Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (60744)	3/6/2005 3:46:19 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

<It's certainly an interesting idea, but I wonder if the timing supports it.> Gib, I admit I haven't checked fine points like that to see if my theory is a Just So story or the dinkum oil. I'd hate to spoil a good theory with facts before the theory has enjoyed some time in the sun. But I did check the age of oil reservoirs a couple of decades ago while investigating my ophiolite/oil correlation theory and was surprised how recent a lot of oil formation was. When you think that subduction by tectonic plates happens at something like 10cm per year, and oceanic sediment is kilometres thick, it's a busy process, removing a LOT of carbonaceous material. Which is not, by the way, the method of formation that officials think is the oil formation process, but it is. They think fish get caught in marine sediments, then are buried kilometres deep, then cooked, then caught in oil and gas traps. Up until the beginning of the ice age, carbon was in large surplus. To get to the ice age phase, a literally astronomical amount of carbon had to be stripped out in coal, limestone, and various hydrocarbons. Until then, the world was a hot-house. I don't think there were even ice caps. Check out the radiolarian ooze on the bottom of the ocean and dig through the sedimentary layers being subducted to see how much carbon is right now, today, being moved into the graveyard. Much of it blows back out of volcanoes, powering some giants such as the Taupo caldera, which is one day going to bury the central north island yet again and REALLY reduce electricity supplies around the north island. The south island will be fine with that lovely Upper Waitaki project I helped build, and the Benmore, Manapouri, Lower Waitaki, and Clyde producers too. I hope to see Taupo erupt in my lifetime [preferably while I'm not there]. It amazes me that people live within 200 kilometres of the place [or Rotorua]. We lived in Tauranga for 5 years and the depth of pumice under us [I dug a hole to see what was down there] looked survivable though the roof might collapse unless kept clear. Helengrad bans everything in the name of safety. Even double happies. But lets people by the 10s of thousands live inside active volcanoes with their children. Or, as the dopey kleptocratic bureaucrats have now seen is dangerous, at sea level in Pauanui, Papamoa, Whakatane, Ohope and all along the coast where hordes will be tsunamied to death when a little bolide causes a Tunguska-style pressure zone over the Pacific Ocean. As long as children wear their crash helmets while they pedal around the shore of Lake Taupo, or Mount Maunganui, Helen Clark and her coven are happy. Building a city in the mouth of an active volcano is nuts. Auckland is in the mouth of one too, but they are mostly dopey scoria cones and lava-spouting Rangitoto types which give lots of earthquakes as a warning to get out of the way; though the phreatic eruptions such as Orakei basin etc suddenly go blam, with no warning, causing local damage [about 1 km wide around waterfronts]. Taupo won't give much warning at all. As the 1000 km3 vast column of compressed liquids turn to gas, it'll fly in minutes to a height of 10 km then come down a LOT faster than the Twin Towers and cause a very large expanding horizontal catastrophe. Mqurice