South Dakota Voters Approve What Could Be First New U.S. Oil Refinery in Decades

Rod Bearing

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Location
Fort Worth
TDI
Several
Just food for thought but...

Had the same amount of money spent on the war thus far been spent instead on building Fischer Tropsch refineries, it would have had a much more positive effect on reducing the importing of oil from a troubled section of the world.:p
 

RKSTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Location
California
TDI
2009 TDI JSW manual
ikendu said:
If you can provide links to some of the assertions, I'd be very interested to read first hand the effects you mention. I'm always wanting to learn more on this topic.

I think the fact that only 1 BTU of oil is used in the creation of 13 BTUs of ethanol gives a large margin for effects during refining, blending and combustion of the E10 mixture that would still allow for ethanol to help us with our foreign oil consumption.
So you didn't take gasoline blending effects into account, but still believe that the "margin for effects" for ethanol are sufficiently large that it would cancel out issues that you admit you don't understand. Faith-based, much?

This article gives an introduction to the complexity of blending gasoline with ethanol and its impacts on gasoline properties, volumes, and efficiencies.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/question7.pdf

Mostly it deals with the RVP effects. It doesn't say much about the DI and T50 effects which have also reduced gasoline supply due to mandate to blend ethanol into gasoline. Exactly what the impacts are is a complex issue that will depend on the ratios of gasoline blending components that are unique to each refinery, as well as seasonal and regional specifications for gasoline. The word I was hearing from multiple independent sources in 2002 when ethanol replaced MTBE was that the blending effects would cause California's gasoline supply to shrink by 5%, and that vehicle fuel efficiency would also drop.

Some areas are allowed a federal 1 psi RVP waiver for gasoline blending with ethanol. Where allowed, this reduces the ethanol blending losses, but increases air pollution by ozone and smog. Keep that in mind the next time you see one of those ethanol propaganda pieces by Archer Daniels Midland, extolling the environmental benefits of ethanol.
 

RKSTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Location
California
TDI
2009 TDI JSW manual
I wrote:
I suggest you read the latest research on biofuels. Lifecycle analyses taking into account land-use changes indicate that corn ethanol and even cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass are net losers as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861

ikendu said:
I'm glad to see you are reading. This study does point out that eventually corn ethanol pushed far beyond what we produce today would convert rainforest lands to corn and take many years to "earn back" the carbon released by the land change. The study does not say that current acreage devoted to corn or switchgrass are net losers. If you see language in the actual study that says otherwise, please let me know.
I suggest that you read the entire article. It is not just about future higher production levels of ethanol, and it's not just about conversion of rainforest lands for biofuels. It's about corn ethanol and cellulosic switchgrass ethanol grown and produced in the US. Both result in large and sustained net increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when direct and indirect landuse changes are accounted for.

The article mentions sugarcane ethanol made in Brazil, which involves significant GHG emission increases if rainforest is converted to sugarcane, but more attractive GHG effects if tropical grazing land is converted to sugarcane.

The most attractive biofuels from the point of view of GHG emissions are those made from what would otherwise be true waste products, and those such as algae-based biofuels grown in areas like deserts which involve little or no loss of carbon sequestration from the previous use of the land.
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
RKSTDI said:
I suggest you read the latest research on biofuels. Lifecycle analyses taking into account land-use changes indicate that corn ethanol and even cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass are net losers as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned. [URL="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861"]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1151861[/URL]
You might find this analysis of the paper you linked interesting:

http://awakeatthewheel.net/2008/02/20/greet-model-used-wrong-michael-wang-of-argonne-lab-responds-to-science-magazine-study/

RKSTDI said:
The most attractive biofuels from the point of view of GHG emissions are those made from what would otherwise be true waste products, and those such as algae-based biofuels grown in areas like deserts which involve little or no loss of carbon sequestration from the previous use of the land.
Well... we can agree on that. I also have hope for mixed prarie grasses planted on highly erodible land (that should not be row cropped).
 
Last edited:

rustytigwire

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Location
Norman, OK
TDI
03 Golf egr delete
aja8888, I like to read my Oil & Grease Journal but I gets too excited and don't look again for a while.

Was discussing with my landlord what might turn down the current rig count from 1700+ in USA. He said Canada imposed some kind of heavy tax on their energy industry about 2 years ago. Rig count decline supports this. Does anyone know what that brilliant political move was???

I would like to see the faces of those responsble for additional tax on energy when their constituents figure out why the prices went even higher than they are now.

