-
Posts
1061 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by PTINS
-
Don't sell yourself short ... My first time on this thread. I jumped in ~ 100 post ago. It started out kinda funny (he is stupid enough!), and then ... ... he doubles down. and again, over and over. I see the screen name, the avatar, ... and sadly, it starts to make sense. "I live in a free country to think the way I fucking want to." Ironic that you voted against that. Have you ever heard, "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain." Sadly, it appears you have neither. I agree, and apologize. I started reading this thread, looking for some comic relief. My reality, is the belief I woke up this morning more ashamed to be an American than I have ever felt. Ukraine v. Russia has been my passion, sparked by memories of an Air Force Base in SE Asia being my first conscious thoughts in life. I sent emails to my elected representatives this morning. I know it was a waste of time, but I felt better doing it. Then I came here. The Macro issues were concerning. The Micro side of that, the individual people, gets very personal, very quickly. My shame is insignificant, and my concerns are not worthy, relative to the fears some have for just wanting to live their lives, peacefully. I'm not talking about Ukraine any more, but my Surly brothers and sisters. I am an eternal optimist. That has served me well in life. My karma is for you.
-
Every work colleague that anybody in my family ever met was praised and respected by my family. Two weeks out of college, and everybody blamed me for oil and gas prices quadrupling after Three Mile Island and the Iranian Revolution. Together, as the O&G industry, we were the scum of the earth. One thing we were guilty of was efficiently and safely supplying what was demanded, 24/7/365. Hired into a Management Development Program, with a specific goal of identifying individuals who could run the company, I knew I worked with some of the best and the brightest in a company that emphasized safety and innovation, that pioneered change, and rewarded judgement and decision making. I also realized 90+% of the population would disagree with whatever I said or did, and it was a waste of time to try to help them understand. That would be one of the reasons I never posted in this thread til last week. We were not Academia, bathed in theory and righteousness. Our stuff had to work. We were a for-profit, publicly traded, oil & gas company. One that was the focal point of everything that was wrong in the world, tangled in a web of hostility, layers and layers of laws, regulations and guidelines, and ignorance, both inside and outside the industry. Makes every effort to prevent change? Other than efforts to enhance and improve safety, I cannot remember a single instance where that was ever the case. I simply provided a generic analysis done by others, showing an economic payout that I would decline to approve or fund. I take no pride of authorship in what was offered. My economic models have 50-60 variables, with supply and price being the most important, and the hardest to forecast. Both were dictated by the free market, which has little in common with the economics of renewables. I agree that economic criteria are different for many reasons. Perhaps the favorable investment opportunities in O&G invites the notion that O&G companies are against change. They aren't necessarily against it, they just choose to deploy their limited capital elsewhere. The supply side of gas, the gathering and processing, has a very short cycle, and constant business, with most wells declining in volume 50% the first year. If you don't do something, you will die at 15-20% per year. Our base case threshold was a 20% IRR, or it probably didn't get funded. The only growth projects approved with lower rates had synergies with other affiliated assets. Safety & environmental projects were non-discretionary and always funded. Chemical Plants and Refineries are the other end of the spectrum, with 50 year economic models. My involvement in the mega projects was usually but a small piece. When I quietly questioned a long term price forecast, I was told, wink! wink!, that was what was needed to justify the project. I have always viewed longer term projects based on speculative economics as suspect. That doesn't make them bad projects. I made board presentations on larger projects. I offered facts, my opinions on those facts, showed them the potential money, and influenced others to make the hard decisions. True to form, they always heard the part they wanted to hear. Thank you Vegas64. I take it as a given the non-scientists have an agenda. That is expected. Science is based on undeniable facts. Scientists know better than anyone where the facts end and speculation and opinion begins. A true scientist would make that distinction. In my lingo, the "scientists" weave facts with opinions and make representations that are more opinions and less factual. The report "supporting" the decision to put the King's X on LNG is another example. It should have just said "We just don't want it." I was in the forecasting business. I relied on factual information, where available, and always said in the absence of facts, I'll make some up. I had to make assumptions, "... the trend is your friend." My analysis was based on the best information available, factual or otherwise. If we didn't release carbon into the atmosphere, everything would die. There should be a balance between the hydrocarbons (oil & gas) and carbohydrates (potatoes) that are consumed for fuel and converted into carbon dioxide needs to be balanced with the consumption of CO2 that plants convert to oxygen. You cannot have one without the other. We should plant more plants.
-
The 80 acre/turbine was from an article I found via google. It looking at your screen grab, some of those windmills have 75 ft blades, and are ~ 385 ft apart from each other. Some of those windmills have 175 ft blades, and are ~ 920 ft apart from each other. The rows of windmills are ~ 2000 ft apart. Give me some rope here, but keeping the 2000' between rows as a constant, on optimal spacing ( no obstructions, flat topography, etc.), you could get (i) 75' blades, 70 windmills on a 2 sq mile parcel, or ~ 18.3 acres/windmill, or (ii) 175' blades, 35 windmills on a 2 sq mile parcel, or 36.6 acres/windmill. The 80 acre/windmill reference is probably more of worst case (not West Texas) scenario. I hadn't been to Corpus in 10+ years. I was amazed at the windmill farms down there, and how many lights there are blinking at night. I am happy as a hell to have a getaway where I can go at night and not see one artificial light, other than satellites and occasional airplanes. BTW, it took ~ 10 minutes to find your screen grab location. 🙂 FYI, I did Midstream Commercial Development for 30 years, and I don't recall many (any?) projects that had economic estimates showing a payout over 7 years. We modeled run times of 350 days/year; I had guys ask me if they could just shut down the plant the last week of the year, as the 350 days was already in the bag. Gas fired power plants are usually the first off-line when the power is not needed, so I would expect their annualized utilization rates to be something close to 40-50%. Human nature being what it is, putting free money, venture capitalists, "scientists" with an agenda, and politicians in the same room, is never a good idea. In my lifetime, the world population has gone from 2.8 to over 8 billion people. The "Western World" only makes up ~ 15% of the total. Half of the others still cook over wood fires. Most of those people want what we have, roofs that don't leak, warm food, a car, heating & cooling, perhaps a cell phone. Do whatever makes you feel better, and practice random acts of kindness.
-
I understand that. You cannot build on a pipeline 50 foot ROW, but you can build next to it. You can raise crops and cattle or damn near anything else above ground, over the ROW. You cannot see or hear a buried pipeline, and live next to it for years on end without ever being impacted by its operation. You can hear the windmills, and see the towers and 100's of blinking lights that are visible from many miles away. Wind farms require tens of thousands of acres, ~ 80 acres per windmill. The actual "footprint" of a single windmill may only be 1/4 acre, but the "encumbered" area that cannot be built upon is many times that. There is a reason "windmill farms" are located on farm land, and in the places in Texas very few people live on; those are the only large tracts of relatively flat, undeveloped land to build upon. You don't see many wind farms in Texas close to population centers, where the power is actually needed, with hardly anything at east of I-35 and north of I-10.
-
Energy economics go from simple to complex very quickly. Transmission lines, and land costs are huge variables that are treated differently. -The footprint of a gas fired power plant is very small compared to a nuclear plant, a solar farm or a wind farm. A gas fired power plant can be located any place proximate to a gas pipeline and a electrical transmission line, making it easier to locate the power plant close to the power demand/population center, decreasing the size and length of power transmission lines. Nuclear, Solar and Wind power generation facilities require a much larger footprint. Sand Hills Gas fired Plant 595 MW, ~ 50 acres, 2001 South Texas Nuclear Plant 2,600 MW, ~ 12,000 acres, 1988 Sweetwater, TX Wind Farm 585 MW, ~ 100,000 acres, 2007 Roscoe Wind Farm 782 MW, ~ 100,000 acres, 2009 Horse Hollow Wind Farm 736 MW, ~ 47,000 acres, 2006 Roadrunner Solar Plant. 497 MW, ~ 2,500 acres, 2019 From the link below; (no judgment on the accuracy of the information) Wind Turbine Cost: How Much? Are They Worth It in 2025? At an installation coast of ~ $1 million/1 MW of capacity, the above numbers indicate you would not get a straight payout (undiscounted) for 8-10 years, at a 65% utilization rate. A 50% utilization rate would take well over 10 years. Very few public companies, if any, would make capital investments on those economics. Most large renewable projects have government support (subsidies). The absence of large scale commercial projects constructed with private equity is an indicator that those economics are challenging at best.
-
-
The Northeast is its own version of fucked up. It never had a proportionate amount of gas heating, and was reliant on a mix of fuel oil, coal, and ??? for power generation and home heating. They were starting from scratch to build gas infrastructure in a densely populated area with very little unused land. The domestic pipeline industry was more effective when starting with a blank slate. The benefits of using natural gas to replace coal and fuel oil were obvious to most people, and with that came the reliance on eminent domain for infrastructure improvements. Coal: Fuel Oil: Methane (Natural Gas) The northeast was well on its way to transitioning to natural gas, when the shale boom in Appalachia unlocked huge gas reserves that ultimately displaced gas production from the Gulf Coast and West Texas. In the midst of coupling supply and demand in the most efficient way possible, the arguments to go from Coal to Fuel Oil to Natural Gas, and later to include Nuclear, Wind & Solar and all the above were based on logic based arguments. The notion of a worldwide industrial marketplace evolving to a zero carbon output, while the majority of the world still uses wood for cooking, was a novel idea. Achievable? Yes. Kinda. Getting to zero output is achievable. Replacing everything lost is not. Acceptable to destroy the economic engine that efficiently provides food, shelter, transportation and entertainment to the industrialized world? I would vote no.
-
I helped start a Midstream group for Nextera, the unregulated part of Florida's biggest utility, and the largest producer of Wind Power in Texas. Nextera funded non-operated positions in O&G exploration and production, and used the tax credits from the windmills to offset the profits from O&G operations. To make sure they get all the crumbs, they turn around and sell the production, and the underlying reserves, to the utility. Not too difficult to make money when its tax free.
-
To be clear, I continue to have an interest in climate change and the balance between an industrialized civil society and having to burn wood to cook. My not worrying about this shit is reference to be retired and not having to deal hands-on with the idiocy of policy making by individuals with little understanding of the issues they are trying to govern.
-
California's "leadership" is leaning towards a Thelma & Louise moment. The desires of the populace and the policies of the state are running head on into the realities of their decisions, that existing refineries in California are closing and the State of California is considering getting into the refinery business, including building new refineries, or importing gasoline from Asia. More than a dozen countries make gasoline at state-owned refineries; Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Pretty select group of countries for California to be aligned with. "An oil industry trade group questions whether the state would have the expertise to effectively run a refinery, citing a lack of “understanding of the industry and how it works.” Ignorance ... born without knowledge and failing to acquire it. From the article: "California policymakers are considering state ownership of one or more oil refineries to ensure a reliable supply of gasoline as the number of refineries in the state decline. An oil industry trade group questions whether the state would have the expertise to effectively run a refinery, citing a lack of “understanding of the industry and how it works.” Chevron, a California company since 1879, last year announced that it was moving its headquarters to Texas. The company has considered ceasing production at one or both of its California refineries, the Wall Street Journal recently reported, which Chevron confirmed in a statement to The Times. “Recent California policies, like banning the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035, the potential tax/penalty on refinery profits and the potential new minimum storage requirement are all headwinds to our business and erode our confidence going forward,” Andy Walz, Chevron’s president of downstream, midstream and chemicals, said in the statement. Jones said while he’s not sure the state-owned refinery option is a serious proposal, it’s on the options list, and the looming supply issue is real. “I’m not sure all Californians have grasped the impending urgency of the situation,” he said. “I think what we probably need is to build another refinery here in the state,” Jones said. Otherwise, when refineries close, gasoline demand would have to be met by gasoline imports, mostly by ship, from Asia. “People freak out about the environmental impacts of crude oil shipments,” Jones said. “But no one’s freaking out about the environmental impacts of gasoline imports.” Is California government considering oil refinery takeovers? Yes, it is By Russ Mitchell Staff Writer Feb. 16, 2025 3 AM PT California policymakers are considering state ownership of one or more oil refineries to ensure a reliable supply of gasoline as the number of refineries in the state decline. An oil industry trade group questions whether the state would have the expertise to effectively run a refinery, citing a lack of “understanding of the industry and how it works.” Russia. China. Venezuela. Iran. More than a dozen countries make gasoline at state-owned refineries. More than a dozen countries make gasoline at state-owned refineries; Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Could California be next on the list? [Pretty select group of countries that California is going to join?] California policymakers are considering state ownership of one or more oil refineries, one item on a list of options presented by the California Energy Commission to ensure steady gas supplies as oil companies pull back from the refinery business in the state. “The state recognizes that they’re on a pathway to more refinery closures,” said Skip York, chief energy strategist at energy consultant Turner Mason & Co. The risk to consumers and the state’s economy, he said, is gasoline supply disappearing faster than consumer demand, resulting in fuel shortages, higher prices and severe logistical challenges. Options proposed by the California Energy Commission STEADY SUPPLY State ownership of oil refineries State purchase or lease of ships for gasoline imports State contracts with refineries in other states and overseas Gasoline shipments from other states by train More flexibility to California-grade fuel rules Adoption of California-grade gasoline standards by other Western states Gasoline demand is falling in California, albeit slowly, for two reasons: more efficient gasoline engines, and the increasing number of electric vehicles on the road. Gasoline consumption in California peaked in 2005 and fell 15% through 2023, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. Electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids, now represent about 25% of annual new car sales. By state mandate, new sales of gasoline cars and light trucks will be banned starting in model year 2035. The drop in demand is causing fundamental strategic shifts among the state’s major oil refiners: Chevron, Marathon, Phillips 66, PBF Energy and Valero. Already, two California refineries have ceased producing gasoline to make biodiesel fuel for use in heavy-duty trucks, a cleaner-fuel alternative that enjoys rich state subsidies. More worrisome, the Phillips 66 refinery complex in Wilmington, just outside Los Angeles, plans to close down permanently by year’s end. That leaves eight major refineries in California capable of producing gasoline. The closure of any one would create serious gasoline supply issues, industry analysts say. But both Chevron and Valero are contemplating permanent refinery closures. The implications? “Demand will decline gradually,” York said, “but supply will fall out in chunks.” What’s unknown is how many refineries will close, and how soon, and how that will affect supply and demand. That puts the state in a tough position, according to York. “Even if you had perfect foresight, it would be hard to get the timing right.” A state refinery takeover seems like a radical idea, but the fact that it’s being considered demonstrates the seriousness of the supply issue. It’s one of several option laid out by the California Energy Commission, which is fulfilling a legislative order to find ways to ensure “a reliable supply of affordable and safe transportation fuels in California.” The options list is disparate: Ship in more gasoline from Asia; regulate refineries on the order of electric utilities; cap profit margins; and many more. The list was due to be transformed into a formal transition plan by Dec. 31, 2024, but six weeks later no plan has been issued. Therefore, it’s not yet clear what the state response will be if another refinery announces a shutdown this year or next. Twelve