I am involved in a debate with a family member as to the origins of crude oil on earth. This all started with him sending me an article claiming that since oil was not created through the decay of organic matter, rather that it is a product of simple hydrocarbons seeping up from the core of the earth that were introduced into the crust at the formation of the solar system, it is practically infinite and is in no danger of running out any time soon. I was initially quite skeptical but after reading some of the material put forth by the major proponent of this theory, Thomas Gold, I am not so sure anymore. Mainly his theory says that crude oil comes up from vast underground reservoirs and stops its journey upwards because of capstones. He explains the presence of biological material found in petroleum by saying that bacteria living far below the surface of the subsist on the chemical energy provided by the simple hydrocarbons and then excrete their waste into the oil, much like deep-sea creatures are known to feed on sulfurous compounds ejected by underwater vents. He backs his theory up by noting that oil of almost the same composition has been found throughout the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere, in sediments representing different geological epochs and environments than what are traditionally expected to produce oil, among other apparently anomolous geographical occurences. The whole theory is of course much more complex than this so here is a link to it in its entirety: http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/usgs.html
Gold has a history of being quite a contrarian and downright insulting to his colleagues, but more than once, his maverick theories have been proven right after being rejected almost unanimously by the scientific community, such as his theories concerning the nature of pulsars.
He claims to have been vindicated by discovering oil four miles below the surface in hard granite rock which is not usually associated with oil deposits. Of course geologists, and me as well, think that it probably ended up there through some sort of seismic event or leakage through cracks in the bedrock, but there is no telling. He has a great amount of credibility and I do not think that his theories are to be taken lightly or merely dismissed as the rantings of a crackpot. Anyways I guess I am seeking the opinions of others on this matter, just to see what others think, and why? This has been obsessing me for the past few days and I really need to know!! Thanks for reading my lengthy post
I’m no geologists, but the fact6 is that Gold’s theories are science. They’ve been postulated in a scientific manner complete with predictions and modes of falsification.
Whether they are correct or not is something that only time will tell. The man is certainly no crackpot for all that he’s fairly unorthodox for his views. Science is full of controversy, in fact it only exists because people are continually trying to disprove the currently accepted wisdom. There are no facts in science, just theories and hypotheses with varying levels of observational and logical support. ATM the balance of evidence seems to run counter to Gold, but that doesn’t make him wrong by any means.
Believe it if you wish.
I’ve worked in the industry for close to twenty years, and I know of no one who takes Gold’s theories seriously, nor of any company at present that has successfully applied them to find and develop oil or gas resources.
This is not to say that he is necessarily a crank and should be ignored, simply that there as yet is very little empirical support for the source system he proposes. OTOH, I can think of several things that make his posited oil source unlikely, most importantly the fact that the heat and pressure deep in the crust make it pretty much impossible for complex hydrocarbons to exist without being quickly broken down into lighter components.
Oil is very rare below 20,000 ft vertical depth, and if one monitors the composition of the hydrocarbons found during drilling there is a clear evolution to lighter and lighter compositions once one passes through the oil window. The company I work for performs just such a monitoring service. Methane (the main component of natural gas) could be possible, but if Gold’s theories are correct and there is an abiogenic source deep in the crust, I would expect very large amounts of methane to be produced out of seafloor spreading zones. AFAIK, this is not the case.
Lastly, we had a thread in this forum a couple of months ago on the same subject. One of the supposed justifications for Gold’s theories is the claimed ‘replenishment’ of an offshore US Gulf Coast oilfield, and the case was discussed extensively in that thread. After doing some research on my own, however, I am satisfied that the replenishment system is from adjacent and slightly deeper sediments, not from basal crust or igneous rocks.
There are obviously many people who would like to embrace this sort of thing so that they don’t have to face the harsh reality of eventual hydrocarbon scarcity, but right now it doesn’t look like there is any magic source of fresh supplies to replace the ones being drawn down.
Even if it were true, I thought the ‘replenishment’ of old fields was a pretty slow process…certainly not enough to keep up with rising demand, no?
Its and interesting theory and will be interesting to see if its proved or disproved. Ain’t science wonderful? 
-XT
I’m not ready to take this as a valid theory. At best, it is a valid hypothesis.
Where has he published it in peer-reviewed literature and how has it been received? Looking at his paper (and without actually looking at the original references with his name on it), it wasn’t clear to me that he has published this in the peer-reviewed science literature at all. And, if he hasn’t, that seems like a bad sign to me.
At any rate, absent a way to sequester the carbon dioxide produced from burning this nearly inexhaustible supply of oil, I don’t see how this helps humanity very much from a practical point of view even if it is correct. There have already been estimates made of how high CO2 levels would go if all known reserves of (all) fossil fuels were burned and the results are not pretty.
It’s not a theory but a supposition. He asks rightly, why does there seem to be too much biological material on earth and says, “Hey, maybe deep in the earth, where we can’t see, is teeming with microbial life, after all, we have found such living in deeps deeper than though possible.” This was back in the early 1990’s.
To date nothing has been proven one way or the other. Besides, didn’t he died a few months ago?