DrumBeat: December 25, 2006

Russia's Rosneft adds 862 mln bbl reserves in 2006

MOSCOW - Russian state oil company Rosneft said on Monday it had added 862 million barrels of new oil reserves in 2006, or 46 percent more than its forecast production.

...Its reserves include 14.9 billion barrels of liquids, making Rosneft the world's 11th-largest company on the list of oil reserves holders, on a par with Mexico's Pemex.

Iran puts 17 oil blocks out to tender

"Tomorrow (Tuesday), the exploration tenders for 17 oil blocks will be published in press," the National Iranian Oil Company's director of exploration, Mahmoud Mohades, was quoted as saying Monday.

"The minimum investment for these exploration blocks will be more than 460 million euros," he added.

"The tenders are for 12 onshore blocks and five other blocks in the Persian Gulf," he explained.


No Turkey-Georgia gas deal yet: Turkish official

ANKARA - Turkey has not yet reached a deal with Georgia to supply the ex-Soviet republic with much-needed gas next year but expects talks to be concluded in one week, a senior Turkish Energy Ministry official told Reuters on Monday.


Gazprom warns Belarus on price negotiations

MOSCOW (Reuters) -- Russian gas giant Gazprom said on Monday the clock was ticking for Moscow's ally Belarus to accept a sharp gas price hike from the New Year or have supplies cut, Russian news agencies reported.

"The current contract on gas supplies to Belarus will expire in six days," they quoted Gazprom's chief spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov as saying.

"Belarus's negotiating position is irresponsible and puts the issue of the whole country's energy supplies under threat."


Energize America: the technology of community

We all feel that we witnessing potentially world-changing stuff with the emergence of virtual communities on the internet, and we are trying to harness that power and understand what we can do with it - influencing public discourse, drafting policy, creating new solidarities and more. It's also interesting - and challenging, to say the least - to see that trend described as our best hope to solve the energy crisis.


Our energy future

Our fossil fuels are finite and global supplies, particularly oil and gas are dwindling at an ever faster rate as global populations increase and industrialization accelerates. While use of such fuels has allowed proportionate increase in standards of living, their use is also causing threat to our global, natural environment. The future welfare of man is at stake. Increased use of known forms of renewable energy and energy efficiency can slow the depletion rate, but do not provide assurance of adequacy of energy supplies for generations yet to come.


Nuclear energy nearing revival: 30 new reactors are being considered as power demands rise

After hibernating for decades, the nuclear industry is cautiously gearing up to build a new fleet of reactors to generate electricity, benefiting from political support while hoping to avoid the blunders of the past.


Can geothermal energy light up Yemen?


Turkey, Georgia in gas-sharing agreement

TBILISI, Georgia - Turkey has agreed to give up some of its share of a giant Caspian gas field to Georgia, allowing the small Caucasus nation to reduce its need for expensive Russian gas, the Georgian energy minister said Sunday.


Oil Minister: Turkey should not re-export Iran gas

Turkey has no right to re-export gas it is importing from Iran via a pipeline, said Iranian Oil Minister.


Reining in of foreign firms elsewhere increases African oil's allure

DAKAR, Senegal -- Angola is joining the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, African oil exploration is booming and China is investing. The appetite for African oil grows, even as militant attacks in some countries and precarious governments in others make returns uncertain.


Asian, Pacific countries must adopt 'green growth' patterns

These societies are already living beyond their ecological means and the current 'grow first, clean up later' growth pattern is likely to result in mounting ecological problems, the report by UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) said.


The New Threat To Europe

This year began with a European energy crisis caused by Russia's cutoff of gas supplies to Ukraine, where a democratic government not to the liking of Vladimir Putin had taken power. Because Russian gas passes through Ukraine on its way to Western Europe, the pressure also dropped in Paris and Vienna and Rome -- and Europeans suddenly realized they were dependent for electricity and warmth on an autocracy that was prepared to use energy as a tool of imperialism.


Yes, Oil From Venezuela

There's been a lot of controversy lately over whether Citizens Energy Corp. should distribute -- and the poor should accept -- discount heating oil from Venezuela while that country is under the leadership of President Hugo Chávez.

But those who have no problem staying warm at night should not condemn others for accepting Venezuela's oil. Rhetoric means little to an elderly woman who has to drag an old cot from her basement to sleep by the warmth of the open kitchen stove or give up food or medicine to pay her heating bill.


Nigeria: We Have Met the Enemy, And It Is Us

Responding to the increased rebel violence in the Niger Delta, some oil companies are evacuating the families of foreign workers. Rebels attacks are, month by month, shutting down more production. MEND is getting more skillful and better organized in their attacks. The use of cell phone triggered car bombs, and the ability to get these vehicles into heavily guarded compounds, are examples of this. MEND is also refraining from killing innocent civilians, which means they remain popular, while still terrorizing the government. The bombs destroy the luxurious cars and facilities of the government and oil companies. Pictures of the bomb effects in the media make it clear where the oil money is going.


Nigerian separatists not swayed by hostages' pleas

An armed separatist group in southern Nigeria that is holding four foreign oil workers hostage said on Sunday that it will not be swayed by their pleas for release and indicted Italian oil firm Agip for allegedly attempting to pay a ransom.


Oil Output Cut Restores Balance to its Markets

OPEC estimated a surplus of 500,000-700,000 barrels in oil markets at present. A large part of this surplus is attributed to the fact that some member States do not commit to their output quota, as only 75-80% of the organization members that are committed to their respective quotas, hence the surplus in oil markets.


Some analysts predict rise in oil price

Crude-oil prices may rise this week on speculation that inventories will decline as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries reduces production.


Many problems continue to loom in Africa

Nigeria is Africa's biggest oil producer and the fifth-largest U.S. supplier and has seen its typical oil production of 2.5 million barrels per day cut by a quarter this year by a series of attacks and hostage-takings by militants, some seeking ransoms and others political influence.

At some point the world will have to exercise crucial intervention in this land of local wars and unrest. Otherwise, the Dark Continent is going to give us darkness on a scale we have never seen or hope to see.


A few holiday-induced thoughts about peak oil

Like a lot of people, when I think about peak oil, my mind drifts toward the things that are likely to go away: super-stocked grocery stores, cheap gas and easy mobility, push-button conveniences, exurban houses filling the prairie, and the techno-toys we stuff them with. Once the our present reality starts to sink in on you, it makes sense to think like that. After all, the key word that unlocks the post-peak oil cipher is "less." Not just less hydrocarbon energy; less of everything.


MERRY CHRISTMAS to those of you who celebrate it. Hope the ultimate cornucopian was good to you. For everyone else...happy Monday. Or happy "celebrate our ape-like ancestors day."

Happy Holidays!

Herewith is an observation: I've tried to get my family members and friends interested in TOD (to read my comments, if nothing else:>) but have had no success. One of the major complaints is that the editors and posters are too smart, and my friends fear they cannot keep up, would be ridiculed if they made comments, etc.

Well, I have had the great good fortune to be around people who are way way smarter than I am for much of my life, and I like to hang out with and communicate with such people, because they are interesting and I'm likely to learn worthwhile things from them. But few people seem to share my tastes. One thing that I think could help is if we have a New Year's resolution for absolutely no flames. I like "Thumper's Rule," which is, "If you can't say something nice, then don't say nothin' at all." In the spirit of this thought I hereby nominate Hothgar as the most improved poster of Dec. 2006.

I second the nomination of Hothgar as most improved poster. The kid apparently stumbled onto the Oil Drum and proceeded to make response to comments a game, challenging RR and WT in a thoroughly obnoxious manner, but showing his real talent for research with his support for his comments with graphs and research. He did so well I thought for a while that he must be a paid troll. But after Professor Goose's story on edicate, he made a sincere effort to grow up and be a part of TOD community. Although he's slipped up a few times, he's remained even-tempered and is really trying.He's extremely bright and able, and his only real problem right now is he asks too few questions before jumping in with an opinion. He makes all of us question our assumptions which I consider a good thing.
I think we all ought to ease up on Hothgar and let him out of troll prison. I'm sure glad I'm not being held accountable for all my off-the wall statements made when I was in my 20's!

Thanks guys :)

Merry Christmas to you all! :)

I have just christened the latest stray cat to take up residence at my place Hothgor. He is a great furry black fellow who is going to the vet next week for a surgical attitude ajustment....

"... a surgical attitude ajustment ...."

Now, there's a way to deal with unruly posters. :-)

I concur - he deserves at least a measure of respect as a person for learning to participate here under harsh conditions, regardless of the reasons for that harshness.

Nuclear energy nearing revival:
> "Nuclear power is going to be an essential source, in my
> judgment, of future electricity for the United States,"
> President Bush said last week at a press conference.
> "Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit
> one greenhouse gas."

Is nuclear really renewable?

"Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit one greenhouse gas."

I believe this to be a questionable statement. The cement industry is a significant emitter of CO2. Add in all the energetic activity required to mine, crush, extract, transport, refine the fuel and all of the energetic construction activity and a single reactor would be associated with a significant stream of emissions.

Add in the fact that it is also asociated with an externality in that there is no accounting for decommissioning costs and spent fuel storage and the future does not look that rosy. Perhaps we need a Peak U-235 site?

"Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit one greenhouse gas."

How did GWB get elected once, let alone twice?

I blame the electorate.

He didn't.

You're in denial. I guess it's more palatable to believe in conspiracy than the fact millions of Americans voted for a dimwit.

Come on Bob... the Republicans were dishonest in Florida in 2000. They didn't count the vote and they certainly didn't want to remind us of that fact. Witness their lack support for Katherine Harris this year.

What the Supreme Court did was re-affirm the separate-but-equal philosophy. And, predictably, we are poorer for it.

Sure, a few 1000 votes were probably not counted, which tipped the balance to 51/49 instead of 49/51. But the point is that millions of people did intentionally vote for Bush, with full knowledge he was a dimwit. And not just in one election, but two.

You can't just dismiss the near 50% vote for Bush on a few miscounted votes. It is utterly amazing that the vote was close enough in the first place that a bit of cheating was enough to tip the balance. Face facts, the electorate are stupid!

I think you're the one in denial. Millions did vote for a dimwit, but both elections were "won" through a combination of fraud, voter negation and hackable Diebold machines.

Why is it that the "conspiracy" label is so often dropped on any topic that carries the slightest bit of controversy or is "out of the mainstream"? This country need more independent thinkers, not sheep.

Millions did vote for a dimwit

That's my whole point in a nutshell, glad you agree!

It doesn't really matter whether he won,lost or stole the election, the fact is millions of voters must be stupid. That is what amazes me.

As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of
the people. On some great and glorious day the plain
folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last
and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- H.L. Mencken

Nuff said!

Ron Patterson

... The fact is millions of voters must be stupid. That is what amazes me.

Cousin Bob,

Imagine yourself a space traveler. You land on a planet populated by robots.

They are programmed to operate like video games.

Some inhabitants on the planet try to play "the game" fair and honest.

Others have the cheat sheet.
They know that if they use the "fear and terror" code they will be able to take control of the primal operating system in each robot's central processor.

When an election is held, lo and behold, those who used the cheat codes win. You then label the robots as "stupid".

They are not stupid. They are merely operating according to their primal software.

"Millions did vote for a dimwit"

That is because we have millions of dimwits in this country

Denial?

No. 1. Tom Pyle, who had worked for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), went private sector a few months later, getting a job as director of federal affairs for Koch Industries.

No. 7. Roger Morse, another House aide, moved on to the law and lobbying firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds. "I was also privileged to lead a team of Republicans to Florida to help in the recount fight," he told a legal trade magazine in a 2003 interview.

No. 8. Duane Gibson, an aide on the House Resources Committee, was a solo lobbyist and formerly with the Greenberg Traurig lobby operation. He is now with the Livingston Group as a consultant.

No. 9. Chuck Royal was and still is a legislative assistant to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a former House member.

No. 10. Layna McConkey Peltier, who had been a Senate and House aide and was at Steelman Health Strategies during the effort, is now at Capital Health Group.

"Sources say the "rioters" proudly note their participation on résumés and in interviews. But while the original hardy band of demonstrators numbered barely a couple of dozen, the numbers apparently have grown with the legend."

Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31074-2005Jan23.html

Apparently, GWB is "renewable" as well.

I'm looking forward to many joyful years arguing who was the worst president in US history-Nixon,Bush the younger, or Franklin Pierce, the Democrat before the Civil War who let us drift into the war by encouraging the Southern secessionists. On American body count its obviously Pierce, but we have two more years of GWB left, and 30 more years of the fanatics he's appointed to the Supreme Court.

Remember that W's mother is Barbara PIERCE Bush, yes as in Franklin Pierce. Two of your candidates for worst president are related.

