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.
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.
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. :-(
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
Of course, that's a hope for everybody in the path, for what little good
that is... :)
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.
If we don't get serious and start developing alternative energy
sources NOW, our $700M+/month expenditure for foreign oil will just
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
As the saying goes, people far above my pay grade must be looking at
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
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., ...
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?
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
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
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.
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
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...
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.