Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 57

Thread: E15

  1. #16
    Still Wondering mika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Fly Over Land
    Posts
    10,704
    For many of us the Keystone Pipeline issue is not a question of should it be built but where. Concerns about potential surface water contamination and more importantly to the major aquifer it would cross raised all sorts of concerns. The Alaskan pipeline history points out that you can carefully build a pipeline and reasonably protect and limit the impact of the pipeline. The major problem with it have been with what goes on at either end of pipeline and not over the length.

    I have seen similar economic and job impact numbers supporting the pipeline construction. I can generally accept them. The concern for many of us is how long they will exist and how much infrastructure etc we commit for short term (less than ten years) gain. We know that many if not most of those jobs/people will move to the next project or return to their home state, while the impact of the pipeline and potential spills could remain indefinitely. I have always believed it could and would be built, where and how have been my concern.

    The economic impact along the route of what passes through the pipeline (any pipeline) is minimal. On the input end lease holders are the major beneficiaries along with any real jobs created by them. At the other end it is the refiners like EXON, BP and the Koch brothers that get the big money and the jobs they create.

    I am far less sanguine on what energy independence means and how to reach it. We keep worrying about imported oil and talk very little or if at all about refining capacity and who controls that. The quest for energy independence took ethanol from a more environmentally friendly component of the blend of chemicals sold as pure gasoline to E10 and now looming E15.

    E15 is bad policy in my book, but we never wrote the energy policy part of the book in the first place.
    Pass the mustard and UP THE REVOLUTION!

    St. Paul Pioneer Press , Minneapolis Star Tribune

  2. #17
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,941
    Quote Originally Posted by Mika View Post
    For many of us the Keystone Pipeline issue is not a question of should it be built but where. Concerns about potential surface water contamination and more importantly to the major aquifer it would cross raised all sorts of concerns. The Alaskan pipeline history points out that you can carefully build a pipeline and reasonably protect and limit the impact of the pipeline. The major problem with it have been with what goes on at either end of pipeline and not over the length.

    I have seen similar economic and job impact numbers supporting the pipeline construction. I can generally accept them. The concern for many of us is how long they will exist and how much infrastructure etc we commit for short term (less than ten years) gain. We know that many if not most of those jobs/people will move to the next project or return to their home state, while the impact of the pipeline and potential spills could remain indefinitely. I have always believed it could and would be built, where and how have been my concern.

    The economic impact along the route of what passes through the pipeline (any pipeline) is minimal. On the input end lease holders are the major beneficiaries along with any real jobs created by them. At the other end it is the refiners like EXON, BP and the Koch brothers that get the big money and the jobs they create.

    I am far less sanguine on what energy independence means and how to reach it. We keep worrying about imported oil and talk very little or if at all about refining capacity and who controls that. The quest for energy independence took ethanol from a more environmentally friendly component of the blend of chemicals sold as pure gasoline to E10 and now looming E15.

    E15 is bad policy in my book, but we never wrote the energy policy part of the book in the first place.
    US energy policy covers two issues;

    1) Cheap electrical power which is provided by plentiful and cheap coal and, now, NG supplies. Current electrical rates are near 5.5 cents per KWH and preclude the upgrade or replacement of any plants or the maintenance of the transmission lines. Accordingly, it's an economic dead zone and has been since the early 1980's when I was working for the last major US manufacturer of hydroelectric turbines.

    2) Military alternative transportation fuels are still being tested and researched.

    Otherwise, there isn't much. America is a nation that proudly greets any drop in gas prices as a reason to add farkles to a Chevy Suburban and sell it as an Escalade to suburbanites that need 4WD to reach the mall in places like Atlanta, Dallas and LA. In that world, it makes sense to pipe tar sand crude oil over the aquifer that feeds our nation so it can get to the gulf coast refiners and the world market
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  3. #18
    Still Wondering mika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Fly Over Land
    Posts
    10,704
    Again it is not a question if it should be built but where and how.

    Where may well end up being over the aquifer instead of around it. The players involved in that decision are concerned about more than the most direct route and its implications. The region is littered with the results of changing 'pipelines' starting with wagon train trails, railroad routes, highways, super highways and air corridors. At least show us the decency of being involved in the decisions. If the companies that are providing the raw material ad you with the refined product screw up we live with the result.
    Pass the mustard and UP THE REVOLUTION!

    St. Paul Pioneer Press , Minneapolis Star Tribune

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eastern KY
    Posts
    3,356
    Quote Originally Posted by 36654 View Post
    Let me ask you this.....did supplying migrant labor to the US, Canada, Australia or Africa make Italy, Poland, Ireland or southern Germany more affluent in the late 1800's? Or, in today's world, is Haiti, Guatemala or Mexico really enriched by their people that have to leave to find work?
    Mika may have a point?
    I commented on pipeline workers, many from my area going to ND,etc., to work. That IS! a job(like many if not most construction jobs) where you must travel to the job site other than a line repair most of the work is out of your home area which is different than "migrant labor" as such.
    When potential welding students came before me in my tech school role-they often asked me: where were the jobs?- I would ask them, You tell me where do you think the jobs are located? The answer of course was that many were "hit the road jack, type jobs,esp. if you wanted to work on high pay rate union specified jobs. The lower paid jobs were local & factory assembly welding.
    "Really enriched" is a whole 'nother ball game. The $$$ that gets sent home might qualify as enrichment? Especially to the scavenger places that transmit the money for the workers , taking a big toll on the money before it gets there. migrant labor vs. imported labor vs. illegal workers is a large territory difficult to cover in a E15 thread. I remember reading a few years back how West Germany was getting all their factory workers from places like Turkey & paying them less to do the dirty jobs. BMW's built in Germany but by whom? Back to E15 & I'm out of coffee...
    "If I had my life to live over, I'd dare to make more mistakes next time...I'd relax,I'd limber up... I would take fewer things seriously...take more chances... take more trips...climb more mountains...swim more rivers...eat more ice cream." Jorge Luis Borges at age 85.

  5. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eastern KY
    Posts
    3,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Mika View Post
    Again it is not a question if it should be built but where and how.

    Where may well end up being over the aquifer instead of around it. The players involved in that decision are concerned about more than the most direct route and its implications. The region is littered with the results of changing 'pipelines' starting with wagon train trails, railroad routes, highways, super highways and air corridors. At least show us the decency of being involved in the decisions. If the companies that are providing the raw material ad you with the refined product screw up we live with the result.
    We rented a nearby farmhouse for 6 yrs before I built this one in 79-80. It had cheap NG heat(the gas bills were under $10 mo!) based on the contract the owner had with Columbia Gas Co. dated to the large pipeline that ran through the front yard-it was right in front of the house!!!-like ~75' from the front porch and ~ 24" diameter. It leaked & got a section replaced in the front yard while we lived there. That pipeline ran under/over 2 creeks on either side of that house on that ridge that comprised the 700+ acres of that farm. Like stated above, these pipelines run all over the USA & over & under everything around us. My native KS was full of them. Once in awhile a sort of spectacular flame would show when they broke, which gave me pause to think when we rented the house above, like what if... still they are a fact of life so why not build another that does promote commerce now? E15 thread, I think not?
    "If I had my life to live over, I'd dare to make more mistakes next time...I'd relax,I'd limber up... I would take fewer things seriously...take more chances... take more trips...climb more mountains...swim more rivers...eat more ice cream." Jorge Luis Borges at age 85.

  6. #21
    Still Wondering mika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Fly Over Land
    Posts
    10,704
    Agreed they are all over the place and for the most part go on day after day, week after week year after year just fine.

    " still they are a fact of life so why not build another that does promote commerce now?"

    For me it is not a question of build or not but where and how. The Keystone project will add another layer of spur pipelines. Is it unreasonable to have taken time to look at where they will go, how they are built (specs, actually built and the infrastructure to maintain and inspect)?

    Commerce? For who? So that...What?

    E15 thread? Perhaps it is more of an E15 thread than you give it credit for. Taken as a whole the topic covers a variety of issues and can be approached from various angles.
    Pass the mustard and UP THE REVOLUTION!

    St. Paul Pioneer Press , Minneapolis Star Tribune

  7. #22
    Registered User rxcrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    North Ridgeville OH
    Posts
    715
    Not much of an E15 thread when the main discussion point is about raw materials from which ethanol isn't produced. Regardless, I have no issues with going off topic, so I'm not complaining. If you do want to think about E15 directly:

    __________________________________________________

    Congress to hold hearing on E15
    More Info: http://capwiz.com/amacycle/utr/1/CPM...CMT/9293225141

    AMA will be a witness!

    On Feb. 26, at 2 p.m. (EST), the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment, chaired by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), will hold a hearing on ÔÇ£Mid-Level Ethanol Blends: Consumer and Technical Research Needs.ÔÇØ Former U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, American Motorcyclist Association vice president for government relations, will be a witness at the hearing.

    The AMA focus will be on the need for an independent and scientific study of the use of E15 -- a gasoline formulation that contains up to 15 percent ethanol by volume -- in motorcycle and all-terrain vehicle engines. Additionally, we will raise concerns of misfueling and the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyÔÇÖs mitigation plan, which initially included a senseless mandated four-gallon minimum fuel purchase.

    To view a live webcast of the hearing, click here: http://capwiz.com/amacycle/utr/1/CPM...CMX/9293225141

    The AMA believes extensive independent testing needs to be done before E15 becomes more widely available. The key for the AMA and our members is that E15 must be proven safe for motorcycle and ATV engines. To the best of our knowledge, E15 isnÔÇÖt approved for use in any original-equipment motorcycles or ATVs. In fact, its use can void many manufacturersÔÇÖ warranties.

    We applaud U.S. Rep. Harris for holding this hearing to help make our nationÔÇÖs fuel supply safer for all users.

    AmericanMotorcyclist.com
    Alert Center

  8. #23
    Registered User chewbacca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    144

    Science Versus Politics and then there is Reality

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken F View Post
    .........Or build the pipeline from Canada, and drill for the oil we have under our country and offshore.
    Some Refineries and dismantling the EPA would dramatically help the situation too!
    Ken
    Without getting into the science which "IF" you are interested in you can look up yourself because there is more than enough data on the web to verify, there is WAY more than enough oil in North America from a whole bunch of sources. We the people (isn't there a movement afoot to remove such phrases from the Constitution?) have been manipulated by our politicians, media and the oil industry to believe we will run out of oil in then next week to ten days. There is NO, NADA, ZILCH logical or scientific reason to use ethanol in vehicles other than politics. Since several car manufacturers have voided their new car warranties if E15 is used, you are finally seeing the media jump on board the anti-ethanol bandwagon.
    Old But Not Dead
    Semper Fi

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    14
    Ken F, your Wikipedia information indicates the Athabasca oil sands as being in NE Canada instead of NE Alberta which is in the western part of Canada and your text indicates 830,000 million barrels a day which is flattering but I think 830,000 would be more accurate.

    Facts are that USA consumes about 18.5 million barrels of oil a day and has the opportunity to reduce its dependence on foreign oil from unfriendly nations by buying from Canada and at a significant discount to Venezuelan and OPEC prices. Check with your congressman, in addition to paying world prices to the OPEC nations, the US spends some $60 billion a year keeping middle east oil shipping lanes open. The Keystone alternative is aided by the refining capability that is already in place in the USA. Currently, oil sands bitumen is being transported by rail through US cities and towns to southern refineries at a risk of 16 to1 when compared to a pipeline.

    Everyone wants a greener planet, at the moment Canada contributes less than 2% to the worlds greenhouse gas. The US is reputed to have reduced greenhouse gas by 30%, how one asks? By shipping employment and manufacturing to Mexico, Brazil and China, unfortunately, that is how.

    Ethanol is a "farm aid" program that is becoming so lucrative that other needed crops are being replaced by cash crops destined to become ethanol. Ethanol has already proven itself to damage engines and fuel systems, lessen engine life, it lowers octane ratings and offers less milage per gallon. Where is the gain when measured against the costs of physical damage, the loss of other food crops not to mention the cost of government incentives and subsidies to develop the product and the grains being grown for it.

    Recently there was a demonstration in front of the White House while President Obama was playing golf with Tiger Woods, did the demonstrators arrive on bicycles, on skate boards, on roller skates? I'm guessing that many arrived in gas guzzling Suburbans and SUV's.

    Just because a dissident group (protest groups are often recipients of government funding) shows up to demonstrate for clean air doesn't mean that the air is unfit or about to become unfit, often there is another agenda, i.e. past vice-president Al Gore, the man has become a billionaire with his unsubstantiated "inconvenient truth". Watch for Mr. Gore to seek the presidential nomination, it's coming.

    For those of you old enough to remember the Vietnam war, a most tragic event that likely deserved anti-war demonstration but did you also know that in the USA, the Russian Embassy was responsible for paying people $25.00/day to demonstrate against the war.

    As well meaning as lowering emissions and developing alternate fuels might be, rarely are the motivations truly altruistic, there is usually a capital gain in there somewhere. And if your thinking battery power you are thinking lithium. Where are the main deposits of lithium, Bolivia and China, and if you have concerns about oil sands tailing ponds, do some research into lithium brine pools.

    Bottom line for this blog - there is no place for ethanol, regardless of percentage, in the internal combustion engine and especially in my BMW.

  10. #25
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,941
    Quote Originally Posted by NoRThwind View Post
    Ken F, your Wikipedia information indicates the Athabasca oil sands as being in NE Canada instead of NE Alberta which is in the western part of Canada and your text indicates 830,000 million barrels a day which is flattering but I think 830,000 would be more accurate.

    Facts are that USA consumes about 18.5 million barrels of oil a day and has the opportunity to reduce its dependence on foreign oil from unfriendly nations by buying from Canada and at a significant discount to Venezuelan and OPEC prices. Check with your congressman, in addition to paying world prices to the OPEC nations, the US spends some $60 billion a year keeping middle east oil shipping lanes open. The Keystone alternative is aided by the refining capability that is already in place in the USA. Currently, oil sands bitumen is being transported by rail through US cities and towns to southern refineries at a risk of 16 to1 when compared to a pipeline.

    Everyone wants a greener planet, at the moment Canada contributes less than 2% to the worlds greenhouse gas. The US is reputed to have reduced greenhouse gas by 30%, how one asks? By shipping employment and manufacturing to Mexico, Brazil and China, unfortunately, that is how.

    Ethanol is a "farm aid" program that is becoming so lucrative that other needed crops are being replaced by cash crops destined to become ethanol. Ethanol has already proven itself to damage engines and fuel systems, lessen engine life, it lowers octane ratings and offers less milage per gallon. Where is the gain when measured against the costs of physical damage, the loss of other food crops not to mention the cost of government incentives and subsidies to develop the product and the grains being grown for it.

    Recently there was a demonstration in front of the White House while President Obama was playing golf with Tiger Woods, did the demonstrators arrive on bicycles, on skate boards, on roller skates? I'm guessing that many arrived in gas guzzling Suburbans and SUV's.

    Just because a dissident group (protest groups are often recipients of government funding) shows up to demonstrate for clean air doesn't mean that the air is unfit or about to become unfit, often there is another agenda, i.e. past vice-president Al Gore, the man has become a billionaire with his unsubstantiated "inconvenient truth". Watch for Mr. Gore to seek the presidential nomination, it's coming.

    For those of you old enough to remember the Vietnam war, a most tragic event that likely deserved anti-war demonstration but did you also know that in the USA, the Russian Embassy was responsible for paying people $25.00/day to demonstrate against the war.

    As well meaning as lowering emissions and developing alternate fuels might be, rarely are the motivations truly altruistic, there is usually a capital gain in there somewhere. And if your thinking battery power you are thinking lithium. Where are the main deposits of lithium, Bolivia and China, and if you have concerns about oil sands tailing ponds, do some research into lithium brine pools.

    Bottom line for this blog - there is no place for ethanol, regardless of percentage, in the internal combustion engine and especially in my BMW.
    Why pray tell would the canadians want to sell their oil at prices below the world market? It's their oil and their stock holders are entitled to the profits.
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  11. #26
    Registered User chewbacca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    144
    Sometimes it is curse to have a good memory. In 1971, give or take a year, the USA was importing approximately 6% of its petroleum. Now that you have the wonderful internet, that number has risen to who know what, but that IS what I remember from being alive at the time. At the height (1972-73) of the first major Arab Oil Embargo (which was run from NYC by American oil men) the USA was importing approximately 14% of its oil. During the Bush II Presidency, prior to the economy taking the nose dive, when gas was at $5 a gallon and climbing, ALL, that is every oil expert that was employed by the media was telling the American people we were out of oil and Indian and China were grabbing what was left. They said $200 a barrel was coming soon and it was likely it would even going higher. How is it we are awash in oil now. Where did it come from. I could say that the Bush boys were oil men but that might be conceived as political. It is true but every President in my memory has been bought and paid for by Big Oil, Congress too. So if you hear ANYTHING being said on TV about oil, chances are it isn't true. One thing is true, oil prices drive our economy up and down, and they are manipulate. We do not live in a free market society, especially with oil. Oil is just about a monopoly. Oil speculators drive the market, not storms, not refineries, not wars, speculators. Wanna see our economy explode. Knock about 25% off of diesel prices. Tell me something that doesn't come in truck someway, somehow. Now to E15. Screw the farmers. They got tobacco subsidies when it was the best paid cash crop short of opium poppies AND it was killing off the population. Give us pure gas, do away with speed limits on all two lane country roads, remove all double yellow lines and let us ride alcohol free.

    The following was from a Consumer's Report Article on E15:
    "In response to the release of the labels, nine automakersÔÇöincluding Chrysler, General Motors, and ToyotaÔÇöwasted no time writing letters to Congress criticizing the proposal and noting that they will not honor warranties for older cars running on E15. The automakers say they are concerned about the effects of E15 on engines, fuel pumps, and other fuel-system components in cars that were not designed for it." Another article said "five car companiesÔÇöBMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and VolkswagenÔÇöstated they would not cover any E15-related damage claim. Here in early 2013, itÔÇÖs now up to 10 (including Ford, Honda and Mercedes-Benz). Worse than that, some of those car companies have now stated that E15 will void your warranty."
    Last edited by CHEWBACCA; 03-12-2013 at 01:37 PM.
    Old But Not Dead
    Semper Fi

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    B.P., MN
    Posts
    781
    The absence of a coherent national, science/Eco based, economically rational energy policy since forever, has led us to where we are today. E15 will solve no more or less than E10. More of the same, is more of the same. We got the gas, burn it. As it reaches its demise of supply, let our inventors do their thing. Putting E10 or E15 in motorcycles cannot even infinitesimally effect the environment, there simply aren't enough ov'em on the road. Cats on bikes cracks me up, IMO, two cents, this not a political statement, rather a musing about E15.

  13. #28
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,941
    Quote Originally Posted by 8ninety8 View Post
    The absence of a coherent national, science/Eco based, economically rational energy policy since forever, has led us to where we are today. E15 will solve no more or less than E10. More of the same, is more of the same. We got the gas, burn it. As it reaches its demise of supply, let our inventors do their thing. Putting E10 or E15 in motorcycles cannot even infinitesimally effect the environment, there simply aren't enough ov'em on the road. Cats on bikes cracks me up, IMO, two cents, this not a political statement, rather a musing about E15.
    Well, I can only agree that we don't have a real energy policy and our only "energy" crisis is, and always has been transportation fuels. On that note, did read the news report that Warren Buffet is going to have BNSF do a NG demonstration? Of course, Mr. Buffet owns the railroad and the NG supplier, but that's in keeping with Rockefeller and the PRR.
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  14. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by 36654 View Post
    Why pray tell would the canadians want to sell their oil at prices below the world market? It's their oil and their stock holders are entitled to the profits.
    The benchmark for oil pricing is West Texas Intermediate with a specific gravity approaching 40. All other crude suffers a differential in price to WTI (even production within the USA) and in the case of heavy oil (oil sands) the specific gravity is going to be less than 20 and can be less than 10. Oil sands production has a higher density and a higher sulpher content and therfore costs more than light crude to refine. The US has the refining capability and the capacity to handle heavy oil and therefore can realize a better margin than it would from offshore conventional production. Canadian producers benefit because the US is a realizable purchaser for its product and all transactions are done in $US. Whether Canada likes to acknowledge it or not, its currency is a petro dollar, the closer oil is to $100/bbl the closer the Canadian dollar is to the US dollar. The US is and always has been a preferred trading partner for your cousins to the north.

  15. #30
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,941
    Quote Originally Posted by NoRThwind View Post
    The benchmark for oil pricing is West Texas Intermediate with a specific gravity approaching 40. All other crude suffers a differential in price to WTI (even production within the USA) and in the case of heavy oil (oil sands) the specific gravity is going to be less than 20 and can be less than 10. Oil sands production has a higher density and a higher sulpher content and therfore costs more than light crude to refine. The US has the refining capability and the capacity to handle heavy oil and therefore can realize a better margin than it would from offshore conventional production. Canadian producers benefit because the US is a realizable purchaser for its product and all transactions are done in $US. Whether Canada likes to acknowledge it or not, its currency is a petro dollar, the closer oil is to $100/bbl the closer the Canadian dollar is to the US dollar. The US is and always has been a preferred trading partner for your cousins to the north.
    You need several barrels of water to produce one barrel of bitumen or tar sand oil. Where's that water going to come from? What are you going to do with the sulfur and other non-desirable stuff produced in the refining process? The low specific gravity is due to your future waste problem.

    The Canadian dollar has been at or above par for a decade
    Last edited by 36654; 03-12-2013 at 11:28 PM.
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •