<DrumBeat: February 14, 2007The Oil DrumAnaerobic Digestion (AD) in Ontario – A Regulatory Obstacle Course>
<DrumBeat: February 14, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: February 16, 2007>

166 comments on DrumBeat: February 15, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Byron Walter on February 15, 2007 - 3:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm bullish on KSA production. Just look at their historic production profile (BP Stats) which has been all over the map as they have increased and throttled back production for various political and economical reasons.

OTOH I tend to be bearish on Russia. After all, it is the Russia Bear, isn't it? I do have difficulty with the notion that they can maintain their current production flows much longer.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marco on February 15, 2007 - 4:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"I'm bullish on KSA production. Just look at their historic production profile"

I've seen the production profile and one thing always sticks in my mind. That there is a new flavour to the current production. Multilateral with water injection, 3x rig count than a few years ago. These relatively new techniques only need to be employed when pressures drop and push the production from bell shape to ramp and cliff shape. Not to mention their apparent inability to effect a change in global oil price via production quota where before they were able to easily. It's all gone so frantic.

So maybe they are sitting on untouched supergiants, but I am 99.9% sure I know why they are not: they would not go to all the trouble/cost of secondary recovery if they were.

All my opinion.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Byron Walter on February 15, 2007 - 4:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

" ...So maybe they are sitting on untouched supergiants, but I am 99.9% sure I know why they are not: they would not go to all the trouble/cost of secondary recovery if they were."

I hope that you are wrong. If KSA and Russia and Mexico all entered declines within the same year or two... along with export declines we would indeed be in for interesting times.

Since so much of this is not knowable until after the fact, I wish that our present administration would start educating us on energy efficency... a little preventative medicine.

Just driving about 10% less a year would mean about a 1 mbp/d decrease in our petroleum use.

Not many years ago around 60% of the American public smoked. Then the prices started going up and the tobacco industry was forced to attach the now famous warnings that their product will kill you. Now about 20% of the public smokes.

Certainly energy efficiency could be "sold" the same way. We could put warnings on gas pumps like, "Using this product may result in your kid dying in Iraq" or "Using this product will require you to wear a personal floatation device and breathe through a snorkle."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on February 16, 2007 - 1:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Byron,

"Not many years ago around 60% of the American public smoked. Then the prices started going up and the tobacco industry was forced to attach the now famous warnings that their product will kill you. Now about 20% of the public smokes."

I appreciate your thinking about education/action. Maybe along the lines of http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/DesignatedDriver/, we could have "Friends don't let friends drive..."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MUDLOGGER on February 15, 2007 - 4:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

IMO: there is the proof of the pudding.

Why go to rig-intense, injection and infrastructure intense activity, if they are sitting on highly geopressured virgin reservoirs requiring fewer wells to generate high flows with minimum effort ? - this was the story of KSA from the 50's and beyond.

In the history of oil, we have always taken the fastest, cheapest route to the resource (low hanging fruit first)

At the end of the day, we will all know soon enough

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Hothgor on February 15, 2007 - 7:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Texas alone has over 54,000 wells. KSA barely has 1,500. A 3x increase isn't much when you compare the two regions like that.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on February 15, 2007 - 9:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hothgor, glad to have caught you (off topic your current post, sorry). I want to take you up on your dismissal of DU in yesterday's Drumbeat, and of New Account's response to you suggesting you actually looked at it.

I'll repeat his link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

and add the most recent I know review of studies on the teratogenic effects:
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17

I would like you to read them thoroughly before you say anything about DU again.

I agree with you that uranium outside one's body in low concentrations is virtually harmless. However, once particles are ingested (oral or respiritory) the situation is very different. There are both radioactive and toxic effects.

DU projectiles are designed to vapourise and burn the DU on impact. That widely disperses the DU in small particulates, ideal for distribution and ingestion.

I also agree that the evidence and studies are far from conclusive, but there is sufficient evidence already to strongly suggest adverse effects. How long should we wait for conclusive results - the half-life of U235 (the active bit of DU) is about the same as this planet to date?

I'll leave you with the last sentence of my second link above:

"Regarding the teratogenicity of parental prenatal exposure to DU aerosols, the evidence, albeit imperfect, indicates a high probability of substantial risk. Good science indicates that depleted uranium weapons should not be manufactured or exploded."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 15, 2007 - 11:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

DU projectiles are designed to vapourise and burn the DU on impact

Source and link ?

That is VERY different from my understanding of the role of the designed role of DU munitions. And absent PROVING this point, much of the rest falls as well.

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Rethin on February 16, 2007 - 12:12am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

From the wikipedia article

Military applications
Depleted uranium is very dense; at 19050 kg/m³, it is almost 70% denser than lead. Thus a given weight of it has a smaller diameter than an equivalent lead projectile, with less aerodynamic drag and deeper penetration due to a higher pressure at point of impact. DU projectile ordnance is often incendiary because of its pyrophoric property.

and

On impact with a hard target, such as an armoured vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp. The impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and burn when it reaches air because of its pyrophoric properties (compare to ferrocerium). When a DU penetrator reaches the interior of an armored vehicle, it catches fire, often igniting ammunition and fuel, killing the crew, and possibly causing the vehicle to explode.

also
A pyrophoric substance is a substance that ignites spontaneously, that is, its autoignition temperature is below room temperature. from wikipedia

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on February 16, 2007 - 1:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's fully explained in the links I posted.

Thanks Rethin.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
new account on February 16, 2007 - 2:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

And thanks for bringing this forward to Hothgar's attention again. I gave up when he linked genetic birth defects to poor pre-natal training.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 16, 2007 - 7:12am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The radioactivity of depleted uranium (half life of 3+ billion years for the depleted fraction) is not a significant concern. The ore that uranium miners deal with everyday for decades is as radioactive.

I have read a number of articles on mortality & health effects of uranium miners (smoking & uranium mining is VERY bad for your health, lung cancer risk increases by order of magnitude ! 1950s era uranium miners that do not smoke have lung cancer rates slightly less than 1/2 pack to 1 pack/day smokers).

Given the long term exposure with minimal precautions (1950s/1960s) to high concentrations of uranium by miners, I am not overly concerned about the direct risks from single exposure except in vary rare exceptional cases (i.e. DU shell enters house and does not remain intact but burns completely). OTOH, uranium miners of that era were all male, and not a good measure of teratogenicity. One study of wives & children of uranium miners showed no negative effects (US) but another Australian study showed that effects on the edge of statistical signficance (vague memory, 90% but 95% significance). Exposure to poorly controled tailings (which contain daughter radioactive products not present in DU) in Australia.

Since uranium (not depleted) and daughter products are present in many environments naturally, I am not concerned about diffuse, long term exposure. Lead, Colorado residents (town with highest background radiation in US, much from uranium & daughter products) have greater risks.

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MUDLOGGER on February 16, 2007 - 8:01am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hrothgar:

They did not need to drill 54000 wells to find the oil.

54000 wells will not find oil where there aint any.

Thank god you aint in exploration: your oil company would go bust

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.