Long wars and industrial mobilisation

[Olefin]

We did the assembly of the MATV - half of them were built by us - i.e. 100% of the cabs were made by JLG and half the MATV's that were made by Oskhosk were fully assembled by JLG at a rate of 500 per month

Now why would I mention that - because that shows just how quickly production might have ramped up for the war during the Twilight War that a plant that makes material handlers (i.e. telehandlers) was able to convert to build 1000 MATV cabs and fully assembly 500 MATV's a month in a time consistent with ramping up for the Twilight War - meaning that US war production during the Twilight War if it had happened in reality is probably significantly higher than the canon writers allowed for - thus allowing for more replacement armored vehicles than were seen in the canon

its interesting how little of the US military production network was actually hit during the nuclear strikes in the canon - i.e. they hit Toledo but not York PA or San Jose CA (i.e. Bradley, M109, M88) and the aircraft plants were barely touched if at all

you would think that it would have been the Soviets number one target with the refineries being number two - i.e. cutting off oil is important but it takes quite a while to get new aircraft and tank production going if you nuke the existing plants

[Cdnwolf]

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sierra-army-depot

How long to bring these back into fitness ready status.

[WallShadow]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sierra-army-depot

How long to bring these back into fitness ready status.

I wonder if the folks setting up the Strategic Reserve stashes have packed away a bare-bones M1 remanufacturing kit with lots and lots of spares? Yeah, I know, just a fancy, but nice to dream about.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/sierra-army-depot

This was my favorite part: "Pending an anachronistic World War II-style armor clash on the European plains....."

... since that's exactly what we're talking about.

Uncle Ted

[RN7]

Originally Posted by unkated

This was my favorite part: "Pending an anachronistic World War II-style armor clash on the European plains....."

... since that's exactly what we're talking about.

Uncle Ted

If you look up Sierra Army Depot on Wikipedia and then click on the coordinates link it will take you to Google Maps were you can see a satellite map of the whole base. Its amazing there are thousands of military vehicles just lined up in rows for miles including M1 tanks that you can make out and hundreds of bunkers.

Was this base a target in T2K? I'm sure U.S. forces would have taken many of these vehicles back into service during the course of the war, but many older ones and maybe a few new ones would still be there. Whoever controls this base would have a major advantage on the West coast.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

We did the assembly of the MATV - half of them were built by us - i.e. 100% of the cabs were made by JLG and half the MATV's that were made by Oskhosk were fully assembled by JLG at a rate of 500 per month

Olefin what part of the M-ATV was built by BAE or by JLG?

We know that Caterpillar supplied the C7 engine, Allison supplied the 3500 transmission, Marmon Herrington supplied the axle, and Oshkosh supplied the TAK-4 independent suspension system. What did BAE and JLG build by itself or was it all supplied by Oshkosh?

Also were these individual components fitted to a vehicle body when BAE and JLG received them, or were they shipped to BAE and JLG separately and assembled on the vehicle afterwards?

Was the cab an Oshkosh Core1080 crew protection system? Did BAE or JLG make it or did they assemble it in parts? Also did BAE or JLG actually make the armor plates and the ballistic glass or was it shipped to BAE and JLG. If so did BAE or JLG get a license from Plasan the Israeli company who designed the armor kit for the M-ATV and built it in their factory in Bennington Vermont?

[Olefin]

JLG buiilt the M-ATV

BAE built MRAP's as well

JLG built the cabs for all the M-ATV's and did the assembly work on half the part total M-ATV's built by Oshkosh, assembling complete vehicles that were ready to be shipped. It wasnt a knock down plant they put the complete vehicle together piece by piece, welding it together and then doing all the assembly of all the various pieces.

Plasan was on site working to assist with building the capsules (which is what we called the cabs) along with supplier and JLG personnel.

So yes during that time period the plant was basically a fully operational light armored vehicle manufacturing facility.

FYI - ballistic armor and glass isnt made by any armored vehicle supplier in the US - that armor and glass comes from suppliers - when I was at BAE we had all our armor plate and ballistic glass shipped in - we didnt make it ourselves.

