More servicesWindows Live
HomeHotmailSpacesOneCare
 
MSN
Sign in
 
 
Spaces home  Kevin's spacePhotosProfileFriendsMore Tools Explore the Spaces community

Kevin's space

Kevin

View spaceSend a message
Occupation:
Age:
Interests:
"Life undefeated, existed and could exist. She smiled, her last smile, to so much that had been possible."

-Ayn Rand, We The Living.
View space
Annie
View space
Heath Stewart
View space
Quan

March 17

Offshore drilling

I've been writing a little bit about Exxon and Schlumberger lately.  I got interested in these companies and the petroleum industry in general because it they are such a gigantic part of the economy (a huge chunk of the top 10 most profitable companies are in the industry).
 
Most of my blogging so far has been to explore the financial statements from Exxon and Schlumberger.  I like knowing the numbers, but I also wanted to have some sense of what's really going on at the ground level.  There was a great article called Dispatch from the Oil Frontier in Popular Mechanics.  The article focused on off shore drilling, which I saw quite a bit of from a distance on my cruise in the Carribean.  Not surprisingly, much of the oil on solid ground has been excavated and companies like Shell have moved underwater.  The author estimates there might be as much as 56 billion barrels of oil.  For comparison, Exxon last year produced about 4 billion barrels of oil in 2007.  So there's a lot to be had, but by no means an unlimited supply.
 
Some quotes and impressions from the article...
There have already been successes.  In 2004 Shell broke the record for the deepest producing field--the Coulomb, at 7570 ft.--when it tapped a formation 144 miles southeast of New Orleans.  Tow years later, in 7,000 ft. of water 270 miles southwest of the city, Chevron successfully tested its Jack No. 2 well in a field that may hold 15 billion barrels.
That's a staggering depth when you think about getting the equipment to dig and pump when you're hundreds of miles out in the ocean on a relatively tiny oil rig. 
 
I was curious how you get down that deep when you're in the middle of no where, and the article helped me start piecing it together.
At this point the Boudreaux has already installed a 90-ft-long steel casing into the seabed and capped it with a wellhead and a 48-ft-high tower of controls and hydraulic valves known as the blowout preventer.  Then, nearly 8,000 ft. of aluminum-alloy pipe in 75-ft. sections, known as the riser, was connected to the seafloor assembly.
I also figured you can't really have humans down there at that depth, given the pressure.  Indeed this is the case:
This automation is in sharp contrast to the technology of earlier rigs, which required roughnecks on the drill floor and in the derrick to disconnect and connect sections of drill pipe by hand, a laborious, dirty and dangerous process.  Ten years ago it would have taken 75 days to drill a well 18,000 ft. deep; the Boudreaux's crew can do it in two weeks.
 
[...]
 
In deep water a rig can't stand on the bottom, which means it either has to be anchored with dozens of miles of chain and cable, or float freely, held in place by GPS-guided thrusters.
 
[...]
 
And then there's the ocean itself.  At a depth of 8,000 ft. the pressures are enormous--3,500 psi.  no human hands can operate equipment on the seabed.  That means remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) have to be able to work in those pressures, day in and day out.  And the range of temperatures plays havoc with drilling mud.  "it's 44 degrees at the seabed and 275 at the drill bit," says Ricketson, keeping an eye on the turning drill, "So that mud has to function at extremely high and low temperatures--only new synthetic mud can do that."
I had already seen a little bit on TV about life on these rigs, and it was interesting to read more about it.
There's a gym onboard and a flat-screen TV in every room, but the crew members mostly do just one thing, and that's work.
 
[...]
 
Day or night seems the same; you lose track of time--at 3pm or 3am there's always someone pumping iron in the gym, a few guys sipping coffee in the mess hall.  You forget where you are, until you step out onto the smoking deck--a flat, steel pace witha  few aluminum benches--remove your hard hat and safety glasses and realize you're standing on a huge spigot in the middle of nowhere.
I can picture some guy on the smoking deck looking back at the cruise ships, each lit up like a Christmas tree against the dark horizon, going through the shipping lane in the Gulf of Mexico.
 
