Marina Schwarz + 1,576 January 4, 2019 Um, wasn't California supposed to be very anti-oil and stuff? California 2018 crude-by-rail imports reach highest level since 2013-14: state 2 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rodent + 1,424 January 4, 2019 9 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said: Um, wasn't California supposed to be very anti-oil and stuff? California 2018 crude-by-rail imports reach highest level since 2013-14: state It's Not Easy Being Green. Classic example of surface climate activists. green on the outside, dirty on the inside, just like everybody else. NIMBY is not green. It's like hiring a hitman. You're still a murderer. Okay so that was a sucky analogy. I'm in a hurry; sue me. 1 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 January 4, 2019 47 minutes ago, Rodent said: It's Not Easy Being Green. Classic example of surface climate activists. green on the outside, dirty on the inside, just like everybody else. NIMBY is not green. It's like hiring a hitman. You're still a murderer. Okay so that was a sucky analogy. I'm in a hurry; sue me. Congressional logic! Vote Rodent! 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 January 4, 2019 Sounds like a case for the Canadian Mounties: It is worth noting, however, that there is some discrepancy between California's data and figures from Canada. In May-September of 2018, California reported imports of roughly 306,000 b/d of crude from Canada on average. Canada's National Energy Board figures showed the country exported about 222,000 b/d during that time. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoMack + 547 JM January 4, 2019 California = Anti-pipelines, anti-exploration and development onshore or offshore. Result: a disaster waiting to happen. This is another misstep by the oil industry to explain the 2.5 million or so pipelines that run through our country. When the train derails as it did in North Dakota, the government tried to just say "what a shame". California will eventually reap what it sows as they say. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rodent + 1,424 January 4, 2019 19 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said: Sounds like a case for the Canadian Mounties: It is worth noting, however, that there is some discrepancy between California's data and figures from Canada. In May-September of 2018, California reported imports of roughly 306,000 b/d of crude from Canada on average. Canada's National Energy Board figures showed the country exported about 222,000 b/d during that time. Interesting. California shows almost 12 million barrels shipped from Canada to California in 2017. So either way, the figures for 2018 are a pretty big change. https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/petroleum_data/statistics/2017_foreign_crude_sources.html 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marina Schwarz + 1,576 January 5, 2019 Nimby is my new favourite word. And I saw there's also a tiny little scandal brewing around the governor of California for being friends with an oil industry lobbyist. Fun! 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 January 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Marina Schwarz said: Nimby is my new favourite word. And I saw there's also a tiny little scandal brewing around the governor of California for being friends with an oil industry lobbyist. Fun! Nimby and "get off my lawn"! Good ones! 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marina Schwarz + 1,576 January 5, 2019 Yes! Also, I'd vote for Rodent any day. Pity I can't. By the way, I just saw we're "oil majors" Thinking of renaming myself to Schwarz Petroleum Corp. 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 January 5, 2019 24 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said: Yes! Also, I'd vote for Rodent any day. Pity I can't. By the way, I just saw we're "oil majors" Thinking of renaming myself to Schwarz Petroleum Corp. Cool. I wouldn't want to be an Oil Sergeant Major or anything like that. Although, I have heard that Sergeant Majors are held in high regards in many cases. And I think "The D. Schwarz Petroleum Corp." would be even better. D for Demon! 😈🤠 Or maybe D.S. PetCor. It's gotta nice ring to it! 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karl V + 33 MM January 5, 2019 Wrong title : Imports , not Outports . Astonishingly , Saudi Arabia had replaced Iraq as main supplier of Calif -Föhrenian Crude Oil during the years 2000 to 2004 . Since Bin Laden is of KSA -heritage , one could knit a conspiracy theory about it ... Wondering , why it is still affordable to ship 150 million barrels from Arabia across the half world in year 2017 , making 75 arrivals of some VLCC tanker ship necessary , rouchly one each 5 days . Such a tanker ship would need 30 to 45 days for one tour , and shuttling back the same time . And this would make roughly 4 to 6 transports a year each tanker , demanding around 15 VLCC all the time just to transport Crude Oil from Arabia to California . If Russia , Canada and Alaska could provide enough capacity , the transport to California would be much faster , and probably cheaper . The USA needs to build tankers , Trump should spin off a company to build tankers , any costs will be received , since the Jones Act 'guarantees' a 40+year lifespan for steamers sailing the US-Coasts . 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadowkin + 584 EA January 5, 2019 On 1/4/2019 at 8:49 AM, Rodent said: It's Not Easy Being Green The cherry on top is that Saudi Arabia is the #1 supplier of foreign oil at almost 100 million barrels. So much for California's human rights talk. Similar to Tim Cook who then kisses Chinese butt for money. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jan van Eck + 7,558 MG January 5, 2019 10 hours ago, Karl V said: If Russia , Canada and Alaska could provide enough capacity , the transport to California would be much faster , and probably cheaper . The USA needs to build tankers , Trump should spin off a company to build tankers , any costs will be received , since the Jones Act 'guarantees' a 40+year lifespan for steamers sailing the US-Coasts . Didn't quite work out so hot for this US-built tanker. OK,so it was all pretty when it was launched: Historical footnote: after the crash into Bligh Reef, it got towed off to a shipyard for repairs, then went to service hauling oil out of the Gulf to Europe. Then it got banned in Europe, so it was bought by Asian interests (possibly Taiwanese, not clear) and converted into a dry bulk carrier, for hauling ore and coal. It got scrapped in 2012 at the beach in Alang, India. The total lifespan (built 1986): only 26 years. Tankers do not last that long, the economics favor scrapping somewhere between 15 and 25 years. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Janet Alderton + 124 JA January 5, 2019 Life is complicated. So says the biologist. California refineries are currently engineered to refine heavy crude oils. As long as there is demand for oil and its derivatives, companies will exist to supply that demand. The energy transition to renewables combined with carbon capture and changes to forestry and agricultural practices will take time. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Curtis Stewart + 32 CS January 6, 2019 (edited) Wonder if Kinder would return the original All-American to crude service? There is chingles oil available at Wink to ship to Pentland (Taft) CA. The 24" could handle 300k a day easy. Go south to LA and/or north to Martinez(SF). I know it's the wrong type of crude, but could be a export outlet. Just sayin' Edited January 6, 2019 by Curtis Stewart New thought Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members