Someone I know is claiming that no refineries have been built in the last 70 years.
So:
- When was the last refinery built?
- Have any gone out of business since then?
- At what capacity are current refineries running at?
It wasn’t quite that long. The last major greenfield refinery in the US was built in Garyville, LA in 1976. Pretty big one, too – 232,000 bpd (since upgraded).
Fully half the refineries in the US have closed since then, from 308 in 1979 to 145 or 146 (depending on how you count one that may come back) currently. More closures will come next time refining margins go down (they’re very high right now), particularly among small refineries. Look out, Chicagoland – you’re on the edge of a capacity shortfall that will make wholesale gas prices there as high as they are in New Mexico.
Last week, US refineries ran at 91.6% of capacity, a little below normal, and slightly below the five-year average. But with scheduled closures for turnarounds and such that’s pretty close to full.
Much of the lost refining capacity from closures has been made up by expansions of existing refineries, but the US is still about 1.5 MM bbl/day down from the peak in 1981.
Someone you know needs a longer attention span: there hasn’t been a refinery built in California in 70 years. There probably won’t be another in the foreseeable future, either.
Wait — what do John, Paul, George, and Ringo have to do with this?
Great point, Walloon… even the existing refineries in Benicia, etc haven’t helped gas prices in the region. But then again that wasn’t the question in the OP… so I digress. = )
Perhaps it might be better to look at the change in refinery output over the last 70 years rather than saying ‘no new refineries have been built in the last x years’. Since demand for oil has increased since 1976, I don’t think oil companies have been foolishly standing by and rolling on their beds of cash while the nation gets closer and closer to overloading its refineries.
The reason why few new refineries have been built may have to do with a shift in the way the industry operates, rather than a lack of foresight. Perhaps extensive upgrades to existing refineries has caused an increase in overall output without any new refineries being built. (That would be similar to what’s happened with shipping in the last 50 years or so; there are a smaller number of larger ports, rather than a larger number of small ports.) This table shows indicates that output in 2001 was 115% of the output in 1990, even without any new refineries being built anywhere in the US. I had also considered that imports of petroleum products had gone up, but that doesn’t appear to be the case from the table.
Still, it’s possible that the increase in output hasn’t been enough to meet demand.
I was wondering the same thing. Why does the title say Beatle?
“Beatle” used to be the screen name of “Ringo”, who is in the oil business, and would be a logical candidate to answer the question.
Thanks for the explanation. This is one reason why I think such insider references and attempts at humor in posts are often a bad idea.
Sorry about that - I met Ringo long before he changed his name, and had a brain fart when I wrote the title.
:o
Frankly, had you ended the title with “Ringo,” it would not have been any less confusing. (On the other hand, had you said “Ringo may know the answer” it would be clear what you meant.)
Bush has suggested using closed military bases as new locations for refineries. Story here.
manny and Roches have answered the question - I just felt it polite to drop in.
That name change was four years ago, Z-babe.