More likely people are extracting oil that wasn't calculated...
It's standard practice to estimate oilfield reserves in terms of "recoverable" (economically extractable) oil, not in terms of total volume to the last drop that may or may not be "lurking" in the pore spaces in the nearby shales. Initial estimates tend to be conservative; as more becomes available, you have the phenomenon of apparent "reserve growth." The Society of Petroleum Engineers has actually set technical definitions for "proved" vs. "unproved" reserves, based on uncertainty.
Also, minor uncertainties in the chemical changes associated with one aspect of the production doesn't automatically equate to "totally clueless."
|
And yet the oil fields continue to refill.With oil that already exists seeping in from outside the reserve space... never mind.
[sarcasm]Hell, I'm so clueless I still think the earth is over 6,000 years old. I haven't figured out yet that all of the geologic evidence I've seen to the contrary was planted there by God to test my faith.[/sarcasm]Sorry for going off like that -- it's not you, personally, Wicht -- I just can't get used to this new idea that I should be telling my plumber how to do his job, and that my CPA automatically knows more about geology than I do because he has no field experience in it.
My father has a degree in metalurgical engineering and a real interest in coal and oil technology. He does his best to stay abreast of the latest in the field and thus communicates his learnings to me.
I am sorry if you think I am stepping on your toes.
Has it been proven that the oil fields are refilling only from reserve spaces. I know that was the thinking twenty or so years ago. But again, last I heard (admittedly second hand) there are some new theories that suggest this may not be entirely true.
Has it been proven that the oil fields are refilling only from reserve spaces. But again, last I heard (admittedly second hand) there are some new theories that suggest this may not be entirely true.
Of course, the word "proven" doesn't exist in a scientific sense; we accept that theories frequently need revision to make them better predictors of actual events/conditions. Nonetheless, I'm aware of no massive shift in petroleum chemistry that suggests that large petroluem reserves are being generated near-instantanoeusly (i.e., on a human time scale). I'll look into it, but to the best of my (admittedly imperfect, but professional) knowledge and exerience, expecting whole new oilfields' worth of the stuff to appear in a few years is like expecting trees to uproot and fly off because gravity "isn't perfectly understood."
I'd guess there probably are cases in which small-scale conversion can occur much faster, per the hypotheses you allude to... but overall, I'm afraid that does little to reclassify petroleum as a "renewable" resource.
Edit (as a nod to the religious thread): This doesn't invalidate possible small-scale fast generation as a natural process, of course, but a number of the more vocal proponents seem to go on the opinion that God made oil for our use, and because we're using it up so fast, He has "stepped up the production rate," so to speak -- sort of a case of wishful thinking looking for an outlet. I find that interesting, but it doesn't really influnce my thinking one way or the other (the Bible says that God made night and day, and while I prefer the explanation that the Earth rotates on its axis, I still fully accept that the sun comes up in the morning). I put that out there just for tangential further interest/discussion.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My vague, ill-informed understanding of fossil fuels is that it's tied to the carbon cycle.
Basically, the energy used in our cells is created from the destruction of carbon bonds and recombining that carbon with oxygen to produce energy. That energy fuels our bodies and makes life possible.
The carbon itself gets to us by plants, who capture it in the atmosphere and convert it into the chemical form we can use.
When living creatures die, this usable carbon is still trapped in their bodies. Fossil fuels are created when that living matter undergoes extreme pressue which converts the carbon further into a form that is not usable by organic creatures, but which can be combined with oxygen to create a great deal of energy.
Absent the death of those living creatures and the pressures on their bodies, the carbon remains in the atmosphere, already combined with oxygen, and is not usable to generate energy. Basically, the carbon stores the great amounts of energy generated by the pressure of the earth on organic materials.
So, oil or any other carbon based energy can't exist except through biological processes which convert it into a form that is usable to generate energy and then that carbon is further transformed as the result of tremendous energy being vested in it through the pressure of the earth and a great deal of time.
I know nothing about this other than what I heard in an npr story, but that's my understanding.
|
For those of you wanting a good introduction into this debate let me suggest Storms from the Sun: The Emerging Science of Space Weather a great read and an interesting retrospective of history and the affect of the sun going through cooling and warming phases.
|
|
Edit: As a nod to the religious thread: This doesn't invalidate possible small-scale fast generation as a natural process, of course, but a number of the more vocal proponents seem to go on the opinion that God made oil for our use, and because we're using it up so fast, He has "stepped up the production rate," so to speak
O.o
Speaking as someone who hangs out in the circles that you are speaking of, I have certainly never heard such a thing claimed (not saying you couldn't find such a claim - but its certainly not common). There are studies and reports I have read on the speed by which both coal and oil can be produced but I have never, ever read any paper that suggests God may be playing a hand in speeding it up for our benefit. Most such studies focus on artificially recreating conditions in a labratory to determine whether we can ourselves produce oils and gases for fuel and how long it might have taken naturally.
The philosophy of intelligent design does have within it as a subtext the idea that resources are here for the benefit of man but this does not negate the necessity of managing one's resources well. Speaking only for myself, I appreciate the luxuries that are wood and leather but also recognize that we have to plant trees and cultivate livestocks if we wish to continue to enjoy such things.
Anyway, I wasn't really trying to make any points, just asking questions mostly. Who was it that said, "Advancements are made by answering questions, Discoveries are made by questioning answers."
I have certainly never heard such a thing claimed (not saying you couldn't find such a claim - but its certainly not common). I appreciate the luxuries that are wood and leather but also recognize that we have to plant trees and cultivate livestocks if we wish to continue to enjoy such things.
I admire your way of thinking.
And, yeah, I wouldn't exactly call it a mainstream view; just found it baffling and wanted to get some further perspective.|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
At the right temperature and other conditions carbon dioxide gases from the atmosphere can dissolve in water, and from there interact chemically with rocks and/or sediments...
Not all parts of the carbon cycle are dependent upon biological processes.Edit:
Although this doesn't go very far towards fossil fuel production...
Thanks. I wasn't sure if there was a non-organic way to generate the type of carbon needed for fossil fuels. Good to know.
At the right temperature and other conditions carbon dioxide gases from the atmosphere can dissolve in water, and from there interact chemically with rocks and/or sediments...
There's a continuous exchange of gases between the atmosphere and the ocean, with the concentration of dissolved CO2 in the latter inversely proportional to temperature (warmer planet -> less CO2 in the ocean -> more CO2 in atmosphere -> warmer planet. Something of a positive feedback loop -- one of many, positive and negative, that many people ignore when discussing climate). Anyway, CO2 in the ocean can chemically precipitate out as CaCO3 without biological intervention, but the bulk of it is sequestered organically -- the mass of organic limestone on Earth, if dissolved to release the CO2, is probably sufficient to turn the Earth into something closer to Venus.
|
|
Thanks. I wasn't sure if there was a non-organic way to generate the type of carbon needed for fossil fuels. Good to know.At the right temperature and other conditions carbon dioxide gases from the atmosphere can dissolve in water, and from there interact chemically with rocks and/or sediments...
Not all parts of the carbon cycle are dependent upon biological processes.Edit:
Although this doesn't go very far towards fossil fuel production...
Didn't the Germans develop a synthetic gasoline substitute in the 30's and 40's? I remember one of my history professors saying something about that in a class one day.
I stand corrected, though I was talking more about speciation and the petri dish experiment doesn't demonstrate much more than Darwin's pigeon fanciers did - I don't think anyone has successfully created a new species under experimental conditions.
They are currently doing studies in Russia into the domestication of wild foxes. While they won't be different species, they will be a different race and are already showing different physical and behavioral attributes.
They are currently doing studies in Russia into the domestication of wild foxes. While they won't be different species, they will be a different race and are already showing different physical and behavioral attributes.
Species-wise, the gaur (wild cattle) of India is Bos gaurus. Descendants of these critters, bred in domesticity for millenia, are now gayal (Bos frontalis). This is an example of speciation of a large animal through domesticity, as opposed to the myriad and well-documented experimentally-indiced speciation of lower organisms like bacteria and fruit flies.
|
|
I stand corrected, though I was talking more about speciation and the petri dish experiment doesn't demonstrate much more than Darwin's pigeon fanciers did - I don't think anyone has successfully created a new species under experimental conditions.They are currently doing studies in Russia into the domestication of wild foxes. While they won't be different species, they will be a different race and are already showing different physical and behavioral attributes.
They have been doing this since the 80's. They are thinking now that not all dogs are from wolves but that some species may have been breed from Foxes as well. I have often wondered if a different breed of dog doesn't constitue a different species. I mean poodles and german shepards are both dogs but they are nowhere near the same thing.
|
|
They are currently doing studies in Russia into the domestication of wild foxes. While they won't be different species, they will be a different race and are already showing different physical and behavioral attributes.Species-wise, the gaur (wild cattle) of India is Bos gaurus. Descendants of these critters, bred in domesticity for millenia, are now gayal (Bos frontalis). This is an example of speciation of a large animal through domesticity, as opposed to the myriad and well-documented experimentally-indiced speciation of lower organisms like bacteria and fruit flies.
Hasn't someone breed back the ancient horse as well?
|
|
The problem is, there isn't any consensus as to the appropriate spelling of your name. There may be scientists specializing in spelling that use an alternate spelling. As such, can we really say with any certainty that your name is spelled wrong?MY f~&&ING NAME IS PRINTED ALL OVER THIS f~&&ING THREAD. SPELL MY f~&&ING NAME RIGHT.
Only Cappadocious,
METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Apologies for the shouting, just trying to do my part.
Hasn't someone breed back the ancient horse as well?
I read about a guy who was trying to breed back the quagga from horses and zebras. Most of his detractors said, "Dude! They're extinct!" He replied, "If it looks like a duck..."
Then DNA testing of preserved tissue indicated that the quagga, before its extinction in the bellies of the Hottentots, was likely merely a subspecies of zebra, rather than a separate species, and the whole project became a lot less interesting.