Keystone Pipeline XL passes first hurdle

[waldo]

Two new refineries and the expansion of existing refiners, equaling 23 new refineries…impressive….for a total production of ~ 18 million barrels a day………Still behind the ~21.5 million barrels a day the United States uses…….Does your link mention what state(s) has seen the expansions of current facilities? Whats keeping production below actual usage? Energy independence indeed….Go Bama

thanks for acknowledging that your presumptive puffery concerning "excessive" EPA regulations hasn't had the impact you were going for... next thing you know some wag will suggest you're now back-peddaling and trying to leverage some mystical regulatory impact on consumption vs. production. And here I thought it had to do with the "cost" of spreading the U.S. version of freedom to any ole oil speck on the wall.....

(by the by... CIA Factbook (2009 est.) has U.S. consumption @ 18 billion barrels a day ... but also has U.S. production @ 9 billion barrels a day. Apparently, we have a disconnect... your source? (feel free to apply any amount of rolleye emoticon you feel appropriate).

[Guest Derek L]

thanks for acknowledging that your presumptive puffery concerning "excessive" EPA regulations hasn't had the impact you were going for... next thing you know some wag will suggest you're now back-peddaling and trying to leverage some mystical regulatory impact on consumption vs. production. And here I thought it had to do with the "cost" of spreading the U.S. version of freedom to any ole oil speck on the wall.....

(by the by... CIA Factbook (2009 est.) has U.S. consumption @ 18 billion barrels a day ... but also has U.S. production @ 9 billion barrels a day. Apparently, we have a disconnect... your source? (feel free to apply any amount of rolleye emoticon you feel appropriate).

I’m not back pedaling, I still stand by the fact that the production of new refineries is curtailed by government regulation and that currently production is lower than consumption.

My source for production is the bottom paragraph of the link you quoted………….Are saying your sources are contradicted by your other sources?

Moreover, since 1985, when refinery capacity hit a low of 14.7 million barrels per day, we've seen over three million barrels of capacity added, or the equivalent to 23 average modern day facilities. A stark contrast to the misleading tidbit about having no new refineries built since the 1970's. So while we haven't seen new refineries open in new locations, we have virtually added the capacity of 23 of today's average size facilities—and that is nothing to scoff at.

14.7 + 3 = ~18

None the less, since your CIA link doesn't seem to work, and your sources don't pass the smell test, from the US government:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?topL=con

Which if this source is to be believed, has US production roughly half of consumption.....that disproves my point how?

* Note------>only one----->

Edit to add, from my source, the ~21 figure is consumption for the United States and Canada

Edited August 29, 2011 by Derek L

[jbg]

I’m not back pedaling, I still stand by the fact that the production of new refineries is curtailed by government regulation and that currently production is lower than consumption.

I happen to agree with you strongly. The fact is no new refineries have been built since the tea-kettle size "bias babies" of the late 1970's, most of which have closed. There has been some expansion of existing capacity but clearly the price spikes of 2005, 2006, 2008 and spring 2011 owe in part to insufficient capacity.

[Guest Derek L]

I happen to agree with you strongly. The fact is no new refineries have been built since the tea-kettle size "bias babies" of the late 1970's, most of which have closed. There has been some expansion of existing capacity but clearly the price spikes of 2005, 2006, 2008 and spring 2011 owe in part to insufficient capacity.

Exactly……….How’s your neighbours governor making out with trying to increase production in New Jersey?

Off topic, judging by you posting, I’m safe to assume you didn’t lose power in your part of NY?

[jbg]

Off topic, judging by you posting, I’m safe to assume you didn’t lose power in your part of NY?

Maybe I'm posting on a laptop.

All kidding aside, it's a patchwork mouse around here. I'd say about 1/10 of local residents lost power. I'm not one of them. Thanks for your concern though.

[waldo]

I’m not back pedaling, I still stand by the fact that the production of new refineries is curtailed by government regulation and that currently production is lower than consumption.

your initial figures had you suggesting production was double what it actually is... you stated, "for a total production of ~ 18 million barrels a day"... it's actually half of that. My CIA link figures, in fact, match your latter EIA numbers which helped you to correct your initial error (...in my haste to start tonight's BBQ, I transposed million vs. billion... but the ultimate point that I most certainly highlighted was that production was ~ half of consumption... hence... imports to cover the discrepancy. Other than on your say, you haven't shown a direct causal link between your described "excessive" regulation and production/capacity.

let's recap:

=> you pined for a "trimming of EPA regulations"... as you said, "

if only they would trim the EPA’s regs on new refinery production

"

=> I asked for clarification, to which you most clearly attached your hope for a "trim" to... 'new regulations concerning production associated with 'new refineries' (re: post 06/2007, relative to construction, reconstruction or modification)'. This most certainly put your focus topical; i.e., on GHG emissions... you confirmed that directly by mentioning carbon sequestration.