Maybe big oil can get screwed up enough by political ignorance to get bailed out like the sub prime mortgage thieves. We may even come out ahead, at least we voluntarily buy fuel whereas the financial institutions are getting credit on money hasn't been printed yet (from the same bunch that wants to tax energy).
 

QtmMech

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Location
Mpls
TDI
2004 Jetta 5-speed
rustytigwire said:
Maybe big oil can get screwed up enough by political ignorance to get bailed out like the sub prime mortgage thieves. We may even come out ahead, at least we voluntarily buy fuel whereas the financial institutions are getting credit on money hasn't been printed yet (from the same bunch that wants to tax energy).
You think the un regulated disaster that is the mortage crisis, bailout and currency declining value is at all related to anything else but unregulated greed of the brokers and the money men? You think the bailout of these guys instead of the little guys being made homeless is not connected to rampant greed of the politicians and their seemingly only electorate, the lobbyists and those who bought them?

Much as we are here discussing, greed is the central issue in our current commodity crisis. The time is long past where we let the greed of individuals continue to control and profit from this shrinking resource. The price must and will go up. Whether we tax or not, the law of supply and demand (and the rule of cartels.)

But only as much as we are willing to pay, that is why OPEC used to keep the price stable: healthy economies in their buyers countries means more petrol sold. Price goes too high, people stop buying. At some point the ability to pay will put a cap on the price and then on the very production of the resource. If the price goes too high economies crash, recession, depression, contraction simply means lack of customer base for OPEC and Exxon. The reasoning is this. The resource is ours, here on planet earth, and we need that energy legacy to build our future. If you tax the fuel in the 100% range, you will both cut consumption and find the cap at which people are still able to pay. Now instead of OPEC and Exxon pocketing everything we earn, we the people get to put those profits from our very own reasource to good work for everyone's future. Jobs and new energy infrastructure will result.

The alternative is doing nothing different until the commodity becomes too expense to buy (or even produce) and we have nothing to show for this unprecedented waste of a non returning legacy of cheap energy. Nothing but "have mores' whose very obscene wealth is no longer worth anything for there is nothing left of value to buy. Not stocks, not bonds, not even gold. Without cheap energy the green miracle is over and we will be fighting over the privilege to even eat! Those green backs will not get you to the front of the line any more once brute force is re-established as the global governing principle. No less fair, but much more grim.

You know we are all expected to literally sign our economic stimulous checks to BigOil as the new millenial patriot we have been so well trained to be.
 

aja8888

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Location
Texas..RETIRED 12/31/17
TDI
Out of TDI's
rustytigwire said:
aja8888, I like to read my Oil & Grease Journal but I gets too excited and don't look again for a while.

Was discussing with my landlord what might turn down the current rig count from 1700+ in USA. He said Canada imposed some kind of heavy tax on their energy industry about 2 years ago. Rig count decline supports this. Does anyone know what that brilliant political move was???
I read about two months ago that several lease holders in the Athabasca (Ft. Mc Murray) area where tar sands are being developed are selling out of their leases due to the Royalty taxes going up so high that they can't make any money on development. Since this site is a Canadian site, maybe one of the ocals can chime in on this.
 
Last edited:

QtmMech

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Location
Mpls
TDI
2004 Jetta 5-speed
Tar sands

aja8888 said:
I read about two months ago that several lease holders in the Athabasca (Ft. Mc Murray) area where tar sands are being developed are selling out of their leases due to the Royalty taxes going up so high that they can't make any money on development. Since this site is a Canadian site, maybe one of the ocals can chime in on this.
The Tar sands project is a complete waste, land energy and (possibly) subsidy. Imagine strip mining on a massive scale. Getting the tar out is an energy intensive process fouling millions of acre feet of water. And then you still only have tar, the true bottom of the barrel stuff that needs sophisticated cracking to make anything but road surfacing.

Stupid, stupid idea. I'm glad the canadians are taking royalities in the mineral wealth. I only wish our country would abandon its 19th century mineral policy and start taking royalties as well. Might kill a few marginal projects here as well. That, I consider a good thing. Less fuel = less AGW.
 

wjdell

Top Post Dawg
Joined
May 17, 2006
Location
Central Florida
TDI
06 Jetta TDI DSG PKG 1 17" VV Campy White/Beige
20 years from now - how much to convert it to GTL BTL. What are the different types of sources of oil gas coal or maybe even waste. Its allot of money only if it is to be let go after the crude is gone. 20 30 50 years, whatever that might be.
 

Rod Bearing

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Location
Fort Worth
TDI
Several
The OP of this thread opened the floodgates.

Celebrating the proposed opening of another refinery, I'm sure the OP never envisioned that he wouldn't be surrounded by backslapping wellhead worshippers.

Instead, the thread has proven that we're all sick to death of the endless rapings by the entire crude oil industry.
 

aja8888

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Location
Texas..RETIRED 12/31/17
TDI
Out of TDI's
This is the OP. I was responding to various references throughout this forum that stated from time to time that we (the U.S.) are short on refining capacity in the US. I never celebrated anything?:confused:

If you are worried about the "rapings by the crude industry" (which this thread is NOT about), I suggest you start one on the following BIG OIL Folks:

Saudia Arabia
Iran
Iraq
Venezuela
Russia
Balance of OPEC countries

The above guys are holding us hostage, not the refiners, who just process crude so YOU can fill YOUR tank!:D
 

Rod Bearing

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Location
Fort Worth
TDI
Several
The entire crude oil industry includes everyone. Even US companies who extract the oil. The countries you mention are not the only suppliers.:rolleyes::p
 

Rod Bearing

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Location
Fort Worth
TDI
Several

quartersaw

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Location
Albany, NY
TDI
2002 Jetta Wagon, '96 B4V,'99 2 door Golf
Rod Bearing said:
Been saying this for a long time.
The President could show leadership with this issue,but then again, why would he lower the value of the family holdings?.......:cool:
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
aja8888 said:
The above guys are holding us hostage, not the refiners, who just process crude so YOU can fill YOUR tank!:D
THIS... is a very key point.

If you are reading this thread, think about this point for a moment.

Who is responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves?

Are we helpless victims of the oil producers?

Pogo said: We have met the enemy and they is us.

I assert that we are not helpless. We have choices. There are solutions.

It's been said before. The only thing we have to fear, is...
 

RKSTDI

Veteran Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Location
California
TDI
2009 TDI JSW manual
quartersaw said:
A second partial solution would be to boost the supply of oil available on the market by releasing as much as 1 million barrels a day of oil now held in the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That step is being pushed by, among others, the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank run by several former Clinton administration officials.

That is a wreckless idea. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established to mitigate temporary oil supply emergencies. An embargo imposed by a major producer. Hurricane damage to oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. A terrorist attack on oil producing facilities somewhere in the world. That sort of thing. The SPR is NOT designed to mitigate supply constraints that are not short term. The SPR isn't big enough to deal with medium term or long term supply constraints.

The global supply constraints that we are experiencing now are not short term, so they cannot be fixed by pulling oil out of the limited SPR. Sure, pulling 1 million barrels a day out of the SPR could lower prices, for as long as we drain down the SPR. Once we stopped pulling oil out of the SPR, prices will shoot back up. We would all be worse off in the long run. It will cause many consumers to delay taking the steps we need to take to reduce consumption. It would result in political pressure to completely drain the SPR to keep prices low. We would end up with a smaller SPR, or perhaps none at all, to deal with real supply emergencies. In addition to putting our economic security at risk, the medium and long term results would probably be an even bigger risk premium tacked onto the price of oil.
 

quartersaw

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Location
Albany, NY
TDI
2002 Jetta Wagon, '96 B4V,'99 2 door Golf
I disagee.
If the inflationary oil market is in fact being driven by speculation,then opening up the stratigic reserve will drive prices back down to a 'market forces' level instead of this artificially created price point that we are all suffering under.
There is lots of oil left on the Earth,and it is NOT going to run out tomorrow.
 

ikendu

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Location
Iowa
TDI
2003 Golf Indigo Blue
quartersaw said:
There is lots of oil left on the Earth,and it is NOT going to run out tomorrow.
I will agree with the last part (we won't runout tomorrow). The "lots" has to be seen the context of our world demand. Compared to world demand, I don't think we will find there is "lots" left.
 

dieselgrandad

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Location
Fond du Lac, WI
TDI
1997 Silver B4 Passat
There is lots of oil left on the Earth
Personally, I'd like to know where you think all this oil is, and why these reserves haven't/aren't being utilized. And please, don't tell me it's because "we" won't allow drilling on the continental shelf, ANWR, etc.
 

rustytigwire

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Location
Norman, OK
TDI
03 Golf egr delete
QTMECH.

I think I agree with you just not as eloquent about it.

Translate this for me please
Абе Линцолн вас нот хандицаппед бы год белиеф
 
Top