Jump to content

Philadelphia To Compete With Houston A Energy Hub?


Recommended Posts

From what I'm reading there, it sounds like the could be an energy hub, but it would be a *regional* one, not a national and certainly not a global one like Houston.  A big chunk of the U.S. population lives in the northeast, and it probably needs a local energy infrastructure hub.  Philly is probably not a bad place for that with a port, affordable land, and a central location in the DC-Boston corridor.  Houston is a regional energy infrastructure hub too, but we're also the global hub for headquarters and professionals - and Philly is a far cry from that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this to be taken seriously? lol. Looks more like the "Joke of the Day." So many global petroleum companies have recently broke ground on their new headquarters here in Houston. The pipeline that our d-bag president won't approve is planned to end at Houston. We have one of the largest ports in the world. We sit next to the salt domes. We're next to spindletop for pete sake. It's nothing more than a grand delusion to think Philly would EVER compete with Houston for "Energy Capital". Not to mention, the weather in Houston is far more luring to many people than Philly's. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this to be taken seriously? lol. Looks more like the "Joke of the Day." So many global petroleum companies have recently broke ground on their new headquarters here in Houston. The pipeline that our d-bag president won't approve is planned to end at Houston. We have one of the largest ports in the world. We sit next to the salt domes. We're next to spindletop for pete sake. It's nothing more than a grand delusion to think Philly would EVER compete with Houston for "Energy Capital". Not to mention, the weather in Houston is far more luring to many people than Philly's.

Well said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The pipeline that our d-bag president won't approve is planned to end at Houston.

Really? I agree with everything else you said but you seriously want that filthy ass tar sand oil to be pumped to Houston for processing? We already have enough pollution problems.

Maybe if they passed a (local) law that they could only burn off nasty stuff when the wind is blowing offshore to dump the pollution into the world largest carbon sink (the oceans), instead of dumping it inland on the city, I wouldn't be as opposed to bringing down more oil down to refine.

Edited by cloud713
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cloud seriously that will never happen. Oil pipelines would help our economy. If you want to see more buildings in Houston you have to want the oil/energy business to do their best. If they collapsed this whole city would turn into Detroit over night.

No company would put closing their plant (extemely long process), in order to leave billions of the table so we don't have a smoggy day here and there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what will never happen? the pipeline bringing tar sands down to Houston for the profit of a Canadian company? good, i hope it doesnt... so we wont be getting a new TransCanada tower in downtown (or in the suburbs).. so what? Houston already tops the lists of pollution in the US. i have asthma thanks in part to it.. i dont want to see our pollution get any worse. 
im not saying they should close the refineries that are already there.. where did you read that? im saying we dont need any of that extremely filthy oil coming to be processed in our backyards. if the Canadians want it processed they can do it themselves and pollute their land even further. my proposal for only burning stuff off when the winds are blowing off shore would be for if we were to bring the tar sands down to our area, though it would be fantastic if they could implement something like that with all the industry we already have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what will never happen? the pipeline bringing tar sands down to Houston for the profit of a Canadian company? good, i hope it doesnt... so we wont be getting a new TransCanada tower in downtown (or in the suburbs).. so what? Houston already tops the lists of pollution in the US. i have asthma thanks in part to it.. i dont want to see our pollution get any worse. 

im not saying they should close the refineries that are already there.. where did you read that? im saying we dont need any of that extremely filthy oil coming to be processed in our backyards. if the Canadians want it processed they can do it themselves and pollute their land even further. my proposal for only burning stuff off when the winds are blowing off shore would be for if we were to bring the tar sands down to our area, though it would be fantastic if they could implement something like that with all the industry we already have.

 

 

Maybe if they passed a (local) law that they could only burn off nasty stuff when the wind is blowing offshore to dump the pollution into the world largest carbon sink (the oceans), instead of dumping it inland on the city, I wouldn't be as opposed to bringing down more oil down to refine.

I was replying to this statement. I didn't say close indefinitely, but closing on certain days when the wind is shifting to the north west. Aint gonna happen. Unless science can come up with some sollution for air filtration/carbon/pollution collection from the source stacks, they will continue to burn.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I agree with everything else you said but you seriously want that filthy ass tar sand oil to be pumped to Houston for processing? We already have enough pollution problems.

Maybe if they passed a (local) law that they could only burn off nasty stuff when the wind is blowing offshore to dump the pollution into the world largest carbon sink (the oceans), instead of dumping it inland on the city, I wouldn't be as opposed to bringing down more oil down to refine.

 

fyi - 

 

(since the '70s) "A December 1998 EPA report indicates that while air quality continues to improve, approximately 107 million Americans in 1997 lived in areas that did not meet the ambient air quality standards for at least one of the six major pollutants noted above. In general, though, improvements in air quality have been significant: carbon monoxide concentrations have decreased 38%; lead concentrations have decreased by 67%; nitrogen dioxide concentrations are down by 14%; ozone (smog) concentrations have been reduced by 19%; particulate matter concentrations decreased 26%; and sulfur dioxide concentrations decreased 39%. At the same time that air pollution has been decreasing significantly (1970–97), gross domestic product increased 114%, U.S. population increased 31%, and vehicle miles traveled increased 127%."

Read more: http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-1/Air-and-Water-Pollution.html#ixzz2mR7mfRSL

 

pollution levels continue to decrease across the country as the mindset of most americans and businesses have changed dramatically.  the change in air quality in houston is even more dramatic since the '70s but i couldn't find documentation.  we used to have brown air on some days, now we may have a yellow hue at best and sometimes that is from burning sugar cane fields in louisiana.  i do not intend to imply we shouldn't continue to move towards less pollution, but i think our current pollution levels are overstated by the media, especially the national media; they would rather focus on houston's pollution rather than their home towns of new york or la.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I'm reading there, it sounds like the could be an energy hub, but it would be a *regional* one, not a national and certainly not a global one like Houston.  A big chunk of the U.S. population lives in the northeast, and it probably needs a local energy infrastructure hub.  Philly is probably not a bad place for that with a port, affordable land, and a central location in the DC-Boston corridor.  Houston is a regional energy infrastructure hub too, but we're also the global hub for headquarters and professionals - and Philly is a far cry from that.

 

You're right.  Philadelphia actually makes a lot of sense as a regional energy hub.  There is a huge refining and fuel storage capacity in the area, Pennsylvania has had a boom in fracking from the Marcellus Shale formation, and the largest US electricity grid is headquartered nearby.  The reason that Houston will stay the global hub, however, is that we have the energy intellectual capital and networking effects in place, and those are hard to dislodge.  The best comparison is to Silicon Valley.  Although dozens of cities have tried to cast themselves as "Silicon-whatevers", they can't overcome the network effect that the San Jose area has in place. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Highrise Tower changed the title to Philadelphia To Compete With Houston A Energy Hub?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...