Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin

Lakes of Methane on Titan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, anonymous contributors, I know about the ethane cloud on Titan. [1] It's already known that there are a lot of hydrocarbons out around the gas giants and there was a lot of stuff in the rocks which formed the Earth. (SEWilco 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

deep biogenic theory? (sic)

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

Oh, are you complaining about the term "deep biogenic theory"? You'll have to look at the history of the source article [2] to see where it originated. I didn't alter that because it looks like a descriptive term for the deep microbial concepts from several authors. Using "deep hot biosphere" seems too specific, similar to using "Copernican solar system" for all star-dominated astronomical conditions. For example, some extremophiles live in cold or shallow conditions. 20% of methane might come from microbes but how deep is "deep"? (SEWilco 14:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

I thought this sentence a bit confusing:

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

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

Calcite-Wustite-Lime-Water-Methane

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

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

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

• Calcite cannot be converted to quicklime (CaO) within the crust. - The Scott2004 source refers to mantle conditions, not the crust.
• There is no rock assemblage known within geology which is FeO plus CaO - Which formula mentions FeO+CaO? A rock on the surface?
• ... 1500 degrees celsius - Actually two reactions mention it, both from Scott2004's experiments. Hmm... [3] has an estimate of 1450° C for one condition, [4] says the range is 870-2200° C.
• you presume that CaO is a stable mineral phase - I did not state what happens to CaO after formation. Scott2004's "methane reforming" does require two reactions involving CaO at different temperatures, which implies movement of reaction products.
• ...extremely rare, if not impossible to form pure FeO - Hmm... Wustite [5] associated with lime in meteorite, meteorite, meteorite. Nope, not terrestrial. Although Wustite being in kimberlite pipes is interesting. Scott2004 doesn't say why calcite and wustite were chosen, other than mention of "reduction of carbonate under conditions typical for the Earth's upper mantle". Probably is considering subducted calcite, and some think subducted material often reaches the lower mantle. Would subduction of oxidised ferric iron from the surface be a factor? Lamproites having iron suggests there sometimes is iron in a subduction area, while kimberlites from the lower mantle have less iron.
• Oxidising the magnetite within a serpentinised body during hydrothermal metamorphism does not happen - Okay, so where is this mentioned?
  • You are now claiming that serpentinites, during serpentinisation ... now not only create magnetite and serpentine from olivine, but they are subject to such severe metasomatism that the magnetite is now converted to hematite? - I thought we were discussing mantle reactions, who mentioned serpentinite other than yourself?
• ... you have just gone ino a chemstry book, pulled some equations out, and thought you could fob this off as proof of the theory. The reality is, there are no such minerals and rocks which fit your equations. - Nope, I pulled out some equations exploring hydrocarbon-producing conditions, often from studies exploring exactly that topic. There not being such surface rocks only suggests that the reactions don't often take place where the products reach the surface unchanged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of problems with biogenic theory is needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second Law

The article states : "The 2nd Law of thermodynamics prohibits petroleum formation at low pressure and temperature"

I know what "low pressure", "low temperature", "petroleum formation", and "the 2nd law of thermodynamics" all mean, but can someone please explain why, or at least cite a reference, so that non-petroleum geologists or non-chemists can understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.69.24 (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, read entire artcile and its references. About low pressure and low temperature signify pressure and temperature found in crust of the earth (e.g. sedimentary basins), not in mantle where hydrocarble are stable at great high pressures and temperatures. See more informations in this page: http://www.gasresources.net/ThrmcCnstrnts.htm 201.17.61.110 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Explanation: The reaction is endergonic and endothermic, i.e. it requires an input of energy in order to proceed. The opposite of low pressure and temperature is high, providing the inputs for the reaction to occur. Petroleum is a more ordered form of its constituent molecules, that is the entropy or disorder of petroleum is lower than the constituent molecules, simple hydrocarbons, hydrogen, carbon compounds etc. To decrease the entropy (disorder, increase the order) of a system an input of energy is required, thus pressure and heat (which are proportional to one another for a given volume, see the ideal gas law) provide the necessary energy.

Think of it this way: You got a pile of bricks, you want to make a wall, so you put energy into the bricks and make your wall. Same thing but with molecules.

High and Low are relative terms, meaning the second law of thermodynamics is relevant but does not singly explain the spontaneity of petroleum formation. Thermodynamics of chemical reactions would be a more suitable single explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_thermodynamics—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.17.154 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion/Opinion pulled from Main Article

I pulled this from the main article:

Given the near-religous character which surrounds all discussion of oil, its uses, and its origins, the abiotic theory is a touchy subject. Telling an environmentalist that oil is a renewable resource is akin to telling a Muslim that Mohammed was just some dude, or telling a Christian that Jesus was not born in Nazareth. The abiotic theory is equated with heresy in many social circles.

