Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin/Archive 4

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)

Perhaps something needs to be said in this article about the main proponents of this theory today are fundamentalist Christianist conservatives who oppose the Second Law of Thermodynamics, evolution, and the position that anything in the environment can be scarce, endangered, threatened, or even seriously affected or changed by humankind, because they believe "Only God is that powerful"; and "Don't worry; use all the oil you want; God will just make more". Shanoman (talk) 15:35, 20 November 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) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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:

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. -- Ludwigs 2  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.  -- Ludwigs 2  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.  Orange Marlin  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? -- Ludwigs 2 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.   Orange Marlin  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. -- Ludwigs 2 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.   Orange Marlin  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.   Orange Marlin  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 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... -- Ludwigs 2  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.   Orange Marlin  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...  .  -- Ludwigs 2  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 :) DumZiBoT (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "glasby2006" :

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.   Orange Marlin  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?   Orange Marlin  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)


 * 1) Just because something is taken directly from a source, does not necessarily make it NPOV or encyclopedic in tone or content. For example, the noted source says flatly that the abiogenic theory "is invalid."  It's appropriate for a scientific paper to make that kind of assertion on its own behalf, but not for an encyclopedia article.  2) This opening paragraph simply makes no sense!  Maybe it's intending to say that most geologists consider that the amount of petroleum produced by abiogenic means is probably so small as to be of insignificant commercial value(?), however what it IS saying is that they consider the THEORY to be of no commercial value; which is an odd thing to be saying, to say the least.  It seems very odd for any mention of commercial value to be entering into the opening paragraph of this article at all.Erikmartin (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, Glasby appears at least somewhat suspect. His dismissal of Gold's theories are based on the uncited misappropriation that Gold asserts methane is converted to hydrocarbons at depths of 5-10km, and further that it is not possible above 100km. Without even entering into my skepticism at a scientist blanket asserting that something is 'not possible' (should be qualified, 'not possibly by pure pressure alone'), his misrepresenting of Gold's writing is blatent. "In their deep-earth-gas hypothesis, Gold and Soter (1980) are referring to methane derived from the deep Earth, presumably meaning the mantle. In his discussion of the deep, hot biosphere, on the other hand, Gold (1992, 1999) is referring to the upper 5 to 10 km of the Earth crust.", notice Glasby's careful choice of words. Yes, Gold "is referring to the upper 5-10km" in his book, but Glasby does not refer to, nor can I find any reference to Gold saying methane is converted to hydrocarbons in the 5-10km range. Gold's strategy is to show hydrocarbons deep enough to discredit fossil fuel theories, but he does not assert on his own exactly how or where they are formed, only that they upwell from below the reasonable range for fossil fuels. Just a few flips through Gold's book produced this quote which says "Once we come to understand the existence and immensity of hydrocarbon sources streaming up from the earth's mantle, we can profitably revisit a number of subjects in geology." Since the mantle spans from 33km to 3000km, and Gold doesn't even assert that the hydrocarbons are created in the mantle but that they are streaming up from the mantle, there is plenty of room for them to be created below the ~100km which Glasby asserts is required for methane conversion to hydrocarbons. It only takes a few minutes skimming to find many similar quotes. Glasby does not cite any location where Gold asserts methane converts to hydrocarbons between 5km and 10km because Gold never said it. He's just relying on the ease of people reading his short few-page synopsis vs Gold's substantial body of work. Read Gold and consider for yourself if Glasby is provably discrediting him. -- I recommend we move the reference to Glasby entirely. Jeskeca (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source on par with Glasby that says he is suspect. NJGW (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A single published article does not make scientific fact. Please find another credible source that confirms Glasby's method of discrediting of Gold. Glasby's own brief words, if you read his article, discredit Gold by saying he claims methane to hydrocarbon formation at 5-10km depths. I can't find any such assertion, nor does Glasby provide a reference. We could just as easily cite Glasby's assertion that hydrocarbons can't form above 100km as "proof" that the fossil fuel theory is invalid. Jeskeca (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Glasby is peer reviewed and published in a respected journal. You have made the claim that Glasby is suspect, so it is your responsibility to provide a parity source which backs you up.  NJGW (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It will likely be 10-15 years before such source exists, as the cited Glasby was published in 2008/2005?. I'll check back. Jeskeca (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Links with Creationist ideas
I stumbled upon this idea via claims of Young Earth Creationists. I don't see anything in the article (though I just skimmed it) identifying that group as a major continuing faction promoting this idea. This information should be there. Miami33139 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rate of Production
Most of the people I've heard make claims about abiogenic oil theories do so (mistakenly) assuming that it would mean that oil is a renewable resource. I think that's the only reason why so many non-scientists are interested in it. Does anyone have sources on this? Geogene (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Titan for the nth time
See my friend, there's only a possibility for petroleum be formed from biological detritus: IF A MIRACLE OCCUR. What about giant hydrocarbons lakes in Titan? Of course these hydrocarbons is not derived from fossils, right? Surely they are primodial material. Unfortunately there are many geologists that have short mind. This problem is due no correct observation of natural laws of physics, mass balances and integration between geology and atrophysics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.60.189.114 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 March 2009


 * I am not aware of petroleum on Titan; what is the source for this claim? NJGW (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of methane on Titan. This article is about the earth and abiotic petroleum on earth. Most of us produce methane and vent it out behind, but that does not prove that most methane on the earth are human gases ! PETRSCIENT (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Mantle Porosity
From the article:

"The lack of available pore space within rocks as depth increases


 * This is contradicted by numerous studies which have documented the existence of hydrologic systems operating over a range of scales and at all depths in the continental crust. [50]"

I think the point (unsourced) is that the mantle doesn't have enough porosity to refill oil fields within human-relevant time spanswere the abiogenic oil hypothesis true. That should be made clearer and sourced. It is factually true but hard to source without WP:Synthesis as abiogenic theories are considered fringe by most geologists and it would be hard to find papers that make that case since most geologists have better things to do.

The "rebuttal" that follows is misplaced and should have been worked into the article somewhere else. Also the paper doesn't appear to support the claim that sufficient mantle porosity exists for abiogenic oil to be viable. Without specifically mentioning abiogenic oil, the reference is WP:Synthesis as well. Geogene (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure
Folks, Why are there claims, counter-claims, and arguments riddled throughout this article? Is this article not for definition only? Should this article be purely the detailed description of the topic with references to (or a single large closing section concerning) the arguments/controversy? I'd really love to just read/learn about the theory and not have all these intervening asides about the counter views. It seems to me that the point/counter point info is a whole topic in its own right that can be referred to. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.94.190 (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After stumbling across this article at random, I agree with Mx. 67.81 above. The article is full of claims and counter-claims, and words like "conclusively" applied in rather suspect ways.  I don't have a dog in the fight, so for what it's worth, I wonder if the whole thing ought to be tossed out and redone as suggested: define the term, note the controversy, and link to more appropriate discussion areas.  Or, to put it in another way, the quote from Aliens that I used as the section heading (omitted by the original poster): Nuke the article from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.  --Robertb-dc (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article can be salvaged. However, it need a better structure. I would suggest the following:

1) Abiotic formation is one of many ways hydrocarbons may form. Dominant concensus abiotic formation on earth is insignificant with regards to commercial accumulation of petroleum. Explain why (the reason we need to do that is the cacophony on the net of endless abiotic oil.)

2) Systematic walk-through of the different abiotic formation machanisms: F-T vs. spontaneous reactions.

3) Where and how abiotic hydrocarbons have been detected on earth (and other places in the solar system). What quantities do we know from the earth. How to we recognise abiotic hydrocarbons, if we can. Can we detect if we are looking at F-T or spontaneously formed material ? Can crude oil be formed this way ? : Is the composition of crude oil anything close to what can be formed abiotically ?

4) How much of abiotic hydrocarbons we observe are from natural processes and how much is formed by the techniques we use to search for the petroleum; drill bit metamorphism; you can make sufficient abiotic methane with water and a hammer to detect it with standard monitoring equipment. (steel has carbon, water has hydrogen, hitting a wet spot hard enaugh and you are good to go.) The famous Siljan drilling project is an excellent example of both: some of the hydrocabon traces are abiotic (from fluid inclusions in mafic intrusions) but most of the traces were clearly formed by the drill bit (Unmistakenly artificial composition: hydrocarbons that do not survive in nature for more than a very short time). (No crude oil was ever detected: proven by Gold's own experiments: he just knew too little chemistry to understand it; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISSOLVE CRUDE OIL IN HOT SOAP WATER AND FORM A CLEAR SOLUTION; EVERYBODY: Try it for yourself! If you do not have a crude sample, try some (coloured) (2-Stroke) engine oil; the oil will accumulate as small globules at the surface. What was detected after solvent extraction of the magnetite-quartz sludge was hydrolyzed Torque (Torque + NaOH)drilling additive and ultra tiny traces of some hydrocarbons. The area is fractured from the meteor impact and the fracture zone connects to the Ordovician source rocks surrounding the drilling locations. ... I had to say that: the abiotics ignore the analyses that were actually done.)

5) The dispute. Gold, Kenney & Kutcherov vs. the world. Here the claims should be compared with real data and real theory.

PETRSCIENT (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Many people call dish detergent "dish soap". But do go on.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure what your point is. "dish detergent" "dish soap" "synthetic soap" "washing up liquid"

"But do go on" indicate you are of the opinion I am overdoing something: please clarify. PETRSCIENT (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify my purpose of bringing up the hot soap water experiment by Thomas Gold is this:

It is absurd ! Still Gold is using it as evidence that the magnetite sludge contained a lot of crude oil. If hot soap water dissolved crude oil (which is does not),the basis for using surfactants in enhanced oil recovery would go away, and the oil industry would have to pump water and then exsolve the oil from the water. Water, with or without soap will not dissolve significant amounts of the compounds in crude oil before at temperatures towards the critical temperature of water. PETRSCIENT (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, dish detergents do indeed tend to include surfactants, particularly so they can remove oils. Oils often need to be cleaned from dishes, or from the hands of people working with automotive oil.  So in what way does using an oil-altering material conflict with the claim of altering oil?  -- SEWilco (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Gold claimed he created a clear solution of the organic binder from the magnetite paste using hot water and soap. (We can call the soap whatever; it changes nothing). The point is that hot soap water does NOT dissolve crude oil.  When surfactants/soap are used for enhanced oil recovery, the purpose is NOT to create a solution. If  that happened it would have been a disaster !   You are mixing up what a solution is vs. the act of mobilizing a non-miscible phase by manipulating surface forces .  Water will dissolve some very minor constituents of a sour reservoir oil; mainly simple organic acids (you will not find that in free oil stringers outside a reservoir where the water/oil ratio is huge.).  Gold's solution was clearly NOT a clear crude oil solution.


 * In fact it was an fatty-acid (+derivatives) solution (not something you find in crude oil), but that leads us to the section I have written above regarding Gold's Siljan claims in general. There I ask any Wikipedian to help searching for verifiable sources for Gold's claims and to bring in what was actually PUBLISHED by scientists doing detail work on the project.  There are so many constructed nonsense stories out there (by 2 scientists who turned real frauds,  by political extremists and by internet vandals), that has been repeated so many times, that it is time to cast light on how these stories were created and how easy it is to prove that they are crazy fabrications.


 * (I am intending to do a major edit on the abiotic petroleum article, but with it's history, everything is futile before we can get an agreement (in the talk section) about what is fabricated to decieve the uninformed by some of the main abiotic players, and what can be documented.  There are tons of meaningfull publications on abiotic gas occurences and formation; the current article even distort a few of those.) PETRSCIENT (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling us what in fact it was. Have you looked at the fat book that has the papers on the drilling?  It took me 30 minutes to reach it the first time.  Good luck.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Around 20 years ago, I scanned it all... my memory sometimes fools me though :-)  But I think we need input from other investigative Wikipedians ! One man shows are futile !

PETRSCIENT (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction -- Not profitable = not true?
The introduction seems to be written with the clear intent of disinteresting any reader in the pursuit of the theory, pointing out that the scientific hypothesis of oil abiogenesis has 'little support...' because it is not 'commercially viable.' In addition to what seems like an obvious npov issue (remember, this becomes important in the Creation vs. Evolution debate), this is not in any way a logical conclusion, nor is it cited to any credible source. Could we either clean up the intro to more clearly indicate the current state of the hypothesis (or theory), or else find sources for these claims?

69.178.117.182 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried cleaning up the writing, but you are welcome to copy-edit as well. I suspect that many readers will find the hypothesis fascinating, but all articles benefit from clearer writing with good citations. One complication is that the hypothesis is supported by so few (zero?) academically prominent scholars.  At least it appears that way.  A welcome section could cover contemporary scholarship, if any exists. Also, it might help to discuss the fact that two quite different groups support the abiological hypothesis.  One group derives from Young Earth creationism, and the other proponents are more straightforward scientists who have testable theories. My guess is that these two groups are distinct.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Impartiality Questioned
The first paragraph renders judgment against the theory, as though consensus confers truth. We know from past experience that consensus is often more of an obstacle to eventual truth than an indicator of it. I believe the consensus in the world's largest producer of oil, Russia, is that most oil is of abiotic origin.Landroo (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP is about consensus, not truth. Do you have a source for the Russian claim?  What I've read says they don't successfully use techniques associated with the hypothesis.  NJGW (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice 2 things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the "milestone" paper: "Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum." published in the famous scientific journal of: "Jack F. Kenney's website Gasresources.net" J. F. KENNEY, V. A. KRAYUSHKIN, I. K. KARPOV, V. G. KUTCHEROV,I. N. PLOTNIKOVA state the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Kenney (GasResources.net) Krayushkin claimed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us analyze what is actually claimed in the paper:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE FABRICATION THAT ANY ABIOTIC THEORY WAS EVER APPLIED FOR OIL OR GAS EXPLORATION IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION:
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum: From an outdated idea, through scientific fraud, to pure swindle and finally to the cacophony of internet gibberish on Endless Abiotic Oil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that he has actually proved 4 things:

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

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

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

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

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

FINALLY LET US REVISIT SOME AND ALSO LOOK AT SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF THE "SCIENTIST" KENNEY'S PRODUCTIONS:
In the milestone paper: "Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum." published in the famous scientific journal of: "Jack F. Kenney's website Gasresources.net" J. F. KENNEY, V. A. KRAYUSHKIN, I. K. KARPOV, V. G. KUTCHEROV,I. N. PLOTNIKOVA state the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Gold; Scientific Maverick OR Scientific Fraud and a Pathological Liar ?
Thomas Gold's writings are constantly being used by those arguing for endless abiotic petroleum. In particular Gold's description of the Siljan project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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