Posted on 05/04/2006 7:33:48 AM PDT by saganite
The author apparently got his petroleum education from looking at the dinosaur pictures on Sinclair filling station signs. No competent petroleum scientist has believed oil came from dinosaurs for ages -- well before I joined the industry more than 40 years ago.
None of this will impress peak-oil or fossil-fuel theorists, who expectedly will argue that the Brazil's offshore oil fields, regardless how large they might be, are doomed to deplete sooner or later.
He's right. Doesn't impress me. Petrobras is finding some moderately large reservoirs in areas that haven't been drilled before. The problem is that there aren't all that many areas like that left -- most have been explored.
Is oil still forming? Yes, of course. As long as the buried organic matter in the source rocks has reached the right temperature conditions. You can even form oil in source rock samples in the laboratory if you heat them.
The abiotic theory of oil seems more consistent with the geology, arguing that this type of deposit was sufficiently porous for upward-seeping hydrocarbons naturally formed in the Earth's mantle to pool in reservoirs.
Abiotic? Do these turbidite reservoirs sit on basement rocks? Apparently not. The USGS has concluded that the source rocks off the Brazilian coast are of Cretaceous age (145 - 65 million years ago).
Oil formed from organic matter in deeper sediments (i.e., source rocks) is typically found trapped in porous formations (in this case turbidites) shallower than the source rock. Oil is lighter than water and moves upward through the strata until trapped by impermeable layers. Then it pools in porous rock. That porous rock can be quite a bit younger than the source rocks where the oil comes from.
What geochemical molecular evidence does author have to suggest the oil is abiotic? None apparently.
If he does mention it then it's a certain indication that his researchers are scouring FR for ideas.
bump
Here's part of the author's problem. The Oliocene dates from about 34 to 23 million years and the Miocene from 23 to 5.5 milllion years.
Here's a lecture by a Petrobras employee: Link. He describes the age of these sand-rich Brazilian turbidite reservoirs as 32.9 to 23 million years.
I googled up some more critiques of this article. The author sounds like a complete idiot with gross misstatements like this. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies in the article.
" ... The geological description of the Campos Basin suggests that the rock formations in which oil is being found are in Upper Oligocene to Lower Micocene deposits – in other words, deposits from the Cenozoic Era, dating back only some 24,000 years. ..."
Ummm, is the "Micocene" something new that this group has made up to ascribe to some imaginary paleontologic era, or their own whatever it is? And I know for a fact that the Oligocene which usually borders the "Miocene" (very similar in spelling, note) was well over 2 million years ago - so is this some kind of huge anomaly that only a handful of people know about?
OK, I'll keep reading.
Addendum to my last post - I can't read any more of this tripe - who is this author, Corsi? This is ridiculous.
Thank you. I'm not crazy.
Is this the find refered to:
Chevron makes oil find in Gulf of Mexico
East Bay Business Times - January 4, 2006
Chevron Corp. said Wednesday it found oil at a new location 225 miles south of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico.
The San Ramon oil giant (NYSE: CVX) said the test well in the Big Foot Prospect is 5,000 feet underwater. Chevron drilled to a depth of 25,127 feet and found 300 feet of oil.
Chevron owns a 60 percent working interest in the Big Foot site. Andarko Petroleum Corp. owns 15 percent, while Shell and Plains Exploration & Production Co. (NYSE: PXP) each own 12.5 percent.
http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2006/01/02/daily11.html
It may very well be the thing that puts the US down to the level of France and Germany withing a decade. The question is WHO will be the next super-power? My bets are China.
It's a shame that we have elected leaders that are taking us down this path. We're giving it away. Worse, we're giving it away to a communist nation!
No, the report I'm talking about referrenced research by Cornell scientists. However, the report didn't cite any sources and misnamed Cornell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.