Trying to understand a Concept

Recently I've been doing some research into energy sources. To detail the exact nature and depth of these studies probably goes way beyond the scope of my question, but suffice to say that in the process I've discovered an almost whole new language of 'code' which I can only conclude is designed to completely obfuscate the subject at hand (i.e. make it so no ordinary person could comprehend what anyone is saying, presumably to keep it secret). This, coupled with people just trying to appear to be the 'smartest guy in the room', only further complicates any research. (Egos, go figure, right?)

Cutting to the chase, the area of my research is into a subject known as "gas hydrates" which is essentially compounds like methane and other hydrocarbons, trapped inside, or embedded in, other substances such as sand and water. I'm getting a little more technical here for the purposes of background explanation, so bear with me, it will get better shortly. First though, I want to quote a statement which exemplifies what I'm talking about here:

Furthermore, the thermal-simulation tests conducted at research well Mallik 5L-38 were not only carried out to evaluate a potential production method or to prove the commercial viability of gas hydrates in Canada; but also to observe the dissociation of a gas hydrate interval at temperatures above the gas hydrate stability point, while maintaining constant pressure. The results of the thermal simulation were then used to calibrate numerical simulation models that give new insights into the kinetic and thermodynamic properties of gas hydrates.

Now, what (the actual 'F#') does any of that mean???
- 'dissociation of a gas hydrate interval' ?? (interval in comparison to what??) (dissociation...interval??)
- 'gas hydrate stability point' ?? (stability with respect to what?) (blowing up the planet? being lost to the atmosphere...what?)
- 'calibrate numerical simulation models' ?? (simulation models of what??)

Okay, so now you presumably see the crypto-babble I am talking about. What I am trying to understand is, when I see a comparative quantity like 2.4x10^12 cubic meters to 87x10^12 cubic meters (of gaseous methane), what does this mean to humanity? In other words, how much energy reserve is this; is it enough to run a city with a population of 1m for a month, a year, a century, what? AND, when you couple the volumes I just described with the crypto-babble quoted statement and resultant questions, what does any of this mean? Simply put...is it real? Is it available now? Or, is it just some theoretical 'pie in the sky' concept which will never come to reality?

Lastly, the numbers quoted above are for just one gas field in northern Canada. There are many others, but that particular gas field just happens to have had the most scientific analysis performed on it. And, the whole reason for my question is...there are gas hydrate fields in Asia and India which absolutely DWARF these numbers by orders of magnitude! In the energy sector we've known about things like oil sands and bituminous sands for a long time, but gas hydrates are different, and they're untapped (to date). Not just 'sort of untapped', but 'completely untapped'.

Some other musings...

Now, the OP may just seem like some geeky research into some obscure chemistry and research, but it's so much more, and here's why it's such a big deal:

Why is this important? - Well, when you start looking into this there's actually a surprising amount of potential here. Depending on how you dice the numbers, it could have the potential to be the next nuclear power source.

Why is this important to ATS? - Because, just about no matter where you look, there is clearly an attempt to make this whole subject just about as unintelligible as humanly possible. Why??? What is being cloaked? Just that alone should be enough to qualify as fodder for here on ATS, but there's more.

Where is the conspiracy? - Here's the $64,000 question/answer. When you start to look into this, one of the things which pops up almost immediately is the tired subject of 'greenhouse gases', BUT not in the way you would think! The climate change nazis are all over this gas hydrate research, and it appears that it has the potential to undo all of their voodoo and pontificating. Not only can these gas hydrates solve about any 'greenhouse' gas doom-theory they have, but at the same time it has the potential to solve the World's energy crisis.

