"Oil is NOT a fossil fuel"
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I think "No RSP" should be expanded to "No RSPC" (the C is for conspiracy theories).
Agree, this type of sidetracking and fantasy is more harmful than helpful.
I think "No RSP" should be expanded to "No RSPC" (the C is for conspiracy theories).
Agree, this type of sidetracking and fantasy is more harmful than helpful.
Any geologists care to chime in?
Very interesting topic.
Another reason not to believe everything your favorite politician or media source says...
...or university for that matter.
Another reason not to believe everything your favorite politician or media source says...
...or university for that matter.
Originally Posted By: Augustus
Quote:
Interesting, but no reason not to conserve recourses and be less wasteful
It's more difficult to obtain tax revenue from a gallon of gas that cost 88¢ then a gallon that costs $4.00.
It's even easier when you force USDollars overseas funneled into the hands of several "Emirs" who can do nothing with those USDollars but purchase US Debt instruments (by agreement possibly - for building their oil fields)!
Get my point about how to Finance the US Debt at the expense of you and I - without me getting political?
I disagree. It is easier to tax people when the oil only cost 88c rather than $4 without pushing off the citizen over the edge.
Quote:
Interesting, but no reason not to conserve recourses and be less wasteful
It's more difficult to obtain tax revenue from a gallon of gas that cost 88¢ then a gallon that costs $4.00.
It's even easier when you force USDollars overseas funneled into the hands of several "Emirs" who can do nothing with those USDollars but purchase US Debt instruments (by agreement possibly - for building their oil fields)!
Get my point about how to Finance the US Debt at the expense of you and I - without me getting political?
I disagree. It is easier to tax people when the oil only cost 88c rather than $4 without pushing off the citizen over the edge.
It may be easier because it's more easily swallowed by the masses. But it certainly would cut into the revenues pretty heavily. A higher cost for gas at the pump serves our government well.
Plus they get to use it as a campaign stump topic and act as if they can change the way it is.
Plus they get to use it as a campaign stump topic and act as if they can change the way it is.
Well, if oil is not a fossil fuel, then what made the 'surface' oil?
You know, the Jed Clampett type that gushes out?
We can't have it both ways! Conditions are not the same near the surface as deep down.
Massive upheavals in the past could account for deep oil resources.
Years ago I saw a scientific documentary on NBC, narrated by the actor, Darrin McGavin. It explained how the earth convulsed/moved and shot up water miles high due to violent tectonics. Incredible forces were in effect, and continents moved. This was all tied in with Noah's ark accounts.
It was only shown once, then quashed.
You know, the Jed Clampett type that gushes out?
We can't have it both ways! Conditions are not the same near the surface as deep down.
Massive upheavals in the past could account for deep oil resources.
Years ago I saw a scientific documentary on NBC, narrated by the actor, Darrin McGavin. It explained how the earth convulsed/moved and shot up water miles high due to violent tectonics. Incredible forces were in effect, and continents moved. This was all tied in with Noah's ark accounts.
It was only shown once, then quashed.
Originally Posted By: cchase
Originally Posted By: crinkles
rubbish. the deepest borehole ever undertaken is 12km. it closes up in a few minutes due to plasticity of the rock at that depth. oil is from ocean plankton etc. it is only in sedimentary strata where these deposits are trapped in favourable conditions and subjected to pressure and temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reservoir
please read.
How is wikipedia a good place to learn the "truth" about anything? I'm not saying those aren't correct or not or valid theories but seriously? Wikipedia?
i'd say its more facutal than "canada free press" paranoia...
and you can verify those facts on wikipedia quite easily through other sources. why don't you call russia and confirm their borehole?
yes wikipedia can be erroneous, does that mean everything is wrong? use your brain instead of discounting and repeating "yes brother" about what you read on the internet...
gimme a break...
Originally Posted By: crinkles
rubbish. the deepest borehole ever undertaken is 12km. it closes up in a few minutes due to plasticity of the rock at that depth. oil is from ocean plankton etc. it is only in sedimentary strata where these deposits are trapped in favourable conditions and subjected to pressure and temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reservoir
please read.
How is wikipedia a good place to learn the "truth" about anything? I'm not saying those aren't correct or not or valid theories but seriously? Wikipedia?
i'd say its more facutal than "canada free press" paranoia...
and you can verify those facts on wikipedia quite easily through other sources. why don't you call russia and confirm their borehole?
yes wikipedia can be erroneous, does that mean everything is wrong? use your brain instead of discounting and repeating "yes brother" about what you read on the internet...
gimme a break...
crinkles, it's far easier to accept a wierdo position that means that you can continue the status quo for ever, than to accept a position that means that you have to think seriously about your actions.
I was pushing an efficiency issue some year ago, when a very senior person told me that efficiency doesn't matter, as there's just enough of everything to get us to the rapture, doing exactly what we are doing... it was made that way.
I was pushing an efficiency issue some year ago, when a very senior person told me that efficiency doesn't matter, as there's just enough of everything to get us to the rapture, doing exactly what we are doing... it was made that way.
1) Does it matter if it is not a fossil fuel or not? If it cannot be replenish as fast as it is consumed?
2) Does it matter if these non fossil fuel, if replenish as fast as it is consumed, is expensive to drill?
For me I'll just watch the oil price and believe the "market economy" rather than debating what it is to justify my consumption or not.
Of course, that means my wallet tells me to spend as little as possible.
2) Does it matter if these non fossil fuel, if replenish as fast as it is consumed, is expensive to drill?
For me I'll just watch the oil price and believe the "market economy" rather than debating what it is to justify my consumption or not.
Of course, that means my wallet tells me to spend as little as possible.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I was pushing an efficiency issue some year ago, when a very senior person told me that efficiency doesn't matter, as there's just enough of everything to get us to the rapture, doing exactly what we are doing... it was made that way.
Shannow,
It's sad when folks don't read the Word or read it & fail to understand what it said/says. Paul addressed this very problem that the 'very senior person' had (hint, that 'very senior person' isn't correct). So, don't throw that blanket over everyone.
I was pushing an efficiency issue some year ago, when a very senior person told me that efficiency doesn't matter, as there's just enough of everything to get us to the rapture, doing exactly what we are doing... it was made that way.
Shannow,
It's sad when folks don't read the Word or read it & fail to understand what it said/says. Paul addressed this very problem that the 'very senior person' had (hint, that 'very senior person' isn't correct). So, don't throw that blanket over everyone.
Mate, wasn't throwing it over everybody, as he's the only person that I've ever met in real life with that particular extent of a belief system... he can justify almost any excess with his "logic"
Apologies if it came across as a blanket.
Apologies if it came across as a blanket.
Apology accepted.
JHZR2
Staff member
The issue of renewable vs not is a non-issue given the kinetics of the process. I've said this many times... You have to do the mass balance on the earth.
use + generation = 0 at steady state, which is not the case. We have been running off of the situation where
current stock + generation = use. As soon as the current amassed stock goes to zero, then use HAS to equal or be less than generation. Given that generation is all over, and we don't have wells everywhere, we can't possibly sustain, so we HAVE to conserve and HAVE to reduce use, and HAVE to look for alternatives. This makes all current efforts valid, and any arguments or points on this relatively moot in light of the current situation.
use + generation = 0 at steady state, which is not the case. We have been running off of the situation where
current stock + generation = use. As soon as the current amassed stock goes to zero, then use HAS to equal or be less than generation. Given that generation is all over, and we don't have wells everywhere, we can't possibly sustain, so we HAVE to conserve and HAVE to reduce use, and HAVE to look for alternatives. This makes all current efforts valid, and any arguments or points on this relatively moot in light of the current situation.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
i'd say its more facutal than "canada free press" paranoia...
and you can verify those facts on wikipedia quite easily through other sources. why don't you call russia and confirm their borehole?
yes wikipedia can be erroneous, does that mean everything is wrong? use your brain instead of discounting and repeating "yes brother" about what you read on the internet...
gimme a break...
No matter the validity of the original source, wikipedia is not an accepted primary source of anything and thus isn't a very good rebuttal.
I'm speaking in general terms and have been all along, I am not disputing the claimed knowledge from any specific source on this topic, I'm just saying that a wikipedia rebuttal is hardly firm ground upon which to stand.
i'd say its more facutal than "canada free press" paranoia...
and you can verify those facts on wikipedia quite easily through other sources. why don't you call russia and confirm their borehole?
yes wikipedia can be erroneous, does that mean everything is wrong? use your brain instead of discounting and repeating "yes brother" about what you read on the internet...
gimme a break...
No matter the validity of the original source, wikipedia is not an accepted primary source of anything and thus isn't a very good rebuttal.
I'm speaking in general terms and have been all along, I am not disputing the claimed knowledge from any specific source on this topic, I'm just saying that a wikipedia rebuttal is hardly firm ground upon which to stand.
the truth is the truth. you can jump up and down all you want. i rebutted with facts, not wikipedia; they just happended to be on there. and as i know the truth, i referenced wikipedia.
your loss if you choose to write everything off (including the truth) because you read it at a place you apparently don't trust.
your loss if you choose to write everything off (including the truth) because you read it at a place you apparently don't trust.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
N'nouw ..didya pick up some VeeBeay eenstead of the good stuff, Crinkles?? Y'oove gouts an edge tewes'yez.
Gold in a river bed is cheaper to get than in a 1,000 feet deep mine in equal quantities.
Originally Posted By: crinkles
the truth is the truth. you can jump up and down all you want. i rebutted with facts, not wikipedia; they just happended to be on there. and as i know the truth, i referenced wikipedia.
your loss if you choose to write everything off (including the truth) because you read it at a place you apparently don't trust.
Spend some time, read what I wrote. You're making this personal when I never said what I thought about this stuff. I never said I don't believe what those wikipedia entries contained.
the truth is the truth. you can jump up and down all you want. i rebutted with facts, not wikipedia; they just happended to be on there. and as i know the truth, i referenced wikipedia.
your loss if you choose to write everything off (including the truth) because you read it at a place you apparently don't trust.
Spend some time, read what I wrote. You're making this personal when I never said what I thought about this stuff. I never said I don't believe what those wikipedia entries contained.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
