Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientist stirs the cauldron: oil, he says, is renewable
Boston Globe | May 22, 2001 | David L. Chandler

Posted on 11/19/2001 10:07:24 AM PST by Aurelius

SCIENTIST STIRS THE CAULDRON: OIL, HE SAYS, IS RENEWABLE

David L. Chandler,

Globe staff Date: May 22, 2001 Page: A14 Section: Health Science

It's as basic as the terminology people use in discussing sources of energy: On the one hand, there are "fossil fuels," left over from the decayed remains of millions of years worth of vegetation and destined to run out before long; on the other hand, there are "renewable" resources that could sustain human activities indefinitely.

But what if fossil fuels aren't fossils, but are actually renewable and virtually inexhaustible? To most people, that question may sound as reasonable as asking what if down were up, or the XFL were a big, classy hit. But a handful of scientists, led by the unconventional and always-controversial astronomer Thomas Gold of Cornell University, state just that. Move over, dinosaurs, they say: Petroleum has as much to do with fossils as the moon has to do with green cheese.

Gold's claim, spelled out in a book just out in paperback as well as a talk at the Harvard Coop last week, challenges basic premises of the energy debate, from environmentalists' warning of oil's eventual decline to President George W. Bush's current talk about an energy shortage. Just dig deep enough, Gold says, and almost anyone can strike oil.

As one might expect, most mainstream petroleum geologists view this contrarian point of view with either scorn and derision, or the studied indifference reserved for flat-Earthers.

"We're very familiar with Tommy Gold," said Larry Nation, a spokesman for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Geologists in that field, he said, "are more open-minded than you might think. They're a pretty independent bunch, or there wouldn't be so many dry holes." But most of them draw the line at Gold's theory.

At least one successful natural gas geologist, though, has sided with Gold's unorthodox concept, which, in essence, goes like this: Far from being the product of decayed vegetation, petroleum is being manufactured constantly in the Earth's crust. It is made from methane, or natural gas, the simplest of all the hydrocarbon fuels, as it bubbles upward from the depths of the Earth where it has existed since the planet's formation more than 4 billion years ago.

As it rises, the methane is consumed by billions of microbes that exist in a dark netherworld where sunlight never penetrates. While all surface life depends on sunlight, this deep, hidden realm of life - dubbed by Gold as "The Deep Hot Biosphere," which is also the title of his book on the subject - lives on the chemical energy of the methane itself. The biological traces found in all petroleum, he argues, is derived from this hidden form of life, not from the decayed plants usually thought to be petroleum's source.

If Gold's theory is right, then the Earth's "reserves" of petroleum and natural gas may be hundreds of times greater than most geologists now believe. Oil wells that are pumped dry will simply refill themselves as more methane and petroleum works its way upward to fill the emptied spaces in the rock. This has already happened in a few places, geologists agree - something that is hard to explain by the conventional theory, but lends support to Gold's unorthodox view.

Gold's theory "explains best what we actually encountered in deep drilling operations," said Robert Hefner III, a natural gas geologist who has discovered vast gas deposits in Oklahoma over the last three decades, tapped by some of the deepest wells ever drilled. According to conventional theory, it should be impossible for petroleum or natural gas to even exist at such depths, because the pressure and the high temperatures should have "cooked" the hydrocarbons away, Hefner said in an interview yesterday.

Echoing Gold's view, Hefner said that astronomers have found hydrocarbons such as methane on virtually every planet and moon ever studied, as well as the far corners of the universe - places where the conventional view of hydrocarbons forming from decaying remains of living organisms couldn't possibly apply. "It's unlikely [oil on Earth and other planets] got there in two different ways. . . . It probably came from the same place, not from squished fish and dinosaurs."

Few people have been convinced so far. A single test of the theory has been carried out - a pair of wells drilled more than 3 miles deep in Sweden, with results generally seen as inconclusive. Gold had hoped to produce a commercial oil well, which might have cinched his case, but only a few barrels worth of oil came up. He attributes the poor showing to clogging by fine magnetite particles that he said are consistent with his theory.

But Gold is no stranger to being out on a limb with a scientific theory. In 1967, he suggested that newly-discovered pulsing sources of radio emission in the sky were actually rapidly-spinning collapsed stars, called neutron stars. The idea was considered so outlandish that he was not even allowed to speak at a scientific meeting on the subject. Less than a year later, however, his idea had been universally accepted, and remains the textbook explanation for what became known as pulsars.