[RN7]

Olefin I'm not questioning what you did at BAE or the manufacturing capabilities of York, but I am trying to figure out what JLG's assembly capabilities are at McConnellsburg.

The reason for this is that JLG designs and builds aerial work platforms, telehandlers and stock piling lifts. It is not a vehicle manufacturer or does it have a history of vehicle manufacturing, or is it even a custom vehicle maker in the traditional sense of the word.

You state that JLG fully assembled the M-ATV at McConnellsburg, and in particular the cab (capsule). But were all the component parts already built before they were shipped for assembly or were they built at McConnellsburg?

Assembling a vehicle is a very complicated and costly process, and involves major investment by the manufacturer into an assembly plant including robotic automation.

On automobile assembly lines much of the work is now done by robots rather than humans. In the first stages of automobile manufacture, robots weld the floor pan pieces together and assist workers in placing components such as the suspension onto the chassis. Worker attaches the radiator, and another bolts it into place. Because of the nature of these heavy component parts, articulating robots perform all of the lift and carry operations while assemblers using pneumatic wrenches to bolt component pieces in place

Assembly plants represents only the final phase in the process of manufacturing a vehicle, as all of the thousands of different components supplied by outside suppliers and company-owned parts suppliers are brought together for assembly. Once the component parts are assembled production control specialists track and assign them using vehicle identification numbers, or in some cases a small radio frequency transponder is attached to the chassis and floor pan.

The typical vehicle is constructed from the ground up. The frame forms the base on which the body rests and from which all subsequent assembly components follow. The frame is placed on the assembly line and clamped to the conveyer to prevent shifting as it moves down the line. From here the automobile frame is moved to component assembly areas where complete front and rear suspensions, gas tanks, rear axles and drive shafts, gear boxes, steering box components, wheel drums, and braking systems are installed.

The vehicle's engine is then mated with its transmission, and robotic arms are used to install heavy components inside the engine compartment of the frame.

The floor pan is the largest body component to which a panels and braces will be welded or bolted. As it moves down the assembly line the shell of the vehicle is built. The left and right quarter panels are robotically disengaged from pre-staged shipping containers and placed onto the floor pan, where they are stabilized with positioning fixtures and welded. The front and rear door pillars, roof, and body side panels are assembled in the same fashion. The shell of the automobile assembled in this section of the process lends itself to the use of robots because articulating arms can easily introduce various component braces and panels to the floor pan and perform a high number of weld operations in a time frame and with a degree of accuracy no human workers could ever approach.

The body is built up on a separate assembly line from the chassis. Robots once again perform most of the welding on the various panels, but human workers are necessary to bolt the parts together. Once the body shell is complete, it is attached to an overhead conveyor for the painting process. The multi-step painting process entails inspection, cleaning, undercoat dipping, drying, topcoat spraying, and baking.

Prior to painting, the body must pass through a rigorous inspection process. As the shell exits the cleaning station it goes through more drying, cleaning and painting processes.

The body and chassis assemblies are then mated near the end of the production process. Robotic arms lift the body shell onto the chassis frame, where human workers then bolt the two together. After final components are installed, the vehicle is driven off the assembly line to a quality checkpoint.

This is standard procedure at every major vehicle assembly plant in the world, and the heavier the type of vehicle being built will mean more automation. The fact that we are talking about military vehicles will mean more specification. Obviously some work on military vehicles can only be done by technicians, but component parts still have to be built before they are assembled. If Oshkosh had a contract to build millions or even hundreds of thousands of M-ATV's I could see Oshkosh investing hundreds of millions in developing and expanding JLG's manufacturing and assembling capabilities at McConnellsburg. But less than 10,000 M-ATV's were built, and only a minority of them by JLG.

I'm still finding it hard to list JLG as a major assembly plant.

[Olefin]

We built 1000 cabs a month - meaning full cabs/capsules with the armor protection system from Plasan

We then used 500 of those cabs/capsules - that we had welded together from component parts that were delivered to us by suppliers just like the transmissions and engines and harnesses etc. were delivered to us - per month into full working and running M-ATV

Thats 9 a shift, 25 to 27 each day, 500 a month - fully assembled and delivered with us building 4000 vehicles in the course of a few months

Sorry but 4000 armored vehicles built from the ground up qualifies you as a major assembly plant - and it shows just what the US would have done during the Twilight War

Now this was in 2009 - so for those playing Twilight 2013 if you are looking at adding a possible armored vehicle supplier adventure to your game then JLG's location in McConnellsburg would be definitely an idea

For those playing the Twilight War timeline it is possible - the plant was there - but we werent owned by Oshkosh - we were making military vehicles but they were just material handlers - but something similar could have been done in the timing of the Twilight War that the facility could have been a military producer

FYI RN - military vehicles arent built like autos are - I know I have worked for two companies now that have built them and neither of them do what auto companies do for assembly

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

We built 1000 cabs a month - meaning full cabs/capsules with the armor protection system from Plasan

We then used 500 of those cabs/capsules - that we had welded together from component parts that were delivered to us by suppliers just like the transmissions and engines and harnesses etc. were delivered to us - per month into full working and running M-ATV

Thats 9 a shift, 25 to 27 each day, 500 a month - fully assembled and delivered with us building 4000 vehicles in the course of a few months

Sorry but 4000 armored vehicles built from the ground up qualifies you as a major assembly plant - and it shows just what the US would have done during the Twilight War

Now this was in 2009 - so for those playing Twilight 2013 if you are looking at adding a possible armored vehicle supplier adventure to your game then JLG's location in McConnellsburg would be definitely an idea

For those playing the Twilight War timeline it is possible - the plant was there - but we werent owned by Oshkosh - we were making military vehicles but they were just material handlers - but something similar could have been done in the timing of the Twilight War that the facility could have been a military producer

FYI RN - military vehicles arent built like autos are - I know I have worked for two companies now that have built them and neither of them do what auto companies do for assembly

So most of the components including the engine block, transmission, axles and suspension and the other parts were already fully built by Oshkosh and the other suppliers and then shipped to you where you assembled them. Then you assembled the cab and some fittings with the armour and completed the vehicle.

This is exactly what a custom builder would do, although in some cases they also modify the vehicle and fit their own equipment. And this is the point that I am trying to make about JLG. JLG is a custom builder, although I am not implying that BAE at York is also a custom builder.

The fact that JLG assembled a relatively large number of vehicles, certainly more than a custom builder would normally build, is to do with the fact that it was doing so on behalf Oshkosh who funded it. Oshkosh and its main suppliers already built the main components at their own factories and then shipped them to JLG and BAE for assembly. Obviously Oshkosh hadn't got the space at their own production lines to assemble and fit out the M-ATV without a major investment of their existing facilities, so they used JLG (which they bought) and also contracted BAE to do this.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

So most of the components including the engine block, transmission, axles and suspension and the other parts were already fully built by Oshkosh and the other suppliers and then shipped to you where you assembled them. Then you assembled the cab and some fittings with the armour and completed the vehicle.

This is exactly what a custom builder would do, although in some cases they also modify the vehicle and fit their own equipment. And this is the point that I am trying to make about JLG. JLG is a custom builder, although I am not implying that BAE at York is also a custom builder.

The fact that JLG assembled a relatively large number of vehicles, certainly more than a custom builder would normally build, is to do with the fact that it was doing so on behalf Oshkosh who funded it. Oshkosh and its main suppliers already built the main components at their own factories and then shipped them to JLG and BAE for assembly. Obviously Oshkosh hadn't got the space at their own production lines to assemble and fit out the M-ATV without a major investment of their existing facilities, so they used JLG (which they bought) and also contracted BAE to do this.

