Where does Oil come from?

[robinson]

If you want to continue arguing, well, then I might have to bonk you on the head with my thesis rather than my degree...

Please please please! Bonk him! Bonk him!

 

[Slimething]

Well, then, let's hear how the acidity of carbonic acid is so much different from, say, sulphurous acid.
I already told you how. In carboxylic acids, the ionized molecule forms a tautomer and is thereby stabilized. Your turn. You tell us about sulphurous acid and the mechanism for stabilizing the anion.

Some chemists will consider hydrocyanic acid to be organic, others won't. Nobody considers sodium cyanide to be an organic compound.

Now, you are arguing that HCN is not "slightly" organic but that it's up for a vote. Although I am nobody, I am puzzled by the second sentence. What is your source for yet another blanket statement?

Actually, no- by this definition, an ionic compound such as sodium carbonate or potassium benzoate would not be organic, since ions are not molecules.

Well, now you're contradicting yourself. You are correct that molecules, in chemistry lexicon, are not considered molecules but they can be organic. You are dead wrong that sodium carbonate or potassium benzoate are ions. These are molecules, namely salts. Salts are molecules as they are not charged. See here.

Why specify the hybridization as sp1,2,3? Do you know any examples where carbon is covalently bonded, but not in one of these arrangements?

No. Just wanted to reemphasize the covalent nature of carbon in organic molecules.

If you want to continue arguing, well, then I might have to bonk you on the head with my thesis rather than my degree...

Bonk away. And I agree that a thesis would be more effective as it weighs more.

 

[Dabljuh]

Thank you plenty, Tricky. I think I never realized how much the earth's surface has been plowed over within the past 500 or so million years. Thank you for fixing that. Still, a few gaps remain.

Where did the carbon, hydrocarbons originally come from? Just atmospheric CO2 and maybe a small amount dissolved in water?

Then two more things: Whether oil/coal are biogenic or abiogenic in origin doesn't really say much about peak oil or other theories about the end of the age of oil. The problem of oil isn't so much one about how much oil there really is, totally, in the mantle. The problem of oil is how much is there close enough to the surface. Pumping oil up consumes energy, the more the deeper it is. Thus, if the oil/coal's too far down, it takes more energy to pump it up than you can gain from burning it. I guess (hope?) Tricky will correct the living hell out of me now and tell me about pumping water down for great justice.

The other thing is: Shut the flying hell up about the organic / inorganic discussion. It is completely irrelevant to this thread. If you really have any questions, I will decree that all compounds that start with a letter rather than a number are organic. End of decree, end of discussion.

 

[wilsontown]

The Russian papers and evidence are pretty solid stuff.

Hm, I'm not sure about this. Unfortunately, my employer's subscription to Georef is down at the minute, so it's not easy for me to look up references. Can you point me to anything? As I understand it, the Russians did a lot of drilling into fractured basement reservoirs, but very little has ever been published on it in the west. Intuitively it seems a little bit odd for oil to be found in basement rocks, but it isn't really. Elevated pore fluid pressures in certain horizons can force fluids downward, and there's always the possibility of lateral migration of oil into basement highs.Here's an example of a fractured basement play concept in Vietnam:

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2004/hung/images/04.htm

I remember when they first went back and checked old wells that had gone dry, and found they had filled up again. Who knew?

Not sure about this, either. Can you point me to any examples? It does happen that companies go back to old wells and sometimes restart production from them, but this is not because the wells had 'gone dry'. You simply don't get 100% recovery. It's because new production techniques can get at oil where extraction was previously too technically difficult. Even if there are examples of oil reservoirs being replenished over time, you'd have to be sure you couldn't explain it as a result of ongoing oil migration from conventional source rocks.

 

[wilsontown]

Thus, if the oil/coal's too far down, it takes more energy to pump it up than you can gain from burning it.

Yup. This is a real problem. Since most of the easy-to-get oil has been found, extraction is becoming more difficult, expensive and energy intensive. Eventually you could reach a point where the amount of energy you get from the oil you recover is less than the energy you expended in recovering it. I don't get the impression that this is going to happen any time soon, but that's only an impression.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yup. This is a real problem. Since most of the easy-to-get oil has been found, extraction is becoming more difficult, expensive and energy intensive. Eventually you could reach a point where the amount of energy you get from the oil you recover is less than the energy you expended in recovering it. I don't get the impression that this is going to happen any time soon, but that's only an impression.

At the same time, as it becomes scarcer the price goes up and and up, so even though it costs more to extract, it will probably be worth it economically.

 

[Madalch]

I already told you how. In carboxylic acids, the ionized molecule forms a tautomer and is thereby stabilized. Your turn. You tell us about sulphurous acid and the mechanism for stabilizing the anion.

No, there is no tautomerization in the carbonate ion. Tautomers don't stabilize things anyway- you may be thinking of resonance, in which the negative charge is delocalized over two or three oxygens (which does stabilize the anion). You get the same resonance in nitrate, sulphate, phosphate, nitrite, sulphite, phosphite, chlorite, chlorate, perchlorate....

Resonance is not unique to organic chemistry.

Although I am nobody, I am puzzled by the second sentence. What is your source for yet another blanket statement?

Cyanide is more often considered a pseudohalide than an organic ion- that's well-known enough that it doesn't need a cite.

Here's one:

An important area of "inorganic" carbon chemistry is that of compounds with C-N bonds. The most important species are the cyanide, cyanate, and thiocyanate ions and their derivatives. We can regard many of these compounds as being pseudohalogens or pseudohalides, but the analogies, although reasonably apt for cyanogen, (CN)2, are not especially valid in other cases.

(Cotton, Wilkinson, Murillo, Bochmann, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 6th Ed., p. 228) The same book has a list of the important inorganic compounds of carbon, including the oxides, sulphides, halides, and HCN.

Complex ions which contain cyanide as ligands (such as ferricyanide, [Fe(CN)6]3-) are always considered to be simple coordination compounds, and not organometallic compounds (which would include iron pentacarbonyl, Fe(CO)5).

Well, now you're contradicting yourself. You are correct that molecules, in chemistry lexicon, are not considered molecules but they can be organic.

Molecules are not considered molecules....who did you say was being contradictory?

You are dead wrong that sodium carbonate or potassium benzoate are ions. These are molecules, namely salts. Salts are molecules as they are not charged.

There is no such thing as a potassium carbonate molecule.
Potassium carbonate contains potassium ions and carbonate ions in a 2:1 ratio in an alternating lattice. No one potassium ion is bonded to or affiliated with any particular carbonate ion. There are no bonds between the potassium and carbonate (forget anything you may have read about "ionic bonds"- there's an attraction, but it's not a bond).

Salts are electrically neutral because they contain enough anions to balance the cations, and vice versa, but they are not, and do not contain, molecules.

 

[Slimething]

No, there is no tautomerization in the carbonate ion. Tautomers don't stabilize things anyway- you may be thinking of resonance, in which the negative charge is delocalized over two or three oxygens (which does stabilize the anion). You get the same resonance in nitrate, sulphate, phosphate, nitrite, sulphite, phosphite, chlorite, chlorate, perchlorate....

You're right. Resonance was the word I wanted. Does this help your case? No.

Resonance is not unique to organic chemistry.

Read.

Cyanide is more often considered a pseudohalide than an organic ion- that's well-known enough that it doesn't need a cite.

Humor me. No mention of pseudohalide here.

Here's one:
(Cotton, Wilkinson, Murillo, Bochmann, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 6th Ed., p. 228) The same book has a list of the important inorganic compounds of carbon, including the oxides, sulphides, halides, and HCN.

I am fully cognizant of how coordination chemistry regards the cyanide ion. I may still have that book. I'll review this and get back to you later. It does not set aside my triazine example, though.

Complex ions which contain cyanide as ligands (such as ferricyanide, [Fe(CN)6]3-) are always considered to be simple coordination compounds, and not organometallic compounds (which would include iron pentacarbonyl, Fe(CO)5).

Does that contradict my definition? No.

Molecules are not considered molecules....who did you say was being contradictory?

The first "molecule" should have been "ion".

There is no such thing as a potassium carbonate molecule.
Potassium carbonate contains potassium ions and carbonate ions in a 2:1 ratio in an alternating lattice. No one potassium ion is bonded to or affiliated with any particular carbonate ion. There are no bonds between the potassium and carbonate (forget anything you may have read about "ionic bonds"- there's an attraction, but it's not a bond).

