Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

VfD May 2004

From VfD:

Page describing a theory about petroleum being "byproducts of the earth's core" rather than fossil biomatter. There seems to be a small amount of literature extant on similar thoeries, but not enough for an encyclopedic article and not using this particular moniker. The language and tone of the article suggest that it may be original research.

• Delete - TB 12:37, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, the cleaned article looks better. Abstain - TB 09:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the article shoud be kept there since he is the only kid wiht that name on Google, and he is becoming more and more famous, as you can see, so why ot leave him there for a while?

• Keep, certainly. I've read about this theory before. Cleanup. Everyking 16:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a fringe theory but one with some history. Frankly I think it's wishful thinking (if it were true we might never run out of oil). The article could use some work, I guess. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We should also link this sometime to Fred Hoyle's similar theories, which may be what this is by another name. I suspect Hoyle has priority in fact. I still have a copy of his book The Unity of the Universe somewhere in storage, I'll dig it out sometime in the next year. Andrewa 17:41, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, even if it might well be crackpot-y. Wikipedia seems to be a bit of a store for rather...non-mainstream ideas lately, and this one seems enyclopaedic enough to hold onto. That said, the text could probably use a reasonable reworking by somebody who knows the subject. Lord Bob 18:12, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but make it clear that this is a fringe "theory". -- Cyrius|&#9998 18:30, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Have edited a bit (know something of the subject but not a lot...) The Land 20:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs some cleanup, but it's certainly wiki worthy. --Starx 03:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Percent Vandium

I deleted "Some heavy crude oils have up to % in vanadium." from the trace metals section. If anyone know the %, please replace the sentence

• regardless of whether oils have have vanadium, it is irrelevant to any argument here on the genesis of oils. Hell, most oils carry a whole swag of heavy metals, especially cadmium, bismuth, lead, zinc, etc. In some areas, namely lead-zinc deposits hosted in carbonate shelf platforms, oil was the critical ingredient for actually moving and concentrating lead and zinc. Its the reverse process of solvent extraction, for fuchs' sakes. So why should we be surprised vanadium gets leached from...hmm...oxidised ilmenite, magnetite, leucoxene in the sediments? Its a highly active valent metal which likes adsorbing to lipids. When its host mineral is oxidised and you have a vanadium hydroxide kicking around and no silicate melt partition coefficient telling it to get into magnetite, of course it will attach itself to some clingy sticky site on a hydroxy-hydrocarbon. Dare i even suggest an aromatic hydrocarbon? Thats why heavy metals are such a problem in the human body too. This whole abiogenic oil thing stinks like ass. Rolinator 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Change title to "Abiogenic petroleum origin"?

There is a conference of the American Organization of Petroleum Geologists meeting this July in Vienna titled "Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production". Two things follow from this:

• The decision not to delete this article was a good one.
• The name that experts in the field use to refer to this theory is "abiogenic", not "abiotic".

The conference is described here. Hyperion 01:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This presents an interesting dilemma. Google has 227 matches for "abiotic petroleum" and 144 for "abiogenic petroleum". With such a small sample size, how to determine which is more mainstream? I think the answer is that neither are. And it's obvious that Wikipedia and its mirrors have already significantly contributed to the count of "abiotic" matches. Looking over the first few non-wikipedia links, it seems we have "Russian theorys of abiotic petroleum origin" vs. "Thomas Gold's theory of abiogenic petroleum". So it's hard to guess which should be used. Given that we have journalists, who report on what Russian scientists are doing, saying "abiotic" (and journalists are notoriously inaccurate about such things) and Thomas Gold and AAPG saying "abiogenic", I tend to agree that it should be abiogenic. --Yath 01:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. The program for the conference that I mentioned above is available in some sort of Russian bulletin board here. The Russian papers to be presented at this conference also use "abiogenic" and not "abiotic" (although there is one instance of "abiogenous"). So it looks like the Russians are willing to go along with the native English speakers about what the theory should be called in English. (If you look at the actual meaning of the words, "biogenic" makes more sense. My dictionary defines "biotic" as "relating to life or to living things". Nobody thinks of oil as a living thing. The origin of oil is what's in question. And that is reflected in the "genic" suffix.)