RN7 - you are describing a knock down plant - that is not what JLG did - we built ALL the cabs for the M-ATV that Oshkosh contracted for to the US Govt - i.e. 100% of them - and then we finished the assembly of half of them and sent the other half of the cabs to Oshkosh for them to fully assembly - in other words we assembled the cab and then fitted it out with the engine, transmission, interior, electronics, etc. and built half the M-ATV's that were built by Oshkosh - over 4000 of them

and BAE built their own MRAP's all on their own - they arent part of Oshkosh

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Now why would I mention that - because that shows just how quickly production might have ramped up for the war during the Twilight War that a plant that makes material handlers (i.e. telehandlers) was able to convert to build 1000 MATV cabs and fully assembly 500 MATV's a month in a time consistent with ramping up for the Twilight War - meaning that US war production during the Twilight War if it had happened in reality is probably significantly higher than the canon writers allowed for - thus allowing for more replacement armored vehicles than were seen in the canon

The war at the time of the Battle of Kalisz had been going on for 3 years. That uses up a lot of material. Building the product during optimal conditions would account for your numbers but what happens if the plant had no power? Fuel supplies would probably be dwindling. And does anyone know of the total losses to the merchant fleet that was bringing the vehicles to Europe? How many vehicles were lost that way?

Just my two cents.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

The war at the time of the Battle of Kalisz had been going on for 3 years. That uses up a lot of material. Building the product during optimal conditions would account for your numbers but what happens if the plant had no power? Fuel supplies would probably be dwindling. And does anyone know of the total losses to the merchant fleet that was bringing the vehicles to Europe? How many vehicles were lost that way?

Just my two cents.

we had the plant up and running in less time than it took to go from the US start of being in the war to when the nuke strikes happened in the game - and given the Chinese Russian war most likely the US defense industry would have gone into high gear soon after their war started - even just to be able to supply the Chinese let alone the US

As for shipping material across the ocean yes that is a valid point - but if there was a lot of US war material stuck in the US then they would have made short work of the Mexican Army and any Soviet invaders - frankly the original authors definitely understated the ability of the US to ramp up production and get new vehicles out there let alone get older ones up and running

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Olefin

its interesting how little of the US military production network was actually hit during the nuclear strikes in the canon - i.e. they hit Toledo but not York PA or San Jose CA (i.e. Bradley, M109, M88) and the aircraft plants were barely touched if at all

you would think that it would have been the Soviets number one target with the refineries being number two - i.e. cutting off oil is important but it takes quite a while to get new aircraft and tank production going if you nuke the existing plants

That's a valid point. Soviet nuclear missiles seem to have missed an awful lot of important industrial facilities in America and also in other countries.

[RN7]

In regards to 1997 and 2017 there are some major changes in the structure of the North American auto industry.

The U.S. makes the same number of vehicles (12.1 million) in 2017 as it did back in 1997. Canada makes about the same (2.1 million to 2.2 million), while Mexican production has jumped from 1.3 million to 3.5 million. But the share of the domestic producers has fallen dramatically.

In 1997 the Big Three American producers (GM, Ford, Chrysler) built a total of 9.1 million vehicles in the United States, while Navistar, Paccar and Mack built another 200,000 units. In Canada that figure was 1.7 million for 1997 and just over 700,000 units in Mexico.

Today the Big Three American producers share has fallen to 6.4 million, with just over 100,000 for Navistar, Paccar and Mack. Mack incidentally is now owned by Volvo of Sweden. In Canada its fallen to 1.3 million although its risen to nearly 1.7 million in Mexico. Ford actually makes more vehicles in the U.S. than GM does now.

Foreign owned vehicle production (Japanese, German and Korean) has risen in this period. In the U.S. it was 2.4 million in 1997 and is 5.3 million today. In Canada 350,000 units in 1997 and nearly 1 million today, and in Mexico under 550,000 units in 1997 and is over 1.5 million today.

Also the Germans and Swedes own or build a lot of American heavy vehicle production, and the British through BAE own a big chunk of America's military vehicle manufacturing. So fewer auto assembly plants in the U.S today than in 1997, at least American owned ones.

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by RN7

That's a valid point. Soviet nuclear missiles seem to have missed an awful lot of important industrial facilities in America and also in other countries.

