OT - It has become apparent ...

Page 2 of 5  
Swingman wrote:

We already knew that :-)
Does anyone have any info on new refining capacity under construction or in the process of being brought on line in the near future?
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

There's a new refining facility planned in SE NE (because our intrepid Governor is so anti-business the developers moved it out of NE KS :( ).
It'll be sizable and include a new large capacity pipeline to collect crude from central US and distribute at least some product.
Exact timeline I'm not sure of...I'll see what I can dig up; I sorta' lost interest when they moved out of state.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

OK, what I learned is it is probably going to be in SD just across the border from NE if it goes--they have bought land there and had a successful rezoning. There's questions on the viability of their financing, however, apparently. The plan is for the Alberta shale oil pipeline to be the primary source. The project would be roughly $8-10B if it comes off.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Thanks. I was hoping that there might already be a couple in the works. It would appear that we might be in for a bit of discomfort if even just one or two are taken out of service due to hurricane damage. :-(
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote: ...

No hope for that in today's business climate. :(
It's possible it just _may_ be beginning to change, but it's going to be hard slogging and nobody's gonna' do nuttin' 'til after electioneering is over now, of course, in order to see which way that wind blows.
It's likely there's going to be some damage altho the track they've got it on should be south of the largest concentrations so hopefully nothing too severe.
Of course, that's a hope for everybody in the path, for what little good that is... :)
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More refineries could not hurt but there are several that are still off line because of the storm that hit LA last week. Gas prices were still going down until the threat of Ike became evident.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Morris Dovey" wrote:

You are probably not going to like this response, but it is reality.
There has not been a "grass roots" refinery built in the USA in over 30 years, and hopefully, there will NEVER be another built, at least until after some usable form of alternate energy is developed.
Why?
If we don't get serious and start developing alternative energy sources NOW, our $700M+/month expenditure for foreign oil will just get larger.
BTW, the source of that $700M+/month number comes from T Pickens.
He may have his own axe to grind, but he is in the neighborhood.
I don't know what you call it, but I call it a $700M+/month TAX being paid to offshore countries, most of which, don't particularly like us.
If I'm going to pay that $700M+ TAX every month, would jut a soon see it paid in the USA to develop alternative energy.
$4-$5/gallon gasoline is a bitter pill to swallow, but it seems the only way to get at our oil gluttony problem.
Our economy has been built on cheap oil.
The gays of cheap energy, especially oil, are history.
Time to get up off our dead and dying, and get to work.
Now, if we can only get an alternate energy policy established by our gov't to create and nurture alternate energy development.
Without a stable environment over the long haul, private capital will NOT invest the billions needed to solve the energy problem(s).
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote: ...

... That's sheer stupidity...to not process shale or sand oil while waiting on some yet-to-be-discovered magic "alternative" fuel would be asinine.
And, of course, while that's true on building "clean site" refinery capacity, actual capacity has more than double in that time frame by combinations of expansion and process improvement. So, while it's important that new refinery capacity be built, the significant factor of the proposed facility is that it will be processing shale oil.
"alternative energy" will become available as it becomes economically viable, not before, in large quantities, anyway.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote: .

Who said anything about not processing known reserves?
A new "grass roots" refinery is not required.

That works as a short term solution.

If $4-$5/gallon doesn't get the job done, maybe $8-$10/gal will.
Either way, it's going to require gov't involvement to provide a stable environment for private industry to to the job.
Bottom line..............................
If we don't get started, one of these days we are going to wake up broke and with the boot of some sheik planted squarely on our Adam's apple.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

... I'd believe it is to handle shale oil--afaik there's no existing facility that has the capability which is why there's interest in doing it.
...

All the government really needs to do is get out of the way and it will happen in the most economically viable fashion far better than some set of suits in DC can try to forecast what should be done.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

As the saying goes, people far above my pay grade must be looking at this.
I envision gov't involvement to involve setting some goals and insuring that those who invest their money will not be left high and dry before they see a return by insuring continuation of the program, then getting out of the way and let it happen.
Put another way, have gov't provide goals which may include rewards to create a research skeleton, then get the hell out of the road and let it happen.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote: ...

...
That's the wrong way -- if it turns out to be an uneconomical choice for whatever reason, money should be lost and the particular technology should go away posthaste in place of whatever else happens to be the winner. That should be determined by the markets not the government.
What the government needs to do is to set a fixed set of rules and leave them unchanged for a significant length of time rather than twiddling them around all the time by changes in tax credits or additional taxes or different emissions controls standards, etc., etc., ...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:46:22 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"

Those are without a doubt the scariest words I've read here in quite some time.
Frank
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank Boettcher wrote:

Yeah, the last part is correct but undoubtedly it will require more _dis_-involvement to provide anything close to stability. Unfortunately, the best thing the gov't provides is the uncertainty of what will they do next?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

The alternate energy problem is IMHO, so complex that it is beyond the ability of the free market economy to solve it in the foreseeable future.
It is so large that it is going to require the everybody in the entire country to get involved and devote a part of their energies to solving this problem.
Seems to me the definition of gov't is to provide the means to accomplish those things that we as individuals can't achieve.
I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the nitty gritty of how you structure gov't to achieve a solution; however, the necessity of gov't leadership in a project of this magnitude is obvious.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

I think that's not so...the transition _to_ oil was done w/o government intervention and the transition away will occur in that manner too _IF_ the government doesn't screw it up, that is.

