Revolutionary discovery means world may never run out of crude.

Here in east Texas, we invented crude. It is in the genes of all the offspring. We will never run out.

Watch it now, I am not far from east Texas.Of course there are those Cajuns in Cajunland between me and east Texas.

The Stetson Hats were developed over here not far from me. cuhulin

ROTFLMAO.... I know what you mean. The rednecks over here make me wish I had been born another species. ;>)

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:

Sounds like little more than conjecture again. The problem here is the time factor I guess, so experimental evidence is impossible.

Must be somewhere near Deland.

I lived in Deland for a short time. I missed the snow too much...

I think you may be taking this too seriously. When we talk about inexhaustible crude, we might be talking about our relatives. ;>)

If you seriously want to talk about fossil fuels, I am glad to do it. I worked in the oil and chemical industry for some 45 years. I have opinions, intellect, and the ability to read what I believe are factual data gathering experiments.

We are not out of the woods, by any means.

And some of our relatives are still deeply back in the woods ;>) Dont take it too seriously

There is nothing really revolutionary here. Of course you can synthesize virtually any hydrocarbon molecule. But the real questions, is it practical and affordable. Sort of like the hydrogen fuels derived from hydrolysis of water.

No problem... you see... we just use petroleum as a precursor....

--scott

The inorganic production of hydrocarbons has been theorized and known for many years. I don't think that this is the source for most of the hydrocarbons found in subterranean but it is certainly possible.

When you turn university or technology company PhDs loose on some of these things, you sometimes spend a lot of time, a lot of money, and come up with research that really doesnt translate well to productivity, IMO.

We still have enough natural gas to be able to synthesize liquifiable fuels for a long time. The Shell GTL process is one way to do this, and I guess it works pretty well.

If there wasn't a twofold problem (demand vs supply of petroleum, AND greenhouse gas buildup) that would be fine. But while the synfuels might be a slight bit better in CO2 per hp-hr, not enough to solve the second problem. Better we use the NG as NG and either accept the shorter range or work on storage density problem.

In message , Don Stauffer writes

This assumes that we are causing greenhouse gases, I've yet to see other than speculation on that theory.

Ah, but people are so willing to believe whatever wild speculation supports what they perceive to be supporting their personal comfort. Even if that belief is clearly suicidal.

Take as an example this speculation from Sweeden which claims: "revolutionary discovery about how hydrocarbon is formed" and "endless oil". Lots of people are perfectly willing to believe those statements although it is obviously extremely unlikely. If these guys had really discovered how oil is produced and thus could determine exactly where to drill to find it as they claim, they wouldn't be hat in hand looking for somebody to fund their research. Instead of publishing news reports what they would be doing is selling this technology to the highest bidder. And the oil companies would pay Trillions to have someone tell them exactly where to drill successfully. So obviously if the oil companies aren't buying this technology why should the man on the street believe it is true? The answer is pretty simple the man on the street is willing to believe whatever wild speculation supports what they perceive to be their personal comfort. They will beieve even when pursuit of that belief is clearly suicidal.

-jim

I fully agree with you, Don. Methane is somewhat better that petroleum hydrocarbons in this respect, and a lot better than coal, but we need a really good long term solution.

I have been vilified on here for even mentioning the CO2 problem, but I believe it is real, and am not likely to shut up just because some goober flames me.

Well, no time like the present, I guess.

There is no question that CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas. The principles have been tested in the best labs by the best minds. It is not speculation, any more than the fact that a closed car in the sunshine will build up high temperatures inside in a short period of time.. There is no argument that CO2, among others, can act as a greenhouse gas.

There is also no question whatsoever that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than has been there for several hundred thousands years. This is proven beyond any question by taking ice cores at the south pole, and analysing the gas trapped inside those cores. There is no argument about this..

Now, whether human activity in the generation of CO2 has caused the global climate changes and how serious it really is can be debated. The two items above certainly would make it seem that this is not only possible, but likely. This is one where we could debate and there can be some argument.

Hey, you can believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and ManBearPig for all we care. It's only if you attempt to force others to change their lives based on your beliefs that there is a problem.

In message , hls writes

I'm happy to debate with you. I understand that global warming is a problem and causes sea rising due to expansion of water due to temperature, further that the increase in sea temperatures causes 100s% more CO2 due to liberation from sea water than can be caused by any man made. What I've not seen demonstrated is that humans cause anything more than about 100th of that put out by the earths volcanoes alone each year. Discuss.

In 1958 and 1959, wasen't the North Pole mostly ice free? I once saw a photo online of a U.S.Navy Submarine which had surfaced somewhere around there.Some of those Submariners were standing on the deck, wondering, Where is the ice? cuhulin

I could hardly force you to change your life, now, could I, Roger? I can speak what I believe to be the truth, and I can vote for politicians who I believe will take such issues into serious scrutiny....'

I have no real faith that most of our politicians are more than self serving pimps to the more powerful and wealthy interests.