Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Article lede doesn't seem to cover the full scope of the article

Hi. I came upon this article, and this topic, and noted that while the article proposes multiple variations on various hypotheses that have been posited about abiogenic petroleum origin, the lead seems to address only one of them, which makes the lede too narrow. Moreover, from my reading of the article and several sources, it would appear that the topic is still rather live, with mulitple scientists globally working on the topic, and various explanations for the entire matter.

As a result, I copyedited the lede a few days ago. Now I see that User:NickCT has reverted, that change, and put the lede back to only suggesting one particular hypothesis. Fair enough. Since s/he did not start a discussion on the Talk page, I will.

Let us discuss it under the standard WP:BRD process.

The old lead, and current lede is:

Abiogenic petroleum origin is an obsolete theory that proposed an alternative mechanism for the origin of petroleum. According to the abiogenic hypothesis, petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. Supporters of the abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum exists on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle. The presence of huge amounts of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons not derived from living organisms.

The hypothesis was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century and various abiogenic hypotheses were proposed in the 19th century, most notably by Prussian geographer Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. Abiogenic hypotheses were revived in the last half of the 20th century by Soviet scientists who had little influence outside the Soviet Union because most of their research was published in Russian. The hypothesis was re-defined and made popular in the West by Thomas Gold who published all his research in English.

Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits. The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds). Geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported, and they agree that petroleum is formed from organic material. However, some argue that the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed because the mainstream theory has yet to be established conclusively.

It has been recently discovered that thermophilic bacteria, in the sea bottom and in cooling magma, produce methane and hydrocarbon gases, but studies indicate they are not produced in commercially significant quantities (i.e. in extracted hydrocarbon gases, the median abiogenic hydrocarbon content is 0.02%, or 1 part in 5,000).

The lede after my recent copyedits, and before User:NickCT's revert, was:

Abiogenic petroleum origin are alternative mechanisms for the origin of petroleum not based on derivation from ancient fossilized organic material. It is part of an ongoing research program.

According to one abiogenic hypothesis, petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth. Supporters of the deep carbon abiogenic hypothesis suggest that a great deal more petroleum may exist on Earth than commonly thought, and that petroleum may originate from carbon-bearing fluids that migrate upward from the mantle. The presence of huge amounts of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons not derived from living organisms. Other hypotheses posit that hydrocarbons may have arrived on Earth from solid bodies such as comets and asteroids from the late formation of the solar system, carrying hydrocarbons with them.

An abiogenic hypothesis was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century and various additional abiogenic hypotheses were proposed in the 19th century, most notably by Prussian geographer Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. Abiogenic hypotheses were revived in the last half of the 20th century by Soviet scientists who had little influence outside the Soviet Union because most of their research was published in Russian. The hypothesis was re-defined and made popular in the West by Thomas Gold who published all his research in English.

Although abiogenic hypotheses were accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, abiogenic origins fell out of favor toward the end of the 20th century because they did not make useful predictions for the discovery of oil deposits. The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds). Many geologists consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum to have insufficient scientific support, and conclude that petroleum is formed from organic material. However, some argue that the abiogenic theory cannot be dismissed because the mainstream theory has yet to be established conclusively.

While other changes are of course always welcome following my edits—this is Wikipedia after all—it seems that the current lede is simply too narrow to cover the breadth of the topic described in the article.

So I'm proposing a lede rewrite to cover the full scope of the article.

• As proposer, I SUPPORT rewriting the lede to reflect the entire article breadth, as covered in the body prose of the article. Multiple abiogenic hypotheses are extant, not merely one. While strong scientific evidence against some abiogenic hypotheses are present (and are clearly reflected in the article), it does not seem to be some sort of a narrow theory of a crank scientist, and any Wikipedia article ought to merely cover the topic, as it exists and is sourced, pro and con, with criticism etc. spelled out. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: - Hey mate. I take your point that there are many different theories that fall under the umbrella of abiogenic petroleum. Many of those theories are "fringe", but one or two are not. I'm happy with any rewriting of the lede that makes it clear from the start that many abiogenic are considered fringe.

You want to approach reworking the lede together? Could you provide the exact wording you want to use. NickCT (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: Sure. I don't think I have any particular axe to grind here; just trying to incrementally improve Wikipedia. With my background and interest/dabbling in astrophysics, I'm a bit more familiar with the cometary/asteroidal-related hypothesis, as well as with the large amount of alkane hydrocarbons on some of the planets and moons in the outer solar system, such that there must be some sort of (theoretically feasible) way for abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons to occur in the solar system. I'm not particularly familiar with the abiogenic origin of petroleum specifically in terrestrial (Earth-oriented) research.

