Jump to content


Photo

The Elusive Geological Time Column


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#101 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 10 June 2010 - 07:33 AM

The article claims " Likely reworked" ... which it wasn't.  The K/T boundary is a fairytale, and no it doesn't exist.  Neither does the Geological Time Column Exist.

View Post


Many years ago I was the wellsite geologist working on an exploration well offshore, Kenya named Kofia-1. Kofia-2 was never drilled because the Kofia-1 well (costing 27 million dollars) was a dry hole. What was thought to be the top of the Creataceous was mapped using seismic data, and the depth to this horizon estimated. The well was sited over what appeared to be a large structural high, resembling a dome. This was the potential trap for an oil accumulation. It was hypothesized that the start of the prospective section that would possibly contain sandstone reservoirs would start at this boundary where a change in lithology would occur.

After drilling a few hundred feet of limestone that was basically made of coralline debris, we drilled into the lithology predicted for the Tertiary section, green claystone. The Cretaceous section was thought to be made up of hardened shales and inter-bedded sandstones.

When we reached the predicted depth for the top of the Creataceous we still were seeing green claystone in the cuttings, and only green claystone, It was however quite fossiliferous with many forams visible under the microscope. When compared with some charts that a muddloger had brought out, they matched well with some diagnostic Tertiary species. Something appeared to have gone wrong with the seismic map. We were about 500' deeper than our intended horizon yet we were still drilling claystone of the same color that looked very much the same as what we had been drilling for thousands of feet. But suddenly all the fossils had radically changed. The forams were almost the same size as the ones we had seen in the shallower section, but the ornamentation was very different. They matched the species shown in the charts for Cretaceous forams. There were a couple of diminutive ammonites as well.

I contacted London and told the people in the office there that we had penetrated the top of the Creataceous. They were very skeptical, apparently feeling there was no way we would be able to ascertain this at wellsite. We had not been asked to look at fossils, but just lithologic changes. I was asked to "hot-shot" some sample to Wales for study by Robertsons Research. A couple of days later there results indicated the top of the Cretaceous just 15' shallower than our pick offshore.

The depositional environment had not changed much during the entire section we drilled after the limestones were penetrated.An open-marine environment was indicated with the only dramatic change being in pelagic forams preserved in the rocks. These tow were indicative of deposition in ocean waters. We only encountered
two thin sandstone beds in the entire section, and these were near TD.

That is how geologists can locate and define where the boundaries of the geologic time scale appear in outcrops or in the subsurface. This allows us to correlate time equivalent rocks worldwide. The forams in locations thousands of miles away would show the same or very similar changes to what I saw in Kofia-1, even if they were not found in green claystones.

#102 Geode

Geode

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 612 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • Mormon
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Bangkok, Thailand

Posted 02 July 2010 - 09:58 AM

Hi James,
Quote;Our understanding of the geology and history of the Grand Canyon comes from tens of thousands of observations and hundreds of studies. From your comments, I am guessing that you are unaware of the primary reasons that a global flood model was rejected over 150 years ago.

Yes we all do and so do you,because Charles Lyell wanted to seperate geology from the bible and even misrepresented the erosion rate of niagra falls to fool people.

View Post


That is quite a claim about Lyell and the erosion rate of the Niagra Falls that I do not think can be properly substantiated. What proof is there that his estimates were not what he honesty believed were the best he could determine, and that he intended them to be a means of separating geology from the Bible? Is there proof that he intentionally misrepresented the erosion rate to fool people? Some time ago I saw a poor attempt to make this case on a creationist site. It appeared to use a fragment from a letter Lyell had written that did not seem to be in any way related to his visit to Niagra Falls and was written at a very different time. It had a vague reference to the Bible.

#103 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 July 2010 - 06:42 AM

That is quite a claim about Lyell and the erosion rate of the Niagra Falls that I do not think can be properly substantiated. What proof is there that his estimates were not what he honesty believed were the best he could determine, and that he intended them to be a means of separating geology from the Bible? Is there proof that he intentionally misrepresented the erosion rate to fool people? Some time ago I saw a poor attempt to make this case on a creationist site. It appeared to use a fragment from a letter Lyell had written that did not seem to be in any way related to his visit to Niagra Falls and was written at a very different time. It had a vague reference to the Bible.

View Post


Regardless of what you believe are creationists lying about lyell's lies, what was he told the rate was? And then what did he publish? He didn't observe 40 years of erosion so he had to ask people who lived there and he ignored their "eye witnessed rates" and published what he wanted.

A long-time resident told a Mr Blackwell, the son of an eminent geologist, that the Falls had receded about 45 metres (150 feet) during the 40 years he had lived there — more than one metre (three feet) a year...

...Lyell ignored the reports from Mr Blackwell that residents had observed the Falls recede by more than one metre (three feet) a year. At that rate the gorge would be less than 12,000 years old, which was in the ballpark of the biblical chronology, given the uncertainties in the estimates. That was not old enough for Lyell, who was looking to promote his slow-and-gradual geological theories. So he chose to disregard the data and conducted his own investigation of the residents.

Lyell does not explain how he did it, but strangely, he arrived at a reduced rate of 0.3 metres (one foot) a year. This ‘conjecture’, as he called it, much better suited his purpose. Since the gorge was 35,000 feet long, he concluded that it must be 35,000 years old!2 This estimate further undermined people’s confidence in the biblical chronology. And Lyell saw the Bible as the major obstacle to the general acceptance of his geological theories.

Lyell’s conclusion was wrong. Later analysis of eyewitness reports from 1842 to 1927 confirmed the high rate of erosion — 1.2 to 1.5 metres (four to five feet) a year.6 The residents of Lyell’s day had been conservative! This rate places an upper limit of 7,000 to 9,000 years for the gorge.


http://www.answersin...agara_falls.asp

#104 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 July 2010 - 07:20 AM

That is quite a claim about Lyell and the erosion rate of the Niagra Falls that I do not think can be properly substantiated. What proof is there that his estimates were not what he honesty believed were the best he could determine, and that he intended them to be a means of separating geology from the Bible? Is there proof that he intentionally misrepresented the erosion rate to fool people? Some time ago I saw a poor attempt to make this case on a creationist site. It appeared to use a fragment from a letter Lyell had written that did not seem to be in any way related to his visit to Niagra Falls and was written at a very different time. It had a vague reference to the Bible.

View Post

Can I just say something here? What progress can science make if it's participants judge someone a liar because they don't agree with their conclusions? There is a difference between lying and being wrong about something.

I understand there are liars in science. But there are also people that think wrong things and teach wrong things, only to teach it differently after many years.

That's why I stay mostly here, because everywhere you go now, creationists are supposedly liars. No debate, no consideration--we're just liars. Can you spell "preclusion?" Does anyone know what it means? It means to rule something out before it is considered. This is becoming more and more a defense of evos, when creationists present their own evidence against the timescale, or evolution.

#105 evad

evad

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 10 July 2010 - 07:40 AM

Can I just say something here?  What progress can science make if it's participants judge someone a liar because they don't agree with their  conclusions?  There is a difference between lying and being wrong about something. 

I understand there are liars in science.  But there are also people that think wrong things and teach wrong things, only to teach it differently after many years. 

That's why I stay mostly here, because everywhere you go now, creationists are supposedly liars.  No debate, no consideration--we're just liars. Can you spell "preclusion?"  Does anyone know what it means?  It means to rule something out before it is considered.  This is becoming more and more a defense of evos, when creationists present their own evidence against the timescale, or evolution.

View Post

I think that creationist views have been considered. For thousands of years. Unfortunately, science tends to contradict those views.

I am not trying to be facetious here, but, perhaps, if creationists were to propose a theory that was testable via empirical evidence science would be forced to consider it.

It's been my experience that creationists don't have any science to support their views. They simply attempt to poke holes in accepted scientific theories and then claim that because these theories are not complete they are therefore wrong. They can then invoke design as a more plausible scenario.

The reason that creationists aren't taking seriously is because "God made it that way" isn't an explanation of how God did it (or that he did it at all).

#106 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 July 2010 - 08:21 AM

James F wrote....

Our understanding of the geology and history of the Grand Canyon comes from tens of thousands of observations and hundreds of studies. From your comments, I am guessing that you are unaware of the primary reasons that a global flood model was rejected over 150 years ago.

  Most scientists love to overturn the standard model (that is what brings fame and fortune to a scientist). However, to do that, they must begin with the evidence that is used to support the standard model, then show that the new model provides a better account of that evidence. I am happy to help you understand this evidence. If you visit the Grand Canyon, I could even tell you where to see much of the evidence with your own eyes. However, I really recommend that you do a bit of reading so that at least you understand the evidence. There are many hundreds of facts and fossils to view, and you would never seem them all in a day hike.

Here are some questions to begin.
  1. For example, do you know the ordering of the fossils found in the Grand Canyon?
  2. What fossils are found in the bottom sedimentary layers (i.e. the Bass Limestone) ?
  3. What layers show the first bottom dwellers like corals and shellfish?
  4. What layers show the first bones or teeth?
  5. What layers show the first foot prints? Where did these animals come from?

The layers in the Grand Canyon can be tracked for hundreds of miles up the Colorado to other canyons. Here is a diagram of these layers from the local and long range view.

The long range view is a bit large, but you can see that if you click here
http://creationwiki....d_Staircase.jpg
But I will also try a link.


JamesF,

You are attempting to submit an "order of the fossils" argument. There is both order in the arrangement of the fossils, and there are unconformities which must be explained by "just so" scenarios. Not only missing layers, but "older" fossils in higher elevation.

1. Number 1. What most people are not told is that a vast majority of the fossils are marine. Besides fish, vertebrates are less than 5 % of the record. A deluge model has no problem with marine settings being found on the lowest strata, namely because the sediments would have covered the lowest points first.

2. If vertebrate ichnofossils and teeth are found higher in the strata, it is because they were higher geographically on the crust, and so buried after the marine life.

3. What do you do with the plethora of living fossils? Sponges are supposed to be the first multicellular life. They are found in Cambrian deposits, and are alive today. Is this evidence of change over time or stability from the beginning? It becomes then your choice, according to your preassumed mentality.

4. Fish and sponges are found together in Cambrian deposits. Evolution has no answer for this. Consider the Chengjang Maotianshan shales:

The diversity of soft-tissue fossils at Chengjiang is astonishing: algae, medusiforms, sponges, priapulids, annelid-like worms, echinoderms, arthropods (including trilobites), hemichordates, chordates, and the first agnathan fish make up just a small fraction of the total -- see an up to date list of Chengjiang Biota here.


Vertebrates and invertebrates mixed together is all the fossil record gives us. These are supposed to be the first scenes in history. There is no ancestry linage evidenced here. But it fits wonderfully into creation science.

5. What will you do with the mass kill of billions of nautiloids in the Redwall limestone? This kill is catastrophic in nature as evidenced by soft tissue ichofossils and the upright orientation of 15 % of the nautiloids. This deposition stetches for over 5700 square miles. Mass kill

6. The burgess shale, another Cambrian deposit is found in the Canadian Rockies. While creationists admit uplift, the worldwide evidence of marine deposits far above sea level (e.g. worldwide limestone and shale--and many deposits unbroken) is supporting evidence for the deluge, which also has historical support from seven archaeological ancient sources.

Posted Image
Burgess shale deposits.
It is here where paleontologists tell us the "first" fossils are found. Furthermore the shale is surficial, destroying the argument of "order" of the fossils in the strata!

7. There is no particular order to the Grand Canyon strata, as far as sediments. The random sequences of limestone, sandstone, and shales have no particular argument for the geologic timescale. However it can be argued that all are of marine nature. The explanation of ascending and receding sea levels used by standard geology is nothing more than evidence of the deluge with billions of imaginary years inserted.

#107 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 July 2010 - 11:02 AM

Hi evad,

I think that creationist views have been considered. For thousands of years. Unfortunately, science tends to contradict those views.


Is "Science" the observed rate or the accepted rate? Creationists views aren't considered because of creation not science.

The continents fit together like a puzzle, but the known rate of erosion would completely level them in only ~15 million years, yet were expected to be gullible enough to believe that the empirical erosion rate doesn't matter because the fossils and the accepted radiometric dates say hundreds of millions of years ago. When a creationists (Mike Oard) wrote a paper for a peer reviewed journal detailing empirical erosion rates and the antiquity of landforms, here is the response he got:

I wrote a challenge to Twidale’s paper and sent it as a discussion item to the editor of the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences. I was up front that I was a creationist and that I considered Twidale’s paper primarily a challenge to conventional dating methods. I was kindly told that my discussion of Twidale’s paper was not appropriate for publication in the Australian Journal of Earth Sciences (the technical journal), but might be considered for The Australian Geologist (the news magazine), since that magazine had published a few comments by creationists. Since Twidale’s article was not published in the latter magazine, I did not believe it was appropriate to send my discussion there. I and other creationists have been challenged that if our work were scientific enough, we should submit it to peer review in the mainstream journals. Those who say this should really know better. It is not necessarily the quality of the article, but the fact that it was written from a creationist perspective that elicits an automatic rejection.




http://www.answersin...1/landforms.asp



Enjoy.

#108 Guest_Ben_*

Guest_Ben_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2010 - 11:53 AM

The continents fit together like a puzzle, but the known rate of erosion would completely level them in only ~15 million years.


I've seen this claimed a few times before, but there's not really a lot of credible support for this idea. The AiG article, for example, only deals with half of the issue. It focuses solely on erosive forces and neglects entirely that notion that landmasses can increase - and there are many ways that they can. Continental shelf buildup, plate collisions and volcanism, for example - none of these are even touched upon in that article., which is a colossal oversight.

For reference, the only erosion rate given by the article is quoted as being 'quite fast' at 5-35mm per 1000 years. The USGS (US Geological Survey) 1999 (1) gives the current growth rate of the Himalayas at over 1cm per year. That's a growth rate of more than 10,000mm over 1000 years.

Many other mountains ranges are still growing, too.

---

(1) http://pubs.usgs.gov...c/himalaya.html

#109 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 July 2010 - 11:58 AM

I've seen this claimed a few times before, but there's not really a lot of credible support for this idea. The AiG article, for example, only deals with half of the issue. It focuses solely on erosive forces and neglects entirely that notion that landmasses can increase - and there are many ways that they can. Continental shelf buildup, plate collisions and volcanism, for example - none of these are even touched upon in that article., which is a colossal oversight.

View Post

I think you're missing the problem, Ben. All this activity that you claim counters erosion is much much slower even based on evolutionary thinking. So explain to us how plate activity, which takes 100s of millions of years versus erosion, which is working at a much faster pace, is able to virtually halt erosive activity for continents to drift around the planet slowly in their near present form?

#110 Guest_Ben_*

Guest_Ben_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 July 2010 - 12:47 PM

I think you're missing the problem, Ben.


It's possible. I'm not infullible...

All this activity that you claim counters erosion is much much slower even based on evolutionary thinking.


Well, for a start, plate tectonics has got nothing to do with evolution. Secondly, I just showed in the post above that the Himalayas are growing much, much, MUCH faster than they're being eroded. Plate activity doesn't 'take' millions of years, it 'occurs' over millions of years. It happening right now, just like erosion is.

Same with volcanism. Iceland blew up* just a few months ago. Although that would have been building for a while the eruption lasted just a few days in the grand scheme of things. Even if you think the world is under 10,000 years old, you cannot deny that the pressure must have built and blew in that time - because you saw it on the news. For people like me who were closer, we had actually physical evidence it happened because the ash was scattered all over the country (including my car!). This dumped a load of material that was previously not part of the landmass, all over the land (and my car!). The second eruption phase blew about 250,000,000 cubic metres of tephra out. That's a lot of stuff.

To put it in perspective, the area of the UK is about 245,000,000 square metres. So that ejection was enough to bury the whole of the UK (including my car!) under a full metre of stuff. That's a LOT faster than the UK is eroding. Of course, as it blew under the jet stream, it was scattered over a huge part of Europe and a big slice of the seas, too so it wasn't quite as locally drastic as that. But it still gives an idea of the amount of stuff a volcano can chuck out in just six days and (depending on your view) with a minimum of 6000 years to brew it up. It's also not the first time it's blown - it was erupting from 1821-1823 and also in 1612 and 920.

So if you take into account mountain ranges growing at 200-2000 times the erosion rate and volcanoes throwing junk all over the landscape every few hundred years, you've got more than enough to provide a large offset to the erosion figures given in the AiG article. The AiG article only stands if there is NO method of increasing the land mass AT ALL. I've just shown two methods of increasing land mass that both increase the mass in a local area far quicker than the figures given in that article.

Science is fun.

---

*Gross exaggeration for comedy value

#111 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 July 2010 - 11:25 PM

The second eruption phase blew about 250,000,000 cubic metres of tephra out. That's a lot of stuff.

To put it in perspective, the area of the UK is about 245,000,000 square metres. So that ejection was enough to bury the whole of the UK (including my car!) under a full metre of stuff.

View Post


Gee thanks Ben. You gave us a beautiful picture of the power of a catastrophe. That's alot of tephra. Just think what happens when all the fountains of the earth go off at the same time. Perhaps with alot of sediments, and/or rearrangement of sediments in massive paleocurrents.

#112 Guest_Ben_*

Guest_Ben_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 July 2010 - 01:46 AM

AFJ,

That would be some sight indeed. I imagine it would cause something really exciting, like a global flood!

Of course, my example was observable, recordable and verifiable, its occurrance noted and and its effects measured. 'All the fountains of the Earth' going off relies on a couple of assumptions.

A ) That a 'fountain of the Earth' exists (I'm not sure what the definition of a 'fountain of the Earth' is - the only thing I can think of is a geyser)

:huh: That they're capable of kicking out sufficient material (I don't think I've ever heard of a water eruption that threw out 250,000,000 cubic metres of stuff, for example).

C) That they could all go off, all at once.

Basically. novel though it might be, it's pure conjecture. The examples I've given are observable NOW, are occurring NOW and account for the increase in landmass faster than it's being eroded NOW. Anybody with some basic equipment can measure the increase in height of the Himalayas. Anyone (with a healthy disregard for their own personal safety) could have stood at that volcano and watched it pump the stuff out and cover (add landmass to) the land surfaces the ejecta is deposited on.

Because of these very simple examples, I think that AiG article (like, unfortunately, many of their articles) is blatantly misleading.

#113 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 11 July 2010 - 12:03 PM

I've seen this claimed a few times before, but there's not really a lot of credible support for this idea. The AiG article, for example, only deals with half of the issue. It focuses solely on erosive forces and neglects entirely that notion that landmasses can increase - and there are many ways that they can. Continental shelf buildup, plate collisions and volcanism, for example - none of these are even touched upon in that article., which is a colossal oversight.


First of all lets keep things in context. The major continents aren't volcanic islands such as Hawaii, Galopagos, etc. There are only two periods of volcanism in the Grand Canyon.

Posted Image

The above pic. will illustrate two points for us. There are no Paleozoic or Mesozoic lava flows, which means geologists assume that the volcanic activity in the Canyon ceased for ~1.1 billion years ago to recently ~5 million years ago. That amount of volcanism is in no way a significant contributor to the building of the land mass. Secondly, if we assume the age purely on the Rb-Sr age, then the lava on top of the Canyon is hundreds of millions of years older than the Cardenas basalt in the precambrian. So here, we must rely on different dating methods and assuming that the ones that don't agree with the date we have already assumed are erroneous - that is circular reasoning.

Posted Image

Next, look at the stata. The entire continents strata has been removed from one side and deposited on the other, but it still retained it's shape for hundreds of millions of years?


