https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43761572
Which leads to "Planet Money Buys Oil"
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/08/26/491342091/plan...
EDIT: oh and it comes from Akkadian! how many Akkadian words do you know?
It would be helpful to also have a chart that shows how much gasoline or diesel as a percentage of each barrel is produced. It would be a bit variable, since not all crude oil is the same, but I think it would be close for most of it.
Some people think when diesel and regular gas prices diverge, that they should just be able to produce one at the expense of the other; but the distillation process shows that they are fundamentally different.
1. The light and heavy distinction is covered by a measure called API gravity [1]. The higher the API gravity, the lighter the crude;
2. Refiners mix different crude types depending on what kind of refined products they want to produce;
3. Heavy crude tends to be less valuable although it's essential for some applications. Lighter crude produces generally more valuable products like gasoline, diesel and avgas. But heavy crude goes into construction (eg roads) and fuel for ships (ie bunkers));
4. Most refineries in the US are very old and are very polluting. They don't need to be this way. A new refiner would produce vastly less pollution but they're almost impossible to get permission to build now. One exception is the Southern Rock refinery currently being built in Oklahoma [2], which will be powered by largely renewable energy and produce a lot less emissions than an equivalent older refinery with the same capacity;
5. There are different blends of gasoline that the US produces. The biggest is so-called summer and winter blends. What's the differene? Additives are added to summer blends (in particular) to increase the boiling point so less of the gasoline is in gas form because that produces more smog;
6. California uses their own blends so in 2021-2022 when CA gas went to $8+, it wasn't just "gouging". It doesn't really work that way. CA requires a particular blend that only CA refineries produce so it's simple supply and demand as no new capacity gets added to CA refineries and demand goes up with population growth.
The reason for the CA blend goes back to the 80s and 90s when smog was a much bigger problem. Better vehicle emissions standards since then as well as improvements in the blends the rest of the country uses have largely made the CA blend obsolete so CA is really paying $1+/gallon more for literally no reason; and
7. California doesn't build pipelines so is entirely dependent on seaborne oil imports (~75%) despite the US being a net energy exporter. Last I checked, ~20% of that foreign oil comes through the Strait (from Iraq, mostly) so, interestingly, CA is more vulnerable to the Strait of Hormuz closure than the rest of the country.
I guess I'll add a disclaimer: I'm very much pro-renewables, particular solar. I think solar is the future. But we currently live in a world that has huge demand for oil and no alternatives for many of those uses (eg diesel, plastics, construction, industrial, avgas) so we should at least be smart about how we go forward.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API_gravity
[2]: https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2023/05/24/5-6-billion-...
It's interesting to both see Asian majors and EPCs increasingly dominating the petrochemical chain as well as see an industry that the US used to lead in increasingly become dependent those partners.
What a massive shift in just 25 years.
[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-11/reliance-...
~50% gasoline, ~25-30% diesel.
While I do agree there's a ton of regulatory hurdle to cross to build a new refinery, lots of interviews with oil executives have stated the economics of building a new refinery aren't always great. The reasons why they aren't building isn't necessarily because the regulatory hurdles are too high, its that they don't think they'll end up making any money building them. The future demand of many refined products are uncertain, adding a lot of new capacity is quite a capital risk.
I'd love to see a lot of our ancient refineries shut down and replaced with far more modern designs, but the oil industry isn't going to do it because it probably won't be profitable.
It will be interesting to see the economics of these few new refineries coming online actually play out in the coming years.
I understand the ways that economics are very important, and that the economics still currently favor burning a large fraction of the crude oil. But I also know that the right kinds of investments and a bit of luck can often change those economics, and that would be nice to see.
I've heard the statistic that 40% of the total oil pumped out of the ground just to transporting oil. We use almost half just to move it to and fro before even using it.
Is this accurate?
Trucking is technically not to hard but logistically difficult. Aviation is extremely technically challenging. Shipping is economically difficult. Electricity generation has lots of factors, there's a lot of generation that can and has been changed easily, but some generation which is harder to switch.
If you get outside of oil into CO2 generally, there's even thornier issues. Concrete production, for example.
If you are seriously interested in these issues, I highly recommend https://www.youtube.com/c/EngineeringwithRosie
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming...
Of course this does not make sense in a world where we do not have enough energy to even keep datacenters open.
Edit: To clarify, I do not propose burning fossils to capture CO2 and make plastics. I am a Thermo Laws believer.
https://qz.com/2113243/forty-percent-of-all-shipping-cargo-c...
I would not believe it at all without source.
Maybe someone got confused by "transportation" altogether being major consumer?
Note also that it's a worldwide chart, so it includes developing countries that may not be so quick to jump on projects that are expensive right now even though they'll save a bunch of money in the long term. Though to be fair, some may have a leapfrog effect when it comes to building brand new infrastructure.
TL;DR: the efficiency of converting fossil energy resources into something useful is poor.
I'm also anti-nuclear because it's too expensive, not as safe as advocates make out and the waste problem is not even remotely solved despites all the claims to the contrary. But it's also true that the same kind of anti-development tactics used against refineries are effectively used against nuclear plants such that it takes 15+ years to build a nuclear plant and the costs balloon as a result.
But there's also strong direct evidence contrary to your claim: the new refineries in Oklahoma and Texas. Why are they getting built if "the oil industry isn't going to do it"?
I'll go even further than this: if private industry won't build new refineries, the government should. In fact, that's my preferred outcome anyway.
Let's say a barrel of oil travels 15,000 km from Saudi Arabia to Texas, gets refined, gets shipped another 10,000 km to Europe, then the last 1,000 km overland by truck.
This reasonably well sourced Reddit post [0] says big oil tankers burn 0.1% of their fuel per 1,000 km, smaller ones a bit more. Say 0.2% on aggregate, that's 5% for the whole journey, 10% because the ship is empty half the time.
From the same source, a truck burns about 3% per 1,000 km. This seems too high: for a 40,000 kg loaded truck that's less than 1 kmpl or 2.5 mpg. But let's believe it, double it for empty journeys, and we still only get 16%.
I used very conservative estimates here: surely most oil doesn't travel anywhere near that far.
Alternative thought experiment: look at the traffic on the highway. If this were true, even neglecting oil burnt for heating or electricity or aviation, you'd expect 40% of the vehicles to be tanker trucks.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jozd7/e...
i.e. A friend that works on rigs is flown to and from rigs from anywhere on earth every month, then choppers out to the rig and back. Same for everyone that works on the rigs.
India's Reliance is also investing $300B [0] in a Texas megarefinery [1] in specifically for cleaner and more efficient shale refining.
This is deeply technical and complex but low margins work (semiconductor fabrication falls in the same boat) which saw this industry leave for abroad in the 2000s and 2010s when other states like China and India subsidized their refinery industries to build domestic capacity for a number of petroleum byproducts with industrial applications.
This is the same strategy Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan used in the 1960s-90s as well.
[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-03-17/ambani...
[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-11/reliance-...
I would agree that electric is the future, but even if all that works as advertised and we keep making more progress, it's still going to take decades to manufacture the billions of them that will be needed to seriously displace oil. I believe oil will continue to be necessary and relevant for the lifetime of everybody old enough to write posts on this thread.
I’d expect tanker trucks to carry far more fuel than the typical vehicle.
Coal provides 175,000,000 TJ of energy. Solar and wind provide 21,000,000 TJ.
I was mostly surprised at how critical coal still is.
By "vehicles" do you mean "cars"?
Because airplanes are also a type of vehicles. So are container ships. Neither of which are very practicable with pure electric AFAICT, and are integral to modern life. (Though more marine hybrid could be practical.)