"I believe this to be a questionable statement. The cement industry is a significant emitter of CO2. Add in all the energetic activity required to mine, crush, extract, transport, refine the fuel and all of the energetic construction activity and a single reactor would be associated with a significant stream of emissions."

You are quite correct. This photo essay shows this quite starkly.

To be fair, with this level of reasoning, all of our alternative energy options would presently qualify as greenhouse gas emitters.
With caveats, any energy production method that does not rely on burning carbon as its primary energy source (nuclear, solar, wind) could be considered CO2 free, even considering the CO2 overhead. There is technology that could take carbon-free energy and use it to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This approach would eventually "take back" the CO2 released during the manufacture of the power plant.

Is nuclear really renewable?

Considering that the energy source is from a supernova ~4.6 billion years ago (making uranium and thorium about 20 times older than typical fossil fuels) and we better HOPE we don't get another, the answer is definitely no.  On the other hand, they have no inherent* GHG emissions and it's going to take us a lot longer to exhaust them than oil, gas and coal.

* No quibbles about what it takes to make concrete; make the containment out of graphite composite and it could be carbon negative.

ROFLMAO - graphite composite is extremely energy intensive. (Not really helpful for "hypercars" either.)

The real issue is EROEI and nuclear likely has a positive EROEI but not as good in that sense as oil has been.

I just located the following which seems to be an accurate accounting of the net energy balance:

On basis of PJ (thermal) per 1000 MWe the input figures are:
Mining 5.5
Conversion 4.1
Enrichment 23.1
Fuel fabrication 1.2
Plant operation 1.1
Build & decommission plant 4.1
Waste management 4.3
TOTAL 43.4 PJ

The output of Forsmark is 7.47 TWh/yr per GWe. Over 40 years: 299 TWh or 3226 PJ.

Input is thus 1.35% of output.

Source URL:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm

The same site has another table with different figures and figures for hydro, NG, LNG, and PV. Not sure if it will fit here:

Table 2. Life Cycle Energy Ratios for Various Technologies
Source R3 Energy Ratio.
(output/input) Input % of
lifetime output
Hydro
Uchiyama 1996 50 2.0
Held et al 1977 43 2.3
Quebec Gagnon et al 2002 205 0.5
Nuclear (centrifuge enrichment)
see table 1. 59 1.7
PWR/BWR Kivisto 2000 59 1.7
PWR Inst. Policy Science 1977* 46 2.2
BWR Inst. Policy Science 1977* 43 2.3
BWR Uchiyama et al 1991* 47 2.1
Nuclear (diffusion enrichment) see table 1. 21 4.8
PWR/ BWR
Held et al 1977 20 5.0
PWR/BWR
Kivisto 2000 17 5.8
Uchiyama 1996 24 4.2
PWR Oak Ridge Assoc.Univ. 1976* 15.4 6.5
BWR Oak Ridge Assoc.Univ. 1976* 16.4 6.1
BWR Uchiyama et al 1991* 10.5 9.5
Coal
Kivisto 2000 29 3.5
Uchiyama 1996 17 5.9
Uchiyama et al 1991* 16.8 6.0
unscrubbed Gagnon et al 2002 7 14
Kivisto 2000 34 2.9
Natural gas - piped
Kivisto 2000 26 3.8
Natural gas - piped 2000 km
Gagnon et al 2002 5 20
LNG
Uchiyama et al 1991* 5.6 17.9
LNG (57% capacity factor)
Uchiyama 1996 6 16.7
Solar
Held et al 1997 10.6 9.4
Solar PV
rooftop Alsema 2003 12-10 8-10
ground Alsema 2003 7.5 13
amorphous silicon Kivisto 2000 3.7 27
Wind
Resource Research Inst.1983* 12 8.3
Uchiyama 1996 6 16.7
Kivisto 2000 34 2.9
Gagnon et al 2002 80 1.3
Aust Wind Energy Assn 2004 50 2.0
* In IAEA 1994, TecDoc 753.



Boy, that edit button is a lifesaver!

What are you talking about? You just stated (or quoted the statement):

Input is thus 1.35% of output.

This makes EROEI of 74, while ethanol's is ~1.35. For a unit of input energy you get 73 net out with nuclear and 0.35 net out from ethanol.

This makes nuclear 209 times better energy source than ethanol on EROEI basis!

Boy, that edit button is a lifesaver!

And also a great source of confusions. I will not edit my previous comment, as it was valid towards the previous version of your post.

