Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Possible reason why this is still being argued

I've read over the majority of the information here (not an easy task for a lay person) because of a very strongly worded hypothesis I came across that states "Peak Oil" is a myth. The idea is that oil is being created all the time, so we'll never run out. The abiogenic origin of petroleum was the whole basis of the argument, so I can see how people that want to believe that hypothesis would defend this here hypothesis by any means necessary.

Also, are any of the abiogenic proponents in this discussion geoscientists or in the oil business? Of course the "Peak Oil is a Myth" crowd seems to think all those I might consider "reputable" scientists and the business people are firmly in the pocket of the NWO socialist banking cabal... Comments? [GW] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.185.179 (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the myth proponents saying that all modern Russian oil exploration theory is based on the abiogenic origin of petroleum, hence the surge in Russian oil production in the last 20 years? The Russians, meanwhile, have clammed up. Hoserjoe 07:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Russian oil production, but anyone that claims Peak Oil is a myth is suggesting there's a never ending supply. Whether we find a new batch in Russia, or the Gulf of Mexico, or figure out how to use the sandy oil in Canada... if there's ultimately a finite (or very slow-to-replenish) supply, then Peak Oil by definition is not a Myth. New oil won't matter much when we keep driving SUVs we don't need, making throw-away plastic everythings, and refusing cost effective efficiency upgrades to our homes. And don't forget to factor in the scary future growth of emerging demands from China and India (imagine if even half of them decide to use energy like we do!)...

The bottom line is if some one wants to suggest we don't need to worry about running out of oil, they had better have a hypothesis up their sleeve that says there's a never ending supply (and some kooky pseudo-scientists to conveniently back it up). Only then can someone suggest it's OK to allow consumerism to continue blissfully unchecked. Seems there's a good argument that very rich and powerful people have a vested interest in keeping this type of debate open. [GW]

Right. Even the serious abiogenic folk think that it takes are reeeallly looong time to make significant quantities of oil. From my not-so-casual contacts with the oil industry (family, friends, jobs), my impression is that the oil companies don't really care what the actual genesis of oil is; it's not an answer that (historically) would help their bottom line. No matter how oil is produced, everyone in the industry knows very well that it doesn't stay where it's produced; the industry revolves around finding where it's trapped. Things have evolved a lot from the antique days of "drill on the hill", but unless the theory of petroleum formation ends up becoming relevant to actually finding oil, it's one of those interesting academic questions for the universities and eggheads to play with... There are a few non-Russians that take the theory seriously and the AAPG has held a seminar or three on it over the years, but so far nobody seems to think that the answer is going to affect the bottom line. Studerby 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some general comments from a geoscientist

I'll begin with this disclaimer: I am an exploration geologist and geophysicist.

This article is still in desperate need of a make-over... I can clearly see that the debunking of ‘modern abiotic oil’ (should it be hydrocarbon reservoirs instead of merely “oil”?) theory is being carried out well enough without me (and rightfully so; who believes this anymore!?) in the talk page, so I'm not going to spend a lot of my time here. The theory of abiotic oil is a good article to have on wikipedia, but in the context of the history of geology. It was one of many now outmoded hypotheses of the origins of hydrocarbon deposits. It carries no legacy that I know of into modern geologic sciences other than as history.

As for the origin of “mystery” hydrocarbons, I’ve seen very little discussed about the geochemical fingerprinting of hydrocarbons to their source rock. When abiotic sources of hydrocarbons was being entertained many years ago, the capability and distance of hydrocarbons to migrate was not as well understood as it is today. I’m not a geochemist, but I think this would be a another path to walk down in explaining why proponents of abiotic hydrocarbon reservoirs are incorrect.

Additionally, in areas where serpentine and serpentinization is abundant (mid-ocean ridges, oceanic crust), the hypothesized conditions for the production of abiotic oil are all there, yet there is absolutely no evidence that it exists. Numerous deep ocean drilling programs have also not reported any signs of serpentized abiotic hydrocarbons despite drilling into the hearts of these zones... umrgregg 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that the citations are not pointing to the correct reference numbers at the bottome (appears to be +1 off). I don't know how to fix it, so I'm throwing that out there. umrgregg 16:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Geocientist, try read researches at Guaymas Basin in Gulf of California and Lost City hydrothermal vents in north Atlantic, for example! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.98.219 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked into it and found nothing compelling me to to beleive that abiogenic hydrocarbons, especially light gas, is available on this planet for commercial exploitation or as a significant part of any exploitable petroleum system. umrgregg 13:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

One more chance: try ready the book The Deep Hot Biosphere (Thomas Gold) 201.53.35.89 04:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's tons of information on the abiogenic (or abiotic) theory, including the geology, the chemistry, the physics. As usual, start with the published academics. Geoscientists Umrgregg is urged to read carefully where these researchers point out that they're talking about the process of creating hydrocarbons which _THEN_ migrate through the earth's crust until trapped by capstone formations. They're not saying that abiotic oil stays where it's created (which is why you don't find it in serpentine formations). 07:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BomberJoe (talk • contribs)

Corsi reference

I added a link for Jerome Corsi, which will advise the unwary that the potential torchbearer for this theory is a Ph.D. in poli sci and the conservative activist best known for the "Swift Boats for Truth" affair in 2004. Caveat lector.

--Andersonblog 22:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The mention of Corsi was added by an anon [1] without explanation. The book credits Gold for the theory but is there any new research? (Does someone have the book?) Corsi doesn't seem to have published anything else on the topic. Doesn't look like carrying the torch, I'll remove the book advertisement. The coauthor's background is books on gold investment, so apparently this is a case of oil coming from gold. (SEWilco 04:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Silicates cracking water

Revision as of 01:02, 5 September 2006 (edit) Rolinator (Talk | contribs) (→Hydrogen generation - be careful of "wil" and "may", its all dependent on redox, which you obviously know nothing about or you wouldn't believe granites could successfully crack water)

The information is from the sourced document. It refers to common knowledge that moisture in laboratory vacuum glass systems leads to the production of hydrogen. Several sources are given for Si- and SiO- radicals exposed in fractures and formation of hydrogen from steam. Crushed quartz reacts with water to produce hydrogen in the 25-270°C range (Kita 1982). Hydrogen generation from quartz and feldspar (Sugisaki et al 1983). Hydrogen from crushed framework silicates, and hydrogen commonly observed in active fault zones (Ware et al 1984/85, Sugisaki 1984/85, Sato et al 1984/85, Satake et al 1984/85, Sato et al 1986). Want the full references? Here's a more recent example: hydrogen produced when quartz grains were crushed within pure water. [2] (SEWilco 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Eek! 5,000 cm3 of H2/m3 of rock? Freund's work seems to be based on the same process, but throughout the entire volume of water-containing crystallizing rock rather than only rock fractures. doi:10.1089/153110702753621367 (SEWilco 18:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Sourced document said "The hydrogen would react with dissolved carbon compounds in the water to form methane and higher carbon compounds." So for "would" I used "will" rather than "may". (SEWilco 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Well, great. You can create hydrogen during dynamothermal metamorphism in granite at low temperatures (by crustal standards). But what does this tell us about the process of forming oil in ultramafic rocks (tell me, do ultramafic rocks contain quartz?) - it tell us if your ultramafic rock is not in the mantle and it is in fact a granite and you fault it you create hydrogen if and only if you crush the quartz grains. Now, there are a few points I would like to raise here,

1. Crushing or fracture is a brittle process (by which I mean, a brittle rheology); once you get down to 5-15km depth within the crust, at temperatures in excess of 250 degrees celsius, your rocks behave in a brittle-ductile fashion. They deform by shearing, ergo, no crushing. No hydrogen.
2. Secondly, the conditions in the mantle are not those of the experiments, meaning that there is little applicability of the data to mantle rocks which...dare I say it, do not contain quartz. Refer to the thermobaric stability phase diagram of quartz-coesite-stishovite. Does stishovite create water when sheared, at 1000 degrees celsius and several hundred times the pressure? Don't know, neither do I.
3. Thirdly, what is your argument regarding the need for hydrogen to form oils? That by producing a gas which prefers to react with free dissolved oxygen in the water, in the presence of carbonic acid (dissolved CO₂) and/or methane (after all, any carbonis, according to the theory, good enough to produce oil regardless of whether it's carbonate or methane), it gets a CH₄, and makes it...a CH₅? Or, as I propose, is this just another completely irrelevant string to be added to the harp of the abiogenic theory because you read it somewhere and it happens in the ground, and involved hydrogen, and ergo it must mean that the abiogenic oil theory is one poofteenth more plausible?

Or are you arguing apples and oranges? I mean, granites and ultramafics (harzburgite-peridotite-dunite)? I mean brittle and ductile?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolinator (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 September 2006.

Nothing is being claimed about ultramafic rocks. These are abiogenic processes in the crust, not the mantle. Whether they can also happen in the mantle is relevant only to claims about abiogenic hydrocarbons in the mantle. (SEWilco 05:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

But you are claiming that you can creae C8H18, for instance, via crushing granite in a fault and producing hydrogen. In the presence of silica and carbon dioxide. Without a transition metal catalyst. To me, it seems like a huge leap of faith. You are also saying they are abiogenic processes in the crust. They are chemical processes which happen in the crust. The fact it is "abiogenic" is the same abioenic as a chemical reaction happening in a test tube in a laboratory. Just because a reaction happens without the interference or without the presence of plankton, agae, coal and biological detritus doesn't mean it is abiogenic and directly applicable to the abiogenic petroleum origin theory. You are confabulating a wide range of phnomenon without considering the chemical model of abiogenic petroleum which as far as I can see, involves two mechanisms;

1. Magic, where you vaguely refer to "depth" but not "at some depth"; "pressure" but unspecified; "cabon" in whatever form, as long as there is some,"diamondoids" and some "biomarkers", within whichever rock you fancy, by whichever process you cncoc, to produce oil. As long as it isn't according to the biological oil model.
2. Geochemical and tectonic models which refer to serpentinite, the mantle, primordial volatiles, etcetera within experimental evidence and thermodynamic data put forward to support a theoretical thermodynamic model of petroleum formation which is, by your own sources, occurring in the mantle at mantle pressures and temperatures wih primodial volatile components trapped there, and NOT within granite.

So either the model has specific, testable hypotheses and requires certain criteria determined by the geological environmen, or you just invent shit and it happens by magic and no one can question or test what you say because you grab at whichever straw comes to hand as support for the wild claims. This idea of yours with granite sits firmly in the first camp; Kenney and GRC are trying to do the second camp, which is a whole different kettle of fish. Rolinator 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim is only "methane and higher carbon compounds". Carbon dioxide is not mentioned as being the source of carbon. (SEWilco 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Texas helium citation

Helium trapped within most petroleum occurrences, such as the occurrence in Texas, is of a distinctly crustal character with an Ra ratio of less than 0.0001 that of the atmosphere.[citation needed]

Rolinator, Texas was your addition. [3] (SEWilco 21:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Having a large amount of helium is a rather rare occurance in petroleum fields. Most have no recoverable helium. The Hugoton field of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas is an exception and was the source of most of the world's helium until a few years ago. The field is largely depleted now and they're looking at producing fields with lots of helium but no useable petroleum or natural gas.

According to the USGS, the world's six largest helium reserves and their share of world reserves are Quatar 25%, U.S. 21%, Algeria 21%, Russia 17%, Canada 5%, China 3%. According to the BP Statistical survey, the six largest petroleum reserves are Saudi Arabia 22%, Iran 11%, Iraq 10%, Kuwait 8%, Venezuela 6% and Russia 6%. The only country on both lists is Russia. RockyMtnGuy 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

SEWilco, there is a difference between helium trapped within a petroleum reservoir, and a petroleum revervoir which can acutally produce helium. Helium is present in virtually all crustal and magmatic water reservoirs and gas reservoirs, but it is only currently active tectonic boundaries where you can find mantle helium (helium with an Ra >1) or around magmatic systems which are currently active or active within the last 5-8 Ma. This tends to follow the reasoning that the mantle only outgasses around structures which carry magmatism and which are tectonically active (ie; not the cratons). For instance, in the Eger Rift Graben, Czech Republic, mantle helium [4] is coming up through the crust along a fault dissolved in water, sourced from aagmatic source within the crust-mantle-boundary. This is your vaunted transcrustal flow of fluids (CO2, H2), NOx, etc); mantle derived gases and fluids reach the surface with a ³He/⁴He Ra of 3.1, still distinctly mantle values. So, why do we not see mantle helium in oil reservoirs, such as the Hugoton Field? If the abiogenic theory holds true the Hugoton field should have mantle helium ratios. Similarly, the Eger Rift should have petroleum reservoirs. Rolinator 00:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the "needed" citation for the statement? I understand the background, but someone requested a citation for that statement. (SEWilco 03:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC))

Specifically,

Weinlich, F.H., Brauer K., Kampf H., Strauch G., J Tesar and S.M. Weise. An active subcontinental mantle volatile system in the western Eger rift, Central Europe: Gas flux, isotopic (He, C and N) and compositional fingerprints. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 63, No. 21, pp. 3653-3671, 1999.

Helium isotopes, tectonics and heat flow in the Northern Caucasus. B.G.Polyak, I.N. Tolstikhin, I.L. Kamensky, L.E. Yakovlev, B. Marty and A.L. Cheshko, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Act Vol 64, No 11, pp. 1924-1944, 2000.

Well, if you want to start reading about crustal and mantle gases, try the following,

Moreira M, and Allegre C.J, 1998. Helium-neon systematics and the structure of the mantle. Chemical Geology 147 (1998) pp. 53-59

Geochemical and ³He/⁴He evidence for mantle and crustal contributions to geothermal fluids in the wesern Canadian continental margin. I.D. Clark and R.J. Phillips (2000) Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 104 pp. 261-276.

Some studies of groundwaters in New Zealand, which has volcanism, plutonism, petroleum, natural gase, etc; surely this exhaustive survey ought to give you ammunition to support abiogenic petroleum simply on gas ratio basis;

Hoke, L., R. Poreida, A Reay and S.D. Weaver. The subcontinental mantle beneath southern New Zealand, characterised by helium isotopes in intraplate basalts and gas-rich springs. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 64, No. 14, pp. 2489-2507, 2000.

Giggenbach, W.F., Sano Y., Wakita H., Isotopic composition of helium, and CO2 and CH4 contents in gases produced along the New Zealand part of a convergent plate boundary Geochimica et Cosmochimica Act, (1993) Vol 57 pp. 3472-3455

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolinator (talk • contribs) 08:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm already aware of New Zealand, but mantle helium is not unexpected there. (SEWilco 17:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Well, what do you say about the fact you have fluids coming all the way through the crust in the Eger rift wthout appreciable petroleum, either directly from the mantle or picked up along the way? Its a little bit compelling evidence against this abiogenic theory, what with NZ, eastern europe, etcetera? If you read in detail the Hoke et al. paper on New Zealand , which is quite comprehensive, you will note that around some ultramafic dykes they found methanogenesis by the serpentinites, proof of the serpentinite synthesis in the model, but again, no petroleum. Also, this is decoupled from mantle helium reservoirs and from sedimentary reservoirs. Given there is significant lode gold at MacRaes in NZ, and that this sits within a metamorphic belt of slates and schists, and that it is unassociated with either mantle helium or oil, I would think that it is a fairly good example of lack of petroleum genesis even in a region where mantle, metamorphic and sedimentary fluid reservoirs are mixing, and where serpentinite is making methane (and, by the theory, ethane, butane, nonane, decane, etc). Rolinator 01:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Serpentine processes are only relevant to petroleum if those are indeed the major processes involved in making petroleum deposits. What happens in spreading centers is not necessarily the only mechanism. Which other processes are not described here yet? (SEWilco 06:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Serpentinite in spreading centres (continental rifts, mid-ocean rifts, back-arc basins) are the same as in subduction zones, except that in subduction zones there is a larger component of sedimentary cover interfering. Within the phanerozoic, i think it would be difficult to separate biogenic contributions of methane from abiogenic serpentinite methane (or even oil, really) in subduction zones; the major discontinuities in the crust are the back arc rift grabens, if any exist as they aren't present in all subduction zones, and the decollement leading oceanward to the trench, and the major discontinuities (faults) would tend to be abiogenic migration pathways, same as major migration pathways for biogenic oils being cooked out of sediments as they enter the accretionary prism, undergo diagenesis and meamorphism, and liberate oil. At the same time the sediments are being cooked up above, the underriding occeanic plate is being serpentinised and dehydrated by metamorphism and producing methane - potentially.

If not in subduction zones, we are left with intracontinental processes, such as plume magmatism, to provide the heat and volatile flux and fluid pathways to allow abiogenic oil to seep upwards, regardless of whether it is from the mantle, or the mid-crust. But again, the mantle or some hypothetical mid-crustal mafic masses would be required to provide catalytic ferrous and transition metals to drive petroleum polymrisation, not just the production of methane.

Without some kind of flux, a pathway and source of carbon aside from carbonates, I don't think that there would be any way to produce abiogenic oil. Especially not in granites, no matter what you think of the power of piezoelectricity to drive the process. Unless it is by simple degassing and convection, which the papers from New Zealand and the Eger rift show isn't, in those cases at least, producing oil, just a bunch of hot geothermal water. So, what other processes could there be? I think all geological environments are covered; granite associated hydrothermal fields such as in California, New Zealand, are out. Large lopoliths in the Caucasus didn't do it. Metamorphism didn't, or we'd have a multitude of oil in New Zealand's slate belts and elsewhere (Bendigo-Ballarat, Gympie, the Chinese faults, etc, are all barren). Coal fields aren't produced by magmatic outgassing or we'd only be digging coal out from around granite plutons and volcanoes, not out of sedimentary basins in passive margin fluviatile sequences. Without fail. Have I missed anything except impact craters...oh wait, that was done aleady with essentially a failure because 8, 0 or 100 tonnes of oil for $50M a hole is a waste of money but Chevron can drill a hole in Mexico chasing buried anticlinoria and hit 2 billion barrels based on a biogenic theory. Seems pretty compelling to me.Rolinator 08:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you hear of piezoelectricity producing oil in granite? Has carbon in granite been confirmed? (I didn't think I had mentioned the carbon line) Who said bituminous coal fields are produced without sedimentary/organic deposits? And for each geological environment which you mention, why don't we find gold (or horses or bubble gum) in every one? And Chevron was just chasing where they had been looking; they were finally able to see what was under the salt and confirmed there was a formation similar to nearby successful ones. (SEWilco 04:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

You mentioned granite and hydrogen in connection with this "debate". It is a logical conclusion that such egregious connections are an attempt to link the phenomena with abiogenic oil (or why not mention this over in granite instead?) and hence, there is a logical need for carbon to enter granites, become zapped, and turn into oil. If you follow a series of hypotheses and postulates through to the end, instead of wildly throwing out stuff by itself and hoping no one notices that it is not related by any process or ay theory to anything else you have mentioned or are debating. Like, as you say, horses and bubblegum.

As for why there is not gold everywhere, well, this is hardly a debate about gold is it? People in the 1950's would have been complaining, had they had Wiki, about how the price of gold is fixed and a fallacy of the plutocratic elites, yadda yadda yadda, and that it came from the mantle in unlimited quantities, etc. Oh wait, there is a "gold from the mantle" debate in gold ore genesis research, and, oddly enough now you ask, I did just happen to write a thesis on it at university and, oddly enough, it is in PDF format and could be emailed around. But, even with a short story such as "yes gold can come from the mantle" which is what the data I collected and interpreted actually says (and why I was led to the Polyak, Hoke, Weinlich papers and others) I will not say all gold comes from the mantle, nor that mantle-derived gold provably accounts for more than 1-2% of all gold mined. Which is where we come to the issue of scientific method and this debate, both within the literature, by Kenney and cohorts, and within Wikipedia.

You are perhaps simply defending this article in order to maintain a non-biased open canvassing of all viewpoints within the scientific community about this "abiogenic oil theory". However, you are just about the one who is continuing the debate and propping up the failures within the article to properly convey the facts, and the phenomena which are leading the scientific community to form a consensus that oil is not abiogenic. You are, in my view, going about it the wrong way, by raising ephemeral and unconnected phenomena (hydrogen in granite, etc) without rigorously understanding the fields of geology and earth sciences which this theory ultimately requires informaion from. This behaviour is far from simply maintaining a NPOV within the article; this is basically defending a politico-socio thesis (which is all that the modern abiogenic oil theory is) and bad science.

It is bad science because the theory, and you via continuing to do what you do, do not seek to understand and incorporate real evidence from published papers (polyak et al., Hoke et al., etc) which, individually and in toto provide more evidence that there is no observed abiogenic oil than there is evidence for there being even the remotest possible chance that one day someone will drill and find some. Good science has incoporated the new evidence about mantle volatiles and the lack of evidence and association of these with oil deposits, and has concluded that the vast majority of oil is best explained by biogenic oil formation theories and that there is no support for abiogenic oil theories.

If your question is "why is this theory wrong?", the scientific question is "how can we test this theory" which is, as above, why I threw out gold deposits as an example of where abiogenic oil could exist, but does not. It addresses all the potential contaminants and obfuscating phenomena and allows a test for unambiguous abiogenic oil. Like Gravberg-1 and Gravberg-2. Given there have been 2 full-blown tests and many other holes drilled into the crust which were equally likely, probabilistically, to test the abiogenic oil theory, there is no evidence for the process aside from purely speculative science which invokes processes which, when investigated specifically, show no evidence of supposed hydrocarbon migration from the deep earth (eg; Polyak et al, etc etc etc). In other words, every time someone measures a hot spring and it has mantle-derived volatiles but no petroleum, or drills a hole deep into a saddle reef in a gold deposit and there is no oil, or drills and oil well and there is no mantle volatiles but plenty of oil, or drills and oil well into a craton and it comes up dry....this says abiogenic oil is a failure. Given that the first two happen on a daily basis, every day of the year without fail, at a multitude of sites around the world, without finding even a ton of "black bituminous sludge or diesel contamination", it says something about abiogenic oil. Rolinator 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I fully support Rolinator in his verbal dress-down of SEWilco. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for defending geology and good science! umrgregg 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a nice rant. But Rolinator is not answering the questions.

• He claimed I'm making "egregious connections" involving granite and oil. I referred to research involving Gold's Gravberg-1 well, but Rolinator is either ignoring that work or is referring to something which I did not say.
• Wandered from why there is not gold everywhere to nattering about the scientific method. I mentioned gold because he knows gold. Although the basic answer is that conditions are not right for gold to appear in every situation, Rolinator adds something interesting: although he knows that mantle-derived gold provably accounts for only a few percentage of mined gold, he presented gold deposits as somehow being indicators of mantle activity. I recognize there is a difference between mantle-derived traces and economically useful deposits (such as the helium-3 in Mauna Loa rocks whose extraction would consume more energy than tritium fusion reactions can produce). (SEWilco 20:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC))
• "You are perhaps simply defending this article in order to maintain a non-biased open canvassing of all viewpoints within the scientific community about this "abiogenic oil theory"." — Thank you.
• I'm "propping up" the ignored facts within the article, and including relevant non-abiogenic information. For example, some editors made changes that coal was not included in the theories when T.Gold definitely did address coal. Whether Gold was correct about coal is a related issue.
• I did incorporate Polyak [5] when Rolinator mentioned it. "Hoke" is not in the article, so apparently nobody who knows it has integrated it in the article.
• Rolinator's gold test is only relevant if he knows all the relevant factors. Rolinator has demonstrated he is not aware of the details of the abiogenic oil/gas theories, including saying not even a ton of sludge has been found when tons have been found. (And what is "Gravberg-2"?) I've asked for relevant studies rather than more speculation. (SEWilco 02:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Trying again: Where did you hear of piezoelectricity producing oil in granite? Has carbon in granite been confirmed? (I didn't think I had mentioned the carbon line) Who said bituminous coal fields are produced without sedimentary/organic deposits? (SEWilco 20:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

Well, why did you mention the "crushing quartz creates hydrogen" if not in connection with this debate? Or are you in the practise of mentioning random tidbits of trivia in relation to all wiki articles you mangle? You can pooh-pooh me for "not knowing all the relevant factors", but what is your claim that you know otherwise? Or anything? You aren't propping up ignored facts you are propping up disputed and irrlevant interpretations which I have disputed and in a few cases disproved by showing you other facts.Rolinator 01:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Crushed quartz", not "crushing quartz". Type Control-F and your browser probably will open a search window. Type quartz. The source was discussing chemistry. I am indeed propping up details (some of which were misplaced) of the theories which are the topic of this article. Properly explaining Copernicus' theories also requires info of what was known before and after him. I don't claim to know all the facts but at least I've read some of Gold's work (oddly, I've only been able to find a summary of Kudryavtsev's work from Gold because others merely bow toward Kudryavtsev without describing his work). (SEWilco 03:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Bitumens

SEWilco and Rolinator please, read this article about bitumens in association of copper mineralizations in Chile: http://earthsciences.dal.ca/people/zentilli/Wilson-Zentill_2006.pdf#search=%22copper%20bitumen%20chile%22 Geologist

Read the abstract: "pyrobitumen predates bornite-chalcocite mineralization and may have reduced subsequent mineralizinfg fluids". Given that the petroelum was there first, this is merely a distraction to this debate about mantle- or metamorphic-derived metalliferous mineralisation and serves to shed no new light on supposed abiogenic petroleum, its method of prouction, the models supporting the theory or, least of all, is compelling evidence for it. Remeber, these are Lower Cretaceous shales, cnglomerates and sediments formed in a back-arc basin, like all petroleum source rocks could be under the biogenic model. Ergo, this is arguably biogenic petroleum which has, as the paper says, been a reductive trap for metalliferous mineralization (page 10). This is similar to Pb-Zn Mississippi Valley Type, and i is no great surprise to anyone who is a geologist and not a fat wheezy geek who thinks Exxon and BP are trying to punch chads in florida or whatever tinfoil hat brigade shite drives the abiogenic theory.Rolinator 08:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What they are saying is that pyro-degraded petroleum may have contributed to the formation of copper deposits in Chile. That's very interesting, if you are talking about copper, but has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. RockyMtnGuy 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Try study quicksilver (mercury) deposits at New Almaden, California, USA, where mercury is associated also with bitumens. And don't forget: mercury is frequently associated with coals that most part are solid hydrocarbons...and.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.53.109 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? Get over the act that metals can either, a) be transported as chelated metal-hydrocarbon complexes (and a.2, that oils carry metals) or b) that economic mineralization occurs within old hydrocarbon (specifically, petroleum) deposits, and c) that coal contains mercury. This is not disputed because, and pay attention here, anonymous, it is irrelevant to whether or not oil comes from the mantle.

In all cases (including mineralisation in the Lennard Shelf, Western Australia, in Serbia, in Romania, in Russia, in Iran, in India) where petroleum deposits have contributed to concentration of metal sulphides this is as pyrobitumen; degraded petroleum. In all cases, the oil brought in the metal from wherever it was sourced from (this ranges from evaporite sabkas in Iran, to shale sequences in Romania, to carbonate shelf facies in the Lennard Shelf and the MVT archetypes, etc) or passed through. In all cases, the presence of a metal deposit is not providing any information about where the oil came from, merely where it ended up and where it got degraded into pyrobitumen, tars, asphaltite etcetera. Arguably, the Venezuelan crudes which show this supposed amazing "mantle chondrite" ratio of metals which is used as the be-all and end-all of evidence for abiogenesis, can be explained by a similar but less advanced process. If we cannot agree that the currently fluid, extractable resources of Venezuelan, Saudi or Canadian crude is either biogenic or abiogenic, how is arguing about pyrobitumen going to help?

The onlyargument which can sustainably be put forward here is that "some metalliferous sulphide deposits show an affinity with hydrocarbon reservoir trap sites, and many stratabound sediment-hosted sulphide metal deposits may have an ore genesis in petroleum migration" and "petroleum is integral to the transport portion of the ore genesis model of many stratabound metal deposits". But this in no way says anything about where the oil came from.

Finally, the suite of mantle-derived metal sulphide deposits and metals associated with the mantle are; Ni-Cu-PGE, V-Ti-Fe oxides, diamonds (not diamondoids!), REE and U phosphates in carbonatite and perhaps some other trace elements which associate with these four groups. Hg, Cu manto deposits,

Pb-Zn-Cu-Ag, Hg-Ag, and other epithermal low-temperature sulphide deposits are definitively NOT associated with mantle activity. Thus, the origin of the metals is separate to the origin of the petroelum. Find me some petroelum present in a nickel sulphide deposit or a V-Ti-Fe oxide deposit (not methane; that's not petroleum) and evidence that nickel migrates around in oils, and I'll start considering this relevant.Rolinator 03:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Methane is also expected by Gold's theories, but accompanying evidence of a deep source would be needed because methane can come from many sources. But this would only influence Rolinator unless this has been defined as a test of one of the theories. (SEWilco 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Methane can come from manifold sources in the crust, but the real test is where the petroleum comes from. Just because you can create methane in the presence of serpentinite doesn't mean, neccessarily, you get all the way to octane and can run your car. That is the ultimate test; squaring away all possible sedimentary sources, (ie; finding a craton-hosted petroleum deposit) finding higher n-alkane and other organic (alkene, benzols, etc) but not biological, without biomarkers, with proven mantle or deep crustal recharge (either an elevated 3He/4He ratio, or a LOT of helium, and a H and O isotopic composition distinctive from recirculated deep brines), and finding one where it is extant today or within the reasonably recent geologic past (ie; I would accept a pyrobitumen deposit in a granite or schist-gneiss belt if it satisfied the above). But so far, there is none, yet we continue to find oil under conventional biogenic source-transport-trap models. Thus, you may find methane coming from the mantle (and yet...unproven; Polyak et al. and Weinlich et al. can't eliminate crustal methane sources) but that is not petroleum. Rolinator 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting all the way to octane is only relevant to petroleum. Russian theories are oriented toward deep petroleum, while Gold seems to lean toward methane in the crust (with the deep biosphere consuming it), although Gold also had a lot of deep carbon fluid of unspecified composition. But methane is significant; Gold's "major paper" was The Origin of Methane (and oil) in the Crust of the Earth. There are indications of deep carbon, but they don't always convert to methane/petroleum.[6] (SEWilco 06:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Once again (its like talking to a special child....yeesh), this is an article about abiogenic petroleum. Petros, meaning rock in the Greek, oleum being oil, or "oil from rock". Not "methane from rock". If you want to throw Gold's research into the article on methane, and drag all the serpentinite stuff in there and show those wacky chemists that methane can be formed either abiogenically by serpentinisation or biologically by germs living 20 miles down in the crust, go ahead and shock their pants off. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.

But that is ignoring the fact that there is no evidence in nature of methane turning to octane, by which I mean "rock oil", by which i mean "abiogenically" specifically, without microbes, in the Earth's crust. As the theory states. On the wikipedia page we are discussing. Without mumbling incoherently and trying to duck and weave away from the specific definition of what is petroleum and what is abiogenic and without arguing apples and oranges.

I'll say it even more simply: stop crapping on about methane methane methane, and start explaining how we get to octane. Specifically. Taking into account everything else. Specifically. And if this means removing Gold's name from the Abiogenic petroleum origin wiki page because, suddenly now he didn't say anything about it and didn't con investors into drilling Gravberg-1 and Gravberg-2, and leaving it as a theory of those wacky Russians and Kenney of GRC, then so be it. I'll be the first to support removing references and confusion from this article. I think it could be SIGNIFICANTLY improved by getting confusing horse-trading arguments like you carry on, out of it.

But that doesn't mean you can keep arguing abiogenic methane means nothing to abiogenic octane, while at the same time keeping arguments in the article that imply that methane does have relevance to the abiogenic production of petroleum (eg; methane on Titan, methane in volcanic eruptions, etc). You can't make the abiogenic theory fly without reference to methane, because methane is a "building block" which Lego-style miraculously turns into octane. And without that, and without Gold's references, this theory is bullshit and you know it. So, what's it going to be, systematically cutting "abiogenic methane" away from "abiogenic petroleum"?

Or are you going to argue something like "No, thats not what I meant, I meant methane can be made, like we all agree, but Gold said mumble mumble, etc, granite hydrogen faults and meteors!" Rolinator 05:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Gold's theories about abiogenic petroleum include methane at many points and texts. You know a lot about geology, but do you know the topic of this article? (SEWilco 21:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

Do you? And what do you know about geology anyway? We are arguing geology, which as a field of study includes more than simply petrology, petrography, mineralogy. The processes of the deep crust are as much a science of thermodynamics (wherein which Kenney et al. use simple mathematical models to predict oil formation) as it is about structural geology to get the oil out of the deep crust/mantle and into the trap sites, as it is about geodynamics, mineral chemistry and geochemistry, or even isotope geology. Which of these fields have you studied? Making an argument about abiogenic oil based entirely on thermodynamics ignores the geochemical influences imposed by the host rocks (mostly granite and gneiss), which are in turn affected in rheology by the pressures and temperatures (hence, at 30km a gneiss cannot break and form hydrogen, it tends to shear in a ductile fashion), which in turn affects the structural geolgy of the area in question (ie; modifies the transport route of hydrocarbons into trap sites, or in the cratons, precludes any transport). Thus, all these simplistic arguments are fine when somone parrots them back on the internet, but any scientific theory cannot just make predictions based on a few vage arm waves and a few equations, especially not in geology when all aspects have to be considered. So to say "have you studied the topic", yes I have, because I have studied the things which imact on the topic. Like, the deep crust, shearing mechanisms and processes, geochemistry, etcetera. This leads me to not only have a list of articles which cast doubt on this crazy ass theory, but to consider from over a decade of studies, that there is no plausible way to form oil via this mechanism so as to satisfy all the various constraints imposed on it by what is known about how the deep crust works, what it's made up of, and how this supposed oil would come out, where it would come out, and how it would be trapped. As I've said elsehere, exhaustively, there is far more evidence against than for.Rolinator 01:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. I've found one set of Kenney mistakes but their topic isn't covered in this article. Please add the appropriate caveats to his concepts. (SEWilco 04:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

Not directly related to the article, but

I thought there used to be a biogenic petroleum origin article or something like it. Where has it gone? I wanted it to answer my big question: where the feck came the carbon from in the first place? I mean, the biogenic theory is that its critters that died suddenly in large quantities and then coincidentally, suddenly were absorbed by the seabed or something, and then were fossilized into petroleum and coal. But where did the carbon come from in the first place? Wouldn't they, in order to reach the surface of earth billions of years ago in any sensible quantities, basically have to be liquid or gasified?

Where did the original carbon, that the critters that fossilized in an all too improbable fashion, used to reproduce, come from? 84.75.130.173 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is assumed, that before evolution "invented" photosynthesis, the Earth's atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and possibly methane. Hardly any free oxygen was present. -- Petri Krohn 14:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Archean eon is a tad sparse on the atmosphere. History of Earth has some info on the atmosphere. Not much info on carbon minerals or deposits before photosynthesis appeared; presumably after life appeared there would have been organic deposits. There are few rocks or minerals from the Hadean, before life emerged. (SEWilco 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Ah. There is some history in "Earth's atmosphere#The evolution of the Earth's atmosphere". (SEWilco 01:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

Notice that a lot of the information in Wikipedia about the ancient atmosphere is a summary of the standard model: Molten rock on Earth got rid of its gases, and the gases got lost somehow. The requirement of the gases being removed is primarily due to the lack of some noble gases (ones heavier than helium) in the current atmosphere. There are problems with the standard model at many levels, in this case see MantlePlumes.org:Noble Gases. (SEWilco 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

Thomas Gold (see "The surface carbon budget") thought that the surface carbon budget was a little short and continued outgassing was taking place. So it was not required that in the distant past all the carbon be on the surface at one time. (SEWilco 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

Of course, but Gold is the proponent of abiogenic petroleum. I'd like to know the calculations and data from the biogenic crowd - I mean, they wouldn't just assume it was biologic and the go on believing the carbon suddenly materialized out of nowhere to create life... 84.75.130.173 18:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If it were not for life, Earth would have a carbon dioxide atmosphere much like Venus (and would be very much hotter than it is now). Over the billions of years, through the process of photosynthesis, bacteria and plants have extracted all but a trace of the CO2 and converted it to hydrocarbons and the oxygen atmosphere we all know and love. CO2 + 2H2O = CH4 + 2O2. For more details see Oxygen: The Molecule that Made the World by Nick Lane. RockyMtnGuy 19:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, Gold also describes the biogenic theory. The early earth may have been too hot for hydrocarbons not to oxidize, and the hydrocarbons would have formed CO2 then. But this raises even more questions, such as the abundance of oxygen and its affinity to bind to various other elements such as hydrogen, silicon, aluminium, iron etc. Unfortunately there is probably not enough data on the elemental composition and other qualities of the early earth. The thing that strikes me in the abiogenic vs biogenic thing is Occam's razor - It seems far more improbable to me that dying critters, combined with sudden (!) covering with sediments (necessary to prevent the recycling of the carbon by the biological destruents and scavengers) would have caused the rather massive, and somewhat randomly distributed quantities of oil that have yet been found. The notion that - now that we know hydrocarbons occur in space in massive quantities - some of those hydrocarbons simply may have ended up in earths crust and survived - appears to be a much more simple and plausible explanation. Can it be debunked in a way a layman understands it? 84.75.130.173 23:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hydrocarbons which reached the atmosphere, and which were less dense than that (poorly known) atmosphere, would soon be converted to CO2 by sunlight, even though the sun was dimmer then. (SEWilco 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

I think that does not exist biogenic petroleum origin because it is nonsense. All evidences from geology, astrophysics, thermodynamics, experimental studies hold that natural hydrocarbons are first abiogenic and after migration they reach shallow levels in crust suffering contamination by bacteria that creates a paradox for researchers that ignore abiogenic (abiotic) theory. Unfortunately this paradox still exist today. Understanding juvenile earth formation, carbon balance, methane, nitrogen, helium, diamonds, metals such as Ni, V, Cr, Co, Cd, Zn, Pb, Hg, sulphur, As, Sb, Se Te and others that came from earth's mantle, origin of "evaporites", will permitt better undestand about origin and evolution natural hydrocarbons...next and present challenge is origin of life... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.75.48 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 20 September 2006

In relation to the abundances of elements you cite, I propose you read and understand the chemical process of chelation before you start claming that the presence of any element in oil is evidence that it came from one process or another. Hydrocarbons are known to bind with metals; metals are found in minerals. All minerals have some concentration of elements you cited. So it is not at all diagnostic.

As for the "all evidence", you have to cite which evidence. Because there is a lot of evidence used to infer biogenic origins to oil. But I don't see anyone saying ALL evidence infers biogenic origins. Thats a pretty ridiculous claim. And you blithely start rattling off jargon almost as if it is fait accompli that "carbon balancce" whatever that is, is perfectly understood and it naturally supports your wild and unsubstantiated claims. It is like me saying "all evidence points to George Bush being spawned by wolves, because of hair balance, speech impediments and being a Republican." Wild, unsourced, unsubstantiated and unargued bullshit. Hell, George Bush has more vanadium in him than the average oil. Is he abiogenic?Rolinator 01:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

removing disputed tag

I've removed the disputed tag. Hope that's ok. I asked for examples of specific facts presented in the article which were in dispute and RockyMtnGuy was kind enough to point to a couple which were promptly fixed. I went away for a while to allow for more comments; there weren't any. If you disagree, put back the tag but please point out exactly what you think is disputed here; just saying "a lot of things" isn't good enough.

Also, I would like to ask anyone who is about to put the tag back, to think for a second about whether they disagree with the abiogenic petroleum theory itself, or with what the article says about it. If you disagree with the theory itself, maybe you shouldn't be tagging the article. It exists to report on the theory, in other words just what others have said or claimed about it, nothing more and nothing less. If the article itself makes a factual claim that you think is not properly sourced, or describes sourced material incorrectly or unfairly, then by all means put the tag back. ObsidianOrder 00:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

201.19.57.157 00:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Certainly you are not democratic. Would be necessary remove all comments at this page according your judgement.

I have to concede that it has been cleaned up considerably, compared to when I first saw it. At least the dubious science has been identified as such. In my opinion it now fits into the flat earth category, which is a legitimate article on Wikipedia. Those people who believe it can now invest their money in drilling for abiognenic petroleum, while I'll continue to put mine in money-making ventures. RockyMtnGuy 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A banana can not eat a monkey. Mainly carbon and hydrogen are most part of organisms. Where came from this carbon? Atmosphere? Hidrosphere? Space? It seems to me that is more plausible that natural hydrocarbons came and is coming from earth's mantle. Do you know why Russia has the most petroleum production of the world? The problem is not thinking that you need drill basement searching abiogenic oil for get commercial accumulation. You must understand first what is petroleum if you want found it better. Natural hydrocarbons are abiogenic, primordial and they are contaminated with bacterial interaction at shallow levels in crust, mainly in sedimentary basins because have better reservoirs and cover deep depressions in crust formed by deep faults. Some success of western countries is due development of seismic investigation, never from biogenic orthodox view of petroleum that is obsolete.201.19.122.192 00:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What the crap? Russia does not have more petroleum production than Saudi Arabia, you dinkus. Besdes, your argument is fallacious and does not prove anything; if these champion Russian guys are looking in the same place as Western geologists for different reasons, both will find oil. So what if they believe erroneously that the oil in deep sedimentary formations comes from the mantle, if they find it? But to prove the theory and not just find oil you have to drill and find oil which can be proven to come not from biogenic sources. And this hasn't happened. People used to think the world was flat, but it didn't stop them from making maps. Same deal. The Russians are probably wrong, but they can still find oil if they look in the places where oil accumulates. You are a fool, Mr Banana.Rolinator 01:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, scientists from Russia and Ukraine are not wrong Mr. kangaroo and Russia, certainly nowadays is the most petroleum production of the world. In fact you don't know nothing about petroleum as you have proved many times. Just for you, probability of petroleum how as a "fossil fuel" is the same: ...you shit inside a bird cage and hope your shit to sing...you open door of the cage and your shit fly over to firmament and becomes a star and after a black hole...finally rains as biogenic oil over a crocodile's fool mind.201.19.90.75 22:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Deep mantle

What is the current consensus on the present lower mantle composition? Is it 20% (Mg,Fe)O with mostly Fe²⁺ or a lot of Fe³⁺? What happens when subducted carbonates hit it? (SEWilco 18:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

The composition is best known from 2 sources; rocks created by melting the mantle, and xenoliths brought up from the mantle within those rocks. Kimberlites tend to carry a lot of xenoliths, as do alkali basalts, lamproites, lamprophyres, intraplate basalts.

See igneous rock; see igneous differentiation; basically the composition of a basalt is a function of its source composition and percentage of melting and depth of melting. This also determines the FeO/Fe2O3 composition. Given most basalts contain magnetite, not wustite, not hematite, it places the oxygen fugacity of the upper mantle between the wustite-magnetite and quartz-fayalite-magnetite buffers.

Don't be misled by the Fe2+/Fe3+ composition as being entirely restricted to whether or not there will be magnetite or wustite as the iron oxide. FeO and Fe2O3 enter silicate minerals in different amounts and thus the redox state of the magma selects for the type of ferric/ferrous silicates and vice versa. This is the QFM buffer; Fayalite relies on having an overwhelming amount of ferrous iron in the melt, if there is too much Fe3+ this forces the iron into magnetite, and when all FeO is consumed into hematite.

With this in mind, ask yourself, if peridotite is the major component of the mantle and it is composed predominantly of olivine (Ferrous iron), what must the redox state of peridotite be? Given that silica will tend to bond with all available FeO to form fayalite, if the redox state of a magma is reduced enough, at what point do you form wustite? Or is wustite only formed in rocks of a composition with excess iron?

The presence of wustite within a rock is very, very rare on Earth because, according to known mechanisms of melting the mantle and the back-calculations performed to estimate the composition of the mantle from ts products (basalts, kimberlites, etc), the mantle is not at the wustite-magnetite redox buffer.

The composition of xenoliths varies widely and it is difficult to find pristine examples because the minerals in xenoliths are generally unstable at surface temperature and pressure, are erupted in volatile-rich magmas, and subject to cooling within wet conditions leading to retrograde metamorphism style reactions (propylitic alteration, etc). There are 3 broad types of mantle xenoliths; peridotite types such as harzburgite, eclogites and other metamorphic rocks, and enriched mantle xenoliths which are rich in carbonate minerals.

Thus there is no need to invoke subduction of sedimentary carbonates into the mantle to account for carbonates. They are already there. But don't take my word for it.

Caveats are many; Kimberlite and other exotic rocks such as that are formed from the enriched carbonate mantle, yet hardly any contain wustite; most are in equilibrium with peridotite and Al-enriched garnetiferous peridotite, which is certainly within the W-M and Q-F-M redox compositional space. Graphite and diamond, both elemental carbon and strong reducing agents, are known from kimberlites, so it is arguable that the presence of wustite in kimberlite is as much a function of their derivation from areas within the diamond stability field as it is of original magma composition. ie; at such depths carbon forms a mineral phase when in excess and could alter redox state. Similarly, methane within kimberlite is equally likely to be formed by the influence of hydrolysis of carbon in the presence of FeO during magma ascent. If there was a mechanism to force carbon from elemental forms (diamond) into methane within the mantle at these depths, why is there diamond in kimberlite? Why, if you must merely "add water to change the redox state" is carbon not oxidised entirely to CO2, and why is there magnetite and not hematite? You can thermodynamically and chemically not have methane and carbon in equilibrium within the mantle at such depths.

Hopefuly this has answered a few of the problms you ae having understanding the deep mantle.Rolinator 16:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Look deep in 1877

I'm very happy with discussions about deep mantle. It makes me remember the famous phrase about petroleum origin from the father of periodic table of the elements Dmitriy Ivanovich Mendeleyev: "The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin." (Dmitri Mendeleev, 1877) 201.19.55.29 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mr Irrelevancy! You have once again done a sterling Appeal to Authority on a chemist who, in 1877 obviously knew everything there was to know about Kimberlites and redox chemistry, what with having invented the periodic table. In fact, he was such a renowned geologist, science has progressed almost nowhere wince the late 19th century, which means we can take one sentence from Mendeleyev and use it as raison d'etre for a whole range of hinky ideas. Rolinator 01:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly he never would believe that diamondoids is diamond contamination of drill bits (as some current geologist woul hold at present...sic) if he had all the knowledge of the scientific advances until century 21. On the other hand, I reccomend you continue studying sedex deposits and you will find that hydrocarbons coming from mantle will explain those mineralizations correctly. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.221.117 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 October 2006

All you Anonymous, do you have summaries of the theories of Mendeleev and others? I'm finding too many papers with the equivalent of an astronomer thanking Copernicus for his work but without describing what the work actually was. And without a user name it's hard to communicate with you and know whether we're talking to one person (or should repeat ourselves). (SEWilco 02:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

You are the most important contributor of the article. In fact you have reason. Knowledge from all important scientists such as Galileo, Newton Mendeleev, Einstein and many others are incorporated in science, in our mind. I intend just remember the way pointed by Mendeleev at century 19. Also interesting to note is that cosmological books always refer the with respect to those scientists. User name. For you Truth just for discretion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.221.117 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 October 2006

Nonresponsive. (SEWilco 04:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

At least responsive in part, right?. Ok I 'll bring those summaries from Mendeleev.201.79.221.117 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

F-T and cosmological articles

201.19.122.192 02:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Its interesting articles below

• Peter Szatmari. Petroleum formation by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis in plate tectonics. AAPG Bulletin; August 1989; v. 73; no. 8; p. 989-998

This Article

• Cosmochemical Estimates of Mantle Composition

Subduction of carbon and water

Apparently much subducted water and carbon are not volcanically returned to the surface. Where does it go? (SEWilco 02:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Some water and carbon is emitted volcanically near subduction zones, but is the carbon budget balanced? The Russian theories require deep carbon deposits, whether primordial or not. Older theories assume compositions similar to those of meteorites, which implies a primordial source; this is hardly surprising before subduction was discovered. Gold argued in favor of primordial deposits but was aware of subducted carbon.

1. One source (Kerrick 2001 Nature 411:17 May:293-296) says 5.4 Tmol/yr C is subducted but 2 to 3 is released in arc magmatism, so 2.5-3.5 Tmol/yr is not accounted for.
2. "only a modest fraction of subducted CO2 immediately returns to the surface at arc volcanoes." [7]
3. "the rate of subduction of water is much larger than the volcanic outgassing rate" [8]
4. Another source (can't find at the moment: involved subduction in Central America area) also mentioned most volatiles were not released in the area.
5. "the amount of water subducted (900 teragrams/year) (2) is significantly larger than the amount of water released by midocean ridge volcanism (200 teragrams/year) (2) and arc volcanoes (perhaps tens of teragrams/year) (2, 3) combined." ... "If we assume a CO2 content similar to that observed in western U.S. springs dominated by metamorphic fluids (25), our analysis also seems to permit a global, "deep" CO2 flux of roughly 200 teragrams/year" [9]
6. Volatiles seem to leak through wide swaths of the crust.
   1. "Our recent work on crustal permeability suggests a large capacity for water upflow through tectonically active continental crust," [10] (same as preceding)
   2. "travertine depositing springs (in addition to the hot springs and gas fields that have been the focus of work by others) provide an important record of regional mantle degassing for the western United States. Based on the distribution of travertine and travertinesprings, the entire mantle under the western United States may be heterogeneously degassing." doi:10.1130%2F1052-5173(2005)015%5B4:CSLBTM%5D2.0.CO%3B2
7. How much water and carbon is released from divergent boundaries areas?
8. I am aware that carbonatite formations suggest that carbon-rich and water-rich magma in the crust (and by implication in the top of the mantle) might not mix.
9. I haven't seen information about the mantle flow (nor dispersion or concentration) of carbon, water, or hydrogen, which ends up at divergent boundaries. If what is created comes from subduction, how does it get from here to there?
10. An interesting assortment of geochemistry composition numbers is in http://earthref.org/GERM/

(SEWilco 05:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

Do not forget. Carbon is the fourth element in order of abundance in universe. 200.199.63.208 12:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Atomic typo

possible "typo" in section: The geological argument for abiogenic oil Given the known occurrence of methane and the probable catalysis of methane into higher atomic weight hydrocarbon molecules...

i think the phrase "higher atomic weight hydrocarbon molecules" was probably intended to read, "higher molecular weight hydrocarbon molecules"

my first (attempted) Wikipedia edit; hope my format isn't too awful! Questioner1K 15:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC) ("questioner1K")

Methane reforming

I removed this because it said "if" which is a supposition, and secondly, went on to say "if the high temperature reaction and low temperature reaction take place".

This is illogical and not what Scott (2004) said anyway. How are two reactions supposed to take place at the same time, in the same rock, at different temperatures (and probably pressures)? It is totally illogical.

The Scott experiment, I reiterate, detected inter-elemental bonds in a vapor via laser raman spectroscopy. If they detected C-H bonds at one temperature but not the other, it cannot be said that two separate reactions occurring under the same conditions equate to a single whole reaction to create methane out of rock.

It is like saying that if you find a reaction in ice it can affect with a compound in water vapor in the air.

Besides which, the whole "Laboratory evidence" section is based off the Scott experiment; it could do with a better depiction of the real conditions and results of the experiment.Rolinator 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mutually exclusive?

At least some of the commentary seems to imply that biogenic and abiogenic are mutually exclusive, but I see no reason why that must be. Just as a river may be filled by rain or by a spring, perhaps both are true. Studerby 17:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem! Biogenic postulation neglect 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Hydrocarbons are primordial and they are food to bacteria that leave their fingerprints and lead paradox. Titan (Saturn moon) has ocean, lakes and rivers of hydrocarbons (Are they bioenic?). 201.53.23.176 01:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is another possibility that both the "biogenic" and the "abiogenic" hypothesis are flawed, and there is another mechanism - biotic or abiotic - at work wich is covered bei neither hypothesis. Meanwhile the "abiogenic" aproach seems to bring better results recently (Russia, Central Asia, Vietnam), but this needs not to mean the underlying hypothesis is 100% correct. -- 87.160.196.248 21:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jclark77

First, I am a geoscience/chemistry student, so I have a great deal of interest in this, and I have done a fair amount of research into this hypothesis.

A hypothesis differs from a theory in that when the scientific method is applied in that through experimentation or observation a theory yields the same results consistantly, whereas a hypothesis, either through the inability to test or observe certian phenomena, does not.

That being said, in order for the Abiogenic petrogenesis hypothesis, in its current state, to be considered a theory, it must:

a.) Be observable in nature b.) Be able to produce in sufficent quantities to be exploitable. c.) Disprove some aspect of current theory of petroleum origins.

There is no doubt that in infinitesimally small quantities oil are generated by abiotic processes, but the likelihood of abiotic processes producing appreciable amounts of oil is virtually nil. Additionally, abiotic petrogenesis does not explain why oil is found almost exclusively in regions where water (and thus organisms that die and undergo the processes to become petroleum in the biogenic processes outlined on that page) exists. However, that infinitesimally small quantity of petroleum produced by that process does not meet one proponent of the hypothesis; that it produces appreciable quantities of petroleum that can be exploited. Additionally, it does not answer the question of why after 4.6 billion years to create oil, the earth is not covered by a sea of petroleum, yet is still capable of producing enough oil to meet our current oil appetite of over 30 billion barrels a year. That is 139,357,000,000,000,000,000 (One hundred and thirty-nine quintillion barrels,) over a geologic time scale of 4.6 billion years. That is 6,960,780,000 cubic miles of oil (139,357,000,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil x 55 gallons per barrel / 1,101,117,140,000 gallons per cubic mile, more than 21 times the current volume of the ocean.)

I am not here to wow with numbers, but as can be seen, this hypothesis has serious problems in needs to reconcile before it can be considered a legitimate theory. So long as it does not meet the three criteria above, it has not proven its worth enough to be considered a theory.

Hydrocarbons are primordial and as well as all material and energy they are transfomed. Carbon is the fourth element in order of abundance in the universe. Biogenic view for hydrocarbon origin is not supported by 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If you are a chemist or geology student I suggest you study these question with open mind.201.53.23.176 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Data

• Petroleum
• Volume of the World's Oceans

Jclark77 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits for three reasons:

1. There are opposing views on the subject, yours is just one point of view. The present state of the article is the result of months or years of barganing between the POVs the reach a consensus and WP:NPOV.
2. The articile already describes its subject as a hypotheses. Altering between "hypotheses" and "theory" increases the readability of the text. Summarily changing every occurance to "hypotheses" creates bad prose.
3. You changed the wording even in cases of quotations, as in "Although the abiogenic theory, according to Gold, is widely accepted in Russia,"

-- Petri Krohn 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"the earth is not covered by a sea of petroleum" Look at the article again. Oil is food. (SEWilco 22:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for the response. I, however, disagree with your assertions above.

1. According to WP:NPOV, that the majority should carry the heaviest weight on a topic, and the vast majority of petrologists agree that petroleum is created biogenically, so should carry the most weight on this topic per the WP:NPOV. I refer you to the flat earth case in the above. 2. Readability should not be the ultimate goal of Wikipedia articles, WP:NPOV should be, as you have said. Encyclopedic articles should reflect the truth, not varied and entertaining writing style. They are suppose to be concise and lucid, not muddied by two words that are not homonyms as they are in the vernacular. That being said, correct grammar is important, so if I made errors there, I apologize. 3. I have to admit that I am not yet familiar with Wikipedia's rules as far as quotations, but in proper English grammar, indirect quotes are editable. I do see your point of view though.

I will leave this article for others to debate for a while, and I am, for the most part, pleased with the discussion at hand. Jclark77 04:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Lakes of Methane on Titan

They're baaaack! The fabled lakes of methane on Saturn's moon, Titan. Probably reintroduced by someone who spends a lot of time there rather than on this planet. Two points:

1. This is a speculative hypothesis based on the absense of returned radar reflections, rather than an observed fact. We'll have to wait until someone sets a probe down on them to be sure.
2. This is a completely different planet, which has completely different geology than the one most of us spend most of our time on. Other people's mileage on other planets may vary.

This article is a complete waste of time. It's an example of entropy in action. I've been asked to worked on some more useful articles, so I'm outa here... RockyMtnGuy 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Carbon is the fourth element in cosmological abundance, after H, He and O. Study chemical composition of solar system is very important to understand earth formation processes. All things are connected and all are important, not spend time. Study of comets, meteorites, planets, moons, stars also will permit us understand earth and also the matter that are made our bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.53.109 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 15 September 2006

Anonymous, there's been 4.5 billion years of geology between Earth and Titan. A lot has happened. Because we find ice on Pluto, does it mean that glaciers are formed 4.5 billion years ago? That the ice ages were created during Earth accretion? Titan and what happens on the surface of Titan near absolute zero and half or less atmospheres pressure is irrelevant to what happens 5, 10, 50km deep wihin the Earth at a thousand degrees celsius and ten thousand atmospheres pressure. But its nice to see we can fill our tanks on Titan when we drive our Space Hummers there, in a holistic neo-hippy view of science which you espouse. Sure, studying butterflies makes volcanologists happier people but it doesn't help them predict eruptions.Rolinator 03:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The cosmic abundance of carbon is already mentioned. Perhaps links and references with details need to be added, but the simple expected abundance is part of the theories. (SEWilco 06:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Yes, anonymous contributors, I know about the ethane cloud on Titan. [11] It's already known that there are a lot of hydrocarbons out around the gas giants and there was a lot of stuff in the rocks which formed the Earth. (SEWilco 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Ok SEWilco, I see that you looking for understand earth's formation and evolution. About comments from Rolinator maybe I would prefer discuss about women with him, not geology, mainly about origin of natural hydrocarbons. As said Walter Groupius: "The human mind is like an umbrella - it functions best when open." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.70.173 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 16 September 2006

The difference between Titan (and the outer planets) and Earth (and the inner planets) is that the sun blasted the atmospheres off the inner planets during its T-Tauri phase, when it first went nuclear. So, after that, Earth and the other inner planets no longer had methane atmospheres, but the outer planets did. RockyMtnGuy 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely huge portion of primordial methane, nitrogen, helium and other gases remained in earth's interior protected by crust formation althought tectonic and volcanic processes during earth's evolution untill present lead release of those gases and oil to reservoirs, ocean and atmosphere. 201.53.15.42 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are trying to describe. You might want to read more about the formation of the Earth, how long ago there was an ocean present (which probably also required an atmosphere), and how the continental crust was formed. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Maybe we will can find more possible answers studying comets, outer planets and its moons such as Titan, Enceladus and others and camparing with our blue planet. 201.53.15.42 (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

deep biogenic theory? (sic)

Who is the author of this theory? I think does not is Dr. Thomas Gold. He never mentioned this. On the other hand the term Deep Hot Biosphere Theory, that is a Gold's proposal, is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.19.57.157 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 September 2006

Oh, are you complaining about the term "deep biogenic theory"? You'll have to look at the history of the source article [12] to see where it originated. I didn't alter that because it looks like a descriptive term for the deep microbial concepts from several authors. Using "deep hot biosphere" seems too specific, similar to using "Copernican solar system" for all star-dominated astronomical conditions. For example, some extremophiles live in cold or shallow conditions. 20% of methane might come from microbes but how deep is "deep"? (SEWilco 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

201.19.52.235 00:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Dear SEWilco, Ok, I thought that would exist still those article ("deep biogenic petroleum theory" 'sic'), but it's good that redirection to abiogenic petroleum origin. Yes, I know the origin of old article and I wrote to the possible "author" at item 14 of this discussion page. On the other hand, in my view, the term Deep Hot Biosphere is suitable for earth and other planets. About extreme microbial life living at depths or shallow levels of course they need food and the plausible food is primordial hydrocarbons. What is your opinion about this matter?

Readers of archives: "item 14" is the section #Rewrote Abiogenic Petroleum Origin? Bad, very bad. (SEWilco 03:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Don't you think that the microbes would have, in 4.5 billion years, eaten all the primordial hydrocarbons? We humans sure aren't eating Big Macs left over from the formation of the solar system.Rolinator 01:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

See "The Surface Carbon Budget" in Gold's 1993 USGS paper. (SEWilco 03:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

I thought this sentence a bit confusing:

"Thus the "deep reservoirs" of Gold et al. are being tested successfully according to biogenic models of petroleum occurrence."

I assume it means the deep oil mentioned by Gold more directly supports the biogenic, rather than abiogenic, theory, but thought it could be worded more clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.252.244 (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Calcite-Wustite-Lime-Water-Methane

OK, SEWilco. You are obviously not a geologist or you would not propose the carbonate reactions to produce methane. I shall now outline why your hamfisted equations are useless;

• Number one, FeO is present in magnetite as part of the Fe)Fe2O3. Your equation about it forming hydrogen may fly. However,
• Calcite cannot be converted to quicklime (CaO) within the crust. In order to convert calcite to quicklime, you need to do this with a reductant, typically charcoal. Quicklime is a constituent of cement. There is no mineral within nature which is CaO, because CaO + H2O equals?
• There is no rock assemblage known within geology which is FeO plus CaO, ie, wustite-quicklime. The closes we get is a skarn assemblage of magnetite-calcite.
• Your reactions are chemically correct and faultless, however, that does not mean you can apply them to rocks within the crust. One of your reactions occurs at 1500 degrees celsius. Please check whether the mantle exists at 1500 degrees celsius, and at what depth within the Earth you must go to reach 1500 degrees celsius, and whether or not this fits with the rest of either the abiogenic petroleum theory (it does not) or with the rest of science.
• Additionally, you presume that CaO is a stable mineral phase at any temperature and pressure apart from sea level, 1Kbar. Please cite the phase diagram for CaO at mantle temperatures and pressures. Please cite why you think CaO can exist in hydrous mantle and deep crustal material without reacting with other silicates or water. Remember, quicklime reacts with water. Calcite dissolves in water, but does not do so to form quicklime and methane!
• The equations concerning FeO ignore the fact that is extremely, extremely rare, if not impossible to form pure FeO within manle lithologies. The oxidation potential of rocks such as peridotite is at best an FeO/Fe2O3 ratio of 0.4, and that is in magnetitite layers with pure magnetite. Most crustal gneisses are at 0.1 or less FeO. Which reduced lithology are you proposing as the source of wustite-calcite to drive these reactions? Can you cite evidence that this lithology exists in terrestrial samples?

Those equations, I reiterate, because I know it takes you inordinate amounts of time and mental effort to understand anything, work fine in a laboratory where these are only two reactants. However, geology is much different, because it is impossible to separate out the individual major element oxides and make them do their magic like you want. For instance, a magnetite-bearing serpentinite will contan FeO bound strongly within the magnetite mineral. Oxidising the magnetite within a serpentinised body during hydrothermal metamorphism does not happen, and this is provable because serpentinites generally contain magnetite. You are now claiming that serpentinites, during serpentinisation (which elsewhere, I pointed out, could only possibly create methane during the process of hydrous metamorphism which is a one-way street) now not only create magnetite and serpentine from olivine, but they are subject to such severe metasomatism that the magnetite is now converted to hematite? Cite evidence that hematitic serpentinites exist and are the dominant form, ergo, that they are widespread enough to contribute their FeO toward abiogenic production of methane? This is a ridiculous and unbelievable claim which has very little basis in fact. I am not saying that there are not portions of serpentinitised ultramafic bodies which have been demangetised by hydrothermal alteration, but this is very very rare. I know this, I work for a company exploring Archaean serpentinites for nickel. And in NO cases are there serpentinite bodies which contain calcite, nor are there serpentinite bodies which contain quicklime. In fact, the more carbon dioxide you add into an ultramafic rock during metamorphsm, the more likely you are to form a talc-magnesite assemblage. So the mineralogy and chemistry of the ultramafic changed, yet again, and makes the assumptions of your swathe of equations useless. So I hope you can see that you have just gone ino a chemstry book, pulled some equations out, and thought you could fob this off as proof of the theory. The reality is, there are no such minerals and rocks which fit your equations. Therefore I have removed them.Rolinator 02:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Calcite cannot be converted to quicklime (CaO) within the crust. - The Scott2004 source refers to mantle conditions, not the crust.
• There is no rock assemblage known within geology which is FeO plus CaO - Which formula mentions FeO+CaO? A rock on the surface?
• ... 1500 degrees celsius - Actually two reactions mention it, both from Scott2004's experiments. Hmm... [13] has an estimate of 1450° C for one condition, [14] says the range is 870-2200° C.
• you presume that CaO is a stable mineral phase - I did not state what happens to CaO after formation. Scott2004's "methane reforming" does require two reactions involving CaO at different temperatures, which implies movement of reaction products.
• ...extremely rare, if not impossible to form pure FeO - Hmm... Wustite [15] associated with lime in meteorite, meteorite, meteorite. Nope, not terrestrial. Although Wustite being in kimberlite pipes is interesting. Scott2004 doesn't say why calcite and wustite were chosen, other than mention of "reduction of carbonate under conditions typical for the Earth's upper mantle". Probably is considering subducted calcite, and some think subducted material often reaches the lower mantle. Would subduction of oxidised ferric iron from the surface be a factor? Lamproites having iron suggests there sometimes is iron in a subduction area, while kimberlites from the lower mantle have less iron.
• Oxidising the magnetite within a serpentinised body during hydrothermal metamorphism does not happen - Okay, so where is this mentioned?
  • You are now claiming that serpentinites, during serpentinisation ... now not only create magnetite and serpentine from olivine, but they are subject to such severe metasomatism that the magnetite is now converted to hematite? - I thought we were discussing mantle reactions, who mentioned serpentinite other than yourself?
• ... you have just gone ino a chemstry book, pulled some equations out, and thought you could fob this off as proof of the theory. The reality is, there are no such minerals and rocks which fit your equations. - Nope, I pulled out some equations exploring hydrocarbon-producing conditions, often from studies exploring exactly that topic. There not being such surface rocks only suggests that the reactions don't often take place where the products reach the surface unchanged.

(SEWilco 05:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

The problem I have with the whole thing is that FeO exists at unreasonably low fO₂ conditions (I am going to wildly assume you know what that is?) at the Wustite-Magnetite buffer. The reactions work in the lab, in the 600-1200 degree celsius range, in a laser crucible, with an artificial concoction of wustite, calcite, water. This is not a natural system on several bases; firstly the composition is unknown, there is no evidence of it on Earth, in the crust - and it must be the crust because the mantle is never below 1150 degrees C. Secondly, the efficiency of methane production is different between resistive and laser methods, suggesting that there may be some artificial phenomenon associated with the laser process which is producing the raman spectrum of methane. Thirdly, the CaO-Methane-Magnetite system at 1200 degrees may just as easily revert to Wustite-Calcite-Water once the laser is turned off; this could well be an equilibrium reaction.

So, what compositions do we know of in nature which produce observable methane? Serpentinites. Which have FeO. Thus why the serpentinite reactions are favored. The equations put forward involved converting magnetite to hematite; this does not happen within the crust without a change in oxygen fugacity past the quartz-fayalite-magnetite buffer and into the hematite-quartz stability field, and its speculation that this happens in serpentinites, in the crust, the mantle, anywhere and that it is this process that creates methane.

If you wish, restate the reaction as Wustite-Calcite-Water --> Magnetite-CaO-Methane, but please mention it is a hypothetical model of methanogenesis proposed from laboratory studies. The way it was written and presented makes it seem like there is a gigantic list of reactions related to carbonates and wustite and it was all solved. It is, in my estimation from having actually, you know, studied geology, more likely that the serpentinite mechanism works. Ths is because, as I staed before, there have been well recorded examples of methane being struck within serpentinites. In fact, this is something I have seen myself. A wustite-calcite mantle xenolith I have no knowledge of.

Saying 'the products don't reach the surface unchanged' is crap. Read the paper, they list spectral evidence for a variety of compounds observed during the reaction. This includes a list of compounds including CaO and methane. However they do not cite this as evidence that CaO is produced by the reaction; the list of compounds is a reading of a physical state of an artificial compostion. The authors do not go as far as saying that there is a particular mineral assemblage created nor that they expect this to revert to other mineral assemblages enroute to the surface. That is your inference, and you are attempting to defend your use of this study as evidence of abiogenesis by saying "nothing is proven". Well, if nothing is proven, and this is a laboratory reaction, can you use this as evidence for the theory? It is equally arguable that if the conditions in the lab can't be proven to exist in nature, it is meaningless, as it is to argue that artificial synthess infer it is possible that abiogenic petroleum exists.

The presence of Wustite in Lamproites is interesting, however it is not associated with oil or methane, to my knowledge. It is also a rare thing to find wustite in even kimberlites.

Can carbonates be subducted? Yes, however most carbonates are metamorphosed to marble, calc-silicate assemblages (scapolite, wollastonite, etc) and tend to melt at 800 degrees C so are unlikely to survive as intact formations within the lower crust/mantle. The carbonate is also likely to be dissolved in part enroute to the manle via hydrothermal cnvection. This is not to say there are not enriched mantle areas rich in carbonates and that there are no carbonates in the mantle, but I think you can avoid bringing subduction into the argument in the first place. It is not necessary to argue through flaming hoops carbonates get into the mantle via subduction and it is therefore irrelevant to the discussion as to whether coral reefs can be stuffed down into the mantle.

Why did they choose wustite-calcite? Probably because they knew they needed a composition which contained hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and a transition metal which was very reduced in terms of oxygen fugacity, in order to produce methane (reduced hydrocarbons). This is normal for science because their objective was to ask "is it possible to produce methane from mineral-water mixtures?". This is different from asking the question "which natural rock/mineral assemblage exists that can produce abiogenic methane?". It is a fine distinction but a critical one.Rolinator 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Low fO₂ means there is little oxygen available for reactions (although that scale ranges from 'little' to 'tiny small pieces of miniscule' amounts). Looks like Scott2004 got magnetite at low temp+pressure, which switched to wustite when pressure increased and lime converted to aragonite. I'm only seeing magnetite in "Carbonate reduction" "Reaction 6b" so that must be what you're referring to. Because H2O is present, high fO2 is implied so much more magnetite than wustite should exist. A subducting slab is likely to lose magnetite, but wustite is most likely to be encountered at greater depths. Hmm. The wustite-magnetite buffer is an equilibrium, so some wustite exists; if calcite and water are present when conditions prefer magnetite, wouldn't the reaction which consumes wustite tend to take place and not be reversible later if the methane escapes? (SEWilco 06:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

The scott experiment had a ratio of wustite to calcite to water of 8:1:20 if I recall correctly. This is a massive excess of water, and I believe, it was present as supercooled ice; this was heated by a laser and raman spectroscopy used to detect methane within the vaporised superheated steam. This is, once again, not a typical mantle composition where there is (as best can be shown from mantle xenoliths) less than 0.5% water. High oxygen fugacity is not "implied" by the presence of water; while volatiles within the mantle may be present as ions and certainly not in liquid form, minerals are not subject to the same state and are still essentially solid. Because water exists as oxygen and hydrogen ions does not mean that the hydrogen simply abandons the oxygen, seeps off, and leaves a dissolved oxygen gas.

Thus the problem I have with saying, simplistically, that a bunch of stoichiometric reactions involving FeO and CaO, water and carbon dioxide, equates to nature involves, 1) primarily the extreme artificiality of the experiment, and 2) the problem that oxygen fugacity is not simply increased by throwing in more water. Because you are right, what happens when the water leaves and the reagent leaves, or the methane leaves the system? The reactions either have to be reversed, and the assumption that the system is driven to produce methane falls over, especially because the CaO must find something to bind with chemically. Hence, the Scott experiment is good at showing that within an artificial composition subject to artificial conditions, you get artificial methane. But this is far from what happens in 'wet' enriched mantle peridotite at 100km depth.

The other point about the presence of wustite within kimberlites is that if a kimberlite has wustite, it necessarily cannot have produced methane (because, then, it must be present as magnetite or hematite). Similarly, the fact that the majority of ultramafic rocks and magmas erupted into the crust and onto the ocean floors contain magnetite, not hematite, says that even if water is added, it does not increase oxygen fugacity. And, also, if you need water to create methane, by that logic, the reactions are opposed; water increases fO2 above the W-M buffer and indeed above the Q-F-M buffer, and out of the chemically reduced state needed to produce methane, hence, carbon is present as carbon dioxide.

Thus, realistically, there is no scientifically defensible reason to leave these equations in the article. They are wholly disconnected from reality. Once again, I would be happy with a "experiments on synthetic or artificial materials in the laboratory indicate that a sifficiently chemically reduced mantle lithology containing carbonate and wustite can produce methane if there is an excess of water." Or something like that. This is far different from saying "mehane is produced in the mantle via these bazillion reactions". And in any case, you just copied them from the Scott paper where they were given as potential reactions.Rolinator 09:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There do seem to be various pieces of slabs at the upper-lower mantle transition zone, although I don't know if they lose all their volatiles by then. A lot of CO2 and H2O seems to be buffered in the mantle, although in the lower mantle they've lost their oxygen. Hydrocarbons in kimberlite pipes with diamonds suggest C+H can meet someplace deep. But whether C and H got in lower mantle is where Gold and Russian theories separate; Gold said C is primordial while Russian theories are satisfied with any C which gets deep enough. If C is siderophile in the mantle its travels are simplified. (SEWilco 06:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

Well, I'm a Russian student.;) I'm not a geologist, but a chemist. And I perform my Master's degree working on this problem and carrying out those hi-pressure and hi-temp. experiments like there was told about. We did made methane and, moreover, HCs to C₅ from FeO-CaCO₃-water system under about 900-1300 °C and under pressure 30 and 50 kbar. Water excess was minimal, and products were analyzed with GC and MS. Then, concerning geophysics investigations: I saw seismogramm of newly discovered oil field of Tatarstan (Romashkovo) - there was present skewed crust breaks under oil field that are supposed to be migration canals for deep-generated HCs. And, at last, so called "rare earth anomaly" - enrichment of oil with Eu (like this was detected in rocks erupted from the mantle), that can not be well-explained by "classical" theory. - Dr Yankee Doodle (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of problems with biogenic theory is needed

I did some work on this article when it was relatively new, but haven't visited it for quite a while now. The article has considerably improved, but it seems that the science itself has stood still.

I don't know if there was discussion of difficulties with the biogenic theory at some point; if there was, someone removed it. As the article stands, it has a gaping logical gap. This is because, as the article itself states, that the earth contains abiogenic petroleum petroleum is no longer in dispute. (It was in dispute when this article was started.) Therefore, if it can be shown that the biogenic theory is untenable, then the abiogenic theory must be true by elimination. Thus, this article seems to have a bad case of missing the forest for the trees.

It is my understanding that the biogenic theory has two major problems, one theoretical and one experimental. One doesn't have to go further than one of the sources cited in the article, reference 8, Kenney et al. 2002, and a follow-up to it that is not given in the references, a letter to Nature which Nature apparently declined to publish. This letter was a response to a report in Nature about the article.

In this article, the authors make the following claim: "The second law of thermodynamics prohibits spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons heavier than methane in the regimes of temperature and pressure found in the near-surface crust of the Earth", where petroleum is formed according to the biogenic theory. (The quote is from the letter.) The authors have been making this claim in a series of papers that go back to 1998. So almost ten years have passed since the authors introduced the argument. Have their theoretical arguments been refuted? As far as I am aware, they have not. Someone should do a literature search and find out if this is indeed the case. If no one is able to find a refutation, this Wikipedia article will have to note that the claim has not been refuted.

The experimental problem is that, as the authors also state in their letter, experiments to create the spontaneous genesis of hydrocarbons "have been attempted by diverse persons (who have been ignorant of the overriding constraints of the laws of thermodynamics) numerous times during the past century. All such attempts have failed, without a single, legitimate exception. Hydrocarbons can be (and are) synthesized at low pressures by the well-known Fischer-Tropsch processes, or the Kolb reactions. Such are driven, not spontaneous, processes." Given that physics is coming close to being able to create conditions comparable to those a split-second after the Big Bang, it should be deeply worrisome that no one has been able to create hydrocarbons from organic matter in the laboratory.

My impression is that for at least the last ten years or so, the debate about the origins of petroleum has been not so much a debate about two competing theories but a debate between geologists and physicists, or rather, the ignoring by geologists of physics. The authors of the series of papers in question are claiming that the biogenic theory could not possibly be true. The longer those papers stand unrefuted, the more likely it becomes that they are correct, so that the biogenic theory is false.

The problem here is sociological. Geologists are not trained to pay attention to findings of theoretical physics, even though geological processes of course can't break the laws of physics. What's going on is geologists are going around thinking, "We don't listen to physicists. We only listen to other geologists."

I propose modifying the article to point out that a body of work exists according to which biogenic petroleum is impossible, but that this research has been ignored, for apparently sociological reasons. This would be neutral point of view, because it would not claim that the abiogenic theory is true, but merely that which of the two theories is true is still up in the air. (Of course, this is a scandalous state of affairs.)

What this article misses is that even if every single geologist on the planet believes in the biogenic theory, if the physics is correct, all those geologists are wrong. Hyperion 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Hyperion, In my opinion you are quite correct. Biogenic theory is nonsense althought there are biological molecules in non-biological petroleum as said Dr. Thomas Gold, because Deep Hot Biosphere interact with hydrocarbons at low pressures. In my view I think the problem is not if hydrocarbons are abiogenic or biogenic (they are abiogenic, of course) but how is the process of hydrocarbons formation (primordial hydrocarbons with biological reworking? Primordial methane and other light hydrocarbons forming heavy hydrocarbons through serpentinization from mantle peridotites via Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis?). Surely russians geologists and thermodynamicists solved most part of these problems. Unfortunately geologists don't know physiscs and chemistry enough to understand earth. Geologists, for instance, don't know about dolomite genesis and salt too. Why the ocean is salty? There are several enigmas in geology and petroleum formation is part of this. Anonymous 201.53.23.197 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you two are referring to. As I understand it, the biogenic theory of formation is accepted by Physicists and Petroleum Geologists alike. The biotic theory and abiogenic theory of formation have limited support, numerous problems and most experts believe they only account for a small proportion of petroleum at most Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I had to hazard a guess, it's because abiotic oil is a junk-science theory that tries to throw possibilities at you until you give up trying to disprove them. Whoever came up with it is probably the same guys that did intelligent design. 70.61.22.110 (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt

Does it really matter if the abiogenic petroleum hypothesis was thought up by a dog? Discuss an idea by its merits not by who you suggest proposed the idea. Throwing possibilities up until they are disproved is science, the process is called the scientific method. The possibility is called a hypothesis, the purpose of science is to disprove a hypothesis not prove it except by attempting to disprove it and failing.64.56.17.154 (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)