Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New research

Suggests that it is possible for Hydrocarbons to form in the Earth's mantle, it's not so clear if they would survive the journey to the curst: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090726150843.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.35.52 (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The research at the Carnegie Institution for Science IS new research. Do not remove this reference. Research is research regardless if the outcome is proof or dispoof. 172.134.81.176 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The experiment is a tiny variation of previous just as extensive experiments, both previously by Kutcherov and a similar american experiment using a diamond anvil cell. There is absolutely no new results or consequences from this study. Chekaliuk predicted this behavior back in 1976 (Geotektonika: don't remember the title). That one can make hydrocarbons spontaneously by the right materials (they never try to use the material one believe are the main rock types in this part of the mantle)at mantle PT conditions, proves nothing. Cows, sheep and humans produce astronomic quantities of methane, and nobody suggests that those are the sources of commercial petroleum accumulations. The reason 99.99999999% of all petroleum scientist agree petroleum originates either by thermal cracking of kerogen or in some cases dry gas may be of direct biogenic origin (mostly CO2 reducing bacteria) is because the source rocks have been mapped in detail, their petroleum yield measured in millions of samples, and the relations is completely clear. Also, the quantity of oil and gas formed from source rocks are typically 10 to 100 times more than what is is discovered in-place in a mature area. Anybody can see how this is done routinely in all exploration wells: goto the Norwegian Oil Directorates homepage: www.npd.no and look up the data in all released wells on the Norwegian shelf. Both existing petroleum in the samples are measured (by thermal extraction) as well as pyrolytically formed petroleum; S1 and S2. The total amount of organic carbon is given as TOC. The HI represent the amount of pyrolytically formed petroleum in mg per gram TOC. These data are used in inversion schemes to back calculate the amount already formed and expelled from the source rocks. The reader should also know that oil source rocks are so rich in highly aliphatic polymeric organic matter, that with modern seismic inversion techniques, the source rocks can be mapped in 3-D. As the source rock form and expell petroleum, it becomes denser and loose large quantities of carbon and hydrogen; this can in fact be studied on seismic inversion cubes continuously in 3 dimensions. 3-D basin simulators are used to simulate the flow of petroleum to the reservoirs. The formation of petroleum and it's flow in sedimentary basins, is probably the most intesively studied process in science, because of it's enormous economic significance. The abiotic advocates as Kutcherov, Jack F Kenney and Thomas Gold, are simply ignoring the largest body of research and data ever produced in any scientific dicipline. That is why most geoscientists just twist their head at the abiotic activists. I also suggest the reader skims through the "ENDLESS ABIOTIC OIL" review at the top of this talk section.

PETRSCIENT (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The ScienceDaily item apparently refers to Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions doi:10.1038/ngeo591 -- SEWilco (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Geotimes' article

This site: [Geotimes] has an article , about this subject. It was published on American magazine Geotimes.Agre22 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

Seriously biased history section

First, let me state that I have no particular interest in either conventional or abiogenic hypotheses, nor the odium scholasticum that obviously is circulating here. I came to the article by chance whilst looking for something else entirely, but was immediately struck by the scornful tenor of the "history" section: whoever wrote that section believes that proponents of the hypothesis are primitivist cretins, and wants everyone else to think so, too. In Wikipedia I have rarely seen such a blatant example fail to be corrected. Some examples:

1. The abiologic theory for the origin of petroleum is usually traced to the early part of the 19th century. In fact one example is given of a broadly similar statement from that era, but all other indications suggest it actually originated in the 1950s and is in fact much more recent than the conventional biogenic hypothesis.
2. The hypothesis was developed well before the field of organic chemistry, much less that of biochemistry, was established so the chemical nature of the petroleum was not known. Even if we accept Humboldt's 1804 statement as being the actual "origin" of the hypothesis, this is at best misleading. Organic chemistry was well-started by 1804, but it was indeed still bedevilled by the vitalism hypothesis at that time. However, belief in the vitalism hypothesis would actually suggest the biological origin of petroleum, and undermine the abiogenic hypothesis!
3. Absent intellectual framework of organic and biological chemistry, abiologic theories were inevitable. This phrase is clearly intended to associate the abiogenic hypothesis with ignorance; but at its core, the statement makes no sense at all. It is clearly not true that a biological hypothesis could not be constructed without fully understanding the chemistry, since Agricola did so.
4. In the early 1800s, Phlogiston theory was the dominant model for explaining chemical phenomena. This is utter bunk. The phlogiston theory was conclusively discredited by Lavoisier by 1783, decades before Humboldt's statement. However as "phlogiston" serves as a byword for theories that are not only discredited but perhaps even faintly ludicrous, associating it with the abiogenic hypothesis serves nicely for a little discrediting.
5. Furthermore, the formal study of paleontology had only started in the early 1800s. This is also bunk. Paleontology began to be conducted on a scientific basis from early in the eighteenth century at the latest; most of the fundamental principles still respected today, were established by the time of Cuvier's famous lectures in 1796. The concept of fossilisation, and organic materials metamorphosing during this process, was understood even in the seventeenth century.
6. Alexander von Humboldt ... is quoted as saying, "petroleum is the product of a distillation from great depth and issues from the primitive rocks beneath which the forces of all volcanic action lie." ... While these notions have been proven unfounded, the basic idea that petroleum is associated with magmatism persisted. Erm, what? Nothing that Humboldt is quoted as saying in fact differentiates between a biological or abiogenic origin. He is saying that some material (he doesn't say what exactly) suffers destructive distillation as a result of intense pressure and geothermal heat, and (in the case of the surface petroleum he was observing) rises to the surface. Far from being "proven unfounded" the statement, as far as it goes, is fully consistent with the modern biological origin hypothesis!!

-- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with many of your points. (I am slowly working on a draft for a complete rewrite of the entire article.) Originally I thought it was possible to salvage the article, but it is so full of factual errors, bias in all direction related to among other things that the authors use completely implicit different definitions of what they are talking about, that a complete rewrite is required.

However, some of your own comments are suffering from the same mythology that circulate on the net so you have just made yourself guilty of spreading the same un-sourced fabricated stories the abiotic article is suffering from. 1) The abiotic theory, regardless of how you define "petroleum" did not originate in USSR in the 1950s. (And the whole thing is a false dichotomy) You are making the mistake of believing in as a fact, anything that only can be sourced back to Jack F. Kenney. I have been tracing Kenney's activities for a while, and so far, any "fact" that is available on the internet, exclusively sourced by him, have proven to be fabricated. This includes Kenney's "Gas Resources Corporation", which nobody (including many petroleum company old-boy insiders in Houston) have ever heard about. It appears to be purely a registered "name cover" for Kenney, which only known possible employment appear to be Bell Laboratories. The story he is spreading that he was a CEO of this company, is very interesting: a CEO of a petroleum company in Houston (nobody have heard about), installing himself at an academic institution as a guest researcher in Moscow for many years (living on a grant from "Gas Resources Corporation" (plus money and logistic support from the Russians (Did he fool the Russians to ?)). Also, his credentials says he had 20 years of experience with deep oil drilling, prior to him introducing himself (out of nowhere) at Mora (in SIljan) prior to the start of the Siljan drillings; this story would imply that he was actively involved with deep drilling for oil during his student days (working on a physics thesis regarding the magnetosphere). Notice that absolutely nothing of his scientific productions has anything to do with actual producible petroleum occurrences (It is purely theoretical stuff of relevance to simple hydrocarbon mixture PVT behavior, explosives (which he has published on) and to impulse calculations for rocket engines (a field the Russian's clearly excelled in, compared to the west (a good reason to go to Russia during the cold war for a .. ? ) (The Russians launched nearly 1000Kg into earth orbit, while the americans had problems putting Werner von Braun's lunch-pack into orbit)). The second point 2) Is irrelevant since it was first in the 1970s that analytical equipment permitted us to get an idea of crude oil compositions (apart from the structurally simplest hydrocarbons.)

One of the main reason that, even wikipedian's with good intentions, have made such a mess out of this article, is that they are unaware of the dramatic different meaning of the term "petroleum" applied by different workers. It appears that you are trapped in the same net.

Originally the term petroleum was used for crude oil seeps (viscous liquids) at the surface of the earth ("rock oil" Latin: Petro=Rock Leum = oil (olive oil)). However, because a reservoir oil (liquid in the underground) may separate into liquid(s), vapor and "solids" as it is transported from the reservoir to the surface (and in separators at the surface) and similarly reservoir natural gas (vapor in the underground) may separate into vapor, liquid and "solids", the original meaning of the term is mostly abandoned in the technical literature.

Today a more common practice is to let the term petroleum refer to all natural occurrences of gaseous, liquid and solid homogeneous material (phases) composed of mainly hydrocarbons (compounds made of carbon & hydrogen) and heterocompounds (made of carbon, hydrogen, sulphur, nitrogen and oxygen). An even wider use of the term has emerged and is in fact the only term which allows a scientific discussion, without constantly having to qualify every statement with system compositions, PVT and phase differentiated gradients in pressure and composition.

This wide use of the term refers to "any occurrence of the organic molecules that make up traditional petroleum phases, even when the molecules occur in (or adsorbed on) phases that are not classified as petroleum", e.g., liquid water and coal. This definition is widely applied in the petroleum industry because in some reservoirs such as coal beds and kerogen rich shales, the petroleum molecules are mainly stored in sorbed states rather then in any free petroleum phases. This definition is also what is applied in the scientific literature regarding "abiotic petroleum"; a large part of the "abiotic petroleum" detected on the earth occurs dissolved and extremely diluted in water (a small fraction of a gram per liter ) and not in any common petroleum phases such as a crude oils or natural gas. Unfortunately, this imprecise and changing terminology has contributed to the cascade of sensational articles in the non-technical press. "Lost City at the mid ocean ridge" is presented as methane gas pouring out of black smokers, while the fact is that what is observed is up to 0.03 gram per liter methane dissolved in water pouring out of the black smoker. While this is more than what is typically dissolved in water in the open ocean, your backdoor little lake, has more methane dissolved in the bottom waters than that. This article and most of the internet fuzz, makes no or little differentiation between 1.7 trillion barrels of heavy crude and 0.03 gram methane per liter water in black smokers. The article also does not differentiate between internet unsubstantiated claims and data and interpretations from (hundreds of) scientific articles, e.g., the white tiger, eugene island and the heavy oil belt of Canada are good examples.

The number of the stated occurrences of abiotic methane (plus some C2..C10.. simple hydrocarbons) in economic accumulations, so far can be counted on one hand, and they are poorly documented, and the data available have alternative interpretations. Nobody in the petroleum scientific community has ever doubted the presence of abiotically synthesized hydrocarbons, and nobody has doubted the possibility of primordial hydrocarbons. The issue is that everything we have found so far of abiotic hydrocarbons are extremely dispersed. There may be a large amount of methane synthesized by FT in mafic and ultramafic rocks, but so far we have not found any certain occurrences, and we do not have any theory (yet), capable of delivering such molecules to a producible reservoir. Commercial petroleum reservoir probably do have traces of abiotic hydrocarbons, but the quantities of petroleum from source rocks are so enormous it is impossible to detect them; they drown in the signal from the fossil petroleum (typically 10 to 100 times more petroleum have left the organic source rocks compared to what we ever see in producible reservoirs; another example of that the authors of this article have had no idea about the enormous amount of data actually available about this.)

Regarding 3) "This phrase is clearly intended to associate the abiogenic hypothesis with ignorance; but at its core, the statement makes no sense at all." I completely agree. However, you must see that these are knee-jerk reactions to the rubbish placed by a few (1 stands for 90%) trollers and super vandals in particular: Thousands (a post every 10-20 minutes, day and night for years) with repeated "quote mining's", mixed with doctored citations (turn a paper into the opposite of what it concludes) and racial religious slurs all over the internet including Wikipedia. It is a normal human reaction to give an overdone reaction to these (this) destructive psychopath(s), but you are right it does not belong in a serious article.

4) Yes, the phlogiston bs is a mockery tool. Have a look at Kitchka's activities her in the talk section to see what I mean.

5) The real issue is when science was able to both detect the origin of kerogen by recognizing it's biological origin, shape textures etc, and link it's chemistry to which part of living matter, and finally to experimentally verify the formation of petroleum from kerogen. The technology for doing that did not emerge before in the 1970-1980s. In fact most of what we know about sedimentary basins, and petroleum systems in general emerged around the same time, because without modern seismic images, we did only have a vague idea about how sedimentary basins look like and how petroleum accumulations are spatially associated with source rocks.

6) Agree !! Meaningless statement, linked to undocumented (unsourced: read Jack F Kenney) claims.

PETRSCIENT (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Biotic origin of petroleum? Not a problem. That's an impossibility

Keep in mind what said Fred Hoyle:

"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.67.221.44 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Instead of again and again and again placing the same "quotes", if you have any constructive purpose, you are welcome to add valid information here. You have already made sufficient mockery of the Portugese version of this article. PETRSCIENT (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely a constructive purpose is to let registered that you fit perfectly in the statement of Sir Fred Hoyle. Please wake up, we are in the 21th century.187.67.215.139 (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What a laughable article

And a discussion page filled to the brim with libel, appeals to authority, false history, complete with the most biased introduction on Wikipedia. This article stands as a CONDEMNATION of the Wikipedia model. I am a physicist and everything up there stated by "PETRSCIENT" is a load of pseudo-science, filled with misunderstandings about Gibbs free energy and Enthalpy. Truly, we are living in a barbaric era. 130.95.240.53 (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's WP:Fringe and should likely be deleted. Calicocat (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be pleased if you could point out Errors in my "pseudoscience" article about the endless abiotic oil activists. If you actually have any knowledge about this, both when it comes to my "thermodynamic misunderstandings" or what you call libel, the readers would strongly appreciate that you fill us in. The question is really if it is the Wikipedia model that needs condemnation, or if the many physicists who push drivel into the mass media needs a wakeup call. As a representative of that group you now have a golden chance to prove that this group has any idea about what they are talking about. Are you up to the challenge ? PETRSCIENT (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thermodynamics

If anyone is interested in thermodynamics and still dividing numbers by zero and find real results of this division is the time to read the entire contents of this site http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm 187.67.219.125 (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you go to the Russian wikipedia [1] and you write the equivalent article there (if there is already an article there, then please link it here so we can link back to it). Since people there can read Russian, they will be able to check the literature. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

New citation needed for Gravberg well section

I have commented out the broken link that served as the only citation for the mention of Gold's claims regarding the Gravberg well, in the "Siljan Ring, Sweden" subsection of the "Field observations" section of the article:

A second hole was drilled a few miles away with no diesel fuel based drilling fluid and this produced (according to Gold) 15 tons of oil. However, no documentation of any such discovery has ever been provided. The "discovery" is not mentioned in any well log, including the well completion log. No other personnel at the drilling location ever reported anything apart from some additional magnetite-rich mud contaminated with minor organics from the Gravberg well.

