Obama to block Keystone Pipeline

BobTheDonkey said:
Pushing refineries to their max capacity doesn't make sense either. From a pure bottom line of the business standpoint, sure. But from a maintenance and capability standpoint, it's generally not wise to push anything to it's full capacity for long.
Click to expand...
Wow, you're a refinery expert too? :rolleyes:
 
leftysergeant said:
Of course, I don't trust them. I have to rely on their being laws in place to prevent their selling me dangerous crap.
Click to expand...

Earlier you suggested that inspectors are willing to lie so more money can be made. What's stopping that from happening with those who make your cars and guns?
 
Defective products are purely local in their effect.

Poison in the aquifer is quite another matter. Any risk when there is an alternative is unacceptable.

I do not buy a firearm that I have not expected, nor do I fly if I can avoid it, having seen what some aircraft mechanics try to get away with. I don't even drive when I do not have to.

I have no choice about drinking or irrigation water.
 
Molinaro said:
That is a ridiculous thing to say. You act like running the plant within it's design limits is some terrible thing. What's terrible is having that extra capacity not being used. Having built the capacity, you are then not using it to generate the revenue that it could be providing and employing the number of people that could be employed. You can take your fantasies about refineries running near their capacity as some time bomb about to go off and shove it.
Click to expand...
Ok, tell you what, why not go drive your car at it's redline every time you go anywhere. See how well that works out for you. Running all your refineries at max capacity leaves no room for error. The market becomes more volatile based on a single refinery having a bad week. By distributing that process to new refineries, there is less market volatility based on any single refinery's production.

And even if there already exists the extra capacity, why not save the environmental damage the pipeline will, at some point based on statistics, cause and build new refineries? There will be just as many, if not more, people employed to operate those new refineries, where existing refineries may not need to hire as many hands to increase actual production.

Really? Those refineries that already exist and have been running for years catch fire on a regular basis? We need to build multiple new and smaller ones to alleviate these fire problems? I look forward to your links to the ongoing disasters that have been plaguing these long running plants.
Click to expand...

I agree that fires are not all that regular. But spills are pretty regular. The more miles in pipeline that exists, the more likely a spill is. Moving/building refineries closer to where their products would be used and/or where the crude is can help to limit environmental exposure. And since doing so doesn't cost an exorbitant amount more, it seems to be the better long term solution.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Wow, you're a refinery expert too? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And you are?

I'm not claiming expertise anywhere, WC. I'm simply stating that running anything at 100% full time is not usually a good plan. And, in fact, I clearly stated a reason or two why in my latest post.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Ok, tell you what, why not go drive your car at it's redline every time you go anywhere. See how well that works out for you. Running all your refineries at max capacity leaves no room for error. The market becomes more volatile based on a single refinery having a bad week. By distributing that process to new refineries, there is less market volatility based on any single refinery's production.
Click to expand...

The way you mindlessly equate a refinery operating near capacity with some kind of immanent disaster is completely ludicrous.

Go ahead and posts statistics to support your claim. There's no shortage of refineries around the world operating near their capacity. Show us that they break down at a rate that is disproportionate to their increased production. Show that this imagined increase in breakdowns is causing market fluctuations. Show me some evidence that you are not just spouting absurd fantasies.

And even if there already exists the extra capacity, why not save the environmental damage the pipeline will, at some point based on statistics, cause and build new refineries? There will be just as many, if not more, people employed to operate those new refineries, where existing refineries may not need to hire as many hands to increase actual production.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe the environmental damage caused by the few spills that occur along a pipeline is more severe than the air and ground pollution that would be caused by building additional refineries?

I agree that fires are not all that regular. But spills are pretty regular. The more miles in pipeline that exists, the more likely a spill is. Moving/building refineries closer to where their products would be used and/or where the crude is can help to limit environmental exposure. And since doing so doesn't cost an exorbitant amount more, it seems to be the better long term solution.
Click to expand...

So, build refineries in Montana and Oklahoma? That's where the American oil will enter the proposed pipelines on the way to being processed in Texas.
 
Last edited:
Cobalt said:
Do you build your own cars? Build your own planes? Fabricate your own guns and ammo?
No?
You trust companies not to cut corners when there is another dime to be made?
Oh, dear.
Click to expand...

Firearms and ammo are of sometimes indifferent quality. But the consequences of that are usually pretty minor, and a good shooter knows how to inspect his piece.

Automobiles are far more complex than the average person can inspect and things that are fatally wrong can often be hidden from view. As a result there are major suites of regulation that require certain behaviors like crash testing and recalls of the manufacturers, so that they are kept honest in that way. Usually. Sometimes they kill people anyway; Example the Pinto.
 
Molinaro said:
The way you mindlessly equate a refinery operating near capacity with some kind of immanent disaster is completely ludicrous.

Go ahead and posts statistics to support your claim. There's no shortage of refineries around the world operating near their capacity. Show us that they break down at a rate that is disproportionate to their increased production. Show that this imagined increase in breakdowns is causing market fluctuations. Show me some evidence that you are not just spouting absurd fantasies.
Click to expand...

