[John Valentine]

But here on earth that is mainly where it comes from.

Do you have even the SLIGHTEST evidence to back up that statement? I mean, really, where did you get this God-like knowledge? Or did somebody come by one day and give you the family tree of every molecule of Metahne on the planet? By the way, if I came by with two molecules of CH4, one that came from the same primordial source as the methane on Triton, and the other molecule from the decay of my deal budgee, would you be able to tell me which was which?

[gondramB]

>>But here on earth that is mainly where it comes from.
--------------------------
Do you have even the SLIGHTEST evidence to back up that statement? I mean, really, where did you get this God-like knowledge? Or did somebody come by one day and give you the family tree of every molecule of Metahne on the planet? By the way, if I came by with two molecules of CH4, one that came from the same primordial source as the methane on Triton, and the other molecule from the decay of my deal budgee, would you be able to tell me which was which?<<



I (and often other scientists) get in trouble when we talk to normal people about certainty. We have a tendency to not consider issues proved and yet to treat them on a daily basis as if they are proved. Thus the theory of special relativity is still just a theory like gravitation theory is still just a theory and yet we may seem to treat them as if they are fact.

That's because

1. Scientists are human and lazy like everybody else
2. It takes a whole lot of disclaimers to continually remind everyone that theories are still theories and it would really slow the science world down.

That's a long winded way of saying "I am sorry if I sounded more certain about the origin of the majority of petrochemicals that is proved." I apologize. You are certainly correct that origin of a molecule of methane cannot be determined.

But, scientists have gotten pretty good at finding oil, coal and natural gas. That's because they have a fairly good idea where and how it forms - that's why they want to drill Anwar.

Oil and gas deposits always (well as far as I know) have three things in common. A permeable rock like sandstone to store it, a hard rock to prevent it from escaping and a source.

The source is almost always shale. Shale is formed by compaction. For hydrocarbon production the shale should have lots of carbon that decayed in an oxygen deprived atmosphere. The animal tracks and skeletons that are sometimes fossilized point to its origin in decaying organic matter.

These vents with simple hydrocarbons are a great discovery and I'm not trying to take anything away from that. My issue is with the headline that makes it sound like find a tiny amount of non-organically produced hydrocarbons means that oil is not a fossil fuel any more. Plus the article really felt like Corsi faked the headline to pimp his book: "Black Gold Stranglehold"