From: Steven M Smith (smsmith@usgs.gov)
Date: Fri Nov 14 2003 - 10:37:16 EST
In response to the discussion on oil sources, Bill Payne wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:30:32 -0600 "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net
> writes:
>> Steve Smith pointed us to an excellent article. I would add that the
>> majority of the world's oil is generated by merely 8 unusual times
>> in earth history.
>> Almost all of the oil source rock is generated during continental
breakups.
>Glenn, could you comment on the article below, posted by Art a few years
back? Do you or Steve see a connection between increased iron in seawater
and the "8 unusual times in earth history?"<
Bill,
Interesting connection of ideas! Until Glenn showed that JPG graph of oil
generation
<http://home.entouch.net/dmd/OilGenerationRichardFowlerPETEX2000.jpg> I had
never thought about oil generation being episodic. This observation
suggests that conditions were different during those periods. The slide
roughly correlated the episodes to continental breakup but this may be
fortuitous or a co-varying factor. Certainly the suggestion of a change in
ocean water chemistry being correlated with episodes of oil production (or
planktonic blooms) is another fertile idea (pun intended).
This idea could also be tested. If a change in ocean chemistry to a more
iron-rich water was responsible for massive marine blooms that eventually
became the fuel for our profligate lifestyle, then I would postdict
(predict an unrecognized event that has already happened) that we could see
this change in the rock record. As a geochemist, I would postdict that
fossil shells from mollusks, which were alive during these periods, would
contain higher metal contents (such as iron) or different compositions than
mollusk shells from other periods. In other words, we could use the
chemistry of fossil shells as a proxy for the changing chemistry of the
ocean. It would then be interesting to compare a graph of mollusk shell
chemistry through time with the graph of episodic oil generation. If this
hypothesis is correct, we would expect to see broad correlations in the
graph patterns.
There are some assumptions inherent in the postdiction experiment outlined
above ... not all of which may be acceptable to those holding to a Flood
Geology and/or YEC point of view.
Assumption 1. The chemistry of mollusk shells reflect the general ocean
chemistry during the period of shell growth or life cycle of the mollusk.
(i.e. not just during a rapid flood event that buried a pre-existing
victim).
Assumption 2. We can identify layers of rock containing mollusk shells
that correspond to those periods of episodic oil generation. You wouldn't
want to use fossils from the actual oil source beds since those may also
reflect changes caused by the post-deposition, oil-generation process, so
you would need fossils from correlating layers in other places. This means
that you would need to accept the general correctness of the geologic
stratigraphic column as well as the utility of index fossils to identify
correlative time periods.
Although I am peripherally aware of some mollusk shell chemistry studies, I
have never heard of anyone trying to compare this with episodes of oil
generation.
Steve
_____________
Steven M. Smith, Geologist, U.S. Geological Survey
Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC, Denver, CO 80225
Office: (303)236-1192, Fax: (303)236-3200
Email: smsmith@usgs.gov
-USGS Nat'l Geochem. Database NURE HSSR Web Site-
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-0492/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 14 2003 - 10:37:43 EST
