Michigan County Appraisal District

The problem of blockage of oil from the subduction zones

Another problem concerning the formation of oil in subduction zones is the transport and retention of oil in the rock or layer of debris.

Click on image to enlarge

The problem initially was that the remains of plants are expected to settle to the bottom of the ocean and there no sediment is going to ask it. The debris layer is above the ocean floor rock. And normally, the oil will be produced in this layer of debris.

There is no reason that oil is found in the rock, as it is formed in a layer that is above the rock. So already, it is unclear how it can be in it thereafter.

And we do not even mention the fact that it is often found at 4 or 5 km below the surface, then it is supposed to be formed at a depth between 2 and 3 km and it is supposed to then go back immediately.

But in addition, there is the problem of blocking oil when it goes back to sea level of the plate. To reassemble, the oil must pass through either layer of debris (the most logical assumption) or through the rock that lies beneath the debris.

Consider first the crossing of the layer of debris. If the layer of debris passes oil, then it means it is permeable to it. So we do not see why, once back in the sea, via the layer of debris, oil would remain in the layer of debris. It should instead go back into the sea and be lost.

In this drawing, I strongly thickened layer of debris to avoid having to zoom too. Well, it sure is not a Rembrandt, but the elements are there. As can be seen, the oil passes through the layer of debris and leaves in the sea

This problem remains the same if one considers the rock . If oil can get in the rock of the sea plate, then it means it is permeable to oil. So, it should eventually be lost in the sea

Oil passes through the rock layer. But since there is no impervious area, it is apparent in the sea

And a priori, it is difficult to say that the top layer of impermeable rock is marine oil. First you may think that the constitution of the rock is identical to hundreds of meters thick, because it is a rock formed by magma of a ridge sea. So there is no reason that the top of the slab is more impermeable layers that a little deeper. But more importantly, because the debris were seen above the rock, oil from cross it before rising to the surface. So if it went through the top layer of rock, it means that it is permeable to oil. Especially as all this is that supposed to happen over an area several kilometers wide, it is not sure why the composition of the rock sea fundamentally change a few kilometers.

And even assuming that there one or two layers of impervious rock , given that oil is supposed to go back permanently along the sea plate to avoid being pushed forward in the mantle, this means that at one time or another It would be faced with a permeable rock. And therefore, he could get through this rock and get lost in the sea

Or, if oil is found trapped in a hollow waterproof, it could move more, and would be subject to movement Sea plate. And he would slowly toward the subduction zone. And then there are two possibilities. Let , with tipping plate at 45 °, it would no longer be retained in the hollow. He then began to rise again. And he again encounters an impermeable hollow, the same operation will be repeated. Otherwise, it will be lost in the sea eventually, he will end up being bound in a cycle where it will not encounter impermeable hollow. So it will end up being necessarily lost. Let remains trapped in the rock, and eventually resulted in the mantle with him.

The oil gets stuck in the rocks because of low sea waterproof.

Yes, but the trough moves with the plate. And then, quickly, within a few tens of thousands of years, the hollow is no longer in the right direction and lets the oil is lost into the sea again And even if it was not the case The oil would then be driven deep into the hollow.

could also think about the possibility that oil remonstrated in the rock and the layer of plant debris is impervious to oil. But in this case, we would not find oil at 3 or 5 km beneath the ocean floor, but only a few tens of meters (and than one hundred meters).

And also, a priori, I do not think we say that there is still a layer of debris on the ocean floor. We must think there is enough plants to do so and it was a phenomenon peculiar to the dinosaur age. So we must think the last bit of debris layer turned into oil long ago. So, as there would be more then a layer of debris, we could not defend the idea that oil would eventually be blocked by it.

the way, it means that the idea of horizontal infiltration of oil that I mentioned in the article precedent would be set aside by this problem. This idea could justify the presence of oil far into the sea plate. But if oil is lost in the sea, precisely because it can seep into the rock to get to the cross, it does have more possibility to have oil on the side of the plate sea. And therefore, we are left with the problem is the complete absence of oil (because wholly lost) or a field as a very thin strip.

