/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15249573
Everything is based in electricity which comes from fossil fuels so yes
Driving is extremely common so that adds to it
Water is valuable for basic survival but people will drink soda or alcohol instead..
I would say oil and coal.

humans.

>>15249573
Lithium. It may be extremely prevalent, but not in usable forms.

>>15249573
Whatever helps one reach their goal.

>>15249573
slaves/emplyees

fertile young pussy

food/water, you don't even have to be human to agree with this

>>15249573
Intellegence. If we are smart enough we could fix/improve almost anything.

>>15249573
Our souls, which is why libtards want to suck it out

>>15249573
Land. This is ultimately what men fight for and die for.

>>15249573
Basically oil, yes. Its the most useful and strategic. Oil is never expensive, oil itself is money. Oil is victory.

>>15249573
Intellectual capital unironically. You can make high tech value added goods from just about any material. Strategic materials are all about performance/price/access, but they are less important that the ability of engineers to convert them to higher valued goods.

>oil
Only in intellectually poor bananna republics like Russia/gulf Arab states.

The USA is the biggest oil producer on the planet, and yet it only makes up 4-5% of the economy

>>15250106
>Land
This was true before the industrial revolution. Today the entire agriculture hovers around 3% for most economies.

>>15250157
Forgot supporting picrel

>>15250157
>from just about any material
Any material that is oil
>4%
Irrelevant. Oil isnt valuable becauae of its own price tag but of what it allows. That 4% makes posible the other 96%.

>>15249573
>What's the most valuable resource on the planet?
Love

>>15250176

>>15249573
>What's the most valuable resource on the planet?
The most scarce resource of course. What is the most scarce resource? That depends on the market.

>the most valuable
The concept of value is a subjective one anyway, lmao

>>15249573
Retards.
With enough goyslop powered retards one can conquer the universe.

>>15250180
>depends on the market
Market says its oil. The price is not very high because the supply is abundant but you see how high it gets whenever theres the smallest shortage. People are willing to pay fortunes for oil, one barrel has the energy of 3 years of hard labor. The fact we can buy 3 years of muscle labor for $80 only makes oil more valuable. The low price is what makes it valuable and that isn't a paradox. We would pay $10.000 for a barrel if we had to and still be able to profit.

>>15249573
white minds

>>15250170
You missed the point entirely where I had already addressed that fallacy.

Let's say all the crude oil magically disappears tomorrow. Then we would be able to replace all fuels, plastics etc. from pyrolysis processes which now becomes more price competative. Chemical engineers have been able to do this for 7 decades. Electrical power similarly has many sources and it's largely a function of supply/subsidies that determines what we use.

After the initial shock of losing oil, OECD countries would bounch back after 3-4 years while gulf Arab countries would return to monkey. As proof of bounce back see how it happened even before Covid supply chain interruptions eased. Would we all be poorer? Yes. But only these high innovation countries would still have any wealth at all and there would probably be many unpredictable long term benefits from energy independence and price stability.

>>15250197
ONLY whites are valuable to an economy. It's ok to admit this now that the genocide of white people is a fiat accompli.

>>15250203
you're a miraculously idiotic clown. truly a work of art.

>>15250210
>no agrument
I accept your full concession, infant.

>>15250196
There is more than just one market.
There is a market for oil and there are markets for any other product.
Try selling your oil on a market for grain or computer chips. You won't find anyone who is willing to buy.

>>15249573
Cunnies

>>15250211
>concession
im actually new here. just thought id do whatever possible try and persuade you to kil yourself thereby discontinue the posting of the drivel

>>15250203
You are clinically insane. Get help.

>>15250212
>Try selling your oil on a market for grain or computer chips. Y
What type of retardation is this?

>>15250217
However you have cope, you are at least two posts in and still cannot even come up with a single argument.

Must be hard to live with such slow mind.

>>15250222
this is post #3.
i do not wish to have an "argument" with any retards except about whether or not they should kill themselves (they should, and so should you)

>>15249573
It's the sun. Almost all of the energy we use comes from the sun including oil and gas.

>>15250228
Oof, post number 3 and those hamster wheels are still grinding their gears hard trying to figure out why it's still shilling for decades' old rhetoric by grifters who have already reinvested away from oil anyway.

At least your mother still loves you.

>>15249573
Pussy (aka vagina).
/thread

>>15250220
The type of retardation that claims that oil is the most valuable resource on any market anywhere.

Unvaccinated sperm

>>15250222
>writes wall of psychotic schizo rambling
>lol you are crazy
>NOOO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND
Not him but you should kill yourself.

Common sense

>>15250243
Post number 4.

So in gradeschool you were taught how to communicate with people. Perhaps you are non-white and still struggling to learn to lesson: if you communicate poorly then you will get frustrated because no one knows what you want. Try to stay quiet and string together the sentences you need in your mind before spouting irrelevant chimp noises.

>>15250222
>writes wall of psychotic schizo rambling
>lol you are crazy
>NOOO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND
Not him but you should kill yourself.

>>15250247
Kill yourself retard

>>15250270
5

>>15250271
6

>>15250240
Too bad I'm wasting it hahaha and there's nothing you can do about it hahahahahahahaha

Nothing is more valuable than consciousness.

>>15249573
Valuable to whom?

>>15249573

Sunlight

And niggers tryna block it to get muh global warm down

>>15250206
nice x-axis bro

>>15249573
stupidity
(to be taken advantage of)

>>15249573
if you say anything other than water youre a retard and you belong on 4chan

>>15251030
nitrogen

>>15251030
plants

Knowledge

>>15249573
Love.

>>15250203
nice troll here's a (you)

>>15249573
The most valuable resource is giant atomic weapons and the competence to use them while still keeping them.

>>15249573
Hydrocarbons. Without them (You) wouldn't have all the
>electricity
>heat
>food
>clothing
>materials
>electronics
>transportation
>roads
which (You) take for granted in modern society.

This, of course, kills the climate activist who uses hydrocarbon-derived paint to paint the hydrocarbon-derived asphalt; dresses in hydrocarbon-derived synthetic fibers; carries a phone containing hydrocarbon-derived plastics; charges said phone with hydrocarbon-produced electricity; boards a hydrocarbon-fueled bus; which has hydrocarbon-derived rubber wheels; who happily arrives into their hydrocarbon-heated home (with its hydrocarbon-transported solar panels from China which are of course produced with the help of coal) after a good hard day of protesting in the streets; finally, to enjoy abundant agricultural sóybean produce yielded with hydrocarbon-derived ammonium nitrate. The next day they might leave their glass-and-steel apartment -- produced of course with coking coal and iron ore mined by fuckhuge diesel trucks -- to drive to work with their hydrocarbon-lubricated Tesla with a blissful smile on their face, ignorant of the likely Congolese origins of the cobalt abundant within his vehicle's battery.

>>15249573
>What's the most valuable resource on the planet?
HUMANS.

>>15249608
This. The more of us the better.

>>15249591
>people will drink soda or alcohol instead..
Which contain water.

>>15249573
Mindshare

>>15249608
>humans
>>15254854
Then why is depopulation such a high priority for elites?

>>15255113
Their mystery religion demands it

>>15249573
Energy

>>15249573
high IQ human brain

Antimatter

>>15249591
>fossil fuels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSff0pwc1Xc

>>15249573
Wisdom

time

>>15249852
Thread ends here.

>>15255376
>n-nonono refined petroleum products can't just be called fossil fuels because they contain other chemicals as well not just naturally occuring hydrocarbons!!!
Extremely autistic and totally moot point but fine. Crude oil, coal and natural gas are fossil fuels from which other fuels, materials, chemicals and products can be refined and manufactured.

>>15249573
>Is it oil? Data? Enlighten me.
fresh water, that's why there are a billion Indians and a billion Chinese, it's not because they have oil, it's because they have huge fresh water resources that allow them to have the most productive arable land on the planet

>>15255606
All oil is abiogenic

>>15256255
Untrue.