It seems like it belongs more so on the Talk Section so I moved it. 209.187.72.3 (talk)

Where is the Controversy Section?

When I see an article like this that is obviously disputed (I think the term is controversial) I like to see a "Controversy" section or "Disputed Facts" or whatever anyone wants to call it. This lets readers very quickly read over the pro-arguments of the theory, then jump down to the against-arguments and weigh things in their heads. I'm sure there are plenty of arguments against this theory and it would be nice to see them. JettaMann (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing science with social science. Science does not have strong and weak arguments. Your argument cannot be weighed for rightness or wrongness it can only be suggested and possibly accepted until disproven. If the explanation has been disproved it will cease to be relevant. Until then science provides a possible explanation for what is currently unknown. By the way it is not a theory, some wish that it was. But a theory in the scientific community is typically defined as a generally accepted and well tested explanation for a phenomenon. Unfortunately most discussion of topics like this are politicized just as much as the word theory is (for example, "Its just a theory" when a theory is the best explanation science has to offer until it is generally held to be indisputable and considered a law). The biogenic origin theory is the accepted status quo just as the earth was widely considered to be flat or the center of the universe. Therefore it may be difficult to seek the truth as science requires by studying the hypothesis and attempting to disprove the existing theory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.17.154 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

biomarkers

Please include this because mello2005 debunks all of this fringe science:

The most important counter arguments to the abiotic theory involve various biomarkers which have been found in all samples of all the oil and gas accumulations found to date. The prevailing view among geologists and petroleum engineers is that this evidence "provides irrefutable proof that 99.99999% of all the oil and gas accumulations found up to now in the planet earth have a biologic origin." In this process, oil is generated from kerogen by pyrolysis. While, Thomas Gold hypothesized that bacteria exist deep within the Earth's crust, and are the source of the biomarkers, these bacteria have not been found, the natural abiogenic formation of high-carbon hydrocarbons does not exist.

Kgrr (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You are totally wrong my friend. First; Mello is a owner of a enterprise that work with biogenic view (sic). 2nd; petroleum only forms from biological material if occur a miracle. Please, study chemistry, thermodyanamics and geology of course...189.60.254.95 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please respond with references not opinions and attacks against other editor's education. BTW, all oil companies "work with the biogenic view." NJGW (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See my friend, biomarkers present in oil is just part of cell wall from bacteria that eat oil and dead in oil too. So, 99.99999% of all the oil and gas accumulations are primordial materials and the rest are contaminants. As said Dr. Thomas Gold..."Petroleum is not a biology reworked by geology (as the traditional view would hold) but rather geology reworked by biology". Think it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.253.88 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For editing Wikipedia, it is only neccessary to be able to determine what the expert (often scientific) consensus of a topic is. If you have sources which show a significant scientific community consider as real the possibility that commercial ammounts of abiogenic oil exists, then by all means bring them forth. My belief is that the topic is fairly treated as a fringe science. NJGW (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to conclude "the natural abiogenic formation of high-carbon hydrocarbons does not exist." because "these bacteria have not been found". but it would rather indicate that the biomarkers have not been shown to be the result of subterranean bacteria. Inclusion of biomarkers is not "irrefutable proof" that the abiogenic petroleum formation hypothesis is incorrect, as there is no logical connection nor a scientific consensus of a connection. Scientist still have not reached a consensus that abiogenic petroleum formation is not valid. Furthermore please show the references to the data from which 99.99999% was derived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.17.154 (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(removed discussion not about this article or biomarkers per wp:NOTFORUM... please read your talk page)

Experimental Proposals

It could be interesting to add this section so that people would have a place to suggest possible experimental procedures to prove or disprove the Abiogenic origin of petroleum.

1) Ultimate experiment? There is a strong possibility that the moon has formed from the earth. The mantle composition should be similar. It is expected that the moon never had life (on its surface anyway). Deep drilling on the moon could reveal deep bacterial life and/or the presence of hydrocarbons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.22.255 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's fringe science and has been de-bunked in 2005 by mello.Kgrr (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How can this be de-bunked? Have they drilled the moon? Please provide more proofs for your debunking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.22.255 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

See scholar: Mello 2005 moon hydrocarbons

LeadSongDog (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... since the moon doesn't have a mantle or molten core, there would be neither the heat nor the pressure required to produce petroleum abiotically, so you could drill there all you like (assuming you can get there) and still not prove a thing. I'm willing to credit Abiogenic petroleum as having been a valid theory that's now fallen by the wayside; let's not disrespect that by fantasizing about experimental procedures that don't even make sense in terms of the hypothesis. --Ludwigs2 20:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important you check the sources. This is a wp:fringe hypothesis in that proponents believe that most (or even all) petroleum is of abiogenic origin. While perhaps true that there are methods of preparing synthetic petroleum in a laboratory with no biological feedstocks, the idea that commercial amounts of petroleum have been created in (much less extracted from) the earth has never had convincing evidence behind it. See threads at talk:petroleum, talk:peak oil, as well as the archives here for more. NJGW (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt you, but I also recognize that this (unlike many fringe theories) actually had some decent supporters in the scientific community at one point or another. plus, I think you misread my post - I'm not interested in supporting the theory, just in brushing off oddball notions about it. --Ludwigs2 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A section such as the one suggested above would be OR. Just keep in mind though that a lot of currently socially and scientifically abhorrent ideas once had "some decent supporters"... which doesn't change the fact that we now know better. This concept has "fallen by the wayside" for a reason. NJGW (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See William Shockley for a respected scientist with abhorrent ideas that have no scientific validity. There has been little support except for a few Russians, and one or two Western scientists. The 100% linking of biogenic markers to every single source of petroleum in the world seems to indicate that this hypothesis is bunk. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

article title

it seems to me that the title of this article should either be Abiogenic petroleum or Abiogenic origin of petroleum, not Abiogenic petroleum origin which doesn't scan right in English. I'd recommend the first, as simpler. is a rename in order? --Ludwigs2 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to call it the Abiogenic petroleum hypothesis. NJGW (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Abiogenesis should not be used in the title of this article Abiogenesis has a very specific meaning as to the beginning of life on earth. A scan of few of the articles indicate that this article should be called "Inorganic origin of petroleum", since the supposition is that the oil is formed from inorganic carbon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

revert

NJGW - please explain that blanket revert you just made of my edits. that was cleanup, aimed at improving the language and style, and I don't see the rationale for just undoing it all without comment. I mean, I'm happy to just go back and do it again, on the assumption that you made a mistake, but I'd rather figure out what happened first. --Ludwigs2 21:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I'm feeling a bit like I'm being stalked. What a shock to see you on an obscure article that I've been editing and watching. To answer your question, this is a terribly fringe theory with no support in the scientific community. This should be given no weight whatsoever. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition, using words such as "commonly" and "generally" increase the POV of this article by a lot. Of course, if by "generally" and "commonly", you mean every single geologist, geochemist, petroleum geologist, and paleontologist but five or six, OK, we could agree with you. However, those are weasel words that give too much weight to fringe theories. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What he said. For more info/details see the talk pages I've directed you to twice. No need to retype it all. NJGW (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OM, sorry you feel that way. I have no idea what you've been editing or watching (aside from our occasional crossed swords) but this article is posted here wp:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Abiogenic_petroleum_origin for attention, which hardly qualifies it as an obscure article. also, it's pleasant of you to answer for NJGW, but as we've discussed previously, it's probably best for the community if I speak to other editors directly, since conversations between you and I are rarely productive. I mean, please... add in what you think is needed, as you think its needed, but I'd rather avoid confrontations where possible.

to address your specific points: I really had no intention of changing the meaning of the article in any way, at least not at this point - as I said, I was just editing for style and language. I would have had no problem changing 'generally' into 'the majority of' or even 'the scientific consensus' if you prefer something like that (because I'm well aware that the biogenic notion is thoroughly accepted). now, if you don't think my language was better, that's one thing; we can talk about that. but other than that you're reading into what I was doing. take five minutes, read over the changes I made on stylistic grounds, and then we can quibble about emphasis if you accept the basic writing differences.

and please try not to turn every little thing into a battle... --Ludwigs2 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I appreciate your efforts, but they really did change the meaning of the lead in several places. There is a lot of very technical reporting of some very technical sources, and a major problem here is the ease in which the meaning can change from simple edits. For example, the phrase "Using the presence of methane in the solar system as evidence, the hypothesis suggests that natural petroleum may have been developed from deep carbon deposits..." suggests that information about the seas of Titan was available to the developers of this hypothesis, when in fact this is new information that is used as after-the-fact support (even though nobody ever said methane was petroleum or that their's petroleum on Titan... but that's a separate matter). This article is in need of a major rewrite, but it has to be done very carefully or from the ground up (to wipe out all the useless POV banter about technical experimental details) by people who know petroleum geology very well (which unfortunately isn't me). I hope you can help keep an eye on the POV pushing that often goes on here, as the backers of this hypothesis can get extremely pushy, as OrangeMarlin can attest to. NJGW (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all Ludwigs, anyone can answer anything on Wikipedia. We don't censor. But I appreciate your opinion on the matter. In fact, I would have reverted your edits to for precisely the same reasons that I stated, and for the same reasons that NJGW just stated. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

NJGW - that's cool. this is not an article I have any great concern with, and I'm no petroleum geologist; I was just trying to help out. I'll look through it and see if I can do some minor improvements without pushing on content. just as a suggestion, would an 'expert requested' template for a petroleum geologist help any?

OM - I'm not suggesting you can't respond to anything I say; I'm just aware of our history, and I'm trying to keep the potential for conflict to a minimum until some better resolution can be found. and yes, it applies to me as well as to you; I'm doing my best to stay out of your discussions, except where there's a content issue that I want to address. not the best solution, maybe, but... <shrug>. --Ludwigs2 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "glasby2006" :
  • {{cite journal |last= Glasby |first=Geoffrey P. |year=2006 |title= Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: an historical overview |journal= Resource Geology |volume=56 |issue=1 |pages=83–96 |url=http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2008-02-17}}
  • {{cite journal |author= Glasby GP |year=2006 |title= Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: an historical overview |journal= Resour Geol |volume=56 |issue=1 |pages=83–96 |url=http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2008-01-29}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Another opinion

The abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis does not specifically require underground bacteria or contaminated petroleum to explain biomarkers. All life on earth is generally thought to be of abiogenic origin, per the Miller-Urey experiment. Although the Miller-Urey experiment does not show the same biomarkers found in any specific petroleum sample, the experiment does not replicate the conditions found in the earth. However the experiment shows that chemically there are conditions favorable to the spontaneous creation of various biomarkers found in various oil samples and other organic compounds, especially given sufficient energy input from the high heat and pressure. Therefore one cannot rationally argue that the abiogenic petroleum origin hypothesis is incorrect, nor the biogenic origin hypothesis theory correct to the exclusion of other explanations.

An appropriate description of our understanding would be, "The origin of petroleum is not fully understood but commonly believed to be biogenic. Some less widely accepted explanations include..." Instead of stating petroleums origin is biogenic as fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.17.154 (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We do not give undue weight to fringe theories. That's one of the basic tenets of WP:NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight is not the same thing as overstating knowledge on a subject. A rational person does not claim to know more than they do. Fringe theory classification is irrelevant to accurately stating what science has or has not observed. Wikipedia may require verifiability without requiring truth but it does not require overstating knowledge of a subject. Therefore a disclaimer similar to the one provided above is not precluded from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.17.154 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The previous statement makes no sense to me. Maybe it will to someone else? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure exactly, but ... is there a reliable source which states that disclaimer the anon wishes to add? Without a reliable source, it's simply WP:OR or WP:SYN and doesn't belong. Vsmith (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

64.56... I think I see what your getting at, but the main issue is that there are no current research studies or for that matter producing oil wells which support the Abiogenic hypothesis. There's plenty of experimental and real world evidence for the currently conventional biotic theory, which is why it is considered a theory rather than a hypothesis. I too had major questions about the possibility of the abiogenic hypothesis, but there's just no science which supports it. Perhaps if you can find some sources which directly state what you're saying we can include them, but otherwise what the previous two editors said about the need to avoid original research and novel synthesis is true (imagine what would happen if any person in the world could put their oppinions on Wikipedia). By the way, I'm not sure if you check your talk page, so I'll mention this here, please don't make changes to things you have written which others have responded to... it's better to add a new section, or if you have to strike through statments which you feel must be changed. NJGW (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Very biased emphasis in the top of the article

"Most petroleum geologists do not consider it to be of commercial value.[1]"

Must be edited to "Many petroleum geologists do not consider it to be of commercial value.[1]" since the cited document is written by a nobody (B. Sherwood Lollar) compared to Dmitri Mendeleev and even that document doesn't prove that *most* would consider it to be of no commercial value.

Very biased tone must be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.244.119 (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's taken straight from the source. It is a recent literature review of petroleum geology (peer reviewed and published in Resource Geology). Can you provide a source for "many" vs. "most"? Mendeleev seems to have died in 1907, so I'm not sure what he has to say about today's petroleum. NJGW (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)