Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin

Impartiality Questioned

The first paragraph renders judgment against the theory, as though consensus confers truth. We know from past experience that consensus is often more of an obstacle to eventual truth than an indicator of it. I believe the consensus in the world's largest producer of oil, Russia, is that most oil is of abiotic origin.Landroo (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

WP is about consensus, not truth. Do you have a source for the Russian claim? What I've read says they don't successfully use techniques associated with the hypothesis. NJGW (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009

The story that there is a consensus in FSU (Former USSR) that most oil is of abiotic nature is a fabrication introduced by Jack. F. Kenney. Jack. F. Kenney (GasResources.net) is a well known swindler who have never participated in any petroleum exploration. The GasResources Inc. is just a cover story. Kenney is a physicist trying to swindle investors into financing "abiotic" prospects, and then running off with a "big" compensation. Fortuanately: he always failed. The only well he ever was involved with was the second sweedish Siljan well. He managed, through a fake story of his credentials to get a job here. However, after a few months he quit with a lot of noise; it became obvious he did not have any drilling knowledge or experience. Kenney, then sued the project for 3 million dollar. Needless to say: he lost :-) Kenney, tried a similar scam in Belgium later, but fortunately he was unable to lure any investors.

The favorite story of Kenney (interview on NPR) which one can find on his website, is that he has been part of a team that found more abiotic oil in Ukraine than in Alaska; the Dnieper-Donets northern shoulder fields.

Kenney also give another number for these enormous discoveries: 8,200 M metric tons. 8,200 M metric tons would represent around 60-65 billion barrels of oil using the range of stock tank densities given for the fields. Since, the oil resources of Ukraine including all previous productions and current resources is around 2 billion barrels, it is simple arithmetic that the story is a fabrication. Jack F. Kenney simply cooked up these quantities.

The fields are completely typical mostly gas and light oil and condensate fields. They were discovered after new seismics was shot, and the fields because of their light fluids, lighten up as x-mas trees on the seismics. Today, Vladilen Krayushkin have co-authored a paper, were the bombastic unsubstantiated claims in the original paper has been retracted (Goto Ukraine's geological surveys website): "No absolute proof for abiotic oil... The petroleum could have come up the faults leading up to the fields, since the Devonian source rock in the basin rest onto these faults" "We just do not believe it" Good for you Krayushkin. It is also important to notice that in the same paper, Krayushkin acknowledges that that the biotic theory for formation of oil, always has been and still is the dominant theory applied in petroleum exploration in the FSU.PETRSCIENT (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Petrscient, do you mind posting some links for the info you are adding? I'd like to make this article as strong as possible to prevent future trolling. NJGW (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, I have placed relevant info at the end of this section PETRSCIENT (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops: I forgot the to follow up on Kenney's Belgium attempt to lure the authorities there into abiotic drilling. One can read that story here: http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/old-story.html

PETRSCIENT (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason this article is still incoherent is that a few "trollers" were placing an large amount of gibberish into the article. (It is largely improved now.) I removed some of the most absurd remaining stuff from the article: "The second law of thermodynamics prohibit formation of petroleum from biological detritus" This is an absurdity spread also by Kenney: the aliphatic biopolymers (and derivatives) that generate oils have chemical potentials much higher than the smaller molecules in oil. It was doubly absurd in this article because it simultaneously claimed that olefins (alkenes) would be the main product from biological material; Alkenes have HIGHER chemical potential than alkanes !

Simply heat oil prone kerogen (or similar bio-polymers separated from algae, spores, pollen or bark) (in an inert atmosphere: we need to keep the oxygen fugacity low, otherwise we simply burn the suckers) to get the reaction rate sufficiently high to be measurable, and the polymers will spontaneously decompose into a suite of organic molecules (including biomarkers) with amazing similarity to natural petroleum fluids. This is not any "unknown" experiment; millions of samples has been analyzed by the petroleum industry; it is routine ! (Go to www.ndp.no and see the geochemical data from all released exploration wells.) It is correct that flash pyrolysis or similar extremely fast heating experiments produce a lot of alkenes (basically fresh biopolymers (no natural heat treatment and diagenesis produce alkynes,ALKENES,alkanes... Kerogen from source rocks produce: alkenes,ALKANES)). Notice though that alkynes & alkenes have HIGHER chemical potential than alkanes, so Kenney's arguments is even more far fetched. However, for experiments of a few days, the alkenes vanish and the hydrocarbon composition is very similar to the hydrocarbon composition of natural petroleum. (Search for flash pyrolysis of kerogen, and hydrous pyrolysis of kerogen or MSSV pyrolysis of kerogen to find literature.) Do take notice that olefins are generally NOT present in natural petroleum fluids; then look at Kenney's "scientific" findings from the Siljan drillings; full of alkenes ... but all the hydrocarbons are at ppm levels.

The second law of thermodynamics is often misunderstood and distorted. In fact it is quite simple to grab. If we use a molecular viewpoint than: if a system is left to itself, than on average it will move towards a state of maximum probability; the entropy/disorder will always increase in the process. Some things in nature always move in one (or no) direction, e.g., heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder areas. My favorite version (of unknown origin) of the second law is: You cannot shovel manure into the rear end of a cow, and expect getting hay out from the other end.

The second law of thermodynamics answers 2 questions regarding a "closed system":

1) When is a closed system in a state of chemical equilibrium ? A system is at equilibrium when all components have the same Gibbs free energy.

2) If not at equilibrium; in which direction will a reaction proceed ? A reaction will proceed in the direction of lower Gibbs free energy.

Notice 2 things:

1) Gibbs free energy is normally given at standard temperature and pressure (STP). It may change considerably as a function of both. 2) That a system is not in chemical equilibrium does not mean that any measurable reaction is occurring; to evaluate reaction rates we need to go into the subject of reaction kinetics. A large number of chemical systems on the earths surface and in the crust are out of equilibrium on a time-scale of millions of years and exist in a meta-stable state. All igneous rock types, petroleum and kerogen are examples of matter not in a state of chemical equilibrium either in the crust or at the surface. The rate of formation of petroleum from kerogen is mostly about reaction kinetics, since both kerogen and petroleum is examples of meta-stable states in sedimentary basins.

Let us have a look at heat; we know from experience and from the second law that it always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder areas. Still, it is possible to pump heat from a colder to a hotter area; ever heard about a refrigerator ? The point is that we can move a system in a direction contrary to what the second law predicts, by applying work to the system. That is how kerogen is formed. Light (energy) is used in photosynthesis to synthesize (in addition to glucose) lipids and mega aliphatic molecules (macro molecules; bio-polymers). The second law of thermodynamics prohibit these molecules to be formed spontaneously from carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen, but with our chlorophyll/Sun Light "pump" we can manufacture molecules with much larger chemical potential than the hydrocarbons in petroleum. which, if the sediments are oxygen deficient, will get selectively preserved (enriched since the most easy metabolizable matter get destroyed)(only mildly modified) and get buried in source rocks.

Think of a plastic bags with food remains. Dig them down in your garden. After a few years, only the plastic bags are still there; they are selectively preserved; they are not biodegradable. In fact the poly-ethylene in the plastic bags are in many respects similar to the macro-molecules in kerogen. They are full of linear aliphatic moieties, they have very high chemical potential, and when heated they spontaneously decompose into a full range of hydrocarbons with distribution comparable to petroleum. Simply stated, the macro-molecules breaks apart into the smaller building blocks (random scission). Kerogen macromolecules are more complex than the synthetic poly-ethylens and poly-esters. They are more irregularly cross-linked. They contain a much wider range of molecular structures and functionalities; not only the monomers of a typical synthetic polymers. ((Search for flash pyrolysis of polymers or kerogen to find literature.)

That ends my little fill-in on Kenney's rubbish that the second law of thermodynamics prohibit formation of petroleum from biological matter. Kenney is simply using ridiculous examples for the "biological matter". Oil-prone kerogen is NOT highly oxidized; it is highly reduced and aliphatic. But than again, all Kenney's co-authors are on the record of acknowledging that kerogen forms petroleum (as I have pointed out elsewhere in this talk section), so clearly Kenney is the only person left in the world who are preaching this nonsense.

Most biological matter is formed by photosynthesis, so if we follow Kenney et al's., argumentation technique, we can naturally "prove" that life does not exist on earth, because it is prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics. PETRSCIENT (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I also removed the statement that natural petroleum is mainly n-alkanes. Many oils do have a lot of n-alkanes, many do not, an many are void ! The only petroleum fluids that are extremely enriched in n-alkanes and mainly contain hydrocarbons (apart from methane to pentane) are volatile oils and gas condensates. The common black oils have a much wider compositional spectrum, and are also dilute polymer solutions. PETRSCIENT (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)PETRSCIENT (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC) PETRSCIENT (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NJGW asked me to put some meat on my points about Jack Kenney and the story of endless abiotic oil. Here it comes:

THE ENDLESS ABIOTIC OIL SAGA

ABIOTIC HYDROCARBONS

Abiotic hydrocarbons have been known in several types of magmatic rocks as long as geologists had microscopes capable of differentiating hydrocarbons from other gases in fluid inclusions. Later, small quantities of abiotic hydrocarbons have also been observed in black smokers. No scientist have ever been involved in any objection about that. The dominant abiotically formed hydrocarbon on the earth is methane. Most people will probably produce more methane, after a box of beans, than the total sum of all recovered abiotic hydrocarbons (a little exaggeration aday, keeps the doctor away :-)).

The big problem has been recent crackpot stories that all natural petroleum is abiotic and not a fossil fuel and therefore there is no danger that the supply will become more and more limited; it is constantly being formed and the reservoirs are being refilled. That is the dominant information one currently will find on the internet regarding the issue. Unfortunately, that has made it impossible to write scientifically about abiotic petroleum on Wiki, because endless abiotic oil activists has filled the article with nonsense, mostly originating from Jack F. Kenney and Thomas Gold.

Endless abiotic oil is the only issue I will address in this little "article". PETRSCIENT (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

THE CLAIM THAT NATURAL PETROLEUM IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL

In a recent paper in Nature Geoscience (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo591.html by Anton Kolesnikov, Vladimir G. Kutcherov and Alexander F.Goncharov) we can read in the abstract: "There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes." Do we not all agree in that ? Not quite. For many years Jack F. Kenney has been running a campaign from his website "GasResources.net" that oil is an endless resource, formed abiotically in the mantle, and constantly being injected into the crust. According to Kenney: We will never run out of oil. Also Kenney, and a few coworkers have been claiming that it is impossible to form natural petroleum from biological matter. And they use strong words:

In the "milestone" paper: "Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum." published in the famous scientific journal of: "Jack F. Kenney's website Gasresources.net"

J. F. KENNEY, V. A. KRAYUSHKIN, I. K. KARPOV, V. G. KUTCHEROV,I. N. PLOTNIKOVA state the following:

"... assertions have been made that hydrocarbons evolve from biological matter. Of course, the second law of thermodynamics prohibits such, which fact should obviate any such assertion."

"If liquid hydrocarbons might evolve from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of the crust of the Earth, we could all expect to go to bed at night in our dotage, with white hair (or, at least, whatever might remain of same), a spreading waistline, and all the un-desirable decrepitude of age, and to awake in the morning, clear eyed, with our hair returned of the color of our youth, with a slim waistline, a strong, flexible body, and with our sexual vigor restored. Alas, such is not to be. The merciless laws of thermodynamics do not accommodate folklore fables. Natural petroleum has no connection with biological matter."

Kenney goes even further and call all other petroleum scientists in the world for imbecile liars:

"The assertion that natural petroleum (“crude oil”) is a “fossil fuel” somehow evolved by a miraculous process of transformation from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of pressures and temperatures in the near-surface crust of the Earth, is a nonsensical, child’s fairy-story, supported by Little- Moron Logic and defended by lies." "Such is the purveyance of BOOP: Transparent lying to defend little-moron logic in the service of imbecility."

What is so interesting with the Nature Geoscience paper I mentioned first ? The second author of the paper is: V. G. KUTCHEROV, Jack F. Kenney's previous comrade in arms, and the same person Kenney claims he worked with to find super giant abiotic oil fields in Ukraine. Kutcherov also coauthored the article above (Dismissal of the Claims... ) were it is claimed that "the second law of thermodynamics prohibits formation of natural petroleum from biological matter". Obviously Kutcherov has changed his mind and the thermodynamic argument is stinky. Furthermore, Kenney must now consider his old friend Kutcherov a moron and an imbecile liar !

Kenney's and Kutcherov's cooperation in finding non-existent super giant abiotic oil fields leads us to the next topic: No abiotic oil fields have ever been discovered.

THE FABRICATION THAT SUPER-GIANT ABIOTIC OIL FIELDS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN UKRAINE

Jack F. Kenney's strategy: 1) Take a few oil fields in a part of the world, most people know nothing about. 2) Claim they are abiotic and add some irrelevant "observations" to justify the claim. 3) Claim they are of gigantic size, so that potential investors are impressed by your achievements; most people do not believe that it is possible to make up a story like this.. but unfortunately, this is the trade of Jack F. Kenney. (Recently, Kutcherov (The coworker Kenney claims he worked with to help find the super giant abiotic oil fields) is trying to raise money for abiotic oil drilling in east texas: (http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic-oil-supply-energenius08-biz-cz_rl_1113abiotic.html); I will also go through his recent activities (http://www.aapg.org/europe/newsletters/2008/06jun/index.cfm) and demonstrate how Kutcherov as Kenney (even though he now acknowledges that there is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes ), systematically refers to scientific articles that are supposed to contain specific content while in fact the article does not contain anything of the kind, makes up the most crazy resource numbers (claiming a part of Venezuela has 40 times more oil than the entire world) and use them in calculations to prove other workers are idiots and do not understand there is insufficient source rocks to generate such amounts in the area. Finally the article demonstrates that Kutcherov does not know the difference between the composition of a crude oil and a gas.)

If Kenney et al., are correct that all economic petroleum deposits have an "abiotic" origin, and formed in the mantle (at pressures of 25 000 - 50 000 atmospheres and at temperatures around 1200-1500 degree Celsius (depths of around 100 000+ meters below the earths surface) and then migrated 100 Km+ upwards into sedimentary basins, one would expect that the group could at least demonstrate one place were such deposits exist.

The only such place described is from the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donetsk basin in Ukraine. How much oil and gas of claimed mantle origin have the group discovered ?

According to Kenney (GasResources.net) Krayushkin claimed:

"These reserves amount to at least 8,200M metric tons of recoverable oil and 100B cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are thereby comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska. It is conservatively estimated that, when developed, these fields will provide approximately thirty percent of the energy needs of the industrial nation of Ukraine." (Interestingly in anything written by Krayushkin, no such numbers exist; the only person who ever made these claims in writings and on national radio (NPR) is Jack F. Kenney !)

Kenney on NPR (NPR = National Public Radio in US) (according to Geotimes - November 2002 - "Inorganic Oil?": )

"During the interview on NPR, he said he found, while working with Kutcherov over the last 10 years, inorganic oil and gas fields in the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donetsk basin in the Ukraine that are greater than the entire reserves in Alaska." There is also a link on Kenney's website to the NPR story.

Kenney state their discoveries are LARGER then those of the North Slope of Alaska.

Larger the the reserves in Alaska ! Wow ! New Super Giant fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk basin discovered 1990-1994,in the period just after the independence of Ukraine. The problem is that even today, 14 years after Krayushkin's (1994)[According to Kenney] made this claim, nobody except Kenney & Kutcherov has ever heard about such super giant discoveries in the Dniepr-Donetsk basin (or any other place in Ukraine for that matter) comparable to the resources in Alaska. How large are the reserves in Alaska ? An absolute minimum estimate for the time Kenney made the statement is around 20 billion barrels; the north slope produced around 1.8 million barrels a day in 1994. But what about the 8,200M metric tons of recoverable oil estimate ?

Jean Laherrere (2001 on http://www.911-strike.com/pfeiffer.htm) noticed this extreme estimate and had his shot at it. I will go in a little bit more detail here:

Krayushkin et al, report that stock tank oil densities in the discovery area varies from 25° to 48°API. These API densities corresponds to specific densities of 0.9042 to 0.7883. Since one barrel (bbl=blue barrel) is 158.987 liters, one metric ton corresponds to 6.956229 barrels for the 25°API end-member and 7.97897 barrels for the 48°API end-member.

It is stated that "reserves amount to at least 8,200M metric tons of recoverable oil". There might be an ambiguity regarding the meaning of 8,200M. Today M generally means Million, but in the oil industry, historically in the US, M was used for thousand and MM was used for Million; clarity is not the strength of the "abiotic" group. What about Ukraine ? We have 2 possibilities, so let us evaluate both.

But there is a second complications we have to be sure we factor in: In Ukraine, decimal comma (,) is used as decimal separator compared to the decimal point (.) used in english speaking countries. Hence, internally in Ukraine eight point two will be written 8,2 and not 8.2 as e.g, in US and UK. Since the paper is in english, and written by an american (Kenney) the most likely interpretation is that the english format is used. However, to be sure let us evaluate all combinations.

1) M == 10^6 ; , is thousand separator: 8,200M equals 8.2 billion. 2) M == 10^3 ; , is thousand separator: 8,200M equals 8.2 million. 3) M == 10^6 ; , is decimal separator: 8,200M equals 8.2 million. 4) M == 10^3 ; , is decimal separator: 8,200M equals 8.2 thousand.

