I was hopeful that the Sunoco Refinery would be converted to a terminal (as Sunoco had speculated) and that Tulsa's Refinery Odors would diminish. But I read with disappointment that Sunoco has sold their Tulsa refinery and that it will continue to operate as a refinery.
How do you handle knowing that Tulsa will probably never be as good as she could be?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20090417_49_A1_Tieilv171134&archive=yes
As much as I would like to join you in the disappointment, I am pretty happy the refinery will remain open. Though we are largely unaffected by the recession we can't really absorb that many well paying jobs.
Also as a country we already don't have enough refining power, last thing we need to do is lose a refinery. I am all for diversification of our energy use, but until we are using other means we should not hurt ourselves by diminishing the energy we do have.
The weaning off oil will take our lifetimes; in the meantime we don't want to make the lives of most citizens harder by unfairly raising energy costs. Think about it, in Oklahoma right now how else are you going to get around besides a vehicle powered by refined oil products?
Until we have better mass transit options should we really make life harder for most Americans? We both know the answer to that question.
As for the smell, if the upgrades are completed that should help some, just something we have to live with, part of our economic makeup.
As for Tulsa not being as good as it could be, I really wish I knew how having a refinery holds us back.
No matter what there are many fights to be won before we are less oil dependent. Let's recycle more plastics, let's reduce power usage per household, let's get better hybrid technology in cars, let's get more and better mass transit, andlet's solve the real problems first before we worry about things like refineries.
Quote from: godboko71 on April 20, 2009, 04:16:03 PM
As much as I would like to join you in the disappointment, I am pretty happy the refinery will remain open. Though we are largely unaffected by the recession we can't really absorb that many well paying jobs.
Also as a country we already don't have enough refining power, last thing we need to do is lose a refinery. I am all for diversification of our energy use, but until we are using other means we should not hurt ourselves by diminishing the energy we do have.
The weaning off oil will take our lifetimes; in the meantime we don't want to make the lives of most citizens harder by unfairly raising energy costs. Think about it, in Oklahoma right now how else are you going to get around besides a vehicle powered by refined oil products?
Until we have better mass transit options should we really make life harder for most Americans? We both know the answer to that question.
As for the smell, if the upgrades are completed that should help some, just something we have to live with, part of our economic makeup.
As for Tulsa not being as good as it could be, I really wish I knew how having a refinery holds us back.
No matter what there are many fights to be won before we are less oil dependent. Let's recycle more plastics, let's reduce power usage per household, let's get better hybrid technology in cars, let's get more and better mass transit, andlet's solve the real problems first before we worry about things like refineries.
You remind me of that character from Snow White....so change your id to "Happy"!
Keeping 400 employees is not worth the lung issue for the city......
I'm a life long Liberal that is pro-Oil. Baby Bush wanted us to build new refineries and I argued here for a new state-of-the-art refinery in Cushing built with federal and state assistance in an Industrial Park owned by Tulsa. Converting the refinery to a terminal was a realistic possibility that would have saved some oil industry jobs and would have eliminated the toxic emissions that have hampered development of large swaths of otherwise desirable areas of Tulsa. With the planned additions to the refinery it looks like it will be here for the foreseeable future. Now four hundred jobs have been saved but I suspect that far more jobs would have been gained with my plan and Tulsa's livability quotient would have soared.
I love oil (read big money) but I don't like 100 year old refineries or folks breathing toxins. I also love Tulsa and it is saddens me to see this opportunity (to convert our ancient refinery to a terminal) slip away.
At least the modernization will still go forward.
Actually, HT, their may be some optimism to be gained from the sale. It was sold. That means it is not in such a decrepit state, with such immense deferred liabilities that it could not be sold. Now it gets upgrades to make cleaner air and they will probably keep some money back for remediation. It is a marketable piece of property than can be remediated if and when it is no longer profitable. Sunoco could have simply filed bankruptcy and dumped the cleanup on the taxpayer.
Quote from: waterboy on April 20, 2009, 09:18:16 PM
Actually, HT, their may be some optimism to be gained from the sale. It was sold. That means it is not in such a decrepit state, with such immense deferred liabilities that it could not be sold. Now it gets upgrades to make cleaner air and they will probably keep some money back for remediation. It is a marketable piece of property than can be remediated if and when it is no longer profitable. Sunoco could have simply filed bankruptcy and dumped the cleanup on the taxpayer.
Too much info, aquaman.
"Now it gets upgrades to make cleaner air and they
will probably keep some money back for
remediation make-up. It is a
marketable piece of property nightmare that (sp)
can be remediated
if and when it is no longer profitable."
Looks to me like you've been celebrating 4-20.
Just found out what 420 was today. Ironic isn't it that it surpasses Columbine in notoriety?
