Source of water for the flood

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by juvenissun
So, you may tell me that how could the trap accumulate anything if it leaks faster than it gets?

it couldn't accumulate in those circumstances

If so, the next question is:

What is the chance (in %) that the permeability of the cap rock is smaller than that of the source rock?

Another way to look at this question is:

Among existed reservoirs, is the permeability of all cap rocks or trap mechanism smaller than that of the source rock?

--------

I guess the debate on this line could stop here. You lose. From this point of view, we probably could not have any oil accumulation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If so, the next question is:

What is the chance (in %) that the permeability of the cap rock is smaller than that of the source rock?

Another way to look at this question is:

Among existed reservoirs, is the permeability of all cap rocks or trap mechanism smaller than that of the source rock?

--------

I guess the debate on this line could stop here. You lose. From this point of view, we probably could not have any oil accumulation.

Actually you seem to be overlooking other driving mechanisms. Shale source rocks are presumably also under higher pressure, which effectively squeezes the distillates out, which, being fluids, migrate to points of lower pressure, ie reservoirs.

In addition, likely the petroleum is being squeezed out from between the clay platelets. Transmission through the plates (think of it as along the c-axis of the individual clay crystallites in the shale) would be extremely difficult, but you can squeeze out from between them:

Simple "ascii" illustration:

-------------
<--000000000-->
-------------

The "---" are the clay crystallites the "o" is oil. The oil likely can be pressed outward rather than up or down.

A reservoir cap may present the flat sides, or at least be under less pressure to allow for the migration of the fluids out.

In addition there's this:

Oil Phase Migration- Most hydrocarbons probably are expelled from the source rock as liquids. The expulsion of the oil out of the source rock is a dynamic process driven by the oil generation itself. Good source rocks have TOC (total organic content) ranging from 3 to 10%. At low TOC the kerogen may occupy a position within the matrix porosity of the rock, at high TOC the kerogen can form connected bands within the rock. Then the kerogen is bearing part of the lithostatic load. As the organic matter transforms into oil this load-bearing kerogen turns into liquid. The fluid pressure of the oil within the black shales can become high enough to produce microfractures in the rock. http://www.geo.wvu.edu/~jtoro/Petroleum/petroleum_figs/review2/microfrac.JPGOnce the microfractures form, the oil is squeezed out and the source rock collapses. So primary migration can be viewed as a second episode of compaction. Microfractures of this type can be seen in most productive source rocks and they are often filled with remnants of oil. (SOURCE)

(Emphasis added).

 

[TexasSky]

As a scientist who has spent the last 20 years looking at seismic surveys of the earth's crust I can say:

No we haven't, or if we have no one has told me about it.

There is no body of water the size of an ocean in the eart's crust. There are acquifers and they are less than 1% of the volume of the oceans.

There is water in the form of hydrated minerals which we have discussed on this thread butthere is no possible mechanism for removing the water from the minerals and getting it to the surface and back.



It is a pretty story thathas no basis in geological reality.



They change very slowly, there is little practical difference between the earth of today and the earth of 4000 years ago.

Even if it were possible to get this body of water out of the mantle and to the surface a body of water the size of the arctic ocean would not be able to inundate the earth to the hight of the highest mountains, not even close.

As I said, your information is out of date.

Did you even follow the link I gave you?

Do you read current journals in your profession?

They started looking for water in the crust in 2002.
At which time they pointed out that if they found "even 1% of the water they think is there," it will be more than "all the oceans combined."

Then in 2007, they found what they called an "ocean worth's of water" in the earth's core.

I found about 5 journals on it.
I only posted the link to one of the journals.

One journal is dated January 2008, which specifically examines the original report of water in the core, and confirms the findings of the original researcher.

And no offense, but I worked in a DNA lab for years.
The "they didn't tell me about it," is really a fairly ridiculous comment to make.
There are only a few ways that scientists in the field are notified of new findings.
1) They attend a conference where the new information is shared.
2) They read about the discovery in one of the journals or publications.

If you don't read every word of every field journal, or if the discovery is not splashed on everything you do read, you miss it.

You know.
I know it.

 

[Loudmouth]

As I said, your information is out of date.

Did you even follow the link I gave you?

Do you read current journals in your profession?

They started looking for water in the crust in 2002.
At which time they pointed out that if they found "even 1% of the water they think is there," it will be more than "all the oceans combined."

The water is locked up as single molecules within the rock itself. On a volume to volume basis it is 1% water to 99% rock. Therefore, if you want 5 miles of water you need 500 miles of molten basalt. The ark needs to be made of asbestos, not gopher wood.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any runaway subduction model needs to explain details like the formation of the Hawaiian islands.

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

The evidence for a long history of slow movement is found in the islands and seamounts themselves. If you compare their age to their distance from Kilauea you get this nice graph:

Clearly, the Pacific plate has been moving at a very slow pace for at least 60 million years.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As I said, your information is out of date.

Did you even follow the link I gave you?

Do you read current journals in your profession?

They started looking for water in the crust in 2002.
At which time they pointed out that if they found "even 1% of the water they think is there," it will be more than "all the oceans combined."

From the article you pointed to:

"If you combine the volume of this anomaly with the fact that the rock can hold up to about 0.1 percent of water, that works out to be about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water."

An Arctic Ocean's worth of water stored in a rock at about 0.1% storage capacity.

The Arctic Ocean has the following dimensions:

14,090,000 sq km
1205 m average depth
(SOURCE)

That works out to 1.69X10[sup]16[/sup]m[sup]3[/sup]

In order to cover the entire planet to a depth equal to the top of Everest would require 4.525x10[sup]18[/sup] m[sup]3[/sup] water.

Your still short by about 4.5x10[sup]18[/sup] m[sup]3[/sup]

Now of course, if you just go with the height of Mt. Ararat:

5,156m high. The calcs go:

radius earth + 5.156km = 6,378.4 + 5.156 = 6383.556km

V of earth + height Mt. Ararat = 1.0896X10[sup]12[/sup]km[sup]3[/sup]

V of earth alone = 1.08698x1012 km[sup]3[/sup]

That means you will need 2.643x10[sup]9[/sup]km[sup]3[/sup] which works out to be

2.6439x10[sup]18[/sup]m[sup]3[/sup]

Which means you are still short but now only by about 2.6x10[sup]18[/sup]m[sup]3[/sup] of water.

Just running the numbers.

(Can someone double check my math?)

And as Loudmouth and Baggins have pointed out, you still need to suddenly get very hot compressed water up to the surface without parboiling everything. And as I have asked, without destroying the planet itself.

And once out, where did it all go afterwards?

 

[juvenissun]

Actually you seem to be overlooking other driving mechanisms. Shale source rocks are presumably also under higher pressure, which effectively squeezes the distillates out, which, being fluids, migrate to points of lower pressure, ie reservoirs.

In addition, likely the petroleum is being squeezed out from between the clay platelets. Transmission through the plates (think of it as along the c-axis of the individual clay crystallites in the shale) would be extremely difficult, but you can squeeze out from between them:

Simple "ascii" illustration:

-------------
<--000000000-->
-------------

The "---" are the clay crystallites the "o" is oil. The oil likely can be pressed outward rather than up or down.

A reservoir cap may present the flat sides, or at least be under less pressure to allow for the migration of the fluids out.

In addition there's this:

(Emphasis added).

This is better than what Baggins had. But not good enough.

To be simple (lack of time to elaborate, hope you can get it), fracture or microfracture in shale was made to both the source rock and to the cap rock. Since the cap rock is more likely to have condition of overpressure, and the source rock should be more physically flexible, and has less water content, the cap rock is more likely to be fractured than the source rock. If the trap is an anticline, additional mechanical factors will be added to the causes of fracturing.

As to the feature of fluid migration along the bedding, it would be the same to both the source and the cap rocks. If you consider the source rock is all gummed up, the migration should be much harder, even with fractures (like the behavior of oil shale or gas shale)

In most cases, the rate of leaking of the cap rock should be higher than the rate of hydrocarbon generation.

---------

May be you don't like to hear this. A quick burial could indeed solve this dilemma. Of course, that would "significantly" shorten the age of the hydrocarbon.

 

[Molal]

This is better than what Baggins had. But not good enough.

Lay off the flames.

To be simple (lack of time to elaborate, hope you can get it), fracture or microfracture in shale was made to both the source rock and to the cap rock

How do you know? Provide some evidence. Also, as homework, please describe how fractures form. Please include a discussion of conjugate sets.

