Ethanol Subsidies Ends

Did you guys know that Russia is making plans to put a NG pipeline under the Bering Strait? Through Alaska to Canada to connect with North Americas NG infrastructure. Russia claims to have excess NG to supply all of North America.
Interesting. Wonder how that will work. Environment and stuff?
Something like 2020.

I know of 2 NG power plants that have opened in the last couple years. On main NG pipelines. One near Culbertson MT and 0ne by Bairoil WY. I've been right up close to the one by Culbertson. No visible smoke.:)
 
T. Boone Pickens backs expansion of natural-gas fueling spots for vehicles
Posted: 12/28/2011 01:00:00 AM MSTThe Denver Post

NEW ORLEANS — The United States has record supplies of natural gas and plenty of reasons to promote natural-gas-powered cars, but consumers, manufacturers and fuel suppliers haven't shown much interest.

Now, a major natural-gas developer's plans to vastly increase the number of truck stops that offer liquid natural gas could help boost its use in the over-the-road vehicles that burn the most fuel, while promoting its availability to a wider market.

The T. Boone Pickens-backed Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is embarking on a major expansion of natural-gas fueling and plans to add liquefied natural-gas pumps at 150 truck stops nationwide over the next 24 to 36 months.
 
OKIEGunner said:
T. Boone Pickens backs expansion of natural-gas fueling spots for vehicles
Posted: 12/28/2011 01:00:00 AM MSTThe Denver Post

NEW ORLEANS — The United States has record supplies of natural gas and plenty of reasons to promote natural-gas-powered cars, but consumers, manufacturers and fuel suppliers haven't shown much interest.

Now, a major natural-gas developer's plans to vastly increase the number of truck stops that offer liquid natural gas could help boost its use in the over-the-road vehicles that burn the most fuel, while promoting its availability to a wider market.

The T. Boone Pickens-backed Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is embarking on a major expansion of natural-gas fueling and plans to add liquefied natural-gas pumps at 150 truck stops nationwide over the next 24 to 36 months.
Click to expand...



Interesting...
 
OKIEGunner said:
T. Boone Pickens backs expansion of natural-gas fueling spots for vehicles
Posted: 12/28/2011 01:00:00 AM MSTThe Denver Post
.............

The T. Boone Pickens-backed Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is embarking on a major expansion of natural-gas fueling and plans to add liquefied natural-gas pumps at 150 truck stops nationwide over the next 24 to 36 months.
Click to expand...

Hey thanks OKIEGunner, somehow I missed this article.
One, that would be great to raise the middle finger to those in the Middle East (yea I know even putting 150 truck stop CNG fueling stations would be more symbolic then substance....but hey who doesn't want to lift a middle finger to some oil producing non friendly nation)

Two this could translate into something I need to keep an eye on. Thanks Bud. :cheers:
 
Live2Hunt said:
Hey thanks OKIEGunner, somehow I missed this article.
One, that would be great to raise the middle finger to those in the Middle East (yea I know even putting 150 truck stop CNG fueling stations would be more symbolic then substance....but hey who doesn't want to lift a middle finger to some oil producing non friendly nation)

Two this could translate into something I need to keep an eye on. Thanks Bud. :cheers:
Click to expand...

Well we just said no to our Canadian neighbors oil. Hopefully somebody can come up with a plan B that isn't just sell it to China. Maybe put a refinery in North Dakota.
 
haymaker said:
Well we just said no to our Canadian neighbors oil. Hopefully somebody can come up with a plan B that isn't just sell it to China. Maybe put a refinery in North Dakota.
Click to expand...

Putting refineries in places other than refinery row would be a strategically smart thing to do....something tells me the EPA would say no to a North Dakota Refinery.

Yep at this point in time, it would appear that the tar sands will be shipped to China. But that can all change in a couple of months time.

Not wishing to start a debate on politics, but umm this one is a big boo boo on the Presidents part. He will be crucified for this decision. Rightly or wrongly, but come on....sending more raw materials to a country that IS NOT our friend..
 
Yea Not good............It's KeyStone Light for now
 
I think it's the right position forced by an artificially contrived deadline. Current route potentially threatens the water supply of 8 states should there be catastrophic failure. Nobody has ever shipped oil sands like this at extremely high pressure, so assurances like we got from BP about gulf oil drilling should be taken with a grain of salt. This stuff isn't exactly west texas sweet crude, it's the filthiest crude available and the mess created would be many times more expensive to clean up, if we get it cleaned up at all. Big promises about jobs is a joke, around 6000 temporary positions. Sales to China are a big bluff, designed to panic us into a quick decision. They are proposing a pipeline because alternative shipping is to expensive and or unfeasable. Are they going to build a pipeline to China? Who's going to pay for that? Chinese refineries are not equipped to handle the stuff as of now. So if they don't sell to us, who? I might add it is opposed by several trade unions, almost all enviornmentalists, and every private landowner along the right of way. Find another way.
 
oldandnew said:
I think it's the right position forced by an artificially contrived deadline. Current route potentially threatens the water supply of 8 states should there be catastrophic failure. Nobody has ever shipped oil sands like this at extremely high pressure, so assurances like we got from BP about gulf oil drilling should be taken with a grain of salt. This stuff isn't exactly west texas sweet crude, it's the filthiest crude available and the mess created would be many times more expensive to clean up, if we get it cleaned up at all. Big promises about jobs is a joke, around 6000 temporary positions. Sales to China are a big bluff, designed to panic us into a quick decision. They are proposing a pipeline because alternative shipping is to expensive and or unfeasable. Are they going to build a pipeline to China? Who's going to pay for that? Chinese refineries are not equipped to handle the stuff as of now. So if they don't sell to us, who? I might add it is opposed by several trade unions, almost all enviornmentalists, and every private landowner along the right of way. Find another way.
Click to expand...


SPOT ON!

Evidently I need to add 10 more characters.... Don't know what I could add, that summed it up perfectly.
 
haymaker said:
Well we just said no to our Canadian neighbors oil. Hopefully somebody can come up with a plan B that isn't just sell it to China. Maybe put a refinery in North Dakota.
Click to expand...

That oil was bound for refineries on the gulf coast that make gasoline for countries in South America. We already export something like 300,000 barrels of gasoline a day there. If the pipeline goes thru, there will be a shortage of canada crude which in turn will cause gasoline prices to increase. I'm no fan of Obama, but Nebraska said no to the pipeline and a route around Nebraska has not been proposed nor has it been evaluated. My guess is they need to refine that crude in MN or ND and ship the products to the MW.
 
Live2Hunt said:
Putting refineries in places other than refinery row would be a strategically smart thing to do....something tells me the EPA would say no to a North Dakota Refinery.

Yep at this point in time, it would appear that the tar sands will be shipped to China. But that can all change in a couple of months time.

Not wishing to start a debate on politics, but umm this one is a big boo boo on the Presidents part. He will be crucified for this decision. Rightly or wrongly, but come on....sending more raw materials to a country that IS NOT our friend..
Click to expand...
see the post above

None of the refined products from that oil would go to America. The whole point of this pipeline is to bypass America (apart from our refineries).
 
Our energy crisis is all contrived anyway. Simply refine canada crude (tar sands or whatever) in the states on the border, build a NG infrastructure in t he NE to get away from Venezuala heating oil, and manufacture gasoline from NG in Pennsylvania. The Russian NG not withstanding, there is enough Methane Hydrate on US soil and in US (above the arctic circle) to power the planet for 5000 years (USGS estimate) - if we throw in what the Russians and Canadians control it will be OPEC who?
 
morrismike said:
That oil was bound for refineries on the gulf coast that make gasoline for countries in South America. We already export something like 300,000 barrels of gasoline a day there. If the pipeline goes thru, there will be a shortage of canada crude which in turn will cause gasoline prices to increase. I'm no fan of Obama, but Nebraska said no to the pipeline and a route around Nebraska has not been proposed nor has it been evaluated. My guess is they need to refine that crude in MN or ND and ship the products to the MW.
Click to expand...

In a special session, The Nebraska Unicameral (state legislative body) approved an alternate route for the XL Pipeline through the state. That happened about a month ago.
 
Crude Oil from ND and Mt is now being piped to refineries in CO, WY, Utah, East to MN and even into Canadian refineries.
Pipelines can't keep up, Rail cars are being used more and more but it's more expensive.
The refinery at Mandan processes 60,000 barrels a day.

Manpower is the problem otherwise Western ND or Eastern MT would likely put in a new refinery. Look for the refinery at Mandan to do some serious expanding, seems like the best option.

Except for jobs created I don't like the idea of shipping all that crude to the Gulf. Sure it would go on the open world market, crude and refined products.
 
morrismike said:
Our energy crisis is all contrived anyway. Simply refine canada crude (tar sands or whatever) in the states on the border, build a NG infrastructure in t he NE to get away from Venezuala heating oil, and manufacture gasoline from NG in Pennsylvania. The Russian NG not withstanding, there is enough Methane Hydrate on US soil and in US (above the arctic circle) to power the planet for 5000 years (USGS estimate) - if we throw in what the Russians and Canadians control it will be OPEC who?
Click to expand...

With the EPA that we have today that would take a decade. This administration is out to end fossil fuel use and there is nothing ready to replace it.
 
Would have been nice to get some of those higher paying refinery jobs located inside the US borders. I have a feeling more than one person looking for work would love a refinery job and the added taxes they would have to pay.

An oil pipeline will leak. Not a if but it will leak. Comparing a oil pipeline leak to a blow out oil well is not an accurate comparison.

Shipping oil via rail will result in leaks also.

Oil is a world wide commodity. No matter where it is produced. The price is set by world demand. If the US market for crude oil or finished product exceeds the prices others are willing to pay. Than the oil goes to where the market demands it goes. Hence the reason for futures contracts on crude oil and other commodities. So if oil were produced from Western Nebraska and some moron in Germany was willing to pay $200 a barrel for the stuff....it isn't going to be sold for $100 and kept inside the US. All the producer gets is what they can sell it for and some jobs for the people willing to work. All the government gets is to collect various types of taxes.
That is why gasoline, NG , propane and other finished products are exported from the US.
We have refineries some other countries do not have any or do not have the refining capabilities for domestic consumption. Hence the reason we import a raw product (crude oil) finish it (gasoline) and send it off to Europe among other places. In that process we get American jobs and collect taxes.
If we, the US, finds itself needing more gasoline than we are capable of refining, we will be importing it from some place else, and paying more for it.
If we as a country do not desire to have a pipeline run down the middle of the US, for what ever reason. That is fine, but just remember. We also will not be collecting any money off of any of the oil that will be pumped through it nor any jobs at the refineries. To assume that we the US are the only market where crude oil from Canada can be finished is arrogant.
It is cheaper for Canada to send crude to Texas for finishing than to ship if off to someplace else. That is the only reason Canada wanted to ship the stuff to Texas.
My view, it is to bad that we could not find a way to ship the stuff to Texas. I prefer the control of the pipeline, taxes and jobs to be in American hands rather than somewhere else.

Once again it appears the US policy makers are going to bend to the will of those who are more concerned about possible environmental issues than solving real domestic issues. I also worry about environmental issues, but I care more about keeping the US GDP growing. Anytime someone would like to explain how we can create jobs while guarding the environment. Please speak up. (oh wait some have and they get ignored by Washington) We as a nation have the raw resources to do both, it just seems the policy makers drag their feet on these issues.
 
Live2Hunt said:
Would have been nice to get some of those higher paying refinery jobs located inside the US borders. I have a feeling more than one person looking for work would love a refinery job and the added taxes they would have to pay.

An oil pipeline will leak. Not a if but it will leak. Comparing a oil pipeline leak to a blow out oil well is not an accurate comparison.

Shipping oil via rail will result in leaks also.

Oil is a world wide commodity. No matter where it is produced. The price is set by world demand. If the US market for crude oil or finished product exceeds the prices others are willing to pay. Than the oil goes to where the market demands it goes. Hence the reason for futures contracts on crude oil and other commodities. So if oil were produced from Western Nebraska and some moron in Germany was willing to pay $200 a barrel for the stuff....it isn't going to be sold for $100 and kept inside the US. All the producer gets is what they can sell it for and some jobs for the people willing to work. All the government gets is to collect various types of taxes.
That is why gasoline, NG , propane and other finished products are exported from the US.
We have refineries some other countries do not have any or do not have the refining capabilities for domestic consumption. Hence the reason we import a raw product (crude oil) finish it (gasoline) and send it off to Europe among other places. In that process we get American jobs and collect taxes.
If we, the US, finds itself needing more gasoline than we are capable of refining, we will be importing it from some place else, and paying more for it.
If we as a country do not desire to have a pipeline run down the middle of the US, for what ever reason. That is fine, but just remember. We also will not be collecting any money off of any of the oil that will be pumped through it nor any jobs at the refineries. To assume that we the US are the only market where crude oil from Canada can be finished is arrogant.
It is cheaper for Canada to send crude to Texas for finishing than to ship if off to someplace else. That is the only reason Canada wanted to ship the stuff to Texas.
My view, it is to bad that we could not find a way to ship the stuff to Texas. I prefer the control of the pipeline, taxes and jobs to be in American hands rather than somewhere else.

Once again it appears the US policy makers are going to bend to the will of those who are more concerned about possible environmental issues than solving real domestic issues. I also worry about environmental issues, but I care more about keeping the US GDP growing. Anytime someone would like to explain how we can create jobs while guarding the environment. Please speak up. (oh wait some have and they get ignored by Washington) We as a nation have the raw resources to do both, it just seems the policy makers drag their feet on these issues.
Click to expand...

The salient point to remember is that this is not product that can be accurately compared to the crude oil which has traditionally been shipped via pipeline. This is for all intents and purposes a solid,which has to be pressurized beyond the scope of any previous project. This is like shipping the LaBrea tar pits across country in a pipe. I might add the refining is a challenge to air quality, there is a sizeable and ever increasing, accumulation of waste product to deal with, all of which mounts to costs both directly at the pump, and indirectly with associated cost of dealing with the waste. That's why there will never be a new plant built in the US to refine this crud, yes I mean crud, not crude. It's also why the Canadians are so anxious to ship it to us, as apposed to building a refinery in Edmonton. Heck the canadians should build the refinery, for their national security, then they can sell finished products to whom ever they want, shipped with proven existing, technology. Ask yourself why they don't threaten to do that? Same reason we, they, the whole world ships all there computer junk, with it's somewhat valuable and lethal heavy metals to the third world, so poor people can break it apart with hammers and render it over open fires to recover the prize. Who cares if their lifespan is measured in months, who cares if we pollute the central US water supply, certainly not the Canadians. Come to think of it, after we destroy our water, Canada has plenty of water, they can just build a pipeline and ship us that too! Change requires pain! This discussion has devolved into how we are going to keep doing what we have been doing. Blueprint for the future, though no politician will deliver the bad news, is #1 conservation, #2 conservation again. This buys us a window to get serious about short term solutions like CNG and LNG, cleaner burning coal, hydro-electric, and yes dare I say it nuclear energy, while we work the kinks out of active solar energy, wind energy, in some applications, and hydrogen generation. All this "war footing" urgency, will create many more and long lasting jobs than a temporary pipeline project, and a handful of jobs in Texas City.
 
Oldandnew while I disagree with you on the Keystone pipeline. I like the idea still, that is my opinion and I doubt I will change your view. As of yet no one has been able to change my view.

As far as I am concerned. The president has made his final decision about the pipeline. Case closed. It will probably come up in the presidential debates and if one is moved one way or the other to vote for the president due to his decision. So be it. That is one of the wonderful things about this country.

I do agree with you about all of this.

This buys us a window to get serious about short term solutions like CNG and LNG, cleaner burning coal, hydro-electric, and yes dare I say it nuclear energy, while we work the kinks out of active solar energy, wind energy, in some applications, and hydrogen generation.
but somehow I think even some of those who may agree with you about the Keystone pipeline, will not agree with you on the alternatives.

What escapes me is; no one appears to care that this country has not had a successful energy policy to get us off primary dependance of crude oil. We have known their is issues of one sort or another for FORTY years now. Yet not one administration has taken steps to alleviate our exposure....I wonder if their is a reason for that?..(yea their is, but not many appear to care)
:cheers:
 
Live2Hunt,

I believe CNG or LNG is a viable part of our future. More important is that it is proven technology. What I am reading on several other websites is that the EPA is now in the equation stepping up and enforcing regulations. Loss of tax revenues mainly. Of course the normal Political Oil blocking progress. CNG will prevail in the end, but it will be a fight all the way!
 
OKIEGunner said:
Live2Hunt,

I believe CNG or LNG is a viable part of our future. More important is that it is proven technology. What I am reading on several other websites is that the EPA is now in the equation stepping up and enforcing regulations. Loss of tax revenues mainly. Of course the normal Political Oil blocking progress. CNG will prevail in the end, but it will be a fight all the way!
Click to expand...

I hope it does prevail in the end. You might want to read this http://www.trinicenter.com/oops/iraqeuro.html

It gives a wonderful explanation as to why the US government has little if any motivation to move us away from crude oil as our primary energy source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top