|
Meta Research Bulletin ©2007
An analysis by Neil DeRosa
<neilderosa@verizon.net>
Petroleum,
methane, and other hydrocarbons found on earth, are believed to be “fossil
fuels,” the remnant of decayed organic matter deposited in the sedimentary
layers of the earth’s crust for hundreds of millions of years. But for more
than a half century, Russian scientists have been exploring an alternate
hypothesis; that hydrocarbons existed prior to the formation of the earth, or
were produced in the extreme pressure of the earth’s upper mantle shortly
thereafter. For many years, Thomas Gold, a well known scientist with many
original contributions to his credit, has been proposing his own synthesis of
the Russian “abiogenic” theory. Through his independent formulations, research,
and experiments, he has brought attention to it in Western academic and
scientific forums, and thereby posed a significant challenge to the firmly
entrenched but poorly substantiated fossil fuel theory. Gold therefore
qualifies as the principal scientist for the theory in question, not the mere
advocate of a theory fully formulated by others, and certainly not a theory
that has been accepted by the Western scientific establishment. A resolution to
this paradigm conflict in his favor would of course have momentous
consequences, both scientific and macroeconomic, but in keeping with the theme
of the present work, it is the scientific issue that concerns us most, and
which will be the subject of this discussion.
Astronomer,
Thomas Gold, is best known for his “steady state” theory of the universe, which
he developed with H. Bondi and F. Hoyle in 1955, in opposition to the commonly
accepted Big Bang (BB) theory. Although it did not succeed in unseating the BB
theory, largely because of the indisputable astronomical red shift data
provided by the famous Edwin Hubble, the steady state theory was (and in more
up-to-date versions, still is) favored by many astronomers and physicists for a
variety of reasons, but which are beyond the scope of the present discussion.
During WWII
and its aftermath, Gold made important contributions to Doppler radar science
and technology; and applying this theory, he made inroads into our
understanding of human hearing, formulating a new theory of the structure and
function of the inner-ear that was far ahead of its time, and also proposing
medical uses of sonic radar, or sonography, which were later developed by
others. Working as an astronomer at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, he
conducted original research on the sun and magnetic fields, coining the word,
“magnetosphere” to describe the magnetic field of a star or planet. This work
led to another important contribution; namely that the earth’s (or a planet’s)
rotational axis can be unstable over time, and can move with changes in the
distribution of matter or angular momentum of the rotating planet, (caused by
glaciers, the upwelling of mountains, or meteor impacts).
Throughout
his career, Gold gained a reputation as an iconoclast for questioning the basic
assumptions underlying the scientific dogmas of many fields in science. He
endorsed an “interdisciplinary model” of science, in opposition to the
“specialist model” supported by most scientists and philosophers of science
today. In this respect his philosophical position resembles that of Thomas Kuhn
who postulated that specialists practicing “normal science” are inherently
incapable of challenging existing paradigms. Such challenges must come from
either young scientists who are willing to risk all, retired scientists with
less to lose, or what is more likely, from established scientists from other specialties
or from another field altogether. The latter was certainly the case with Gold’s
challenge to the huge and entrenched petroleum industry and its scientific
hierarchy, a challenge that was not successful during his lifetime. [1, 2]
Petroleum,
coal, and methane are the most commonly known of the hydrocarbons. Carbon and
hydrogen combine in molecules in a variety of shapes and sizes to form the
hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are believed to be the decomposed remnants of life;
dinosaurs, and of all the plants and animals that lived on the earth millions
of years ago. High-carbon hydrocarbons form coal in sedimentary layers,
believed to be the decomposed remnants of ancient swamps. Carbon in its purest form
becomes graphite, and under extreme pressures, diamonds. In sedimentary strata
deep and shallow, organic material and living organisms are found in petroleum
and other hydrocarbons. Methane, the primary ingredient in “natural gas,” and
the simplest and most abundant of the hydrocarbons found on earth, is also
thought to be solely the product of biological activity. Methane is known to be
the by-product of the metabolism of certain animals and micro-organisms.
