US refining profit poised to rebound from 2Q dip

Spanish Market: Crude oil, Oil products
23/08/23

Narrower crack spreads in the second quarter reduced earnings for every major US refiner, but results are set to improve in the back half of the year on widening crude quality differentials and planned maintenance.

Every major US refiner — and the refining segments of integrated energy companies — posted a drop in second-quarter earnings from a year earlier (see chart). The decline was driven by narrower margins that moderated from near-record highs a year earlier, when demand surged as the US recovered from the the Covid-19 pandemic and as the war in Ukraine rerouted refined product flows to Europe, depleting stateside inventories.

Fears of a looming recession and weaker demand in the second quarter narrowed crack spreads, a measure of refining profitability, independent refiner CVR said, while Phillips 66 noted more expensive crude contributed to the profit decline.

For refiners geared to process heavier crude grades — such as LyondellBasell, Marathon, Valero and Phillips 66 — a narrower spread between heavy and light oil grades increased refinery feedstock costs and left less room to capture profits.

Planned maintenance and unplanned outages also narrowed second-quarter margins at refiners such as HF Sinclair, whose throughputs were down by 12pc from the second quarter of 2022, and at Marathon Petroleum, whose throughputs in the quarter were cut by 2.5mn bl following a fatal 15 May fire at the 593,000 b/d Galveston Bay, Texas, refinery. The damaged unit is expected to be down through September.

Still, US refining margins remain well above historical levels for this point in the economic cycle, and heavy-light crude spreads are set to widen as the industry heads into a busy maintenance season, PBF chairman Tom Nimbley said.

"We believe crude markets are near the peak of narrowness," Nimbley said on an earnings call.

Increased heavy crude production in western Canada and Venezuela will contribute to a wider US spread as an influx of supply lowers the cost of heavier grades, Valero chief operating officer Gary Simmons said in July. Marathon also made the case for a widening heavy-light spread during an August earnings call.

On the demand side, companies indicated that refined products consumption remains strong.

Valero's quarterly gasoline sales were up 22pc from pre-pandemic levels and set a sales volume record of over 1mn b/d in May and June, driven by as much as 1mn b/d of US refining capacity that has come offline since 2019 and inventories that are at the low end of five-year averages.

"The strength in US products basically starts with low inventories," Phillips 66 vice-president Brian Mandell said on an earnings call this month.

Refined product revenues at Chevron were up by 7pc from the second quarter of 2022 and Phillips 66 reported a 4pc rise in gasoline sales volumes while its US distillates sales volumes were up 2pc on the year. Diesel demand is likely stronger than the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has been reporting, Valero said.

Turnarounds abound

Combined with strong demand and low inventories, a heavy maintenance season in the second half of 2023 could widen refining margins.

BP's 435,000 b/d Whiting, Indiana, refinery moved up a planned September turnaround to August, while up to 500,000 b/d of throughputs could be offline on the Atlantic coast as Irving Oil and Monroe Energy begin facility maintenance in mid-September.

In addition, HF Sinclair has 185,000 b/d of production capacity undergoing turnarounds in the second half of the year. PBF is planning a fourth-quarter turnaround at its 160,000 b/d refinery in Torrance, California, and LyondellBasell plans work on its 264,000 b/d Houston, Texas, refinery's fluid catalytic cracking unit in the same quarter.

Turnarounds could pull inventories lower, lift refined product prices and widen refining margins, but there is some capacity returning to the US refining market that may mitigate the effect of facilities going offline for maintenance.

Fire-damaged Cenovus refineries in Ohio and Wisconsin totaling about 211,000 b/d of throughputs began restarting in the second quarter. CVR expected to restart a damaged hydrotreater this month at its 75,000 b/d Wynnewood, Oklahoma, plant and Calcasieu plans to restart its 136,000 b/d Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery by September.

And despite record-breaking heat in the US refining heartland, refiners appear to be maintaining typical utilization rates, which could boost depleted inventories as peak summer driving season ends and demand slows.

Still, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has upped its expectations for an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season, projecting 14-21 named storms from June to November.

