In 1683, Sir Edmond Halley (discoverer of Halley's Comet) commenced a long series of lunar studies, discovering the Moon's secular acceleration in 1693. This was based upon Ptolemy's recordings of eclipses in Babylon in the 8th Century BC in the Almagest.
Direct measurements of the acceleration have been only been possible since 1969 using the Apollo retro-reflectors left on the Moon. The results from Lunar Laser Ranging show that the Moon's mean distance from Earth is increasing by 3.8 cm per year (Dickey, et al., 1994).
"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time -- the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963)" (McCarthy 2003).
"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." (Williams 2000)
"This was a mystery for decades that surprised mainstream planetary scientists. It is now explained away by assuming that tidal forces were not as great during the Mesozoic as they are today." (McCarthy 2003)
However, there is no reason to believe tidal forces have changed since the Mesozoic unless Earth expansion is taking place.
Slichter, L. B., Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation, Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 14, Jul 1963
Lambeck, K., The Earth's Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Consequences, Page 449, 1980
Dickey, et al., Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program, Science, Volume 265, Number 5171, Pages 482-490, Jul 1994
Williams, G.E., Geological Constraints on the Precambrian History of the Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbits, Reviews of Geophysics, Volume 38, Number 1, Pages 37-59, 2000
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
7 comments:
SO MANY LINES OF EVIDENCE
There are numerous lines of evidence supporting Expanding Earth theory.
In many quarters, "black holes" are accepted as fact based on far less scientific evidence (how about no direct observations), yet Expanding Earth theory has a hard time getting a hearing in the public arena, even with a plethora of objective threads of scientific evidence.
You could weave a whole carpet!
What is striking, and something I didn't know until OilIsMastery brought it to my attention, is the number of disparate lines of scientific evidence derived from completely distinct scientific disciplines.
So it would seem in a scientific age of intense specialization there is still room for interdisciplinary synthesis.
In fact, to see the "big picture", interdisciplinary synthesis is required because there are so many seperate lines of evidence relevant to a given proposition being derived from such far-ranging quarters.
Interdisciplinary knowledge and skill are required to advance the scientific enterprise.
Renaissance Man, science needs you!
That could just as well be due to radiative pressure from the sun on the moon and the backpressure from the Earth glare, but it shows you're thinking.
Check this out: Orbits
Quantum_Flux:
Nice series of orbits.
As Handmaiden said, there is a certain hypnotic effect. Although, since I've never been put under hypnosis, maybe I shouldn't say, "hypnotic effect."
Anyway, I'm not an orbit guy, so it's hard to respond to your dismissal of this line of argument, other than to say, it seems a bit too quick of a dismissal, especially if it's based on your series of orbits.
Okay, I know you linked your orbits, not as an explanation, but rather as a contrast and comparison.
Quantum_Flux, your possible explanation doesn't seem to have enough power to effect the Moon's orbit, however, I know I'm on "wobbly" ground since I advocate the Plasma theory:-)
No, I haven't ruled that out yet, just provided that as a tool for theoretical consideration of gravitational forces. What would happen to the lunar orbit system when a planet expands with constant or increasing mass?
RESPONSE TO AN OIL GEOLOGIST, ANAK-BETAWI
Editorial note: in the course of looking for a comment thread I found a comment from a stated oil geologist using the web handle anak-betawi.
The comment is on the following Oil Is Mastery post: Powdered Methane, September 18, 2008. It responds to my comments on that post.
Please, link the post to see the whole comment thread.
[A]nak-betawi's comment was posted October 30, 2008. My response was posted November 12, 2008. I re-post my comment, here, so a maximum amount of readers will see it.
I note a several changes to my comment due to a correction and added clarity. I don't re-post anak-betawi's original comment, here, for economy of space, but please feel free to link the original post for anak-betawi's comment in full:
(Reviewing my prior comments on the original thread should also give readers an insight into what anak-betawi's comment is a rejoinder to.)
"anak-betawi:
Thank you for taking the time to present your thoughts on the subject. This website needs more comments from oil geologists.
My knowledge is limited, and I'm sure, according to most oil geologists almost non-existent.
But I'll take a crack at responding to your comment.
anak-betawi states: "I take serious offence in your comment that many geologists take an absolutist position and think our present knowledge of the Earth is the "final word" on scientific understanding. I do not know of any geologists with this attitude, and if there were, I doubt they would last very long in the highly innovative world of the modern oil industry. Take this from a real exploration geologist."
Well, I'm glad to hear you say there is no "final word".
But then you go on to rely in your comment on the conventional wisdom that is publically spouted in the oil industry, so it seems like you contradict yourself.
Anak-betawi states: "Sure there is plenty of oil left, but peak oil is a simple economic truth, not a vaguely defined concept. Oil (and gas, and coal, and uranium) are all finite resources, for the simple fact it takes the planet longer to create them than it takes us to exploit them. If we use them continuously, we will at some point use them up. This is indisputable, but clouds the real question, which is whether discovery trends and production infrastructure can keep up with continuously increasing demand."
I must strongly disagree with your statement, "peak oil is a simple economic truth," in fact, in terms of "economic truth" that is the least compelling argument for "Peak" oil because the supply/demand differential equals price equation forces commodity supply into balance with demand, i.e., higher prices cause demand destruction until the commodity supply equals demand.
No, the best argument for "Peak" oil is the geological limits argument.
And the timing is important: Over 30 years is beyond the economic horizon of man. What do I mean? Beyond the economic horizon and prices, today, aren't impacted by shortages 30 years from now.
It's simply too speculative to be factored into today's price.
Assuming, only for this discussion, you are right, that "we will at some point use them [hydrocarbons] up." Then the obvious question becomes what is the likely timing for "Peak" oil?
No one knows.
Certainly, whether oil is abiotic has a huge impact on that question.
There is a huge difference between "Peak" oil already happened, as some "doomers" state, "Peak" 30 years from now, or over 60 years from now.
To dismiss the timing is failing to seriously address the question.
I agree with your last thought in the above quote: "...but clouds the real question, which is whether discovery trends and production infrastructure can keep up with continuously increasing demand."
It depends on how rapid the increase in demand is, doesn't it?
Higher oil prices spur more investment, which increases the supply.
I have seen nothing that suggests demand outstrips supply when market signals are heeded.
(Yes, there have been screams of "Peak" oil, and that was a large part of last Summer's run-up in prices, but actual shortages -- didn't happen, not even close.)
You watch the oil industry, I'm sure. There have been new investments all over the place. Both in production infrastructure and distribution infrastructure.
When there are bucks to be made, somebody will take advantage of that opportunity.
anak-betawi says, "supply constriction and the commodity price will skyrocket."
Yes, that undoubtedly is true.
But, oil supply was never "constricted" in the sense of the word's usage you intend.
At best, oil supplies lagged because of the late 1990's oil bust, which slowed investment, even choking it off in certain situations.
There has never been an oil "restriction" because of geological, physical limits.
Never!
The real question is getting the balance right on a price level that sustains investment over the long-term, yet doesn't choke off economic growth in the short-term.
That has been the "devil" in the oil business, not geological, physical limits.
And maybe, just maybe, if "Peak" oil wasn't used as a price "instrument", then that elusive balance between long-term investment and short-term economic growth could be found to produce long-term investment and long-term economic growth, one and at the same time.
Anak-betawi states: "Whether that point is now, within the next ten years or the next thirty years is moot."
Bullshit!
Of course, it matters when it happens.
Now, I'm starting to doubt you. Any informed 'oil man' would never make such a non-sensical statement.
That sounds like a peaker posing as an oil geologist.
anak-betawi states: "The fact is that the easy oil has mostly been discovered."
Mostly true, but it's not clear how thoroughly, the Middle East has been explored, or, should I say, been developed."
Probably, both.
anak-betawi states: "Finding costs are escalating dramatically as exploration steps out into deeper and deeper water - it costs $100MM to drill a well in 3000m of water - which means a higher and higher oil price is required to keep such projects economic. Many if not all of the ultra-deep water Gulf of Mexico developments become uneconomic below about $60/bbl oil -"
Agreed. I have written numerous times of the expense of ultra-deepwater, ultra-deep drilling.
Achieving the price balance that allows that unquestioned abiotic oil to be produced is key.
anak-betawi says, "how badly do we really need $100 oil? $200 oil?
No honest 'oil man' would EVER make that statement. I start to doubt you are an oil geologist.
An honest 'oil man' would say, "whatever the market will bear."
$100 a barrel oil won't stop economic growth. $200 a barrel oil likely would stop economic growth.
$70 to $90 a barrel oil promotes long-term world economic growth and spurs capital investment in oil exploration & development.
anak-betawi states: "[ultra-deepwater, ultra-deep drilling is invested in] because it is the last frontier..."
Agreed!
anak-betawi states: "The capex figures you mention for DW expenditure may be correct (I don't know) but the geological theories you expound are by no means the basis for such expenditure. Are you nuts? Would you spend that kind of money in your industry on the basis of untested 'off the wall' theories? Only tried and tested geological science could possibly be the basis for committing even a hundredth part of such expenditure."
"Are you nuts?"
No.
You make my point! The oil industry wouldn't make the huge expenditures if they didn't think oil was down there.
(The oil industry has already found oil "down there".)
Abiotic Oil theory, whether you like it or not, is accepted theory in the oil industry at the highest levels, demonstrated by the investment in subsalt oil because abiotic oil is the only explanation for oil at that depth.
"Fossil" theory FAILS to explain the presence of subsalt oil.
Here is a specific issue that should be discussed in detail.
I welcome you, anak-betawi, or anyother oil geologist to discuss subsalt oil off the coast of Brazil.
Subsalt oil is abiotic.
(All oil is abiotic, but that's another discussion.)
Obviously, the oil industry doesn't invest in "'off the wall' theories?"
Abiotic Oil theory is well documented as the Oil Is Mastery website testifies.
You betray your own assumptions.
And betray your own implied belief that "fossil" theory oil geologists have the "final word".
Do you see the contradiction with how you start your comment and the rest of your comment.
Your comment confirms my arguments about the way the majority of oil geologists see Abiotic Oil theory.
anak-betawi states: "Now I haven't actually read the Hovland/Keith and Swan (2003) material you paraphrase..."
I don't just paraphrase Hovland/Keith and Swan (2003). I link their papers, if not all on this thread, then through-out the website.
anak-betawi, you should read the papers in full before you venture to make comments about them.
anak-betawi: "...but it seems that you are using their observations that hydrocarbons are being generated by serpentinisation processes and being exhaled through fumaroles on the sea floor to infer that those hydrocarbons are from an abiogenic source. Nothing could be further than the truth."
Yes, I do use their papers for the Abiotic Oil theory argument, as Keith, Hovand, and Swan themselves do. The papers specifically state the theories expressed, therein, are abiotic.
You really do need to read their papers, anak-betawi.
Anak-betawi says, "Nothing could be further than the truth. The Type I and Type II kerogen held within black shales proximal to the hydrothermal vents is derived from marine phytoplankton, deposited in normal marine shales."
Kerogen, or at least the heavy atomic weight hydrocarbon C215H330, which is the 'active' ingredient doesn't come from organic detritus.
No, anak-betawi, you offer nothing, but assumptions, which sadly, are all too typical of oil geologists.
Heavy atomic weight hydrocarbons, such as C215H330 aren't the product of organic detritus. "Fossil" theory advocates have never proved heavy hydrocarbons, specifically C215H330, is the product of so-called "diagenesis" resulting from deposition of organic detritus in sedimentary strata.
Assuming that proposition carries no water on the Oil Is Mastery website.
(There are numerous lines of evidence that weigh against that very proposition.)
That's the problem with oil geologists, they carry their assumptions over, as if "gospel", but never prove their assumptions.
You state your case unconscious of all the assumptions in your argument.
As example, anak-betawi states: "It is simply that the high temperature regime responsible for generating hydrocarbons comes much closer to the surface in the region of mid-oceanic ridges and their associated fumaroles, hence near-surface organic matter that would normally be too cold, and therefore immature for hydrocarbon generation in the deep ocean basins, is locally cooked sufficiently to release (minor) amounts of oil and/or gas-condensate."
Complete assumption. There is no scientific foundation for the above statement. It's word pictures that sound plausible. And in a nut shell, that's all "fossil" theory really is -- a bunch of assumptions.
anak-betawi states: "The problem is focussing the abiogenic petroleum and migrating it into traps that are porous and permeable enough to produce from, and shallow enough to reach with the drill bit. With few exceptions, porosity and permeability of reservoirs decreases with depth, and there is a point in any sedimentary basin, below which it is pointless to explore, because hydrocarbons at such depths will be unproduceable at commercial rates."
Ultra-deepwater, ultra-deep drilling capital investment and oil discoveries demonstrate the falsity of your statement.
anak-betawi states: "...nor has indisputably abiogenic petroleum been discovered in sufficient quantities in conventional plays to be worth considering as an alternative source of oil, and I will bet my house that it never will be."
All oil is abiotic. I've seen no 'convincing' scientific proof that any oil is "fossil" derived.
anak-betawi quotes my comment: "Now I'll address this comment. "Another important fact brought forward by our contributors is that the present deep oceans were formed in Jurassic to Paleogene time – before that, most of the present oceans had been subaerially exposed and formed paleolands. Mesozoic-Cenozoic basins of great economic interest are well developed in some areas of the deep oceans, mainly near the present continental margins. The new picture – that continental “oceanic” crust (or sunken continents) underlies the Mesozoic-Cenozoic basins and basalts – is a great gift for the oil industry. They now have positive scientific grounds for exploring deep-sea sedimentary basins."
I did not originate the above quote, I did include it in my comment, but as a contention, it was originated by others.
I'll stand corrected and agree that the quote I presented has inaccuracies.
anal-betawi states: "They were rifted apart with, new oceanic crust forming in between. Continental drift is a FACT supported by hundreds of different streams of evidence, not some half baked theory that can be easily dismissed. Sure it took some time to become main stream science, but that's the nature of scientific enquiry."
Agreed. Whether you subscribe to Expanding Earth theory or Tectonic Plate, Continental Drift theory, the African coast and the South American coast rifted apart.
anak-betawi states: "Consequently the deep ocean basins consisting of new oceanic crust DO NOT contain sediments capable of sourcing oil and gas - they contain igneous rocks with zero hydrocarbon potential, zero drillable structures, zero reservoir porosity and zero exploration possiblities!"
Possibly true, also possibly not.
We don't know at this time for sure either way.
It could be that tectonic salt acts as a trapping structure, in addition to deepwater's pressure and a thin sediment structure which provides the rest of the "structure" needed to form oil trapping reservoirs. There simply hasn't been enough scientific investigation to know if this is true or not.
anak-betawi states: "The ultra-deep water discoveries in the GoM, Brazil, West Africa etc that you mention were made in sedimentary basins that overlie (i.e. are younger than) the oceanic crust. These have prograded out from continental margins by deposition of sediment washed off land through vast drainage systems."
Good description. Too bad you don't follow it out to its logical conclusion that the oil in those formations is abiotic.
In conclusion, thank you for the comment."
Editorial Summary:
In a nut shell, to summarize anak-betawi's comment: He assumes all "fossil" theory propositions are correct and most Abiotic Oil theory propositions are wrong with a couple of notable exceptions.
The first principles that "fossil" theory has never proven, anak-betawi assumes are correct without question.
That's the basic problem with "fossil" theory as a whole -- "fossil" theory advocates never question their own assumptions.
At this point in time, with as much scientific evidence supporting Abiotic Oil theory and the pausity of scientific evidence supporting "fossil" theory, as they say in the woods, "That dog don't hunt no more."
Conclusions must be supported by scientific reasons and observations.
Assumptions are like cattle discussions in Texas: "Money talks, bullshit walks.
Assumptions are bullshit.
ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO ANAK-BETAWI
Editorial note: It's difficult to fully respond to a long comment like anak-betawi's in one sitting; this is a follow up to cover points I failed to address in my first response.
The scientific method is a tough taskmaster for both sides of any debate.
The abiotic oil debate is no exception.
Anak-betawi states: "The capex figures you mention for DW expenditure may be correct (I don't know) but the geological theories [Abiotic Oil theory] you expound are by no means the basis for such expenditure."
What theory is the oil industry using?
Of course, anak-betawi, would say the oil industry uses "fossil" theory.
But the problem is that "fossil" theory fails to predict oil deposits at the subsalt level in the stratigraphical column.
"Fossil" theory predicts oil in sedimentary deposits, but subsalt oil deposits are BELOW the sedimentary level in most plays off the coast of Brazil.
The sedimentary layer rests on top of the salt layer. And with a salt layer several thousand feet thick with low permeability there is no way for the oil to supposedly get "forced" down to the subsalt stratigraphic level from sedimentary layers.
The only place for the oil to come from is BELOW the subsalt region, travelling up into the subsalt deposits, as a result of oil's natural buoyancy, which explains the ultra-high temperatures (and ultra-high pressure) recorded in most Brazilian subsalt oil plays.
anak-betawi states: "Now I haven't actually read the Hovland/Keith and Swan (2003) material you paraphrase, but it seems that you are using their observations that hydrocarbons are being generated by serpentinisation processes and being exhaled through fumaroles on the sea floor to infer that those hydrocarbons are from an abiogenic source. Nothing could be further than the truth."
Specifically, "...but it seems that you are using their observations...to INFER that those hydrocarbons are from an abiogenic source. Nothing could be further than the truth."
I infer nothing.
The authors directly and unequivocally state the hydrocarbons are abiotic, and if anak-betawi had read the papers he would've known that.
(It's hard to take somebody seriously when they won't take the time to read the papers they're commenting on, particularly when the papers are reprinted in full or linked for immediate availability.)
anak-betawi's mistake was to assume no oil geologist would claim petroluem's origin is abiotic.
anak-betawi's assumption was flat-out wrong.
anak-betawi states: "The Type I and Type II kerogen held within black shales proximal to the hydrothermal vents is derived from marine phytoplankton, deposited in normal marine shales."
Keith and Swan in their paper titled, Peridotites, Serpentinization, and Hydrocarbons, state:
"Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines whereas Type II kerogen in black shale vents from quartz alkalic peridotite-sourced brines. Correspondingly hydrocarbon chemistry divides oil and gas into 2 major types: 1) magnesian sweet, low-sulfur paraffinic-naphtheric, 2) quartz alkalic sour, high-sulfur aromatic asphaltic. Geochemical markers that tie oil and gas to specific peridotite hydrothermal sources include nano-particle native metals and diamonds, and V-Ni porphyrins."
Specifically, "Type I kerogen in black shale vents from Mg peridotite-sourced brines whereas Type II kerogen in black shale vents from quartz alkalic peridotite-sourced brines."
It's quite clear from the above quoted passages that Keith and Swan are referring to ABIOTIC processes. Nowhere in the paper are there any references to "marine phytoplankton" that were "deposited in normal marine shales."
(Please note that the above linked Keith and Swan paper was reproduced in full in my original comment, no linking was required to read the text.)
And the other papers linked make clear they are referring to abiotic generation of hydrocarbons.
Again, anak-betawi's mistake can be traced back to his preconceived assumptions.
But there is another more serious mistake made in anak-betawi's statement:
"The Type I and Type II kerogen held within black shales proximal to the hydrothermal vents is derived from marine phytoplankton, deposited in normal marine shales."
