I’ve enjoyed your commentary on the oil situation. I don’t think the Earth will “cave in” due to removal of oil either but I do have some concerns. First, by the law of conservation of mass and mass distribution, by removing trillions of barrels of oil from beneath the surface we are altering certain geophysical equilibria and this could be an issue (Global Warming, spin axis angle changes, etc). I wouldn’t claim that the Earth would “cave in” but that it seems to be dangerous to be moving in this direction.
Second, I noticed a US Dept. of Energy EIA report at this URL:
Most agree oil is a finite resource and it would seem we will run out in x number of years where x seems to be estimated to 40 to 50 years. Such estimates have been made since the 50’s with the Hubbert peak but unfortunately not really propagated within the public. One can only hope that we can find substantive alternative energy solutions. It would be interesting to know at this point what percentage of the energy workload currently handled by oil can be replaced by alternative energy. Unfortunately I don’t think that number is very high yet.
Why? Why does it seem to be dangerous? Have you done the math for the relative change in angular momentum of the planet from extracting all known oil? It’s incredibly tiny.
I can’t imagine that the mass of oil removed (and by removed, I mean moved no more than ten miles upwards, then distributed evenly across the surface) is enough to change the spin axis measurably. Besides, the Earth’s spin axis changes in small amounts frequently (“frequently” to a geologist, I mean) so even if we did change our axis, I don’t think it would matter.
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, jharby, we’re glad to have you with us. For future ref, when you start a thread, it’s helpful to other readers to provide a link to the column in question. Saves searching time and helps keep us all on the same page. No biggie, you’ll know for next time, I’ve added the link to your post. And, as I say, welcome.