If gas gets to $5.00 a gallon
- Thread starter JP4RNR
- Start date
SConnors
New member
Okay, I thought I's stick my neck out on the Oil Refinery bashing. In the interest of full disclosure, my g/f is a unit engineer here at the Tesoro reifnery.
As far as "planned maintenence" for the purpose of market manipulation goes... I think the refinerys WISH they could do that, but they're too busy trying to keep 60-80 year old equipment up and running. There is a furnace at a certain unnamed refinery that was built in 1908. Sure the bundles have been upgraded and other bandaid solutions have taken place over the years, but you can only polish a turd so far.
Maintenence is very reactionary in a refinery and is dictated by the actual state of the refining process of the unit in question.
For example, lets say a hydrocracker is rated for 50k barels/day. An average refinery might try to push it to 60k barrels/day to maximise proffits. The "pushing" of the unit results in accelerated deactivation of catalyst. The refinery tries to keep the hydrocracker up for as long as possible, as it is a greedy maximiser (like all consumers/businesses).
Three main things can mandate immediate shutdown and turn-around of the catalyst/unit:
Inability of the unit to make product to spec...
A voilation of CARB/AQMD criteria in the functioning of the unit...
An inherently unsafe condition
This is if everything is going perfectly. In actuality, you have unit operators that are union and don't care about doing their job. Some don't read proceedures, know what to do when things mess up (the wrong feed goes to a unit and causing at least one of the above conditions, if not all three).
If one unit goes down, it is a domino effect. If there's not available space in tankage to store excess products, other units cut back or shut down.
So, as far as the 'PLANNED OUTAGES", I'm not seeing it
California actually mandated no optional maintenence not too long ago, which had little to no effect on the refinerys shutting down or cutting back production due to AQMD regulations. There are laws out there that say when X happens, shut it down or be severely fined.
Also, when your process depends on cooling to ambient air, and it's hot, the process slows down. When it's stupid hot for a few weeks, you will get failures. This is not limited to a single refinery!
BUT WAIT!!! IT's a CONSPIRACY!!!!
As far as the "study" about the cost of fuel production... was the cost of maintaining 100 year old equipment included as well? AQMD and CARB fines? Cost of modifications to meet the new "low sulfur" spec? Reduced catalyst life as a result of the new spec? And on, and on.
If you really want cheap gas, BUILD NEW REFINERYS. New refinerys can be more efficient and reliable with newer technology. But this won't happen! All the TREE HUGGERS, especially in Kalifornia, won't let it.
San Diego's closest refinery is 100 miles away!
Also, it's too expensive to build new while accomidating all the CARB and AQMD requirements. Most refineries in California are Grandfathered in, and thus exempt from the majority of the regulations a new refinery would face.
But wait, if the Gov't can subsidise solar cells on houses, how come they won't allow new refinerys to be built? If there hasn't been a new refinery built in the last 35 years or so, and the number of cars on the road has multiplied several times over that time, arent we faced with an insufficient infastructure? Isn't it the same "Energy infastructure " issue as electricity?
Record profits for the oil companys are a fact.
And?
Perfect competition requires MANY suppliers of comparable product. Lobby your congressman to allow building of new refineries.
As far as "planned maintenence" for the purpose of market manipulation goes... I think the refinerys WISH they could do that, but they're too busy trying to keep 60-80 year old equipment up and running. There is a furnace at a certain unnamed refinery that was built in 1908. Sure the bundles have been upgraded and other bandaid solutions have taken place over the years, but you can only polish a turd so far.
Maintenence is very reactionary in a refinery and is dictated by the actual state of the refining process of the unit in question.
For example, lets say a hydrocracker is rated for 50k barels/day. An average refinery might try to push it to 60k barrels/day to maximise proffits. The "pushing" of the unit results in accelerated deactivation of catalyst. The refinery tries to keep the hydrocracker up for as long as possible, as it is a greedy maximiser (like all consumers/businesses).
Three main things can mandate immediate shutdown and turn-around of the catalyst/unit:
Inability of the unit to make product to spec...
A voilation of CARB/AQMD criteria in the functioning of the unit...
An inherently unsafe condition
This is if everything is going perfectly. In actuality, you have unit operators that are union and don't care about doing their job. Some don't read proceedures, know what to do when things mess up (the wrong feed goes to a unit and causing at least one of the above conditions, if not all three).
If one unit goes down, it is a domino effect. If there's not available space in tankage to store excess products, other units cut back or shut down.
So, as far as the 'PLANNED OUTAGES", I'm not seeing it
California actually mandated no optional maintenence not too long ago, which had little to no effect on the refinerys shutting down or cutting back production due to AQMD regulations. There are laws out there that say when X happens, shut it down or be severely fined.
Also, when your process depends on cooling to ambient air, and it's hot, the process slows down. When it's stupid hot for a few weeks, you will get failures. This is not limited to a single refinery!
BUT WAIT!!! IT's a CONSPIRACY!!!!
As far as the "study" about the cost of fuel production... was the cost of maintaining 100 year old equipment included as well? AQMD and CARB fines? Cost of modifications to meet the new "low sulfur" spec? Reduced catalyst life as a result of the new spec? And on, and on.
If you really want cheap gas, BUILD NEW REFINERYS. New refinerys can be more efficient and reliable with newer technology. But this won't happen! All the TREE HUGGERS, especially in Kalifornia, won't let it.
San Diego's closest refinery is 100 miles away!
Also, it's too expensive to build new while accomidating all the CARB and AQMD requirements. Most refineries in California are Grandfathered in, and thus exempt from the majority of the regulations a new refinery would face.
But wait, if the Gov't can subsidise solar cells on houses, how come they won't allow new refinerys to be built? If there hasn't been a new refinery built in the last 35 years or so, and the number of cars on the road has multiplied several times over that time, arent we faced with an insufficient infastructure? Isn't it the same "Energy infastructure " issue as electricity?
Record profits for the oil companys are a fact.
And?
Perfect competition requires MANY suppliers of comparable product. Lobby your congressman to allow building of new refineries.
SConnors said:
The government WANTS new refineries to be built. The problem is the new refineries have lower emissions requirements. and thus cost more to build and operate. If the oil company can keep an old refinery going it avoids the cost associated with building the new refinery and the tighter emission requirements. Until the government requires the old refineries to shut down, the oil companies will never build a new refinery. The EPA permitting program is based on pollution produced and will not increase the permitted amount so the oil company can't run both refineries at the same time. The EPA would be happy if the old refineries were replaced with new cleaner refineries. It just won't let all the old refineries keep polluting along with the new refineries coming on line increasing the total amount of pollution. The limit is on pollution not the number of refineries. The EPA would be happy if twice as much gas could be made with half as much pollution. The oil companies just have to spend money to do it which cuts into profits.
E
Even Steven
Guest
:bigok:josh220 said:
josh220
Banned
Pretty soon here in Southern California, 3 cities are going to start making the change to hydrogen powered vehicles. They are starting to build hydrogen fueling stations within those cities so people have places to fill up. The only problem with it so far is that you can't go very far from your home because there are very few fueling stations built outside of those cities.
If gas hits $5 a gallon you should have bought Stock ticker symbol XTO or ETF Energy funds.
If gas hits $5, alternative fuel vehicles would flood the market.
If you buy a solar power system for the average american house, you'd be out 40-50K.
Oil companies would be pissed that nobody drives anywhere. Excess surplus would cause prices to go down. OPEC production would go to China...
If gas hits $5, alternative fuel vehicles would flood the market.
If you buy a solar power system for the average american house, you'd be out 40-50K.
Oil companies would be pissed that nobody drives anywhere. Excess surplus would cause prices to go down. OPEC production would go to China...
4runnerlady
New member
If gas $$$ gets high enough (I'm not sure of my breaking point), I would take the bus to work. But it would severely impact my productivity since bus schedule is infrequent, leaves too early in the morning and returns too early in the afternoon. Plus getting to meetings at work can be time consuming without a car. I would keep my vehicles for getting to the bus stop (~2 miles), around town, weekend recreation (hiking and skiing) and 4WD access to trails etc.
I would love to ride a bike to work but it's 40 miles each way (and there's often snow, rain, lightning, etc). Also I would love to ride my bike around town but there are no dedicated bike trails (except for along the railroad track - unfortunately the train doesn't go anywhere; it's for tourists only - which is nice for recreation but little else) and the streets on the whole are narrow and not easily shared by motor vehicles and bikes.
I would love to ride a bike to work but it's 40 miles each way (and there's often snow, rain, lightning, etc). Also I would love to ride my bike around town but there are no dedicated bike trails (except for along the railroad track - unfortunately the train doesn't go anywhere; it's for tourists only - which is nice for recreation but little else) and the streets on the whole are narrow and not easily shared by motor vehicles and bikes.
Similar threads
