See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: How Not To Argue That We’re Running Out Of Oil
Source:
Council on Foreign Relations
URL Source: http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2012/01/2 ... -that-were-running-out-of-oil/
Published: Jan 28, 2012
Author: Michael Levi
Post Date: 2012-01-28 12:06:03 by lead.and.lag
Keywords: None
Views: 3622
Comments: 257
you can read this article here at the CFR site. the author, Michael Levi, is the David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at the CFR, and his artticle is a mixture of disinformation, bad metaphors, and haywire logic. his argument, although it's kinda hard to pin down, seems to be: party on, dudes, and dont worry about oil. my comments, which are languishing, and most likey will die, in "awaiting moderation" limbo, go like this... does this mean that the PNAC/AEI/exxon people didnt have to do 9/11 in response to peak oil? 3000 american lives, countless lives elsewhere… wasted, because nobody saw shale oil coming. what a tragedy." and... http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1215/pnacprogress6272011.jpg this article is being discussed at theoildrum, despite attempts to derail it to a discussion of newt's moonbase scheme. "oh, man…
"here’s a map PNAC’s efforts in response to their misperceptions of peak oil.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 129.
#77. To: lead.and.lag, PSUSA2, Original_Intent, wudidiz, All (#0)
Methane and other hydrocarbons occur naturally within the earth and other planets. You can't tell me dinosaurs used to roam around on Jupiter.
You may be right. I'm not a geologist, or a chemist, and unlike some others, I do not play one on 4um. So, tell me, chemist/geologist/astronomer. Tell me if other planets methane and other hydrocarbons = oil. I guess you know, don't you? You claim to. So explain it to me.
Oil is a hydrocarbon. Methane is a precursor to oil.
Wow. With logic like that, you can't possibly go wrong. Methane is a precursor to oil? Really? If you want to play chemist, you might want to do some basic research first. THen. maybe you can fake it more convincingly. THen you might be able to convince others, if they are gullible.
Methane is a hydrocarbon chain with just one carbon atom (CH4). Ethane has two C atoms (C2H6), propane has 3 (C3H8) and butane has 4 (C4H10). Those are all gases which derive from simple methane. Hydrocarbon chains with 5 to 18 carbon atoms are liquid, and form substances such as naphthas (5 to 7 carbon atoms), gasoline which is blended from hydrocarbons with 7 to 11 carbon atoms, kerosene (12 to 15 carbon atoms), then lubricating oils. Hydrocarbon chains containing over 20 carbon atoms form paraffin wax, tar, and asphalt. Comets are made of hydrocarbons, including tar. Dinosaurs did not hatch comets, nor did they pee oil deep into the earth for that matter.
But comets have plate tectonics? Did "god" put the hydrocarbons there? H and C are the 2 most common elements in the universe. But that doesn't mean oil just happens. I'll believe it when the abiotic "theory" is proven in the labs and is no longer this silly "well, if X happens with Y and Z, along with _____________ and ______________".
WTF has plate tectonics have to do with hydrocarbons? Did "god" put the hydrocarbons there? Did God create space and time? Did God create H2O? Chemical building blocks permeate Creation. And they build upon themselves to form complex molecules, and eventually organisms. Let me ask you this. How do YOU think hydrocarbons are formed? Were the dinosaurs actually super smart and they built huge laboratories that turned everything including themselves into crude oil just waiting for Rockefellar and his boys to pump it out of the ground?
Because someone posted an article that uses plate tectonics to explain his ideas freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re....cgi?ArtNum=142906&Disp=0 and freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...ArtNum=142868&Disp=48#C48 Let me ask you this. How do YOU think hydrocarbons are formed? I will do the unthinkable on 4um and say I DON'T KNOW. And I refuse to act like I do by posting total crap and saying "I was right! See? I told you so!" I am not a chemist. I am not a geologist. I am not an astronomer.
Then perhaps you should stop swallowing the Kool-Aid and do a bit of research. And bring along an open mind and some common sense.
I"m not drinking your koolaid either. THat's common sense. Again, they need to prove it in the lab. And it must be able to be duplicated.
CONVERSION OF METHANE TO GASOLINE-RANGE HYDROCARBONS
I see some possible problems here. First of all, I can only get the general idea. I bet you can't do much better. And general ideas are not good ideas. They can be wrong and I/we would not know it. 2nd, page 1 paragraph 1, is says gasoline boiling temps, not gasoline. 3rd and most importantly, are these provable natural processes or are they strictly lab processes? I only read the first page. If I don't understand it, there's not much point in reading it all. About the only way to get to the truth is to ask a scientist (one without an agenda one way or the other). And I don't know any chemists or geologists or astronomers.
From the link; In the process described, the final hydrocarbon mixture is largely in the gasoline (C4-C10) boiling range . In other words, they produced hydrocarbons which boiled in the temperature range gasoline would boil at. Hence, they produced gasoline or gasoline like hydrocarbons. BTW, boiling is how they extract the various products from crude oil...
If that was the case, why not say "we produced gasoline"? And I reiterate, again(!), that nothing has been written on whether this is a natural process or a lab process. You can turn gold into lead, in the lab.
If that was the case, why not say "we produced gasoline"? Because it is a scientific paper, not a magazine article. They were being precise. And I reiterate, again(!), that nothing has been written on whether this is a natural process or a lab process. I've already posted an article for you where "upper mantle conditions" ie. conditions such as those which exist below the earth's crust were used to form heavier hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane and butane, from methane. It was back in post 107. See Mantle (geology) for a further explanation of the earth's mantle layers.
Anton Kolesnikov1,2, Vladimir G. Kutcherov2,3 & Alexander F. Goncharov1 Top of page There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes1, 2, 3. Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth's crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves4, 5. Here we use in situ Raman spectroscopy in laser-heated diamond anvil cells to monitor the chemical reactivity of methane and ethane under upper-mantle conditions. We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000–1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2–4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle. I'm not trying to be stubborn just for the sake of being stubborn. But there is nothing in that article that supports abiotic oil. In fact, it explicitly supports the opposite, and calls abiotic oil a "open question", as well as uses words "proposed", and "could be". It also possibly explains how there is methane in planets and comets etc, where there was no life. Don't get me wrong. I hope abiotic oil is true. But hope doesn't get the job done.
Did you miss this part? Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle.
Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle. Well, uh, gee, uh, no. He just ignored it as one of them that "Inconvenient Truths". Algore would appreciate the tactic in a global sense. Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
There are no replies to Comment # 129. End Trace Mode for Comment # 129.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#80. To: FormerLurker (#77)
#93. To: PSUSA2 (#80)
Tell me if other planets methane and other hydrocarbons = oil
#94. To: FormerLurker (#93)
Oil is a hydrocarbon. Methane is a precursor to oil.
#95. To: PSUSA2, Original_Intent (#94)
Methane is a precursor to oil? Really? If you want to play chemist, you might want to do some basic research first. THen. maybe you can fake it more convincingly. THen you might be able to convince others, if they are gullible.
#97. To: FormerLurker (#95)
Comets are made of hydrocarbons, including tar. Dinosaurs did not hatch comets, nor did they pee oil deep into the earth for that matter.
#100. To: PSUSA2 (#97)
But comets have plate tectonics?
#102. To: FormerLurker (#100)
WTF has plate tectonics have to do with hydrocarbons?
#104. To: PSUSA2 (#102)
I am not a chemist. I am not a geologist. I am not an astronomer.
#106. To: FormerLurker (#104)
Then perhaps you should stop swallowing the Kool-Aid and do a bit of research. And bring along an open mind and some common sense.
#110. To: PSUSA2 (#106)
#113. To: FormerLurker (#110)
CONVERSION OF METHANE TO GASOLINE-RANGE HYDROCARBONS
#114. To: PSUSA2 (#113)
(Edited)
2nd, page 1 paragraph 1, is says gasoline boiling temps, not gasoline.
#116. To: FormerLurker (#114)
In other words, they produced hydrocarbons which boiled in the temperature range gasoline would boil at. Hence, they produced gasoline or gasoline like hydrocarbons.
#118. To: PSUSA2 (#116)
#121. To: FormerLurker (#118)
Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions
#125. To: PSUSA2 (#121)
I'm not trying to be stubborn just for the sake of being stubborn. But there is nothing in that article that supports abiotic oil. In fact, it explicitly supports the opposite, and calls abiotic oil a "open question", as well as uses words "proposed", and "could be".
#129. To: FormerLurker (#125)
Did you miss this part?
Replies to Comment # 129.