Unless Shell doesn't feel it will get "it's share" of the government handout on refineries, I can't figure out any reason for them to come out and question the need for new refineries.

There is the possiblity that a new refinery would be more energy efficient and cleaner than the old refineries now operating in the US. It's hard to believe that this technology hasn't improved in the last 20 years. Take the money, free land, or whatever build new and better and close the old and inefficient. At the very least a new refinery would have lower maintanence costs.

Shell's forcast makes a lot of sense. Higher prices for OIL + foreseeable tax increases (to come closer to those in Europe) could persuate most users to buy more efficient diesels, hybrids and plug-in hybrids to convince national car manufacturers to built more efficient vehicles (cars, VUS, and light-trucks)in the future. The same could happen to heating oil and diesel oil consumption. Domestic thermo-pumps and hybrid trucks and buses could reduce the consumption by 40%. The only good reason to build a new refinery should be to replace an old inneffcient polluting unit. The OIL companies make enough profits to pay for this type of replacement without government subsidies. What is needed is not to relax but strengthen, streamline and rigorously apply refinery high standards. Less OIL & GAS consumption means less pollution and less OIL imports or zero imports within 10 to 15 years. Who doesn't want that? Are additional refineries realy required or will we have surplus refineries to clean up within 5 to 7 years? Could Shell be correct?

Hey Harvey,

Just curious, where did you get those statistics?

Thanks,

Tripp

European consumption figures are due in part to a highly urbanized population, small countries and lots and lots of rail and bus transport.  The USA has lots of rural area, is very large and has little potential for rail and bus outside of urban areas (suburbia isn't suitable).  In other words, we're not going to reduce per-capita consumption to European levels short of a wholesale collapse.

Bringing per-mile consumption down to (or even below) current European levels is a much more feasible goal in the short to medium term.  Just getting rid of the mega-SUV's would do a lot.

Attention Tripp:
The gasoline, diesel and oil yearly consomption per capital was obtained from national statistics web sites. There may be slight differences between the gross and net consumption in some cases. For USA, the yearly gasoline consomption per capital from 1994 to 2004 varied between 448 and 470 gallons, with 2003 being the worst year at 470 gallons per person. The high consumption per mile per vehicle (specially VUS and 4x4 trucks) seems to be the main reason followed by the distances travelled. Replacing VUS, light trucks and large cars with Hybrids or Plug-in Hybrids could reduce the gasonline consumption by half or more. The use of hybrid buses, hybrid large trucks, electric heat pumps and electric furnaces for dosestic heating could also reduce the consumption of heating/diesel OIL by half. Those two measures could reduce the total OIL consumption in USA and Canada from 3 Metric Ton per year per persons to less than 2 Tons. Clean WIND and SOLAR power could easily supply the extra electricity required. Benefits for the US economy would be simply outstanding but a bit less so for Canada being a net OIL and gas exporter, specially to the USA. However, dirty OIL exports could be replaced by clean WIND power exports for many years to come. People on both sides of the border would be better off.