Joris van der Schot: "Oil Refining 101 and Other Energy Stories” | The Great Simplification #93

[@markkelly4804]

I love the way Nate asks questions that I as a non-expert in oil would ask, like if you put a match to oil straight out ofthe ground would it light. Its amazing that so many of us know so little about the lifeblood of the system we live in.

[@cal48koho]

Fascinating interview and I find out that Nate has a book called Reality Blind. Nate does not do much self promoting. Maybe that needs to change, Nate!

[@treefrog3349]

Another, in a growing list of well-informed, good-intentioned guests. Meanwhile, the bulk of America is mesmerized by the theatrics on Capitol Hill, and the insane brutality in the Middle East. Little do they realize that both phenomena are the direct results of the very thing that you and your guests are talking about.

[@robertpedersen6831]

Sad, but true.

[@noahbrown4388]

Yup, it’s all about POWER.

[@grumpystiltskin]

Some of the more prosaic fusion companies attend the ICCF24 and ICCF25 conferences. ARPA-E has a program in "cold fusion" now, funding MIT, Stanford, Texas Tech and Michigan and Michigan

[@ErnestOfGaia]

Can we have a podcast that talks about the numbers and use cases for the different oil products. I'd like to know what industries use what types of oil products and then discuss what industries we can do without

[@felipearbustopotd]

Art Berman is the Man for that. Suffice to say at 37:06 it's basically explained in the analysis of a cow. 😂

[@davidmitchell4077]

Your guest is an excellent teacher who does a great job in explaining complex topics to the public.

[@cbpuzzle]

Blown away from the excellent explanations from Joris

[@deejay8ch]

36:39 "Oil refiners have what's called the butcher's problem." I've been stewing on this for years as the owner of a car with a big fuel tank. It's good to confirm that it's an "eye fillet" problem. My beef is how it's now a real struggle to make ends meet. Expensive fuel means the stakes are higher than ever - they're certainly not minute - and makes me want to chuck it all in, but I won't have a cow or react in a way that's too knee-jerky. Shanks Nate 😬

[@brushstroke3733]

😂😂 Great puns!

[@PeterTodd]

Oh, Well played 👍

[@henrimattila2216]

Great questions, lovely answers. I wish more often complex things to be explained this simple way.

[@anonymous.youtuber]

Suddenly I realized the world is on fire all the time but the flames are mostly out of sight.

[@j.s.c.4355]

The sulphur discussion makes me think of the effect of smoke from forest fires. Something that’s been happening with some regularity in recent years: you have a heat wave, and then you have a big forest fire, and the smoke blots out the sun and the temperature goes way down. Same thing used to happen in orchards in the Pacific northwest: they would burn pitch to prevent the buds from taking damage in the early spring, but the smoke would prevent the temperatures from going up when the sun came out. So they began spraying the trees with water instead. The freezing of that water on the buds would protect them from frost damage and the resulting fog as the water eventually melted again did not block heat from the sun like smoke did, so the orchards warmed up quicker.

[@Mikey-mike]

Excellent interview. Well done to you both.

[@Bear1buff]

Shale is not "uncooked oil". Generally geologists consider Shale the source rock where most of the oil was formed. It migrated out into limestones or sandstones where most of it migrated to the surface and decayed, but some became trapped under impermeable layers which is what became conventional reserves. Some large unknown percentage remained in the shales that is not very permeable and couldn't be accessed until horizontal drilling technologies were perfected.

[@coweatsman]

If oil kerogen has not passed through the "oil window" where the kerogen becomes oil under the temperature and pressure. If too deep (> 3,5000 metres) it cracks into methane. So in that sense oil is "cooked".

[@bumblebee9337]

Oil... it's what's for dinner 🍽

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

I always give thanks to Bg Oil before each meal.

[@reuireuiop0]

​@@anabolicamaranth7140 not when to step on the gas ?

[@felipearbustopotd]

We are wedded to oil be that what resides in the bottom of the drum or anything else that is above. The cow analysis at 37:00 sums this up nicely. Thank you for uploading and sharing.

[@lynndonharnell422]

In Queensland we have a few (and elderly) oil fields. Generally this is a light sweet crude. Many infield engines run directly on this, and the Inland Oil Refinery at Eromanga just filter it and a few upper cylinder lubricant type additives and there is diesel fuel. A lot gets sold to underground mines because its very low sulphur property. They also have bowsers at the refinery so can fill your diesel car.