Since the cap rock is more likely to have condition of overpressure, and the source rock should be more physically flexible, and has less water content, the cap rock is more likely to be fractured than the source rock.

How do you know? Provide some evidence of why the cap rock should be more over pressured than the source rock.

If the trap is an anticline, additional mechanical factors will be added to the causes of fracturing.

Provide some evidence for your assertion. What about diapiric structures and faulting? As homework, provide a detailed explanation of diapiric strucutures, their mode of formation and the resulting structures observed in the surrounding geology.

As to the feature of fluid migration along the bedding, it would be the same to both the source and the cap rocks. If you consider the source rock is all gummed up, the migration should be much harder, even with fractures (like the behavior of oil shale or gas shale)

You know the deal, provide some evidence.

In most cases, the rate of leaking of the cap rock should be higher than the rate of hydrocarbon generation.

In some cases - and no hydrocarbon would be found.

---------

May be you don't like to hear this. A quick burial could indeed solve this dilemma. Of course, that would "significantly" shorten the age of the hydrocarbon.

What dilema would a quick burial solve? Do you mean it solve all the dilemas that you discussed above? The ones where you provide no evidence?

Age of the hydrocarbon?

Yet again, no evidence. I am beginning to think you have none.

 

[thaumaturgy]

To be simple (lack of time to elaborate, hope you can get it), fracture or microfracture in shale was made to both the source rock and to the cap rock

Why is that? Remember the bulk of the actual liquid generation from the solid kerogen is happening largely in the shale. This appears to be where the most potential for microfracturing will occur.

Granted further catagenesis may occur in the reservoir, but not necessarily the same as in the source rock.

Why would the cap rock necessarily be subjected to the same level of overpressuring?

the source rock should be more physically flexible, and has less water content

Why are you putting these unnecessary constraints on the formations? Why would the reservoir necessarilyh ave less water? Why would the source necessarily be more physically flexible?

, the cap rock is more likely to be fractured than the source rock. If the trap is an anticline, additional mechanical factors will be added to the causes of fracturing.

Perhaps, but then not all traps are in anticlinal features, are they?

As to the feature of fluid migration along the bedding, it would be the same to both the source and the cap rocks.

Not necessarily. If the cap rock made up of clays (as in a shale) it isn't necessarily going to transmit "along the c-axis" of the crystallites (if you will). Remember a set of oriented flat plates can transmit in the plane of the plates but less so perpendicular to the plates.

In most cases, the rate of leaking of the cap rock should be higher than the rate of hydrocarbon generation.

But it demonstrably isn't. Otherwise we wouldn't have petroleum deposits, now would we?

May be you don't like to hear this. A quick burial could indeed solve this dilemma. Of course, that would "significantly" shorten the age of the hydrocarbon.

You are now bumping up against thermodynamics and kinetics. I seem to recall quite a bit of work going on around the Time-Temperature Index of Lopatin later expanded by Waples (I believe newer kinetic models are used, hopefully Baggins or Molal will have some info on these).

Time-temperature index (TTI).

• Complex formulation to calculate a value of TTI that is based on values for E, A, and T and t for the amount of time that organic matter stays within a 10°C window. (p. 151 Hunt)
• There is also a second relationship to calculate the value of TTI for sediment that resides for a certain time at a certain temperature
• These equations are solved for each type of kerogen (different values of E and A) and then plotted graphically to simplify their calculations (see p. 151 in Hunt, Fig. 6-3).
• The next step is to sum up all values of TTI for each 10°C window or for periods of constant temperature. This provides a value of STTI, which is related to the % oil generated by:

x% = [1-exp(-STTI/100)]*100

• The importance of using this type of calculations is that it takes into account the kinetics of oil generation from kerogen. Because activation energy is so variable for each type of kerogen it is important to account for it.

(SOURCE)

There's a great deal known about the general kinetics of the reactions. You can run the reaction faster at higher temps, but you have to get them to those higher temps. The nature of the kerogen as well as the rate of heating and decomposition will help craft the final "distribution" of compounds.

Hydrocarbon generation rates are typically calculated from bulk kerogen kinetics modeled at a specific heating rate. For example, the timing of hydrocarbon generation can be illustrated by modeling the generation rate at 3.3° C/my (a reasonable worldwide average rate) from bulk kinetic data(SOURCE)

The timing and extent of hydrocarbon generation depends on both the thermal/burial history of a source rock interval and the reaction kinetics of hydrocarbon generation from the associated kerogen.(SOURCE)

at a given vitrinite reflectance value one kerogen may be more or less converted into hydrocarbons than second, chemically different kerogen.
...
Thus, in a given sedimentary column the oil window will vary depending on organic matter composition.(SOURCE)

So the amount, and I believe, some of the nature of the organics you get in a certain deposit, the chemistry of the compounds reflects not only the temperature but in some ways the rate of the reactions. We can tell something about the rates by looking at the source material and what it became and how much it produced.

Another interesting point:

Differences between old and young oils:

• a) Old oils contain more even-numbered chains than young oils (these tend to have odd number chains).
  
  b) Old oils contain more than 50% light hydrocarbons, which are rare in young sediments.

(SOURCE)

But further on, if you bury it quickly you will still have to heat it up to the appropriate level to reach the oil window for the given kerogen. You will then have to transmit this heat through the rock (which will take time).

How fast do you want to bury these sediments?

But a faster burial won't ease any of the topics you are debating against in terms of getting the stuff out of the source rocks. So you bury it quickly and to the right temp, you somehow transmit the heat to the rock.

Seems then that you will have a bigger issue to explain away (another one of those pesky mechanistic questions like came up around the water from the mantle).

Rate really does matter here, not just kinetics but also for the mechanisms proposed. How do you bury them quickly without leaving a very clear indication of extremely rapid burial?

 

[Baggins]

If so, the next question is:

What is the chance (in %) that the permeability of the cap rock is smaller than that of the source rock?

This question is non-sensical in the general form. You will have to introduce real world examples or it is meaningless

I also don't think you understand what the term source rock means. A source rock is a rock that generates hydrocarbons, it is not the rock where we find and exploit hydrocarbons - that is the reservoir rock.

Comparing the porosity of sources rocks and cap rocks is pointless and meaningless.

The chances in % terms of the permiability of the source rock being less than the cap rock requires that you measure the permiability of all the worlds source and cap rocks. Although what you would hope to gain from this measurement is beyond me.

Another way to look at this question is:

Among existed reservoirs, is the permeability of all cap rocks or trap mechanism smaller than that of the source rock?

Again I fail to see what source rock permiability has got to do with anything. You appear to have dragged some words more or less at random from a geological text and are attempting to ask a question based on flawed understanding.

Could you try and explain in simple terms what question you are asking? Because I am someone who has worked in teh oil industry for 20 years and I have no idea if you even know what you are talking about, it seems unlikely at the moment.

I guess the debate on this line could stop here. You lose.

You ask a meaningless question based on flawed understanding of very basic geology and declare victory before even getting an answer to your post.

OK

From this point of view, we probably could not have any oil accumulation.

Quite; but if a cap rock is permiable to oil then it isn't a cap rock is it?

Cap rocks are by their definition impermiable.

So can you see now why what you are asking displays a complete lack of understanding of basic geology?

The fact that we get accumulations of oil shows we get cap rocks and when we drill those accumulations we can measure the respective permiabilities using well logging tools.

As I have said in the post the permiability of the source rock is of no importance to this.

 

[Baggins]

Did you even follow the link I gave you?

Yes I did, and unlike you I understood it as well

Do you read current journals in your profession?

Some of them, there are many, and some of them are very boring

They started looking for water in the crust in 2002.
At which time they pointed out that if they found "even 1% of the water they think is there," it will be more than "all the oceans combined."

Yes, this water is in the form of hydrated minerals, as I have said before, it is looked into the structure of the rock and it isn't going anywhere.

Can you grasp that, this isn't free water we are talking about.

WE have known that there are vast amounts of minerally fixed water in the earth's mantle for a lot longer than 6 years.

Huge amounts of water are also transported into the mantle in subduction zones.

Then in 2007, they found what they called an "ocean worth's of water" in the earth's core.

No they didn't. This is where you show that you didn't really understand the paper at all.

Go and look at a simple definition of the earth's interior and learn the difference between core and mantle. TRhey are technical terms with definitions.

I found about 5 journals on it.
I only posted the link to one of the journals.

It is an interesting subject, why don't you post links to the others? Or better still, seeing as you often have to be a subscriber to get the full text, why don't you summarise the main points for us.

One journal is dated January 2008, which specifically examines the original report of water in the core, and confirms the findings of the original researcher.

Excellent, give us the mian points.

I am especially interested in the parts where the researcher ties in his reaserch to a Noachian flood

And no offense, but I worked in a DNA lab for years.

So you always tells us, although what that has got to do with geology is beyond me.

The "they didn't tell me about it," is really a fairly ridiculous comment to make.

Tell me about what?

There are only a few ways that scientists in the field are notified of new findings.
1) They attend a conference where the new information is shared.
2) They read about the discovery in one of the journals or publications.

OK

If you don't read every word of every field journal, or if the discovery is not splashed on everything you do read, you miss it.

Quite possibly

You know.
I know it.

You know it, but appear not to be able to understand it. There is a difference.

Still if you can show me where these guys tie in their work to a Noachian flood 4000 years ago I will take it all back

 

[Baggins]

This is better than what Baggins had. But not good enough.

You have to admire the hubris of creationists

To be simple (lack of time to elaborate, hope you can get it), fracture or microfracture in shale was made to both the source rock and to the cap rock.

OK

Since the cap rock is more likely to have condition of overpressure, and the source rock should be more physically flexible, and has less water content, the cap rock is more likely to be fractured than the source rock.

OK, I still don't see why the source rock and the cap rock need to compared in this way

If the trap is an anticline, additional mechanical factors will be added to the causes of fracturing.

Only if the stress regiem that caused the anticline is still in action, there is no requirement for it to be.

As to the feature of fluid migration along the bedding, it would be the same to both the source and the cap rocks.

Not really unless their permiability was identicle

If you consider the source rock is all gummed up, the migration should be much harder, even with fractures (like the behavior of oil shale or gas shale)

You appear to be repeating phrases you haven't understood here again.

In most cases, the rate of leaking of the cap rock should be higher than the rate of hydrocarbon generation.

Well in that case there should be no oil accumulations anywhere in the world and I should be out of a job.

I'll get back to you...........

Just checked and the Oil Companies say you are wrong and that there is oil down there and I still have a job.

May be you don't like to hear this. A quick burial could indeed solve this dilemma. Of course, that would "significantly" shorten the age of the hydrocarbon.[/

The "age of the hydrocarbon" can be measured directly by radiometric dating of associated igeous rocks such as tuffs that are found in conjunction with the source rocks.

You lose

You lose because you don't appear to understand the difference between source rock and reservoir rock.

Go and look it up

 

[Baggins]

I think there was also a question about what the scale on the picture showing water in the mantle was.

It was a poorly reproduced picture with no easy way of scaling but it appeared to be

dln (1/Q)%

which would appear to be the Delta Log of the inverse of Q expressed as a percentage

I would need to be able to access the full paper to find out if this is the correct unit of measurement and to find out what Q is in this equation it has a number of meanings in maths and physics that could be applicable to the graph, they are in order of likelyhood:

Heat
Dynamic Pressure
Volumetric flow

 

[juvenissun]

I think there was also a question about what the scale on the picture showing water in the mantle was.

It was a poorly reproduced picture with no easy way of scaling but it appeared to be

dln (1/Q)%

which would appear to be the Delta Log of the inverse of Q expressed as a percentage

I would need to be able to access the full paper to find out if this is the correct unit of measurement and to find out what Q is in this equation it has a number of meanings in maths and physics that could be applicable to the graph, they are in order of likelyhood:

Heat
Dynamic Pressure
Volumetric flow

One more question, if you don't mind:

How would this unit express the degree of wave attenuation?

I guess the Q should be heat. So, the high % means the temperature is low, and it is probably caused by high amount of volatiles.

 

[juvenissun]

Why is that? Remember the bulk of the actual liquid generation from the solid kerogen is happening largely in the shale. This appears to be where the most potential for microfracturing will occur.

I am going to quit. It is hopeless to continue. It is like a chicken tries to communicate with a duck.

A major reason that the cap rock is easier to be fractured is that a lot of water is generated from clay diagenesis.

OK, that's it. I rather use the time to do a better paper grading.

 

[Baggins]

One more question, if you don't mind:

How would this unit express the degree of wave attenuation?

I guess the Q should be heat. So, the high % means the temperature is low, and it is probably caused by high amount of volatiles.

I have no idea, I can't access the paper. If you can it probably explains it in there.

 

[Baggins]

I am going to quit. It is hopeless to continue. It is like a chicken tries to communicate with a duck.

Or the geologically illiterate trying to communicate with geologically literate

A major reason that the cap rock is easier to be fractured is that a lot of water is generated from clay diagenesis.

Once again you appear to have lifted a phrase you don't understand - clay diagenesis - and plonked it down in a way that makes it a non sequiteur.

Why does the cap rock have to have clay minerals in it? There are many rocks that can cap an oil reservoir that aren't clay rich.

I have already pointed out that if a cap rock is fractured and permeable to oil it is, by definition, not a cap rock because there will be no oil accumulation that it is capping.

OK, that's it. I rather use the time to do a better paper grading.

You would be better advised to learn some basic geology before coming on here and telling people you know something about the earth sciences, perhaps then you won't get exposed as a charlatan

 

[thaumaturgy]

I am going to quit. It is hopeless to continue. It is like a chicken tries to communicate with a duck.

That is sad. Your hubris and nastiness in regards to these points is well-noted. It does make me wonder what game you were playing here.

A major reason that the cap rock is easier to be fractured is that a lot of water is generated from clay diagenesis.

Too bad you are running away from this topic faster than the mantle water topic of earlier. Because, although my masters was in organic geochem it was done under a relatively well known U.S. expert in clay mineralogy, and in addition I have worked in the chemical field adjacent to clay minerals processing. I would dearly have loved to get into this discussion as well.

But you didn't even slow down for the organic geochem stuff (I believe you told me if I dared take organic geochem to the Bible (in this case an example might be your questions around the age of the oil?):

You better not say anything. If you do, I will certainly push you to the wall.

Yet I don't see you pushing me to the wall on this topic.

Later you crowed:

Since you are not good in petrology, sedimentology. It is pretty flavorless by seeing you challenge me with naive questions. I like to see that you are able to give a blow based on your best knowledge. So, throw to me your low T organic geochemistry argument as a challenge against Creationism. I am going to your field to see what is your qualification to challenge the science in the Bible.

I will throw one low T geochemistry stone to you. It is not my field. But at least I think I might be able to give you some hard time in your field of knowledge.

(emphasis added)

Please, do, give me some hard time in my field of knowledge. Or not. Run away as you wish.

OK, that's it. I rather use the time to do a better paper grading.

Oh by all means. Pay attention to your students. That is priority. I hope you aren't teaching anything too technically detailed to adults, they might question your points and you so far have shown a significant resistance to fully expanding on details.

You know what I loved the most about our little interchange:

I pulled up numerous detailed examples of my part of the discussion which were roundly ignored. Note all the stuff I pulled up about kerogen and oil generation, the TTI, kinetics, etc. How may external references did you provide in all your postings on here?

What I find most frustrating is that you, Juvenissun, seemed to jump pretty quickly to snarling bile in a relatively short span. I was actually quite forebearant in this discussion, I thought. I didn't get too nasty, mainly because I thought maybe you were going to present some interesting detailed information for debate.

We did, at least, get a nice random walk throug the Dictionary of Geologic Terms.

Oh, yes, and I got to be accused of not being a scientist, failing petrology, not being good in sedimentology and we got to see you slag honest professionals in the field with very little actual content behind your own claims.

Oh well. Perhaps you were a troll or some sort of Poe. Who knows? Only you know the game you were playing.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am going to quit. It is hopeless to continue.

No explanation for the Hawaiian Islands?

 

[TexasSky]

The water is locked up as single molecules within the rock itself. On a volume to volume basis it is 1% water to 99% rock. Therefore, if you want 5 miles of water you need 500 miles of molten basalt. The ark needs to be made of asbestos, not gopher wood.

Per the biblical account, the waters of the deep opened up, then it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. So water from the crust, thrust upwards at super heat, thrown into the atmosphere, then pouring down again.