But
astronomers have found methane to be abundant in the atmospheres of the gas
giants, Jupiter and Saturn, where no life is known to exist. Moreover, spectral
analysis reveals that methane is a commonly occurring substance in the
universe, found in many planets and asteroids. Instead of serving as a reality
check for the biogenic or “fossil fuel” theory for hydrocarbons on earth, which
was formulated in the nineteenth century when much less was known about the
formation and composition of other planets; this discovery prompted
speculations that life must exist on Jupiter. Gold draws a different
conclusion:
It would be
surprising indeed if the earth had obtained its hydrocarbons only from a
(biological source). While the planetary bodies bereft of surface life would
have to receive their hydrocarbon gifts by purely abiogenic causes. (46,
parenthesis added, all page references from, The Deep Hot Biosphere)
One of
Gold’s major premises, reflected in the title of his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere, [3], is that bacteria-like
micro-organisms can live in the extreme pressures of the deep earth, and by
extension, possibly also in the interiors of other planets as well, and that
these bacteria can “eat” or metabolize non-organic
hydrocarbons as an energy source, provided that oxygen is readily available. Moreover,
he proposes that these organisms may have first evolved deep inside the earth,
and may have been the progenitors of all life on the surface of the earth. Thus
he offers two mutually interdependent paradigm challenging theories at once,
which are synthesized and extended by him from preliminary work done by others.
They are interrelated because organic residue, and even life, is known to be
associated with hydrocarbons on earth.
But the crucial question for us is which
came first: If hydrocarbons are the remnants of decomposed surface plant
and animal life, then they should be found only in or near the sedimentary
surface rock layers of the earth, and only in very limited quantities. But if
Hydrocarbons are primordial and originally non-organic, that is, if they are
naturally occurring molecular substances found in the universe, then the way we
should search for them, where we should expect to find them, and in what
amounts, will be very different. In the abiogenic theory there should be vast
supplies of petroleum and almost limitless supplies of methane found in the
deep reaches of the earth, far below the crustal sedimentary layers. And, of
course, if the biogenic theory is correct, we should be running out of our
preciously scarce “fossil fuels” very soon. In a candid world of open-minded
science, this should be a hot topic, and a key question in the forefront of
scientific debate, but we rarely here of it.
Gold begins
with the assumption that the biogenic theory would not have been proposed in
the 1870s had the presently accepted “accretion model” for the formation of the
planets been understood at the time, since it was then thought that any
primordial hydrocarbons would have been oxidized in the extreme heat
“fire-ball” of the newly formed earth; meaning under the “fission model,” which
was the accepted paradigm at the time. (For a discussion of a modern version of
that model see [4].) In the accretion model, the earth was formed
out of cooler and smaller asteroids, and gases, which, as is now known, often
contained hydrocarbons. But whether the fission or accretion model is correct,
it is not difficult to postulate the formation of hydrocarbons, especially in
their simplest form, methane (H4C), under the right temperature and
pressure conditions in the upper mantel of the earth. These hydrocarbons would
then have gradually migrated upward, driven stepwise through the strata as a
result of the pressure differential between the adjoining layers of rock.
Gold’s
second assumption is that the nascent earth was subject to only a partial melt,
since a complete meltdown would have caused extreme temperatures that could
oxidize all hydrocarbons. His first two assumptions for his deep-earth gas
theory are therefore related to the accretion model of the formation of the
earth, and are here deemed unnecessary, since hydrocarbons could have also
formed by combination of the constituent elements under the correct pressure
and temperature conditions in the upper mantel of a cooling earth, in either
model. (43-48) Gold concedes this possibility in several instances, and
moreover, that hydrocarbons may even now be forming (48, 50, 89, 90-91, 130).