One might think that the oil could be trapped under the plate land. But already, we must see that the tectonic plate sinking sea very rapidly under the land plate, at least 45 °. Oil is formed only 2 km maximum (depth and length) of the beginning of the depression of the sea plate. And the zone of oil formation oil itself as having only 1 km wide. Assuming that the oil spread over a greater width in back, it would leave only about 2 km wide, up to hold oil. So anyway, the field would be very thin, as previously noted.

ago two options regarding the retention of oil by terrestrial rock. Let the rock is immediately impermeable to oil (ie, just above the layer of debris), or it is only after .

If the rock is impermeable land immediately oil (ie oil does not sink into the rock. It is immediately blocked it), then, as the Marine plate makes an angle with the ground plate, it is not in a situation where there would be one or more hollow. So, normally, the oil should go up along the bend and out into the sea

The terrestrial rock is impervious to oil immediately. So it goes in the layer of debris and is lost in the sea

Sometimes, on some representation of the subduction zone, there is a place which the bend is flat. Which would mean that eventually, the oil may remain stored in this area if the land was immediately impermeable rock. But then either the oil remains in the corner of the elbow, and in this case, there is always the problem of the width of the oil field. Or it extends to the sea, and in this case, it should reach the junction of the plate and out.

But in fact it should not be any horizontal area. Otherwise, it would mean that the plate Maritime fell below the earth plate. And suddenly, the plate sea would have no reason to do after an elbow. It would pass under the earth plate. So what needs to happen is that the plate is simply stopped shipping the ground plate and password below. And it does not logically an angle of 45 °, but almost 90 degrees. So there is no area for the storage of oil. Oil rises along the terrestrial rock, but it has no place to stop. And no question that it cannot earth plate. Because it falls on the fact that the blow, the sea does not sink plate at 90 °, but would slide under the Earth plate. You really have a frontal impact with the ground plate for there depression of the plate and not slipping.

Second possibility, oil rises in terrestrial rock (which is not impervious to the beginning).

Already, of course, requires that the oil rises in a hollow . Because otherwise, with a flat area, the oil could seep over the sides of the area is being lost (in the sea, air, or in the magma). And with upward sloping areas, he remonstrated, then slip along the impermeable zone before going out to sea or air. And must the upper trough is well above the zone of oil formation. Otherwise, the side of the mountain, oil could end up in the magma flow. And of course, this very special configuration of hollow exactly the right place may be quite rare. So there will be plenty of places where it can not be any oil in the mountains (and therefore no oil at all, since we saw as other places, it can not exist).

only viable solution. Oil rises in rock on Earth, which is permeable to the top, but not anymore after a few hundred meters or a few kilometers. The problem is that the width of the field is then only 1 or 2 km max.

could have an area within a large hollow in the mountains. And so, oil would end up first at the periphery of large hollow, then remonstrated to the top of the mountain to the summit of the great hollow. But it seems hardly possible, because the top of the trough would have every chance to recover while in the magma flow, which would entail the loss of oil.

The trough is wider. Yes, but suddenly, the magma rises into it.

In fact, assuming that the mountain has a slope of 45 °, it would mean that every mile is one kilometer in height would entail is long. So, like a mountain of average height is only 6 or 7 miles high, it would mean that the oil storage area would have only a maximum width of 4 or 5 kilometers. Indeed, it is conceivable that in the end zone 6 or 7 km depth, the magma is present and then burning the oil. So if there were large hollow, it would only 4 or 5 km.

So even if oil had the opportunity to stay in the ground plate, the field would have only a tiny width.

In addition, we may say that if oil can go, maybe that magma could also happen. So there is still a good chance that there is an infiltration of magma into the great hollow in question.

course, this kind of thing could not happen on the other side, the side sea or air, since there would be no room for the great hollow. The summit of the great hollow should be outdoors. And so, in fact, it would have only ascending slope.

If the depth was wider on the other side, of course, the summit would fall in vacuum. So we would really just upslope. And oil is apparent in water or air Free.