We've all heard about the desire to explore energy reserves in places like ANWR (AK), and many have opinions on this. To many, exploration of ANWR is thought to be just traditional oil and gas exploration, but it's more. The Mallik gas field is no different, just happens to be in Canada (outside the reach of the US enviro-nazi's). So, on the one hand, these reserves appear to be in delicate arctic areas which don't lend themselves well to exploration. However, on the other hand, there are places which aren't in delicate arctic areas, places such as India and Bangladesh, where there are gas hydrate deposits 10,000x as big as the ones found in the arctic! I mean, this is huge!

It's a compartmentalization phenomena; That results from years of study, where the language is self referential... The only way to really learn it is; Glossy every term and process until it is comprehended.

The hurdle then; Is trying to use normative language to explain it, where the compartmentalized terminology; Is then much easier; Since you've gone through the trouble to comprehend and grasp it.

So hey; Don't take it personally? As the hurdle isn't intentional; Just a sort of short hand word, for a complex process.

I have well over 100 Sanskrit and Pali terms of philosophy and psychology; That use to do the same thing to me.


Gas Hydrates Maybe that link will help or make matters worse?

a reply to: Crowfoot

Oh, I understand about gas hydrates, I didn't mean that to be interpreted as the question; I get that part. What I am questioning is why the exploitation of this resource is being so guarded. Yes, we can say it's technical shorthand, and to an extent this is true, but as an engineer and physicist myself, there is more to it than that. Techno-jargon is nothing new. Hey, I work in aviation where there is an acronym for everything, so I'm used to that 10,000 times over! No issue there. Where the problem comes in is when people throw out volumes of word vomit and intentionally say nothing at all. Then there's a problem, and that's what we have here on this subject.

In my previous 'life' (in college and before aviation), I was pretty heavily involved in the oil and gas exploration industry/sector, having grown up in 'gas-Central' Wyoming. So, discussion on this topic has to get pretty deep in chemistry before I start getting lost. That's not what's going on here. There is a very conscious attempt to obfuscate the realities of this resource for some reason, and I'd like to get to the bottom of why. I believe there is something to this, and I want to understand what it is.

I share this interest here on ATS because I think the subject is important to us all, for a variety of reasons. Our future may depend on understanding, fully, subjects such as this. And, clearly there is a very overt attempt to make that 'understanding' by the common person very difficult indeed.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Oh a feed back loop...

To me that would mean the science is still "out" on it... As in know there is potential but in all cases of uses of and sectors where it is of benefit down to production and common usage as an end product or products still has gaps and holes in it.

Of course; That means seeking funds and investors; But at the same time shooting themselves in the foot, Due to the non-normative language looping off into nonsensical jargon; Where those that might be interested, would invest in it; But just as lost as you are educated and knowing the field of study when those doing the write up haven't a clue themselves and can't take it out of the loop and state the actual goal and or goals for such a thing and what all of that means for the future.

I've ran across the same thing in AI written articles; Where the topic is present and expanded on a bit but then loops back into saying absolutely nothing about what you are trying to really get in depth with or find out on the topic or subject and have to expand it by key word queries it gave out or else be stuck in such a feed back loop... Since it is an article there is; is no way to actually do that unless you get an AI that can crawl the web and then pose all you want at it; so you're not web page after web page tab after tab seeing the same key word pop up and all saying basically the same thing.

That's really the only benefit; I have seen in my personal use of; AI Is it is faster and better than a browser for researching a specific topic... as a browser just feedback loops of what you first put into it and then it's page after page of same or similar thing and rarely expands on it and when it does taking that term and browsing for it.

All killer and no filler

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Now, what (the actual 'F#') does any of that mean???
- 'dissociation of a gas hydrate interval' ?? (interval in comparison to what??) (dissociation...interval??)
- 'gas hydrate stability point' ?? (stability with respect to what?) (blowing up the planet? being lost to the atmosphere...what?)
- 'calibrate numerical simulation models' ?? (simulation models of what??)

Interval sounds like it might be referring to depth interval, or a range of depths, and stability sounds like it refers to a temperature below which there is stability and above which there is instability, at a given pressure. This link might help, though not an exact reference it's close enough to give you some ideas what's being talked about:

Gas hydrate stability zone

Gas hydrate stability primarily depends upon temperature and pressure, however other variables such as gas composition and ionic impurities in water influence stability boundaries.

That refers to a marine environment, but even in underground alternating layers of sands and clays, there can be combinations of alternating layers of water and hydrocarbons.

So temperature and pressure are two of the main factors discussed, and pressure is a function of depth. So is temperature to some extent, though it's not as directly correlated to depth, due to potential "hotspots" in some areas. One place in Canada I visited was situated on such a "hotspot", and was able to harness geothermal power from the hotspot. But those exceptions aside, the general rule I saw was after a certain depth, the deeper I measured temperature in a drilled hole, the hotter it was.

The Canadian and Alaskan tar sands are on the scale of Saudi Arabia in oil volume. The issue is the sand. Try running some sand in your engine oil and see how long that lasts. Not long. How are the pumps and refineries suppose to deal with this?

There are ways, methods and specialized engineering that can process this, but it comes at a cost. Not as easy as the Texas T fine crude to process, but it can be done. Biden put a quick stop to the keystone pipeline doing this work while Trump tried to make it great.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But those exceptions aside, the general rule I saw was after a certain depth, the deeper I measured temperature in a drilled hole, the hotter it was.

What depth was that? I don't expect this is a constant feature with the lumpyness of the Earth. As a rough mark how deep did you get?

Compressing air is enough to get it hot. As for all the compressed soil, the deeper we go the hotter it gets looks to be the standard.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm just a layman.
What I get out of it is feasibility.
The process of extracting salt eg desalinization plant on a beautiful California beach.

A beautiful beach or fresh water conundrum.

Profit outweighs good for the gander every time.

It's feasible but too many people will benefit.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They studied the feasibility of extracting the gases from the dirt.

It sounds like in order to extract those gases, they need to use heat.

So, they then needed to determine how stable those gases are above their "stable" temperature

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Where the problem comes in is when people throw out volumes of word vomit and intentionally say nothing at all. Then there's a problem, and that's what we have here on this subject.

Do you remember the posts by the dude who went by the name "Astrocyte"?
As I recall ,he admitted to canabis use, and had traumatization issues.
But basically his posts were "over the top" super techy mumbo jumbo jargon.
And he spewed it out in each and every post.

Now imagine some lonely scientist conducting "experiments" at a remote
Canadian gas well. Who's to say he's not huffing gas hydrates, smokin'
weed , and maybe even hitting the bottle pretty hard?
Yeah, try to make sense of any thing he writes.

And of course he has to "ping" the home office with some techy stuff
every now and then, just to let them know he's still alive and to
update them on his "research" In order to get a paycheck.

Some people have friends in high places.
Others have high friends in places.

The real experiment is probably how long he can conduct
his "research" and get paid for it before people catch on.
Meanwhile, he's laughin' all the way to the bank.

originally posted by: kwakakev
What depth was that? I don't expect this is a constant feature with the lumpyness of the Earth. As a rough mark how deep did you get?

Most of my measurements were made in the Gulf of Mexico at depths something like 1-2 miles deep. I also worked in Africa, on land and off the coast. The land drilling I measured tended to be shallower there, but offshore again was up to 2 miles or a bit more.

As for the lumpyness of the earth, did you miss my exceptions about the hotspots, and once I got past a certain depth? I didn't see hotspots in the Gulf of Mexico, and I was also not measuring close to the surface where the temperature profiles can deviate from that "gets hotter with greater depth" profile. Here you see three profiles, they all get hotter with depth, once you get deeper than a certain depth, maybe a little over 100m. The slopes are different though, so they don't all increase at the same rate.

Temperature: Borehole Temperatures

Temperature profiles from three representative boreholes showing the unexpected curvature towards higher temperatures near the tops of the boreholes.

I've read about a lot of hotspots at northern latitudes though, especially the arctic, where the temperature profiles are different over the hotspots. Those higher temperatures above hotspots will destablize the gas hydrates at shallower depths, compared to more typical areas, not above a hotspot.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Are you looking for investments?

Joking aside, my first thought was pressurized gas hydrates might destabilize when the pressure and heat changes during extraction, which is a big problem if the medium being extracted suddenly changes it's properties.

Sounds like they are getting some life samples to feed the simulations. As of now far from economically applicable would be my guess...

That's just what had me thinking, I have no clue what their bable exactly means...

a reply to: RavenSpeaks

Do you remember the posts by the dude who went by the name ".... "?
As I recall ,he admitted to canabis use, and had traumatization issues.
But basically his posts were "over the top" super techy mumbo jumbo jargon.
And he spewed it out in each and every post.

This is one of the T&C issues I'm not sure how exactly it's handled...

I won't report it either... Sorry for the off topic post

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Why is this important to ATS? - Because, just about no matter where you look, there is clearly an attempt to make this whole subject just about as unintelligible as humanly possible. Why??? What is being cloaked? Just that alone should be enough to qualify as fodder for here on ATS, but there's more.

You think I'm joking, huh?
"He who jests tells the truth" ( Italian Proverb).

Consider this:
Pythia The Oracle of Delphi

Quotes from the article:

"One of the main stories claimed that the Pythia delivered oracles in a frenzied state induced by vapours rising from a chasm in the rock, "

and:

"There are many later stories of the origins of the Delphic Oracle. One late explanation, which is first related by the 1st century BC writer Diodorus Siculus, tells of a goat herder named Coretas, who noticed one day that one of his goats, who fell into a crack in the earth, was behaving strangely. On entering the chasm, he found himself filled with a divine presence and the ability to see outside of the present, into the past and the future. "


Oh, and by the way, if one were to anagram "The Marcellus Shale Formation",
There's something in there about nuclear war and an oraclewarning humanity.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

About the only thing I remember about chemical equations is:
PV = nrT
That is pressure*volume = temperature (without increasing the number of gas molecules in a given volume. Forgot what’r’ is for but it does not vary either.
So the ocean is cold, salty, and under pressure so it is colder than freezing at the floor. But the floor itself varies as does the temperature of the ocean currents. So sometimes the hydrocarbons “out gas” from the ocean floor. Some think that is the explanation for the Bermuda Triangle and all the vehicles sinking into the ocean.

You keep things in technical speak so, literally, the Natives don’t understand what you are talking about!

Grandpa White Man needs his energy and it don’t do him any good if he has to share wealth with First Nations types.

Sounds like you have a feasibility study about how much area is needed for an operation to be profitable.

But hey, wadda I know being in Alaska and all…

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

About the only thing I remember about chemical equations is:
PV = nrT
That is pressure*volume = temperature (without increasing the number of gas molecules in a given volume. Forgot what’r’ is for but it does not vary either.
So the ocean is cold, salty, and under pressure so it is colder than freezing at the floor. But the floor itself varies as does the temperature of the ocean currents. So sometimes the hydrocarbons “out gas” from the ocean floor. Some think that is the explanation for the Bermuda Triangle and all the vehicles sinking into the ocean.

You keep things in technical speak so, literally, the Natives don’t understand what you are talking about!

Grandpa White Man needs his energy and it don’t do him any good if he has to share wealth with First Nations types.

Sounds like you have a feasibility study about how much area is needed for an operation to be profitable.

But hey, wadda I know being in Alaska and all…

Ha! My chemistry professor used to say "Ye old gas laws - works every time". "r" is the rate constant, "n" is number of moles or Avogadro's constant.

Have you read about the massive amount of frozen methane under the ocean? Apparently, if it ever caught fire, it could burn the planet.
phys.org...

Headed to Alaska next week - hope the weather holds up!