Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

by SamCogar Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:14 am

Four-plus-dollar gasoline is forcing Americans to realize that we need increased domestic oil production to meet our ever-growing demand for affordable fuel. But even if the greens lose the political battle over drilling offshore and in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they nevertheless are way ahead of the game as they implement a back-up plan to make sure that not a drop of that oil ever eases our gasoline crunch.

The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, successfully pressured the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to block ConocoPhillips’ expansion of its Roxana, Ill., gasoline refinery, which processes heavy crude oil from Canada, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The project would have expanded the volume of Canadian crude processed from 60,000 barrels per day to more than 500,000 barrels a day by 2015. After the Illinois EPA had approved the expansion, the green groups petitioned the federal EPA to block it, alleging ConocoPhillips wasn’t using the best available technology for reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Apparently, the plant’s planned 95 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and 25 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides wasn’t green enough. NRDC’s opposition is quite ironic since ConocoPhillips and the activist group actually are teammates in the global warming game. Both belong to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of eco-activist groups and large companies that is lobbying for global warming regulation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,366004,00.html

by **SheikBen** Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:19 am

It just goes to show that these environmentalist people are never satisfied. Best never to give in to them in the first place. I trust that they walk to their rallies?

by stinkyj Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:36 am

Why aren't they using the absolute best methods and technologies for cleaning up this filthy stuff before it gets dumped into the air? Maybe they're just too cheap.

Besides, this extra capacity wouldn't be ready until when, 2015? 7 years from now. It's not like this refinery in particular would have any effect whatsoever on gas prices today.

The solution is not to refine more gas into oil, folks. It's to use less of it.

by Randall Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:37 am

When gas is 7 dollars a gallon in 2015, we'll wish we had the extra capacity.

by stinkyj Fri Jun 13, 2008 7:40 am

Ahh, and as the "article" (it's hard to call it real journalism) states, if the cap-and-trade system were in place, ConocoPhillips could get around this pretty cheaply.

Remember, the EPA is doing the blocking. NRDC is just pointing out the problem to them. If the requirements are to use the best available technology, and ConocoPhillips doesn't do that, then no - no expansion. How is that not fair?

by **Stephanie** Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:33 am

stinkyj wrote:Why aren't they using the absolute best methods and technologies for cleaning up this filthy stuff before it gets dumped into the air? Maybe they're just too cheap.

Besides, this extra capacity wouldn't be ready until when, 2015? 7 years from now. It's not like this refinery in particular would have any effect whatsoever on gas prices today.

The solution is not to refine more gas into oil, folks. It's to use less of it.

That might be all well and good if we weren't in a "global economy". In 7 years this country still won't have additional refining capacity, but China and India and others will have constructed far filthier coal and oil fired power plants keeping their energy costs low. Their low energy costs and cheap labor are killing the US economy, which by that time will be gasping agonal breaths if we don't do something. Globally the amount of filthy fossil fuels being consumed will continue to sky rocket and negative environmental impact will continue to escalate. The US will be heading for third world status while the polluters rise to economic dominence.

Have you given any consideration to the idea that perhaps you're not utilizing your collective political clout in the most sensible fashion? Rather than putting a stranglehold on the US economy by preventing projects like this one, maybe you should be trying to choke out cheap products produced in nations with little to no environmental protections to match their barely to nonexistant labor laws.

by Aaron Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:56 am

This kind of shoots a whole in your fantasy Frank that we don't need new refineres becasue we just add capacity at existing ones!!!!!

by **ohio county** Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:16 am

It is hard to call it "real journalism". In fact, FOX does not:

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > OPINION

I think I may have been in that refinery some years ago. I visited a refinery in the greater Chicago area that at that time was owned by Uno-Ven. It was transitioning from Union 76 to the State Oil Company of Venezuela. The company in the US is now Citgo.

They removed hydrogen sulfide and put it back into the system several times before finally removing it and refining and selling the by-product as molten sulphur. Our spec was "bright yellow, molten sulphur". It was a superior product. We went out whining because they had no quality control process even though the product was nearly perfect. They said, "It's a by-product - take it or leave it."

What, exactly, is the new technology and what does it cost? What is the level of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions currently?

by SamCogar Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:48 am

stinkyj wrote:Besides, this extra capacity wouldn't be ready until when, 2015? 7 years from now. It's not like this refinery in particular would have any effect whatsoever on gas prices today.

OH MY, ...... and back in 1990 you all were saying .....

It won't produce any results until 1997, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 1991, It won't produce any results until 1998, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 1992, It won't produce any results until 1999, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 1993, It won't produce any results until 2000, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 1994, It won't produce any results until 2001, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 1995, It won't produce any results until 2002, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 1996, It won't produce any results until 2003, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 1997, It won't produce any results until 2004, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 1998, It won't produce any results until 2005, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 1999, It won't produce any results until 2006, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 2000, It won't produce any results until 2007, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 2001, It won't produce any results until 2008, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 2002, It won't produce any results until 2009, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 2003, It won't produce any results until 2010, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 2004, It won't produce any results until 2011, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 2005, It won't produce any results until 2012, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 2006, It won't produce any results until 2013, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 2007, It won't produce any results until 2014, ...... 7 years from now.

And next year, in 2009 you all will be saying, It won't produce any results until 2016, ...... 7 years from now.

And in 2010 you will surely still be saying , It won't produce any results until 2017, ...... 7 years from now.

Which make me think of the fellow who would tell his wife that ... It wouldn't be ready until when, next year? 9 months from now ....... so there is really no point in us engaging in any sexual intercourse, now is there.

Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion 33948

Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion 197570

Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion 249131

.

by **ohio county** Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:52 am

Specifically, the problem lies with ConocoPhillips' flares. I suspect they flare off H2S and that it is very noticeable within a few miles of the refinery. H2S smells like rotten eggs when you get less than a few parts per million. I suspect the old flares at FMC in South Charleston had a faint bouquet of H2S. When you can no longer smell it, you find yourself horizontal with a nasty case of chemical pneumonia. If no one in Roxana has been found horizontal it is little more than a nuisance. Would I want it in my back yard? No, but then it's like anything else and you get desensitized to it after a while. Filthy? Hardly. Offensive to the smell? Sure, a little.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-10-091.asp

by Aaron Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:19 pm

stinkyj wrote:
The solution is not to refine more gas into oil, folks. It's to use less of it.

If everyone uses 10% less energy in 25 years but we increase the population by 50% we're still going to need more gas. So by my calculations, conservation is not enough, don't you agree Jeremy.

by **ohio county** Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:36 pm

I agree, Aaron. What's more, if you spend any time at all on the highways you know that nobody else is conserving. I can see the greens wanting to raise the price of gasoline to make economics do their dirty work. I really can. Just let's be honest about it.

I saw an article in Newsweek from a genetic engineer. He thinks he's a year from creating a bacterium that will eat CO2 and burn in a standard internal combustion engine without any modification from present spec. He does not expect it to be a mass solution but one of maybe one hundred.

by **ohio county** Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:37 pm

Sorry, I'm not Jeremy.

Also, I neglected to answer your question about the gold standard. I can't. I don't understand it well enough.

by Aaron Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:44 pm

No problem Jimmy. Keith used to say that we needed to tax gas to raise prices to reduce consumption. He was about as far to the left as one can get but at least he was honest about it so I can at least respect that.

That's better then the cowards that say one thing and mean something else but they're too scared to stand behind their agenda.

I've ask my question several times, on here, the old forum and one other forum and I've never been given a decent answer. Andrew Jackson tried a variation and it plunged the country into a prolonged recession that bordered on depression. As novel an idea as it is, I think we may be too far gone for it to work.

by **Stephanie** Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:15 pm

ohio county wrote:Sorry, I'm not Jeremy.

Also, I neglected to answer your question about the gold standard. I can't. I don't understand it well enough.

I have learned a lot about standard based currency vs. fiat money in the past year. It's really a facinating topic, and one I had never given a moment's thought to before.

Whatever thread that was in I posted links to Ron Paul's solutions. I don't know if Aaron looked at them or not.

by Aaron Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:31 pm

Yes, I looked at it. All I saw was the what. There was no mention of the how.

I don't see how issuing competing currencies is going to solve the problem.

by ziggy Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:36 pm

What's more, if you spend any time at all on the highways you know that nobody else is conserving.

I see more smaller, more fuel-efficient cars on the road every month- ssemmingly every week- and fewer big cars and SUVs.

Too, only a year ago when I would drive 60 MPH down I-77, I was just about the slowest vehicle on the road, and traffic would tend to build up behind me. But today at 60 MPH I fit quite nicely intoi the flow of traffic in that right hand lane. Lots of people are driving slower than they were even a year ago.

I suspect that these changes are about conserving fuel, and not about some newly developed sense of super-respect for speed law enforcement.

And the limited statistics I have seen indicate that Americans indeed have reduced their gasoline consumption in the past year.

by Aaron Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:57 pm

That's all well and good Frank and I'm all for conserving. In fact, I think the government should mandate higher MPG standards and lower the national speed limit back to at least 65. I think there should be some incentives for auto manufactures that look for the next vehicle that will travel a hundred miles on a gallon or uses an altertanitive fuel.

I'm all for insulating homes and lowering thermostats in the winter and raising them in the summer and doing whatever we can to save as much fuel as we possibly can.

But with the population increasing by an average of about 2% to 3% each year, consumption is still going to go up. That's a simple fact. So what do we do about meeting the demands, 20 years from now or 50 years from now?

Part of the problem has been that we address our current problems today and never look to the future. I think it's time we start looking to the future.

In 2025, we're going to need X amount of gallons of gasoline refined. Considering we can't currently meet our needs now, how are we going to be able to 17 years from? Why not plan for then, not now?

To solve our energy demands, we need all fronts working together but environmentalists aren’t doing that. They are doing everything they possibly can to deter us solving our problems and as Stephanie said, the end result will be to make things worse as China and India don't play by the same rules we do. Released carbon is still released carbon whether it comes from China or the US so why don't we address our problems so we're not buying gas from the Chinese in 2025?

by **Stephanie** Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:15 pm

Aaron wrote:Yes, I looked at it. All I saw was the what. There was no mention of the how.

I don't see how issuing competing currencies is going to solve the problem.

It will secure the investors who choose to purchase the competing standard backed currency.

by **ohio county** Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:22 pm

It will also put a ceiling on the money supply at any given time. If your currency does not fluctuate (in terms of supply) it cannot devalue (more than the commodity that backs it).

by Aaron Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:24 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Aaron wrote:Yes, I looked at it. All I saw was the what. There was no mention of the how.

I don't see how issuing competing currencies is going to solve the problem.

It will secure the investors who choose to purchase the competing standard backed currency.

What happens if you get a run on banks of investors wanting to purchase gold for their dollars. There's still more then twice the amount of money in circulation then there is gold so it really doensn't solve any problems or strengthen the dollar in any way and isn't that the utlimate goal?

by **Stephanie** Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:07 pm

Aaron wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
Aaron wrote:Yes, I looked at it. All I saw was the what. There was no mention of the how.

I don't see how issuing competing currencies is going to solve the problem.

It will secure the investors who choose to purchase the competing standard backed currency.

What happens if you get a run on banks of investors wanting to purchase gold for their dollars. There's still more then twice the amount of money in circulation then there is gold so it really doensn't solve any problems or strengthen the dollar in any way and isn't that the utlimate goal?

Sure it does. If the Fed isn't allowed to print more money out of thin air, the price of gold increases. Eventually it stabalizes because while there isn't more gold to go around, there aren't more dollars to continue the inflation.

by SamCogar Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:43 pm

ohio county wrote:I saw an article in Newsweek from a genetic engineer. He thinks he's a year from creating a bacterium that will eat CO2 and burn in a standard internal combustion engine without any modification from present spec. He does not expect it to be a mass solution but one of maybe one hundred.

WHOA, I was thinking CO2 had already been burnt. affraid

.

by **ohio county** Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:06 pm

I see more smaller, more fuel-efficient cars on the road every month- ssemmingly every week- and fewer big cars and SUVs.

I do not. I see F-250's go whipping around me at 60 MPH. This morning some flat head in a Cadillac passed me. I know I'm getting better mileage than him in a 2003 Toyota Corolla. But you're right: I look for it. Maybe folks down Jackson County way are just smarter...

by Aaron Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:23 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Aaron wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
Aaron wrote:Yes, I looked at it. All I saw was the what. There was no mention of the how.

I don't see how issuing competing currencies is going to solve the problem.

It will secure the investors who choose to purchase the competing standard backed currency.

What happens if you get a run on banks of investors wanting to purchase gold for their dollars. There's still more then twice the amount of money in circulation then there is gold so it really doensn't solve any problems or strengthen the dollar in any way and isn't that the utlimate goal?

Sure it does. If the Fed isn't allowed to print more money out of thin air, the price of gold increases. Eventually it stabalizes because while there isn't more gold to go around, there aren't more dollars to continue the inflation.

He said he would issue competing currency, not eliminate dollars. If the dollar is not linked to gold but in competition with gold, why can't they print more money?

by Sponsored content

Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion

Re: Greenies successfully ‘block’ ConocoPhillips’ expansion