patrick.net

Automan Empire says

You went to a lot of trouble to define petroleum in your first paragraph, then went on to mention carbon methane on non-Earth objects, but you didn't show petroleum elsewhere. Finding a Mars analogue of terrestrial petroleum deposits on the moon or mars would certainly shake up the notion of abiotic oil on earth... IF, IF it happens.

Reading the chemistry illustrated in my last post would have gone a long way towards answering your question. My post already explained petroleum (mostly hydrocarbon chain length between 6 to 12 carbon in length) is derived from Methane (through microbial action stripping away hydrogen atoms making longer and longer carbon chains; i.e. microbes are consumers of the primordial fuel by concatenating shorter carbon chains into longer chains; CH4 is a "carbon chain" of 1-carbon/link). The past 20+ years of cracking in the US (mostly in zones below old Pennsynvania and Texas oil wells and coal mines) already proved the point by digging up mostly natural gas below the old oil wells and coal mines. The primordial form of hydrocarbon on planets and satellite is Methane (CH4, i.e. "natural gas" in fuel context), and there is plenty of that (CH4) on other planets and satellites to other planets, and inside meteorites.

The industry is also simultaneously content for people TODAY to mass-believe in abiogenic oil as it plays to their advantage now. They need only passively STFU and let it propagate virally.

How would a theory that postulates practically unlimited supply of their primary product help them? They invented the biogenic theory in the late 19th century (around the time when dinosaur fossils were discovered elsewhere and became a sensation) in order to make their primary product appear precious. In the other thread, I was bringing up synthetic fuel making from taking CO2 from the sea water (using solar power). That would put a hard limit on how deep it's worth to dig into the ground for oil or natural gas.

Reality saysReading the chemistry illustrated in my last post would have gone a long way towards answering your question. My post already explained petroleum (mostly hydrocarbon chain length between 6 to 12 carbon in length) is derived from Methane (through microbial action stripping away hydrogen atoms making longer and longer carbon chains).

I could deliver a 2 hour lecture on the series from C1 to about C14, that would also be a red herring. That more complex "petroleum" molecules form naturally ON EARTH from methane is not in dispute here. Incidentally, ethane is the usual feedstock for synthetic oils. What you HAVEN'T shown is a PROCESS where they have indisputably formed abiotically on earth. It doesn't MATTER to this question whether for instance polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are detectable in the Taurus Molecular Cloud, under the conditions that exist THERE.

Reality says

How would a theory that postulates practically unlimited supply of their primary product help them?

It seems pretty obvious. If people believe oil forms abiotically, and from there assume the process runs at least as fast as we are consuming said oil today, then it makes perfect sense to vote accordingly and let petroleum companies do as they please, pollution and conservation be damned and their proponents ruthlessly mocked and depreciated. This is as stupid as believing the claims of "fuel saver devices" that if true, installing 4 different kinds of them would make it necessary to stop every 50 miles to bail excess gas out of one's tank.

Automan Empire says

That more complex "petroleum" molecules form naturally ON EARTH from methane is not in dispute here.

What do you mean by "naturally"? Compressing Methane (CH4) alone wouldn't produce longer chains. It is microbial action stripping away hydrogen that concatenates CH4 into longer carbon chains (absorbing the energy difference between C-H bond vs the C-C bond) in the rock crevices. On other planets and satellites (and meteorite), if there is no microbe doing the digestion then CH4 would remain CH4 as we observe from space telescope. We don't have the technology for detecting longer chain liquid petroleum below the surface of other planets or satellites yet (although Methane is actually in liquid state at many of those places in their very cold "atmosphere" / "ocean" made mostly of methane in some cases not water). Besides, even on earth, it take years of surveying the grounds to find oil wells, we don't have nearly the technology to do that kind of in-depth survey on other planets or satellites. OTOH, we do have the technology for making petroleum from Methane. Yes, also making ethane from methane, although I think you meant synthetic lubrication oil from esther (which is derived from ethane), not fuel oil or petroleum.

Automan Empire says

What you HAVEN'T shown is a PROCESS where they have indisputably formed abiotically on earth. It doesn't MATTER to this question whether for instance polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are detectable in the Taurus Molecular Cloud, under the conditions that exist THERE.

Of course it matters. A cow can produce methane. That doesn't mean all methane anywhere on any planet or satellite has to be produced by a cow (a "Bovinegenic Theory"). The existence of Methane on other planets and satellites (and methane from volcanoes on earth and other planets; what animal live in volcanoes?) show that hydrocarbon molecules are not at all exclusively biogenic. "Biogenic theory" means exclusively biogenic in order to have any meaning or value. If we all agree that vastly more abiogenic hydrocarbon exists than biogenic, then all the value judgement (such as very limited in supply and non-replenishable) derived from Biogenic Theory is entirely shot.

Also, given the great depth of both the US cracking industry and Russian gas wells, the natural gas from those wells are indeed deep in the basement rocks little disturbed by biological process millions of years ago (too hot at that depth, so no microbes have been around to digest the natural gas into longer chain oil).

