If the war was "blood for oil", then where the heck is the oil?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Ellis Hugh, Mar 25, 2004.

  1. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29

    Is this the new national environmental gasoline standard I've been hearing about? The one that's supposed to make gasoline cheaper and the petroleum infrastructure more synchronized and free-flowing by making sure the entire country runs on one single standard type of gasoline?

    If so, I guess we are taking a hit because, once again, Louisiana was found to be far, far behind the rest of the nation.
     
  2. captainpodnuh

    captainpodnuh Baseball at da Box

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    84
    No Jet. The reformulated gasoline (RFG) is coming to the BR area because we failed to make attainment with the ozone standard. This is one of the mandates of the Clean Air Act. The RFG is supposed to be a cleaner burning gasoline with a certain type of additive (e.g., MTBE, ethanol, etc). Unfortunately for the BR area residents, the impact of RFG on the ozone levels will be negligible. Recent LDEQ studies indicate that the main contributor appears to be ethylene, whereby industry is a major contributor. Even the local environmentalists are supporting the LDEQ effort to request an extension.
     
  3. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    Oh I see. You are correct, autmobile exhaust byproduct's impact on ozone and air pollution is negligible, heavy industry is the big culprit on that.

    What I was referring to was a proposal that has been kicked around by various environmental and political think tanks to have the entire country run on a single environmental gasoline standard. Currently, refineries in all different parts of the country are making gasoline according to different environmental regulation standards, which vary from state to state and, in some cases, even from county to county. It's an issue that arises from time to time, but nothing ever seems to get done about it. And I don't know why. I'm not even sure it's a valid concern, although it sounds good on paper.
     
  4. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207

    We should never tap ANWAR. First and formost because of its pristine condition, but secondly and more econmically important is tha almost all the oil there is in shale, and it would cost more to extract it than the oil is actually worth. We never hear that point from either side in the debate.
     
  5. captainpodnuh

    captainpodnuh Baseball at da Box

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,135
    Likes Received:
    84
    Haven't heard anything on that front in a long while. They pushed the alternative fuels thing for a while, too. Some state vehicles run on alt. fuel.

    As for the ozone non-attainment situation, I am quite heavily involved in the LDEQ/Industry/Environmentalist workgroups. We already took a hit a Baker last weekend. Doesn't bode well. In reality, we likely won't attain before 2005, the next major deadline. One more hit at either LSU or Port Allen and we are sunk. The DEQ knows this, so they are trying to collect as much data as possible so that they can fight the good fight.

    Biggest problem is that the emission events that are resulting in the ozone exceedances are likely permitted emissions. Thus the challenge.
     
  6. tiger fan 2001

    tiger fan 2001 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,987
    Likes Received:
    5
    I am not an expert but would like to chime in here.

    Concerning ANWAR even if allowed to go today it's 10 to 15 years away and that's without the tree huggers getting involved every time you turn around dragging you into court. The gas pipeline that was in talks out of Alaska with Mid America energy (Warren Buffet) just got kaboshed as Mid America and the state could not come to terms. It's not just the tree huggers in Alaska the state is very hard to work with. Permitting is a nightmare. Midamerica told the state out front that if the could not get things in line now they would just drag. And drag they did because any delays don't put you back a few months its a year due to the construction seasons.

    As for the 1.50 I guess just be glad that it's not 3.50. The only new oil coming into the reserves in North America that amount to anything are coming out of the GoM. Thank you tree huggers for limiting where we explore. Alaska is very expensive and they are not doing much exploration work. Mostly in-fill drilling to keep the current facilities alive.

    I personally don't see oil below 24 buck for a long time if ever because the Saudi's are starting to go on decline and they must have revenue either in bulk or at a higher price to maintain the up and coming generations which is about the same situation we have in America with the amount of retirees fixing to hit SS. The have a large poulation of kids coming up and their only revenue is oil from declining fields. JMO
     

Share This Page