189.32.132.90 (talk) No edit summary |
|||
Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
:::::::Look. I think we all seem to agree that the idea that significant amounts of oil on earth was produced abiogenicly is [[WP:FRINGE]]. My concern is that lead doesn't make that clear. Why don't we work on some new language that makes this clear, but at the same time notes the gas generation and other nuances beefman is refering to? [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::Look. I think we all seem to agree that the idea that significant amounts of oil on earth was produced abiogenicly is [[WP:FRINGE]]. My concern is that lead doesn't make that clear. Why don't we work on some new language that makes this clear, but at the same time notes the gas generation and other nuances beefman is refering to? [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::In my opinion is easy to solve this dilemma. It's enough to just meditate on what Sir Fred Hoyle said:"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some |
|||
transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." Fred Hoyle. |
|||
== Edits by 75.95.136.67 == |
== Edits by 75.95.136.67 == |
Revision as of 04:18, 14 April 2011
![]() | Energy B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Alternative Views B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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)
- 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)
Dear physicist, What has this to do with the formation of commercial crude oil on the earth. Ever checked it's composition ? One can equally argue that all helium on earth is formed the same way as in the sun, and that argument would be equally silly as yours. Let us discuss what is actually happening on the earth, with data from the earth. It is direct and plentiful.PETRSCIENT (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Oil components in the temperature and pressure of Titan are SOLIDS beyond butane. There is no way these lakes are composed by something even remotely similar in composition to crude oil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.236.214 (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
We still don't understand the process that creates methane on these planets, moons and comets. How can anyone write off the possibility that the same process occurs on Earth. And what complex hydrocarbon chain could be formed when compressed between layers of rock in a high pressure environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.165.253 (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I just have a simple question about the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article. "In the 2000s it has experienced a revival when it was discovered that certain bacteria can produce methane and other hydrocarbon gases, which could have produced part of natural gas deposits." How in the world can the formation of methane and other hydrocarbon gases by BACTERIA have resulted in the revival of this theory? This one illogical sentence invalidates any semblance of integrity in this article to me. Unless bacteria are now considered abiotic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.36.114.78 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- agreed. Last time I checked, bacteria cannot be considered no-life. I'll remove that last sentence ; if there are any complaints, please expose your reasons in this thread. Toitoine (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Innaccurate map
The picture with the text below it "Oil deposits are not directly associated with tectonic structures." seems to have left the US blank. You can even see a sharp line on the border of Canadian oil deposits where they stop at the US border. I'm assuming there should be a coloured in area around Texas too. -OOPSIE- (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Lede WP:UNDUE
Is using "Abiogenic petroleum origin is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing theory of biological petroleum origin." as the first sentence giving WP:UNDUE weight to this theory? If we look at a similar discreditted hypothesis (i.e. Spontaneous generation) we usually call out in the first sentence that the theory isn't given much credence. NickCT (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Abiogenic petroleum origin" is not single hypothesis. There are many of them contradicting each other. Some of them are discredited but some of them are very credible. And do not forget that "Biogenic petroleum origin hypothesis" is also just hypothesis. Calmouk (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
statements not supported by sources
Aboout [2].
- For the Naval Postgraduate School paper[3], it only talks about abiotic theory in the appendix (pages 67-69) saying that it should be looked at. It doesn't say that oil has been found thanks to the theory, it does not say the theory is responsible for any increase in production.
- The IP changed "most geologists consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported" to some geologists. However, the source for the statement says "this theory is now largely forgotten even in the Former Soviet Union and virtually unknown in the west."[4]
- That last source also speaks of how the abiotic theory failed to find oil in Russia-Ukrania, and how a recent US survey doesn't even mention the theory (summary in page 95)
--Enric Naval (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think I already undid those edits. IP was clearly POV pushing. NickCT (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is Glasby source outdated?
In reference to the removal of Glasby as an outdated source:
- Glasby, Geoffrey P. (2006). "Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: an historical overview" (PDF). Resource Geology. 56 (1): 83–96. doi:10.1111/j.1751-3928.2006.tb00271.x. Retrieved 2008-02-17.