Sure, but that's where the Soviet nuclear strikes make sense. Rather than widely dispersed industrial sites, focus on the (relatively) centralized fuel production. Harvey knocked out around 25% of the US's refining capacity. Hitting the Baton Rouge area and the two refining centers in California in addition to Houston/Galveston would knock out close to 60% of US refining capacity.

Most refineries are also near port facilities, so striking them will also damage shipping capacity and limit imports of fuel. That will force the use of ground transportation to move supplies, which requires more fuel, further exacerbating the shortage. Striking at the refineries is a logistical attack.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by The Dark

Sure, but that's where the Soviet nuclear strikes make sense. Rather than widely dispersed industrial sites, focus on the (relatively) centralized fuel production. Harvey knocked out around 25% of the US's refining capacity. Hitting the Baton Rouge area and the two refining centers in California in addition to Houston/Galveston would knock out close to 60% of US refining capacity.

That's true but what happens if the nuclear missile doesn't hit the target and you still have a functional or even partially functional oil refinery, and also have a fully functional tank factory?

Originally Posted by The Dark

Harvey knocked out around 25% of the US's refining capacity. Hitting the Baton Rouge area and the two refining centers in California in addition to Houston/Galveston would knock out close to 60% of US refining capacity.

Are we talking 1997 or now?

Sure Texas, Louisiana and California have a big chunk of America's oil refining capacity but there are plenty more today. There are 6 refineries in Alaska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, 5 in Washington state and Utah, 4 in Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio and Oklahoma, 3 in Alabama, Kansas and New Mexico, 2 in Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota and North Dakota, and I in Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

Originally Posted by The Dark

Most refineries are also near port facilities, so striking them will also damage shipping capacity and limit imports of fuel. That will force the use of ground transportation to move supplies, which requires more fuel, further exacerbating the shortage. Striking at the refineries is a logistical attack.

BY 2000 there is basically no functional air or shipping capacity, so in the main it will all be by ground transportation.

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by RN7

Are we talking 1997 or now?

Sure Texas, Louisiana and California have a big chunk of America's oil refining capacity but there are plenty more today. There are 6 refineries in Alaska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, 5 in Washington state and Utah, 4 in Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio and Oklahoma, 3 in Alabama, Kansas and New Mexico, 2 in Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota and North Dakota, and I in Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.

By capacity (bbl/day), 59% of the United States' current refining capacity is in 3 states - California, Texas, and Louisiana. To pick some examples out:
Louisiana's five largest refineries (Garyville, Baton Rouge, Lake Charles Citgo, St. Charles, and Convent) combine for 1,967,800 barrels per day. There are 11 more refineries in Louisiana that range from 8,300 to 247,000 barrels each. Total capacity of all 16 refineries is 3,310,100 barrels per day. Texas has at least 5,252,000 barrels per day capacity (I don't know the capacity for Calumet Penreco or Double Punch), and California has 3,331,000 barrels of refining capacity.


Pennsylvania is (I think) the largest of the non-Big Three states, with a total refining capacity of 775,000 barrels per day. Of that, 10k barrels are in Bradford (near the PA/NY border south of Buffalo), 70k are in Warren (on the other side of the Allegheny National Forest from Bradford), and the other 695k are in Philadelphia and likely to be glowing for a few years.

New Jersey technically has six refineries, but Perth Amboy closed in 2006, Eagle Point in 2010, and Port Reading in 2013, so only Bayway, Paulsboro Asphalt, and Paulsboro are still running, with a total capacity of 461,000 barrels per day.


Picking from some of the other states listed:
Alaska's six refineries combined can do 302,000 barrels per day.
Wyoming's six refineries combined can do 158,000 barrels per day.
Utah's five refineries combined can do 179,200 barrels per day.
Hawaii's two refineries can do 148,000 barrels per day
Virginia's one refinery shut down in 2010.
West Virginia's one refinery can do 19,400 barrels per day.

