- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Queston for O&G people about subsidizing refineries
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:32 pm
This board isn't worth a damn most of the time, but it really is an elite place for intel about the domestic Oil & Gas industry. So my question is if the federal government loves subsidizing other industries, why doesn't it subsidize the construction of new refineries so we can turn our own oil into gasoline? Seems like a no-brainer and a matter of national security. Does the AI below cover it for the most part?
—————————————————
1. The 40-Year Return on Investment Problem
Building a brand-new, large-scale oil refinery (a "greenfield" project) is a massive financial gamble. It costs between $10 billion and $15 billion and takes up to a decade to complete.
Because refineries operate on razor-thin profit margins (making money on the spread between the cost of crude and the price of gasoline), it takes 30 to 40 years of continuous operation just to break even. With the long-term global transition toward electric vehicles and renewable energy, oil companies are highly reluctant to lock up billions in a project that might become an obsolete "stranded asset" before it ever turns a profit.
2. A Massive Chemistry Mismatch
A common misconception is that the U.S. doesn't have the capacity to refine its own oil. It actually does—but U.S. refineries are built for the wrong kind of oil.
Drilling Maps The Mismatch: The fracking boom flooded the U.S. with light, sweet crude. However, older U.S. refineries (mostly built in the 1970s and 80s) were multi-billion-dollar engineering marvels specifically designed to process cheap, heavy, sour crude imported from places like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.
Drilling Maps The Reality: Instead of building entirely new refineries, it is far cheaper for companies to simply export our light crude to countries whose infrastructure matches it, and continue importing heavy crude to maximize our existing domestic facilities.
3. "Debottlenecking" is Cheaper than Building
The U.S. hasn't built a major, brand-new refinery from scratch since 1977. However, U.S. refining capacity has still managed to increase over the decades.
Companies prefer to engage in "debottlenecking"—expanding, upgrading, and tweaking existing facilities. Adding a new distillation unit to an active refinery might cost a few hundred million dollars and add 50,000 barrels a day of capacity without the public pushback, multi-year environmental permitting delays, and astronomical overhead of a greenfield build.
Reddit
4. Permitting and Environmental Hurdles
A new refinery is a regulatory nightmare to get approved. Under the Clean Air Act and EPA guidelines, a new refinery requires years of environmental impact studies, faces intense legal opposition from local communities ("Not In My Backyard" or NIMBYism), and must comply with stringent emissions caps. Navigating this legal minefield adds years of delay and millions in legal fees before a single shovel touches dirt.
Ultimately, neither the government nor private energy companies want to foot the bill for a multi-decade gamble when expanding existing facilities or playing the global trade market is vastly more profitable.
– Gemini
—————————————————
1. The 40-Year Return on Investment Problem
Building a brand-new, large-scale oil refinery (a "greenfield" project) is a massive financial gamble. It costs between $10 billion and $15 billion and takes up to a decade to complete.
Because refineries operate on razor-thin profit margins (making money on the spread between the cost of crude and the price of gasoline), it takes 30 to 40 years of continuous operation just to break even. With the long-term global transition toward electric vehicles and renewable energy, oil companies are highly reluctant to lock up billions in a project that might become an obsolete "stranded asset" before it ever turns a profit.
2. A Massive Chemistry Mismatch
A common misconception is that the U.S. doesn't have the capacity to refine its own oil. It actually does—but U.S. refineries are built for the wrong kind of oil.
Drilling Maps The Mismatch: The fracking boom flooded the U.S. with light, sweet crude. However, older U.S. refineries (mostly built in the 1970s and 80s) were multi-billion-dollar engineering marvels specifically designed to process cheap, heavy, sour crude imported from places like Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.
Drilling Maps The Reality: Instead of building entirely new refineries, it is far cheaper for companies to simply export our light crude to countries whose infrastructure matches it, and continue importing heavy crude to maximize our existing domestic facilities.
3. "Debottlenecking" is Cheaper than Building
The U.S. hasn't built a major, brand-new refinery from scratch since 1977. However, U.S. refining capacity has still managed to increase over the decades.
Companies prefer to engage in "debottlenecking"—expanding, upgrading, and tweaking existing facilities. Adding a new distillation unit to an active refinery might cost a few hundred million dollars and add 50,000 barrels a day of capacity without the public pushback, multi-year environmental permitting delays, and astronomical overhead of a greenfield build.
4. Permitting and Environmental Hurdles
A new refinery is a regulatory nightmare to get approved. Under the Clean Air Act and EPA guidelines, a new refinery requires years of environmental impact studies, faces intense legal opposition from local communities ("Not In My Backyard" or NIMBYism), and must comply with stringent emissions caps. Navigating this legal minefield adds years of delay and millions in legal fees before a single shovel touches dirt.
Ultimately, neither the government nor private energy companies want to foot the bill for a multi-decade gamble when expanding existing facilities or playing the global trade market is vastly more profitable.
– Gemini
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:34 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
This board isn't worth a damn most of the time
Well, up yours man!
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:35 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
More refineries wouldn't necessarily mean much cheaper gasoline
Gasoline prices are driven by:
Crude oil prices (usually the largest factor).
Global supply and demand.
Taxes.
Distribution and transportation costs.
Refining capacity
Even if the U.S. built several new refineries, gasoline would still largely be priced in a global market. The effect on pump prices might be smaller than many people expect.
One interesting fact: no major new full-scale refinery has been built in the U.S. since the 1970s, although existing refineries have expanded significantly and can process much more oil today than they could decades ago.
– ChatGPT
The stronger argument for government-supported refinery construction is usually not lower prices but energy security—the idea that the U.S. should maintain excess refining capacity to reduce vulnerability to wars, hurricanes, or foreign supply disruptions. Whether that benefit justifies billions in taxpayer subsidies is where the political debate tends to focus.
Gasoline prices are driven by:
Crude oil prices (usually the largest factor).
Global supply and demand.
Taxes.
Distribution and transportation costs.
Refining capacity
Even if the U.S. built several new refineries, gasoline would still largely be priced in a global market. The effect on pump prices might be smaller than many people expect.
One interesting fact: no major new full-scale refinery has been built in the U.S. since the 1970s, although existing refineries have expanded significantly and can process much more oil today than they could decades ago.
– ChatGPT
The stronger argument for government-supported refinery construction is usually not lower prices but energy security—the idea that the U.S. should maintain excess refining capacity to reduce vulnerability to wars, hurricanes, or foreign supply disruptions. Whether that benefit justifies billions in taxpayer subsidies is where the political debate tends to focus.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:37 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
Biggest hurdle to new refineries is the regulatory/ environmental approvals. Much easier to expand, improve or purchase and take over existing refineries than to build a new one at a new site.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:40 pm to lsugradman
quote:
Biggest hurdle to new refineries is the regulatory/ environmental approvals.
If there was ever a presidential administration that could clear tape and get things moving, it seems like it'd be this one.
Currently too preoccupied with reflecting pools and dogging out B list and C list celebrities on social media, I guess.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:45 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
Pretty good summary, some things are debatable but what isn't.
Something to note is that we already have more refining capacity than needed. If the supply goes up the price and profit fall to levels that don't make sense to operate. Refineries are closing because they aren't profitable to exist and investors can get much better returns holding their money somewhere else.
Not a smart business decision to start a new refinery. Everyone is consolidating to streamline and make more money.
Something to note is that we already have more refining capacity than needed. If the supply goes up the price and profit fall to levels that don't make sense to operate. Refineries are closing because they aren't profitable to exist and investors can get much better returns holding their money somewhere else.
Not a smart business decision to start a new refinery. Everyone is consolidating to streamline and make more money.