Without a proper citation it should really be deleted, but given the critical importance of that section to the debate over Gold's entire argument, I've left the text in place in hopes that somebody will be able to find a replacement citation. I'll look for one myself, but wanted to draw attention to the section here as well. --Lewis (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the second well was apparently the "Stenberg I" well. Here's a source that seems to back up Gold's claims: [2] — though I have no idea about how reliable it is. I'll continue looking, but thought this additional information might assist others in researching this. --Lewis (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

1) The website you are referring to is highly unreliable. It is run by Jack F. Kenney, the same person who claims that he and Vladimir Kutcherov helped finding more abiotic oil in Ukraine, than the amount of oil at the North Slope of Alaska (around 20 billion barrels). Kenney actually claim they found around 60 billion barrels. However, the total quantity of oil ever found in Ukraine is not more than 2 billion barrels. Today, more than 10 years after these claimed discoveries, it is only Jack F Kenney who has ever heard of it. Kenney made up this story, the same way he made up the story that "abiotic technology" helped the former USSR to become an oil giant, and that it impossible to form petroleum from "biological detritus'. All Kenney's co-authors (Kutcherov, Kraushkin, Plotnikova) are on written record pointing out that these stories are 1) a fabrication 2) complete nonsense.

2) Still, if you actually had read what Kenney state regarding this, you would see it is completely opposite to Golds claims of 15 tonnes + 80 barrels of crude. You give the impression here that Kenney "confirm" Golds's claims which indicate you must have completely misunderstood what you read, or actually did not read it. Kenney state that only traces of hydrocarbons were detected, and that most of it was diesel contamination. He claims that using molecular fluorescence he can detect that in the traces, there are also some traces of unrefined crude. I have worked with molecular fluorescence spectroscopy of crude oils and similar materials (published several papers in international refereed scientific journals on the topic), and can report that such a claim is nonsense. (Molecular fluorescence depends on a wide number of parameters, including dilution levels, and there are endless number of chemical mixtures that will give identical broad fluorescence emission spectra.) You need a completely different analytical procedure to detect such crude traces and identify them as natural crude components not present in a distillation cut as diesel. In fact, there are traces of natural oil in the hydrothermal zones in Siljan. However, they are clearly from the trestaspis shale (ordovician) that covered the area when the meteor hit (Late Devonian) (as pointed out by the scientists actually publishing scientific papers on the subject and analyzing the trestapis shale in the Siljan Ring.)

3) I also suggest people read:

Drilling fluid additatives and artifact hydrocarbons shows: examples from the Gravberg-1 well, Siljan Ring, Sweden Jeffrey, A.W.A, Kaplan, I.R., 1989. , Scientific Drilling, Volume 1, Pages 63-70"

and

Asphaltene-Like Material in Siljan Ring Well Suggests Mineralized Altered Drilling Fluid (includes associated papers 20322 and 20395 ) Jeffrey, Alan, Kaplan, Isaac, Global Geochemistry Corp. Journal of Petroleum Technology Volume 41, Number 12 December 1989 1262-1263, 1310-1313

You will then discover that Gold made up the entire oil-discovery story in his book. Gold claims that the Gravberg-1 well was left by itself and that nothing was added to the well. The second paper above describe the reality: "On July 11, 1987, during fishing for lost wireline, a sticky, black, mineralized material was recovered on the fishing tools. When the drillpipe was brought to the surface, the interior of the bottom section was filled with about 60 kg [132 Ibm] of the black material. One week before this discovery, a mixture containing one sack of caustic soda, XCD polymer, and 1.1 m3 [7 bbl] of a commercially used BNTL was spotted at the drillbit to free the drillstring, which had stuck at 5945 m [19,505 ft] during a trip from the drilling depth of 6377 m[20.922 ft]. After this addition, fluid was circulated for 1 day, after which the drill pipe became plugged. The nozzles in the drillbit were then closed, and the fluid and additives remained at the formation temperature (~100 degrees C at ~6 km [~212 degrees F at ~3.7 miles]) until the drillstem was freed 6 days later."

" The chemical characterization showed that this material contains small amounts of hydrocarbons maximizing in the diesel range. No heavy hydrocarbons were identified, except for trace amounts of polycyclic aliphatics. From the chemical and stable isotopic characterizations, we concluded that the black gelatinous material is derived predominantly from the alteration of biodegradable nontoxic lubricant (BNTL) additives by caustic soda, admixed with diesel oil and trace amounts of polycyclic hydrocarbons from recirculating local lake water. No evidence for an indigenous or deep source for the hydrocarbons could be justified."

What Gold describe as oil he dissolved in hot soap water was actually acids and fatty acid derivatives. If Gold had had any chemical knowledge , he would have known that oil is NOT soluble in hot soap water. (Water needs to be near critical before it develops properties which makes it a solvent for the main components in crude oil) (Do the experiment yourself; take some e.g., motor oil and mix it with boiling soap water. The oil will not dissolve: instead it will accumulate as globules at the surface of the water.). Golds "colored solution" corresponds to Jeffrey & Kaplan's water extract and has nothing to do with oil.

Notice that Gold make up an enormous story of the significance of the magnetite that dominated the sludge: according to him: it proves that microbes were eating oil. Notice that the well was treated with hot caustic soda (Gold made up the story that nothing was put down the well). When you expose steel to hot caustic soda, something called "steel oxidation" will occur. Take some steel at home and dip it in 100 degree Celsius caustic soda solution (use protective gear !). The steel will turn black. The black material is magnetite. This is a common method to protect steel from corrosion (look it up for yourself), and magnetite scales is common in oil and gas wells for this reason when you treat a "hot" well with NaOH. The hot NaOH treatment at Gravberg went on for a week before the magnetite sludge "discovery". Gold was told, and knew well what the origin of the magnetite was, still he expanded on the subject, and in his book he emphasized that nothing had been added to the well. This is a clear and easy to document example of scientific fraud.

Notice that nothing of what has been claimed by either Gold or Kenney, are backed by any real data or scientific references; only claims of undocumented events and non-existing data. If they refer to anything, it is either irrelevant (unrelated to the subject) or completely outdated. Not a single reference to the large amount of modern scientific literature on the subject that conclude the opposite of their claims.. instead they just use claims designed for internet and mass media consumption.PETRSCIENT (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)PETRSCIENT (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL.. "you must have completely misunderstood what you read, or actually did not read it." What a jerk thing to say! You must have me confused with some die-hard fan of Gold's.. please don't take your vendettas out on me. I read the article and understood it just fine. It claims that traces of hydrocarbons were found in the second well that were not introduced by the drilling process, which is precisely the claim of Gold's I was referring to. If you say that's not a reliable source, I'll take your word for it.. that's literally the only citation I can find on this issue one way or the other, and given the gigantic chip on your shoulder I'm not inclined to spend any more of my time researching to find articles in support of the article text as it currently stands. Unless you (or somebody else) can find a reliable source to back up this text, it has to go:

A second hole was drilled a few miles away with no diesel fuel based drilling fluid and this produced (according to Gold) 15 tons of oil. However, no documentation of any such discovery has ever been provided. The "discovery" is not mentioned in any well log, including the well completion log. No other personnel at the drilling location ever reported anything apart from some additional magnetite-rich mud contaminated with minor organics from the Gravberg well.

In the interest of balance, I'd simply remove any mention of a "discovery" at the second well at all, either in support of such a claim or in opposition to it. Other than disputed anecdotal reports, there doesn't seem to be any reliable source in support of Gold's claim of discovery, either. Maybe there's documentation on this in print media, but I can't find anything online.

Petriscient, you seem to be extremely knowledgeable on this subject, but please take a chill pill and realize that not everybody who questions the veracity of various claims in the article has some kind of agenda they're trying to push. Some of us really just want to find reliable sources for the claims, since that's the way in which Wikipedia articles can be of the most use to readers. I don't trust anything I read on this site, unless I see a citation for it and confirm it there, first. Wikipedia has to be a good starting point for further research, or else it's pretty much useless. --Lewis (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Innaccurate map

The picture with the text below it "Oil deposits are not directly associated with tectonic structures." seems to have left the US blank. You can even see a sharp line on the border of Canadian oil deposits where they stop at the US border. I'm assuming there should be a coloured in area around Texas too. -OOPSIE- (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede WP:UNDUE

Is using "Abiogenic petroleum origin is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing theory of biological petroleum origin." as the first sentence giving WP:UNDUE weight to this theory? If we look at a similar discreditted hypothesis (i.e. Spontaneous generation) we usually call out in the first sentence that the theory isn't given much credence. NickCT (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Abiogenic petroleum origin" is not single hypothesis. There are many of them contradicting each other. Some of them are discredited but some of them are very credible. And do not forget that "Biogenic petroleum origin hypothesis" is also just hypothesis. Calmouk (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

statements not supported by sources

Aboout [3].

