Jeffrey, care to think about my post? Any thoughts?

I thought we were supposed to be talking about OIL, how did GOD end up in here!?! Can we keep GOD out of this one??

Getting back on topic

Lets assume for a moment that OIL is a renewable resource

Would it be in the interest of the powers that be to make this public knowledge?

Arguments for and against??

I don't think it would be in the slightest bit beneficial (except to the suckers...oops i meant consumers). Why do we keep "finding more oil" well technology for doing geological surveys (including computer modelling) and drilling has improved in the last century and certain large companies have been able to test various sites around the globe in the past 20 years (unaccessible previously) this combination = 'more oil'. Certainly drilling is getting more efficienct and cheaper which put simply means sites that were "too expensive" 10-20 years ago are "economically viable" today.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Getting back on topic

Ditto that...

Hopefully the anti-GOD squad will exhibit a little more 'self control' in the future...

But I wouldn't count on it... ;)

I thought we were supposed to be talking about OIL, how did GOD end up in here!?! Can we keep GOD out of this one??

Getting back on topic

Lets assume for a moment that OIL is a renewable resource

Would it be in the interest of the powers that be to make this public knowledge?

Arguments for and against??

I don't think it would be in the slightest bit beneficial (except to the suckers...oops i meant consumers). Why do we keep "finding more oil" well technology for doing geological surveys (including computer modelling) and drilling has improved in the last century and certain large companies have been able to test various sites around the globe in the past 20 years (unaccessible previously) this combination = 'more oil'. Certainly drilling is getting more efficienct and cheaper which put simply means sites that were "too expensive" 10-20 years ago are "economically viable" today.

Enigma, one thing that was linked in someone else's post way above here was touting the idea that oil is not the byproduct of long decayed vegetation. Of course, noone really believes we get the oil out of the bodies of dead dinosaurs (although that is a popular myth). Anyway, the point of that link was that some scientists are beginning to believe that petroleum is a product of natural chemical processes and is wholly unrelated to past organic plant matter decay. I used to think that this idea was entirely 'crackpot'. But I'd like to hear from some geologists that might be reading this forum to comment on it. To me, this concept is fascinating, and if true, and if this idea were to become 'mainstream' in 10 or 15 years it would be phenomenal.

Comments?

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Jeffrey, care to think about my post? Any thoughts?

ChristoRoboto's don't have original thoughts.

---

Account frozen...

Jeffrey, care to think about my post? Any thoughts?

ChristoRoboto's don't have original thoughts.

LOLOLOLOL.....!!!!

That is the name I was asking Misfit to come up with to submit to NETIZENS.COM as a new persona category!!!!

LOL, now all that's needed is for it to be fleshed out with a profile.

Hats off to you, DB.


Ohmomati ghato, christo roboto. lol

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Jeffrey, care to think about my post? Any thoughts?

ChristoRoboto's don't have original thoughts.

An almost identical question was posed to Jeff in the "Science and Koran" thread for which he also failed to respond. I think you should expect the same response (silence) or possibly some more quotes (i prefer silence).

What i find stupifying is that Jeff has stated in several threads that we hate God (even though he has no idea of what our respective beliefs are) but all we are doing in actual fact is questioning the unquestionable. Therefore it stands to reason that by his logic, questioning = hatred.

Now if questioning = hatred that doesn't leave much room for organic growth (of this kind of religion) unless you want to use more fertiliser.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Yes, I've noticed that too. And as an aside, in real life conversations with people, if religion happens to come up and I am 'put on the spot' (I generally avoid controversial subjects except among friends out of etiquette) sometimes I am asked "what has god done to you to make you angry at him" or a similarly phrased question. Truth is, I'm not angry at god. I express that it is illogical to be angry with something that I don't believe exists. In public if one states he is an atheist, and especially a critical atheist, he is often looked at as if he just claimed he finds animals sexually attractive or his favorite meal is human livers. The theists, and probably people in general, infer too much from the negative assertions of the atheist.

Not wanting to start a new argument here but this next comment is for comparison purposes.

"I don't believe there should be a department of education" gets interpreted as "You don't believe in schools"

There are probably hundreds of common misinterpretations of this kind the reader can think of.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:

[snip] Blah Blah Blah...

If this were true, with all our modern science and technology, we should be quite capable of duplicating this process and creating our own oil...