In the entry, I deleted the downside that was given for the theory:

Evidence against this hypothesis comes from the observable fact that known oil deposits are found within geological strata, suggesting they were deposited by sedimentation.

"Observable fact" sounds partisan, and furthermore, oil deposits are sometimes found way below the geological strata where they belong according to the biogenic theory, so this isn't really a fact at all. I substituted for this a finding published in Nature which seems to be the main point now raised against the abiogenic theory, based on posts by people who called themselves petroleum geologists, who were defending the orthodox theory, on two different Web sites. I also added a link to the Nature paper. Hyperion 03:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Russian acceptance

An anonymous contributor changed my additions, changing my point that the abiogenic theory "is widely accepted in Russia" to the observation that it "has support by a large minority of geologists in Russia". Does this contributor know something I don't know? If so, I'd like to hear about it. Does he know Russian oil engineers, or read Russian, so that he gets his inside information by such means? (Although I haven't run into any Russian oil engineers lately, I am fluent in Russian.) The Web site advocating what it calls "the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins" is rather adamant that the abiogenic theory has gone through extensive examination in Russia, and is now accepted by Russian scientists as correct. Does the anonymous contributor have any information which indicates that this is not the case? If not, I will change the relevant passage back to what it was before, and expect that the anonymous contributor will not modify it again. -- Hyperion 05:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You have the point : abiotic oil proponents always say this theory in "popular among russian scientists". But they never give names of russian scientists defending this theory, or references to books or publications. Overall the article defend an extremely controversial theory and, IMO, should receive the "biaised" categorization. For a geologist analysis on this theory, see [1] Raminagrobis

If this is true, who cares? The russians are the ones with tephrotectonics and other wacky theories about the origin of the continents and the earth. When you drink gallons of vodka and don't see the sun for 4 months you'll come up with a bunch of weird hokey speculations in your methanol-induced stupor. Should we be worried if the Russians all believe in this theory, or should we be more concerned with making sure that words such as 'inconclusive proof' are removed from the text? I'm voting the latter.Rolinator 04:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

If I ever had any doubt about the abiogenic theory, it is now gone. The IP address of the anonymous contributor was 134.132.117.252. By doing a reverse DNS lookup on that address, I got the host name tuxedo.zycor.lgc.com. If you go to www.lgc.com, the site identifies itself as belonging to "Landmark, A Halliburton Company".

Now, if Halliburton needs to tamper with wikipedia articles discussing the abiogenic theory of petroleum, who can doubt that the theory is correct?

Hyperion 05:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the gravity of the potential conflict of interest that such edits by a Haliburton employee would imply. But, it would be better to restrict ad hominem arguments as much as humanly possible, especially when the evidence is so thin. --Yath 05:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm against ad hominem arguments as much as the next person, but I don't think I made an ad hominem argument. The problem wasn't that it was a Halliburton employee that made this edit, but that he concealed his identity. I do not see why this kind of behavior should be tolerated. There is a ban at wikipedia against posting "original research". But what this person with access to a Halliburton computer did was at least as bad, as far as I can tell.

If wikipedia bans original research, should it not also ban postings by employees that serve to maintain those employees' company's share price?

Hyperion 06:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, the evidence is very nicely circumstantial, but it is just that, circumstantial. Another thing to note is that this person may actually be an expert on the matter, and stopped experts from editing is a bad thing, a very bad thing, IMHO. More info would be interesting. Burgundavia 07:52, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

With regard to a ban-- that sort of activity would fall under existing NPOV rules. So it's up to individuals to enforce it. And I agree with Burgundavia that we shouldn't assume the edit is incorrect. --Yath 08:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

I agree with the responses above and withdraw my objection. It was poor judgement on my part to suppose in effect that every employee of Halliburton has the credibility of Dick Cheney. ;-) I offer my apologies for my outburst to everyone, and especially the person who made the edit, if he or she reads this.

I looked at a long thread on the source of petroleum on a Russian bulletin board on which experts post. Judging from that discussion, it's very possible that supporters of the abiogenic theory are in a minority even in Russia. (One thing that you learn from that thread is that petroleum geology is definitely not a mature science, a point that should perhaps be made explicitly in the article -- if that is not clear already from the very fact that two such different theories have existed side-by-side from over a century.) So we should by all means assume that the edit is correct.

By the way, I see that someone has added a link to the Gas Resources Corp. site. That's fine, but the literature at the site is what gave me the strong impression that the abiogenic theory is virtually universally accepted in Russia. (They even had a paper accusing the orthodox, biogenic view of being "junk science", but they've taken that off now, possibly because of the upcoming conference...)

Hyperion 19:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Integration

As you've noticed, I moved stuff from fossil fuel over here. So that more general article can have a summary and details can be expounded upon here. This also includes stuff that was in petroleum so there is less duplication. References in those articles lead here, so we should collect here info on the topic. I haven't looked at biogenic petroleum origin. You also can see I included the "Deep Hot Biosphere" concept as a modification to the pure abiogenic theory, although evidence supporting pure abiogenic alternatives should be pointed out. (SEWilco 08:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC))

Yes, I think the rearrangement works very well. It's good that you've added information about the "deep hot biosphere concept". My impression is that the Russian scientists in the field don't take this addition of Gold's to the abiogenic theory seriously. Their view seems to be that what's keeping petroleum geology from becoming a mature science is that thermodynamic considerations are ignored by geologists, because of their training. Meanwhile -- from reading a Russian article in the popular press about the debate, which said both the abiogenic and the biogenic explanations might be required to account for all the empirical evidence, and seemed to be based not just on the popular writer's conjectures, but on the views of many Russian scientists working in the field -- I got the impression that the abiogenic theory can't really emerge as the decisive victor without Gold's additions.

So it might be helpful to say that there are two fronts in the debate aside from geology -- thermodynamics and the issue of whether one needs to admit the role of extremophile microbes in order to account for the traces of biological matter found in petroleum -- but geologists are slow to look at these issues from outside geology, and fewer still seem willing to consider both, and this seems to be the reason why the two theories go on existing side by side for so long without one emerging as the decisive victor. (By the way, the "first Russian scientist" Lomonosov seems to be the one who introduced the "fossil" theory, so that would place its origins in the 18th, not the 19th century. Someone mentioned in the Russian bulletin board I mentioned above that Lomonosov also considered the abiogenic hypothesis before rejecting it. If that is true, it would mean that both theories have existed side by side since the 18th century.) -- Hyperion 10:23, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Recent experiments supporting abiogenic theory

I'm bringing [2] to your notice. I don't have time to incorporate this into the article, but maybe others can. It mentions new experiments that support the theory, and the results of which are being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. --C S 11:56, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Cold Planet Formation

I am a bit surprosed to read about "Cold planetary formation" of planet earth as supporting the abiotic origin of petroleum. To the best of my knowledge, current thought assumes a genesis of earth via collision of planetisemals, leading to a molten state. Also, the origin of the moon, as currently accepted (see Giant impact theory) has a hot early earth. -- Schewek 19:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• How hot everything got during accretion depends upon how hot the planetesimals were, how much of them got hot, and how much time they had to cool off before the next impact. The Moon's origin would have heated up the part of the Earth and Theia which splashed...although the Moon is still leaking methane so somehow carbon deposits ended up in there too. However, there also is carbon in magma, so heat doesn't rule out the presence of carbon. -- SEWilco 08:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I think there is a refuse about the temperature of the Earth during Adean eon: the zircon(s) crystallize (and start to preserve uranium isotopes) at the temperature of 1100°C, not 100°C. As I know the ipotesis of a cold earth is based on the assumption that the zircons are extraterrestrial (from a meteorite impact) and the low temperature is estimated using Carbon stable isotopes. The rock hosting the zircons is metamorphic and so is very hard to accept that carbon isotopes should be able to preserve the same ratio at high pressures and temperature. But if you want, this is the article: John W. Valley, William H. Peck, Elizabeth M. King and Simon A. Wilde: A cool early Earth; Geology; April 2002; v. 30; no. 4; p. 351-354; cheers, Furins(it.wiki)

• • Try A Cool Early Earth also. I rephrased to refer to liquid water rather than 100°C, as liquid water depends upon much more than temperature. (SEWilco 19:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC))

• We know that the Earth must have been hot when it formed: it was molten enough to differentiate. In fact, the Earth can only have cooled off since its formation since it has lost its source heat of differentiation and accretion and the rate of radioactive of heat production decreases with time. Besides this, it's almost impossible to imagine that the Earth would not have been hot: the heat comes from the kinetic energy of impacting bodies. Their thermal energy is not significant. I personally know of no planetary scientists who don't think that the early Earth was hot, so I really question that statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.123.42 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Then apparently you have some research to do. Just because impacting bodies get hot where they touch does not mean that two asteroid-sized bodies completely melt, nor that a planet-sized body completely melts when one more rock touches it. Impressive things must have happened when the Moon was formed, although there is the question of how much remained unmolten (and whether there was enough gravity to retain volatiles in the atmosphere). (SEWilco 18:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC))

Extra-terrestrial methane gives suppot to abiogenic petroleum theory?

I fail to see how extra-terrestial mathane supports the abiogenic petroleum theory. Alan Liefting 08:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Methane in places where it probably was not generated by life supports its origin from other than biogenic sources. Panspermia is a possibility, although less likely than spacegoing dinosaurs who liked carrying swamps with them...
2. Primordial methane, or any carbon material, in the Earth would have come from extraterrestrial material.
3. Other objects in our solar system formed from similar material, so their composition is of interest. (SEWilco 08:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC))
4. Carbon dioxide + reducing conditions = methane. It happens in the earth around reduced rocks, it can happen on the moon but its no reason to support panspermia or abiogenic oil. One thing I dislike about this whole article is it is NOT impartial cf; "russians carrying the torch" and innumerable episodes of support for abiogenic oil but no real science mentioned. The artlice was obviously written by a proponent, and it still carries a hefty bias. Which is being heartily supported by the tinfoil hat bridage, eg; SEWilco.Rolinator 02:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Some changes

I have tried to clean up this article a bit. I have also tried to improve the "evidence for biogenic" section and in general balance the tone of the article. Gwimpey 22:16, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

microbes

mention endoliths? - Omegatron 13:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Is the ===Deep structures and petroleum association=== section correct?

I'm not a geologist (INAG) but this section seems bogus:

US continuous hydrocarbon reservoirs.

2.14 Deep structures and petroleum association

Petroleum is found in close correlation to deep structures in the earth, mainly over crustal plate limits (convergent as subduction or continental collision and divergent boundaries). This correlation is confirmed by the distribuition of oil fields along the arcs, for instance, of Indonesia, the Persian Gulf, the Apennines in Italy (gas and oil fields), Alaska, the Barbados Arc continuing towards Trinidad & Tobago and Venezuela, the Atlantic rift and riftogenic basins. Oil and gas fields always show a connection with large-scale basement structures below. Further, petroleum is found at meteorite impact structures because faults can reach the earth's mantle.

Is this claim actually true? Is there really oil in the Atlantic rift? And what about this diagram "reservoir" map? Are there geological faults in these areas? INAG but I didn't think so. Geologists, please confirm/refute my understanding.

