Boating less due to fuel prices?

Dan-

Sounds plausible, amazing that it's not discussed more openly in the media.

Would like to get Bill Fiero's opinion on it when he and El get back from oveseas.

Joe.
 
Interesting Dan. I know "organic" compounds such as methane are found in the atmospheres of of the outer planets, so I guess it kind of makes sense that they would be "abiotically" (is that a word?) present in terrestrial formations, too. I guess we'll have to stop calling oil a "fossil" fuel.

Jim
 
Abiotic oil is a highly suspect concept and is not supported by the geology surrounding the oil. Those who have worked in the industry must be aware that microfossils representing the skeletons of the marine critters which were the biogenesis of the carbon have been used for over a hundred years to "find" strata likely to bear oil. How could it just be a "coincidence" that those microfossils are found with the oil in sandstone-based geology -- worldwide?

In addition:

1. the C-12 : C-13 isotope ratio says oil is of biological origin, not abiotic.

2. As for the C-14 dating: of course it all has the "same" age: the C-14 dating technique is based on its half-life of some 6000 years, so that C-14 does not distinguish between something 2 million years old and something else 3 million years old: there is so little C-14 left after 2 million years it is indistinguishable from the similarly tiny amount at 3 million years.

3. Those in the refining industry know that if you reform CH4 into higher molecular weight hydrocarbons (e.g., butane: C4H10), as dogon postulates, molecular hydrogen is produced (4 CH4 --> C4H10 + 3 H2). If the higher molecular weight stuff in oil comes from CH4, then where is the hydrogen? We'd love to have that stuff in quantity -- it is a terrific fuel!

4. Finally, as to the co-presence with oil of CH4 (and C2H6, the other principal component of "natural gas"): that is formed as the medium molecular weight molecules in the mix, from the original biological source, reform under the ground into higher molecular weight molecules and methane. In some places underground, we find natural gas trapped in the top portion of a formation because it is lighter than the surroundings -- and it most likely came from a hydrocarbon source buried too deep to find.

In short, there is a wealth of sound scientific fact debunking the presence of any signficant quantity of abioptic oil on this planet. Abiotic oil is a fantasy.

Longtime organic chemist speaking here.
 
Dave & Dan – both of you are too smart for me. I am just a high school drop-out, so almost all of my education has been on the job and self taught. I like to think I have a lot of common sense also and base a lot of my decisions on it.

Theoretical science has been wrong a whole bunch of times. Now we also have to deal with agenda driven science. Agenda driven science is worse than theoretical science because it is usually based on a lie.

Theoretical science is just that, a theory because there is not enough evidence to prove the hypothesis. Some theories have been around a long time and die hard, some have not died, but should, many have been mortified or changed altogether and some have been proven and are no longer a theory.

Sometimes I have a hard time sorting the facts out, but common sense tells me oil did not come from dinosaurs. 20 years ago when the dire predictions made in the 70’s didn’t come true, I started questioning the oil theory.

We are finding more oil all the time and it is just the opposite of what some people want to happen.
I believe that the theoretical science, about the formation of oil has turned into an agenda driven science.

Dave – please don’t take this to mean I think you are one of the people with ulterior motives or an agenda, but I believe Dan is right you are wrong. However politics may keep us from getting to the oil resources for some time.
 
Not much I can do to help you guys, dogon and the other Dave. I think you'll just have to believe whatever makes you comfortable.

See you at the gas pumps.
 
AstoriaDave":nihb3t6n said:
Not much I can do to help you guys, dogon and the other Dave. I think you'll just have to believe whatever makes you comfortable.
Click to expand...

Sorry all - but I have a strange urge to discuss scientific theory...


Ultimately, the great thing about science (and what really separates it from other basises of thought) is that you DON'T have to believe whatever makes you comfortable OR whatever is conventional wisdom but only what is supported by the data - e.g. what we observe in the natural world. Good scientists don't hold their beliefs any tighter than the data supports. In my world EVERYTHING is a theory - in some I have very high confidence (like the sun revolves around the earth and will come up again tomorrow and that evolution does and has occurred) and in some I have low confidence.

I'll also add that an inability to develop a theory to explain some observation does not (for me) mean that I need to attribute the cause of a given observation to some higher power but simply that I'm not able come up with a good theory. Good theories are consistent with the available data and, in general make testable predictions. Hence, in the above discussion, both ideas are theory and both make predictions with regards to where one can find oil and the elemental composition of the oil. I personally don't know enough about the data surrounding this issue, but I am certain that it is possible to identify which theory best fits reality either with current data or with current and future data. That is, making a choice between these theories need not be left to whatever makes one comfortable but will ultimately be resolved by data.

In science, controversy is a good thing since it drives the development of theories that become ever more consistent with the data. In every area of science with which I am familiar, there are always a small number of people who have very different beliefs than the "conventional wisdom". Often times, such individuals come up with alternate or even radical theories and often such individuals are very good at pointing out the counter examples to current theories. Occasionally, these people are right and that's when big changes in scientific theory happen. However, in my experience, theories that are counter to "conventional wisdom" are most often wrong. Why? Because well established theories are usually in existance because they fit a large preponderance of data.

However, as was pointed out above, there are spectacular examples all throughout history when conventional wisdom was blown away by a new idea. These examples are captured and glorified within the historical record while the crackpot ideas that were later disproved are not. The problem for the non-expert in a given area is how does one differentiate the "crackpot" from the genius with a novel idea? This can be extremely difficult since at the time of a given controversy, the minority voice can be very vocal and it can appear to the non expert that their are two equivelantly believeable sides to an argument. For me, there are two ways to deal with this:
1) Invest a tremendous amount of effort to fully review all the data that's been gathered over time and become enough of an expert that I can actually judge the argument from a position of deep knowledge. While I'm reviewing the data, I have to, at each step, question how a given theory was developed.
2) Since (1) isn't feasible most of the time (we can't all be experts in everything), I tend to weigh my beliefs towards conventional wisdom. This turns out to be correct more often than not when I don't know enough about the data to make an educated judgement on my own.

Just my two cents worth (actualy maybe a quarter this time).
 
Roger wrote: In science, controversy is a good thing since it drives the development of theories that become ever more consistent with the data. In every area of science with which I am familiar, there are always a small number of people who have very different beliefs than the "conventional wisdom". Often times, such individuals come up with alternate or even radical theories and often such individuals are very good at pointing out the counter examples to current theories. Occasionally, these people are right and that's when big changes in scientific theory happen. However, in my experience, theories that are counter to "conventional wisdom" are most often wrong. Why? Because well established theories are usually in existance because they fit a large preponderance of data.

Well said. I'll defend independent thinkers if they are willing to test their notions in the crucible of hypothesis testing.

I don't see enough of that within the stuff I read about abiotic oil, but if someone finds a huge reservoir of it, I'll be happy to burn it in my boat!

Let's go fish! :lol:
 
You have no idea how badly I want to jump right into the middle of this one, but I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Granted, that has seldom stopped me before, but this one is different. Y'all just go ahead and beat the crap out of each other. Scientists behaving badly - I love it. (That was in jest, gentlemen. No need to analyze.)

Now tell me this: Why in the world did the diesel pump prices start their climb right after I bought a tank to hold it? It's always been less per gallon than the cheapest gas - but now it is way more than the highest grade gas. It's them damn antibiotic dinosaurs, isn't it?
 
I agree. I'm paying premium gas prices for diesel fuel. Alaska refiners produce about 3 times as much jet fuel as gasoline. My understanding the diesel we use is very similar from a refinery standpoint to jet fuel, the difference being additives. So why the high price for diesel?
 
Mike and Tom:

It's because

1. Adam Smith, who first described how a Free Market Economy was governed by The Laws of Supply and Demand about 1780, is being held hostage by OPEC and the Amoral Demon Consortium of Executives who run Big Oil in conjunction with their Errand Boy, George W. Bush, and

2. Them boys heard you thinking about all that money you were going to save on fuel bills, and immediately plugged the hole in the Dyke of Perpetual Money Flow by artificially ratcheting up the diesel prices to give you a case of the Inverted In-Flight Refueling Blues while you were bent over at the gas pump removing your wallet to support the American Economy in its suicidal mission to send as much money as possible overseas through negative balance of payments, allowing all those anti-American foreign countries to come back over here with those dollars and buy up America, piece by piece.

So thanks for buying the diesel, it should have saved you money, but you got the same backsided deal they were going to give you with gas anyway. Can you say "America's Going Up in Petro-Chemical Flames!" in the most common 14 languages spoken by recent immigrants to America?

(With appologies to everone, but sometimes it just seems a good, oversimplified rant works as a pleasing relief mechanism! I'm not really this lacking in in-depth understanding of world economics, but the current outcomes for America are deeply disturbing. If you disagree strongly, hate mail humbly accepted.)

Joe.
 
OH well, Im just glad I bought A C-dory instead of the Osprey I was considering.......But a good friend of mine would always say to me why pay less, I took that as a joke at first. Until after hanging out with him fishin or hunting or working. I Noticed he always had the best money could buy, wether it be his fishing rod and reel, his gun or his Binoculars.

Then a couple years ago we were elk hunting on his ranch in Colorado and he hired one of his cowboys to guide myself and my son. I had my trusty Bushnell Binoculars and spotted Elk going over the next ridge and proceeded to hike down and up the next ridge (about a 2 mile jaunt down and up some steep terrain) when as we got to the top I again glassed the next ridge with my trusty Bushnells just in time to see what looked like a large elk with several smaller ones move over the next ridge.

With excitement growing now I proceeded down the steep canyon to head up to the top of the next ridge in the hope of bagging the trophy bull elk, ignoring the cowboys advice that the bull we were chasing was not a trophy and he didn't even think it had horns. But being the good spirited country cowboy that he was, he followed my son and I down and back up to the top of the next ridge. Upon approaching the top of the ridge he insisted we crawl slowly to the top in the hopes of getting a better look at the elk before they moved over the next ridge. and sure enough thee they were only halfway up the next ridge, maybe 700 yards away. Clint handed my his pair of Swarovski Binoculars and asked me to take a look and see what we had been chasing up and down steep canyons for about 3 hours now. and to my amazement it was like turning on a light in a dark room. I could not only see that there were in fact no bulls with the heard but you could count the hairs on the ears of the animals. I handed him back them fine optics and he looked at me with big smile and said why pay less :teeth . Now for those of you who have read this, you must be wondering what does that have to do with the price of oil?

Well nothing really, however since I have purchased the Amigo I find myself awake at night not sleeping just wanting to go get my boat. So I sit here at this computer and read the forums and add my 2 cents worth. Oh by the way I have Swarovski Binoculars as well now...thanks to a good wife that christmas.

Now I drive a 2002 ford f-350 with a Diesel and haul big Lance Camper. Behind that I will be towing my new CD22 with my Wallace heater and when im fueling up and paying about $100 to fuel the truck and probably that to fuel the boat as well, all I can say is........WHY PAY LESS :cry
 
Oh and answer to the question are we boating less due to the cost of the fuel prices would be NO! Im boating less because I haven't picked up the Amigo yet, :smiled

Doug
 
dogon dory":31xknk4n said:
tpbrady":31xknk4n said:
I agree. I'm paying premium gas prices for diesel fuel. Alaska refiners produce about 3 times as much jet fuel as gasoline. My understanding the diesel we use is very similar from a refinery standpoint to jet fuel, the difference being additives. So why the high price for diesel?
Click to expand...
I should whip up a good conspiracy theory about why diesel costs so much nowadays. No doubt it is linked directly to Tyboo's purchase of a diesel tank in some way. But since it might insite some sort of public uprising there in Joe's homeland I 'll keep it serious.

For one thing, there are a lot more jets flying nowadays and a lot more diesel trucks on the highways. That's the demand side of the equation competing for the fuel. But the supply/demand equation nowadays is more complex than that.

Before coming to Alaska I worked in the chemical side of the business in "integrated" refineries. That means they make the normal refined products as well as other petrochemicals for plastics etc. It used to be that to produce gasoline through normal distillation, you got a bunch of kerosene and diesel whether you needed it or not. Todays technology has reached the point that we can turn virtually any hydrocarbon into any other, more desireable/more profitable hydrocarbon product.

All the chemE types used to talk about how many "molecules" of this or that were coming and going. The reason they used that terminology is because that is what they were managing (plus they were a bunch of geeks). Didn't make much difference which type of stuff it was, they could turn it into anything they wanted to. It takes X number of molecules of diesel to make Y number of molecules of propylene for plastic.

Because of the state of the technology, the value of hydrocarbons is now more or less related to how much energy (BTUs) they contain. Diesel has more energy than gasoline per gallon which means it has more hydrogen/carbon bonds which is what floats the chemEs' boats (no pun intended). They can break all those bonds apart and reassemble them in various combinations to make different stuff.

Sometimes supply/demand is more straightforward though. For example that's why propane is so expensive. A gallon of propane has way less energy than a gallon of gasoline but it costs more because it takes very little to turn propane into propylene to make plastic out of. And we all know how fond the world is of plastic. The distribution network is also more complex which adds cost.

All of that explanation was for everybody other than Tom. Up here it pretty much boils down to the old supply/demand equation. And they've got the supply. Plus I guess they figure anybody that can afford to drive a $35k diesel truck or a Mercedes can pay a little extra for fuel.

Man I wish it would warm up so I can get a life....
Click to expand...

Daggon Dogon! I'm thinkin you're in the wrong field after reading this...you could be a politician! Sounds like explaining away the oil companies charging whatever they please and we pay it....no matter what processing they put into it. :wink
 
Back
Top