by rockdoc123 » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 15:06:25
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.
what part of
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') suggest you please just stop. Your first task should be to learn some basic petroleum geology which also requires some understanding of organic chemistry and thermodynamics.
and
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n the contrary you come across as a complete moron searching for conspiracy theories (oh the thousands of scientists working in the area of petroleum over the past 5 decades have all got it wrong and with my boxtop physics understanding I can see that) which is likely why Airlinepilot asked if you are a truther.
did you not understand?
I'm done.
by AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 15:29:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tita', '
')We struggle to keep pumping enough oil to feed the demand. Not that it was easier before, but it was certainly less complex. Technically, geopotically, economically, ecologically. And the complexity is increasing.
Absolutely correct. The first transition to more complexity hit in 1901, and during the next 5 or 6 cycles of more complex development it hasn't let up. The good news being, no one has ever yet quantified the number of remaining cycles, so we might still be good for at least the next 6 or 8 as we create peak demand, which will hopefully limit the number of those we need to actually deploy.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
-
AdamB
- Volunteer
-
- Posts: 11018
- Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
-
by AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 15:39:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peakoilwhen', 't')ruther wrt what? Don't go off topic, we have enough on the table to discuss
Indeed. Starting with the obvious, that regardless of how much a certain type of cooling magma looks like oil, it most certainly is not.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
-
AdamB
- Volunteer
-
- Posts: 11018
- Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
-
by AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 15:46:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', 'T')he economy dominates and forces the oil producers to pump more.
Really? I would love to know how the economy can force more gas out of the ground when my oil wells have casing pressures at 0 psi. Can you perhaps explain how the economy can reinvigorate the in-situ differential pressure to help me make more oil, because myself, and perhaps tens of thousands of others who have fought to manage the physics of pressure depletion for decades now would love to know.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Yoshua', '
') If high oil prices wont do the trick, then low oil prices will. No matter if that causes reservoir damage and destroys future production, the only thing that matters is now and what the economy demands. The economy is the freaking terminator.
The economy is the economy. Arnold was the Terminator. While you are quite a bit dramatic with your descriptions, perhaps reducing the basics to a simple graph and how these relationships work would be better?
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
by AdamB » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 15:54:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peakoilwhen', '
')!!
A high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.
You are amazed by basic and well known facts of physics and geology? Why would you not see methane coming? You have been talking about oil, and the physical processes available in the geologic world do not make oil from methane, but rather the other way around.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peakoilwhen', '
')Perhaps now all we need is the condition to strip off 2 hydrogen atoms, and let the carbons bond.
Perhaps because the reaction takes the place in the other direction is why you are confused?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peakoilwhen', '
')This is the reaction that you are hyping up to be impossible. However, whatever is producing the methane in the mantle could well be producing larger hydrocarbons without the intermediate step of methane. That might cheer you up since I sense you are going to insist methane can't be converted into longer carbon chains.
of course methane can be converted into longer hydrocarbon chains. Shell does it in a refinery, and sells the results on the store shelves at Walmart. Please demonstrate that the reaction generated artificially in a refinery can be duplicated naturally.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peakoilwhen', '
')Now might be a good time to explain conventional theory on how kerogen, a carbon based substance which is deficient in hydrogen, gets hydrated into oil.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
by peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 16:21:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') high priest of the biotic oil theory plainly and explicitly admits methane is produced in the mantle.
I didn't see that coming.
what part of
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') suggest you please just stop. Your first task should be to learn some basic petroleum geology which also requires some understanding of organic chemistry and thermodynamics.
and
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n the contrary you come across as a complete moron searching for conspiracy theories (oh the thousands of scientists working in the area of petroleum over the past 5 decades have all got it wrong and with my boxtop physics understanding I can see that) which is likely why Airlinepilot asked if you are a truther.
did you not understand?
I'm done.
by peakoilwhen » Fri 17 Feb 2017, 22:50:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'l')ook f%^$nuts.....kerogen does not exist anywhere except in sedimentary rock. Kerogen is completely converted to hydrocarbons at specific temperature/time relationship which means below a certain depth in the sedimentary pile all of the existing kerogen has been converted. There is no kerogen deep in the crust and certainly not in the mantle. And there are many places in the world where kerogen has not been converted simply because it hasn't been exposed to enough heat and temperature.
If you say so.
I'm interested in the bit where kerogen goes from a hydrogen carbon ratio of roughly 1:1 to 3:1 or higher.
Are you ok with free hydrogen gas in the mantle? That's what was found in the kola superdeep borehole.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')onestly can you please just shut the f$%$ up and go away? It is clear you don't want to learn the science necessary to understand any of this so please don't waste our time any longer. I'm sure your board will enjoy your inane banter, in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
Since you seem in need of some mud wrestling I'll play a bit. I'm human too, and I crack sometimes, but not yet, I'm only writing this to give u some relief : but, for sure, the words have been in my head, I just choose not to write them.
