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: 3519
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 # 189.
#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.
Same argument holds though, did ancient marine, vegetable, or animal life form the hydrocarbon lakes on Titan, or the comets which orbit the sun?
I am totally unable to answer this. Lod should be able to.
I just thought of something. What if part of the process of creating methane and converting it to heavier hydrocarbons, is that underneath the earth's crust, there are microorganisms of some type which release methane which subsequently form ethane, butane, and propane, and others who eat those lighter hydrocarbons and excrete (or decay into) heavier hydrocarbons? What if oil is just excrement from gazillions of living little critters underground? They would thrive on heat, rather than sunlight, and basically poop oil. Maybe that's what's going on in places like Titan, deep underground. I was about ready to hit post, then decided to look up info on microorganisms in the earth's mantle. Guess what I found... From Methane-eating bacteria alive and well in the deepest layer of Earth’s crust
Please tell me you are not that stupid. Personally I don't think you are. But now I am not so sure anymore. What does the article say? Did it say anything about the bacteria "pooping" oil? No, it didnt. You're grasping at straws, looking for anything that can back you up on this, whether it's other posters, or it's articles that you see things in that aren't even there.
What does the article say? Did it say anything about the bacteria "pooping" oil? No, it didnt. It's already being done in laboratories. Who's to say what we'd discover if we could bore down to the mantle and examine the sort of natural flora which exists there. It's obvious that there already ARE natural microorganisms which DO eat hydrocarbons, it's not mentioned in the earlier article what they excrete. Even if THOSE particular bacteria do not excrete heavier hydrocarbons (or decay into them), there COULD be those which do, but live at deeper depths into the earth's mantle than what we've yet explored...
And one day, pigs COULD fly. One day, we COULD have an honest president. Why do you go off of what "could" be, instead of what is? This whole fiasco was invented by the Russians during the cold war. How much time is needed to prove this? This "theory" (but if you look up the definition of theory then it isn't a theory) could just as easily come about due to political pressure as anything else. After all, they deluded themselves into believing there was no food shortages when people were dying by the truckload due to starvation. You have your supporters here. I am about the only, if not the only, detractor here, But that doesn't mean anything when it comes to who is right and who is wrong. OI is a fucktard that if believed, we'd be dead several times over already, either due to radiation or corexit, or any other number of things he tried to start a panic over, because he is a fucking idiot, no more and no less. And the rest of them aren't any better. comets which turned into orbiting tarballs... Tarballs? Come on man. THINK! Or let others do your thinking for you. If you want ass kissers and back slappers, then that is what you will get.
Do you deny the fact that there ARE artificially created microbes which DO excrete hydrocarbons such as gasoline? Do you deny the fact that comets DO have hydrocarbon signatures? Do you deny the possibility that NATURAL microbes may very well excrete complex hydrocarbons deep within the earth's mantle? What sort of scientific evidence are you aware of that proves simple heat and pressure turns biomass into crude oil? Has it ever been duplicated in a laboratory?
You can't prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. But PROOF is lacking in abiotic oil. All you have are "what if's" and "coulds" and "maybes" and huge "conspiracies". What sort of scientific evidence are you aware of that proves simple heat and pressure turns biomass into crude oil? Has it ever been duplicated in a laboratory? I don't know. Has it? I already told you I am not a scientist, and that I refuse to play one on 4um. But there are many such pretenders here. They will tell you what's what, and if you don't believe them, then you are an "agent" telling the "big lie". They just love to pretend, and gather as many ass kissers as they possibly can, that fawn over their every phony word. Your 1st 2 questions are irrelevant. One deals with artificial creations and the other comets. Why would it surprise anyone that a comet would have combinations of the 2 most common elements in the universe? What does that prove?
Since you seem eager to ridicule any theory which suggests how crude oil is formed, what is YOUR theory on how it is formed? Do you even HAVE a theory, or do you just think satan made it down there in hell or something?
Do yourself a favor and look up the definition of "theory". Then ask yourself if abiotic oil fits the definition or not. Do you even HAVE a theory, or do you just think satan made it down there in hell or something? I don't have to have a personal theory. Why reinvent the wheel? If people that are smarter than I am, and with more equipment and money, say it was based on fossil life forms, then that is what it is. Only paranoids that think that there are huge conspiracies will come up with their own "theories" or adopt others "theories", no matter how off the wall they are. If it goes against their perceived "conspirators", then they'll believe it, proof be damned.