A high-impact hurricane that takes 80pc of Gulf coast refining capacity offline could spike retail prices by up to 30¢/USG, according to a recent EIA report. While crack spreads would likely widen in a weather event of that magnitude, heavily-curtailed refining operations would leave fewer refiners to take advantage of the wider margins.

By Nathan Risser

Change in US refiner earnings from 2Q22 to 2Q23

US refining crack spreads from 2Q22 to 2Q23 $/bl

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

11/04/25

Mexico suspends Valero fuel import permits

Mexico City, 11 April (Argus) — Mexico's tax authority SAT on 9 April suspended US refiner Valero's fuel import permits, the company said today. The company did not specify why its import license was suspended. "Valero is addressing each administrative observation noted in the suspension to clarify the issues. Additionally, [authorities] mistakenly stated that the company does not have valid import permits, which is incorrect since the permits are valid through 2038," the company said. When consulted, Valero told Argus it has no further information to share at this time. In Mexico, Valero holds gasoline, diesel and jet fuel import permits valid through 2038. The company is one of only a handful of private-sector companies with such permits. Shell, Marathon and ExxonMobil hold permits to import only gasoline and diesel. Valero is the leading private fuel importer in Mexico. On 9 April, its sales accounted for 10pc of Mexico's gasoline and diesel demand, according to the company. Private-sector companies started importing fuel into Mexico in 2016 after the market opened to more competition, but under former president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's administration, the energy ministry (Sener) cancelled dozens of fuel import permits. Valero is cooperating with the Mexican government and has recently joined a voluntary price cap agreement to keep regular gasoline below Ps24/l ($4.45/USG), the company said, adding that it "implements rigorous traceability and security controls throughout its supply chain." The company stores fuel at four private-sector terminals in Mexico, with over 4mn bl of capacity. The company is also expected to start storing fuel at the new 1.1mn bl OTM terminal in Altamira, Tamaulipas, in the near future. By Cas Biekmann Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Opec+ overproducers cast doubt on compensation pledges