---
Why should my perspective annoy you? If I'm making a fool of myself you should be laughing all the way. That was RGR's attitude with peakers. I've accepted your points on Tibers, I understood your lateral shift of oil from sediment rock to basement rock, I even backed down some wrt Thomas Gold's experiment. Seems like I was getting schooled. But now with mantle methane and hydration of kerogen you can't handle the banter? I've seen you argue with retards for a decade on this forum and until now you have maintained disposition.
wrt the land of the blind comment : that's richly hypocritic coming from one whose led the gullible for 12 years with a myth - PO. Since your failed prediction for PO has been and gone, whats your next move there? Joining the 'any day now' brigade?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..and I suspect copying posts from this board and posting on another board is in someway in contravention of the COC.
Perhaps a moderator can get rid of you and do us all a favor. You're losing your grip. I doubt there's anything against copy pasting stuff from this forum, and anyway, I've copied nothing. I've just linked. You must be pretty desperate to be reaching for help from the mods with a trumped up charge like that.
You are smart enough to know that if the deep Earth can make methane, then it should be able to make ethane, if ethane, then propane and so on. It makes oil out of hydrogen deficient kerogen. The mantle has plenty of carbon and hydrogen and is an anoxic high pressure chemical reactor. The burden of proof is therefore on rockdoc to show what limits this hydrocarbon production process to only methane, but also contradictingly how it makes long chains from kerogen.
Your reaction to this : Well, I expected to get schooled, just like every other time between you an me, and every other time between you and 12 years of laymen on this site.
But today, it didn't happen. Instead you flipped. So I'm claiming checkmate.
You're right, I'm not a chemist or a geologist. But somehow I've defeated you in your area of expertise. Physics is the king of science, and physicists overrule geologists and chemists, we can root out the weaknesses in theory. You made it easier by getting angrier as I got nearer the truth. Like a game of hotter colder.
You are good, but you are mortal, and all mortals one day meet their match, at the hands of another mortal. Deal with it.
So I think I'm justified in having a figurative victory parade. Only I found your weakness. You were a tough nut to crack, but after a 12 year reign, the king is dead, long live the new king - me.
by rockdoc123 » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 01:40:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') passed it right under your nose, but you missed it. You have to be more alert. It was that photo of dried lava that looked like heavy oil. Rock can't look like that unless it has a high carbon content or is composed of some unusual mineral.
Will you please stop putting out complete stupidity on this thread and then feeling great about yourself? Basalt flows (which was the picture you showed) very common on Hawaii in their fresh state where they are black, are black because they contain manganese and pyroxene not because they have any organics which they do not. The exact same type of basalt flow is evident in the the Snake River plains at surface with the exception that they are weathered brownish red due to the high percentage of iron. And similar basalt flows on mars would be black after hundreds of millions of years because....wait for it....there is no oxygen and hence no oxidation of iron. Amazing that someone who is a self proclaimed physicist wouldn't understand that isn't it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')cience works better by looking for refuting evidence.
science works best when you are actually discussing the subject with someone who has any education whatsoever in science. Your BS background in physics is apparent to pretty much everyone here....you can't carry on a logical argument at all because you have no understanding what is being said, as I said twice above it is like explaining the workings of a chainsaw to a chimpanzee.
You have been told continuously why this cannot work but you keep coming up with ridiculous statements and then saying "oh I won". The only thing you won here I'm afraid is the biggest idiot award on PO board since I started more than a decade ago. The harsh reality is you have not hidden from anyone here the likely fact you are a young individual with possibly a high school education who suddenly has fancied himself an intellect. You should be embarassed rather than pounding your chest.
And the reason I have not been patient with you as I have been in the past is because you are without a doubt the thickest individual who has ever posted here and you are not in the least bit interested in learning.
as others have said (as well as I have said) if abiotic oil was worth contemplating we would have found oil in the millions of wells that have been drilled into basement that are not in contact with source rocks, oil would be everywhere, there would be no dry gas because apparently it would have all "condensed" in some magical manner to oil, Ontario and Quebec would be the big oil provinces in Canada given they are all crystalline shield, every single mining core drilled into shield areas around the world would have been saturated with oil and we would not need to be drilling large horizontal wells and fracking shales at huge expense to recover the vestiges of what hydrocarbons are remaining.
Use your frigging mind, what little there seems to be of it. If you want to take this all as a "win" well great. Whatever it takea to make you go away.
by peakoilwhen » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 02:36:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', 'B')asalt flows (which was the picture you showed) very common on Hawaii in their fresh state where they are black, are black because they contain manganese and pyroxene not because they have any organics which they do not. The exact same type of basalt flow is evident in the the Snake River plains at surface with the exception that they are weathered brownish red due to the high percentage of iron. And similar basalt flows on mars would be black after hundreds of millions of years because....wait for it....there is no oxygen and hence no oxidation of iron.
ah, so you can still weave a bit of rational discussion in amongst your insults and tantrums. Even if I have to throw u a softball to bait u out of your hole. But will you ever be strong enough to take me on my key point : hydration of kerogen and the limiting chemistry that excludes creation of hydrocarbons higher than methane in the mantle?
No. Because you aren't arguing against me, your arguing against the truth. And nothing is more threatening or annoying than the truth to a religious zealot.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Whatever it takea to make you go away.
You want to be left alone with pstarr and Lore, because you find it easy to beat them. Christ stop picking on defenceless kids and take on someone of your own caliber, like me. Man or mouse?
