Daily Randomness.........Back to Randomness........................................

[bottomwatcher]

12 hours ago, iceman510 said:

I have rounded up and deported (maybe sent to another location is more correct) 11 chipmunks this year, and there are still 2 or 3 around my yard all the time.  I guess those in other yards see an opening and move in.  I have a small squirrel now too, which I didn't have before.  The chipmunks are easy to trap.

Yeah they aren't very smart, not like the squirrels. Glad you just "relocate" them rather than target practice. I saw a chipmunk today manage to run under 2 cars that were moving at 60. Ran between the front and rears of the first on the drivers side and exit between the front and rears of the passenger wheels on the second car tail strait up in the air. Blind luck but he made it. Now the rats when I am in Florida get a different kind of treatment.

[bottomwatcher]

Todays randomness I visited a B52 crash site in the Maine woods of a plane that crashed in 1963. Too bad it is such a pain for pics on here but the crash site stretches for hundreds of yards and a lot of the wreckage is now entangled and growing in the surrounding trees. Totally surreal and sobering for such a machine to be rendered into twisted metal. The pilots survived by ejecting but the remaing 5 crewmembers died and this is thier memorial.

[thisismatt]

RIP

 

 

[Ranman72]

RIP Coolio

to young for sure

[Soundline]

Interesting. I said “fossil fuel” at a science conference once in about 2015 to a table of mostly geologists once and was laughed at.  
 

Here’s why I include this, I’m not a geologist and I was just participating because I worked in the energy business.  About half the table laughed at me because they knew what is covered here, the other half because I was seriously discussing the energy “crisis”.  I was corrected by a nice young lady that petroleum is “not a fossil” then watched the table erupt into arguments.  I had no clue what was going on because my degrees are in electronic fields.  I was just parroting what I’d been told in school.  
 

It was fascinating to see the mostly older generation of scientists go after the “kids” perpetuating the “fossil fuel myth”.

 

I still don’t have an opinion because I never sunk any time into evaluating the root source of what is the second most common liquid on earth, petroleum.  I’m told by my friends still working in the government labs that the science still isn’t settled.  

[datzenmike]

I had a book of fiction once that espoused that oil was produced deep in the earth naturally and was not like coal made from old vegetation. .

[Dguy210]

On 9/29/2022 at 11:52 PM, Soundline said:

Interesting. I said “fossil fuel” at a science conference once in about 2015 to a table of mostly geologists once and was laughed at.  
 

Here’s why I include this, I’m not a geologist and I was just participating because I worked in the energy business.  About half the table laughed at me because they knew what is covered here, the other half because I was seriously discussing the energy “crisis”.  I was corrected by a nice young lady that petroleum is “not a fossil” then watched the table erupt into arguments.  I had no clue what was going on because my degrees are in electronic fields.  I was just parroting what I’d been told in school.  
 

It was fascinating to see the mostly older generation of scientists go after the “kids” perpetuating the “fossil fuel myth”.

 

I still don’t have an opinion because I never sunk any time into evaluating the root source of what is the second most common liquid on earth, petroleum.  I’m told by my friends still working in the government labs that the science still isn’t settled.  

 

I've seen this theory kicked around quite a bit. Not sure how much credence I lend it but I'm not a geologist either. 

 

I do however have a strong chemistry background so the question I have to ask is "where is the carbon source that is creating the petroleum if is a naturally occurring geological source?".

 

That has always been my hang up with this theory is that it doesn't seem to ask where the carbon is coming from if it is not biological matter in origin? Most of the carbon cycle (CO2 sequestering from the air) on Earth has an intermediate life form and is "relatively surface level", i.e., carbonate containing rock is still mostly made up from diatomaceous organisms... which is also the source described for oil in the first place. 

 

I will state we do KNOW that you can make petroleum from biological matter using effectively heat and pressure, that is exactly what thermal depolymerization does. So the oil as a "fossil" source is at least supported by some evidence that it is plausible to have been formed that way. It also doesn't rule out a possibility that petroleum is formed by more than one method with some sources being "fossil" and some being an unknown geological process from non-biological matter.

 

So when trying to determine the most likely correct answer between two probable theories of how something works, and faced with a multitude of unknown variables, you can use a weighting method based on what you DO know and what SEEMS more likely. This doesn't make you right it just makes you less likely to be wrong. 

 

Shortening this down, we do KNOW that it is possible for petroleum to be produced from biological matter, and fossils and other relevant geology do colocalize with petroleum deposits, whereas the other theory requires some unknown method. Therefore, we give the known method a higher probability of being correct. This does not as I stated before "rule out" the other theory it just reduces the probability it is correct. If the unknown method had some predictive value or testable hypothesis, which produced supporting evidence that was not supported by the "fossil" hypothesis this would shift that probability. For example, in the video the speaker states the depth at which petroleum is often found is greater than the depth fossils are located, so that would lend evidence to the non-fossil origin (NOTE: I do not know how correct this statement actually is though).

Edited October 1, 2022 by Dguy210

[datzenmike]

How deep is the deepest coal mine? 1.5 Km or 1,500 meters or not quite a mile. How deep are oil wells?? WAY deeper.

[Ooph!]

Average US oil well depth is about 4 to 5,000 feet

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_welldep_s1_a.htm

 

Can't remember why I watched this but it gives a good perspective

 

[datzenmike]

Deepest oil well is 40,000 feet! Almost 8 miles. So where does the carbon come from down that deep? like coal mines we don't know about? Has it been long enough for organics to be covered and subducted by geologic action?

[AtomChurch]

12 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

Deepest oil well is 40,000 feet! Almost 8 miles. So where does the carbon come from down that deep? like coal mines we don't know about? Has it been long enough for organics to be covered and subducted by geologic action?

I was reading awhile back that oil wells were "filling back up" after being drained. So where does that oil come from exactly?

[EDM620]

I worked in the oil patch for a long time and yes, oil wells can be extremely deep. I mostly worked on SAGD plants

All quite shallow in comparison, with small footprints therefore easy for reclamation.

[EDM620]

8 minutes ago, AtomChurch said:

"filling back up"

Give it a few centuries maybe eons. Likely to just gradually ooze out of the surrounding rock. Not exactly a renewable resource

[AtomChurch]

2 minutes ago, EDM620 said:

Give it a few centuries 

Maybe the Sumerians had plastic that they buried. Maybe we just have to keep doing that. If you can't explain where is came from, then you can't say its not renewable. Its like saying I picked all the tomatoes and didn't plant anymore. The earth created oil somehow. It also "was like 1000%" on fire before it cooled and formed life. So life essentially formed from pure pollution distilling itself. I'm not arguing with you, about us not knowing how to make it, I am however saying that its not settled science. Greenhouses pump in "deadly emissions" for the plants to grow larger and be healthier. I have read more than one article about how we are actually in a c02 drought as far as food production is concerned. (Not taking into account for human air quality.)

[Soundline]

11 hours ago, Dguy210 said:

So when trying to determine the most likely correct answer between two probable theories of how something works, and faced with a multitude of unknown variables, you can use a weighting method based on what you DO know and what SEEMS more likely. This doesn't make you right it just makes you less likely to be wrong. 

 

Shortening this down, we do KNOW that it is possible for petroleum to be produced from biological matter, and fossils and other relevant geology do colocalize with petroleum deposits, whereas the other theory requires some unknown method. Therefore, we give the known method a higher probability of being correct. This does not as I stated before "rule out" the other theory it just reduces the probability it is correct. If the unknown method had some predictive value or testable hypothesis, which produced supporting evidence that was not supported by the "fossil" hypothesis this would shift that probability. For example, in the video the speaker states the depth at which petroleum is often found is greater than the depth fossils are located, so that would lend evidence to the non-fossil origin (NOTE: I do not know how correct this statement actually is though).

The exact theory I heard goes something like this.

 

“Biological life placed under immense pressure by the ocean creates oil.  More is produced each year on average than is consumed.”

