*

Offline SeaCritique

  • *
  • Posts: 80
  • FE'er
    • View Profile
Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2019, 02:33:23 AM »
I have seen a number of theories in flat earth state that there were no dinosaurs.

I'll infer that "a number of" means several; say, 15 or 17. Can you please provide a minimum of 15 flat Earth theories/conjectures that purport a denial of dinosaurs?

While fossil fuels are not dinosaurs per se, they are vegetation that existed during the same time that has been stored in a very certain way over thousands of years. There is a very easy way to carbon date something, where you can get the age of it.

I'm comfortable with carbon dating. The dinosaurs roamed the Earth once, and they were cool.
Philosophical razors are my bread and butter.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2019, 02:41:36 AM »
When people say oil is not a renewable resource, they're not claiming that it is impossible for nature to create more oil. They're simply pointing out that waiting millions of years for nature to do so is unrealistic on a human timescale.

That, coupled with the fact that the rate we are using it is much faster than the rate at which new oil is being created.

I think i happens faster then a million years.

I have a water well and if I pump it dry i have a device that shuts it down because the pump will burn out if it runs dry.
Just because the pump stops pumping doesn't mean I ran out of water. After i let it sit the water table builds back up then I am good to go again.

I think a lot of oil wells will refill after pumped out.
And i don't think we will run out of oil in 50 years.
We were told in the 70's the same thing.

Its kind off like all the billionaire promising the pubic space flights then they disappear until the next one comes along.
Every generation there is another snake oil sales man pushing the same idea.

Oh just thought of something. How can the billionaire send the public to space when there isn't going to be any fuel? lol

So what's your point? According to your calculations, we have more in-earth oil reserves than we're being told? And...?

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2019, 08:58:44 AM »
When people say oil is not a renewable resource, they're not claiming that it is impossible for nature to create more oil. They're simply pointing out that waiting millions of years for nature to do so is unrealistic on a human timescale.

That, coupled with the fact that the rate we are using it is much faster than the rate at which new oil is being created.

I think i happens faster then a million years.

I have a water well and if I pump it dry i have a device that shuts it down because the pump will burn out if it runs dry.
Just because the pump stops pumping doesn't mean I ran out of water. After i let it sit the water table builds back up then I am good to go again.

I think a lot of oil wells will refill after pumped out.
And i don't think we will run out of oil in 50 years.
We were told in the 70's the same thing.

Its kind off like all the billionaire promising the pubic space flights then they disappear until the next one comes along.
Every generation there is another snake oil sales man pushing the same idea.

Oh just thought of something. How can the billionaire send the public to space when there isn't going to be any fuel? lol
more oil is discovered throughout the years, it isn’t refilling. Again it is a chemical change.

Come back to us when you’ve managed to burn wood and form more wood from the smoke it creates.

Offline retlaw

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2019, 03:28:02 PM »

Come back to us when you’ve managed to burn wood and form more wood from the smoke it creates.

Already done.
Burning wood creates CO2 and plants die with out it so the more CO2 the more trees grow.
The cycle is a perfect creation of intelligent design.
Many tree including the ponderosa pine needs fire to reseed itself.
No fire no trees.

Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2019, 03:50:33 PM »

Come back to us when you’ve managed to burn wood and form more wood from the smoke it creates.

Already done.
Burning wood creates CO2 and plants die with out it so the more CO2 the more trees grow.
It's a little bit more complicated than that although by accident you have sort of stumbled upon something approaching truth.
But consider this. Can you burn a tree more quickly than a tree can grow?
(I'll help you out here, yes - yes you can)
So if you keep burning trees new ones aren't going to keep popping up to replace them. It's the same with oil. When you burn oil it's a chemical process, it doesn't just turn into oil vapour and later it rains more oil. So while the natural processes which led to oil being created will keep happening, those processes are very slow. We burn oil very quickly. It's not a stable cycle and the oil will run out. When it runs out depends on how much there is, and there's always possibilities for more to be discovered. But if you keep using a resource more quickly than the resource is replenished then it will run out.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline retlaw

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2019, 04:30:38 PM »
Totally understandable.
If I want to eat a chicken I have to feed it for 6 weeks first.

There is a much bigger problem then just losing gasoline. Gasoline is a by product of the chemical industry and we pay them to get rid of their contaminated waste product. All gasoline has different make up depending what other chemicals the factory was making that day. If we the people didn't burn it then the big corps will have to pay to get rid of it and that would not be in their best interests. One liter of pesticide sells much higher then a liter of gasoline.

Take a look at the list of what oil brings us.

https://www.innovativewealth.com/inflation-monitor/what-products-made-from-petroleum-outside-of-gasoline/

Oil brought us from killing whales to hi tech.
Without it humanity is going to regress.

So why is oil so cheap if it is the building bock of life in modern times when they say its only a few decades left of it?

Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2019, 04:41:35 PM »
So why is oil so cheap if it is the building bock of life in modern times when they say its only a few decades left of it?
It's debatable whether it's cheap, countries made rich by oil have built things like Dubai. Have you been to Dubai? There's a LOT of money sploshing around.
And while there's decades left the economy isn't going to factor that in, they're banking on new reserves being found and it's too long term a problem to be considering now.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #27 on: March 15, 2019, 01:41:10 PM »

Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2019, 01:11:42 AM »
This video is worth 8 mins of your life.



Why do oil companies hire geologists to find oil, and not archaeologists? Why do they look for rocks like olivine and garnet and not for dinosaur bones and ancient forests? The answer is on wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

You'd have to be some idiot to think oil comes from dinosaurs. Take a hampster, use any chemical process you like and see if you can squeeze one drop of oil out of it. But squeeze olivine and ... wow ... oil. Don't believe me ... check the chemistry ... its called the serpentinite mechanism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#Serpentinite_mechanism
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 11:34:32 AM by Baby Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2019, 02:20:50 AM »
This video is worth 8 mins of your life.



Why do oil companies hire geologists to find oil, and not archaeologists? Why do they look for rocks like olivine and garnet and not for dinosaur bones and ancient forests? The answer is on wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

You'd have to be some idiot to think oil comes from dinosaurs. Take a hampster, use any chemical process you like and see if you can squeeze on drop of oil out of it. But squeeze olivine and ... wow ... oil. Don't believe me ... check the chemistry ... its called the serpentinite mechanism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin#Serpentinite_mechanism

All this falls into the "maybe/maybe not" realm. Undoubtedly worth exploring. But I wouldn't go running in the streets with my hair on fire about it. It's pretty much common knowledge that supplies for many goods and resources are tightly controlled to buoy pricing. DeBeers and diamonds are probably the easiest example. Oil is no different. Same for wheat and soybeans. Commodities are a complicated business. And very tightly controlled at the highest levels.

Seems like the Norwegians may have the lock on Olivine deposits. If they start distilling oil from it, awesome. Maybe they should get on that.

All in all, is there a fossil fuel conspiracy afoot, maybe. But it's commerce at the end of the day. So disrupt it. Find a better way. If enough sympathetic people know of your disruption, the black helicopters will stop circling above your house.

Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2019, 05:53:45 AM »
Obviously the source of oil is abiogenic.

What about peak oil? This refers to the "conventional" oil production.

To reach the abiotic oil would require hundreds of billions/trillion of dollars of investment. Rigs would have to be created to reach at depths of 30-40 km. There is a huge problem of retrieval.

The main problem with peak oil/"conventional" oil production is the ENERGY RETURNS ON ENERGY INVESTED (EROEI) and deliverability (a term invented by Dr. Tim Morgan).

Another way to look at the
deliverability issue is that reserves
need to be quality-weighted. We may
have used up much less than half
of the world’s originally-recoverable
reserves of oil, but we have, necessarily,
resorted first to those reserves which
are most readily and cheaply recovered.
The reserves that remain are certain to
be more difficult and costlier to extract.

https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

An absolute decline in available energy
volumes, serious though that would
be, is not the immediate concern. The
truly critical issue is the relationship
between energy extracted and the
amount of energy consumed in the
extraction process. Known as the
Energy Return on Energy Invested
(EROEI), this is the ‘killer equation’
where the viability of the economy is
concerned. Put very simply, there is
no point whatsoever in producing
100 barrels of oil (or its equivalent in
other forms of energy) if 100 barrels
(or more) are consumed in the
extraction process.

Believers in peak oil have seen this
progression as an indication of evergrowing reserves stress, which indeed
it is. But the real economic significance
of this progression lies in a rapid
deterioration in EROEIs rather than in
an exhaustion of absolute reserves. The
overall EROEI of the North Sea today
may be no higher than about 5:1, a
far cry from ratios in excess of 100:1
yielded by the pioneering discoveries
in the sands of Arabia.




*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 334
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Fossil Fuels
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2019, 10:44:37 AM »
Obviously the source of oil is abiogenic.

What about peak oil? This refers to the "conventional" oil production.

To reach the abiotic oil would require hundreds of billions/trillion of dollars of investment. Rigs would have to be created to reach at depths of 30-40 km. There is a huge problem of retrieval.

The main problem with peak oil/"conventional" oil production is the ENERGY RETURNS ON ENERGY INVESTED (EROEI) and deliverability (a term invented by Dr. Tim Morgan).

Another way to look at the
deliverability issue is that reserves
need to be quality-weighted. We may
have used up much less than half
of the world’s originally-recoverable
reserves of oil, but we have, necessarily,
resorted first to those reserves which
are most readily and cheaply recovered.
The reserves that remain are certain to
be more difficult and costlier to extract.

https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

An absolute decline in available energy
volumes, serious though that would
be, is not the immediate concern. The
truly critical issue is the relationship
between energy extracted and the
amount of energy consumed in the
extraction process. Known as the
Energy Return on Energy Invested
(EROEI), this is the ‘killer equation’
where the viability of the economy is
concerned. Put very simply, there is
no point whatsoever in producing
100 barrels of oil (or its equivalent in
other forms of energy) if 100 barrels
(or more) are consumed in the
extraction process.

Believers in peak oil have seen this
progression as an indication of evergrowing reserves stress, which indeed
it is. But the real economic significance
of this progression lies in a rapid
deterioration in EROEIs rather than in
an exhaustion of absolute reserves. The
overall EROEI of the North Sea today
may be no higher than about 5:1, a
far cry from ratios in excess of 100:1
yielded by the pioneering discoveries
in the sands of Arabia.

There is quite a bit more to consider when adjusting for the impact on economic models than just EROEI. For example, natural gas simultaneously extracted can artificially deflate its value if not considered. Morever, renewable sources of energy suffer lower inherent EROEIs, but create fewer pollutants, which reduces costs on back-end production. Hence, while it’s true that lower EROEIs have a negative economic impact, the situation is more complicated than just employing a one-to-one analysis.