I think there should be more of a push for BEV/hybrid cars (and transport trucks), and think more home electrification would be good (though air sealing and insulation are more important, relatively speaking). But let us set reasonable expectations of what is possible at various timeframes (and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good/better).
maybe in some non-literal sense of financing them, which is what the government can (or will) offer to energy development generally. also there are numerous credits and tax favors for energy concerns.
on the flip side, how much demand for oil products is driven by ordinary consumers? some estimates say about 40% of extracted oil - it all eventually get refined, right? so the refining distinction is meaningless - in the US is refined into gasoline that goes directly into light duty vehicles (90% of all gas is light duty!), i.e., joe schmo public driving around.
if you are looking for government levers, your instincts seem right to reach for CEQA and NIMBYs. in the sense that you are looking at the bigger picture at A level of abstraction, but i disagree it is the right level of abstraction. fundamentally US oil consumption (and therefore refining) is about the car lifestyle, which is intimately intertwined with interest rates, because interest rates decide, essentially, how many americans live in urban sprawl and are obligated to use the car lifestyle as opposed to being able to choose.
so your preferred outcome, if we take it to its logical conclusion is, a non-independent fed. and look, you are already saying some stuff that sounds crank, so go all the way. the US president is saying a non-independent fed! it's not a fringe opinion anymore. but this is what it is really about. the system has organized itself around the interest rate lever specifically because it is independent, so be careful what you wish for.
This is a circular statement.
The regulatory hurdles are a large part of what drive cost.
I know a venue that wants to pave a dirt lot so they can better use it for stuff. It doesn't pencil out because of stupid stormwater permitting crap that'll add $250k to the project. It'd never pay off in a reasonable timeframe. So it just continues to exist in its current grandfathered in capacity when even the most unfavorable napkin math shows that what they want is an improvement.
A few weeks ago I was party to the installation of a perimeter railing on a flat commercial roof. The railing cost more than the rest of the job it was there for. Something tells me they won't be pulling permits for petty electrical work ever again.
Oil and most other heavy industry is faced with the same sort of problems with more digits in front of the decimal.
Two truly new refineries in 50 years despite lots of growth of demand throughout most of those decades. The fact there's only been two in fifty years and neither is anywhere near operational is proving my point. These are largely aberrations compared to the last fifty years, and its extremely notable the larger one is being built largely by a foreign oil company wanting to diversify internationally. It hasn't even broken ground yet and you're acting like its already here.
> if private industry won't build new refineries, the government should.
Personally I'd prefer our tax dollars to be spent feeding our kids and providing healthcare instead of continuing to give handouts to billionaires, but hey lots of people have different opinions.
Yet.
The surge in electric cars is a driving force for new tech - higher energy density batteries, faster charge rates, longer life, etc etc.
For shipping it’s only a matter of when.
Planes are harder, but just today electric choppers started flying in NYC. It’s coming.
It measures joules of energy as in "how much heat the gasoline we burn produces", some of which we convert to mechanical energy to drive the car, but the majority is just waste heat going out the tailpipe.
By comparison an electric car powered by solar has no tailpipe. There's still a bit of waste heat from electrical resistance, but nowhere near as much.
If we measure like this, by converting a gasoline car to electric (powered by solar for the sake of ignoring some complexity), and driving the same distance, we somehow managed to cut our "energy demand" in half. Despite the fact that we're demanding the exact same thing from the system.
If we measured "joules delivered to the tires of the car" we wouldn't have the same issue. At least until someone starts arguing about how their car is more aerodynamic so joules delivered to the tires should count for more in it.
Edit: We could also go in the other direction. Instead of reporting it as 1kw of solar energy (electricity) it could be 4kw of solar energy (the amount of sunlight shining on the solar panels)... No one does this for obvious reasons, but it's more similar to that primary energy number for fuel in many ways.
Its not if you get the context.
> The regulatory hurdles are a large part of what drive cost
I agree, they are a large part. The things they have to do to meet the standards are expensive.
The claim was "impossible to get permission to build now". As in, the government won't let them build it. That the standards are just technically impossible to meet. They can get the permission to build it any day. Its possible to meet these standards. They just don't think it'll be worth it when they have to do it right.