Reality says

What do you mean by "naturally"? Compressing Methane (CH4) alone wouldn't produce longer chains. It is microbial action stripping away hydrogen that concatenates CH4 into longer carbon chains

This branched out from the "origins of life" thread because the conversation pivoted to "abotic petroleum." Now you've taken it back full circle to the original M-U experiment where methane was one of the starting molecules shown capable of abiotically assembling into much more complex molecules. IDK what your point, or your motivation to run the discussion all over the map like this is any more.

Reality says

Besides, even on earth, it take years of surveying the grounds to find oil wells, we don't have nearly the technology to do that kind of in-depth survey on other planets or satellites.

I already pointed out, spectrography has detected the signature of PAHs in other GALAXIES. This still doesn't prove they arose biotically, but certain other molecules might.

Patrick says

@CaptainHorsePaste That's interesting. So what's the answer?

The Fremen Spice Oil exists in Vast Quantities.

Vast, my Duke.

Automan Empire says

This branched out from the "origins of life" thread because the conversation pivoted to "abotic petroleum." Now you've taken it back full circle to the original M-U experiment where methane was one of the starting molecules shown capable of abiotically assembling into much more complex molecules.

Well, they ARE connected.

When you go into details you have to address another subject. What you'd need is a forum of discussion, and then breaking out threads for that.

Automan Empire says

This branched out from the "origins of life" thread because the conversation pivoted to "abotic petroleum." Now you've taken it back full circle to the original M-U experiment where methane was one of the starting molecules shown capable of abiotically assembling into much more complex molecules. IDK what your point, or your motivation to run the discussion all over the map like this is any more.

I don't know if you are familiar with the chemical processes or chemical compounds involved here. Ethane is not at all a "much more complex molecule" than Methane. Both are extremely simple molecules, one being the simplest "organic" molecule, the other being the second simplest organic molecule. The two situations addressed are entirely different: the M-U experiment was trying to find a way methane and nitrogen can somehow through a abiotic process transform into a self-replicating compound (i.e. the start of life), even a 1 in a gazillion happening would get the self-replicating compound started; whereas here we already know microbes exist in rock crevices and the transformation of methane into ethane and longer carbon chains of still extremely simple compounds (far from any self-replication ability) is an entropy-increasing process that can benefit the microbes (as their food source) and must take place in vast quantities in order for longer carbon-chains to pool into petroleum well. I don't know if you are aware, Methane is the simplest form of hydrocarbon/"petroleum," consisting of 5 atoms of two elements; it is in liquid form at low enough temperature (and/or under high enough pressure); ethane is the next simplest, consisting of 8 atoms of two elements only. They are far simpler than macro molecules like DNA, RNA or Protein, which are made up of many hundreds if not thousands of atoms.



Automan Empire says

Reality says

Besides, even on earth, it take years of surveying the grounds to find oil wells, we don't have nearly the technology to do that kind of in-depth survey on other planets or satellites.

I already pointed out, spectrography has detected the signature of PAHs in other GALAXIES. This still doesn't prove they arose biotically, but certain other molecules might.

Observing something in the space in a galaxy is quite different from finding oil well on a different planet. It's a little like: if I know your home town, I can look up whether there is going to be rain over your house tomorrow through weather forecast for your zipcode; that's a lot easier than finding out where you hide your checkbook in your house, or where my next-door neighbor hides his checkbook in his house thousands of miles closer to me than your house is.

We have known in the past couple decades that hydrocarbon exist in space in vast quantities. That has pretty much put an end to the biogenic theory of hydrocarbon for people who have really thought about the subject. Even after billions of years of evolution and thousands of years of technology advance (nearing the ability of wiping ourselves out), we have not put nearly enough man-made hydrocarbon into space that any space alien from lightyears away can detect.

richwicks says

When you go into details you have to address another subject. What you'd need is a forum of discussion, and then breaking out threads for that.

I'm complaining about how this keeps devolving from men discussing facts to "arguing with a woman" where she answers an uncomfortable question with a different question to pivot the discussion. It's not discourse, it's a distraction technique and RUDE.

Reality says

Ethane is not at all a "much more complex molecule" than Methane.

I know that. Methane is the simplest alkane molecule, can form abiotically, and is a main building block of longer carbon things. For the record I mentioned ethane, the next largest carbon molecule, is the feedstock used for many industrial processes like synthetic oils.

Reality says

Observing something in the space in a galaxy is quite different from finding oil well on a different planet.

This is where I get frustrated with the topic going everywhere like letting go of a balloon. This is yet another major goalpoast-moving in a long discussion that has spawned 2 new threads in an effort to stay on topic. We KNOW methane forms abiotically and is common in the universe. We can detect much more complex hydrocarbon molecules in distant parts of the universe, and we HAVE. None of this proves whether the oil on Earth formed abiotically or not.



Reality says

We have known in the past couple decades that hydrocarbon exist in space in vast quantities. That has pretty much put an end to the biogenic theory of hydrocarbon for people who have really thought about the subject.

Only in people who have ulterior or surrogate motivations to believe in abiotic oil... and want a reason to never bother thinking about it again. That hydrocarbons have been detected in space is irrelevant to the question of whether Earth's petroleum bodies were formed biotically from ancient life, or abiotically by subduction of surface minerals in a continuing process.

Automan Empire says

If people believe oil forms abiotically, and from there assume the process runs at least as fast as we are consuming said oil today, then it makes perfect sense to vote accordingly and let petroleum companies do as they please, pollution and conservation be damned and their proponents ruthlessly mocked and depreciated. This is as stupid as believing the claims of "fuel saver devices" that if true, installing 4 different kinds of them would make it necessary to stop every 50 miles to bail excess gas out of one's tank.

Well, we know rain replenish our water reservoir constantly, yet we do not waste water regardless whether we get water from the city/town or from private well. We know electricity is generated every second (and the sun is not disappearing tomorrow for solar panels), yet we usually do not waste electricity. Regardless where hydrocarbon originated, the effort refining it and bringing it to the gas station is not free of charge. In reality, pumping oil in SA and Iraq/Iran is still under $10/bbl in variable cost (if not under $5); a huge price mark-up is applied to pay the government before the oil is loaded into the oil tanker. Knowing that oil is potentially everywhere so long as we are willing to dig deep enough and there are myriads other ways of getting it is helpful for keeping an open eye for less expensive alternatives so that we don't subsidize those overseas despots too much.

On a personal level, knowing the vast availability of high energy-density liquid fuel, also helps one stay away with bombs/fire-hazards on wheels like battery electric cars.

Reality says

Well, we know rain replenish our water reservoir constantly, yet we do not waste water regardless whether we get water from the city/town or from private well.

When's the last time you watered your lawn?

Reality says

Regardless where hydrocarbon originated, the effort refining it and bringing it to the gas station is not free of charge.

Think of "cost" in terms of energy. It you get 3 barrels of oil using the energy equivalent of 1 barrel of oil, is that "free"? Ignoring the cost of drilling, exploration, etc.

With regard to abiotic oil in general though - Titan is covered with the stuff. It seems to form when the planet forms.

richwicks says

Think of "cost" in terms of energy. It you get 3 barrels of oil using the energy equivalent of 1 barrel of oil, is that "free"? Ignoring the cost of drilling, exploration, etc.

This is a very important metric. One of the chief complaints about Canada's tar sands project isn't just the pipeline across US land, it's the fact that extracting it amounts to burning 20 to 30 gallons of methane natural gas in order to sell 1 gallon of gasoline. Not to mention the externalized cost of either maintaining the freezewalls forever after the deposits play out, or the consequences of allowing them to thaw.

Automan Empire says

We KNOW methane forms abiotically and is common in the universe. We can detect much more complex hydrocarbon molecules in distant parts of the universe, and we HAVE. None of this proves whether the oil on Earth formed abiotically or not.

If nearby planets and their satellites (and meteorites) have a large component of hydrocarbon, why shouldn't earth have similar content? Perhaps the relatively less free hydrocarbon on the earth surface is due to biological capture of the "easy food"? Tons of the stuff were literally oozing out from below the surface before we started mining/drilling for hydrocarbon. Volcanoes both on earth and on other planets/satellites pump out enormous quantities of CH4, volcanoes being the primary vents connecting to the layer just below the surface. What animal could have lived in the mantel where volcanic gas and flow come from?

IMHO, the petroleum industry invented the dead dino theory in order to capitalize on the dino fossil craze of the late 19th century to make their primary products appear more precious. Even the biogenic theory of coal is wrong: the primary evidence cited for that was the fossilized leaf and plant forms often found in coal; I have witnessed many of those specimens first-hand. However, if one really think about it: the carbon taking the shape of the leaves and plant forms could not possibly be entirely from the original plant: 80-90% of plant is water. Hydrocarbon simply oozed from below and filled the vacuum created by the dead plant as its less fiberous parts rotted away or dehydrated . . . so the hydrocarbon from below is taking the shape of the dead plant. Then microbes eating away the last strip of hydrogen atoms and turning the thick tar into coal.

Automan Empire says

Only in people who have ulterior or surrogate motivations to believe in abiotic oil... and want a reason to never bother thinking about it again. That hydrocarbons have been detected in space is irrelevant to the question of whether Earth's petroleum bodies were formed biotically from ancient life, or abiotically by subduction of surface minerals in a continuing process.

Ever heard of a thing called the Truth? The biogenic theory was actually invented with ulterior motive: to make petroleum industry products sound more precious. The existence of vast quantities of hydrocarbon in space is very much relevant to where the earth's hydrocarbon come from: earth is only one of the bodies in the local part of the universe. If nearby astronomical bodies have large hydrocarbon components, it only stands to reason that the earth is likewise composed. When Tommy Gold (one of the American pioneers of abiotic theory) came to that conclusion, he was actually quite alarmed: that could mean CO2 level can potentially be raised much much higher before we run out of oil or natural gas (if ever). Luckily, the discovery of the carbon fixing and carbonate subduction processes in the ocean mitigated that worry.