I admit I am more hopeful than I should be that the land will ever become marketed as anything but a refinery in my lifetime. It would be pretty amazing to see it happen.
Quote from: waterboy on April 20, 2009, 09:32:12 PM
Just found out what 420 was today. Ironic isn't it that it surpasses Columbine in notoriety?
I admit I am more hopeful than I should be that the land will ever become marketed as anything but a refinery in my lifetime. It would be pretty amazing to see it happen.
1) It would take more than a lifetime to clean up.
2) Oh that smell does wonders for economic development....does non-attainment strike a familiar note?
3) SPEAKING OF SMELL, 4/20 IS NOT NOTORIOUS. YOUR COMPARISON MINIMIZES THE COLUMBINE TRAGEDY.
You've given good reason to why you should know more about 420 and you definitely need some "experience".
Save Mother Earth...we all breathe the same air!
How does the Sinclair refinery compare in age, toxicity, and likelihood of rehabilitation of the land?
Quote from: YoungTulsan on April 20, 2009, 09:44:23 PM
How does the Sinclair refinery compare in age, toxicity, and likelihood of rehabilitation of the land?
It's highest and best use after a "cleanup" would be parkland because no lender and borrower could get the necessary certification to escape the future liability potential.
disagree. ARCO was cleaned up further upstream within a few years. Other refineries of the same period have been reclaimed too. We may end up with high speed trains and very few people to use them when the combined effects of toxics we've dumped for generations come back to haunt us.
Your attitude is a bit high handed. Especially as regards what experience I may need. "Notorious" as in an illegal, infamous, controversial, addictive, drug whose euphoric qualities are not only exagerrated but pretty useless unless you have a particular medical need or just want to waste time, gain weight and lose employment. Columbine deserved more attention than some cute little inside joke about getting high. I had several people refer to it today and even heard NPR spend way too much time discussing it. Very little on Columbine. More on the OKC bombing. Maybe there was a better word than nororiety. Forgetfulness.
Intersting that CNBC spent much time coverage on Columbine and not much of anything on 420. Did you have NPR on all day?
Always took those little murderers for goths...far from it...."normal" kids....as far as you can go with that description before you run right into them "becoming" psychopaths.
Don't be so forgetful....others will attribute it to smoking pot or alzheimers.
Tulsa, clean up your space!
Quote from: Floyd on April 20, 2009, 07:16:32 PM
At least the modernization will still go forward.
Wrong refinery.
Griz, the article mentions that they are pumping nearly $200,000,000 to modernize the refinery. That is this companies M.O. Buy a refinery that someone is begging to unload on the cheap, pump in some money, profit. Specifically my research indicates they want it to produce low sulfur diesel, of which there is a current shortage (hence diesel has been higher than gas since the low sulfur requirement). You can't build new refineries anymore, but you can buy old ones and overhaul them.
I can't predict exactly what they will do, but this is an improvement over the status quo - which was to let it rot.
400 local jobs directly to the refinery and at least 400 ancillary jobs, most of them in fabrication, engineering, or other oil support jobs that pay well. Throw in the residual effect that 800 good jobs has on retail and services, the tax base, etc. That's a huge economic impact.
As for reclamation of the land, the very short answer is: no. It has been used to process oil for nearly 100 years. Much of that time totally unregulated. Without direct knowledge of THAT refinery, similar situations are hopelessly contaminated with heavy metals (remember leaded gasoline?), chemical leaching, and of course crude residue in the top 10-20 feet of soil. The techniques used in the past had no consideration for the land they were sitting on and refineries are essentially prohibited from cleaning it up (all or nothing).
I don't know what the pollution impact of the refinery is, but if given the choice between the economic benefits of renovating it or having 200 acres of abandoned toxic wasteland - I think I'll keep the refinery.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 21, 2009, 08:30:26 AM
Griz, the article mentions that they are pumping nearly $200,000,000 to modernize the refinery. That is this companies M.O. Buy a refinery that someone is begging to unload on the cheap, pump in some money, profit. Specifically my research indicates they want it to produce low sulfur diesel, of which there is a current shortage (hence diesel has been higher than gas since the low sulfur requirement). You can't build new refineries anymore, but you can buy old ones and overhaul them.
I can't predict exactly what they will do, but this is an improvement over the status quo - which was to let it rot.
400 local jobs directly to the refinery and at least 400 ancillary jobs, most of them in fabrication, engineering, or other oil support jobs that pay well. Throw in the residual effect that 800 good jobs has on retail and services, the tax base, etc. That's a huge economic impact.
As for reclamation of the land, the very short answer is: no. It has been used to process oil for nearly 100 years. Much of that time totally unregulated. Without direct knowledge of THAT refinery, similar situations are hopelessly contaminated with heavy metals (remember leaded gasoline?), chemical leaching, and of course crude residue in the top 10-20 feet of soil. The techniques used in the past had no consideration for the land they were sitting on and refineries are essentially prohibited from cleaning it up (all or nothing).
I don't know what the pollution impact of the refinery is, but if given the choice between the economic benefits of renovating it or having 200 acres of abandoned toxic wasteland - I think I'll keep the refinery.
I took from the phrase "the modernization will go forward" that he is talking about an existing modernization plan (which is Sinclair) and not the upgrade plan Holly announced.
I see the reports of the emissions from the refinery. The Sunoco refinery has had no notices of violations for a while. I am pleased with the current operation of the refinery. The environmental folk and the maintenence staff work very hard at staying in compliance.
Yes, it is a nasty business that in hindsight would not be that close to a downtown and residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the refinery was there first and many of the businesses and homes affected came as a result of the wealth it produced.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 21, 2009, 09:05:42 AM
I see the reports of the emissions from the refinery. The Sunoco refinery has had no notices of violations for a while. I am pleased with the current operation of the refinery. The environmental folk and the maintenence staff work very hard at staying in compliance.
Yes, it is a nasty business that in hindsight would not be that close to a downtown and residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the refinery was there first and many of the businesses and homes affected came as a result of the wealth it produced.
90 YEARS AGO.....YIKES!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 21, 2009, 09:05:42 AM
I see the reports of the emissions from the refinery. The Sunoco refinery has had no notices of violations for a while. I am pleased with the current operation of the refinery. The environmental folk and the maintenence staff work very hard at staying in compliance.
Yes, it is a nasty business that in hindsight would not be that close to a downtown and residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the refinery was there first and many of the businesses and homes affected came as a result of the wealth it produced.
Yes, refinery was early in our history and it helped create Tulsa's wealth but since this time laws regulating toxic emissions have come into existence and a consensus has formed that we should strive for a clean environment. In earlier threads we have talked about some toxins created by refineries that are not monitored by the EPA that are carcinogens. When we talk about bad smells the root of the concern is toxins harmful to our health. And for those new to this issue that are unaware of our history, three Tulsa neighborhoods have brought lawsuits claiming deaths and other damages resulting from the refineries.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on April 20, 2009, 09:44:23 PM
How does the Sinclair refinery compare in age, toxicity, and likelihood of rehabilitation of the land?
The Sinclair refinery has the worse track record of the two. They have announced ambitious plans to upgrade and lower toxic emissions but I'm concerned about two things, the faultering price of oil may dampen their plans and they have been fined repeatedly and I do not trust them to abide by their announcement.
Quote from: Hometown on April 21, 2009, 12:22:15 PM
The Sinclair refinery has the worse track record of the two. They have announced ambitious plans to upgrade and lower toxic emissions but I'm concerned about two things, the faultering price of oil may dampen their plans and they have been fined repeatedly and I do not trust them to abide by their announcement.
Demand for gasoline will be soft but oil and inflation are about to go crazy.
YES, THEY ANNOUNCE BS AND DO SOMETHING ELSE TO IMPRESS THE CITY AND IT'S PEOPLE. THEY POLLUTE THE RIVER AND HIDE IT. THEY HAVE NO INTEGRITY. THEY STINK (in more ways than one).
Happy Earth Day Wednesday
What a tremendous a$$et this place is. A highly suspicious company...with fewer employees and little concern for the air you breathe. Stinkair!
"The inspectors were on site for six months and conducted this program thoroughly and professionally," Goodwin said in a statement. "We are addressing and will work to address the concerns found in the inspection. This will allow us to continue the safe operation of the refinery and build on our track record of safety."
Sinclair is already undertaking a $35 million environmental upgrade to satisfy an earlier federal settlement on air emission violations. The company, however, put a planned $1 billion expansion on hold due to what Goodwin called "external economics."
Sinclair officials would not comment on reports last week that the Utah parent company is seeking a buyer for its Tulsa refinery.
Sinclair Tulsa Refining Co. employs about 300 people and has a capacity of 65,000 barrels per day, according to reports. The nearby former Sunoco refinery, bought by Holly Corp. for $65 million earlier this year, is planning a $150 million environmental upgrade due for completion in 2011. "
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20090805_49_E1_Sincla16574&archive=yes
OSHA violation=/= environmental issue.
Get a freaking clue and quit stinking up the board.
You need to get a clue....this purchase http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20091021_49_A1_TeCsei438057 just neutered our RiverParks program .
" The Sinclair purchase makes a $150 million desulfurization project at the old Sunoco obsolete, while the $1 billion Sinclair expansion has been on hold for most of this year. " http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20091021_49_E1_TheSin983879
"you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" Bob Dylan (Brady Saturday Night!)
Not needed.
- Moderator
In an effort to consolidate the refinery threads, please see:
Sinclair sold to Holly (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14451.0;topicseen)