rockdoc123 wrote: Sure formations can go up and down. But geologists use 'up and down' far too liberally in their explanations, to cover dynamics they don't fully understand. I doubt that the base rock went up and down, it might have, but whether it did or not doesn't matter, it isn't part of the reason it acquired o
Don’t fully understand? Exactly who is it that understands tectonics if not geologists?
People like me, of course. Trained in physics. Geologists only do geology because physics is too hard for them. Geologists interpretations are less restrained by the harsh realities of sci-experiments because its harder to get the deep Earth into a lab. So their ideas can be dafter without reprimand by science. Add the fact you've got the oil cartel brainwashing geology students, and the result is geologists with flawed understanding of geology.
You absolutely have no clue how oil migration or accumulation works. As I stated there is literally millions of miles of high resolution seismic that has been acquired over basement highs. Using combinations of age dating, vitrinite reflectance and sequence stratigraphy it is very easy to determine the history of a given “high”. They have been uplifted, each and every one of them and most of them including Bach Ho, Suban, Zeit Bay to name a few have been aerially exposed at one time simply because the granite/granidiorites have been weathered which cannot happen in the subsurface. We understand the tectonic and burial history very well.
Stratigraphy is a mess. Geologists don't understand it. age dating, I assume you mean radio half life dating, is often unreliable due to influx of new material into the rock via what you might call 'chemical weathering'. Vitrinite reflectance : not much use in ageing things. .
So biomarkers and CFing can link oil from basement igneous rocks and higher sediment rocks. So what? It doesn't show one is the origin and the other the recipient. Just that the 2 have the same source. I'd say the source is the deep Earth.
Listen again, obviously you are one of the slow ones in the class. The biomarker match and fingerprint match is between the source rock (in the case of Bach HO it is marly shales of Eocene and Oligocene age) and the intercalated sands in the E/O as well as with the oil in the basement. Hence the oil in the basement had to have been derived from the adjacent source rock. Can’t really make it any simplier. First year undergrads get this without fail.
listened again, and I'm telling you again. Biomarkers and 'fingerprints' can link 2 formations as having the same oil source, but it can't tell you which one is the oil source.
You're preaching it to me because you know its a weak assertion to say biomarkers show one to be source and the other the recipient, so you don't want to go into the details. If anything the details should show the basement rock is closer to the source than the sediment rock.
In simpler words , the mantle is too hot for oil. How does oil cope down there? It has to be in a different form, perhaps in components, and only condenses to oil as it permeates into the crust.
Oh so now we are invoking magic are we? Have you ever written an equation dealing with organic chemistry? Please show us how this all works keeping in mind that you must honour the Laws of Thermodynamics and also somehow end up incorporating kerogens so that magically this mantle derived mass of molecules exactly resembles an oil I can create from source rocks in a laboratory using pyrolysis. Special pleading without critical thinking I'm afraid.
Again you are resorting to requiring that I produce a Harvard level PHD thesis just to state the bleedin' obvious.
Don't need the maths and chemistry to say stuff condenseness. If oil can be cracked by increased temperature, it can be put back together by pressure and lowering of temperature. There's no law saying carbon can't bind with carbon.
We run full organic fingerprinting on source rocks and then we run it on the oil and compare. And we know that those source rocks can generate oil because we have done so using samples in a laboratory under pyrolysis.
Just showing that heating kerogen can make a bit of oil isn't surprising or significant to abiotic oil theory. Kerogen and oil have the same origin and are similar in elements.
But biotic theory has difficulty explaining why geologic processes remove hydrogen from the assumed biomass but leaves behind the carbon to make kerogen, to then later restores the hydrogen to make oil. Always seemed a dumb theory to me.
When there is a match between source rock and oil based on organic fingerprinting, when the source rock shows the conditions indicating it has expelled hydrocarbons and where there is a clear porous pathway between the source and the reservoir it is pretty clear where the oil came from.
Show me a data on a downwards explusion of oil from a sediment rock. It would be a thorn in my theory.
To argue somehow oil came up from the mantle and magically made itself look exactly like the source rock nearby to the reservoir is ridiculous
Good job I'm not doing that then. If you've misunderstood what I'm saying, you can't criticise what I'm saying.
He states they used water drilling fluid in anticipation of conventional geologists worldwide dismissing his work for any and every tiniest of reasons, like you do. The 'drilling fluid was all he found' was just one of the crap reasons to dismiss his work without looking at it.
Again you might want to listen to people who know something about this. Firstly there is no way that this well was drilled to the depth described with water only,
Because that would damage the drill? because its known to impede drilling performance? Because the drill bit would get stuck, the pipes would get stuck?
Strange, he stated he would use water lubricant, and his drills suffered just those symptoms of water lubrication. Now you saying he can't have used a water lubricant, because its bad drilling practice.
He'd think you were taking the piss.
Typically drillers throw down what they have on hand
and in a cheap operation such as Gold undertook you can bet it included materials at surface.
Yeah it was just a slapdash slapstick farce. The drilling fluid used for the experiment was a cocktail of any liquid lying around. The last thing they'd find or be able to buy is water lube, that stuff is more expensive that platinum, and rarer than francium.
If Gold was confident why did he not supply samples or at least the geochemistry of the discovered oil to interested geochemists? Why did he not run geochemistry on the drilling fluids and lost circulation materials? This is standard procedure in oil and gas exploration, it is the only way you can tell if oil shows you encounter haven’t been from contamination.
He did. I've linked to info on this already, but you won't click the links because you are scared of what you might find.
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volum ... uated.html Good God man all you have is a couple of satellite photos that show dark material on the surface of Mars. That's it.
Actually I've got 2 things, the the google Mars imagery, and the fact that seeing it give you convulsions. I'd say the latter evidence is the stronger. But wrt to the imagary : its more than just dark material and you know it, which is why you dismiss it rather than analysis it
- it looks like a fluid
- its forming channels
- its coming out of the side of a hill, and pooling at the lowest height.
- its staining the nearby ground
According to UofW, they say it looks like a dark fluid. Of course, they want to keep their jobs and further their careers so they say its dirty water, even that is wild and dangerous, because surface water isn't supposed to be on Mars. But its a safer bet than saying its oil, which would serve them and the UoW a chastizing from the biotic oil gang and their oil industry bosses. Nice that its termed ' the oil spill '. So you go with the UoW and admit there appears to be a dark fluid on Mars?
They invoke 'magmatic vents' but that's daft, however the poor kids at UoW had to find some cover, any cover to save their careers from attacks from the oil industry, so I sympathise that 'magmatic vents' was a poor but necessary refuge.
You do not know what you are talking about at all. The maturation programs used are based on time temperature burial models. At a particular history of exposure to temperature oil ceases to generate from source rocks and gas is generated instead as well any existing oil is cracked and converted to gas. The deepest oil production known is at about 6000 m in the Ventura basin. This makes perfect sense given laboratory analysis indicates at temperatures of 160C oil will crack to natural gas (and that would assume instantaneous burial so in fact the depth would be lower in general). There is no program around that would predict oil at 9000 m below mudline/surface.
go on then. Lets have your deepwater horizon conspiracy "
how and why the oil companies faked a giant oil spill emanating from 10,000m offshore deep oil, and destruction of state of the art deepwater drill rig and death of 11 crew - by RockDoc "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon