by Plantagenet » Wed 13 Aug 2008, 21:29:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('basil_hayden', 'P')lant -
As obixman stated and I'll paraphrase, the most likely targets - something like the Connecticut River Valley - have been explored, I believe the latest round was in the late 1980s.
The structure southeast of Hartford, and most of Rhode Island, consist of suspect terranes similar to the Wrangell (sp?) Mountains in Alaska only the Wrangells are younger. With all of the faulting and upturned fold structures - mashed potatoes - there are no traps, and there's no source below. I don't think there's any oil in the Wrangells either for the same reasons, correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks....no offense, but there isn't much similarity at all between the geology of New England and the geology of Alaska.
The Wrangell Mountains aren't a suspect terrane at all. They are Miocene to Pleistocene volcanoes....and there aren't any of those in New England.
Maybe you are thinking of "Wrangellia".....a suspect terrane whose geochemical characteristics indicate it is a bit of sea floor basalt now found in various places from Vancouver to Alaska? As chance would have it, I've worked with colleagues on "Wrangellia" rocks...both on Vancouver Island and here in Alaska.
You don't find oil in volcanoes or in sea floor basalts. You find oil in sediments, and there are sections of marine sediments as much as 15 km thick (about 9 miles thick) offshore from New England. That means the best place to look for oil in New England isn't in the schists of Rhode Island or the granites of Maine....its in the sediments OFFSHORE. The geology OFFSHORE is completely different then the onshore geology, as I've explained in a couple of posts above. The vast majority of the OFFSHORE, and in particular all of the deep water part of the OFFSHORE found 50-200 miles from the modern coastlines of New England, has never been explored for oil......no modern seismic has been done, and no drilling has been done in this area at all.
Deep-water exploration is very difficult and very expensive, but it can find some interesting targets that no one would've suspected were there only a few years ago. For instance, the new finds off Brazil are all in very deep water. Like Mathew Simmons, I think the US should at least take a look at its own deep-water areas, and the sooner the better.
Cheers!
