ARE
FOSSIL FUELS AN OLD FASHIONED IDEA
WHOSE TIME HAS GONE?
by Ed Newman
Marketing & Advertising Manager
This article appeared
in National Oil & Lube News, September 1999
IN
1964 MY FAMILY MOVED from Cleveland to New Jersey.
I was twelve years old and we never had so much
company in our lives. All our relatives from the
Midwest came east to see us that year. I supposed
it was the new house they wanted to see, but later
I understood that it was really, among other things,
the1964 -1965 New York World's Fair that attracted
all these kin.
If you add in all the class trips and scouting
outings, I must have gone two dozen times, which
is just about what it takes to really grasp the
magnitude and scope of all that it contained.
The World's Fair had many memorable images, including
the Unisphere, itself the featured symbol of the
Fair. Another memorable image was that dinosaur
at the Sinclair Pavillion. There's no way to adequately
describe the effect those Mustangs had on us at
the Ford Pavillion. In retrospect it seems only
natural that the world's largest industry, the
auto industry, should be so prominently featured.
There's no question Sinclair's dinosaur was a
powerful symbol. Dinosaurs had great power in
the imaginations of young people. Whatever became
of the dinosaurs? That big green brontosaurus
graphically planted the answer in our minds. Yesterday's
dinosaurs are today's fuel. It is all part of
the circle of life, you might say. Yesterday's
dead critters and ancient vegetation are producing
today's energy, hence our familiarity with the
term "Fossil Fuels" when speaking of
gas and petroleum.
The only problem with the dino image is this:
What if it's not true?
A 1986 cover story in the Atlantic Monthly, "The
Origin of Petroleum" by David Osbourne, shoots
some rather large holes in the fossil fuels theory.
Osbourne is a journalist who brought to a wider
audience the ideas of a certain maverick astrophysicist
named Thomas Gold.
The occasion for Osbourne's article was a gigantic
drilling operation which was about to commence
in the Siljan Ring, a site in northern Sweden
where a giant meteorite crashed into the earth
360 million years ago. The drilling would take
more than a year in an attempt to penetrate deeper
than three miles beneath the surface.
What Gold was attempting to prove was that petroleum
is not a scarce resource in danger of being soon
depleted. This is because oil and gas are not,
according to Gold, byproducts of ancient animal
life. Gold was attempting to prove his theory
that oil and gas come from the earth itself.
Six arguments for drawing this conclusion are
as follows:
1. The geographical distribution of oil seems
derived from features much larger in scale than
individual sedimentary features.
2. The quantities of oil and gas available are
hundreds of times those estimated on the basis
of biological origins.
3. The so-called "molecular fossils"
found in oil and claimed as proof of a biogenic
origin are simply biological contaminants, particularly
bacteria that feed upon the petroleum.
4. Petroleum is largely saturated with hydrogen,
whereas buried biological matter should exhibit
a deficiency of hydrogen.
5. Oil and gas are often rich in helium, an inert
gas which biological processes cannot concentrate.
6. The great oil reservoirs of the Middle East
are in diverse geological provinces. There is
no unifying feature for the region as a whole
and, especially, no sediments rich in biological
debris that could have produced these immense
concentrations of oil and gas.
At the time I found the notions fascinating but
not much more. Last month, while reading an article
titled "Why We'll Never Run Out of Oil"
(Discover, June 1999) I began wondering whatever
became of the Siljan Ring drilling program. Especially
since the Discover article, contrary to my expectations
based on the title, made no mention of these radical
ideas whatsoever. In fact, the article went into
great detail explaining the organic origins of
oil.
I suddenly became keenly interested in the results
of that study in Sweden. What did they find? Was
it a bust? Utilizing the power of the internet
I did some of my own digging and came up with
what I was looking for. A simple search on Thomas
Gold yielded plenty.
I learned that the one year Siljan Ring drilling
program actually took six years. The results have
been interpreted and Gold has published plenty
to support his views, including a new book called
"The Deep Hot Biosphere". Gold's theories
may be Copernican in importance. (It was Copernicus,
you may recall, who postulated the radical notion
that the earth goes round the sun and not vice
versa. We tend to forget that more than a century
passed before this became "common knowledge.")
I also found an excellent article explaining why
it is not possible for two separate notions of
the origins of oil to co-exist. Gold's article,
"Can There Be Two Independent Sources of
Commercial Hydrocarbon Deposits, One Derived from
Biological Materials, the Other from Primordial
Carbon and Hydrogen, Incorporated into the Earth
at its Formation?" is explicit and emphatic.
There can only be one origin of oil, Gold asserts.
If Gold is right, then the early scientists who
called it "rock oil" were much closer
to the truth than the ad men who invented the
Sinclair mascot. But popular ideas die hard, and
so it is that while much has been written, to
date the average person seems aware of only the
prevailing, somewhat discredited, view.
The point of all this confabulation? Two observations
come immediately to mind. First, there appears
to be no reason today to be concerned about oil
supply. The alarm over an oil shortage in the
seventies was an event, not a trend. Oil is an
abundant resource and the future of our industry
is not going to be jeopardized by oil shortages
other than those caused by political maneuverings.
Second, ideas that initially seem off the wall
may have more merit than first thought. When you
open your minds, you'll discover that extended
drain intervals and synthetic lubricants offer
more profit potential than you originally imagined.