engines people!!!

[TheInterceptor]

Ffs this isn't Europe! Why do they insist on taking in every damn euro standard when this place is nothing like Europe.

Euro this euro that, why must we sit behind Europes bum with a straw all the time.

91 is popular because it's cheap (compared to everything else) and most things run perfectly fine on it. So leave it the hell alone !

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

91 is popular because it's cheap (compared to everything else) and most things run perfectly fine on it.

all new cars are developed on 95. They may well run on 91 but they are far from perfectly fine

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

we're stuck with either ethanol crap that a lot of cars simply cannot use

why do you think this? unless you leave the fuel in the tank for months at a time it is perfectly fine in all but much older cars. In most countries in the world you can't even buy fuel without ethanol any more. I've been using ethanol fuels for probably 15 or 20 years now in other countries and done 100s of thousands of ks in several dozen different cars without once missing a beat

[Express]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Ffs this isn't Europe! Why do they insist on taking in every damn euro standard when this place is nothing like Europe.

Euro this euro that, why must we sit behind Europes bum with a straw all the time.

91 is popular because it's cheap (compared to everything else) and most things run perfectly fine on it. So leave it the hell alone !

Whether you believe climate change is a manmade process or a natural occurrence the evidence does appear to substantiate something nasty is happening and maybe it would be a good idea to try and address the situation before it’s beyond changing if that isn’t already the case.

No we are not Europe but given Australia’s location on the planet, its topography and the fact we are near a dirty great big Antarctic ozone hole we are more likely to suffer its affects long before Europe does which means if we wish to maintain our lifestyle we have a very strong vested interest in slowing the process down.

[simon varley]

genuinely interested here - does anyone actually have personal experience of problems with E10, or is it all internet beat up?

[Maka]

Originally Posted by simon varley

genuinely interested here - does anyone actually have personal experience of problems with E10, or is it all internet beat up?

It's not a beat up, multiple ex users have noticed e10, while being 94 Ron & giving ok power, the range of the fuel is woefully lacking. Even if it were cheaper, I wouldn't buy it in its current formulation until it gives comparable mileage.

cheers, Maka