Proposition 51K1968

Projet de loi relatif à la détention des stocks obligatoires de pétrole et des produits pétroliers et à la création d'une agence pour la gestion d'une partie de ces stocks et modifiant la loi du 10 juin 1997 relative au régime général, à la détention, à la circulation et aux contrôles des produits soumis à accises.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

July 25, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive petroleum petroleum policy petroleum product buffer stock energy supply reserves stock

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 1, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to highlight the fact that the Economic Committee examined this bill during five meetings and that hearings were held with representatives of the Belgian Petroleum Federation and representatives of the Belgian Petroleum Union in the presence of Minister Verwilghen.

With regard to the content of the discussions during the hearings, the general discussion and the discussion of articles, I refer to the written report.

I would like to clarify that the text of this bill was unanimously adopted by the Economic Committee on 16 November last year.

I will further add that on 30 November, the Conference of Presidents agreed to the request of the Minister of Economy that in anticipation of today’s plenary session, the committee decides on a government amendment. The Minister therefore presented in a committee on 30 November, an amendment No. 6, which aimed to replace in article 4, §1er, 3° of the text adopted by the committee the word "linearly" with the word "gradually". The Minister explained the contents of this amendment which did not give rise to any comments from the members of the committee. The amendment, the article and the amended draft were adopted unanimously.

Mr. Lano, the fact that Mrs. Barzin has not been able to tempt you to listen to me is disturbing to me.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mrs. Barzin, sometimes I also refer to the written report. However, I would like to thank you for your comprehensive report. This is part of the speech of the first speaker.

The [...]

We still have a long night ahead of us. First of all, we will focus on the oil reserves. Their

I will not repeat the content of the report, which has fifty pages. I just want to say that the European Member States must establish a permanent level of reserves of petroleum products. They must be equivalent to at least 90 days of average domestic use. Their

In the present circumstances, it is necessary that we continue to do so. The market is tensed. The decentralized system we know today has some shortcomings. It needs to be reformed. We must, of course, be prepared for even more difficult times. Their

The draft law provides for structural reforms, in the sense that a central agency will be established responsible for holding and managing part of the mandatory stock. Such a system already exists in most European countries. We are encouraged to do better. The sector is also not in principle opposed to centralization of management. Their

The current system is replaced by a new system that works as follows. The APETRA agency purchases its own petroleum to maintain it as a strategic stock. APETRA concludes contracts with the oil companies. through a tender. Private partners also hold inventories. For some smaller companies, but not for SMEs, a limited reserve obligation remains. Their

Currently, there are no problems for categories 1 and 3. The storage obligation is fulfilled. The problem was in category 2. That is the diesel. This, of course, has to do with the market structure, as there are many cars driving on diesel. The system as it exists now seems to be more difficult to adequately respond to crisis situations.

It is true that a central agency should bring improvement, especially since this is a task of public interest. This cannot be sufficiently emphasized.

Also from the VLD we have asked a number of questions regarding this draft. I will not repeat them all here because we have received adequate answers from the Minister on all the comments we have made. I would like to say two things here, Mr. Minister, which I did not say in the committee. You know the problem of non-reimbursement of the individual inventory obligation. I am also an entrepreneur and there is no company that can operate without a iron stock. However, one works better and the other works less well. That is to say, the higher one sets the date or time span, the more one hurts the good student of the class anyway. It is an economic principle that I hope you won’t forget when you’ll have to record that date.

When it comes to storage abroad, we have also received adequate answers. One wants to keep that stock for the other, of course on APETRA after, here in the country. This also sounds logical because if one needs them, one prefers to have them in the country rather than abroad. However, I can tell you a nice anecdote, Mr. Minister, which I only heard yesterday. In 1973, during the first oil shock, the Arab countries had decided to divide the countries that consumed oil into three categories. The good were given oil, the bad were given no oil, and the neutral was decided. The Netherlands was a bad country and Belgium was neutral. Then Mr. d'Avignon was able to calculate, in 1973, that the oil could still "transit" to Belgium.

I thought it was worth it to repeat it again. We have 30 years of program law agreement. I think it worked well and we should not forget this. But I am also aware that no omelette can be made without breaking eggs. You have had the courage to do that for the first time in such a way that, despite the technicality of the subject, we can here respond to an urgent need. I would like to congratulate you on behalf of my group. Therefore, we will fully approve this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I did not have the opportunity to intervene in the committee, even though I was present at the hearings. Therefore, I will allow myself to develop our position at this tribune.

Everyone can agree that there is a problem. We had to have 90 days of reserve stock, but we only had 80 days, according to the various estimates that were communicated to us. What was the reason for this strategic stock problem in Belgium? A lot has been heard that these were problems of control, sanctions, lack of management of this stock, which had to be assured by the members of the different companies acting on the oil market, whether they are members of the Union of Petroleums or members of the Petroleum Federation. Therefore, a solution had to be found.

During the hearings, it was understood that an additional problem arose. Which one? Companies holding these stocks were paid for these stocks. It was a maximum price of 8 euros per cubic meter, which coexisted with a market price often lower than the maximum price. There were therefore two parallel markets: a market for petroleum products and a market for the purchase of stocks because some companies were unable to hold stocks on their own. It can be understood; it was impossible for small ⁇ to keep 90 days of stock. They were therefore forced to buy certificates, to buy stocks.

It is noted that at this single price for all the stocks of the oil sector, it was much more difficult for small companies than for the large, members of the Oil Federation, to pay for these stocks or dispose of them. There was a favorable discrimination against the largest companies, members of the Petroleum Federation. The hearings were very clear on this point. The members of the Union were very pleased with the establishment of the agency and the members of the Federation discussed problems related to its establishment. It can be imagined that the situation was more difficult to endure for small producers or small oil distributors because they had to buy these stocks at the same price as the bulk while they did not have the same faculties, in terms of personnel, liquidity and infrastructure.

A solution had to be found. Two possibilities appeared. The first was to better control, better sanction the sector in order to ensure that the 90-day stock guarantee would be effective.

However, even if better controlled and more sanctioned, this did not provide a solution to the discrimination that could exist between the smaller oil distributors and producers and the big companies members of the federation.

The Minister turned more towards the creation of an agency, which does not pose any problem for us as long as it does not generate an additional cost in the head of the consumer and there are no perverse effects related to the creation of this agency. Does the establishment of this agency meet these two conditions?

In terms of cost, this agency will have to be established, stocks will have to be ⁇ ined, managed and made available. Everything has a cost: to be able to dispose of crude and refined products, to refresh all the facilities that host oil, to acquire the tanks in which oil is contained, etc. Moreover, within a relatively short time, this agency will have to buy the oil products; its cost will depend on the market price, the price of oil.

For the holding of these stocks, the agency will obtain a maximum price that is now 8 euros per cubic meter. However, in the previous system, it was the market price that determined the price paid to companies holding these stocks. Often, this price was significantly lower than the maximum price of 8 euros per cubic meter, which was all a benefit for the consumer.

We fear that all these elements (creation of the agency, availability of stocks, purchase of oil, price paid to the agency for holding these stocks) initially create a significant cost that will have to be reversed to the consumer.

I can accept the argument of the minister who told us in committee that, in the long run, these consequences will disappear. Indeed, at some point, the Agency will have stocks, it will enter a future European market and it will become an important player in the market with a number of stocks at its disposal and infrastructure it will have acquired quite quickly. However, in the beginning, we run the risk of having costs.

Mr. Minister, you have also committed in committee to bring a financial plan for the establishment of the agency. I am confessing that I was not present at the last committee meeting, so I do not know if you had the opportunity to submit it or not. It would really interest me to have it available as soon as possible; it should not be that the establishment of this agency has the effect that no one wants, namely an impact on the price for the consumer.

Second element: Will the creation of this agency not produce pernicious effects?

We think that could be the case. I explain myself: the previous situation put all companies in the oil sector on the same foot, both small and large. With an advantage for large companies: for the same price, they had more liquidity, more infrastructure, more personnel. In this case, the system is reversed. Why Why ? by

First, because, regardless of the 70-day stocks to be constituted by the agency, 20 days must be constituted by the members of the Petroleum Federation, since this stock will only be made available by large companies. by

I don’t remember the tonnage threshold required for a company to be considered to have those 20 days available, but these companies are quite important. Today, this availability of stocks should only be achieved in a small percentage of companies. Some companies — the most important ones, therefore those that should have the most facilities to make inventories available — are placed in a specific situation.

Secondly, to make available these 20 days of stock, companies will not be paid, while the agency will be, and that previously, all companies without distinction, small and large, were paid to make these stocks available.

Third, what is the “quality” of the oil to be made available? These additional 20 days and the 70 days of the agency can only consist of crude, while previously, part of the provision by the private sector could be refined. But the agency, if I am not mistaken, can make available the raw, at least for a part.

Fourth, this concerns the place where these petroleum products should be stored: previously, part of what was to be made available by private companies could be located on a territory other than the Belgian territory. Today, this additional 20-day reserve must be located on the territory of Belgium while the Agency may have a part of its oil stocks, whether in crude or refined, elsewhere than on the Belgian territory, even though they must still keep a part of this stock in Belgium.

Regardless of the impact on the cost for the consumer, about which we advocate to obtain this financial plan in order to have all our certainty regarding this issue, we therefore fear that this implies reverse discrimination. I explain to myself: that those who were in a favourable situation in the past are now in a less favourable situation. I think this is not desirable for anyone. by

The Minister has, in this sense, launched a clue: would it not be better for the agency to have at its disposal all the stocks? The agency would then have to manage all the strategic oil stocks for Belgium, i.e. 90 days, to avoid any discrimination: everyone would be housed on the same mark and no one in private companies would have to worry about these strategic stocks. Only the agency would manage this – happy disposition – international obligation to have a strategic stock of 90 days. by

I think we must reach this goal: we must ensure that the agency holds these reserves for 90 days as soon as possible.

Regardless of these few reservations and on the condition that you can give us some reassurance on these different points, we are rather in favor of the creation of this agency.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, or Belgium has sufficient stockpiles of fuel oil in case of crisis may not arouse the same emotions that will later be aroused by the right of adoption by holebies.

However, it would be a mistake to ignore the problem underlying this draft law, namely the supply security of gasoline, diesel, fuel oil and other categories of petroleum or petroleum. A study by the Crisis Centre for Homeland Affairs recently ranked 418 crises according to their potential damage. At the top of the list is the energy supply. Supply security of energy is probably justified – seen by people as the biggest risk. How vulnerable we are, we saw last weekend. Some snow and some wind and the light goes out.

The bill we are discussing now deals with the supply security of diesel, fuel oil, kerosene and other types of gasoline and gas, oil or petroleum products. It is very technical, but it has important financial, legal and politically strategic consequences.

The hearing and discussion in the committee in the presence of the Minister were ⁇ interesting, despite the majority manifesting little or no interest, which was ⁇ disheartening for the ever-present audience from the sector.

The discussion about the security of supply of petroleum or petroleum products is not new. My first presentation on this issue in Parliament dates from 24 October 2000, together with then colleague Karel Van Hoorebeke. The discussion actually started in the mid-1970s. A European Directive of 1968 requires Member States to have certain quantities of crude oil and/or petroleum products at their disposal in the event of a crisis. Since then, a number of new European directives have been added. In 1971, Belgium decided to delegate the mandatory inventory obligation to the petroleum industry.

Other countries chose a centralized system with a national institution for the management of storage. This happened in France, Germany and the Netherlands, among others.

What is the situation today? What are the problems? Are the strategic oil reserves in Belgium sufficient or not? The current strategic oil reserves, ⁇ of category 2, are not sufficient. If a crisis arises, it could have catastrophic consequences. Oil companies consider their strategic stocks as part of their operational stocks or work stocks, thus, in a crisis, the available stock would be less than the required ninety days. The control of inventories is almost impossible, insufficient and not transparent. Given the nature of the products and the fact that they are being moved, adequate control is almost impossible.

