This is topic Explosion at Staten Island Oil Storage Facility in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001802

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-21-2003, 07:53 PM:
 
I saw a picture of that. It looks like the entire tip of the island was obliterated. Supposedly, only one person was lost. Given the size of the fire in the picture, that would be a miracle that no others were lost.

100,000 barrels of oil/gasoline blowing up? That must have been one helluva Boom
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-22-2003, 01:24 AM:
 
4 million gallons of unleaded gas go up in flames. I wonder how that will affect gasoline prices?

Naturally, America's cars guzzle many more millions of gallons of gas than that everyday. But gasoline prices have been spiking lately without much of any fact-based logic to justify it. The oil companies just seem to be searching for a reason to price gouge.
 

---

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 02-23-2003, 04:25 PM:
 
The facility is an ExxonMobil storage depot near the Outerbridge Crossing and West Shore Expressway. 2 men were killed in the explosion.

That certainly was a deadly 24-hour period: the rock club fire in Rhode Island, the ExxonMobil depot explosion in Staten Island, propane tanks blowing up when a freight train derailed in Ontario.

It's funny that Bobby brings up gasoline prices. They've been going up in the US thanks to political unrest in Venezuela and the planned US military invasion of Iraq. High fuel prices have become a political hot potato in parts of Canada.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2003, 10:54 PM:
 
Certainly the political unrest in Venezuala (from which we import 10% to 15% of our oil) is a factor. But that strike has been going on for quite some time. Same goes for the situation in Iraq. Oil production is still at the same levels regardless and reserves, while somewhat low, are still in place.

I noticed CNN/Money magazine now has an online article about this controversy.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/21/pf/autos/gasprices/index.htm
It seems like I'm not the only one who suspects price gouging.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-24-2003, 12:47 AM:
 
This might not fit this thread, but:

It seems like every President of the United States in the past 40 years was complaining about us depending too much on foreign oil. Yet it seems that all the government did was sit on their thumbs and did nothing about it.

The very first car I owned was a 1950 Chevrolet. It got about 19 Miles per gallon of gasoline. Today, one of my vehicles is a 1994 Chevrolet, and it gets about 17 to 19 mpg. You figure....and yet, some of the 2003 models are even worse! I also had a 1973 Ford F-350, it got 12. I have a 1986 Ford F-250 that gets 11. I had a 1956 Ford that got up to 20 (on a good day). And, I had a 1983 Honda Civic that got 40. And, that 1991 Ford Taurus I have sitting with two flat tires got about 33. My Mercury Topaz gets about 25.

And, of course, the big SUV's (all manufacturers, it seems) pass everything except a gasoline station.

On this Big Oil snafu, I wonder who is in bed with whom....
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-24-2003, 07:09 AM:
 
I don't think those SUVs would sell very well over here (where, thanks to heavy fuel duties, petrol/gasoline retails at about $5 per gallon)! My 1991 Fiat does around 38-40mpg, and in the family car market turbo-Diesels which do 50-60 are the fastest growing area of the market, especially among high mileage drivers.

This morning's Today programme said that the Staten Island explosion appeared to have pushed oil prices up around 2-3 cents a barrel.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-24-2003, 04:38 PM:
 
That's almost as good as my Thunderbird Super Coupe Paul. It gets about 10 miles per gallon. Of course if I layed off that super charger a bit I might get an extra mile or two per gallon, but where's the fun in that.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-24-2003, 06:22 PM:
 
Quote: "It seems like every President of the United States in the past 40 years was complaining about us depending too much on foreign oil. Yet it seems that all the government did was sit on their thumbs and did nothing about it."

Bush had been pushing for the Alaska drilling every since he has come to office just for that reason. In addition the government is spending over a billion dollars to establish an infrastructure for hydrogen fueled automobiles as well as research to that end.

http://www.planetsave.com/ViewStory.asp?ID=1944
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-24-2003, 07:38 PM:
 
The current problem with hydrogen powered vehicles is the lack of a large scale hydrogen distribution network. So for now, hydrogen powered vehicles will rely on hydrogen rich fuels such as gasoline or methanol -- methanol, can be safely used/stored with the current infrastructure.

So anyway... even if a large scale change to hydrogen powered vehicles happens (most companies, including GM, plan on having Ballard Fuel Cell powered production vehicles available for 2004) we won't see much cost saving since the vehicles will still be using fuel reformers to produce hydrogen from fossil fuels.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 02-24-2003, 08:38 PM:
 
The "moonshiners" burned alcohol.

Today, there is one state I know of that encourages using alcohol for fuel. North Dakota. Get a load of denatured "corncobs" in your fuel tank, and they will give you a pecan pie as a gift in some areas.

I think Josh can tell you more about it that I can, since he lives in that ice cube.

Funny thing about electric cars....5 years ago, we didn't have the technology to build an electric car, so the "Big Three" say. Well, seems to me there was an electric car on display in Ceaser's Palace in LV. It was a "Unic". I don't know who built it, but it goes back to the year of 1905 if I recall correctly.

Furthermore, "Diesel-Electric" technology that is still active as prime movers (locomotive engines and shipboard propulsion) today, and that technology goes back to the 1930's.

Finally, some of the car manufacturers are starting to use gasoline-electric technology. Honda is one of them. Technology that has been in place for 70 years, and we are finally starting to pick up on it?

Goes right back to what I said earlier....I wonder who is in bed with whom....
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-24-2003, 08:54 PM:
 
While I agree hydrogen is a great alternative to gasoline for most terrestrial vehicles, I think we are all missing the boat. We should be concentrating our R&D efforts on the Flux Capacitor. That easily would generate all the required power since it's capable of 1.21 "Jigawatts".

What really burns me is the waste of fuel by the half-full airline jets ...and making me pay for it...the "fuel surcharge". They should stop their waste, and scale-back their schedules for an efficient use of fuel.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-24-2003, 09:51 PM:
 
Now how many capacitors have you used that work without flux?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-24-2003, 09:59 PM:
 
Paul,

If you would get rid of those catostrophic converters...you'd see you milage go up.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-24-2003, 10:01 PM:
 

quote:

---

Funny thing about electric cars....5 years ago, we didn't have the technology to build an electric car, so the "Big Three" say.

---