dpb wrote: ...
Intended to make an additional note--the above link has weekly data plotted--if select the 4-wk average, the weekly variations are smoothed significantly and the effects on demand of the economic contraction following 9/11 are vividly evident as is the shorter downturn at the beginning of 2000.
--
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. :-(
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... :)
One last note on these data...any conclusion that demand has tapered off over the last several years could only be drawn by blindly looking at the numbers pre- and post- 9/11. If only the values were in front of one, it's possible one might draw a conclusion to that effect, but the graph clearly shows what happened was a significant retraction over the period of roughly a year or so after which the growth was again at essentially the same rate as previously.
This continued until a new peak demand was reached in the 2006/07 time frame and has since tapered off owing to the high prices and associated economic slowdown.
Really quite a revealing graph...
--
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
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.
OK.
I'd like to comment on the "no new refineries have been built in the last 30 years" line. What is being left out is that existing refineries have expanded so as to be equivalent to having built ten new refineries.
Also, the "let's build new refineries" line needs some consideration. Let's not build too many. What happens when a scarce resource (crude oil) is sought by 'x' number of businesses (refineries) and then several new businesses come along wanting to have that same scarce resource. That's right! The bidding begins and the price goes up.
I won't get into 'the oil companies know we are in a post-peak oil period and don't want to build refineries that will soon not have enough resources to operate at near maximum capacity."
(Is peak oil my hobby? Yes. I read Matt Savinar and James Howard Kunstler; and Energy Bulletin and Running on Empty2 (Yahoo groups) and Energy Resources (Yahoo groups). I've read Twilight in the Desert, The Road, and World Made by Hand.)
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.
--
"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
Cut me a little slack, Lew. I've been working for a little over six years to help make it happen - first with solar heating panels to keep people warm up here in "cold country", then with direct solar-powered (non-electrical) stationary engines for pumping and (if I can get the @!%# pump running the way I think it should), direct solar-powered air-conditioning to keep people cool in "hot country". I'd have taken on more but my resources were a bit on the thin side.
The government and industry don't appear to be interested in any technology that doesn't produce ongoing revenues capable of providing mega-salaries to top execs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions.
... 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.
--
Morris Dovey wrote: ...
I don't believe that for a minute.
You talked to EPRI or responded to DARPA or DOE RFPs on Advanced Technology? You sent concept proposals to the National Labs for cooperative research? You talked w/ various research centers/deans/department heads at State universities? Looked at the various Foundations who sponsor advanced research? There are zillions of options for funding but it does takes work to go find them.
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
Taking on a project as committee of one is like pushing on a rope.
It's a tough process.
Have you tried to seek out R&D funds from private foundations or gov't research grants?
Lots of digging req'd, but funds are out there.
Lew
"Lew Hodgett" wrote
I knew you were a Californian, but ...
;)
Naw, just a displaced Buckeye who can't type.
By definition:
Before you ask, a Buckeye is defined as a worthless nut.
Eh? I'm not in business to produce concepts. If I were, then your suggestions would make sense.
The national labs want me to pay them. Hell - if I could afford to pay them, then I wouldn't need them at all. :-)
I've already been the university route once. It cost $80K (in 1978 dollars), resulted in proprietary technology being leaked into the public domain by people who wouldn't/couldn't respect intellectual property, and never did produce the contracted- and paid-for result. I guess I should mention that the project ran almost a year over the promised schedule and terminated because there was no way to continue funding the (unproductive) effort. Ugh - I'm not interested in repeating that experience. It's a "doesn't work in the real world" because the people involved don't have any skin in the game.
There /are/ a zillion options for donating both what I already have and what I'm working on - and bloody few for promoting what's already completed and for accelerating development of proven concepts into finished (marketable) products.
My projects aren't the point though, it's the entire approach to the alternative energy that's incredibly inadequate, and I've lost hope that anything will change significantly until there is a bona fide crisis. We just don't have enough Pickens-types to get the job done.
I'll keep at it until I burn out, then dumpster the works and enjoy the retirement I should have started in July of 2007.
I haven't minded the work to find options, but finding is the easiest part - it's the overhead they bring with them that's the killer.
Tell me about it! Still, I've managed to push a couple of pieces of this rope farther than I expected when I started.
Private foundations - no. Government grants - yes, until it was made clear that I'd need to spend more than half of my time providing proof that I was sticking to a well-defined action/budget plan that had to be nailed down before the funds would be made available - and until I learned that any deviation (for example, shifting resources from an activity that needed less to complete than budgeted to another that needed more than budgeted) from that plan could land me in prison. Two other items that couldn't be covered by the grant were construction (necessary for testing) and advertising (essential to commercialization). I said thanks and backed away.
I don't have a lot of time available for digging, but I'm sure you're right. So far, the sources I've found have all had an associated overhead that would slow, rather than accelerate, the work to be done. I figure I'm already going slow enough.
At this poimt in time, what is your objective?
Has it changed from when you started?
Lew
HomeOwnersHub website 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.