US Refinery Database: CO2 intensity by facility?

US refinery database

This US refinery database covers 125 US refining facilities, with an average capacity of 150kbpd, and an average CO2 intensity of 33 kg/bbl. Upper quartile performers emitted less than 20 kg/bbl, while lower quartile performers emitted over 40 kg/bbl. The goal of this refinery database is to disaggregate US refining CO2 intensity by company and by facility.


Every year, the c125 core refineries in the US, with c18Mbpd of throughput capacity report granular emissions data to the US EPA. The individual disclosures are something of a minefield, and annoyingly lagged. But this refinery database is our best attempt to tabulate them, clean the data and draw meaningful conclusions.

Some of the larger companies assessed in the data-file include Aramco, BP, Chevron, Citgo, Delek, ExxonMobil, Koch, HF Sinclair, Marathon, Phillips66, PBF, Shell and Valero.

The average US refinery emits 33kg of direct CO2 per barrel of throughputs, we estimate, with a 10x range running from sub-10 kg/bbl to around 100 kg/bbl (chart below).

US refinery database
125 US refineries ranked by CO2 intensity per barrel

Breakdown of direct US refinery emissions? The 33 kg/bbl average CO2 intensity of US refineries comprises 20 kg/bbl of stationary combustion, 8 kg/bbl of other refining processes, 3 kg/bbl of on-site hydrogen generation, 1 kg/bbl of cogeneration, 0.2 kg/bbl associated with methane leaks.

Some care is needed in interpreting the data. Refineries that are more complex, make cleaner fuels, make their own hydrogen (rather than buying merchant hydrogen) and also make petrochemicals are clearly going to have higher CO2 intensities than simple topping refineries. There is a 50% correlation between different refineries’ CO2 intensity (in kg/bbl) and their Nelson Complexity Index.

Correlation between the CO2 intensity of US refiners and their Nelson Complexity Index

Which refiners make their own hydrogen versus purchasing merchant hydrogen from industrial gas companies? This question matters, as hydrogen value chains come into focus. Those who control the Steam Methane Reformers may be readily able to capture CO2 in order to earn $85/ton cash incentives under the IRA’s reformed 45Q program, as discussed in our recent research note into SMRs vs ATRs. One SuperMajor and two pure play refiners stand out as major hydrogen producers, each generating 250-300kTpa of H2.

US refinery database
Which refiners make their own hydrogen versus purchasing merchant hydrogen

How has the CO2 intensity of US refineries changed over the past 3-years? The overall CO2 intensity is unchanged. However, some of the most improved refineries have lowered their CO2 intensities by 2-10 kg/bbl (chart below). Conversely, some Majors have seen their CO2 intensities rise by 2-7 kg/bbl.

US refinery database
Change-in-CO2-intensity-of-different-US-refiners-over-time

For further context and ideas, we have also published summaries of our key conclusions into downstream, vehicles and long-term oil demand. All of our hydrocarbon research is summarized here.

The full refinery database contains a granular breakdown, facility-by-facility, showing each refinery, its owner, its capacity, throughput, utilisation rate and CO2 emissions across six categories: combustion, refining, hydrogen, CoGen, methane emissions and NOx (chart below). The data-file was last updated in 2023 and covers the full US refinery landscape in 2018, 2019 and 2021, going facility by facility, and operator by operator.

Refinery membranes: where’s the IP?

Leading companies commercializing refinery membranes

This data-file reviews over 1,000 patents to identify the technology leaders aiming to use membranes instead of other separation processes (e.g.,ย  distillation) within refineries.

Covered companies in the screen include Air Liquide, Air Products,ย  Aramco, BASF, BP, Chevron,ย  Dow, ExxonMobil, GE, Honeywell, IFP, MTR, Praxair, Shell, WR Grace and Zeon. A brief overview is prented for each company, along with a summary of their recent patent filings, and all the underlying details.

Operational data are also presented for two interesting cases: Exxon’s recent refinery membrane breakthrough (chart below) and Air Products’s PRISM membranes for hydrogen separation.

Carbon Costs of IMO 2020?

Carbon Costs of IMO 2020

CO2 intensity of oil refineries could rise by 20% due to IMO 2020 regulations, according to the estimates in this data-file, if a refinery chooses to convert all its high-sulphur fuel oil into low-sulphur diesel.

The drivers are an extra stage of cracking, plus higher-temperature hydrocracking and hydrotreating, which will also have the knock-on consequence of increasing hydrogen demands.

Higher CO2 intensity conflicts with the industry’s aim of lowering its net emissions, and a 20% increase would effectively undo 30-years of prior efficiency gains in the refining industry.

Upgrading Catalysts: lower refinery temperatures and pressures?

Catalyst impacts on refinery temperatures and pressures

Catalysts matter for refinery energy and CO2 intensity, as is shown in this data-file: It tabulates temperature and pressure conditions, disclosed for different refinery units, based on over 50 patents from leading energy Majors.

The average refinery process takes place at 450C. But variability is high. Hence our data-file explains the variations as a function of the different catalyst compositions, being pioneered by the different companies.

Combining all the best-in-class new catalysts in the datafile, we think the average refinery could save 5kg/bbl of CO2 intensity: across hydrocracking, FCCs, steam cracking, coking, dewaxing, hydrotreating, alkylation and reforming.

Carbon Capture Costs at Refineries?

Carbon Capture Costs at Refineries

This model calculates the costs of post-combustion carbon capture at a world-scale refinery, using today’s commercially available CCS technologies. The aim is to see whether the process could be economically competitive, as oil refineries emit c1bn tons of CO2 per annum.

Carbon capture costs vary unit-by-unit, as a function of the unit’s size and the CO2-concentration in its flue gas. Hence we estimate that c10-20% of refinery emissions can be eliminated for $XX/ton, the “middle 50%” will cost c$XX-XX/ton, while the final 20% will cost $XX-XX/ton. Calculations can be flexed in the model, using alternative input assumptions.

Our estimates are informed by an excellent technical paper from Shell, which is also summarised.

Overview of Downstream Catalyst Companies

Companies in Refining Catalysts

This data-file tabulates details of the c35 companies commercialising catalysts for the refining industry.  Improved catalysts are aimed at better yields, efficiencies and energy intensities. This is the leading route we can find to lower refining sector CO2 emissions.

In particular, we find five early-stage companies are aiming to commercialise next-generation refining catalysts.

We also quantify which Majors have recently filed the most patents to improve downstream catalysts.

If you would like us to expand the data-file, or provide further details on any specific companies, then please let us knowโ€ฆ

Eni Slurry Technology. A leader for IMO 2020?

Eni Slurry Technology

This data-file models the economics of Eni’s Slurry Technology, for hydro-converting heavy crudes and fuel oils into light products. It is among the top technologies we have reviewed for the arrival of IMO 2020 sulfur regulation, achieving >97% conversion of heavy fractions. The catalyst is stable and handles even ultra-heavy inputs. We see 10-20% IRRs at $20-40/bbl upgrading spreads. The data-file also summarises EST’s adoption in refineries to-date, future plans, and technical details of the EST process.

Copyright: Thunder Said Energy, 2019-2024.