I found this artcle on NBC news http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/us-fast-track-energy-independence-report-suggests-1C8344034. It discussed how US energy production was growing rapidly and also mention, if only briefly, its impact on the railroads. The articel said there was a shortage of both tank and hopper cars that was problematic.
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
What a lot of these energy hype pieces don't tell you is that a majority of what is being produced here, or planned on being produced, is for off shore sales, not for US public consumption. Investors again have taken control and are not telling the whole truth. Keystone pipeline is to get to a refinery that will ship overseas not over the country which is why hedge funds, commodities gamblers, investment bankers, and other thieves want it so bad.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 What a lot of these energy hype pieces don't tell you is that a majority of what is being produced here, or planned on being produced, is for off shore sales, not for US public consumption. Investors again have taken control and are not telling the whole truth. Keystone pipeline is to get to a refinery that will ship overseas not over the country which is why hedge funds, commodities gamblers, investment bankers, and other thieves want it so bad.
You make some good points, but most of the Keystone pipeline's capacity is not going to be used for U.S Domestic Crude unless we've annexed Canada (did I miss that story?)..
Nothing new about the "tangled Web" of the Petroleum Industry, it was thus even back when it was a U.S Domestic industry marketing product for Domestic use ("Standard Oil Trust", ect..)
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
There is a world market and we should understand it after all these years of being subjected to the mid-east and South American suppliers. The POINT is that we HAVE IT and shall no longer be required to import when the world market stabilizes.
Also, the technique for extracting it from the fractured formations will be used elsewhere on this planet which will further stabilize the market.
Diningcar...the point is that the energy companies are telling you all we have is ours and we no longer have to rely on the rest of the world but in fact and in practice they are mining and pumping to send out of the country and is not for domestic use. The energreedy keep all the oil, gas, and minerals and money for themselves and Americans get basically screwed!
Henry6,
A major piece of the energy consumption pie, gasoline consumption has been dropping over time and is expected to remain flat to slightly below all-time levels in the future. So if we have the capability to produce and transport it elsewhere, tell me why that is bad. It's one aspect of our otherwise feeble economy that is actually producing jobs.
At the same time, I'd like to know what is wrong with "investors." Do you think they just sit on piles of money? No, they "invest" it elsewhere, creating more jobs and more capital. Just basic economics, not impaired by "zero-sum" thinking.
John Timm
At best domestic oil production may reach 10-10.5 million barrels per day. Current domestic demand is 18.5 million barrels per day. Independence? Dream on...
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Henry:
The refineries are not set up to handle the sweet Balkan oil except in certain locations. Thus, the oil gets exported.
Either export it or keep it in the ground. Makes sense to sell it. BTW, the Balkan oil has been selling at a significant discount to the Brett standard. Why? Too much being produced and not enough demand (due to refinery capacity).
Suggest you read the RBN blog daily...it is very informative.
Ed
MP173 Henry: The refineries are not set up to handle the sweet Balkan oil except in certain locations. Thus, the oil gets exported. Either export it or keep it in the ground. Makes sense to sell it. BTW, the Balkan oil has been selling at a significant discount to the Brett standard. Why? Too much being produced and not enough demand (due to refinery capacity). Suggest you read the RBN blog daily...it is very informative. Ed
Just to add a bit. It's why the Bakken crude is going to the east coast refineries by rail. It is light-sweet like Brent and much cheaper even with the rail transport cost.
As for a pipeline to east coast refineries....really? It was hard enough to find an acceptable route through open country. Can you imagine trying to site a pipeline to the northeast?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
D.Carleton At best domestic oil production may reach 10-10.5 million barrels per day. Current domestic demand is 18.5 million barrels per day. Independence? Dream on...
You counting natural gas in this? You can 1) run vehicles on natural gas or 2) reform it to make liquid fuels. We don't HAVE to have crude oil to be energy independent.
Investors are often not industrialists but just, well, investors and all they want is their money back in spades and immediately if not sooner, too. And at what level, too? If they invest knowing it will take time and manpower and production time before they see a return and not demand that everybody be fired and factories closed in order to make money by saving money...then, ok. But if they are like commodities brokers who bid the price up without there being an improvement or more real value added to the product, or is investing just because he wants all his money back as quick as possible, then they make things bad for everybody, eventually for themselves as well. Too many investors are not industrialists or even risk takers, not creating jobs and stimulating the economy but lining their own pockets and bottom lines, the rest be damned.
But, again, not there is a lot of oil and gas...and what coal there is...earmarked for export and not for US consumption. So I can't swallow the line that all this is good for American energy...especially every hiccup and sneeze raises the cost of gas at the pump while they are pumping the US Treasury for more money and my hand for my approval. No, can't swallow it.
Investors invest. It's what they do. By nature, they're going to invest to make money. No one wants to invest to break even. The guy you have a problem with, is the middle man, who makes money playing- and manipulating- the market. Oil is bought and sold on a world market. A gallon of oil is going to be sold to the highest bidder. Every gallon of oil that is pumped in the U.S. and ships overseas is one gallon that is not sold by OPEC. The law of supply and demand should mean that each gallon of oil pumped domestically adds to the supply, and thus lowers the cost globally. Would you have a problem selling domestic grain to oversees buyers? What if the grain was shipped to the east coast by rail first, and made into flour? Would you be OK with that?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
oltmannd D.Carleton At best domestic oil production may reach 10-10.5 million barrels per day. Current domestic demand is 18.5 million barrels per day. Independence? Dream on... You counting natural gas in this? You can 1) run vehicles on natural gas or 2) reform it to make liquid fuels. We don't HAVE to have crude oil to be energy independent.
What about the domestic privately owned automobile fleet? Domestic Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) peaked in 2007 and are in steady decline. No investor with half-a-brain would put his money in installing the infrastructure for public vehicle fueling en masse. That leaves the government... and they are broke.
Perhaps "energy independence" shall come when domestic demand falls to meet domestic supply.
Investors is a broad definition. I have no problem when one puts up money for himself or others to start or continue a business. with the money going to employees in the creation of jobs, in new equipment or maintenance of old, or new or improvement to building, etc. But those who invest then gets rid of employees, close factories or stores or whatever, and leave a hole in a town's economy because he wants to make 80% of $100 instead of 50% of $200 don't get any praise from me. Nor do those investors who cheapen a product or service and pockets the savings rather than passing it on to the consumer or short changes the consumer with junk get my admiration. These guys will buy and bankrupt a company because they want the money not the operation or they take the money which used to be collected and banked locally sent off to a bank hundreds or thousands of miles away at best, off shore at worst. Don't tell me I'm wrong because I've been involved with businesses that have done just that. Even WalMart is more concerned about the collections at 4PM so they can invest overnight and and bolster their stock price when the bell rings in the morning. Investors are not America's White Knights as often as they are the Dark Deceivers taking more from us than they give...not a break even, but total robbery. I don't deny a fair profit from a fair price and a quality and sincere product and service. But that ain't the way its done in the USA anymore....or at least with enough frequency to stimulate or fortify our economy.
carnej1 henry6 What a lot of these energy hype pieces don't tell you is that a majority of what is being produced here, or planned on being produced, is for off shore sales, not for US public consumption. Investors again have taken control and are not telling the whole truth. Keystone pipeline is to get to a refinery that will ship overseas not over the country which is why hedge funds, commodities gamblers, investment bankers, and other thieves want it so bad. You make some good points, but most of the Keystone pipeline's capacity is not going to be used for U.S Domestic Crude unless we've annexed Canada (did I miss that story?).. Nothing new about the "tangled Web" of the Petroleum Industry, it was thus even back when it was a U.S Domestic industry marketing product for Domestic use ("Standard Oil Trust", ect..)
In essence, the U.S. did annex Canada back in the 50's with agreements and long term contracts with Alberta to ship oil to the U.S. under unbelievable restrictions, even to the point of first priority oil to the U.S. even if canada cannot provide for itself, I would assume these rules are still in effect, one reason Canada is looking for other markets (China, perhaps?) to get a better price for their crude.
Cheap oil to the U.S. which then in turn sells it to foreign buyers, Canada eh?
I am also skeptical that The US will become petroleum self-sufficient. The article says it may take 20+ years, and a lot can happen in the meantime. The article did confirm what I had said before, that even if pipelines are not built from the mid-west fields to eastern refineries, pipelines will surely be built to the gulf coast, from where tankers could take the crude to the east coast refineries (leaving the RRs as niche players) .
But the question is, do we have to be petroleum dependent at all? Solar, GEO Thermal, wind, and who knows what else there might be, could supplant petroleum for many energy uses. The more we use any of them the less we need fuel/heating oil and gas. Part of the problem is that today's producers and investors in oil and gas are fearful they will lose if we change over...others have the foresight to know to work at developing new technologies and move with the flow.
That damned Trains magazine cover and banner are covering this up so I can find the "post" button....out damned banner, I sy out!
Part of the problem is that many people continue to believe that all crude oil is the same, which it definitely isn't. Refineries are engineered to process crude oils within a certain range and cannot handle other types without major rebuilding. A refinery in Houston designed to process heavy Venezuelan crude is not going to be able to process light Bakken crude very well, if at all.
henry6 Diningcar...the point is that the energy companies are telling you all we have is ours and we no longer have to rely on the rest of the world but in fact and in practice they are mining and pumping to send out of the country and is not for domestic use. The energreedy keep all the oil, gas, and minerals and money for themselves and Americans get basically screwed!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tatans carnej1 henry6 What a lot of these energy hype pieces don't tell you is that a majority of what is being produced here, or planned on being produced, is for off shore sales, not for US public consumption. Investors again have taken control and are not telling the whole truth. Keystone pipeline is to get to a refinery that will ship overseas not over the country which is why hedge funds, commodities gamblers, investment bankers, and other thieves want it so bad. You make some good points, but most of the Keystone pipeline's capacity is not going to be used for U.S Domestic Crude unless we've annexed Canada (did I miss that story?).. Nothing new about the "tangled Web" of the Petroleum Industry, it was thus even back when it was a U.S Domestic industry marketing product for Domestic use ("Standard Oil Trust", ect..) In essence, the U.S. did annex Canada back in the 50's with agreements and long term contracts with Alberta to ship oil to the U.S. under unbelievable restrictions, even to the point of first priority oil to the U.S. even if canada cannot provide for itself, I would assume these rules are still in effect, one reason Canada is looking for other markets (China, perhaps?) to get a better price for their crude. Cheap oil to the U.S. which then in turn sells it to foreign buyers, Canada eh?
But since then it could be argued that there is a little more parity.
I live in New England and one of our biggest fuel suppliers is a Canadian Company that refines,ships, and distributes Gas and Diesel (Hint, their prob. the biggest corporation in the Canadian Maritimes and the name begins with an "I" and ends with "rving"). Though I gather that much of the crude they refine up in New Brunswick currently is imported..
D.Carleton oltmannd D.Carleton At best domestic oil production may reach 10-10.5 million barrels per day. Current domestic demand is 18.5 million barrels per day. Independence? Dream on... You counting natural gas in this? You can 1) run vehicles on natural gas or 2) reform it to make liquid fuels. We don't HAVE to have crude oil to be energy independent. No. My cars do not run on natural gas. My neighbors' cars do not run on natural gas. None of my friends cars' run on natural gas (and I am a reformed moto-head). Anything that gets away from the standard of gasoline requires further investment. There are small pockets of natural gas filling stations for niche uses such as commuter bus/municipal vehicle fleets. What about the domestic privately owned automobile fleet? Domestic Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) peaked in 2007 and are in steady decline. No investor with half-a-brain would put his money in installing the infrastructure for public vehicle fueling en masse. That leaves the government... and they are broke. Perhaps "energy independence" shall come when domestic demand falls to meet domestic supply.
Did you miss the part about how you can make liquid fuels from natural gas? Gotta include natural gas in the equation.
Here's just one way: http://www.carbonsciences.com/applications.html
oltmannd Did you miss the part about how you can make liquid fuels from natural gas? Gotta include natural gas in the equation. Here's just one way: http://www.carbonsciences.com/applications.html
Fischer-Tropsch requires billions (that's "billions" with a "b") of investment and extreme market conditions. For coal-to-liquid the cost of natural oil has to remain high for years to justify the investment. For gas-to-liquid the cost of natural gas has to remain depressed for years for the same justification. Neither I nor any of my former co-workers (energy) expect gas to stay cheap forever let alone for the rest of the decade. No one with half-a-brain is willing to take this bet. (There have been a couple of small scale prototype plants built to prove the theory... with tax dollars, of course.)
We currently have a glut of cheap natural gas due to over-exploration a few years ago. This glut will eventually work itself down and the gas love affair will fade. This has a lot of us wringing our hands. Here in the Sunshine State 60% of our electrical generation is now from natural gas.
You can spend billions on Fischer-Tropsch plants or billions on natural gas distribution infrastructure and new vehicle fleets. Either way, you're going to pay.
Yes, you spelled "Fischer-Tropsch" right. Now, pronouce it as Fischer and Tropsch would have pronounced it.
