Reply With Quote
Diesel includes hydrocarbon chains up to C22...
Yes diesel can have paraffin in it. Diesel hydrocarbon chains range from C10H20 to C15H28. Paraffin normally range from 15 to 40 carbon atoms. In diesel, it's common form is C15H32. The process can make exacting chains free of unwanted ones. Note that paraffin is technically a definition of a formula. Methane is a paraffin! Octane is a paraffin. The formula is CnH2n+2. Most of the chemical chains do not follow that definition. as their hydrogen atoms are not the value of carbon atoms times two plus one.ummm...
Diesel is composed primarily of parrafins (saturated hydrocarbon chains).
Any stock options???
Gasoline contains hydrocarbon chains of 5 to 12 carbon atoms. Commonly 8 to 10. The ration of hydrogen is different yet I believe.
This is, the process makes a specific hydrocarbon chain only. It can make 100% C10H20 for example. The potential for future clean burning is phenomenal. With only one chemistry in the mix, computer controlled engines will burn even cleaner. Catalyst fuel cells can be used that nearly 100% utilize the energy, or even convert to electricity and another liquid that can then go back to a recycling process.
Diesel includes hydrocarbon chains up to C22...
OK, maybe so. Still, the point is that a pure fuel can be make by this bio method.
I putting my money on the North Dakota oil field..
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...news2.13s.html
Well, it's been two months since that article came out. Have you followed the progress at all?
I'm curious to how real that info is.
A quick google shows it was released on the 10th.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
or
click here
One note of context:
"technically recoverable" in this case does not equate to "economically recoverable"
A barrel of oil might be technically recoverable, but cost $1,000 dollars to get at, so don't count all the chickens before they hatch.
Still at 112 bucks for a barrel and climbing "technically recoverable" and "economically recoverable" creep closer to each other.
Again, one simply has to wonder at the amount of energy that must be invested to get that barrel of oil out of the ground and into a usable form. That is the ultimate arbiter of the importance of any oil formation.
I agree. The 2/13/08 article stated the cost would be $20-$40 a barrel, but that was in 1991 dollars. What would inflation that that to? We also have to remember estimates are intentionally low most the time to get the ball rolling. I would guess that it could cost $100 per barrel give or take a bit. If the 1991 range was correct, what would it be? Maybe $40 to $80? I don't know the inflation between 1991 to 2008. Just guessed at 1:2. At this range, the owners could make some good money, especially if it isn't very heavy or sour.
Remember now for the $112 figure to be right by what you say, it must be light sweet crude. The market value of oil varies by quality.
I actually did a quick wiki, and it was there:
Bakken Formation
It has some interesting info too.
Yeah, I read that bit after Ray pointed it out.
GM Announces New Cellulosic Ethanol Partnership with Mascoma Corp.
http://gas2.org/2008/05/01/gm-announ...-mascoma-corp/
- Greenhouse gas savings: 90-95% reduction when compared to gasoline.
- Commercial stage water use: 2-3 gallons water per gallon ethanol produced (compared to Coskata’s 1 gallon).
- Commercial stage net energy balance: around 1:8-10 (8 to 10 units of energy produced for each put in). Mascoma says they’re currently getting an energy return of 1:5.5 in the lab.
=======================
I doubt any of these startups will really bother the oilco's.
1 gal of biofuel requires 3 gallons of water?
Same problem as nuclear, where ya gonna get the water?
In 1967 scientists' stated that we had a 40 year supply of oil left, today they are saying that we have 30 years of known reserves and an estimated 50 years worth yet to be discovered.
Scientist Giora Proskurow says there is an endless supply of oil;
Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply
Posted: February 01, 2008
A study published in <the prestigious> Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a "fossil fuel" derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.
The lead scientist on the study ? of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle ? says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.
The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.
While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.
The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons.
Lost City is a hypothermal field some 2,100 feet below sea level that sits along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, noted for strange 90 to 200 foot white towers on the sea bottom.
In 2003 and again in 2005, Proskurowski and his team descended in a scientific submarine to collect liquid bubbling up from Lost City sea vents.
Proskurowski found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor.
Carbon 13 is the carbon isotope scientists associate with abiotic origin, compared to Carbon 12 that scientists typically associate with biological origin.
Lost City Vents
Proskurowski argued that the hydrocarbons found in the natural hydrothermal fluids coming out of the Lost City sea vents is attributable to abiotic production by Fischer-Tropsch, or FTT, reactions.
The Fischer-Tropsch equations were first developed by Nazi scientists who created methodologies for producing synthetic oil from coal.
"Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water and moderate amounts of heat," Proskurowski wrote.
The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth's mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.
Affirming this point, Proskurowski concluded the article by noting, "Hydrocarbon production by FTT could be a common means for producing precursors of life-essential building blocks in ocean-floor environments or wherever warm ultramafic rocks are in contact with water."
Finding abiotic hydrocarbons in the Lost City sea vent fluids is the second discovery in recent years adding weight to the abiotic theory of the origin of oil.
As WND reported in 2005, a NASA probe to an, the giant moon of Saturn, discovered abundant Carbon-13 methane that the agency declared to be abiotic in origin.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=59991
Man, I had a big argument with a conspiracy theorist about abiotic oil at one point. It was a typical conversation in which some bit of truth or science got completely twisted to fit the worldview of the paranoid underground.
Either way, we are still using it at a rate vastly greater than it is being created.
How do you know? There are vast fields yet to be drilled.
Big oil wont let this happen. There is too much money changing hands in Washington to make this successful.
The earth has finite mass.
Makes no sense to me.
Or they'll simply get on the ship and hijack it.
Oil companies aren't concerned with what medium they're peddling, just that they are the only ones doing the peddling.
We are transitioning from single "vast fields" to a lot of smaller and mis-size ones that play out quicker.
We will indeed find a few of these larger fields, but we are simply not finding it as fast as we are pumping it.
A quick glance at recoverable barrels discovered versus yearly amounts drilled shows this. The former is smaller than the latter.
Down the slope of the Peak we go.
If we simply used 1967 technology, those scientists would have been roughly right.
We have gotten better at both finding new fields and extending the lives of existing ones.
There is an ultimate limit to anything though. One problem with estimating what is left is that there is every incentive on the part of people who provide the data to inflate the figures for political reasons.
We'll see. I think the balance of evidence is on the side of the Peak Oil theory, and that we have passed or are very close to that peak.
The theory does not say that oil will not be around in 10 years, just that there won't be as much of it, and that it will be waaay more expensive.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions