Oil Crisis
- Thread starter ck27
- Start date
- Status
No, I didn't. Why would I bother with something like that, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about?IAC said:
Maybe I should check: what are we talking about, according to you? I thought I was discussing your assertion that fossils and biological resideue are not found below 7500 feet. You wanted a link. There's link.
Math problems this morning?
4 miles deep in thick crust is not as deep as miles deep in water and 1.5 miles below the sea floor.
Last edited:
In the first place, it's deeper than two miles deep in water and 1.5 in rock.IAC said:
In the second place, 7500 feet is not 1.5 miles.
In the third place, so what?
Do you have a point, here?
Microfossils, limestone, and other residues of biotic regimes, are found at oil depths and below 7500 feet. .
Actually, it is, approximately. Welcome to the SCIENCE forums!!!
1 mile = 1,760 yards = 5,280 feet.
P.S.: I hope you not gonna bitch about 6% difference...
Like I said: math problems.
In the case of this guy, I agree a mere 6% variance from reality should be simply ignored. Point taken.syg said:
Arithmetic.IAC said:
And logic. I wish I had known I got to count the water depth - I misread your description "from the mudline" as implying the matter at issue was the depth into rock.
Apparently, then, you are claiming that no fossils or biological residue have been found more than 7500 feet below the surface of the ocean. Does that include sea level - say in Death Valley - or is it just the waterlines of floating boats ?
Does Lake Baikal count as "depth", or only salt water ?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
OilisMastery believes fossils have not been found any deeper than 7,500'. He responds to my comments on this thus:
I've personally seen fossils from deeper than 12,000'. Earlier posts have pointed out that carbonates, most of which are constructed of calcareous fossils, are found at much greater depths.
In short, you are just so utterly wrong on this point. Moreover, it is a point which is wholly irrelelvant to the origin of oil. If fossils were not found any deeper than 2,000', it would not prevent oil from having a biogenic origin. Equally, the fact that fossils are found at much greater depths does not rule out an abiogenic origin for oil. All this nonsense from you about fossils is a strawman argument.
All three are links declaring that the deepest dinosaur fossil yet discovered has been found. Not the deepest fossil ever found. Are you aware OilisMastery how foolish this makes you appear? You seem to think fossils are synoymous with dinosaurs. Big surprise - this is not the case.
I've personally seen fossils from deeper than 12,000'. Earlier posts have pointed out that carbonates, most of which are constructed of calcareous fossils, are found at much greater depths.
In short, you are just so utterly wrong on this point. Moreover, it is a point which is wholly irrelelvant to the origin of oil. If fossils were not found any deeper than 2,000', it would not prevent oil from having a biogenic origin. Equally, the fact that fossils are found at much greater depths does not rule out an abiogenic origin for oil. All this nonsense from you about fossils is a strawman argument.
Ophiolite is of course, correct in post 330 about how foolish Oilismastery is. - I stopped trying to educate him many pages back, with similar post that pointed out his inconsistencies and non-sense, even self-contradictions if one thinks logically.
I though I might add a couple of observations:
(1) Brazil is a very large country, but has no known oil on land and Petrobras (who Oilismastery thinks supports his nonsense!) doe not even explore there (only off shore in Brazil) because the territory of Brazil was never the floor of an ocean. (It is up-lifted rocks*, from deep in the Earth, lots of valuable minerals and very large beautiful crystal on many types (genstones included) due to fact that they cooled slowly for eons deep in the Earth.
In contrast, the mid East "oil belt," which is basically an arc thur those oil producers all the way to Burma, was 200 Million years BP and earlier for long time, the floor of the gigantic Tethyan Ocean** with Iraq and Iran being the center of the "subduction zone" where huge quantities of organic material were taken down into the earth for transformation into oil. Some parts of this ancient Tethyan Ocean oil arc such as Turkey and Bangladash are not well explored yet because of their political problems manily, I think. Turkey is starting to seriously spend money now exploring. See:
http://www.offshore-mag.com/display..._contracts_largest_ever_Black_Sea_3D_surveys/
(TPAO is for Turkish state oil company, Turkiye Petrolleri A.O. Searching on "TPAO" and / or "Tethyan" will give many more hits.)
Likewise, now that the Artic Ocean is melting everyone, especially the RUSSIANS, (who no longer think much of the Stallinist era*** a-biotic origin theory) are staking their claim as that ocean has been there a long time also and its 4-degree bottom water is a great inhibitor of oxidation. Many Russians expect, based on those facts, and now believing that significant a-biotic oil is nonsense, believe there is a huge amount of oil waiting the thaw of the ice in the artic to be found.
------------------------
(2) To quote from yesterday's announced Nobel in chemistry (Gerhard Ertl) in a Telephone interview with Reporter of the newspaper, Folio do Sao Paulo, published in todays paper (page A24):
"The element {hydrogen} DOES NOT OCCUR IN NATURE ALONE {on Earth} and must be extracted from compounds such as natural gas, water and ethanol." (He probably mentioned ethanol as he knew of Brazil's activity in producing it - it is not a commonly used source, but some basically hydrogen /oxygen fuel cells are being developed that do get their hydrogen from alcohol as it is a compact way to store and re-fuel them.)
His prize was for his work on surfaces faciliating catalization of gas reactions. - The reporter had asked if he thought his work would someday advance fuel cells as it has the catalizers in car exhaust pipes. Basically, his reply was {"Perhaps," but he then went on to speak about the difficulty of economially getting hydrogen for the fuel cells. On this his last sentence was:
"We need a great advance in this area {getting economical hydrogen} but frankly, I do not see how that can come (about)."
These are my translations from the portugese in the newspaper, but not much doubt as to the accuracy of them. What languague the interview was in I do not know (German or English surely) but the portugese sure appears to be very literal translation from English, so I may have the text 100% correct. (The "about" is not needed in the portuguese, but I added it as most speakers of English would have and I suspect it was said by Gerhard Ertl. My whole translation is very literal and goes back into very natural English - why I think they spoke English during the interview.)
-------------------------
*If oil really did come from a-biotic origin deep in the Earth then as Brazil is now those deep structures raised up to the surface, you would expect oil to be flowing out the hill sides in Brazil, instead of non-existant! There appears to be no limit to oilismastery's ignorance, lack of logic, and ability to think clearly or at least avoid self contradictions.
**For more on the Tethyan ocean see post 272 where I repeated from wiki:
"... The Tethyan Trench extended at its greatest during Late Cretaceous to Paleocene, from what is now Greece to the Western Pacific Ocean. Subduction at the Tethyan Trench probably caused the continents Africa and India to move towards Eurasia, which resulted in the opening of Indian Ocean. When the Arabian and Indian plates collided with Eurasia, the Tethys Ocean and the trench closed. Remnants of the Tethyan Trench can still be found today in Southeastern Europe and southwest of Southeast Asia. ..."
***Stalin, for idological reasons, not scientific ones, forced a lot of non-sense on the Russain scientists. The stupidity of Lashinko: I.e. that the evironment, not genetics, makes for good crop seeds - nearly starved Russain people - would have - expcept for the wisdom of the simple people who knew better and in their back yard plots, small farm plots, produced more food than the collective farms that were forced to follow the governments "accepted" POV.
I though I might add a couple of observations:
(1) Brazil is a very large country, but has no known oil on land and Petrobras (who Oilismastery thinks supports his nonsense!) doe not even explore there (only off shore in Brazil) because the territory of Brazil was never the floor of an ocean. (It is up-lifted rocks*, from deep in the Earth, lots of valuable minerals and very large beautiful crystal on many types (genstones included) due to fact that they cooled slowly for eons deep in the Earth.
In contrast, the mid East "oil belt," which is basically an arc thur those oil producers all the way to Burma, was 200 Million years BP and earlier for long time, the floor of the gigantic Tethyan Ocean** with Iraq and Iran being the center of the "subduction zone" where huge quantities of organic material were taken down into the earth for transformation into oil. Some parts of this ancient Tethyan Ocean oil arc such as Turkey and Bangladash are not well explored yet because of their political problems manily, I think. Turkey is starting to seriously spend money now exploring. See:
http://www.offshore-mag.com/display..._contracts_largest_ever_Black_Sea_3D_surveys/
(TPAO is for Turkish state oil company, Turkiye Petrolleri A.O. Searching on "TPAO" and / or "Tethyan" will give many more hits.)
Likewise, now that the Artic Ocean is melting everyone, especially the RUSSIANS, (who no longer think much of the Stallinist era*** a-biotic origin theory) are staking their claim as that ocean has been there a long time also and its 4-degree bottom water is a great inhibitor of oxidation. Many Russians expect, based on those facts, and now believing that significant a-biotic oil is nonsense, believe there is a huge amount of oil waiting the thaw of the ice in the artic to be found.
------------------------
(2) To quote from yesterday's announced Nobel in chemistry (Gerhard Ertl) in a Telephone interview with Reporter of the newspaper, Folio do Sao Paulo, published in todays paper (page A24):
"The element {hydrogen} DOES NOT OCCUR IN NATURE ALONE {on Earth} and must be extracted from compounds such as natural gas, water and ethanol." (He probably mentioned ethanol as he knew of Brazil's activity in producing it - it is not a commonly used source, but some basically hydrogen /oxygen fuel cells are being developed that do get their hydrogen from alcohol as it is a compact way to store and re-fuel them.)
His prize was for his work on surfaces faciliating catalization of gas reactions. - The reporter had asked if he thought his work would someday advance fuel cells as it has the catalizers in car exhaust pipes. Basically, his reply was {"Perhaps," but he then went on to speak about the difficulty of economially getting hydrogen for the fuel cells. On this his last sentence was:
"We need a great advance in this area {getting economical hydrogen} but frankly, I do not see how that can come (about)."
These are my translations from the portugese in the newspaper, but not much doubt as to the accuracy of them. What languague the interview was in I do not know (German or English surely) but the portugese sure appears to be very literal translation from English, so I may have the text 100% correct. (The "about" is not needed in the portuguese, but I added it as most speakers of English would have and I suspect it was said by Gerhard Ertl. My whole translation is very literal and goes back into very natural English - why I think they spoke English during the interview.)
-------------------------
*If oil really did come from a-biotic origin deep in the Earth then as Brazil is now those deep structures raised up to the surface, you would expect oil to be flowing out the hill sides in Brazil, instead of non-existant! There appears to be no limit to oilismastery's ignorance, lack of logic, and ability to think clearly or at least avoid self contradictions.
**For more on the Tethyan ocean see post 272 where I repeated from wiki:
"... The Tethyan Trench extended at its greatest during Late Cretaceous to Paleocene, from what is now Greece to the Western Pacific Ocean. Subduction at the Tethyan Trench probably caused the continents Africa and India to move towards Eurasia, which resulted in the opening of Indian Ocean. When the Arabian and Indian plates collided with Eurasia, the Tethys Ocean and the trench closed. Remnants of the Tethyan Trench can still be found today in Southeastern Europe and southwest of Southeast Asia. ..."
***Stalin, for idological reasons, not scientific ones, forced a lot of non-sense on the Russain scientists. The stupidity of Lashinko: I.e. that the evironment, not genetics, makes for good crop seeds - nearly starved Russain people - would have - expcept for the wisdom of the simple people who knew better and in their back yard plots, small farm plots, produced more food than the collective farms that were forced to follow the governments "accepted" POV.
Last edited by a moderator:
Source or link supporting this claim? And if true, why are petroleum companies drilling 40,000 deep into igneous rock looking for oil?
http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm
Last edited:
7 Miles Deep: http://www.sakhalin1.com/en/news/press/20070423.asp
Oil In Granite: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1862391378
Oil In Granite: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1862391378
Last edited:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
OilisMastery, can you explain to me in what manner I can provide you with a source or link to support a personal observation. In a former role, analysing cuttings samples on a drilling rig, I have observed, on more than one occassion, microfossils and macrofossil fragments from depths gretaer than 12,000'. This is fact. It is not in any way a remarkable fact. You either accept my word, or you reject it. It won't change the fact of the matter.
Secondly, there is a total disconnect between the presence of fossils in deep rock and drilling into deep igneous rock for hydrocarbons. I implicitly pointed this out to you in November. I repeat my comments here. " If fossils were not found any deeper than 2,000', it would not prevent oil from having a biogenic origin. Equally, the fact that fossils are found at much greater depths does not rule out an abiogenic origin for oil. All this nonsense from you about fossils is a strawman argument."
There is no reference in your link to companies drilling to 40,000' to search for oil in igneous rocks. Why do you imply that this is so? At best that is foolish, at worst it is dishonest.
Companies to not drill to 40,000' in search of oil. They might drill to 40,000' in search of gas, but I do not know of any such current ventures. I should be interested to hear of the details. Please provide them. (Especially if they are searching in igneous rocks.)
Transocean's enhanced-Enterprise class drillships will drill to 40,000 feet looking for oil. It wouldn't make economic sense to drill 40,000 feet looking for natural gas.
It's a class of ships. Not one ship.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
As has been explained to you in a previous thread the measured depth to which boreholes may be drilled is often much less than the true vertical depth, which is the relvant depth in terms of oil formation and preservation.
Moreover, the 40,000' is the capacity of these drillships. That does not mean that they will always, or indeed ever, drill to that depth. As I have noted before you simply do not have even a basic understanding of the drilling industry. There is no reason that you should, but given your level of ignorance, silence would be your best policy.
Moreover, the 40,000' is the capacity of these drillships. That does not mean that they will always, or indeed ever, drill to that depth. As I have noted before you simply do not have even a basic understanding of the drilling industry. There is no reason that you should, but given your level of ignorance, silence would be your best policy.
Here are some 3 year old statistics that will show how utterly ignorant you are.
For exploration greater than 15,000 ft TVD on the shelf during the period 2003-2005, 115 wellbores (45 in 2003, 41 in 2004, and 29 in 2005) were drilled by 35 operators.
Anadarko - 15 wells - average TVD 21,495 feet.
Chevron - 13 wells - average TVD 25,965 feet.
BP - 10 wells - average TVD 21,831 feet.
Kerr-McGee - 9 wells - average TVD 20,592 feet.
Again, this is ancient history. We are going much deeper now.
http://www.offshore-mag.com/display...loration-and-development-below-15,000-ft-TVD/
For exploration greater than 15,000 ft TVD on the shelf during the period 2003-2005, 115 wellbores (45 in 2003, 41 in 2004, and 29 in 2005) were drilled by 35 operators.
Anadarko - 15 wells - average TVD 21,495 feet.
Chevron - 13 wells - average TVD 25,965 feet.
BP - 10 wells - average TVD 21,831 feet.
Kerr-McGee - 9 wells - average TVD 20,592 feet.
Again, this is ancient history. We are going much deeper now.
http://www.offshore-mag.com/display...loration-and-development-below-15,000-ft-TVD/
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
In what way are these statistics relevant. They do not substantiate any part of your argument. They do not contradict any statement I have made. If anything they tend to support several of my points. At best they are a simplistic strawman, at worst they reveal evidence of neurological disfunction on your part.
- Status