countries have state-owned oil refineries: Map highlights Azerbaijan, China, Egypt, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela California is known as a “gasoline island” lacking the kind of multistate logistics network through most of the continental U.S. that can help alleviate supply shocks. No pipelines exist to feed gasoline in from other states. Ocean shipments from the refinery-rich Gulf States are restricted by an antiquated federal law known as the Jones Act. Gasoline imports add up to only 8% of California supply. The other 92% is nearly all produced at California refineries. Further complicating matters: the special blends of gasoline required in California. Those required formulations have gone a long way toward reducing air pollution. But they also drive up gasoline prices and raise the risk of shortages, because little such gasoline is produced outside California. The Western States Petroleum Assn. lobby group warns that state involvement in refinery ownership or management would be difficult. “This is a very complex and hard business to run,” the group said in a statement. “There are commercial barriers and technical barriers that take a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the industry, and how it works.” Asked about the potential for state-owned refineries, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office referred questions to the state energy commission but issued a statement saying California is “is engaged in meaningful and thoughtful policy work to successfully manage our transition away from fossil fuels over the next 20 years, not overnight.” In a statement, the energy commission acknowledged that “there are many challenges to overcome” with a state-owned refinery, “including the high cost to purchase and operate, the skilled labor and expertise necessary to manage refinery operations, and how the refinery would fit into the state’s transition away from petroleum fuels.” James Gallagher, the Assembly Republican leader from Yuba City, says California isn’t moving quickly enough to address potential gasoline shortages. “We’re starting to lose refineries because we’ve made it so expensive and impossible to operate in California,” he said. “Now, after we’ve chased them off, we’re talking about taking them over to ensure there’s some supply. We’re moving toward price controls and government takeover of industries. That’s never worked very well in the history of the world.” State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) agreed: “The state has no business being in the oil refinery business,” he said. Their Democratic counterparts, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Senate Majority Leader President pro Tempore Mike McGuire (D-Sonoma), declined to be interviewed. Talk of further refinery closures over the next couple of years is heating up. In a conference call with investors last year, shortly after the Phillips 66 announcement, Valero Chief Executive Lane Riggs responded to concerns about the company closing either of its two California refineries. “All options are on the table,” he said. “Clearly, the California regulatory environment is putting pressure on operators out there and how they might think about going forward with their operations.” Chevron, a California company since 1879, last year announced that it was moving its headquarters to Texas. The company has considered ceasing production at one or both of its California refineries, the Wall Street Journal recently reported, which Chevron confirmed in a statement to The Times. “Recent California policies, like banning the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles by 2035, the potential tax/penalty on refinery profits and the potential new minimum storage requirement are all headwinds to our business and erode our confidence going forward,” Andy Walz, Chevron’s president of downstream, midstream and chemicals, said in the statement. Jones said while he’s not sure the state-owned refinery option is a serious proposal, it’s on the options list, and the looming supply issue is real. “I’m not sure all Californians have grasped the impending urgency of the situation,” he said. “I think what we probably need is to build another refinery here in the state,” Jones said. Otherwise, when refineries close, gasoline demand would have to be met by gasoline imports, mostly by ship, from Asia. “People freak out about the environmental impacts of crude oil shipments,” Jones said. “But no one’s freaking out about the environmental impacts of gasoline imports.”
-
When I graduated from UT, I swore I would never eat at a McDonalds again. I was a Project Engineer in the early 80's with projects near Abilene, Big Lake & Brownfield. I would fly in to Abilene, drive 550 miles over 3 days, and leave from Lubbock. Brownfield was the high point, as it was close enough to drive to Lubbock for dinner. I ate a lot of trash food on the road, and every time I think of it, the smell of Assups and the vat of fried grease that was never changed overwhelms me, and my face contorts into a disgusting scowl. No way I could ever eat anything that smelled like that. I was never so happy in my life to see the Golden Arches on the horizon.
-
My feel good story ... I was in charge of Project Graduation for my kids HS, and as a fundraiser, we served kids lunch at summer school. It was district wide event, with ~ 2,000 kids, some of which were on various school lunch programs. I asked the administration for a list of kids who were eligible for assistance, which, of course, they were not allowed to provide. Those hungry kids, and a 1,000 of 'em showing up with 20's, gave me anxiety. I wrote a note on the back of my business cards, and asked the volunteers to give one to the kids that pulled out a bunch of change to pay for lunch. We raised over $20,000 serving lunch, and $100,000+ over the year. We quit our fundraising efforts in early April, as we had already exceeded our budget, and I knew some of the other schools were not quite as fortunate. We rented Dave & Buster's for an overnight lock-in, had 90+% participation ~ 650 kids, and no one got hurt. It was the money we didn't make that made me feel the best.
- 268 replies
-
- 12
-
-
-
Many years ago when my first born was a toddler, I took him out for his first Halloween. At one house, the mom bent down and asked if him he wanted a kiss (a Hershey's kiss). He stepped up, puckered his lips, and leaned forwards for a ... kiss. During Covid, for Halloween I set up a table by the mailbox with little groups of candy, a pencil, and a dime for each of the trick or treaters. One group came by, and a little girl looked up at me and said, "I love you." Buckled my knees. Her mother asked shocked. I also love Halloween.
-
The strike on the Astrakhan Gas Processing Plant is "kind of a big deal." The mother of all fuel-air bombs. Damaging a Russian facility that makes transportation fuels, and money, is a prime target. Astrakhan is a world class Gas Processing Facility, with a capacity of ~ 1 BCF/day (Billion FT3/day) comparable to some of the larger facilities in the US, producing ~ 9,000 tons/day of sulfur, ~ 5% of current world output. 9,000 tons/day is about 90 rail cars, or a train over a mile long. Gas from the USSR's Astrakhan field is one of the most difficult ever to be processed. Acidic components comprise more than 38% of the composition, including 14% by vol carbon dioxide. "Acid Gas" refers to impurities that are acidic, namely Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), and other related sulfur compounds. The sulfur compounds is what gives off the rotten egg smell associated with natural gas. 38% acid gas implies a very large % of H2S, possibly as high as 20+%. Hydrogen Sulfide is lethal at concentrations of 500 parts per million (ppm). Anything over 1,000 ppm (0.1%) is drop dead lethal. Per Russian officials, "Dear citizens, this morning the city was covered by a cloud of natural gas, which has a specific smell that appears after processing. I would like to warn Astrakhan residents that in the coming days before the plant returns to its scheduled operating mode, such situations are possible." "Natural gas is not hazardous to health in open spaces, and the air quality will return to normal in the near future." As Jenny shouted when she sensed danger, "Run, Forrest! Run!" Processing gas includes removing the impurities, especially the ones that are dangerous and make the gas unsalable. Pure methane is odorless, and processed gas may have a faint sulfur smell due to the acceptable levels of impurities. The smell at Astrakhan is from the unprocessed gas being flared (bad) or vented (worse). If the gas is burned at high rates, incomplete combustion and lethal byproducts (sulfuric acid/acid rain) are probable. If the gas is leaking unburned, that is a worst case scenario. It is lethal, and explosive. It would be extremely unusual to have a flare system capable of flaring the full capacity of the plant. It appears that each of the well sites has a flare system. Per the screen shot from Google, you can see the 3 sets of flare stacks northeast of the plant, where gas would be burned in a controlled setting, with the flame at the top, ~ 200 feet above the ground. Compare that to the picture in the OP with the uncontrolled fireballs at ground level. 🙂 !!! This area is ~ 65 feet below sea level; very different than the high plains of West Texas. Please note the size of the facility, the "process area" is ~ 1 mile long. That's a big f*cking gas plant. The plant is expected to be offline for some time, which makes for difficult choices. In the US, the plant would be down for a long time, given the potential threat to the general public. At least the "How did it happen?" part of the fire investigation is pretty easy. The smart move would be to shut-in he production, and not produce the gas. But shutting in the gas means shutting down the oil production. Depending on many related factors, shutting in the wells may damage the wells to the point of decreasing production, long term. Newsweek - Astrakhan Gas Processing Plant - Russians Told Not to Panic as Attack on Gas Plant Unleashes Putrid Smell
-
Note: I haven't read, or posted on this thread before. I only posted here as a response to a linked post, and a few of the recent comments. I agree. I general, economics are best served by refining Canadian oil in US refineries. That is a macro, default statement. There may be a few refineries that are still dependant on sweeter and lighter grades of crude,and those light sweet crude oils cost considerably more than the heavier and sour crude oils. Refineries are designed for a particular slate of oil, not necessarily from a specific region. Most US refineries were designed to refine crude oil from ... wait for it... the US. The declines in US production in the ~ 80's precipitated a refining industry shift towards refining heavier and more sour grades of crude from Canada, Mexico, and South America. That does not mean they cannot refine other grades of crude oil. The issues become (i) how much is overall capacity reduced by refining a non-preferred grade of crude, i.e., is the refinery capacity reduced from 200,000 bbl/day to 180,000 bbl/day because of the change in feedstocks, and (ii) how much is the production of the money products (gasoline, diesel, transportation fuels) decreased, and replaced by increases of the "other" products, lubricants, solvents, sulfur, asphalt, etc. Nope. Just pay more for gasoline. No biggie. Preferred transportation options: Pipelines (big gap) Ships, Rail cars, trucks, 5 gallon cans. It is a matter of cost, and safety. Pipelines are cheaper, and safer. Anything else results in higher costs to end users, and an increased risk of accidents due to introducing more people into the equation. Crude oil and petroleum products are preferentially shipped by pipelines, until you reach the end of the pipeline. Heavy v. Light is indicative of the viscosity and weight of the oil, where sweet v. sour is indicative of the sulfur compounds in the oil. All oil is dirty, even the Pennzoil 10W-30 out of the can. The Canadian tar sands oil/bitumen is both heavy and sour. The US refines heavier crude oil from Canada & Mexico and exports the lighter, sweet crude oil produced in the Permian (Delaware & Midland Basins). More refineries are shutting down every year. I believe the last grassroots refinery built in the US went online in the 70's. I cannot see politics and ignorance getting to the point that refinery retrofits are feasible. Those are 30-50 year decisions, unlike presidential elections. Canadian oil feeds US refineries, which satisfies the US needs, as well as a significant export volume to Europe. The oil from the shale boom is not a good fit for US refineries. Any changes to the status quo means higher gasoline and diesel prices. Shutting down US refineries over tariffs is a very low probability. "C4 monomers and product streams dry up even more than they already have..." No idea what you are trying to say with C4 monomers and C2's and C3's. Correlating box cars to telephones and rocks? Processing Natural Gas, not crude oil refineries, yields the feedstocks for petrochemical plants, and the blending stocks for motor gasoline. Refineries make propane and butane, but much, much smaller quantities than come from the gas processing plants. The higher crude oil production from the various shale plays has seen a proportional increase in produced gas volumes, but those gas volumes are much higher because the gas/oil ratios are much higher from the shale production than from conventional wells. This boom in gas volumes and had a corresponding boom in the production of Natural Gas Liquids (NGL), Ethane (C2) for the Pet-Chem plants to make plastics, Propane (C3) for the Pet-Chems and for rural heating, and the heavier NGL's (iC4, nC4, and C5+) for motor gasoline blending stocks, and for the Pet-Chem's. All of these NGL satisfy US demand, with the surplus going to the export market. A lot of US NGL (the C5+ fraction of natural gas liquids) goes to Canada, to be used as the diluent to blend with the tar sands oil to make is "light" enough to flow through a pipeline. The Canadian tar sand oil does not flow to the US without the US produced diluent that is "exported" to Canada. US Policies (Yes to Tariffs, No to Pipeline) = stupidity. I expect at some point a degree of reasonableness will make its way to the White House/Energy department and this will; get a lot of fanfare without much actually changing. Glad I'm retired so I don't have to worry about this shit anymore.
-
I might be smarter now than I was this morning. I’m old, and I spent my career in O&G, and I only heard of one definition of glory hole until just now. I’m familiar with the “rat hole” in conventional drilling, and I know something about onshore and offshore GOM and North Sea exploration and production, but not in the arctic. Perhaps the migration of aggies to the O&G industry has imparted their behaviors into ways they we have not realized. Not sure where Jerrah was exposed to arctic drilling; must of got his influences else where. Now that might be my new most favorite thing I’ve read here. Maybe anywhere. I read it, so it must be true. It is especially comforting in the context that Hero’s recruiting was not NIL driven due to the fact he is not from the US. I agree. I grew up in Austin in the late 60’s, was a senior with Earl in ‘77, and enjoyed VY’s greatness since his sophomore year, in HS. The vibe in Austin is somewhat muted by the million people that came here and never left. But to Texas fans, the vibe now is very similar to those past periods of unbridled burnt orange Kool-Aid. Similar, but different. This won’t change by one player leaving. A lot of data points that keep coming. Even from a $9.95’er. One I like, is All-American DB, Michael Taaffe, coming back for his senior year, to finish. That’s a leader. Hook’em! Kudo’s to Helobious! His posts earned him a place as the chosen one, he embraced it, and by gawd damn if he didn’t deliver for us. This was worse than Billy Sims or Marcus Dupree. I will never forget the shit with Kelee Ringo. Sark getting ready to steal their lunch money in recruiting.
- 8950 replies
-
- 12
-
-
-
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: They Can't Keep Getting Away With This
PTINS replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Matthews, Munchak, Steinkulher and Dawson all played for the Oilers/Texans. M&M played together ~ 10 years and were some road grading MF'ers. Elkins HS is in Fort Bend ISD, in Missouri City, SW of Houston. A number of Oiler players lived down that way. Matthews looked at the coaching at Texas, ... and sent his kids to A&M. -
I agree, 250 lb is probably better for a goalie. Akeem's transition to American sports turned out okay.
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: They Can't Keep Getting Away With This
PTINS replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
-
Texas Recruiting Notes 2026: They Can't Keep Getting Away With This
PTINS replied to texifornia's topic in 🤫$9.95🤫
Tight End, Tayfuk ifino? The - fuck - if - I - know? 3 famous cousins; Ho Lee Fuc, We Too Low, Sum Ti Wong -
Yeah, I would be extremely cautious about correlating pictures of fireballs to damages to the refinery itself. Sending a ship to the bottom of the sea is much easier to conform than discreet damages to an intricate maze of hundreds of pipelines and manifolds, process units, storage vessels, heaters &coolers, etc. First, damn near everything in an oil refinery is flammable, and will make big fireballs. From the pictures and video’s taken at night it is impossible to tell what is burning. Big difference between process towers rupturing and burning as compared to a storage tank or pipeline. A world class refinery may have 30-50 different process units located across a 2-4 square mile area. Hitting the biggest one may take out the majority of the processing capacity, while hitting a smaller one may have a negligible effect. Without a very clear understanding of what was hit and is burning, it is extremely difficult to tell from a picture. Full disclosure, I am a gas processing/natural gas liquids SME, not a refining guy. If one had a detailed plot plan overlaid with the explosions and fires, it would be easier to tell what was damaged. I don’t think I have seen any posting or discussion with that level of detail. I don’t doubt that information exists, but it isn’t in the public domain. However, like body blows to a boxer, the cumulative effects of multiple attacks and explosions and fires decreases the overall capacity and efficiency of the facility. Chicks dig the long ball everybody likes explosions and fireballs.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!