PETROLEUM for humanity

[Dr.Masih Rezvani + 27]

Today,we are well into the space age . but petroleum is still the dominant source of energy used by humankind. this is especially true in the transportation industry .

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL this is too easy. If anyone suggests anything about the future or alternatives you know you're getting the corn right?

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

51 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

I disagree. It's a great coloUr.

Damn Yanks butchering our language as always 

Two nations divided by a common language.

Some guy with a British father and an American mother said that. 

Hmmmmm

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 10/13/2019 at 3:18 PM, Dr.Masih Rezvani said:

 

Petroleum’s importance to humankind took a giant leap in the late 1800’s when it replaced coal as the primary fuel for the machines of the industrial revolution. In today's industrialized society , petroleum means power .
It provides the mechanical power to run machines and industries and also the political power that comes from being able to shut down the machines and industries of those who depend on you for their oil supply.

Well, oil didn't replace coal, is just complemented it

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 10/14/2019 at 2:05 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

The article, if I am reading it correctly, indicates that a significant volume of plastics come from natural gas or natural gas liquids, it then states that these were used primarily for fuel. This would be comparing apples to oranges as this natural gas and natural gas liquids do not have the necessary components to provide the necessary feedstocks for plastics production.

The largest single plastics group used in the USA, and presumably the world, is polyethylene, which has the structural formula  (C2-H4)n.  Polyethylene is the polymerized form of ethylene, the feedstock.  As the sole elements are Carbon and Hydrogen, it is manufactured either from oil or from gas.  Note that various catalytic reactions are required to develop the large number of PE variations, including low-density  (the single largest end product), high-density, linear low density, etc. 

Gas is used as a feedstock because it is cheap, and easy to get to the plant.  All you need is a pipe.  Lots of cheap gas out there. 

Note also that PE can be manufactured from other feedstocks, as ethanol is a feedstock for ethylene production, the monomer base for polyethylene.  So corn can be used as a start point for plastics.  In Brasil, sugar beets and sugar cane are also used as a feedstock for PE production, in volume.  There is lots of sugar cane available there.

PE is apparently 34% of all plastics production.  Cheers.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 10/13/2019 at 4:01 PM, PE Scott said:

Would it not be equally viable to work on means of capturing harmful exhaust and sequestering C02?

There is no rational reason to sequester CO2, unless you plan to use it as a feedstock for something else, or bottle it for gaseous use in a greenhouse.   CO2 is a rare gas, with a concentration measured in parts per million, not like say Nitrogen with a concentration in parts per hundred.  The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about that of argon. You never hear of an argon emergency, now do you? 

If you take as a given that dramatic increases in CO2 will raise surface temperatures on the planet  (I do not, as there is no evidence of it), then that would be a positive, as the longer-term prognosis for the planet is cold.  In about another 400 years you can expect at least a mini-ice-age.  Enjoy the warmth while it lasts. 

[PE Scott + 563]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

There is no rational reason to sequester CO2, unless you plan to use it as a feedstock for something else, or bottle it for gaseous use in a greenhouse.   CO2 is a rare gas, with a concentration measured in parts per million, not like say Nitrogen with a concentration in parts per hundred.

I don't disagree with you at all. My reasoning is assuming climate alarmist win the majority of backers and the world decides CO2 is the devil and must be delt with. In turn, the argument mostly seems to be for the complete replacement of the oil and gas industry with alternative energy and feedstocks. What I'm getting at is, in that scenario, would it not be better to pursue practical means of reducing CO2 while still utilizing oil and gas?

As an aside though, I am on board with what you're saying. I'm just trying to find some middle ground with the climate alarmist that post here from time to time.

Also, glad to see you back, @Jan van Eck

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, PE Scott said:

I'm just trying to find some middle ground with the climate alarmist that post here from time to time.

Also, glad to see you back, @Jan van Eck

Middle ground?? We are doomed!  That's it!  Siberia and stolen dreams!

But I'm one of the lucky ones. Get with the programme buddy.

Agreed.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Guest

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 10/16/2019 at 1:05 PM, PE Scott said:

As an aside though, I am on board with what you're saying. I'm just trying to find some middle ground with the climate alarmist that post here from time to time.

Also, glad to see you back, @Jan van Eck

Scott, there is never any "middle ground" with the climate-alarmist crowd.  What you are seeing (and experiencing) is the felt need of some people for a Bogeyman.  You see this insanity up close and personal with those Homeland Security guys, who declare that The Bogeyman is out there, wanting to blow up your family in the dead of night or the heat of the day, so you need to "submit" to ever-more-arduous infringements on your privacy and your liberty, so that "they" can find The Bogeyman.  The logical extension of that thinking is to install body-scanner X-ray machines at airports and force the public to go stand in them, not only exposing themselves to dangerous x-rays but also to be humiliated by having strangers gawking at their genitalia and breast tissues.  Those machines are so insidious that they provide a perfect visual image of soft tissue, so the viewer can see the exact size and thickness of your cock and your balls, and so can everyone else.  they strip you naked, in front of everyone, just because you purchased some ticket.

Hunting for The Bogeyman allows governments all kinds of intrusions and warrantless  searches, but more importantly guarantees those incompetents lifetime employment and great wages.  So the taxpayers foot the bills for men on horseback patrolling the Montana Frontier in Summer and on snowmobiles in winter, because hey otherwise the Bogeymen will come storming over the Frontier in 200-man Companies to take over and demolish and murder peaceful Americans.  Implicit in this idea is that The Bogeymen are Muslims from the Middle East; the suggestion that 200-man contingents of gun-toting terrorist Muslims from the Middle East are going to be wandering around in the farm country of Saskatchewan and Alberta looking for the Border and not be noticed, is not addressed.  Such is the mantra of The Bogeymen. 

Back to the "climate alarmists":   these are not people actually interested in "climate," that is an obfuscation.  Rather, these are people terrified of "the bogeyman," and translate that psychological dysfunction onto something pervasive, always out there, unseen, and ultimately uncontrollable - the "climate."  None of these people, not a single one, are rational in any cognizable sense.  That is why you cannot have any discussions with them; they are in a perpetual state of psychological hysteria. 

So you have these outbreaks of hysterical thinking about some trace gas, which ironically does nothing as to heat retention and certainly will increase crop and tree growth rates.  CO2 is beneficial, and unfortunately the current concentration is quite low.  The planet would likely be better off with a concentration above 1,000 ppm, possibly 2,000 ppm, not the current minuscule 350-400 ppm.  But you cannot say that, as then you are interfering with the collective hunt for The Bogeyman. 

This is not to say that uncontrolled burning is not harmful or even dangerous. Burning produces oxides of nitrogen (or smog) and also particulates, which cause breathing problems.  But the amout of trouble caused by say autos is minuscule compared to that of forest fires.  If the hysterics were serious people, they would be picketing and protesting for the importation of labour to remove the fuel loads from the forest floors, which you will note they do not do.  thus the progress remains elusive.  Bottom line:  CO2 is not your problem area.  Cheers.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Such is the mantra of The Bogeymen. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣

23 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

That is why you cannot have any discussions with them; they are in a perpetual state of psychological hysteria. 

23 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

If the hysterics were serious people, they would be picketing and protesting for the importation of labour to remove the fuel loads from the forest floors, which you will note they do not do.  thus the progress remains elusive.  Bottom line:  CO2 is not your problem area

Fantastic stuff Jan. 

''such is the mantra''   hahahahhah too good 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Guest

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

Fantastic stuff Jan. 

-Everything I do is fantastic.   That is why I am "The Legend."   Remember. CMOP, and genuflect.

You do have to teach me how to do those "links" with the blue background, so it reads "@daytrader"

[Guest]

just type this symbol  @   and start typing a name and it''ll come up

@Jan van Eck    (no space between @ and the name though)

sometimes it doesn't work, just try again

Edited October 17, 2019 by Guest

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

17 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

sometimes it doesn't work, just try again

@DayTrader  well, will you look at that!  Modern technology, the wonders never cease.  Look out, world!  😁

[PE Scott + 563]

@Jan van Eck

When you make a point, Jan, you're nothing if not thoroug. You've left me with a lot to digest. The airport security analogy was well placed. 

I'm going to take a bit to pick up what you're putting down, and mull it over.

My fear, for the industry, is that they aren't doing enough to engage their critics and work with them, certainly no in a public enough manner. I fear the hysteria will overwhelm the masses and spell the end for a perfectly viable fuel.

[Guest]

I must be going to different airports to you guys. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, PE Scott said:

I fear the hysteria will overwhelm the masses and spell the end for a perfectly viable fuel.

--------------------The solemn sobriquet to this would be found in poetry:

I MET a Traveler from an antique land,
    Who said, "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
    And on the pedestal these words appear:

    "My name is OZYMANDIAS, King of Kings."
    Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!

    No thing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that Colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPlSH6n37ts

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

I must be going to different airports to you guys. 

 

Full-body scanning tech will be coming to an airport near you. But are you ready to let a TSA agent see you, your wife, or your daughter naked? And does this really make us safer?

Then there’s the awkward bit: While these things do certainly reveal your weapons…they also reveal your body. In detail. Down to the furry bits. And, given that they’re going to have to be human-operated (with some computer assistance, for sure, but still man-in-the-loop) like the baggage machines, that means you’re effectively going to be taking your clothes off for a TSA guy/gal (and how long before there’s a law suit about there being no TSA girls on duty to scan women for a particular flight?) Yup–that’s a stranger, a government employee. And one who’s almost certainly empowered to arrange for you to be thrown in jail if you object or are, in these stupidly super-sensitive times, deemed as being “uncooperative.”

The moral and ethical issues are going to be vicious, and if you dissent…well, imagine you’re not going to be in for a comfortable flight. How does this affect Islamic women in concealing clothes (who’ll possibly be profiled as high-risk targets anyway)? What if you suffer sever psychological body image problems? What about female-to-male transsexuals, who sometimes wear a prosthetic penis? How long before some low-brow operator at LAX succumbs to the tempting dollar prize and sells on a scanner image of Britney or Tom Cruise to the gutter press? The questions just keep popping up.

And there’s the last bigger question–the capacity of these machines for detecting devices/weapons concealed inside a body. Watch for that answer to emerge soon…in graphic detail.

Watch out for the hysterical, @PE Scott.   And hide your daughters.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

TSA guy/gal (and how long before there’s a law suit about there being no TSA girls on duty to scan women for a particular flight?)

Or you then get the ''is it legally a guy/gal'' issue by the scanning person anyway...?

''I identify as an octopus! Call me Zee''

#doomed

Edited October 17, 2019 by Guest

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

@DayTrader, if you go to one of those specialty sex stores you can buy a device that fits over the penis and straps to the hips, with an extension sock.  I am tempted to get one and fill it with quarters lying flat, to add say another 7 or 8 inches down there with the guaranty of setting off the scanner machines.  That should make for a nicely disruptive trip through the TSA hysteria checkpoint. 

What are they going to do, demand to personally examine in minute detail, my personal prosthetic?  

Edited October 17, 2019 by Jan van Eck

[Guest]

There's an image 

[Marcin + 519]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

So you have these outbreaks of hysterical thinking about some trace gas, which ironically does nothing as to heat retention and certainly will increase crop and tree growth rates.  CO2 is beneficial, and unfortunately the current concentration is quite low.  The planet would likely be better off with a concentration above 1,000 ppm, possibly 2,000 ppm, not the current minuscule 350-400 ppm.  But you cannot say that, as then you are interfering with the collective hunt for The Bogeyman. 

This is not to say that uncontrolled burning is not harmful or even dangerous. Burning produces oxides of nitrogen (or smog) and also particulates, which cause breathing problems.  But the amout of trouble caused by say autos is minuscule compared to that of forest fires.  If the hysterics were serious people, they would be picketing and protesting for the importation of labour to remove the fuel loads from the forest floors, which you will note they do not do.  thus the progress remains elusive.  Bottom line:  CO2 is not your problem area.  Cheers.

I am interested in scientific side of climate change thing pro- and contra- arguments.. The topic is clearly the most popular mantra of our time.

I understood that major argument of pro- camp is that increase in CO2 concentration happens much faster than it would be from natural changes due to powers of nature. Last 100 years from 300 to 400 ppm CO2. Pro- say that it will increase global temperatures by 2 Centigrades, rise the level of Oceans by 0.2 m. Humanity can  live this through if it happens.

Building concrete dam, 1 m high over 100 000 km of coast is about 1 billion tons of cement, Chinese usage in 4 months, they will be happy to do it as part of Belt and Road.

Actually in Poland climate is still much colder than was before 1300, so no problem in next 100 years.

What I am actually worried about is human adaptation to increased levels of CO2 in atmosphere, was any research conducted on the effects on human body of lets say 500-600 ppm concentration we could have in 50 years ?

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Marcin said:

What I am actually worried about is human adaptation to increased levels of CO2 in atmosphere, was any research conducted on the effects on human body of lets say 500-600 ppm concentration we could have in 50 years ?

 

I don't get the impression that actual scientists, the real kind, have any interest in that as at those levels it is a simple trace gas, and thus likely unimportant to physiology.  As a trace gas it would have no toxic component, so why spend the time looking at it?

Greenhouse workers that are in a CO2-enriched environment do not seem to have any observable effects. 

[Marcin + 519]

21 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I don't get the impression that actual scientists, the real kind, have any interest in that as at those levels it is a simple trace gas, and thus likely unimportant to physiology.  As a trace gas it would have no toxic component, so why spend the time looking at it?

Greenhouse workers that are in a CO2-enriched environment do not seem to have any observable effects. 

Thank you for information. I found article stating that average CO2 in greenhouse to increase crops growth is 1000-1200 ppm. And in house heated by furnace up to 1000 ppm CO2 no problem, 1000-2000 ppm it is good to regulate furnace, over 2000 ppm there could be some harmful effects.

So climate change problem solved, at least for next 100-150 years.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

12 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Thank you for information. I found article stating that average CO2 in greenhouse to increase crops growth is 1000-1200 ppm. And in house heated by furnace up to 1000 ppm CO2 no problem, 1000-2000 ppm it is good to regulate furnace, over 2000 ppm there could be some harmful effects.

So climate change problem solved, at least for next 100-150 years.

Nuclear subs that stay submerged for up to six months have been known to build up concentration of CO2 levels of as much as 10,000 ppm. It's been studied in terms of medical issues and since it's the military, primarily fitness for duty. Realistically it's not going to kill anyone but some complain about headaches, usually the ones who don't want to work

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

By the by, if you want to make a tree hugging anti petroleum person's head explode, explain that it was fossil fuel and kerosene that saved the whales. Whale oil lamps were utterly destroyed by the economics of kerosene settling by the barrel versus whale oil settling by the quart.