Not all his ideas have been on target. His prediction that the moon was covered with such fine dust that astronauts might sink right in and be swallowed up once they set foot there caused NASA great - and ultimately unnecessary - anxiety. Gold, however, still maintains that his basic point, that the moon is covered mostly by fine dust rather than solid rock, was actually proved right.

If Gold turns out to be right about "fossil" fuels, then the world will be a very different place: Almost anyplace on Earth could become an oil producer just by drilling deep enough, and petroleum won't ever run out in the foreseeable future.

But nobody's betting on it at this point. "Most petroleum geologists don't agree with his theory," Nation said. "But it's fun to talk about."

David Chandler can be reached by e-mail at chandler@globe.com.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; energylist; hydrocarbons; realscience; thomasgold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-209 next last
To: EricOKC
Actually Dog Gone is dead on. Many fields that took hundreds of millions of years to form are now depleted, this is fact. Not all of the fields are depleted, as is obvious by the fact that we are still making gasoline, but some have definitely being depleted.

Given another hundred million years, those fields may regenerate, but so what.

41 posted on 11/19/2001 11:08:24 AM PST by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
See what?
42 posted on 11/19/2001 11:09:13 AM PST by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Unless oil is being created at the rate of millions of barrels a day (I think the US alone goes through 12 mil a day) then its really a moot point.
43 posted on 11/19/2001 11:09:36 AM PST by 74dodgedart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Thomas Gold developed the Steady State Theory with Hoyle and Bondi
44 posted on 11/19/2001 11:10:09 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: spycatcher
I don't know anything about Russian or central Asian geology, but when you hit basement rocks in America they certainly don't produce hydrocarbons.

I've been involved in drilling wells that were nearly 5 miles deep and I can assure you that they don't get better the deeper you go.

45 posted on 11/19/2001 11:15:14 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Truth Will Make You Free
Rather than adjusting facts to support the theory, he changes the theory to support the facts.

Well said!
46 posted on 11/19/2001 11:16:45 AM PST by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HopeSprings
Gold is the P. T. Barnum of the oil industry. Same old stuff that he's being touting for years. Don't believe it.

Proof?

47 posted on 11/19/2001 11:16:51 AM PST by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EricOKC
According to one source, at its largest, great Salt Lake had an area of 6,200 sq km or 6.2 billion sq m. At a uniform depth of 1/2 ft., if I haven't made a mistake, that would be a volume of 1.88 trillion liters.
48 posted on 11/19/2001 11:22:29 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Double Tap
The post above the post that says "see above"

The Russians are milking basement rock like crazy and it's helped to drive oil prices down to their current levels.

49 posted on 11/19/2001 11:23:16 AM PST by spycatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
"It's life Jim, but not as we know it"!

Maybe oil is a byproduct of Hortas.

50 posted on 11/19/2001 11:24:21 AM PST by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: The Truth Will Make You Free
Rather than adjusting facts to support the theory, he changes the theory to support the facts.

The search for truth is not achieved by replacing incorrect theories with correct ones; it's done by replacing incorrect theories with new ones that are more subtly wrong.

53 posted on 11/19/2001 11:27:24 AM PST by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EricOKC
All the oil in the world
54 posted on 11/19/2001 11:36:47 AM PST by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy
Theories shouldn't be judged in a two-valued system of "correct" and "incorrect", but on a continuous, opened-ended scale proceeding from worse to better. The "complete, perfect theory" being an unattainable end. And maybe a one-dimensional scale is inadequate.
55 posted on 11/19/2001 11:37:02 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

Comment #56 Removed by Moderator

To: Aurelius
Thomas Gold

Is it possible that he and Sagan had the same high-grade source?

57 posted on 11/19/2001 11:45:39 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Source of what? I assume you are referring to Carl Sagan?
58 posted on 11/19/2001 11:49:20 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
There's no article link?
59 posted on 11/19/2001 11:51:05 AM PST by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
If oil comes from dead and decayed living organisims, where did they get their carbon mass? Isn't a lot of wasted/spilled oil consumed by microorganisms? Why couldn't they make it? Plants make oil, people and animals make oil, why not bacteria?
60 posted on 11/19/2001 11:55:05 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-209 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson