The importance of Canadian crude oil to refineries in the U.S.

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Ven Venkatachalam

Oil from Canada supplies more than 23% of U.S. refinery feedstock, helping bolster North American energy security

Introduction

The refining industry¹ in the United States is one of the world’s largest, with capacity to process 18 million barrels of oil per day. Canada plays a crucial role by supplying more than one-fifth of the crude oil refined in the U.S.

The U.S.–Canada cross-border crude oil trade is essential to North American energy security. Canadian crude oil exports and the U.S. refinery industry are highly integrated. In recent years, Canada’s crude oil sector has been making a growing contribution to the operations of U.S. oil refineries.

U.S. refineries are converting Canadian crude oil, including heavy oil,² into products that North Americans use daily, such as transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel), chemicals, and plastics. Although the U.S. has increased its production of oil in recent years, U.S. refineries still rely on Canadian heavy crude oil to meet their feedstock (i.e., the raw materials and intermediate materials processed at refineries to produce finished petroleum products, otherwise known as refinery inputs) specifications.

In this CEC Fact Sheet, we examine several economic indicators that illustrate the importance of Canadian crude oil, particularly heavy crude, to U.S. refineries. This fact sheet also analyzes the refining industry’s direct and indirect economic impacts on the U.S. economy.

1. NAICS Code 324110 (Petroleum Refineries): This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in refining crude petroleum into refined petroleum.

2. A majority of the crude oil imported by the U.S. from Canada is heavy crude (between 15-25 API gravity). API gravity is a commonly used index for measuring the density of crude oil or refined products. Crude oil typically has an API between 15 and 45 degrees. The higher the API, the lighter the crude; the lower the API, the heavier the crude.

Imports of Canadian crude oil to refineries in the United States

The physical characteristics of crude oil determine how it is processed in refineries. Generally, heavy crude oil offers higher yields of low-value products (coke and asphalt) and lower yields of high-value products (gasoline). Heavy crude oil requires more complicated processing than lighter crude if it is to produce high-value products.

Overall, Canadian crude oil imports to U.S. refineries for processing have risen from over 1.3 million barrels per day in 2000 to just under 3.8 million barrels per day in 2022, an increase of 181 per cent (see Figure 1). The per cent of Canadian crude in U.S. refinery feedstock has steadily risen from nearly 9 per cent in 2000 to over 23 per cent by the end of 2022.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (2024a, 2024b, 2024c)

The U.S. refining industry

Since the first U.S. refinery began operating in 1861, the refining industry has been one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the United States. There are currently 129 petroleum refineries across the five U.S. PADDS³ (125 operating refineries and five refineries that are idle but not permanently shut down) (see Table 1).

3. The United States is divided into five Petroleum Administration for Defense 
Districts (PADDs) for the allocation of fuels derived from petroleum products, 
including gasoline and diesel fuel. The geographic breakdown of PADDs enables 
U.S. policymakers to better analyze petroleum supplies in the country

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (2023)

Total refining capacity in the United States has risen from 16.2 million barrels of crude processed in 2000 to nearly 17.8 million barrels per day in 2022, an increase of over 8 per cent (see Figure 2). The refining utilization⁴ has also recovered, growing from 79 per cent during COVID-19 to a high of 91 per cent in 2022.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (2024b)

The impact of the U.S. refining industry on the American economy

The estimated direct and indirect economic impacts of the U.S. refining industry in 2024 include 1.6 million direct and indirect jobs, $206 billion in labour income, $577 billion in direct and indirect value-added, and $1.6 trillion in what is known as “outputs,” i.e., the value of goods and services produced by the industry (see Table 2).⁵

4. Capacity measures how much crude oil refineries are able to process. 
Utilization measures how much is actually being processed (as a percentage of 
maximum capacity). 
5. These projected amounts are in nominal U.S. dollars

Source: Author’s calculations using the IMPLAN modelling system. Details may not add up to totals due to rounding

Projected spending by the U.S. refining industry, 2024-2030

Figure 3 illustrates the industry’s projected annual spending between 2024 and 2030. Industry spending is expected to be US$58 billion in 2024, rising to US$62 billion by 2030. This includes operating expenditures (OPEX) and capital expenditures (CAPEX). Cumulatively, between 2024 and 2030, the industry is projected to spend over US$428 billion.⁶

6. These projected amounts are in nominal U.S. dollars and are calculated using 
the Rystad Energy UCube.

Source: Derived from Rystad Energy (2024), Service Market Solution

Conclusion

American refineries are critical to the country’s strategic interest. U.S. refineries are projected to spend more than $428 billion in the next seven years on operating and capital expenditures. The industries support millions of jobs. Canadian crude is an important part of the equation. It supplies more than 23 per cent of U.S. refinery feedstock.

Not only are Canadian crude oil supplies critical for the U.S. refining industry, but they are key to North American energy security. Limiting access to Canadian crude oil for U.S. refineries would require increased U.S. imports from less-free countries, which in turn would risk North American energy security.

References

Rystad Energy (2024), Service Market Solution <http://tinyurl.com/28fmv6a6>; U.S. Energy Information Administration (Undated), Oil and Petroleum Products Explained: Refining Crude Oil <http://tinyurl.com/3b2uwrxh>; U.S. Energy Information Administration (2023), Refinery Capacity Report <http://tinyurl.com/2s4ybz9z>; U.S. Energy Information Administration (2024a), Petroleum and Other Liquids: PADD District Imports by Country of Origin <http://tinyurl.com/58mzvtts>; U.S. Energy Information Administration (2024b), Petroleum and Other Liquids: Refinery Utilization and Capacity <http://tinyurl.com/3wx957k4>; U.S. Energy Information Administration (2024c), Petroleum and Other Liquids: U.S. Imports by Country of Origin <http://tinyurl.com/bdcsbwhn>; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Undated), Appendix A — Overview of Petroleum Refining, Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS <http://tinyurl.com/dveyzc8k>.

Related Topics:#CanadianCrudeOil #CanadianEnergyCentre #NorthAmericanEnergySecurity #USRefineries #VenVenkatachalam canadianoil

Up Next

Alberta’s Energy Road Ahead Has Never Been More Important: Brian Jean – Minister of Energy and Minerals

Don't Miss

‘Net-Zero’ Policies, ESG Reporting Raise Farm Costs, Food Prices—Report

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

Mexican cartels are a direct threat to Canada’s public safety, and the future of North American trade

Business / 32 mins ago

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Addictions / 3 hours ago

Ontario to restrict Canadian government’s supervised drug sites, shift focus to helping addicts

Canadian Energy Centre

Ignoring the global picture and making Canadians poorer: Energy and economic leaders on Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap

Published on November 13, 2024

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

The federal government’s draft rules to cap emissions – and by credible analysis, production – from Canada’s oil and gas sector will make Canadians poorer, won’t reduce world emissions, and are a “slap in the face” to Indigenous communities.

That’s the view of several leaders in energy and the economy calling out the negative consequences of Ottawa’s new regulations, which were announced on November 4.

Here’s a selection of what they have to say.

Goldy Hyder, CEO, Business Council of Canada

“At a time when Canada’s economy is stalling, imposing an oil and gas emissions cap will only make Canadians poorer. Strong climate action requires a strong economy. This cap will leave us with neither.”

Deborah Yedlin, CEO, Calgary Chamber of Commerce

“Canada would stand as the only country in the world to move forward with a self-imposed emissions cap.

“Given that our economic growth numbers have been underwhelming–and our per-person productivity lags that of the United States by $20,000, one would expect the government to be more focused on supporting sectors that are critical to economic growth rather than passing legislation that will compromise investment and hamper our growth prospects.

“…If the Canadian government wants to reduce emissions, it should follow the private sector’s lead – and strong track record – and withdraw the emissions cap.”

Stephen Buffalo, CEO, Indian Resources Council of Canada

“Over the past four decades, Canadian governments urged and promoted Indigenous peoples to engage in the natural resource economy. We were anxious to break our dependence on government and, even more, to exercise our treaty and Indigenous rights to build our own economies. We jumped in with far more enthusiasm and commitment than most Canadians appreciate.

“And now, in a bid to make Canada look ecologically virtuous on the world stage, the Liberal government imposed further restrictions on the oil and gas sector. This is happening as Indigenous engagement, employment and equity investment are growing and at a time when our communities have had their first taste of real and sustainable prosperity since the newcomers killed off all the buffalo. Thanks for nothing.”

Trevor Tombe, professor of economics, University of Calgary School of Public Policy

“[The emissions cap] is a wedge issue that’s going to be especially popular in Quebec. And I don’t think the [federal government’s] thinking goes much further than that.”

Kendall Dilling, president, Pathways Alliance

“A decrease in Canadian production has no impact on global demand – meaning another country’s oil will simply fill the void and the intended impact of the emissions cap is negated at a global level.

“An emissions cap gives industry less – not more – of the certainty needed to make long-term investments that create jobs, economic growth and tax revenues for all levels of government. It simply makes Canada less competitive.”

Michael Belenkie, CEO, Advantage Energy

“Canada’s emissions profile is not unusual. What’s unusual about Canada and our emissions is we seem to be the only exporting nation of the world that is willing to self-immolate. All we’re doing is we’re shutting ourselves down at our own expense and watching global emissions increase.”

Kevin Krausert, CEO and co-founder, Avatar Innovations

“The emissions cap risks delaying – if not derailing – a whole suite of emissions-reduction technology projects. The reason is simple: it has added yet another layer of uncertainty and complexity on already skinny investment decisions by weakening the most effective mechanism Canada has in place.

“…After nearly 15 years of experimenting in a complicated regulatory system, we’ve finally landed on one of the most globally effective and fungible carbon markets in the world in Alberta, called TIER.

“What the federal emissions cap has done is introduce uncertainty about the future of TIER. That’s because the cap has its own newly created cap-and-trade system. It takes TIER’s 15 years of experience and market knowledge and either duplicates functioning markets or creates a whole new market that may take another 15 years to get right.”

Dennis Darby, CEO, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters

“The federal government’s announcement of a cap and trade on oil and gas emissions threatens Canada’s energy trade, economic interests, and national unity.”

Adam Legge, president, Business Council of Alberta

“The oil and gas emissions cap is a discriminatory and divisive policy proposal—the epitome of bad public policy. It will likely cap Canadian prosperity—billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs lost for no benefit, and the burden will be borne largely in one region and one sector.”

Lisa Baiton, CEO, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

“The result would be lower production, lower exports, fewer jobs, lower GDP and lower revenues to governments to fund critical infrastructure and social programs on which Canadians rely.”

Statement, Canadian Association of Energy Contractors

“The Trudeau government does not care about Canadian blue-collar, middle-class energy workers who rely on the industry to support their families. It does not care about small, medium and Indigenous energy service businesses that operate in rural and remote communities across Western Canada. And it certainly does not care about supporting our allies who are desperate for oil and gas from sources other than regimes such as Russia or Iran.”

Peter Tertzakian, executive director, ARC Energy Research Institute

“Focusing on a single sector while ignoring others is problematic because each tonne of emissions has the same impact on climate change, regardless of its source. It makes little sense to impose potentially higher economic burdens on one economic sector when you could reduce emissions elsewhere at a lower cost.”

Shannon Joseph, chair, Energy for a Secure Future

“Canada continues to pursue its climate policy in a vacuum, ignoring the big picture of global emissions. This places at risk our international interests, tens of thousands of good paying jobs and important progress on reconciliation.”

Adam Sweet, director for Western Canada, Clean Prosperity

“Layering on a new cap-and-trade system for oil and gas producers adds uncertainty and regulatory complexity that risks undermining investment in emissions reductions just as we’re getting close to landing significant new decarbonization projects here in Alberta.”

Alberta

For second year in a row, Alberta oil and gas companies spend more than required on cleanup

Published on November 7, 2024

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Center

By Grady Semmens

$923 million spent cleaning up inactive wells, sites and pipelines in 2023

As a business owner, Ryan Smith values few things more than predictability when it comes to the oil and gas market and the demand for his company’s services.

That’s why knowing that next year in Alberta, the regulator requires at least $750 million worth of work cleaning up inactive oil and gas wells and other legacy energy infrastructure is tremendously helpful for the CEO of Calgary-based 360 Engineering & Environmental Consulting.

“Having a minimum spend in place for the province makes the market more predictable and consistent, which in turn helps our clients and our business plan for the future, which is a good thing,” says Smith, whose company has completed more than 5,000 site closure activities in Canada and internationally since 2015.

“Site closure has really emerged as a growth market over the last decade, especially in Western Canada where the regulatory systems for oil and gas are more advanced than anywhere else we are exposed to. It is an integral part of the energy lifecycle, and if it is done well it adds a lot of value to the industry.”

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) introduced an industry-wide minimum “closure” spending requirement in 2022, part of Alberta’s Inventory Reduction Program to accelerate the remediation of inactive oil and gas wells, facilities and pipelines across the province.

The mandatory quota determines the minimum level of work a company must conduct primarily to decommission and reclaim a proportion of its inactive inventory.

Inactive wells are defined as those that have not been used for six months or a year, depending on what they are being used for. When a company decides that they will not reactivate an inactive well they decommission it through a process called abandonment.

A well is considered successfully abandoned after it is cleaned, plugged with cement, cut to a minimum of one meter below the surface and covered with a vented cap. After abandonment comes remediation and reclamation, where the land around the well is returned to the equivalent of its original state.

The first two years under the new rules saw Alberta’s energy industry significantly exceed the minimum closure requirements.

In 2022, companies spent more than $696 million, about 65 per cent more than the initial threshold of $422 million. The AER increased the minimum spend to $700 million in 2023, which producers surpassed by 22 per cent with total expenditures of $923 million.

The 2024 minimum remains at $700 million, while in July the regulator announced that the minimum spend for 2025 was raised to $750 million.

This closure work does not include remediation of oil sands mining sites, which is handled under the Mine Financial Security Program, nor does it include the closure of orphan wells (wells without a legal owner) managed by the industry-funded Orphan Well Association.

Gurpreet Lail, CEO of Enserva, an industry association representing energy service companies, suppliers and manufacturers, says there was an initial rush of closure work when the quotas were first put in place, but activity has since become more even as companies develop long-term closure plans.

“A lot of the low-lying fruit has been taken care of, so now companies are working on more complex closure files that take more time and more money,” Lail says.

Facility owners say that Alberta’s rules provide direction for planning closure and remediation work, which in the past may have been put on hold due to the ups and downs of the oil and gas market.

“When commodity prices are up, everyone is focused on drilling more wells and when prices are down, budgets are strained for doing work that doesn’t bring in revenue. Having a minimum spend makes sure closure work happens every year and ensures there is longer-term progress,” says Deborah Borthwick, asset retirement coordinator for Birchcliff Energy, an oil and natural gas producer focused in Alberta.

Over the last few years, Birchcliff has budgeted more than $3 million for annual facility closure work, far above its required minimum spend.

The company completed 11 well abandonments and decommissioned 23 facilities and pipelines in 2022, according to its latest environmental, social and governance report.

Borthwick says having the closure quota for 2025 already set has allowed it to plan ahead and line up the necessary service companies well in advance for next year’s remediation work.