WpZurp 21:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

North America basement rocks.

Perhaps you are not aware that North America is not a monolithic platform and was built from many pieces, thus has deep structures between many geologic provinces. Have world fossil fuel maps been uploaded? (SEWilco 06:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC))

World petroleum systems (USA omitted).

World geologic provinces.

There's a world map showing known or probable petroleum areas, and the world geologic provinces. (SEWilco 07:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC))

These maps look kind of funny. I am looking at North America in "World geologic provinces" and comparing to "North America basement rocks" (and it helps to right-click on the maps to bring up the expanded views). How come the areas are so different? Also, what is the point of showing both of these maps? If I understand the abiogenic theory correctly, we get to look at oil at the boundaries between "geologic provinces". So which map are we supposed to look at? And what's the point of the other map?

Also, now that I look at this map for geologic provinces, there sure are lots of these provinces. Just eyeballing these maps, I see that there is oil hundreds of miles from the borders. Further, there isn't oil at every (or even most) boundaries of the geologic provinces.

So this theory doesn't seem falsifiable because the predictions are so wishy-washy. First, there doesn't have to be oil at the boundary of every geologic province. (So the "deep structure" correlation is violated.) Second, there are so many boundaries that most of the earth's surface is close to a boundary. (So getting matches with "deep structures" is pretty easy; theory seems to be pretty weak on prediction/explanation.) Third, there is oil far away from the boundaries. (So the "deep structure" correlation is violated again.)

I didn't realize the claim was so weak and pointless. Or am I missing something here? (Again, INAG.)

Finally, is there really oil all along the Atlantic rift? Any evidence please? The rest of the article doesn't even mention the Atlantic rift.

WpZurp 12:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think Image:World geologic provinces.jpg and Image:North america basement rocks.png portray different classifications. The basement rocks map seems focused on age, and labels may indicate slight differences or the names assigned to areas which were discovered separately. The world provinces is focused on province types, and for example shows two "Large Igneous Province" within the other map's "Cordillera". There are also many similarities between them.
• The theory suggests a connection with deep structures which provide pathways for deep carbon. Not all structures may produce carbon, and carbon (particularly if methane) may have escaped. There are many deep structures, which complicates the issues as I don't think there is identification of which structures are associated with carbon.
• The distance from possible origins is complicated by migration. Biogenic theory claims large horizontal deposits as well as migration. Abiogenic origin claims a deep enough origin that there are many possible routes upward, thus rising material can spread out a lot before encountering a capped layer which then causes horizontal migration.
• I showed both maps because I first showed the North American map for comparison with your USA oil map. When I found the non-USA petroleum map I added the world geologic province map.
• There are indeed more structures than only the province borders. Image:Plate tectonics map.gif shows some major faults and volcanic activity within tectonic plates, which hints at more structures. If you look in greater detail there are many more hints, but we still don't know much of the deep rocks.
• I haven't looked at the Atlantic rift claim. Maybe the editor will provide references. I am aware of some related carbon chemical studies, and deposits along the Atlantic continental fringes. (SEWilco 21:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC))
• Atlantic rift signify initial stage of opening ocean when breaup south Gondwana. Deep faults reached earth's mantle and crust-mantle boundary (Moho descontinuity) uplift yelding basaltic magmas and formed rift basins during thermal subsidence. Reactivation of deep structures in the basin evolution of divergent (passive margins) of South America and Africa made important petroleum provinces as in sotheast Brazil and Africa. (geologist)
• Continents have all been assembled by the violent geologic processes of accretion and collision. By this logic (ancient tectonic movements going back to earth's early history), all continental crust should have "deep faults" and the claim of petroleum association loses meaning. Singling out part of the breakup of Gondwana doesn't help; what about every other breakup of ancient plates? This is currently presented in a form too esoteric for anyone to understand (see: riftogenic). Make the point clearer, if it is to be made. Let's stick with regions of modern tectonic activity where our case is strong and accessible. Fluent aphasia 15:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Riftogenic

Followup: what the heck is "riftogenic"? Wikipedia has precisely once match (right here). Google has 182 matches but they aren't too busy defining the term. Does "-genic" mean genesis, the "beginning". So is riftogenic where the rift begins?

WpZurp 03:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Basically it means "made from a rift". Which is an argument centred around a created word, where if you say something is riftogenic, it is Q.E.D. made froma rift. No arguments! For instance, here it is being used to argue that oil is created by mid ocean ridge spreading centres. Is it? Well...thats up for discussion.

Rolinator 11:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mendeleev quote

The lead quote from Mendeleev should at least be referenced, what 1877 publication? Verifiable source needed. Vsmith 02:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC) For your satisfaction: Mendeleev, D., 1877. L'origine du petrole. Revue Scientifique, 2e Ser., VIII, p. 409-416.

Petroleum origin, peak oil, and politics

Regarding the removal of my statement: "Abiogenic petroleum cannot significantly delay peak global oil production" by SEWilco.

I think the statement is a key point, relevant to all three subjects in the section (origin, peak oil production, and politics).

The following statement was an attempt at neutrality and objectivity: "One way or another, global energy production will shift to renewable energy sources, probably before the debate on petroleum sources is even settled." I did not get into specific predictions of how the shift will occur--no doom and gloom warnings of total economic collapse. However if you read the wiki section on peak oil, it becomes clear that economic forces will inevitably push energy production toward alternate sources. Indeed, this trend is a simple fact, as the expanding wind and solar power industries can attest. I also avoided timely references to the currently soaring price of oil; such a statement, while persuasive in the short term, could date quickly in the event that oil prices come down. Again, considering skyrocketing demand even as supply (short-term) gets tapped to the limit, it is not at all evident that oil prices will ever come down (see Matthew R. Simmons, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, Wiley, 2005, ISBN 047173876X).

I appreciate a nod toward preserving a tiny kernel of what I added. However, removal of all that in favor of a simplistic statement about planning renewable energy guts the point and and removes the relevance, paving the way for complete removal in the future. I think this would be a disservice to the section.

OK. Several points;

PARA 1: Many aspects of the abiogenic theory were developed in the former Soviet Union by Russian and Ukrainian scientists during the Cold War. Some proponents see a pro-Western bias in the promotion of the biogenic theory. Thus, in addition to the scientific merits of competing hypothoses, political and economic considerations often influence discussions of petroleum origins.

• Most of the non-geological and non-scentific "discussions" of abiogenic oil and peak oil I can find on google (even by going past the first 4 pages of links) relate to LaRouche and his network of websites, which all reference each other; and the authors of "Black Gold Stranglehold", who have taken aboard the Vietnamese "granite oil" example without being geologists and without actually looking at the evidence. Arguments inevitable seem to link to these two main sources, or Viallis' work of utter unscientific conspiracy theorems about price manipulation.
• Scientific discussion continues on various other aspects of, particularly, ancient life; Phanerozoic and Mesozoic oil and source rocks aren't as heavily studied, because aside from Vietnam and the one Russian example of oil in graite (which can certainly be explained by a brittle-fracture-hosted biogenic oil seeping into a horst block) all others are found in Proterozoic rocks, usually sediments. This, in turn, is plausible because stromatolites, which are clearly fossils, provide some (poor) source rocks. time, also, provides plenty of opportunity for breaching reservoirs and removing most Proterozoic oils. So, geolgical arguments are required, not MORE links to the same cavalcade of counter-culture counter-capitalist sites.
• If deep oil is in the crust (and how deep is deep? 10km?) it 'is availaable now. Modern technology allows drilling to 12km for oil. BHP has already drilled through seven kilometres of rock to get to oil; depths of >10km are not unknown. So, I ask; why aren't we tapping this inexhaustible supply of deep oil? Or is deep oil only found at 12km...13km...15km or is it at 40km? And if its coming up virtually everywhere, why not at higher levels? (you KNOW i believe its B.S., but bear with).

Rolinator 12:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the abiogenic petroleum origin section needs a lot of help in general. I am attempting to add published, scientific references to support important claims (a lack thereof being the greatest weakness of wikipedia), as well as clean up and clarify the section in general. Any discussion about my future changes is welcomed. Unless the discussion progresses on this talk page, I will re-add the above claims on the main page, attempting to even further tone-down their 'crystal-ball-iness'. Fluent aphasia 13:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The original phrasing seemed to assume that use of this theory required drilling an impossible number of wells down to huge new reserves, assumed how long debate would last, and forecast production of whatever "renewable energy sources" are. We don't know what uses/benefits there may be from this theory (there may already be two oil fields from it, but observe dispute over Russian bedrock origins) and the definitions and behavior are yet to be seen. Petroleum is an alternative energy source to whale oil, and there are several ways (some renewable) to make oil products which can be injected in current infrastructure. Much of this does not belong here. (SEWilco 17:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

I removed all the assumptions you highlighted so as to avoid unwarranted predictions. And I rephrased the new points so as to more clearly tie them in with the section. I did not remove anything as it was an excellent and important discussion for the article. I tried to limit assertions to those both "Malthusians" and "cornucopians" would concede. Fluent aphasia 02:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparison of theories

I commend this section and it's clear, effective organisation. However, I believe the sub-section "Conversion to petroleum and methane" is misguided. I added an alternative formulation (2) of the abiogenic theory of origin, and wish to suggest that the original (1) formulation is flawed and might be better removed unless someone cares to defend it.

Organisms in general take in raw material (food) with some Gibbs free energy, chemically extract the energy to live, and excrete the chemically altered material of a lower Gibbs free energy. That microbial life could take simple hydrocarbons and add the energy necessary to convert them en masse to more complex hydrocarbons (of a higher Gibbs free energy), is as thermodynamically untenable as the biogenic origin theory. This is one of the central points of Kenney's PNAS paper, cited in the article. I plan to expound more on the biomarker section, as it is central to the biogenic/abiogenic origin debate. Fluent aphasia 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

There are reported chemical processes which convert carbon fluids in various ways. It seems unclear how complex the molecules may be before entering the biosphere, and the ratio between chemical and biological material found in deposits. (SEWilco 17:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

It is certainly true that these are unknowns, so despite Dr. Kenney's objections, it makes sense to leave both formulations of the theory in the article.

An important point to note about biomarkers is that each chemical and characteristic cited as proof of biogenic oil origin has subsequently been found in both extraterrestrial hydrocarbons (meteorite inclusions) and laboratory-produced hydrocarbons from high-pressure, earth-like environments. This, in conjunction with the thermodynamic arguments prohibiting production of more complex hydrocarbons at low pressure, is why Dr. Kenney dismisses all biological involvement in oil generation. The argument works against both the traditional biogenic theory and the microbe-enhanced abiogenic theory.

With respect to chemical processes that increase chemical potential such as the artificial Fischer-Tropsch technique, Dr. Kenney claims (in published articles) that nature cannot mimic the process, as the products are "quenched" to freeze them in their high-energy state. I lack the expertise to comment on this in the main article. Fluent aphasia 03:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK. While thermodynamically correct, you are missing the whole point. All organisms "excrete" carbon dioxide as part of respiration. This is a low-energy state compound. Energy is exchanged from sugars. Photosynthesis converts CO2 to sugar; hence biological life requires energy input. So arguments that oils can't be made by organisms are, frankly, crap. How come we get told that cholesterol in McDonalds is bad for us, unless you're saying McDonald's uses abiogenic crude oil to make long-chain hydrocardon lipids like cholesterol? Really. If you buried enough burgers you'd get oil. Simple as that. It would be biogenic. It would not violate any simplistic thermodynamic models.Rolinator 02:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, where might that cholesterol have come from? Did the cow eat the dog, which ate the cat, which ate the mouse, which ate from the cholesterol mine? Or was the cow fed grain and it created fat? (SEWilco 04:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

• • • That isn' an argument. It certainly hasn't rebuffed my point which, more simply put, for people like you, is that LIFE can create OIL. The whole abiogenic argument is, therefore, bunkum. QED. Now, I await your return argument that, indeed, life can create oil, and all oil created from biogenic oil is biogenic, created by living organisms.

OH! Or are you saying that dog ate cat, etc, etc, ate inorganic cholesterol, and therefore lining organisms which contain oil are eating inorganic oil?!?! OMGZORZ! I wondered why I chewed on coal.

Dipshit.Rolinator 12:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

removed from article for discussion

I removed the following:

[The Goldman Sachs "new prediction" is unattributed and probably incorrect. A quick Google search suggests that Goldman Sachs predicted a price spike, and not a production peak.]

It doesn't belong in the article as is, but does deserve consideration and modification of the article based on it. Vsmith 02:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

File:ASPO 2004.png

ASPO predicts that oil production will peak around 2007.

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, or ASPO, is a network of scientists, affiliated with European institutions and universities, having an interest in determining the date and impact of the peak and decline of the world's production of oil and gas, due to resource constraints. (Taken from Hubbert peak theory) Fluent aphasia 23:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The future of the abiogenic theory

Removed the following from Future section:

Explains the true origin of natural hydrocarbon scientifically, i.e., deep origin within the earth's mantle and its contamination at shallow levels in crust, based on physics (mainly thermodynamics), chemistry, geology, biology, astrophysics. Abiogenic Theory postulations also enclose some evidences of biogenic theory. Deep Earth Gas Theory and Deep Hot Biosphere will become a unified theory of the earth as Plate Tectonics with implications about origin of life in earth and other planets.

An anon. using a variety of IPs starting with 200.... has repeatedly replaced the section and other POV edits. Comments? Vsmith 02:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The passage, as written, expresses the expectation that abiogenic theory will supplant the orthodox view, in very biased terms. If all the POV were removed, nothing would remain that hasn't already been covered in more detail elsewhere in the article.

Incidentally, I don't think the alternative text is entirely without POV (note increasing media and scientific attention received by abiogenic theory), but I'll endeavor to fix that and state the most accurate balance. Maybe when that happens, the anonymous editor will stop putting the referrent passage back in. Fluent aphasia 23:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: The anon editor continues daily to put in various claims advocating a deeply biased POV, subverting the purpose of the wikipedia. He or she appears to have no intention of using this talk page to discuss the perspective. Presumably they know they are engaging in simple vandalism or they would at least create a user identity. Fluent aphasia 13:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Isotopic analysis?

Carbon originating from photosynthetic processes (plant biomass, and conversely animal biomass) has an isotopic signature of strongly depleted content of ¹³C. Other isotopes (oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, hydrogen...) are subject to biological fractionation as well. I suppose this should be mentioned in the article. Some mentions eg. here:

• http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
• http://www.geo.brown.edu/geopeople/faculty/Huang/update.html

Anybody knowledgeable care to elaborate?--Shaddack 06:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

So, who thinks this theory has got it right?

I do. The idea of huge, huge piles of organic matter just somehow ending up 100's of km below surface to petrofy and then reappear just below the surface has always felt a bit weird to me. Why shouldn't hydrocarbons be part of the earths crust like so many other materials? They're liquid, but so is most of earth's mantle. I don't think the theory has to do with wishful thinking of oil magnates - I do think the peak oil theory is right too. Even if the earth's crust has a huge oil supply hidden in it, we cannot as easily gain access to it as to the reservoirs that happen to be just under the surface now. Dabljuh 09:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)