Financially, it would be no surprise if the price of oil was going up, because this stuff is expensive.  That made it easier to understand why you'd want the Schlumberger approach of low capital investment and high human investment.
All this tech doesn't come cheap.  A typical offshore development in 100 ft. of water costs $100 million; just the test well for Chevron's Jack No. 2 cost $100 million, and the U.S. Minerals Management Service estiamtes the cost of developing a deepwater field can exceed $1 billion.  Shell won't say what the Perdido regional development will cost, but Noble is charging Shell hundreds of thousands of dollars a day for its rig.  Shell has already spent $554 million on leases in the gulf--that's just for the right to drill.
 
February 27

Going public is not magic

Just came across this http://www.jacksonfish.com/blog/2008/02/04/and-this-is-why-going-public-is-a-non-goal/ and was reminded of a class I took this summer on corporations.  I had a good realization in that class that really public markets afford a specialization or division of labor that focuses on capital allocation and leaves management to someone else.  If you don't need that specialization of capital allocation from someone else, and you don't want to be beholden to that, you really shouldn't be going public.  There's lots of excitement around IPOs and public companies, so a lot of people assume that's the only route to go.
 
It's also not clear trading publicly in the market is so great anymore.  There is so much regulation, that now we're seeing lots of private acquisitions. 

Copyrights, patents and taxes

Interesting write up in Slashdot about patents: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/27/0018224&from=rss
 
This might be the first time in a long time I've read something I agreed with in Slashdot that wasn't out and out capitalism bashing.  While I hate the notion of property taxes for your home (since it means your home is constantly on rent from the government), I actually thing the notion of requiring payment for legal protection of intellectual property is intriguing.  It would be a source of reveneue without requiring force since you could always choose whether to get the legal protection.  You do not need the legal protection to live (unless we allow stupid stuff like ovelry generic patents or patenting DNA).  It also has the happy side effect of limiting frivilous patents from people who camp on ideas, but do nothing productive with them.
 
I need to think more about this.  But wanted to flag it as interesting.
February 22

yuck

From the January 5, 2008 Republican Debate:
McCain: Why shouldn’t we be able to reimport drugs from Canada? It’s because of the power of pharmaceutical companies…

Romney: Don’t turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys.

McCain: Well, they are.

Romney: No, actually, they’re trying to create products to make us well and make us better, and they’re doing the work of the free market. And are there excesses? I’m sure there are, and we should go after excesses. But they’re an important industry to this country. But let me note something else, and that is the market will work. And the reason healthcare isn’t working like a market right now is you have 47 million people that are saying, “I’m not going to play. I’m just going to get free care paid for by everybody else.” That doesn’t work. Number two, the buyer doesn’t have information about what the cost or quality is of different choices they could have. If you take the government out of it to a much greater extent, you’d get it to work like a market and we’ll rein in costs.
Going to have to swallow hard.
February 20

401(k) participation

In my argument about Exxon, I talked about the profit sharing that goes on in 401(k) plans.  At the time I didn't know how many people actually have 401(k)s.  There'sa  good article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23255937/ that says:
The unanimous decision has implications for 50 million workers with $2.7 trillion invested in 401(k) retirement plans.
That's not quite as many people as I would have hoped, but certainly a ton of capital.  That's on average $54,000 in each 401(k) account.
 
For my own 401(k) I am going to reduce my small cap exposure.  I think they had a great 5 year run after the dot com bust, but I wonder whether they're well positioned to cash in on the flattening global economy.  My father in law who work's as a consultant in this field suggested beefing up on the Fidelity Contrafund, saying it's very well run.
View more entries
 
Updated 1/29/2008
Updated 1/26/2008