world oil reserves gone in 19 years

[james dixon]

Please, your inability to understand why we are in an ice age right now

No there is no evidence to support your view and lots of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You stated that we were in an ice-age so I did some checking and found educated people who disagree with you. I have also seen a National Geographic show that stated that the ice at the poles were melting. The program also included fly overs that showed skyscraper chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the ocean.

Based on your avatar, it makes no since on your part to deny this.
As for me, I have no clue. I do not have the education on this topic to provide a valid point of view.

Up until now I was relying on folks in the know like yourself to tell me the truth.

now I know better

No, your sources said that we are still in an ice age. Did you not understand them?

And yes, due to AGW, and this is not a good thing, we may have ended the ice age. Have you given this any thought at all? How is that good? Tell me, why do you hate Florida?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No there is no evidence to support your view and lots of evidence to the contrary.

Seriously? Please, as a Christian you need to remember the Ninth Commandment.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Your own sources tell us that these are not actual problems.

First of all, the link says no such thing. The introduction is based on the story of Crescent High School's gymnasium wall cracking and damage being caused to adjacent classrooms... It's little more than a long-winded explanation of the process used to effectively look at school sites in relation to earthquake risk. And like you, he's focused on quakes larger than 4.0 (4.5). Kudos.

This link was a convenient look at many different map layers. Digging further (as in, reading the whole thing and not just that which conveniently appears to help make your point) you'll see something interesting...

From: http://2015.padjo.org/tutorials/mapping/077-ok-schools-quakes/#the-usgs-earthquake-archive-data
"I don't know what insights to draw from the fault lines, particularly what's to be made of the fact that none of the major earthquakes have occurred near the areas of most concentrated fault lines (if that's even the correct way to interpret the fault lines). So I've hidden the layer by default..."

And from those words in blue:
https://weather.com/safety/earthquake/news/oklahoma-fault-map
Check the differences between Okalhoma's fault lines and the locations of the subject quakes... Also, pay attention to where new faults "mysteriously" have opened...

https://www.tulsaworld.com/earthqua...cle_de588725-1475-592c-9025-bdcfbf9b8bcd.html

These quakes aren't toppling buildings or killing hundreds of people per year. I'm not claiming that they are. What they are doing, despite your odd objection, is causing damage to homes and public utilities. Those damages aren't nothing. In some cases they aren't being covered because they aren't big enough, according to insurance policies, apparently... And like your larger earthquake argument, if it's not really destructive then it doesn't seem to count, which would be ludicrous to suggest if it was happening to you.

You should not accuse others of being dishonest merely because you cannot understand the very sources that you sited.

There's literally nothing at all complicated about a link to a guy doing USGS layer studies. It's those layer studies that are the point of the citation, among other things.

The ridiculous increase in earthquakes is caused either by the process of fracking itself, or as a side effect, by injecting wastewater back into the earth after that the fact. Either way, they're caused by the process of fossil fuel extraction. Would you care to argue against that as well?

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/how-hydraulic-fracturing-works/

 

[Audie]

A hundred yeas ago oil reserves were only
going to last another ten years.

Kind of too bad it was not true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, the link says no such thing. The introduction is based on the story of Crescent High School's gymnasium wall cracking and damage being caused to adjacent classrooms... It's little more than a long-winded explanation of the process used to effectively look at school sites in relation to earthquake risk. And like you, he's focused on quakes larger than 4.0 (4.5). Kudos.

This link was a convenient look at many different map layers. Digging further (as in, reading the whole thing and not just that which conveniently appears to help make your point) you'll see something interesting...

From: http://2015.padjo.org/tutorials/mapping/077-ok-schools-quakes/#the-usgs-earthquake-archive-data
"I don't know what insights to draw from the fault lines, particularly what's to be made of the fact that none of the major earthquakes have occurred near the areas of most concentrated fault lines (if that's even the correct way to interpret the fault lines). So I've hidden the layer by default..."

And from those words in blue:
https://weather.com/safety/earthquake/news/oklahoma-fault-map
Check the differences between Okalhoma's fault lines and the locations of the subject quakes... Also, pay attention to where new faults "mysteriously" have opened...

https://www.tulsaworld.com/earthqua...cle_de588725-1475-592c-9025-bdcfbf9b8bcd.html

These quakes aren't toppling buildings or killing hundreds of people per year. I'm not claiming that they are. What they are doing, despite your odd objection, is causing damage to homes and public utilities. Those damages aren't nothing. In some cases they aren't being covered because they aren't big enough, according to insurance policies, apparently... And like your larger earthquake argument, if it's not really destructive then it doesn't seem to count, which would be ludicrous to suggest if it was happening to you.


There's literally nothing at all complicated about a link to a guy doing USGS layer studies. It's those layer studies that are the point of the citation, among other things.

The ridiculous increase in earthquakes is caused either by the process of fracking itself, or as a side effect, by injecting wastewater back into the earth after that the fact. Either way, they're caused by the process of fossil fuel extraction. Would you care to argue against that as well?

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/how-hydraulic-fracturing-works/

There are quite a few problems with your post. But then you have no point to make. The number of extremely minor earthquakes, with only one quake that caused any damage at all in an area that does have some quakes only tells us that if anything fracking makes an area such as Oklahoma safer. Meanwhile you ignore all of the other states where fracking is common. When you have to ignore the vast majority of the evidence it tends to make your argument worthless:

To see that map you will need to hit reply, but there is massive fracking going on in Texas, North Dakot the northern Appalachians, and some in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and yet there is nothing on the map you presented. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, the link says no such thing. The introduction is based on the story of Crescent High School's gymnasium wall cracking and damage being caused to adjacent classrooms... It's little more than a long-winded explanation of the process used to effectively look at school sites in relation to earthquake risk. And like you, he's focused on quakes larger than 4.0 (4.5). Kudos.

This link was a convenient look at many different map layers. Digging further (as in, reading the whole thing and not just that which conveniently appears to help make your point) you'll see something interesting...

From: http://2015.padjo.org/tutorials/mapping/077-ok-schools-quakes/#the-usgs-earthquake-archive-data
"I don't know what insights to draw from the fault lines, particularly what's to be made of the fact that none of the major earthquakes have occurred near the areas of most concentrated fault lines (if that's even the correct way to interpret the fault lines). So I've hidden the layer by default..."

And from those words in blue:
https://weather.com/safety/earthquake/news/oklahoma-fault-map
Check the differences between Okalhoma's fault lines and the locations of the subject quakes... Also, pay attention to where new faults "mysteriously" have opened...

https://www.tulsaworld.com/earthqua...cle_de588725-1475-592c-9025-bdcfbf9b8bcd.html

These quakes aren't toppling buildings or killing hundreds of people per year. I'm not claiming that they are. What they are doing, despite your odd objection, is causing damage to homes and public utilities. Those damages aren't nothing. In some cases they aren't being covered because they aren't big enough, according to insurance policies, apparently... And like your larger earthquake argument, if it's not really destructive then it doesn't seem to count, which would be ludicrous to suggest if it was happening to you.


There's literally nothing at all complicated about a link to a guy doing USGS layer studies. It's those layer studies that are the point of the citation, among other things.

The ridiculous increase in earthquakes is caused either by the process of fracking itself, or as a side effect, by injecting wastewater back into the earth after that the fact. Either way, they're caused by the process of fossil fuel extraction. Would you care to argue against that as well?

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/how-hydraulic-fracturing-works/

There are quite a few problems with your post. But then you have no point to make. The number of extremely minor earthquakes, with only one quake that caused any damage at all in an area that does have some quakes only tells us that if anything fracking makes an area such as Oklahoma safer. Meanwhile you ignore all of the other states where fracking is common. When you have to ignore the vast majority of the evidence it tends to make your argument worthless:

To see that map you will need to hit reply, but there is massive fracking going on in Texas, North Dakot the northern Appalachians, and some in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and yet there is nothing on the map you presented. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Audie]

There are quite a few problems with your post. But then you have no point to make. The number of extremely minor earthquakes, with only one quake that caused any damage at all in an area that does have some quakes only tells us that if anything fracking makes an area such as Oklahoma safer. Meanwhile you ignore all of the other states where fracking is common. When you have to ignore the vast majority of the evidence it tends to make your argument worthless:

To see that map you will need to hit reply, but there is massive fracking going on in Texas, North Dakot the northern Appalachians, and some in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and yet there is nothing on the map you presented. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

So, you would rule out the particular subsurface
geology of the earthquake / frack area as a factor
in why they occur there but not in NoDak?

 

[Valjean]

But should we be using such a dangerous product at all, especially now we have economically viable and less harmful alternatives?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you would rule out the particular subsurface
geology of the earthquake / frack area as a factor
in why they occur there but not in NoDak?

No, I wouldn't. My problem is that he is cherry picking data with no investigation of the area's history. He earlier made a comment about fracking making "Swiss cheese" of the what is underground. Fracking may release pent up stress. All that will do in the long run is to make an area safer. With all of these quakes he found one single example of a school with a crack in its wall that could probably be attributed to an earthquake. Take a look at North Dakota. That is about as seismically stable area as exists in the world. Fracking will not release stress since there is no stress to release. Fracking will not cause stress. At worse it will only release it. And it can easily be argued that it is better to have thousands of small earthquakes rather than one large quake.

And that idea has been propose for the San Andreas Fault itself. The problem is that with the San Andreas is that there are magnitudes of order higher amount of energy trapped in it. Injecting along the fault could easily cause a major quake. And no one wants to fact that litigation. This article touches on that concept:

http://www.achangeinthewind.com/201...off-earthquakes-on-the-san-andreas-fault.html

I am not denying that fracking may be responsible for the increase in quakes in Oklahoma, that is not major news. It is simply not the huge threat that the poster seems to think that it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But should we be using such a dangerous product at all, especially now we have economically viable and less harmful alternatives?

Getting off of oil should be the goal. I merely dislike poorly formed arguments against oil. The real threat is AGW. Concentrating on nothing burgers only harms the major reason to quit.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There are quite a few problems with your post. But then you have no point to make. The number of extremely minor earthquakes, with only one quake that caused any damage at all in an area that does have some quakes only tells us that if anything fracking makes an area such as Oklahoma safer. Meanwhile you ignore all of the other states where fracking is common. When you have to ignore the vast majority of the evidence it tends to make your argument worthless:

To see that map you will need to hit reply, but there is massive fracking going on in Texas, North Dakot the northern Appalachians, and some in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and yet there is nothing on the map you presented. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Yeah, the image thing is pretty annoying. And the map I presented focused solely on Oklahoma. There's plenty of information out there about Texas, Kansas, etal.

Texas has seen a 6-fold increase in quakes, and they're happening in areas where the faults themselves haven't been geologically active for 300 million years...

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fracking-linked-to-increase-in-texas-quakes-according-to-new-study
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/11/e1701593.full
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...leeping-faults-in-texas-leads-to-earthquakes/

Listen, my original post in this thread simply stated that we do destructive things in the pursuit of fossil fuels and seem puzzled as to why those destructive things have destructive consequences, when we shouldn't.

I've never claimed that urban centers would sink into the ground, or that this would lead to the downfall of western civilization or any other alarmist nonsense. But we have a very obvious problem caused by human activity, and there's so much denial about it that I do worry it will go unchecked until something more serious happens.

What's the long term effect of continually decreasing subsurface rock density?
What happens to areas above?
What happens to intermediate areas?

This just isn't a complicated conversation.

People didn't want to hear that smoking was bad for them either. But the science was always there.
Who could have imagined that inhaling tar, ash, and smoke could be destructive to biological breathing systems...

 

[Audie]

Yeah, the image thing is pretty annoying. And the map I presented focused solely on Oklahoma. There's plenty of information out there about Texas, Kansas, etal.

Texas has seen a 6-fold increase in quakes, and they're happening in areas where the faults themselves haven't been geologically active for 300 million years...

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fracking-linked-to-increase-in-texas-quakes-according-to-new-study
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/11/e1701593.full
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...leeping-faults-in-texas-leads-to-earthquakes/

Listen, my original post in this thread simply stated that we do destructive things in the pursuit of fossil fuels and seem puzzled as to why those destructive things have destructive consequences, when we shouldn't.

I've never claimed that urban centers would sink into the ground, or that this would lead to the downfall of western civilization or any other alarmist nonsense. But we have a very obvious problem caused by human activity, and there's so much denial about it that I do worry it will go unchecked until something more serious happens.

What's the long term effect of continually decreasing subsurface rock density?
What happens to areas above?
What happens to intermediate areas?

This just isn't a complicated conversation.

People didn't want to hear that smoking was bad for them either. But the science was always there.
Who could have imagined that inhaling tar, ash, and smoke could be destructive to biological breathing systems...

We can get over a few earthquakes. Permanent
contamination of ground water, not so much.

 

[jonathan180iq]

We can get over a few earthquakes. Permanent
contamination of ground water, not so much.

That's a whole different conversation, but yes. I agree.
If we can't even accept that this process causes tremors, and bring some science and oversight to it, then how can we really trust that the process of porous liquid extraction from deep below our aquifers won't eventually contaminate them?

(Water purity has a whole host of other issues on the surface as well...)

 

[Audie]

That's a whole different conversation, but yes. I agree.
If we can't even accept that this process causes tremors, and bring some science and oversight to it, then how can we really trust that the process of porous liquid extraction from deep below our aquifers won't eventually contaminate them?

(Water purity has a whole host of other issues on the surface as well...)

Once something goes down there, it is basically beyond
anyone's control, and there is really no reason to just
implicitly trust the engineers and drillers or anyone else
involved. I think the future generations, such as there
may be, will really have a lot to complain about re
how people of the 20th and 21st centuries have behaved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, the image thing is pretty annoying. And the map I presented focused solely on Oklahoma. There's plenty of information out there about Texas, Kansas, etal.

Texas has seen a 6-fold increase in quakes, and they're happening in areas where the faults themselves haven't been geologically active for 300 million years...

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fracking-linked-to-increase-in-texas-quakes-according-to-new-study
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/11/e1701593.full
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...leeping-faults-in-texas-leads-to-earthquakes/

Listen, my original post in this thread simply stated that we do destructive things in the pursuit of fossil fuels and seem puzzled as to why those destructive things have destructive consequences, when we shouldn't.

I've never claimed that urban centers would sink into the ground, or that this would lead to the downfall of western civilization or any other alarmist nonsense. But we have a very obvious problem caused by human activity, and there's so much denial about it that I do worry it will go unchecked until something more serious happens.

What's the long term effect of continually decreasing subsurface rock density?
What happens to areas above?
What happens to intermediate areas?

This just isn't a complicated conversation.

People didn't want to hear that smoking was bad for them either. But the science was always there.
Who could have imagined that inhaling tar, ash, and smoke could be destructive to biological breathing systems...

The Texas "quakes" are so small that they do not even show on the magnitude 3 or greater map that I posted. The quake problem is not a very good example of people being destructive. There are much better arguments to use. I would focus on actual problems such as AGW rather than earthquakes so weak that the only damage found even in Oklahoma was a crack in a school wall. By focusing on non-problems one makes it easier for people to ignore the real problems out there.

 

[Valjean]

First we cut down the forests for fuel, then we practically exterminated the whales and blackened the cities with coal smoke.
Now we're risking environmental damage from mining oil from marginal sources, changing the planet's climate and 'acidifying' the oceans. It's time for the next step: stop subsidizing the buggy-whip manufacturers. Concentrate on wind, geothermal, wave and solar energy sources.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The Texas "quakes" are so small that they do not even show on the magnitude 3 or greater map that I posted. The quake problem is not a very good example of people being destructive. There are much better arguments to use. I would focus on actual problems such as AGW rather than earthquakes so weak that the only damage found even in Oklahoma was a crack in a school wall. By focusing on non-problems one makes it easier for people to ignore the real problems out there.

Fair enough

 

[jonathan180iq]

First we cut down the forests for fuel, then we practically exterminated the whales and blackened the cities with coal smoke.
Now we're risking environmental damage from mining oil from marginal sources, changing the planet's climate and 'acidifying' the oceans. It's time for the next step: stop subsidizing the buggy-whip manufacturers. Concentrate on wind, geothermal, wave and solar energy sources.

I would really like to see us finally take concrete steps towards a progressive technological future, built on efficient and sustainable energy sources.

Our current approach, as you've said, is akin to exclaiming "Hey! Let's burn that old dirty stuff over there!" It's crazy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would really like to see us finally take concrete steps towards a progressive technological future, built on efficient and sustainable energy sources.

Our current approach, as you've said, is akin to exclaiming "Hey! Let's burn that old dirty stuff over there!" It's crazy.

On this I totally agree. Though I still think that nuclear is far safer than coal or oil. The opposition to it is based mainly upon fear and ignorance.