All of my life has been around the oil industry, I'm well bathed in it.
There, better?
These agencies have all sorts of discretion to waive this or enforce that or interpret some third thing and yet they leverage all of it in a manner that stalls progress.
I know a guy who has a textbook perfect situation for a septic in MN. MN won't permit it not because of some law or rule or code, but because the agency has decided that they just don't do septics anymore, mounds only and are exercising their discretion to only permit those. The cost difference is a lot, but less than suing them so guess what got installed?
Commercial permitting of every kind is like that but worse because the public will tolerate way more abuse of business than abuse of homeowners.
> For all energy sources, the IEA clearly defines energy production at the point where the energy source becomes a “marketable product” (and not before).
Doesn't that mean if you are burning coal to make electricity, you wouldn't count the heat output because the generated heat is not a marketable product.
[1] https://www.iea.org/commentaries/understanding-and-using-the...
As for your friend wanting to improve the lot but needs to do a lot of drainage fixes, he should lobby his community for property tax abatement to support the drainage improvements. If the people really want the improvement they'll be willing to help pay for the drainage. But things like failures to account for drainage leads to massive floods hurting everyone in the community. It's something we've ignored in a lot of our planning for a long time.
Both of your major examples are probably selfish takes that harm their neighbors to save someone some money.
> [Total Final Consumption] shows the energy that is actually used by final consumers – the energy used in homes, transportation and businesses.
I'm not buying coal at the terminal to power my television.
Though wind and solar continue to carve out larger and larger shares of world energy supply, the modern world still runs on petroleum, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The world consumes over 100 million barrels of oil a day. As of 2023, oil was responsible for 30% of all energy use worldwide, higher than any other energy source (though its share has been gradually falling). In chemical manufacturing, petroleum is even more critical: an astounding 90% of chemical feedstocks are derived from oil or gas. Virtually all plastic comes from chemicals extracted from oil or gas, and petrochemicals are used to produce everything from lubricants to paint to plywood to synthetic fabrics to fertilizer.
Our enormous consumption of petroleum is made possible by oil refineries. When oil comes out of the ground, it’s a complex mixture of thousands of different chemicals. Oil refineries take in this mixture and process it, turning it into chemicals we can actually use. Because of the scale of worldwide petroleum consumption, oil refineries are some of the largest industrial facilities in the world. A large oil refinery will occupy thousands of acres and cost billions of dollars to construct, ultimately refining hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil each day.
Oil is a liquid produced from decomposing organic materials, mostly plankton and algae that died and sank to the bottom of ancient oceans. This dead organic matter gradually got covered with sediment, and over millions of years it transformed into crude oil. Crude oil is a mixture of thousands of different chemicals, most of which are hydrocarbons: molecules that are various arrangements of carbon and hydrogen atoms. The molecules in crude oil range from the simple, such as propane (three carbons and eight hydrogens) and butane (four carbons and ten hydrogens) to the complex — some asphaltene molecules in crude oil can contain thousands of individual atoms.1
Crude oils extracted from different parts of the Earth will have different mixtures of hydrocarbons and other molecules, which has given rise to a sort of crude oil taxonomy. “Heavy” crude oils, found in places like Canada’s oil sands, will have more heavy molecules, while “light” crude oils found in places like Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field will have more light molecules. “Sweet” crudes, like the crudes extracted from the Brent oil field in the North Sea, have lower sulfur content, while “sour crudes,” like some of the crudes extracted from the Gulf of Mexico, have greater sulfur content.
The job of an oil refinery is to process this mixture of hydrocarbons and other molecules: separating the mixture into individual chemicals or groups of chemicals, and using various chemical reactions to change low-value chemicals into more valuable, useful ones.
