Refinery project good for Tulsa
Tulsa may no longer be the "Oil Capital of America," as it once claimed, but the energy industry continues to be a big part of the local economy.
Last week Sinclair Tulsa Refinery Co. broke ground on a $1 billion expansion of its west Tulsa refinery that promises to be a major economic boon for the area.
The expansion means that Sinclair, a name that goes back to the halcyon days of Tulsa's oil and gas industry, will be able to increase refinery output by 60 percent, most of that in diesel fuel production. Gasoline production will increase by 22 percent.
New clean-air technology, meanwhile, will significantly reduce emissions, even with the increased production. The company also will plant 190 trees and triple the area that it leases to the River Parks for public use on the west bank of the Arkansas River.
The project will require 4 million man-hours of labor, and employ 2,500 workers, a great many of them from the Tulsa area. Sinclair already has placed or expects to place $150 million in orders from Tulsa-area businesses. After the expansion is completed in 2010, Sinclair will add 200 long-term, permanent jobs.
From every perspective, the Sinclair expansion is a good deal for Tulsa.
What a crock of bs. One, they're not spending a Beellion, IMHO. Two, if you got allergies, they just got worse. And three, the air we breathe is our future. Our air sucks. Not good for economic development over the long term. But good for construction companies over the short term. Short term gain for long term pain...Don't tell the World Editors, they blow.
I'm not sure I understand your objections.
How are allergies going to get worse?
And won't the air quality be measurable? There are specific pollution metrics, right? It will either be cleaner or it won't. Everyone seems to think the metrics from this site will decrease because of the new technology--so how is this bad for Tulsa air quality?
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm not sure I understand your objections.
How are allergies going to get worse?
And won't the air quality be measurable? There are specific pollution metrics, right? It will either be cleaner or it won't. Everyone seems to think the metrics from this site will decrease because of the new technology--so how is this bad for Tulsa air quality?
If you don't understand the connection between diesel emissions and pollen increases, do your own research.
Let's see, have these refiners in our area adversely affected our environment? Don't believe a thing you read or hear from these lying beatches.
Just asking questions.
Note to self: for future reference, don't attempt to engage Deadheads in intelligent conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Just asking questions.
Note to self: for future reference, don't attempt to engage Deadheads in intelligent conversation.
Learned that a long time ago!
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm not sure I understand your objections.
How are allergies going to get worse?
And won't the air quality be measurable? There are specific pollution metrics, right? It will either be cleaner or it won't. Everyone seems to think the metrics from this site will decrease because of the new technology--so how is this bad for Tulsa air quality?
If you don't understand the connection between diesel emissions and pollen increases, do your own research.
Let's see, have these refiners in our area adversely affected our environment? Don't believe a thing you read or hear from these lying beatches.
Reading comprehension please. They are going to be producing 60% more diesel, not burning it. I would imagine a lot of that will be pipelined out to various areas. That's hopefully good news in lowering diesel prices which will help lower the costs of all the items the suffering poor folk you claim to know use.
1. Emissions & Odor will go down.
As mandated by the EPA emissions at the facility will drop by more than 10%, odor emissions more significantly than that. Plants are grandfathered in, this one operates under 1970's guidelines... UNLESS they do a certain level of work. At which point they have to come into full compliance.
quote:
The expansion will reduce harmful emissions about 1,000 tons a day.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20070907/ai_n19513332
So we are improving environmental technology by about 20 or 30 years... and that's bad?
2. How is they are not spending a billion?
All the information released to the FERC, shareholders, and the media uses the $1 Billion figure. Spending $1 Billion to increase production at a refinery by 60% sounds about right. 4 million man hours + infrastructure and equipment rental expense.
I've contracted work on turnarounds and expansion projects much smaller than this that went $100 million mighty fast.
3. The effects of diesel on allergies has been nearly brought in line with gasoline since everyone must use Low Sulfur diesel now. Furthermore, the production of more diesel in Tulsa does not equal the use of more diesel in Tulsa.
Coupled with the reduction of emissions from the refinery itself, I can only assume the increase in green space is what will cause worse allergies. You're against more green space? (I have allergies)
4. Not good for economic development?
$150mil in orders from manufacturing venture in TULSA already or soon. Certainly more to come. 200 more jobs. This will probably lead to more pipeline work, maintenance, and other utilization of Tulsa's oil infrastructure.
How is this bad in the long run given the industrial orders, the new jobs, and the reduced emissions?
5. Good for construction companies over the short run. Yep. So what? This isn't a tax payer funded venture to keep FlintoCo busy after the BOk, this is a major oil company spending major money in Tulsa.
Why is that bad?
- - -
Seriously, explain yourself on this one. Every one of your points was totally off base. This is good for Tulsa's economy in the long run as well as an immediate boost int he short run, it is good for the environment, and good for the US economy as a whole as refined product continues to be in short supply.
Don't just post some crap-o-article, address my points please.
- - - - -
[edit]Ps. can anyone read the thread title without singing it and playing the guitar riff after the vocal in their head?[/edit]
Proof please that this will lead to lower prices.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Proof please that this will lead to lower prices.
Here is a proof showing prices may go down:
- Price is inverse to the ratio of supply/demand.
- More production of fuel will increase the supply while having no effect on demand.
- Therefor price will do down.
Quod Erat DemonstrandumNow address the primary points instead of an ancillary bennefit which was raised.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Just asking questions.
Note to self: for future reference, don't attempt to engage Deadheads in intelligent conversation.
Your juvenile response indicates your incapacity to search on your own, but these are well known trends among the medical community of one of many dangers evolving in the environment as the result of refining fosil fuels at these new levels not only burning them.
Global Warming May Compound Allergies
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=62385
Toxins, Allergies and Your Pet
http://www.cyberpet.com/cats/articles/health/toxiweb.htm
Toxic Tulsa? Has a nice sting to it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Proof please that this will lead to lower prices.
Here is a proof showing prices may go down:
- Price is inverse to the ratio of supply/demand.
- More production of fuel will increase the supply while having no effect on demand.
- Therefor price will do down.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Now address the primary points instead of an ancillary bennefit which was raised.
In a perfect world, yes the price would go down.
But the ability to release fuel to the open market is controlled and therefore supply can be manipulated to score a higher price. Hence, more profit for the refiner.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Just asking questions.
Note to self: for future reference, don't attempt to engage Deadheads in intelligent conversation.
Your juvenile response indicates your incapacity to search on your own, but these are well known trends among the medical community of one of many dangers evolving in the environment as the result of refining fosil fuels at these new levels not only burning them.
Global Warming May Compound Allergies
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=62385
Toxins, Allergies and Your Pet
http://www.cyberpet.com/cats/articles/health/toxiweb.htm
Toxic Tulsa? Has a nice sting to it.
We could just run our cars off of hemp oil and smoke the rest. I hear pot cures allergies. That's my Juvenile response. [:D]
What's yours CF?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
But the ability to release fuel to the open market is controlled and therefore supply can be manipulated to score a higher price. Hence, more profit for the refiner.
If you have evidence of overt market manipulation please release it. Because I have worked with refiners in the past and they hold minimal inventories. There are no vast fields of diesel tanks holding months worth of fuel to inflate prices. Nice conspiracy theory, but it's not true.
Furthermore, refineries operate on slim margins. Pointing a finger at refiners for gross profits is pure ignorance.
And finally,
ADDRESS MY POINTS.You are again skirting the issue while blasting others for refusal to discuss with you.
Facts About Diesel Exhaust
http://www.alaw.org/air_quality/outdoor_air_quality/facts_about_diesel_exhaust.html
Diesel exhaust is a major source of air pollution, which contributes to lung and other types of cancer, respiratory tract infections and lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
Diesel exhaust is a major source of air toxics. More than 40 substances are listed as hazardous pollutants. Because of their size, when these particles are inhaled, they can become trapped in the small airways of the lungs. These particles can be coated with potent mutagens and carcinogens.
Since 1990, diesel exhaust has been listed as a known carcinogen under California's Proposition 65, and in 1998, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) formally listed diesel particulate as a toxic air contaminant. The extensive scientific literature demonstrates that exposure to diesel exhaust increases the risk of developing lung cancer and other non-cancer health problems.
Numerous studies have found that fine particles impair lung function, aggravate respiratory illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema, and are associated with premature deaths. Dozens of studies link airborne fine particle concentrations to increased hospital admissions for respiratory diseases, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia and heart disease. In April 2003, the <%$alatitle%> released a report called Closing the Diesel Divide, Protecting Public Health From Diesel Air Pollution to spotlight the magnitude of the impact of diesel air pollution and to show policy makers and the public that there are life-saving solutions at hand.
Recent studies on the relationship between asthmatic responses and proximity to major roadways add to concerns about diesel's contribution to asthma. Studies have shown that the proximity of a child's school or home to major roads may be linked to asthma, and the severity of children's asthmatic symptoms increases with proximity to truck traffic. Studies are ongoing in this area of research.
In Washington, asthma is now an epidemic where one in ten adults and one in nine children has this chronic lung disease.
Protecting Yourself From Diesel is Nearly Impossible
It is impossible for most people to avoid exposure to diesel exhaust. Trucks and buses are everywhere. To make matters worse, the most vulnerable among us are being exposed to the most diesel exhaust.
Children are among those most vulnerable to the health risks of diesel exhaust exposure, yet they ride on some of the oldest and most polluting diesel buses on the road today, sometimes for hours at a time. Constant, significant exposure to diesel exhaust, coupled with a child's heightened vulnerability to pollution, is widely recognized as a potential cause of severe health problems in children. It is well known, for example, that children raised in heavily polluted areas face the prospect of reduced lung capacity and prematurely aged lungs. In addition, childhood asthma is on the rise and is, among chronic conditions, the leading cause of absenteeism from school.
Another vulnerable population is low-income communities where large numbers of people of color and the elderly live. These communities are often located near freeways, shipping yards, and other areas with heavy diesel truck traffic.
Diesel emissions are also released throughout the process of fuel production, refining, distribution and dispensing. Diesel refining, distribution and storage facilities are predominantly located in these communities, which are already burdened by major air pollution and toxic risks. Continued use of diesel fuel increases toxic air pollution and raises the risk of lung cancer and other lung diseases in these communities.
To totally avoid diesel exhaust exposure, Washingtonians would have to stay indoors with the windows and doors tightly sealed. There are ways to reduce the risk, such as limiting exercise and activity to areas far from freeways or industrial complexes. But for most Washingtonians, avoiding diesel exhaust is nearly impossible.
Reducing Fine Particles and Toxic Emissions
Reducing fine particles and toxic emissions from diesel engines will reduce:
The incidence and severity of asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, coughing, wheezing and phlegm formation.
Lost school days for children and workdays for parents and adult asthmatics. A recent study by the Washington State Department of Health indicated that one in six households have someone who suffers from asthma.
Hospital visits due to asthma and other respiratory ailments. Exposures to diesel exhaust have been linked to increased hospital admissions for respiratory and heart diseases and up to 60,000 premature deaths annually.
Cancer risk from diesel exhaust, which is estimated to be as high as 1,400 in a million in southern California studies. The risk of cancer from diesel exhaust is not only for occupational levels of exposure. Breathing outdoor air, which contains diesel exhaust, also puts ordinary people at risk, especially school children. (For comparison, we spend millions of dollars every year on toxic waste cleanups to reduce risk to levels of one in a million.)
Reduce chronic health effects on children's lungs. Fine particles and toxic emissions have been shown to reduce lung function growth in the developing lungs of children. Children with decreased lung function may be more susceptible to respiratory disease and more likely to have chronic respiratory problems as adults.
Susceptibility to allergens. Reactions to allergens such as pollen can be more severe when there is also exposure to diesel exhaust.
Exposure to priority pollutants. The Environmental protection Agency has established maximum concentrations for six priority pollutants, above which adverse health effects may occur. The Puget Sound area is close to exceeding limits for particulate matter and ozone. Diesel exhaust generates large amounts of particulates and one of the precursors of ozone.
Eliminating Diesel Exhaust Without Eliminating Buses and Trucks
There is a way to transition from diesel and avoid the related health dangers without eliminating buses and trucks. Alternative power sources such as natural gas and fuel cells can eventually replace diesel fuel. Buses and trucks run on natural gas today, and fuel cells are being developed that could be capable of powering them in the future.
To significantly reduce the amount of pollutants and cancer-causing toxic air contaminants, Washington must promote cleaner alternatives where possible and substantially reduce diesel emissions through the use of retrofit devices and lower-emitting diesel fuel. The <%$alawtitle%>® is advocating for restrictions on diesel emissions and promotion of alternative fuels. We will also work with school districts to encourage them to switch over to buses powered by natural gas. Until we make a concerted effort to rid our state of dirty diesel fuel and transition to lower-emission fuels and cleaner alternative fuels, diesel exhaust will remain a serious public health threat.
We need to support regulations and voluntary efforts to curb emissions from school buses, as well as trucks and cars. One such voluntary program is the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.s Diesel Solutions program, a partnership that encourages retrofits of diesel vehicles and the use of low sulfur diesel fuel in public and private diesel fleets. This voluntary initiative will leverage ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel into western Washington and enable a wide range of public and private fleets to join a consortium to retrofit diesel vehicles. To learn more go to the Diesel Solutions page on the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency website: Puget Sound Clean Air Agency - Diesel Solutions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Studies:
EPA, the World Health Organization, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have listed diesel exhaust as a likely carcinogen. Recent studies indicate lung cancer risk can be significantly increased by exposure to diesel exhaust. A 100-cities epidemiological study indicates an 87 percent increase in lung cancer rates for each 10 micrograms increase in fine particle (PM2.5) levels.
Fine particles and toxic emissions have been shown to reduce lung function growth in the developing lungs of children. Children with decreased lung function may be more susceptible to respiratory disease and more likely to have chronic respiratory problems as adults.
Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin: MATESII, Draft Final Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District, November 1999.
Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2002; 287:1132-1141.
US Department of Health and Human Services, 9th Report on Carcinogens (PDF file). Revised January 2001.
Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part B: Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust. California EPA, May 1998.
Health Assessment Document for Diesel Exhaust. Office of Research and Development, US EPA/600/8-90/057E, July 2000.
Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter on health effects associated with PM2.5. US EPA/EPA 600/P-99/002aB, bB, March 2001. <%doc>
Children's Exposure to Diesel Exhaust on School Buses. Environment and Human Health, Inc., February 2002.
School Bus Studies:
This February 2001 study from NRDC and the Coalition for Clean Air shows that children who ride a diesel school bus may be exposed to up to four times more toxic diesel exhaust than someone traveling in a car directly in front of it. The study found that excess exhaust levels on school buses were 23 to 46 times higher than levels considered to be a significant cancer risk according to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency and federal guidelines.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/schoolbus/sbusinx.asp
Environment and Human Health, Inc. cites the particular risk to children from regular exposure to exhaust from diesel school buses.
http://www.ehhi.org/pubs/children_diesel.html
Seattle Air Toxicity Study 2001:
The report confirms early results from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), which show the Puget Sound region in the top five percent in the nation for air toxics. EPA plans to release its final NATA data soon.
The Clean Air Agency's report is based on actual air monitoring conducted by the state Department of Ecology and on agency staff analysis of the sources of toxic air pollutants uncovered by the monitoring. The staff analysis includes review of monitoring data and NATA modeling, emission inventories, source apportionment and application of best available risk factors.
This is the first time a relatively large group of toxic air pollutants has been studied, analyzed for cumulative health effects and then ranked by their effect on people's health. The data indicate the cancer risk from outdoor air toxics could be as high as about 700 in a million.
http://www.pscleanair.org/news/other_pubs.shtml#.20020516psatedf
You seem to want to make fun of a very serious issue. And Tulsan's should care what their city appears to be..... a major toxic center.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
But the ability to release fuel to the open market is controlled and therefore supply can be manipulated to score a higher price. Hence, more profit for the refiner.
If you have evidence of overt market manipulation please release it. Because I have worked with refiners in the past and they hold minimal inventories. There are no vast fields of diesel tanks holding months worth of fuel to inflate prices. Nice conspiracy theory, but it's not true.
Furthermore, refineries operate on slim margins. Pointing a finger at refiners for gross profits is pure ignorance.
And finally, ADDRESS MY POINTS.
You are again skirting the issue while blasting others for refusal to discuss with you.
I said you were right in "a perfect world". Who cares the negative impact on health.....
"For lunch I ate fast food, the blood of the wicked." Cannon Fodder
quote:
I said
Don't just post some crap-o-article, address my points please.
You fail.
You failed to address most of the issues.
You posted a massive cut and paste article, epic fail..
And you failed to even fully address the issue you chose to cut and paste on.
MORE DIESEL PRODUCTION DOES NOT EQUAL MORE DIESEL POLLUTION IN TULSA.
FAIL.Honestly, just tell me if you think you are engaging in actual debate and/or raising valid points so I can mock you and move on.
You have posted nothing that links anything involving the Sinclair expansion in Tulsa with increased pollution. I even numbered them for you, try to address the issues you yourself raised and I then countered.
No. You failed to see my point that no matter what the company sez, some will remain skeptics regarding their over all contribution to the betterment of society. They like to paint pretty pictures to obscure the damage they do to lungs and cells through their toxic product.
I know you enjoy the sunsets and that night time glow from all the lights created by these monsterous industries.
Ok, so your report to my logical and on-topic issues I raise, which came from media reports, company statements, and FERC filings is...
They lied.
So no matter what anyone says on any given topic, without any evidence proof or even a logical statement - you just say "yeah, but they are lying." What a great world you live in. Invent your own reality, reject all others and just insist you are correct.
quote:
FOTD wrote
Note to self: for future reference, don't attempt to engage Deadheads in intelligent conversation.
Intelligent conversion = "they lied" whenever someone says something logically that you don't like.
Brilliant! What a robust and purposeful conversation you started. "This is crap, I hate it. Any evidence to the contrary are lies."
Oh yeah, well your a liar and I'm right! So there! now I win.
(http://web.mit.edu/mokang/Public/fail.jpg)
Watch out CF. He's gonna call you a doo-doo-head next.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Watch out CF. He's gonna call you a doo-doo-head next.
Liar.
(I win again!)
Just an observation, but this argument seems to stem from a lot of "what-ifs?" If the EPA regulations, and air quality metrics are enforced, then this is a good deal for the community. I've heard all kinds of rumors about Tulsa's oil heyday, back when the oil industries reduced emissions by slipping 20s in back pockets. I don't know if those rumors are true or not, but I can say that Tulsa's economy is much more diversified today than in past decades. A diversified economy reduces the political incentive to purposely overlook the environmental violations of a single industry.
Bottom line, this seems like a great deal for the local economy as long as the environmental standards are upheld. The positive economic impact of this expansion certainly is not worth permanently damaging RiverParks or the inhibition of future river development. Here's to hoping Sinclair keeps its nose clean.
But you see perspicuity, they didn't keep their noses clean. They were fined $5,000,000 and two executives were each fined $160,000 for violations last year. Which led to many millions of dollars worth of patch work last summer to get within the current guidelines.
So I agree with your assessment, it appears they are not above the EPA. And if we are going to try and base everything on "but if they cheat" then everything is bad news. And since it usually does not come to fruition, it's a pointless exercise.
Didn't the amount of the fine get reduced from $5 mill?
CF, I did not say don't trust anyone. Just the ones who hide facts. Nice attempt to "bad guy" me. WEEEEESCO!
I'm not bad guying you, just calling it as I see it. You have avoided all the issues that you raised and retorted ancillary matters. When I gave the facts on those you just said "they're lying" as if you knew better than the rest of the world.
That is not discussion, that is throwing out your unfounded opinion as fact. You have, thus far, not supported anything you originally claimed. Thus, you fail.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'm not bad guying you, just calling it as I see it. You have avoided all the issues that you raised and retorted ancillary matters. When I gave the facts on those you just said "they're lying" as if you knew better than the rest of the world.
That is not discussion, that is throwing out your unfounded opinion as fact. You have, thus far, not supported anything you originally claimed. Thus, you fail.
Oh. I am sorry. I thought the company was guilty of hiding information from regulators. So, they were fined for polluting the Arkansas and nothing else?
How many times didn't they get caught?
What does that have to do with the matter at hand? Again, you are avoiding the very issues that you brought up. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that indicate the figures and filings they have made to the EPA, the state, the city, the FERC, and their investors are incorrect.
Again, "they are lying" is your argument.
Discuss the issues you raised, counter my facts with your own, don't just invent your own story line and insist upon it. I have answered your questions, even the off topic ones. I have done so clearly and to the point. Why are you avoiding the discussion?
I think the fallacy FOTD lies in your desire to fault someone who has done wrong forever. Have you ever lied before? If so, wouldn't it be safe to say that anyone hiring you would be foolish to consider you? Or instead do we have to look at the facts before us, weigh the consequences and risks and make the best decision.
IMHO
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
What does that have to do with the matter at hand? Again, you are avoiding the very issues that you brought up. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that indicate the figures and filings they have made to the EPA, the state, the city, the FERC, and their investors are incorrect.
Again, "they are lying" is your argument.
Discuss the issues you raised, counter my facts with your own, don't just invent your own story line and insist upon it. I have answered your questions, even the off topic ones. I have done so clearly and to the point. Why are you avoiding the discussion?
hmmmm......credibility issue?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/dcee126c0635d65f852571fc006e9e20/9b69e12f47f3742b85257245005d5fad!OpenDocument
"Sinclair directed employees to limit wastewater discharges with high concentrations of oil and grease to manipulate the result of required bio-testing. During monitoring periods, Sinclair, by way of its employees, reduced flow rates of wastewater discharges to the river, and diverted more heavily contaminated wastewater to holding impoundments, among other means of ensuring that they had passed the tests. "
Villains: Sinclair Tulsa Refining
December 18, 2006
http://www.matternetwork.com/2006/12/villains-sinclair-tulsa-refining.cfm
"Sinclair Tulsa Refining Company and two of its managers have plead guilty to deliberately manipulating wastewater discharges at a Tulsa Refinery so that the company could pass water quality tests.
Harmon Connell and John Kapura, two managers at the company (is a subsidiary of Sinclair Oil), face up to three years in prison after pleading guilty to violating the Clean Water Act. The company will pay a fine of $5.5 million for doctoring the flow of oil and grease into Arkansas River.
According to the EPA, the company redirected its normal discharges in 2002 and 2003 from the river to holding areas so that the company would pass tests to monitor water quality.
Good for the EPA for catching these bad actors and getting them to plea in criminal court. For many companies paying EPA fines are a cost of doing business, and only when officers face jail time will they stop circumventing environmental regulations. Also, if customers pay attention to infractions like these and take their business elsewhere it would send a strong message. "
Just an accident? I doubt that. Wonder when they failed to get caught....my definition of lie differs from yours. You probably don't believe our government lied us into Iraq.
Tried to find this info on Dailykos, Huffington Post, and Think Progressive with no luck. Ha Ha.
Again, you are back to "they are liars."
Sinclair lied and got busted by the EPA. That is an established fact and not a matter of discussion.
You insist upon and ridicule other posters if they bring up ancillary issues or do not address your points. Yet we are on page 2 of this thread and you haven't addressed the points you raised yet.
Here you go, these are the points you raised and I countered. Please discuss without just saying "they lie" and/or posting some other person thoughts:
quote:
I wrote a few days ago
1. Emissions & Odor will go down.
2. How is they are not spending a billion?
3. The production of more diesel in Tulsa does not equal the use of more diesel in Tulsa.
Coupled with the reduction of emissions from the refinery itself, I can only assume the increase in green space is what will cause worse allergies. You're against more green space? (I have allergies)
4. Not good for economic development?
How is this bad in the long run given the industrial orders, the new jobs, and the reduced emissions?
5. Good for construction companies over the short run. Yep. So what? Why is that bad?
There are 5 succinct points I used to answer your specific post. You responded with ancillary issues, which I was kind enough to handle (basic economics). Since all you have said is "they lied" and harped on that issue over and over.
At best, "they lied" is a poor argument against the first issue raised. But with a failure to support the notion that the claim has any merit on future endeavors it's reach in that regard is limited.
If you lack the ability to intelligently discuss this topic, save us the time and just say so. Otherwise, please defend the positions you raised you started this thread.
Dear Cannon Fodder,
You don't understand that the lying well runs dry after the first exposure. From then on, the bucket contains tainted information.
Sincerely,
The Truth Teller
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Sincerely,
The Truth Teller
That made me throw-up in my mouth a little bit! [xx(]
So is that a "No," you won't address the points you raised. Great having this discussion with you, it is clear you have no real desire and lack the ability to engage in the intelligent discussion you claimed you wanted.
I don't know why I still bother to address you in a coherent manner when you ignore my attempts at worthwhile discussion. Please engage the issues at hand or don't bother to respond.
Did you guys know FOTD is really a dog.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixeX2k55zv4
Failure Of The Dog......
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9545
This is a repost.....sorry, but I need someone to clear the air for me on Tulsa's air quality. It's cars causing all these problems? I agree it's part of the problem. But it just seems to me there is an inconsistency, a disconnect, between Jim Inhofe's words and his actions. No global warming but plenty of politicizing of our lousy toxic air here.
I am disappointed non of the forum die hard Republicans mentioned anything about entitlements and Mr. Jimmy.
CONFUSED?
Breathe easier
By World's Editorial Writers
5/2/2008
Earmark will help Tulsa's air
The U.S. House has advanced a measure that would free $1.8 million to help Tulsa improve its air quality by updating traffic signals and reducing congestion.
It will likely mean the city will get coordinated signals at multiple, sequential intersections, replacing outdated lights.
So, we'll all be able to breathe easier and get home faster.
Credit goes to U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., who shepherded the measure through Congress.
The action comes as an American Lung Association report gives Tulsa a failing grade for ozone pollution.
Ground-level ozone is dangerous for the young, the old and the sick. Tulsa has struggled with the pollutant for years, and vehicle fumes are a primary culprit.
Inhofe has been an advocate for the city in this struggle, working to make sure the federal government's air standards are fair and to get the city the resources to deal with the challenge.
Now, some demagogues want you to believe that Inhofe's sort of constituent-oriented efforts -- Earmark! Egad! -- are the ruin of our nation.
Whenever there's a bill that specifies how money should be spent in this fashion they squawk that Congress isn't doing it's job.
Wrong. In fact, they couldn't be more wrong.
The United States has a fiscal problem, and it needs to be dealt with, but the solution isn't to be found in eliminating earmarks. Do away with every earmark passed by Congress this year, and you wouldn't put a significant dent in the federal budget deficit.
You also would deprive communities of important funding for key projects, like cleaning Tulsa's air.
I certainly am having several issues with Senaturd Malarkey after reading today's news. Interesting timing by Malarkey in light of this expose:
Group claims Tulsa's air bad
Tulsa World
SOURCE: INCOG
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080502_1_A1_hrpFo65584
By KIM ARCHER World Staff Writer
5/2/2008
The American Lung Association's grading hits harder than evaluations by the EPA.
As report card grades go, Tulsa County got the worst possible evaluation -- an "F" -- on Thursday for its air quality from the American Lung Association.
But by Environmental Protection Agency standards, the metro area is in compliance with its ozone and particle pollution guidelines, said Nancy Graham, air quality supervisor for the Indian Nations Council of Governments.
Still, dirty air is undesirable according to any standard.
"I think that it shows that we have some work ahead of us to clean up our air," she said.
The American Lung Association study gave both Tulsa and Oklahoma counties an "F" for unacceptable ozone levels in the air.
However, neither Tulsa nor Oklahoma City were among the top 25 worst smog-polluted cities.
Cleveland and Pittsburg counties in Oklahoma received "A" grades for ozone pollution.
Ozone in the upper atmosphere is a protective layer around the Earth. But at ground level, fossil-fuel emissions react with sunlight to create a harmful air pollutant.
"It's concerning, because childhood asthma continues to increase," Graham said.
According to the latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, Oklahoma has the third-highest percentage of children with asthma in the nation.
The American Lung Association study comes just as Tulsa's ozone alert system is about to get rolling.
High-ozone days typically occur on hot, cloudless days between May and September.
The alert system has been successful in reducing emissions, Graham said.
"It continues to be a strong and well-understood voluntary program," she said.
For more information on that program, go to www.tulsaworld.com/ozonealert.
Tulsa County also received a "C" grade for its particle pollution, which refers to fine solid and liquid particles from smoke, haze, soot or dust. Graham said increased awareness about this type of pollution is spreading throughout the Tulsa area.
"We have focused on ozone in Tulsa because it has been the predominant pollutant," she said.
Oklahoma County received a grade of "A" for particle pollution.
Graham noted that the American Lung Association uses stricter criteria than the EPA, which regulates the nation's air quality.
The EPA takes a three-year average of ozone levels and, if they are too high, the city is placed on the Dirty Air list.
Tulsa has not been on the federal Dirty Air list since 1990.
"But it's a struggle. We have been fighting this a long time," Graham said. "There have been plenty of years our numbers have barely met the standard."
Five ozone monitors in the area measure the amount of ozone emissions floating around in the Tulsa metropolitan area, she said.
Since 1996, Tulsa's ozone emissions levels have dropped significantly because of changes the community has made, Graham said.
Many towns in the Tulsa area have purchased clean-fuel vehicles; refineries have switched to reduced vapor gasoline; and people are more cognizant of changes that can improve air quality, she said.
In the Tulsa metro area, gasoline suppliers voluntarily offer a special gasoline blend each year from June 1 to Sept. 15. The special blend gasoline, which is different than reformulated gasoline, is designed to burn cleaner and produce fewer emissions.
"Overall, things are getting cleaner as people get wiser," Graham said.
On March 12, the EPA tightened its air quality regulations further, which may lead to Tulsa's placement on the Dirty Air list as early as March 2010, she said.
Once placed on the list, the federal government imposes expensive measures on cities to reduce pollution, such as adding high-occupancy vehicle lanes to area freeways like Texas did or reformulating gasoline like California has done, Graham said.
If the community can aggressively work to keep the air cleaner, Tulsa might avoid that list, she said.
And just yesterday, Malarkey turned his back on our GI's for political gain.
I'm starting to wonder if he is losing it...him, and TULSAWORLD!
Back to the point...
What does that have to do with the refinery work?
Your point was the refinery work would make things worse, not that the air was bad in general. And, even if the point was the air is bad in general, the refinery work will still improve it - not what you indicate. This is yet another article spam that really has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
Try again. Try harder.
I thinketh my posts are really taking dead aim on what the American Lung Association came out with.
I think we all agree that days like today make us spoiled over beauty and clean air. We all want a better quality of life in Tulsa. That big dark cloud during summer heat called haze is nothing to look forward to.
Great, I agree.
But how foes that lead to you announcing that the Sinclair project will make things worse, or any of the other accusations you levied?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Great, I agree.
But how foes that lead to you announcing that the Sinclair project will make things worse, or any of the other accusations you levied?
Can't trust what they tell us. Sorry.
Back to "they are lying."
So because they were caught polluting once, they are lying. What about the perspective that because they were caught they are being watched more carefully now? Or, for that matter, that fact that they were caught showing that it is not easy to get away with polluting?
Or, for that matter, the fact that you lied just to get on these message boards (per TOS, banned means you can not re-register)? Does that mean that everything you say is a lie because I know for a fact you lied in the past?
Or your total breakdown in logic. If I don't like what they say, it's a lie. Proof be damned.
You might as well stop trying to get him to give an actual answer. For him to do so, he would either have to look up some sources (with a good chance of them being trumped up to show what he wants to see), or admit that he was wrong. He can't get past the fact that sinclair did something that was wrong. His entire argument is based apon this fact, and no others, and he will not look beyond this fact. Classic case of tunnel vision.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Back to "they are lying."
So because they were caught polluting once, they are lying. What about the perspective that because they were caught they are being watched more carefully now? Or, for that matter, that fact that they were caught showing that it is not easy to get away with polluting?
Or, for that matter, the fact that you lied just to get on these message boards (per TOS, banned means you can not re-register)? Does that mean that everything you say is a lie because I know for a fact you lied in the past?
Or your total breakdown in logic. If I don't like what they say, it's a lie. Proof be damned.
How about this CF. They deceived the public before. Therefore, public trust is an issue. If you wish to corner me into saying they are liars....well, ok.
Custosnox? Sounds Turkish.
So because they lied before, they, the EPA, the FERC, their investors, and everyone else is lying about everything on this project? Is that correct? If so, that is ridiculous.
I'll do this one more time:
quote:
I've said repeatedly
1. Emissions & Odor will go down.
2. How is they are not spending a billion?
3. The production of more diesel in Tulsa does not equal the use of more diesel in Tulsa.
4. Not good for economic development?
5. Good for construction companies over the short run. Yep. So what? Why is that bad?
The only thing having any relation to them lying about pollution is #1. But they will be under a new set of guidelines and will have to pass EPA inspection before their new lines can begin production - so unless the EPA is in on it with them, your "they lie" argument fails to address any of the points you brought up for discussion.
Care to FINALLY address any of the issues you raised?
Seriously, please at least explain why you refuse to defend your position. Are you too lazy, ignorant, or contemptuous to bother defending the accusations you hurled? I really can't think of another reason, since you clearly have the time and have shown interest in the topic (since you started the discussion).
Guess what I'm saying, is put up or shut up.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on May 07, 2008, 12:59:10 PM
So because they lied before, they, the EPA, the FERC, their investors, and everyone else is lying about everything on this project? Is that correct? If so, that is ridiculous.
I'll do this one more time:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>I've said repeatedly</i>
1. Emissions & Odor will go down.
2. How is they are not spending a billion?
3. The production of more diesel in Tulsa does not equal the use of more diesel in Tulsa.
4. Not good for economic development?
5. Good for construction companies over the short run. Yep. So what? Why is that bad?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The only thing having any relation to them lying about pollution is #1. But they will be under a new set of guidelines and will have to pass EPA inspection before their new lines can begin production - so unless the EPA is in on it with them, your "they lie" argument fails to address any of the points you brought up for discussion.
Care to FINALLY address any of the issues you raised?
Seriously, please at least explain why you refuse to defend your position. Are you too lazy, ignorant, or contemptuous to bother defending the accusations you hurled? I really can't think of another reason, since you clearly have the time and have shown interest in the topic (since you started the discussion).
Guess what I'm saying, is put up or shut up.
Let's all hope this sh!t company can't find a buyer and has to close down and clean up!
Told you so!
Always remember, if they lie once then their integrity is gone forever....
Sinclair may want to sell its refinery
The west Tulsa plant's $1 billion expansion is on hold, and industry reports suggest sale inquiries.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20090723_49_E1_Geesew923563
Groove crusher, you're up to bat!
I'm confused. After briefly reviewing the 2.5 month old topic it seems we were arguing about the FERC/EPA evaluation of the pollution of the refinery. I argued that dumping $1bil into the refinery was a good thing - certainly better than shuttering unusable land or selling to someone who wouldn't upgrade it at all.
Now it appears they are not going to pump $1,000,000,000 into our economy and will try to sell it to someone who likely won't do any significant upgrades but clearly will want to utilize their asset. So instead of $1bil improvement we will be stuck with the status quo. And another step towards energy independence and value added energy in the US. . .
Congrats, you won. Surely the people that work there, the suppliers, crews, and ancillary positions in Tulsa are thrilled that the $1bil investment is off and their jobs are all in question. And, for the record, you STILL haven't addressed any of the points I made months ago.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 23, 2009, 11:44:51 AM
I'm confused. After briefly reviewing the 2.5 month old topic it seems we were arguing about the FERC/EPA evaluation of the pollution of the refinery. I argued that dumping $1bil into the refinery was a good thing - certainly better than shuttering unusable land or selling to someone who wouldn't upgrade it at all.
Now it appears they are not going to pump $1,000,000,000 into our economy and will try to sell it to someone who likely won't do any significant upgrades but clearly will want to utilize their asset. So instead of $1bil improvement we will be stuck with the status quo. And another step towards energy independence and value added energy in the US. . .
Congrats, you won. Surely the people that work there, the suppliers, crews, and ancillary positions in Tulsa are thrilled that the $1bil investment is off and their jobs are all in question. And, for the record, you STILL haven't addressed any of the points I made months ago.
That is because this community would be better off without these refineries. That has been my argument since day one. They are causing il health and injurious to economic development through lack of compatibility in clean air attainment set by the Feds.
Tulsa should find a way to lead the nation in natural gas car conversion. Instead, it's WNBA.
You can continue believing these liars at Holly and Sinkcleanair....you seem sold on their "honesty."
Quote from: FOTD on July 23, 2009, 12:17:25 PM
That is because this community would be better off without these refineries. That has been my argument since day one. They are causing il health and injurious to economic development through lack of compatibility in clean air attainment set by the Feds.
Tulsa should find a way to lead the nation in natural gas car conversion. Instead, it's WNBA.
You can continue believing these liars at Holly and Sinkcleanair....you seem sold on their "honesty."
Carcinogens are being pumped into the local air, yet you choose to still live here. Better idea, why don't you move? The toxic clean-up from your bong water will be a far smaller cost.
Strike....you whiffed my point.
Some of us remain here out of duty but then that's something you think is flushed rather than sacred.
Quote from: FOTD on July 23, 2009, 12:17:25 PM
That is because this community would be better off without these refineries. That has been my argument since day one. They are causing il health and injurious to economic development through lack of compatibility in clean air attainment set by the Feds.
Tulsa should find a way to lead the nation in natural gas car conversion. Instead, it's WNBA.
You can continue believing these liars at Holly and Sinkcleanair....you seem sold on their "honesty."
Well, lookie here!!!!!! This amount of funding won't do squat unless incentives are given to convert. Raise tax rates and increase deductions for this use. Mayor Taylor, show some leadership and make our city an example of how a city can clean it's air...and get rid of noxious odors!
Submitted by Nate Kharrl on Thu, 07/23/2009 - 10:55
in Politics Transportation
Natural Gas Cars to get the Green Light
"The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on the largest funding of natural gas vehicles in the history of the American auto industry. The bill, H.R. 1622, would call on the Department of Energy to administer a $150 million study and implementation program over the next 5 years to incorporate natural gas into a wider range of US vehicles, increase the efficiency of the natural gas supply infrastructure, and educate consumers about the advantages of driving natural gas vehicles.
This bill was written by Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK), and has been said to be receiving bipartisan support in the House. "The vehicle fleet of the future will include a diverse range of fuels and vehicle technologies," said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN).
This legislation is not to be confused with the T. Boone Pickens endorsed NAT-GAS bill, which offers tax credits for purchasers of natural gas vehicles and grants to auto manufacturers that want to make the switch to alternative fuel engine production.
HR 1622 to Move America Forward with Natural Gas Cars
Both of these bills are aimed at moving America's transportation energy source away from foreign oil and toward domestically available natural gas. While natural gas is a fossil fuel, its emissions are cleaner than both gasoline and diesel, and it produces virtually no particle emissions. Natural gas is already a popular fuel for warehouse vehicles, where indoor air quality is directly tied to workers' health. Public transportation systems, such as buses, are often fueled by compressed natural gas.
Most of the 10 million vehicles run on natural gas are located in Europe and India. The 142,000 in America are either commercial grade equipment, or Honda Civic GXs. Honda is the only automaker in America that builds and sells a natural gas vehicle.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that about $132 of the $150 million will remain after administrative costs, representing the largest direct investment into transportation energy technology by the federal government. Environmental groups like Greenpeace are against this legislature, arguing that "over the next few years, power from solar energy will become significantly cheaper than natural gas," and that this investment is only considered green when compared to other fossil fuels."
http://www.ecofactory.com/news/natural-gas-cars-get-green-light-072309
Crushie,
Your gullibility factor just went up 10 fold....
The devil
"you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows..." Bob Dylan (Brady theater this Saturday)
Please at least read the threads before you bump them. You were arguing that updates to the refinery were a bad thing and you hoped they wouldn't spend $1bil updating them. I was arguing that that sort of investment in infrastructure is a benefit to the community.
Then the deal fell through and you gloated about it. I said congrats on "winning" and expressed how thrilled you must be that we will be left with the status quo. Now another business deal is on the table . . .
That makes me gullible?
Quick . . . find another refinery thread to make random comments in!
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)