The third
assumption is that hydrocarbons are stable at great depth. It used to be
thought that hydrocarbons would dissociate, or break down to their elemental
components at between 300°C and 600°C. This can be demonstrated by a simple
[and naïve] stovetop experiment. Moreover it is easily demonstrated that
methane gas quickly oxidizes to CO2 and H2O once it comes
into contact with the abundant free oxygen of the earth’s atmosphere. We placed
the word “naïve” in brackets because in the deep earth, pressure increases with
depth. It is a well known fact that the boiling point of water and other
liquids increases in a direct proportion with an increase in pressure, and this
applies to hydrocarbons as well.
Russian
Geoscientist E. B. Chekaliuk’s thermodynamic calculations indicate that methane
could remain stable down to a depth of 300 kilometers, except in volcanic
regions where the methane would oxidize into CO2 and water; and Gold
thinks the lower limit for stability for methane is around 600 km. Chekaliuk
determined that methane, for example, would be stable at 300 km, provided the
temperature (the geotherm) of the earth at that depth did not exceed 2,000°C
(51). Other calculations made in Russia suggest that the heavier petroleum
hydrocarbon molecules can remain stable under the pressure and temperature
conditions found at depths of between 30 and 300 km, and moreover that
hydrocarbons could be generated by
combination of hydrogen and carbon atoms at these depths (50).
The fourth
assumption supporting the abiogenic or deep-earth gas theory is that the
igneous rock at depths below the sedimentary layers is porous. An erroneous but
widely held view found in geology texts is that the weight of the overburden
rock would crush even the strongest rocks to a degree that no pores would
remain. But Gold believes that this is like a schoolboy who wonders why he is
not crushed by the weight of the atmosphere of 14.7 psi on his body. The reason
is that the pressure is equalized
throughout every pore and cell in our bodies, so that the same pressure obtains
on the inside, in the body fluids and membranes as well as the outside. When
deep sea divers experience “the bends,” upon returning too quickly to the
surface, it is because their body pressure has not had sufficient time to
equalize, and N2 bubbles come out of the bloodstream,
causing pain and are life threatening. Gold believes the same
phenomenon exists in porous rock at depth, allowing ample pore spaces for large
amounts of hydrocarbons to flow worldwide, under pressures equal to that of the
surrounding rocks (53-54). At the same time, petroleum geologists were in part correct
in that, starting from the surface, pressure from overburden rock causes some
crushing of rock and diminishing of pores to a low permeability state at
certain depths, causing layering, but this in turn allows higher pressures of
fluids to build up beneath, and also higher porosity of the deeper rock (54).
The fifth
assumption is that these high temperature and high pressure hydrocarbons are
continually upwelling from the depths
of the earth. There are several lines of evidence which support this theory,
which will be discussed as we proceed.
The deep-gas
theory presumes that there are vast amounts of hydrocarbons in the earth at
depths far in excess of the ability of man to drill for, or even sample them,
but this is no obstacle to exploiting them, since these sources continually
rise to the surface in metered amounts. Evidence for the abiogenic theory is of
seven main types:
1.
Reservoirs
of hydrocarbons are generally found in geographical patterns in long lines or arcs
sometimes extending for thousands of miles. These patterns were discovered by
D. Mendeleyev in the 1870s, and confirmed many times since then (57).
2.
Petroleum
deposits follow Koudryavtsev’s rule: hydrocarbon-rich layers tend to be
consistently rich all the way down to the crystalline basement that underlies
the sediment. Hydrocarbons in the basement rock, even when drilling has
extended past the sedimentary layers and into the basement rock, can be better
explained by vertical reach of hydrocarbons from below (57-58).
3.
Methane
is found in many areas where biogenic (fossil fuel) explanations are
improbable. These locations include ocean rifts, depths far below sediment
layers, areas such as the floors of large (ancient) craters with little or no
sedimentary rock, and “methane hydrates,” which are frozen bubbles of large
quantities of methane found on ocean floors and under-glacier lakes (58).
4.
Hydrocarbon
deposits over a large geographical area often show a common chemical signature
inconsistent with the geological formations in which they are found but
consistent with a common, much deeper source (59).
5.
Hydrocarbon
reserves seem to be refilling as they are exploited. Pressure readings of
working oil fields tend to drop as the reserve supply is depleted. But physical
(and hence economic) predictions and projections (estimates based on a
non-refilling biogenic principle) are almost never realized because the
reserves refill unexpectedly, but in metered amounts over time. This is due to
the caprock (basement rock) allowing passage of the hydrocarbons from below as
the pressure differential increases (60). This effect is tantamount to tapping
into deeper reserves without drilling. The phenomenon of oil wells refilling
themselves is widely reported, especially in the Middle East and the U.S Gulf
coast [5] (61).
6.
The
sedimentary layers of the earth contain around one hundred times more carbon
than should be available from the grinding up of the basement rock from which
the sedimentary layers are composed. This carbon enrichment must come from
somewhere. Gold believes that the only logical explanation for the earth’s
present atmosphere is that it is the result of outgassing of carbon-containing
volatiles from the earth’s interior. The sedimentary record shows a continuous
accumulation of carbonate deposits, as a result of oxidized carbon. “What is
the origin of the supply that maintains atmospheric CO2 at levels that result in the deposition of
carbonates through all geological epochs and that maintains a supply rate sufficiently
consistent to keep plants alive?” (63) The answer must be the upwelling of
hydrocarbons from deep in the earth.
Another important related but more
technical line of evidence is found in the ratio of the two stable carbon
isotopes; C-12 and C-13. The average ratio of these isotopes on earth is around
one atom of C-13 to every one hundred atoms of C-12. During photosynthesis, a
process call fractionation occurs,
which results in a small deficiency in the heavier (C-13) isotope. This is
caused by the slight disadvantage the heavier isotope has in passing trough
cell membranes. This C-13 deficiency is thus a signature of plant life. Gold
points out that another process can also cause fractionation but at greater
values than those attributed to plants. Upwelling methane is subject to
depletion of the heavier carbon isotope whenever it passes through a wet spot
or a particularly tight network of porous rock. Precise measurements of these
processes can reveal that abiogenic theory provides a better explanation and is
a better predictor of the measured C-13 deficiencies (66-69).
7.
Another
line of evidence is the strong association of hydrocarbons with helium. “This
association is so strong that in the commercial search for hydrocarbons, helium
sniffing along the surface has been found useful” (72). This line of evidence
is according to Gold probably the most significant factor that the biogenic
theory fails to account for.
In the
earth, helium is produced primarily through the radioactive decay of uranium
and thorium. As was noted in the case of carbon (¶6 above), helium is found in
sediments in amounts far in excess of what could have been produced by the
radioactive components found there. This means that the helium also must have
come from below the layers of sedimentary rock. Moreover, helium is found in
well defined mixing ratios along with methane and nitrogen. “Only a mix that
had entered the sediment and its individual gas field from below could have
achieved that effect” (73).
The deeper
the source of the upwelling hydrocarbons, the greater the distance of porous
rock it must pass through in its upward journey, the more opportunity there is
to pass through radioactive rock and pick up radioactively derived helium
atoms. Thus the concentration of helium in hydrocarbons is a good indicator of
the depth from which it originated. But helium is too diffuse to build up
sufficient pressure to force its way through the pore spaces in the rocks.
Helium transport must therefore be driven by another more abundant gas, such as
methane or nitrogen. These are precisely the indicators for helium found at or
near the surface, and the reason why helium and methane show a close
relationship even when found at shallow depths in farmers’ wells (75). To
falsify this hypothesis helium would have to be found in similar amounts to
that which is found in gas fields but in the absence of methane or nitrogen.
But this is never the case (77). Gold believes that the deep-gas theory is made
more compelling by the helium association, and this writer agrees with his
reasoning.