 

You’ll have to forgive me for not citing sources, but this was a conversation I was present for several years ago.  I’m paraphrasing and it’s vastly outside my area of expertise.  The principal as it was described was that as algae, sea plants, fish waste, and other biological matter that’s heavier than water dies or is excreted it goes through a pressurization due to the weight of the water.  This process creates oil in a much shorter period of time than we think. One guy said his math worked for a 25 year time span.
 

I didn’t look at any of the research, so I really don’t have a firm grasp on this position.  But the final bit of heat and pressure involved tectonic plate physics.  
 

The Col in the video is not someone I ever met in my travels, so I dunno how reliable he was.  He had a colorful resume though. Especially since he definitively said rogue elements of CIA were involved in killing president Kennedy. He even testified to that while under oath.  
 

I figured if I could start a discussion the Datsun sleuths here could provide interesting information.  Which you have.  Well done. 

[datzenmike]

Oil would float if produced on the sea floor. Only one way for seabed 'ooze' to get underground. Subduction. This would provide the pressure and temperature needed to transform to crude. Then it would presumably rise and be captured below impermeable rock or ooze out on the surface, which it does do.    

[AtomChurch]

17 hours ago, Soundline said:

The exact theory I heard goes something like this.

I suppose the idea of conversation to me is more along the lines of, we haven't been producing oil based products. Then we found oil. As a closed system, the earth made crude oil from "stuff", pressure heat time... so we give it a bit of a head start by leaving polymers around. The earth breaks it down again. 

Yes, I agree, I do not want to eat tuna that has "breathed" plastic into its lungs. I just want to talk about what really is the problem using these items, not the "not renewable" aspect./  Lets stop using gold then. No one can make that shit garbage of an element. USELESS if you ask me. 

[thisismatt]

Gold is useless?

[datzenmike]

Most useful in manufacturing and products. I don't care for gold in jewelry at all. A value is conferred upon it. It's somewhat rare but not intrinsically valuable. When there is political unrest the price goes up and is a safeguard for your wealth rather than paper currency. 

 

All the gold ever discovered would make a cube 23 X 23 X 23 meters, about 70 feet a side. 12,167 cubic meters of which 2,953 cubic meters are estimated reserve and not 'dug up yet'. Making the cube actually more like 21 X 21 X 21 meters.

 

There is estimated to be 20 million tonnes (44 billion) pounds dissolved in the worlds oceans. 1,034,077 cubic meters or a cube just over 100 X 100 X 100 meters.

[jbirds510]

1 hour ago, datzenmike said:

Most useful in manufacturing and products. I don't care for gold in jewelry at all. A value is conferred upon it. It's somewhat rare but not intrinsically valuable. When there is political unrest the price goes up and is a safeguard for your wealth rather than paper currency. 

 

All the gold ever discovered would make a cube 23 X 23 X 23 meters, about 70 feet a side. 12,167 cubic meters of which 2,953 cubic meters are estimated reserve and not 'dug up yet'. Making the cube actually more like 21 X 21 X 21 meters.

 

There is estimated to be 20 million tonnes (44 billion) pounds dissolved in the worlds oceans. 1,034,077 cubic meters or a cube just over 100 X 100 X 100 meters.

Ever wonder who makes these stats?

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/736-of-all-statistics-are-made-up-2010-2

[datzenmike]

 The two 'facts' ... the cube of 23 meters* on a side (244,000 metric tonnes) and including the reserve of 57,000 metric tonnes* (which I converted to cubic meters) and subtracted from the cube to get the actual physical amount of 21 X 21 X 21 meter cube, I looked up at several sites which more or less agreed with each other. Everything else I worked out with my calculator but I make no claim to be a mathmatician.

 

Gold is easily melted down and repurposed and very little will be lost because of it's value. It's not like a piece of aluminum so what ever is discovered tends to stick around forever. Your ring may have some gold from a necklace worn by Cleopatra. Mine production and industrial use is fairly well known so total amounts can be fairly accurately known. The amound discovered but not refined is some sort of estimate and why I removed it from the cube.

 

The gold dissolved in the oceans is based on one gram per 100 million tonnes of seawater. 

 

 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/736-of-all-statistics-are-made-up-2010-2

 

The above link being a 'statistic' is also subject to the 73.6% bullshit rate.

 

 

[Dguy210]

On 10/2/2022 at 8:29 PM, datzenmike said:

Most useful in manufacturing and products. I don't care for gold in jewelry at all. A value is conferred upon it. It's somewhat rare but not intrinsically valuable. When there is political unrest the price goes up and is a safeguard for your wealth rather than paper currency. 

 

All the gold ever discovered would make a cube 23 X 23 X 23 meters, about 70 feet a side. 12,167 cubic meters of which 2,953 cubic meters are estimated reserve and not 'dug up yet'. Making the cube actually more like 21 X 21 X 21 meters.

 

There is estimated to be 20 million tonnes (44 billion) pounds dissolved in the worlds oceans. 1,034,077 cubic meters or a cube just over 100 X 100 X 100 meters.

 

Yep, extremely useful in manufacturing as it does not corrode, one of the few elements if it was cheaper that would be used in more stuff due to its inherent abilities. I'm not particularly a big fan of it for jewelry either but it is one of the shiny rocks people like and have liked for thousands of years, so much of its value outside industry is because people value it. Platinum is likewise extremely useful for various industrial uses (i.e., electrolysis electrodes, catalytic converters, and such), but had much less value historically and is weirdly now less valuable than gold (there is a historical tale of gold sovereigns being counterfeited with a "cheaper" metal, platinum/copper alloy, which when this was discovered it was dumped overboard *). Platinum is slightly denser than gold (tungsten is about the same) and is soft as gold so it makes a good counterfeit metal. 

 

I believe some of those guestimates of total amount of gold on Earth are also based on guestimates of bulk elemental composition (simplifying this a bit). Due to density much of the gold is in the core or mantle and effectively unattainable. Weirdly, due to several astronomical oddities, involving in no small part the formation of our Moon by the collision of a smaller planet during Earth's early formation**, we live on an planet with quite a bit higher concentrations of the heavier elements than is thought to be the norm and a higher concentration of those elements needed for life to form.***

 

The real thing that would crash the entire metals market is asteroid mining.**** The amount of gold/platinum/palladium etc.. heavy metals in some asteroids is just frankly stupid, and ironically, if it was mined would cause the value to plummet so much it would ruin the whole point. We are talking $100 quadrillion dollars at market prices stupid... for 1 asteroid (Psyche 16).

 

Of course space is known for just ridiculous amounts of certain resources at time, you go 10,000 light years out and there is a cloud of ethyl alcohol 1000 times larger than our solar system.*****

 

 

* https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-the-massive-supply-of-platinum-that-Spain-dumped-into-the-sea-years-ago-Is-it-still-there-or-has-it-been-taken-back-out-yet?share=1

** https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/moon-was-produced-by-a-head-on-collision-between-earth-and-a-forming-planet

***https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/dating-the-collision-that-formed-the-moon-using-late-arriving-debris/

**** https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa-headed-towards-giant-golden-asteroid-that-could-make-everyone-on-earth-a-billionaire

**** https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/51271/there-are-giant-clouds-alcohol-floating-space

[AtomChurch]

On 10/2/2022 at 8:00 PM, thisismatt said:

Gold is useless?

Gold is the most non renewable substance that has assigned value on the face of the earth. We use it all the time. (because its "useful") We just cant make more of it. We as an entire planet also horde it into banks and safes and other secret places. My nudging of the conversation was that we cherry pick the "non renewables" we get "upset" about. 
How much oil is used to mine for gold? 

[Farmer]

This has been a deep discussion 

[Str8jacket]

11 hours ago, AtomChurch said:

How much oil is used to mine for gold? 

One 500t excavator uses about 9000lts on average of diesel every 24hrs. (The ones I work on) So a fair bit.