Salts are electrically neutral because they contain enough anions to balance the cations, and vice versa, but they are not, and do not contain, molecules.

You're being pedantic and avoiding the issue. Suppose you had two ions of potassium and one carbonate ion. Would that make a molecule? You should take your own advice regarding ionic "bonds" regarding your question about sulfurous acid. (Why haven't you addressed that one, by the way?).

Madalch, with all due respect, stick to the issue. That being whether or not the carbonate ion is organic or not. I say it is because it acts like an organic acid. You say it isn't because there's no direct carbon-hydrogen bond. I've posted structures where that is true but the molecules are still organic. So, I reject your defintion because it doesn't hold in too many cases.

Whether it's resonance or magic, carbonic acid behaves like a carboxylic acid. Although I believe you're wrong, let's pretend for a minute that the anions of strong mineral acids also resonate. One critical difference is that their "bonds" with hydrogen are ionic, not covalent. These anions don't need to have the hydrogens dissociate to resonate whereas the the carbonate anion does. Please address this.

 

[Madalch]

You're right. Resonance was the word I wanted. Does this help your case?

Still trying to figure out what your case is...

Read

Don't quote wikipedia at me. Particularly when there's nothing there that backs you up.

You're being pedantic and avoiding the issue. Suppose you had two ions of potassium and one carbonate ion. Would that make a molecule?

No, it makes a pair of ions, or a very small crystal of potassium carbonate.

You should take your own advice regarding ionic "bonds" regarding your question about sulfurous acid. (Why haven't you addressed that one, by the way?).

Because I'm still trying to figure out how you think sulphurous acid is so very different from carbonic acid.

Whether it's resonance or magic, carbonic acid behaves like a carboxylic acid.

So do a lot of other acids.

Although I believe you're wrong, let's pretend for a minute that the anions of strong mineral acids also resonate. One critical difference is that their "bonds" with hydrogen are ionic, not covalent. These anions don't need to have the hydrogens dissociate to resonate whereas the the carbonate anion does. Please address this.

Mineral acids, strong or not, are not, repeat, NOT ionic. They ionize in water, but when pure, they are covalent.

Hydrogen chloride has a covalent bond between the hydrogen and the chlorine. That's why it's a gas at room temperature, has a very low boiling and melting point, and can be dissolved in solvents of low polarity.

Sulphuric acid is also covalent. There is some auto-ionization of the pure acid, but only about 1% of the acid is in the form of [H3SO4][HSO4] or other products. Note that there is no [H+][HSO4-], as a bare proton cannot exist for any length of time in any solvent without finding some source of electron density- some lone pair or bond to protonate. It's charge-to-radius ratio is far too large.

Weak inorganic acids such as sulphurous, phosphoric, or nitrous are clearly not ionic, since that would make them strong acids. But they're not.

Why are you so insistent that carbonates be considered organic? Other than the fact that they contain carbon, how are they similar to organic compounds?

Madalch, with all due respect, stick to the issue. That being whether or not the carbonate ion is organic or not. I say it is because it acts like an organic acid. You say it isn't because there's no direct carbon-hydrogen bond.

I say it isn't because it acts like a typical inorganic anion.

I've posted structures where that is true but the molecules are still organic. So, I reject your defintion because it doesn't hold in too many cases.

Cases where you've defined the molecule to be organic simply because it fits your definition, rather than what chemists consider to be organic.

 

[Tricky]

Thank you plenty, Tricky. I think I never realized how much the earth's surface has been plowed over within the past 500 or so million years. Thank you for fixing that. Still, a few gaps remain.

You're very welcome.

Where did the carbon, hydrocarbons originally come from? Just atmospheric CO2 and maybe a small amount dissolved in water?

Originally? Well, the sun. Before that, the Big Bang. Most of the CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere of the earth (prior to life on earth) were released through volcanic degassing, I assume through processes involved as the earth cooled. I honestly don't know enough to say what form the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms were in before they formed CO2 and CH4, the two most stable of small carbon-containing molecules.

Then two more things: Whether oil/coal are biogenic or abiogenic in origin doesn't really say much about peak oil or other theories about the end of the age of oil. The problem of oil isn't so much one about how much oil there really is, totally, in the mantle. The problem of oil is how much is there close enough to the surface.

That is true. (BTW, oil is in the crust. The mantle is far too hot to preserve oil or probably much methane.) The question of how much there is has been around for ages. Technology has vastly increased the definition of "close enough to the surface", as well as the areas where we can search for oil. Previously unthinkable areas for drilling, like Antarctica are now coming within reach. The short answer is: There will always be oil, if you are willing to pay enough. At some point, though, even the most inefficient solar collectors become more cost-effective.

As far as "peak oil" goes, there is no doubt that we will eventually have to switch from a hydrocarbon-based fuel source, but technology keeps pushing that date further into the future. At present, there are numerous technologies in development for shale oil, enhanced recovery, refining of previously unusable hydrocarbons et. al. that we probably have more than a half century left before the real crunch hits. I'm hoping the transition will be gradual. I'm scared it won't.

FYI, one interesting thing that a lot of unknowledgable people claim as proof that "oil will never run out" is that some reservoirs are actually refilling. After we pumped them "dry", when we have gone back in some, we've found more oil. This is almost certainly due to changes in pressure allowing more oil to migrate into the reservoir, but overall, this is insignificant. It requires reservoirs with tremendous permeability, plus situations where the reservoir is still in communication with a still-generating source. This does happen (more commonly than abiogenic oil ) but not enough to be more than a speck on the radar as far as energy use goes.

Pumping oil up consumes energy, the more the deeper it is. Thus, if the oil/coal's too far down, it takes more energy to pump it up than you can gain from burning it. I guess (hope?) Tricky will correct the living hell out of me now and tell me about pumping water down for great justice.

No, I won't correct you. In fact, you are exactly right, although the cost is in much more than energy. There are a myriad of problems associated with deep drilling, most of them associated with the tremendous temperatures you get at great depth. Drill pipe that can withstand this temperature and the corrosive fluids associated with it, has to be made of alloys that are incredibly expensive (and some are still theoretical). Instruments fail at these temperatures and pressures.

I'm not nearly as familiar with the problems of "deep mining", but you can bet that it is hard to remove the rock (coal) itself without having the hole collapse and destroy the equipment.

Suffice it to say that if you are going to drill deep, you'd better have a pretty damn big payoff. Only the biggest oil companies can afford to do it.

And yeah, the "organic vs. inorganic" discussion needs its own thread. It is interesting enough in its own right, but I'm sure that is not what you were asking about.

 

[Slimething]

Still trying to figure out what your case is...

Read the thread.

Don't quote wikipedia at me. Particularly when there's nothing there that backs you up.

Well, if it doesn't back me up, it certainly does completely contradict a couple of your "just so" statements. Where's the easily-found citation on pseudohalides?

No, it makes a pair of ions, or a very small crystal of potassium carbonate.

So, not a molecule? No ionic molecules in your world? So, only uncharged groups of atoms can be called molecules? Another Wiki no-no but, as you don't like that reference, I won't bother.

Because I'm still trying to figure out how you think sulphurous acid is so very different from carbonic acid.

Why not just tell me?

So do a lot of other acids.

Yes, and they happen to be organic.

Mineral acids, strong or not, are not, repeat, NOT ionic. They ionize in water, but when pure, they are covalent.

Hydrogen chloride has a covalent bond between the hydrogen and the chlorine. That's why it's a gas at room temperature, has a very low boiling and melting point, and can be dissolved in solvents of low polarity.

Sulphuric acid is also covalent. There is some auto-ionization of the pure acid, but only about 1% of the acid is in the form of [H3SO4][HSO4] or other products. Note that there is no [H+][HSO4-], as a bare proton cannot exist for any length of time in any solvent without finding some source of electron density- some lone pair or bond to protonate. It's charge-to-radius ratio is far too large.

Weak inorganic acids such as sulphurous, phosphoric, or nitrous are clearly not ionic, since that would make them strong acids. But they're not.

Maybe you haven't noticed that, in a previous post, I noted that there is no such thing as a purely ionic or purely covalent bond. No?

Why are you so insistent that carbonates be considered organic? Other than the fact that they contain carbon, how are they similar to organic compounds?

Because they act like the rest of the series of carboxylic anions. They don't ionize in the same manner as inorganic acids. Why are you so insistent that it's inorganic? My approach makes infinitely more sense than your indefinite, wishy-washy, "everyone else thinks so" approach.

I say it isn't because it acts like a typical inorganic anion.

Except for the ionization bit.

Cases where you've defined the molecule to be organic simply because it fits your definition, rather than what chemists consider to be organic.

Kettle, meet pot. Now, if we could get back to the carbonate anion and its precursors, please.

 

[geni]

Read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borazine

Humor me. No mention of pseudohalide here.

Wikipedians don't care that much

www.springerlink.com/index/R9KGFM8F2AW6FE64.pdf

 

[Madalch]

Well, if it doesn't back me up, it certainly does completely contradict a couple of your "just so" statements. Where's the easily-found citation on pseudohalides?

Really? Where does it say that resonance only occurs in organic compounds? Where does it say that carbonic acid ionizes according to a completely different mechanism than do inorganic acids?

Oh, here's your reference on pseudohalides:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohalide Happy?

So, not a molecule? No ionic molecules in your world? So, only uncharged groups of atoms can be called molecules?

That's correct- molecules are neutral, not charged.

Why not just tell me?

Tell you what- how carbonic acid ionizes in a completely different fashion from acids such as sulphurous and nitric? It doesn't.

Yes, and they happen to be organic.

No, they don't.

Maybe you haven't noticed that, in a previous post, I noted that there is no such thing as a purely ionic or purely covalent bond. No?

What I was responding to was this gem: "One critical difference is that their "bonds" with hydrogen are ionic, not covalent."
This is absolutely wrong. While some bonds are more ionic than others, bonds with hydrogen have very little ionic character (unless in a metal hydride). The hydrogen-oxygen bonds in inorganic acids are not significantly different from those in organic acids.

Because they act like the rest of the series of carboxylic anions. They don't ionize in the same manner as inorganic acids.

Yes, they do.

Why are you so insistent that it's inorganic? My approach makes infinitely more sense than your indefinite, wishy-washy, "everyone else thinks so" approach.

Since the distinction between organic compounds and inorganic ones is simply a convention, one must go with the convention that most chemists use. And chemists don't consider carbonates to be organic. (Apart from covalent ones like ethylene carbonate, of course.)
Since you like wikipedia, see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inorganic_carbon_compounds
(Although many of the compounds listed would be organometallic, rather than truly inorganic.)

 

[Slimething]

Really? Where does it say that resonance only occurs in organic compounds?

Google "resonance" and then go to the disambiguation page. Click on "resonance (chemistry)". I already did this once for you.

Where does it say that carbonic acid ionizes according to a completely different mechanism than do inorganic acids?

That was me, not Wiki. You have yet to offer anything to counter it. Not only can you not establish that inorganic acid anions demonstrate resonance, you've alread admitted that the carbonate anion does resonate.

Oh, here's your reference on pseudohalides:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohalide Happy?

Yeah, big deal. Has nothing to do with the discussion so I see why you neglected to post it before.

That's correct- molecules are neutral, not charged.

Quats not molecules? Amine hydrochlorides? Or is this another "generally" thing with you?

Tell you what- how carbonic acid ionizes in a completely different fashion from acids such as sulphurous and nitric? It doesn't.

No, they don't.

Do I need to write it again? My hand's getting tired.

What I was responding to was this gem: "One critical difference is that their "bonds" with hydrogen are ionic, not covalent."
This is absolutely wrong. While some bonds are more ionic than others, bonds with hydrogen have very little ionic character (unless in a metal hydride). The hydrogen-oxygen bonds in inorganic acids are not significantly different from those in organic acids.

In case you missed it, I was making a distinction that the carbonate anion rearranges post ionization. What do you mean by "significantly"?

Yes, they do.

Well, that's the crux of it. Demonstrate that inorganic acid anions resonate only after they ionize. Simple challenge.

Since the distinction between organic compounds and inorganic ones is simply a convention, one must go with the convention that most chemists use. And chemists don't consider carbonates to be organic. (Apart from covalent ones like ethylene carbonate, of course.)

So, what's the convention? Or is it unwritten or another "generally" statement. I asked you for a definition before and you gave me a really bad one.

BTW, I really love that word covalent. So, what do we have here? The same structure, carbonate, is inorganic when it's associated with a metal yet organic when it's associated with an organic side-chain. Naughty carbonates are AC/DC!

 

[Slimething]

Sucks to be wrong

Well, thanks to Madalch, I've gone and done some research and it turns out that he is correct and I am wrong.

In one of his last posts, he stated that the line between what is considered organic and inorganic was a matter of convention. So, that induced me to try to debunk my stance in that fashion. After not-so-much-research-that-I-should-have-done-before-I-exposed-my-mental-conflation-of-organic-chemistry, I have found significant evidence that supports his point of view and precious little none to support mine.

So, I hereby apologize* for the needless argumentation, confusion and cussedness I visited upon everyone in the Forum. I should have checked my facts before I foisted my personal views on one-carbon organicity, especially given that scientific convention had already decided otherwise.

All I can say is that I won't soon make that mistake again.

Sorry,
Slimey

*Especially to Madalch, geni, Hokulele, hell too many people to list. Madalch, let the bashing begin!

 

[Hokulele]

No worries Slimething. A brave man takes a stance. A braver man admits when that stance is wrong. Be glad you admitted when you did, as I talk to my mother on the weekends, and you really, really, really don't want a little old Japanese lady organic chemist going off in this thread.


ETA: Sorry Tricky and dabljuh. The thread's all yours now.

 

[Tricky]

Well, thanks to Madalch, I've gone and done some research and it turns out that he is correct and I am wrong.
***
So, I hereby apologize* for the needless argumentation, confusion and cussedness I visited upon everyone in the Forum. I should have checked my facts before I foisted my personal views on one-carbon organicity, especially given that scientific convention had already decided otherwise.

All I can say is that I won't soon make that mistake again.

Sorry,
Slimey

*Especially to Madalch, geni, Hokulele, hell too many people to list. Madalch, let the bashing begin!

Nominated, because it is a great example of how skeptics should be. They should be convincible with proper evidence. They should be honest. They should be honorable. Slimething shows us how it is done.

And now, shut up.

 

[Madalch]

So, I hereby apologize for the needless argumentation, confusion and cussedness I visited upon everyone in the Forum.

No worries. After all, didn't we all come here for a good argument?

Madalch, let the bashing begin!

I'd let you feel my wrath, but at the price of wrath these days, I think I'll have to save it for later.

Tricky: Shutting up, sir.

 

[athon]

We're quibbling over carbonates. Slimey is arguing that they're organic due to their electronic characteristics while the evil guys think it's inorganic because it's found in rocks. Carbonates, by the way, have cabon and oxygen and, at one time, had hydrogen. However, even poor bicarbonate, with its lone hydrogen, can't catch a break as it's been labeled inorganic by the truly evil.

I would like to point out that while a few have proposed rules, and one "generally" rule, on what is organic and what isn't, all have fallen except mine. If you missed it, organic is a molecule that contains carbon bound covalentely to any other atom and is in sp1, sp2 or sp3 arrangement. Anybody have an exception to that one? If not, carbonates are organic.

You'll get no argument from me.

Is this definition the one accepted by all organic chemists? I mean, nature doesn't divide things neatly into categories - we do. And I assume that there is a common link between the terms 'organic' as in chemistry and 'organic' as in living (in that the original organic chemistry dealt with that chemistry common to all recognized life forms).

I take it your definition is the most useful, if so, for categorising and studying certain chemical reactions?

Athon

(ETA: sorry, went on to read further. Nice thread, folks, even if it had rather odd beginnings. Respect to you, Slimething, for learning something new and admitting it. Makes me feel all warm inside when that happens)

 

[wilsontown]

As far as "peak oil" goes, there is no doubt that we will eventually have to switch from a hydrocarbon-based fuel source, but technology keeps pushing that date further into the future. At present, there are numerous technologies in development for shale oil, enhanced recovery, refining of previously unusable hydrocarbons et. al. that we probably have more than a half century left before the real crunch hits. I'm hoping the transition will be gradual. I'm scared it won't.

There was a Hedberg conference on this, reported in the AAPG Explorer:

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2007/05may/nehring.cfm

They reckoned that rather than a sharp peak in oil production, there would be a plateau. We could see this plateau as early as 2020, or as late as 2040. The conference included unconventional reserves, but it didn't look at things like biofuels. So we might be seeing a supply crunch much sooner than the next half century. Of course, these things are notoriously difficult to predict, so we might not.