No one is saying that deposition doesn't occur after erosion; that sediment has to go somewhere. But what are the chances that the continents have been totally reworked 15 times in the last 550 million years and the sediment almost perfectly replaced the sediment that was removed keeping the same shape for all of that time? Mexico is the only new realestate risen out of the ocean since we were connected to Africa. Besides, the fossils in those sediments would have been reworked as well. So, they are an empirical marker that tells us that no reworking has occured, thus the strata they are in cannot be hundreds of millions of years old. And this isn't creationists picking holes in evolution. If the catastrophic plate tectonic flood model is correct, then the observed erosion matches the model.

Posted Image

Here is the observed coastal erosion rates:

Posted Image

If the US looses .4-.9 m/yr in coastline then the shape matches the creation model.


So if you take into account mountain ranges growing at 200-2000 times the erosion rate and volcanoes throwing junk all over the landscape every few hundred years, you've got more than enough to provide a large offset to the erosion figures given in the AiG article. The AiG article only stands if there is NO method of increasing the land mass AT ALL. I've just shown two methods of increasing land mass that both increase the mass in a local area far quicker than the figures given in that article.

Science is fun.


There are no ash layers in the entire Grand Staircase not just the Canyon. And the uplift in the Grand Canyon didn't happen until ~5 million years ago

Posted Image

I'm sure that active volcanic areas are forming islands, but the continents are 99.5% sedimentary rocks.






Enjoy.

#114 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 February 2011 - 09:34 PM

Many years ago I was the wellsite geologist working on an exploration well offshore, Kenya named Kofia-1. Kofia-2 was never drilled because the Kofia-1 well (costing 27 million dollars) was a dry hole. What was thought to be the top of the Creataceous was mapped using seismic data, and the depth to this horizon estimated. The well was sited over what appeared to be a large structural high, resembling a dome. This was the potential trap for an oil accumulation. It was hypothesized that the start of the prospective section that would possibly contain sandstone reservoirs would start at this boundary where a change in lithology would occur.

After drilling a few hundred feet of limestone that was basically made of coralline debris, we drilled into the lithology predicted for the Tertiary section, green claystone. The Cretaceous section was thought to be made up of hardened shales and inter-bedded sandstones.

When we reached the predicted depth for the top of the Creataceous we still were seeing green claystone in the cuttings, and only green claystone, It was however quite fossiliferous with many forams visible under the microscope. When compared with some charts that a muddloger had brought out, they matched well with some diagnostic Tertiary species. Something appeared to have gone wrong with the seismic map. We were about 500' deeper than our intended horizon yet we were still drilling claystone of the same color that looked very much the same as what we had been drilling for thousands of feet. But suddenly all the fossils had radically changed. The forams were almost the same size as the ones we had seen in the shallower section, but the ornamentation was very different. They matched the species shown in the charts for Cretaceous forams. There were a couple of diminutive ammonites as well.

I contacted London and told the people in the office there that we had penetrated  the top of the Creataceous. They were very skeptical, apparently feeling there was no way we would be able to ascertain this at wellsite. We had not been asked to look at fossils, but just lithologic changes. I was asked to "hot-shot" some sample to Wales for study by Robertsons Research. A couple of days later there results indicated the top of the Cretaceous just 15' shallower than our pick offshore.

The depositional environment had not changed much during the entire section we drilled after the limestones were penetrated.An open-marine environment was indicated with the only dramatic change being in pelagic forams preserved in the rocks. These tow were indicative of deposition in ocean waters. We only encountered
two thin sandstone beds in the entire section, and these were near TD.

That is how geologists can locate and define where the boundaries of the geologic time scale appear in outcrops or in the subsurface. This allows us to correlate time equivalent rocks worldwide. The forams in locations thousands of miles away would show the same or very similar changes to what I saw in Kofia-1, even if they were not found in green claystones.

View Post


I am raising this thread back from the dead, so that we may discuss the geological time column. I will reply to your posts as soon as I can.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users