Oil Found in Jamaica?

[Wahalla]

Re: Oil Found in Jamaica?

That was the point.. A description of source rock is where the hydrocarbon was formed.. Your theory states that a hydrocarbon is formed in the mantle/ basement without the need for biogenisis. Hence this feild should not have any source rock.. but it clearly does...And furtehr reading of the paper would identify the gresence of gas formed from coal beds.

if you read the paper you would note that they identified the source rocks from which the dd hydrocarbon is formed... hence the detailed description which describes the depostional and sedimentary mechanism... The source rock had been laid down in a marine enviroment...it describes the type of Kerogen that the hudrocarbon was formed from...The DD system from the description is a rift valley that faulted ..The source rock was characterised,, However as the sytem is in a rift valley it is highly faulted and folded. Hence complex reserviours. I would surmise as it is a carbonate resrviour associated with salt there is a high chance of sulphide gas associated with the oil in place... Given that it is carbonate reserviour and relatively old, it is surprising the amount of gas.. but teh nthe gas seems to be in seperate There are two sources rocks in the description one has been well characterised the other is identified. Case closed the source of this hydrocarbon was identified by conventional thesis...given that the conventional explanation. Your argumewnt claimed that DD hydrocarbon system was formed by non biogenis.. but this paper identified the source of the hydrocarbon. And the references demonstrate all the feild work by Russian geologist... Who clearly support the convention theory of hydrocarbon formation!

This paper identified the reserviour, the source rock, the cap rock and the depostional histories down to the facies not only of the reserviour but of the source rock. all supporting that the conventional thesis of oil formation in the poster boy feild of abiotic hydrocarbon generation.

[franksterr]

Re: Oil Found in Jamaica?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Geologic data and <span style="font-weight: bold">limited geochemical data indicate </span>that the principal petroleum source rocks in the TPS are in the Lower Carboniferous and Devonian intervals. However, in a large part of the basin, these rocks are at great depths, <span style="font-weight: bold">not yet reached by drilling.</span> Therefore, the stratigraphic position of source rocks is <span style="font-weight: bold">deduced from paleogeographic models </span>and by comparison with the adjacent Pripyat basin.........These source rocks were drilled in the western Srebnen depression (fig. 5); they probably extend farther south-east, where they are at depths not yet reached by wells.
Source rocks for the second oil family have been sampled only in a few wells, and <span style="font-weight: bold">they are inadequately known</span>......The <span style="font-weight: bold">suspected </span>source rocks were sampled in a few wells;......These <span style="font-weight: bold">possible source rocks </span>are prodeltaic facies of the Tournaisian–early Visean delta that prograded along the basin strike.</div></div>



In short they, they are not sure, but are guessing based on a model as to the source rock....

While analysis of gas samples indicate thermogensis
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, USGS analytical data for about 25 gas samples <span style="font-weight: bold">indicate</span> that the gases are thermogenic and were generated from marine source rocks (J.L. Clayton, personal commun.,1998).</div></div>

[Wahalla]

Re: Oil Found in Jamaica?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: franksterr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Geologic data and <span style="font-weight: bold">limited geochemical data indicate </span>that the principal petroleum source rocks in the TPS are in the Lower Carboniferous and Devonian intervals. However, in a large part of the basin, these rocks are at great depths, <span style="font-weight: bold">not yet reached by drilling.</span> Therefore, the stratigraphic position of source rocks is <span style="font-weight: bold">deduced from paleogeographic models </span>and by comparison with the adjacent Pripyat basin.........These source rocks were drilled in the western Srebnen depression (fig. 5); they probably extend farther south-east, where they are at depths not yet reached by wells.
Source rocks for the second oil family have been sampled only in a few wells, and <span style="font-weight: bold">they are inadequately known</span>......The <span style="font-weight: bold">suspected </span>source rocks were sampled in a few wells;......These <span style="font-weight: bold">possible source rocks </span>are prodeltaic facies of the Tournaisian–early Visean delta that prograded along the basin strike.</div></div>



In short they, they are not sure, but are guessing based on a model as to the source rock....

While analysis of gas samples indicate thermogensis
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, USGS analytical data for about 25 gas samples <span style="font-weight: bold">indicate</span> that the gases are thermogenic and were generated from marine source rocks (J.L. Clayton, personal commun.,1998).</div></div>
</div></div>

The nature of geology is they apply models to data.. They then reach conclusion. The model they refer to is the model of geological time. Here identified the source rock.... Geologist use terms as possible because it is like P!0, P50 and P 90 figures.. probabilities...

yep thermogenisis which is heat generation by organic material. ie the manner in which Kerogen is converted into hydrocarbon. That is the biotic process! In this case the shale and bentic was laid down in a deltic marine enviroment. bured over geological time then the HC generated. Had teh geologists subscribed to your theory the process would have been described as: abotic source ( without the need to have the organic material ie kerogen in place!)

The process is they do seismic, postulate the formation.. identify the rock by drilling it.. they then correlate the seismic line to the drill depth. No one drills to identify source rock and as I pointed out hte formation is faulted. they just do desk top excersies.. not drill bit. thus they can be wrong....

Thus the soruce rock is buired.. and then because of the depth metamorphysised.. The geologists never write papers with definative answers...

Now your model says the H carbon is generated from non organic carbon not on the geologic time scale that this paper shows .. Had there been abotic process there would have been no need for a source rock, again. Your claim that the hydrocarbon in this basin comes from a non conventional source.. but this basin has all the elements in place to generate hydrocarbon by the conventional model!


The use of models is a scientific process information is fed into a model then conclusion muted.. Geological information.. Each time the more information gathered the model is changed ie upgraded... Geology is imprecise. So the paper is doing what all good scientists do with information.. they leave it open.. in this case they were definaive that the hydrocarbon was generated from an organic source!

[franksterr]

Re: Oil Found in Jamaica?

Wahalla

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The nature of geology is they apply models to data.. They then reach conclusion. The model they refer to is the model of geological time. Here identified the source rock.... Geologist use terms as possible because it is like P!0, P50 and P 90 figures.. probabilities...</div></div>

Eactly and the conventional model that you are defending does not fit.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yep thermogenisis which is heat generation by organic material. ie the manner in which Kerogen is converted into hydrocarbon. That is the biotic process! In this case the shale and bentic was laid down in a deltic marine enviroment. bured over geological time then the HC generated. Had teh geologists subscribed to your theory the process would have been described as: abotic source ( without the need to have the organic material ie kerogen in place!)</div></div>

You would expect a USGOV report to openly support abiotic theory?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The process is they do seismic, postulate the formation.. identify the rock by drilling it.. they then correlate the seismic line to the drill depth. No one drills to identify source rock and as I<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Click to reveal.. <input type="button" class="form-button" value="Show me!" onclick="toggle_spoiler(this, 'Yikes, my eyes!', 'Show me!')" /></div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div style="display: none;"><span style="text-decoration: line-through"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">.........These source rocks were drilled in the western Srebnen depression </span></div></div></span></div></div></div> pointed out hte formation is faulted. they just do desk top excersies.. not drill bit. thus they can be wrong....</div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thus the soruce rock is buired.. and then because of the depth metamorphysised.. The geologists never write papers with definative answers...

Now your model says the H carbon is generated from non organic carbon not on the geologic time scale that this paper shows .. Had there been abotic process there would have been no need for a source rock, again. Your claim that the hydrocarbon in this basin comes from a non conventional source.. but this basin has all the elements in place to generate hydrocarbon by the conventional model!</div></div>

They have inadequate amount of source rock, Without source rock, how can it be conventional. They have thermogenic gas that <span style="font-weight: bold">further leads them to believe </span>that their <span style="font-weight: bold">IS</span> source rock. These possible source rock are &quot; at <span style="font-weight: bold">great depths</span>, not yet reached by drilling&quot;
Question the Russian theory is also <span style="font-weight: bold">abyssal</span> abiotic theory?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The use of models is a scientific process information is fed into a model then conclusion muted.. Geological information.. Each time the more information gathered the model is changed ie upgraded... Geology is imprecise. So the paper is doing what all good scientists do with information.. they leave it open.. in this case they were definaive that the hydrocarbon was generated from an organic source! </div></div>

Sounds a bit like monday morning quaterbacking, trying to make the facts fit the model with hindsight,s 20/20 vision.
Models are used to predict, if they are inaccurate at that they are usually at best ineffiecent and at worst totally false.
Organic source or Having Organic material?

[Wahalla]

Re: Oil Found in Jamaica?

ppp