Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent refinery feasibility study consultant preparing lender-, investor-, and agency-facing studies for refining, renewable fuels, blending, and specialty fuels-production projects. Downstream credits are margin credits: the difference between what feedstock costs delivered and what the product slate realizes, net of the energy and chemicals consumed converting one into the other. The analysis rebuilds that margin from the crude or feedstock slate actually available, the yields the configuration can produce, and the markets where the product will physically be placed.
Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. Fixed fee quoted within one business day; standard delivery in ten to fifteen business days from a complete data room. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. So far in 2026: 41 engagements and $1.54 billion evaluated — 17 SBA, 11 USDA.
Downstream feasibility turns on crack-spread economics and utilization: the margin between feedstock and product slates, the plant's competitive position against regional supply, logistics access on both the inbound and outbound side, and the regulatory and turnaround capital that the operating model must carry. Smaller-scale fuels production — blending, lubricants, asphalt — is evaluated on niche-market capture and contract quality.
Methodology combines EIA margin and utilization series, regional product supply-demand balances, logistics cost analysis, and engineering capital estimates independently benchmarked. The model carries margin sensitivity as the primary stress axis, with coverage tested at conservative spreads.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. USDA engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Conventional engagements are built to the lender's stated coverage standard, typically 1.20x. Oil, gas, and heavy-industrial projects reach us through conventional and institutional lending most commonly, with USDA B&I applicable to qualifying rural energy and processing assets and SBA programs serving owner-operator support businesses; each study is prepared to the corresponding compliance standard, with environmental and regulatory conditions precedent stated plainly.
Wert-Berater has not published a completed petroleum refinery engagement as a public case study, and none is claimed here. The firm has completed and published a sugar refinery restoration feasibility study in Santa Rosa, Texas — a food-processing restoration, not petroleum refining, and it is identified as such rather than presented as downstream energy experience. The firm has also published a clean ammonia and hydrogen production facility study in Taft, California, which is process-plant work in the same analytical family: feedstock cost, conversion yield, offtake contracting, and margin under stress. That is the discipline applied to refining and fuels-production credits — fully linked models, sourced assumptions, and coverage tested through a margin cycle. Independence is non-negotiable, and determinations are not revised under pressure.
A refinery feasibility study consultant determines whether the projected processing margin, produced at the throughput the configuration can actually sustain, will service the debt through a margin cycle. The work begins with the feedstock: what crude or renewable feedstock is available, at what delivered cost including transport and quality adjustment, and under what supply arrangement. It then moves to yield — what the unit configuration produces from that feedstock — and finally to product placement, because a barrel produced without an offtake path is not revenue.
The engagement is economic and financial. Wert-Berater does not perform process engineering, does not prepare or verify FEED packages, does not design or rate process units, and does not issue emissions, metallurgical, or process-safety opinions. Where a qualified engineering firm has prepared a FEED package, yield model, or capital estimate, it is treated as an input whose assumptions are tested for reasonableness and internal consistency against the financing plan and schedule.
A refining or fuels-production feasibility study must do more than confirm that demand for petroleum products exists. It must establish whether this specific plant, at this location, with this feedstock access and this product slate, can generate margins sufficient to service debt under realistic — not optimistic — spread assumptions. The narrative report addresses each of those questions in sequence, and the linked financial model lets any reviewer reproduce or stress every answer.
Standard deliverables for this asset class include:
Gross margin is rebuilt from the yield slate rather than taken as a published crack spread. The study establishes the volumetric yield of each product the configuration produces — gasoline, distillate, jet, residual, and any specialty or petrochemical stream — values each at the regional rack or wholesale price appropriate to where it will actually be sold, and deducts the delivered feedstock cost. Published benchmark crack spreads are used only as a reasonableness check, because a benchmark assumes a yield pattern that a specific facility may not produce.
Net margin is then established by subtracting the cost of conversion: energy and fuel gas, hydrogen, catalyst and chemicals, and the variable operating cost that scales with throughput. Because refining margin is cyclical and can compress sharply, the study does not test coverage against an average margin alone. It identifies the margin per barrel at which coverage falls to the lender's minimum and reports how that breakeven compares with the range the relevant market has actually exhibited, so the lender can judge how much of the cycle the credit survives.
Feedstock is the largest cost line and the most common point of failure in a downstream pro forma. The study examines the specific slate the facility is designed to run, its availability in the volumes required, and the delivered cost including quality differential and transportation by pipeline, rail, truck, or marine. Where the project depends on a discounted or advantaged feedstock, the durability of that discount is tested rather than extended flat across the loan term, since feedstock advantages frequently erode as competing capacity is built to capture them.
Supply arrangements are read as written. Term supply agreements, tolling arrangements, and spot exposure each create a different risk profile, and the study models what the contracts actually oblige rather than what the sponsor expects. For renewable fuels projects, feedstock analysis extends to the agricultural or waste-stream supply base, its seasonality, its competing uses, and the collection radius required to secure volume — a constraint that frequently limits practical throughput below nameplate capacity.