Automan Empire says

One of the chief complaints about Canada's tar sands project isn't just the pipeline across US land, it's the fact that extracting it amounts to burning 20 to 30 gallons of methane natural gas in order to sell 1 gallon of gasoline.

If this is the case, it's really stupid, because it's easy to convert a vehicle to burn methane.

Also, if this IS true, 20 to 30 gallons of methane would have to be less expensive than the gasoline that is eventually used to make it. If it isn't, this isn't true.

It's not economically feasible to use more energy to recover less energy - obviously and energy is DIRECTLY proportional to cost.

You can just as easily burn coal to run a power plant, as you can burn methane, or gasoline, or anything.

richwicks says

When's the last time you watered your lawn?

More than a decade ago . . . when I had clients coming to my house. Ever since I moved to my current house, no more client visits, I have turned the local flora into a type that requires no watering and very little mowing: a mix of ground-hugging small broad-leaf like clovers etc. loved by local rabbits and song birds.

richwicks says

Think of "cost" in terms of energy. It you get 3 barrels of oil using the energy equivalent of 1 barrel of oil, is that "free"? Ignoring the cost of drilling, exploration, etc.

Very good point. that's why I mentioned the emerging technology of extracting carbon from sea water to form liquid fuel using solar energy will put a hard limit on how deep it is worth to drill for oil/gas.

With regard to abiotic oil in general though - Titan is covered with the stuff. It seems to form when the planet forms.

Indeed. It is quite likely that the earth's surface was stripped of hydrocarbon by microbes eating the "easy food." After that, whenever pressure from below ruptures the surface (including sea floor), oil and gas rushes out or oozes out, and quickly eaten by microbes again. Before the mid-19th century, natural petroleum spill was a common local disaster for farmers. Eventually someone found use for it to save the whales from extinction.

The Black Water, it is the Curse of Texas.

Reality says

Think of "cost" in terms of energy. It you get 3 barrels of oil using the energy equivalent of 1 barrel of oil, is that "free"? Ignoring the cost of drilling, exploration, etc.

Very good point. that's why I mentioned the emerging technology of extracting carbon from sea water to form liquid fuel using solar energy will put a hard limit on how deep it is worth to drill for oil/gas.

Extracting CO2 from ocean water may have consequences as well. It also might be extremely energy intensive to do. You may discover that doing this wipes out tons of flora in the ocean, and ends up sterilizing it.

Reality says

Indeed. It is quite likely that the earth's surface was stripped of hydrocarbon by microbes eating the "easy food." After that, whenever pressure from below ruptures the surface (including sea floor), oil and gas rushes out or oozes out, and quickly eaten by microbes again. Before the mid-19th century, natural petroleum spill was a common local disaster for farmers. Eventually someone found use for it to save the whales from extinction.

Well, perhaps it's best to use it up?

I know the reality of the situation - most ammonium nitrate (fertilizer) is made by hydrocarbon energy. That goes away, and fertilizer goes away, and that goes away, at least 6 billion people are going to go away - with current technology.

One thing I've learned over my life is that although technology uses energy, the same device can both get better and use less energy when it gets sophisticated enough. My phone, for example, runs on a pittance of power compared to my first cell phone. Compare a modern phone to say, a Sony Walkman or a modern TV compared to even an average 19" television from 1995.

The one thing we've not been able to (significantly) reduce energy consumption is in travel. Really what is needed is that cars should be MUCH lighter. Such a vehicle, an accident would greatly increase the risk of serious injury or death however that could possibly be mitigated by drastically reducing the likelihood of a crash. A car, for example, could take advantage of airflow to control it's direction with dynamic surfaces. Such a car would be entirely FUNCTIONAL, though. You'd end up with something akin to a bicycle which has been, basically perfected. We can't improve on the design of the bicycle. It was perfected in the early 1900's.

Anyhow the result will be nobody will be saying "oh! Cool car!". They will all look basically the same with varying paint jobs.

Instead of wasting cow and pig shit, we might use it again. Of course, that would mean less monoculture and more diverse, closely managed farming.

richwicks says

You can just as easily burn coal to run a power plant, as you can burn methane, or gasoline, or anything.

Large boilers for power plants are purpose built for coal OR oil OR natural gas OR biomass. Existing plants can be converted, but it's not a matter of throwing a few logs in the natural gas combustion chamber one day, more like a 4-18 month and 6 figure process. I remember an apocryphal story 30 or so years ago where a huge haul of confiscated pot was sent to get burned in some biomass-fed generating plant, and it burned so hot it damaged the equipment.

richwicks says

If this is the case, it's really stupid, because it's easy to convert a vehicle to burn methane.

