Sinclair Refinery Expansion

[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.

[aoxamaxoa]

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.

[Double A]

There is a silver lining, this will be another nail in the coffin for the river tax.

[Renaissance]

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.

[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.

[sauerkraut]

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.[]

[TheArtist]

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?

[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.

[sgrizzle]

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.

[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?

[sgrizzle]

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.

[Conan71]

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.

[swake]

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).

[cannon_fodder]

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)  

Couldnt find any more comparisons...