And in addition, a priori, there was almost no oil found in the mountains. So it does not seem to defend this kind of theory.

So the only possibility that there is oil in an area of subdution is that it goes back into the rock of the earth plate (hence the rock is permeable to start, but is no more later), and there met a small or a large recessed area. Large hollow area that can not be found until near the ground. And even if these conditions are present, the fields have a width of 4 or 5 km max. And he would be in the mountains.

So anyway, at best it would field a very thin, especially low ability. We would not field giant. But mostly, there should be anything at all.

Ps3 Headphones Bluetooth

The problem of the width and shape of the oil fields developed in a subduction zone

As we have seen, there are only two or three fields of oil or gas from a subduction zone, then there should be many more. But in addition, two or three fields are not unique width and shape they should have.

Indeed, given the conditions of formation of oil fields from a subduction zone should have a width and a particular form.

Such a field should have a width very low. Since oil is formed over a wide area of less than one kilometer, the resulting field should have a width that should not be so much more than that (1 km). Maybe it could do 2 or 3 kilometers, taking into account the dispersion of the liquid during ascent. But not so much. While in terms of length, it can be very long, since the phenomenon of accumulation should occur along the coast (but, as we have seen, there are almost no oil on subduction zones). And therefore the field should have a width very small compared to its length.

So the width should not exceed 2 or 3 km. And the field should have a very elongated shape.

So one wonders how it is that the fields from a subduction zone that we present are hundreds of kilometers wide and have a distribution whose form is more of a round or that the square of the thin strip.

Then, of course, you could reply that the oil slick would spread by capillary action in the area where it accumulates, thus extending further than where it was during ascent.

But already, it would mean that the field could scatter to disappear. So it is not so much. And then, over tens of millions of years of dispersion, the field would extend over thousands of kilometers.

Then, the extension should be done by capillary faster than the advance plate . It is not impossible. But as we can possibly understand that this is the case when oil rises (although it is not sure why it should go up because oil is caught in the rock). But once back, a priori, the capillary action should be much slower than the advance of the plate. And so, since is trapped in the plate tectonics, the oil should stay on the point of subduction. And should therefore be left with a field that would have the form described at the outset, namely a very elongated shape with a width of only 2 or 3 miles.

And even if oil reached to extend the maritime side of the plate, he could not extend the land side. This is because of this side, it makes sense to have the magma. So the oil would be burned by the magma. Suddenly, the field should only extend the maritime side. And so it should be a form of semicircle . But we not observed fields of such a form. So even this argument for the extension capillary does not.

In fact, it should not even be in the form of a semicircle. Because he does not forget that the plate moves towards the plate maritime land. So, given that oil would extend from the point of subduction, oil from the sides should have a velocity towards the sea less than oil is exactly the reverse movement of plate tectonics. It's like trying to swim upstream in a river. If it goes in exactly the reverse of the current, we will swim upstream faster (and therefore later in time given) that if we go back at an angle. There the oil going in exactly the opposite direction of movement of plate tectonics will go further than oil from an angle. So we should end up with a field that is the form of a 3 leaf clover , if oil goes through that still manages to move faster toward the sea as the plate tectonics moving forward towards the ground ; or with a field having a starting point towards the sea, a field in a T what, if oil from the sides is pushed toward the subduction zone. But obviously, none of the very few fields in this subduction zone has this form.

In short, another argument against the theory biotic.

Best Pokemon Team In Pokemon Crystal

Cuckoo then here I woke up this morning to 5 hours, covered with sweat so it's hot and humid. I took a shower and I'm out to see what it looked like the Longueuil early morning ^ ^
Ben is super quiet, and there are squirrels everywhere
^ ^ Anyway here are some photos ^ ^











And tite video ^ ^

Things Similar To Jibjab

time of formation of oil and lowering speed of tectonic plates

We are told that the formation of oil once the plate subduction Marine is committed takes millions of years, see tens of millions of years . And we also said that oil is formed between 2 km and 3 km below the surface , so over 1 km in all (of course, one wonders how there can have oil at more than 6 km below the surface. But good).

Only problem is that the tectonic plates of advancing 1 and 10 cm per year . So that means that the depression of the plate it is also from 1 to 10 cm per year (as it plunges to 45 degrees: 1 km 1 km advanced causes of depression). So, to 1 km in advance of 10 cm per year, it only takes 10,000 years. Advancing 1 cm, it is 100,000 years. In short, since the formation of petroleum is realized only in the area of 2-3 km, it should be between 10,000 and 100,000 years for plant debris turned into oil.

But in fact, the time of oil formation is necessarily set to the maximum speed for driving the plates. If there is a possibility that oil is formed when the plate is at maximum speed (10 cm per year) then it means that oil is formed all the time at least at this speed there (maybe faster but not slower). So, since there are tectonic plates that move forward by 10 cm per year, that means that oil is formed in a maximum of 10,000 years . Perhaps it is formed more quickly (eg 2000 years), but it can not form more slowly. And it's probably even less than that, since there are hundreds of millions of years, some plates were moving faster than now. Maybe some advanced 15 or 20 cm. So we could then rely on a training time of maximum oil 7000 see 5000 years.

So we are very far from millions or tens of millions of years theory. A

Piore, it does not change anything for the rest of the problem. We can say that was wrong and change the theory for a version with a time of formation of oil in 10,000 years. But it still shows the theory of anything. Since proponents of the official theory are not even fucking make a calculation as simple.

But if we stay with the official theory of oil formation time, then, with speeds of descent of tectonic plates also Quick, oil has not had time to form. Especially since it seems people say that the Carboniferous, the plates were slightly faster than now.

must also change the calculations for the ascent of oil. Let's go back more than 1 km in 10,000 or 20,000 years. Otherwise it would sink with the plate. But until then, we should certainly say that the ascent took millions or tens of millions of years.

So we could say that the entire process that takes tens of millions of years. Time as algae and plankton fall to the seabed in sufficient quantity and are transported by plate tectonic subduction point, then they turn into oil. And so one could say that the tens of millions of years are for the transport phase of plant debris to the point of subduction . But even if we can read the official theory is often quite vague and evasive on the time taken for various stages of the process, it seems that millions of years also affect the timing or processing of oil is (ie, in the band 2-3 km into the earth). Here are excerpts from sites about the formation of petroleum:

Here is what Alain Préat geologist apparently at the Faculty of Sciences (see here ):

This transformation takes place in what the oil called the 'oil window', which produces the 'cooking' of kerogen situated for a normal geothermal gradient (1 ° to 33 m burial) from about 1000 m (at 60 ° C) and 4000 m (110-120 ° C). There will thus form, for several tens of millions of years , oil and gas from source rocks (usually clay) having preserved organic material in sufficient quantity.

The second excerpt is from Memo, a site on the story (see here ):

Another factor that will determine the appearance of oil: time. The temperature rise must take place during a period long enough to "cook" the starting ingredients. Thus, deposits containing organic matter and exposed to low temperatures, but over a long period of time, can produce oil in a manner as effective as more recent deposits subjected to higher temperatures. The time is then said geological and corresponds to periods reaching tens of millions of years .

So, apparently, the official theory speaks well of millions of years and even tens of millions of years for the period of transformation of kerogen into petroleum.

Why was out the theory of oil formation to 2 km deep? Because the more deeply, as it is supposed to be on a subduction zone, and subduction causes the creation of volcanic mountains generally, it would have been fair in magmatic zone (or at least, going back, it would been in). Hence the problem. So it had to be in the areas of 2 or 3 km. Not least deep because we had already found oil at 1 km (and also for the conditions of oil formation, it would not seriously), but not more profound because of the magma. So, the geological conditions of oil formation assumed just left a small window for the formation of petroleum.

Obviously, as already mentioned, there is a small problem: it has found oil at depths much greater than 2 or 3 km.

Veet Why Not On Genital

^ ^ Vive been

That here in Montreal is like this every day for at least two weeks (more or less eh today is a particularly violent because of the wind ^ ^) since I came back to me in May, I only had two days of good weather ...

So sorry for not having posted news before that, it's just that the shots I had nothing interesting to say ^ ^

Summary Ofmakabuhay Plant

Very little oil offshore near subduction zones

According to the official theory, oil Marine forms when the algae residue accumulated at the bottom of the sea burrow underground. This is because the tectonic plate slides beneath a continental plate (subduction). The conditions for the formation of oil are at hand.

Well, as already seen, of course, the official theory is not hampered by the fact that the middle of the ocean is empty of life. But hey, never mind.

What is important is that since this is supposed to be general, we should have oil at all locations where there is a subduction zone . Here is a map of subduction zones.

click image to enlarge

The subduction zones are where the arrows are going towards each other.

So there should be any giant fields on the west coast of South America .

Japan should also have giant fields on the East Coast.

And finally, India, it depends. If the area was already supposed to be terrestrial Carboniferous, it should not be any oil. Otherwise, there should be here too giant fields in northern India. Here is a second

map.


This second card is not very clear (it is not known if these are only a subduction zone or if more areas of friction between the plates). But if the areas with the triangles are subduction zones, it would then add any subduction zone that will Java in Bangladesh through the island of Sumatra and the west coast of Burma and the area back of the right of Indonesia and the east coast of the Philippines to Japan (and continues to a tiny piece of the west coast of Russia). All these areas should have fields offshore giants. It would add

also the northern Middle East . Here we have the same problem for India. Is it considered to have been a sea area to the carboniferous? But, having said that, to justify the presence of oil in Iraq, Iran, etc. ... I think it said it was a maritime area. So it is possible that under the official theory, there should be some giant oil fields in the northern area of the Middle East.

now check what it is. Well, when you look at the maps of these areas where oil is, we see that there is virtually no field giant overdraft.

South America, the only deposits offshore the west coast are in Ecuador. Elsewhere, there is nothing. In Central America, there is nothing on the West Coast.



From Japan side, there is a tiny production of gas in the Tokyo area and Niigata. And oil production is marginal (a few KBBL / d).

And the side of the line Java / Sumatra / West Coast of Burma / Bangladesh was the only off-shore oil in Bangladesh. There is oil offshore Indonesia (Java / Sumatra), but the wrong side. There are about Odds are. But it's more than 400 km from the beginning of the subduction zone.

On the side of the line that begins right Indonesia, then rising to the east coast of the Philippines to Japan , there is nothing.



For both areas (north India and the Middle East) that lend themselves to questioning that was of the Carboniferous sea areas, there is no oil at these locations.

Northern India contains no oil (there is the area of Barmer, but it seems to be above the subduction zone. And it's not a giant field, far away).



And Northern Middle East same. There are fields before the subduction zone, some after, but apparently not at the location of the subduction zone.



course, given that there is oil everywhere, probably you would find if you looked in those areas. But anyway, for now, what we see is that:

1) If there is no oil, and oil companies have explored these areas, the official theory is then contradicted by the facts

2) If the oil companies have not sought on that side, there is oil or not, it means that oil companies do not even believe their own theories, since for the offshore oil, they would seek the oil in these priority areas there.

So, the theory of the formation of offshore oil in subduction zones slightly beats of the wing. If the oil companies either do not believe in their theory, have either tried and found nothing, the credibility of it is zero.

Moreover, a funny thing is that almost everywhere there is still a subduction zone maritime it's actually on the side opposite the mainland or the island we found nearly all offshore oil. This is the case for South America, where it is on the East Coast there are plenty of offshore oil. This applies to the area along Java and Sumatra, where oil is found on the east coast of these islands. And they are also found on the East Coast of India, which is opposite the subduction zone (this saying is true there are on the coasts of Bangladesh, but still). This is the case for the area dating back to Japan. where oil offshore the Philippines is well west of the subduction zone. I think it is also the case for Japan. There is oil off-shore to the west of Japan (China Sea), but not east.

And even for subduction zones that are no longer shipping (North Indian and Northern Middle East) oil is found beside, before, after, the area in question, but almost never above . Ie at the place that should be the maximum production of oil from marine origin according the official theory).

Is Fucibet Good For Gential Warts

The problem of the formation of North Sea oil

The North Sea oil

Just as with oil from the Gulf of Mexico, it should not be any North Sea oil, since it is far from the subduction zone. However, since the sea plate beneath the continental plate descends at an angle of 45 degrees , oil should be at least 200 km beneath the earth. Indeed, with a slope of 45 degrees, a horizontal step of 1 km results in a vertical descent of 1km. And oil is at least 200 km from the beginning of the continental plate. And if he went back

when 10 km under the earth, it should be 10 km from the edge of the continental plate, not too far into the continental plate.

But actually, this place is not even concerned with this problem, since at this point in the continental shelf, a priori, the official theory says there is no subduction zone. So we can not justify the presence of oil in the North Sea by the theory of maritime training in oil. Ie the formation of oil from the remains of algae which have fallen to the bottom of the sea and which would have ended up deep beneath the ground because of the depression of the sea plate beneath the continental plate.

Some may emphasize the theory of oil formation from lakes . I have already shown that this theory of oil formation lakes does not. But in this case, it takes even less. The North Sea is a sea very shallow. She averaged only 95 meters deep. And yet, there are relatively deep areas (within 700 meters) that the average up. But in many places, the average depth is more than 40 meters. And it does not appear that the fields of oil and gas are in the area where the depth is close to 700 meters.

One may say that the terrain has not changed. A priori, this is not an area with a flaw or other contact point of plate tectonics. So there's no reason it has been deeper than the Carboniferous now. Moreover, it does not appear that anyone not on the side official defends the idea.

So, since the sea covers these areas completely, we can say that at a time when there was supposedly a lake, these areas should not be completely covered, so that the height water was less significant. One can think of 20 meters . For a lake, it's not terrible. The deepest lake in the world is Lake Baikal, which is in the 1637 meters at most. The problem is that no depth, it is unclear how to justify the formation of oil.

Already we do not see how the biological material could have fallen in the lake bottom without being recycled by other living organisms (microscopic or macroscopic). However, for the seabed, it is understood that it possibly has not been recycled by animals or decomposed rapidly by microorganisms, because of the great depth, both for a lake 20 meters deep, it seems completely impossible. So there would not be able accumulation of biological material at the bottom of the lake.

But if that were the case, the layer of dead plants would quickly reach 10 or 20 meters. And there have been more lake. And saw the giant fields that can be found in the North Sea, a height of 20 meters of dead vegetation is a minimum.

Moreover, since we do not advocate, the formal side, there were geological evolution at this point, it is unclear how oil ended up in more than 2000 meters below ground . And even more. For example, Total has discovered a field of 5600 meters under the sea at Glenelg (the sea is just 100 meters deep at this point). Either there was a gap of more than 5600 meters, there were huge movements of land, the residue of algae were found there by the operation of the Holy Spirit. But since nobody talks hole 5600 meters, or ground movement that would have the elements to the surface would have found 5600 meters below, there remains only the third solution.

Especially we are told that if plants were not decomposed, because at the time, there was no micro-organisms to do (but for a lake 20 meters depth, there remains the problem of macroscopic animals), but cons, there were then transformed plant oil. Big contradiction.

Another contradiction, we are told that if the coal was formed in northern France, Belgium and Germany (the Ruhr) is that the trees were near the coast and were quickly and regularly covered by sea only, as close to the Channel and North Sea, it would have meant that there was an ocean there. A sea that would have been higher than now, as it would have covered the areas currently far from the sea But how can there be a sea, while to justify the presence of oil, we hear of lakes and the sea would have withdrawn far because of the Ice Age ?

Yep, that's a lot of problems.

The problem of the official theory is that it is weather-dependent subduction zones, sometimes the lack of sea, the presence of lakes, forests, areas of geological movement, the presence of marine life, the absence of microorganisms decomposing plants, short, full of tricks. While with the theory of abiotic oil, there is not all these problems.