Loading...
Oil and Gas 1 units 10, 11, 12
Quiz by Andreya Valabek
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
A solution is a mixture in which one or more substances are uniformly distributed in another substance. Solutions can be mixtures of liquids, solids, or gases. For example, plasma, the liquid part of blood, is a very complex solution. It is composed of many types of ions and large molecules, as well as gases, that are dissolved in water. A solute (SAHL-YOOT) is a substance dissolved in the solvent. The particles that compose a solute may be ions, atoms, or molecules. The solvent is the substance in which the solute is dissolved. For example, when sugar, a solute, and water, a solvent, are mixed, a solution of sugar water results. Though the sugar dissolves in the water, neither the sugar molecules nor the water molecules are altered chemically. If the water is boiled away, the sugar molecules remain and are unchanged. Solutions can be composed of various proportions of a given solute in a given solvent. Thus, solutions can vary in concentra- tion. The concentration of a solution is the amount of solute dis- solved in a fixed amount of the solution. For example, a 2 percent saltwater solution contains 2 g of salt dissolved in enough water to make 100 mL of solution. The more solute dissolved, the greater is the concentration of the solution. A saturated solution is one in which no more solute can dissolve. Aqueous (AY-kwee-uhs) solutions—solutions in which water is the solvent—are universally important to living things. Marine microorganisms spend their lives immersed in the sea, an aqueous solution. Most nutrients that plants need are in aqueous solutions in moist soil. Body cells exist in an aqueous solution of intercellu- lar fluid and are themselves filled with fluid; in fact, most chemical reactions that occur in the body occur in aqueous solutions. Copyright © by Holt, Rinehart and Winston. All rights reserved. Liquid water Solid water Ice (solid water) is less dense than liquid water because of the structure of ice crystals. The water molecules in ice are bonded to each other in a way that creates large amounts of open space between the molecules, relative to liquid water. FIGURE 2-12 solvent from the Latin solvere, meaning “to loosen” Word Roots and Origins CHEMISTRY OF LIFE 43 ACIDS AND BASES One of the most important aspects of a living system is the degree of its acidity or alkalinity. What do we mean when we use the terms acid and base? Ionization of Water As water molecules move about, they bump into one another. Some of these collisions are strong enough to result in a chemical change: one water molecule loses a proton (a hydrogen nucleus), and the other gains this proton. This reaction really occurs in two steps. First, one molecule of water pulls apart another water molecule, or dissociates, into two ions of opposite charge: H2O ∏ H OH The OH ion is known as the hydroxide ion. The free H ion can react with another water molecule, as shown in the equation below. H H2O ∏ H3O The H3O ion is known as the hydronium ion. Acidity or alkalin- ity is a measure of the relative amounts of hydronium ions and hydroxide ions dissolved in a solution. If the number of hydronium ions in a solution equals the number of hydroxide ions, the solution is said to be neutral. Pure water contains equal numbers of hydro- nium ions and hydroxide ions and is therefore a neutral solution. Acids If the number of hydronium ions in a solution is greater than the number of hydroxide ions, the solution is an acid. For example, when hydrogen chloride gas, HCl, is dissolved in water, its mol- ecules dissociate to form hydrogen ions, H, and chloride ions, Cl, as is shown in the equation below. HCl ∏ H Cl These free hydrogen ions combine with water molecules to form hydronium ions, H3O. This aqueous solution contains many more hydronium ions than it does hydroxide ions, making it an acidic solution. Acids tend to have a sour taste; how- ever, never taste a substance to test it for acidity. In concentrated forms, they are highly corrosive to some materials, as you can see in Figure 2-13. Bases If sodium hydroxide, NaOH, a solid, is dissolved in water, it dissociates to form sodium ions, Na, and hydroxide ions, OH, as shown in the equation below. NaOH ∏ Na OH Copyright © by Holt, Rinehart and Winston. All rights reserved. Eco Connection onnection Acid Precipitation Acid precipitation, more commonly called acid rain, describes rain, snow, sleet, or fog that contains high levels of sulfuric and nitric acids. These acids form when sulfur dioxide gas, SO2, and nitrogen oxide gas, NO, react with water in the atmosphere to produce sulfuric acid, H2SO4, and nitric acid, HNO3. Acid precipitation makes soil and bodies of water, such as lakes, more acidic than normal. These high acid levels can harm plant and animal life directly. A high level of acid in a lake may kill mollusks, fish, and amphibians. Even in a lake that does not have a very elevated level of acid, acid precipitation may leach aluminum and magnesium from soils, poisoning water- dwelling species. Reducing fossil-fuel consump- tion, such as occurs in gasoline engines and coal-burning power plants, should