We have 3 possibilities, 8.2 billion, 8.2 million and 8.2 thousand. We first reshuffle these possibilities into barrels of oil.

1) 8.2 billion metric tons corresponds to 57.04 billion barrels of a 25°API oil and 65.43 billion barrels of a 48°API oil. 2) 8.2 million metric tons corresponds to 57.04 million barrels of a 25°API oil and 65.43 million barrels of a 48°API oil. 3) 8.2 thousand metric tons corresponds to 57.04 thousand barrels of a 25°API oil and 65.43 thousand barrels of a 48°API oil.

Let us start with the smallest estimate (3). In 1994 Ukraine produced around 90 thousand barrels of oil per day (EIA). Hence, 57 to 65 thousand barrels would be less then 1 days production, and since Ukraine in 1994 consumed 500 thousand barrels per day, the smallest number (3) represent around 10% of 1 days consumption. Since Krayushkin et al emphasize: "For the work here reported, the first four authors (V. A. KRAYUSHKIN, T. I. TCHEBANENKO, V. P. KLOCHKO, Ye. S. DVORYANIN), who were principally responsible for the discovery of these fields, were awarded the State Prize of Ukraine in the field of Science and Technology in 1993" we can safely conclude that the smallest value (3) is incorrect, since it is unlikely that anybody would get a State Prize for finding 10% of 1 days of oil consumption. Also, the deposits should exceed the reserves in Alaska, and since the value (3) is less then 0.000004082 of the minimum Alaska estimate, the minimum value (3) is an unlikely interpretation of Kenney's, oil number.

We move on to the second possible interpretation: 57 to 65 million barrels of oil. Still the number is not impressive. Ukraine consumed around 183 million barrels of oil per year in 1994, so 1 third of a years oil consumption would probably still not qualify for the State Prize of Ukraine. Also, the deposits should exceed the reserves in Alaska, and since the value (2) is less then 0.004082 of the minimum Alaska estimate, the intermediate value (2) is also an impossible interpretation of Kenney's, oil number.

Hence, without any other possible interpretation: Kenney is claiming that Krayushkin has been stating that he and his 4 coworkers has discovered 57 to 65 billion barrels of oil on the northern flanks of the Dniepr-Donetsk basin. The estimate is also supposedly a conservative estimate.

Then let us move on to http://www.ukrainepower.com. In 1992 Ukraine produced 95 thousand barrels of oil per day. Naturally after the gigantic discoveries of Krayushkin et al., we should see an enormous boost. However, what is reported is a steady decrease in production from 95 thousand barrels in 1992 to 82 thousand barrels in 1998. (For comparison: the north slope of Alaska produced around 1.8 million barrels a day in 1994; Kenney claims they found three times more oil !) The proven oil reserves in Ukraine is given to be 395 million barrels by http://www.ukrainepower.com. Anybody can check oil resource estimates for Ukraine. Kabyshev et al. (1998) ("Hydrocarbon habitat of the Dniepr-Donets Depression" in Marine and petroleum geology, 1998, vol. 15, no3, pp. 177-190) estimate the total oil and condensate resources in 1994, including past production to be 1.8 billion bbls, of which most of it was found before 1990. According to the U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2201-E: Ulmishek, G.F., (2001) "Petroleum Geology and Resources of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, Ukraine and Russia": discovered oil reserves in the basin is around 1.6 billion barrels. Similar estimates (1.8-3 billion bbls) can be found at numerous other international and national web sites which are constantly being updated. Hence, Kenney are claiming they have found 20 to 30 times more oil than the total historical Ukrainian oil resources and nobody else in the world, including the Ukrainian authorities, have heard about it.

The discoveries actually made in the area did not make much of a dent in the total resource picture. Furthermore, there are no indications the fluids are abiotic; everything points to the opposite.

On Kenney's website one can find the paper where all the "data" that is claimed to show that the Northern shoulder fields of the Dniepr-Donets contain abiotic fluids; V. A. KRAYUSHKIN, T. I. TCHEBANENKO, V. P. KLOCHKO, Ye. S. DVORYANIN J. F. KENNEY (2001) "The Drilling & Development of the Oil & Gas Fields in the Dnieper-Donetsk Basin". (Interesting paper: IT DOES NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE)

First, (probably added in Kenney's English translation): "Most importantly, the modern Russian- Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins has played a central role in the transformation of Russia (then the U.S.S.R.) from being a “petroleum poor” entity in 1951 to the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation on Earth."

The truth (and I will analyze that in detail in the second section); it played NO role in actually finding any oil as clearly stated later in the same paper paper:

"For the first 45 year period of the geological study of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, its sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous rock had been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production for reasons of the complete absence of any "source rock" (so-called) and the presence of active, strongly-circulating artesian waters. Recently the area was reexamined according to the perspective of the modern theory of deep, abiotic hydrocarbon origins."

Hence, from 1945/1951 to 1990, which is the period of which FSU went from a "petroleum poor" entity to the largest petroleum producing and exporting, according to Krayushkin; explorationist in the FSU DID NOT consider any abiotic petroleum from the mantle, and instead were thinking in terms of organic source rocks.

It was no new "abiotic" idea to explore the northern basin shoulder ! How did the explorationist know about strongly-circulating artesian waters if they had not actually drilled the basin shoulder ? Obviously they had drilled prospects here that were dry; the basin shoulder is a typical location for petroleum accumulations and the area was therefore an obvious target area. However, the seismic data at the time were noisy and low resolution and hence the fields discovered from 1990 and later was not visible at this early time. The 'complete absence of any "source rock" (so-called)' is a post-appraisal statement; generally exploration geologists/geophyicisist of the FSU had from experience accepted that commercial petroleum accumulations required an organic rich source rock, but the technology was not available before in the mid nineteen seventies for this knowledge to be used to rank prospects pre-drilling. It is amusing, that all the "abiotic research" in this paper is also post-drilling/post-apraisel.

Clearly, the "modern" abiotic russian-Ukranian theory DID NOT play any role in petroleum exploration in FSU as claimed by Krayushkin et al in the Kenney's English translation of this paper.

That someone made a silly statement 45 years ago does not mean anything and does not prove or disprove any theory. (The Norwegian Geological Survey insisted there was no chance for oil and gas on the Norwegian shelf !) In the 1990+, the source rocks in the Dnieper-Donets Basin were well established. The reason the fields were discovered, and that there was a high drilling success rate was something completely different to any abiotic theory.

Let us analyze what is actually claimed in the paper:

"Recently the area was reexamined according to the perspective of the modern theory of deep, abiotic hydrocarbon origins. Because the modern theory of hydrocarbon origins recognizes hydrocarbons as primordial material erupted from great depth, the exploration process began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper- Donets Basin. Following the tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, a program of geophysical and geochemical investigations, developed in accordance with the modern theory of petroleum peculiarly for the search for deep- seated petroleum, were conducted."

1) As Kenney, Krayushkin et al. obviously does not know the meaning of the word primordial. It is true that Krayushkin claimed a primordial origin of oil, but everything presented by Chekaliuk and Kenney et al., has been that the abiotic petroleum is not primordial, but instead is continuously formed in the mantle.

2) Studying the "tectonic history and geological structure" is standard procedure in any exploration program. The crystalline basement and all the sediments share their history from the moment the sediments are deposited; the petroleum obviously did not arrive in the sediments prior to the time they were deposited !

3) "Following the tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, a program of geophysical and geochemical investigations..." This is absolute nonsense. How could they possible do any deep structural analysis of the area, BEFORE the geophysical investigations ? The old analog seismic data did not allow any proper tectonic or structural analysis apart from a rough outline of the geometry of the shoulder area. The true story is: To take advantage of the superior quality of digitally processed common midpoint seismics (e.g., Stovba; see below), to initiate a new exploration program, new seismic surveys were shot in large parts of the Dniepr-Donetsk basin. The new seismic data imaged nicely many potential prospects on the northern basin shoulder, and direct hydrocarbon indicators (Stovba; see below) were common on the seismics of many of these prospects. Furthermore, all the geochemical investigations were AFTER the discoveries and added nothing that could pinpoint other reservoirs.

4) Finally, it must be noted that the precise depth to basement is not something that can be established prior to drilling. The uncertainty in true rock velocities is significant and the depth prognoses (after converting the seismics from time to depth) are hence commonly significantly off. Since most of the basement reservoirs on the basin shoulder, has the basement unconformity as seal; even if nobody considered the basement as pay, the basement reservoirs would have been discovered, simply because the moment the well penetrated basement (which the driller did not know with any certainty when it would happen), the discovery was a fact. (This is actually a quite common occurrence all over the world).

Let us have a look at the geology and seismic data of the Northern Monoclinal Flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, to see what kind of nonsense Kenney & Krayushkin are presenting;

The (mostly gas) fields in the area were discovered because all the reservoirs lighten up as christmas trees on the seismics; drill what you see; amplitude anomalies that conform to mappable reservoirs; and all the fields are at classical locations for gas and minor oil in a sedimentary basins. (Amplitude anomalies occurs in this case because the presence of even small amounts of a fluid with significantly lower density than the pore-water, strongly decreases the acoustic impedance of the rock. Hence, if the signal is not phased/interferred out as your seismic pulse is being convolved with the sediment package you, "see the fluids" sort of.) 1950 vintage seismics are much too coarse and noisy to resolve this kind of small structures. 1990 vintage seismics is a completely different world; and as I will show later, image nicely both reservoirs and fluid content.

The source rocks are sitting kilometers down-dip to the south. Petroleum charge was never considered a risk since the biggest gas field (the Shebelinka field (1950+ discovery)) sits directly above the source rocks slightly further out in the basin. Furthermore, Krayushkin et al., do not present any data that could indicate that the fluids are abiotic. As mentioned above, the basin locations of the fields are exactly where any oil company in the world would focus in on. You will not find any similar basin location anywhere in the world (were the petroleum industry has been exploring), were any possible reservoir configuration on such locations has not been drilled.

For the reader to see a seismic section through one of the basin flank fields in the area, search for: Stovba et al., (1996) ("Structural features and evolution of the Dniepr-Donets Basin, Ukraine, from regional seismic reflection profiles" Tectonophysics 268 (1996) 127-147). On Figure 12, the amplitude anomalies are very clear (your five year old kid can pinpoint them), and they several places conform to likely reservoir locations; do not get fooled by noise and processing artifacts. (An explorationist would have sequences of sections available, enabling him/her to create 3-D models of the reservoirs and to see how the anomalies appeared in 3-D.) One can also find cross sections in this paper to locate (approximately) the example given by Krayushkin et al.,(Fig. 2) and see where the Krayushkin et al.,s example (the Yuliyevskoye oil and gas field) is located relative the classical gas kitchen area (Hint: Consult Fig. 3 for location and then Fig 13a & 14a (note error in vertical scale when matching)). The example of Krayushkin et al. (their Fig. 2) is (deliberately ?) truncated so that one cannot see the deep gas kitchen down to the south.

Krayushkin makes a point that some of the petroleum (actually a small unknown quantity: the production is commingled) sits in fractured basin. This is common on this kind of basin shoulders (we still have more than 3000 meters of sediments above the basement and most of the petroleum sits in these sediments). He also claim the fractured basement is more productive than the overlying sands, but this is not demonstrated for the simple reason it is impossible to demonstrate, because the production is commingled and according to Krayushkin; the compositions are the same !

Turn a glass of water upside down inside a bowl of water. Blow air (gas) into it from below with a straw. Notice how the interface between the air and water will move downwards. Consider that the glass was filled with porous rock. It makes no difference if the rock is porous sandstone or fractured granite. The base of the petroleum column will migrate downwards into any sufficiently porous rocks below as more petroleum is filled into the cul de sac of the reservoir (or glass of water). This is one common scenario. The other common scenario is when the top-seal of the fractured basement reservoir is the primary unconformity on top of the basement. In this case the petroleum must come in from below (down dip), entering through areas exposed by faults, as Wally Dow has outlined in the case of the Tiger field and a likely scenario also for the small basement reservoirs of some of the Dniepr-Donets shoulder fields. When petroleum flow upwards along a carrier volume (as it normally does, there exist no "migration police" which stops the petroleum to flow into any sufficiently porous rock just because it is a granite rather than a sand. The petroleum industry has for many years employed petroleum flow simulators, both on the reservoir and basin scales. Commercial three-dimensional petroleum generation and multicomponent/multiphase flow models are employed to risk prospects (Do Google Searches: "3D Basin Modeling" , "3D Basin Modeling"). The idea that basement reservoirs provides any indication that the petroleum came from the mantle is only promoted by people without knowledge of flow in porous media and without knowledge of the routine technologies employed by the petroleum industry.

Also notice on Fig 2 of Krayushkin et al: The lower contact of the petroleum is a horizontal contact (if it is not another case of Krayushkin's imagination), i.e., it's geometry is controlled by gravity and not permeability (capillarity / pore size distribution & connectivity): It is a contact towards free moving water (at least on a geological time-scale) (no drive mechanism given for the reservoirs); the fractured basement is a porous unit where the water is hydrologically connected to the water in the sediments probably mostly down-dip to the south.

What did actually Krayushkin et al., do to test the hypothesis that the fluids were abiotic. Here, the story becomes very interesting. They did nothing ! And that is the bottom line. Kenney & Krauskin have cleverly rejected any type of data as support for anything, so there is nothing in the fluids, according to them, which can indicate anything, hence they do not report anything, apart from that the oils did not contain biomarkers (Big surprise in a gas dominated area !; ). They do mention helium, but they do not show any isotope composition so the reader can see if the helium is of crustal origin or not. Naturally, they do not mention that the highest concentration of Uranium (the main source of crustal helium) in sedimentary basins are found in anoxic black shales; the same sediments that are most prone to be rich in organic matter. (Actually this correlation is so good that the oil industry use the correlation between Uranium, Organic matter and density to estimate the amount of organic matter from the density and gamma ray electric logs: It is called the Carbolog(R).) The argument that helium indicate abiotic petroleum formation is a story endlessly repeated by the abiotic advocates. Anybody, with an introductory knowledge of petroleum geology, knows the relationship between uranium and anoxic oil source shales; oil source rocks are commonly very radioactive. (Uranium has been a byproduct from oil-shale retorting activities, e.g., in Sweden.) The relationship between very old (e.g., Devonian) source shales, and high helium content is also well known and follows from the simple principle that it takes a lot of time to form helium, independent of anything else. The reader should also know that helium formation modelling is performed in basin modelling petroleum generation and flow simulators used by the oil industry (e.g. Basin-2); calibrated by electric logs that measure radioactivity; The helium content in some petroleum fluids are just what we expect; the helium originally accumulate in solution in water and kerogen (there is much more kerogen in good source rocks than water), as free petroleum fluids are being formed by thermal cracking of the kerogen, the helium is preferentially being partioned into the petroleum fluid, and as the petroleum fluid becomes more mature (and methane rich), virtually all the helium goes into the petroleum fluid.

But why not reporting the actual composition of the oils ? ; a 25°API oil (density 0.9042) is certainly not composed of mainly light n-alkanes :-) Are these heavier oils strongly biodegraded ? They do report the micro fossils the oils contain, without any discussion; where did the Devonian (and Riphean/Vendian) fossils come from. (Kabyshev et al., (1998) and Ulmishek(2001) do state the main source rock in the area is Devonian.) The sediments on the basin shoulder are Carboniferous, but there are huge quantities of Devonian sediments some thousand meters down-dip to the south Stovba et al., (1996) (Fig 13a & 14a); the organic source rock for the basin shoulder fields. The presence of micro-fossils from the source rocks is a very common phenomenon in crude oils. The geoscientists in the FSU, routinely used/are using this to link oils to source rocks.

The example of Krayushkin et al. (Fig. 2) is truncated so that you cannot see the deep gas kitchen down to the south. They try to give the impression to the reader that the oil and gas must have come up from the basement, while in fact the source rock sits directly onto the faults that leads up to the reservoirs (Stovba et al., op cit. Hint: Consult Fig. 3 for location and then Fig 13a & 14a (note error in vertical scale when matching)).

Bottom line, the area is a classical location for gas and minor oil.

