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.