Post by Mech on May 22, 2004 13:59:18 GMT -5
Natural Gas, Oil Occur Naturally & Are Not a Limited Fossil Fuel, Says Prominent Scientist
www.americanfreepress.net/RFA_Articles/
Natural_Gas__Oil_Occur_Natural/natural_gas__oil_occur_natural.html
A lot of powerful interests use “energy shortage” scares to manipulate not only public opinion (particularly in regard to U.S. foreign policy toward oil producing nations) but also the price of oil itself.
However, the truth is that oil is not a limited resource, according to one of the world’s most prestigious scientists, whose views on the subject have not received the publicity they deserve. Dr. Thomas Gold contends, based on long study, that oil, natural gas and coal are not so-called “fossil fuels.”
Instead, according to Dr. Gold, these resources are constantly being manufactured within the Earth by natural processes that are little understood and which point toward new, relatively unexplored realms in science.
In his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, which is available in most bookstores, Dr. Gold has outlined the entirety of his theory.
Dr. Gold was the guest on the Oct. 28 broadcast of Radio Free America, the weekly call-in talk forum with Tom Valentine, sponsored by American Free Press. He and Valentine were joined by a longtime mutual friend, oil wildcatter John Ledbetter, who has used Dr. Gold’s research in his own oil drilling ventures.
What follows is an abbreviated transcription of the broadcast. Valentine’s questions are in boldface. Gold’s responses are in regular text. Ledbetter’s comments are in italics.
Your most controversial idea is the non-biological origin of natural gas and oil. You put forth the position that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas. Your theory was first publicly referenced in a book by your colleague, the late Fred Hoyle, one of the world’s leading physicists and astronomers, in which Hoyle had a chapter entitled “Gold’s Ore Theory,” the ore referring to the porous spaces in the Earth. What first prompted you to suggest that oil and natural gas is generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth?
The astronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them. Is it reasonable to think that our little Earth, one of the planets, contains oil and gas for reasons that are all its own and that these other bodies have it because it was built into them when they were born?
That question makes a lot of sense. After all, they didn’t have dinosaurs and ferns on Jupiter to produce oil and gas?
That’s right. Yet, for some reason my theory was not heard. The old theory that it was all made from fossils had become so firmly established that when the astronomers had perfectly definitive evidence on most of the other planets, it was just ignored, especially by the petroleum geologists who had, by then, called these things “fossil fuels.” So once they had a name, then every body believed it.
The oil geologists have carved a niche for themselves and they are perceived now to “know more” about how oil was supposedly formed from dinosaur bones than anybody. However, you have taken your theory (which argues against the traditional theory) and have gone one step further by saying that there is a biosphere; that living entities (fungi, microbes, etc.) are not necessarily just the ones we see on the surface of the Earth but that living creatures are deep in the Earth which could have given rise to creatures on the surface.
I will tell you why this had to be so and why I became convinced. In the whole petroleum and coal story, there is this extraordinary paradox that all of these substances contain some biological material. But the chemistry in detail fits it better, as many chemists have said, with the theory of a primordial hydrocarbon mixture (say an oil or gas mixture) to which biological products have been added. That was one aspect that has been quite firmly noted by many Nobel laureate chemists and others.
So every time they find oil deep in the ground and they analyze it chemically, they are effectively supporting your theory?
Absolutely. That has been known, also, for quite a large number of years since the mid-1950s.
Human skull fossils have been found in anthracite coal in Pennsylvania. The official theory of the development of coal will not accept that reality, since human beings were not around when anthracite coal was formed.
That’s right. Coal was formed millions of years ago.
However, you cannot mistake the fact that these are human fossils. Nonetheless, your theory explains how this could come about.
The La Breatarpits in Los Angeles have saber toothed tigers and all kinds of things in them. But the only thing which, at the present time, you can see anything that would make coal of the kind that we mine (usually at a very shallow level) are the big tar pits and tar lakes, such as the one at La Brea and ones in Trinidad.
The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff. It was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside. A hard, brittle coal is not going to get into each cell of a delicate leaf without destroying it. So obviously that stuff was a thin liquid at one time which gradually hardened.
The only thing we find now on the Earth that would do that is petroleum, which gradually becomes stiffer and harder. That is the only logical explanation for the origin of coal. So the fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and mulch it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.
Where then does the carbon base come from that produces all of this?
www.americanfreepress.net/RFA_Articles/
Natural_Gas__Oil_Occur_Natural/natural_gas__oil_occur_natural.html
A lot of powerful interests use “energy shortage” scares to manipulate not only public opinion (particularly in regard to U.S. foreign policy toward oil producing nations) but also the price of oil itself.
However, the truth is that oil is not a limited resource, according to one of the world’s most prestigious scientists, whose views on the subject have not received the publicity they deserve. Dr. Thomas Gold contends, based on long study, that oil, natural gas and coal are not so-called “fossil fuels.”
Instead, according to Dr. Gold, these resources are constantly being manufactured within the Earth by natural processes that are little understood and which point toward new, relatively unexplored realms in science.
In his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, which is available in most bookstores, Dr. Gold has outlined the entirety of his theory.
Dr. Gold was the guest on the Oct. 28 broadcast of Radio Free America, the weekly call-in talk forum with Tom Valentine, sponsored by American Free Press. He and Valentine were joined by a longtime mutual friend, oil wildcatter John Ledbetter, who has used Dr. Gold’s research in his own oil drilling ventures.
What follows is an abbreviated transcription of the broadcast. Valentine’s questions are in boldface. Gold’s responses are in regular text. Ledbetter’s comments are in italics.
Your most controversial idea is the non-biological origin of natural gas and oil. You put forth the position that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas. Your theory was first publicly referenced in a book by your colleague, the late Fred Hoyle, one of the world’s leading physicists and astronomers, in which Hoyle had a chapter entitled “Gold’s Ore Theory,” the ore referring to the porous spaces in the Earth. What first prompted you to suggest that oil and natural gas is generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth?
The astronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them. Is it reasonable to think that our little Earth, one of the planets, contains oil and gas for reasons that are all its own and that these other bodies have it because it was built into them when they were born?
That question makes a lot of sense. After all, they didn’t have dinosaurs and ferns on Jupiter to produce oil and gas?
That’s right. Yet, for some reason my theory was not heard. The old theory that it was all made from fossils had become so firmly established that when the astronomers had perfectly definitive evidence on most of the other planets, it was just ignored, especially by the petroleum geologists who had, by then, called these things “fossil fuels.” So once they had a name, then every body believed it.
The oil geologists have carved a niche for themselves and they are perceived now to “know more” about how oil was supposedly formed from dinosaur bones than anybody. However, you have taken your theory (which argues against the traditional theory) and have gone one step further by saying that there is a biosphere; that living entities (fungi, microbes, etc.) are not necessarily just the ones we see on the surface of the Earth but that living creatures are deep in the Earth which could have given rise to creatures on the surface.
I will tell you why this had to be so and why I became convinced. In the whole petroleum and coal story, there is this extraordinary paradox that all of these substances contain some biological material. But the chemistry in detail fits it better, as many chemists have said, with the theory of a primordial hydrocarbon mixture (say an oil or gas mixture) to which biological products have been added. That was one aspect that has been quite firmly noted by many Nobel laureate chemists and others.
So every time they find oil deep in the ground and they analyze it chemically, they are effectively supporting your theory?
Absolutely. That has been known, also, for quite a large number of years since the mid-1950s.
Human skull fossils have been found in anthracite coal in Pennsylvania. The official theory of the development of coal will not accept that reality, since human beings were not around when anthracite coal was formed.
That’s right. Coal was formed millions of years ago.
However, you cannot mistake the fact that these are human fossils. Nonetheless, your theory explains how this could come about.
The La Breatarpits in Los Angeles have saber toothed tigers and all kinds of things in them. But the only thing which, at the present time, you can see anything that would make coal of the kind that we mine (usually at a very shallow level) are the big tar pits and tar lakes, such as the one at La Brea and ones in Trinidad.
The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff. It was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside. A hard, brittle coal is not going to get into each cell of a delicate leaf without destroying it. So obviously that stuff was a thin liquid at one time which gradually hardened.
The only thing we find now on the Earth that would do that is petroleum, which gradually becomes stiffer and harder. That is the only logical explanation for the origin of coal. So the fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and mulch it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.
Where then does the carbon base come from that produces all of this?