But we can't... ;)

Wrong! It's been around for quite awhile. It's just that there's still too much to pump out of the ground yet to make synthetic oil factories financially feasable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synthetic oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A synthetic oil is an oil manufactured for enhanced lubrication performance using the Fischer-Tropsch process which converts carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. The carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is generated by partial oxidation of coal and wood-based fuels. This process was developed and used extensively in World War II by Germany, which had limited access to crude oil supplies. Germany's yearly synthetic oil production reached more than 90 million tons in 1944. It is today used in South Africa to produce most of that country's diesel from coal. There are several companies developing the process to enable practical exploitation of so-called stranded gas reserves, those reserves which are impractical to exploit with conventional gas pipelines and LNG technology..

The majority of oil lubricants are mineral oils, mixtures of refined fractions of crude oil.

Synthetic oils are fabricated by polymerizing short chain hydrocarbon molecules into longer single chain hydrocarbons. Their lubrication characteristics can be adjusted by controlling the spectrum molecular weights that go into the finished formulation, which usually also includes thickeners.

Synthetic oil first became commercially available in the mid-1970s. The first company to make synthetic oil available in the United States was Amsoil Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, my husband has used synthetic oils and lubes in his '68 Dodge Hemi since it was almost new. Just about every racecar in the world also uses synthetic oils and lubes.

-Mrs. anon

I also have been using Synthetics... "Redline", (a product manufactured in Benicia, near/in San Francisco's East Bay Area), IS a SUPERIOR brand of Synthetic... LINK: http://www.redlineoil.com/

My 1989 Accord LOVES it! This is the second car I've used it on; the Honda has been on it since 1997, shortly after I bought the car... I now change my oil every 14K Miles... Redline claims the ability to go to 20K, but I am NOT willing to try this... I have found that at 14K Miles in my Honda that the Redline 5W-30 comes out cleaner than the petroleum 10W-40 at 3K Miles... However; for filter protection, I have been using the FRAM Extended Guard Oil Filters so that I can make that 14K Miles without worry of excess contaminent build up...

With the above, (and some other moderate tweaking), my old Accord gets 27MPG on the Freeway, and averages 21MPG straight city driving, with a moderate mixed average between 23 and 24 MPG on 87 Octane, Regular Unleaded... (2.0L Fuel Injected Model...)

8-D

SYNTHETICS RULE!!!

8-D

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

Synthetic oil
Synthetic oils are fabricated by polymerizing short chain hydrocarbon molecules into longer single chain hydrocarbons. Their lubrication characteristics can be adjusted by controlling the spectrum molecular weights that go into the finished formulation, which usually also includes thickeners.

Synthetic oil first became commercially available in the mid-1970s. The first company to make synthetic oil available in the United States was Amsoil Inc.

Well ... oi'll be buggered ... !!!!!
;-)))

(even though he has no idea of what our respective beliefs are)
Therefore it stands to reason that by his logic, questioning = hatred.

By my logic... OBSERVING YOUR BEHAVIOR = HATRED...

And once again... What does any of this have to do with oil? ;)

Another HIGH Quality Synthetic, (equivalent to Red Line), is Royal Purple.

LINK: Royal Purpal

I've heard of Amsoil, but am NOT aware of Amsoil's properties and makeup compared to Red Line... From what I have heard, Amsoil is ALSO a HIGH QUALITY Synthetic...

LINK: Amsoil

So, KUDOS to Mr. Anon for his long lived usage of Synthetics! :-D

8-D

Oh, and at Steel,

RE:

"none of the above is truly creating oil"
"mineral oils even in your c&p comes from crude"
"refining from coal and shale is hardly creating it either"


Speaking ONLY for the product that I use, (Redline), they start with a TRUE AND PURE Synthetic Stock of Polyol Ester Base Stock...

From Red Line's Site:

"Red Line Oil's team of chemists and blenders formulate fully-synthetic oils and chemically-advanced additives using only the world's finest base stocks. This makes Red Line Oil the premium product on the shelf. It's not designed to be the cheapest; it's built to be the best. Rather than cutting costs by blending into polyalphaolefin base stock for its motor oil, Red Line Oil only uses superior poly ester-based products; resulting in lubricants that are extremely stable at high temperatures while providing superior film strength at lower viscosities where more power can be produced."