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:10 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
Not too sure if subsidies would help. Just a single unit in a refinery cost billions and many years from design, manufacturing, and building. In those years the next administration enters the white house usually with a push for green energy, mpg mandates, etc. While oil and gas goes into everything I do t think companies are willing to invest tens of billions when the intention is to phase out oil and gas eventually
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:12 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
stop with your unoriginal ai slop
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:16 pm to lsugradman
I’m still baffled that no company purchased the Shell Convent refinery.
I know one of their units had some weird technology, but the whole refinery had recently gone through turnarounds.
I know one of their units had some weird technology, but the whole refinery had recently gone through turnarounds.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:23 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
If there was ever a presidential administration that could clear tape and get things moving, it seems like it'd be this one.
Currently too preoccupied with reflecting pools and dogging out B list and C list celebrities on social media, I guess.
If the oil companies actually wanted this it would happen.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:30 pm to notiger1997
quote:
I’m still baffled that no company purchased the Shell Convent refinery.
I know one of their units had some weird technology, but the whole refinery had recently gone through turnarounds
Believe it had a visbreaker. It is "small" and doesn't fit Shell moving forward. Not a very complex refinery either.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:32 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Something to note is that we already have more refining capacity than needed.
Plus in my view US oil reserves along with US refineries are energy security. Think about it, if something did happen, we can be self-sufficient. The government would step in and ration petroleum products to the general public just like they did in WW2. Not sure if this is what the OP is angling at but that's what would happen.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:35 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
If there was ever a presidential administration that could clear tape and get things moving, it seems like it'd be this one.
Currently too preoccupied with reflecting pools and dogging out B list and C list celebrities on social media, I guess.
While I get the humor and spirit of your statement I do have first hand knowledge of Trump pushing presidents and CEO's to get new projects filed so his admin can get them approved.
I was on a call last week with the Director of an agency that permits and approves certain O&G projects and he stated clearly "this comes direct from the very top, when are you going to file XXXX project? He wants it in the que before mid-terms."
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:38 pm to msap9020
We would have more problems with byproduct and low value product logistics than making gasoline. Also on supplying domestic refiners if it became us vs the world. The logistics don't really exist in the supply chain to operate without foreign supply and outlets.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:45 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
The current admin is O&G friendly, but as we saw in 2020, that can change in an instant. Like you said, these are huge investments that take years to build. No company wants to make that kind of investment if some a-hole democrat can be elected and pull the permit out from under them with no recourse.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:46 pm to notiger1997
quote:They have been keeping the equipment preserved so maybe one day the thing will come back to life
I’m still baffled that no company purchased the Shell Convent refinery.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:33 pm to lowhound
quote:
a-hole democrat can be elected and pull the permit out from under them with no recourse.
They can tie it up in courts for years over silly things like, the FERC didnt produce all their public documents in Cambodian too and there is one family from Cambodia that lives 2 miles from the project, so they were not well informed and therefore the whole process needs to start over.
I embellish but its not far off from what I've had to deal with in the past.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 4:19 pm to lsugradman
quote:
Biggest hurdle to new refineries is the regulatory/ environmental approvals.
This is the biggest part that increases cost and time. I’m of the opinion that the govt doesn’t need to subsidize it. They need to build it in an approved state and expedite the process of review. Then sell it to the highest bidder.
Of course a project like this being managed by the govt could turn into a nightmare but at least one would be getting built
Posted on 6/24/26 at 4:28 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
Because refineries operate on razor-thin profit margins (making money on the spread between the cost of crude and the price of gasoline)
This can’t be overstated. Refineries depend upon volume to be profitable. If there is an operations upset that causes one of the process units to cut back or be shut down for maintenance, refineries go very quickly from razor thin margins to losing millions of dollars a day.
Posted on 6/24/26 at 5:16 pm to Ramblin Wreck
Citizen K could explain that question.
Popular
Back to top

12