It's been 10 years since I read about it in detail so I may be mixing locations. My understanding is a huge volume of lighter fractions are burned at the site in order to support the extraction and processing operations to get the profitable dilbit moving down the pipeline toward the port. This is apparently more profitable than extracting and exporting just these light fractions over the distance involved, over the working life of the deposit and the whole extraction enterprise. Like flaring off the gas fractions at the well in the olden days cause the profit from transporting and selling it is mousemilking compared to the economically desirable liquid fractions.

The perverse raw cost of oil fuckpile goes something like (plentiful middle eastern oil + cheap labor + shipping costs across the globe) < (less plentiful + more energy and costly labor intensive to produce + already in America oil) <<< (plentiful + extremely energy + very labor intensive to produce + very far from any market + more challenging and risky than regular crude to ship by pipeline tar sands petroleum).

Reality says

Ever heard of a thing called the Truth?

As opposed to a presupposition the likes of which you made numerous times in your argumentation? Yes.

Automan Empire says

Another breakout discussion from a long thread. What are the origins of terrestrial petroleum deposits, biotic or abiotic?



From a Biblical perspective you are asking, did God create petroleum in the first seven days, or did it happen after that such as during the flood?

There is significant evidence that it happened as a result of geological processes consistent with catastrophic flood, huge breaks in the earth’s crust, perhaps even the breaking up of Pangea all at about the same time.

https://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form

https://bible.org/seriespage/18-fossil-fuel

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/

https://www.icr.org/article/chemistry-oil-explained-by-flood-geology/

PeopleUnited says

From a Biblical perspective you are asking

Let me be crystal clear on this: I am NOT asking from or for a BIBLICAL perspective. Good day.

Automan Empire says

Reality says

Ever heard of a thing called the Truth?

As opposed to a presupposition the likes of which you made numerous times in your argumentation? Yes.

Care to point out where? OTOH, you accused Professor Tommy Gold of having ulterior motives promoting oil usage/waste in advocating Abiogenic Theory . . . whereas in reality one of his top concerns was that having so much hydrocarbon on the planet would indeed pose a risk of run-away CO2 level and advocated CO2 regulation for that reason (before the discovery of CO2 recapture by ocean water and subduction of carbonates).

richwicks says

They will all look basically the same with varying paint jobs.

By the early 90s, the automotive press was already lamenting style being constrained and driven by the demands of the wind tunnel.

richwicks says

One thing I've learned over my life is that although technology uses energy, the same device can both get better and use less energy

Contrary to the narrative "The left's motivation isn't to prevent pollution, it's to take humanity back to the stone age before mechanized travel" is completely off base when you look at the evolution of the automobile from the 50s till today. What we GOT were cars that are extremely collision safe while becoming quite light, and economical and clean burning while performing well and being fun to drive. It's amazing the incremental steps made to wring each additional sometimes 1/100th of a mile per gallon out of a car, like the time Volvo retooled their assembly plants to use fasteners one wrench size smaller therefore fractionally lighter throughout the car on a model that was ending production at the end of that year anyway, to meet that year's CAFE average. ICE Cars are a VERY mature technology, for the amount they can wring from a gallon of gas today.

richwicks says

A car, for example, could take advantage of airflow to control it's direction with dynamic surfaces. Such a car would be entirely FUNCTIONAL, though. You'd end up with something akin to a bicycle which has been, basically perfected.

A thought experiment that kinda takes the whole discussion full circle. This evolution from heavy cars to bicycle-like vehicles with aerodynamic control surfaces is analagous to the evolution from heavy ground reptiles, to light ones that developed feathers because those which did by chance were able to escape predators by flap-running over tangles that would stop a heavier animal. Anyone who's owned/watched chickens, which are effectively flightless, knows exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe by this path we'll finally get our flying cars.

Automan Empire says

PeopleUnited says

From a Biblical perspective you are asking

Let me be crystal clear on this: I am NOT asking from or for a BIBLICAL perspective. Good day.

It was a good day. But burying your head in the sand and ignoring the evidence of the geological AND biological origins of petroleum is willful ignorance.

And let me be crystal clear on this: Germans love David Hasselhoff.

PeopleUnited says

From a Biblical perspective you are asking, did God create petroleum in the first seven days, or did it happen after that such as during the flood?

@PeopleUnited - you can't do this to make an argument. You're appealing to a faith that isn't shared by everybody. Even if you're entirely correct in your faith, people who don't share it will just look at it as bad reasoning and they will dismiss EVERYTHING you say after that, because you are starting from bad axioms in their viewpoint.

Trust me. 20 years ago, I would have been denigrating you and chopping away at your basis of faith. I would be explaining in gory detail all the contradictions I find in your faith and it would be a religious debate then because you're telling me "until you show this axiom is wrong, I won't change my mind", and I'd go right to work on that.

Faith trumps reason. By that I mean no amount of reasoning will be able to shake you out of your faith - that's fine and I'm certain you think that's a great thing. Well, how would you feel about a Muslim with the same attitude? How about a Hindu? What about a member of Heaven's Gate or the Church of Scientology?

Frankly, if God exists, nothing really matters. You neither need to worry about the future or the past. God takes care of it all, but what if God is like the Wizard of Oz and it's just a bunch of men behind the curtain? What if what seems kind and benevolent, is anything but? People can do really awful things when they think their life isn't as important as "the cause" is - but they can go good things as well. We can only know in hindsight.

Reality says

Care to point out where?

Fair question. Right after the part I quoted, you said "The biogenic theory was actually invented with ulterior motive: to make petroleum industry products sound more precious." This is not mutually agreed upon as fact, but what you wrote presupposes it's "the truth." Unironically, too.

And this: "That has pretty much put an end to the biogenic theory of hydrocarbon for people who have really thought about the subject." is a triple-nested cluster of presuppositions- that the biogenic theory is mutually considered ended, and that any people who think otherwise (IF these even exist) are people who have NOT really thought about the subject. I'd expect this level of subterfuge from someone else's dysfunctional Mother-in-law, perhaps, but not from partners in a discussion of scientific facts, theories, and hypotheses.

Automan Empire says

Contrary to the narrative "The left's motivation isn't to prevent pollution, it's to take humanity back to the stone age before mechanized travel" is completely off base when you look at the evolution of the automobile from the 50s till today. What we GOT were cars that are extremely collision safe while becoming quite light, and economical and clean burning while performing well and being fun to drive.

But is that because of government regulation or despite government regulation getting in the way of making cars that people want? Alternatively, is the result that you praised due to the carmakers making cars that people want or despite greedy carmakers trying to sell the cheapest crap to consumers and make a killing? LOL.

It's amazing the incremental steps made to wring each additional sometimes 1/100th of a mile per gallon out of a car, like the time Volvo retooled their assembly plants to use fasteners one wrench size smaller therefore fractionally lighter throughout the car on a model that was ending production at the end of that year anyway, to meet that year's CAFE average. ICE Cars are a VERY mature technology, for the amount they can wring from a gallon of gas today.

That' actually a good example. Did Volvo's effort in that case making what car buyers really cared about? or wasting resources on an effort to cut back that meaningless 1/100th of a mile due to government regulatory red-tape, when they could have spent the time and resources on making the next generation model arrive sooner and more affordable to more buyers thereby saving more lives?

What's quite amazing is that ICE cars actually have improved gas mileage significantly in the last 20 years. I had a 4-cyl turbo wagon that made 185hp in 2001 burning 17-24mpg, whereas now a 6-cyl turbo GT (like a fancy wagon but more stylish) weighing 400lb more making nearly 350hp while burning only 20-30mpg (the 260hp 4-cyl turbo version would burn 22-33mpg). With compression ignition of gasoline down the road (or something nearly as lean-burning as that), gas mileage will only improve.

Automan Empire says

Right after the part I quoted, you said "The biogenic theory was actually invented with ulterior motive: to make petroleum industry products sound more precious." This is not mutually agreed upon as fact, but what you wrote presupposes it's "the truth." Unironically, too.

That was indeed the truth. I don't think historical facts need the approval/validation from someone who isn't familiar with the history. The petroleum industry invented the biogenic theory, and that was the basis of chronic "running out of oil" scare since the 19th century.



Automan Empire says

And this: "That has pretty much put an end to the biogenic theory of hydrocarbon for people who have really thought about the subject." is a triple-nested cluster of presuppositions- that the biogenic theory is mutually considered ended, and that any people who think otherwise (IF these even exist) are people who have NOT really thought about the subject. I'd expect this level of subterfuge from someone else's dysfunctional Mother-in-law, perhaps, but not from partners in a discussion of scientific facts, theories, and hypotheses.

In case it's not obvious, hardly any credible petroleum scientist and petroleum engineer still talk about the biogenic theory anymore in recent years. The deep drilling and cracking under the old oil wells and old coal mines since nearly 20 years ago was implicit industry acceptance of the abiogenic theory. Instead of accusing amateurs outside the industry looking in without the benefit of having read what Thomas Gold wrote 20+ years ago and shook up the industry, instead of accusing them of being stupid or misinformed/brainwashed, I simply excused them as not having really thought about the issue at depth (because it's not a field of their own expertise). Regurgitating mainstreaming (or what used to be mainstream) propaganda is not really having put much thought into the issue.

richwicks says

Automan - you can't do this to make an argument. You're appealing to a faith that isn't shared by everybody. Even if you're entirely correct in your faith, people who don't share it will just look at it as bad reasoning and they will dismiss EVERYTHING you say after that, because you are starting from bad axioms in their viewpoint.

Imagine you are eyewitness to an important event. You know exactly what happened. But then someone down the line tells a different story. This fake account by someone who did not witness it becomes the prevailing theory on what happened. So you take out your diary where you have recorded what actually happened and start to share it with anyone who will listen.

That is what The Bible is. It is true not because people believe it, nor would it be untrue if people don’t believe it. It is true because it is not a lie. It is a first hand account of what really happened. Furthermore, there is evidence as cited in links above which include geological processes and discoveries in biology and chemistry that support the geological AND biological aspects of petroleum deposit formation.

richwicks says

Automan - you can't do this to make an argument. You're appealing to a faith that isn't shared by everybody.

it's his thread.

You can proselytize your views and correct people for their reasoning and tell them why they are wrong on your own thread.

Petroleum is optically active. It also contains terpenes which are present in living organisms.

Hence, it is derived from biological materials. Anyone who argues against that should present a mechanism by which optically active hydrocarbons are created abiotically.
Optical Activity of Petroleum - Harvard University
courses.seas.harvard.edu
› climate › eli › Courses › EPS281r › Sources › Origin-of-oil › Oakwood 1952 optical activity.pdf

Bd6r says

Petroleum is optically active. It also contains terpenes which are present in living organisms. Hence, it is derived from biological materials. Anyone who argues against that should present a mechanism by which optically active hydrocarbons are created abiotically.

Contamination from microbes digesting/concatenating Methane and other shorter hydrocarbon chains into longer hydrocarbon chains that are the main commercially valuable components in an oil well output. Bio-contamination is much reduced as the industry digs deeper into gas well zones and fracking. Notice your citation of 1952 material. That was a long time ago at much shallower drilling depth, where oil wells are well contaminated by microbial activities on their way from Methane to room temperature/pressure liquid carbon chains.

So optical activity of deeper oil deposits is lower than that of more shallow deposits? Link please with values of optical rotation for both

Bd6r says

So optical activity of deeper oil deposits is lower than that of more shallow deposits? Link please with values of optical rotation for both

Not talking about comparing different well depth from different areas. The deep drilling / cracking in the last couple decades has been below the zones of old "depleted" oil wells and coal mine areas, and they have been coming with natural gas, with little optical activity to speak of.

Reality says

With compression ignition of gasoline down the road (or something nearly as lean-burning as that), gas mileage will only improve.

We're already at direct injection in gasoline engines, but these are still spark-ignited. Compression ignition using today's gasolines isn't very likely. We'd need to use non-backwardly-compatible high-dodecane gas instead of high-octane, if not straight diesel. You know that song "They've gone about as far as they can go" from the play Oklahoma, well ICE engine management keeps breaking through points of diminishing returns of earlier generations, but it's hard to see much improvement from where we are now. Thanks largely to cheap MOSFETS and the energy density breakthrough of lithium, electric vehicles are very competitive now with ICE vehicles. Converting the entire fleet to electric faces constraints in the delivery grid and lithium supply.

Reality says

That' actually a good example. Did Volvo's effort in that case making what car buyers really cared about? or wasting resources on an effort to cut back that meaningless 1/100th of a mile due to government regulatory red-tape, when they could have spent the time and resources on making the next generation model arrive sooner and more affordable to more buyers thereby saving more lives?

The difference wasn't meaningless, it was "worth it" enough to purchase a years supply of different fasteners and tooling, and by 1mm steps to previously "odd" sizes, not 2 mm steps to the next "standard" tool head size. The design and development departments at this time were working with world suppliers like Bosch, Nippondenso, and Aisin-Warner 6-8 model years ahead of the one in question, so basically production matters like the fasteners don't affect the design team in a zero sum game in enterprises of this scale.

Reality says

But is that because of government regulation or despite government regulation getting in the way of making cars that people want?

My critique of the American auto industry is that they really DID spend money on lawyers and lobbyists and PR, INSTEAD of engineers. The Japanese in particular quietly went about meeting and exceeding the requirements, and ate the American carmakers' lunch starting in the 80s as a result. Government imposed pollution standards put artificial constraints on the market, without which we'd have a lot less easy to extract petroleum and a lot more pollution. I live in Los Angeles, and have watched firsthand as humankind has packed 3 times the people and cars into a geologic bowl capped by an inversion layer, and had pollution go way way DOWN despite this. Despite the doom and gloom predictions, the results have been worth the cost.

Reality says

Bd6r says

So optical activity of deeper oil deposits is lower than that of more shallow deposits? Link please with values of optical rotation for both

Not talking about comparing different well depth from different areas. The deep drilling / cracking in the last couple decades has been below the zones of old "depleted" oil wells and coal mine areas, and they have been coming with natural gas, with little optical activity to speak of.

Do you know what compounds are present in nat gas and how many of them can be optically active?

Automan Empire says

well ICE engine management keeps breaking through points of diminishing returns of earlier generations, but it's hard to see much improvement from where we are now. Thanks largely to cheap MOSFETS and the energy density breakthrough of lithium, electric vehicles are very competitive now with ICE vehicles. Converting the entire fleet to electric faces constraints in the delivery grid and lithium supply.

