ForumGarden

Fact: The annual world oil consumption was 0.18 ZJ(=10^21J) in 2005.

Fact: Burning one tonne of gasoline will yield about 48 GJ.

Estimate: 1 tonne = 1 cubic meter of oil

Calculate: 2005 annual world oil current consumption 0.18 x 10^21 / 48 / 10^9 / 10^9 cubic kilometers = 3.75 cubic kilometers

Estimate: historical use is a 2% compound increase since 1800

Calculate: oil extracted to date total ever worldwide = 220 cubic kilometers = 53 cubic miles of oil

Fact: Total Land Area on Earth = 57308738 Sq. Miles

Calculate: that's a twentieth of an inch oil depth on average over the land surface

Conclusion: There's a cavity under the surface of the planet averaging 1.5 millimetres in height within which this worldwide explosion's meant to occur.

Good one TB. You'd do better worrying about a full-scale eruption of the Yellowstone caldera.

Uh oh I better move then. :rolleyes:

whoever wrote this website is stupid. They have no clue what they are talking about, photos are misleading and I can't help but to laugh!

It had my interest for short while, I scrolled forward and alas, once I saw the work 'Revelations' all my questions were answered.

Question: Why do religious writing always be so long before they get to the point?

Hello, my name is Vince Diehl,

In all fairness, I wrote the article being discussed, and I should respond to all those who think ithas no merit, and hope they have just an ounce of just about any kind of logic, so they will know that you cannot remove ANYTHING without it being replaced by something else.

For example, you cannot even remove a chair from your living room without it being replaced by air.

It's called the Law of Replacement.

I also hope this makes it obvious that "someone" obviously flunked their calculus classes, whereas according to recognized science the FARMERS of America have removed 100 FEET of water from our aquifers alone, so the thousanths of an inch of oil that was mentioned is totally ludicrous. (documentation provided below)

Having said that, I would like someone, just anyone, to try to tell me what they think is being used to replace the 100 feet depth of water that farmers have pumped out of our water aquifers (which created a partial vacuum in our aquifers, which lie beneath the H-P Natural Gas Reserve), if it has not sucked all the "replacement" water the energy companies had pumped into the gas reserve down, to fill the void.

And, since there is nothing available BUT the replacement water to fill the one hundred feet deep void in the aquifers, it's obvious to any person with common sense that all the energy company's replacement water has gone down into America's water aquifers.

Which means there has indeed been a vacuum created in the gas reserves.

Which means that the gas reserves have no other source of "replacement" material to fill THEIR voids left by the now non existent replacement water, BUT to suck in air down into them from the atmosphere.

Which means they are now nothing but a BOMB that consists of natural gas and oxygen from the earth's surface.

It's either that, or all these "na-sayers" have some excuse as to why the Law of Replacement is not a valid line of logic.

So, instead of complaining that the article is "just" wrong,

Lets hear it from the "na-sayers" as to what they think has filled void made by the 100 feet deep amount of water that farmers have pumped out of our water aquifers.

Whereas, according to the Environmental News Agency, which I quote below, that is how much water America's farmers have removed from our water aquifers, which lie below our gas reserves.

And by the way, if you think the gas reserves cover a lot of area beneath America, the aquifers are even more enormous. So, removing a 100 feet depth of water created a TREMENDOUS amount of vacuum to suck down the replacement water used by the energy companies, which by comparison, amounted to just a few inches in depth.

Go check it out:

ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS NETWORK

"For fossil aquifers, such as the vast U.S. Ogallala aquifer ... ... depletion brings pumping to an end. Farmers who lose their irrigation water have the option of returning to lower-yield dryland farming if rainfall permits. In more arid regions, however, such as in the southwestern United States, the loss of irrigation water means the end of agriculture.

In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that in parts of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas -- three leading grain-producing states -- the underground water table has dropped by more than 30 meters (100 feet). As a result, wells have gone dry on thousands of farms in the southern Great Plains. Although this mining of underground water (by farming) is taking a toll on U.S. grain production, irrigated land accounts for only one fifth of the U.S. grain harvest, compared with close to three fifths of the harvest in India and four fifths in China."

Now that you have an expert source to refer to, allow me to remind you that the "PANHANDLE" portion of the Hugoton Panhandle Natural Gas Reserve sits directly UNDER the states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas !!!!

Vince Diehl (BANDS)

.

.

ya need to put down the crack pipe then. :rolleyes:

BANDS;771700 wrote: Hello, my name is Vince Diehl,

In all fairness, I wrote the article being discussed, and I should respond to all those who think ithas no merit, and hope they have just an ounce of just about any kind of logic, so they will know that you cannot remove ANYTHING without it being replaced by something else.

For example, you cannot even remove a chair from your living room without it being replaced by air.

It's called the Law of Replacement.

I also hope this makes it obvious that "someone" obviously flunked their calculus classes, whereas according to recognized science the FARMERS of America have removed 100 FEET of water from our aquifers alone, so the thousanths of an inch of oil that was mentioned is totally ludicrous. (documentation provided below)

Having said that, I would like someone, just anyone, to try to tell me what they think is being used to replace the 100 feet depth of water that farmers have pumped out of our water aquifers (which created a partial vacuum in our aquifers, which lie beneath the H-P Natural Gas Reserve), if it has not sucked all the "replacement" water the energy companies had pumped into the gas reserve down, to fill the void.

And, since there is nothing available BUT the replacement water to fill the one hundred feet deep void in the aquifers, it's obvious to any person with common sense that all the energy company's replacement water has gone down into America's water aquifers.

Which means there has indeed been a vacuum created in the gas reserves.

Which means that the gas reserves have no other source of "replacement" material to fill THEIR voids left by the now non existent replacement water, BUT to suck in air down into them from the atmosphere.

Which means they are now nothing but a BOMB that consists of natural gas and oxygen from the earth's surface.

It's either that, or all these "na-sayers" have some excuse as to why the Law of Replacement is not a valid line of logic.

So, instead of complaining that the article is "just" wrong,

Lets hear it from the "na-sayers" as to what they think has filled void made by the 100 feet deep amount of water that farmers have pumped out of our water aquifers.

Whereas, according to the Environmental News Agency, which I quote below, that is how much water America's farmers have removed from our water aquifers, which lie below our gas reserves.

And by the way, if you think the gas reserves cover a lot of area beneath America, the aquifers are even more enormous. So, removing a 100 feet depth of water created a TREMENDOUS amount of vacuum to suck down the replacement water used by the energy companies, which by comparison, amounted to just a few inches in depth.

Go check it out:

ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS NETWORK

"For fossil aquifers, such as the vast U.S. Ogallala aquifer ... ... depletion brings pumping to an end. Farmers who lose their irrigation water have the option of returning to lower-yield dryland farming if rainfall permits. In more arid regions, however, such as in the southwestern United States, the loss of irrigation water means the end of agriculture.

In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that in parts of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas -- three leading grain-producing states -- the underground water table has dropped by more than 30 meters (100 feet). As a result, wells have gone dry on thousands of farms in the southern Great Plains. Although this mining of underground water (by farming) is taking a toll on U.S. grain production, irrigated land accounts for only one fifth of the U.S. grain harvest, compared with close to three fifths of the harvest in India and four fifths in China."

Now that you have an expert source to refer to, allow me to remind you that the "PANHANDLE" portion of the Hugoton Panhandle Natural Gas Reserve sits directly UNDER the states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas !!!!

Vince Diehl (BANDS)

.

.


Do you see what I mean?

I obviously gave it to you.

You're the one with no rational in your posts.

Vince Diehl

first off Bands or whoever you are I live smack dab in the middle of the area you are talking about. From looking at the pictures and your explanations alone, i know you have no truth. I go to lake meredith several times a year. The water is receding due to drought, same as it is in other spots in the southern u.s. The water from Lake Meredith is used mainly for drinking water for the cities of Amarillo and surround areas.

Get your facts straight. :rolleyes:

Well cheryl,

I have lived in Amarillo on and off since the 1960's when there was an Amarillo Air Force base east of town, and I have personally been to Lake Meredith MANY times. I have also been to the pumping station in the Sanford / Fritch area./

So I DO have my facts straight.

Vince Diehl

:wah: LSD was popular in the 60's huh!

You're not even a good troll Sheryl, so I'll just ignore you.

Vince Diehl

The website looks pretty quacky to me. Can't religion sell something besides fear?

Why must you use the pictures with really misleading captions?

To possibly push your propaghanda - I think so. How much experience in the field do you have or is it just part of your Armageddon ideas?




Not a swingset like you want everyone else to think. Just another piece used in the drilling process.




Yes the lake is low, but your pic is at the swimming hole on the opposite side of the dam. And at the shallow end to boot.

I have read your stuff at other places and place you in the category of conspiracy theorist-end of the world wack job. Keep spreading your ideas there are enough people out there who will believe and follow you. Too Many Sheep.

I googled your name Bands and your very popular, however from what I read theirs many that dont agree with your opinions beliefs, members of this forum seemingly being no different. This is a personal choice. Sheryl is no troll, infact she a mighty fine texan lady who also happens to be a moderator on the forum.

You are more than welcome to voice your opinion, remember to make sure you let others voice theirs too.

Ya'll are more than welcome to believe whatever you want. But accusing me of being on crack does not present the image of a respectable moderator, it instead presents the image of one with a guilty conscience who has no idea as to any of the facts pertaining to much of anything.

Moreover, I did not post my website on this forum, I simply came to explain it to anyone who might have questions, only to be greeted by people who have trouble reading more than one line of text, and/or by others who have nothing to do but sit on their no doubt huge fat butt and make fun of people.

So, if me being willing to explain has upset you, I have better places to be, and better educated people to be with.

Vince Diehl

I guess Sheryl's texan humour was lost on you then Bands, which is a shame cos shes a very funny lady.:-6

Sorry you feel that way, feel free to stick around and get to know peeps, you havent been here a day yet lol:wah:

BANDS;771748 wrote: Ya'll are more than welcome to believe whatever you want. But accusing me of being on crack does not present the image of a respectable moderator, it instead presents the image of one with a guilty conscience who has no idea as to any of the facts pertaining to much of anything.


You have no sence of humor at all do you?

BANDS;771748 wrote: Moreover, I did not post my website on this forum, I simply came to explain it to anyone who might have questions, only to be greeted by people who have trouble reading more than one line of text, and/or by others who have nothing to do but sit on their no doubt huge fat butt and make fun of people.


I read the whole thing and still think it is bunk. I would be eager to meet you and show you just how fat I am.

BANDS;771748 wrote: So, if me being willing to explain has upset you, I have better places to be, and better educated people to be with..


You havent explained much to me, and as far as I am concerned there are plenty of well educated people here that would still tell you that you are full of sh*t.

Seems to me you can't stand a little heat, and with your beliefs you are going to be exposed to a lot of fire.

BANDS;771748 wrote:

So, if me being willing to explain has upset you, I have better places to be, and better educated people to be with.




"Better educated" in the ways of the quack?

Suck the aquifers dry...go ahead. Then lets start desalinating the seven seas.

It's ok Jester, I don't think he'll be back. No one believed him anyways. :wah:

firebird;771752 wrote: You have no sence of humor at all do you?



I read the whole thing and still think it is bunk. I would be eager to meet you and show you just how fat I am.



You havent explained much to me, and as far as I am concerned there are plenty of well educated people here that would still tell you that you are full of sh*t.

Seems to me you can't stand a little heat, and with your beliefs you are going to be exposed to a lot of fire.


lol. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Never would have guessed that the guy who wrote the article would show up to defend it.

Hey, just goes to show though, ya never really do know whats around the next corner in Life. =)

Tell you what though Vince, I posted this on 3 different boards to get an even keeled response. So far, no one has been able to completely disprove it. If it turns out to hold it's water in weight in the long-run, than I'll help you spread it around.

Only thing is though, I haven't read any of your other theories yet. I'll have to look into those as well because they just so happen to be attached to the article.

Fair enough TruthBringer.

I'm not hard to find if you have questions.

Vince Diehl

BANDS;771831 wrote: Fair enough TruthBringer.

I'm not hard to find if you have questions.

Vince Diehl


Cool. I sent you a PM. Not sure if you received it yet.

Jester;771869 wrote: That ought to help you out there Bands, let Lieslinger help you! Good move:rolleyes:

Like we believe you two dont know each other... you two run along now and find some gullipuppies to convince.:wah:


Goold ol Jester. Been awhile man.

Seriously. I know of you more than I know of this guy Bands. But I respect anyone who is willing to do their research to support their claims.

rjwould;771877 wrote: So bands and truthbringer, what do you think of this discussion?


Well, I'll tell you what. Many people already know of my thread in the warfare and military section of this board related to the coming Pole-Shift. And it is true that nuclear weapons are stockpiled all over the United States underground. And If anyone has read my thread about the coming Pole-Shift they would have reason to be concerned if they believe in it because as long as those nukes remain where they are it is possible that there could be a chain reaction explosion which could in turn set off this problem that Bands claims is real. A Pole-Shift is destructive enough without the other stuff.

rjwould;771890 wrote: You didn't click on the word "this", did you?


lol. Yeah I did. And no....I don't think He was gay. Just my opinion though. I actually believe He had a wife and kids. Believe it or not.

rjwould;771891 wrote: You two guy's should be happy that the end is near. Why are you so worried? Could it be you don't believe your own religion?


I don't believe the end is near. I believe a massive change to the planet is near.

Stop this, you appalling people. Be polite, we have a guest, how can you act up in this unseemly way. People were polite when you arrived[1], be polite to others.

Vince, welcome to the site. I hope you enjoy posting here once this fracas dies down.

Yes vacuums do suck a lot of air into the ground. Oil, however, is extracted from deep down, there's very few gas or oil deposits within a hundred feet of the surface. Shall we discuss a shallow oil or gas field which comes to within, say, a thousand feet of the surface, and treat that as typical?

The ground between the surface and the top of the oil or gas bearing dome is, for the sake of the example, fully saturated with water (I'm making your best possible case for you here). Man comes along and farms and drains the oilfield as well, he lowers the water table by fifty feet, or an extreme hundred feet, or an unprecedented two hundred feet. The air takes up the place that the water used to be, in that top two hundred feet of ground.

There's a huge separation between that air-laden ground and the remains of the oilfield. The remains of the oilfield is filled with pumped water if it's a field that's been pumped with water - quite a few are actually pumped with carbon dioxide instead, but that's irrelevant. The thing is that there's still a water-bearing column of ground 800 feet thick, in this example, between any air that's been drawn in and any inflammable remnant of the oilfield.

Why does the drop in the water table not go any lower, you ask? Because it extends out far further than the underlying oilfield did, for hundreds of miles, and water flows easily. You get a lowering of the water table across a far wider area than you had oil in originally.

So, no mixing. No spark. No bang.

You do actually get exactly what you describe when man deliberately sinks air-filled shafts but they're not sunk into oil, they're called coal mines. Coal mines have been sparked into explosions far too often for hundreds of years. They go bang and kill people. They don't ever continue to blaze because there's so little oxygen in the shafts and what can be burned gets used up in a moment. So, that's your final problem even if you do manage to introduce air into the drained field (which my earlier argument says you can't, it gets displaced by water). Even if an entire oilfield were permeated with air, air's a gas. One big bang and it all stops burning in the same second. To continue to burn you need a breach to the outside and a way for the air to flow in freely. You'd need to blow the top off the dome. I doubt whether you have the energy to shift a thousand feet of ground - the Nevada atomic tests stayed unbreached with 10 kiloton explosions, remember. That's the equivalent of the magnitude of 50000 tons of air inside your dome all igniting at once. Air's 1.2kg per cubic meter, a barrel of oil's 159 Litres, that's a 250 million barrel oilfield completely filled with air still only giving you a maximum of a 10 kiloton blast which won't breach the surface. What are you going to do? Find a bigger empty oilfield? Find one that's less deep?

Tell me what mistakes I've made, show me alternative sums, remember that air never goes deeper than water and that the water table never shrinks lower than 200 feet even in the middle of the Sahara.





[1] RJ, that might not apply to you.

Maybe the polar shift and the explosion will happen at the same time and the big fire all over the USA will keep us all warm!

hey Spotters, I was very polite thank you so next time you make a "but your exluded of my norty list" I wanna see my name on it pal:p:D:wah::wah::wah:

Chezzie my little spotted urchin, there were so many typos in your post that I couldn't tell whether you were being polite or not and that's a fact.

spot;772127 wrote: Chezzie my little spotted urchin, there were so many typos in your post that I couldn't tell whether you were being polite or not and that's a fact.


I assure you my speckled spotted friend I most certainly was trying to be polite....Let it be noted:D:D:wah::p:-4

Neither am I at all thrush-like. I'm more of a tit to be honest, but don't tell everyone.

spot;772136 wrote: Neither am I at all thrush-like. I'm more of a tit to be honest, but don't tell everyone.


heh heh ok...shhhhh our secret....:wah::wah:

On the word of command pigs will take two paces to the front and jump, waving their trotters in a clockwise fashion and ascending to an altitude of 150 feet.

Wait for it...

Pigs, Fly!

spot;771943 wrote: Stop this, you appalling people. Be polite, we have a guest, how can you act up in this unseemly way. People were polite when you arrived[1], be polite to others.

Vince, welcome to the site. I hope you enjoy posting here once this fracas dies down.

Yes vacuums do suck a lot of air into the ground. Oil, however, is extracted from deep down, there's very few gas or oil deposits within a hundred feet of the surface. Shall we discuss a shallow oil or gas field which comes to within, say, a thousand feet of the surface, and treat that as typical?

The ground between the surface and the top of the oil or gas bearing dome is, for the sake of the example, fully saturated with water (I'm making your best possible case for you here). Man comes along and farms and drains the oilfield as well, he lowers the water table by fifty feet, or an extreme hundred feet, or an unprecedented two hundred feet. The air takes up the place that the water used to be, in that top two hundred feet of ground.

There's a huge separation between that air-laden ground and the remains of the oilfield. The remains of the oilfield is filled with pumped water if it's a field that's been pumped with water - quite a few are actually pumped with carbon dioxide instead, but that's irrelevant. The thing is that there's still a water-bearing column of ground 800 feet thick, in this example, between any air that's been drawn in and any inflammable remnant of the oilfield.

Why does the drop in the water table not go any lower, you ask? Because it extends out far further than the underlying oilfield did, for hundreds of miles, and water flows easily. You get a lowering of the water table across a far wider area than you had oil in originally.

So, no mixing. No spark. No bang.

You do actually get exactly what you describe when man deliberately sinks air-filled shafts but they're not sunk into oil, they're called coal mines. Coal mines have been sparked into explosions far too often for hundreds of years. They go bang and kill people. They don't ever continue to blaze because there's so little oxygen in the shafts and what can be burned gets used up in a moment. So, that's your final problem even if you do manage to introduce air into the drained field (which my earlier argument says you can't, it gets displaced by water). Even if an entire oilfield were permeated with air, air's a gas. One big bang and it all stops burning in the same second. To continue to burn you need a breach to the outside and a way for the air to flow in freely. You'd need to blow the top off the dome. I doubt whether you have the energy to shift a thousand feet of ground - the Nevada atomic tests stayed unbreached with 10 kiloton explosions, remember. That's the equivalent of the magnitude of 50000 tons of air inside your dome all igniting at once. Air's 1.2kg per cubic meter, a barrel of oil's 159 Litres, that's a 250 million barrel oilfield completely filled with air still only giving you a maximum of a 10 kiloton blast which won't breach the surface. What are you going to do? Find a bigger empty oilfield? Find one that's less deep?

Tell me what mistakes I've made, show me alternative sums, remember that air never goes deeper than water and that the water table never shrinks lower than 200 feet even in the middle of the Sahara.





[1] RJ, that might not apply to you.


Best counter-arguement I have seen yet for Band's theory.

Although I do stand by the possibility of a Pole-Shift massively changing around the crust of the Earth (Even to the point of a thousand feet of ground).

Thats really the only way I see it being a problem at this point. The nukes definately have to be removed and dismantled though, radiation would be an even bigger problem if they were all to go off.

Firebird,

You can't even spell the word "sense".

No wonder my article didn't explain much to you.

You can't understand what you read.

ROTFL

Vince Diehl (BANDS)

TruthBringer,

The problem is, you are describing oil wells.

The problem is not with oil wells, it is with our shallow gas reserves.

Some of which are less than fifty feet below the surface of the earth, and in some instances,, even closer to the surface than that.

But yes, the same concept holds true.

The "replacement" water sinks into the earh creating a vacuum in the reserve, which then sucks air into the chamber from the earth's surface.

And if it ever ignites, you will get a VERY BIG bang.

The last one any of us will ever hear, once the "BIG BANGS" stop and the BIG FIRES begin.

Vince Diehl (BANDS)

Some sites that how natural gas is extracted.

http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/naturalgas.asp





Oil and gas reservoirs are usually found in porous rocks, which also contain saltwater. This saltwater, which accompanies the oil and gas to the surface, can be disposed in two ways: 1) Returned by fluid injection into the reservoir where it originated for secondary or enhanced oil recovery; or 2) Injected into underground porous rock formations not productive of oil or gas, and sealed above and below by unbroken, impermeable strata. Saltwater disposal wells use this second method to manage saltwater.


This is from the second link I'm going to post, but from what I'm reading, the salt water is in the ground along with the gas and oil.

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/faqs/saltwaterwells.html

What a huge argument Vince, one mispelled word and I can't read?

So sorry that I am not one of your sheep followers.

I understood what I read, doesn't mean that I agree.

I guess you got more intelligent while imprisoned, huh?

Vince, your article is classic pseudoscience ... to the letter. It's not written well enough to even warrant a rebuttal.