saint_monkey

an interesting article claiming that oil may not be an organic byproduct, but a part of the material between the earth's mantle and crust... if true, there is a LOT more oil than anyone has ever estimated, just deeper within the planet. (very bad news indeed for the environment...)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

excerpt:

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:

• Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system – huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
  
• At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
  
• Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."
  
• In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
  
• In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
  
• Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
  
• Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil.

if this is even remotely true, then it should (theoretically) be possible to synthesize oil.

Monday, April 19th, 2004.

Dear Diary:

lift nozzle
select grade
press start
begin fueling
receipt yes? no?
printing receipt...
couldn't just
kill the environment
with oil, could you
(does it have a hemi?)
had to go and off a tree too?
well.
I hope you are happy
here is your filthy receipt
oh! OH! OH!
Don't just THROW IT ON THE GROUND!!!
Honestly, don't know why I bother.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and
ah, bollocks.
Would you like chips with that?

isn't it odd that this action isn't about oil, and yet Rumsfeld keeps saying "please don't burn the oil." it's not ABOUT the oil, but don't burn it. what did the oil ever do to you? why take this out on the oil? won't somebody think of the OIL?

i would buy it if they said "don't burn the oil, it is really toxic, plus it is hard to put out, you'll pollute the place for ten years," which is all true, but instead they say "don't burn the oil, you'll waste your riches." if i were saddam, that kind of talk would make me want to burn the oil, because it clearly gets the US's attention, and if we move to stop the oil burning, he can say "see, the oil is all they care about." and what good is the oil to saddam if he is dead? so let's just figure tht he is definitely going to burn the oil, stop complaining about it, go in, kill the guy, and secure the oil if that is what you are after. the oil can only burn at a set rate... a prolonged war = less oil. the sooner it is over, the sooner the oil can be saved. screw the kurds, save the oil!

i sure hope they got saddam with that opening salvo. that was a nice tactical move... the kind of thing i would have been trying all along... scare him into a bunker with talk of a long prolonged bombardment, use the sigint to locate him and drop a bomb on the bunker. game over. minimal engagement = minimal collateral damage. if this is tommmy franks style of war, then i must say it's smarter than i gave him credit for.
ß