reduce high acid levels in precipitation. Sulfur dioxide, SO2, which is produced when fossil fuels are burned, reacts with water in the atmosphere to produce acid precipitation. Acid precipitation, or acid rain, can make lakes and rivers too acidic to support life and can even corrode stone, such as the face of this statue. FIGURE 2-13 44 CHAPTER 2 This solution then contains more hydroxide ions than hydronium ions and is therefore defined as a base. The adjective alkaline refers to bases. Bases have a bitter taste; however, never taste a substance to test for alkalinity. They tend to feel slippery because the OH ions react with the oil on our skin to form a soap. In fact, commercial soap is the product of a reaction between a base and a fat. pH Scientists have developed a scale for comparing the relative con- centrations of hydronium ions and hydroxide ions in a solution. This scale is called the pH scale, and it ranges from 0 to 14, as shown in Figure 2-14. A solution with a pH of 0 is very acidic, a solution with a pH of 7 is neutral, and a solution with a pH of 14 is very basic. A solution’s pH is measured on a logarithmic scale. That is, the change of one pH unit reflects a 10-fold change in the acidity or alkalinity. For example, urine has 10 times the H3O ions at a pH of 6 than water does at a pH of 7. Vinegar, has 1,000 times more H3O ions at a pH of 3 than urine at a pH of 6, and 10,000 times more H3O ions than water at a pH of 7. The pH of a solution can be measured with litmus paper or with some other chemical indicator that changes color at various pH levels. Buffers The control of pH is important for living systems. Enzymes can function only within a very narrow pH range. The control of pH in organisms is often accomplished with buffers. Buffers are chemi- cal substances that neutralize small amounts of either an acid or a base added to a solution. As Figure 2-14 shows, the composition of your internal environment—in terms of acidity and alkalinity— varies greatly. Some of your body fluids, such as stomach acid and urine, are acidic. Others, such as intestinal fluid and blood, are“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.Growth of the Texas Oil and Gas Industry - Starter QuizChemical composition of oil and gasScience Exam Parts of the Atom: The atom consists of a nucleus at its center, containing protons (positively charged) and neutrons (neutral), while electrons (negatively charged) orbit in electron shells around the nucleus. Atomic Number: The atomic number of an element is the number of protons in its nucleus. It defines the element and determines its place on the periodic table. Properties of Metals: Metals have properties like conductivity, malleability (can be flattened into sheets), and ductility (can be drawn into wires). Elements, Compounds, and Mixtures: Elements consist of only one type of atom. Compounds are made of two or more different elements chemically bonded. Mixtures are combinations of substances that are physically mixed but not chemically bonded. Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Mixtures: Homogeneous mixtures have a uniform composition (e.g., saltwater), while heterogeneous mixtures have different phases (e.g., oil and water). Changes of State: Changes like melting, evaporation, and condensation are examples of physical changes of state. Chemical and Physical Properties: Chemical properties describe how a substance can change to form a new substance, while physical properties are characteristics like color, texture, and state (solid, liquid, gas). Physical and Chemical Change: A physical change involves the appearance or state of matter, but the substance remains the same. A chemical change involves the formation of new substances. Chemical Equations: Chemical reactions can be represented with chemical equations that show reactants (what you start with) and products (what is formed). Chemical Formulas: Chemical formulas represent the composition of compounds. For example, NaHCO3 is sodium bicarbonate, consisting of one sodium (Na), one hydrogen (H), one carbon (C), and three oxygen (O) atoms. Energy: Types of Energy: Energy can be kinetic (related to motion), potential (stored energy), thermal (heat energy), electrical, chemical, and more. Units of Energy: Common units of energy include joules (J) and calories (cal). Law of Conservation of Energy: Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or transformed from one form to another. Energy Transfer and Transformation: Energy moves from one object to another, changing forms along the way. Useful and Waste Energy: Useful energy is what can be harnessed and used for a specific purpose. Waste energy is energy that is not used and is often lost. Energy Flow Diagrams: These diagrams show how energy is transferred or transformed within a system. Energy Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of how much useful energy is obtained from a system. It can be calculated using the equation: Efficiency = (Useful Energy Output / Total Energy Input) x 100%. Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy: Fossil fuels, like coal, oil, and natural gas, are non-renewable sources of energy. Renewable energy sources include solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. Variables: Independent Variable: The variable that is manipulated or changed in an experiment. Dependent Variable: The variable that is measured or observed and is affected by changes in the independent variable. Controlled Variables: Factors that are kept constant to ensure a fair and accurate experiment.Industry of Southeast Asia Industrialization in Southeast Asia is a relatively recent phenomenon, much of the development having occurred only since the early 1960s. As mentioned above, industrialization policies have been critical goals in the market economies of the ASEAN countries; and, in all of them except Brunei, industry’s share of the GDP has grown considerably. The most significant increases have occurred in Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines. Manufacturing in particular has accounted for the greatest changes, with Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand making especially large gains during the 1980s. Small factories dominate, both in terms of the number of companies and the number of workers employed. Agricultural processing is most important in virtually all nations. The notable exception is Singapore, where the manufacture of a variety of products, headed by electrical and electronic and transport equipment, is dominant. In Thailand, Myanmar, and the Philippines, textiles and clothing are significant, as is the chemical industry in Thailand and Indonesia. Light, labour-intensive goods, such as electrical and electronic products, are increasingly important. It is in the manufacture of these products and textiles that the most employment has been gained. Tin is the most important metallic mineral in the region in terms of value, and Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia account for more than half of world production. In Malaysia and elsewhere, however, alluvial lodes are becoming depleted, and the remaining concentrations are less economical to mine. Fluctuating market prices have also discouraged tin production. Nickel, copper, and chromite are also mined, although the quantities produced in the region are minor in terms of world production. Southeast Asia has considerable reserves of oil and natural gas, notably in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei. Trade Given Southeast Asia’s strategic location and the early development of trade there, it is not surprising that trade is especially important to all nations in the region. The value of regional trade is about one-third that of the United States. Most striking is the almost total dominance of trade by the market economies. Exports, as a percentage of the GDP, are small in Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Laos and moderately so in Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Countries with a relatively large proportion of export trade are Singapore, Malaysia, and Brunei. Composition of exports is important. In this respect, Indonesia—the trade structure of which long has been dominated by oil—has been relatively successful in diversifying its exports toward plywood, rattan, coffee, rubber, and textiles. Conversely, Malaysia, with a trade pattern of exporting palm oil, tropical hardwoods, and tin, now derives the majority of its export income from petroleum products. This revenue has been used to build up the country’s industrial base. Thailand exhibits a much less diverse export structure, where food and manufactured goods account for nearly all of its total trade. Likewise, Brunei relies almost entirely on its petroleum exports. Singapore, however, has utilized its unique geographic position and highly educated labour force to attract multinational corporations. As a result, investment in the manufacturing and, increasingly, service sectors has greatly expanded. Intraregional trade among the ASEAN members, while important, accounts for only about one-fifth of Southeast Asia’s total trade. Philippine trade within the region is especially small, reflecting its long-term orientation toward the United States. Far more important, therefore, is the trade with countries outside the region, dominated by that with Japan, Europe, and the United States; increasingly significant, however, is the trade with Taiwan, China (especially Hong Kong), and South Korea.Oil, Coal and Natural Gas (Science)💰 Impact on the Economy Natural resources play a major role in the growth of a country’s economy. Here’s how: Source of Income and Employment Many people work in industries like mining, farming, fishing, and forestry. These sectors create jobs and help reduce poverty. Industrial Growth Raw materials like iron, coal, and oil are used in industries to make products such as steel, vehicles, and energy. More industries mean more production and trade. Energy Production Resources like coal, oil, gas, and sunlight are used to produce electricity. Energy supports factories, transportation, and homes. Exports and Foreign Exchange Countries export natural resources (like crude oil, gold, or coffee) to earn money from other countries. This increases national income. Infrastructure Development Resource wealth helps governments build roads, schools, and hospitals. ⚠️