Dinosaurs & Diamonds

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Flanders, Sep 11, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,562
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    OPEC has Probably Deceived Us About the Size of its Oil Reserves
    By Kurt Cobb | Mon, 10 September 2012 22:58 |

    OPEC has Probably Deceived us About the Size of its Oil Reserves

    What do diamonds and oil have in common? Answer: The general public believes there is a limited supply of both. Those beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny. Diamonds are not only plentiful in nature they can be mass produced by man. And the oil in the ground is more than enough for the foreseeable future. That makes fuel refined from corn unnecessary. So why so many myths about diamonds and oil?

    The reason for the diamond myth is obvious. “Rare” jacks up the price. Oddly enough the sales slogan “Diamonds Are Forever” should lower prices because the cumulative effect flies in the face of scarcity. Think about it.

    Petroleum

    Nobody needs a diamond, but everybody needs petroleum one way or another. Since “Oil Is Not Forever” amounts to false advertising, a variation of the diamond industry’s pricing mechanism was called for. Basically, petroleum pricing depends upon consumers believing the world will run out of oil in the near future. The best way to sell the idea of future scarcity was to show where oil came from.

    An animated story on TV showing how petroleum reserves originated helped sell the idea of a finite resource. A graphic presentation illustrating dinosaurs melting away and seeping into the ground forming huge pools of oil used to be final word on petroleum’s origin. Sinclair Oil even used a dinosaur in it’s advertising:


    The dinosaur myth had but one purpose. Scarcity in the future justified higher prices today since the world is not likely to see dinosaurs again.

    NOTE: I always thought the dinosaur story was absurd. I was partial to vegetation being the raw material that produced petroleum. Decaying vegetation combined with insect poop eventually squeezes out petroleum under gravity’s constant pressure made more sense to me.

    Petroleum aside, engage your imagination with a bit of speculation concerning the much ballyhooed dinosaurs; now extinct:

    The theories surrounding the demise of dinosaurs always fascinated me. Well, I’m happy to announce that well-liked assumptions about dinosaurs have been discredited —— at least in my mind. A few years ago I heard a brief news story on my car radio informing me that a baby dinosaur had been found inside a mammal’s stomach. I think the report said that the hungry mammal was about the size of a squirrel, or somewhere in that neighborhood. Stay with me on this.

    After hearing the news blurb it was instantly clear to me that, over a period of thousands of years, mammals snacked on baby dinosaurs until finally there were no more pro-life grownups left to reproduce their kind.

    Another factor to consider is size. Obviously, dinosaurs were equipped to do battle against other heavyweights. I doubt if they could defend against legions of ravenous mammals.

    My point: Legislators should think twice whenever fortunetellers demand that an endangered species be saved. The species you save might multiply and eat your descendants.

    Now let’s go to the philosophical:

    It’s generally agreed that dinosaurs did not possess a sharp wit. If I’m interpreting the aforementioned discovery correctly it’s fair to say that dinosaurs weren’t into maternal instincts either. Go one step further and say that dinosaurs disappeared because they did not protect their offspring, while mammals thrived precisely because of maternal instincts. Go even further and say that the fate of dinosaurs is God’s way of telling us “Protect your children or you’re history.”

    Now let’s go to pseudo-science and fossil fuel politics.

    Environmental freakazoids woke up in wacko heaven when displaced Communists flocked to the environmental cause after the Soviet Union collapsed. An influx of Communist true believers quickly made petroleum and coal the villains. Wind, sun, and alcohol refined from plants became gods to tax dollar hustlers like Al Gore and the nincompoops who believed him.

    New battle lines were drawn when the Cold War ended. With a lot of support from the United Nations an army of tree-huggers who truly believe they are saving the planet mobilized faster than Americans mobilized for WWII. Media and the education industry became prophets of doom warning that something had to be done even if it meant reducing the lower economic classes to primitive living conditions.

    I’ll close with a dubious statistic from Kurt Cobb’s article:


    I am curious as to why OPEC inflates the amount of oil reserves it controls? De Beers sure as hell does not jack up the accepted number of raw diamonds in the world. It seems to me that converting 81.3% to actual barrels of oil would decrease the accepted amount of known reserves. That should increase the asking price.

    Just to be clear, pricing and marketing are incidental to the politics involved. There is no shortage of petroleum, nor will there be a shortage for a thousand years if ever.
     
  2. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    There is a theory that oil is actually a renewable resource that is continually created.

    Is Oil A Renewable Energy? - Blogcritics Politics

    Oh, dear! What is President Barack Hussein Obama going to do now? Evidence is mounting that not only do we have more than 100 years (or more) worth of recoverable oil in the US alone, but that we also actually have a limitless supply of oil because it is a renewable resource that is being constantly created.


    Dr. Thomas Gold, astronomer and professor emeritus of Cornell University, presents the theory of "abiotic" oil-creation. He states that "biotic" creation of fossil fuels, that decaying organic matter is compressed into oil, is incorrect. According to Gold, we have an unending supply of oil, some of which is constantly migrating upward from the depths at which it is created to refill existing oil deposits, and much more of which remains far below the surface. Gold has maintained for years that oil is actually renewable primordial syrup, starting as methane, continually manufactured by the earth under ultra hot conditions and tremendous pressures. This substance migrates upward, picking up bacteria that attack it, making it appear to have an organic origin. or to appear to come from dinosaurs and vegetation. Under the right conditions of temperature and pressure, this primordial syrup converts to more complex hydrocarbons, such as oil. This oil can be recovered using existing technology.

    It stands to reason that the forces that created oil in the first place have never gone away. They still exist and are still making oil.
     
  3. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,562
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    To Katzndogz: The Kern River field discovered in 1899 is but one of many fields.

    Since 1899 Kern yielded over 2 BILLION barrels of oil with an estimated half billion barrels remaining. Improved recovery technology will increase that number dramatically.

    In 1942 estimates put Kern at 54 million barrels remaining. The amount of oil recovered since 1942 indicates the pool is being replenished; possibly from below as Gold suggests. The Kern River field in California gives Gold’s hypothesis some credibility over the organic matter theory, but the jury is still out. In any event it sure as hell ain’t dinosaurs.
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    I do believe that I will trust the USGS estimates far more than those of amatuers.
     
  5. percysunshine
    Offline

    percysunshine Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    16,730
    Thanks Received:
    2,262
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Sty
    Ratings:
    +5,888
    The USGS are amatuers. They look at basin creaming curves and then make up stuff.
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    Lol. Ok.
     
  7. percysunshine
    Offline

    percysunshine Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    16,730
    Thanks Received:
    2,262
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Sty
    Ratings:
    +5,888
    I will give the USGS some credit. Oil companies tell them what to say.
     
  8. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,117
    Thanks Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,395
    If we wait 3 weeks, Jiggs will show up with a 5 page response.
     
  9. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,562
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    To Old Rocks: I do believe you also trust everything the United Nations puts in its reports about global warming.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,318
    American Geophysical Union, the scientific society that has the most climate scientists in it of any scientific society in the world.

    AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

    AGU Position Statement

    Human Impacts on Climate

    Adopted by Council December 2003
    Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

    The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

    During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

    With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.
     

Share This Page