[@bumblebee9337]

There may be a connection between those oil fields and the historic town of Petrolia, Ontario. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrolia,_Ontario

[@lynndonharnell422]

@@bumblebee9337 Queensland, Australia

[@bumblebee9337]

@@lynndonharnell422 The 'hard oilers' would go on to prospect around the world.

[@ronkelly7116]

Hi Nate! Love your podcasts! Just would point out that referring to Alberta’s oilsands production as “tar sands” is playing into the heated rhetoric. Remember how our fine industry is still trashed by eco-nutters. Please use ‘oilsands’…..Thank you! -Ron ( retired COP Canada NGL guy)

[@reuireuiop0]

As one of the heaviest carbon polluting fossil sources, Tar Sands monicker is fully deserved ,even a bit undercutting the thing. Might start to call em Carbon Smoke Sands instead ;) But as a European, I might still prefer to import from a decent member of the free world than having to ask Putin for oil again, or make them Oil Arabs even richer, while they would rather have our trusted liberal values behind bars - or worse. Best option - totally cut energy waste to the ultimate minimum, leaving the resources in the ground for back up of renewables and nuclear - we'll be needing them for a long time as network and storage capacity for electricity as the main source of energy still is close to disastrous - and raw materials to build are waay short - why don't Canada go look for the rare earths we'll be needing by the shipload ?

[@Blogzer]

That's humourous. Everyone used to call it tar sands until someone decided oil sands sounds cleaner. It was a rebranding exercise. Your (our) fine industry is killing the biosphere, as we know it, and is doing its best to continue doing so. You might follow up with a recommendation for a certain Ezra Levant book. :)

[@jeffreyburdges1293]

If you have a fusion discussion then your first priority for guests should be critics who explain why the research focuses primarily upon nuclear weapons.

[@coweatsman]

Geoengineering and carbon capture all come down to the same thing, techno bargaining, as in Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's 5 stages of grief, which in the context of global warming, means grief over losing our way of life. It is emblematic of diminishing returns on increasing complexity, just en enable ever more economic growth which actually becomes uneconomic growth, using more and more energy to go backwards.

[@slavaukrayini4442]

Very cool! 👍👍

[@brushstroke3733]

Regarding the problems of plastic waste and recycling, what is the feasibility of processing plastics back to something like crude? I still think reducing use of single use plastics is one of the most important things we can all do, but even if we re-used all of our plastic containers many times, eventually they'd probably wear down and need to be replaced. Could those somehow be returned to something like crude through melting and high pressure?

[@robinschaufler444]

"Read Nate's book." Reality Blind Vol. 1: Integrating the Systems Science Underpinning Our Collective Futures. Yes. I bought 3 copies. One for my personal use and reference and two to loan out. Both of the loaners are out now, so I have to go buy another. The only other book I have treated that way is Life after Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy by Alice J. Friedemann. You're a busy man, Nate. Are you finding any time to work on Reality Blind Vol. 2?

[@klausnielsen7102]

Greetings from Norway. Yes September has been a very good(low prices) electricity month.

[@torsteinholen14]

Vent til kulda kommer ;)

[@brushstroke3733]

What are the real costs though? Prices only reflect the cost of extraction, refining, and transporting, but not necessarily the true value to all mankind going forward ten generations or more.

[@torsteinholen14]

@@brushstroke3733 No one knows the real cost. What is the cost the ones who are living where the extraction takes place, for those who dont use money, for all the countless millions who have died? If we are going to extract something from somewhere, who sets the price, those who live there or some suits from nowhere? Have other animals than human any voice in this? Whats the value of time, millions and millions of years? It is impossible I think, but if there is some dollar value to it, it will be very high indeed.

[@jonas7510]

minor nitpick : oil derives from algae on anoxic seafloors . peat turns into coal over time , and that's not a decay process . ( I've learned that on "the oildrum" :-) )

[@dimitri9959]

There is an abiotic theory as well.

[@jonas7510]

@@dimitri9959 yes there is . and it is hilarious !

[@Orielzolrak]

two Items I always have the same feeling. Economists do not know physics, complex processes and structures and most technical specialists do not know economics. In this case I feel that the interviewee says: Ok, we could do this and this and such but they don't say how much these new structures cost and if society can support it. On the other hand, I propose, perhaps you discussed this topic, to see what would happen with three fundamental elements that lengthened our lives. - Hygiene, it depends if we can have drinking water and at what cost? - Vaccines, can the complex system for the implementation of vaccines be maintained? - Antibiotics, which must be updated due to the evolution of bacteria and if the population in case of crisis will be able to access them? Greetings to you

[@Eudamonia-123]

Very interesting and informative. Haven’t been convinced on anthropogenic climate change, but do enjoy the discussion.