An original
extension of Gold’s hypothesis having to do with the formation of diamonds and
the transport of heavy metals to the near surface deposits from which they are
mined commercially, can only be mentioned briefly here. It is known that
diamonds form out of pure or near-pure carbon in the extreme pressures and
temperatures of the earth’s upper mantel approximately 150 kilometers deep. The
way diamonds get to the surface or to the outer crust through “funnel
fissures,” is both interesting and consistent with the deep-gas theory of
hydrocarbons. Diamonds may actually be carried to the surface along with these
occasional gas eruptions in the earth’s crust, and in effect become annealed,
or “quick frozen.” This allows their crystalline structure, forged at great
pressure, to remain intact in the lower surface pressure (128). A related
process may carry leeched heavy metals from their original locations deep in
the earth. The leeching agent may again be hydrocarbons, which carry the metals
with them trough the porous rock to surface deposits where they can be mined.
In conventional geology theory, the leeching agent is thought to be water,
which Gold believes to be inadequate to the task because water can not exist at
depths in excess of 10 km, whereas, as was mentioned above, hydrocarbons can
remain stable at least down to a 300 km depth (125-139).
On the basis
of the kinds of evidence seen thus far, it would seem that the deep-gas theory
is correct and the fossil fuel theory is not only wrong, but woefully
inadequate. However, it’s not that
simple. There is an apparent paradox to contend with first. How do we explain
the fact that these postulated non-biogenic gases, petroleum, and coal are
teeming with life and the remains of living matter? Gold’s most important
contribution to the deep-gas theory is perhaps in his proposed solution to this
problem. As mentioned in the introductory comments above, the theory of a
“deep, hot, biosphere” is the solution. But what is wanted is good evidence.
Gold begins:
The unrecognized assumption on
both sides of the debate was the unquestioned belief that life can exist only at the surface of the earth. None of us
had considered that a large amount of microbiology could exist within the earth’s crust, down to the
deepest levels to which we can drill. (81; italics in the original)
A persistent
criticism of samples of microbial life brought up from deep wells was that they
were not native inhabitants of the deep but opportunists introduced from the
surface by contamination from the drilling equipment. But several scientific
papers answered this objection by offering strong evidence in support of
indigenous deep, hot biospheric life. Samples from a deep well in France in
1995 established the existence of indigenous thermophiles living at a depth of
1.6 kilometers. In Alaska the following year indigenous microbes were found at
4 km and at a temperature of 110°C. Soon thereafter microbial fossils were
found imbedded 200 meters in granite; of which Gold contends; “fossils cannot
be introduced by drilling into solid granite.” (30) He proposes that a huge
microbial biosphere exists at least down to 8 km. This is the depth at which
petroleum in the deepest boreholes has been found (81)
A 1986 paper
by G. Ourisson; et al, (83), showed that the quantity of biological life in
petroleum was astonishingly large. “One
molecular signature of life in oils came from a group of molecules that the
Ourisson team had found and named hopanoids…Hopanoids
are prominent in all of the numerous samples of petroleum that have been tested
for them…And there is no dispute that these molecules are derived from
membranes of once living cells” (84). Why does Gold think that this is evidence
in favor of the abiogenic theory rather than the fossil fuel theory? Because,
(and this was acknowledged by the Ourisson team), the trees and ferns, which
supply the bulk of the living matter from which oil is supposedly formed in the
biogenic theory, contain hopanoids at the lower end of the carbon-number chain.
Whereas the bulk of the hopanoids found by the Ourisson team were at the high
end of the carbon-number chain—the kind found in microorganisms. In the same
study, another common molecule was found, (a terpenoid), known to be present in
methane-eating bacteria (84).
In a 1963
paper by R. Robinson, (84), the author pointed out that it is unlikely that
biological debris could decompose into hydrogen-saturated hydrocarbons.
Robinson concluded decades before Gold proposed his theory that petroleum
presents a picture of primordial hydrocarbons in which the products of biology
have been added (84). And so it seems that questions of priority must take a
back seat to the question of whether or not the theory is correct. It must be
added that to this day, no one has ever synthesized petroleum from decomposed
trees, algae, or ferns (85).
Gold
explains that biological debris would be unlikely to lose their oxygen atoms
and to acquire hydrogen atoms in their place. Instead, slow decomposition
should produce further oxygen gain and hydrogen loss. “And yet a hydrogen
‘gain’ is precisely what we see in crude oils and their hydrocarbon volatiles.
How, then, could biological molecules somehow acquire hydrogen atoms while,
presumably, degrading into petroleum?” (85).
If the deep,
hot biosphere is the solution to the petroleum paradox how extensive, how
widespread is this biomass? With a presumed temperature limit for this
subterranean microbial life of 110°C to 150°C, (well below the boiling point of
water at the corresponding depths and pressures), the depth limit for the
biosphere would be between 5 and 10 kilometers (85). Based on certain known and estimated
parameters of available pore space world wide, and utilizing Ourisson’s data,
Gold calculates that the worldwide biomass would be somewhat greater than the
existing flora and fauna on the surface of the earth (86).
The
abiogenic theory then, combined with the deep, hot biosphere theory is as Gold
succinctly phrases it; “not biology that has been reworked by geology but
geology that has been reworked by biology” (86). One might expect coal to be the exception;
surely coal is the result of degraded plant life and ancient swamps. No, says
Gold, but he does make a partial exception for peat and lignite, which are
indeed reworked plant life with some help from primordial hydrocarbons (87).
But black coals come from the same upwelling of hydrocarbons as petroleum and
methane, originating far below the sedimentary layers. The process is
essentially a sequential loss of hydrogen atoms as hydrocarbons upwell through
porous rock, and this is the primary reason why so many petroleum fields are
configured in a “layer-cake” manner. Methane is at the lowest depth, layered on
this is light crude, next come the heavier oils, and then often on top of all
is black coal. This correlation of coal with petroleum fields can be seen in
many parts of the world (98). The blacker the coal the greater the hydrogen
loss and the greater the carbon to hydrogen ratio. How do the hydrocarbons lose
their hydrogen atoms? Though many factors are involved, and we can go no
further into the technical details here, there is a gradual process of
oxidation as the hydrocarbons upwell, and carbon deposits left behind tend to
be a catalyst for more carbon deposits, not unlike what happens in an internal
combustion engine.
The stature
of the scientist and his potential capacity to unseat the formidable and firmly
entrenched biogenic theory was demonstrated in the episode of the Siljan
experiment. Since the evidence presented thus far, quantified, and of course in
much greater detail in the original work by Gold, would not be sufficient to
overturn the reigning paradigm, it would be necessary to provide indisputable
proof. Hydrocarbons must be found in a place that is conceded to be the worst
of all possible prospects for finding hydrocarbons, a location where such a
discovery would not be explainable by the fossil fuel theory. Although even
here there are Russian precedents; e.g., an eleven kilometer deep borehole in
the Kola Peninsula in northern Russia found methane in the crystalline rock,
where no downward seepage from the surface would seem a credible explanation (107).
The 44 km
diameter Siljan Crater in central Sweden known as the Siljan Ring, so named for
its surrounding ring of lakes, was an ideal place to test Gold’s theory. In
addition to being a large geographical area almost devoid of sedimentary rock,
the ancient impact crater is also a region of porous rubble down to a great
depth, in which fluids from below could ascend and collect (108).
After some
lobbying, and with the help of influential friends, the Swedish parliament
approved the project of drilling two boreholes in the Siljan Ring. Aside from
pure scientific interest, Sweden’s motivation was understandably economic.
Being a country that imports almost all of its hydrocarbon energy needs, they
wanted to investigate the possibilities for future energy independence.
Drilling began in 1986 and ended in 1990 (111). The results were positive in
terms of science, but the lack of an easy commercial success gave critics ample
ammunition to claim failure, and hence the indisputable proof Gold sought eluded
him. A brief recap of the results follows:
·
The
boreholes reached a depth of 6.7 kilometers. Samples showed the presence of
methane, pentane, and highly saturated oils, all present deep in the granitic
rock (111). Water solutions were used as drilling lubricants to eliminate the
possibility of introducing hydrocarbons from above. Volumes of hydrocarbons in
the samples increased with depth.
·
Eventually
a fine grained substance caused the oil to become so pasty that it became a
great obstacle for prospects of commercial success without massive increased
expenditures, which investors declined to underwrite. But ironically, the
substance turned out to be magnetite, a form of iron often mined commercially,
and produced by living microorganisms in the oil (116). Thus the magnetite was
an indicator of petroleum reserves below. In addition, high concentrations of
iridium were found in the magnetite, a heavy metal also of commercial value,
and also likely to have been transported by the hydrocarbons from the depths (118).
·
Accompanying
the fine grained substance in the pasty sludge was a strong stench. Laboratory
tests revealed this odor to be the result of the metabolic activity of a known
methane oxidizing bacteria. These bacteria essentially draw oxygen from ferric
iron and other mineral oxides, and use the hydrocarbons for food. The metabolic
result is magnetite, which is an oxygen reduced form of iron with magnetic
properties (magnetite contains 16 atoms of oxygen for every 18 atoms of oxygen
in ferric iron). At least two other strains of thermophilic bacteria,
previously unknown, were also discovered at the sampling depth (119).
·
A
final pumping operation in the test boreholes produced around 12 tons of crude
oil, considered by the Danish Geological Survey to be “ordinary crude oil.”
Fifteen tons of fine grained magnetite was also pumped out (121). These were
results that could not be dismissed as “trace amounts.” Nevertheless that is
what was claimed by critics. [6] No major western scientific journal
reported Gold’s analysis of the results, once again validating Kuhn’s Law. Gold
surmises:
Eighty-four barrels of oil are
meaningful, especially when they are found in a location where, in the
conventional view, not a single drop of oil could have a rational explanation.
The theory of the abiogenic origin of petroleum had thus been confirmed. (Dr.
P. N. Kropotkin, a distinguished Russian petroleum geologist), wrote, in an
issue of The History of Science, “The
discovery of oil, deep in the Baltic Shield, may be considered a decisive
factor in the hundred-year-old debate about the biogenic or abiogenic origin of
oil. This discovery was made…on the initiative of T. Gold.” (121-22,
parenthesis added)
A principle
discussed more than once in [4], is that when a paradigm challenge
increases in its credibility or gains momentum, it becomes an increasing threat
to the entrenched scientists who are invested in the mainstream theory. When
the challenging theory is perceived as making progress in its attempt to
overthrow the old paradigm, the counter attack from mainstream scientists and
their media (or academic) supporters heats up. This was certainly the case with
Gold’s challenge to the fossil fuel theory, especially in light of his well
publicized near-success at Siljan. A few examples of the critics’ claims
follow:
Interestingly,
Gold was accused of plagiarism on more than one occasion. This is curious
because if the abiogenic theory is false, why worry about stolen ideas, since
the theory ostensibly has no merit anyway. In one instance, C.W Hunt accuses
Gold of stealing his idea that petroleum is methane acted on by microbes. [7]
Which is not, incidentally what Gold claims in The Deep Hot Biosphere, his definitive statement on the subject;
though he may have made that claim elsewhere. Another and more serious
accusation of plagiarism was made by J. Briggs who solicited the assistance of
Russian scientist V.A. Krayushkin in accusing Gold of stealing the abiogenic
theory from a long list of Russian scientists who pioneered this idea during
the Soviet era. [8] But, as noted above, Gold gives due credit to
several Russian scientists for their contributions. If he did not include them
all, that certainly doesn’t constitute an infraction, merely a human
limitation.
The Siljan
Ring experiment brought out many critics. One of the most determined was R.
Donofrio, who claimed in an extensive report to the Swedish Vattenfall, (public utility), and in
subsequent letters, that Siljan was a complete failure, and that Gold had proved
nothing. [6] Another
mainstream geologist L. Pinsker, writing for Geotimes, a geology journal, makes the usual blanket criticisms of
a reigning paradigm apologist, citing for instance the original research (of
1860) as unassailable proof of the fossil fuel theory. That critic also makes
an interesting admission characteristic of paradigm debates; by stating that it
is “known” that some hydrocarbons are
formed geologically, but most of course are not. This is a tried and true
tactic of mainstreamers who position themselves for the day that the new
paradigm succeeds, and they can say—after the fact—“we knew it all along.” [9]
One does not
have to accept Gold’s speculations on the origin of life, nor any particular
model for the formation of the planets in order to lean favorably toward the
abiogenic theory of hydrocarbon formation; especially in light of Gold’s
competent reformulation of the Russian theory. Nor is it difficult to accept
the theory of microbial life living at depth in the earth at greater pressures
and temperatures than have been hitherto thought possible. But whatever the
origin of life, it seems secondary to the much more immediate question.
Obviously the one that affects human society in a very profound way is the
source, quantity and origin of hydrocarbons. Indeed the answer will impact the
future of our civilization.
What of the
deep hot biosphere? Our tentative conclusion is that this theory is correct,
that it resolves the “petroleum paradox,” and that it exemplifies the unique
capacity of life to adapt to a great variety of conditions, both on the earth,
deep within it, and also elsewhere in the universe.
Concluding chapters of The Deep Hot
Biosphere deal with the origin of life, the cause of earthquakes, and other
topics and suggestions for future research. Although some of these topics may
seem tangential to the central theme, the significance may be in that here are
testable (falsifiable) hypotheses which, if confirmed, would add significant
weight to the abiogenic theory of petroleum origin. For instance, if complex
organic molecules, proteins, or even RNA could be synthesized by simulating the
extreme pressures, temperatures, and chemical conditions of the deep earth,
(assuming primordial hydrocarbons), such a result would certainly support the
deep hot biosphere model, in addition to being a momentous feat in itself.
Similarly, if controlled tests confirmed that hydrocarbons under extreme
pressures, upwelling from the upper mantel of the earth, are the cause of—or a
contributing factor in—earthquakes, this would also support the abiogenic
theory. If either of these ancillary theories proved to be correct in the
future, it might be the next logical step to accept the deep gas theory as
formulated by Thomas Gold. Like a good
teacher, he generously offers many practical leads and suggestions for future
research, with the full realization that paradigms change very slowly.
1- Gold, Thomas. 2001. The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil
Fuels. Copernicus Books, NY, (Forward by Freeman Dyson, pp. v-ix)
2- Answers.com Biography, Thomas Gold; http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-gold?cat=technology
3- Gold, Thomas. 2001. The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil
Fuels. Copernicus Books, NY
4- DeRosa, Neil.
2004. Apocryphal Science: Creative Genius and Modern Heresies. Hamilton Books,
Lanham, Maryland; p. 99, in which is discussed Tom Van Flandern’s fission model
for the origin of the solar system. An in-depth elaboration of that theory can
be found at: http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/origins/original-solar-system.asp
5– Anderson, Roger,
N. “Recovering dynamic Gulf of Mexico reserves and the U.S. energy future,” Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory of Columbia University; Most of paragraphs in this article
were published in the week of April 26, 1993 by OIL&GAS JOURNAL.
http://www.kressworks.com/Science/Recovering_dynamic_Gulf_of_Mexico_reserves.htm
6- Donofrio, Richard, R. 2005. “Siljan Crater Findings Reported to
Vatenfall in 1984 remain unchanged.” http://www.parwestlandexploration.com/docs/siljan.pdf
7- Hunt, C. Warren. Letter to Infinite Energy. http://www.gasresources.net/HuntLetter-InfiniteEnergy,ed.htm
8- Briggs, John. 1989. Letter to V. A.
Ktayushkin and associated written matter.
http://www.gasresources.net/Plagiarism(Overview).htm
9- Pinsker, Lisa, M. 2005. “Feuding Over the
Origins of Fossil Fuels,” Geotimes. http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/oct05/feature_abiogenicoil.html
###
“Don't go where the path leads. Rather go where there is
no path and leave a trail." – Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