I looked it up on Wikipedia, and the brief description tells us that it produces straight chain hydrocarbons primarily. You do not want it to produce n-heptane (seven carbons in a straight chain), for that has an octane rating of zero, and your engine will knock violently. Now, if it would produce iso-octane (octane rating =100--truly high-test gasoline), which is highly branched (two carbon atoms attached together, and each one has three methyl (CH3) groups attached to it), you would have an excellent energy source. You get the raw ingredients (carbon monoxide and hydrogen) from either coal or natural gas, combined with water. If you use coal, be sure there is no sulfur in it since sulfur poisons (naughty, naughty) the catalyst used in the synthesis, and poisoned catalyst just does not do its job.
Johnny
Deggesty Yes, you spelled "Fischer-Tropsch" right. Now, pronouce it as Fischer and Tropsch would have pronounced it. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and the brief description tells us that it produces straight chain hydrocarbons primarily. You do not want it to produce n-heptane (seven carbons in a straight chain), for that has an octane rating of zero, and your engine will knock violently. Now, if it would produce iso-octane (octane rating =100--truly high-test gasoline), which is highly branched (two carbon atoms attached together, and each one has three methyl (CH3) groups attached to it), you would have an excellent energy source. You get the raw ingredients (carbon monoxide and hydrogen) from either coal or natural gas, combined with water. If you use coal, be sure there is no sulfur in it since sulfur poisons (naughty, naughty) the catalyst used in the synthesis, and poisoned catalyst just does not do its job.
If memory serves the process is more effective at synthesizing diesel fuel than gasoline.
Murphy Siding Would you have a problem selling domestic grain to oversees buyers? What if the grain was shipped to the east coast by rail first, and made into flour? Would you be OK with that?
Would you have a problem selling domestic grain to oversees buyers? What if the grain was shipped to the east coast by rail first, and made into flour? Would you be OK with that?
Only if they are forced to stare at a gaudy yellow bar while they are eating it.
henry6Solar, GEO Thermal, wind, and who knows what else there might be, could supplant petroleum for many energy uses.
I think you hit the bullseye here, Henry. The key is "for many [but not all] energy uses." That is while we will not completely do away with petroleum products we can reduce our need for them to the point where we can take care of ourselves. Right now if you add Canadian oil to our own production we are close to doing that.
For years the money we have paid to the mid east for oil has been used to subsidize some pretty undesirable activities. If we added the price we have paid for these activities mid eastern oil has been quite expensive. And right now Canadian oil is less expensive than mid eastern oil.
Finally, one of the "what else there might be" just could turn out to be coal.
With best regards, John
Yes, the process produces more straight chain alkanes, which seem to be more suitable for diesel fuel, than branched alkanes, which do better in gasoline engines than straight chains do. I did not read the article carefully enough to learn how it is worked to produce the higher alkanes rather than methane, ethane, propane, butane. pentane, or hexane.
Isn't organic chemistry wonderful? When I was a little boy, I asked my oldest brother, who majored in chemistry in college, the difference between organic and inorganic compounds; he told me that organic compounds have carbon in them, and inorganic compounds do not. For some time, I thought that there would be more inorganic than organic compunds--and before I finished high school I learned that I was mistaken.
henry6 But the question is, do we have to be petroleum dependent at all? Solar, GEO Thermal, wind, and who knows what else there might be, could supplant petroleum for many energy uses.
But the question is, do we have to be petroleum dependent at all? Solar, GEO Thermal, wind, and who knows what else there might be, could supplant petroleum for many energy uses.
Liquid hydrocarbons will continue to be the first choice in transportation fuel for a while as there is nothing else with similar energy density (both energy per volume and weight) and convenience. Propane, compressed natural gas and batteries have some promise for short range land transportation, though propane is a form of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. Railroad electrification is the only proven alternative for use of liquid hydrocarbons for long distance land transportation, but it does require a reliable source of power.
Heating oil is one use of petroleum that could and probably should be replaced by other sources.
- Erik
erikem henry6 But the question is, do we have to be petroleum dependent at all? Solar, GEO Thermal, wind, and who knows what else there might be, could supplant petroleum for many energy uses. Liquid hydrocarbons will continue to be the first choice in transportation fuel for a while.... Propane, compressed natural gas and batteries have some promise for short range land transportation.... ....Heating oil is one use of petroleum that could and probably should be replaced by other sources. - Erik
Liquid hydrocarbons will continue to be the first choice in transportation fuel for a while.... Propane, compressed natural gas and batteries have some promise for short range land transportation....
....Heating oil is one use of petroleum that could and probably should be replaced by other sources.
I'm not doubting any of that. But if we can use sun, wind, GEO, whatever else instead, then we are less dependent over.
So what is the advantage of being energy independent?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.