Why flood geology doesn't work, oil exploration as the example

UPDATE: I've changed the title of the thread from my original "Request for Thread on Geology of Oil" to the title Petrophysics put on his post #3 since it looks like this may remain the thread where the topic gets discussed. I don't think it should, I only meant to be requesting that others start a thread on the subject, but it's retitled for now anyway.=============================
Some geologists here complain that creationist views of historical interpretive geology don't appreciate how its methods are necessary for finding oil among other things. Usually that's merely said and any explanation of how it works for finding oil is not given.Some time back I noticed that salt beds seem to be frequently associated with oil deposits and if nothing else I'd like to know if there's a reason for that association if anyone knows and can explain it.Otherwise I'd like to see someone start a thread on the general subject of how principles of Geology are useful for finding oil.Thanks.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps the mods should turn this into a science thread.

Bump.Just wondering.

I just saw these posts on this thread, thanks very much for reporting on your situation and I look forward to your presentation here when you are finally able to get to it. Of course not, they had to have formed afterward. But that's one of the phenomena I hope you will explain, why salt is so frequently found in the vicinity of oil deposits. But of course it's nice to be thought of. I guess. (But I don't want to make this into a debate thread, I really do just want to hear about how oil deposits are discovered.)Thanks again.By the way I don't suppose you operate in Canada do you? I have a part interest through my family in the mineral rights to a piece of land in an oil-producing area. Probably nothing there or they'd have drilled already but oh well. (yes, of course I expect you to know how to find oil deposits.) Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know about Morton, and have seen through some of his stuff, thanks anyway.ABE: But I don't want this to become a debate thread so that's the last I'll say on this subject and hope you will drop it too. /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ah well, so we won't find out about the geology of oil for a while yet. Should make it all the more interesting when we do get it.All this activity suggests maybe oil exploration isn't as politically dead as some have told us it is.

That's mostly about how they behave together, but doesn't explain why they so frequently occur together in the first place.

I got it off the internet when researching the subject a while back, Wikipedia I would have thought but I don't remember what the search term was now.ABE: I got the information about how the salt traps the oil too, but that part is clear enough. There was a quote from somebody from before the oil industry got going about how frustrating it was to be looking for salt and coming up with all this sludgy oil. But if the association isn't all that predictable, fine, no need to call me names. I didn't make it up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If there was a worldwide Flood 4300 years ago, then the evaporites would have had to have formed afterward. It's perfectly logical.
\
Look I just want to hear how you find oil, I didn't want to get into a debate with you.ABE: If your scenario suggests a Flood Geology as it proceeds, I'll certainly let you know.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not if there is some explanation for the evaporation of the salts after the column was laid down. But the logical point remains straightforward. It has to have occurred after the Flood simply because it couldn't have occurred before or during and that remains true. HOW is another question. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've been trying to keep away from debate on this thread, and I figured I'd eventually do some thinking about the evaporites question from a Flood perspective though I haven't done so yet. But your saying that of course evaporites must have been exposed to air because they did evaporate does make one wonder if that's necessarily how it always happens. Even exposed salt lakes aren't produced only by evaporation but partly by seepage into the ground. And water would be expected to seep down through the strata too. That's what leads to cementation of the rock as it carries the chemicals that bring that about. So for starters I'd question the need for exposure to air.

There is no other explanation that YOU can think of, RAZD, but never underestimate the creativity and critical thinking of a creationist.

I've never ever ever invoked magic, ever.I thought science was the process of rethinking things. So I'm setting myself the task of rethinking the salt deposits. It may take a while.Meanwhile there is good evidence that the earth is not billions of years old.

Well, I got the seepage idea from Wikipedia. Guess I'll have to stop relying on noncreationist sites.

Well I believe I proved it for the Grand Canyon-Grand Staircase area if nothing else. If it's okay with you to think there were something like 700 million years with no tectonic activity in that region then I guess my argument doesn't mean anything to you. Anyway I restated that argument at my blog. No interest in discussing it further here.