This source is from 2006. Care to explain why it's outdated, and which are the new sources that have made this source outdated? New research, new evidence, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've reverted the change. Beefman needs to explain what he means before we change the meaning of lede so significantly. NickCT (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- The only more recent paper is a more recent 2008 Science paper[8], but that's for small amount of "Low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons". Looking here in the Columbia encyclopedia entry, it says that those are methane, ethane, and propane, which are gaseous at ambient temperature. I understand that oil deposits have a mixture of light, mid-weight and heavy hydrocarbons. Also, that paper doesn't claim that oil found at oil wells is produced by that method. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- As clearly stated in my edit summary, "Glasby 2006 predates Proskurowski et al 2008 (cited here) and Kolesnikov et al 2009 (cited on wiki/petroleum)". This article has NPOV issues, not found on Petroleum. I have reinstated my edit. beefman (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hey beefman, couple points,
- 1) I think "Abiogenic petroleum origin theory" really argues that some large portion of the oil on earth could have originated through non-organic means. The Kolesnikov paper doesn't argue that. The Kolesnikov paper seems simply to say "Under conditions similar to those in the upper mantle, you can turn methane/ethane into heavier hydrocarbons".
- 2) Can you point to the Proskurowski paper? I can't see it.
- 3) At the moment you have two editors supporting reverting your change. Per WP:BRD, it's now time for discussion rather than edit warring. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Proskurowski 2008 and Kolesnikov 2009. Proskurowski is a paper in Science, but it doesn't make any claim about oil deposits having a biological origin. Kolesnikov's is not an actual paper, it's a letter to the journal. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links Enric Naval. I'm guessing beefman is looking at the "that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat" in Proskurowski 2008. As with Kolesnikov, I don't think this this paper lends serious weight to or argues for Abiogenic petroleum origin theory as a whole. NickCT (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just because a source is a bit more recent than another does not automatically give it priority over all older sources. This is certainly the case here, especially because the cited later sources (Proskurowski and Kolesnikov) are very narrow in scope, and neither one of which really contradict Glasby's assertion that the abiogenic theory for petroleum deposits has been largely (not entirely) abandoned. Plazak (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- @NickCT "really argues that some large portion"... No, what gave you this idea?
- The Proskurowski paper is cited on /wiki/Petroleum, as I've said four times. "Proskurowski" isn't exactly a common string. I won't be dragged into a debate on or hammered with wikipedia policy pages, sorry. This is destroying our encyclopedia.
- In the past two years there have been two publications, in Science and Nature Geoscience, with over 80 citations between them. What possible justification is there for the statement that the hypothesis is "largely abandoned"? Meanwhile, the article has many clear statements that the hypothesis is not consensus, and is categorized as fringe. In the same sentence the biogenic hypothesis is referred to as "prevailing". That is enough for one sentence.
- @Enric Raise your hand if you have any knowledge of the subject matter.
- We have a clear case of Parkinson's law here, and I won't continue it. I am reverting the edit. There are other points in the article where editors of the considerable expertise on display here are badly needed beefman (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- @beefman, sorry, but your "publication" in Nature Geoscience is just a letter to the editor. The Science paper doesn't support the removal that you are doing. Your personal expertise is irrelevant, you are supposed to provide sources to support your claims. Your edit can't stand unless you provide sources that back your removal.
- That means sources commenting that the Aiogenic theory is popular again, or that it's being used to find oil fields, or that evidence has been found linking biological production of hydrocarbons with the production of oil deposits, etc. A letter at a journal doesn't cut it.
- The "largely abandoned" bit is sourced to Glasby, who is explicitly making a review of the whole field. The linked PDF explains why, how and when the theory became abandoned. You still have to present a reliable source that contradicts this. Again, a letter in a journal doesn't cut it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- beefman re ""really argues that some large portion"... No, what gave you this idea?" - What gave me that idea? Ummm.... the lead.
“ | Abiogenic petroleum origin is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing theory of biological petroleum origin | ” |
- theory of biological petroleum origin explains why there is a lot of oil in the ground. If "Abiogenic petroleum origin" is an alternative to that, it is an alternative explanation of why there is a lot of oil in the ground.
- Look.... Perhaps this is a simple misunderstanding, I'm not trying to push the view point that abiogenic petroleum doesn't happen at all. I'm just a little concerned that the current lead makes it seem as though a significant amount of petroleum was produced this way. If you want to think up some language that says "abiogenic petroleum may happen, but isn't responsible for any significant portion of oil", I'd be open to it. NickCT (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- Glasby 2006 is cited elsewhere in the lead-in, in the sentence "most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported". The article is more than clear about the current consensus. I'm reinstating the edit for reasons stated, none of which have been adequately addressed here. beefman (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- As someone who contributed to the c2 wiki, wikipedia since its beginning, and numerous other online collaborations, my perspective is that the other editors here are not being constructive. I see signs of a culture which rewards, primarily, willingness to spend lots of time on wikipedia. Individuals who write long policy documents, slap tags on pages, and give each other awards. But nothing they do can explain, or adds to, the real content on wikipedia. beefman (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, ok, you say that it's unnecessary because Glasby is cited elsewhere in the lead. Specifically for the first sentence WP:LEAD#First_sentence: "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the subject is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.[5]" For a non-specialist, it is very relevant to know if the theory is accepted or not by modern scientists.
- Also, the first paragraph has to frame the whole topic, from WP:MOSBEGIN: "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. (...)". I understand that it can summarize bits of info that are explained at longer detail in later paragraphs of the lead. Also, being largely abandoned is a relevant circumstance.
- I moved the statement to the second sentence, adding a little of historical balance. Is it better now? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I just read Glasby, and the string "abandon" does not occur within. The citation seems to refer to the phrase "largely forgotten" which refers *specifically* to the "Russian-Ukrainian theory". The paper reads more like a work of history than a technical review or analysis, but in any case does not support many of the claims made in the lead-in, where it is cited five times.
Here is a list of post-2006 references and resources, exclusive of the two already mentioned, which clearly establish that the hypothesis is an active area of research:
- Deep Carbon Observatory, Carnegie Institution of Washington
- founded July 10, 2007
- http://dco.gl.ciw.edu/
- Sloan Deep Carbon Cycle Workshop (May 2008)
- http://www.gl.ciw.edu/node/sloan_deep_carbon_cycle_summary_report
- "Several months prior to the Workshop we contacted 100 distinguished international scientific leaders for their ideas regarding the most important unanswered questions related to Earth’s deep carbon cycle. The responses, which displayed significant overlap and consensus, suggested that the Workshop could be organized around five broad interrelated topics. These topics are:
- 1. The nature and extent of deep carbon reservoirs, from crust to core.
- 2. The nature and magnitude of carbon fluxes among these reservoirs, as well as between surface and subsurface reservoirs.
- 3. The nature and extent of deep microbial life.
- 4. The possible role of deep crust and mantle processes in abiotic organic synthesis.
- 5. The possible impact of the deep carbon cycle on societal concerns regarding climate and energy. ...
- Session four on deep abiotic synthesis of organic molecules (Thomas McCollom of the University of Colorado served as discussion leader) considered what is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the deep carbon story ... All presenters agreed that hydrocarbons could be produced abiotically under plausible mantle conditions, though consensus was not reached on the likely extent of such production."
- Wang et al
- Abiogenic hydrocarbons in commercial gases from the Songliao Basin, China
- Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences (accepted Aug 2008)
- http://www.springerlink.com/content/c31h2224v3171716/
- "Natural gases from 26 commercial gas wells distributed in the Xujiaweizi and Yingshan-Miaotaizi faulted depressions in the Songliao Basin, China ... are characterized by a reverse distribution of d^13C values but a normal distribution of dC values, and a negative correlation between their d^13C and dC values, indicating an abiological origin. The present study has revealed that abiogenic hydrocarbons not only exist in nature but also can make significant contribution to commercial gas reserviors."
- McCollom et al
- Abiotic Organic Chemistry of the Terrestrial Deep Subsurface: Isotopic Constraints on Hydrocarbon Formation
- presented at the American Geophysical Union, Fall 2008
- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFMMR54A..07S
- Fiebig et al
- Excess methane in continental hydrothermal emissions is abiogenic
- Geology (accepted Jan 2009)
- http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/6/495.abstract
- "These findings strongly suggest that abiogenic methane production in continental-hydrothermal systems is a more widespread process than previously assumed."
- Kutcherov, Krayushkin
- Deep-seated abiogenic origin of petroleum: From geological assessment to physical theory
- Reviews of Geophysics (accepted July 2009)
- http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2008RG000270.shtml
- "Experimental results and geological investigations presented in this article convincingly confirm the main postulates of the theory and allow us to reexamine the structure, size, and locality distributions of the world's hydrocarbon reserves."
- Proskurowski
- Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at the Geosphere-Biosphere Interface via Serpentinization Reactions
- Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology (2010)
- http://www.springerlink.com/content/p41m041236k5753j/
- McCollom et al
- The influence of carbon source on abiotic organic synthesis and carbon isotope fractionation under hydrothermal conditions
- Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (accepted 4 February 2010)
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2010.02.008
- Keir
- A note on the fluxes of abiogenic methane and hydrogen from mid-ocean ridges
- Geophysical Research Letters (accepted Nov 2010)
- http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL045362.shtml
- "Even though the percentage of the total subsurface flow that is affected by serpentinization appears to be rather small (8%), it still appears that this process produces about 70% of the total mid-ocean flux of these gases." beefman (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- But this is only for the production of hydrocarbon gases (methane, ethane and propane), and always in small quantities. There is no evidence for abiogenic petroleum, just for some of the light gases that form it. I tried to give a bit more weight to this discovery in the lead, but the point is that there is still no evidence for abiogenic petroleum, just for small quantities of abiogenic gas (I see that they make claims of big quantities of gas, but they still have to show that they can predict where abiogenic gas can be found). --Enric Naval (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article currently discusses gasses and does not enforce the more specific definition of petroleum. The above sources don't have to predict anything, because the issue we are discussing is whether the subject is an active area of research. The answer is yes. And despite being a champion of references, you just showed your willingness to fabricate statements and put them into the article, and have ignored the fact that Glasby 2006 does not even contain the claim you fought over. Such responses can go a long way to explain why the article has remained in such a poor condition for so long (I have been watching it for 3 years). beefman (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Glasby already knew about hydrocarbon gases in nature, and he mentions them in his review, and at the end of his abstract he says "This theory is therefore invalid. Both theories have been overtaken by the increasingly sophisticated understanding of the modes of formation of hydrocarbon deposits in nature.".
- This page is about the abiogenic formation of petroleum, not about the formation of some of its components in amounts and locations that have nothing to do with petroleum deposits.
- Now, I would have no problem changing the article to say that it has been superceded by new discoveries of abiogenic gas, which could lead to the discoveries of natural gas deposits, but still hasn't.
- Re: abandoned. Glasby's textual words in his summary (page 95) are "As a matter of fact, this theory is now largely forgotten even in the Former Soviet Union and virtually unknown in the west." Would you prefer "forgotten" instead of "abandoned"? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Invalid != abandoned. We are discussing activity in this field, not predictive capacity, as I already said. "This page" discusses gasses at length, again as I already mentioned. The two are related. Finally, I have already explained that 'abandoned' statement refers to a *specific formulation* of the theory. I believe you have a POV axe to grind here. You are not making sense. beefman (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Russian-Ukraniantheory has been forgotten, the Thomas Gold theory has been forgotten. What "abiogenic oil" theory are you talking about? The new papers are about production of gas and they don't claim that oil deposits had a biological origin. There only some obscure Chinese journal claiming that they found part of biological gas in already existing gas deposits. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Look. I think we all seem to agree that the idea that significant amounts of oil on earth was produced abiogenicly is WP:FRINGE. My concern is that lead doesn't make that clear. Why don't we work on some new language that makes this clear, but at the same time notes the gas generation and other nuances beefman is refering to? NickCT (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- In my opinion is easy to solve this dilemma. It's enough to just meditate on what Sir Fred Hoyle said:"The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some
transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time." Fred Hoyle.
Edits by 75.95.136.67
Recent edits by 75.95.136.67 were done by me. Enon (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)