Updates
Later 5:11 p.m. CDT: this story is now being
reported at Platts.
Pemex's buying of four US Bakken crude cargoes should help it maximize
the efficiency of its 330,000 b/d Salina Cruz refinery, although future
imports are no sure thing as they are opposed by Mexico's incoming
administration, an S&P Global Platts analysis showed Tuesday.
Original Post
Of course, this will only continue if the DAPL continues to flow, and, as noted, the DAPl is now the subject of lawsuits in two different courts, one appellate and one state supreme court. At least that's my understanding. Could be wrong. But I digress.
Argusmedia is reporting:
Mexico's state-owned Pemex has awarded a tender to
import four 350,000 bl cargoes of US Bakken light crude, the first such
crude import in around a decade.
The cargoes will be delivered in November and will mainly serve the Salina Cruz refinery in Oaxaca state, Pemex said today.
Traditionally
a crude exporter, Pemex announced earlier this year that its downstream
company, Pemex Transformacion Industrial, would start importing up to
100,000 b/d of light crude in an effort to boost flagging refining rates
at its six refineries, particularly at its Salina Cruz refinery.
More at the link.
***********************************
China's Crude Oil Demand
This article has some interesting data points.
From oilprice.com:
- crude oil
- 2017: Chinese oil demand grew 5.5% to 11.77 million bopd (in other words, Chinese crude oil demand = US total crude oil production
- reminder: more and more of Saudi's crude oil production is used by Saudis themselves
- September, 2018, China: 12.49 million bopd, despite economic slowdown due to trade wars with US -- so, 12.49 million bopd exceeds total US crude oil production
- and this, despite the fact that economic growth in China slowed in the third quarter to its weakest since the global financial crisis
- and then look at this: greater reliance on sweet crude imports from the US shale producers once ongoing trade tensions recede
- natural gas:
- 2017: China's consumption soared to new record highs, reaching 235.2 billion cubic meters
- 2017: natural gas consumption increased 17% or 34 bcm from 2016
- the really big story: China's LNG demand spikes
- China bypassed South Korea last year to become the world's second largest LNG importer after Japan, while China's LNG demand increased by more than 50% in 2017 compared with 2016
- LNG demand in 2017: 38 million tonnes
- 2019: China projected to become the world's top importer of LNG
- 2023:
- natural gas demand will rise by 60% from 2017, to 376 BCM
- LNG imports will rise to 93BCM by 2023 from 51 bcm in 2017
- China already accounts for 50% of overall growth in global LNG demand
- RD Shell: world's largest LNG-producing company; going long on LNG; will see a record number of final investment decisions on new NG projects in Russia, the US, qatar, and Mozambique
Renewables? not even mentioned.
*****************************
Discussion With Arianna
The Questions Are Endless
Updates
Later, 11:05 p.m. CDT: a reader answered (and provided the reference) my question, where C-14 was coming from -- the answer:
The primary natural source of carbon-14 on Earth is cosmic ray action on nitrogen in the atmosphere, and it is therefore a cosmogenic nuclide. However, open-air nuclear testing between 1955–1980 contributed to this pool.
Comment: that is so cool. I never would have thought the answer was so easily found; and, it's cool that there's an explanation for a question, that apparently, was not a dumb question.
Original Post
Protons: uud (quarks)
Neutrons: udd (quarks)
Protons have never, ever, even been observed to decay. There are theories that "demand" protons decay and it would be odd for a 3-quark particle NOT to decay (since it appears all such particles decay -- except the proton)
Neutrons: "decay all the time" -- lifetime of a "free" neutron -- 886 seconds (thank goodness, it isn't 666 seconds)
Atoms come in various flavors or forms, called isotopes.
"Stable" atoms make up the vast bulk of isotopes of any given atom.
"Unstable" isotopes are, I guess, by definition, unstable because they decay.
Take C-12, C-13, and C-14. If these isotopes were all equally stable, there would be no "radioactivity" involving carbon and none of the isotopes would be considered unstable. But the earth's atmosphere comes with three isotopes of carbon.
- C-12: 6 protons, 6 neutrons
- C-12: 99% of all carbon on earth
- C-13: 1% of all carbon on earth
Both C-12 and C-13 are considered stable, and not "radioactive."
But, interestingly enough, C-14 is unstable --
- C-14: 1 or 1.5 atoms per 1012 atoms of carbon in the atmosphere; that's not very much, one out of one trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere is C-14 and unstable (000 - thousand; 000,000 - million; 000,000,000 billion; 000,000,000,000 (12) = trillion)
- C-14 is unstable: lives for "only" 5,730 +/- 40 years
- C-14: one of the neutrons decays; in the process, one of the neutrons changes to a proton -- C-14 becomes an atom with 7 protons instead of 6 protons -- and by losing a neutron, it has 7 protons and 7 neutrons or at atomic weight of 14. I hope I have that right. I don't want to confuse anyone.
Beta decay ("weak force") can proceed two different ways ---
- in
β− decay: electron emission; atomic increased by one
- in β+ decay: positron emission; atomic decreased by one
The questions become:
- why are there isotopes in the first place? especially when many are "unstable" in the first place? is "unstable" a relative concept?
- if there is so little C-14 in the earth's atmosphere to begin with, and the half-life is relatively short, 5,000 years, why is there any C-14 left at all
I'm sure there are easy answers to these questions, and that's fine. But asking the questions helps one remember the concepts.
