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: 4019
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 # 177.
#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. I didn't miss it. It doesn't say crude oil. And again it is a possible explanation of how planets and comets have methane. And in planets specifically it might explain how they can have hydrocarbons heavier than methane, due to the heat/pressures involved in planets. Abiotic oil needs to be proven. If it's proven, the beer is on me. But don't work up a thirst just yet. And perhaps we can set up some wildcat rigs and be gazillionaires, with lots of hot women and endless cold beer and grilled steaks.
It doesn't say crude oil. It says they produced hydrocarbons that are heavier than methane, and that's a step in the direction of liquid hydrocarbons. They didn't subject the methane to hundreds of years worth of pressure and heat. Perhaps if and when that is done, it'll prove one way or another what happens under those conditions. And again it is a possible explanation of how planets and comets have methane. No, it explains how heavier hydrocarbons are formed. Methane is in abundance throughout Creation.
I don't buy that. If they can make industrial diamonds by using explosives, they can figure out how to make crude oil out of methane by duplicating natural processes. Methane is in abundance throughout Creation. It might answer how it got there. Or it might be one explanation among others.
Who says that it HASN'T already been done? I'm sure that any such inventor would either be very rich (paid off for his idea), or very dead.
Now we get into the conspiracy angle. Occams razor still applies. Then there is another law saying that the larger the conspiracy is, the more likely it is to break down. I don't know what the laws name is, so I'll just call it PSUSA's Law. You can't prove any such conspiracy any more than you can prove abiotic oil. All this conspiracy is, is an idea, nothing more. Perhaps it has been done, in the open, and we don't know about it yet. Or perhaps it's been tried many times, and failed. Who knows?
Yep, and the simplest explanation is that heavier hydrocarbons are formed under intense heat and pressure from methane. In fact, the biological theory tells basically the same story, except that they toss in dinosaurs and ancient marine life to embelish their story a bit. What it comes down to is that organic matter decomposes into methane. Methane is then converted to heavier hydrocarbons. Thing is, methane doesn't HAVE to come from organic matter, it comes from within the bowels of the earth itself, as well as from within the bowels of other planets and moons where there were no dinosaurs nor ancient marine life.
I have never met a oil geologist that thought oil came from dinos. It made a cute oil company logo, tho.
Well actually what they say is, "plant and animal matter", or "ancient marine life".
Well actually what they say is, "plant and animal matter", or "ancient marine life". The bulk of petroleum likely does not come from animal matter, but there is a lot of animal matter mixed in with it. Biostratigraphers use micropaleontology to determine the age of petroleum deposits. Both animal and plant fossils are used to date petroleum bearing deposits. That kind of dating is correlated with radiometric analysis to find the age of beds at different depths. I know a guy that does this stuff. Oil companies send him rocks and liquids and he studies the samples with a binocular microscope. There's a spectacular array of critters in those samples.
Question would be, are those recently deceased critters, live critters, or very anciently deceased critters...
We're talking micropaleontology here, and these are microfossils. You can be sure that they're good and dead.
#179. To: randge (#177)
You can be sure that they're good and dead. Have they been dated, and how certain are they of their age?
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".
#131. To: FormerLurker (#125)
Did you miss this part?
#134. To: PSUSA2 (#131)
#136. To: FormerLurker (#134)
They didn't subject the methane to hundreds of years worth of pressure and heat. Perhaps if and when that is done, it'll prove one way or another what happens under those conditions.
#138. To: PSUSA2 (#136)
I don't buy that. If they can make industrial diamonds by using explosives, they can figure out how to make crude oil out of methane by duplicating natural processes.
#140. To: FormerLurker (#138)
Who says that it HASN'T already been done? I'm sure that any such inventor would either be very rich (paid off for his idea), or very dead.
#142. To: PSUSA2, Original_Intent (#140)
Occams razor still applies
#151. To: FormerLurker (#142)
except that they toss in dinosaurs
#153. To: tom007 (#151)
I have never met a oil geologist that thought oil came from dinos.
#164. To: FormerLurker (#153)
(Edited)
I have never met a oil geologist that thought oil came from dinos.
#168. To: randge (#164)
I know a guy that does this stuff. Oil companies send him rocks and liquids and he studies the samples with a binocular microscope. There's a spectacular array of critters in those samples.
#177. To: FormerLurker (#168)
Question would be, are those recently deceased critters, live critters, or very anciently deceased critters...
Replies to Comment # 177. We're talking micropaleontology here, and these are microfossils.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 177.