Sinclair Oil, the 38th Largest private company in the US, has decided to invest $1,000,000,000.00+ in its Tulsa Refinery. Sinclair owns 1000 miles of pipeline, exploration sites, and 3 high end western resort hotels as well as 3 refineries (2 @ 60,000 Barrels a day and one in Sinclair Wyoming at 20K).
The investment in the Tulsa plant is purported to nearly double capacity AND halve total emissions levels. In addition to cleaner air, employment is likely to increase by 200 positions... not to mention the massive construction effort over the next 3 years. Construction is going to begin early in 2008 and may last up to three years.
The official announcement is to come at 11:30 today. I found nothing on the Sinclairoil.com website as of yet.
This is good news.
But I hope it doesn't disturb happy hour on the river. I hate sipping my mint juleps with all that pesky industry going on. It's not good, socially. Hard to hear my friends tell their stupid jokes. [:D]
So that's why they've been buying up property over there. Maybe they'll make gasoline we could actually use here in Tulsa.
Wow, this is some great news. Tulsa snags a billion dollar investment and cleaner air. We are so fortunate to have that old oil money legacy still paying off. Its amazing even all these years later. Sometimes when I have taken visitors from out of town along the River Parks they have commented. "Wow, whats that!?" I tell them thats big oil, thats money, thats what made Tulsa, Tulsa. Without that we wouldnt have half of what we have here. They say "Cool." I think they look kind of neat, especially at night. If anything they definitely help give Tulsa that "unique sense of place and identity" lol. We are a city that was built on oil after all.
http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070906_1_A1_hAhug03120
-60% increase in output
-Significantly reduced emissions and smell
-Flares hidden from view
-200ish new jobs
And they'll have a nice new 41st street bridge to travel across, it's all coming together..lol
For that much investment they could move it far away and clean up what they left us.....
Good location for an amusement park.
Great jobs to boot. Should knock down the downtown vacancy rates.
Do you believe what they tell you?
I sure as hell don't.
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
For that much investment they could move it far away and clean up what they left us.....
Good location for an amusement park.
Great jobs to boot. Should knock down the downtown vacancy rates.
Do you believe what they tell you?
I sure as hell don't.
I would imagine cleanup/shutdown costs would be near that. I would like to see a real plot plan though to see how much bigger it will get. Since they are talking about trying to make the plant less noticeable, how about a greenspace barrier and some other requirements for public works/offsets. It sounds like they are basically rebuilding the whole thing, would think they could work that in.
I know I'm trying not to engage AOX in substantive discussions, but I can't resist here.
A) I was waiting for you to jump in and shout NAY! I was hoping their would be some substance though. Moving the entire refinery, tank farm, and pipelines as well as environmental cleanup on a site that has been an oil refinery for 100 years would cost billions.
1) If increasing the size by 50% costs ONE BILLION without moving the tank farm or pipelines and having only to purchase a limited amount of new land while operating under existing permits... one would assume rebuilding 100% Capacity + 50% would cost around $2.5 Billion.
2) BP Pipeline in Cushing just replaced 6 tanks for the cost of $250,000,000... Sinclair would have to tear down and rebuild dozens for a cost of another billion or so.
3) Pipeline work usually costs about $2mil for every kilometer. Lets pretend their new location is right on a pipeline and ignore it... it gets expensive fast other wise.
4) Land acquisition... ignore the NIMBLY factor this would add yet more expense. We shall pretend it is free.
5) Permitting - no new permits have been issued for a refinery in the United States for 30 years. Even trying to do so would cost tens if not hundreds of millions in legal fess and take a decade. We'll pretend they can get the permit.
6) Cleanup. Dear god, this is easily going to run another $250,000,000.00. This refinery operated for 50 years before the EPA even existed. They had open pools of oil. All the land would have to be dug out to a great depth and in filled with the refuse disposed of in HAZMAT sites.
So other than the fact that it has been impossible for 30 years, the decade it would add to the time frame, and the couple BILLION in added expense. Good point.
[edit]Prices are at a minimum, to make a point...[/edit]
B) Refinery jobs pay very well. Why disparage jobs that pay well above average wage and provide great benefits? Another couple hundred oil hands, pipeline techs, petroleum engineers, and operators will be needed in addition to support staff of firefighters, managers, and office personnel. Not to mention the hundreds of high paying construction jobs that will be provided for 3 years... these are not generic $10 hammer men brought in, they will be skilled iron workers, crane operators, welders, and journeymen.
