From: bpayne15@juno.com
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 22:05:02 EST
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:12:14 -0700 "Steven M Smith" <smsmith@usgs.gov>
writes:
> I'll have to disagree with your conclusion. Understanding the
> process _is_ important and the question is _much more_ than just
generating "the
> organics for the process to convert to oil."
I guess we're talking past each other. The point of my posting the
"Marine Blooms" post by Art was to say that we can get an exponential
increase in the production of plankton with relatively small adjustments
in ocean chemistry. The addition of a small amount of iron to seawater
changes everything, and has a way of swinging a number of OEC arguments -
e.g. the formation of chalk beds or the Lompoc "whale on its tail" - in
the direction of a YEC framework. The same inherent pitfall underlies
all reconstructions of historical events: miss a small minor detail and
the reconstruction can fail completely.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of the multiple processes
required to transform plankton into oil; I know each step is critical.
But again, without the raw material to process there would be no oil.
It is very likely that the oil being generated in the Gulf of California
is from recent organic matter (i.e., not millions of years old). Glenn
should harness his research folks to figure out how to pump plankton into
geothermal wells and vent oil back out. All I ask is a mere 3/8 royalty
for the idea. Or at least a nice Texas steak for two. :-)
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 22:06:29 EST