The source rock for the petroleum fields: The source rock (penetrated further west in the basin) sits several thousand meters down-dip of the discoveries (actually just below the biggest gas field in the country discovered in the fifties). According to Kabyshev et al.(1998) "The bulk of oil and gas accumulations is contained in Carboniferous to Early Permian post-rift series. Source-rocks occur in Devonian syn-rift and Carboniferous post-rift series; these attained maturity prior to basin inversion. "

Her is an extract from Ulmishek (op cit.): An unpublished U.S. Geological Survey study of the geochemistry of oil, gases, and source rocks of the DDB identified two families of oils (J.L. Clayton, written com., 1998). One of the families is correlative with Lower Carboniferous marine shales. The most prominent of these rocks is a black-shale interval (Rudov Bed) at the top of the lower Visean section. The Rudov Bed, 8–70 m thick, contains 2 to 6 percent total organic carbon (TOC) with type II kerogen. It is composed of siliceous shales with a variable content of carbonate material (Gavrish and others, 1994)[Gavrish, V.K., Machulina, S.A., and Kurilenko, V.S., 1994, Visean oil-source formation of the Dnieper-Donets basin: Doklady Akademii Nauk Ukrainy, no. 7, p. 92–95. ]. The shales are a deep-water basinal facies that is stratigraphically correlative with shallow-shelf and reefal carbonates developed on the surrounding shelf (Lukin and others, 1994)[Lukin, A.E., Shpak, P.F., Chepil, P.M., and Machulina, S.A., 1994, Visean Srebnin megaatoll of the Dnieper-Donets basin and its petroleum potential: Doklady Akademii Nauk Ukrainy, no. 8, p. 101–104. ]. These source rocks were drilled in the western Srebnen depression (fig. 5[not shown here]); they probably extend farther south-east, where they are at depths not yet reached by wells. Source rocks for the second oil family have been sampled only in a few wells, and they are inadequately known. The geographic and stratigraphic locations of fields and hydrocarbon shows indicate that the source rocks are in the Devonian synrift sequence. The suspected source rocks were sampled in a few wells; they are Frasnian and lower Famennian dark siliceous shales and carbonates with a TOC content as high as 4–5 percent (Shpak and Lukin, 1986)[Shpak, P.F., ed., 1989, Geology and petroleum productivity of the Dnieper-Donets depression—Petroleum productivity (Geologiya i nefte gazonosnost Dneprovsko-Donetskoy vpadiny—Neftegazonosnost): Kiev, Ukraine, Naukova Dumka, 204 p. ].

Obviously, many Ukrainian petroleum scientists do not share Kenney's delusion that petroleum source rocks does not exist.

(Minor revision: PETRSCIENT (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)) PETRSCIENT (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

THE FABRICATION THAT ANY ABIOTIC THEORY WAS EVER APPLIED FOR OIL OR GAS EXPLORATION IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION:

The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum: From an outdated idea, through scientific fraud, to pure swindle and finally to the cacophony of internet gibberish on Endless Abiotic Oil.

The story that the FSU (Former Soviet Union) applied abiotic theory in their petroleum exploration and this is the reason for the major FSU major discoveries from around 1950 to present as claimed by Kenney, is probably the most ridiculous fabrication currently circulating on the internet or being advocated on US nationwide radio (NPR). Unfortunately, since Kenney refers to the history of, and literature of petroleum science in the FSU, westerners unfamiliar with the petroleum business are not able evaluate the truthfulness of the story. I will here cast light on it's absurdity. (I already showed that the it was obvious, even from the writings of Krauyshkin op. cit, that this story is a fabrication, but I will fill in this with more information.) Even though Kenney et al., is the ONLY SOURCE for this fairy-tale story, secondary authors have created their own versions and spread them on the internet and even in a book. A story like this naturally has a magic attraction to conspiracy theoreticians, political extremists and other crackpots. Accordingly, the most vocal supporters are found among the extremists left (Rolf Martens) and the extremist right (Jerome Corsi) which here finally finds something they can agree upon. Other "experts" on the worlds petroleum supply, like Raymond J. Learsy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/why-does-abiotic-oil-theo_b_118845.html) and William Engedahl (http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net) has also been eating Kenney's fabrications like hot wheat bread (Fact checks is obviously not part of the activities of these guys; it is quite amazing that someone who claims to know something about the petroleum business, in fact are completely unaware of the worlds petroleum resources and exploration technology.). Today, because of this, it is impossible to write anything about abiotic oil before Kenney's followers chime in. Hence I will show with data, quotations and references and examples that the story is a complete crazy fabrication.

Kenney, did one fundamental mistake when he fabricated this story. When you are cooking up a fairy-tale story, it is important to write down the key points of the story, so that every time you spin on it, the new spin does not contradict the initial template. Also, be sure your co-conspirators are completely in on the story, so they do not completely contradict and falsify the story in their own writings. Jack F. Kenney completely missed out on these important points.

Here are some quotations from "An introduction to the modern petroleum science, and to the Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins." and a few others published in the famous scientific journal of: Jack F. Kenney's website Gasresources.net.

"the modern Russian- Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins has played a central role in the transformation of Russia (then the U.S.S.R.) from being a “petroleum poor” entity in 1951 to the largest petroleum producing and exporting nation on Earth."

"The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. Inshort, and bluntly, petroleum is not a “fossil fuel” and has no intrinsic connection with dead dinosaurs(or any other biological detritus) “in the sediments” (or anywhere else)."

[Comment: Interestingly, in all the writings of Kenney, he actually reject the idea that petroleum is primordial (having been there from the beginning) but rather argue that it is continuously being formed; coherency is not the strength of Kenney. Maybe he do not know the meaning of primordial, or maybe he has lost track of his own writings ? As all good crack-potters, he tries to give the reader the idea that his opponents are stupid; "they are claiming the oil is formed from dead dinosaurs!" ]

"The government of the Soviet Union initiated a “Manhattan Project” type program, which was given the highest priority to study every aspect of petroleum, to determine its origins and how petroleum reserves are generated, and to ascertain what might be the most effective strategies for petroleum exploration."

[Comment: This story is actually partly true. FSU did run a program where the origin of petroleum was a part, but the scope was much wider; Stalin simply said: "Find me sufficient natural resources of any kind" and a mega project was initiated. (Any western earth scientist visiting Russia will be impressed by the quantity and quality of the russian earth scientist.) The russians did figure out the most effective strategies for petroleum exploration namely the same as those applied in the west; geophysical (seismic imaging) and geological mapping. A few geologist speculated that the oil came from the mantle, mostly by arguments linked to lack of or misunderstood data. However, nothing applicable ever came out of these speculations.

I normally use the following scenario to illustrate how absurd it is to claim that any abiotic exploration strategy was ever used in the FSU: With google earth, scan into the enormous flat arctic plain of western Siberia. Particularly study the area around the Samotlor field, the biggest oil field in Russia (no longer what it was). Now consider yourself out in this wilderness and see were the abiotic theory could give you any hint about where to drill. You see nothing but rivers, mires, thickets and mosquitos during summer, and snow, ice and reindeers during the winter. The area is covered by quartenary sediments for 1000 km in all directions. Thinking the oil and gas is formed in the mantle 100 000 meters below gets you .... absolutely nowhere. The only way to locate any likely reservoir is to use geophysical methods; then you drill your wells.

"In 1951, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins was first enunciated by Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev at the All-Union petroleum geology congress. Kudryavtsev analyzed the hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum, and pointed out the failures of the claims then commonly put forth to support that hypothesis. Kudryavtsev was soon joined by numerous other Russian and Ukrainian geologists, among the first of whom were P. N. Kropotkin, K. A. Shakhvarstova, G. N. Dolenko, V. F. Linetskii, V. B. Porfir’yev, andK. A. Anikiev. During the first decade of its existence, the modern theory of petroleum origins was the subject of great contention and controversy. Between the years 1951 and 1965, with the leadership of Kudryavtsev and Porfir’yev, increasing numbers of geologists published articles demonstrating the failures and inconsistencies inherent in the old “biogenic origin” hypothesis. With the passing of the first decade of the modern theory, the failure of the previous, eighteenth century hypothesis of an origin of petroleum from biological detritus in the near-surface sediments had been thoroughly demonstrated, the hypothesis of Lomonosov discredited, and the modern theory firmly established."

[Comment: "the modern theory firmly established" ??!!!. The only person in the world, you can find who claims that is: Jack F. Kenney. Surely, there were many FSU scientists who published on this up to around 1970 (probably 5% of russian petroleum chemists), but after 1970 99.9999% of all petroleum scientists accepted petroleum as fossil fuel because that data supporting it was so overwhelming. However, no abiotic theory was ever used in exploration, because believing the oil comes from the mantle does not give any knowledge that can be used to indicate of where to drill. Drilling targets were established by the same technology as applied in the west; geophysical (seismic imaging) and geological mapping ]

The abiotic theory was never applied for anything in the FSU, and simultaneously with the establishment of the petroleum system concept both in the FSU and in the west, the biotic theory and the data and technology around that became the only game in town also in the FSU. This is clearly acknowledged by several of the co-authors of Kenney, as soon as Kenney is not involved with their writings, and any other russian author who have written about it:

Kutcherov and Krayushkin are co-authors and comrades in arms of Kenney: Krayushkin's own writings (in addition to the paper regarding the Ukrainian abiotic super duper giants) clearly falsify Kenney's claims:

In 1995 Krayushkin co-authored a paper where the endless abiotic oil hypothesis is described: "However, these scientific views are not studied and considered with the proper attention yet."

Let us be sure we did not take this out of context:

HYDROCARBON POTENTIAL OF THE CRYSTALLINE BASEMENT OF DNIEPER-DONETS AULACOGEN(UKRAINE) I.I.Chebanenko, E.M.Dovzhok, V.P.Klochko, A.V.Krayushkin, E.S.Dvoryanin, V.V.Krot, B.I.Malyuk, V.S.Tokovenko Geologichniy Zhurnal (Geological Journal). - 1995. - N 4. - P.15-17.

"Current hydrocarbons resources exploration and usage are clear characterized by great demands in contrast to rather continuous decreasing of supply and general tendency for traditional natural hydrocarbons resources in the Earth to be more and more exhausted. In this respect each new idea on the searching of the principle new energetic power sources should be every kind supported. In the energetic and raw materials geology one of such a scientific idea is represented by the hypothesis of the Earth's interior degassing and realization of wide range of volatiles (hydrogen, helium, carbondioxide, sulphur, mercury etc.) including hydrocarbon enable to accumulate in the shallow crustal reservoirs performing oil and gas deposits. However, these scientific views are not studied and considered with the proper attention yet. Perhaps, the best explanation of this state of the things is a priority of the idea about exclusively biogenic hydrocarbons origin."

Hence Krayushkin clearly acknowledge that the abiotic theory, at least up until 1995, had no significant part in any exploration program in the FSU, because the majority of workers (in the FSU) were subscribing to the biogenic origin of petroleum. Krayushkin clearly acknowledge that the Kenney version is a fabrication.

Another of Kenney's comrade in arms, Kutcherov similarly point out exactly the same: 33rd International Geological Congress 2008 (OSLO) "The modern theory of abiotic deep genesis of hydrocarbons: A history of the history" "In 1951, the modern geological conception of deep, abiotic petroleum origins was first enunciated by Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev together with numerous other Russian and Ukrainian geologists. This conception was developed during the last 50 years by the Russian and Ukrainian scientists. They have brought a lot of brilliant ideas and new approaches but nobody could get experimental confirmation of the possibility of abiotic deep synthesis of hydrocarbons. It was the main break in the development of the conception. Until recently the conception of the abiotic deep genesis of hydrocarbons was a geologist's hypothesis. Recently, theoretical arguments and experimental results presented place this conception in the mainstream of modern physics and chemistry and open an enormous practical application. The theory of the abiotic deep genesis of hydrocarbons allows us to apply a NEW approach to methods for petroleum exploration, to reexamine the structure, size and location of the world's hydrocarbons reserves." Kutcherov clearly acknowledge that the Kenney version is a fabrication.

Let us have a look at a textbook of petroleum science by mainly Russian authors. The textbook "Geology and Geochemistry of oil and gas (Developments in Petroleum Science)" published in 2005 by Chilingar, Buryakovsky, Eremenko and Gorfunkel is mainly written by FSU authors and contain dominantly Russian examples and references. It does not mention any "modern russian ukrainian petroleum science" with a single word and in it's chapter about the formation of petroleum it states:

"The studies of origin of oil always concentrated on the determination of organic matter and establishing processes of its transformation. Discussions in the preceding chapters clearly point to the organic origin of all discovered oil and gas accumulations. Especially significant is Chapter 5 on the oil composition. Chemofossils are present not only in oil but also in coal, oil shale, and bitumen, i.e., biomarkers of organic compounds that preserve the structure of transitional bioorganic molecules. More than 300 such hydrocarbons are described in crude oils. About the same number of biomarkers were discovered in the sulfur- and oxygen-containing compounds. Quite often, more than half of the crude oil is represented by biomarkers that are, therefore, not an admixture but an integral constituent of oils. The main concepts of the organic theory of oil generation [e.g., Mikhailovskiy, 1906; (in: Eremenko and Chilingar, 1996); Arkhangelskiy, 1954; Gubkin, 1915, 1932] are simple. Organic matter is accumulated (mostly in a dispersed state) in predominantly clayey marine deposits. There are two major types of organic matter: humic and sapropelic. It was believed that the latter played a major role in oil generation, whereas the decomposition of humic organic matter resulted in the formation of coal and water-soluble (hence, easily dispersible) substances and gas. The decomposition of sapropelic matter gives rise to the liquid and gaseous compounds including hydrocarbons. The decomposition occurs as a result of heat flow and the energy of the sun accumulated by the organic matter. The hydrocarbons and some other substances formed from the decomposed organic matter are squeezed together with water out of the shales into the reservoir rocks. "

This textbook have in fact a quite extensive coverage of russian author's views on petroleum formation. While the terminology is slightly different compared to in the west, there are no significant differences in data bases, both on natural and laboratory and established theories.

As Glasby (2006) (Abiogenic Origin of Hydrocarbons: An Historical Overview, Resource Geology, vol. 56, no. 1, 85–98, 2006) put it: "Many articles have been published in the Russian journal, Petroleum Geology, on the geology of the Caspian, western Siberian and Dnieper-Donets oil fields and English abstracts posted on the internet (http://www.geocities.com/internetgeology). However, no reference has been made to the abiogenic theory of hydrocarbon formation in any of these articles. This would suggest that the abiogenic theory has much more limited support in Russia and the Ukraine now than in Soviet times, particularly with respect to the commercial exploration for oil and gas."

Then have a look at "www.geotimes.org/nov02/NN_oil.html". But, says geochemist Alexei Milkov of the Deep Ocean Exploration Institute at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and a graduate of Saint-Petersburg State University in Russia, “I’ve never met an industry geologist that uses abiogenic theory to find oil and gas fields, and that includes Russian industry geologists. These guys pay money for mistakes and can’t afford using wrong theories to continue exploration.” A key factor in deciding whether to put money in exploration of a frontier basin is the potential quality and extension of source rock, Milkov adds. “This strategy apparently works for them so far.”

I have worked with, and know many russian petroleum scientists. All of them will smile humbly when asked about the "russian abiotic theory" and typically state that: "well... you have scientific "innovators" in the west as well; think of this Gold".

On the Hedberg research conference on abiotic petroleum, held in Calgary in June 2005, several workers from the FSU attended and presented their theories. Not a single of these workers claimed that any abiotic theory had ever been applied in petroleum exploration. All presentations, where either presenting an idea (completely conceptual) or trying to argue that some data from already discovered fields indicated the presence of abiotic petroleum. Nobody, claimed that any "modern Ukrainian-Russian petroleum science had ever existed in the FSU". On the contrary, every team had completely different models, ranging from pure abiotic models to combination (abiotic & biotic) models. Nobody, however challenged the biogenic mode of petroleum formation generally and all acknowledged that the biotic model have been the only one ever applied in real exploration; they are suggesting a change of paradigm.

How is it possible that a swindle story like that the FSU became an oil superpower due to the "endless abiotic oil theory" is not immediately trapped and ridiculed ? Anybody who has surfed the internet knows the high concentration of crackpots and "trollers". Regarding the "endless abiotic oil theory" there is also a strong political element. Interestingly, here the ultra-left and the ultra-right join arms in holy matrimony:

I will start with Rolf Martens' version of the "modern Ukrainian-Russian petroleum science": (According to himself: he is the only known true remaining supporter in the world of the political line of Marx, Lenin , and Mao Zedong; and of armed revolution. He is also famous for his view that the following are MEGAHOAXES: a) "THERE IS A NEW DISEASE, AIDS, CAUSED BY A VIRUS, HIV" b) "FOOT AND MOUTH VIRUS EXIST AND CAUSE DISEASE" b) "LOW-DOSE IONIZING RADIATION IS HARMFUL TO PEOPLE" c) "DDT IS HARMFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND NOT NECESSARY TO COMBAT MALARIA" d) "THERE IS OZONE DEPLETION CAUSED BY CFC:S" e) "THE NATURAL RESOURCES ARE GETTING SCARCE" ).

Rolf Martens, the last genuine communist on the earth, abandoned the Swedish Marxist-Leninist party because of their bourgeois reactionary politics, joined a more extremist German Marxist-Leninist Party and was expelled by them because he criticized them of abandoning their cause and also becoming bourgeois reactionaries.); i.e., Rolf Martens represents the typical endless abiotic oil advocate.

Once upon the time by Rolf Martens: "It was in the earlier existing Soviet Union that the modern science on the origins of oil, natural gas and coal was first developed and applied in practice, from the early 1950s on, when that state was still a socialist one, and continuing later too. Those revisionists (bourgeois reactionaries flaunting a false flag) who seized power in it in the late 1950s / early 1960s and turned the Soviet Union into a social-imperialist, very reactionary power found no reason not to use the knowledge gained earlier for their own purposes and in "their own" country at least, eventually making it one of the two biggest oil exporters in the world (beside Saudi Arabia). As pointed out in the above mentioned article by Kenney on this (naturally enough it says nothing about the social system's having changed in the Soviet Union), crucial in this development was the knowledge that much oil and gas was (and still is) to be found at quite great depths and in crystalline types of rock too, not only in sedimentary ones. " [Martens, 199?; from his opening page on his website (rolf-martens.com); unfortunately gone silent since 2009].

