An apology to all future generations: Sorry we used up your oil...

  • Thread starter Zardoz
  • 438 comments
  • 18,501 views
OGLE B
Ah, rule # 4 in use here.

Yes, I understand that centrifugal force does not actually “exist”. Nevertheless, it appears quite real to the object being rotated.

Fc = mv2/r, where Fc = centrifugal force, m = mass, v = speed, and r = radius.

An object traveling in a circular motion is constantly accelerating and is therefore never in an inertial frame of reference. Since the centrifugal force appears so real, it is often very useful to use as if it were real. The equation above shows that the force depends on v-squared over r. Because v increases with radius, the force will actually increase with radius as well.

Found this in The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. .

centripetal force and centrifugal force, action-reaction force pair associated with circular motion. According to Newton's first law of motion, a moving body travels along a straight path with constant speed (i.e., has constant velocity) unless it is acted on by an outside force. For circular motion to occur there must be a constant force acting on a body, pushing it toward the center of the circular path. This force is the centripetal (“center-seeking”) force. For a planet orbiting the sun, the force is gravitational; for an object twirled on a string, the force is mechanical; for an electron orbiting an atom, it is electrical. The magnitude F of the centripetal force is equal to the mass m of the body times its velocity squared v 2 divided by the radius r of its path: F=mv2/r. According to Newton's third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The centripetal force, the action, is balanced by a reaction force, the centrifugal (“center-fleeing”) force. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The centrifugal force does not act on the body in motion; the only force acting on the body in motion is the centripetal force. The centrifugal force acts on the source of the centripetal force to displace it radially from the center of the path. Thus, in twirling a mass on a string, the centripetal force transmitted by the string pulls in on the mass to keep it in its circular path, while the centrifugal force transmitted by the string pulls outward on its point of attachment at the center of the path. The centrifugal force is often mistakenly thought to cause a body to fly out of its circular path when it is released; rather, it is the removal of the centripetal force that allows the body to travel in a straight line as required by Newton's first law. If there were in fact a force acting to force the body out of its circular path, its path when released would not be the straight tangential course that is always observed.

Will you concede the term “centrifugal force” is valid, based on the above definitions?

That was all great, but missed the point by quite some mark (especially the comment about rule #4 - I have made no claim to an opinion based on facts, or in fact an opinion at all).

This book is claiming to expose "fraudulent science" and yet its whole argument hinges on fraudulent science - that "centrifugal force" causes something.

Wouldn't you say that rather takes away any scientific credentials it has?
 
OGLE B
Sorry VeilsideR33sub, oil is not cooked animals.
Read "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" By Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Craig R. Smith, which says what oil companies have known for a long time:
"Oil is not a product of fossils and prehistoric forests but rather the bio-product of a continuing biochemical reaction below the earth's surface that is brought to attainable depths by the centrifugal forces of the earth's rotation." In "Black Gold Stranglehold," Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith expose the fraudulent science that has made America so vulnerable: the belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that it is a finite resource.
I worked in Texas with oil companies for many years and can tell you that people in the business know this. There is so much oil out there, just need to be allowed to get it.
There is a big field in LA that they pumped dry and capped off about 25 years ago. When they went to check it a few years ago, they found that it had filled back up - with oil.
I remember when "scientists" said that there was too much methane in our atmosphere - and that it was caused by cow flatulence. HA! Imagine their surprise when abundant methane of a non-biologic nature was found on Saturn's giant moon Titan, a finding that validates the contention that oil is not a fossil fuel.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675


It’s not your fault for not knowing this though. It’s just what you’ve been taught all these years.

Many people on this thread are clever and convincing in their arguments. But they are reciting learned propaganda. Makes you wonder who and why the misleading information is so ardently supported through bad science (developing “proof” for a predetermined hypothesis).

Another big lie: carbon dating, but we’ll save that for another time.


At the quote in red.... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Another big lie: carbon dating... woooooooo... I see shades of Creationism here... :lol:

I know who's getting the 2006 YW Award.
 
OGLE B
Yes, I understand Famine.
{?}
If plant life were the only producer of oil, Zardoz would be right{ Zardoz is emminently right and plant life does not produce oil it produces coal }, but about 30 years late, as we would have run out of oil long ago! By the way Zardoz, I appreciate your research, and especially like the one article you linked to: The “Abiotic Oil” Controversy, by Richard Heinberg, which said: There is no way to conclusively prove that no petroleum is of abiotic origin. While also saying: “What if oil were in fact virtually inexhaustible—would this be good news? Not in my view. It is my opinion that the discovery of oil was the greatest tragedy (in terms of its long-term consequences) in human history. Finding a limitless supply of oil might forestall nasty price increases and catastrophic withdrawal symptoms, but it would only exacerbate all of the other problems that flow from oil dependency—our use of it to accelerate the extraction of all other resources, the venting of CO2 into the atmosphere, and related problems such as loss of biodiversity. Oil depletion is bad news, but it is no worse than that of oil abundance.”
Irony, irony.{?Logic,Logic}
The opponents to the abiogenic theory have never explained how the earth could have ever had enough plant life in total to equal the amount of oil that is found in just one of the giant oil fields in Kuwait. {...R>O>P..} Of course, there are those who definitely do not want this to be true, for their own economic, political, and personal reasons, and will fight it all the way.

This is an opinion thread, and this is my humble opinion.

Ile be back on this as ime really pressed for time and such but i had to respond .
I thought the thread would be forgotten for a while but Mr Ogle seems to have found a spark , albeit form Titan ;
U could not call me an opponent of abiotic oil theory as ive only heard of it today but i certainly can explain to U that Earth could have had enough lifeforms to make the quantity of oil so far known seem like a teardrop.
A few little known facts ; Earth has been populated by life for something in the region of 90% of it's being a spheroid . That alone is a hugeness that the mundanity of human conciousness which considers 100 classmates to be biodiversity can never fully comprehend *. Next , throughout that time whose to say with certainty that there were'nt considerably more individual lifeenergies engaging in complex chemical activity. The chemical activity that is complex enough to generate a responsive sheild or 'Atmosphere©'.Around the time of the Dinosaurs it could be said that life was at least as populous and perhaps more biodiverse than it is know .
*ile have to rub this in for the thickos, humans are not the yardstick by which to measure the universe or even life on earth . There have been several extinction events aboard this atmosphere already to date ; humans are a really big animal in comparison to most other life forms ,especially microbes as each human being has the potential of having the equivalent to it's own current population in a Microbial sense living IN and ON the human .
Thusly it is with some ease that Oil could be an Organic product of some maturation.The question is really why , with such an abundant source ; microbial sealife ( protifers ) we did'nt get more damn oil . The answer , as any real oilman & not ure bunch of cranks ogle , is that oil is a Geological Capture , this being the abiotic part, it needs the accretion above a deposit of micobial detritus to send it lovingly on it's way into the planet's interior , thats step one and very common , no sweat in geologic time , next it has to STOP journeying in the crust at a very specific depth , whats termed the KITCHEN , where the carbons are pressure heated to form Hydrocarbons ( Oil & Gas ) . This is the first limiter , i do not have the stat to hand but ile be back , as any deeper and the temperatures are too great for stable compound bonding , of any complexity ( delicacy ) . This layer in the crust is on the move like all the crust , in fact like all apparent solid features of the planet and the oil & gas seek the upper levels , so over time , they reach the surface . This is the second limitation as the oil & gas that appears at the surface , disappears rapidly . It is beleived that that has happened to a substantial quantity of the Oil&Gas before Human's woke up to it's utility .What keeps the stuffs in the ground is the presensce of two types of rock working in conjunction ; a 'porous' igneous sort of rock to form the field of the Oil&Gas and a harder sandstone or such above it to 'cap' the field and halt it's escape .This is well ( haha) understood in the oil business as the prime reson for oil's scarcity . It's a hard natural resource to locate , not covering anything like the surface of prehistoric oceans .ALSO , and this is very important it requires quite modern tecnology to extract it from nearly all of it's occurences. PROOF of both the above statements can be found in the facts of the oil industry itself . OIL has been known to man since at least the Ancient Greeks , in surface pools but these are rare and tiny , at the start of the industrial age COAL ( a Hydrocarbon ) was the energy supply of choice , simply because there were , initialy quite large deposits just under the surface which could be mined using what we would term primitive technologies ( spades , picks , horses , oth preindustrial tools ) . Oil was not mineable and was capped by a hard rock that drilling tools up to some time into the TWENTIETH century simply could not reach . Oil was known to have great potential as an energy source but simply was'nt exploited because of it's rarity .
i think the first well to actually strike blackgold was in texas @ Spindletop . After that it just took off as an energy fuel and there was no looking back , or forwards much , but consider that at the time (1901 , i think ) no one believed there was any oil in Saudi Arabia , it was considered unsuitable for prospecting even. Its only 105 years since that strike in spindletop , nothing in geological ( earthsense) terms , but the oil ( a BIOLOGICAL / CHEMICAL PRODUCT ) is nearly gone , it is my opinion we have lass than half of it left and nothing but a big maw of simian activity as its guardian .
Ile be back on this one , but ime pissed .
 
Thanks DeLoreanBrown. Finally, somebody with something to say other than: “centrifugal force……centrifugal force…..he said centrifugal force……ha ha ha….what an idiot”, and then want to give me some kind of “dumb-ass” award.

Tell me though, in your opinion, how much bio-material is needed to produce a barrel of oil?
 
from recent experiments in thermochemical liquefaction of organisms for the production of alternative fuels, carbon-fixing microalgae were returning a 35% mass yield of a viscous oil .
the oil we use that is almost universaly accepted as finite , non-renewable is now understood to have it's origins as Kerogen which is a humus formed from many types of organism that has already undergone some chemical reactions such as diagenesis and catagenesis.
hope this helps . in the meantime i would like proofs furnished immediatly as time is scarce as to the location of ure Abiotic source Oil , maps would do , plus please explicate the infinitude of this source fom anywhere in the Earth's Interior.
ps the 'kitchen' in my previous post is at at a depth of between 10,000 and 13,000 feet below sea level , any lower and the oil gets cracked or destroyed , any higher and it fails to form .
 
OGLE B, you keep asking if anyone thinks that the organic lifeforms can actually create all teh oil on Earth I will have to say yes considering the manmade process of thermal depolymerization which immitates the process quickly and gets an average of 39% return on turkey ofal and 65% from medical waste. They also produce other products like gas, but in smaller quantities.

There is currently a full-scale commercial plant in Carthage, Missouri where Fortune Magazine has reported they are producing 400 barrels of oil a day from turkey ofal taken from the nearby Butterball plant. Imagine that for millions of years and I have to ask, why don't we have more oil?
 
Hey, I’m all for converting waste into energy and the Carthage Missouri plant is a good one. We should build more of these. They are able to get pretty good yields by using a controlled process. In nature, it doesn’t happen that way. Soon as waste hits the ground it starts decomposing, but does not turn into oil. Some evaporates, some eaten, turned into soil, etc.
I’ll try to agree with you on something: I do believe the oil supply is finite, but disagree that we are soon to run out, and that all oil is “fossil fuel”.

Regarding oil found below 13000 ft:

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

”In 1970 the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet. Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production. Last Year Russia overtook Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest single oil producer, and is now set to completely dominate global oil production and sales for the next century.”

From the news last week, looks like Russia is going to play hardball politics with oil/gas now too.

Keep in mind that oil companies want oil to be scarce and valuable, so they can charge a premium for it. What will happen to their profit margins when the public eventually finds out there is over 100 years supply?

Also, may we agree that oil is not the “perfect” fuel, and that other sources of energy need to be developed, and discovered? Wind, solar, nuclear, I’m all for that too.
 
