XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.activism, de.soc.politik.misc   
   XPost: alt.politics.india.communist   
   From: rolf.martens@comhem.se   
      
   UNITE! Info #267en: 5/7 The deep drilling for oil in Sweden, 1986-92   
   [Posted: 31.12.2006; at my homepage from 30.12]   
      
   [Continued from part 4/7]   
      
      
   08. "INCREDIBLE": 12 TONS OF OIL PUMPED UP   
   FROM 6,800 M DOWN IN THE GRANITE. DID IT   
   REALLY COME FROM THE GRANITE? MUCH OF IT DID! (ctd.)   
      
      
   WHAT ARE THE FACTS ON THE OIL PUMPED UP?   
      
   In the below I shall take some pains to establish and document   
   them here, so that this main attempt still today to "explain   
   away" the Siljan project's results ["just some diesel oil from   
   the drilling fluid" - see above] may stand squarely refuted.   
      
   The claim from 1990, made internationally by Gold and others,   
   of "12 tons of genuine crude oil found", and later often   
   quoted, by deniers of it too, is *approximately* correct, only   
   a little exaggerated.   
      
   What was pumped up was 190 m³ of fluid, including 15 m³ or 84   
   barrels of oil, that is, some 12 tons of oil, and also 15 tons   
   of fine-grained magnetite, the substance which, as encountered   
   earlier too, had made up 90% of the material called "black   
   gunk". As later analysis clearly showed and as is documented   
   by several sources, one part of the oil pumped up did consist   
   of diesel oil introduced from the surface, but *the main part*   
   of it was oil from the granite some 6 km down. That is,   
   *some 8 tons* of genuine new crude, give or take 2 tons, were   
   actually discovered.   
      
      
   THERE WAS *SOME* CONTAMINATION - WHICH DOESN'T   
   CHANGE THE MAIN, "INCREDIBLE" FACT   
      
   Concerning the possibility of contamination from the surface,   
   Gold wrote in his "DHB" in 1999: "We drilled with a water-   
   based drilling fluid, so as not to contaminate the well with   
   introduced oils ...". But that, while accurate concerning the   
   second hole, Stenberg 1, was not the whole truth concerning   
   Gravberg 1, as Gold of course knew.   
      
   During the first year of the drilling of Gravberg 1, a water-   
   based drilling fluid had indeed been used, but as mentioned by   
   DDP reports both in 1989 and in 1990, this from August 1987 on   
   for certain technical reasons was changed to an oil-based mud,   
   and in an attempt on 27.06.1989 to fracture the rock further   
   down than 6.8 km, an oil-based frac fluid had been used.   
      
   Kenney wrote in his paper on the Siljan project in 1994, the   
   second article at his website on this today: "However, during   
   the drilling of Gravberg 1 [when he was not yet DDP technical   
   director - RM], there was never maintained proper control over   
   the use of chemical additives in the drilling fluid; nor was   
   there ever proper analysis and characterization of those   
   additives." This quite possibly is a correct criticism of his.   
      
      
   KENNEY TOO, AT ONE POINT AT HIS WEBSITE, IS   
   TELLING AN *UNTRUTH* ON THE OIL DISCOVERED,   
   BUT ALSO IMMEDIATELY REFUTES HIMSELF ON THIS   
      
   This needs to be pointed out concerning this otherwise so   
   excellent website, in order to avoid its helping to cause   
   confusion concerning the Siljan project. I think I can explain   
   why Kenney in 1994 wrote some contradictory and in part   
   dishonest things about that project. Probably correct is his   
   statement then: "The drilling of the first well, Gravberg 1,   
   was an engineering fiasco, and many of the most important of   
   its scientific investigations were badly mishandled." But on   
   the oil discovered by the project, including that in 1990, he   
   on the one hand wrote (and has let this stand at his website   
   published in 2003 or so):   
      
      
   "The drilling of the Swedish deep gas exploration project did   
   not discover either natural gas or oil in more than trace   
   amounts[!] and has been a commercial failure."   
      
      
   On the other hand, and in the same paper:   
      
   "The BTEX analysis of the oil pumped from Gravberg 1 was   
   performed by Exploration Technologies of Houston, Texas. The   
   results of those analyses established that much of [NB] the   
   oil pumped from Gravberg 1 was indeed the diesel frac fluid   
   which had previously been put into the well; and those same   
   BET analyses established incontrovertibly that there was also   
   in that pumped oil a component of [NB] native, unrefined   
   indigenous crude oil."   
      
      
   "Much of" the oil being diesel from the frac fluid clearly is   
   something else than "practically all of it", for instance,   
   being such. "A component of", that doesn't sound like "trace   
   amounts" either. Why did he write that first part quoted   
   above, contradicted already by this second one of his in the   
   same paper?   
      
      
   AN EARLIER CONFLICT CONCERNING THE SILJAN PROJECT   
      
   Probably because of a conflict in November 1991, above all, in   
   the course of which Kenney resigned as technical director of   
   the DDP and later also sued that company (see section 10   
   below), and in which quite possibly he had been wronged, he   
   obviously developed an animosity to the Siljan project, which   
   he had earlier followed and taken an active part in so very   
   enthusiastically. Probably this caused him to write, insin-   
   cerely, the passage in 1994 about "only trace amounts" having   
   been discovered.   
      
   The fact that he, in contrast to Gold, had gotten very little   
   public recognition for his likewise quite important part in   
   the project probably also played a role in this. This can be   
   inferred, for instance, from a passage in one other article at   
   his website today with i.a. his comment on. the letter from   
   Briggs - a person "hired to discredit" the project, according   
   to Kenney himself  (see section 07 above) - to Krayushkin in   
   December 1989:   
      
      
   "Because at that time Gold was promoting himself in the media   
   as some sort of 'prime mover' of the Swedish deep gas explora-   
   tion project, Briggs sought to obtain more information."   
      
      
   In 1994 and also later, thus, Kenney was resenting so much   
   Gold's having "gotten all the limelight" that he even wanted   
   to deny the fact of Gold's initiative for the project.   
   Earlier, he and Gold apparently had co-operated quite   
   smoothly, on 17.04.1991 for instance writing a joint open   
   letter together with also Hefner to the industry minister in   
   Sweden, protesting against Vattenfall's then even publicly   
   repeating the lie that the oil pumped up had come "only from   
   the drilling fluid". This open letter - see section 10 - was   
   suppressed by the mass media; only some of us minor or major   
   DDP shareholders got to see it. At that time, Kenney too had   
   agreed to their stating in it:   
      
      
   "Many other properties of that oil, twelve tons [NB] of which   
   were pumped up, underline the fact that it [NB] is quite   
   different from any drilling fluid."   
      
      
   The writers at that point knew that analyses had also shown   
   that one part of those 12 tons of oil indeed had been diesel,   
   and in this letter they "propagandistically" were oversimpli-   
   fying things concerning the oil pumped up. But most likely,   
   Kenney would not have agreed to sign this letter, saying "12   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)