It definitely matters. Energy companies sometimes even name themselves after an epoch, such as Devon Energy for the Devonian. My point is that the dating is just one piece of a larger puzzle that all fits together.
Energy companies rely on staff geologists for exact placement of drilling platforms, but the work of mapping out formations is usually already available from governmental geological surveys. For a fee, you can obtain some nice large colorful maps, stare at it, and ask what in the world is going on here. These are the output of systematic studies which not only date the formations, but lay out the faults, folds, thrusts, anticlines and synclines beloved of geologists. As oil is found in sedimentary rock and that presents more of a dating challenge that igneous rock which lock in their crystal structure upon solidification, there is more inference involved. Sedimentary rock is of course always younger than the rock from which the sediment eroded.
Bold, but unsubstantiated >claim<.
Which dating methods other than radiometric dating give you millions of years and how?
Where’s the evidence for evolution hiding?
Apparently the ages of the rocks in which to drill are important. If the oil deposits are too young, or if they’ve been too cold, they won’t have decayed enough that it’s possible to get them out of the ground. On the other hand, if they are too old, or they’ve been too hot, they will have decayed away to nothing. This article explains why:
I agree. The entire history of the formation is important, and of course age is an aspect of that. Everything about hydrocarbon reserves takes particular conditions and geological time - photosynthetic carbon fixation, capping, geothermal processing, and rock porosity. The age is inherent in this matrix of history, or to put another way, you cannot have oil without the geological history and you cannot have the history without the age.
Oil exploration is in a sense large scale, iterative, scientific experimentation. Based on a hypothesis that the conventional understanding of the formation of hydrocarbon reserves is true, let us spend millions and drill where those considerations lead us to expect to find a strike. Positive results validate and add to the conventional understanding.
Just a word of advice, Henry. If you want people to pay any attention to what you’re saying, please post it in text form rather than video form, especially if your video is twenty-five minutes long. Videos are very time consuming to watch, you can’t copy and paste extracts from them into Google to fact check them, it’s much more fiddly to either skim past parts with which you’re already familiar or to focus more closely on parts with which you are not, and they tend to spoon-feed you anyway and dull down your critical faculties.
If you must post videos, please do your readers a courtesy of summarising them and providing timestamps to the relevant parts.
More fun facts which tie petroleum exploration with geochronology and evolution. Oil companies hire biologists who specialize in micropaleontology to hone in on the precise age of formations. Minute creatures such as conodonts and foraminifera exhibit small but identifiable drift over the epochs of interest to hydrocarbon exploration, and biologist can study these to guide exploration companies. None of this is predicted by what passes for flood geology.
Coloration of conodont fossils is also used to establish the maximum temperature range reached by sedimentary rock, which is of course significant to oil companies.
Is there any work on the opposite end, i.e. drilling where rock dating says oil definitely should not exist? and what happens in that case?
I.e. it is unsurprising that successful oil drilling correlates with predictions of rock dating, if they only drill in sites that are predicted to contain oil by rock dating. If oil well location was actually independent of predicted rock age we would see the same thing. Only if predicted rock age were very inversely correlated with oil wepl location would we see anything different than successful oil well identification.
What a rubbish. Oil companies don’t care about the ages of rock layers. They care about their composition! There are different layers of different composition and degrees of hardness. That’s what they care for. But just because someone gave a certain layer a fancy name at which oil companies orientate themselves nowadays, doesn’t mean that they need to know the age of anything!
Foraminifera / Radiolaria are mainly what makes the cretaceous layer - which is universal! It encircles the entire planet. What do you think this means? That the world was once entirely underwater, of course!
Sew up your pockets, or they will fill them with baloney.
Do you have any experience in the oil industry, Henry? Or if not, do you have any references or sources from people who do to back you up on what you are saying here?
Everyone else on this forum has been citing sources from actual petroleum geologists. Unless you are able to do likewise, you are just making unjustified assertions. You might as well be posting “lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.”
So no thoughts on if Adam and and Eve were both created on the 6th day ( literal 24 hour day )? Genesis 1 mentions male and female both created on day one. Genesis 2 definitely had a story of a longer period. The idea that genesis 2 is a sub creation all on day 6 does not fit to well. What fits is a mythological rendering of the creation in genesis 1. Then a mythology concerning humans in genesis 2.
Well … to paraphrase the late, great Glenn Morton … I’m pretty sure he’s commented that oil companies don’t like drilling dry holes. It’s expensive, and of course probably still happens some despite their best attempts, so I’m sure they don’t deliberately go digging where they already don’t expect to find anything.
The first thing that you learn in a probability 101 course is this.
Show your working.
Can you therefore back up your assertion that “the correlation between rock age and successful drilling is not, in itself, good evidence for the veracity of rock dating” with some equations please?
Oil companies of course would not spend millions to deliberately drill blindly, but inadvertently you get something of a control. Drillers cannot get to rock of the correct age without going through kilometres of younger rock. As wells deplete, companies often delve to deeper and older strata until things go dry. So it is not only rock predicted to have oil which has been drilled.
…But by no means can you just target rock of a certain age and expect it to contain oil. The age and the history have to be right. There have been gazillions of dry wells, and by them oil companies certainly have learned the hard way, as many lessons as possible as to where not to drill.
The first creation account is telling what happened globally. The second account tells what happened in the garden of Eden. I don’t see any problems there at all. You may not want that ro be history due to your ideological commitment to Darwinism, I fear. Could that be a possibility?
This has nothing to do with science anymore. This is purely a scriptural based argument. No reason to dance around the question.
You believe that both events happened within the sixth day correct? He created man and women on day six. That would mean he made Adam and Eve on day six right?
All by itself, it probably wouldn’t be … which is why oil companies look to scientists, and not vice versa. Rock dating is already quite established quite on its own apart from any oil industry agendas. But …
Again … leaning on stuff I remember reading of Morton’s: He himself was a YEC for many years as a younger geologist working for oil companies, and he hired some young-earth geophysicists too. Do you recall what he said happened? Their YEC convictions simply did not co-exist with the hard data they were working with. Either they eventually quit or did not stay ‘young-earth’. In short … Young earth timetables just don’t carry water. (or oil in this case). Not that scientists were holding their breath needing confirmation from the oil industry; ages are already quite independently established. But it is yet one more thing consistent with deep time.