I thought of another question that maybe you could help me with: if "fossil fuel” takes millions of years to make, how come we have not discovered “partially made” oil, or “oil in process”?
And no, niky, I’m not trying to offend anyone’s evolution beliefs. Just wondering…..
 
OGLE B
...Regarding oil found below 13000 ft:

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

”In 1970 the Russians started drilling Kola SG-3, an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet..."
It took them NINETEEN YEARS to do it, and it isn't an oil well! Its a seismic exploration borehole!

OGLE B
Since then, Russian oil majors including Yukos have quietly drilled more than 310 successful super-deep oil wells, and put them into production...

Says who??? Cite your proof! Prove that they're extracting oil from abiotic depths. You're just quoting a fringe web site. "Free energy". Oh, please...
 
LOL, that's a good one. I agree!

Here are some excerpts from the paper by J. F. Kenney in which he attacks the most common objections to the abiogenic petroleum theory:


“One may read, in almost every textbook published in the English language purporting to deal with the subject of petroleum geology, diverse claims made that the presence of certain molecules found in natural petroleum constitute “evidence,” or even “proof,” that the petroleum evolved from biological matter. Such molecules, claimed as evidence of a biological connection, include such as porphyrins, isoprenoids, pristane, phytane, cholestane, terpines, and clorins....

The types of porphyrins, isoprenoids, terpines, and clorins found in natural petroleum have been observed in material extracted from the interiors of no fewer than fifty-four meteorites....The observations of such molecules in meteorites thoroughly discredited the claims that their presence in natural petroleum might somehow constitute evidence of a biological connection....

Every compound designated as a “biomarker,” and not otherwise identified as a contaminant, has been either observed in the fluids extracted from the interiors of meteorites, or synthesized in laboratories under conditions comparable to the crust of the Earth, - or both.”

Hmmm…. Could oil be present elsewhere, other than on earth? The discoveries of methane on other planets and moons (Titan) makes one wonder, no?
 
OGLE B
I thought of another question that maybe you could help me with: if "fossil fuel” takes millions of years to make, how come we have not discovered “partially made” oil, or “oil in process”?
And no, niky, I’m not trying to offend anyone’s evolution beliefs. Just wondering…..
We have. It is a form that we call oil shale. There is currently a project to try and extract this oil but so far the extraction and refining process uses more energy than it outputs.

Read this
Here is the most important part, your answer in red.
The term "oil shale" is a misnomer. It does not contain oil nor is it commonly shale. The organic material is chiefly kerogen, and the "shale" is usually a relatively hard rock, called marl. Properly processed, kerogen can be converted into a substance somewhat similar to petroleum. However, it has not gone through the "oil window" of heat (nature’s way of producing oil) and therefore, to be changed into an oil-like substance, it must be heated to a high temperature. By this process the organic material is converted into a liquid, which must be further processed to produce an oil which is said to be better than the lowest grade of oil produced from conventional oil deposits, but of lower quality than the upper grades of conventional oil.
Here is a simple definition from the site.
Oil Shales are sedimentary rocks containing a high proportion of organic matter (kerogen) which can be converted to synthetic oil or gas by processing.
 
^All of which makes shale oil insanely expensive, both energetically and monetarily, which is why it's not really viable yet. It would be nice if it were, since there are huge deposits of the stuff in Canada.
 
This is a really interesting article. It appears that the U.S. Department of Energy is starting to face reality:

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dancy/2006/0103.html

The second-to-last paragraph is fascinating. This has been talked about before. Its going to take far higher energy costs for us to start using less of it:

"The Energy Information Administration reported that U.S. demand for petroleum reached 22 million barrels per day – a record, even with the higher price levels. Higher energy prices do not appear to be moderating demand in the U.S., or globally."
 
I was thinking about this too. How much are we REALLY willing to pay for gasoline? It's a little over $2/gallon here, which isn't bad. If it were $3? I'd still pay. $4? Sure. $5? Now I'm starting to think about taking the bus more, but I'd keep my car...and so on and so on. At some point, the price will reach a level where nobody will be willing to pay. But what is that level? The uber-rich could afford $50/gallon, but the thought of paying $1000 to fill the tank is not going to appeal to the common person. There must be a price between the two extremes, but how do you go about trying to pin down that number? I honestly don't know how much I'd be willing to pay at the pump, but it would be at a much higher price than what we pay now.
 
kylehnat
I was thinking about this too. How much are we REALLY willing to pay for gasoline? It's a little over $2/gallon here, which isn't bad. If it were $3? I'd still pay. $4? Sure. $5? Now I'm starting to think about taking the bus more, but I'd keep my car...and so on and so on. At some point, the price will reach a level where nobody will be willing to pay. But what is that level? The uber-rich could afford $50/gallon, but the thought of paying $1000 to fill the tank is not going to appeal to the common person. There must be a price between the two extremes, but how do you go about trying to pin down that number? I honestly don't know how much I'd be willing to pay at the pump, but it would be at a much higher price than what we pay now.

Agreed. Oil is still quite cheap... and that's the way oil suppliers want it for now, because as the price goes up, people will look harder for ways to reduce demand and replace oil altogether.

Right now gasoline makes up about $100/month of my budget at $2.50/gallon. I could afford 5 times that before it started to be a prime target for savings.

I think $10/gallon is a good solid number for a breaking point. At $10 people will really start altering their lifestyles around transportation. Of course even the slightest increase in price has an affect on the market, and everyone's breaking point will be different. But I think most people would refuse to pay $10/gallon without altering their lifestyles.
 
danoff
...Oil is still quite cheap... and that's the way oil suppliers want it for now, because as the price goes up, people will look harder for ways to reduce demand and replace oil altogether...

Saudi officials have come right out and publicly stated exactly that. They're blatant about it. They aren't shy about saying that they don't want alternatives to be developed.

EDIT: Here comes your ten-buck-a-gallon gas:

Simmons says $250 a barrel isn't far away!

We all know this is coming. The only question is when it will happen.
 
danoff
Right now gasoline makes up about $100/month of my budget at $2.50/gallon. I could afford 5 times that before it started to be a prime target for savings.
Or maybe gas will start to become a major expense in people's budgets. Like a mortgage or property taxes--huge expenses that you just find a way to pay no matter how ridiculously expensive it is. Who knows...
 
You know, if they'd simply find a way for electric motors to have quickly rechargable batteries, and located commonly enough to find them, some people might buy them. Like me, for a work car, at least. If we drilled Alaska, instead of complaining about beauty, we'd not have to worry for quite some time. If we drilled more oil from all around Florida, especially nearer the north-west end, that'd help the same effect too. Not that I wanna see Alaska ruined, I think Alaska's beautiful, but we're gonna need to chose, soon enough. I also think any Middle-eastern country that we help, in any kind of way, like Kuwait, we should enforce getting very cheap oil from, though it woulda been much easier to do ahead of time. sort of like a deal, because, we spent craploads of money helping those dudes, and they keep raping us for oil, and it's only gonna get worse. I have no comment on Iraq, or Iran and their oil.
 
kylehnat
I$5? Now I'm starting to think about taking the bus more,
Why? You pay nearly 5 times that if you get coffee from a Starbucks or similar store or to drink Red Bull type energy drinks. That is equivelant to buying a soft drink from a can and cheap in comparison to buying them in bottles.

I can cut back on my caffeine long before I can give up on gasoline for my car. I need to drive the 40 miles to get to work. I know that I could move (which is a future plan) or get a different car, but the cost savings of a hybrid still doesn't work out. In the end it is easier for me to not stay up late watching football, and then need caffeine to function in the morning, than it is for me to give up on gasoline.

We have become a society of wants and unnecessary expenses. We could easily afford up to $10 a gallon if we quit eating out, drinking over-priced beverages, or putting DVD players in our cars.
 
FoolKiller
We have become a society of wants and unnecessary expenses. We could easily afford up to $10 a gallon if we quit eating out, drinking over-priced beverages, or putting DVD players in our cars.

I can't understand myself how my Mom and brother drink at Starbucks everyday... I can think of a dozen better things to do with the money. :lol:
 
kylehnat
I was thinking about this too. How much are we REALLY willing to pay for gasoline? It's a little over $2/gallon here, which isn't bad. If it were $3? I'd still pay. $4? Sure. $5? Now I'm starting to think about taking the bus more, but I'd keep my car...and so on and so on.

$7 a gallon here - and rising. Has demand gone down? Has it buggery.
 
niky
I can't understand myself how my Mom and brother drink at Starbucks everyday... I can think of a dozen better things to do with the money. :lol:
It's amazing, my wife and I make the same amount of money but before we were married she always ate out and drank Starbucks while I try to drink iced tea and water and always take my lunch and fix my own dinners. She always struggled to pay her bills while I have all the wide screen with surround sound, iPod with Bose SoundDock, 100+ DVDs, two gaming systems, all the games I want, and I never had a problem driving long distances to see family and friends or taking weekend trips to other cities.

If you give up on certain unnecesary daily expenses you can afford the occasional big expense. Eating leftovers in the worlk cafeteria is definietly worth having all the gadgets and toys I want.

I also have yet to worry about gas prices.
 
Famine
$7 a gallon here - and rising. Has demand gone down?...

Oil is now a basic necessity of life. Its like food to us.

Hell, its like air itself.

As our mass consciousness of this fact grows over the next few years, our collective feelings about it will evolve from awareness to concern, and then to a state of ongoing near-panic.
 
Peak Oil is starting to hit the mass media

Heres a debate the Beeb ran just before Christmas,from their Website ;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4550286.stm

& heres the MP3 ( not a torrent )
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2005/12/BBCnewsnight.mp3

A Californian Institute of Technology / Swiss production movie ;
http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/

ASPO's newsletter ; Gas is a problem, Today . Questionable 'new' discovery .Peak Oil in Washington .

This is just a quick update , ile be back w/ more as this is bound to accelerate & some of the above needs comment .
 
FoolKiller
It's amazing, my wife and I make the same amount of money but before we were married she always ate out and drank Starbucks while I try to drink iced tea and water and always take my lunch and fix my own dinners. She always struggled to pay her bills while I have all the wide screen with surround sound, iPod with Bose SoundDock, 100+ DVDs, two gaming systems, all the games I want, and I never had a problem driving long distances to see family and friends or taking weekend trips to other cities.

If you give up on certain unnecesary daily expenses you can afford the occasional big expense. Eating leftovers in the worlk cafeteria is definietly worth having all the gadgets and toys I want.

I also have yet to worry about gas prices.


Whereas my bro does all of the above and wonders why he doesn't have a bank account and I do. :lol:

We live in a unique time. Never have so many people had so much excess capital... I doubt it'll ever be this way again.

Though our gas prices are pretty low... maybe 70 US cents a liter... $2.59 US Gal or $3.11 UK Gal, it makes my regular commute pretty expensive compared to my paycheck (I make something like $23 a day... and I'm already mid-management)... thank God for gas allowances.

Despite that, last year was a record year for car sales. Go figure. When gas suddenly shot up after Iraq, orders for SUVs nearly doubled.

But now people are sobering up. Christmas traffic was lighter this year than any in recent memory. Mall owners and gas companies are probably pretty pissed about that. As oil prices have stabilized (our gas prices just went down recently), people are really starting to look at what might happen in the future.
 
niky
Despite that, last year was a record year for car sales. Go figure. When gas suddenly shot up after Iraq, orders for SUVs nearly doubled.
I keep seeing people buying new ones but I also see a lot of people selling less than a year old SUVs. There's a '05 Hummer that has been sitting for three months in a driveway just up the road. I wonder if people know they can afford the car but forget to factor in gas and after that first $60+ fill up decide they need a different car.
 
Back