That's 20 refineries (not counting the closed one in VA) that can do a total of 806,600 barrels per day, or about 2/5 of what the 5 biggest refineries in Louisiana can do.

For the entire southeast (and being somewhat generous by including trans-Appalachia) excluding Louisiana, you have:
Alabama - 3 refineries, 156,100 bbl/day
Georgia - 1 refinery, 28,000 bbl/day
Kentucky - 3 refineries, 439,000 bbl/day
Mississippi - 4 refineries, 409,800 bbl/day (370k of which is 1 refinery, Pascagoula)
Tennessee - 1 refinery, 180,000 bbl/day

There are no refineries in Florida or the Carolinas or Virginia, so that entire 9 state region has about 1.2 million barrels per day maximum refining capacity, slightly more than 1/3 of what Louisiana has, and about 1/3 of that capacity could be eliminated by hitting Pascagoula (which is where Ingalls is, so it'd be a target anyway).

The other problem is crude oil production. That same 9 state region produces only 83,000 barrels of crude oil per day (5k from Florida, 22k from Alabama, 56k from Mississippi). Unless they can import oil from somewhere, even the small capacity they have will grossly exceed the inputs they receive.

Interestingly, West Virginia might be able to be close to self-sufficient; they produce 20,000 barrels of crude per day, and can refine 19,400 barrels per day at their one refinery.

[RN7]

That's a very detailed analysis of American oil refining capacity there Dark, I presume your figures are from the present and not 1997.

But let's have another look at them, and to be clear these are my figures are 2016/2017.

Originally Posted by The Dark

By capacity (bbl/day), 59% of the United States' current refining capacity is in 3 states - California, Texas, and Louisiana. To pick some examples out:
Louisiana's five largest refineries (Garyville, Baton Rouge, Lake Charles Citgo, St. Charles, and Convent) combine for 1,967,800 barrels per day. There are 11 more refineries in Louisiana that range from 8,300 to 247,000 barrels each. Total capacity of all 16 refineries is 3,310,100 barrels per day. Texas has at least 5,252,000 barrels per day capacity (I don't know the capacity for Calumet Penreco or Double Punch), and California has 3,331,000 barrels of refining capacity.

Louisiana has 18 oil refineries, produces 3,343,206 barrels per day and accounts for 18% of US capacity.
Texas has 29 oil refineries, produces 5,671,490 barrels per day and accounts for 30.5% of US capacity.
California has 18 oil refineries, produces 1,990,671 barrels per day and accounts for 10.7% of US capacity.

So yes your figure is correct as all three states account for 59.2% of US capacity. But these are peacetime figures and all three states expect for Texas are crude oil importers.

Louisiana produces 1.5% of US crude oil production
Texas produces 37.4% of US crude oil production
California produces 5.2% of US crude oil production

The big three US oil producing states are Texas (37.4%), North Dakota (11.2%) and Alaska (5.5%), although to be fair California is in 4th place. However Federal Offshore oil production also accounts for about 19% of US oil production.

So only the refineries in Texas will be refining oil at anywhere near peacetime levels unless the threat to shipping is totally eliminated.

Originally Posted by The Dark

Pennsylvania is (I think) the largest of the non-Big Three states, with a total refining capacity of 775,000 barrels per day. Of that, 10k barrels are in Bradford (near the PA/NY border south of Buffalo), 70k are in Warren (on the other side of the Allegheny National Forest from Bradford), and the other 695k are in Philadelphia and likely to be glowing for a few years.

Pennsylvania's refining capacity is 576,000 barrels per day, which is behind Illinois, Washington and Ohio. And if Philadelphia is likely to be glowing for years so would the big cities and oil refineries in California, Louisiana and Texas.

Originally Posted by The Dark

New Jersey technically has six refineries, but Perth Amboy closed in 2006, Eagle Point in 2010, and Port Reading in 2013, so only Bayway, Paulsboro Asphalt, and Paulsboro are still running, with a total capacity of 461,000 barrels per day.

True and I think Perth Amboy and Eagle Point have been converted into oil terminals. New Jersey has a total capacity of 475,000 barrels per day.

Originally Posted by The Dark

Picking from some of the other states listed:
Alaska's six refineries combined can do 302,000 barrels per day.
Wyoming's six refineries combined can do 158,000 barrels per day.
Utah's five refineries combined can do 179,200 barrels per day.
Hawaii's two refineries can do 148,000 barrels per day
Virginia's one refinery shut down in 2010.
West Virginia's one refinery can do 19,400 barrels per day.

That's 20 refineries (not counting the closed one in VA) that can do a total of 806,600 barrels per day, or about 2/5 of what the 5 biggest refineries in Louisiana can do.

Alaska actually has now only 5 oil refineries producing 158,900 barrels per day
Wyoming has 6 oil refineries producing 177,500 barrels per day
Utah has now only 5 oil refineries producing 196,830 barrels per day
Hawaii is exactly right
Virginia is exactly right, its former refinery has been converted into and oil terminal
West Virginia has 1 refinery produces 22,300 barrels per day.

That's 19 refineries that can do a total of 703,500 barrels per day, about 1/5 of what all the refineries in Louisiana can do.

Originally Posted by The Dark

For the entire southeast (and being somewhat generous by including trans-Appalachia) excluding Louisiana, you have:
Alabama - 3 refineries, 156,100 bbl/day
Georgia - 1 refinery, 28,000 bbl/day
Kentucky - 3 refineries, 439,000 bbl/day
Mississippi - 4 refineries, 409,800 bbl/day (370k of which is 1 refinery, Pascagoula)
Tennessee - 1 refinery, 180,000 bbl/day

There are no refineries in Florida or the Carolinas or Virginia, so that entire 9 state region has about 1.2 million barrels per day maximum refining capacity, slightly more than 1/3 of what Louisiana has, and about 1/3 of that capacity could be eliminated by hitting Pascagoula (which is where Ingalls is, so it'd be a target anyway).

Alabama has 3 refineries producing 131,675 barrels per day.
Georgia has no refinery any more.
Kentucky has 2 refineries producing 278,500 barrels per day.
Mississippi has 3 refineries producing 377,500 barrels per day.
Tennessee has 1 refinery producing 190,000 barrels per day.

So the entire 9 state region has a capacity of less than 1 million barrels per day maximum refining capacity, slightly less than 1/3 of Louisiana

Originally Posted by The Dark

The other problem is crude oil production. That same 9 state region produces only 83,000 barrels of crude oil per day (5k from Florida, 22k from Alabama, 56k from Mississippi). Unless they can import oil from somewhere, even the small capacity they have will grossly exceed the inputs they receive.

Louisiana only produces 1.5% of U.S. crude oil, the rest is imported. Alabama produces 0.2%, Florida produces 0.1%, Kentucky produces 0.1% and Mississippi produces 0.5% of U.S. crude oil, and it's not imported.

Also you missed the refineries in rest of the country.

Colorado has 2 refineries producing 103,000 barrels per day
Delaware has 1 refinery producing 182,200 barrels per day
Illinois has 4 refineries producing 981,500 barrels per day
Indiana has 2 refineries producing 441,700 barrels per day
Kansas has 3 refineries producing 361,000 barrels per day
Michigan has 1 refinery producing 132,000 barrels per day
Minnesota has 2 refineries producing 388,515 barrels per day
Montana has 4 refineries producing 214,700 barrels per day
Nevada has 1 refinery producing 2,000 barrels per day
New Mexico has 2 refineries producing 123,500 barrels per day
North Dakota has 2 refineries producing 93,300 barrels per day
Ohio has 4 refineries producing 583,000 barrels per day
Oklahoma has 5 refineries producing 511,300 barrels per day
Utah has 5 refineries producing 196,830 barrels per day
Washington has 5 refineries producing 633,700 barrels per day
Wisconsin has 1 refinery producing 38,000 barrels per day
Wyoming has 6 refineries producing 177,500 barrels per day

That's 5,163,700 barrels of oil per day, nearly equivalent to the whole of Texas!