They have been saying diminishing return on ICE cars for a long time, yet the thermo-efficiency of ICE engines keep improving. Electric cars are not really competitive with ICE cars without tax subsidy, without artificially high gasoline prices and without subsidy from "net-metering." As it is, charging the car at public chargers is already making an electric car cost more to run than a comparable sized ICE car; charging at home is perhaps saving 30% per mile at current electric rates and gasoline prices, but that's before the recently higher natural gas prices are fully reflected in electricity price. Electric might make sense for a cheap city run-about, but makes no sense to have an explosion/fire-hazard on wheels for saving $40/mo if the person is spending more than even $300/mo on car + gas + insurance. When all the hazards are factored in, the insurance cost increase of electric cars and the house where electric cars are parked may well clobber the $40/mo saving.

The difference wasn't meaningless, it was "worth it" enough to purchase a years supply of different fasteners and tooling, and by 1mm steps to previously "odd" sizes, not 2 mm steps to the next "standard" tool head size. The design and development departments at this time were working with world suppliers like Bosch, Nippondenso, and Aisin-Warner 6-8 model years ahead of the one in question, so basically production matters like the fasteners don't affect the design team in a zero sum game in enterprises of this scale.

Sounds like a lot of word salad meaning nothing. Didn't you say the change of fastner sizes was for one last model year? Obviously Volvo had to do it in order to meet the EPA mpg standards (having missed it by 1/100th mpg, so you said, obviously quite meaningless to consumers but would be quite painful for the mfr if it were fined by the EPA). Not only the fastner size therefore strength reduction might make the vehicle less safe (at speed a few mph higher than crash-test speed) but the time and resource diversion may well interfere with the introduction of the next generation car therefore depriving potential early buyers of the next generation car of a safer car.

Clean-air act when it comes to local pollution (and it was done to immunize carmakers from lawsuits, just like TSA for airlines) made some sense in cleaning up local air pollution. However, the political left has a tendency to forget that once a bureaucracy is created, it will strive to perpetrate itself far beyond its own usefulness . . . just like the Fauci's medical bureaucracy that should have been disbanded before even AIDS became justification for their continued existence.

Reality says

the fastner size therefore strength reduction might make the vehicle less safe

Nope, they used similarly sized fasteners with not loss of performance on future models, the originals were overkill if anything. The whole point of this anecdote is this is one of a series of tiny things they did year over year between big leaps in technical generations. It's meant to highlight the accumulation of tiny changes that are part of the better fuel economy equation. It's something I bring up for perspective when people want to talk about some special magnet, air bleed, spark plug, (special carburetor invented by a guy now on the run from the government), cold air induction, or other bolt-on gimmick boasting a 2-digit increase in power and fuel economy over stock.

Nowadays, big manufacturers are looking more and more at the cost at all stages of the manufacturing process. Over a production year of over a million vehicle units, the savings in iron mined and transported, including the carbon footprint, from a "small" change like this, can add up to some rather unexpected sums in addition to the fuel savings over the vehicle and fleet lifetime from less fuel spent on acceleration (and more brake pad wear when slowing down again.)

Bd6r says

Do you know what compounds are present in nat gas and how many of them can be optically active?

Likely no optical activity whatsoever, like I said "with little optical activity to speak of." IIRC, so-called "optical activity" happens/happened only to petroleum components/distillants greater than 220 molecular mass, that's equivalent to having more than 15 carbons in a chain or ring; peaking around 400 molecular mass, i.e. equivalent to nearly 30-carbon in a chain or ring. That's some heavy lubrication oil / ship bunk fuel territory before hitting wax territory around 40-50 carbon. Natural gas is mostly 1-carbon Methane, with some smaller fractions of 2-4 carbon chains, far shorter than the 15-carbon jet-fuel range, where "optical activity" started to show.

If I may speculate a little here: IMHO, that focus on "optical activity" was a little fraud like today's PCR (magnification) test used as a medical diagnostic tool. Instead of analyzing chirality on all the isomers, which would have yielded a statistical near-symmetry (thereby blowing the biogenic theory entirely out of water, because all organic isomers of biological origin on this planet are left-handed), a little bio-contamination would have produced slightly more left-handed isomers than right-handed isomers just enough to produce "optical activity." Organic molecules of biological origin should be all left-handed (where isomers exist). By the time 1-carbon Methane rising through the rock crevices is concatenated to 15-carbon to 30-carbon molecules by microbes, there is enough bio-contamination to produce "optical activity." Granted, the author published the paper in 1952, so may not have had the equipment / technology for analyzing all the isomers in the sample.

Automan Empire says

Nope, they used similarly sized fasteners with not loss of performance on future models, the originals were overkill if anything.

Overkill is only overkill up to a certain crash test speed. Above that speed, every little increase in strength is beneficial.

CaptainHorsePaste says

Patrick says

@CaptainHorsePaste That's interesting. So what's the answer?

The Fremen Spice Oil exists in Vast Quantities.

Vast, my Duke.

Yes, far from running out, we have ever more supply.