A refinery makes use of several different methods to separate and process crude oil, but the most important process of all is probably distilling. Different molecules within crude oil boil at different temperatures, and condense back into liquid at different temperatures. Smaller, lighter molecules boil and condense at lower temperatures, while larger and heavier molecules boil and condense at higher temperatures. You can describe this range of boiling points with a distillation curve, which shows what fraction of the crude oil boils at different temperatures. In the example curve below, we can see that at about 350°C half the crude has boiled off, and at 525°C about 80% of the crude has boiled off. Different crude oils will have slightly different distillation curves, depending on the proportion of different molecules within them.
Crude oil distillation curve, via ChatGPT.
Substances derived from crude oil are often mixtures of chemicals defined by their range of boiling points. Gasoline, for instance, isn’t just one chemical: it’s a mixture of hydrocarbons, mostly molecules with between four and 12 carbon atoms. The EIA defines finished gasoline as “having a boiling range of 122 to 158 degrees Fahrenheit at the 10 percent recovery point to 365 to 374 degrees Fahrenheit at the 90 percent recovery point.”2
Oil refineries can use this range of boiling and condensation to separate crude oil into different groups of chemicals, or fractions, using a distillation column. When crude oil enters a refinery, the salt gets removed from it, and it’s then heated to around 650-750°F, which turns most of the oil into a vapor. The vapor is then fed into a tall column containing trays at different heights, each filled with liquid. As the hot vapor rises through the column, at each tray it passes through the liquid, which cools it slightly. When the vapor cools enough, it condenses back into liquid. The heaviest molecules with the highest boiling points condense first, at the bottom of the column, while the lighter ones condense last, at the top. The very lightest molecules don’t condense at all: they exit the top of the column while remaining a gas. At the same time, the very heaviest molecules remain a liquid the entire time, and exit the bottom of the column. Thus, different molecules of different weights can be separated out.
Essentially every oil refinery first distills crude oil into various fractions in a distillation column, though the exact fractions separated might vary from refinery to refinery. Because this distillation is done at atmospheric pressure, this first step in the refining process is referred to as “atmospheric distillation.” The simplest refineries might only do atmospheric distillation, but most refineries will then send these various fractions along for further processing. There are a LOT of processes that a refinery might use, depending on what it’s designed to produce, so we’ll just look at some of the most widely used ones.
The gas that comes out of the top of atmospheric distillation will be a mixture of several different light molecules — propane, methane, butane, isobutane (butane with a slightly different molecular arrangement) and so on. To separate this mixture into its component gases, a refinery can send it to a gas plant, which contains a series of distillation columns designed to condense various substances out of the mixture. So gas might flow through a “debutanizing tower” to separate butane, propane and lighter gasses from the rest of the mixture; the butane-and-lighter gasses might then be sent to a “depropanizing tower” to separate the propane from the butane.3
While light gases come out of the top of a distillation column, heavy liquids come out the bottom. The very heaviest molecules, which emerge from distillation without ever having evaporated at all, are known as residuals. Many of the heavier molecules aren’t particularly valuable by themselves, and thus one of the most important functions of a refinery is cracking — splitting heavy fractions, such as heavy fuel oil, into lighter, more valuable ones such as gasoline.
Cracking was invented in the early 20th century as a way to extract more gasoline from a barrel of crude oil to meet rising demand from car usage. Over the years cracking methods have evolved, and today most refineries use some flavor of catalytic cracking (or “cat cracking”). In catalytic cracking, the heavy fractions from atmospheric distillation are mixed with a catalyst (a material designed to speed up chemical reactions) and subjected to heat and pressure, splitting the heavy molecules into lighter ones. The catalyst is then separated from the mixture using a cyclonic separator — essentially, the mixture is spun around, separating out the heavier catalyst from the rest of the mixture — cleaned, and reused, while the now-cracked (and therefore vapor-izable) oil is sent to another distillation column which splits it into various fractions.
Most catalytic cracking is fluid catalytic cracking, which uses a sand-like catalyst that behaves as a fluid when mixed with the heavy fractions. Different companies have developed different fluid catalytic cracking processes, and different refineries might use multiple catalytic crackers in different parts of the process.
