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

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.

Kenneth Schrupp

Reporter

Related Topics:#TheCenterSquare CaliforniaEnergySystem CaliforniaGasoline CaliforniaOilRefineries KennethSchrupp

Up Next

Release the names! Foreign interference scandal reaching boiling point in shocking press conference

Don't Miss

A Frisson of Fission: Why Nuclear Power Won’t Replace Natural Gas as North America’s Critical Fuel

Todayville

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

It’s Time To Stop Church Arsons And What Fuels Them

DEI / 7 hours ago

University System of Georgia to ban DEI, commit to neutrality, teach Constitution

Censorship Industrial Complex / 11 hours ago

G20’s Online Speech Clampdown Calls Set To Ignite Free Speech Fears

Energy

Global fossil fuel use rising despite UN proclamations

Published on November 22, 2024

Duane Rolheiser

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades… the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).

At the Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Azerbaijan, António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, last week called for a global net-zero carbon footprint by 2050, which requires a “fossil fuel phase-out” and “deep decarbonization across the entire value chain.”

Yet despite the trillions of dollars already spent globally pursuing this target—and the additional trillions projected as necessary to “end the era of fossil fuels”—the world’s dependence on fossil fuels has remained largely unchanged.

So, how realistic is a “net-zero” emissions world—which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting carbon emissions with activities such as planting trees—by 2050?

The journey began in 1995 when the UN hosted the first COP conference in Berlin, launching a global effort to drive energy transition and decarbonization. That year, global investment in renewable energy reached US$7 billion, according to some estimates. Since then, an extraordinary amount of money and resources have been allocated to the transition away from fossil fuels.

According to the International Energy Agency, between 2015 and 2023 alone, governments and industry worldwide spent US$12.3 trillion (inflation-adjusted) on clean energy. For context, that’s over six times the value of the entire Canadian economy in 2023.

Despite this spending, between 1995 and 2023, global fossil fuel consumption increased by 62 per cent, with oil consumption rising by 38 per cent, coal by 66 per cent and natural gas by 90 per cent.

And during that same 28-year period, despite the trillions spent on energy alternatives, the share of global energy provided by fossil fuels declined by only four percentage points, from 85.6 per cent to 81.5 per cent.

This should come as no surprise. Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades. According to a recent study by renowned scholar Vaclav Smil, the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).

Moreover, coal only surpassed wood as the main energy source worldwide around 1900. It took more than 150 years from oil’s first commercial extraction for oil to reach 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide. Natural gas didn’t reach this threshold until the end of the 20th century, after 130 years of industry development.

Now, consider the current push by governments to force an energy transition via regulation and spending. In Canada, the Trudeau government has set a target to fully decarbonize electricity generation by 2035 so all electricity is derived from renewable power sources such as wind and solar. But merely replacing Canada’s existing fossil fuel-based electricity with clean energy sources within the next decade would require building the equivalent of 23 major hydro projects (like British Columbia’s Site C) or 2.3 large-scale nuclear power plants (like Ontario’s Bruce Power). The planning and construction of significant electricity generation infrastructure in Canada is a complex and time-consuming process, often plagued by delays, regulatory hurdles and substantial cost overruns.

The Site C project took around 43 years from initial feasibility studies in 1971 to securing environmental certification in 2014. Construction began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of at least $16 billion. Similarly, Ontario’s Bruce Power plant took nearly two decades to complete, with billions in cost overruns. Given these immense practical, financial and regulatory challenges, achieving the government’s 2035 target is highly improbable.

As politicians gather at high-profile conferences and set ambitious targets for a swift energy transition, global reliance on fossil fuels has continued to increase. As things stand, achieving net-zero by 2050 appears neither realistic nor feasible.

Authors:

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Energy

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

Published on November 20, 2024

Todayville

From Resource Works

Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.

Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?

It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.

That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.

The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.

I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.

Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?

I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.

To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.

Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.

Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?

It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.

But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.

The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.

Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?

I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.

That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.

I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.

Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?

Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.

I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.

We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.

It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.