=> you proceeded to presume to qualify your premise by throwing down an unqualified and unspecified "ta da" link to dated and inapplicable EPA MACT standards... I believe you used the phrase, "from the horses mouth". You presumed to tout regulatory standards associated with traditional toxins, while not even bothering to qualify, on any level, what actual regulations were of concern to, or impact on, industry... again, yours was an unqualified and unspecified hand-wave

=> of course, when I pointed out the EPA hasn't put forward, even for initial industry review, new/updated GHG related MACT standards... you ignored it. Rather... you completely shifted away from your clarified position that your "trim" aspiration reflected upon "new regulation" (i.e., as associate with the EPA endangerment finding concerning GHGs)... you peeled away and started beaking off about no new refineries being built since the 70s.

=> when I pummeled your lack of new refineries point... pointing out the actual expansion to existing refineries matched the effective equivalency of 23 new refineries (notwithstanding 2 complete new refineries on the way), you next danced on over to attempt to link your premised "excessive regulations" as the basis for the production vs. consumption gap. Of course, out of all of this, you have yet to actually put up anything that supports such a claim... anything other than your say so, that is.

[Guest Derek L]

your initial figures had you suggesting production was double what it actually is... you stated, "for a total production of ~ 18 million barrels a day"... it's actually half of that. My CIA link figures, in fact, match your latter EIA numbers which helped you to correct your initial error (...in my haste to start tonight's BBQ, I transposed million vs. billion... but the ultimate point that I most certainly highlighted was that production was ~ half of consumption... hence... imports to cover the discrepancy. Other than on your say, you haven't shown a direct causal link between your described "excessive" regulation and production/capacity.

I simply used off-hand figures from within the text that you quoted………If the source happens to be suspect, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the other facts from within the source pertaining to expansion of current production facilities could also be false? It’s your source, my error in using it as gospel I suppose.

As for showing a link between production and consumption, I would assume that narrowing that deficit would be simple knowledge and/or common sense………Either reduce current consumption or increase current domestic production or continue to rely on foreign sources…….I continue to assert that oil companies don’t build new refineries within the United States because of environmental regulations….your response, a picture of W. with a member of the Saudi royalty…….

Do you have anything to support your claim(s)?

Or to explain why new refineries have been and are being built across the world, minus the United States?

Just a picture and blog full of incorrect information?

http://ecm.ncms.org/ERI/new/IRRpetref.htm#effects

Petroleum refining has been called "one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States." (DOE-OIT, 2000, p. 1). According to a recent EPA fact sheet, EPA has recently settled enforcement actions with companies comprising over 30% of U. S. domestic refining capacity, and is currently engaged in settlement negotiations with companies comprising an additional 20%.

In addition to dealing with the environmental impacts of their operations, refiners face complex regulatory issues involving their products. Gasoline formulations are restricted differently depending on the season of the year, and on the geographical location of the market in which they are sold.

The dominant environmental impacts from refinery operations currently involve air quality. About three-fourths of the TRI poundage reported by the sector are releases to the air.

In the near future, the industry is likely to be facing pressure to expand capacity as rapidly as possible. This is likely to exacerbate an ongoing regulatory issue regarding the distinction between existing sources and new sources, the latter being regulated more stringently under the Clean Air Act.

Looming on the farther horizon are the potential regulatory consequences of the global warming issue, which may strongly affect both the operations of this highly energy-intensive industry and the demand for its products.

Effects of existing and future regulations on impacts

Existing regulations affecting sector

Clean Air Act, including 1995 NESHAP (this category comprises the dominant regulatory effect on refinery operations)

A NESHAP covering Catalytic Cracking, Catalytic Reforming and Sulfur Plant Units was finalized in 2002

Reformulated gasoline (RFG) standards (this category affects operations indirectly through restrictions on product mix)

Clean Water Act

RCRA

State regulations

Other regulations (beyond environmental) affecting sector:

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards (indirect effect through performance requirements on products)

Health and safety standards

[Guest Derek L]

To add, I found this piece interesting, it speaks about the new oil refinery in Arizona you mentioned:

http://freedombytheway.com/2011/03/02/yippee-two-new-oil-refineries-in-development-first-in-us-in-35-years/

Arizona Clean Fuels was originally scheduled to open in 2009. But it took SEVEN YEARS TO GET AN AIR QUALITY PERMIT.

According to the US Energy Information website, Arizona Clean Fuels is now expected to open in 2012. But the latest information on the company’s website says “Next major milestone, expected within the next few months, will be the announcement of the EPC contractor.” There have been no press updates posted on their site since 2009.

Hyperion and Arizona Clean Fuels both face extreme opposition from environmental groups, but have so far defeated court challenges by the Sierra Club and other groups. The Sierra Club is so determined to shut down the Hyperion project they have devoted an entire web site to the cause.

When you add the cost and delays caused by overly stringent and ever-changing EPA regulations and the constant court challenges of environmental groups to the tremendous expense of actually constructing a new oil refinery, it’s a wonder that Arizona Clean Fuels and Hyperion were able to find investors at all. (And its little wonder that more oil companies and investors aren’t taking the gamble).

New oil refineries don’t replace the need for new drilling. But they are extremely important to our national energy security. The troubles in the Mideast are a real threat to US oil supply and ultimately to the American way of life. Without sufficient energy, we’re toast.

Green energy is not ready to replace fossil fuels today or for the foreseeable future. And I doubt green energy will ever be able to fully replace our need for oil.

More refineries means we can process more or our own oil and more oil from friendly producers, such as Canada. These refineries will bring in millions in new tax revenue and produce countless new jobs.

Unfortunately, the extreme environmentalists don’t seem concerned about rising gas prices, creating jobs or preserving the American way of life.

Here's that second refinery :

http://southdakota.sierraclub.org/LivingRiver/oilrefinery.htm

Sierra Club, Save Union County and Citizens Opposed to Oil Pollution filed an appeal of the decision of the Board of Minerals and Environment to grant an air permit to Hyperion Energy Center for its oil refinery and power plant. The hearing was to be held on June 23, 2010.

On June 15, the judge granted a request by Hyperion to reopen the permitting process with the Board of Minerals and Environment. The EPA has found that coker quench water tanks - which Hyperion has designed into its power plant plans - to be a source of emissions at refineries and this was not taken into account in the air permit. Sierra Club, Save Union County, and Citizens Opposed to Oil Pollution want the permit to be invalidated and the process to start over.

So these two new oil refineries are facing challenges from environmental lobby groups, that have used the EPA’s regulations to slow their construction?

[waldo]

I simply used off-hand figures from within the text that you quoted………If the source happens to be suspect, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the other facts from within the source pertaining to expansion of current production facilities could also be false? It’s your source, my error in using it as gospel I suppose.

no... actually... what you did is take capacity figures and called them production - that is... your (initial) error... which you presumed to cast-off on me/my link. Nice try... sorry you failed, big time!

however, yours is an apparent disingenuous position - have you heard of...

increased capacity through expansion of existing plants

?

Moreover, since 1985, when refinery

capacity

hit a low of 14.7 million barrels per day, we've seen over three million barrels of capacity added, or the equivalent to 23 average modern day facilities. A stark contrast to the misleading tidbit about having no new refineries built since the 1970's.

So while we haven't seen new refineries open in new locations, we have virtually added the capacity of 23 of today's average size facilities—and that is nothing to scoff at

.

Two new refineries and the expansion of existing refiners, equaling 23 new refineries…impressive….for a total

production

of ~ 18 million barrels a day………

I continue to assert that oil companies don’t build new refineries within the United States because of environmental regulations…

you can keep asserting that... but until you actually substantiate it, that is all it is... your assertion! Perhaps you might have heard of peak oil... your thoughts on that as an impacting consideration? Are you aware the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is currently investigating whether refineries were operating at lower levels to reduce available fuel supply and thus keep gasoline prices high... your thoughts on that as an impacting consideration? You seem very defensive over that Dubbya-SaudiKing-Pic... you are certainly very quick to dismiss any political implications surrounding U.S. Foreign Policy, vis-a-vis presuming to reap the oil rewards of "freedom spreading" invasion... your thoughts on that as an impacting consideration?

Or to explain why new refineries have been and are being built across the world, minus the United States?

this might be useful... do you have anything that shows non-U.S., new refinery build-out, outright... and the influences (or not) of any impacting regulations within those countries? You know... something beyond just your... assertion?

[waldo]

So these two new oil refineries are facing challenges from environmental lobby groups, that have used the EPA’s regulations to slow their construction?

whoa! Notwithstanding you have now broadened your premise to include "environmental lobby groups", based on your single Sierra Club link associated with the one refinery, you have applied a plurality to include both new oil refineries being... supposedly... impacted. It might very well be the case; however, your first link isn't specific.

let us examine your link to the Sierra Club website. It states the EPA has determined an unaccounted source of emissions was not included in assessing and granting an air permit... apparently, the Sierra Club (amongst others), would like a re-do to ensure the unaccounted source is included. Apparently, to you, something like the U.S. Clean Air Act is an impediment... an inconvenience, although it is heartening to see you showcasing a company working to bring on a new refinery... working to comply with the regulatory arm of the mandated EPA. Apparently, it can be done, hey? Apparently, the existing EPA regulatory framework was not an impediment, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

no... actually... what you did is take capacity figures and called them production - that is... your (initial) error... which you presumed to cast-off on me/my link. Nice try... sorry you failed, big time!

Be that as it may, if current production is ~ 9 million per day, and your link claims current capacity is ~17-18 million a day, and current usage is ~18 million per day, are you in agreement with this link that the US is currently only producing ~50% of it’s potential capacity, and if used the entire capacity could refine nearly all it’s needs for daily consumption?

you can keep asserting that... but until you actually substantiate it, that is all it is... your assertion! Perhaps you might have heard of peak oil... your thoughts on that as an impacting consideration? Are you aware the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is currently investigating whether refineries were operating at lower levels to reduce available fuel supply and thus keep gasoline prices high... your thoughts on that as an impacting consideration? You seem very defensive over that Dubbya-SaudiKing-Pic... you are certainly very quick to dismiss any political implications surrounding U.S. Foreign Policy, vis-a-vis presuming to reap the oil rewards of "freedom spreading" invasion... your thoughts on that as an impacting consideration?

I assert it, and provide evidence in my above post.....

Peak oil....not in our lifetime....Alaska...the mid-west...Alberta...newer fields in Texas...off shore...Shale...etc.......not worried the slightest about that strawman.

Currently investigating? Let me know when they reach a verdict.....You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing....

And I'll dismiss any unfounded allegation, that is until you can substantially prove it...

this might be useful... do you have anything that shows non-U.S., new refinery build-out, outright... and the influences (or not) of any impacting regulations within those countries? You know... something beyond just your... assertion?

Depending on the country you’ll see investment from US, European, Canadian, South Korean, Russian, Chinese etc companies….So? Libya received hundreds of millions of dollars of investment by Canadian, American and Western European companies to ramp up production……..how is that relevant to domestic North American production? Changing the goal posts?

[Guest Derek L]

whoa! Notwithstanding you have now broadened your premise to include "environmental lobby groups", based on your single Sierra Club link associated with the one refinery, you have applied a plurality to include both new oil refineries being... supposedly... impacted. It might very well be the case; however, your first link isn't specific.

let us examine your link to the Sierra Club website. It states the EPA has determined an unaccounted source of emissions was not included in assessing and granting an air permit... apparently, the Sierra Club (amongst others), would like a re-do to ensure the unaccounted source is included. Apparently, to you, something like the U.S. Clean Air Act is an impediment... an inconvenience, although it is heartening to see you showcasing a company working to bring on a new refinery... working to comply with the regulatory arm of the mandated EPA. Apparently, it can be done, hey? Apparently, the existing EPA regulatory framework was not an impediment, hey?

Is Hyperion operating yet? No? Why’s that?……..A environmental lobby group used the EPA regulation to halt production……isn’t that what I said to you in my first response…..

And here’s the other refineries website, last updated in ‘09:

http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/

Their latest new update (March, 2009)

On another front, McGinnis said, his consultants are still working with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to obtain a new air quality permit for the refinery. A new permit is needed because the refinery was moved to an alternative site after Arizona Clean Fuels obtained its original permit.

The new location was settled on a year ago to avoid further delays to the project caused by a legal challenge by the Quechan Tribe to the original site. The tribe, in its lawsuit, alleged that the environmental impact of the refinery on the site was inadequately addressed before the federal government transferred the land to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, which then sold the property to Arizona Clean Fuels.

While the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge, Arizona Clean Fuels stuck with its decision to relocate to avoid any other legal challenges, McGinnis said. The new site, a combination of private and state land, is beyond the property contested in the lawsuit.

In the meantime, he said, requirements for the air quality permit have become tighter as a result of new technology that may be applicable to the refinery.

He's hopeful to have the air quality permit by summer, be able to apply for rezoning by fall and break ground by mid- to late 2010. Construction is expected to take about three years.

So these two refineries that you point to, have yet to open because of environmental regulations…..

Unless you wish to prove that they are in fact open........or change the goal posts further...

[Guest Derek L]

Just to add:

http://www.hyperionec.com/news/press-releases/Hyperion-Energy-Center-Awaits-Ruling-on-Air-Permit/

he South Dakota Board of Minerals and the Environment concluded its hearings in Pierre today on Hyperion Energy Center’s (HEC) revised air permit. A ruling is expected in September.

Approval of the revised air permit, which was drafted by the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), would represent a major step toward putting an average of 4,500 people to work during construction, followed by 1,800 permanent, good-paying jobs. The HEC will be the first new oil refinery in the United States since 1976.