Catalytic crackers are designed to encourage the chemical reactions that break apart heavy hydrocarbons, but these reactions can also occur within the distillation column if the heat is high enough. Because cracking is disruptive to the distillation process, refineries limit the temperature in atmospheric distillation to around 650-750°F. This leaves behind a mixture of heavy, unboiled hydrocarbons at the bottom of the column. It would be useful to further separate this mixture into different fractions so that it could be reclaimed, but atmospheric distillation can’t do that without raising the temperature to the point where cracking starts to occur.
The solution is to send this mixture to another distillation column that’s kept at very low pressure, near vacuum — this process is thus known as vacuum distillation or vacuum flashing. Lower pressure means lower boiling points, allowing the heavy fractions to be distilled without heating them to the point where cracking starts to occur.
Some of the heavy fractions that come out of vacuum distillation might be sent directly to a catalytic cracking unit to split them into lighter ones. But the very heaviest molecules that come out of the bottom of the vacuum distillation column aren’t suitable for catalytic cracking — many of them contain heavy metals that would poison the catalyst, and the chemical reactions of these molecules tend to produce coke (a carbon-rich solid), which would gum up the catalyst. Because it’s useful to crack these very heavy molecules, some refineries will use thermal cracking processes, which use heat to split molecules apart. Cokers are thermal crackers that use heat to crack the heaviest molecules into lighter ones and coke. The lighter molecules are sent to a distillation column to be separated; the coke can be burned as fuel, or as a manufacturing input (the electrodes used in aluminum smelting, for instance, are made from coke). Another type of thermal cracking, visbreaking (short for viscosity breaking), is used to crack some molecules and reduce the viscosity of the remaining fractions.
Besides cracking, a refinery might employ a variety of other processes to modify the chemical structure of various molecules. Catalytic reforming takes the naphtha fraction (the part of the crude oil with a boiling point between ~122°F and ~400°F) and exposes it to heat and pressure in the presence of a catalyst to produce a new mixture of chemicals called reformate that is used to make gasoline. Isomerization processes take various molecules, such as butane, and modify their physical arrangement to produce isomers – molecules with identical chemical formulas but different structural arrangements. Hydrotreating reacts various crude oil fractions with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst to remove impurities and improve their quality. (Hydrotreating can be done on its own, but it’s also often combined with other processes. Hydrocracking combines hydrotreating with catalytic cracking, and residue hydroconversion combines hydrotreating with thermal cracking.)
To store the various inputs and outputs of these processes, oil refineries also have huge numbers of storage tanks called tank farms, which are capable of storing millions of gallons of various liquids. Gases like propane and butane will typically be stored as pressurized liquids, either in above-ground tanks or in underground caverns or salt domes.
To get a sense of how these various processes might be arranged, we can look at how they’re implemented in an actual refinery. The map below shows Chevron’s Richmond, California refinery, a moderately large refinery capable of processing about a quarter million barrels of crude oil a day. The tank farm occupies the south half of the site, while the processing area wraps around the north and east.
The chart below shows the daily capacity of various processes at the refinery.
We can see that Chevron Richmond has many of the processes that we described above: in addition to ~257,000 barrels of atmospheric distillation, it has ~123,000 barrels of vacuum distillation, ~90,000 barrels of catalytic cracking, and ~71,000 barrels of catalytic reforming. (Chevron Richmond doesn’t have any coking capacity, but Chevron’s slightly larger El Segundo refinery in Los Angeles does.)
To see how these processes are actually arranged, we can look at a process flow diagram for the refinery. (This diagram is available because several years ago Chevron extensively modified this refinery, which required them to submit a very detailed environmental impact report to comply with California’s environmental quality laws.)
We can see that the refining process starts with atmospheric distillation (though the refinery also processes some heavy gas oil that can skip the distillation process), which separates the crude into various fractions. These fractions then get routed to various other processes. The light gas gets sent to the gas plant, while the naphtha gets sent to hydrotreating, catalytic reforming, and isomerization. Jet fuel and diesel fuel are sent to their own hydrotreating processes, and the heavier fractions get sent to various catalytic cracking processes. The output of all these processes is various crude oil products: heavy fuel oil, diesel, jet fuel, lubricants, and, of course, gasoline.
Chevron Richmond is just one of 132 operable oil refineries in the U.S., which collectively can refine over 18 million barrels of crude oil each day. The location of these refineries is highly concentrated: most of them are on the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana, with other clusters in New Jersey, the Midwest, and in California.
If we look at the distribution of refinery capacity we can see that Chevron Richmond is on the larger side, but far from the largest. Around a fifth of US refineries are roughly as large or larger than Chevron Richmond. Six US refineries are more than twice as large, with the capacity to refine more than half a million barrels a day. And some refineries around the world are even bigger: the Jamnagar refinery in India, the world’s largest refinery by raw capacity, can refine 1.4 million barrels of crude per day.
But looking at capacity in barrels per day (which is essentially atmospheric distillation capacity) only tells part of the story. As we noted, different refineries will have different processing equipment installed depending on what they’re designed to produce. Simple refineries will have little more than atmospheric distillation, while more complex ones will employ long sequences of processes to produce a wide range of highly refined products. The chart below shows the collective US refining capacity of various processes.
We can look at the relative complexity of different US refineries using the Nelson Complexity Index, which is intended to measure how complex a refinery is. The index is constructed by taking each process a refinery employs, and multiplying its refining capacity by a “complexity factor” that compares the cost of that process to atmospheric distillation, and then dividing by the refinery’s atmospheric distillation capacity. So a refinery that has 100,000 barrels of atmospheric distillation capacity (complexity factor of 1) and 50,000 barrels of vacuum distillation capacity (complexity factor of 2) would have a Complexity Index of 1 + 2 * 50,000 / 100,000 = 2. If it then added 25,000 barrels of catalytic cracking capacity (complexity factor of 6), its Complexity Index would rise to 1 + 1 + 6 * 25,000 / 100,000 = 3.5.
Most refineries in the US are fairly complex. As of 2014, less than 3% of refineries had a complexity index of 2 or less, and the average complexity index was 8.7. As of 2014 the Chevron Richmond refinery had a complexity index of 14, above average for US refineries. The Jamnagar refinery, in addition to being the world’s largest, is also particularly complex: its complexity index of 21 would make it more complex than virtually any US refinery.
Distribution of US oil refineries by complexity circa 2014, via Kaiser 2016.
What strikes me most about oil refining isn’t the complexity of the process — indeed, while the arrangements of various processes are often exceedingly complex, many of the processes themselves are often surprisingly simple (conceptually, at least). What strikes me is the sheer scale of it. Refining is an expensive undertaking not necessarily because the processes are so complex, but because the volume of material that has to be processed is so high. Chevron’s Richmond refinery is the size of a small city, and can process the entire contents of a Very Large Crude Carrier in a little over a week. And Richmond isn’t even a particularly large refinery: the US has 25 refineries that size or larger, and six refineries that are more than twice as large. Worldwide, it takes 400 Richmond-size refineries to keep the world fed with petroleum.
If you live in Texas or Louisiana these aspects are probably obvious to you, but most of us are able to go about our lives without ever thinking about the huge industrial machine that keeps the blood of civilization flowing. But the US consumes over 20 million barrels of oil a day, every day, and it takes a vast complex of oil refineries to make that possible.
Asphaltenes aren’t technically hydrocarbons: they consist mostly of carbon and hydrogen, but they can also incorporate other atoms, such as sulfur or heavy metals.
The recovery point is the temperature at which that fraction of the liquid has been vaporized and then collected.
Most of the gases sent to the gas plant will have no double bonds in them. Hydrocarbons without double bonds are known as saturated, because they have the maximum number of hydrogen atoms that they can, and so this type of plant is called a “sats gas plant”.