Not to me it isn't--in fact what is obvious to me is that whoever tries to mandate a particular solution or set of solutions will undoubtedly not be prescient enough to foresee all the problems in their chosen paths nor nearly capable enough to predict all the other technologies that will spring up if not prevented from doing so by artificially propping up less successful favorite sons (so to speak).
Again, businesses on both ends will look to make the most prudent choices for their own success--both ends means consumers of energy and producers. If there's an opportunity to make a new widget, somebody (Morris is a prime example on a small scale, there are thousands of others like him and virtually every company involved in the most remote way is also) will give it a shot. Not all will succeed, of course, but the chances of finding the most effective solution(s) are far better if there's incentive other than artificial ones.
That said, there's a role government can play and that is to judiciously fund research and deployment of proven technologies and they do. The problems arise when the policy mandate for specific technologies overrides the competitive market forces so people react to those influences instead.
I think the German emphasis on solar and wind now is just one example--their conversion is sizable but the extremely high subsidization rates are the cause. If not careful they're going to end up w/ an infrastructure based on non-economic technology that will hurt the overall economic competitiveness for a long time to come.
Similar issues arise here w/ the mantra of wind power--examination of output from the large wind farms installed so far show they have at best 40% average capacity factors and periods of only 20% even when built in the most advantageous areas of the country. That means it takes from 2.5X to 4X the target generation capacity as installed capacity which is a very expensive capital investment solely for the privilege of using a free fuel. And, as has been noted elsewhere, that the wind isn't as reliable a fuel source as any conventional, there's the added need for spinning reserve at a far higher percentage of grid capacity than for other forms of generation. And, unfortunately, the only really suitable form right now and for the foreseeable future to provide that reserve capacity is the gas turbine which is about the most illogical use we can make of dwindling natural gas supplies.
In short, the market will do a far better job of determining what and when alternative sources are available if allowed to do so. Of course, besides the government often being a hindrance more than a help, there's the problem of the anti-development crowd, no matter what the alternative. In the end, if fear it may be that which is the most limiting factor in responding in a timely manner, even over government.
The problem as I see it is to too great an extent we have shifted from a decentralized "bottom-up" society to one that expects that every problem must be solved by a central government. That despite ample demonstration that rarely if ever does a real solution to a problem come from that end.
W/ that, finis...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@verizon.net says...

...and you believe government can solve the problem?

...and you believe in fairies, too?

No, the purpose of government is to do exactly what the Constitution says it should do. It is *not* to tell me how to live my life. I would hope that you believe in liberty, as well.

No, it is not obvious. People are flawed, by nature. Government is simply an extension of people, just as flawed and a *lot* more powerful. That is a very dangerous combination.
--
Keith

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The problem is that there are no leaders in government. As I heard it put recently, do you think the "alphas" of our society go into politics? (By the way, if you nominate Obama for the job I'm going to puke on my shoes). You want to know what you get when you put the government in charge of alternate energy? Ethanol from corn. I'm from a corn state, and it's the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Putting the goverment in charge these days gets you political solutions instead ones that make economic sense. What's the solution, then? It beats the hell out of me, but I bet it isn't going to be more government involvement.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"todd" wrote:

That's why we have elections on a regular basis.
With all the crap a candidate and their family has to endure, there is little incentive to run for political office.

You seeem to have a problem controlling body functions.

Since less than 5% of the corn is converted, before being returned as animal feed suplement, maybe the ethanol program is not such a bad call after all.
BTW, think you will find the lobbying of ADM, ConAgra, Cargill, et al, may hve had something to do with implementation of the ethanol program.
It was exactly a lack of leadership from congress but rather the lobbyists that lead to the environment being established.
BTW, it is my understanding that corn was just a stop gap.
Those plants can be converted to other feed stocks on short notice.

IMHO, we need a major change in leadership to among other things, reestablish the reputation of gov't not to be an ATM for the privileged few, but a servant of the many.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks for making my point.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole
Duh! You think? Like I said...politics.

And that's about as smart as using corn. Can they be coverted to cellulosic ethanol production? IF ethanol can be a viable fuel, it's not going to be made from grain. IMO, all of it is stop-gap until we can get all-electric vehicles.

How about we reestablish the idea of a limited federal government that actually follows the powers enumerated to it in the Constitution? I know...that's just crazy talk. todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.