In August 2009, the Board voted 9-0 to issue the air permit. This week’s hearing involved enhancing that permit and focused on the new aspects governing CO2 emissions and incorporating stricter limits on NO2 and SO2 emissions. It also reviewed BACT for various emission units, ensuring Hyperion’s operations are still in line with Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The Board’s hearing is considering granting an extension to the construction schedule window.

“We eagerly await the BME’s ruling. From the beginning, we’ve been committed to constructing the most energy efficient and environmentally sound oil refinery in the United States – and bringing with it good-paying jobs to the Siouxland region,” Hyperion Vice President Preston Phillips said. “This will be the cleanest refinery in North America, and likely the world.”

The Hyperion Energy Center is permitted for a 400,000 barrel-per-day refinery producing ultra-low sulfur gasoline and diesel and an IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) power plant. The center will incorporate green principles in its every day functions and integrate only the most advanced commercially feasible emission control technologies in its operations, as spelled out in the company’s Green Charter.

So the second site is waiting on Environmental approval………….Two sites planned since the late 70s…….both being held-up and in the case of the Arizona one, likely halted, due to environmental regulations……….

To recap:

-I claimed refinery production within the United States is negatively affected by the EPA’s regulations

-You disagreed, and used the two sites, one in South Dakota, the other in Arizona, to disprove me

-I showed both sites are in limbo, pending environmental approval. In the Case of the Arizona firm, no news has been released by the company for two and half years.

[waldo]

no... actually... what you did is take capacity figures and called them production - that is... your (initial) error... which you presumed to cast-off on me/my link. Nice try... sorry you failed, big time!

Be that as it may...

beauty! Nice to see you so cavalier in your mistakes... particularly when you try to skewer me as the original source for them!

if current production is ~ 9 million per day, and your link claims current capacity is ~17-18 million a day, and current usage is ~18 million per day, are you in agreement with this link that the US is currently only producing ~50% of it’s potential capacity, and if used the entire capacity could refine nearly all it’s needs for daily consumption?

uhhh... are you asking me to repeat myself on a point I highlighted, re-quoted below? But wait... what is this little extra you tacked on? Are you suggesting there is extra under utilized capacity "in the pipeline"... existing capacity that could be brought up to meet full demand? Wouldn't that put a real debby-downer on your puffed up to-do about no new refineries? Would that not add more credence to the emphasis I brought forward concerning increased capacity effectively adding the equivalent of 23 new refineries? Hey now... just how wildly spinning are you? As an aside, do you recall me trying several times to get you to comment on the non-domestic target of the Keystone extension... that existing capacity in the current Keystone existed to bring forward the same throughput from the tarsands? You remember that, right?

... but the ultimate point that I most certainly highlighted was that production was ~ half of consumption...

I assert it, and provide evidence in my above post.....

oh please! Not another hand-wave. Listing regulations (presuming accuracy therein) says nothing about how those regulations are impacting on industry decisions to proceed in building new refineries. Like I said, thanks for showcasing the example company working to bring on that new refinery... you know... working within the confines of the regulatory framework.

Or to explain why new refineries have been and are being built across the world, minus the United States?

this might be useful... do you have anything that shows non-U.S., new refinery build-out, outright... and the influences (or not) of any impacting regulations within those countries? You know... something beyond just your... assertion?

Depending on the country you’ll see investment from US, European, Canadian, South Korean, Russian, Chinese etc companies….So? Libya received hundreds of millions of dollars of investment by Canadian, American and Western European companies to ramp up production……..how is that relevant to domestic North American production? Changing the goal posts?

so... you haven't any specifics then? ... nothing concrete then? You presume to tout non-US new refineries being built, presumably subject to less regulatory affects... you want to leverage that as your extended premise on why no new refineries were being built in the U.S........ but you can't actually provide any real reference detail... actual refineries built (where), inclusive of the respective countries regulatory framework. So... again, another hand-wave from you! You are consistent, if nothing else.

[Guest Derek L]

beauty! Nice to see you so cavalier in your mistakes... particularly when you try to skewer me as the original source for them!

uhhh... are you asking me to repeat myself on a point I highlighted, re-quoted below? But wait... what is this little extra you tacked on? Are you suggesting there is extra under utilized capacity "in the pipeline"... existing capacity that could be brought up to meet full demand? Wouldn't that put a real debby-downer on your puffed up to-do about no new refineries? Would that not add more credence to the emphasis I brought forward concerning increased capacity effectively adding the equivalent of 23 new refineries? Hey now... just how wildly spinning are you? As an aside, do you recall me trying several times to get you to comment on the non-domestic target of the Keystone extension... that existing capacity in the current Keystone existed to bring forward the same throughput from the tarsands? You remember that, right?

oh please! Not another hand-wave. Listing regulations (presuming accuracy therein) says nothing about how those regulations are impacting on industry decisions to proceed in building new refineries. Like I said, thanks for showcasing the example company working to bring on that new refinery... you know... working within the confines of the regulatory framework.

so... you haven't any specifics then? ... nothing concrete then? You presume to tout non-US new refineries being built, presumably subject to less regulatory affects... you want to leverage that as your extended premise on why no new refineries were being built in the U.S........ but you can't actually provide any real reference detail... actual refineries built (where), inclusive of the respective countries regulatory framework. So... again, another hand-wave from you! You are consistent, if nothing else.

See above post:

To recap:

-I claimed refinery production within the United States is negatively affected by the EPA’s regulations

-You disagreed, and used the two sites, one in South Dakota, the other in Arizona, to disprove me

-I showed both sites are in limbo, pending environmental approval. In the Case of the Arizona firm, no news has been released by the company for two and half years.

But hey, thanks for coming out

Edited August 29, 2011 by Derek L

[waldo]

Is Hyperion operating yet? No? Why’s that?……..A environmental lobby group used the EPA regulation to halt production……isn’t that what I said to you in my first response…..

it might be the case; however, your supplied Sierra Club link does not state that. It states Hyperion has asked to reopen the permit process... it states, as I said, the EPA has determined an unaccounted source of emissions was not included in assessing and granting an air permit... it states, as I said, the Sierra Club (amongst others) would like a re-do (i.e., as your link states, they (the Sierra Club) would like the existing permit invalidated. I do not read anything that suggests, as you have now stated, "a environmental lobby group used the EPA regulation to halt production". Perhaps you do have something to fully qualify your statement...

And here’s the other refineries website, last updated in ‘09: http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/ Their latest new update (March, 2009)

So these two refineries that you point to, have yet to open because of environmental regulations…..

Unless you wish to prove that they are in fact open........or change the goal posts further...

bloody hell! First you whine about no new refineries... at all! Now you snivel about the timing of coming on line. But it gets better - it truly does! You now want to premise the status of the Yuma refinery on whether a web-site has been updated... all while still claiming environmental regulations as the cause for a/any delay. You truly are a clown! From the EIA itself:

A new refinery in Yuma County, Arizona, about 100 miles southwest of Phoenix, was initially proposed for completion by 2010. However,

it was delayed because the Quechan tribe expressed concerns about disturbing cultural artifacts and the Mexican government refused to supply the refinery with crude oil

. The refinery was reapproved in 2008 for a location in Mohawk Valley, 4 miles east of the proposed Yuma location, and is now expected to be fully operational by 2012. The refinery is planning to receive its crude supplies from Alberta oil sands that will be shipped by barge to Mexico and shipped by pipeline to Arizona. The facility will have a capacity to refine 163,000 barrels per day of crude oil and produce 6.3 million gallons per day of petroleum clean fuels such as CARB3 (California Air Resources Board fuel specification), Arizona Clean Burning Gasoline, ultra-low sulfur gasoline, as well as other petroleum products. This new facility will be Arizona’s first refinery and could be the first refinery in the United States

specifically designed to produce clean petroleum fuels

.

wow! Damn you insurmountable EPA regulations!!!

Edited August 29, 2011 by waldo

[waldo]

See above post:

But hey, thanks for coming out

no... thank you! You have been most entertaining... by the way, will you next extend to claim the Quechan tribe is on the EPA payroll?

[Guest Derek L]

it might be the case; however, your supplied Sierra Club link does not state that. It states Hyperion has asked to reopen the permit process... it states, as I said, the EPA has determined an unaccounted source of emissions was not included in assessing and granting an air permit... it states, as I said, the Sierra Club (amongst others) would like a re-do (i.e., as your link states, they (the Sierra Club) would like the existing permit invalidated. I do not read anything that suggests, as you have now stated, "a environmental lobby group used the EPA regulation to halt production". Perhaps you do have something to fully qualify your statement...

bloody hell! First you whine about no new refineries... at all! Now you snivel about the timing of coming on line. But it gets better - it truly does! You now want to premise the status of the Yuma refinery on whether a web-site has been updated... all while still claiming environmental regulations as the cause for a/any delay. You truly are a clown! From the EIA itself:

wow! Damn you insurmountable EPA regulations!!!

Have either sites started construction? Yes or No?

Are both sites waiting for permits/decisions from Environmental regulatory bodies, yes or no?

[waldo]

Are both sites waiting for permits/decisions from Environmental regulatory bodies, yes or no?

what? Look, I can appreciate you don't like my prolific EIA link highlighting the Yuma refinery delay caused by the Quechan Indian tribe... I thought it a step up on your own link that acknowledged same - you were whining about no updates being done to that/your linked-to website.

I'm certainly quite willing to revert back to your own supplied link reference... you know... the one that does speak to the Quechan Indian tribe delay influence, but also highlights their delaying lawsuit was court rejected... that also highlights that, accordingly, the EPA air permit was in place for the initial site chosen... that the company Arizona Clean Fuels had legal authority to proceed at the initial site... that the company Arizona Clean Fuels had EPA sanction (i.e., an air permit) to proceed at the initial site. I'm certainly quite willing to revert back to your own supplied link reference that speaks to the current delay caused by the company, Arizona Clean Fuels, itself... that, the company, at it's discretion/prerogative... chose another site. Of course, their own decision to re-locate from the original site, caused the corresponding need for a new permit. As your own supplied link states:

While the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge,

Arizona Clean Fuels stuck with its decision to relocate

to avoid any other legal challenges, McGinnis said. The new site, a combination of private and state land, is beyond the property contested in the lawsuit.

haven't you taken enough hits so far... why continue to keep slapping your own self down! I am encouraged, at least, that you apparently aren't willing to charge the Quechan Indian tribe with being an agent of the EPA... that is some progress on its own!

[Guest Derek L]

what? Look, I can appreciate you don't like my prolific EIA link highlighting the Yuma refinery delay caused by the Quechan Indian tribe... I thought it a step up on your own link that acknowledged same - you were whining about no updates being done to that/your linked-to website.

I'm certainly quite willing to revert back to your own supplied link reference... you know... the one that does speak to the Quechan Indian tribe delay influence, but also highlights their delaying lawsuit was court rejected... that also highlights that, accordingly, the EPA air permit was in place for the initial site chosen... that the company Arizona Clean Fuels had legal authority to proceed at the initial site... that the company Arizona Clean Fuels had EPA sanction (i.e., an air permit) to proceed at the initial site. I'm certainly quite willing to revert back to your own supplied link reference that speaks to the current delay caused by the company, Arizona Clean Fuels, itself... that, the company, at it's discretion/prerogative... chose another site. Of course, their own decision to re-locate from the original site, caused the corresponding need for a new permit. As your own supplied link states:

haven't you taken enough hits so far... why continue to keep slapping your own self down! I am encouraged, at least, that you apparently aren't willing to charge the Quechan Indian tribe with being an agent of the EPA... that is some progress on its own!

Again, their own press release:

http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/news/2009/031108_YS.htm

On another front, McGinnis said, his consultants are still working with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to obtain a new air quality permit for the refinery. A new permit is needed because the refinery was moved to an alternative site after Arizona Clean Fuels obtained its original permit.

The new location was settled on a year ago to avoid further delays to the project caused by a legal challenge by the Quechan Tribe to the original site. The tribe, in its lawsuit, alleged that the environmental impact of the refinery on the site was inadequately addressed before the federal government transferred the land to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, which then sold the property to Arizona Clean Fuels.

While the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge, Arizona Clean Fuels stuck with its decision to relocate to avoid any other legal challenges, McGinnis said. The new site, a combination of private and state land, is beyond the property contested in the lawsuit.

In the meantime, he said, requirements for the air quality permit have become tighter as a result of new technology that may be applicable to the refinery.

He's hopeful to have the air quality permit by summer, be able to apply for rezoning by fall and break ground by mid- to late 2010. Construction is expected to take about three years.

This release was from March of '09........No news from the company since.....their last press release stated they were waiting for an environmental permit.......Nothing heard from this company in two and half years........

Same with the other Oil refinery in South Dakota………Waiting till next month to see if they receive a permit

The only two new oil refineries trying to be built in 35 years, and they’re both in Environmental limbo.........But no, the EPA regs don’t hold up construction of new refineries.....

Edited August 29, 2011 by Derek L

[waldo]

The only two new oil refineries trying to be built in 35 years, and they’re both in Environmental limbo.........But no, the EPA regs don’t hold up construction of new refineries.....

just walk it back... save yourself further embarrassment. For self-serving purposes:

- you choose to ignore the fact the Arizona refinery (initial) delay was caused by Native-American Indians exercising their legal options, and that the (current) delay is caused by the company, Arizona Clean Fuels, itself... that the company, Arizona Clean Fuels, solely at its discretion/prerogative, has chosen to relocate to a new location... necessitating the need/requirement for a new permit process.

- you choose to ignore the fact that during the same period of time you're beaking off about a "EPA regulatory imposed air permit" delay to the South Dakota refinery, the company Hyperion also needed to secure state level, non-air permits relating to, (1) water rights and (2) water discharge. Additionally, the company Hyperion needed to secure a wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. You're also choosing to ignore that the initial air permit granted by the EPA was predicated on review and associated analysis of information related to the company Hyperion's initial application... an initial application that one can only assume was either lacking or incomplete, given your own supplied link's indication that, "an unaccounted source of emissions was not included in assessing and granting an air permit". As I already stated:

... it states, as I said, the EPA has determined

an unaccounted source of emissions was not included in assessing and granting an air permit

... it states, as I said, the Sierra Club (amongst others) would like a re-do (i.e., as your link states, they (the Sierra Club) would like the existing permit invalidated. I do not read anything that suggests, as you have now stated, "a environmental lobby group used the EPA regulation to halt production". Perhaps you do have something to fully qualify your statement...

[Guest Derek L]

just walk it back... save yourself further embarrassment. For self-serving purposes:

- you choose to ignore the fact the Arizona refinery (initial) delay was caused by Native-American Indians exercising their legal options, and that the (current) delay is caused by the company, Arizona Clean Fuels, itself... that the company, Arizona Clean Fuels, solely at its discretion/prerogative, has chosen to relocate to a new location... necessitating the need/requirement for a new permit process.

- you choose to ignore the fact that during the same period of time you're beaking off about a "EPA regulatory imposed air permit" delay to the South Dakota refinery, the company Hyperion also needed to secure state level, non-air permits relating to, (1) water rights and (2) water discharge. Additionally, the company Hyperion needed to secure a wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. You're also choosing to ignore that the initial air permit granted by the EPA was predicated on review and associated analysis of information related to the company Hyperion's initial application... an initial application that one can only assume was either lacking or incomplete, given your own supplied link's indication that, "an unaccounted source of emissions was not included in assessing and granting an air permit". As I already stated:

Are both sites waiting for environmental permits? Easy question.....

[waldo]

Easy question...

for your own self-serving purposes, are you choosing to ignore stated facts? Easy question...

- you choose to ignore the fact the Arizona refinery (initial) delay was caused by Native-American Indians exercising their legal options, and that the (current) delay is caused by the company, Arizona Clean Fuels, itself... that

the company, Arizona Clean Fuels, solely at its discretion/prerogative, has chosen to relocate to a new location... necessitating the need/requirement for a new permit process

.

- you choose to ignore the fact that during the same period of time you're beaking off about a "EPA regulatory imposed air permit" delay to the South Dakota refinery, the company Hyperion also needed to secure state level, non-air permits relating to, (1) water rights and (2) water discharge. Additionally, the company Hyperion needed to secure a wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. You're also choosing to ignore that the initial air permit granted by the EPA was predicated on

review and associated analysis of information related to the company Hyperion's initial application

... an initial application that one can only assume was either lacking or incomplete, given

your own supplied link's

indication that, "an unaccounted source of emissions was not included in assessing and granting an air permit". As I already stated:

... it states, as I said, the EPA has determined

an unaccounted source of emissions was not included in assessing and granting an air permit

... it states, as I said, the Sierra Club (amongst others) would like a re-do (i.e., as your link states, they (the Sierra Club) would like the existing permit invalidated. I do not read anything that suggests, as you have now stated, "a environmental lobby group used the EPA regulation to halt production". Perhaps you do have something to fully qualify your statement...

[waldo]

Or to explain why new refineries have been and are being built across the world, minus the United States?

this might be useful... do you have anything that shows non-U.S., new refinery build-out, outright... and the influences (or not) of any impacting regulations within those countries? You know... something beyond just your... assertion?

Depending on the country you’ll see investment from US, European, Canadian, South Korean, Russian, Chinese etc companies….So? Libya received hundreds of millions of dollars of investment by Canadian, American and Western European companies to ramp up production……..how is that relevant to domestic North American production? Changing the goal posts?

so... you haven't any specifics then? ... nothing concrete then? You presume to tout non-US new refineries being built, presumably subject to less regulatory affects... you want to leverage that as your extended premise on why no new refineries were being built in the U.S........ but you can't actually provide any real reference detail... actual refineries built (where), inclusive of the respective countries regulatory framework. So... again, another hand-wave from you! You are consistent, if nothing else.

any updates? Anything specific to offer? Anything?... anything?... anyone?... anyone?... anyone?... Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?...

[Guest Derek L]

for your own self-serving purposes, are you choosing to ignore stated facts? Easy question...

Not at all, the where fore and the why doesn't mater the Arizona site has not progressed for two and half years because it’s waiting on approval for an Environmental permit………And the South Dakota site the same……

If these permits where not required, both these sites would either be in the construction phase or initial operation.

Hence my assertion at the beginning of this thread about the EPA's intrusive regulations......