11/04/25

Opec+ overproducers cast doubt on compensation pledges

Output is set to rise in the coming months, with Kazakhstan and Iraq unlikely to live up to commitments to rein in production, writes Aydin Calik London, 11 April (Argus) — The Opec+ alliance's planned production increases in April and May should, in theory, be offset by pledges to compensate for past overproduction, particularly by Kazakhstan and Iraq. But there are few signs that either country will significantly reduce output in the coming weeks. If anything, Kazakhstan has signalled that production will continue at or near record levels of around 1.8mn b/d , putting it some 300,000 b/d above its Opec+ target. Opec+ members subject to targets cut output by 90,000 b/d to 33.93mn b/d in March, according to Argus estimates, but this was still 80,000 b/d above the group's collective crude production target of 33.85mn b/d. The decision by a core group of eight Opec+ members to accelerate the return of 2.2mn b/d of production cuts is a key reason for the recent slide in oil prices, alongside US tariff announcements. But Opec+ has stressed that its implied output increase of 137,000 b/d for April and another 411,000 b/d in May should be cancelled out by compensation-related cuts of 249,000 b/d for April and 309,000 b/d in May. In reality, this is unlikely to happen — the group's output is set to rise. Kazakhstan is the main reason why Opec+ has exceeded its target over the past two months. Kazakh production has surged following a major output increase at the Chevron-led Tengiz field in January — part of the field's future growth project (FGP). Tengiz production rose to a record 901,000 b/d in March, compared with previous levels of 600,000-660,000 b/d. The increase came several months earlier than anticipated, Kazakh officials say, and they have subsequently asked international oil companies that operate Tengiz and the Kashagan oil field to reduce output. But the answer has so far been negative. "Unfortunately, we have not yet agreed with them to the reduction, because for them it is a very challenging action, especially Chevron, [which] spent $50bn on the FGP project. They told us it's not possible for them to reduce [output]," deputy energy minister Alibek Zhamauov said this week. Kazakhstan will try to reduce production from smaller fields operated by domestic producers such as state-controlled Kazmunaigaz, Zhamauov said. But any decrease from these fields will not be enough to offset the rise from Tengiz. Target practice Iraq's output dipped below its 4mn b/d target in March at 3.98mn b/d, but this was still well above the country's effective target of 3.88mn b/d under its compensation plan. If Iraq's past production record is anything to go by, its output is unlikely to fall much further in the months ahead. While Kazakhstan and Iraq are unlikely to see much change in their production, members such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE are set to drive the alliance's output higher. The biggest increase is expected from Saudi Arabia, which will see its 8.98mn b/d target rise by 222,000 b/d by May, offset only marginally by its compensation plans. Riyadh has already signalled that it is preparing to increase production after state-controlled Saudi Aramco cut the official formula price of its May-loading crude exports. The largest cut was for buyers in Asia-Pacific, Saudi Arabia's biggest market. Formula prices can indicate intentions on output, as producers fine-tune how affordable their crude is for marginal refiners. The second-largest production increase is set to come from the UAE, which has long been eager to raise output . The UAE will see its target rise by 103,000 b/d by May, which will also only be offset marginally by its compensation plan. Russia is also scheduled to deliver a significant production increase over the next two months, with its target rising by 105,000 b/d. But all of this increase will be cancelled out if the country sticks to its compensation plan. Opec+ crude production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Opec 9 21.22 21.36 21.23 -0.01 Non-Opec 9 12.71 12.66 12.62 0.09 Total Opec+ 18 33.93 34.02 33.85 0.08 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Opec wellhead production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Saudi Arabia 8.98 8.93 8.98 0.00 Iraq 3.98 4.05 4.00 -0.02 Kuwait 2.42 2.43 2.41 0.01 UAE 2.91 2.93 2.91 -0.00 Algeria 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.01 Nigeria 1.49 1.58 1.50 -0.01 Congo (Brazzaville) 0.26 0.24 0.28 -0.02 Gabon 0.20 0.22 0.17 0.03 Equatorial Guinea 0.06 0.06 0.07 -0.01 Opec 9 21.22 21.36 21.23 -0.01 Iran 3.34 3.38 na na Libya 1.36 1.39 na na Venezuela 0.87 0.84 na na Total Opec 12^ 26.79 26.97 na na *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable ^Iran, Libya and Venezuela are exempt from production targets Non-Opec crude production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Russia 8.97 8.96 8.98 -0.01 Oman 0.75 0.75 0.76 -0.01 Azerbaijan 0.47 0.47 0.55 -0.08 Kazakhstan 1.79 1.76 1.47 0.32 Malaysia 0.36 0.36 0.40 -0.04 Bahrain 0.18 0.18 0.20 -0.02 Brunei 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.02 Sudan 0.02 0.02 0.06 -0.04 South Sudan 0.07 0.07 0.12 -0.05 Total non-Opec 12.71 12.66 12.62 0.09 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism

11/04/25

Participants mostly support IMO GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — International shipping organisations and market participants mostly support the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism approved today at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, but some raised concerns. The structure approved by the IMO establishes that ships must reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. Emissions above this target will be charged at $380/tCO2e. The levels defined by the approved regulation are achievable, according to a market participant, who said the gradually increasing targets may allow the market to properly adapt to the transition. The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) secretary general Guy Platten said the sector is already investing billions of dollars in 'green' technology, so the agreement gives certainty that sustainable marine fuels producers need. "The world's governments have now come forward with a comprehensive agreement which, although not perfect in every respect, we very much hope will be formally adopted later this year," he said. The European Shipowners (ECSA) secretary general Sotiris Raptis agreed the draft "is not perfect", but he celebrated progress towards a net zero emissions target, saying "it is a good starting point for further work" and pointing out that it may ensure the necessary investment in production of clean fuels. During a press briefing, IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said ships operating in international waters will be obliged to comply with the regulations after adoption, despite the US' refusal to engage with the discussions . Adoption of the pricing mechanism will be discussed and voted on in October. Offering a counterview, the Global Maritime Forum said the agreed measures may not be strong enough to reach IMO targets. "The GHG intensity targets create uncertainty as to whether the strategy's emissions reduction checkpoints for 2030 and 2040 will be met," it said. "As currently designed, measures are unlikely to be sufficient to incentivise the rapid development of e-fuels such as e-ammonia or e-methanol , which will be needed in the long run due to their scalability and emission reduction potential." It said that failure to invest in these fuels would put at risk the target of at least 5pc zero- and near-zero emission fuel use by 2030 and the industry's entire 2050 net-zero goal. The World Shipping Council's vice president Bryan Wood-Thomas praised the agreement and said one benefit of it is the pricing system that is "more aggressive" if a vessel fails to meet the GHG intensity standard. "But you also have a fee system that gives investors more confidence in actual revenue [from using cleaner fuels]," he said. The Brazilian representative told Argus the fact that some countries thought the agreement was too ambitious while others indicated it was not ambitious enough show the group may have reached a balance that can be possible to comply. About the Brazilian position, the representative said the country "was never against an agreement". "We were only against some aspects of the agreement, and we think that the membership has heard our concerns, and that's why we ended up pretty happy with the results", he said. Brazil voted in favour of the agreement today. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Madeleine Jenkins, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