Production is only revenue where a buyer and a physical path exist. The study identifies where each product stream will be placed, whether that placement rests on an executed offtake agreement or on spot sales, and what logistics carry it there. Rack access, pipeline connectivity, rail loading capability, and marine access are examined as constraints on realizable sales volume, and where outbound logistics limit throughput below nameplate, the model runs at the constraint.
Offtake contracts are assessed for volume, tenor, pricing mechanism, and counterparty credit on the same basis applied to any contracted revenue: what is committed, for how long, and what coverage looks like when the commitment ends. Where the project sells into a regional market with limited depth, the study examines whether incremental volume can be absorbed without depressing the realized price the pro forma assumes.
Downstream projects carry compliance obligations that materially affect operating cost and, in some cases, whether the project can operate at all. The study identifies the air, water, waste, and operating permits the facility requires, their current status, and the sequence and timing on which construction and startup depend. A permit that has not been issued is treated as an open condition affecting the schedule and the determination, not as a formality assumed to close on time.
Ongoing compliance cost is quantified in the operating model: emissions monitoring and control, waste handling and disposal, and any renewable fuel or low-carbon program obligations that apply to the product slate. Where the economics depend materially on the value of a tradable compliance credit or a tax incentive, that dependency is stated plainly and coverage is re-tested with the credit value reduced and removed, because program-driven revenue can change with policy on a shorter horizon than the loan term. The study assesses these as economic and regulatory factors; it does not provide legal, tax, or permitting opinions.
Demand analysis for a refining or fuels-production project is not a population-growth extrapolation. It is a supply-demand balance built from the bottom up for the relevant product market and delivery radius, then tested against the competitive-supply position of existing and announced capacity.
The analysis draws on several categories of publicly available and proprietary evidence. EIA Petroleum Supply Monthly and weekly regional product-supplied series establish baseline consumption patterns by product type and PAD district. State energy office data and pipeline tariff filings identify existing throughput commitments and available capacity on inbound and outbound logistics corridors. EPA fuel-program registrations and state environmental agency permit databases identify licensed competing facilities and their registered capacities. For smaller-scale operations — blending terminals, asphalt plants, lubricant repackagers — state business licensing registries, fire-marshal tank-farm permits, and DOT hazardous-materials registration records provide a more granular competitive census than trade directories alone.
Announced but not yet operating capacity is tracked through air-permit applications, environmental-impact notices, and utility interconnection queues where applicable. Trade association publications from API, AFPM, and NACS supplement the regulatory record with industry utilization and margin benchmarks. The competitive analysis concludes with an explicit assessment of whether the project's logistics position, feedstock cost, or product-slate specialization provides a durable basis for market capture — or whether the margin case depends on assumptions that existing regional supply could erode.
Coverage ratios in refining and fuels-production studies are highly sensitive to a small number of operating assumptions. Identifying those assumptions, quantifying their effect, and stress-testing them at defined intervals is the analytical core of the engagement. The following inputs consistently drive the outcome for this asset class:
Every assumption is linked; no value is hardcoded. A lender or agency reviewer can change any single input and observe the isolated effect on DSCR without rebuilding the model.
Inputs resolve into a fully linked model with no hardcoded values, producing a ten-year pro forma, annual and period debt-service coverage, and the coverage minimum applicable to the financing program. Throughput is modeled with realistic utilization and a turnaround schedule rather than continuous nameplate operation, because scheduled maintenance downtime is a certainty and its omission is one of the most common sources of overstatement in a downstream pro forma.
Sensitivity is run on processing margin per barrel, feedstock cost and differential, throughput and utilization, turnaround frequency and duration, construction cost overrun and startup delay, compliance credit value, and interest rate. Each is stressed independently and in combination, and the breakeven margin is identified. Where a qualified engineering firm has prepared the yield model or capital estimate, this study tests those figures as inputs against the financing plan — it does not replace process engineering or a FEED package.
Credit officers and agency reviewers approach refining and fuels-production projects with a specific set of concerns that differ from those applied to real estate or retail businesses. Understanding those concerns shapes how the study is organized and what it must demonstrate.
For SBA engagements prepared to SOP 50 10 8, the primary compliance questions are whether the 1.15x operating and 1.00x global coverage minimums are met at conservative margin assumptions, and whether the environmental and regulatory conditions precedent are identified with enough specificity that the lender can assess closing risk. SBA lenders also scrutinize owner-operator experience and management depth in a capital-intensive, regulated operating environment.
For USDA Business & Industry and REAP engagements under RD Staff Instruction 5001, the rural-area eligibility of the project site, the energy-production or processing nexus, and the community economic impact are threshold questions before coverage analysis begins. The study must address each program-specific eligibility criterion explicitly.
For conventional lenders, the standard coverage threshold is typically 1.20x, but the more pointed questions concern feedstock-supply security, product offtake arrangements, environmental-liability exposure, and the adequacy of the maintenance and turnaround reserve relative to the loan term. Lenders also examine whether the project's margin case is defensible if regional crack spreads compress — a scenario the sensitivity analysis addresses directly at the ±10 and ±15 percent stress levels.