[The Dark]

The numbers I had are probably a few years old - I was doing some interviews in the industry (for one of the Galveston refineries, IIRC - it was definitely Texas, but I'm not 100 percent sure exactly where).

So yes your figure is correct as all three states account for 59.2% of US capacity. But these are peacetime figures and all three states expect for Texas are crude oil importers.

Almost every refining state is a net importer. The US produces less crude than it refines. Using the EIA's peak average monthly crude oil production from 2011-2016 and comparing it to your list refinery capacity:
Texas: 5.67 million barrels refining, 3.45 million barrels crude (+1.6 million off-shore)
Louisiana: 3.34 million barrels refining, 0.197 million barrels crude
California: 1.99 million barrels refining, 0.561 million barrels crude
Illinois: 981,500 barrels refining, 27,000 barrels crude
Washington: 633,700 barrels refining, 0 crude
Ohio: 583,000 barrels refining, 73,000 barrels crude
Pennsylvania: 576,000 barrels refining, 19,000 barrels crude
Oklahoma: 511,300 barrels refining, 447,000 barrels crude
Indiana: 441,700 barrels refining, 7,000 barrels crude
Minnesota: 388,515 barrels refining, 0 crude
Mississippi: 377,500 barrels refining, 68,000 barrels crude
Kansas: 361,000 barrels refining, 136,000 barrels crude
Kentucky: 278,500 barrels refining, 9,000 barrels crude
Montana: 214,700 barrels refining, 82,000 barrels crude
Utah: 196,830 barrels refining, 112,000 barrels crude
Tennessee: 190,000 barrels refining, 1,000 barrels crude
Delaware: 182,200 barrels refining, 0 crude
Wyoming: 177,500 barrels refining, 237,000 barrels crude
Michigan: 132,000 barrels refining, 21,000 barrels crude
Alabama: 131,675 barrels refining, 29,000 barrels crude
New Mexico: 123,500 barrels refining, 404,000 barrels crude
Colorado: 103,000 barrels refining, 336,000 barrels crude
North Dakota: 93,300 barrels refining, 1,177,000 barrels crude
Wisconsin: 38,000 barrels refining, 0 crude
West Virginia: 22,300 barrels refining, 23,000 barrels crude
Nevada: 2,000 barrels refining, 1,000 barrels crude
Alaska: 0 refining, 561,000 barrels crude

There are other dribs and drabs of crude oil production (like Florida's 6k or New York and Idaho's 1k), but Alaska's the only major crude producer without refineries. Peak crude production was 9.408 million barrels per day in 2015, slightly more than half the refinery capacity. It's also not necessarily conveniently located, with major crude oil producers having relatively small refining capacities and not necessarily located near states with significant refining capacities (*coughNorthDakotacough*).

And if Philadelphia is likely to be glowing for years so would the big cities and oil refineries in California, Louisiana and Texas.

Most likely. The U.S. Nuclear Targets list in v2.2 includes 8 refineries in California, 7 in Louisiana, and 13 in Texas. It also includes the Delaware refinery, 3 refineries in Illinois, 1 in Indiana, 1 in Kentucky, 2 in Kansas, 1 in Mississippi, 1 in Missouri, 4 in New Jersey, 2 in Ohio, 2 in Oklahoma, 2 in Pennsylvania, and 2 in Washington. In total, 50 refineries are on the target list, and some of the strikes may have included multiple refineries located in the same city. Another 18 refineries in Canada are also on the list.

I'm not sure if striking at refining capacity is the best strategy, but it's certainly a plausible strategy, given the tendency to cluster refining capacity and the need to transport crude to refineries. Crude production tends to be more dispersed (and not necessarily near other valuable infrastructure), which makes it a less ideal target. Hitting at fuel supplies limits both civilian and military efficiency. Even if one considers the distillation of ethanol, that reduces the available food for the military and civilians, which is problematic once farm yields decline (due to the loss of modern fertilizers and pesticides, even if one ignores the drought) and the lean times start.