Started By
Message

Queston for O&G people about subsidizing refineries

Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:32 pm
Posted by Violent Hip Swivel
Member since Aug 2023
9675 posts
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
Posted by Potchafa
Avoyelles
Member since Jul 2016
4543 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:34 pm to
quote:

This board isn't worth a damn most of the time


Well, up yours man!
Posted by Violent Hip Swivel
Member since Aug 2023
9675 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:35 pm to
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.
Posted by lsugradman
Member since Sep 2003
8979 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:37 pm to
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 by Violent Hip Swivel
Member since Aug 2023
9675 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:40 pm to
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 by fightin tigers
Downtown Prairieville
Member since Mar 2008
79014 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 12:45 pm to
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.
This post was edited on 6/24/26 at 12:47 pm
Posted by Skeeterzx190
Ponchatoula
Member since Sep 2019
372 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:10 pm to
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 by FliesByNight
Whale, wail, well
Member since Apr 2026
208 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:12 pm to
stop with your unoriginal ai slop
Posted by notiger1997
Metairie
Member since May 2009
61752 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:16 pm to
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.
Posted by BoostAddict
Member since Jun 2007
3225 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:23 pm to
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 by fightin tigers
Downtown Prairieville
Member since Mar 2008
79014 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:30 pm to
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 by msap9020
Great White North
Member since Feb 2015
2181 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:32 pm to
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 by PCRammer
1725 Slough Avenue in Scranton, PA
Member since Jan 2014
1946 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:35 pm to
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 by fightin tigers
Downtown Prairieville
Member since Mar 2008
79014 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 1:38 pm to
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 by lowhound
Effie
Member since Aug 2014
10565 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:45 pm to
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 by TigerTatorTots
The Safeshore
Member since Jul 2009
82245 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 2:46 pm to
quote:

I’m still baffled that no company purchased the Shell Convent refinery.

They have been keeping the equipment preserved so maybe one day the thing will come back to life
Posted by PCRammer
1725 Slough Avenue in Scranton, PA
Member since Jan 2014
1946 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 3:33 pm to
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 by Gee Grenouille
Member since Jul 2018
8279 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 4:19 pm to
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 by Ramblin Wreck
Member since Aug 2011
4395 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 4:28 pm to
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 by Trevaylin
south texas
Member since Feb 2019
11286 posts
Posted on 6/24/26 at 5:16 pm to
Citizen K could explain that question.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram