A thought about the keystone pipeline

[Londo_Jowo]

http://nd.water.usgs.gov/lewisandclark/dams.html

I would say that's a good source of water. Wonder if the oil companies have pursued building refineries in North or South Dakota.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Just out of curiosity, since you seem to be overlooking a major logical step, how do they get the coke to the ship in the first place?

You need to look at my reply, coke is a byproduct of the hydro-cracking process and is removed from the refinery.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

More information on petroleum coke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_coke

 

[Texashiker]

You need to look at my reply, coke is a byproduct of the hydro-cracking process and is removed from the refinery.

I got it mixed up. I thought coke was needed for manufacturing gasoline, I was mistaken.

From what I understand, companies buy the coke, then its used to manufacture other chemicals?

 

[kage69]

Being delayed "additional years" isn't really an option. If Keystone XL gets delayed additional years the line will most likely just get laid to Kitimat BC.

If you say so. No idea if that's what Ottawa wants, but that's their prerogative. My point was that the Republican leadership's hunger for a scandal bit them in ass. Pointing the finger at Obama makes them look more stupid than usual. All they had to do was work with Nebraska for a compromise and the process likely would have continued on with little delay.

Oh well.

 

[NeoV]

Mono - did you see the numbers you posted as evidence of the environmental problems - I'm assuming you were pointing the finger at them since to you any concern for the environment is part of a huge scam - anyway...

at 324 refineries, and now down to one-hundred something - we only lost 2 M bpd capacity? I was expecting to see something like - we lost nearly half of our refineries, and our capacity went down in proportion - but it seems like all we really did is close some smaller, less efficient ones - no?

 

[Texashiker]

Just a small article.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html

In 1981, the US had 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day, the Department of Energy reports. Today, there are just 132 oil refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million b.p.d., according to Oil and Gas Journal, a trade publication.

This bottleneck is expected to keep pressure on gas prices - and politicians. Both parties are weighing measures to loosen environmental and permitting constraints for refineries.

I would like to know what they are calling a "refinery"? Are we talking about the entire area used in crude oil refining, the number of units in a refinery,,,?

Lets use the old Texaco in Port Arthur Texas as an example. At one time it was the second largest refinery in the world, and home to one of the worlds largest cat cracker units.

In the 1980s certain parts of the refinery became outdated, were not profitable, so those units were closed and demolished. The refinery is still there, its just certain parts were closed.

With recent innovations in the refining process, there is talk of Motiva (who bought the Texaco refinery) building new units where the old ones once stood.

For the past decade oil and chemical plants in the Beaumont Texas area have been upgrading on a regular basis.

 

[yllus]

The one important thing you're missing is the water used to cool the process and equipment. This one of the main reasons refineries are built close to the ocean or rivers.

Ah, beat me to it.

 

[nonlnear]

If you say so. No idea if that's what Ottawa wants, but that's their prerogative.

It's not like it's guaranteed, but they have built quite a coallition of native groups who are behind the Kitimat line. 40 years ago they would have green lit it from Ottawa, told the natives to shove it, and all hell would have broken loose. Now they have involved enough of the native leaders from the start in route selection, managing environmental concerns, and sharing economic benefits that there isn't a huge unified opposition.

My point was that the Republican leadership's hunger for a scandal bit them in ass. Pointing the finger at Obama makes them look more stupid than usual. All they had to do was work with Nebraska for a compromise and the process likely would have continued on with little delay.

Oh well.

I'm not that interested in the partisan angles either.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Rather than sending all that oil to refineries along the gulf coast, why not build a new refinery somewhere in the interior of our country - well out of reach of all those nasty hurricanes that can shut a refinery down. Wouldn't that be better for national security? Or is there some other reason not to build a refinery up there?

What part of pumping oil to a year round open port for export don't you understand? Along with unused refinery capacity and a glut of refined petroleum filling the tank farms due to decreased demand.

 

[monovillage]

Mono - did you see the numbers you posted as evidence of the environmental problems - I'm assuming you were pointing the finger at them since to you any concern for the environment is part of a huge scam - anyway...

at 324 refineries, and now down to one-hundred something - we only lost 2 M bpd capacity? I was expecting to see something like - we lost nearly half of our refineries, and our capacity went down in proportion - but it seems like all we really did is close some smaller, less efficient ones - no?

Yes, refineries, like any infrastructure come in different sizes and like everything else they age and become obsolete. Newer refineries are more energy efficient and cleaner running.

 

[DrPizza]

You need to look at my reply, coke is a byproduct of the hydro-cracking process and is removed from the refinery.

Ah, thanks. I'm not 100% familiar with everything that goes on at a refinery. I knew that a byproduct was petroleum coke. So, when Texashiker said they needed coke for the refining process, I thought, "hmmm, must be not enough petroleum coke. Must be they need coke made from bituminous coal." Nonetheless, I admit that I'm not 100% knowledgeable about refineries, hence my question in the OP.

 

[DrPizza]

What part of pumping oil to a year round open port for export don't you understand? Along with unused refinery capacity and a glut of refined petroleum filling the tank farms due to decreased demand.

You have point A in the north, point B in the south. Rather than build a transport system from A to B, refine the oil at B, and transport it back to A where it can be used, why not build a refinery at A, refine it closer to where you get it and use it for the markets in those areas. Export the excess product that you would then have at B.

If the people in the midwest area of the country want pizza, they don't ship all of their grains to New York, have the pizza made, and have the pizza shipped back to the midwest. That's more or less the point I'm making. AND, a refinery up north would help the economy more up there where the economy is sagging more than in Texas.

Furthermore, much of our refining capacity is concentrated in a relatively small area (at least from what I can gather from Texashiker's posts.) The right path for a hurricane could do tremendous damage to our refining capacity, hence my point about national security.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ah, thanks. I'm not 100% familiar with everything that goes on at a refinery. I knew that a byproduct was petroleum coke. So, when Texashiker said they needed coke for the refining process, I thought, "hmmm, must be not enough petroleum coke. Must be they need coke made from bituminous coal." Nonetheless, I admit that I'm not 100% knowledgeable about refineries, hence my question in the OP.

No problem, I was trying make sure that good information was being posted in this thread.

 

[Texashiker]

Ah, thanks. I'm not 100% familiar with everything that goes on at a refinery. I knew that a byproduct was petroleum coke. So, when Texashiker said they needed coke for the refining process, I thought, "hmmm, must be not enough petroleum coke. .

Yes, I was mistaken.

~ EDIT ~

You have point A in the north, point B in the south. Rather than build a transport system from A to B, refine the oil at B, and transport it back to A where it can be used, why not build a refinery at A, refine it closer to where you get it and use it for the markets in those areas. Export the excess product that you would then have at B.

I am going to take a guess at answering your question, but before I do I want to throw out my qualifications - I have 15 years hands on working experience in building and repairing shell and tube heat exchangers and pressure vessels. The work I did was under ASME section 8. I spent about a month working in Olin chemical in Lake Charles, and just about everyone I know at one time or another worked in a refinery. My dad worked for Texaco / Motiva security for around 35 years. My brother worked in local refineries for close to a decade.

Here is my speculation as to why there are not too many large refineries in the north:

1 - the extreme cold. The chemicals have to be kept at a certain temp, and how does the cold affect stuff like pumps? Its not "just" the cold, but the extreme temperature variations.

Oil is offloaded from ships and is stored in tank farms. These tanks are round, maybe a couple of hundred feet in diameter, and maybe 100 feet tall. We are talking hundreds of acres of land dedicated "just" to tank farms. You have to have piping, pumps, motors,,, to get the oil from the tank farms to the refinery. How does the extreme cold affect all of that?

2 - logistics. If you want to operate a large refinery, you have to be able to move massive amounts of raw material and waste products.

 

[Throckmorton]

You have point A in the north, point B in the south. Rather than build a transport system from A to B, refine the oil at B, and transport it back to A where it can be used, why not build a refinery at A, refine it closer to where you get it and use it for the markets in those areas. Export the excess product that you would then have at B.

If the people in the midwest area of the country want pizza, they don't ship all of their grains to New York, have the pizza made, and have the pizza shipped back to the midwest. That's more or less the point I'm making. AND, a refinery up north would help the economy more up there where the economy is sagging more than in Texas.

Furthermore, much of our refining capacity is concentrated in a relatively small area (at least from what I can gather from Texashiker's posts.) The right path for a hurricane could do tremendous damage to our refining capacity, hence my point about national security.

The point is to export oil out of North America, not sell gas to "flyover country"

 

[werepossum]

The point is to export oil out of North America, not sell gas to "flyover country"

The oil is going to be exported out of North American anyway; it's merely a question of how. Canada isn't going to not exploit their reserves because it offends Obama's sensibilities, so the only question is whether we take certain risks for certain rewards or allow Canada to sell more directly to China and the world market while we stay out of it.

I'm of the opinion that Keystone XL is a massively good thing both for jobs (initial and ongoing) and possible future energy needs in times of crisis. I don't expect it to greatly lower prices since that supply is going to be available to the world market whether or not it goes through our territory. It's possible that the additional refinery capacity might lower American gas prices, but I suspect oil companies will cut back production or increase exports before they allow that to happen. As for building refineries inland, I like the idea, but there are concentrations of very specific job skills that will probably stop that from happening, considering that we aren't in dire need of new refinery capacity for domestic consumption. (That isn't saying we couldn't benefit in the form of lower gas prices from increased refinery capacity for domestic consumption, merely that I don't see any market forces driving in that direction.)

 

[nobodyknows]

Its obvious your trolling.

Nobody ever said it was impossible to build an inland refinery, its going to be logistics that are going to get you.

Where refineries on a ship channel can receive towers in the 100, 200, 300+ ton range, inland refineries are limited to maybe 40, 50, 60 tons max. Most roads are rated at 80,000 pounds, which is 40 tons. When you get in the 50+ ton range states have all kinds of restrictions.

Parts weighing 100+ tons, but no wider then about 20 feet can go on rail car.

Try shipping a 300 feet long 200+ ton tower inland where there is no major port. Sure you can ship it on a barge, but how are you going to offload the part? There has to be special cranes in place to handle those types of weights. Are you going to build a major port just to handle parts for a refinery?

There are major difference between an inland refinery and a refinery on a ship channel. That is just the way it is.

If someone "really" wanted to, sure they could build a large refinery on a major river. Start out with building a port, install some gantry cranes and go from there.

LOL, I'm trolling? I'm not the one who is mistating the facts.

It could be done AND PROVIDE MANY JOBS WITHIN THE USA.

 

[nobodyknows]

The point is to export oil out of North America, not sell gas to "flyover country"

So then Canada should build there pipeline to their own port and sell the crude to China. Problem solved.

 

[Texashiker]

LOL, I'm trolling? I'm not the one who is mistating the facts.

I was wrong about the coke, so what.

You have contributed nothing to the discussion, besides a couple of links.

It could be done AND PROVIDE MANY JOBS WITHIN THE USA.

Nobody ever said its impossible to build refineries inland, it is very possible.

But, the refineries are not going to be the size of the ones along the gulf coast.

Unless you can get a shipping channel to a refinery, its going to be physically impossible for an inland refinery to produce the same amount of product as a refinery on the coast. Its just not going to happen.

I am not talking about the refinery being on a small river, the refinery needs to be on a ship channel. The channel will have to be dredged from time to time, and the mud from dredging the ship channel will have to be disposed of.

There are massive amounts of logistics involved that you probably have no idea about.

There is no way 18 wheelers and train cars can transport the same amount of cargo that a tanker or super tanker can. Unless you have been next to a tanker or super tanker, its difficult to imagine how large those ships are.

And its not "just" the refineries we are talking about, its the economy that supports that refineries - being able to rent a crane, skilled workers, welding supplies, heat exchanger repair shops,,,,,.

If someone wanted to build a small refinery, yea, you can do that inland and way from a ship channel. But is it going to be worth it to setup dozens or hundreds of those small refineries all over the nation?

 

[ElFenix]

there are some fairly large refineries that are in the interior of the country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#United_States

but nearly all large refineries (100,000 bbl/day+) are on major waterways.

i'm guessing that in addition to simply more know-how being down here, there's also probably more excess capacity and expansion-ability in texas and louisiana than elsewhere.

 

[Texashiker]

but nearly all large refineries (100,000 bbl/day+) are on major waterways.

And there are lots of reasons for that.

One example:

Earlier in this thread I posted about a part that had built in France, then shipped to the Fina refinery in Groves Texas. This happened around 1998, 1999 or 2000. From my experience with towers, the thing probably weighed in the 400 - 500 ton range.

Something of that size is going to "have" to be brought into a port close to the refinery, then special equipment used to transport the part to the refinery. You are talking specialized cranes for heavy lifting, creepers, gantry cranes at the port,,,, just all kinds of logistics that most people have no idea about.

 

[bfdd]

Rather than sending all that oil to refineries along the gulf coast, why not build a new refinery somewhere in the interior of our country - well out of reach of all those nasty hurricanes that can shut a refinery down. Wouldn't that be better for national security? Or is there some other reason not to build a refinery up there?

Look up North Dakota. They've been doing that already.

Texashiker, we export Coke. We don't import coke. We actually used to pay people to get rid of it for us until we realized East Asia wanted it.

Also, you aren't going to pack up and move a refinery. It is not easy to ship vessels that weigh over 100+ tons. Not very easy at all, not to mention where are you going to get the cranes from to reassemble it all? Those big big cranes have to be scheduled usually much in advance and cost ASSLOADS of money. Ever seen a 500-1000 ton crane?

 

[Darwin333]

Mono - did you see the numbers you posted as evidence of the environmental problems - I'm assuming you were pointing the finger at them since to you any concern for the environment is part of a huge scam - anyway...

at 324 refineries, and now down to one-hundred something - we only lost 2 M bpd capacity? I was expecting to see something like - we lost nearly half of our refineries, and our capacity went down in proportion - but it seems like all we really did is close some smaller, less efficient ones - no?

The ones that weren't shut down have been, and some still are, expanding. I think its much easier to jump through the regulatory hoops by expanding an existing plant rather than build a brand new one.

 

[Darwin333]

And there are lots of reasons for that.

One example:

Earlier in this thread I posted about a part that had built in France, then shipped to the Fina refinery in Groves Texas. This happened around 1998, 1999 or 2000. From my experience with towers, the thing probably weighed in the 400 - 500 ton range.

Something of that size is going to "have" to be brought into a port close to the refinery, then special equipment used to transport the part to the refinery. You are talking specialized cranes for heavy lifting, creepers, gantry cranes at the port,,,, just all kinds of logistics that most people have no idea about.

I would imagine for a refinery of that size to be built inland they would have to actually fabricate those absurdly large sections on or very close to the site which would increase the cost so much that it just isn't feasible.