How about a study of oil refinery data, contained in this paper by Matthew Chesnes, using EIA published data: http://www.chesnes.com/docs/oil.pdf

Introduction said:
This paper presents a new dynamic model of the operating and investment
decisions of US oil refiners. The model enables me to predict how shocks to crude
oil prices and refinery shutdowns (e.g., in response to hurricanes) affect the price
of gasoline, refinery profits, and overall welfare. There have been no new refineries
built in the last 32 years, and although existing refineries have expanded their ca-
pacity by almost 13% since 1995, the demand for refinery products has grown even
faster. As a result, capacity utilization rates are now near their maximum sustain-
able levels, and when combined with record high crude oil prices, this creates a
volatile environment for energy markets. Shocks to the price of crude oil and even minor disruptions to refining capacity can have a large effect on the downstream prices of refined products. Due to the extraordinary dependence by other indus- tries on petroleum products, this can have a large effect on the US economy as a whole.
Click to expand...
Section 5.2 said:
The plots show that districts that run their
plants more intensively in one month are more likely to break down the following month.
Once a breakdown episode is started, a district may stay below the threshold for a
period of months. The data show that median episode length is 1 month, the mean is
2.3 months, and the maximum is 15 months.
Click to expand...





Do you honestly believe the environmental damage caused by the few spills that occur along a pipeline is more severe than the air and ground pollution that would be caused by building additional refineries?
Click to expand...
You'll be adding those pollutants whether you refine it in Texas or in Montana. The difference is specifically in how often spills can/will occur in the pipeline to Montana vs Texas.


So, build refineries in Montana and Oklahoma? That's where the American oil will enter the proposed pipelines on the way to being processed in Texas.
Click to expand...
Why not?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Ok, tell you what, why not go drive your car at it's redline every time you go anywhere. See how well that works out for you. Running all your refineries at max capacity leaves no room for error. The market becomes more volatile based on a single refinery having a bad week. By distributing that process to new refineries, there is less market volatility based on any single refinery's production.
Click to expand...

Refineries never run 100% of the time. They run very close to that because they periodically take units off-line to service them. Planned outages can be mitigated to minimize the effect on capacity. This is all done so that the refinery overlords can push the refinery as hard as they want for as long as they want.

The point is irrelevant though. The idea of trying to build even one 50 kbd (thousand barrels per day) refinery in the US is laughable. The planner's children would still be doing the environmental paperwork on their deathbeds. And I'm saying this as someone who would love for it to be otherwise.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
How about a study of oil refinery data, contained in this paper by Matthew Chesnes, using EIA published data:
Click to expand...

You are quoting way out of context. That line you quote as coming from section 5.2 actual appears first in section 4 of the paper. It is an assumption made in the design of his model that he discusses in the paper. In section 5.2 the line is repeated as the author gives his statistical definition of a breakdown. No actual breakdowns are known to have occurred by the author. No data from an individual plant is looked at by the author when determining if a breakdown occurred.

He looks looks at the average production level of a district, containing several refineries, and compares their monthly average capacity level and calls anything bellow the average of other districts in the same month, or the same district in prior months, a breakdown.


So, no, I do not take that paper as evidence of anything other than how his model behaves and how his invented definition of a breakdown applies to district wide average capacity rates.

There is one point that seems quite clear in reading that paper. Building new refineries is a bad idea, and unlikely to occur in the US.
 
Last edited:
BobTheDonkey said:
And you are?

I'm not claiming expertise anywhere, WC. I'm simply stating that running anything at 100% full time is not usually a good plan. And, in fact, I clearly stated a reason or two why in my latest post.
Click to expand...
You're comparing a refinery to an internal combustion engine... :boggled:
 
Molinaro said:
You are quoting way out of context. That line you quote as coming from section 5.2 actual appears first in section 4 of the paper. It is an assumption made in the design of his model that he discusses in the paper. In section 5.2 the line is repeated as the author gives his statistical definition of a breakdown. No actual breakdowns are known to have occurred by the author. No data from an individual plant is looked at by the author when determining if a breakdown occurred.

He looks looks at the average production level of a district, containing several refineries, and compares their monthly average capacity level and calls anything bellow the average of other districts in the same month, or the same district in prior months, a breakdown.


So, no, I do not take that paper as evidence of anything other than how his model behaves and how his invented definition of a breakdown applies to district wide average capacity rates.

There is one point that seems quite clear in reading that paper. Building new refineries is a bad idea, and unlikely to occur in the US.
Click to expand...

Yeah, read the paper again.
1) I quoted Section 5.2, not Chap 4, specifically because he references data points based on EIA reports in 5.2 but does not in Chap 4.

2) His conclusion is that building more refineries would be good - because it eases economic fluctuations - but unlikely to happen due to regulatory restrictions.
 
Beeyon said:
Refineries never run 100% of the time. They run very close to that because they periodically take units off-line to service them. Planned outages can be mitigated to minimize the effect on capacity. This is all done so that the refinery overlords can push the refinery as hard as they want for as long as they want.

The point is irrelevant though. The idea of trying to build even one 50 kbd (thousand barrels per day) refinery in the US is laughable. The planner's children would still be doing the environmental paperwork on their deathbeds. And I'm saying this as someone who would love for it to be otherwise.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's "laughable". But I'll agree that it's unlikely to happen in today's "NIMB" environment.
 
Thing is that the people who would build refineries are limited by something, and that something isn't the EPA.

A new refinery built now will not have enough life ahead of it to justify the expenditure.

Not only are we on the other side of the Hubbert peak for North America, but technologies are coming online that will replace a lot of what is done now with refined petroleum.
 
Cobalt said:
Do you build your own cars? Build your own planes? Fabricate your own guns and ammo?
No?
You trust companies not to cut corners when there is another dime to be made?
Oh, dear.
Click to expand...

Is this a joke?
If not, and you do trust organisations and people who haven't earned it first: I have several bridges to sell. Don't worry if you think they may be out of your league. The prices are very reasonable, and I can hook you up with some guys in nigeria, who are struggling to get money out of their country. This will make you rich. Trust me.
 
Russian pipeline good. Canadian pipeline bad. Damn Canadians will just shut it down to cripple the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom