Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We're gonna need a bigger boat: Shell builds floating oil refinery 6x aircraft carrier
The Daily Mail ^ | 5/20/11 | Daily Mail Reporter

Posted on 05/20/2011 3:29:29 PM PDT by Teflonic

It will be the largest floating object in the world - the length of four football pitches and weighing as much as six aircraft carriers.

Shell today announced plans to build a giant floating gas refinery, named the Prelude, in a project that will cost $10billion.

The ship will allow gas extracted by drilling rigs and platforms far out at sea to be transferred to the ship for processing- removing the need for pipe lines to a refinery on land.

It means the company will be able to drill for gas in new fields hundreds of miles from the nearest land and will first be used in the company's Prelude oil field 200km from the coast of West Australia.

The floating refinery is the next logical development for oil companies as new supplies of oil and gas get more remote and demand continues to increase.


(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: natgas; naturalgas; oil; refinery; shale; shell
So sad that over regulation has forced their hand, refineries could have been built on our soil.
1 posted on 05/20/2011 3:29:38 PM PDT by Teflonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

According to the article, this doesn’t have anything to do with avoiding regulations.


2 posted on 05/20/2011 3:36:07 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

Louisiana could use some of these floating refineries next time the Mississippi floods.


3 posted on 05/20/2011 3:36:39 PM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

It is implied as land refineries would be much more economical. Not to mention the increased risk to the tankers carrying refined gas rather than crude.


4 posted on 05/20/2011 3:42:09 PM PDT by Teflonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

So far, no one has read the article.


5 posted on 05/20/2011 3:42:17 PM PDT by omega4179 (No Rinos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic
"It is implied as land refineries would be much more economical. Not to mention the increased risk to the tankers carrying refined gas rather than crude."

Not oil. Natural gas. Although there are likely to be some "heavies" (C2, C3, C4, and sometimes even out to C8, but rarely higher).

Not very economical in the USA, given the recent gigantic finds of shale gas.

6 posted on 05/20/2011 3:50:21 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Not very economical in the USA, given the recent gigantic finds of shale gas.

I've read in various places that the economics of shale petroleum extraction are prohibitive. On the other hand, I've read that "fracking" is economically feasible, but that it leaves an unstable geology behind. Any thoughts on these issues?

7 posted on 05/20/2011 3:55:54 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on its own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

Notice WHERE it’s being built?

Look for the Union label, then run the other way!


8 posted on 05/20/2011 4:11:51 PM PDT by Loyal Sedition (Loyal Sedition, often described as "To the right of Attila The Hun"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

The U.S. has also loaned $2.84 billion for upgrades to an oil refinery in Cartagena, Columbia. Because the permitting regulations are so excessively onerous and radical environmentalists keep proposed projects tied up in litigation, there has not been a new major refinery built in the U.S. in 35 years, so increasingly we are forced to not only import crude oil, but refined gasoline, as well.
He could remove Lisa Jackson at the EPA who has turned a “regulatory firehose” on the energy industry and U.S. business according to the Wall Street Journal. In just two years, Jackson has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 policy rules.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2722605/posts

this as regarding crude oil,not natgas...but we get the picture.


9 posted on 05/20/2011 4:13:34 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

The headline is incorrect. It doesn’t refine oil at all.


10 posted on 05/20/2011 4:18:02 PM PDT by radioone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition

11 posted on 05/20/2011 4:18:26 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
On the other hand, I've read that "fracking" is economically feasible, but that it leaves an unstable geology behind. Any thoughts on these issues?

Fracking has been a common practice in Texas for sixty years.

Whatever you're reading that mentions "unstable geology" is a piece of environmental propaganda BS.

Sorry, there's no other way to put it.

12 posted on 05/20/2011 4:28:50 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

I didn’t read the whole article but seems to me that this is a quicker way for refined gas to get to market from remote places.


13 posted on 05/20/2011 4:38:00 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: radioone
The headline is incorrect. It doesn’t refine oil at all.

And it's not a refinery. It's a floating "gas plant".

Natural gas naturally occurs in oilfields (just as crude oil -- or "distillates" -- occur naturally in gas fields).

Heretofore, that natural gas which was captured by production platforms in oilfields has been flared off -- there being no economically feasible way of storing and transporting the gas to shore.

The "Prelude" solves the economic feasibility issue -- collecting and processing the gas, then trans-shipping the product to a tanker.

14 posted on 05/20/2011 4:38:36 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
I didn’t read the whole article but seems to me that this is a quicker way for refined gas to get to market from remote places.

It's not "refined gasoline", it is "processed natural gas".

The report is a nest of inaccuracies.

15 posted on 05/20/2011 4:42:25 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Kind of like floating at the end of a long torch. Scary.


16 posted on 05/20/2011 4:48:35 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

Lots of “pluses” to the concept, not least of which are avoiding some of the more onerous “on shore” environmental regulations imposed upon on-shore refining by the “watermelons”, .......

Not being critical, I’m largely in favor. >PS


17 posted on 05/20/2011 4:50:24 PM PDT by PiperShade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn
Kind of like floating at the end of a long torch. Scary.

Not really. There are, perhaps, a dozen gas plants within thirty miles of where I sit.

Nary a one has lit off...

But that's not to say there isn't some danger involved. Instead, it's to say that the industry's safety standards are appropriately rigorous.

18 posted on 05/20/2011 4:54:55 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
"I've read in various places that the economics of shale petroleum extraction are prohibitive.

I think you may be confusing oil sands (petroleum) with shale gas. This is the latter. No oil to be extracted.

"On the other hand, I've read that "fracking" is economically feasible, but that it leaves an unstable geology behind. Any thoughts on these issues?"

The amount of rock that is "fractured" is miniscule compared to the total shale mass. Probable effect = zero.

19 posted on 05/20/2011 5:10:11 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition

I think this Prelude is going to be built by Honda in Japan.


20 posted on 05/20/2011 5:16:47 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

In a hurry to get a low posting number, perhaps?

Okay, I posted before reading as well. Excuse me while I go back and do it right.


21 posted on 05/20/2011 5:38:37 PM PDT by Two Kids' Dad ((((( )))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Nope, Korea.
I think Japan is a little busy sprucing up right now.

“A South Korean shipyard is due to start building the vessel using five times more steel than was used to build the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It should be finished in 2017.”


22 posted on 05/20/2011 5:39:28 PM PDT by Loyal Sedition (Loyal Sedition, often described as "To the right of Attila The Hun"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic
giant floating gas refinery, named the Prelude, in a project that will cost $10billion

There goes their obscene profits.

23 posted on 05/20/2011 5:44:22 PM PDT by bikerman (Where Has My America Gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

I suggested this back in 2008, for just the same reason. IE: put a refinery outside of US waters, and the EPA has no authority.


24 posted on 05/20/2011 5:49:12 PM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

The ability to relocate a billion dollar refinery if the local land-based government decides to nationalize it is a benefit on any continent these days.


25 posted on 05/20/2011 5:51:39 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: okie01

I liken that ship to the Hindenberg! I’ll take your word for it of course, but can you imagine being the guy in charge of safety on that thing?


26 posted on 05/20/2011 6:14:23 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: okie01
The "Prelude" solves the economic feasibility issue -- collecting and processing the gas, then trans-shipping the product to a tanker.

AT $10 billion I wonder how economic it will be.

27 posted on 05/20/2011 6:17:09 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

It may not be very economical period, if shale extraction technology continues to improve.


28 posted on 05/20/2011 7:07:39 PM PDT by MSF BU (YR'S Please Support our troops: JOIN THEM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
So far, no one has read the article.

It must be a day that ends in an "y" here at FR.

29 posted on 05/20/2011 7:10:02 PM PDT by denydenydeny (Rage all you want, looters & moochers, but the gods of the copybook headings are your masters now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

Yes, this probably has something to do with the fact that they are building this in Korea and not the United States. Unions have killed the shipyards aside from government contracts.


30 posted on 05/20/2011 7:11:44 PM PDT by MSF BU (YR'S Please Support our troops: JOIN THEM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

I think it’s an effort to read between the lines. Is it to reduce costs or avoid regulation. Probably both, but Shell can’t say it’s to avoid regulations. here’s another one, the NY Times is not always telling the truth. Ahhhh.


31 posted on 05/20/2011 7:16:37 PM PDT by King Moonracer (Bad lighting and cheap fabric, that's how you sell clothing.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Teflonic

If you would like to discuss Floating LNG, or to have a broader discussion about technology and natural gas, please visit Shell’s online forum where we are currently discussing ‘How can technology help to unlock the world’s gas resources?’ It would be great to hear your comments.


32 posted on 05/24/2011 7:20:33 AM PDT by ShellDialogues
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson