We hear a lot on the news about the terrible state of the economy. I guess we (in this area) decided to sit this one out...
I attended a meeting last Wednesday with some of the representatives and community stakeholders. It was regarding anticipated growth in the next 2-10 years. I found it very enlightening.
Several industry representatives gave presentations about what their plans are for growth over the next little while. Exxon, ConocoPhilips, Enterprise, and several others are looking to expand their stake in the petrochemical industry. All of this is focused on our area. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in the next couple of years (and lasting for 2-3 years) of over 20,000 jobs just in industry. The projections for support and ancillary jobs created by these efforts likewise shows dramatic increases in the job market. All of which is very good for the economy of the region.
This (it was explained to me) is due in large part to the relatively low price of natural gas. Plants are needed to separate out the various parts of the y-grade (what comes out of the ground) natural gas from the constituent and valuable parts. Of particular interest to me was the dehydrogenation processes that will be installed. This takes hydrogen out of some of the other gasses and makes them available for use in creating plastics. Yeah - I don't understand it much, but it's a very interesting process.
The (relatively) cheap and abundant natural gas is, in turn, being promoted and supplied by the relatively new technology of hydraulic fracturing (sometimes called fracking) of the rock where the y-grade natural gas is stored. This is the process where they drill a well - or use an existing well - get to an area where the gas is, and send hydraulic fracturing fluids down into the well at great pressure. This breaks up the rocks which trap the natural gas inside, freeing up vast quantities of natural gas for use in the industry. There is an extensive series of pipelines throughout North America which supplies this natural gas to plants in our area. What makes Mont Belvieu unique is the salt dome, where natural gas, propane, and other NGLs can be stored indefinitely and safely underground. Someone once told me that if all of the NGL stored in the Mont Belvieu salt dome was put in above ground containers, it would stretch from here to Los Angeles.
The pipelines bring in the raw, unseparated y-grade material. This gets processed through almost completely automatic facilities called fractionators (not to be confused with the fracking or fracturing mentioned above). Fractionation separates out the various gasses that make up the y-grade natural gas - butane, propane, octane, etc. All of this is very useful for heating homes, powering electric plants, and many other uses. But the expansion that is of particular interest to me is in the plastics area. We already have a couple of large plastics facilities in the area (Bayer and Exxon). There are currently proposed (or being looked at, anyway) expansion of the existing Exxon plastics plant in Mont Belvieu. The proximity to the storage units and all that is available at hand - including the extensive network of pipelines - is a huge attraction to future expansion in this area.
What that means for us is that we are looking to grow our tax base AND our residential base. People will come here to live and work. Their children will need to go to school. They will travel our roads and shop in our stores. They will leave an indelible mark - even if their jobs are temporary, they will leave a legacy of improvement and investment that will last for decades.
So stay tuned! This is a dramatic and interesting time, one in which we will certainly see some benefit as well as some difficulty.
(PS - for a very good series on NGLs and their importance to Mont Belvieu, please see the following:
http://www.rbnenergy.com/can-mont-belvieu-handle-the-ngl-supply-surge-part-I and related posts. I highly recommend it.)
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Economic Development (II)
Not sure if you read this headline:
Council paves way for Walmart
It comes from the following website:
http://baytownsun.com/communities/baytown/article_6d7be59a-e5af-11e1-bf51-0019bb2963f4.html
(It should be noted that this is the Baytown City Council, not the Mont Belvieu City Council. Just to be clear).
I know from previous blog posts and comments that this is something that we've anticipated - with some mixed feelings - for some time. Certainly it will cut down on the drive time to get to shopping - the current closest Walmart stores are either in Liberty or in Baytown. This one is literally right on our doorstep.
The impact of Walmart on the local economy is well documented. It will be interesting to see - over the next few years - if the pattern holds for this Walmart location as well. It will also be interesting to see what this does in other areas of our City as far as other retail growth.
Council paves way for Walmart
It comes from the following website:
http://baytownsun.com/communities/baytown/article_6d7be59a-e5af-11e1-bf51-0019bb2963f4.html
(It should be noted that this is the Baytown City Council, not the Mont Belvieu City Council. Just to be clear).
I know from previous blog posts and comments that this is something that we've anticipated - with some mixed feelings - for some time. Certainly it will cut down on the drive time to get to shopping - the current closest Walmart stores are either in Liberty or in Baytown. This one is literally right on our doorstep.
The impact of Walmart on the local economy is well documented. It will be interesting to see - over the next few years - if the pattern holds for this Walmart location as well. It will also be interesting to see what this does in other areas of our City as far as other retail growth.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Power to the people!
I recently read this article:
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/07/158275818/growing-pains-nations-balance-growth-power-needs
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/07/158275818/growing-pains-nations-balance-growth-power-needs
I found it interesting for a number of reasons.
First, our power infrastructure is in pretty sad shape. This is important not only in third world countries where the costs can be prohibitive, but even in our country, where the size of the infrastructure alone is daunting. The cost of rehabilitating the lines, transformers, towers, etc is astronomical.
Interestingly, and by way of a little history, when commercial electricity became something people wanted in their homes, there were two competing ideas about how to do it. Thomas Edison - of light bulb fame - was a proponent of direct current. This had (has) a number of advantages, including a more localized approach to power generation and distribution (the generators had to be close to the end users, because the power could only efficiently be conducted about a mile or two). Alternating current - the ultimate winner in the war of currents - was promoted by Westinghouse and Tesla. Their scheme was the familiar far-flung power plants - located at places of easy access to coal, hydro-electric or geothermal sources, or just generally out of the way of development. Electricity generation on that scale is a messy thing, and no one wanted to be near it. That's not a problem for alternating current - it travels (somewhat) readily over long distances. In fact, the higher the voltage, the easier it is to transmit. So you see what we have now - the long series of pylons carrying electricity for miles and miles, marching off into the horizon. Good for companies - centralized operations means convenience and increased profit; but bad for the environment. More on that in a second.
Mont Belvieu is an energy-thirsty place. The industrial complex in our City uses a significant amount of power - particularly when based on population. Fractionators and storage facilities use electricity to power their activities. This is very good and very essential. But it places us at the nexus of the need to improve/maintain power infrastructure and the needs of a growing community.
The next interesting point is that if Edison had won out in the war of currents, our model and mindset regarding energy production and transmission would have been radically different. Alternating current power production is what led to the mercury poisoning of our streams and waterways, the acid rain in the north east, significant amounts of CO2 emissions, and sulfur and other particulates in the air. While relatively cheap, the costs of the environmental impacts of these facilities is incalculable.
It is interesting to consider, then, that if Edison had won we would have a system that is ideally suited for renewable energy production, transmission, and use. Alternating current is produced in plants that generate power specifically designed to send that power over long distances at high voltages (at voltages in excess of 700,000 volts). Direct current systems are not capable of producing that same kind of voltage, so the systems would have to stay small and local. This is ideal for renewable energy use - if not for large scale commercial production.
And therein lies the largest paradigm shift that needs to take place in the way we think about power generation. Looking to the future - where renewable energy is more practical and in greater/more wide spread use - it is conceivable that each community - each neighborhood, even - would have it's own array of windmills, photovoltaics, etc. that would generate energy needed in that area. These local power supply points would be much more resilient to natural disasters, less susceptible to outages, and would reduce the cost/need for infrastructure improvements. They would also mean that there would be less CO2 emissions and less pollution in the air/water supply. Further, we could take down the marching pylons of energy, returning our landscape vistas to what they once were.
In our City, the industrial work that is done is largely automated. The ground - at the surface - is generally open and bare. It is possible that this ground could be utilized for photovoltaic energy production that would be used on site. Then, in the event of a hurricane or other natural disaster, or even the rolling black outs we experienced in the recent past, the power supply necessary for the continued safety and operation of these industrial areas could continue unhampered.
Interestingly, and by way of a little history, when commercial electricity became something people wanted in their homes, there were two competing ideas about how to do it. Thomas Edison - of light bulb fame - was a proponent of direct current. This had (has) a number of advantages, including a more localized approach to power generation and distribution (the generators had to be close to the end users, because the power could only efficiently be conducted about a mile or two). Alternating current - the ultimate winner in the war of currents - was promoted by Westinghouse and Tesla. Their scheme was the familiar far-flung power plants - located at places of easy access to coal, hydro-electric or geothermal sources, or just generally out of the way of development. Electricity generation on that scale is a messy thing, and no one wanted to be near it. That's not a problem for alternating current - it travels (somewhat) readily over long distances. In fact, the higher the voltage, the easier it is to transmit. So you see what we have now - the long series of pylons carrying electricity for miles and miles, marching off into the horizon. Good for companies - centralized operations means convenience and increased profit; but bad for the environment. More on that in a second.
Mont Belvieu is an energy-thirsty place. The industrial complex in our City uses a significant amount of power - particularly when based on population. Fractionators and storage facilities use electricity to power their activities. This is very good and very essential. But it places us at the nexus of the need to improve/maintain power infrastructure and the needs of a growing community.
The next interesting point is that if Edison had won out in the war of currents, our model and mindset regarding energy production and transmission would have been radically different. Alternating current power production is what led to the mercury poisoning of our streams and waterways, the acid rain in the north east, significant amounts of CO2 emissions, and sulfur and other particulates in the air. While relatively cheap, the costs of the environmental impacts of these facilities is incalculable.
It is interesting to consider, then, that if Edison had won we would have a system that is ideally suited for renewable energy production, transmission, and use. Alternating current is produced in plants that generate power specifically designed to send that power over long distances at high voltages (at voltages in excess of 700,000 volts). Direct current systems are not capable of producing that same kind of voltage, so the systems would have to stay small and local. This is ideal for renewable energy use - if not for large scale commercial production.
And therein lies the largest paradigm shift that needs to take place in the way we think about power generation. Looking to the future - where renewable energy is more practical and in greater/more wide spread use - it is conceivable that each community - each neighborhood, even - would have it's own array of windmills, photovoltaics, etc. that would generate energy needed in that area. These local power supply points would be much more resilient to natural disasters, less susceptible to outages, and would reduce the cost/need for infrastructure improvements. They would also mean that there would be less CO2 emissions and less pollution in the air/water supply. Further, we could take down the marching pylons of energy, returning our landscape vistas to what they once were.
In our City, the industrial work that is done is largely automated. The ground - at the surface - is generally open and bare. It is possible that this ground could be utilized for photovoltaic energy production that would be used on site. Then, in the event of a hurricane or other natural disaster, or even the rolling black outs we experienced in the recent past, the power supply necessary for the continued safety and operation of these industrial areas could continue unhampered.
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)
