Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Nadine must've been fired from my lab because she's not wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment and none of her containers are labeled. However, if she did work in my lab, i'm sure the lab director wouldn't be able to gripe about never seeing people in the labs.
Kadaicher,
the list of reports at the MMS link you provided earlier documents problems and failures with shear rams during testing - particularly when used with the higher pressure pipe used in deepwater operations.
if you want i can dig out specific report id's later.
regards,
Charlie
Kadaicher,
thanks for all the BOP info. If pipe is in the hole, can the pipe rams collapse the pipe or are the shear rams (and annular) the only way of cutting off flow if control is lost when the drill string is in the hole?
i'm also not clear on how far down into the BOP the riser extends.
thanks,
Charlie
the annular is at the top of the BOP. If there is a gas bubble under it you no longer have a BOP ...
Kadaicher,
yeah, i understood that you were describing how the flow of gas up the riser was initiated; however, just to be clear for folks that probably arent familiar with these things - the annular that you are talking about is different from the annular space I was describing. I was describing a process and path by which the gas could've flowed from depth to the seafloor without coming up the central pipe and gone around the BOP to allow what you described to happen.
that risers are strong is evident from the fact that the riser we're talking about is still sticking up 1500 ft above the seafloor with no support other than from itself.
thanks for the input.
Charlie
Kadaicher1
one of my friends also postulated that the cement job may have been defective due to hydrate formation between the casing and wellbore. When the casing was cemented the hydrate (which probably would've decomposed during cementing) may have left channels in the cement. That would've allowed the gas to get into the annualar space under the BOP. He also thought it might be possible that the BOP rams actually did close but those channels are allowing the oil to leak around the BOP. Not sure about that last one but then i don't know much about BOPs.
Charlie
I looked up rare-earth mining info on the usgs site after i posted and the remaining resource at Mountain Pass is something like 27 Mtonnes at something like 11% rare-earth oxides which makes it one of the richest REE deposits in the world (going by memory now so i could be off on the numbers but the conclusion is correct). Cost of mining (labor and environmental) is undoubtedly why the mine couldn't compete with China. Of course, sucking their mines dry first seems perfectly reasonable and strategic to me.
metal stockpiles
if the DOE is stockpiling zinc, tin, and cobalt i'd say they're desperately in need of over-hauling their plans.
the US has prodigious zinc resources and it's not limited to vats of hoarded pennies. Sn is widely distributed around the globe (Britain and Cornish miners would probably be happy to restart their mines on the US welfare dime) and there is a lot of available scrap. Canada and Australia are amongst the world's largest producers of Co and the US has large resources. Amazingly enough, Co is one of the few valuable things that Cuba has in abundance.
I think the Mountain Pass rare-earth deposit has barely been touched as far as mining is concerned and it's immediately adjacent to the interstate between LA and Lost Wages so if things got desperate we do have an easily accessible resource.
[ot] blow out preventers
forgot this
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6421
has many interesting links
[ot] blow out preventers
these may be of interest
http://www.drillingahead.com/forum/topics/transocean-deepwater-horizon-1
http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1790422&spid=32364
on a lighter note and in the category of all kinds of unexpected stuff can happen
DOA,
regarding: Does compressed natural gas or liquid propane make sense as an automobile fuel in situations where oil refining capability is limited? ... Or, in another guise, is it easier and more economical to generate fuel grade CNG or LP than gasoline or diesel? .... This argument has been raised to justify an expectation that natural gas vehicles will be widely adopted in countries such as Iran that have inadequate refining capacity.
in cases where NG is available or cheaper to import than crude oil, diesel, or gasoline then CNG is a viable alternative. The premier example is Pakistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas
However, you'll note that all of the countries that have a lot of CNG vehicles do NOT have an extensive trans-national (intrastate) transportation and commerce network, i.e. they tend to have a few big cities in which most of the country's population live and the CNG vehicles operate strictly within those cities. If those countries had significant crude oil resources, then i'm sure they would use that rather than NG. Brazil is a bad counter argument because until recently, their substantial crude oil resource was unknown and they have a semi-captive neighbor with lots of natural gas.
I wouldn't use Iran as an example for any process which involves logic. There's no reason why they couldn't have or operate refineries other than the incompetence of the yahoos running the country.
I don't think refining capacity or processing costs are the determining factor in whether to use NG for transportation fuels. NG reservoirs are much more geographically wide spread and it's easy and cheap to transport. Refined oil has a much higher energy density so it is the fuel of choice for transportation in most developed countries. However, if NG is cheaper and still practical then that's what people do.
In the US we had abundant oil reserves, we have an extensive and widely distributed ground commerce system, and many widely spaced cities. Consequently, refined petroleum became the entrenched transportation fuel. Building the network to displace the existing fuel infrastructure would be extremely expensive and i don't think running 18 wheel trucks on CNG would be practical. Of course, those sorts of things don't seem to be much of a barrier lately.
For short haul transportation (commuting) with regulatory restrictions on CO2 emissions and requirements for CO2 sequestration I suspect that it would make more sense to use NG and coal for centralized electrical power generation and switch to battery powered cars rather than CNG cars. Battery manufacturing might be just as expensive and emissions intensive as building a CNG distribution network for cars but I suspect that more of the cost would be born by industry (which i believe would be more effectively passed on than from govmint) in the former case and controlling emissions would be much more effective.
I also have my doubts about the safety of home CNG fueling but that's a different topic.
regards,
Charlie
bunch of comments on #msg-49558956 but to address the 1.5% number:
first of all the number seems to come from http://p2pays.net/ref/07/06348.pdf and in the first paragraph they estimate the error at +/- 0.5% (on a median? estimate of 1.4% of total natural gas operations). Folks like the NY Times have a propensity for ignoring such things because it might detract from their ability to alarm. The NY Times story http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/business/energy-environment/15degrees.html?_r=3&hpw also has a nice IR photo of an oil storage tank which purportedly demonstrates leakage of methane. Of course, I'd bet much of the IR absorbing stuff streaming off the tank is mostly water vapor but then it would be inconvenient to the story to actually do an analysis of the gas to substantiate their hypothesis.
if you look at the EIA site and compare vented NG (defined as "Gas released into the air on the production site or at processing plants.") against total production you'll see that NG released to the atmosphere related to production and processing is roughly 0.7% (however that 0.7% includes flared NG which means that it's been converted to mostly CO2 and H2O).
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_NUS_m.htm
The EPA's 1.4% number includes losses due to transmission and distribution. Of course those companies don't have squat to do with the production companies except that both deal with NG. More importantly, part of the transmission and distribution system involves storage of NG in aquifers (common in the northern midwest). A substantial quantity of the stored NG is non-reproducible (it is permanently stuck in the pore space). This NG is accounted for as being lost but that does not mean it's lost to the atmosphere. I'd be extremely surprised if anywhere close to 0.7% of transported NG is lost to the atmosphere. Some piped NG condenses during transport and this fraction gets skimmed off by the various transport operators along the pipes' lengths. It wouldn't surprise me if the accounting for the skimmed part is a little dicey.
Folks also like to mix up leaked natural gas with natural gas emissions. The IPCC report cited by the Cornell professor says that global methane emissions may be 3.2% of total natural gas production. That does not mean that 3.2% of methane going into the atmosphere is coming from leaking gas wells. Much, if not most, of the methane going into the atmosphere is from farting critters, decaying plants and critters, and natural seepages from various geologic reservoirs. One of the latter reservoirs that climate change folks are worried about is methane hydrate (clathrate) in arctic tundra. This is a huge reservoir of methane and if tundra temperatures rise beyond the temperature at which the solid is stable then the hydrate spontaneously converts to water and methane (roughly somewhere between 0 and 16 C depending on things like salinity of melt water that it's in contact with). That event could become self-sustaining leading to even larger increases in avg surfaces temperatures.
While I agree with some of the stuff in the quotes attributed to the Cornell prof contained in DOA's post many of the points are misleading or not framed objectively, e.g. one can't suppose that leakages and losses only occur in the NG industry as well as failing to recognize that a good % of NG production is associated with petroleum.
One thing that the good prof has correct is that NG for transportation advocates, e.g. Pickens, tend to conveniently neglect infrastructure costs. I'm all for burning NG but in the big picture i don't think supplanting gasoline or diesel vehicles with NG vehicles is more efficient or practical.
regards,
Charlie
Dew,
Pouring water onto the rig may not have accomplished anything but it's probably a bit irresponsible to claim it exacerbated the problem at this point. Early on it looked like the rig was going to sink and the situation was probably one of "damned if i do and damned if i don't". Since there were 11 missing crew I suspect part of the intention for using fireboats was toward recovering bodies. In addition, without any water being sprayed on the ship, the temperature across the rig would've been much higher and that could've also accelerated the sinking (e.g. at some point the ship's fuel tanks would've exploded). Even at the distance taken by the fireboats, the crews of those boats couldn't stand on the side facing the fire for long.
regards,
Charlie
expertise
Dew,
regarding your comment about COP possibly not possessing experts that could assist with the GOM spill:
i know that the other mentioned companies do have large internal research operations whereas I don't hear of research activities within COP. That doesn't mean they don't have research labs but they are lower profile. I'm not sure if it's still running but Phillips had a research lab in Bartlesville OK. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 'downsized' during the merger. Some COP guys visited our lab about 2 yrs ago but i think part of the point was they were looking for outside help rather than pursuing internal development.
cheers,
Charlie
PS: know any publicly listed FL shrimp companies? i like mine pinkish rather than blackened ;^)
JBI
while i personally don't know squat about this company i'd be careful. I've heard very negative comments from credible people. i also see some complete bs in that press release. biotech isn't the only industry with fraudsters.
Charlie
PA shale gas
in spite of the title this story is about the groundwater contamination problem.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=91872&hmpn=1
Cabot O&G Begins Plugging Operations in Susquehanna County
...In terms of the permanent water solution requirements, the necessary equipment started arriving on April 26 and is ready for installation. This solution is designed to remove methane, a constituent of natural gas, from the water stream before it enters a home.
...
In regard to the water supplies of Pennsylvania, methane was present long before Cabot began its operations in Susquehanna County. In fact, the PaDEP website has contained information about the migration of natural gas into water supplies for many years. This natural migration is also well-documented in other official government publications. Nevertheless, as a business decision Cabot has accepted the responsibility for remediating the situation, even though the Company believes its operations did not cause this gas migration. After the complaints surfaced, Cabot began testing natural gas levels in aquifers before it drilled in an area. These tests have revealed that a majority of water wells in Susquehanna County already contain measurable quantities of naturally occurring gas...
zebra,
The Saudis would love to have more natural gas; unfortunately they insist on it coming from Saudi Arabia. Rather than being sensible and doing as you infer, the Saudis would rather burn crude oil for electrical power production. I've forgotten what the magnitude is but it's a disgusting amount of oil. Neighbors don't always get along so good and they'll literally go to ridiculous extremes to avoid giving the other guy money.
As for the 15% - that's not as bad as it gets. I've heard numbers up to about 30%.
Regarding skilled workers: unemployment among nationals in that part of the world is extremely high. It's not like there isn't work - it's just that many nationals will not do work that they consider to be beneath them. The exaggerated level of self-esteem, amongst other things, contributes to the competency problem referred to in the article.
There are some other stinky things underlying the article Dew posted but i can't talk about them (which are probably related to the 'free' aspect of the gas). I think Dew's skepticism is well-founded.
Charlie
quiz lukoil
i'd say liquidity. while capital has crept back into russia from the great exodus in 2008 i have my doubts that there are western oil companies willing to pony up taking cop's stake, russia probably won't allow sinopec to take the share, and deep pocket russian investors probably want to park their money outside of russia.
and what's the deal with the 21% of net profit dividend?
fracture stim designs
Dew,
i'm guessing that "low tech geometric designs" refers to fracturing experiments carried out in labs. Many of those operations aren't particularly low tech and I'd bet that many of the 'petrophysical data sets' were derived from or are calibrated against similar 'low-tech' experiments. However, the 'data sets' that the PR refers to are probably from downhole logging tools. Continuing with semi-educated guesses: i suspect the 'effective' stimulation programs are derived from a combination of first principle calculations, averaged rock properties, regional stress analyses, and old-fashioned empiricism. In addition, sometimes scale matters and the scales involved in this stuff are difficult to accommodate in the lab.
cheers,
Charlie
apd
color me cynical but if forced to pick between t-boone and apd i'd go with the former when it comes to cars. The folks who think H2 fueled cars are environmentally friendly because they only emit water are being disingenous. I'd bet the H2 is from steam reformation of NG and between that and the extra materials expenses associated with storage and transportation of H2, NG fueled cars would be cheaper and more efficient (and consequently more e-friendly). If carbon capture is thrown into the mix (because this is at least partially driven by environmental concerns) then battery powered cars are probably better than both (but i'll admit to that being a WAG 'cause i don't know what the energy and emissions costs are for battery manufacturing).
Charlie
[ot] fracking
The fracking controversy is a mirage... industry has been using this technique for 60 years with no confirmed incidence of goundwater contamination. EPA has ruled on this issue in the past.
The biggest concern i see is the amount of water needed for the fracking of the shale wells... 2 million gallons of water / well.
Have met w/ companies wanting to gain water rights... and have written the conditions for approval for more than 120 natural gas wells.... oversee operations for 260 gas / oil wells
goseek,
Somebody that has 'oversee[n] operations for 260 gas/oil wells' should know that: 1. the fracking controversy is NOT a mirage, 2. the industry has NOT been using the fracking techniques used in shale gas development for 60 yrs [the first use was in the mid-1970s and extensive use outside the Barnett shale has only been in the last 4 to 5 yrs]; and 3. while you may see the amount of water necessary as a concern, the controversy is mostly about groundwater contamination in places where there is plenty of water.
One could argue that the last of my points conflicts with the concerns about groundwater contamination and therefore the fracking controversy is a 'ruse' by those that are congenitally predisposed to criticize all oil and gas company activities. I wouldn't argue too strenuously against that point; however, there are also companies in the NG biz that wouldn't be crying in their milk if the environmentalists won regardless of the argument's validity.
Charlie
eog
goseek,
don't confuse the shales of shale gas with the shale of the Bakken formation. They are very different beasts and i believe CHK is mostly in the business of shale gas. I don't think they have much of a presence in the Bakken.
Charlie
APD
yeah, i did see your note about SNY and Venezuela but it wasn't specifically on my mind when i wrote my note. Bullet point 3 in that post is one i've seen many times and thus my comment regarding Air Liquide.
regarding PX being in tonnage gases vs APD in tonnage gasses: that's why i was hesitant to comment. I just don't know much about the specific operations of these companies. However, having opened the door and getting your observations, i'll speculate that it would make a good deal of sense for PX to acquire/merge with APD (of course i havent' looked at the cash and debt positions so i'm just assuming that PX, having the larger market cap, would be the acquiring company).
BTW, i suspect nitrogen for use in enhanced oil recovery is on the downswing. I also doubt that owning pipelines will be something to brag about. kind of like the babyfood business. low margins and lots of potential liability ;^).
[OT] sea-level
medchal,
your reply to Biowatch 'sounded' sarcastic and it certainly appeared to indicate that mean sea-level now was lower than in 1841. That would not be implausible nor would the raising of the island relative to mean sea-level as you subsequently noted; although, in 169 yrs it would be extremely unlikely in the former case and unusual in the latter.
My follow-up note to your post was merely to show that there was some debate about what the carving meant. As poorgradstudent noted it was an interesting tidbit and i don't think my follow-up was critical of you or my interpretation of the message. Some anti-climate change folks use the carving to buttress their arguments and I was merely pointing out that evidence is not as unambiguous as claimed.
I learned something, so thank you.
Charlie
APD webcast
I agree with most of what Taylor said. They'll make bazoons of $ in the energy and environmental markets IF/when oil demand expands to a level like it was ~2 yrs ago. I think the environmental aspect will offset the energy side somewhat due to the curbing effect of the taxes that will be necessary to pay for the environmental drivers of APD business.
More specifically APD and competitors benefit from higher levels of production of heavy sour crudes and natural gases. The former is not so important in the current economic environment; however, the latter is important even though natural gas is butt cheap. Many of the middle east natural gas fields are very sour and many North Sea, deepwater Brazilian, and shale gas reservoirs have high CO2 and H2S. Each of those cases requires separation both for the sake of piping & selling the natural gas and for meeting environmental/tax requirements. If or when natural gas prices increases substantially, then APD will also benefit from higher coal consumption (both on the gasification and emissions sides). Higher rates of consumption of heavy crudes will obviously benefit APD in the hydrogen market.
However, one of my concerns would be competition from companies like Air Liquide and Praxair. I suspect this is a business where there are a lot of shady (non-free market) things that happen in the background that would give Air Liquide an advantage in countries where English is not the primary language.
APD & competitors will all benefit immensely if carbon capture legislation is enacted and if oxy-fuel plants start getting built. I think Taylor over-played this part and the bit about hydrogen fuel stations. With the exception of Norway, the Europeans have shown themselves to be a whole lot of talk and no action (e.g. the Vattenfall CO2 capture projects). In spite of a whole lot of belly-aching in Europe about the Bush administration, the US will almost certainly lead the way in carbon capture and most of it was set in play during his administration. (I'll thank my European and liberal friends, in general, for their support because it certainly helped my paycheck but things did happen when they happened). I think APD is counting on the US being the leader in terms of timing and quantity of emissions captured and sequestered. It's a gamble that it will happen and it is years away in anycase, but I don't think they'll lose much money on their current research and pilot projects because they'll almost certainly find other applications even if carbon capture legislation is not forthcoming. For example, the CO2 enhanced oil recovery business is growing and in the US there are some nice tax incentives. In addition, APD wins on both sides of CO2 EOR because both sides require separations.
cheers,
Charlie
Ross marking elaboration
the inference that Captain Ross's mark was the mean sea level mark in 1841 and sea level has since lowered is probably not accurate.
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/4/index.php
A paper published in 1889 by Captain Shortt recorded the wording of the plaque, including the time the mark was struck and the height of the sea given by Lempriere's tide gauge. By taking a measurement of the height of the sea, and estimating what the tides were when the mark was made, Shortt determined that the mark was made near high water.
An article in The Australasian in 1892 also recorded the wording of the plaque. While almost the same as the version published in Shortt's paper, it differed in the time the mark was supposed to have been made, although both reports were consistent regarding the reading of Lempriere's tide gauge when the mark was struck. Taken on its own, the reported time of the striking would suggest that the mark was originally near mean sea-level.
Significant work has gone into determining which of the accounts is correct, including a current major study by a collaboration of international scientists, as knowing whether the mark was originally placed near mean sea-level or high water is crucial to being able to compare sea-levels of 1841 with today. This study has concluded that it is almost certain that the benchmark was originally placed near high water. The conclusion is based on other estimates of sea-level made later in the 19th century, and on the fact that, if the mark had originally been placed near mean sea-level, then the Penitentiary building would have suffered flooding every few years (there is no record of this having happened).
given the latitude, a 2 to 3 meter difference between mean high water and sea level is not surprising.
APD will also benefit, again, in either scenario. but i don't have such close ties to them ;^)
wind turbines are small change in comparison to what GE is looking forward to. low emission power plants, modifications to existing plants, capture plants,.... GE is another company that will win with emissions and carbon storage legislation and they'll win without it.
Why Now? Obama Wants to Bring Back Cap-and-Trade
this is more to the point than the Forbes article. I suspect industry CEO's greeted obama's announcement with huge yawns and uncomplimentary epithets.
there is no imminent driver to encourage extensive exploration in the areas obama opened up yesterday. Exploration companies will send an occassional crew and vessel explore in frontier areas because they can and demand is not forcing resources to be used in low risk areas. It's a no win game for the government and by the time they wake up and smell the obvious the current crop of clowns will be out of office and oil companies will be able to leverage deals like they did for the deepwater GOM ~15 yrs ago.
btw GE has a lot more to gain from cap and trade than $ from carbon offsets. they're counting on huge new infrastructure builds that will result from new emissions regulations tied to c&t.
Health care reform and biotech tax credits (from Forbes):
the recently passed health reform package is a provision that provides an unusual and tremendous benefit to small and mid-sized (under 250 employees) biotech firms and their investors....provides a 50% tax credit for qualified biotech investments for tax years 2009 and 2010, or a grant for the same amount tax-free.
you suppose that HQL/HQH can claim that credit?
CAT
the healthcare bill wasn't a factor in CAT moving the production facility back to the US. Had more to do with quality assurance and transportation costs.
cso
EPA Begins Fracking Study
i can easily see how it would take 2 yrs since i doubt if the epa has anyone who has the expertise to properly evaluate potential contamination of potable water aquifers by hydrofrac'ing.
i have a feeling that this is going to turn out to be another one of those 'save the abused public' crusades where the consumer will be the only sufferer.
I personally don’t think that the density of the fuel is a critical variable with respect to adoption of the technology, largely because compression technology is readily available.
DOA,
the density is ultimately related to how far a vehicle can travel on a single tank. So while compressing the gas may not be a problem, putting a sufficient mass of fuel in a vehicle to be driven long distances is a problem.
While the garage NG compressor is interesting I'm wondering what the home insurance policy looks like.
I think for useages like communting between work and home electric vehicles will be much more practical. If carbon capture is ever legislated, then centralized burning of the NG to generate electricity is also more practical.
regards,
Charlie
my vote is with Tillerson.
GDP energy
Dew,
you will probably have to pay for a condensed tabulation of the detailed data you are seeking. The OECD & IEA keep track of these sorts of statistics. Some of the stuff is free and you can get a free trial access to 6 of OEC subscription databases.
http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx
try looking under 'Country statistical profiles' 2008 'Energy' 'Energy Supply'
The IEA databases are at:
http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp
Both of these sources are probably better and closer to what you want than what i provided earlier.
The IEA has total energy supply stats as %of GDP broken down by country
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2009/key_stats_2009.pdf
you can get guest access to the IEA databases thru the "Access Databases" link at the url above (username and password are case sensitive).
if i stumble upon anything more i'll let you know.
good luck,
Charlie
hydrocarbon fraction GDP
not one of my areas but... appears to be very lumpy both in terms of percentages of GDP for various countries and in data availability and organization.
some countries are simple, e.g. oil revenues are ~40% of GDP for Saudi
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/Background.html
oil production data for other countries http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/index.html
some have as percentage of GDP. keep in mind that for countries like Saudi Arabia the numbers are estimates and the error bars may be large.
as for the US it looks like the number you cited is high by almost 10x
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0654.pdf
the CIA factbook is convenient for some of the info you want but it looks like it could take some time
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2012.html?countryName=United States&countryCode=us®ionCode=naus
you specified hydrocarbons, if you're including coal in that mix, then the job gets tougher.
[OT] The Case for Cuban Oil
welpy, i'd say the potential 20 billion barrels in cuban reserves is roughly 20 billion too high. The USGS estimates maybe 4.6 billion but i suspect (admittedly on little evidence) that number is also too high. The USGS also estimates that any Cuban oil reservoirs will be small with most containing less than 8 million barrels (not sure how they reconcile their 62 potential fields with none containing more than 128 million bbls with the 4.6 billion number).
the claim "poses no danger whatsoever to our national security" is also over-stated, however, i have my doubts about the wisdom of continuing our current policies toward cuba.
