Connect with us

Energy

California may lose two more refineries, would have to rely on gas from abroad

Published

4 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

In 2008, California produced 249 million barrels of oil, meeting 38% of state needs, with 13.5% imported from Alaska and the remaining 48.5% from foreign countries. In 2023, California produced just 124 million barrels of oil, meeting 23.4% of state needs, while importing 15.9% from Alaska and 61% from abroad.

Short on the heels of another major refinery closure, Valero signaled it is considering closing its two California refineries that produce over 14% of the state’s gasoline. Refinery closures already have the state importing 8% of its gasoline supply, which means the state could soon have to significantly increase its imports of refined products such as gasoline, on top of its existing reliance on the Middle East and South America for the majority of its crude oil.

Valero announced its profit is down significantly due to very low margins from its refinery business, prompting a question during its earning call about its costly California refineries.

Valero CEO Lane Riggs responded the company has already “minimized strategic [capital expenditures]” in the state and “California is increasing its regulatory pressure on the industry, so we’re really considering everything — all options are on the table.”

While Riggs did not explicitly state that the refineries, which represent over 14% of the state’s remaining refinery capacity, could be shut down, California legislators were quick to ring the alarm bell and tie the potential closures to new refinery regulation powers being granted to the state in a special legislative session called by the governor.

“When California Governor Gavin Newsom said in 2021 he didn’t see a future for oil in CA, I didn’t know 2024 would be the year he ended it at lightning speed,” said State Assembly member Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, on X. “Today,  another refiner said “all options are on table” with refineries here. We can thank Newsom’s legislation.”

Just last week, Phillips 66 announced it is closing its massive Los Angeles refinery complex, which alone has 8% of the state’s refining capacity, right after the new legislation was passed.

New laws making it more difficult to drill for oil in California have brought production levels to half of what they were in 2008. Then, California produced 249 million barrels of oil, meeting 38% of state needs, with 13.5% imported from Alaska and the remaining 48.5% from foreign countries. In 2023, California produced just 124 million barrels of oil, meeting 23.4% of state needs, while importing 15.9% from Alaska and 61% from abroad. California’s foreign oil mostly comes from Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and Ecuador and Columbia in Latin America.

Losing a quarter of the state’s refining capacity would necessitate replacement with products refined abroad, which would end up being a lot more expensive than shipping in crude oil to be refined in California, which in turn is more expensive than producing oil in-state and refining it.

Imports are also more subject to price shocks than domestic refining and production due to higher variance in global market conditions, which could be a concern in the future — a widespread war in the Middle East, for example, would already significantly impact California oil supplies today.

Should California adopt more strict Low Carbon Fuel Standard requirements in November, which could include having more strict requirements on refineries and raising their costs, even more refineries may shut down rather than continue operating in California. Under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard program, refiners must either produce low carbon fuels, or purchase credits; should the new standards pass in, California estimates they would add another 47 cents to the cost of each gallon of gasoline and 59 cents in 2025 to each gallon of diesel.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

New children’s book demonstrates how the everyday world is connected to natural resources

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

‘Today’s youth have the opportunity to lead us into the future with innovative solutions for environmental challenges’

After a 24-year career in oil sands land reclamation, author Tanya Richens is sharing her knowledge with young minds.

Her new book, From the Earth to Us: Discovering the Origins of Everyday Things, explores the relationship between natural resources and the things we use in everyday life, from computers and water bottles to batteries and solar panels.

“There is a gap in society’s understanding of where things come from. We are a society driven by consumerism and immediate gratification. We order something online, and it arrives on our doorstep the next day. We don’t stop to think about where it really came from or how it was made,” Richens says.

“There’s an ever-increasing societal position that mining is bad, and oil is even worse… But there’s a simple hypocrisy in those beliefs, since so many things in our lives are made from the raw materials that come from mining and oil and natural gas,” she says.

The book, illustrated by reclamation artist Shannon Carla King, follows young Hennessy Rose and her Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Riley on a trip to a children’s summer camp.

Hennessy’s mom is a guest speaker on the origin of everyday items and the relationship between humans and the earth. Through detailed explanations of items surrounding her, Hennessy’s mom teaches the kids how rocks, minerals, oil and gas from the earth are used to power and aid our lives, creating items such as building supplies, food and hair products, camping and sports equipment, and cell phones.

Author Tanya Richens poses with her two books for children about natural resources. Photo for Canadian Energy Centre

“I thought a simple and fun book explaining the raw materials needed to make everyday items would be valuable for all ages,” Richens says.

“When people feel personally connected to natural resources, they are more likely to promote sustainable practices. Today’s youth will have the opportunity to lead us into the future with innovative solutions for environmental challenges.”

Richens‘ career began with Alberta Environment, where she was a coordinator of reclamation approvals in the oil sands. She oversaw technical reviews of oil sands reclamation applications, communicated with statement of concern filers, coordinated public hearings and provided support for legislative changes.

She moved from government to Suncor Energy, ensuring the company’s compliance on reclamation projects and led initiatives to obtain reclamation certificates. She now works as an independent consultant.

Drawing on her wealth of experience in the field, Richens’ first book, Adventures in Land Reclamation: Exploring Jobs for a Greener Future, seeks to excite kids aged 9-12 years about jobs related to the environment and land reclamation.

Hoping to get From the Earth to Us into the hands of teachers, Richens is heading to the Edmonton Teachers Convention in late February. She says the book supports multiple learning outcomes in Alberta’s new science curriculum for grades 3, 4, 5 and 6.

“Ultimately, I’d like people to understand and acknowledge their individual part in the need for mining and oil and natural gas development. Until the naivety and hypocrisy in the world is addressed, I’m not sure that real environmental change is possible.”

Richens’ books can be purchased on her website at tcrenvironmental.com.

Continue Reading

Energy

Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean

Published on

From Energy Now

By Calgary MP Greg McLean

Government in Full Reverse

Canada-U.S. Trade Relations is obviously the most pressing issue facing Canadians today.

It’s important to remember how we arrived at this point, but also to question the sincerity of the Liberal Ministers and leadership contenders who are now posing solutions, such as:

  • We need to diversify our resource trade
  • We need to build pipelines and infrastructure to get our exports to tidewater
  • We need to streamline our regulatory burden that stands in the way of development
  • We need to halt the escalating carbon tax
  • We need to reverse the capital gains tax increase

The Liberals are turning themselves inside out on the policy choices they have made over nine years, and put Canada in a precarious economic position vis-à-vis our trade position.

If you believe what they are saying now, these Liberal Ministers and leadership contenders are saying that Canada needs EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they have delivered over these past nine years.

I can’t comment on whether these NEW Liberal policy positions completely lack sincerity, or whether they are the result of a ‘deathbed conversion’, but nine years of moving in the exact opposite direction to their new words has led Canada to where it is today – and that is nine lost years for Canadians, our prosperity, and our role in a complex world.

Below is another example of a specific morphing of a Liberal policy – to the one I helped put forth – 3 ½ years ago – regarding Canada’s policy on critical minerals.


Minister Late to Critical Mineral Strategy

Here’s a gem of wisdom from December’s Fall Economic Statement:

Canada will work with the United States and other likeminded partners to address the impacts of non-market policies and practices that unduly distort critical mineral prices.  This includes ensuring that market participants recognize the value of critical minerals produced responsibly, with due regard for high environmental standards and labour practices.

Then, on January 16th, the following from Canada’s Natural Resource Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson:

During a panel discussion in Washington on Wednesday, Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson proposed that enforcing a floor on metals prices could be “one of the centerpieces of the conversations we would then be having at the G7” summit later this year.

Western nations have long warned that China’s dominance in everything from nickel to lithium has let the country’s producers flood the market with supply, thereby keeping prices artificially low for competitors. Wilkinson has touted price floors as a way to combat that market control.

What a great idea!

Here’s the relevant excerpt from June, 2021, from a dissenting report on the Natural Resources Committee, when I served as my party’s critic, in contrast to the government’s critical minerals approach at that time:

Recommendation 4: Coordinate with our allies to establish a dedicated supply stock of critical minerals, possibly through a physical storage and floor pricing mechanism for visibility and pricing purposes.

Excerpt: Canada is too small of a market to undertake this effort on its own, but it can play a key role with its longstanding leadership as the mining jurisdiction of choice in the world. Canada’s pre-eminent role as a financing jurisdiction for international mining is well understood. Although we are at the early stages of losing this historical leadership to Australia, acting quickly to solidify Canada’s leadership will be a strong signal. Australia and Europe have already established critical mineral strategies to offset the dominance of the market that China has exerted. At the very least, Canada’s coordination needs to include the United States, and probably Mexico (through CUSMA), as the ongoing funding of a critical mineral supply may require backstopping developments with a price amelioration mechanism. In essence, a floor price to ensure the protection of critical mineral developments from manipulating price volatility – and which has held back developments, or caused the insolvency of several of these developments, due to non-transparent world market pricing mechanisms. … Establishing a steady supply of these critical minerals will lead to more value-added opportunities, in conjunction with our trade partners.

FULL REPORT

Conservative Dissenting Recommendations

My question to the Minister:  ‘What took you so long?’

This approach was presented three and a half years ago – and the Government chose to ignore it then.  

No surprise now, perhaps, as we’ve seen this Minister flip-flop on so many of the nonsense policies he’s put forth or acquiesced in at Cabinet:

  • The Clean Electricity Regulations (still opaque)
  • Canada’ role in shipping hydrocarbons to the world
  • Building energy infrastructure

To say nothing of the various Cabinet decisions he has been a part of that have led to Canada’s current weak negotiating position with our allies.  We effectively have not had a Minister of Natural Resources under his tenure.

Nothing topped it off more succinctly than his speech at the World Petroleum Show, held in Calgary in September 2023, when his remarks on behalf of the Government of Canada left industry participants around the world questioning whether the Minister was ‘tone-deaf’ or if, in fact, he knew anything about natural resources.

It seems his move to the position I promoted – three and a half years ago – shows that he’s finally listening and learning (or un-learning his previous narratives, perhaps)– but it’s quite late in the day.  Time and our future have been wasted.

Continue Reading

Trending

X