Consumers actually pay twice: first through the cost price of the product and then through the special tax for the strategic inventories provided in the program agreements. Belgium has been drawn on the fingers several times by the European Commission and the International Energy Agency. On 2 May 2005, Belgium was officially placed in default. The European Commission is in favour of entrusting the management of the mandatory inventory to an independent body. That is what happens with this bill. This independent organism is APETRA. APETRA is a public law company with a social purpose. APETRA will maintain and manage the mandatory reserves of petroleum oil and petroleum products.

It was not expected that the sector would react positively. There are bigger and smaller players in the oil market whose interests are not always matching. The hearings showed that the petroleum federation is not against the principle of an independent institution, but against what it calls the monopoly position of APETRA. It is clear that the major international oil companies will suffer financial losses from this new system. We are also not insensitive to their arguments. The oil refineries in Antwerp, for example, fear that the new regulation will weaken their competitive position. They operate in an international context.

The Petroleum Union, on the other hand, is in favor of an independent, central institution for the management of the oil resources. It represents the independent importers and distributors of gasoline, gasoline and fuel oil. There are smaller and larger ones. The headquarters of these companies are located in Belgium. The people represented by the Petroleum Union are in favor of the bill, because it is a more transparent system for them. It is also financially more interesting for them.

What is the position of CD&V? Mr. Minister, I think I can say that CD&V participated constructively and positively in the discussions. A number of points are crucial to us.

First, we need to be sure that in the event of a crisis, effective stocks of fuel oil, gasoline and diesel will be available. Second, as far as the cost for the consumer is concerned, we do not want unnecessary burden increases for the consumer. Third, APETRA must be efficient, carry out a transparent policy and have a sound and prudent financial basis. The costs of APETRA are paid by the end-users of gasoline, diesel or fuel oil, namely the consumers in the wider sense: the families, the individuals and the companies. The consumer thus benefits from an efficient and well-functioning APETRA, without too heavy structure and guided with expertise. It must not be a Mexican army.

There are probably no waterproof guarantees for this. We have the promises of the minister and we constitute in fact an act of faith. The experiences in France, the Netherlands and Germany should also reassure us somewhat, although the conditions for storage are different and the other foreign, independent institutions could launch at a time when the oil market was more stable than it is now. At the moment we are in an unstable market situation, with a high oil price. There is uncertainty for the future. Therefore, we believe that great caution is required at the time of establishment of APETRA. APETRA itself should also be careful when purchasing stocks, volumes and timing of purchases.

Mr. Minister, Mr. President, colleagues, we have weighed and weighed. On the condition of an efficient and well-functioning APETRA, our country will be better protected from a crisis on the oil market than it is now. We will vote for the draft.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be brief. This project, which my group fully supports, does not call for many comments. Nevertheless, I wanted to make a few important remarks in my opinion. by

The bill that we are dealing with today aims to enable our country to better fulfill its obligations regarding mandatory holding of oil stocks. This reform was necessary, as Belgium has no longer been in order with the International Energy Agency since 2004 and was put on hold by the European Commission last July.

The system in force until now was a decentralized system based mainly on the private sector by imposing on oil product importers and refineries to hold strategic stocks. This system has shown its limits both in terms of the available quantities and the quality of the products stored. by

In line with what has been happening in several neighboring countries for a long time and more ⁇ inspired by the Dutch model, our country has therefore decided to reform the storage of petroleum products by moving to a semi-centralized system, in which the storage obligations will rely primarily on a public agency created for this purpose: APETRA. by

This agency will play a central role in the creation and management of strategic oil stocks. This centralization will have to enable the establishment of a transparent and easily controllable management, unlike the current system, the main problem of which is ⁇ the lack of transparency. The implementation of this system, the transition between decentralization and public management will have to be made gradually, the inventory formation being ⁇ the most delicate operation. The purchase of petroleum products will need to be made gradually in order to have the lowest possible influence on prices. Therefore, it is planned to spread these purchases over a five-year period. by

If this initiation is to disrupt the market as little as possible, we will pay particular attention to ensuring that the impact on the consumer is as minimal as possible. Let us not deceive ourselves either. The establishment and management of stocks representing 90 days of consumption has a cost. We therefore strongly insist that this cost is fairly distributed among all stakeholders in the sector because, if it has a cost, strategic storage offers no negligible protection for all stakeholders, not only the consumer but also the companies whose supply and business are insured at least temporarily in case of crisis. It is important to insist on this aspect, on the need to have this buffer, which will allow to amortise the shock of a serious crisis in the event that it would occur. by

There were voices expressing fears that APETRA would become a disturbing market element creating discrimination and imbalance.

As the Minister said, this agency is a public institution with a social purpose. With this goal, we believe that it will quickly become a stabilizing element of the market.

Beyond these somewhat technical aspects, the need to move to a centralized system so that the state can finally fulfill its international obligations in this area, allows us to reach the limits of what it is possible to demand from the private sector in terms of fulfilling public service obligations. We therefore welcomed, Mr. Minister, that this so important obligation is entrusted to a public agency even if it is with the help of the companies of the oil sector.

This example should allow us to question the ideas received in terms of economic organization. The recourse to the market is not a universal answer. It is not possible to answer all questions. There should be no fear of entrusting the most important tasks to the public sector. For all these reasons, we are convinced that the system set up will quickly enable Belgium to fulfill its international obligations. That is why our party will vote on this project.

Dear colleagues, I will be brief. I fully understand that this bill is not very sexy, but it is crucial for our country.

Eigenlijk had said wetsontwerp al veel langer wet moeten zijn, want het is voor een minister van Economie — geloof het van mij grif — niet aangenaam, wanneer hij in Paris van het Internationaal Energieagentschap moet horen dat Belgium niet in staat is om in een van de drie categorieën de voorraadplicht van negentig dagen aan te houden, while de belangrijkste taak in opdracht van de minister van Economie erin bestaat om de bevoorradingszekerheid van het land te kunnen garanderen. If we know that 51% of our energy is produced by oil, that we have some difficulties in providing the 90 days since 30% of our stock is abroad, that there are speculative stocks, that little or no control is possible and that in case of malversations no sanction can be taken, you will understand very well that I immediately embarked on the task of offering us a law that puts us in the range of neighboring countries. That is also the reason why we have the system thought out. De sector kan het system perfect aanvaarden, weliswaar met nuances. From the Belgian Petroleum Federation zei “ja, maar”. The Belgian Petroleum Union was unconditional forstander. We opted for a compulsory storage company, which implies: 1. the establishment of an agency with a quantity of petroleum products owned in order to fill stock gaps; 2. a significant increase in the quality of strategic stocks in Belgium; 3. a transparent oil market in which every final consumer pays the same price for mandatory stocks I know that a number of conditions was gesteld met betrekking tot de prijs, waarover men zekerheid must get. by

Also, the call launched in the committee almost across the party boundaries must be heard to start APETRA carefully. After all, it will be ⁇ difficult in these difficult times to be able to collect the stock at acceptable prices. I can guarantee you that specialists in the matter on the administration are available and perfectly able to perform this difficult duty accurately. Their

The advantage of this will be that there will be a win-win situation for everyone. The citizen will have the certainty that a real strategic stock will exist over as much as ninety days. I envy the Dutch, French and Germans who are able to guarantee up to the double term. Difficulties or a crisis situation affects them much less and that stock offers them much more security. I am also convinced that it will be less of a concern for the societies themselves. They have enough other tasks to accomplish and it will be good to be able to get rid of them. Dans ces conditions, monsieur le président, il est grandement temps de se doter de ce cadre légal. We will ensure the execution of this law and that it is acceptable and effective for all the world. You demand therefore the confidence of the Parliament for this project of law.