Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pocotrader who wrote (336710)	2/6/2021 12:19:40 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	2 Recommendations Recommended By pocotrader Sun Tzu Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361355

I think the deciding factor was the lack of economies of scale with the Burnaby Refinery at 55,000 barrels/day. - en.wikipedia.org Compare that to some of Chevron's other refineries: the Richmond, California Refinery 240,000 barrels/ day, Pascagoula, Mississippi 330,000 barrels/day, or Yeosu, South Korea 800,000 barrels/day. It's the same reason Chevron sold off the Everett, Washington refinery. The markets for Everett and Burnaby aren't large enough to consume the volume of a larger efficient refinery. . The cost per barrel of capacity to build, rebuild and operate a refinery 10x larger is perhaps 22% of a refinery 10% of the size. Costs per barrel are at least 75% less. Chevron's strategy to deal with a shrinking market in response to global warming is to be the least-cost producer. As the market shrinks, the more costly producers will fall away.