He goes on to state:
"It is simply that the high temperature regime responsible for generating hydrocarbons comes much closer to the surface in the region of mid-oceanic ridges and their associated fumaroles, hence near-surface organic matter that would normally be too cold, and therefore immature for hydrocarbon generation in the deep ocean basins, is locally cooked sufficiently to release (minor) amounts of oil and/or gas-condensate."
anak-betawi's statement fails to take into account the required conditions claimed for "fossil" theory.
First, "fossil" theory is claimed to be a two-step process. So-called diagnesis, the initial step, is where organic detritus is converted to high atomic weight, heavy hydrocarbon, C215H330, under conditions of sedimentary pressure and temperature for an unknown length of geologic time, but theorized to be at a bare minimum tens of thousands of years. The second step is so-called catagenesis where heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330, "crack" into lighter hydrocarbons.
Second, the sedimentary conditions for "fossil" theory to operate DO NOT exist near the mid-ocean ridges.
The "pressure over an unknown geologic time" required to convert organic detritus to C215H330, as claimed by "fossil" theory, doesn't exist near mid-ocean ridges, nor is there any evidence that organic detritus even builds up in the open ocean near mid-ocean ridges in a manner that meets the requirements stated by "fossil" theory.
After all, "fossil" theory claims oil forms in stagnant shallow seas, not the open ocean with currents, a deep water column, and as anak-betawi stated, little sediment.
What anak-betawi does in his comment is skip over the so-called diagenesis step and assumes the existence heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330.
When a stated oil geologist mistates his own professed theory that raises red flags.
Which brings up this point:
There are no laboratory experiments, none, that validate the claim that organic detritus converts to heavy hydrocarbons, C215H330, in the geologic conditons claimed and necessitated by "fossil" theory.
On the other hand, as my original comment demonstrated there are multiple laboratory experiments that validate abiotic oil theory. Both the catalytic, serpentization type process and the mantle processes demonstrated by J.F. Kenney's experimental work with ultra-high pressure and temperature (mantle conditions) repeated and confirmed by others.
So, what will it be? "Fossil" theory that has never been confirmed in laboratory experiments or Abiotic Oil theory that has been repeatedly confirmed in laboratory experiments?
Interestingly enough, anak-betawi goes on to state:
"Abiogenic petroleum generation is an entirely unrelated concept, involving hydrogenation of free carbon (graphite, diamond etc) at extreme pressures and temperatures in the presence of certain catalysts and supercritical water. The abiogenic generation theory is not the part rejected by conventional industry geologists - far from it."
In essence, anak-betawi admits abiotic oil theory processes exist. But denies any commercial amount of this "abiogenic generation" travels into geologic oil trapping structures.
Reflected in anak-betawi's statement: "The problem is focussing the abiogenic petroleum and migrating it into traps that are porous and permeable enough to produce from, and shallow enough to reach with the drill bit."
This defies common sense: There is "abiogenic generation" of hydrocarbons, but none of it ever travels into porous sedimentary structures in commercial quantities?
But anak-betawi has an additional problem, by admitting "abiogenic generation" exists then the door is open to robust abiotic oil generation because there is no limiting factor identified for these processes, and the materials and conditions needed for abiotic oil formation are plentiful in the deep crust and shallow mantle.
anak-betawi goes on:
"With few exceptions, porosity and permeability of reservoirs decreases with depth, and there is a point in any sedimentary basin, below which it is pointless to explore, because hydrocarbons at such depths will be unproduceable at commercial rates."
Petroleum is lighter than water, oil is very buoyant relative to it's geological environment of rocks and minerals. Oil is also very plastic in relation to the other minerals in geologic stratum, it will squeeze through and cracks available. Oil's natural tendecy is to rise in the stratigraphic column.
Yet, anak-betawi's statement assumes that the pressure in the stratigraphic column "somehow" prevents "abiogenic" oil from rising into oil trapping reservoirs. But just the opposite is true -- oil's natural buoyancy forces it to the surface.
Anak-betawi states: "No adequate focussing or migration mechanism into viable traps...has been proposed...[for "abiogenic" oil.]"
anak-betawi's statement is completely false.
"Source faults" and fissures and cracks act as conduits for abiotic oil to travel upward due to its natural buoyancy.
