The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: ChemEngrMBA on May 02, 2023, 06:15:24 pm
-
Fossil Fuel is an Oxymoron
fos·sil [ˈfäs(ə)l]
NOUN
1. the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock:
"sites rich in fossils" · "a fossil fish"
Neither crude oil nor natural gas is “in petrified form.” One is a liquid and one is a gas.
The theory of trees, plants and animals dying eons ago and being compressed into crude oil and natural gas, which are all then being covered by miles of strata and/or water is pseudoscience. Bacteria and fungi were some of the first organisms on earth, and consume dead plant and animal matter beginning immediately after they die. Nowhere on earth is there now the slightest hint of large masses of plant or animal matter being compressed into “fossil fuel.”
“How then did crude oil, natural gas, and coal get here and in such amazing abundance?”
I submit that we do not know any naturalistic process. The only thing that makes sense is that Nature’s God, the Brilliant Creator, put all of these things here for us. If there is no plausible “scientific explanation,” don’t fabricate one. That’s not science, it’s desperation.
-
Well, peat is a 'fossil fuel', and for that matter, so are the various grades of coal. :shrug:
-
:mauslaff:
-
I spent almost my entire career in this industry. Back then is was "petroleum" and "petrochemical".
Trying to think when the venacular of the term changed.
-
I'm pretty sure that the things we (think we) fully understand are dwarfed by those we don't.
Whatever the processes that created in situ hydrocarbons on this planet, I see no reason at all to assume that those processes just stopped.
-
I spent almost my entire career in this industry. Back then is was "petroleum" and "petrochemical".
Trying to think when the venacular of the term changed.
I think it was when 'they' started lumping all existing non-nuclear fuels together to try and replace them to "save the planet" for fun and profit, especially profit. Once emissions were cleaned up, they declared CO2 a pollutant, which is the product of respiration in any animal except anaerobes. So now, ANYTHING we burn to produce energy is either "biomass" or a "Fossil Fuel". The nonsense about oil being derived from dead dinosaurs didn't help clarify that.
Most likely, organisms concentrated the organic compounds (especially carbon) that go to produce hydrocarbons. In all the oil wells I have been involved with and examined samples from (some 300 or so), critters or algal mats are associated with the oil.
Even the modern shale plays have source beds high in organic carbon.
I won't say abiotic hydrocarbons are impossible, nor that they definitively do not exist, just that in 40 years I have yet to see a commercial accumulation not associated with dead organisms.
-
I'm pretty sure that the things we (think we) fully understand are dwarfed by those we don't.
Whatever the processes that created in situ hydrocarbons on this planet, I see no reason at all to assume that those processes just stopped.
Yep. The more we learn, the less we know. Every answer brings more questions.
It is highly unlikely that the processes forming hydrocarbons have stopped, any more than the processes that build mountains or erode them away. It is likely that our consumption of those reserves has reached the point where it exceeds to formative processes output (and our ability to discover/produce those reserves). For now, we have enough, but we are wasting time imho, going down 'green' rabbit holes when we could and should be looking at alternate sources of energy, besides wind and solar as currently utilized, and we should be acknowledging that some energy sources are best suited for certain applications, while others do just fine for others.
One size does not fit all with current technology, nor have we progressed to the degree that there is a single form of energy which will meet all needs. Portability, storability, on demand usage, ability to refuel in a short time, and the ability to carry onboard power for more demanding applications are factors electricity has not met for major energy uses, so if we are to continue to function at even present levels, hydrocarbons are not going away as a fuel source, and definitely not as feed stocks for chemical applications or lubricants--without which the current 'renewable' energy industry cannot exist.
As for long term reliability, Hydropower, Nuclear, Coal, petroleum, are all proven resources. Wind and solar are subject to a plethora of weather and latitude related problems, and thus not reliable enough as a base source, especially without storage capabilities on a large scale.
The calculus of whether "renewables" will have a net gain in energy isn't being done without bias which mucks up the equation, and the long term effects are not known at scale. Mining operations more extensive than those at present may not be able to keep up with demand, have considerable environmental and humanitarian issues of their own, and the problem of waste from units which have reached the end of their service life has yet to be addressed at scale.
I see more problems than solutions in the long term as it sits, and those have yet to be added into the equation to decide if renewables are 'saving' the planet or actually doing more harm than more traditional fuels.
Unfortunately, the politics of control, profit motives (often profits derived from looting taxpayers for subsidies under the boot heel of arbitrary and capricious regulation rather than producing a better product cheaper), and corruption for political/pecuniary gain have tainted the data sets and discussion of the issue to where it is difficult at best to give an honest and frank appraisal of energy generation methodologies currently being presented as the way of the future.
