Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
New research(er)[edit]
Vladimir Kutcherov from the Swedish Research Council, and this group has some credentials " Government agency in Sweden established in 2001, with the responsibility to support and develop basic scientific research. Its objective is for Sweden to be a leading nation in scientific research. " Their research published in Nature Geoscience.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090910084259.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.20.110.57 (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Abiotic methane different than abiotic petroleum[edit]
These two sentences from the lede do not seem right to me:
Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin. There are a few abiogenic petroleum theories which are still subject to ongoing research and which typically seek to explain the existence of smaller quantities of oil and gas.
The second sentence directly contradicts the first. Is it all deposits, or just the majority? But in any event, it's not necessarily even the majority (or at least much less of one) for methane. It's accepted mainstream science that methane can be produced abiogenically and that's actually the prevailing explanation for the methane found on some of the other bodies in the solar system, with the biogenic theory being the minority in those cases (for obvious reasons.) This is even mentioned in other articles, and I think should be incorporated into a brief summary of the distinction between abiogenic theories for methane versus petroleum, since only the latter can really be said to be discredited, with the former being absorbed into a more complex standard theory involving different mechanisms all interacting, rather than actually being rejected.
From Serpentinite:
Abiotic methane production on Mars by serpentinization[edit]
The presence of traces of methane in the atmosphere of Mars has been hypothesized to be a possible evidence for life on Mars if methane was produced by bacterial activity. Serpentinization has been proposed as an alternative non-biological source for the observed methane traces.[1][2]
Serpentinization on Enceladus[edit]
Using data from the Cassini probe flybys obtained in 2010–12, scientists were able to confirm that Saturn's moon Enceladus likely has a liquid water ocean beneath its frozen surface. A model suggests that Enceladus' ocean has an alkaline pH of 11–12.[3] The high pH is interpreted to be a key consequence of serpentinization of chondritic rock, that leads to the generation of H2, a geochemical source of energy that can support both abiotic and biological synthesis of organic molecules.[3][4]
References[edit]
- ^ "Life on Mars?". American Scientist. March–April 2006. Retrieved 1 June 2009.
- ^ "Methane: Evidence of life on Mars?". redorbit.com. 15 January 2009. Retrieved 1 June 2009.
- ^ a b R. Glein, Christopher; Baross, John A.; Waite, Hunter (16 April 2015). "The pH of Enceladus' ocean". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2015.04.017. Retrieved 2015-05-08.
- ^ Wall, Mike (7 May 2015). "Ocean on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Have Potential Energy Source to Support Life". Space.com. Retrieved 2015-05-08.
New Study on abiogenic sources of methane[edit]
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/04/22/scientists-find-unusual-sources-of-methane/#.XL9C8-hKhHZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgovern (talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Abiogenic petroleum origin as fringe science[edit]
Seems this topic qualifies as fringe science, considering the main sited proponent, Thomas Gold, is also a proponent of theories generally seen as nonsense (i.e. steady-state model and that alien space garbage is the origin of life Earth). The lead intro paragraph plainly states the idea is not well accepted and rejected by most authorities.
It's not fringe science. Maybe decades ago, but it is enjoying more and more support. We will almost certainly see acceptance of this theory in our lifetimes. It seems fallacious to characterize it as fringe science because one of its proponents had a couple of theories in his long and storied career that were a little bit controversial? Thornfield Hall (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Thornfield Hall
- Every fringe science is
enjoying more and more support
according to its fans. You will need a reliable source for that. See WP:RS and WP:OR. We will almost certainly see acceptance of this theory in our lifetimes.
Wikipedia is not interested. See WP:CRYSTAL. --Hob Gadling (talk)
ELS[edit]
And see: in Reviews of Geophysics, paper by Vladimir Kutcherov et al, 2010, (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008RG000270). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9982:87e0:6d4f:d9fe:5d5a:71d6 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Topic prone to controversy[edit]
Should be perpetually semi-protected. Erkin Alp Güney 07:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)