LINK: Red Line


Red Line Viscosity Chart:

LINK: Viscosity Chart




So, if that's NOT creating an oil from scratch, then what is???


8-D

---

TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos

Link


The end of the age of oil?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 26, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Chris Bennett
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


According the Washington Post (June 6, 2004) , the world is on the verge of oil famine.

BBC News declares "as certain as death and taxes, we shall one day be forced to learn to live without oil." Further, "people in middle age today can probably expect to be here" for the terminal oil shortages.


CBS, NBC and ABC have all presented grim and frightening reports of rapacious oil executives, unfeeling consumers, gas-guzzling SUVs and declining oil stocks, mostly in the powder keg countries of the Middle East. The unmistakable conclusion: An energy disaster of epic proportions is just around the corner.

Literally dozens of books and hundreds of websites paint a consistent and alarming picture of the decline of the American Empire and the end of the Age of Oil.

Could this be true? Are we really sliding downhill into a future defined by scarce resources, alternative fuels and mandatory conservation – a nightmare of strong governmental controls and diminished expectations?

The surprising answer: No.

The world has plenty of oil.

According to the United States Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Energy and many, many other reputable sources, we have sufficient oil resources for at least the next several hundred years, maybe longer. The costs of extraction will likely be higher, but scarcity? No.

Without the emotional "the end of the world as we know it," paranoia from the traditional media, let's actually look at world oil reserves.

Currently, the world's recognized reserves of oil are higher than at any time in history. And, contrary to conventional media hysteria, the world's clearly identified reserves are growing every year. The USGS reports in the "World Petroleum Assessment 2000" that world reserves of conventional crude oil total 3,000 billion barrels. This estimate is an increase from a similar estimate in 1994 of 2,400 billion barrels, up from 1,500 billion barrels in 1990.

But this report considers only "liquid" or conventional oil – oil that's accessible and readily available from underground reservoirs. This does not include highly viscous oils, oil-tar sand deposits or oil shale.

The major media focus with myopic intensity on conventional crude reserves, ignoring stunning reserves of oil located in tar sands and oil shale. At best, this is difficult to comprehend.

For example, little media attention was accorded the dramatic increases in Canadian oil reserves. A December 2003 report in Oil and Gas Journal notes that Canada's oil reserves now total more than 180 billion barrels of oil, with most found in economically recoverable oil-tar sand deposits. In contrast, Saudi Arabia's reserves are estimated at 264 billion barrels.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers sees the oil sand reservoir at a stunning 2,000 billion barrels of crude, of which 315 billion barrels is currently recoverable. This is oil economically viable at prices between $18 and $20 per barrel. Worldwide, recoverable reserves of oil found in oil sands are currently reported in excess of 1,000 billion barrels.

But by far the largest potential reservoir of future oil is held in oil shale.

The U.S. Department of Energy, in a March 2004 study, reports oil shale reserves in the United States alone of over 2,000 billion barrels. Worldwide, oil-shale reserves are estimated as high as 14,000 billion barrels.

To put this in perspective, U.S. oil-shale reserves alone would be sufficient to provide 100 percent of U.S. crude oil consumed at current usage for over 200 years.

Worldwide reserves of 14,000 billion barrels are sufficient to provide the world's crude oil requirements for at least several hundred years.

The truth is, the history of oil prognostication is littered with scaremongers proclaiming false declarations of approaching oil famine. In fact, doom merchants have used oil as a vehicle for "end of the world" scenarios since before World War I. Consider:



In 1914, the U.S. Bureau of Mines declared that the United States would run out of oil in 10 years.

In 1939, the Department of the Interior predicted that oil reserves would last only 13 more years.

In 1950, when the world's estimated reserves were thought to be 600 billion barrels, the Department of Interior again projected the end of the age of oil by 1963.

Move forward to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which prompted the highly respected journal Foreign Affairs to publish an article on "The Oil Crisis: This Time the Wolf is Here."

In 1981, a respected textbook on economic geology predicted that the United States was entering a 125-year-long energy gap, expected to be at its worst in the year 2000 with dire consequences to our standard of living.

In 1995, a prominent geologist predicted that petroleum production would peak in 1996 and that after 1999 many of the developed world's societies would look like Third World countries.

In 1998, a Scientific American article titled "End of the Age of Oil" predicted that world oil production would peak in 2002 and that we would soon face the "end of the abundant and cheap oil on which all nations depend."

All of these predictions were wrong. In fact, from 1950 to the present, the world's recognized oil reserves have increased virtually every year.

The current USGS world estimate of 3,000 billion barrels of conventional crude is probably conservative. Consider Iraq. Only 2,300 oil wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared with over 1 million wells drilled in Texas. Furthermore, only 22 of the more than 80 major Iraqi oil fields have been fully explored.

Iraq is reported to have 112 billion barrels of oil reserves. But based on unexplored reserves, many geologists believe that actual number is more than twice current estimates.

Even North American reserves of conventional oil are probably understated since recent deep oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico has identified a huge vat of oil. President Fox has stated that the new reserves may be as large as 56 billion barrels. Deep oil wells are drilled to 25,000 feet below ground surface and represent a new frontier in oil exploration.

A classic example of oil reserve understatement is the Kern River field in California, where production wells were first drilled in 1899. By 1942, after 43 years of continuous pumping, remaining Kern River oil was estimated at 54 million barrels. Pumping continued, and over the next 50 years, the field produced over 736 million barrels. In 1986, using 3D mapping technology, the reservoir was reported to contain an additional reserve of over 970 million barrels.

Eventually the world will move from an oil-based economy to something better. But given the huge reserves of world oil, it's likely that technology will drive this change, not scarcity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote]Link

The end of the age of oil?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 26, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Chris Bennett
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

According the Washington Post (June 6, 2004) , the world is on the verge of oil famine.

BBC News declares "as certain as death and taxes, we shall one day be forced to learn to live without oil." Further, "people in middle age today can probably expect to be here" for the terminal oil shortages.


CBS, NBC and ABC have all presented grim and frightening reports of rapacious oil executives, unfeeling consumers, gas-guzzling SUVs and declining oil stocks, mostly in the powder keg countries of the Middle East. The unmistakable conclusion: An energy disaster of epic proportions is just around the corner.

Literally dozens of books and hundreds of websites paint a consistent and alarming picture of the decline of the American Empire and the end of the Age of Oil.

Could this be true? Are we really sliding downhill into a future defined by scarce resources, alternative fuels and mandatory conservation – a nightmare of strong governmental controls and diminished expectations?

The surprising answer: No.

The world has plenty of oil.

[quote]

So it looks like it is better if the general population thinks we are going to run out??!!! Why the hell would ABC, NB,C BBC and CBS be publishing this contradictory data? Who do we believe, are we confused yet?

I guess if we all "go into agreement" with the supply problem we will swallow the ridiculous price inflation of oil and all associated goods hook, line and sinker!

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Why the hell would ABC, NBC, BBC and CBS be publishing this contradictory data?

Competition. The name of the new game is "How do we spook the most people", not "how do we inform, educate, and empower the most people".

---

Jeffrey, I did NOT say all of those things you list. DON'T put words in my mouth that I did not say.

I said we don't need to worry about oil. That's all.

And we were talking about oil in here, not about your fantasy world.

---

Never Forget a Friend. Or an Enemy.

(even though he has no idea of what our respective beliefs are)
Therefore it stands to reason that by his logic, questioning = hatred.

By my logic... OBSERVING YOUR BEHAVIOR = HATRED...

And once again... What does any of this have to do with oil? ;)

Congratuations! Your well thought out "rational and logical" response has won you 1st prize in the SETI@HOME 'Censorship Awards'. Well done, pretty soon no one will be able to 'hear' your words of wisdom ;).

NOTE: This is an automated response. Please do not reply.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

Ditto that...

Hopefully the anti-GOD squad will exhibit a little more 'self control' in the future...

But I wouldn't count on it... ;)

(even though he has no idea of what our respective beliefs are)
Therefore it stands to reason that by his logic, questioning = hatred.

By my logic... OBSERVING YOUR BEHAVIOR = HATRED...

And once again... What does any of this have to do with oil? ;)

Jeffery, with the price of petroleum going ever higher, I suggest that you
stock up on vasoline...you're going to need it the way you're mincing around
here; it'll help reduce the skidmarks on your brain, not to mention other places.

---

Account frozen...

Feel the love!!!

:-)

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Feel the love!!!

Observe the behavior !!! ;)