C) Great point, it probably will help downtown occupancy rates since this will be the largest asset in Sinclair's inventory (pipelines, 2 other soon to be smaller refineries, gas stations, exploration operation, and few luxury hotels/resorts). Since they have offices downtown they are not likely to close them so long as they have such a large asset nearby.
D) As always, it seems you have a better source of information than anyone else. I wish I had your sources, or that you would cite to some very now and then.
- - - - -
as a side note, I would like to point out that TulsaNow has been picked up by Google Finance as a source for this story:
http://finance.google.com/finance?cid=149509
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
For that much investment they could move it far away and clean up what they left us.....
Good location for an amusement park.
Great jobs to boot. Should knock down the downtown vacancy rates.
Do you believe what they tell you?
I sure as hell don't.
It would take a whooole lot more than a "measly" billion dollars to move and replace what is already there. A new refinery from scratch can cost anywhere from 4 to 12 billion, or more, these days depending on what the refinery is doing and its size. I dont think an amusement park in that area could possibly make as much money as that refinery will.
Well we are waist deep in the big muddy and all the fools say push on....
Will the country ever do anything to move us off the big tit of fossil fuels?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
Well we are waist deep in the big muddy and all the fools say push on....
Will the country ever do anything to move us off the big tit of fossil fuels?
Translation: I was totally wrong, I guess what I said made no sense at all. Thanks for correcting me. Now lets change the subject quickly and move on.
- - - - -
Sq: From what I am hearing they will continue to operate the plant at full capacity whenever possible while adding on. When the initial phase is complete they will do some more work on the older sections, but the older sections have just been "turned around" not long ago.
A green space section would be really appreciated. It would do loads for their image too. Lets hope this works out as it seems like it is going to, oil companies seem to realize that they need to improve their image across the board to keep the politicians on their side.
Green Space? Give me a break. It would only be noticeable to those flying over it.
Again. Why believe in these creatures?
They do not have your best interest in mind.
They can't build new refineries. So, they will continue to magnify the obnoxiousness of the environmental detriment already here....
So basically, if news comes out that you do not like (that is good for Tulsa or the US) you just cover your ears and shout "I wont believe it!" What a fantastic way of supporting your world view.
Just 15 minutes ago you were talking about how they should build new refineries, now you say that they can not. Which is it?
Lets hear your grand plan AOX. For once, instead of just shouting NAY tell us what you want to happen. It is, after all, all about you.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
So basically, if news comes out that you do not like (that is good for Tulsa or the US) you just cover your ears and shout "I wont believe it!" What a fantastic way of supporting your world view.
Just 15 minutes ago you were talking about how they should build new refineries, now you say that they can not. Which is it?
Lets hear your grand plan AOX. For once, instead of just shouting NAY tell us what you want to happen. It is, after all, all about you.
Establish a %70 federal tax on all income over $250,000.
Use tax shelters for those who want to risk investing in alternative energy and clean energy.
Tax the hell out of polluters and fossil fuel producers.
Refineries are currently unable to relocate. Change that. And curtail their pollution.
A seperate TW article states that they are going to pay for a quarter million dollars worth of landscape improvements along the river around their facilities.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
A seperate TW article states that they are going to pay for a quarter million dollars worth of landscape improvements along the river around their facilities.
A great place to insert that saying about not being able to see the forest......amongst the smog and stacks and tanks and....
Sorry folks. Ever since I was a little kid I have viewed the refineries and power plant as a detriment to Tulsa.
There is a silver lining, this will be another nail in the coffin for the river tax.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
There is a silver lining, this will be another nail in the coffin for the river tax.
You may be right regarding public perception.
However, the reality is that this expansion will actually improve air quality in the surrounding area.
I have not seen what improvements are planned to reduce emissions. I will try to get more information and report back soon.
They can greatly reduce emissions by spending enough money. I hope they will.
The Sinclair refinery has a spotted past for environmental compliance so I am a little skeptical, but what they are saying is all the things I would want them to say.
I'm very excited about this, not only will it make alot of jobs, -good jobs at good pay- but will put much needed gasoline into the market.[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
There is a silver lining, this will be another nail in the coffin for the river tax.
Why is that?
A big investment in Tulsa. An expanding economy with more jobs. Reduced emissions and smell around the area. Extensive landscaping that will make that part of the river more beautiful and help hide the refineries.
How is that going to hurt the river tax?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I have not seen what improvements are planned to reduce emissions. I will try to get more information and report back soon.
They can greatly reduce emissions by spending enough money. I hope they will.
The Sinclair refinery has a spotted past for environmental compliance so I am a little skeptical, but what they are saying is all the things I would want them to say.
One thing I read some where lol. Was that they say a lot of the smell from the refinery is due to a process, that uses bacteria, they use to degrade some of the waste materials of the refinery. They are going to make that so it doesn't allow the odors to escape. Sorry dont remember the specifics and its just a "smell factor improvement" not a pollutant thing. Unless you count that smell as a pollutant.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I have not seen what improvements are planned to reduce emissions. I will try to get more information and report back soon.
They can greatly reduce emissions by spending enough money. I hope they will.
The Sinclair refinery has a spotted past for environmental compliance so I am a little skeptical, but what they are saying is all the things I would want them to say.
One thing I read some where lol. Was that they say a lot of the smell from the refinery is due to a process, that uses bacteria, they use to degrade some of the waste materials of the refinery. They are going to make that so it doesn't allow the odors to escape. Sorry dont remember the specifics and its just a "smell factor improvement" not a pollutant thing. Unless you count that smell as a pollutant.
That was in friday's World. They are replacing the outdoor wastewater treatment process with a cleaner and odor scrubbed one.
The latest I have heard:
1) Increase output from 60-70,000 Barrels Per Day (bpd) to 110,000 (bpd)
2) Decrease pollution from 7,000 tons per year to 6,000
3) Implementation of smell reduction (aforementioned bacteria as well as sulfur smell with new scrubbers)
4) Reduction of particulate with scrubbers (Ozone/haze)
5) Maintain same footprint while purchasing adjacent property if persons wish to move (the rep said they wanted to create a buffer, presumably to minimize complaints during construction)
Since this is under the jurisdiction of the EPA and requires an Oklahoma air permit it is not a matter of "trusting" the company. It would be extremely difficult for them to go back on the things that are not required at this point (purchasing of other property, landscaping, leases to River Parks).
So my question is, where is the negative news in this?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The latest I have heard:
1) Increase output from 60-70,000 Barrels Per Day (bpd) to 110,000 (bpd)
2) Decrease pollution from 7,000 tons per year to 6,000
3) Implementation of smell reduction (aforementioned bacteria as well as sulfur smell with new scrubbers)
4) Reduction of particulate with scrubbers (Ozone/haze)
5) Maintain same footprint while purchasing adjacent property if persons wish to move (the rep said they wanted to create a buffer, presumably to minimize complaints during construction)
Since this is under the jurisdiction of the EPA and requires an Oklahoma air permit it is not a matter of "trusting" the company. It would be extremely difficult for them to go back on the things that are not required at this point (purchasing of other property, landscaping, leases to River Parks).
So my question is, where is the negative news in this?
6) Purchasing some additional nearby property for office/warehouse space.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The latest I have heard:
1) Increase output from 60-70,000 Barrels Per Day (bpd) to 110,000 (bpd)
2) Decrease pollution from 7,000 tons per year to 6,000
3) Implementation of smell reduction (aforementioned bacteria as well as sulfur smell with new scrubbers)
4) Reduction of particulate with scrubbers (Ozone/haze)
5) Maintain same footprint while purchasing adjacent property if persons wish to move (the rep said they wanted to create a buffer, presumably to minimize complaints during construction)
Since this is under the jurisdiction of the EPA and requires an Oklahoma air permit it is not a matter of "trusting" the company. It would be extremely difficult for them to go back on the things that are not required at this point (purchasing of other property, landscaping, leases to River Parks).
So my question is, where is the negative news in this?
I think that decreases their air pollution by 1,000 tons per day. 6,000 tons per year would be an itty-bitty, tiny refinery.
Just to toss this out there.
If the river tax fails, the city of Tulsa should annex the refinery and write a TIFF on the increase in property tax value to fund the river plan.
The refinery certainly creates blight and therefore taking the taxes from it to reduce the blight it creates should fit the rules on a TIFF (if there really are any anymore).
Their pollution is 7,000 Tons per year. The current renovations will reduce emissions by 1000 Tons per year. The Tulsa World reported 1000 Tons per day, which is incorrect.
For comparison, a 6 cylinder Taurus car produces .04 pounds of air pollution per mile driven. Or 600 pounds (.3 Tons) in an average 15,000 mile year. So that refinery produces about 20,000 cars worth of pollution in a given year... ignoring the SUVs and trucks that pollute more and the some that pollute less (I would guess the average skews up).
An average coal plant emits 10,000 Tons of Sulfur Dioxide alone (in researching this I discovered that coal plants cause more nuclear waste than nuclear plants, coal as uranium in it and it is summarily disbursed when burned. Who knew? link (//%22http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html%22))
Couldnt find any more comparisons...