As to your specific questions:

• "You want to approach reworking the lede together?" — sure, let's do it.
• "Could you provide the exact wording you want to use." — hmmm. Well, since Wikipedia is generally improved incrementally, with marginal content improvements, it seems that the rather limited rewriting of the lede that I did would be a good starting point. Then, if you are thinking that something got unintentionally removed by me from the lede that you think ought to be there as it is a summary of sourced material in the body of the article, then I would recommend you just add that part back, rather then revert my entire edit.

So if you're amenable, why don't you just revert your revert of my edit; and then proceed to make the incremental edits you think would make it better... and then we would go from there. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: - I'd consider a revert, but I'm a tad concerned that parts of the old lede just don't make sense. For instance "It is part of an ongoing research program." is just bad English, because it's not clear what "it" refers to. There are a bunch of other issues of that nature. I can work on correcting them, but it's going to require a substantial rewrite. NickCT (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: I'm with you on that line needing to change. I'm pretty sure it was just from me trying to leave that basic statement in the article from some editor who edited prior to my edits. It does need more clarity.

I think we may each be using the term "old lede" a bit differently. I was using it to describe the lede as you have it, after you reverted my incremental edits, which (I thought) was the same as the old/former lede. I think my edits were an incremental improvement. And if you just revert you edit back to the way I left it, then we can get started on clarifying and improving; including that sentence you mentioned. N2e (talk) 04:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: - Ok. I reverted back to your version, and corrected some of the issues with the lead. The lede still needs a lot of work. We have to be really careful to accurately highlighting which theories are WP:FRINGE and which theories still have some level of scientific acceptance.

I think we should probably avoid talking about individual theories in the lede, and just give an overview of all the theories. We should move the "deep carbon abiogenic hypothesis" paragraph and the "Georg Agricola" in the body of the article.

Additionally, should we consider sectioning the article into an "obsolete theory" section and a "modern theory" section? NickCT (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for getting the article back to, roughly, where I had left it after my edits of a few days ago.

I agree with you that the lede still needs a lot of work (really, the entire article does), and will help work on it with you in the coming weeks. Also, since the issue that started this Talk page section is

Resolved

I recommend continuing the discussion on improving the lede in a new section below. Thanks for discussing your Revert; I think the article is better now, with you reverting that revert, and us incrementally improving the article from here. N2e (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: - Awesome! Will look at starting new sections below to discuss lede if/when I find time. I'll ping you to join the discussion. NickCT (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November/December 2014 article improvement effort

Okay, in accordance with the discussion above, I have begun to make a few edits. Moved some detailed history out of the lede and into the History section, and began to try to get clarification on the dates or epochs of some of the various abiogenic theories mentioned in the History section. There is MUCH more to do. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@N2e: - I've glanced at your edits and think they seem reasonable.

I'd like to go a little further and push the lede paragraph starting "According to one discredited abiogenic hypothesis", into the body of the article.

I acted on your comment re switching "hypotheses" to "theories". They strike me a synonyms, and I agree that "theories" is probably easier language. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, edit freely as you think will improve the article. Just go ahead and move that detail ("According to one discredited abiogenic hypothesis"...) into the body.

I've continued to make a few additional edits myself. I'm doing a few at a time to give you and other editors a chance to look at them, and revert/BRD-discuss them as necessary.

On another topic, the entire sectioning of the overall article looks kind of weird. It seems that it might be fruitful to suggest/propose a draft way in which a smaller top-level sections might be organized, and then discuss it on the Talk page. The reason I say this, is that when I look at disparate statements in the article prose today, even those that are sourced and clearly written, I can't always tell where such a statement might best go. If you (or other editors) think so too, then I'm all ears to anyone who wants to kick it off. N2e (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

re "sectioning of the overall article looks kind of weird." - Strongly agree. Give me some time, and I'll think about structure. On wikibreak for Thanksgiving. ;-) NickCT (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you returned from your wikibreak? I remain interested in your thoughts. N2e (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Potential sources (if Wiki editors can find journal access)

Here is the start of a list of some sources that might be useful to the objective of article improvement, if there is some way for Wikipedia editors to gain access to the full papers (probably best to discuss elsewhere, and perhaps just add the source basics, and maybe a quotation or two here):

• Deep-seated abiogenic origin of petroleum: From geological assessment to physical theory, Reviews of Geophysics, 2010.
• Geologic Aspects of Origin of Petroleum, AAPG Bulletin, 1964.

Interesting quote from the abstract includes this: "It is generally accepted that petroleum is derived from the remains of organic life, but many uncertainties exist concerning the processes involved.", which might provide a sourced summary statement of "generally accepted" thinking as of 1964, at least as published by the author and this set of journal editors.

• SUMMARY OF THE ABIOGENIC ORIGIN THEORY AND THE ABIOGENIC GAS POOLS, Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2001.

Interesting quote from the abstract: "The research on the abiogenic origin theory in China is in the forward position in the world. Extensive scientific research and practice have proven that a relatively large percentage of hydrocarbons, especially oil, are generated organically. However, this does not rule out the possibility that another large proportion of hydrocarbons, gas in particular, may be of abiogenic origin."

Abiotic methane from ultraslow-spreading ridges can charge Arctic gas hydrates http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/early/2015/03/27/G36440.1.full.pdf+html?ijkey=tNRcKxKHNcG5s&keytype=ref&siteid=gsgeology

Seems Abiotic methane has "officially" been proven.... just it won't be long before oil gets proven as well. I'm not really knownable about wiki so if possible can someone update

Officially? It is known that Mmethane can be both geological or biotic in origin. Fischer-Tropsch-type (FTT) reaction is the most widely abiotic source of methane on Earth. Catalyzed by transition metals (Ni, Fe, Co, Cr, Ru) and related oxides. The petroleum is another thing. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Imprecise use of the term "fossil fuels"

There are a number of places in the lead paragraphs which, I believe, incorrectly use the term “fossil fuels.” First, the fossil fuels, of course, include coal, and I have not seen any serious argument, in this article or elsewhere, that coal has an inorganic origin - at least not within the past hundred years. The inorganic theories discussed here are specifically for petroleum and natural gas, and the article should say so, rather than use the over-broad term “fossil fuels.”

Again, in the first paragraph: “Scientific opinion on the origin of fossil fuels is that almost all fossil fuels on earth are not abiogenic in origin.” This, as written, is nothing but circular reasoning, because the very definition of fossil fuels is that they are organic in origin. The sentence should instead read: “Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and natural gas is that almost all commercial oil and natural gas on earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin.”

The statement at the start of the second paragraph: “Some abiogenic theories have proposed that fossil fuels have originated from deep carbon deposits,…” is not quite correct. What the inorganic theories are proposing is that oil and gas are not fossil fuels in the first place. The passage should instead read: “Some abiogenic theories have proposed that oil and gas are not fossil fuels, but have instead originated from deep carbon deposits,…”

Thoughts? Plazak (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good points; I agree. bobrayner (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree too.

A humble suggestion for third paragraph. Maybe the meaning is better conveyed like this: "(...) oil and gas not originated from fossil deposits, but have instead originated from deep carbon deposits,..." --Enric Naval (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes made. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Organic or organic?

The word "organic" means a lot of different things, depending on the context apparently. If we stick to the chemical use of the word organic, all hydrocarbons are organic, simply by definition! So what does organic mean, when it is used throughout this article? It seems to mean "of a fossil origin"? Where fossil means "fossilized living organisms". This should be properly expressed to clear ambiguous text. RhinoMind (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Good observation. From the biology and chemistry perspective:

• organic compound contains carbon atoms.
• Organic matter are organic compounds that come from the remains of organisms such as plants and animals and their waste products.

Yes, it will be useful to correct this article accordingly. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abiogenic petroleum origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Methane?

This article has been growing increasingly out of touch with reality with regards to abiotic origins for methane. Not only is an abiotic origin for methane something that hasn't been "discredited" by the scientific community, it is currently accepted mainstream science. Vast quantities of methane have been found on numerous other bodies in the solar system, all presumed to have been created by abiotic processes (unless you subscribe to the "ancient dinosaur astronaut" theory.) While abiotic theories for oil are certainly fringe, I think the article should probably distinguish between oil and methane. Since the title mentions petroleum perhaps it would be better to simply remove all reference to methane entirely? That would maintain the current tone and keep the fringe/non-fringe theories as separate as possible, so as not to be confusing to readers. What do you think? --Outdowands (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The article deals with commercial deposits of methane, which are regarded by almost all geologists as biogenic. Contrary to the inference of your note, the article already discusses both abiogenic methane on other planets, and noncommercial methane occurrences on this planet which are presumed abiogenic. Find references to specific commercial gas fields (on Earth, please!) which are regarded by mainstream scientists as abiogenic, and you will have proven your point. Otherwise, it's all old stuff already discussed in the article. Regards. Plazak (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's one. It's pretty widely accepted nowadays that even on Earth, a significant portion of methane has abiogenic origin. That's totally different from theories for abiogenic petroleum which is supposed to be the focus of the article. Abiogenic petroleum origin has indeed been thoroughly debunked. Rather than contribute to the conflation of these two things, I think it would be better to simply remove most references to methane and maybe link to one of the various articles on the processes involved, and note that methane is not petroleum. --Outdowands (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another. Note that the abiogenic methane is not the major component at these sites, but does exist in significant, non-trace amounts. I am NOT arguing for abiogenic petroleum or anything of the sort. I'm simply pointing out that with respect to methane, the abiogenic origin theory is far from "discredited" as the article currently claims. --Outdowands (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In your enthusiasm for the topic, I'm afraid that you are not giving either my comment or even your own sources a careful read. I requested an example of a commercial abiogenic methane deposit,and you gave me none. Your first citation does not (at least in the part made available) mention any commercial abiogenic deposits, only noncommercial abiogenic occurrences. Your second citation, from Lollar and others, even argues against you thesis, as the end of the 1st paragraph reads: "...we can rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons." Again, if your thesis is as widely accepted as you believe it is, you should have no trouble naming specific commercial natural gas fields where an abiogenic origin is widely accepted. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't have the time or inclination to fight with people like you. You clearly have an agenda, and insist on keeping Wikipedia frozen in time and a scientific backwater. Abiogenesis for methane is accepted scientific fact. It is not in any way, shape, or form "discredited" as the article currently claims. Is it the primary source for methane? Of course not. Methane comes from a variety of different sources on this planet. Even part of Gold's original theory has been vindicated in more recent years, with work at LBNL reproducing some of the high-pressure mechanisms he theorized for deep mantle production. (It still seems unlikely that those deep mantle deposits could migrate to the surface, so his overall theory is still not valid.. but the point is that science keeps advancing and theories change as our understanding does.) I wish you luck with overseeing the gradual death of this site. --Outdowands (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abiogenic petroleum origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030221233432/http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm to http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

References not supporting the claims removed

Hi, I removed two references used as evidence from the "geological arguments" section, because they did not support the point they were cited for. Please see the edits of today.

The first point "the modeling of some researchers shows the Earth was accreted at relatively low temperature, thereby perhaps preserving primordial carbon deposits within the mantle, to drive abiogenic hydrocarbon production" was citing the geology paper by John Valley http://geoscience.wisc.edu/geoscience/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Valley2002Early.Earth_.pdf which does not support this point. Rather this paper discusses the presence of liquid water ~160 Ma after accretion, highlights the hot nature of planetary accretion in the very first paragraph, and has no bearing on primordial carbon in the mantle. Thus this paper was misquoted in this context.

The second point "the presence of methane within the gases and fluids of mid-ocean ridge spreading centre hydrothermal fields" was referring to the paper here https://www.nature.com/articles/415312a which discusses methanogenic bacteria (IE bacteria which produce methane) and thus has no implication for abiogenic methane, other than it somewhat undermines the point by suggesting that this methane is biogenic. I found some other references such as https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4442600/ but the conclusions are still quite ambiguous. Geochron (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I am not a partisan to either side of this debate. I run a gas mass spectrometry lab and I experimentally observe the (abiogenic) production of methane on titanium films from chemisorbed C in the Ti film, and hydrogen. This is a known effect in Titanium sublimation pumps. But I think that claims should be properly substantiated. There is a huge difference between abiogenic CH4 and abiogenic petroleum occurrences in significant quantities. Geochron (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abiogenic petroleum origin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214093206/http://igiltd.com/IMOG2007/files/Wednesday%20Posters/Wednesday%20Petroleum%20case%20studies/P234-WE%20Szatmari.pdf to http://igiltd.com/IMOG2007/files/Wednesday%20Posters/Wednesday%20Petroleum%20case%20studies/P234-WE%20Szatmari.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207040458/http://scholar.ilib.cn/A-ddgzyckx-e200402006.html to http://scholar.ilib.cn/A-ddgzyckx-e200402006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207040458/http://scholar.ilib.cn/A-ddgzyckx-e200402006.html to http://scholar.ilib.cn/A-ddgzyckx-e200402006.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)