• For the Naval Postgraduate School paper[4], it only talks about abiotic theory in the appendix (pages 67-69) saying that it should be looked at. It doesn't say that oil has been found thanks to the theory, it does not say the theory is responsible for any increase in production.

• The IP changed "most geologists consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported" to some geologists. However, the source for the statement says "this theory is now largely forgotten even in the Former Soviet Union and virtually unknown in the west."[5]

• That last source also speaks of how the abiotic theory failed to find oil in Russia-Ukrania, and how a recent US survey doesn't even mention the theory (summary in page 95)

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I already undid those edits. IP was clearly POV pushing. NickCT (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is Glasby source outdated?

In reference to the removal of Glasby as an outdated source:

• Glasby, Geoffrey P. (2006). "Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: an historical overview" (PDF). Resource Geology. 56 (1): 83–96. doi:10.1111/j.1751-3928.2006.tb00271.x. Retrieved 2008-02-17.

This source is from 2006. Care to explain why it's outdated, and which are the new sources that have made this source outdated? New research, new evidence, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. Beefman needs to explain what he means before we change the meaning of lede so significantly. NickCT (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically, that's not the long-standing text. I changed it in November 2010[6] after looking at the sources in the article. One month ago Beefman had tried to remove the long-standing text[7]. Glasby seems to be a key source, since key statements about current acceptance are using it[8].

The only more recent paper is a more recent 2008 Science paper[9], but that's for small amount of "Low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons". Looking here in the Columbia encyclopedia entry, it says that those are methane, ethane, and propane, which are gaseous at ambient temperature. I understand that oil deposits have a mixture of light, mid-weight and heavy hydrocarbons. Also, that paper doesn't claim that oil found at oil wells is produced by that method. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As clearly stated in my edit summary, "Glasby 2006 predates Proskurowski et al 2008 (cited here) and Kolesnikov et al 2009 (cited on wiki/petroleum)". This article has NPOV issues, not found on Petroleum. I have reinstated my edit. beefman (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey beefman, couple points,

1) I think "Abiogenic petroleum origin theory" really argues that some large portion of the oil on earth could have originated through non-organic means. The Kolesnikov paper doesn't argue that. The Kolesnikov paper seems simply to say "Under conditions similar to those in the upper mantle, you can turn methane/ethane into heavier hydrocarbons".

2) Can you point to the Proskurowski paper? I can't see it.

3) At the moment you have two editors supporting reverting your change. Per WP:BRD, it's now time for discussion rather than edit warring. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proskurowski 2008 and Kolesnikov 2009. Proskurowski is a paper in Science, but it doesn't make any claim about oil deposits having a biological origin. Kolesnikov's is not an actual paper, it's a letter to the journal. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Enric Naval. I'm guessing beefman is looking at the "that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat" in Proskurowski 2008. As with Kolesnikov, I don't think this this paper lends serious weight to or argues for Abiogenic petroleum origin theory as a whole. NickCT (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because a source is a bit more recent than another does not automatically give it priority over all older sources. This is certainly the case here, especially because the cited later sources (Proskurowski and Kolesnikov) are very narrow in scope, and neither one of which really contradict Glasby's assertion that the abiogenic theory for petroleum deposits has been largely (not entirely) abandoned. Plazak (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@NickCT "really argues that some large portion"... No, what gave you this idea?

The Proskurowski paper is cited on /wiki/Petroleum, as I've said four times. "Proskurowski" isn't exactly a common string. I won't be dragged into a debate on or hammered with wikipedia policy pages, sorry. This is destroying our encyclopedia.

In the past two years there have been two publications, in Science and Nature Geoscience, with over 80 citations between them. What possible justification is there for the statement that the hypothesis is "largely abandoned"? Meanwhile, the article has many clear statements that the hypothesis is not consensus, and is categorized as fringe. In the same sentence the biogenic hypothesis is referred to as "prevailing". That is enough for one sentence.

@Enric Raise your hand if you have any knowledge of the subject matter.

We have a clear case of Parkinson's law here, and I won't continue it. I am reverting the edit. There are other points in the article where editors of the considerable expertise on display here are badly needed beefman (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Beef seems to be working against the tide here. NickCT (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@beefman, sorry, but your "publication" in Nature Geoscience is just a letter to the editor. The Science paper doesn't support the removal that you are doing. Your personal expertise is irrelevant, you are supposed to provide sources to support your claims. Your edit can't stand unless you provide sources that back your removal.

Yes, it's a letter, what's your point? beefman (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

-- No point was given, so I'll spell it out: the author of the comment has revealed that he or she has absolutely no clue how scientific publishing works and has no place editing scientific content on this encyclopedia. beefman (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That means sources commenting that the Aiogenic theory is popular again, or that it's being used to find oil fields, or that evidence has been found linking biological production of hydrocarbons with the production of oil deposits, etc. A letter at a journal doesn't cut it.

It says the hypothesis is abandoned, not that some industry method is abandoned. That it is a letter is completely irrelevant. beefman (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The "largely abandoned" bit is sourced to Glasby, who is explicitly making a review of the whole field. The linked PDF explains why, how and when the theory became abandoned. You still have to present a reliable source that contradicts this. Again, a letter in a journal doesn't cut it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

beefman re ""really argues that some large portion"... No, what gave you this idea?" - What gave me that idea? Ummm.... the lead.

“ Abiogenic petroleum origin is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing theory of biological petroleum origin ”

You get all that from the word "alternative"? Impressive! beefman (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

theory of biological petroleum origin explains why there is a lot of oil in the ground. If "Abiogenic petroleum origin" is an alternative to that, it is an alternative explanation of why there is a lot of oil in the ground.

Look.... Perhaps this is a simple misunderstanding, I'm not trying to push the view point that abiogenic petroleum doesn't happen at all. I'm just a little concerned that the current lead makes it seem as though a significant amount of petroleum was produced this way. If you want to think up some language that says "abiogenic petroleum may happen, but isn't responsible for any significant portion of oil", I'd be open to it. NickCT (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Glasby 2006 is cited elsewhere in the lead-in, in the sentence "most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported". The article is more than clear about the current consensus. I'm reinstating the edit for reasons stated, none of which have been adequately addressed here. beefman (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

beefman - You're not really approaching this in a v. constructive manner. You're clearly in a minority. I suggest you propose some kind of compromise rather than slow motion edit war this. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As someone who contributed to the c2 wiki, wikipedia since its beginning, and numerous other online collaborations, my perspective is that the other editors here are not being constructive. I see signs of a culture which rewards, primarily, willingness to spend lots of time on wikipedia. Individuals who write long policy documents, slap tags on pages, and give each other awards. But nothing they do can explain, or adds to, the real content on wikipedia. beefman (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok, you say that it's unnecessary because Glasby is cited elsewhere in the lead. Specifically for the first sentence WP:LEAD#First_sentence: "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the subject is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.[5]" For a non-specialist, it is very relevant to know if the theory is accepted or not by modern scientists.

Also, the first paragraph has to frame the whole topic, from WP:MOSBEGIN: "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. (...)". I understand that it can summarize bits of info that are explained at longer detail in later paragraphs of the lead. Also, being largely abandoned is a relevant circumstance.

I moved the statement to the second sentence, adding a little of historical balance. Is it better now? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is taken more seriously now than at any time in the past. Unbelievable. beefman (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read Glasby, and the string "abandon" does not occur within. The citation seems to refer to the phrase "largely forgotten" which refers *specifically* to the "Russian-Ukrainian theory". The paper reads more like a work of history than a technical review or analysis, but in any case does not support many of the claims made in the lead-in, where it is cited five times.

Here is a list of post-2006 references and resources, exclusive of the two already mentioned, which clearly establish that the hypothesis is an active area of research:

Deep Carbon Observatory, Carnegie Institution of Washington

founded July 10, 2007

http://dco.gl.ciw.edu/

Sloan Deep Carbon Cycle Workshop (May 2008)

http://www.gl.ciw.edu/node/sloan_deep_carbon_cycle_summary_report

"Several months prior to the Workshop we contacted 100 distinguished international scientific leaders for their ideas regarding the most important unanswered questions related to Earth’s deep carbon cycle. The responses, which displayed significant overlap and consensus, suggested that the Workshop could be organized around five broad interrelated topics. These topics are:

1. The nature and extent of deep carbon reservoirs, from crust to core.

2. The nature and magnitude of carbon fluxes among these reservoirs, as well as between surface and subsurface reservoirs.

3. The nature and extent of deep microbial life.

4. The possible role of deep crust and mantle processes in abiotic organic synthesis.

5. The possible impact of the deep carbon cycle on societal concerns regarding climate and energy. ...

Session four on deep abiotic synthesis of organic molecules (Thomas McCollom of the University of Colorado served as discussion leader) considered what is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the deep carbon story ... All presenters agreed that hydrocarbons could be produced abiotically under plausible mantle conditions, though consensus was not reached on the likely extent of such production."

Wang et al

Abiogenic hydrocarbons in commercial gases from the Songliao Basin, China

Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences (accepted Aug 2008)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/c31h2224v3171716/

"Natural gases from 26 commercial gas wells distributed in the Xujiaweizi and Yingshan-Miaotaizi faulted depressions in the Songliao Basin, China ... are characterized by a reverse distribution of d^13C values but a normal distribution of dC values, and a negative correlation between their d^13C and dC values, indicating an abiological origin. The present study has revealed that abiogenic hydrocarbons not only exist in nature but also can make significant contribution to commercial gas reserviors."

McCollom et al

Abiotic Organic Chemistry of the Terrestrial Deep Subsurface: Isotopic Constraints on Hydrocarbon Formation

presented at the American Geophysical Union, Fall 2008

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMMR54A..07S

Fiebig et al

Excess methane in continental hydrothermal emissions is abiogenic

Geology (accepted Jan 2009)

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/6/495.abstract

"These findings strongly suggest that abiogenic methane production in continental-hydrothermal systems is a more widespread process than previously assumed."

Kutcherov, Krayushkin

Deep-seated abiogenic origin of petroleum: From geological assessment to physical theory

Reviews of Geophysics (accepted July 2009)

http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2008RG000270.shtml

"Experimental results and geological investigations presented in this article convincingly confirm the main postulates of the theory and allow us to reexamine the structure, size, and locality distributions of the world's hydrocarbon reserves."

Proskurowski

Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at the Geosphere-Biosphere Interface via Serpentinization Reactions

Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology (2010)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p41m041236k5753j/

McCollom et al

The influence of carbon source on abiotic organic synthesis and carbon isotope fractionation under hydrothermal conditions

Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (accepted 4 February 2010)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2010.02.008

Keir

A note on the fluxes of abiogenic methane and hydrogen from mid-ocean ridges

Geophysical Research Letters (accepted Nov 2010)

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL045362.shtml

"Even though the percentage of the total subsurface flow that is affected by serpentinization appears to be rather small (8%), it still appears that this process produces about 70% of the total mid-ocean flux of these gases." beefman (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But this is only for the production of hydrocarbon gases (methane, ethane and propane), and always in small quantities. There is no evidence for abiogenic petroleum, just for some of the light gases that form it. I tried to give a bit more weight to this discovery in the lead, but the point is that there is still no evidence for abiogenic petroleum, just for small quantities of abiogenic gas (I see that they make claims of big quantities of gas, but they still have to show that they can predict where abiogenic gas can be found). --Enric Naval (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The article currently discusses gasses and does not enforce the more specific definition of petroleum. The above sources don't have to predict anything, because the issue we are discussing is whether the subject is an active area of research. The answer is yes. And despite being a champion of references, you just showed your willingness to fabricate statements and put them into the article, and have ignored the fact that Glasby 2006 does not even contain the claim you fought over. Such responses can go a long way to explain why the article has remained in such a poor condition for so long (I have been watching it for 3 years). beefman (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Glasby already knew about hydrocarbon gases in nature, and he mentions them in his review, and at the end of his abstract he says "This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.".

This page is about the abiogenic formation of petroleum, not about the formation of some of its components in amounts and locations that have nothing to do with petroleum deposits.

Now, I would have no problem changing the article to say that it has been superceded by new discoveries of abiogenic gas, which could lead to the discoveries of natural gas deposits, but still hasn't.

Re: abandoned. Glasby's textual words in his summary (page 95) are "As a matter of fact, this theory is now largely forgotten even in the Former Soviet Union and virtually unknown in the west." Would you prefer "forgotten" instead of "abandoned"? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Invalid != abandoned. We are discussing activity in this field, not predictive capacity, as I already said. "This page" discusses gasses at length, again as I already mentioned. The two are related. Finally, I have already explained that 'abandoned' statement refers to a *specific formulation* of the theory. I believe you have a POV axe to grind here. You are not making sense. beefman (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Russian-Ukraniantheory has been forgotten, the Thomas Gold theory has been forgotten. What "abiogenic oil" theory are you talking about? The new papers are about production of gas and they don't claim that oil deposits had a biological origin. There only some obscure Chinese journal claiming that they found part of biological gas in already existing gas deposits. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Look. I think we all seem to agree that the idea that significant amounts of oil on earth was produced abiogenicly is WP:FRINGE. My concern is that lead doesn't make that clear. Why don't we work on some new language that makes this clear, but at the same time notes the gas generation and other nuances beefman is refering to? NickCT (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Bias

This article is extremely biased, and although it is well referenced, the referenced works themselves are biased as they have all been chosen by scientists and researchers on the side of a debate as to whether this hypothesis is true or not. The first sentence alone, even though it is referenced, demonstrates bias. We can do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.86.71.226 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, the first sentences state, "Abiogenic petroleum origin is a largely abandoned hypothesis that was proposed as an alternative to theory of biological petroleum origin. It was relatively popular in the past, but it went largely forgotten at the end of the 20th century after it failed to predict the location of new wells." However, this is contradicted by abiotic research conducted in the 2000's, see: "Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field", Science, Proskurowski, G, et. al., Vol. 319, No. 5863 (Feb. 1, 2008) (pp. 604-607). >-

Wiki will continue to use its bias to distort this article as it does not fit into their pro-AGW view and "green" agenda of humans abusing the the earth and using up all the fossil fuels. They have used these tactics in AGW articles and will continue to do so until the whole movement unravels as it is currently doing... Mk 71.228.95.196 (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Lost City (hydrothermal field) is a new oil well? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The validity of AGW and the origin of petroleum are in fact totally independent. mike4ty4 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read many biased articles on Wikipedia but this one is just ridiculous. I came here hoping to find out a little more what this subject is all about and find some useful references but this article is a bad joke at best, it's referenced to the hilt but the sources and the article editors are so incredibly biased that it makes one sick to the stomach. I had high hopes for Wikipedia for a while but this article is the last in a fast growing line of proof that Wikipedia will never be a reliable source for just about anything. Thanks a lot guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.54.25 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The first line of the article absolutely needs to be deleted no matter your belief on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trim50 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Methane Explanation

How do all you abiotic denialists explain all the methane found on Titan? Surely there is not much plant or dinosaur life there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.204.43 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Although Earthlings may associate methane with gassy cows, it is a common and perfectly nonbiological constituent of other atmospheres in the solar system, including those of Mars and Titan as well as the gas giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Researchers believe that methane and water would also be common components of planetary atmospheres outside of the solar system. (...) The scorching temperature of HD 189733 b—around 1,000 kelvins (1,300 degrees Fahrenheit)—may cause the carbon in its atmosphere to prefer to join with oxygen as carbon monoxide instead of forming methane." First Whiff of Methane in Extrasolar Planet's Atmosphere Can extraterrestrial ruminants be far behind? Scientific American. "On Earth, the conversion of iron oxide (rust) into the serpentine group of minerals creates methane, and on Mars this process could proceed using water, carbon dioxide, and the planet's internal heat. (...) if the methane has less deuterium than the water released with it on Mars, it's a sign that life is producing the methane." Martian Methane Reveals the Red Planet is not a Dead Planet NASA (thanks for the misleading title, NASA) "(...) The solid methane indicates that Pluto is colder than 70 Kelvin." [10] solarviews.com "[Observations of Pluto] confirm the presence of solid methane. Frozen nitrogen is more abundant than the other two ices (carbon monoxide and methane) by a factor of about 50" Surface Ices and the Atmospheric Composition of Pluto Science magazine.

Executive summary: Methane is produced all the time by non-biological ways, both in Earth and in other planets. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and that's probably why there is oil on Titan as well. I would bet my last dollar if you drilled a well on Titan you would find black gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.204.43 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to drill, there's lakes of the stuff. 130.95.240.53 (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear physicist, What has this to do with the formation of commercial crude oil on the earth. Ever checked it's composition ? One can equally argue that all helium on earth is formed the same way as in the sun, and that argument would be equally silly as yours. Let us discuss what is actually happening on the earth, with data from the earth. It is direct and plentiful.PETRSCIENT (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oil components in the temperature and pressure of Titan are SOLIDS beyond butane. There is no way these lakes are composed by something even remotely similar in composition to crude oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.236.214 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We still don't understand the process that creates methane on these planets, moons and comets. How can anyone write off the possibility that the same process occurs on Earth. And what complex hydrocarbon chain could be formed when compressed between layers of rock in a high pressure environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.165.253 (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I just have a simple question about the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article. "In the 2000s it has experienced a revival when it was discovered that certain bacteria can produce methane and other hydrocarbon gases, which could have produced part of natural gas deposits." How in the world can the formation of methane and other hydrocarbon gases by BACTERIA have resulted in the revival of this theory? This one illogical sentence invalidates any semblance of integrity in this article to me. Unless bacteria are now considered abiotic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.36.114.78 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Last time I checked, bacteria cannot be considered no-life. I'll remove that last sentence ; if there are any complaints, please expose your reasons in this thread. Toitoine (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Titan's methane is produced continuously by serpentinisation, though this is not mentioned in the article. The claim that "thermophilic bacteria, in the sea bottom and in cooling magma, produce methane and hydrocarbon gases" is not supported by the references cited, and appears to be a fabrication intended to deceive wikipedia readers. The claim that the fossil theory originates with the alchemist George Agricola is not supported with a reference. i.e., "citation needed." The claim that J.F. Kenney overlooked something serious in his calculations is not supported by the references cited, being Kenney's own peer-reviewed calculations. This appears to be another fabrication intended to deceive. Such an ugly tangled web some people weave. 49.3.2.175 (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For several year, right up until early September of 2012, it was stated on this page that the biological fable originate with Georg Agricola, though that claim was not substantiated by the deceptive reference given. Now the story has been changed to make the abiogenic theory appear to originate with Agricola, however, the reference to Glasby still does not substantiate this claim. In fact, the name Agricola doesn't appear once in Glasby 2006. Disgusting. 49.3.2.175 (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits by 75.95.136.67

Recent edits by 75.95.136.67 were done by me. Enon (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Kolesnikov 2009

This edit misuses Kolesnikov 2009 through original synthesis. Reading the paper, I do not think it is an appropriate source for this article (try one of the middling-high pressure geochemistry articles, maybe?).

While I am here, this edit serves to misrepresent the scientific consensus on the topic by stating a fringe position as though it had the backing of the relevant research community. It is not our place here to judge whether a hypothesis is reasonable, only how it has been received by the most reliable sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussing general quotes on the subject by Hoyle, Corliss and others

In my opinion is easy to solve this dilemma. It's enough to just meditate on what Sir Fred Hoyle said: "The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." Fred Hoyle.189.32.132.90 (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, we should consider the importance of someone who denied evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and so many other fundamental theories in science that he should have not bothered. So, other than not being a reliable source, we can move on.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

About origin of hidrocarbons, please, it's time to wake up! And you have an excellent opportunity. We're in the 21st century and not the Middle Ages or in times of spontaneous generation. Learn a little about the Cassini-Huygens Mission and read the book The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold...is a good start to change paradigms and stop thinking of nonsense as well said Sir Fred Hoyle. He was an astrophysicist who contributed significantly about stelar evolution and surely he and Gold understand what are in fact natural hydrocarbons and its origin. Of course, Hoyle is a reliable source. Unfortunately geologists...well... geologists...(at least the most part)

“Geology is the prisoner of several dogmas that have had widespread influence on the development of scientific thought.” — William R. Corliss, 1975

“It is a singular and notable fact that, while most other branches of science have emancipated themselves from the trammels of metaphysical reasoning, the science of geology still remains imprisoned in ‘a priori’ theories.” — Sir Henry H. Howorth, 1895. 189.32.143.190 (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And here we go again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit war is vastly old, with no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end. More importantly - 189, do you have a source (preferably one not addressed in the above discussion of a few months ago) indicating that a substantial fraction of the geochemistry community now considers this theory anything other than a historical curiosity? As I note below, please be careful that the source addresses the issue directly. This encyclopedia is built by consensus, and merely edit warring your preferred version of the article is unlikely to achieve any improvement. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Following the raising of the editing of this article at WP:ANI, I've semi-protected the article for a week. Further edit warring after the protection will lead to increasing lengths of protection, including indefinate protection if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I propose to add this article from Popular Science, 4-15-2011, to the scientific support for the theory?

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-04/hydrocarbons-could-form-deep-earth-no-dead-animal-ingredients-study-says

The study covered shows how scientists were able to recreate how temperature and pressure could form hydrocarbons in the mantle.Dickfitz2 (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A news article based on a press release is hardly what we would call a reliable source. That being said, the research is from Lawrence Livermore, but I would suggest digging up the original published, peer-reviewed paper to see what it really says. I have. Let's just say it doesn't quite say what you think it says. Also, we need to be aware of recent news. We cannot give undue weight to an idea that has not been further explored, reported in other laboratories and published widely. In science, out of a hundred new ideas, I bet half fail to get anywhere. So, we we'd have to predict if this goes anywhere, and that's outside of the project's scope. Anyways, if you read the original article and you can make a case that it belongs, we should put it here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I took that source (or something else referring to the same underlying paper) out of the article a few days ago. It is a pretty cool little paper, but almost entirely tangential to the theory covered here. It might belong at one of the geochemistry articles or maybe as an example at the relevant molecular dynamics simulations article or something like that. Probably better sources for that, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Philosophical question

I've been watching this article for years. I'm not even sure how I landed here, because it's not my usual thing. This is really an obscure and discredited theory, but there's as much edit warring here as there is in other articles that I watch, which are highly controversial. I'm not getting why those who "believe" in this keep coming back. It's not like it's a huge cultural concern. It doesn't have an effect on global warming. No one is dying because of it. Strange. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. "Discredited" isn't boolean though; some things are more discredited than others, in terms of public belief, people who make strident claims on the internet (because of their belief / politics / small business making nonfunctional objects), and so on. The laws of thermodynamics have been pretty well nailed down for over a century, but we still have a similar level of activity on Free energy suppression &c... bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why people come back either. I think a lot of people out there love environmental conspiracy theories (see all the debate surrounding Climatic Research Unit email controversy, another non-issue). Additionally, I think there are a few legitimate sources that point to abiogenic sources for hydrocarbons on very small scales. Some editors come here to here to try to write those sources into the article.... NickCT (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the infamous "global warming" is simply a fallacy. Regarding the origin of natural hydrocarbons is well to remember that we are in the 21st century. The laws of thermodynamics are very clear and through them the formation of hydrocarbons from organic debris, would only occur if a miracle happened. Never was (and never will be proved) that the oil would be produced from fossil debris, and this is not a problem ... that's an impossibility, unless the laws of thermodynamics and all information and advances in astrophysics, astronomy, the evidence of the probes space are all mistaken. We should leave aside the impossibilities and think about trying to solve problems. The purpose of this article is to discuss the vision for the abiogenic origin of natural hydrocarbons and not just to be compared with old theories. The Russian scholar Lomonossov in 1757, who proposed that oil would be from biological debris. Those who are really interested in the subject should know better the laws of thermodynamics, the geologic evidence, real geochemistry (not alchemy), the processes of planetary formation and nucleosynthesis and...Geologist (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

refer to WP:FRINGE. NickCT (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Should have guessed. Probably believes in Creationism too. And just because you have the moniker "Geologist", doesn't mean you know everything, and the rest of us don't. Speaking for myself, but observing the edits of the others here, we're pretty knowledgeable about thermodynamics, geological evidence, geochemistry, etc. etc. etc. Further insults will not be ignored. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're judging me badly. I am not a creationist and I can also surely tell you that geologists know very little about the Earth. I do not think I know more than anyone else ... The only thing I believe or rather I am absolutely certain that we really know one day I will die, and yet I could not extend this to other people. For example, suppose you were a deity. The rest will just try to pick them up trying to understand them based on natural laws, natural source of hydrocarbons is only one of them and I also study microbiology and origin of life.Geologist (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think people edit war here (and in many other places) because the prevailing scientific opinion — which is quite likely correct — is nonetheless based more on dogma than actual research. Unfortunately, there isn't much interest among modern scientists in conducting basic research or testing the null hypothesis. There's little funding for such things, it doesn't make for interesting (or even publishable) results, generally won't help advance one's career, etc. The fact of the matter is that the abiogenic theory hasn't been conclusively ruled out. Is it true? Probably not. But what really rubs some people the wrong way is that people (including plenty of scientists) act as if it had already been proven to be false, and make ad-hominem attacks on anyone that questions the orthodoxy. Are many of those "dissidents" just nut-jobs? Absolutely. But they also have the hard-core skeptics on their side, who are more than willing to play devil's advocate and point out that the emperor is indeed wearing no clothes, when it really comes down to it. In days gone past, scientists were more honest about the fact that they might only be 90% sure of something, and that it therefore wasn't really proven. But in this hyper-partisan era, we've all been conditioned to never admit any doubt because our less scrupulous opponents will latch onto that 10% and try to blow it out of proportion. So the mainstream pretends that things are more certain, more proven than they really are. --Lewis (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Our job here in writing an Encyclopedic article is to not predict the future. A neutral point of view states that we should verify with reliable sources. Is there one reliable source that supports this theory? No. Could there be one? I don't know, and I frankly don't give shit, because I don't predict the future, and, to be honest, predicting the future is in the realm of pseudoscience. You are right, science is not made of absolutes. However, it is made of the scientific method which leads to scientific theories. This one has been discarded. It is dead. And unless someone can provide one of those reliable sources, it will be dead. Again, forget about predicting the future, we don't do that here. Also, read over WP:FRINGE. This is a fringe theory, and as such should be treated as such. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling something "fringe" is editorializing, which I don't agree with. I understand that's the culture here; I just don't agree with it. I think the facts can speak for themselves, without having to color them with various pejorative words to guide people to the point of view we want them to have, or which we think is correct. Here are just a few reliable sources I found that detail support for the abiotic theory in some form or another:

• http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo591.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/26/science/geochemist-says-oil-fieldsmay-be-refilled-naturally.html
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/why-does-abiotic-oil-theo_b_118845.html

(Comments continued below.)

One more thing. There's edit warring here. There are IP vandals that show up and make unsupported changes. And then there are real editors that revert those changes. Don't ascribe intelligent editing to those who aren't here to help. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see from the article's edit history that you're very much correct about the edit warring. I don't disagree that it's happening. I also don't disagree that the abiotic theory is probably wrong. I was just trying to answer your question about why people seem to be attracted to this article. I think it's because the dominant groups of editors here (which I think probably includes you, Orange Marlin — I've seen your name around other places, and you seem to be a fixture around many of the articles on "fringe" topics) feel the need to stick the word "discredited" as the sixth word of the first sentence of the lede, like a poke in the eye to anybody who disagrees. I don't think that's necessary (the facts can speak for themselves) and I don't think it's actually helpful — it's almost certainly what provokes the edit warring in the first place. A more neutral (even sympathetic) tone would provide less cause for upset, provide a more stable article, scare fewer contributors away, and be better for the project. I'd guess that many of the people who edit anonymously do so out of a sense of powerlessness or desperation, since it's actually quite difficult to "break in" to the various cliques on this site. If you don't have friends, then it's easy to get pushed around, and it's hard to have your voice heard. This site isn't very friendly to newcomers — especially newcomers with a minority opinion. --Lewis (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. You have no understanding of NPOV. Until you do, this conversation will bore the living shit of me. I have found that most people on Wikipedia who claim they don't think X is true, actually think X is true. From what I see, you're no different. You're pushing an agenda, and I refuse to go along with it. Your fringe theory pushing is annoying.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's disappointing. I had an edit conflict (and will post my original comments below here) but I just wanted to say that I hope you're just having a bad day, and that you're not normally so rude, arrogant, and mean-spirited. If you are, then please leave the project and find something else to do with your time, because nobody needs somebody like that around. Good day. --Lewis (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(Pre-edit-conflict comments:)

Lest I sound too negative, I should point out that my own experience here has been fairly positive. I've had my share of disagreements, but people have tended to be respectful and in the end I think (hope) all the involved parties (including myself) have learned something from the experience. But I'm also very much into observing human behavior, and I've watched how other contributors are sometimes treated, and how groups of editors — even those I'd consider good people — gang up on those who disagree with them, in the name of NPOV and undue weight and any other excuse to drive out the expression of minority opinion. --Lewis (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Even though I didn't want to, I decided to read your rant. First, you are completely misconstruing the purpose of NPOV. It's not to make the article neutral in giving fringe theorists an outlet for their babbling. NPOV is to state what is supported by reliable sources by not giving undue weight to stupid, fringe ideas. And your sources? One is 16 years old and I could find NOTHING that confirmed it. Really, you need to give this one up. There is not one single reliable source supporting your point of view. NONE. One more thing. I don't give one shit about your pseudo-psychological babbling. Really, not one shit.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

One major point of contention is the word "discredited" in the first sentence. Turns that the theory has not been actively discredited: scientists didn't actually go out of their way to discredit it. "Largely abandoned" is more in line with what the Glasby source says. Since it's a more accurate description of what actually happened, there should be less objections. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Except of course, that numerous sources and papers show that it isn't abandoned. Wiki shown as fraud. Again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.221.148 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source stating such? NickCT (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

All it can take is a quick google search and you can find article after paper after article, post-2000, written by and for people that have not abandoned the theory. I'm not saying it's valid or invalid, but Wiki insists on the word "abandoned", and I don't think it means what they think it means. You may as well say Hinduism is "abandoned in America"...misleading at best. Where's the reliable source saying it *is* abandoned? Wiki's making the claim, and disregarding all evidence to the contrary. Would the biases of the Wiki mods be better satisfied with "largely abandoned outside of Asia"? There really should be at least some measurable interest in accuracy, here. If this is attempted, someday Wiki might get recognized as a reliable source itself, instead of a dangerous site for getting information, one that can get you an F if you use it as a resource for a legitimate paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.221.148 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a peer reviewed secondary source? Any of those? Make it from a good journal too, not some guy's blog. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that I already cited an ariticle published in 2001 ( Energia, 22/3, 26-34), but I realize any journal that disagrees with Wiki is, by definition, not reliable (cf: circular). But, to be fair, I'll accept a peer reviewed secondary source that shows the theory is abandoned (and I trust it will explain the 2005 experiment referenced in http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/03/rocks-into-gas.html, and elsewhere, an experiment which wouldn't be made for an abandoned theory). Granted, that's Harvard Magazine, and, more imporantly, disagrees with Wiki biases, so again by definition isn't reliable, but Wiki's making the claim of abandoned, so get to it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.221.148 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A secondary source, like a review article please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note the subtle difference between "largely abandoned" and "completely abandoned".