>>15249573
Genes.

>>15249573
Carbon, without which no life could exist and this question wouldn't matter.

>>15256259
You're right. Somewhere between one and five percent of hydrocarbons might have a natural origin.

>>15256259
You're right. Somewhere between one and five percent of hydrocarbons might have a biological origin.

>>15256289
Interesting hypothesis. What makes you think oil is abiotic? Is coal abiotic too, then? Where and how do you propose they are formed then?

>>15256325
>What makes you think oil is abiotic?
Because its formation provably occurs in areas of the earth which cannot have contained biological life of the type fossil fuel believers contend oil is made from. For example beneath granite bedrock layers older than most complex life with no sedimentary component.
>Is coal abiotic too, then?
It almost has to be. Coal contains fossils of trees and other life, which means that it intruded on a layer in which that life was buried and was fossilizing from the outside, rather than being formed from what fossils it contains.
>Where and how do you propose they are formed then?
In the deep crust, likely by a process of ambient hydrogen and carbonaceous rock reacting in a reducing environment.
This is likely because free hydrogen has now been identified as a major component of the Earth's interior, despite prior science believing it was impossible. Free hydrogen occurs in a large number of natural gas wells, implying that the processes that form methane occur in an oxygen-free or relatively low-oxygen environment, which would allow the formation of much longer chain hydrocarbons under higher pressure (Science published a wonderful article on this either this month or last month, including a partial theorized revision of the carbon cycle).

>>15256336
I also forgot to mention that we also see significant hydrocarbon formation on other planets in the solar system, which obviously don't have life.

>>15250233
Only absolute fucking retards that don't know how the electric grid operates post retarded graphs like these.

Solar will remain fucking shit as long as large scale energy storage for it doesn't exist. It being cheap because it situationally produce large amount of cheap energy doesn't mean much when you still need to burn hydrocarbons/nuclear/hydro to keep up the stability of the electric grid, the most important factor by far.

>>15250176
WHOS BEEN MESSING WITH THE EQUIPMENT?

Nothing. The planet is a (mostly) closed system, all resources get recycled in a closed loop.

>>15256336
>>15256341
>Because its formation provably occurs in areas of the earth which cannot have contained biological life of the type fossil fuel believers contend oil is made from. For example beneath granite bedrock layers older than most complex life with no sedimentary component.
Could they not have transported there through faulting, subduction or some other type of geological movement or fracturing?
>It almost has to be. Coal contains fossils of trees and other life, which means that it intruded on a layer in which that life was buried and was fossilizing from the outside, rather than being formed from what fossils it contains.
I think that rather strentghens the case for a biotic origin rather than an abiotic origin. Or that's the way it seems to me anyways
>In the deep crust, likely by a process of ambient hydrogen and carbonaceous rock reacting in a reducing environment.
>This is likely because free hydrogen has now been identified as a major component of the Earth's interior, despite prior science believing it was impossible. Free hydrogen occurs in a large number of natural gas wells, implying that the processes that form methane occur in an oxygen-free or relatively low-oxygen environment, which would allow the formation of much longer chain hydrocarbons under higher pressure (Science published a wonderful article on this either this month or last month, including a partial theorized revision of the carbon cycle).
>I also forgot to mention that we also see significant hydrocarbon formation on other planets in the solar system, which obviously don't have life.
Interesting. I didn't know. I'd love to read that article if you'd be so kind as to sauce me

>>15256555
>Could they not have transported there through faulting, subduction or some other type of geological movement or fracturing?
The locations chosen for the experiment were specifically ones where that could not have happened.

Sauce is here:
https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel

>>15256620
Thanks king

>>15255113
They want to depopulate certain groups and breed more consumer slaves.

>>15256669
>They want to depopulate certain groups and breed more consumer slaves.
Bingo.
Certain genetic groups are prone to being happy as slaves and serving governments and elites.
Nordic, Iberian, and Celtic descent whites tend to be rebellious and individualists.

>>15250203
Kekalek, here is your (you).

>>15256620
Did you link the right article?

The article you linked says fossil fuels are biotic.
>It takes millions of years for buried and compressed organic deposits to turn into oil and gas.
And besides the whole article deals with hydrogen, not fossil fuels. There is a single remark that hydrogen can produce methane in situ via abiotic reactions in the right conditions but that's about it.

>>15256727
I said it had evidence that supported my conclusions, not that it was some huge break from orthodoxy. The proof of hydrogen in the deep earth means abiotic oil is not only possible but extremely likely.
Science isn't going to rock the boat by making any of the relevant conclusions but you, as a thinking person with the skills to collate and analyze research on your own, can.

>>15256727
And if you're curious about the actual experiments that proved abiotic oil must be true, look up the Siljan Ring drilling wells. There's no argument with the results they achieved. Chemical analysis of the samples they collected from their drilling showed it was abiotic oil beyond a shadow of a doubt.

>>15256727
>Millions and millions of years

>>15256730
I wouldn't conclude anything is "extremely likely" just because somebody found a single hydrogen deposit. We don't know much about them. It is possible but not very likely before more evidence comes to support the hypothesis.
>>15256732
I will, thank you

>>15256743
>I wouldn't conclude anything is "extremely likely" just because somebody found a single hydrogen deposit. We don't know much about them. It is possible but not very likely before more evidence comes to support the hypothesis.
Not just one. The article uses that as a case study for the explanation of numerous deposits discovered worldwide. At any rate, the main argument the mainstream had against the abiotic theory of oil as proposed in the West by Gold was that free hydrogen and carbon couldn't exist at that temperature because it would all be reacting with oxygen. If that is not the case then there is no rational argument against abiotic oil, because we know that intense heat and pressure in a reducing environment can produce long-chain hydrocarbons.

>>15256752
Alright, let's say it may be possible for more significant amounts of hydrocarbons than was thought before to be deposited in situ abiotically with hydrogen and a mantle-derived source carbon (perhaps as CO2?) in the right conditions. Let's say this could happen at a scale that has yet been unappreciated. Would you still try to tell me that most if not all of the hydrocarbons both produced and currently known reservoirs are somehow abiotic in origin considering there are ample, biotic sources of carbon all over the crust from countless dead and buried organisms? Let me be clear here, I don't dispute that hydrogen can occur naturally and abundantly in situ, nor do I dispute that hydrocarbons could form abiotically in the right conditions. But I wonder why you seem so adamant that most if not all carbon underground is from abiotic origins?

>>15256852
Because the volume of organic carbon in the ground as compressed plant and animal matter is a tiny fraction of a percent of the total volume of reactive carbon and hydrogen contained in the deep Earth. It's also substantially lower than the amount of oil known to have existed in all drilled and surveyed deposits to date.

>>15256863
>Because the volume of organic carbon in the ground as compressed plant and animal matter is a tiny fraction of a percent of the total volume of reactive carbon and hydrogen contained in the deep Earth.
This is true but it doesn't mean substantial amounts of it are deposited into the crust.
>It's also substantially lower than the amount of oil known to have existed in all drilled and surveyed deposits to date
Source?

>>15256866
>This is true but it doesn't mean substantial amounts of it are deposited into the crust.
Carbonates are some of the most prevalent materials in the crust, and abiotic reduction of CO2 into carbonates is the natural mechanism by which carbon is removed from the atmosphere. All you're doing is saying "don't believe your lying eyes" when the most basic understanding of geology, or at least a few of the other earth sciences, will tell you that if these reactions are possible without oxygen intruding on them then there are large swaths of the crust in which they can happen.
All you'd need to do is find a place to test whether they are... Such as a deep bedrock deposit like on the Siljan Ring. Though if you're interested you can pick any other such location using the relevant prediction methods and drill. You will find crude oil fractions at many of them just as surely as you find lakes of acetone on gas giant moons.
>Source?
A modicum of intelligent analysis of the available scientific materials on the subject.

>>15249573
Hydrocarbons, good luck making steel, concrete, ammonia, and plastics on an industrial scale without them.

>>15256886
>Carbonates are some of the most prevalent materials in the crust, and abiotic reduction of CO2 into carbonates is the natural mechanism by which carbon is removed from the atmosphere.
I didn't know that thanks. As you can tell I'm not very well read on the topic but my intrigue is nonetheless candid.
>Siljan Ring
>You will find crude oil fractions
What I could find out about Siljan Ring was that they didn't encounter any economical accumulations of hydrocarbons which does little to support the theory that abiotic oil is abundant in nature. Have there been any significant hydrocarbon finds aside from mere fractions in these locations? That would support the abiotic theory.
>A modicum of intelligent analysis of the available scientific materials on the subject.
Share your analysis then, since I'm not familiar with the materials. I always concede to facts; I'm just here to learn. I would love to hear your reasoning as to how more oil is known to have existed than biologic matter has ever existed in the history of this planet.

I'll be going to sleep for now though so don't expect a reply in a few hours.

>>15256954
>What I could find out about Siljan Ring was that they didn't encounter any economical accumulations of hydrocarbons which does little to support the theory that abiotic oil is abundant in nature. Have there been any significant hydrocarbon finds aside from mere fractions in these locations? That would support the abiotic theory.
It wasn't economical because it was contaminated with iron mineralization that clogged up the drill pipes, not because there was a small reserve.
>Share your analysis then, since I'm not familiar with the materials. I always concede to facts; I'm just here to learn. I would love to hear your reasoning as to how more oil is known to have existed than biologic matter has ever existed in the history of this planet.
You're misunderstanding. The amount of biological material that can be subducted into the crust to reach the depths oil wells are situated at before it breaks down due to weathering and microbial action is vanishingly small. If you're familiar with estimations of the rarity of fossilized material and with estimations of the total volume of carboniferous plantlife and animal matter you can see that the likelihood of enough getting into the earth to form these gigantic wells of oil and gigantic seams of coal is incredibly slim.
You can also see the extreme rarity of hydrocarbons in regions with relatively high fossil creation such as fossilized seabeds where highly intact soft-tissue fossils of plant and animal life are common. Some overlap with coal and oil-bearing strata, but most don't.
I can't break it down any simpler without giving you a full introduction to several disciplines. The bottom line is that you're talking about incredible unlikelihoods compounding together when a simple chemical process which is proven to exist is more likely and has effectively infinite resources and time in comparison.

>>15249591
Electricity increasingly comes from solar power. These days I'd say lithium

>>15256968
>It wasn't economical because it was contaminated with iron mineralization that clogged up the drill pipes, not because there was a small reserve.
>I can't break it down any simpler without giving you a full introduction to several disciplines. The bottom line is that you're talking about incredible unlikelihoods compounding together when a simple chemical process which is proven to exist is more likely and has effectively infinite resources and time in comparison.
I see. Thank you for taking the time to explain to me. I learned a lot and I have shifted my world view accordingly. Do you think the abiotic hydrocarbon theory will become widely accepted in the future as more data comes out in support of it?

Oil, yes. Most of the data companies are hoarding has subzero value since it costs money to store.

>>15257810
>Most of the data companies are hoarding has subzero value since it costs money to store
They do make money selling it to advertisers, but I'm not sure if that even achieves anything because when is the last time someone bought something because of an add. I've seen more WHOPPER WHOPPER WHOPPER WHOPPER shitposts since the start of the year than I've heard anyone actually go to BK and say that they're burgers are go

>>15257064
>he fell for the solar meme

>>15257807
>Do you think the abiotic hydrocarbon theory will become widely accepted in the future as more data comes out in support of it?
It remains to be seen. There is a large vested interest in maintaining the status quo in the sciences. People don't like admitting they were wrong (human nature) and if oil is abiotic then it means that its scarcity is being dramatically overstated + it can be produced industrially as a synthetic.