The reason for Martens involvement in the endless abiotic oil debate was given: "POLITICAL AIMS OF THE PRESENT SERIES ON CERTAIN TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS In writing this series, I have two political objectives: Firstly, by showing that the most powerful governments in the world today (with their media etc) are lying about the origins of the chemical fuels and preventing the development of their use - which however is most necessary -, I intend to present one more argument why, as I and a number of other people hold today, these governments need to be overthrown and replaced by governments which really represent the interests of the great majority of people. " Hence, the "endless abiotic campaign" by Rolf Martens, has been an attempt to overthrow and replace the most powerful governments in the world today, i.e., this is part of his armed revolution; armed with stupidity ? I skip the second point.

Then let us move over to the right side of the political spectrum: Jerome Corsi: Right-wing infant-terrible, Swift-Boat activist and "conspiracy maker" ; If Corsi cannot make a conspiracy about it, he will claim that it is a conspiracy that prevents him from making a conspiracy about it; so extreme that the rest of the Swift-Boat activist hid him during their book promotion; Read the Obama's web site's summary of Corsi's activities and other lies.; i.e., Jerome Corsi represents the typical endless abiotic oil advocate.

Jerome Corsi together with Craig Smith wrote the book "Black Gold Strangehold" using Kenney's fabrications as the main facts of the book. Jerome Corsi, to his credit did not change the story of Kenney very much. The reason is probably that the only thing he new about the FSU was that they were communists. Corsi and Smith did manage though to prove that they fell completely asleep in their science classes (if they ever took any). According to this masterpiece of a book; "oil is formed in the mantle and forced upwards into the crust by the centrifugal force.". It never occurred to Corsi & Smith that if so (I skip the "centrifugal" issue), everything on the earths surface should be thrown into space. My dear Corsi and Smith; ever heard of gravity ? On Corsi's "scientific productions" on the WorldDailyNet we also learn that the newer deep water discoveries in Brazil, proves that oil is abiotic because: "There is no way the dinosaurs could have made it out into these deep water deposits." Here are some of the other crackpot theories that Corsi has contributed to. 1) 9/11 was a conspiracy: the plains could not be responsible for the towers collapses. 2) Obama has not proven that he is a US citizen; the birth certificate shown is false with a watermark made in photoshop; i.e., Obama is an illegal alien occupying the oval office. 3) The Nafta is a plot to make a north american union between US, Canada and Mexico. 4) The Minnesota bridge collapse was due to Nafta.

THE SAGA DOES NOT STOP THERE:

Today Kutcherov is on it again, trying to raise money for "abiotic" drilling in Texas: http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/13/abiotic-oil-supply-energenius08-biz-cz_rl_1113abiotic.html Why does not Gas Resources Cooperation Inc. do the drilling :-). They have given "Research Grants" previously (To Kenney according to Kenney; from Kenney to Kenney with love).

To gain publicity, Kutcherov are "publishing" as well (in a geological newsletter):

"Theory of Abyssal Abiotic Petroleum Origin: Challenge for Petroleum Industry" by Vladimir G. Kutcherov.

(http://www.aapg.org/europe/newsletters/2008/06jun/index.cfm)

With that he has actually proved 4 things:

1) He (as Kenney) does not know the difference between a dry gas and a crude oil. He shows some analyses of artificial fluids, and claims he made a crude oil. (Kenney made a similar claim on NPR). The composition shown is a typical dry gas fluid (clearly from an artificial short term experiment: presence of alkenes). Then he compare it to a "crude oil" from the Tiger Field (which happens to be an analysis of some fluid inclusions from the area, NOT analysis of the produced oils).

2) He is totally willing to make up "data". To prove that the "organic theory" has problems he refers to data from an AAPG paper. Unfortunately no data of the kind exist in the paper. Kutcherov states: "According to Bockmeulen et al. (1983) (Bockmeulen H., Barker C., and Dickey P. A. Geology and geochemistry of crude oil, Bolivar Coastal fields, Venezuela, Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., (1983) 67, 242-270.) the source rock here is the La Luna limestone of the Cretaceous age. Initial “in place” reserves of oil are equal to 32*10^12 m^3 of oil with a density of 820-1000 kg/m3." He then use this estimate in some further silly calculations to conclude: " In this case the area of the oil-generating basin should be 28 times more than the territory of Venezuela.

"32*10^12 m^3 of oil is around 200 trillion barrels of oil, i.e., much more then the sum of all historic and current conventional and unconventional oil resources in the entire world. This is the quantity of oil Kutcherov is assigning to the Bolivar Coastal fields. Kutcherov must be either completely void of any knowledge of petroleum science or the petroleum business, or he is deliberately constructing arguments which only can be accepted by people unfamiliar with the subjects.

3) He do not know the literature, or he ignores anything he does not like. The same author he incorrectly referenced in the Venezuela example (Prof. Colin Barker) had published proper calculations regarding the second example (Saudi Arabia) Krutcherov gave (naturally with completely opposite results.) Kutcherov's methodology contradicts any measurements. In addition he only picks one single of the source rocks feeding the Ghwar field, and compare his crazy yield estimates to all the oil in Saudi Arabia.

4) He is void of knowledge about trace metals in rocks, minerals and oils and available literature. He shows some data, and (naturally) claims it proves the oils are from the mantle; the data probably shows that the oil has leached some calcic plagioclase (anorthite breaks down during diagenesis), are common in the western siberian reservoirs cited, and plagioclase is the most abundant phase with eu anomalies (and similar REE patterns) in sedimentary basins as the oils are showing. PETRSCIENT (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FINALLY LET US REVISIT SOME AND ALSO LOOK AT SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF THE "SCIENTIST" KENNEY'S PRODUCTIONS:

In the milestone paper: "Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum." published in the famous scientific journal of: "Jack F. Kenney's website Gasresources.net"

J. F. KENNEY, V. A. KRAYUSHKIN, I. K. KARPOV, V. G. KUTCHEROV,I. N. PLOTNIKOVA state the following:

"... assertions have been made that hydrocarbons evolve from biological matter. Of course, the second law of thermodynamics prohibits such, which fact should obviate any such assertion."

"If liquid hydrocarbons might evolve from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of the crust of the Earth, we could all expect to go to bed at night in our dotage, with white hair (or, at least, whatever might remain of same), a spreading waistline, and all the un-desirable decrepitude of age, and to awake in the morning, clear eyed, with our hair returned of the color of our youth, with a slim waistline, a strong, flexible body, and with our sexual vigor restored. Alas, such is not to be. The merciless laws of thermodynamics do not accommodate folklore fables. Natural petroleum has no connection with biological matter."

Naturally, in the above "scientific" scribblings, no explanations are given to the claim that: "The merciless laws of thermodynamics [the second law] do not accommodate folklore fables. Natural petroleum has no connection with biological matter."

As I mentioned in the beginning, Kutcherov in the recent Nature Geoscience paper (26 july 2009: see link above) was stating: "There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes."; clearly there is a civil war in abiotic paradise.

That the second law of thermodynamics prohibits formation of petroleum from biological detritus is "explained" in another of Kenney's masterpieces: "The Constraints of the Laws of Thermodynamics upon the Evolution of Hydrocarbons: The Prohibition of Hydrocarbon Genesis at Low Pressures." (also published in the famous scientific journal of: "Jack F. Kenney's website Gasresources.net") J. F. KENNEY, I. K. KARPOV, Ac. Ye. F. SHNYUKOV, V. A. KRAYUSHKIN, I. I. CHEBANENKO, V. P. KLOCHKO

"This article discusses the reasons which led physicists, chemists, thermodynamicists, and chemical, mechanical, and petroleum engineers to reject, already by the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the hypothesis that highly-reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly-oxidized biological molecules of low chemical potentials, and reviews briefly the fundamental scientific reasons for the failure of the 18th-century hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum."

OOps ! "the hypothesis that highly-reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve spontaneously from highly-oxidized biological molecules of low chemical potentials".

Who on earth has ever suggested that ? That would be as idiotic as suggesting gold being formed from water !

Highly oxidized organic matter would be something like charcoal. Nobody has ever been considering petroleum being formed from "highly-oxidized biological molecules". Hence, these "accomplished scientists" in their arguments for endless abiotic oil are simply (with the most extreme street language) cooking up a crazy story regarding what more than 99.99% of all petroleum scientists are saying; a classical crackpot methodology of deception.

Petroleum scientists, including 99% of all petroleum scientist from the former soviet union (FSU), have shown with an enormous amount of data, laboratory experiments and theory, that economic oil quantities form mainly from algal detritus (and to lesser extent other hydrogen rich biological tissues from; spores, pollen, leaf cuticles, bark etc) preserved under oxygen depleted conditions. The biological detritus that forms oil on exposure to temperatures at around 100˚C and above, represent macromolecular forms (bio-polymers and possible also geo-polymers of highly reduced (the opposite of oxidized) organic matter.

In another brilliant scientific production "An Example of the Little-Moron Logic & Mendacity of BOOP(biological-origin-of-petroleum): The Carbon Isotope Ratio Nonsense." (also published in the famous scientific journal of: "Jack F. Kenney's website Gasresources.net") Kenney shows even more scientific sophistication: "The assertion that natural petroleum (“crude oil”) is a “fossil fuel” somehow evolved by a miraculous process of transformation from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of pressures and temperatures in the near-surface crust of the Earth, is a nonsensical, child’s fairy-story, supported by Little- Moron Logic and defended by lies." "Such is the purveyance of BOOP: Transparent lying to defend little-moron logic in the service of imbecility. All of which does not provide a viable basis for a nation’s energy policy; and none of which ought to continue to be supported with public tax payers’ money. "

Here Kenney demonstrates his depth of knowledge, total ignorance or avoidance of the literature on the subject, his linguistic sophistication, his civility and his passion for the american taxpayers.

It is also sad that he now claims that his old friend Kutcherov is performing: "Transparent lying to defend little-moron logic in the service of imbecility". Actually, he is claiming the same for Krayushkin and Plotnikova as well, since they are also on the record in publications making similar statements as Kutcherov. Gas Resources Inc. of Kenney has become a very lonely room, at the fifth floor (behind the coffee machine) in Houston.

One could go on forever with all the meaningless crap and venom J.F. Kenney has been injecting into the internet. I hope the above comments put the "endless abiotic oil story" into some perspective.

Thomas Gold; Scientific Maverick OR Scientific Fraud and a Pathological Liar ?

Thomas Gold's writings are constantly being used by those arguing for endless abiotic petroleum. In particular Gold's description of the Siljan project.

The question we need to address is this: Are there any documentation for any of Gold's claims regarding what was found at Siljan, or did he simply fabricate the whole story ?

Gold claimed that 15 tons of oil was pumped up of the Gravberg-1 well. Then he claims that 60kg of a homogeneous magnetite-oil sludge was recovered from inside the drill-pipe; the sludge filling the lower 10 meter of the drill-pipe. He claims that this was after a week of no operation, and that the organic binder was a crude oil. Gold, goes on by claiming that the sludge must have entered from below; the no-operation allowed the sludge to flow from the formation into the drill-pipe. He also claims that 12 tons of a similar oil-sludge was then pumped up of the well. He further claims that in the Stenberg-1 well 80 barrels of crude oil (or sometimes he says oil-sludge) was recovered. Another place he refers to the same as 5 kg of similar material as the 60 kg oil sludge in Gravberg-1.

My claim is that all this is pure fantasy (except 60 kg of a paste enriched with magnetite at the base); After it became clear that the Gravberg-1 was a complete fiasco, Gold simply tried to avoid being ridiculed the same way he had been ridiculed after the moon dust fiasco. (Regarding the moon dust fiasco: Gold went on a lying spree in the popular press and denied he ever had claimed the space-crafts would sink into the moon dust. The reader can shoot that against what he wrote in his publications, NASA's own record (The NASA arranged meeting at Caltech with Richard Feynman as moderator is very illustrative of how much effort and time NASA wasted on Gold's moon dust fantasy.), and even the eulogy by Gold's friend Edwin Salpeter: "With his occasional overenthusiasm, Tommy exclaimed that “the Apollo astronauts will sink in up to their bellybutton in dust” (this is a sanitized paraphrase)." To see how successful Gold's history rewritings was; check out the dominant version on the internet and on Wikipedia; complete mismatch with documentable facts.)

When Gold published the Siljan claims, numerous geoscientists signed up to stop the publication because it was clear it was pure fraud. Gold rewrite this event by stating that these scientist claimed his paper was unscientific (that was one part of their claims only). Gold than sued these scientists for libel, and according to Gold, they retracted and apologized. Those involved will give a completely different story, involving political and administrative muscle rather than any science.

However, the simple issue is this. The Siljan drillings were monitored by many scientists of different disciplines. The operator had a lot at stake and naturally ensured that everything occurring during the project was logged, and documented. Numerous scientific publications were published regarding the Siljan drilling project. Gold DOES NOT REFERENCE A SINGLE ONE OF THEM, even when they describe in detail the event Gold is fantasizing about. There is NO correlation about what Gold is claiming and the scientific publications that actually analyze and describe in detail the different events. There is NO correlation between the drilling logs and Gold's claims. No 15 tons of crude oil is documented from Gravberg-1. No 80 barrels of crude oil is documented from Stenberg-1. No additional 12 tons of "oil" sludge is documented from Gravberg-1. Even Kenney, acknowledge that only traces (ppm levels) of hydrocarbons were recorded in the 2 wells, and that most of it in Gravberg-1 was diesel oil (Notice that "hydrocarbons" does not mean crude oil)). (Kenney, in contrast to Gold had a lot of presence at the drilling sites.) Gold's description of the 60kg magnetite sludge is surreal, and his description of how it happened, is a blunt lie. Still, the same way as Kenney's gigantic abiotic oil discoveries is spread everywhere, Gold's fabrications have been repeated so many times that even some geoscientists believe it happened. 15 tons of crude oil in the Gravberg-1 well would have been a world sensation ! Still, only Gold has made the claim it happened from what I can see of documents. Also, it is illustrative that at the GSA meeting after all the results of the Gravberg-1 had come in, Gold presented NOTHING about 15 tons of oil or 12 tons of magnetite-oil sludge. Only the traces documented by John Castano, and the magnetite paste was described. Gold was ridiculed for his presentation. The 2 points repeatedly thrown his way was: a) These are just John's findings out of context plus typical drilling contaminants; b) Question: Did the drillers use caustic soda in the effort to release the drill bit as you would have expected them to do ? (Gold never answered: wheter he did not understand the significanse of the question, or something else, only Gold knows.) First, when Gold wrote up his story, the 15 tons of oil and 12 tons of magnetite oil sludge made it's world debut (out of nowhere) and the popular press swallowed the bait; the paper was written for the public and press... NOT for the scientific community.

I do intend to go systematically through this and document all my statements.

BEFORE THAT, I AM HERE ASKING THE MANY WIKIPEDIANS WHO HAVE REFERRED TO GOLD'S WRITINGS AND ECHOED HIS CLAIMS:

PLEASE PROVIDE REFERENCES TO ANY DOCUMENTATION OF GOLD'S CLAIMS.

Anybody can make an unsubstantiated claim. The same way Kenney claimed he helped finding more than 20 billion (or 65 billion) barrels of abiotic oil, or Gold claimed 15 + 12 tons of abiotic oil was recovered from Gravberg-1 and that immense amounts of hydrocarbons were flowing into the Siljan area from the mantle, I can claim that I have found a billion barrels of oil flowing out of my ipod. But without documentation, all claims are simply empty claims, and may be complete lies. When the scientists and drillers actually present at the drill-site has documented a completely different story compared to Gold's claims (who's only "scientific" involvement was studying a sample from a plastic bag of magnetite paste in the kitchen sink) there is certainly cause for a red alert.

Gold had a clear motive to fabricate; to avoid public ridicule. Gold had been ridiculed before, and had learned that intensive lying campaigns in the press and on the internet works well; when the audience have no idea about the subject; a loud scientist can get away with nearly anything.

Therefore: those who believe Gold was not fabricating his Siljan abiotic oil discoveries:

Please provide references to any documentation of Gold's claims.

Then we can evaluate what actually occurred at Siljan; 1) The actual drilling record (what was actually circulated in the well). 2) Elementary drilling physics (fluids flow from high to low fluid potential, not the other way around). 3) Elementary drilling chemistry (what happens when you expose 6000 meters * 2 of steel drill-pipe to hot caustic soda and circulate it for 24 hours; what happens when 7 barrels of plant oil and some Xanthan gum is "cooked" with caustic soda.). Furthermore, we can shoot all the other non-Siljan claims against the literature available to Gold, and evaluate if Gold deliberately doctored and misrepresented other workers data in an effort to deceive the reader; that is one difference between a scientific fraud and a scientific maverick. We can also investigate if there is any truth to the claim by Russian, Ukrainian and American workers in the abiotic camp, that Gold copied other peoples ideas without giving any credit; scientific plagiarism.

Let a constructive FACT-BASED discussion begin. NO CLAIMS THAT ARE SIMPLY REFERENCE TO OTHER UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS.

PETRSCIENT (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC) PETRSCIENT (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

PETRSCIENT (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Identify what period you refer to by "recent", so we at least know what decade's material you're referring to as being recent. I don't know if this is new writing or something you copied from years ago. And I added some wikisyntax header markings on your capitalized headlines so the style is easier to read on this site. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

RECENT = 26 July 2009: There is a full link in the beginning as clearly stated. 98.184.164.58 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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 a 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)

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)

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 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)