if you have a giant printer and are in to such things this map is nice
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-470/OF97-470K/spatial/pdf/caribbean.pdf
usgs reports on oil potential around cuba
http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-069/dds-069-m/
this is also very cool:
http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/envision/index.html?widgets=geologymaps&mapservice=geology_caribbean&xmin=-93.98&xmax=-55.59&ymin=5.96&ymax=29.94
mexico
Mexico probably still has plenty of oil, especially beneath the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, but Pemex lacks the technology and know-how to get it out. Inviting foreign companies into the country to help is one of the touchiest propositions in Mexican politics.
true, true, & true; however, the tale isn't limited to mexico. while the foreign companies invited into such protectionist countries are not always from the US largely due to higher cost of services for US or 'western' companies, this is definately a "you get what you pay for" business. I think unlike some other natl oil companies, Pemex has the good sense to avoid the temptations of "Bidder Lowest".
China & Au
that story was BS. while China is the world's 5th largest producer it ranks well down the list in reserves.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gold/mcs-2010-gold.pdf
when writers make claims like those in that article and they are not referenced, the claims beg to be checked. It isn't difficult. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gold/
As for the $5k/oz speculation - total crap. I heard a comment recently that gold is the ultimate bubble commodity - unfortunately it is a bubble that has existed for an extraordinarily long time.
Total worldwide production costs for Newmont in 2009 were $526/oz. I'd bet that at $5k/oz ordinary soil in much of the world could be economically mined and processed to extract the trace amounts of Au in the dirt.
[OT] bad newspaper reporting
Dew,
The newspaper writer is probably considering:
CH4+O2=CO2+H2O.
The 1st problem is kinetic. While the righthand side of the equation is thermodynamically favored the reaction is quite slow (like diamonds not transforming to graphite as they sit on women's fingers). Without input of a sufficient activation energy you could happily bubble methane and oxygen thru warmish water forever, regardless of the water column's length, and nothing would happen other than some small amount of the gases would dissolve in the water.
The 2nd problem is a simple logical conundrum created by the author, e.g. if methane is not going to be oxidized in the atmosphere it sure isn't going to be oxidized in a more oxygen deficient environment (ignoring the possible intercedence of methanogenic bacteria).
The 3rd problem is more subtle: the methane being considered is derived from decomposition of methane hydrates (a solid). If my memory is correct, these are only stable in pure water below about 16 C (CO2 hydrates are stable below about 10 C). The maximum stability temperature is lowered by the presence of salt in the water. So with regard to the methane hydrates in the Arctic, those that are in shallow water, where ice cover is being lost, are more susceptible to reaching the decomposition point.
The decomposition is not kinetically inhibited and can be explosive with very unhappy consequences under some circumstances (like when some yahoo uses a torch to warm up a pipeline clogged with hydrate). Conversely, the temperature in the deep sea is relatively stable and is below the methane hydrate decomposition point even in seawater. So if there is a leaky hydrocarbon reservoir beneath the seafloor in deepwater, the methane accumulates on the seafloor as it contacts the seawater rock interface rather than bubbling up thru the seawater column (below a few meters of the interface the geothermal gradient maintains the methane as a gas).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
As a bit of an aside, an input of mechanical energy can easily be sufficient to cause spontaneous decomposition of hydrates. This combined with a bulk density that is less than seawater could lead to some interesting mass releases of methane (or CO2) from the deepsea. Some folks think these sorts of mass release may explain the disappearances of planes and ships in the "Bermuda Triangle".
On a more practical front of interest to you, formation of these hydrates in seafloor pipelines and infrastructure is a major problem for the development of deepwater hydrocarbon reservoirs.
The stuff you might read about natural hydrates being a economic resource is most likely bunk. Other resources will be much cheaper for far longer than we'll be alive.
regards,
Charlie
[ot] bad newspaper reporting
from the WSJ 5March10
A key worry is that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is shallow, with a depth of about 50 meters (165 feet) or less. Methane oxidizes in deep water, becoming carbon dioxide before it reaches the surface. But in shallow water, methane doesn't have enough time to oxidize and more of it ends up in the atmosphere.
since there is no attribution to a scientist as a source for this false (in several ways) statement i'd assume that the writer just concocted this 'fact'. This sort of reporting is far more egregious than misuse of 'to' and sloppy copy-editing.