Scientific American Supplement, No. 362, December 9, 1882

by Various

The generalities of the origin and relations of the carbon minerals have now been briefly considered; but a review of the subject would be incomplete without some reference to the theories which have been advanced by others, that are in conflict with the views now presented. There have always been some who denied the organic nature of the mineral hydrocarbons, but it has been regarded as a sufficient answer to their theories, that chemists and geologists are generally agreed in saying that no instances are known of the occurrence in nature of hydrocarbons, solid, liquid, or gaseous, in which the evidence was not satisfactory that they had been derived from animal or vegetable tissue. A few exceptional cases, however, in which chemists and geologists of deserved distinction have claimed the possibility and even probability of the production of marsh gas, petroleum, etc., through inorganic agencies, require notice.

In a paper published in the Annales de Chimie et de Physique, Vol. IX., p.481, M. Berthelot attempts to show that the formation of petroleum and carbureted hydrogen from inorganic substances is possible, if it be true, as suggested by Daubre, that there are vast masses of the alkaline metals--potassium, sodium, etc.--deeply buried in the earth, and at a high temperature, to which carbonic acid should gain access; and he demonstrates that, these premises being granted, the formation of hydrocarbons would necessarily follow.

But it should be said that no satisfactory evidence has ever been offered of the existence of zones or masses of the unoxidized alkaline metals in the earth, and it is not claimed by Berthelot that there are any facts in the occurrence of petroleum and carbureted hydrogen in nature which seem to exemplify the chemical action which he simply claims is theoretically possible. Berthelot also says that, in most cases, there can be no doubt of the organic origin of the hydrocarbons.

Mendeleeff, in the Revue Scientifique, 1877, p. 409, discusses at considerable length the genesis of petroleum, and attempts to sustain the view that it is of inorganic origin. His arguments and illustrations are chiefly drawn from the oil wells of Pennsylvania and Canada, and for the petroleum of these two districts he claims an inorganic origin, because, as he says, there are no accumulations of organic matter below the horizons at which the oils and gases occur. He then goes into a lengthy discussion of the possible and probable source of petroleum, where, as in the instances cited, an organic origin "is not possible." It is a sufficient answer to M. Mendeleeff to say, that beneath the oil bearing strata of western Pennsylvania are sheets of bituminous shale, from one hundred to five hundred feet in thickness, which afford an adequate, and it may be proved the true source, of the petroleum, and that no petroleum has been found below these shales; also that the oil-fields of Canada are all underlain by the Collingwood shales, the equivalent of the Utica carbonaceous shales of New York, and that from the out-crops of these shales petroleum and hydrocarbon gases are constantly escaping. With a better knowledge of the geology of the districts he refers to, he would have seen that the facts in the cases he cites afford the strongest evidence of the organic origin of petroleum.

Among those who are agreed as to the organic origin of the hydrocarbons, there is yet some diversity of opinion in regard to the nature of the process by which they have been produced.

Prof. J. P. Lesley has at various times advocated the theory that petroleum is indigenous in the sand-rocks which hold it, and has been derived from plants buried in them. ("Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc.," Vol. X., pp. 33, 187, etc.)

My own observations do not sanction this view, as the limited number of plants buried in the sandstones which are now reservoirs of petroleum must always have borne a small proportion in volume to the mass of inorganic matter; and some of those which are saturated with petroleum are almost completely destitute of the impressions of plants.

In all cases where sandstones contain petroleum in quantity, I think it will be found that there are sheets of carbonaceous matter below, from which carbureted hydrogen and petroleum are constantly issuing. A more probable explanation of the occurrence of petrolem in the sandstones is that they have, from their porosity, become convenient receptacles for that which flowed from some organic stratum below.

Dr. T. Sterry Hunt has regarded limestones, and especially the Niagara and corniferous, as the principal sources of our petroleum; but, as I have elsewhere suggested, no considerable flow of petroleum has ever been obtained from the Niagara limestone, though at Chicago and Niagara Falls it contains a large quantity of bituminous matter; also, that the corniferous limestone which Dr. Hunt has regarded as the source of the oil of Canada and Pennsylvania is too thin, and too barren of petroleum, or the material out of which it is made, to justify the inference.

The corniferous limestone is never more than fifty or sixty feet thick, and does not contain even one per cent. of hydrocarbons; and in southern Kentucky, where oil is produced in large quantity, this limestone does not exist.