Can anyone cite a reference where an oil company was denied an application to build a new oil refinery?

Question

There is a lot of talk about environmentalists not wanting new refineries, yet has any oil company EVER been denied building one?

Please include a link or cite a reference. Otherwise your claim will be dismissed as BS.

Answer 1

I can't answer your question directly, but it seems that South Dakota will be building a new refinery soon!

http://gas2.org/2008/06/04/new-south-dak...

Kudos to them for using intelligence!

From what I have seen, the lack of refineries are directly related to the OIL companies not wanting them because it decreases profits from gas...so they have closed them down.  There are internal memos that back this up.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Group_Inte...

Answer 2

You have a good point!  I always thought "the poor oil refineries are TRYING to bring fuel to the public but the mean old Green Peace people and the environmentalists are blocking them at every turn."  Your point rings true and it appears the oil companies have pulled off ANOTHER BS trick to muddy their tracks.  When gas was $1.50 we had LOTS of refinery fires but now that gas is almost $5 I haven't heard of ONE!  Interesting!  

It seemed as if the govt was FORCING Exxon and the others to simply MAKE MONEY but NOT spend any.  It almost made sense when you look at our "govt logic".  But you make a good point.  I also like the response of the answerer that replied about Bakersfield.  IT's ALL beginning to make sense now.  

When Petrobras in South America gets their new equipment in 2010 and they begin to supply ALL the fuel this planet needs it will be interesting to see what happens with all the GLUT oil that remains from USA, SAudi Arabia, England, and China.  Will they just stop pumping in order to keep prices inflated or will they lower the price to 99c / gallon?  Every large price spike in the past has been met with extremely low prices afterward.  It will be interesting to see what happens this time.  It will also be interesting to see if McCain decides to FORCE the oil companies to remain competitive thus lowering the price of gas at the pump!  Or will he turn his back on us like Bush?

:-)

Peace ... Food for Thought Indeed!

Answer 3

SANTA MONICA, Calif., April 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights today released internal Shell documents showing the oil refiner is set to close and demolish its Bakersfield refinery despite the fact the site had the biggest refinery margins, or profits per gallon, of any Shell refinery in the nation as of yesterday.

Shell had claimed it was not economically viable to keep the refinery open and has refused to put it up for sale. Bakersfield supplies 2 percent of the state's gasoline and only 13 refineries feed California's tight gasoline supply (down from 37 in 1983).

An April 5th internal Shell document released today by FTCR shows that Bakersfield's refining margin at $23.01 per barrel, or about 55 cents profit per gallon, topped all of Shell's refineries in the nation. That means, for example, that margins are 36 cents per gallon higher in Bakersfield than in Port Arthur, Texas. The internal document comments under the category of refinery margins "Wow."

"Only an oil company that wants to short the market and artificially drive up the price of gasoline would demolish a highly profitable refinery rather than sell it," said Jamie Court, president of FTCR and author of the book Corporateering (Tarcher/Putnam). " Shell has deceived the public about Bakersfield and must be forced to keep this refinery open or sell it to a competitor. This evidence should also spur a national moratorium on all further domestic refinery closures."

In a letter sent today, FTCR called upon California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to file suit under the state's Unfair Business Competition Law to force Shell either to sell the refinery or to keep it running. The consumer group said it could seek such legal relief itself should the Attorney General not act. The letter can be read at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilitie... and the Shell documents can be viewed at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilitie...

FTCR also wrote President Bush and US Senator John Kerry to ask both candidates to support a national moratorium on refinery closures throughout the United States, stating that the recent run up at the pump "has little to do with OPEC but is a result of the deliberate restriction of supply by the highly consolidated domestic refining industry." The letter can be viewed at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilitie...

Among the documents released today by the consumer group is an end-of-2003 memo from Shell manager Jeff Krafve to fellow refinery employees that describes Bakersfield's refining operation this way: "(W)e turned in excellent operational performance this year. We are the most reliable US Shell refinery in 2003, and achieved world-class performance two years in row now. We have made quantum step improvements in our environmental compliance, finishing well under target again for the second straight year. We have reduced the expense we control 15-plus percent year over year, and have been one of the few Shell U.S. refineries to turn a profit... We've done this with the lowest personnel index in Shell refining in the country, making us comparatively the most productive and effective workforce in the system."

FTCR's letters to Lockyer, Bush, and Kerry also reveal, "Refinery workers in Bakersfield told FTCR that Aamir Farid, General Manager of Shell's refinery, stated to hundreds of employees at an employee meeting that the company would never sell the refinery because it did not want the competition. This suggests the real motivation for the company to close the refinery is to insure its production does not stay on line and to further decrease competition for the company's remaining two refineries in California."