[@johncarter1150]

A world with another relatively free and abundant energy source will expedite the end of humanity and maybe life on Earth.

[@johnmaitel351]

Nate Have you looked at terra forma industrie's recent claim of synthetic methane (at competitive prices in the future, assuming costs of solar are low ect..)

[@jack852494]

In the U.S., we call it a Crude cocktail.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Outside their own body? Jeopardy question: What is symbiosis?

[@jimkelleher5312]

Excess energy on the grid (e.g. from nuclear supply that exceeds demand) could be used to power direct carbon capture, you'd just need to make sure there was always enough dcc facilities to absorb any excess utility generation. When there is so much excess CO2 to be removed there is no such thing as excess energy on the grid. Load balance with DCC, not by burning methane.

[@skeetorkiftwon]

You point out here that carbon capture is an energy intensive process. You pretend there's wasted nuclear capacity to power the pipe dream of pulling 0.04% of the atmosphere out. We already have very efficient carbon capture. Go buy a CO² tank. The problem isn't electricity. Electricity is worthless for making steel, making fertilizer, making medicines, refining ore, making silicon, and last mile delivery. How much does the atmosphere expand per degree of warming as per the ideal gas law? The rate of cooling of a body due to radiation is based on the surface area of the atmosphere. There is no global warming. It's propaganda to reduce fuel consumption. Which is the actual problem. Only a fool thinks they'd build a machine from fuel to absorb a fraction of the byproduct of the combustion used making the machine itself.

[@jimkelleher5312]

@@skeetorkiftwon Ignored.

[@skeetorkiftwon]

@@jimkelleher5312 Enjoy your hamster wheel. No one cares

[@skypedog5]

next time try the Canadian side where you can enter the Tunnels that allow one to stand about behind the cascade which is about 6 feet away!

[@kiedranFan2035]

Low energy nuclear reactions or lenr is a field and recently there has been news of lattice confinmemt fusion and muon catalysed fusion too. Both are cold from the perspective of tokamaks. These two are the only two legit low temp fusion systems i can currently see.

[@grumpystiltskin]

Muon catalyzed is very real but it is not something you expect to do in a desktop unit unless you figure out a muon source. So it can't explain all the observations in LENR.

[@grumpystiltskin]

Lattice Confined Fusion is a NASA project that IEEE Spectrum covered last year.

[@jeffreyburdges1293]

We do not use oil directly but container ships supposedly have engines which could burn some grades of crude oil. I've no idea what happens with worse grades.

[@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner]

Hagenducation.

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

Just as an absurdly petty point of contention to the opening statement, which was given in a different context and thus my point of contention then becomes especially petty and really just way for me to mention them, but the Leaf Cutter species of ants have also learned how to harness extra-bodily metabolism which benefits their colonies. Ants are rad.

[@ericrossignol4779]

Enlightening interview almost up to the end...except that at the very end unexpectedly we heard about "cold fusion" and other fairytale stories ... Man, seriously ? Wow...

[@bumblebee9337]

Swap nitrogen for carbon. Green ammonia. And draw upon geothermal capital to make it happen.

[@barrycarter8276]

An interesting guest Joris van der Schot - control systems engineer/refinery economist/aviation gasoline supply manager/and et al engineer, but not one your best guest/discussions Nate on Oil and its refining products, Art Berman still takes some beating, but what you really need is someone who is or formally a petroleum chemical engineer/chemist to get to the gist of what really goes on🤔

[@ginamurray711]

Interesting discussion. Have you ever invited Peter Zeihan onto your program? If not, you should… so many people are talking around his work without engaging with him directly.

[@pq2667]

fascinating, thank you......I'm glad the open seas are not such a problem!...NATE: ".....but the clouds"....gotta thank the folks that worked out how to use this black goop, not! (I think :)....must go and feed the chickens, have a great day folks

[@gerhardusvanderpoll]

What about the acidification of the oceans....leaving crustaceans literally without a life boat... for instance, corals collapse,so does the shoals of fish around reefs..??? So as far as I would surmise,surely the Sulphur is absorbed into the sea surface..??

