Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jpwright 4441 days ago
True, the article is more about the potential of methane hydrate if it were used on a larger scale.

I assume you're referring to this line:

> Petroleum is a grab-bag term for all nonsolid hydrocarbon resources—oil of various types, natural gas, propane, oil precursors, and so on—that companies draw from beneath the Earth’s surface. The stuff that catches fire around stove burners is known by a more precise term, natural gas, referring to methane, a colorless, odorless gas that has the same chemical makeup no matter what the source—ordinary petroleum wells, shale beds, or methane hydrate.

This does rely on the common-use definition of petroleum = hydrocarbons (loosely incorporating refined outputs as well) and not the technical definition of petroleum = crude. But that usage can be found all over academic and industry writing as well; sometimes it is shorthand for something like "petroleum-based products". A few examples:

-- "Petroleum is a complex mixture of organic liquids called crude oil and natural gas, which occurs naturally in the ground and was formed millions of years ago." -- Australian Institute of Petroleum, http://www.aip.com.au/industry/fact_refine.htm

-- "Petroleum - A generic name for hydrocarbons, including crude oil, natural gas liquids, natural gas and their products." -- Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, http://oil-gas.state.co.us/cogis_help/glossary.htm

-- "petroleum n: a substance occurring naturally in the earth in solid, liquid, or gaseous state and composed mainly of mixtures of chemical compounds of carbon and hydrogen, with or without other nonmetallic elements such as sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen. In some cases, especially in the measurement of oil and gas, petroleum refers only to oil—a liquid hydrocarbon—and does not include natural gas or gas liquids such as propane and butane." -- U.S. Occupational Health & Safety Administration, https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/oilandgas/glossary_of_terms...

Either way, dismissing the entirety of a sophisticated, well-researched article in a respected publication because you disagree with the way one term is used is pretty glib.

1 comments

People who know what they're talking about can get away with using less precise language. They would never conflate "the potential of methane hydrate if it were used on a larger scale" with oil. But this author did. Therefore the fact that he used this loose definition is not irrelevant - it points to the central problem. This article is not sophisticated or well-researched, it's simply long. The fact that it was this high on Hacker News is sad.