But in the parlance of thousands of oilfield hands (and others), "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!".
Pilot and test projects might be in order, but the push toward full-blown dependence on unproven methods seems ill advised.
-
Moved to Exclusive Content; no cited article.
-
I'm pretty sure that the things we (think we) fully understand are dwarfed by those we don't.
Whatever the processes that created in situ hydrocarbons on this planet, I see no reason at all to assume that those processes just stopped.
Please point out the location(s) where those processes continue. This will be news to the world. Don't assume. Point out the location(s).
-
https://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html
Titan Has More Oil Than Earth
By Space.com Staff
published February 13, 2008
An artist's imagination of hydrocarbon pools, icy and rocky terrain on the surface of Saturn's largest moon Titan.
Saturn's smoggy moon Titan has hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists said today.
The hydrocarbons rain from the sky on the miserable moon, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes. This much was known. But now the stuff has been quantified using observations from NASA's Cassini spacecraft.
"Titanis just covered in carbon-bearing material — it's a giant factory of organic chemicals," said Ralph Lorenz, a Cassini radar team member from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. "This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan."
-
https://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html
Titan Has More Oil Than Earth
By Space.com Staff
published February 13, 2008
An artist's imagination of hydrocarbon pools, icy and rocky terrain on the surface of Saturn's largest moon Titan.
Saturn's smoggy moon Titan has hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists said today.
The hydrocarbons rain from the sky on the miserable moon, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes. This much was known. But now the stuff has been quantified using observations from NASA's Cassini spacecraft.
"Titanis just covered in carbon-bearing material — it's a giant factory of organic chemicals," said Ralph Lorenz, a Cassini radar team member from the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. "This vast carbon inventory is an important window into the geology and climate history of Titan."
No way the pipeline permits will go through... :shrug: **nononono*
-
No way the pipeline permits will go through... :shrug: **nononono*
There were dinosaurs on Titan? I wonder if the the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs here also killed the dinosaurs there?
-
Crude Oil and Natural Gas are Renewable
Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.
“Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.
Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.
According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.
He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources – that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.
“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.
But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically – from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well.
“The savings will be in the many billions,” says Vladimir Kutcherov.
To identify where it is worthwhile to drill for natural gas and oil, Vladimir Kutcherov has used his research to arrive at a new method. It involves dividing the globe into a finely meshed grid. The grid corresponds to fissures, so-called ‘migration channels,’ through underlying layers under the surface of the earth. Wherever these fissures meet, it is suitable to drill.
According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these research findings are extremely important, not least as 61 percent of the world’s energy consumption derives from crude oil and natural gas.
The next step in this research work will involve more experiments, but above all refining the method will make it easier to find places where it is suitable to drill for oil and natural gas.
Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov, and Alexander Goncharov’s research work was recently published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.
-
Fossil Fuel is an Oxymoron
fos·sil [ˈfäs(ə)l]
NOUN
1. the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock:
"sites rich in fossils" · "a fossil fish"
Neither crude oil nor natural gas is “in petrified form.” One is a liquid and one is a gas.
The theory of trees, plants and animals dying eons ago and being compressed into crude oil and natural gas, which are all then being covered by miles of strata and/or water is pseudoscience. Bacteria and fungi were some of the first organisms on earth, and consume dead plant and animal matter beginning immediately after they die. Nowhere on earth is there now the slightest hint of large masses of plant or animal matter being compressed into “fossil fuel.”
“How then did crude oil, natural gas, and coal get here and in such amazing abundance?”
I submit that we do not know any naturalistic process. The only thing that makes sense is that Nature’s God, the Brilliant Creator, put all of these things here for us. If there is no plausible “scientific explanation,” don’t fabricate one. That’s not science, it’s desperation.
Interesting.
This certainly leans into the current narrative.
-
@ChemEngrMBA
Many geologists believe that oil has nothing whatsoever to do with plants or animals. Oil is a byproduct of some deep geological process which has not been fully documented yet. In fact, astronomers have posted that they have documented indications that carbon based fuels such as oil exist on other planets.
The 'fossil fuel' moniker was developed by the Luddite anti-progress people in an attempt to make people believe that oil is limited and that it is based on the death of plants and animals. Actually, it is a simple geological process which has nothing to do with any of that. New oil is being created all the time, in the depths of the Earth.
-
////00000////
Raw hydrocarbons are "all natural" because they've been made by Mother Gaia. Don't be methane-shaming Mother Gaia, man.