Do yourself a favor and look up the definition of "theory". Then ask yourself if abiotic oil fits the definition or not. Do you even HAVE a theory, or do you just think satan made it down there in hell or something? I don't have to have a personal theory. Why reinvent the wheel? If people that are smarter than I am, and with more equipment and money, say it was based on fossil life forms, then that is what it is. Only paranoids that think that there are huge conspiracies will come up with their own "theories" or adopt others "theories", no matter how off the wall they are. If it goes against their perceived "conspirators", then they'll believe it, proof be damned. The question evident from your post is that you have no clear understanding of what a theory is. For the record, if one is following the Scientific Method a theory is nothing more than a hypothesis, a provisional explanation, which seems to account for all of the observed data and phenomena. A theory is only as good as the observations which support it and becomes instantly invalid upon the observation of even one contrary datum since it no longer accounts for all of the observed data. In that event then the theory must be reformulated to account for the new datum or completely discarded and a new one formulated which accounts for all of the data. Not surprisingly I see you fall back on your usual gratuitous nastiness and logical fallacies as you assert your own "worthy" opinion. Many of the accepted theories of today were yesterdays heresies. For example: Tube based electronics was once state of the art. The first man to invent radio was laughed at. Nikola Tesla was called a kook - the man who developed the theory and practice of Alternating Current, AC Motors, and electric power transmission. I could go through a considerable list of former theories that were once accepted as the last, final, and ultimate word, e.g., Uniformitarian Geology as propounded by Hutton won out over Cuvier's theories of Catastrophism. Cuvier was laughed at and ridiculed by the Scientific Mainstream and yet today he is being proven correct. Massive earth changes can and do happen in the geologic blink of an eye, and we now know some of the causes e.g., asteroid impacts, pole shifts, etc., ... Even that the continents do move and realign, as theorized by Alfred Wegner, was laughed at, derided, and ridiculed by the "authorities". Embarassingly Wegner was proven correct with the discovery of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge during the International Geophysical Year and is now called "Plate Tectonics" - something which you tried to use to earlier justify your slavish devotion to the official theories. The sheer level of ignorance in your post, pontificated upon as though it were holy writ, boggles the mind. However, you need not worry about it as it would seem that anything quite so mind boggling and requiring any imagination beyond what kind of beer the local gas stations carries is beyond your feeble ken. Reliance upon such Ad Hominem terms as "conspiracy theory" is another demonstration of your inability to go where the facts would seem to point. The facts are what they are and the evidence of large scale machinations is present if one wishes to expose their head to fresh air and actually look at what the data infers. A conspiracy at its most basic is nothing more that two or more people working together in secret to do something which is often illegal and outright criminal. Conspiracies, and even large ones, are as old as human history. Just ask Julius Ceasar, or the Medicis, Lucretia Borgia, or any of a number of other historical figures of power and influence who have operated behind the scenes to further their own ends. The American Revolution began as a "conspiracy" against the Crown of England. So, please feel free to bleatingly follow that which you have been told that you will believe, and repeat the mantras you been programmed with. As for the rest of us who prefer to think for ourselves we are not only independent in our thought but rather cantankerously obstinate about our right, and even duty, to think for ourselves. You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming. Have a nice day. :-)
#190. To: bluegrass (#189)
Ping to my above.
I think you missed some people. Perhaps you think they will back you up? I mean, they haven;t been on this thread, they have shown absolutely no interest in it, but they might read all 180+ posts, just for you. So, rally those troops! Now you can post all sorts of off topic things, like Tesla, vacuum tubes, etc. But none of it has anything to do with abiotic oil. I know, you needed a distraction. Distracting means no evidence for the topic at hand is needed, right? You just say "OH, LOOK OVER HERE!!!! Dont look at that, but LOOK AT THIS!" You're so transparent. You need to try harder.
"For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." ~ Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of England “The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” - J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI President Franklin Roosevelt Nov. 21, 1933 "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson." "Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - President Woodrow Wilson "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" ~ Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) from "The Sign of Four" It is as though there have been others that came before us who suspected conspiracies as well...
Good one.
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
#154. To: tom007 (#151)
#155. To: FormerLurker, lod (#154)
Same argument holds though, did ancient marine, vegetable, or animal life form the hydrocarbon lakes on Titan, or the comets which orbit the sun?
#161. To: tom007, Lod, wudidz, Original_Intent, All (#155)
The gabbroic bacteria also rely on totally different food sources. They subsist on hydrocarbons such as methane or benzene, much like the bacteria found in oil slicks or contaminated soil.
#163. To: FormerLurker (#161)
What if oil is just excrement from gazillions of living little critters underground? They would thrive on heat, rather than sunlight, and basically poop oil.
#166. To: PSUSA2, All (#163)
Please tell me you are not that stupid. Personally I don't think you are. But now I am not so sure anymore.
#167. To: FormerLurker (#166)
there COULD be those which do, but live at deeper depths into the earth's mantle than what we've yet explored...
#169. To: PSUSA2 (#167)
(Edited)
#173. To: FormerLurker (#169)
Do you deny the possibility that NATURAL microbes may very well excrete complex hydrocarbons deep within the earth's mantle?
#175. To: PSUSA2 (#173)
#182. To: FormerLurker (#175)
(Edited)
Since you seem eager to ridicule any theory which suggests how crude oil is formed,
#189. To: PSUSA2, BSUSATOO, FormerLurker, christine, TwentyTwelve, cornhuskerkid, Jethro Tull, Lod, James Deffenbach, HighLairEon, wudidiz, intotheabyss, abraxas, lead.and.lag, Phant2000, all (#182)
Since you seem eager to ridicule any theory which suggests how crude oil is formed,
"I don't have to have a personal theory. Why reinvent the wheel?"
"Why bother to think? Other people will do it for me."
Only paranoids that think that there are huge conspiracies will come up with their own "theories" or adopt others "theories", no matter how off the wall they are.
"If man were mean't to fly God would have given him wings."
"Man will never go to the moon space travel is just impossible Science Fiction."
"Truth will always be truth, regadless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance." ~ W. Clement Stone
"For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." ~ Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of England
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” - J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI
President Franklin Roosevelt Nov. 21, 1933 "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson."
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - President Woodrow Wilson
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" ~ Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) from "The Sign of Four"
Replies to Comment # 189.
#191. To: Original_Intent (#189)
PSUSA2, BSUSATOO, FormerLurker, christine, TwentyTwelve, cornhuskerkid, Jethro Tull, Lod, James Deffenbach, HighLairEon, wudidiz, intotheabyss, abraxas, lead.and.lag, Phant2000, all
#198. To: Original_Intent (#189)
"Truth will always be truth, regadless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance." ~ W. Clement Stone
#210. To: Original_Intent (#189)
BSUSATOO
End Trace Mode for Comment # 189.