User talk:Geoff Plourde/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Thanks RE: Malaysia

Geoff, thanks for preserving my microscopic edit to the Malaysia article. I would hope that you might consider swearing off your professed career interests and instead think of becoming a professional historian - but in any case, all the best from this 54-year-old (dlbarber1954@verizon.net) Douglas Barber (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Petroleum

The section of the Petroleum article titled "abiogenic theory" is a violation of the alleged "neutral view policy."

Here is a peer reviewed paper published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2002, which states that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits the generation of hydrocarbons higher than methane from biological molecules. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=genesis+of+hydrocarbons+and+the+origin+of+petroleum&searchid=1085470440708_510&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0

Here is a peer reviewed paper published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) in 2007 showing ICP-MS analysis which proves petroleum has inorganic geochemistry. http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/2007int/techprogram/A112905.htm

Here is a peer reviewed paper from the Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth - Russian Academy of Sciences dismissing a biological connection to petroleum. http://www.gasresources.net/DisposalBioClaims.htm

Please see Petroleum talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Petroleum

Wikkidd (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

All the links above are to resources produced by the same group of people. The first is a paper by Kenny and Kutcherov published online, though I see no indication that it was peer reviewed(?). Wikkidd would have the article suggest that the NAS supports the view presented by that paper. The second link is to a program for a series of presentations headed by Kutcherov, not a paper. We cannot read what was stated or presented there, nor establish the endorsement of AAPG. The third is a link to a POV website, and another paper by the same group who are linked to in the first two links (Kenny and Kutcherov).

Wikkidd continuously removes sourced information from articles which state that his pet hypothesis (abiogenic petroleum origin) is a fringe belief. He has not acknowledged the literature review I pointed out which shows this belief is not held by mainstream petroleum geologists and is not useful in practice for petroleum exploration. NJGW (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

NJGW: The paper from the National Academy of Sciences is authored by Kenney et al., while the paper published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is from Ivanov et al. Kenney is an American and Ivanov is Russian. Not the same people at all. You have no evidence that petroleum has a biological connection because as published by the National Academy of Sciences, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that's impossible. Hydrocarbon generation requires pressure of at least 30 kilobar which is 100 kilometers deep in the Earth's crust. No biological molecule can survive at that depth. You have no citation for your claim that the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists are fringe organizations with fringe beliefs.Wikkidd (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Now Orange Marlin is claiming that the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists "cannot be considered a reliable source." Now I've heard it all. Where do you find these people?Wikkidd (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)