Seismic activity is constantly providing conduits for oil's upward travel.
This is the common sense result once abiotic oil has been generated by processes acknowledged by anak-betawi to exist.
anak-betawi's last gambit is to say, "...nor has indisputably abiogenic petroleum been discovered in sufficient quantities..."
Obviously, oil geologists of anak-betawi's ilk will always dispute abiotic oil's origin, so saying, "indisputably" really has no meaning.
The crucial points are these: Oil has been found at depths, conditions, and locations, "fossil" theory can't explain (subsalt oil); evidence that "fossil" theory claims as proof for oil's origin doesn't hold up under close scrutiny; and evidence supporting oil's abiotic origin abounds, both from the laboratory and field observations, while never an experiment has validated the so-called diagenesis process.
anak-betawi's statements don't hold up to close scrutiny.
Nuff said.
Anaconda
OIL GEOLOGISTS: SHOW ME THE "MECHANISM"
It's apparent oil geologists have given up the line that abiotic oil doesn't exist:
"No one doubts that inorganic hydrocarbons may occur in association with hydrothermal systems." -- Michael D. Lewan, geologist, 2005
"I don't think anybody has ever doubted that there is an inorganic source of hydrocarbons." -- Michael D. Lewan, geologist, 2002
"Abiogenic petroleum generation is an entirely unrelated concept, involving hydrogenation of free carbon (graphite, diamond etc) at extreme pressures and temperatures in the presence of certain catalysts and supercritical water. The abiogenic generation theory is not the part rejected by conventional industry geologists - far from it." -- anak-betawi, stated oil exploration geologist, 2008
(anak-betawi incorrectly states the serpentization, abiotic oil process, but hey, at least it's a start.)
The Coal Man, who made two lengthy comments on this website claiming to be an oil geologist, also admitted the existence of abiotic oil.
"No-one disputes that non-commercial deposits of abiogenic hydrocarbons do exist, but commercial quantities seem to be elusive." -- Paul Wilson, oil geologist, 2008
So while the existence of abiotic oil is no longer in dispute among oil geolgists. The fall back position is three-fold:
1. Maintain any amounts of abiotic oil is limited in quantity, with no commercial deposits.
2. Maintain no oil deposits have been "undisputably" proven as abiotic oil. Best expressed by anak-betawi: "...nor has indisputably abiogenic petroleum been discovered in sufficient quantities in conventional plays to be worth considering as an alternative source of oil..."
3. Declare there are no viable mechanisms for abiotic oil to travel to oil trapping structures. Again, best expressed by anak-betawi: "No adequate focussing or migration mechanism into viable traps...has been proposed...[for "abiogenic" oil.]"
Yes, now that abiotic oil theory has been proven experimentally in the laboratory, and numerous "pathways" to abiotic generation have been established, oil geologists have fallen back on the above three arguments.
The first argument of limited quanities of abiotic oil fails as previously commented, here, on this website because by admitting "abiogenic generation" exists then the door is open to robust abiotic oil generation as oil geologists have never identified any limiting factor for abiotic oil processes, and the materials and conditions needed for abiotic oil formation are plentiful both in the deep crust and shallow mantle.
The second argument that no "undisputably" proven abiotic oil has been identified fails because of several reasons. As much as "fossil" theory advocates claim science supports their theory...it doesn't. In reality science supports the contention that all petroleum is abiotic, and, of course, there will always be oil geologists in denial, who will dispute abiotic oil theory. As sad as it is for science, there will likely never be unanimity.
The third argument is what I want to address in more detail in this comment.
The side-bar has a section titled "Tectonic Oil". Oil deposits are concentrated in areas that have deep faults that reach down to the bottom of the crust and even into the mantle.
This paper makes it clear that large oil & gas deposits are associated with tectonic faults which reach deep down into the Earth providing conduits for oil & gas to travel into sedimentary trapping structures: Tectonic Setting of the World’s Giant Oil and Gas Fields, by Dr. Paul Mann, 2004.
As a result of this identified clustering of the world's oil fields along tectonic faults, the oil industry is working to better understand the tectonic fault system.
It's ironic to note that while oil geologists deny abiotic oil travels from "source faults" and even deny that the source fault "mechanism" has even been proposed as the conduit for abiotic oil, they, themselves, are intensely interested in "faults".
Any review of exploration reports and descriptions of oil discoveries will find the reports and descriptions replete with references to faults and fissures of various kinds.
The distinction for oil geologists is that faults are only good for trapping oil, not as a the source itself.
Faults on the edge of tectonic plates are the deepest faults of all, and as stated above that strangely enough is also where the biggest oil deposits are found.
Sedimentary Basins and Petroleum Geology is a website devoted to "tectonic basins", as expressed by its web address - http://basintectonics.blogspot.com/
The author is an oil geologist researcher whose research is currently funded by StatoilHydro, a Norwegian oil company and ConocoPhillips, an American oil company.
What are "tectonic basins"?
Tectonic basins are sedimentary deposits positioned over tectonic faults.
You guessed it. The oil industry wants to better understand the tectonic "source faults" under sedimentary basins.
As stated by the website's author, it's about the geological history and timing of oil trapping structures: Image of the week #5, October 10, 2008.
"In itself, the image is probably not that helpful for petroleum exploration. I've used it to try to get some idea of the timing of faulting in the study area. If you knew the timing of hydrocarbon migration in your basin, the fault timing might tell you about seal/trap integrity. If the faults were active after hydrocarbon migration, there's a good chance that fault traps would be disrupted.
However, if you go back to the dataset from which the image was derived, it can tell you quite a lot. It is possible to map out the units that are juxtaposed across the fault: this can give important information on the likelihood of sealing across the fault.
In the study area, there is no oil or gas. But the area can be used as an analogue for other geologically similar hydrocarbon provinces. Most obviously this applies to the offshore Gulf of Suez, but it is also applicable to some parts of the North Sea (which is why StatoilHydro and ConocoPhillips have been involved)."
The author follows up with another post: The long and the short of faults, November 6, 2008.
" We have collected a large amount of terrestrial LIDAR data from this half-graben, and used it to accurately map the structure and stratigraphy of the study area. By combining those data with our structural and sedimentological analysis, we can get an idea of how the fault system evolved over time, by looking at how sedimentation responds to the evolving structure."
As written before, the author states it is about the timing of oil trapping structures and their integrity to hold oil.
But, here, the paper is being re-interpreted from an Abiotic Oil theory perspective.
One thing I've noticed about reports of oil discoveries: They always state the geologic age, i.e., Jurassic, Devonian, or Triassic of the rocks in which the oil deposit is found.
Why is that important?
Timing.
The same reasoning as this author gives for why it's important to understand the fault's history.
What's important about that?
Oil companies have detailed records of oil finds, not open to public inspection or widely available. Undoubtedly, some geologic ages have larger, better oil finds on average within its layers than others, but not for the reasons given by the oil geologists.
Oil geologists claim that some ages were more conducive for "organic detritus" than others.
Bunk.
No, the real reason is because some ages were more geologically active, therefore, the age produced more or less porous, sandy oil trapping sedimental structures. Different geologic activity levels produce different geological fault/sedimentary dynamics which control the size and distribution of oil deposits. Understanding the fault activity, "the timing of the faults" is crucial to understanding where oil is located based on abiotic oil principles.
The better a fault's history is understood, the more precise oil geologists can be in pinpointing oil deposits. Tectonic faults are re-activated at regular intervals, the more "cyclic intervals" can be identified as corresponding with specific layers in the sedimentary column the more oil is likely to be found.
If you know the timing and development of a "source fault" then you may be able to predict what sedimentary layers are likely to have larger oil deposits.
The above discussion not only explains the "mechanism" of how abiotic oil travels through conduits to oil trapping structures, but also predicts which sedimentary basins and at what depth in those "tectonic basins" are likely to hold large oil deposits.
Knowing the "timing of the faults" is a tool of Abiotic Oil theory.
Post a Comment