The engagement process is designed to be predictable for both the sponsor and the lender. A fixed fee is quoted within one business day of inquiry; no fee is contingent on the finding, and the determination is not revised under pressure. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency, not to the borrower.
Work begins when a complete data room is delivered. For a refining or fuels-production project, that data room typically includes the engineering basis of design or process description, capital cost estimates, feedstock supply agreements or term sheets, any existing environmental permits or permit applications, and the sponsor's operating assumptions. Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from a complete submission; rush delivery is available and is discussed at the time of engagement.
The completed engagement is published to a secure client portal. The linked Excel model remains live in the portal: a lender, credit officer, or agency reviewer can change any input — spread assumption, utilization rate, interest rate, operating cost — and the pro forma, coverage ratios, and sensitivity tables recalculate immediately. No values are hardcoded. The narrative report states conditions precedent plainly, including any regulatory, environmental, or market conditions that must be satisfied before the financial projections are achievable. That transparency is not a qualification of the conclusion; it is the information a credit officer needs to make a fully informed decision.
Refining and fuels-production projects connect directly to supply, storage, and distribution assets. These engagements cover the neighbouring links most often financed alongside them.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of inquiry. It does not vary with the loan amount or the finding, and no portion is contingent on a positive determination. Because scope varies by project complexity — a blending terminal differs materially from a hydroprocessing unit — a specific quote requires a brief description of the project and the intended lending program.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. Rush delivery is available. The most common cause of delay is an incomplete data room — missing engineering basis-of-design documents, unsigned feedstock term sheets, or outstanding environmental permit applications. Identifying those gaps early is part of the intake process.
Margin volatility is the central difficulty. Unlike a fixed-rent real estate asset, a refinery or blending operation earns a spread between feedstock cost and product price that can compress sharply and quickly. Coverage ratios that appear comfortable at current spreads may fall below minimums under historical stress scenarios. A credible study must demonstrate coverage at conservative spreads, not just at the spread prevailing at the time of application.
A single study can be structured to address the compliance requirements of more than one program, but SBA SOP 50 10 8 and USDA RD Staff Instruction 5001 have different coverage thresholds, eligibility conditions, and documentation requirements. The engagement scope is confirmed at the outset so that all applicable standards are met without requiring a second study.
The core data room for a refining or fuels-production project includes the engineering basis of design or process description, capital cost estimates, feedstock sourcing documentation, any existing or pending environmental permits, and the sponsor’s operating assumptions for throughput and staffing. The firm reviews the submission for completeness before the clock starts on the delivery window.
Yes. The study states environmental and regulatory conditions precedent plainly — air permits, EPA fuel-program registrations, state environmental approvals, and any consent conditions that affect the project timeline or operating assumptions. These are not footnoted; they are presented as explicit conditions the lender can evaluate as part of closing-risk assessment.
The consultant rebuilds processing margin from the feedstock slate, the yields the configuration produces, and the markets where product will physically be placed, then loads conversion cost, compliance cost, and turnaround downtime before measuring debt-service coverage. The work is economic and financial. Process engineering, FEED packages, and unit design are separate disciplines whose outputs are used as inputs.
Margin is rebuilt from the facility's own yield slate valued at regional wholesale prices, net of delivered feedstock cost and conversion cost. Published benchmark crack spreads are used only as a reasonableness check, because a benchmark assumes a yield pattern a specific configuration may not produce. The study then identifies the margin per barrel at which coverage reaches the lender minimum.
The study examines whether the specific slate is available in the volumes required, at what delivered cost including quality differential and freight, and under what contractual arrangement. Where the project depends on an advantaged or discounted feedstock, the durability of that discount is tested rather than held flat, since such advantages commonly erode as competing capacity is built to capture them.
No. Wert-Berater does not perform process engineering, prepare or verify FEED packages, design or rate process units, or issue emissions, metallurgical, or process-safety opinions. Where a qualified engineering firm has prepared those documents, they are treated as inputs and tested for reasonableness and internal consistency against the capital plan and construction schedule.
Where economics depend materially on a tradable compliance credit or tax incentive, that dependency is stated plainly rather than embedded silently in the revenue line. Coverage is re-tested with the credit value reduced and then removed entirely, because program-driven revenue can change with policy on a shorter horizon than the loan term.
Yes. Throughput is modeled with realistic utilization and a turnaround schedule rather than continuous nameplate operation. Omitting scheduled maintenance downtime is one of the most common sources of overstatement in a downstream pro forma, and turnaround frequency and duration are carried as explicit sensitivity variables.
An unissued permit is treated as an open condition affecting the construction schedule and the determination, not as a formality assumed to close on time. The study identifies each required air, water, waste, and operating permit, its status, and the sequence startup depends on, and reports the schedule risk the outstanding items create. The firm does not provide legal or permitting opinions.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.