Also note, Glasby, 2006, says that no oil company uses abiotic theory anymore to predict oil deposits. Is there any source saying that this situation has changed? (hint, the NYT article is from 1995, when Gold brought the theory to the West and it had a brief period of popularity, and the statements are assigned to one individual geochemist who happens to participate in the research. The article gives no indication that the program used his research to pinpoint any site that wasn't already pinpointed by other techniques) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Glasby article has numerous factual errors, and thus is not a reliable source (cf http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008/08/refutation-of-geoffrey-p-glasby.html); additionally, even a casual reading shows this article to be riddled with serious issues and unsupported claims. Also, the Glasby article is in a journal called "Resource Geology", and thus is not a reliable source for determining whether a theory is abandoned or not. It would need to be in a "Journal of Abandoned or Not Abandoned Theories" to even remotely have a chance of being a reliable source for determining if the information could be as a reliable source for determining if a theory is abandoned or not. That's retarded, of course, but we really should be consistent with Wiki's established biases (I mean after all, you think a statement from a researcher regarding his research invalidates the research...on this alone, nothing in Gold's paper would be considered reliable, if Wiki had any real interest in being consistent). I do grant the article, despite not being a reliable source, IS from 2006, so at least this much is accurate; I do not believe all things written in 2006 are necessarily reliable by definition, however. All the same, this not reliable source provides no proof that 'no oil company uses abiotic theory'. So, again I ask: do you have any reliable sources for the Wiki claim that the theory is abandoned? The bottom line, the abiotic oil proponents are much like atheists: they are obligated to prove a negative, although in this case proving oil is not biologically based, as opposed to proving the nonexistence of metaphysical deities; biotic theory is basically a religion. The abiotic theory isn't about necessarily prediction, although that is an interesting straw man you bring up...one thing at a time. The abiotic theory, as anyone with knowledge of the subject would know, is about the origin(s) of oil. In light of the Stockholm experiment showing oil need not have a bioligical origin, is there an actual experiment where they melted an animal carcass/plant matter/microbial batch (the theory shifts with each religious branch one appeals to)? That's just curiousity on my part. As no reliable source has yet been brought up, the 'abandoned' line needs to be removed, at least for any attempt at legitmacy here. 209.124.221.148 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

An article on a type of geological resources should be fit for a journal called "Resource Geology". There are no journals dedicated exclusively to abandoned theories, so, that's not a reasonable requirement. Blog posts are not usually considered reliable, unless they are written by a recognized author. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

209, please read WP:RS then find one. Some guy's blog just does not cut it. Until you do that, these posts are meaningless. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

first paragraph

I have looked at Lamarckism and they don't say in the first sentence that the theory is outdated. Idem for Expanding Earth or Heliocentrism. It's still dismissed in the first paragraph for theories that are clearly wrong using today's knowledge, like Hollow Earth. But this theory is (still?) not conclusively proven wrong. I am adding a source that comments on this point: the biological theory still has to show conclusively that only bacterias are responsible for all petroleum. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the version by Enric. The addition by the ip removed the sourced info supported by the ref and left the reference appearing to support something else. Also removed an unsourced addition. If the ip wishes they can re-add their desired info with their references without messing up existing text and refs, although the conspiracy theory book they cite is questionable. Vsmith (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Who keeps changing the lead to try to legitimize this thing? We've got to make it clear from the start that this was an idea presented by some lone geologists 30 or 40 years ago, and isn't really given any credence nowadays. If we don't make that perfectly clear, we're contravening WP:FRINGE. NickCT (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who does it. It could be more than one person, it could be random sympathizers that happen to pass by. I tried a version that doesn't diss the topic in the very first sentence, and gives a bit of context.[11] --Enric Naval (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a marginal theory, it was consensus in the Soviet Union since the 1950s, and they became the world's top producer. It was proposed by Mendeleev, it is obviously correct, oil is abiogenic, there is _no doubt_ about this, and Thomas Gold has identified several smoking guns for abiogenic oil, including the association of He with hydrocarbons. It's mentally deranged that there are people arguing the other side. There is no other side. Oil is abiogenic, and it's freaking obvious from it's chemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.195.242 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You claim that the USSR became the top producer because of the abiogenic theory? You need a reliable source for that.

By the way, in Nikolai Kudryavtsev it claims that he predicted correctly that the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta were abiogenic, but in this article we cite that they are organic in origin[12].

P.D.: Glasby's article explains that "the Soviet theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins was never the driving force in the discovery of the major oil fields in the Soviet Union as its proponents claim.". --Enric Naval (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Thomas Gold.jpg

File:Thomas Gold.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Thomas Gold.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed from the article as it adds nothing to the article content. Vsmith (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Shale oil

I'm curious to know where proponents of the abiogenic origin of petroleum stand on the origin of shale oil (kerogen). The evidence seems to be strongly that this is formed within the shale by the decay and chemical transformation of organic matter (dead animals and plants). On the orthodox theory, in some circumstances heat and pressure further transform the shale oil into conventional petroleum, which may then migrate through higher strata until it is trapped in 'reservoirs'. So do the abiogenists accept that shale oil is biogenic, but deny that it is a source for conventional petroleum, or do they deny that shale oil itself is biogenic? I'm aware that shale oil is not exactly the same as petroleum, but it is similar enough that if one is biogenic it is plausible that so is the other. Also, in some places there is a transition between oil shale and coal, which presumably no-one denies is biogenic.109.158.41.137 (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The abiogenic origins of shale oil should have been promptly discredited by resident Wikipedians, but if it's somehow been missed, then we can certainly arrange to discredit it before the idea gets entirely out of control. Santamoly (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC).

Hypothesis

How can the article claim this is a scientific hypothesis when the scientific community completely destroyed the notion? Shouldn't it be classified as pseudoscience? Feyre (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The article just calls it a "hypothesis". A hypothesis must be testable; this particular hypothesis has been tested and failed. That doesn't mean that it's ceased to be a hypothesis. bobrayner (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bobrayner, above. In addition, I would say that an idea, opinion, or hypothesis can be far outside the scientific mainstream, yet remain "scientific" in the sense that it is evidence-based, and is therefore testable. I would define "pseudoscience" as ideas which are given the appearance of science (usually jargon misappropriated from real science), but which are (to their believers, anyway) non-falsifiable. Plazak (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Biased editing

Why have we allowed such heavy bias in the editing of this article? There is sufficient current debate in the scientific community for us not to present this hypothesis as disproven. Perhaps the words controversial, and phrases such as "highly debated", and "currently dismissed by established experts". But disproven? The length, history, and debate on the talk page of this article alone should be an indicator to wikipedia editors that this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.201.77.121 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

shill for oil industry

the oil industry is co-opting the abiotic origin hypothesis to assert that petroleum is a renewable resource: http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html -- 135.23.66.249 (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)