Posted on 09/11/2009 11:46:37 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
His book, The Deep, Hot Biospshere, I think it was, makes fascinating reading.
You can’t be serious. How do you know it was sedimentary rock they drilled through?
I think the same calculation was done for the moon dust for the Apollo program. The feet of the LEM were designed to hold the craft up in feet of dust, like snowshoes. When they landed the dust was only about .25 inches thick. Did anyone go back through the calculations to readjust the age of the Moon?
LOL. Sand, salt and carbonates. For starters, the name of the formation "Lower Tertiary" should give a hint. Secondly, if you read my profile, you will see my family used to live in an out of the way part of South Louisiana. Guess what's big business it that part of the country?
There are several ways, including:
Where was “Lower Tertiary” mentioned in either article? Are you a peak oil theory advocate? I think the abiotic theory of oil is very interesting, especially since new deposits continue to be found at very great depths. If you look on the map, the deposit appears to be nearer to the Yucatan Peninsula than Florida.
No need to find any, just exterminate the environmentalists and use the hundreds of years of known oil in California!
That all may be well known (not to me), but it was not clear from the article what type of material was encountered. I am sure with a little “digging” we can find out from the crew who drilled it what they went through. Unless they do not want competitors to know what is involved?
How many pounds mass of animal and plant matter is required to make a lb of oil? And how did it get so deep? I have seen the theories about plate tectonics being the cause of organic matter being drawn into the depths, but does it really compute?
The Gulf is just one big hole filled in with sediment. The rock they are producing from (the Lower Tertiary)outcrops in Texas and is productive there as well. The crust is still several miles below. Basins can be very deep. Some, including the Gulf and Anadarko, can be over 50,000’ deep to basement.
Good question, but I don't know the answer. Maybe a petrophysicist will know, but I suspect the answer depends on the type of source material, pressures, depths, etc.
And how did it get so deep?
Primarily plate tectonics. The crust is moving all the time, even today. Mountains are forming, mountains are eroding, and plates are sliding over one another (resulting in volcanic activity). A plate is forced up (to form mountains) and the opposing plate is driven deep into the crust.
I have seen the theories about plate tectonics being the cause of organic matter being drawn into the depths, but does it really compute?
Yes, it does compute. There is often fossil evidence retrieved in core samples. For example, you might find brachiopod shells at a depth of 12,000 ft. These are fossilized remains of shellfish formerly on the sea floor.
bmflr
You can find brachiopods here in Ohio. I found a Neospirifer Rocky Montanus brachiopod completely intact from a gravel pit here in Fairborn, Ohio. The clam was shut, and you could see mud jammed along the crack. Perfectly consistent with sudden death by mud. Based upon my estimate from holding the specimen in my hand, it was more like 3000 years old, not the 300 million you find in the literature. So yes, the ocean was here, but it was only for a visit. If you accept the theory that every process must happen very slowly, then you have to concoct a wildly unbelievable theory about how the ocean, over zillions of years occupied the North American continent, then retreated, then came back again, etc....You should reread the silliness that is used to explain the Grand Canyon. On the other hand, even tectonic plates can be subjected to unspeakable violence. I can see how Mt. Sill could rise suddenly 10,000 feet above the desert plains of Nevada, by the way it does have the best view of the Sierras. Having seen the Sierra crest, but not the provenience that claims a clam was found 12,000 feet under, what should one believe?
I'm sure your extensive training has taught you how to eyeball that a specimen is only 3000 year old, but be aware that brachipods are not clams.
Having seen the Sierra crest, but not the provenience that claims a clam was found 12,000 feet under, what should one believe?
Provenience does not "claim", so I'm not sure your sentence makes sense. Believe what you want, but I've been present when cores have been retrieved with the "clams" imbedded.
I could be off by a factor of two. But it is better than being off by a factor of a 1,000 or more.
What state were the core bound clams/brachiopods/two-sided-shellfish, were they fragments or whole? That is indeed amazing, I sit corrected. But that is also consistent with the Sierras.
I did participate in an archeological dig once, and the validity of any find has to be documented on the spot. Too often we have seen “scientists” claim to find something, and find out later it was a fraud. That is what happens when mythology is mixed in with hard science.
Brachiopods, not clams. They were both fragments and whole.
But that is also consistent with the Sierras.
Except they were 12,000 ft under the surface.
As oil is produced in bark of tree same as crude oil has been produced in crust(bark of earth) of earth because earth is also a living organism like a tree.
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.