Your comment is correct with regard to the prior unedited post. I had it backwards, realized the error and then edited away my stupidity     :-(

Everyone else however will be left wondering about your comments so I have posted this reply.

I have been wading through data on another site which suggests that the key issue is the concentration of the source ore. If this drops below 2% then over the full life-cycle the plant uses as much energy as it produces.

There appears to be a significant amount of debate on this point. The data I provided above came from a site associated with a U235 mining association. The conflicting data appears to be peer reviewed science but I have not yet confirmed that.

Cheers?

and thus it begins..
congratulations your the first person to use the edit button to revise what you said to make the person who posted after you look bad.

I don't think it was on purpose... that makes it even more frustrating - even well meaning people can make a huge mess of themselves. And a lot of energy will be spent just to setlle down who said what :)

And guess what? The rest of the internet has been dealing with this for years. Forum software has that problem already licked. Every post that gets edited gets an annotation (that the author cannot remove) that says "Edited by Soandso on Dec. 24, 2006 at 11:53pm" or something similar. Thus, if you read responses that don't make sense you realize it has been edited. Further, this encourages responders to quote specific sections with which they quibble, which also demonstrates when a (prior) comment is edited.

Those of you that believe this is a gigantic issue apparently have not used discussion forums elsewhere on the internet. Perhaps SuperG can modify Drupal to annotate each post when it has been edited so that readers can see what has occurred. Or perhaps authors can even annotate their posts themselves. You might see something like the following:

Edited on 2006/12/25 at 14:37: Fixed spelling and grammar errors
Edited on 2006/12/25 at 14:52: Fixed math error in second list.

Then you'd even have a record of what was edited and why, which would be respectful of your fellow posters - both to those just reading the thread and to those who have replied or will reply.

The internet is used for something besides discussing peak oil ?

Wow :)

i have been around on normal forum software and it /doesn't/ specify what was edited, it only says it was and by whom at what time.
this makes it hard for other people who did not come /before/ a post was edited to know what was originally said.
you have started down a slippery slope here, mark my words.
editing posts without allowing one to see was the post was before the edit like a 'click here to see original post' will just allow things to get worse not better.
the troll problem will get worse as they can edit their posts to make their detractors look like idiots. worse so called respectable posters here some of whom do not like criticism or having holes poked through their pet projects that they think will save the world will be able to do the same. this is of course the /big/ downside to digital media. one can edit, remove, change what was said and only those who are lucky enough to see what it was before they pressed the edit button will be the wiser. i admit i posted stuff i later regret but knowing i could not take it back and then use that childish desire to always /be/ right to my advantage by making the ones who posted after me look like idiots.

a really steep and really slipery slope each poster becomes his/her own "ministry or truth" ?

GreyZone - Every time a web page is changed, it gets WORSE. That's rule #1.

Yes, I know pages run by and for teenage phone phreaks that are much more coherent than this. At least on PeakOil.com you get coherent threads instead of ADHD schizowordsalad. IF a thread is a good one, it bobs up to the top, stinkers tend to be sinkers, and fall "below the fold" into deserved obscurity. There are articles and videos, pathetic ones bu they're there, and threads can be started off with an article then it's .... Discuss!

In an ideal world this site would have PO.com's layout and functionality, and Leanan's touch, and the higher quality, of this site here.

I argued before the changeover that they should consider a good forum software package, like VBulletin, for instance. They chose to not do that. The signal to noise ratio here was already bad (except the main articles) so the slight changes to format are not bothersome terribly for me. Yes, the site could be better organized but these people are NOT being paid for this so if this is the best they can do then we either accept it or move on. Given that I like the primary article content and certain other commentators, I'll accept the problems. Nothing in life is ever perfect and people having strokes over this format change are a wee bit too melodramatic.

I suspect that people who are clamoring for PeakOil.com's format have no clue how hard people work on moderating that site. A lot of people put a lot of hours into it, and there's also a lot of discussion and coordination behind the scenes. The mods spend a lot of time policing the forums. Not just booting spammers and trolls, but warning, suspending, and banning people who are disruptive, moving threads that are posted in the wrong forum, consolidating threads when 15 people start threads on the same topic in four different forums, pruning the OT posts from otherwise useful threads, etc.

And the signal-to-noise ratio still isn't great over there. I seriously doubt we can do any better, with our smaller staff.