[@felipearbustopotd]

4:18 nice summing-up with regards OUR external calorie INTAKE. We know the value of our external calories but alas not the true cost of it, I e. the cost to our health and environment. 20:08 Those Lego pieces look like a potential choking hazard.

[@HediSmida]

35:28 not that I am pro geo-engineering, but there are non-sulfuric aerosols that would achieve similar results or better without the tree-killing part.

[@coweatsman]

Schot's optimism ignores the limits of thermodynamics which can come from batteries. Most of the proposed new battery techs are new ideas but have been around for 100 years. Most other proposed batteries are heavier the lithium ion batteries, lithium being the 3rd lightest element after hydrogen and helium. SO a heavier battery is not a good start because THAT weight also has be be carried around.

[@PeterTodd]

From what I've seen and heard, almost all proponents for the heavier alternative 'batteries' point to them as fixed storage.

[@stevecaputiREOmindset]

Steamships are building 25000 teu’s using hydrocarbons in gaseous states phasing out diesel hi-sulphur content

[@evilryutaropro]

I feel like we don’t really need new energy technology so much as we need to just suck it up and work with already existing low energy technology. Bicycles are super efficient, different forms of insulation are helpful, stuff like lawn mowers can be replaced with grazing herbivores. The wasted uses of energy can go first and we can be fine ish

[@jeffreyburdges1293]

I'd so hope cold fusion never works! At least not in some way that provides much power, maybe safe & useful if it provided only weak power sources useful for satellites & space probes, like maybe some "two-stage" radioisotope thermoelectric generator done with plutonium hydride or whatever.

[@wuldntuliktonoptb6861]

I had no idea you wrote a book Nate you have never plugged it once, your KZbin shilling is non existent.

[@АлександрГодзиковский-ь1р]

If only we spend less on wars, and more on technologies… Unfortunately, it sounds like utopia these days. People hate each other just because they think that some of them are better than the others. The world lacks trust, cooperation and real mutual responsibility. Instead we call each other names, put on tags. It reminds me of kids on a playground playing tough. We should firstly change our approach to dealing with one another. No progress will ever be achieved in any field without this simple thing!

[@Milhouse77BS]

My boy would love to visit Jurassic Park

[@anthonytroia1]

But fo' real: read Nate's book.

[@astrologerclimatewitness3787]

I have not heard anything...about planetary overshoot.

[@astrologerclimatewitness3787]

Oh...you just said it..but....I doubt ...average people would realize that it was necessary .. they DONT READ.

[@dimitri9959]

Nate’s use of the term “tar sands” illustrates how successful the environmental propaganda machine has been at disparaging Canadian oil. Why isn’t Venezuelan oil disparaged in the same manner it is often as heavy or heavier than Canadian?

[@brushstroke3733]

Is Venezuelan crude mixed with sand? Do Canadian Tar Sands require pumping sea water into the ground to extract them, or is that just the shale oil in the U.S.? The answers to these questions might be part of the reason, or maybe it's just political.

[@Apjooz]

Shouldn't we compare stock to stock? Oil underground vs fusible hydrogen of the Sun.

[@sebastienloyer9471]

That's bulk crued

[@graemetunbridge1738]

My eBike uses vastly less energy than my SUV, with no loss in standard of living.

[@timyo6288]

i truly don't care , this is another generations problem, not ours

[@chriscavanagh1347]

Where is the serious discussion on the simple solution: go nuclear, go big, go now?

[@freeforester1717]

Relax. All will be fine. At the current rate of Earth’s magnetic poles shifting and the planet’s fast weakening magnetic field there will be plenty of oil for the remaining global population, after the cataclysm.

[@brushstroke3733]

And others say Jesus is coming back to bring the Final Judgment. Both are religious claims.

[@freeforester1717]

@@brushstroke3733 one is evidence based, the other would be a belief.

[@brushstroke3733]

@@freeforester1717 Is there evidence to show the certain outcome of pole shift? Is there evidence to prove how much the magnetic field will weaken ultimately, or are these just projections that someone believes in? And how are the reseachers who make these claims benefitting from them? Higher social status among an in-group (alarmists)? Greater wealth from selling books and giving talks? Many researchers get high on their own fumes - I'm sure you know this. Evidence based? That's what all religious people say as well. If you haven't done the research yourself, and been very careful to search out and admit your biases and motivations, take everything with a nice heaping spoon ofmsalt.

[@Warp9Cat]

Nuclear Energy anyone. Are we not considering or commiting to the Safest Cleanest and most powerful source of energy ? Fusion 😂 Its pronounced FISSION. We can tinker with Fusion when we get Fission widely installed

[@vturiserra]

They can't even make the hot fusion work, and now this guy thinks cold fusion deserves spending money on it!🙄

[@rab5193]

Not a good video. There is not much real information about the process and details of refining. How much energy and resources consumed in refining and what are the major issues in refining. The guest seems to be really good and didn’t comment much about things he didn’t have expertise. Nate is really worst interviewer. He didn’t ask any relevant questions, but only promoting his views and many BS he heard from somewhere. For example, he said reducing sulphur from marine fuel is causing global warming. What a BS, I want to know the source he got that BS from. He also, said even if we move to all EVs we still need refining oil. He thinks only gasoline will not be needed. By moving to. EVs for cars, trucks and even semi, it will cut diesel. Many of short trip Ferris and boats are already converting to electric. They have a 3MW charger for ferries in Norway. Nate is totally ridiculous in this interview

[@bumblebee9337]

Sugar is C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁ and it is flammable.

[@brushstroke3733]

Do you mean sucrose, glucose, fructose, lactose, galactose, or other sugar? Isn't wood made of cellulose which is basically long chains of glucose, which is essentially cyclic hexane?? Yeah, most carbon based things are flammable, including humans.

[@bumblebee9337]

@@brushstroke3733That formula is specifically for table sugar. Sugar cane and sugar beets are a natural way of growing hydrocarbon chains.

[@A3Kr0n]

I think the message here is the same as all podcasts. Enjoy what you have today until the people who demand unlimited exponential growth in the their incomes takes everything from everyone. The very people you Nate jet around the world talking to. Are you the enemy?

[@Apjooz]

Currently we all have limited lifespan so yes, enjoy the present. Nothing is here to last for us as individuals.

[@brushstroke3733]

So no one is allowed to fly anywhere anymore, even to discuss possible solutions? Aren't we sitting here communicating on devices that require power? Are we the enemy for using electronics (and refrigerators, and microwaves, and hot water, and anything transported by truck, rail, boat, or plane, including food?)

[@user-vi6ro8bd4l]

Perhaps homo sapiens are insatiable, as neuroendicrinologist Robert Sapolsky has said in a recent interview with Nate. If so, perhaps the species behaves like any invasive species, driven by dopamine. Perhaps we are a massive, oil addicted dopamine machine in hyper-drive (punny) into overshoot...and there is no one to blame, because blame is irrelevant in biology.

[@anthonytroia1]

You could always not* watch the podcast. Jus sayin 🤗

[@brushstroke3733]

@@user-vi6ro8bd4l The egoic mind is insatiable. The identity is a construct of thought which is an activity of the brain. Since it is unreal but thinks it is real, it lives in constant fear and seeks always to be more and accumulate more in its attempt to solidify itself. If somehow the collective of human brains discovers this illusion and drops it, humans may finally be satiable like other animals.

[@mchahal22]

No matter how you get your energy, you will boil the oceans in 400 years if you keep using energy at the current rate.😢

[@brushstroke3733]

How do you figure?

[@mchahal22]

​@@brushstroke3733Calculated based on entropy.

[@mchahal22]

Dr Sabine H. Has a video called. " I recently learned...' Google does not allow me to share the link here.

[@brushstroke3733]

@@mchahal22 How so? Increases in temperature indicate higher energetic states within a substance, meaning more vibration and translation (movement) of molecules. More vibration and translation of molecules and mixing of molecules means higher entropy. In other words, [delta] S (entropy) is proportional to [delta] Q (heat.)

[@brushstroke3733]

@@mchahal22 I will check out the video. Something sounds very fishy about that claim. While much energy is lost as heat whenever we convert it, it would take A LOT of heat to raise the temperature of the atmosphere so much that average surface ocean temperatures would reach 100°C. Remember, the atmosphere is huge, the oceans are huge and deep and cold, and the total mass of the Earth is WAY more than both of those components combined. The Earth itself provides a massive heat sink for all that lost heat we produce as we convert energy (to electricity, light, kinectic energy of machines, kinetic energy of moving vehicles, phase changes that power cooling systems, etc.)

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

We didn’t remove much sulfur from coal here in the US. Why do you think we’re still successfully growing GMO corn to feed our factory farmed cows in the artificially cooled Midwest while your olive crop is withering in Spain?