Most of the crude oil is used to obtain...
Motor Gasoline, diesel, heating oil, jet fuel, and liquefied petroleum gases.
Because both eat solids and take in fluids
In the explanation that follows, the reader should note the difference between the pound-mass (lbm) and the pound-force (lbf). The general formula is pressure = density x gravitational constant x height, or p = dgh. English units are usually kind of weird, but they work out nicely in this one. The density of water, d, is around 62 lbm/ft3. The gravitational constant, g, is 32.2 ft/sec2. We'll say height, h, is in feet. So, p = 62* 32.2 * h (lbm/ft-sec2). The conversion factor that makes all those weird units go away is 1 lbf/32.2 lbm-ft/sec2. p = 62 * h lbf/ft2, where h is in feet. (To put it in pounds per square inch (psi), divide by 144.) So, p = 0.43 psi for every foot in height of the water tower. The reciprocal of that (1/0.43 = 2.33) gives you how many vertical feet of water are required to exert a pressure of one pound on an area of one square inch. We know that a cubic foot of water weighs about 62 pounds. We also know that a cubic foot contains 1,728 cubic inches (12 x 12 x 12). So, a narrow of column of water that is one inch wide by one inch deep by 1,728 inches high will weigh 62 pounds and exert a pressure of 62 pounds on the one-square-inch area under it. But the questioner wants to know how tall the column has to be to exert just one pound, not 62. Dividing 1,728 by 62, yields 27.871 inches, which is approximately 2.33 feet.
There is no way to tell. Different forests exisat in different countries and when they are cut, they are for different purposes. For the most part, there is no real dollar value that can be assigned. A few square miles may be cut and used to grow crops, to graze cattle, or to build houses. But don't let that worry you. There are some things that many people don;t realize about "rainforests". One thing unique about this kind of environment is that they usually have a canopy. This is caused by hundreds of years of competition and natural selection between trees. Each one works to gather t he most sunlight. The ones that come out on top grow while the shorter one's don't get the sunlight they need and die. This causes the area beneath the canopy to not get any sunlight. There is usually little plant life between the trees and what there is, doesn't usually provide much food for animals. There are of course animals unique to these habitats that are adapted for this environment and these areas are largely unstudied so getting rid of them seems to be a shame and a waste. But the reality is that the areas are being used much more efficiently by having them burned down and allowing them to either start over, or become useful. The loss of many species while shameful, is no different than the other millions of species that have been lost throughout history. Please note that I am not making an argument supporting the senseless destruction of pristine habitats, but when it is going to be useful, there seems to be no reason not to use it. Climates and environments are always in a constant state of change. Those forests were once deserts, ocean bottoms, and one day will be again. Many of the species around today, and indeed, even ourselves would not have come about if it weren't for such destructive events occurring. The planet may be headed towards disaster in the long run, but the solutions will be in a combination of technology and regulated change, not conservatism.
This is probably reffering to Louis Pasteur, but he just heated - I don't know that this had anything to do with heating slowly.