Date: Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:39 am. By: Carsten Troelsgaard
skrev i en meddelelse
Carsten Troelsgaard wrote: hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
snip ....... that the education institutions are teaching false theories. ..... snip
If you've experienced that, you've then failed to confront the problem where you met it. So I take that your observation is secondhand. I can inform you, that knowledge is not given to you at universities, but you get time to build your own. You are in as long as you can defend your own position. And if you attain a 'right' position that you cannot defend - you'r out.
I can assure you that you are dead wrong.
The assurence I'll take from you will be from your own experience. You've just told everyone in sci. that they are a bunch of incapable Leif-lalleglads.
I'm specifically thinking of medical knowledge which is geared towards pharmaceutical profits.
Conforming politics to the powers of the marked has it's downsides. You tell me why you pick on oil and not wool and lamb-chops. Doing what you do here in sci.geo conserning oil is like blaming your doctor for your sickness. I'm told that Chinese doctors give you a refund if their prescription doesn't work.
Let's see, we have the African rift vallies that would be THE perfect spot to collect oil, according to your theory.
I hear Alaska is such a big oil field and so vast that the amount of oil it contains is more than Saudi Arabia, but this information is suppressed.
You 'hear' a lot of things. The case is that you make a choise when you pick what you listen to. Putting a claim of conspiracy on top of a dispute on oil-genesis moves the scientific focus that this group cherish into the realm of economics and politics. There are probably plenty of groups that care. One of the annoying things is, that it may take days to follow and examin your links (I'm not very bright), and when it finally comes to the discussing scientific detail, you probably woulden't have a clue.
Do some research for yourself, and stop trying to over analyse what I say. You might be able to add something to the discussion.
You've got a point, so I'll get to it.
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm The Exploration and Development of the Twelve Major and one Giant Oil and Gas Fields on the Northern Flank of the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin.
The article does not provide information detailed enough to allow for passing a fair judgement on the initial 45 year period of investigation. The origin of oil is a separate problem from the existing oil in a reservoire. Whereever it comes from, it will use eqvivalent reservoires in their migration.
"For the first 45 year period of the geological study of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, its sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rock had been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production for reasons of the complete absence of any "source rock" (so-called) and the presence of active, strongly-circulating artesian waters. "
Missing the right reservoire cann't be an unusual ocurrence in oil-exploration.
"The trapping strata for the reservoirs in the Carboniferous period sandstones are shallower shale formations, as is typical for sedimentary reservoirs."
"Paleontology analyses of the oil, - and its significance: The Paleontology analyses of the oil in the shallower Permian and Upper and Lower Carboniferous sandstone formations have demonstrated the presence of spore-pollen and other microphytofossils of the Devonian and Proterozoic ages, establishing thereby upward migration from the deeper formations, which migration is not necessarily correlated to the age of either. "
The above snip does indicate the presence of 'source-rock' of Devonian and Proterozoic ages, so the initial investigation not only missed the oil-reservoire, but also made a wrong assessment on the presence of an adequat source in the traditional western context of understanding.
Judged on the scetchy fig. 2, one may ask how they could miss the target.
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm INORGANIC ORIGIN IN UPPER MANTLE SEEN LIKELY FOR SOLID HYDROCARBON IN SYRIA PLATEAU BASALT
The article observe asfalt-like hydro-carbons mixed in plateau-basalts.
"It is deduced, therefore, that the process of hydrocarbon formation has taken place in the crust after a deep infiltration of meteoric waters. No sedimentary mother rocks (petroleum-bearing sedimentary rocks) or any other sedimentary rocks, but only fractured basalts, were found by drilling to more than 1,100 m in southern Syria.
Therefore clear field evidence suggesting an organic origin for the concerned hydrocarbon is lacking.
The presence of carbonatite dikes, carrying ultrabasic xenoliths coated with basanite, indicated an origin from the asthenosphere; and along with the thick plateau basalt, suggested the presence of a rift more than 70 km deep probably connected to the Dead Sea-Jordan Valley rift. "
Do you see any indication of an investigation of ie. basalts passing an adequad reservoire of hydro-carbons on it's way up? Taking the Syrian example as proof ought to violate even your critical senses.
... You are not geologist enough to tell weather it really IS the right place? Right, so what's your point. Ah, the political/economic agenda ..
Because if people don't realise what is going on and they don't fight for their freedoms they will lose them.
Ah, the political/economic agenda .. And the exorbitant prices on wool and lamb-chops ?? I can assure you, that I've been heartachingly void of lamb-chops for a long time. Is that a deasent state of global affairs?
Carsten