11/04/25

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting. Argus Media spoke to ministerial adviser and Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, on the sidelines of the London MEPC meeting. What is your initial reaction to the text? We are happy and satisfied about the content of the agreed text, so far. But we need to be careful. This week, all member states were able to vote. But in October, when adaption will take place, only those states which are parties to Marpol Annex VI will be able to vote if indeed a vote is called for, and that changes the situation a little bit. Here when we were voting, a minority was enough — 40 votes. But if or when we vote in October, then we need two thirds of those party to Marpol Annex VI to be in favour of the text. Will enthusiasm for the decision today remain by October? I'm pretty sure it will. But you never know what will happen between now and and the next six months. What is the effect of the decision on FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS? Both FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS have a review clause. This review clause states that if we are ambitious enough at the IMO, then the EU can review or amend the regulation. So of course, it is very important that we first consider if the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough to meet EU standards. Only after that evaluation, which won't be until well after October, can we consider these possible changes. Do you think the EU will be able to adopt these the text as it stands today? My personal view is that we can perhaps incorporate this text under FuelEU Maritime, but it may be more challenging for the EU ETS, where shipping is now included. What was the impact of US President Donald Trump's letter on the proceedings? EU states were not impacted, but it's difficult to say what the impact was on other states. By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism

11/04/25

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, pending an adoption vote at the next MEPC in October. The proposal passed by a majority vote, with 63 nations in favor including EU states, the UK, China and India, and 16 members opposed, including Mideast Gulf states, Russia, and Venezuela. The US was absent from the MEPC 83 meeting, and 24 member states abstained. The proposal was accompanied by an amendment to implement the regulation, which was approved for circulation ahead of an anticipated adoption at the October MEPC. Approval was not unanimous, which is rare. If adoption is approved in October at a vote that will require a two-thirds majority, the maritime industry will become the first transport sector to implement internationally mandated targets to reduce GHG emissions. The text says ships must initially reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 ( see table ) against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. This gradually tightens to 30pc by 2035. The text defines a "direct compliance target", that starts at 17pc for 2028 and grows to 43pc by 2035. The pricing mechanism establishes a levy for excessive emissions at $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) for ships compliant with the minimum 'base' target, called Tier 2. For ships in Tier 1 — those compliant with the base target but that still have emission levels higher than the direct compliance target — the price was set at $100/tCO2e. Over-compliant vessels will receive 'surplus units' equal to their positive compliance balance, expressed in tCO2e, valid for two years after emission. Ships then will be able to use the surplus units in the following reporting periods; transfer to other vessels as a credit; or voluntarily cancel as a mitigation contribution. IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said while it would have been more preferable to have a unanimous outcome, this outcome is a good result nonetheless. "We work on consensus, not unanimity," he said. "We demonstrated that we will continue to work as an organization despite the concerns." Looking at the MEPC session in October, Dominguez said: "Different member states have different positions, and there is time for us to remain in the process and address those concerns, including those that were against and those that were expecting more." Dominguez said the regulation is set to come into force in 2027, with first revenues collected in 2028 of an estimated $11bn-13bn. Dominguez also said there is a clause within the regulation that ensures a review at least every five years. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara IMO GHG reduction targets Year Base Target Direct Compliance Target 2028 4% 17% 2029 6% 19% 2030 8% 21% 2031 12% 25% 2032 17% 30% 2033 21% 34% 2034 26% 39% 2035 30% 43% Source: IMO Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more