Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin

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)

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." [1] 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)

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)